Catholic Reading vs. Sex Drive?

[TLM08]

This is not about any specific book or books but rather about a behavior… or set of circumstances. Lately, I have been reading from a lot of great works from centuries past like the The Imitation of Christ, St. Augustine, The Glories of Mary as well as reading about Hell and Purgatory.

Many of these works were written by celibates for celibates. Considering the idea that there is definetly a “brother and sister” effect regarding sexual attraction after decades of marriage no matter how deeply in love and devoted one is to their spouse, can reading too much of this material make you forget all about sex?

(for the record, there is no medical problem… everything works just fine thank you)


At the opposite end of the spectrum is pornographic material which is not only sinful, but causes the sexual appetite can go completely out of control. It often becomes all consuming and can either lead to the solitary act of impurity, or (mentally) projecting the porn model into the marital act which is certainly a sin against marriage. Although this stuff definetly gets the motor running it is obviously not an option for any practicing catholic.

Look… I don’t want to live like a monk, but on the other hand I detest the sick popular culture that sexualizes everything. Moderation has always been a challenge for me. I don’t go to bars that have girls wearing bikinis serving hot wings and beer, or buy the annual swimsuit issue, but I know plenty of men who do. These guys have never cheated on their wife or became raging porn/sex addicts. Neither have I seen them act rudly toward toward women. Having known them for many years, they seem to be living well adjusted lives of moderation. Could this be the middle ground?

How can one maintain a healthy level of sexual energy (to be channeled into the marriage bed) and still maintain progress toward holiness by reading the saints… etc. ?

Considering the Church’s stance on the primary purpose for sex being procreative, does God even want couples to be having marital relations after the child bearing years?

 

[BamaRider]

Considering the Church’s stance on the primary purpose for sex being procreative, does God even want couples to be having marital relations after the child bearing years?

I HOPE NOT.

 

[basilisk]

Considering the idea that there is definetly a “brother and sister” effect regarding sexual attraction after decades of marriage no matter how deeply in love and devoted one is to their spouse,

Says who? I’m not sure I can helpfully comment on your question, because I don’t accept your premise. You are buying into the fallacies of the same culture you despise which “sexualizes everything.” That same culture that denigrates marriage based on the idea that this is a proven and irrefutable fact, or an unavoidable occurrence.

As the wife of a man who enjoys pin-up art and does look at the swimsuit issue (funny, he comments on the suits and the quality of the photography and I comment on whether all the parts are real or not! ), who hoots at cheerleaders during football and has been known to notice attractive women in public now and then, and who swears he eats at Hooters for the Buffalo Chicken Sandwich … I think one can be a faithful and respectful husband while still appreciating the female form in other places. It all comes back to noticing and even appreciating without putting down one’s wife or allowing those “other women” to intrude upon his relationship with his wife as the woman he promised to love, honor, cherish and protect. The “other women” are two dimensional, seen in passing. His wife is the woman he shares a sacrament (or at least a commitment) with, and as long as he remembers that, he will probably be fine.

 

[leonie]

I have a friend who loves to read the saints, but her dh asked her to read a different type of literature during phase 3. In her case, she did find that the spiritual reading affected her sexual drive.

So, she reads lighter wholesome type books in those weeks. She especially likes books written for young adults–Little Women, Anne of Green Gables, etc. They have romance without sexualization.

 

[Red_Meg]

DH & I both try to do daily spiritual reading. Topics vary from the catechism to the writings of the saints to the latest papal encyclical.

We’ve been married for 16 years. So far the OP’s “brother and sister” effect has definitely not kicked in. We’ve had eight children over the course of our marriage so far, and hope that more are still to come.

I’d say the spiritual reading is not a dampener…

Frankly, though, your whole post seems to suggest that striving for holiness is necessarily antithetical to a husband and wife having a romantic, passionate relationship. I really have to reject that whole notion. I don’t have time to really explore the whole idea, but something is just a bit askew there…

Margaret (trying to pull off a surprise party this Sunday for the love of my life and here wasting time online!)

 

[Mattapoisett64]

I HOPE NOT.

You *REALLY *believe that marital intimacy should cease with menopause? Does the Church teach that?

 

[TLM08]

You *REALLY *believe that marital intimacy should cease with menopause? Does the Church teach that?

I don’t believe that marital intimacy should cease with menopause, but it would seem to make sense from a biological standpoint, and it often does.

 

[LilyM]

I don’t believe that marital intimacy should cease with menopause, but it would seem to make sense from a biological standpoint, and it often does.

Says who? People who buy into the ridiculous modern-day idea that sex is only something for the young and fertile? Or people who were wrongly taught that sex is only for babies? That enjoying it is somehow sinful and therefore it has no purpose if you’re not procreating (then why oh why did God not make us, as some animals are, ONLY capable of it when the woman is ovulating?)

As long as your health is OK sex should still be happening throughout your married life. Maybe not as often, but it certainly shouldn’t cease just because you’ve reached menopause! If it isn’t happening, and it’s not a conscious and mutual decision to stop, and you’re both healthy, you might want to seek counselling.

Be that as it may, the Church has never taught that the procreative purpose of marriage overrides the unitive aspect. We’re even allowed to use NFP to restrict the number of children we have, for sufficient reason.

The unitive aspect, of course, continues throughout the duration of the marriage. And sex is important for BOTH purposes. Childbearing simply isn’t the only determining factor in marital sex.

The church has never, for example, banned or restricted couples who are past childbearing age from getting married.

Neither has it held infertility (inability to bear children) to be a barrier to marriage, merely impotence (inability to have sex - IF it’s a permanent and insurmountable condition).

 

[TLM08]

Says who? I’m not sure I can helpfully comment on your question, because I don’t accept your premise. You are buying into the fallacies of the same culture you despise which “sexualizes everything.” That same culture that denigrates marriage based on the idea that this is a proven and irrefutable fact, or an unavoidable occurrence.

As the wife of a man who enjoys pin-up art and does look at the swimsuit issue (funny, he comments on the suits and the quality of the photography and I comment on whether all the parts are real or not! ), who hoots at cheerleaders during football and has been known to notice attractive women in public now and then, and who swears he eats at Hooters for the Buffalo Chicken Sandwich … I think one can be a faithful and respectful husband while still appreciating the female form in other places. It all comes back to noticing and even appreciating without putting down one’s wife or allowing those “other women” to intrude upon his relationship with his wife as the woman he promised to love, honor, cherish and protect. The “other women” are two dimensional, seen in passing. His wife is the woman he shares a sacrament (or at least a commitment) with, and as long as he remembers that, he will probably be fine.

This notion of the “brother & sister” effect does not come from the culture. One look at all of the viagra commercials is proof of that!

and another thing… If I see one more commercial with white haired baby boomers on skis… bicycles… or kayaks I am going to scream!

and while I am at it… I am sick to death of Sally Field sitting there cute as a button… gorgeous as the day is long (after 6 hours in the make up room) telling me about her bones!
If Sally is going to do these “ageing boomer” commercials she needs to look the part. Oh… and Lindsay Wagner??? Do NOT get me started!

I can already tell that the media driven culture is not going to allow us “boomers” to grow old gracefully and with dignity. After all, we don’t deserve it! Generation X is calling the shots in the media now and they are going to get even with us for locking them up in day care!

 

[LilyM]

Says who? People who buy into some idea that sex is only something for the young and fertile?

Or people who were wrongly taught that sex is only for babies? Or that enjoying it is somehow sinful and therefore it has no purpose if you’re not procreating (then why oh why did God not make us, as some animals are, ONLY capable of it when the woman is ovulating?)

As long as your health is OK sex should still be happening throughout your married life. Maybe not as often, like all physical activity you should take it easier as you get older, but it certainly shouldn’t cease just because you’ve reached menopause!

If it isn’t happening, and it’s not a conscious and mutual decision to stop, and you’re both healthy, you might want to seek counselling.

Be that as it may, the Church has never taught that the procreative purpose of marriage overrides the unitive aspect. We’re even allowed to use NFP to restrict the number of children we have, for sufficient reason.

The unitive aspect, of course, continues throughout the duration of the marriage. And sex is important for BOTH purposes. Childbearing simply isn’t the only determining factor in marital sex.

The church has never, for example, banned or restricted couples who are past childbearing age from getting married.

Neither has it held infertility (inability to bear children) to be a barrier to marriage, merely impotence (inability to have sex - IF it’s a permanent and insurmountable condition).

 

[dang71]

I don’t believe that marital intimacy should cease with menopause, but it would seem to make sense from a biological standpoint, and it often does.

wasn’t John the Baptist born after Elizabeth’s “child-bearing years”?

 

[basilisk]

wasn’t John the Baptist born after Elizabeth’s “child-bearing years”?

And Sarah had Isaac when she was pretty old… seems God makes His plans thinkin’ that these older women are still warmin’ up the sheets with their hubbies!