Discuss: Married Sexuality

  • Thread starter Thread starter violet81
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
baylee said:
Actually, I think what she meant in her OP was that the fasting period was agreed upon as part of the original goal of daily sex. Of course, like I said earlier, it seems as if her position continues to change as we go along here. Maybe she’s not so sure of her stance afterall.

Btw, have you given thought to my earlier question to you? Why is it that, if Church teaching does not have a rule on frequency of sex, you are not displeased with the OP’s suggestion that *daily *sex (ie. frequency=daily) is “most theologically correct”? Why is it that you only take issue with those of us who suggest that something less than that is a better course of action and appears to be more in line with Church teaching regarding moderation and self-denial?

Because she was stating her opnion and is being attacked for it, or some folks simply don’t get or will not accept it as her opnion. I have no problems with, and rather enjoy, people suggesting and presenting a differing opinion, or something with some references. The difference is this: if you/others simply suggested or stated that you believed not having daily sex, or sex less frequently, is more theologically correct, than OK. However, violet is being told she is wrong, and the references given - Humane Vitae and CCC - are presented as being definitive on the issue when they are not.

And why is it that only those of us who disagree with the OP that have trouble understanding, are being disingenuous and are being condescending. How convenient. I’m beginning to think that some of the men in this thread are projecting some of their own issues in here.
Click to expand...
 
Julianna said:
Meanwhile…back in the “real world”…:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
So whose world is real and whose is not? Whose opinion is valid and whose is not? Apparently the real world are the ones who agree with you? No room for others?
 
onmyknees said:
Quote from searching04

Funny also that if you read the posts, the men are the ones defending violet and the women seem to be the ones questioning, though I may have missed something. Does that men men just want sex? No. I think it means just as someone posted a long way back - men view/use sex as their totally giving of themselves to their wives in the most intimate way possible (and we wish our wives would, too). Limit that ability and/or opportunities, and it limits a very key piece of our expressing love and intimacy with our spouses, and raises huge disagreements with the church.

I still wholeheartedly agree with your premise, and combined with Consecrated’s post, is perfect.
Reply With Quote

Well, I am a woman and I think women also view sexual relations as their totally giving of themselves to their husbands in a very intimate way. I agree that we should not limit that ability and/or opportunities because it will limit a very key piece of our expressing love and intimacy with our spouses.

I would think they do, too; it is just articulated differently, or really, usually not stated as such. Venus vs Mars? But then, I’m only in those conversations with my wife! I do believe, though, that men and women view sex and intimacy differently - “women need love for sex, men need sex for love” kind of thing, Replace “love” with “intimacy”.

I always anticipate having relations with my dh every night unless I am physically unable to participate.

However, I often wonder if you and the other men of this thread understand that most women would like their husbands to totally give of themselves to their wives with intimate conversation. Women crave and want their husbands to talk to them INTIMATELY. I think this would be more of a sacrifice/ total self-giving for the husband than his self-giving during sexual relations.
Click to expand...
They go hand in hand. How the heck are we supposed to be having intimate conversations, which I like as well, when we not being physically intimate? They are linked.
 
searching04 said:
Ooops! Didn’t read this before I started “catching up”! Consider it dead… but boy, was it fun!
Click to expand...
If you are really enjoying yourself then carry on.

I had said way earlier that I was out of the discussion but I kept posting anyway, so what do I know. 😃
 
I think male logic with use of “abstract” thought leads to different perceptions. If a concept is based on truth, but cannot be proven to be the absolutely true in every detail, this does not prove that it is wrong. Application of principles is necessary.
 
Originally Posted by baylee forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*Actually, I think what she meant in her OP was that the fasting period was agreed upon as part of the original goal of daily sex. Of course, like I said earlier, it seems as if her position continues to change as we go along here. Maybe she’s not so sure of her stance afterall.

Btw, have you given thought to my earlier question to you? Why is it that, if Church teaching does not have a rule on frequency of sex, you are not displeased with the OP’s suggestion that *daily *sex (ie. frequency=daily) is “most theologically correct”? Why is it that you only take issue with those of us who suggest that something less than that is a better course of action and appears to be more in line with Church teaching regarding moderation and self-denial?

Because she was stating her opnion and is being attacked for it, or some folks simply don’t get or will not accept it as her opnion. I have no problems with, and rather enjoy, people suggesting and presenting a differing opinion, or something with some references. The difference is this: if you/others simply suggested or stated that you believed not having daily sex, or sex less frequently, is more theologically correct, than OK. However, violet is being told she is wrong, and the references given - Humane Vitae and CCC - are presented as being definitive on the issue when they are not.

And why is it that only those of us who disagree with the OP that have trouble understanding, are being disingenuous and are being condescending. How convenient. I’m beginning to think that some of the men in this thread are projecting some of their own issues in here.*
The very fact that she said it was “most theologically accurate” says that it was more than just her “opinion”…and therefore other posters had every right to bring Church teaching into the discussion (which, yes, includes the CCC and HV). She was wrong to state that daily sex is most theologically accurate. Nowhere does the Church state that a couple should have sex on a daily basis or, as you said, with any frequency…but we* can** point to teaching that suggests moderation and self-denial with respect to marital sex. *
*It would have been fine if she mentioned and pushed this solely as her opinion…and that this works for her and her spouse. But she didn’t stop there…she basically goes further by saying theologically she was right. Sorry, I will refute that…even if others wish to perceive that as an attack. It’s not meant as an attack, but it does get a bit difficult to have civil discourse when others start calling you immature, catty, condescending, disingenuous, etc. etc. in the middle of it all. That just gets those of us on the other side of the discussion defensive…and it takes away from remaining focused on the topic at hand. Just who is gettting “attacked” then? *
Finally, I don’t think I would start a thread saying I think xyz is “most theologically accurate” without expecting to get rebuttals…and pretty strong ones at that. In fact, I think my post would border on inflammatory. On the contrary, I would be surprised if people responded that way if all I did was offer my “opinion” and asked what the Church taught on the matter. The first post and the latter post are VERY different posts.
 
baylee,
Are you feeling guilty about something, because your response seems overly emotional and defensive?
 
C_S_P_B said:
baylee,
Are you feeling guilty about something, because your response seems overly emotional and defensive?
Click to expand...
Actually no CSPB. I don’t feel guilty. So sorry. 😉 But I could have predicted your response…once again calling others names, trying to get the other side to feel guilty and defensive and not focusing on the meat of the post. It’s unfortunate when one side needs to resort to these tactics. Actually, you just proved one of the points I made in my last post…thank you.

Bottom line: violet came in here basically telling everyone else that daily sex was most theologically accurate…and therefore telling anyone else who didn’t think that way that they were wrong. Does she come out and say they are wrong? No. But she implied it…strongly. I think we’re all smart enough to figure that out. She says she wants to discuss it, but her OP definitely gives the impression that she is challenging others who feel differently…and she got others to challenge her.

Also, as far as I can remember, she didn’t offer any Church quotes to support this so-called “opinion” and yet you and others continue to defend her. The same people who were up in arms about Church teaching not talking about frequency (aimed at those disagreeing with violet) should have said that long before any one of us brought our Church teaching references into the mix. I still wonder why you and searching continue to defend her and continue to attack the rest of us…when some of us have actually tried to bring Church teaching into the discussion…and I do think that when we have done so we have done it charitably.

Again, I have no issue with her “opinion” but she never couched it as just an opinion. She couched it as Church teaching…and repeated that belief towards the end of the thread, so she hasn’t changed that view. So actually, she still thinks she is right and we are all wrong.

And with that, I do feel as if I’m repeating myself in this thread…and it’s long been over.
 
baylee said:
Actually no CSPB. I don’t feel guilty. So sorry. 😉 But I could have predicted your response…once again calling others names, trying to get the other side to feel guilty and defensive and not focusing on the meat of the post. It’s unfortunate when one side needs to resort to these tactics. Actually, you just proved one of the points I made in my last post…thank you.
Click to expand...
I just asked a question, Exactly what name did I call you? Exactly what point do you claim I proved?

It still feels to me that your response is very emotional. Are men allowed to have feelings? Is it critical or observational to say that your response appeared emotional?
 
C_S_P_B said:
I just asked a question, Exactly what name did I call you? Exactly what point do you claim I proved?

It still feels to me that your response is very emotional. Are men allowed to have feelings? Is it critical or observational to say that your response appeared emotional?
Click to expand...
CSPB, you find every response by a woman that doesn’t agree with you to be “emotional”. And then you usually back it up by saying you don’t really care what most women on this forum think or feel about you.

Baylee’s response was fair and rational. She summed up this thread in a few short, but accurate sentences. She used her “male logic” as you also like to bring into a discussion about comments here on CAF.
 
baylee said:
Originally Posted by baylee forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*Actually, I think what she meant in her OP was that the fasting period was agreed upon as part of the original goal of daily sex. Of course, like I said earlier, it seems as if her position continues to change as we go along here. Maybe she’s not so sure of her stance afterall.

Btw, have you given thought to my earlier question to you? Why is it that, if Church teaching does not have a rule on frequency* of sex, you are not displeased with the OP’s suggestion that *daily *sex (ie. frequency=daily) is “most theologically correct”? Why is it that you only take issue with those of us who suggest that something less than that is a better course of action and appears to be more in line with Church teaching regarding moderation and self-denial?

Because she was stating her opnion and is being attacked for it, or some folks simply don’t get or will not accept it as her opnion. I have no problems with, and rather enjoy, people suggesting and presenting a differing opinion, or something with some references. The difference is this: if you/others simply suggested or stated that you believed not having daily sex, or sex less frequently, is more theologically correct, than OK. However, violet is being told she is wrong, and the references given - Humane Vitae and CCC - are presented as being definitive on the issue when they are not.

And why is it that only those of us who disagree with the OP that have trouble understanding, are being disingenuous and are being condescending. How convenient. I’m beginning to think that some of the men in this thread are projecting some of their own issues in here.
The very fact that she said it was “most theologically accurate” says that it was more than just her “opinion”…and therefore other posters had every right to bring Church teaching into the discussion (which, yes, includes the CCC and HV). She was wrong to state that daily sex is most theologically accurate. Nowhere does the Church state that a couple should have sex on a daily basis or, as you said, with any frequency…but we** can** point to teaching that suggests moderation and self-denial with respect to marital sex.
*It would have been fine if she mentioned and pushed this solely as her opinion…and that this works for her and her spouse. But she didn’t stop there…she basically goes further by saying theologically she was right. Sorry, I will refute that…even if others wish to perceive that as an attack. It’s not meant as an attack, but it does get a bit difficult to have civil discourse when others start calling you immature, catty, condescending, disingenuous, etc. etc. in the middle of it all. That just gets those of us on the other side of the discussion defensive…and it takes away from remaining focused on the topic at hand. Just who is gettting “attacked” then? *
It just all goes back to how you present things. It comes across that you cannot accept that people disagree with you, or at least with how you pose things. It’s really that simple. I’m not alone in having read all of these posts and picking up that violet stated her opinion, and yep, even that this works for her and her husband. You disagree. Fine; we got it. You point to CCC and HV; great. No one even disputes what they say. However, how couples apply those in their lives is up to them, and by the fact that the church does not dictate for or against frequency, those documents support that avenue. You may disagree and apply it more “strictly” than others, or not. Also up to you and your spouse.
Finally, I don’t think I would start a thread saying I think xyz is “most theologically accurate” without expecting to get rebuttals…and pretty strong ones at that. In fact, I think my post would border on inflammatory. On the contrary, I would be surprised if people responded that way if all I did was offer my “opinion” and asked what the Church taught on the matter. The first post and the latter post are VERY different posts.
Click to expand...
She expected rebuttals and asked for opinions. Why do you think it was posted in the first place?
 
baylee said:
Actually no CSPB. I don’t feel guilty. So sorry. 😉 But I could have predicted your response…once again calling others names, trying to get the other side to feel guilty and defensive and not focusing on the meat of the post. It’s unfortunate when one side needs to resort to these tactics. Actually, you just proved one of the points I made in my last post…thank you.

Bottom line: violet came in here basically telling everyone else that daily sex was most theologically accurate…and therefore telling anyone else who didn’t think that way that they were wrong. Does she come out and say they are wrong? No. But she implied it…strongly. I think we’re all smart enough to figure that out. She says she wants to discuss it, but her OP definitely gives the impression that she is challenging others who feel differently…and she got others to challenge her.

You’re coming right out and telling her she is flat out wrong. So what’s the difference? You and others obviously disagree. OK… ?

Also, as far as I can remember, she didn’t offer any Church quotes to support this so-called “opinion” and yet you and others continue to defend her. The same people who were up in arms about Church teaching not talking about frequency (aimed at those disagreeing with violet) should have said that long before any one of us brought our Church teaching references into the mix. I still wonder why you and searching continue to defend her and continue to attack the rest of us…when some of us have actually tried to bring Church teaching into the discussion…and I do think that when we have done so we have done it charitably.

Again, I have no issue with her “opinion” but she never couched it as just an opinion. She couched it as Church teaching…and repeated that belief towards the end of the thread, so she hasn’t changed that view. So actually, she still thinks she is right and we are all wrong.

And with that, I do feel as if I’m repeating myself in this thread…and it’s long been over.
Click to expand...
With that, I can agree - this one needs to be over.
 
searching04 said:
She expected rebuttals and asked for opinions. Why do you think it was posted in the first place?
Click to expand...
I actually don’t think she did want rebuttals. I think she posted to prove that her opinion was superior than how other people interpret the teachings of the Church on this matter.
 
Well, to everyone still reading and lurking and curious, I sent a message to the administrator and suggested what someone did in this thread - that he/she establish a “Married Sexuality” or “Catholic Sexuality” forum. It will give people what should, hopefully, be a safe place to post these questions, look for church teachings and references, and for people to be able to avoid if they so wish. Guess we’ll see what happens.

Case in point was the post on breastfeeding that was closed.
 
searching04 said:
“Curiouser and curiouser”.
Alice 😃
Click to expand...
Ah… a reference to Alice in Wonderland.

Here is a quote that seems very applicable:

“"If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would. You see?”
 
baylee said:
Actually no CSPB. I don’t feel guilty. So sorry. 😉 But I could have predicted your response…once again calling others names, trying to get the other side to feel guilty and defensive and not focusing on the meat of the post. It’s unfortunate when one side needs to resort to these tactics. Actually, you just proved one of the points I made in my last post…thank you.

Bottom line: violet came in here basically telling everyone else that daily sex was most theologically accurate…and therefore telling anyone else who didn’t think that way that they were wrong. Does she come out and say they are wrong? No. But she implied it…strongly. I think we’re all smart enough to figure that out. She says she wants to discuss it, but her OP definitely gives the impression that she is challenging others who feel differently…and she got others to challenge her.

Also, as far as I can remember, she didn’t offer any Church quotes to support this so-called “opinion” and yet you and others continue to defend her. The same people who were up in arms about Church teaching not talking about frequency (aimed at those disagreeing with violet) should have said that long before any one of us brought our Church teaching references into the mix. I still wonder why you and searching continue to defend her and continue to attack the rest of us…when some of us have actually tried to bring Church teaching into the discussion…and I do think that when we have done so we have done it charitably.

Again, I have no issue with her “opinion” but she never couched it as just an opinion. She couched it as Church teaching…and repeated that belief towards the end of the thread, so she hasn’t changed that view. So actually, she still thinks she is right and we are all wrong.

And with that, I do feel as if I’m repeating myself in this thread…and it’s long been over.
Click to expand...
baylee…you said it well.👍 This is nothing more than a typical tactic that some who lean (tipping) way over to the conservative side like to put out there and have others who may be reverts or considering conversion take it as gospel. I am glad you and others let folks know about the gorilla in the room. You are correct, I haven’t seen any Church teaching and yes, this is a way to “drop” in a thread and have everyone believe it is so.

Then there are the voyeur’s who follow every thread with the word “sex” in it and enjoy repressing any pleasure two married people (in the Church) enjoy in the “PRIVACY” of their own bedroom. If its unitive and pro-creative…that ends it. But no…diatribes of endless blather that takes us back to the Puritan days of dunking and stockades…and people leave here with pounds of guilt, dragging sack cloth and ashes and falling head over heels in a handbasket headed straight for hell.

Some people need to get a clue. The only people having sex everyday…are those who are getting paid for it and those who are paying for it. Regular people have a life…you know jobs to go to, bills to pay, children to take here or there, elderly parents to care for…sex is the last thing on their minds. How many women have you heard of who had a baby and had to have sex with her husband within hours after birth or days after birth? I’d flat out tell him…take a hike boy-o:mad:

I am glad your common sense prevails and you can see what is happening here. There are many here who feel as you do. 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top