Human Sexuality - aren't the sexual organs part of it?

[TarkanAttila]

If the stomach is made to digest food, the liver to pump enzymes into our digestive tracts, the pancreas to supply insulin to the bloodstream, the heart to pump blood through the body, etc etc etc -

why do our doctors and psychologists forget the fact that genitals have specific functions as well?

I ask this, because human sexuality, even in the medical field, seems to be defined not by the objective reality of things - the way nutrition and medicine are treated - but by the subjective desires, cravings, and impulses of the individual person. If a man feels like a woman, although he has a penis and testicles, doctors can be more than willing to humour him, and even remove his perfectly functioning genitals and give him unnecessary fake ones (which may or may not get more “real” as time and tech goes on).

So I ask: why, if it is bad for a man to eat too much fatty food, to smoke, to not get any exercise, to isolate himself from other people, to not get enough sleep, to be demented or mentally ill - why is it good to destroy perfectly well-functioning organs with sex changes, hysterectomies, contraception (the pill), and vasectomies?

If it is good to eat enough vegetables and fruits, to exercise 30 minutes a day, to drink 2 liters of water a day, to get a mammogram every such and such a time, to go to the dentist such and such a time, even to drink a little wine - why is it good to kill sperm, to make a woman’s body sick with too much oestrogen, to destroy a newly forming, innocent human life in the womb, and to engage in sexual contact that will produce only infections (sodomy, and sapphism)?

Why is the natural order of things good in everything except in sex?

 

[SuperLuigi]

Why is the natural order of things good in everything except in sex?

In short, because of those in power who get to pick and choose what they think is right and wrong in the post-modern liberal, secular world and those who follow the Truth but make fancy, tricky excuses for them to remain in power.

The world itself will never make sense. 150 years ago or so the same institutions (ie the courts) said that slavery was fine and even justified in the Bible, even though “slave” as translated in the Old Testament was something very different than chaining people to a ship and then a plantation for life against his/her will.

But that little fact, even if widely known, can’t disrupt the convenient cultural fabric and economic system! Too much trouble!

As one cartoon put it from the perspective of a slave “yeah…the courts thought I wasn’t a real person either”.

It’s dangerous when an institution of man, like the United States government, takes it upon itself in horrid arrogance to decide who is a person and who isn’t.

As to the larger question of sexual morality, well, it’s just plain easy to let loose. Of course, most people’s consciences are quite so gullible, so they have to pad it with all sorts of the same kind of excuses as well as anger—can’t forget that. Oh, and “you can’t judge me!”.

This same kind of pick and choose about natural law and morality (which is really what the prior post is pointing at) and certainly personal selfishness has been going on pretty much since the dawn of civilization and will not stop anytime soon.

 

[GEddie]

Because there is power and prestige in the cause of sexual revisionism.

ICXC NIKA

 

[meltzerboy]

If the stomach is made to digest food, the liver to pump enzymes into our digestive tracts, the pancreas to supply insulin to the bloodstream, the heart to pump blood through the body, etc etc etc -

why do our doctors and psychologists forget the fact that genitals have specific functions as well?

I ask this, because human sexuality, even in the medical field, seems to be defined not by the objective reality of things - the way nutrition and medicine are treated - but by the subjective desires, cravings, and impulses of the individual person. If a man feels like a woman, although he has a penis and testicles, doctors can be more than willing to humour him, and even remove his perfectly functioning genitals and give him unnecessary fake ones (which may or may not get more “real” as time and tech goes on).

So I ask: why, if it is bad for a man to eat too much fatty food, to smoke, to not get any exercise, to isolate himself from other people, to not get enough sleep, to be demented or mentally ill - why is it good to destroy perfectly well-functioning organs with sex changes, hysterectomies, contraception (the pill), and vasectomies?

If it is good to eat enough vegetables and fruits, to exercise 30 minutes a day, to drink 2 liters of water a day, to get a mammogram every such and such a time, to go to the dentist such and such a time, even to drink a little wine - why is it good to kill sperm, to make a woman’s body sick with too much oestrogen, to destroy a newly forming, innocent human life in the womb, and to engage in sexual contact that will produce only infections (sodomy, and sapphism)?

Why is the natural order of things good in everything except in sex?

Of course the genitals play a role in human sexual behavior. But if the genitals were all there were to sexuality, then human sexual behavior would be no different from animal sexual behavior. It would be pretty much divorced from emotion, love, caring, and respect for one’s partner. These features are, or should be, part of human sexuality. If they are not, then sexual behavior becomes animalistic, lustful, pleasure-seeking behavior, (im)pure and simple.

 

[smichhertz]

Why is the natural order of things good in everything except in sex?

That is the million dollar question right there.

The OP is an excellent one. I’m curious to see what responses are given to those who feel differently.

 

[OraLabora]

Of course the genitals play a role in human sexual behavior. But if the genitals were all there were to sexuality, then human sexual behavior would be no different from animal sexual behavior. It would be pretty much divorced from emotion, love, caring, and respect for one’s partner. These features are, or should be, part of human sexuality. If they are not, then sexual behavior becomes animalistic, lustful, pleasure-seeking behavior, (im)pure and simple.

Agreed, and the same can be applied to eating. I can put the same bowl of pellets in front of my cats day in and day out and they’re happy with that.

But for humans, eating is much much more than simply filling up the fuel tank and we’d go nuts getting the same bowl of nutritious but bland pellets every day. Eating for humans is an occasion for social intercourse, and to try to delight our taste buds.

Moreover some foods are pleasing to some folks but others can’t stand the same food, just as some things turn people on sexually while the same thing turns someone off. That process happens in the brain, and not the digestive organs, just as couple romancing and arousing each other occurs as much in the brain as elsewhere.

Therefore, just like much of sexuality is located in our brains, so too is much of eating. It isn’t mere “digestion” as the OP posits. Including pleasure in the act of eating is very much part of the human condition, and just as sexuality can be disordered, so too can eating (anorexia, bulimia, gluttony, etc.). But a nice meal among friends and/or family, with a good bottle of wine, is one of the gifts that comes from the grace of God, just as making love to one’s spouse is a grace from God as well.

We don’t just feed, and we don’t just copulate, as humans!

 

[runningdude]

If the stomach is made to digest food,

…If a man feels like a woman, although he has a penis and testicles, doctors can be more than willing to humour him, and even remove his perfectly functioning genitals and give him unnecessary fake ones (which may or may not get more “real” as time and tech goes on).
…
Why is the natural order of things good in everything except in sex?

The church does not have a complete understanding of transsexualism.

 

[GEddie]

The church does not have a complete understanding of transsexualism.

Well, no, in that it is a scientific issue.

 

[Sochi]

Why is the natural order of things good in everything except in sex?

Have you semantically analyzed this statement? I’m asking because hides some gigantic assumptions and seems a bit naive.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Have you semantically analyzed this statement? I’m asking because hides some gigantic assumptions and seems a bit naive.

How do you mean?

Such as?

Of course the genitals play a role in human sexual behavior. But if the genitals were all there were to sexuality, then human sexual behavior would be no different from animal sexual behavior. It would be pretty much divorced from emotion, love, caring, and respect for one’s partner. These features are, or should be, part of human sexuality. If they are not, then sexual behavior becomes animalistic, lustful, pleasure-seeking behavior, (im)pure and simple.

No, I agree. Emotions, the doing of the good to the other (i.e, love), and respect are all part of sexuality.

But the genitals are also a part of it.

Hmm. You make it seem as if I am the animalistic one who makes sex a pagan, animalistic thing. Maybe I am.

Or, another way to put it - maybe the modern culture doesn’t make enough of the body.

 

[Sochi]

How do you mean?

Such as?

No.

Hmm. You make it seem as if I am the animalistic one who makes sex a pagan, animalistic thing. Maybe I am.

No. What I mean is about your last sentence, which I quoted:

Why is the natural order of things good in everything except in sex?

It appears to assume that someone knows the “natural order,” that that order can have a value judgement attached to it, that that judgement might be accurate, and that sex is separated out out from the general judgment ans has its own, that sounding as if ti is stated to be a universal.

Or, another way to put it - maybe the modern culture doesn’t make enough of the body.

It is interesting to note that much of the public attitude towards sex is hugely ambivalent. It is fine to use it to sell anything, but suspect to engage in it, and scandalous if even average human behavior is exposed to the inquisitorial press or opposition party. So sex still sell. But think about it: Some of this country’s first Europeans were in Puritan range of sexual mores. In other words they left and astonishingly repressed England because it wasn’t repressed enough. And of course the settled withing five miles of a colony of libertines. And it’s been mental cats ans dogs ever since.

Seems to me that our acceptance of having bodies is highly colored by moralizing that is ultimately not useful to mental or sexual health. For instance, we found a manual for novitiates in the high school I went to. The recommendations in it for mental and spiritual practices for the candidates for priesthood, I would not repeat. For my part I would have recommended the author to an institution for psychiatric care. And that is from someone who was, at that time in a Catholic school and way overly concerned with chastity, so you might imagine. On second thought, don’t.

 

[meltzerboy]

How do you mean?

Such as?

No, I agree. Emotions, the doing of the good to the other (i.e, love), and respect are all part of sexuality.

But the genitals are also a part of it.

Hmm. You make it seem as if I am the animalistic one who makes sex a pagan, animalistic thing. Maybe I am.

Or, another way to put it - maybe the modern culture doesn’t make enough of the body.

I believe your OP is suggesting that gay sex is animalistic. Sometimes it is and sometimes straight sex is as well. The point of my post is to state that in either case, the genitals should not be the only focus of human sexual behavior. But when they are, THAT is what is contrary to natural law with regard to humans rather than the non-complementarity of the sexual organs in gay sexual behavior.

 

[Sochi]

I believe your OP is suggesting that gay sex is animalistic. Sometimes it is and sometimes straight sex is as well. The point of my post is to state that in either case, the genitals should not be the only focus of human sexual behavior. But when they are, THAT is what is contrary to natural law with regard to humans rather than the non-complementarity of the sexual organs in gay sexual behavior.

Yes, Tarkan’s stance appears to be that the container needs limit the contents. Problem is, humans have a great propensity in many cases to go beyond the alleged limits of their containers. This is even reflected in the hypothesis of survival of a soul. In that scheme, it is indeed the soul that suffers or enjoys the consequences of utilizing the vehicle of the body, which it itself is not.

So in the same way as we see the remarkable accomplishment of the Olympian on Dancing With the Stars who is a serious contenders sans legs, the human spirit often won’t sit still for the limits suggested by the body. And as he has made other unwarranted assumptions, the term “destroying” is far from necessarily applicable and as used is an indicator of a forgone conclusion on his part. Hysterectomies? My Mom would have, I’m told, died ten years younger than she did, had she not had one. Contraception?? While and ideologue institution or individual sees that as an either/or proposition, the lowest form of analytically logic, for my part I’d rather see thousands or millions of instances of contraception than of either abortion of of children raised in abject conditions. That one, from here, is actually embarrassing. Same for vasectomies, which I understand have a percentage of reversibility.

In other words “…why is it good to destroy perfectly well-functioning organs with sex changes, hysterectomies, contraception (the pill), and vasectomies?” is pretty much a straw person statement, again with unexamined presuppositions taken for granted as true. Also, homosexuals, whatever the opinion of the OP might be, do find their same sex organs very complementary, finding in many cases the other gender’s equipment not appealing, just as a hetero might find them attractive. As I’ve tried to point out, there are untenable assumptions in the OP’s presentation.

 

[TarkanAttila]

I believe your OP is suggesting that gay sex is animalistic. Sometimes it is and sometimes straight sex is as well. The point of my post is to state that in either case, the genitals should not be the only focus of human sexual behavior. But when they are, THAT is what is contrary to natural law with regard to humans rather than the non-complementarity of the sexual organs in gay sexual behavior.

Thinking about what you said, I don’t think we dispute that the biology, when used exclusively, is the problem. (Does this extend to you, too, Sochi?) In other words, I agree, sex just for the sake of the physical aspect - the pleasure, the stimulation, or even just to get pregnant - is wrong.

But what do you think when sex is not considered to need particular genitals at all?

I mean, if we say sex is to show another person I love them very much, and that alone, is that not just as much of a perversion? Don’t we need both? Don’t we need the pleasure and pregnancy, and also the emotional, spiritual love?

Let’s say it another way - we can’t really speak of just the movement of the genitals as really fully expressing human sexuality. But can we ever speak of a love between two people who never make genital contact as being “sexual”?

Love, as God made the soul for, is a part of sex. But sex also needs genitals - and those in use in the fashion the Lord above made them for.

 

[TarkanAttila]

No.
No. What I mean is about your last sentence, which I quoted: It appears to assume that someone knows the “natural order,” that that order can have a value judgement attached to it, that that judgement might be accurate, and that sex is separated out out from the general judgment ans has its own, that sounding as if ti is stated to be a universal.

The quote you quoted was addressed to meltzerboy, not you.

But if you disagree with me, what on?

Tell me this: even from a non-religious POV, would you not say it is natural and good for man to seek his own personal survival, and that of his species? Naturally speaking, is that not his raison d’être? Don’t we stop people from committing suicide, and criticise lifestyles that result in early death?

I mean, if you wish to push that survival has no intrinsic moral value, I wonder if you would consider anything to, and that would be a whole separate thread.

Seems to me that our acceptance of having bodies is highly colored by moralizing that is ultimately not useful to mental or sexual health.

My point exactly. I am beginning to wonder if perhaps Puritanism did not rub off on modern culture a bit - to the point where they forget, partially, sex involves the body and the emotions.

The Puritans took it a wrong way - hide the body. Forget that part of it even exists. Modern culture goes the other way - use the body however you like, as long as the feelings are right. Forget that the body exists for any reason but emotional satisfaction.

Yes, Tarkan’s stance appears to be that the container needs limit the contents.

And only certain contents to a container. Penis + Vagina = pleasure, and possible baby, yes. But also no anger. No revenge. No lust. Only love belongs in sex.

Problem is, humans have a great propensity in many cases to go beyond the alleged limits of their containers. …So in the same way as we see the remarkable accomplishment of the Olympian on Dancing With the Stars who is a serious contenders sans legs, the human spirit often won’t sit still for the limits suggested by the body.

But again, part of sex is to create children. Two men or two women cannot do that. To do that, one of them would have to become the opposite sex, or it’s not really “their” child.

And as he has made other unwarranted assumptions, the term “destroying” is far from necessarily applicable and as used is an indicator of a forgone conclusion on his part. Hysterectomies? My Mom would have, I’m told, died ten years younger than she did, had she not had one.

I am sorry your mother had to undergo that. Sincerely. But don’t you see? It’s something to be sorry about - something that should not be done unless a greater evil will come of it.

But, Sochi, some women have them just so they won’t have children. They could prevent that by just not having sex. So they use a procedure, for which we’d otherwise tell them “I’m sorry that had to happen”, to prevent something that just not having sex would prevent?

Contraception?? While and ideologue institution or individual sees that as an either/or proposition, the lowest form of analytically logic, for my part I’d rather see thousands or millions of instances of contraception than of either abortion of of children raised in abject conditions.

But is not contraception poison to the body of the woman taking it?

Why must you feed her poison just to feed the illusion that sex does not involve children? You are protecting, not your orgasm, but your emotional “ghost” (so to speak).

Why do you disfigure the body in the name of your emotions? It is less like smoking or drinking. It is more like the ancient heretics who used to castrate themselves to prevent themselves from desiring sex. It’s more like the Shakers, who don’t have sex, except you want to eat your cake, too.

In other words “…why is it good to destroy perfectly well-functioning organs with sex changes, hysterectomies, contraception (the pill), and vasectomies?” is pretty much a straw person statement, again with unexamined presuppositions taken for granted as true. Also, homosexuals, whatever the opinion of the OP might be, do find their same sex organs very complementary, finding in many cases the other gender’s equipment not appealing, just as a hetero might find them attractive. As I’ve tried to point out, there are untenable assumptions in the OP’s presentation.

While they may emotionally complement, they do not physically complement. You need both, because human sexuality is both physical and emotional.