People do change. Sexual compatibility is not set in stone. It can change over the course of time. People can work towards sexual compatibility after marriage and it necessarily does not have to be discerned before marriage. The dynamics between the couple that has the potential to influence sexual compatibility may be worked on/discerned before marriage and it does not necessarily involve hitting the sheets pre-marriage.
Yes, and not only is sexual ‘compatibility’ not set in stone, it can change over time. The marriage vows promise permanence, regardless of future events. A spouse may after marriage have medical problems that make sexual relations difficult or even impossible. That does not affect one’s marriage vows, which promise permanence in good times and bad, for better or worse.
To some extent this is true. But no matter how much one would wish to become compatible, there are physical limitations. You cannot squeeze a 2 inch bolt into a 1 inch nut without doing some serious damage.
We, meaning Catholics, will continue to explain the proper use of human sexuality. Always. Assumptions are not evidence.
You could explore for example:
To be more precise, what you believe (or assume) to be the proper use of human sexuality.
Which has never been practiced, and has never been pursued outside a handful of ultra-conservatives, who proclaim it, but fail to practice it. I believe that there might have been a very few non-sexual people who never had the inclination, probably because their body was deficient in producing the necessary hormones (natural eunuchs). But if you look at reality and the Moral Theology sub-forum, you will see the plethora of posts where people struggle with their sexuality, who try to keep the irrational standard of “celibacy” and keep failing.
Do you or don’t you believe that celibacy for life is possible for a priest? Also, are you/are you not in favor of sex before marriage?How would you know? I am sure that in your close circle of friends it is “most” of them. In my circle it is either “some” or “none”. I have no idea, since I never asked around. But judging that all (I know) had several partners during their life I surmise that they do not give a “dayum”. I would not want to make up some statistics.
Care about something is not the same as being concerned about it. People who wish to share their past relationships are free to do so. To be open about it is great as long the neither one is a jealous type. But it is a fact that “practice makes perfect”, at least as the “technique” is concerned. Monica Lewinsky was in great demand, since she proved her prowess.
Oh, no. Intimacy does not come in a “jar”, with limited quantity of it. Just like “love”.
Since I have no idea what kind of intimacy God intended, I cannot offer an opinion. The intimacy I share with my loved one is quite sufficient for us.
The original point still stays, it is unwise to hop into a relationship where a very important part of compatibility is left unexplored when an unfortunate “incompatibility” cannot be remedied any more. If someone prefers to live a celibate life, that is his or her own business. But very few people do, as shown with the wayward priests who were caught with their “pants down”.
There are three kinds of lies, according to Mark Twain: “lies, damned lies and statistics”. As my professor said in the first class about statistics: “statistics is like a bikini… it shows a lot, but hides the important parts”. If one forms the questions “properly”, one can elicit any kind of response from a properly gathered “crowd”. Just like the stage magician who prompts you: “pick a card, any card”, and you WILL pick the one which he wanted.
Since those who had only one partner have no idea what they are talking about, their testimony is worthless.
Possible? Maybe. As I said, for “natural eunuchs” it is a normal way to go. For others it is fraught with frustration. No wonder some people resort to wearing a cilice or self-flagellation to “chase out the devil”. I feel sorry for them.
Of course I am in favor of responsible sex within and before marriage. To go outside marriage is usually incorrect, because it breaks a promise. If, however the couple willingly practices an “open marriage”, it is their own business.
Those divorce statistics (which are frequently replicated) are not based on attitudinal survey data - there are no questions engineered to gain a particular reaction. They merely describe the associations between objective criteria.
Their testimony is not, of course, worthless. It is, of course, based on their own experiences. Yes, some researchers suggest that the lack of comparison is one basis for their greater happiness; that those who have had many relationships are more inclined to be critical of their spouses and less tolerant of certain behaviors and attitudes. It is one suggestion, among many. Another suggestion is that perhaps those who have had many relationships are bad at long term relationships, which is why they have many, and why their marriages are more likely to break down. There are many theories. But the basic relationship between (self-reported) happy marriage and fewer sexual partners is well established.
How would you know that? But the point is that divorce is not inherently :bad". People make bad choices all the time, and the solution is NOT to live with them. It is much better to get out of a failed relationship, and start afresh.
You mean, LACK of experience. Of course those who prefer to stay in a relationship for religious reasons are not exactly “objective” witnesses. They have a vested interest in reporting false data. Moreover, the divorce rate is not significantly different for Christians and “heathens”.
That was only a playful way to establish the rationality behind it. One needs to be very careful to present neutral, non-leading questions to interrogate the views of the population. And it is also necessary to select a “random” population as a test group, so they will be a truly representative sample of the whole population.
Again, one could look to all manner of research to show that in general (on average) divorce is bad. Bad for people who divorce, bad for children. Bad emotionally, psychologically, economically. In some specific cases it is an unfortunate reality that divorce is required (and yes, the Church recognises this).
No. I meant experience. It is a different experience to yours, and others. But it is an experience.
No one publishes their raw data and the minutae of their methodology. That’s a cop-out.That was only a playful way to establish the rationality behind it. One needs to be very careful to present neutral, non-leading questions to interrogate the views of the population. And it is also necessary to select a “random” population as a test group, so they will be a truly representative sample of the whole population.
I am skeptical of unknown statistics, that is all. Before I would even consider a final conclusion, I would want to see the sampling method and the phraseology of the questions, along the “raw” data. Any group with an “axe” to grind is suspicious to manipulate the data for their own advantage, and that includes ALL groups, not just the religiously biased ones. I am an “equal-opportunity” skeptic.
I am sure you heard the expression of the “lesser of two evils”. Of course divorce is worse than a lifelong loving relationship, but it is better than being locked in a loveless relationship.
I am looking at the whole picture, that is all.
As a matter of fact, unfortunately I do. I was one of those who actually waited, and then found out just how incompatible two people can be, even if the bolt (physically) fits the nut. Sex is much more than “bam, bam, thank you ma’am”.
When demanded, they had better!
You were the one who brought up the statistics.
I simply gave you the Catholic Answer. Of course people struggle but the goal is to overcome.To be more precise, what you believe (or assume) to be the proper use of human sexuality.
Which has never been practiced, and has never been pursued outside a handful of ultra-conservatives, who proclaim it, but fail to practice it. I believe that there might have been a very few non-sexual people who never had the inclination, probably because their body was deficient in producing the necessary hormones (natural eunuchs). But if you look at reality and the Moral Theology sub-forum, you will see the plethora of posts where people struggle with their sexuality, who try to keep the irrational standard of “celibacy” and keep failing.
Looking for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is a futile endeavor.
Marriage is a human creation (and a relatively new one at that). The prospective partners TOGETHER decide to test the waters, or (using another analogy) kick the tires of the car they wish to own JOINTLY. There is NOTHING bad about the idea to try out a joint venture before you put your signature on that dotted line.
If only this nonsense would be dropped. I am talking about a JOINT venture, a mutually arrived decision. No one is exploiting the other. This kind of erroneous picture reminds me of those old times, when the woman was imagined to be a passive partner, who had to endure the dominant male and her role was “barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen”. Those times are gone forever, and we can be thankful for the Pill for that. The women today are equal partners, they can make choices for themselves.
If, you can… Not all unsuccessful marriages can be repaired. If it cannot be fixed, then the only wise solution is get out and start a new one. Sure you have the option to stay celibate if you cannot obtain an annulment, and that is your preference, go ahead. But don’t expect others to form a queue at that particular door.
I just brought up the possibility for anyone interested - yourself or others reading this thread - to explore the research in this area for themselves.
Marriage was created by God in the beginning. He created Adam and Eve specifically for marriage.
Jointly exploiting each other doesn’t sound very loving to me. I’m not sure how you jumped to barefoot and pregnant???
Only if you read Genesis in a literal manner. Reality is different.
What sounds “loving” to you is your business. They do not “exploit” each other, they willingly give themselves to the other. “Exploitation” carries a very negative meaning, indicating the reluctance of the “exploited” party. To use an analogy, it is like to jointly embark on climbing a hill. They help each other to get to the top. Sometimes one member of the party helps the other one to get a little higher, other times, they reverse the role. It is a joint effort, where both parties enjoy the results.