martial sex

  • Thread starter Thread starter billcu1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BlueEyedLady said:
It’s things like that that make me wary of religious men in general. Growing up in a Protestant community I have heard every religious justification out there for using women for sex. It makes my skin crawl. I have even seen young women that I grew up with fall in to the same degrading trap. (I would like to clarify that neither my family or the church they attended were like that, and they were as disgusted as I was.)

That attitude of using women for their bodies, both for sex itself and using it to produce children and then backing up that belief by citing “experts” who believe that it is a grave moral wrong that women wear pants is one of the reasons I’ve always found it difficult to trust religious men. And I know that a lot of women feel the same way.
Click to expand...
What it tells me is that these men have a very shallow and simple view of their faith. Men who treat women like that are arrogant at best and downright abusive at worst.

A man who truly has a deep and rich understanding of their faith can see further and understand more and has the common sense to treat his wife the way she should be treated.

I know you know that, according to Christians, husbands are called to love their wives as Christ loved the Church.
You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know that means a deep, self-sacrificing love that is filled with respect and devotion. This means taking the time to make her feel beautiful and desired. I can’t see how some men can claim to be Christian and treat their wives like servants and objects that give men a “release.”
 
BlueEyedLady said:
It’s things like that that make me wary of religious men in general. Growing up in a Protestant community I have heard every religious justification out there for using women for sex. It makes my skin crawl. I have even seen young women that I grew up with fall in to the same degrading trap. (I would like to clarify that neither my family or the church they attended were like that, and they were as disgusted as I was.)

That attitude of using women for their bodies, both for sex itself and using it to produce children and then backing up that belief by citing “experts” who believe that it is a grave moral wrong that women wear pants is one of the reasons I’ve always found it difficult to trust religious men. And I know that a lot of women feel the same way.
Click to expand...
Human beings, male and female alike, have used twisted both the language of Scripture and religion itself to suit their own purposes. And in the case of men, well, we’ve been guilty of trying to find ways to keep women in “their place” and justify our own behavior. This, of course, is a terrible evil.

Truthfully I do believe that women are better predisposed to raising children than men. It’s an evolutionary trait. I mean, we men were not born with breasts that can provide milk! We are generally not as intuitively empathetic as women. But just because this is true does not mean that women “belong in the home.” I think in an ideal situation a man can provide for his family and a woman can raise the children, but that’s just an ideal and it’s not for everyone. It exists in my family but that’s simply because we want someone to stay home with our kids and my profession is more lucrative than hers. If the career positions were swapped, I’d be at home. No big deal.

Read the words of St. Paul:
There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Click to expand...
Period. End of discussion. Men and women may, as a general rule, have certain strengths and weaknesses that the other sex does not. We are meant to complement one another. We are not meant to rule over each other. Wives should indeed be obedient to their husbands as the Church is to Christ, and husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the Church… by becoming her servant! For Christ did not come to be served but to serve!

Christian men who understand their roles in the world and their families are indeed leaders. But they lead by service, not by manipulation and dominance.
 
fpt said:
… The imperfect and incomplete sodomy, as foreplay, that means the penetration of penis in the female anus, without interior ejaculation: by nature, it is immoral. An unnatural act, it is evil, because, per se, this part is not in link the marital act and it is objectively dirty.
Click to expand...
I see the point here, and I agree in terms of the “dirtiness” of such an act. But I do not see how it is morally any different than rubbing the penis against the belly or thigh or whatever other part of the spouse. I agree with West and with Heribert Jone…and so did the Church (agree with Jone) by approving his work for use in the world’s seminaries for the education of Priests.

Such an act is not sodomy. We agree here. Some however will claim that such is a “homosexual act”. This is also false because first, we are speaking of a married couple (heterosexual) and second, they are using such act as part of the conjugal union which is ordered toward procreation and unification. The Church says every act is evil that thwarts either/both the unitive or procreative aspects. All the Church’s theology on the sexual union, in my understanding, rests on preserving both these aspects together…one removed from the other results in sin. Anal stimulation does not thwart either…and is therefore licit.
 
ahs said:
I see the point here, and I agree in terms of the “dirtiness” of such an act. But I do not see how it is morally any different than rubbing the penis against the belly or thigh or whatever other part of the spouse. I agree with West and with Heribert Jone…and so did the Church (agree with Jone) by approving his work for use in the world’s seminaries for the education of Priests.

Such an act is not sodomy. We agree here. Some however will claim that such is a “homosexual act”. This is also false because first, we are speaking of a married couple (heterosexual) and second, they are using such act as part of the conjugal union which is ordered toward procreation and unification. The Church says every act is evil that thwarts either/both the unitive or procreative aspects. All the Church’s theology on the sexual union, in my understanding, rests on preserving both these aspects together…one removed from the other results in sin. Anal stimulation does not thwart either…and is therefore licit.
Click to expand...
In this thread, we are focusing on preliminaries in order to lead the union of bodies. Everything is moral, ** if that is in link with this preparation. **Anus is not sexed and sexual, by nature, no link with the preparation. But, all the body , yes.
 
fpt said:
In my humble opinion, Ronald L. Conte jr. and his followers, about the special topic of foreplay, in the context of marital act, are touched by:

The puritanism, the jansenism, the catharism, the manicheism, the neo-puritanism, the victorianism, the sexism, the masculinism, the anti-personalism, the anti-phenomenology, the anti-sexology, the moralism, the absurdism, the angelism, the utopism, the pessimism, the negativism, the conjugal anti-erotism.
Click to expand...
Yeah…I suppose you throw a hundred more labels out there if you like…it doesn’t mean anything.

But when a group of Catholics come out and say that anal penetration (within the confines of marriage) is suddenly not sodomy (if and only if) the man finishes in the vagina (which is a recipe for some terrible bacterial problems if one follows the other), then I have to say that y’all are…delusional at best.

I don’t care if West said it. I don’t care if Jone said it. It is sodomy. And if the Catholic Church is still using Jone’s book in seminaries, then I will give the Church the benefit of the doubt and surmise that it is being using for other teachings of his moral theology and not that particular abomination!
 
fpt said:
In this thread, we are focusing on preliminaries in order to lead the union of bodies. Everything is moral, ** if that is in link with this preparation. **Anus is not sexed and sexual, by nature, no link with the preparation. But, all the body , yes.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe the mouth is any more sexed (male or female) or sexual (receptive of sexual organs) than the anus. The mouth and the anus, in fact, are two openings belonging to the same system. The Church’s teaching is that an act is disordered if it thwarts procreative/unitive ends of the conjugal union. Anal stimulation, just as oral, does not thwart either.
 
fpt said:
In this thread, we are focusing on preliminaries in order to lead the union of bodies. Everything is moral, ** if that is in link with this preparation. **Anus is not sexed and sexual, by nature, no link with the preparation. But, all the body , yes.
Click to expand...
All the body is sexed and sexual, by nature, except the anus. Thus, in the context of marital act, all touch (oral or manual) on all the body and even on the exterior sexual organs is morally licit in order to lead the union of bodies. For anus, it is wrong.
 
Mickey said:
Yeah…I suppose you throw a hundred more labels out there if you like…it doesn’t mean anything.

But when a group of Catholics come out and say that anal penetration (within the confines of marriage) is suddenly not sodomy (if and only if) the man finishes in the vagina (which is a recipe for some terrible bacterial problems if one follows the other), then I have to say that y’all are…delusional at best.

I don’t care if West said it. I don’t care if Jone said it. It is sodomy. And if the Catholic Church is still using Jone’s book in seminaries, then I will give the Church the benefit of the doubt and surmise that it is being using for other teachings of his moral theology and not that particular abomination!
Click to expand...
The anus is not a sex organ. Putting something in there for a non-medical purposes (such as something of a sexual nature) does go against the natural order. The clitoris and the penis are sexual organs- kissing or touching them prior to, during, or immediately after the completion of sexual intercourse do not go against the natural order of things.
 
Mickey said:
Yeah…I suppose you throw a hundred more labels out there if you like…it doesn’t mean anything.

But when a group of Catholics come out and say that anal penetration (within the confines of marriage) is suddenly not sodomy (if and only if) the man finishes in the vagina (which is a recipe for some terrible bacterial problems if one follows the other), then I have to say that y’all are…delusional at best.

I don’t care if West said it. I don’t care if Jone said it. It is sodomy. And if the Catholic Church is still using Jone’s book in seminaries, then I will give the Church the benefit of the doubt and surmise that it is being using for other teachings of his moral theology and not that particular abomination!
Click to expand...
If you read my messages, I am against the sodomy, even like foreplay. I am not okay with Chistopher West on this topic.

The imperfect and complete sodomy that means the penetration of penis in the female anus, with interior ejaculation: by nature, it is immoral. Per se, an unnatural act, it is evil. The imperfect and incomplete sodomy, as foreplay, that means the penetration of penis in the female anus, without interior ejaculation: by nature, it is immoral. An unnatural act, it is evil, because, per se, this part is not in link the marital act and it is objectively dirty.

Here, I am not okay with Christopher West. Imperfect and incomplete sodomy is not moral, it is morally wrong. Anus has no link with natural sex.
 
The_Bucket said:
Human beings, male and female alike, have used twisted both the language of Scripture and religion itself to suit their own purposes. And in the case of men, well, we’ve been guilty of trying to find ways to keep women in “their place” and justify our own behavior. This, of course, is a terrible evil.

Truthfully I do believe that women are better predisposed to raising children than men. It’s an evolutionary trait. I mean, we men were not born with breasts that can provide milk! We are generally not as intuitively empathetic as women. But just because this is true does not mean that women “belong in the home.” I think in an ideal situation a man can provide for his family and a woman can raise the children, but that’s just an ideal and it’s not for everyone. It exists in my family but that’s simply because we want someone to stay home with our kids and my profession is more lucrative than hers. If the career positions were swapped, I’d be at home. No big deal.

Read the words of St. Paul:

Period. End of discussion. Men and women may, as a general rule, have certain strengths and weaknesses that the other sex does not. We are meant to complement one another. We are not meant to rule over each other.** Wives should indeed be obedient to their husbands as the Church is to Christ, and husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the Church… by becoming her servant!** For Christ did not come to be served but to serve!

Christian men who understand their roles in the world and their families are indeed leaders. But they lead by service, not by manipulation and dominance.
Click to expand...
The problem is:
If one person is in charge and other must obey, then the one who must obey is the servant almost by definition (instead of the other way around).
 
why is everybody talking about anal sex and nobody is talking about how Portrait and Conte said that foreplay is basically always sinful?
 
Mickey said:
ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/unnatural-sexual-acts-as-marital-foreplay/
Click to expand...
Ron Conte card being played?
Well Ron Conte is a public figure and author.

Ron Contes’ words about Mother Angelica, founder of EWTN:
catholicplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=606&p=33079
““I don’t like watching Mother Angelica. I find her understanding of the Faith to be limited. Her explanations are humerous and easy to understand, but lack theological depth. I don’t believe that she is a Saint because of this lack of depth to her understanding of the Faith. …But I think that having her own television network has led her to have a popularity which greatly exceeds her level of holiness.””
Click to expand...
Now anyone who agrees with the above has not read Raymond Arroyo’s book on Mother Angelica(a contemplative nun)to know what a ‘gifted’,following the will of God person Mother Angelica was starting early on that she was –
Mother Angelica: The Remarkable Story of a Nun, Her Nerve, and a Network of Miracles

Ron Contes words about himself:
catholicplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3886&p=30040
"“When any prediction of mine fails, even only on a minor point, many persons will condemn the entire body of work on that basis. And when my predictions succeed, there will be an even stronger push to condemn these writings, because people will be afraid that the remainder of my predictions is also true. They will petition Bishops and the Holy See for some type of condemnation or negative decision on my eschatology. They will make all kinds of false accusations. They will distort my predictions and my work in theology apart from eschatology. From time to time, they will succeed in convincing one Bishop or another, or one prominent priest or lay leader or another, in publicly speaking against my work, to one degree of disapproval or another.
The next Pope in particular will speak against my work in eschatology, in a limited way and to a limited extent, but this will be misrepresented very widely as if it were an utter condemnation of all my work and of me personally. This type of event happened to Padre Pio (though he is much holier than me) and to the writings of St. Faustina (whose writings are greater than mine). If it happens to the greater person and the greater work, then the lesser person and the lesser work will not be spared.
The next Pope (the one after Pope Benedict XVI, whom I believe will be Cardinal Arinze/Pope Pius XIII) will give an order contraining me concerning my writings in eschatology. But this will not prevent the dissemination of these ideas, and it will be only for a limited time.”
Click to expand...
…

…
 
I don’t care if West said it. I don’t care if Jone said it. It is sodomy. And if the Catholic Church is still using Jone’s book in seminaries, then I will give the Church the benefit of the doubt and surmise that it is being using for other teachings of his moral theology and not that particular abomination!
Click to expand...
In the immortal words of Jim Carrey in Liar Liar… “And the truth shall set you free!”

You have just admitted that you dont care what authorities on the matter say. You dont care what the doctrine says. You have admitted that you are projecting your own proclivities onto the Church and her faithful.

Jordan fades back… and thats the game!

Oh, and AA, they moved on because they see Mickey and Ron not only cannot grasp the doctrine,they cannot understand biology as it pertains to human sexual response outside of pure hypotheticals. For his part, Ron also suffers from an acute case of inflated self importance and delusion about his false clairvoyance.
 
RB2 said:
Ron Conte card being played?
Well Ron Conte is a public figure and author.

Ron Contes’ words about Mother Angelica, founder of EWTN:
catholicplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=606&p=33079

Now anyone who agrees with the above has not read Raymond Arroyo’s book on Mother Angelica(a contemplative nun)to know what a ‘gifted’,following the will of God person Mother Angelica was starting early on that she was –
Mother Angelica: The Remarkable Story of a Nun, Her Nerve, and a Network of Miracles

Ron Contes words about himself:
catholicplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3886&p=30040

…

…
Click to expand...
The arrogance:rolleyes:

I doubt Ron Conte will ever be *important enough *for a Pope to personally condemn.
 
The_Bucket said:
In the immortal words of Jim Carrey in Liar Liar… “And the truth shall set you free!”

You have just admitted that you dont care what authorities on the matter say. You dont care what the doctrine says. You have admitted that you are projecting your own proclivities onto the Church and her faithful.

Jordan fades back… and thats the game!

Oh, and AA, they moved on because they see Mickey and Ron not only cannot grasp the doctrine,they cannot understand biology as it pertains to human sexual response outside of pure hypotheticals. For his part, Ron also suffers from an acute case of inflated self importance and delusion about his false clairvoyance.
Click to expand...
I suppose that makes sense.
 
How interesting…no real points to be made…just attack Ron Conte. Sheesh! Way to go guys.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top