F
francisca
Guest
So you agree to such morality then, since you think rough sex is not evil. Is that what your are saying?
- Status
S
smichhertz
Guest
If you’re referring to THIS morality:
Then I DISAGREE. As I have stated before.
But I am still waiting for a definition of rough sex. The rough sex defined in the previous thread was really more playful sex and not even rough. I have yet to see you define what you mean by rough sex.
As an aside “morality” is a bad word to refer to it. It’s really more of a moral guideline.
M
mcrow
Guest
Ok, sure us guys are a lot stronger than women but that does not make us mindless ogres.
We understand that women are more physically fragile than us and the we are often larger on top of being pound for pound stronger.
My wife and I are the same height but I’m close to 60 pounds heavier and can almost certainly pick up and carry more than twice what she can.
That does not mean I need to treat her as if she’s made of glass,she’s not. She’s fairly tough for her size, as most women are, and as long as I’m not trying to be overly aggressive I don’t think I’ll hurt her.
We understand that women are more physically fragile than us and the we are often larger on top of being pound for pound stronger.
My wife and I are the same height but I’m close to 60 pounds heavier and can almost certainly pick up and carry more than twice what she can.
That does not mean I need to treat her as if she’s made of glass,she’s not. She’s fairly tough for her size, as most women are, and as long as I’m not trying to be overly aggressive I don’t think I’ll hurt her.
D
Debora123
Guest
F
francisca
Guest
You have decided to disagree : you have YOUR OWN definition of it. Otherwise if “rough sex” according to YOU does not constitute anything bad whatsoever, why would you CONSISTENTLY DISAGREE that women be “rough” to men?
I suppose YOUR definition of “rough” is not about going to the beach neither take a piece of cake. In fact, you disagree because you have KNOWN intuitively that something is rotten about the word “rough” being discussed. Otherwise you will have no problem with it.
Well, smichhertz, at least you answered my question. The OP of the previous thread has stop replying the moment I placed such hypothesis. I suppose his eyes has just been opened that it is not moral to do to woman whatever man do not want her to do to him.
About the word “morality”: it wasn’t me who chose to use it. The previous thread OP asked whether rough sex is moral. My answer is NO, it is not moral. And my reasoning for it is similar to your reasoning as you reject the hypothetical morality: something is rotten about it.
About playful sex, why not? Playful does not necessarily mean rough.
S
smichhertz
Guest
I have never given a single definition of rough sex. Please show me where I did. Neither in the previous thread nor this one. I used the definition provided by the OP in the previous thread, and in that previous thread you consistently kept changing the definition in your posts. I’m simply asking you to give a clear definition of what you mean by rough sex so we can proceed on your terms. How can we have a discussion on whether something is moral or immoral if we do not even have a clear idea of what it is we are talking about?
I never said that. Again, you are putting words in my mouth and not understanding my position.My position is not rough sex is ALWAYS morally permissible, my position is rough sex CAN BE morally permissible. It simply depends on the situation, and each married couple must properly discern what is appropriate for them in bed.
Certainly, there are possible instances when a either a husband or wife can be going too far with their spouse. But you seem to be implying that anytime a husband is rough with his wife REGARDLESS of intent or circumstances then it is immoral. That is what I disagree with.
So for the third time now, could you PLEASE provide a definition of what you mean by rough sex?
F
francisca
Guest
And this fact does not tell you that it is something bad?
If rough sex sometimes is good but somethimes is bad, then what kind of goodness is that?
If rough sex sometimes is moral but sometimes is immoral, what kind of morality is that?
I call it rotten morality, betrayal of goodness, evil love, bad.
S
smichhertz
Guest
Francisa,
That’s not my opinion, that’s Church teaching. St Thomas Aquinas himself proposed the method I am using to evaluate moral acts.
Many things are “sometimes good and sometimes bad” as you put it. Take killing for instance. If you kill an innocent person, then it’s bad. But if you kill a person in self defense, then it’s morally permissible. And that’s not my idea, St. Thomas Aquinas himself stated this when he introduced the Double Effect Principle.
I don’t mean to sound harsh, I just truly think you have a flawed understanding of how one goes about evaluating moral acts. Take some time to read this article:
ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/in-roman-catholic-moral-theology-what-is-a-moral-object/
It does a good job of simplifying the basic method of evaluating good and evil acts. Give it a look over and see if that helps you understand what we are talking about here.
If you seriously want a moral system that never allows certain acts to be “sometimes good and sometimes bad” then good luck, there is no such system. Certain acts can always be wrong, but that doesn’t mean that ALL acts are either ALWAYS wrong or ALWAYS right.
Also, I’ve asked three times now for your definition of rough sex. Are you going to provide me with your definition of rough sex or not?
F
francisca
Guest
Double effect principle is only used for difficult situation where one must choose two or more acts which both/ all of them come with potential goodness and risk/ danger. For example a woman’s pregnancy is risky because of her health condition. The choice are to save the mother or to save the son.
You only apply Double effect principle for those cases.
Let’s try to apply it in “rough sex” scenario :
- One couple want to have good (or playful) sex. Does “roughness” is necessary to acheive good (or playful) sex? The answer is no because a couple can have good sex without being rough to each other.
- Does “roughness” come with the goodness that outweigh the risk of injury or even death of one of the couple? No, the goodness does not outweigh the risk.
- Does “rough sex” is always as good as or better than “gentle sex”? No
- Does “rough sex” is always morally good act? No.
S
smichhertz
Guest
Nor did anything I say put rough sex under the double effect principle. Did you even read my previous post?
Still waiting on that definition, what am I up to now, 5…6 requests?
F
francisca
Guest
My definition of rough sex is identical with your definition-- the one you use in your heart to disagree with the hypothetical morality.
S
smichhertz
Guest
I haven’t provided a definition. Can you please either provide one or at least give a few concrete examples of what you mean when you say “rough sex”?
F
francisca
Guest
You have, not in words, but in your heart. Your disagreement to the hypothetical morality shows what is in your heart.
Read post 12 and 19.
See ya.
D
Debora123
Guest
Mmmmm, nope.
Still didn’t see it.
Post #12 says you think degrading talk is rough. (Though none of us here referenced or condoned DEGRADING talk at all. We referenced DIRTY talk, which isn’t always degrading.)
Post #19 says absolutely nothing at all.
D
Debora123
Guest
No one knows what is in our hearts, except ourselves and Jesus. And certainly not someone who doesn’t even know us.
S
smichhertz
Guest
I disagreed with the hypothetical morality, because it was in and of itself contradictory. No definition of “rough sex” was necessary for me to do that. Regardless of what’s “in my heart” I can’t even remotely discuss this until I have an idea what you mean when you say “rough sex”.
I might totally agree with you and say it’s immoral depending on what you mean. Or I may think you are completely wrong and think there’s nothing wrong with it. Until you give a definition, I have no idea what we are even talking about.
I’ve included them both below.
Anything that is degrading is by definition immoral. It denies the dignity of the human person. I don’t think the average person necessarily means things that are “degrading” when they use the phrase “dirty talk”, but I would certainly agree that anything that is degrading is immoral.
This does not provide an example of rough sex.
S
smichhertz
Guest
Thread exit.
I think further discussion is completely pointless, I should’ve taken the hint from everyone else who stopped posting here a long time ago.
I have tried many times to generate a discussion, but it requires a common understanding of what we are discussing. Since the OPer has time and time again refused to provide a definition of the term, there is no way we could even remotely begin a discussion and work towards a conclusion on this topic.
For future reference, when starting a thread to discuss the morality / immorality of a given act, it’s pretty much required that you give a good definition of the act or at least a few examples so that there is a clear understanding of what we are talking about.
It’s a shame really, it could have been an interesting discussion.
I hope this post doesn’t come off as uncharitable, I’m simply trying to state why I am no longer going to contribute to this thread. So hopefully everyone involved can learn a little more about a proper moral theology discussion on an act.
You are all in my prayers.
I think further discussion is completely pointless, I should’ve taken the hint from everyone else who stopped posting here a long time ago.
I have tried many times to generate a discussion, but it requires a common understanding of what we are discussing. Since the OPer has time and time again refused to provide a definition of the term, there is no way we could even remotely begin a discussion and work towards a conclusion on this topic.
For future reference, when starting a thread to discuss the morality / immorality of a given act, it’s pretty much required that you give a good definition of the act or at least a few examples so that there is a clear understanding of what we are talking about.
It’s a shame really, it could have been an interesting discussion.
I hope this post doesn’t come off as uncharitable, I’m simply trying to state why I am no longer going to contribute to this thread. So hopefully everyone involved can learn a little more about a proper moral theology discussion on an act.
You are all in my prayers.
D
Debora123
Guest
F
francisca
Guest
So up to now, only smichhertz answered my question. Despite I agree with his position on the hypothetical morality, he can’t get himself resolved about the morality of “rough sex” in general.
So let’s move on. I would like to continue to discuss male and female sexual behavior and it’s morality.
Many years ago I watched Oprah. The topic on that day was titled “He is Not That Into Me”. The topic discussed how women who had beed on dating, yet had doubt whether the men they were dating really serious about the whole matter. I don’t really remember the detail but I do remember one part of the discussion where all the women agreed that women should not be clingy and that it is not attractive to be clingy.
I looked in dictionary the word “clingy” :
thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=clingy
intr.v. clung (klng), cling·ing, clings
First of all, I remember this particular part of that Oprah show many years ago and bring it here today because this thread reminds me of it.
I am married, used to be single, had been in several dates before. I also have some female friends, shared some of their experiences. My parent’s house was and is a homestay for young girls. I know stories about some of these girls, from first hand source. I have paid attention to these young girls since I was a primary schooler until finished my degree. I can’t say I do not know about what I am going to say here.
So… I’m going to say it here.
If a man do not like his date to be clingy, it means he is only interested in her sex. No love whatsoever regardless of what he say or do. On the contrary, if a man loves a woman, he would love her cling.
Now, what’s the relation between this thread and this concept of “clingy”?
The relation is this :
That women are willing to take conditions offered by men thinking that those conditions will make him (and probably herself) happy.
On the contrary, many men are permissive and delusional about their own “morality and righteousnes” within the society, judging women by complaining about all kinds of things such as her immodest clothes, she being clingy, unitelligent, not a virgin, fat, trashy and so on. All of these are possible because of “approval” from the society (including women). This condition causes women in extremely difficult situation nowadays.
So ofcourse you will say that this is only my claim and I do not have evidence whatsoever. The truth is I have seen those things happens over and over again with my own eyes, while those trashy articles write anything they can claim about their knowledge of human sexuality based of brands of media, pushing women to a tiny corner where there is no firm foothold to stand on. Sadly humanity accept trashy media as their mirror of sexual behavior. Many men and women think that they should behave against human nature because of the media which basically suggesting women as entertaintment for men. Not the best way of thoughts, I suppose.
So let’s move on. I would like to continue to discuss male and female sexual behavior and it’s morality.
Many years ago I watched Oprah. The topic on that day was titled “He is Not That Into Me”. The topic discussed how women who had beed on dating, yet had doubt whether the men they were dating really serious about the whole matter. I don’t really remember the detail but I do remember one part of the discussion where all the women agreed that women should not be clingy and that it is not attractive to be clingy.
I looked in dictionary the word “clingy” :
thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=clingy
intr.v. clung (klng), cling·ing, clings
- To hold fast or adhere to something, as by grasping, sticking, embracing, or entwining: clung to the rope to keep from falling; fabrics that cling to the body.
- To remain close; resist separation: We clung together in the storm.
- To remain emotionally attached; hold on: clinging to outdated customs.
First of all, I remember this particular part of that Oprah show many years ago and bring it here today because this thread reminds me of it.
I am married, used to be single, had been in several dates before. I also have some female friends, shared some of their experiences. My parent’s house was and is a homestay for young girls. I know stories about some of these girls, from first hand source. I have paid attention to these young girls since I was a primary schooler until finished my degree. I can’t say I do not know about what I am going to say here.
So… I’m going to say it here.
If a man do not like his date to be clingy, it means he is only interested in her sex. No love whatsoever regardless of what he say or do. On the contrary, if a man loves a woman, he would love her cling.
Now, what’s the relation between this thread and this concept of “clingy”?
The relation is this :
That women are willing to take conditions offered by men thinking that those conditions will make him (and probably herself) happy.
On the contrary, many men are permissive and delusional about their own “morality and righteousnes” within the society, judging women by complaining about all kinds of things such as her immodest clothes, she being clingy, unitelligent, not a virgin, fat, trashy and so on. All of these are possible because of “approval” from the society (including women). This condition causes women in extremely difficult situation nowadays.
So ofcourse you will say that this is only my claim and I do not have evidence whatsoever. The truth is I have seen those things happens over and over again with my own eyes, while those trashy articles write anything they can claim about their knowledge of human sexuality based of brands of media, pushing women to a tiny corner where there is no firm foothold to stand on. Sadly humanity accept trashy media as their mirror of sexual behavior. Many men and women think that they should behave against human nature because of the media which basically suggesting women as entertaintment for men. Not the best way of thoughts, I suppose.
- Status