Recreational Sex

[Rayvin]

Oh…is it because China doesn’t promote contraception, abortion, one child…that it is so large? Or because it doesn’t allow families to make their own decisions as to where they live, what they can own, where they work, how they act?

China initially promoted population growth (they increased by 300 million in a couple of decades in the middle of the last century) as high population was seen as a means for global status/domination.

They have been trying to curtail it ever since. In fairness to China, their population density isn’t all that high anyway; unlike Japan for instance - but they do have more people than they can comfortably support, and without the one child policy they would have real problems. Remember that 30 million people starved to death in China in the 1950s in just three years. I can’t even conceive of such high numbers of dead, and the stories some people tell are harrowing.

I’m also not sure what you mean in your last sentence; it is true that migrant workers are shipped around the country to meet demand for work, but what effect would this have on their population? If anything this would further curtail it as men can be away from their partners for 9 months out of the year. Please explain your thinking here?

Either way, the overarching point I’m trying to make is that surely you would concede, eventually there will not be enough to go around. What then? Do we still advocate sex only if it provides the chance for reproduction?

 

[Edward_H]

China initially promoted population growth (they increased by 300 million in a couple of decades in the middle of the last century) as high population was seen as a means for global status/domination.

They have been trying to curtail it ever since. In fairness to China, their population density isn’t all that high anyway; unlike Japan for instance - but they do have more people than they can comfortably support, and without the one child policy they would have real problems. Remember that 30 million people starved to death in China in the 1950s in just three years. I can’t even conceive of such high numbers of dead, and the stories some people tell are harrowing.

I’m also not sure what you mean in your last sentence; it is true that migrant workers are shipped around the country to meet demand for work, but what effect would this have on their population? If anything this would further curtail it as men can be away from their partners for 9 months out of the year. Please explain your thinking here?

So using China as your example was not a ‘fair’ idea. Breaking families up forcefully, including extended families…is an unnatural thing for Chinese people. You don’t think these acts create distortions to the balance of families?

 

[Rayvin]

So using China as your example was not a ‘fair’ idea.

Why is that?

I’ll make this simple - what happens when there isn’t enough food to go around, what of this concept that sex can only happen if it can produce life then?

 

[wxornot]

Not quite so. If we are pursing sex for our own pleasure…compared to making our spouse feel as loved as no other on the face of the earth…to please God, then we need to think about the purity of intention of our marital acts.

We should enter intimacy with no selfish motive, but merely as a total self gift to the other as a gift or offering to God. Sex can resemble the Trinity…a communion or a total exchange of love.

The poster is right…read the Theology of Body WELL. No need to resort to low drive by smears of more informed people using some nasty Mel Gibson detraction.

I agree. It should be for mutual pleasure out of love. And being open to life. I guess I wasn’t specific in my post. You are correct. Selfishness is completely sinful especially in this regard.

 

[Edward_H]

Why is that?

I’ll make this simple - what happens when there isn’t enough food to go around, what of this concept that sex can only happen if it can produce life then?

You said it wasn’t fair above, because you immediately moderated your point about the problem they have given density.

 

[Edward_H]

I agree. It should be for mutual pleasure out of love. And being open to life. I guess I wasn’t specific in my post. You are correct. Selfishness is completely sinful especially in this regard.

Well it really shouldn’t even be for MUTUAL pleasure. If our intention is what it should be there should be no expectation or drive whatsoever for our own pleasure. This is perhaps pushing a point too hard…but we need to be on guard in our marriage for any sign off “needs to be mutual…reciprocal…my turn”.

 

[Rayvin]

You said it wasn’t fair above, because you immediately moderated your point about the problem they have given density.

Ok - if it helps move this along lets forget all about China and India, and all the other information I’ve provided. Density has nothing to do with a nation’s capacity to feed it’s people, but I guess that’s my fault for throwing that in there.

Just that one question again then, regardless of whether or not you think this is happening - what happens when there isn’t enough food to go around, what of this concept that sex can only happen if it can produce life then?

 

[wxornot]

Well it really shouldn’t even be for MUTUAL pleasure. If our intention is what it should be there should be no expectation or drive whatsoever for our own pleasure. This is perhaps pushing a point too hard…but we need to be on guard in our marriage for any sign off “needs to be mutual…reciprocal…my turn”.

Again…I don’t disagree. We may be slicing the baloney a bit thin. But you are correct. It’s not about being reciprocal. Remember that I did say out of love for each other.

 

[tafan]

My friend, China has 1/6 of the World’s population and 8% of the world’s water. Do you not see a problem there? I lived there for a year. People die. 1.5 million suffer from AIDS. This is a country with a one child policy. Can you imagine the devastation if they followed a doctrine of ‘all sex must offer the chance for life’?

And regardless of whether they have sufficient resource now, it is surely an unarguable fact that following your way of thinking will eventually result in a lack of food to go around. What then?

A quick Google search raised this article:

businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-21/why-cant-india-feed-its-people#p1

India can’t feed it’s people because we’re buying their grain to feed our own. And because they have so many people. Note how he mentions his community is more starved now than they were in the 70s. Just because the news over here isn’t reporting it, doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.

There are 900 million Catholics living in India and China? And if Inda cannot feed its people because we are buying their grain, does that not illustrate my point?

 

[Rayvin]

There are 900 million Catholics living in India and China?

Nope, but we believe everyone should be Catholic right?

 

[tafan]

Nope, but we believe everyone should be Catholic right?

Not really pertinent to the conversation. You referred to 900 million Catholics in third world countries, and the immediately change the conversation to two predominantly non-catholic countries. Try to stay on track.

 

[Edward_H]

Ok - if it helps move this along lets forget all about China and India, and all the other information I’ve provided. Density has nothing to do with a nation’s capacity to feed it’s people, but I guess that’s my fault for throwing that in there.

Just that one question again then, regardless of whether or not you think this is happening - what happens when there isn’t enough food to go around, what of this concept that sex can only happen if it can produce life then?

“Not enough food”…is it caused by too many mouths to feed, or a lack of generous spirit in others? Most people in the US are arguably obese. Many rulers in the countries that do have starving people are corrupt, and are complicit in intercepting or disrupting the flow of generous aid to their countries. These rulers too suffer from a MORAL problem, namely a lack of generous spirit.

The problem is in us…not in the size of families.

 

[Rayvin]

Not really pertinent to the conversation. You referred to 900 million Catholics in third world countries, and the immediately change the conversation to two predominantly non-catholic countries. Try to stay on track.

Er no. What I’ve seen since beginning here is you and Edward consistently trying to duck the apparently rather awkward point I’m making - which is that preaching the Catholic message about sex; a message that we believe is for everyone, would cause utter devastation if followed everywhere.

And to be honest, maybe I could have chosen better examples.

Here’s one: telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/8148944/The-Pope-drops-Catholic-ban-on-condoms-in-historic-shift.html

So the Church itself changed it’s policy in Africa, even outside of marriage. Because people were dying and it was causing much suffering. There’s your precedent.

 

[Edward_H]

Again…I don’t disagree. We may be slicing the baloney a bit thin. But you are correct. It’s not about being reciprocal. Remember that I did say out of love for each other.

Good points.

 

[Rayvin]

“Not enough food”…is it caused by too many mouths to feed, or a lack of generous spirit in others? Most people in the US are arguably obese. Many rulers in the countries that do have starving people are corrupt, and are complicit in intercepting or disrupting the flow of generous aid to their countries. These rulers too suffer from a MORAL problem, namely a lack of generous spirit.

The problem is in us…not in the size of families.

Fair point. And for the final question? - surely you must consider that eventually this point will be reached, where there is not enough.

 

[Edward_H]

Er no. What I’ve seen since beginning here is you and Edward consistently trying to duck the apparently rather awkward point I’m making - which is that preaching the Catholic message about sex; a message that we believe is for everyone, would cause utter devastation if followed everywhere.

And to be honest, maybe I could have chosen better examples.

Here’s one: telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/8148944/The-Pope-drops-Catholic-ban-on-condoms-in-historic-shift.html

So the Church itself changed it’s policy in Africa, even outside of marriage. Because people were dying and it was causing much suffering. There’s your precedent.

No. You must take the whole of the “Catholic message”, namely love. Love in sex as described above, love in having a selfless, generous spirit, detaching from the need to over stuff our fat faces and instead send the money to well run charities around the world…this is the same “Catholic message”. Full love. Not superficial or a minimized and divided love mixed with bad social engineering.

The love (selfless gift) I have for my wife when we are intimate…open to life…is the same love I should have for starving children who are under the thumb of some thug dictator.

To think that conception will solve anything is to see with only limited human eyes.

 

[Rayvin]

No. You must take the whole of the “Catholic message”, namely love. Love in sex as described above, love in having a selfless, generous spirit, detaching from the need to over stuff our fat faces and instead send the money to well run charities around the world…this is the same “Catholic message”. Full love. Not superficial or a minimized and divided love mixed with bad social engineering.

The love (selfless gift) I have for my wife when we are intimate…open to life…is the same love I should have for starving children who are under the thumb of some thug dictator.

To think that conception will solve anything is to see with only limited human eyes.

Thank you for that - this is a satisfying answer. I don’t know how practical it is, but I understand what you’re saying.

 

[Edward_H]

Fair point. And for the final question? - surely you must consider that eventually this point will be reached, where there is not enough.

No I don’t. Malthus was wrong. Read up on the late Dr Simon from the University of Maryland and his wager to some neoMalthusian about diminishing resources. It may have been with Erlich?

Resources come from our imagination…and God gave us our imagination.

 

[Edward_H]

I am enormously optimistic that if we love heroically, all our “problems” will diminish greatly, in our neighborhoods first. The devil tempts us to ocean boiling worrying.

 

[tafan]

Er no. What I’ve seen since beginning here is you and Edward consistently trying to duck the apparently rather awkward point I’m making - which is that preaching the Catholic message about sex; a message that we believe is for everyone, would cause utter devastation if followed everywhere.

And to be honest, maybe I could have chosen better examples.

Here’s one: telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/8148944/The-Pope-drops-Catholic-ban-on-condoms-in-historic-shift.html

So the Church itself changed it’s policy in Africa, even outside of marriage. Because people were dying and it was causing much suffering. There’s your precedent.

There is no evidence to suggest that over population is a causing any type of resource shortage globally. Here is but one example of the world’s excess capacity. In 2012 ( a drought year) the US produced 500billiin pounds of corn. We took close to 40% of this and turned it into ethanol ( an extremely idiotic government program, but another topc). Hypothetically, that corn could have been used to produce an additional 40 billion pounds of poultry meat. We had 1 billion hungry people in the world on 2012. That would be 40 pounds of meat per hungry person. That would go a long ways to alleviating the problem. Not a proposed solution, just an illustration of how much excess capacity exists in just our country ( a realatively small percentage of world land mass).