Sex drive question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jade_Tiger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MASS FOR YOUNG PEOPLE
AND CELEBRATION OF MARRIAGES

HOMILY OF POPE JOHN PAUL II

Nairobi (Kenya)
Saturday, 17 August 1985

Just as the Christian life requires continual conversion, so married life requires the couple to make constant and generous efforts to deepen their conjugal communion. By God’s design there exists a natural complementarity and attraction between man and woman. But these still have to be developed and fostered by loving attention to each other’s needs, and above all by recourse to the graces received in the Sacrament. The Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth and Love, is poured out upon the married couple in a special way in the Sacrament, and he will help them in their desire to overcome personal shortcomings and selfishness and to achieve ever greater communion in Christ.

**It is also important to recall here that “such a communion is radically contradicted by polygamy: this, in fact, directly negates the plan of God which was revealed from the beginning, because it is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive” (Ioannis Pauli PP. II Familiaris Consortio, 19). In the Old Testament, polygamy was sometimes tolerated. But in the New Covenant Our Saviour restored marriage to its original state as a communion of one man and one woman. **

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/homilies/1985/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_19850817_giovani-nairobi_en.html
 
ValPal said:
Some were portrayed positively:

2 Samuel 12:8
I gave you your master’s household and your master’s wives into your arms, I gave you the House of Israel and the House of Judah; and, if this is still too little, I shall give you other things as well.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but I fail to see how this statement says that polygamy is not immoral. 🤷
IMHO, it would have to be morally neutral. For example, try to interpret one of the most well known stories in the OT if it weren’t morally neutral: The story of Onan. Onan took his brother’s wife. If this were not at least a morally permissible act, then there wouldn’t be an issue with “contracepting,” but rather fornication.
Click to expand...
I’m confused, why are you presenting this as a case of polygamy? His brother was already dead.
Click to expand...
 
thewanderer said:
I’m sorry, but I fail to see how this statement says that polygamy is not immoral. 🤷

I’m confused, why are you presenting this as a case of polygamy? His brother was already dead.
Click to expand...
What on earth do you mean? Polygamy means having multiple wives, not having a wife who is also your brother’s wife. If I remember correctly Onan was married but it was still his duty to have sex with his brother’s wife because this was in the law.
 
ATeutonicKnight said:
What on earth do you mean? Polygamy means having multiple wives, not having a wife who is also your brother’s wife. If I remember correctly Onan was married but it was still his duty to have sex with his brother’s wife because this was in the law.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

This situation couldn’t be used in the context of contraception if more than one wife were not allowed. If it were immoral, then fornication (adultery, porneia, etc. depending on the interpretation) is the primary issue. Sex isn’t considered “unitive and procreative” in that case, thus the contraception argument goes right out the window…clearly not the position the Church has taken on the matter.
 
In the Old Testament, polygamy was sometimes tolerated. But in the New Covenant Our Saviour restored marriage to its original state as a communion of one man and one woman.
Click to expand...
This is exactly right. And tolerated means that it was not forbidden, just like divorce. Christ even explicitly said it: “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so." The covenant God made with His people Israel was not invalid because it contained some things that were not the fullness of the truth. It was the fullness of the truth as had been revealed up until that time. It was Christ’s mission to provide more illumination of the truth and to replace the Old Covenant with the New. Along with that came the ban on polygamy and divorce. Prior to Christ coming down to Earth, both were tolerable.
 
The_Bucket said:
This is exactly right. And tolerated means that it was not forbidden, just like divorce. Christ even explicitly said it: “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so." The covenant God made with His people Israel was not invalid because it contained some things that were not the fullness of the truth. It was the fullness of the truth as had been revealed up until that time. It was Christ’s mission to provide more illumination of the truth and to replace the Old Covenant with the New. Along with that came the ban on polygamy and divorce. Prior to Christ coming down to Earth, both were tolerable.
Click to expand...
The difference I see between divorce and polygamy in the OT is that I don’t recall approval of divorce, yet polygamy appears to be approved in the OT. Christ obviously made clear in the NT what marriage is, and specifically addressed divorce, but did not specifically address polygamy. Polygamy just seems to have gone away.
 
ValPal said:
Why is God giving him multiple wives if more than one is immoral?
Click to expand...
Maybe I missed it, but I went back and reread the entire passage, nowhere does it mention Onan being married. He is born, his brother marries and dies, he is given his brothers wife, and then dies. The only part that could possibly have been taken as polygamy was the fact that the woman had been married, which is why I brought it up.
 
ValPal said:
The difference I see between divorce and polygamy in the OT is that I don’t recall approval of divorce, yet polygamy appears to be approved in the OT. Christ obviously made clear in the NT what marriage is, and specifically addressed divorce, but did not specifically address polygamy. Polygamy just seems to have gone away.
Click to expand...
Polygamy is nowhere explicitly approved in the OT and it is contrary to Church teaching to think that polygamy could ever be acceptable so it is clearly wrong to interpret the Bible in this way.
 
ValPal said:
Why is God giving him multiple wives if more than one is immoral?
Click to expand...
What are the wives supposed to do? If they are not given to someone they will be left to starve. Does this say specifically that God is giving his masters wives to him as wives for himself? No, He doesn’t. That his master has multiple wives is just a fact. What God is saying is that he will deliver all those people and things into his hands.
I’m sorry, but this is not a Divine approval of polygamy.
 
thewanderer said:
Maybe I missed it, but I went back and reread the entire passage, nowhere does it mention Onan being married. He is born, his brother marries and dies, he is given his brothers wife, and then dies. The only part that could possibly have been taken as polygamy was the fact that the woman had been married, which is why I brought it up.
Click to expand...
BTW, Onan wasn’t given a choice in marrying Tamar, which is also not approved by the Church today.
 
thewanderer said:
What are the wives supposed to do?
Click to expand...
Well, the Church’s position is remaining in a state of mortal sin isn’t an option, so what do they do?

Clearly that passage shows approval.
I’m sorry, but this is not a Divine approval of polygamy.
Click to expand...
There is Divine approval of many things in the Bible that Church would never allow today; e.g., the slaughter of the Caananites (including children). Blanket statements such as your making don’t work well for specific instances.
 
ValPal said:
BTW, Onan wasn’t given a choice in marrying Tamar, which is also not approved by the Church today.
Click to expand...
Whether or not there is another explanation for that is another question. (The Church isn’t entirely against arranged marriages, but there must still be full consent to be married. Onan apparantly had no problem with having sex, it was just the children that were an issue, do you really have proof that he was forced into marriage?)

Seriously though, nowhere does God command or explicitly approve polygamy, and the reason is because He doesn’t see it as a good thing. It is contrary to the human dignity of the people involved. If that is true today it was true way back when. The dignity of humans does not change depending on the culture one lives in.
 
thewanderer said:
If that is true today it was true way back when. The dignity of humans does not change depending on the culture one lives in.
Click to expand...
It is readily apparent that the Church takes the opinion of an ultimate Truth. However, it is also clear that some less than the Truth is tolerated, and in some cases appears to have approval, as readily apparent by the stories in the OT. Divorce was clearly tolerated and allowed in the OT, but later revoked (note: marriage is also different after Christ; a sacrament vs. a covenant). Polygamy was clearly tolerated in the OT; it is clearly not in the NT. Slaughter of innocents was clearly allowed, and at least in one instance direct by God, yet clearly not tolerated in the NT.

RE: Polygamy. There are many reasons why it may have been tolerated, a notable one being an imbalance of the sexes. War would obviously reduce the number of men vs. woman. Polygamy would solve that problem, in addition to helping increase the population of a race as rapidly as possible during such an imbalance. Pure speculation on my part on this matter, of course.
 
ValPal said:
It is readily apparent that the Church takes the opinion of an ultimate Truth. However, it is also clear that some less than the Truth is tolerated, and in some cases appears to have approval, as readily apparent by the stories in the OT. Divorce was clearly tolerated and allowed in the OT, but later revoked (note: marriage is also different after Christ; a sacrament vs. a covenant). Polygamy was clearly tolerated in the OT; it is clearly not in the NT. Slaughter of innocents was clearly allowed, and at least in one instance direct by God, yet clearly not tolerated in the NT.

RE: Polygamy. There are many reasons why it may have been tolerated, a notable one being an imbalance of the sexes. War would obviously reduce the number of men vs. woman. Polygamy would solve that problem, in addition to helping increase the population of a race as rapidly as possible during such an imbalance. Pure speculation on my part on this matter, of course.
Click to expand...
Tolerated is very different than given approval. I’m sorry, I don’t care whether or not is was tolerated it was never moral. The only way you could possibly claim that is by claiming that the Church’s understanding of sexuality is blatantly false. Or, you could always try to claim that human dignity isn’t intrinsic to each and every person. Have fun with that.
 
ValPal said:
Some were portrayed positively:

2 Samuel 12:8

IMHO, it would have to be morally neutral. For example, try to interpret one of the most well known stories in the OT if it weren’t morally neutral: The story of Onan. Onan took his brother’s wife. If this were not at least a morally permissible act, then there wouldn’t be an issue with “contracepting,” but rather fornication.
Click to expand...
It was also morally acceptable for slavery aswell in those time’s, one might ask why was this and why did thing’s change if God ordered it this way. It’s quite simple he didn’t, polygamy, slavery and other thing’s we accept as immoral today are the result’s of original sin, a distortion of the Truth. In these time’s these thing’s were essential part’s of society for several reason’s and God tolerated them. Why because our way’s are not his way’s and because man was so far away from God at this time he needed to be brought back and if you look at Israel’s progression to Christianity it was constantly a bit by bit moral progression toward’s the Truth. The change over a long period of time to us look’s significant if we compare it today but these changes could not have simply been accepted by man overnight as he would of fell short mostly because he wouldn’t have understood them therefore it was done bit by bit.

Even look at the beginning of Christianity till today, look how much Christianity has influenced and changed the the world over time, it all happened bit by bit due to our knowledge of moral truth increasing over time due to Christ and his Church. It was the same for Israel, it was quite a barbaric world and would take a great amount of time to transform any nation from these ways. Asking them to live up to the perfection of Sainthood which we as Christian’s are called to would have been quite impossible. So i hope you now understand why these thing’s were tolerated aswell as the likes of slavery as this understanding of Judueo-Christian history makes the most sense
 
Paddy1989 said:
It was also morally acceptable for slavery aswell in those time’s, one might ask why was this and why did thing’s change if God ordered it this way. It’s quite simple he didn’t, polygamy, slavery and other thing’s we accept as immoral today are the result’s of original sin, a distortion of the Truth. In these time’s these thing’s were essential part’s of society for several reason’s and God tolerated them. Why because our way’s are not his way’s and because man was so far away from God at this time he needed to be brought back and if you look at Israel’s progression to Christianity it was constantly a bit by bit moral progression toward’s the Truth. The change over a long period of time to us look’s significant if we compare it today but these changes could not have simply been accepted by man overnight as he would of fell short mostly because he wouldn’t have understood them therefore it was done bit by bit.

Even look at the beginning of Christianity till today, look how much Christianity has influenced and changed the the world over time, it all happened bit by bit due to our knowledge of moral truth increasing over time due to Christ and his Church. It was the same for Israel, it was quite a barbaric world and would take a great amount of time to transform any nation from these ways. Asking them to live up to the perfection of Sainthood which we as Christian’s are called to would have been quite impossible. So i hope you now understand why these thing’s were tolerated aswell as the likes of slavery as this understanding of Judueo-Christian history makes the most sense
Click to expand...
Thank you for your post. It’s a well thought out and reasonable explanation; something that is often lacking in these discussions.
 
Hello I am new here and am a man and must agree with the ancients in regards to understanding that women used to be the lustier sex. Also, The Apostle paul definitely understands the needs associated with a healthy sex drive and he certainly wrote inspired contributions to scripture on this topic.
I believe firmly that women are supposed to have a very naturally high sex drive which also accounts for why families used to be larger than they typically are now. Women used to love sex and plenty of it and enjoyed the blessedness of motherhood which is the rightful fruit reaped from a satisfying sex life.
I understand your difficulties in finding it stressful when you feel as though you are constantly reminded of how much you “crave” sex.
The best answer may be given to you from God-if it is ndeed His will and/or your desire to have a wonderful man be your husband.
 
Bucket, I agree with your assessment that there are certain drives that are both inherent to us for the continuation of the species and yet require the moral direction of God so that we can use them wisely for the good of the species. Whether the desires that are inherent to us are actually moral or not is possibly contingent upon the situations in which we have the opportunity to express them. I see this thread has run onto the subject of polygyny and the Biblical approval/condemnation of it. I think everyone has agreed that polygyny is immoral according to Christ’s teaching, but the question in relation to the subject of the thread isn’t whether or not polygamy is moral or not, but whether it is natural to men and unnatural to women.

Is there a biological basis for this idea? Or any evidence which is not dependent upon the man-made societies that controlled feminine impulse? One of the problems with the concept that women are hypergamous in lieu of being polygamous (instead of in addition to being polygamous) is that it makes an assumption of enduring male power and leaves little room for variation. That is, it operates as though the strongest male that the female will select at one given time will remain the strongest/richest/most powerful throughout the remainder of her life. This clearly is not the case though, as strong men are eventually overpowered by those who are stronger, rich men can easily lose their riches or have their possessions stolen by others, and political power can be toppled via an uprising of rivals or the governed population. With such inconsistency of power, as well as such a limited selection of wealthy/powerful males, female hypergamy cannot be satisfied on a regular enough basis for it to be her sole focus in begetting a child; her desire for multiple men must therefore be consistent, else she risks not passing off her genes at all. So hypergamy is possibly an evolutionary benefit, but it cannot possibly be the sole root of her drive.

Practically speaking, any hypergamous tendency on the part of the female would be best secured not by limiting herself to one powerful male, but to instead avail herself to a larger pool of successful males so that she is provided for by others in the event that one of them falls. What would keep her from expressing both a hypergamous AND polygamous tendency is a societal constraint that curbs this and forces her to be faithful to one. (We can only assume that the polygamous men in the Bible never actually gave their wives permission to be with other men, for fear they might indeed act upon it;))

Sukidan, welcome to the forums.🙂 While I appreciate your contribution, I must say that I don’t necessarily agree that women are the lustier ones, per se. Some certainly are, and some certainly are not. But the thread was not really started as a sort of competition between the sexes, which is what it has turned into. I’m not really sure an accurate determination can be made either way, as men and women will express their drives differently and there are too many external variables to consider. My own contribution is not to prove that the female drive is the highest, but simply to dispute the assumption that it is low in relation to that of the male, which is often stated as though it is fact. Hmmmm…is it possible they’re both about the same?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top