Sex!

[Lisa_N]

Steve, again you are responding to my comments directed at Tlaloc who continued to conveniently ignore the STD issue, by claiming he ‘knew’ all his partners and their history. I was simply pointing out that was an absolutely ridiculous assumption. He continued to blow off the risk and I continued to pound on him. Obsessive? Maybe. I just wish he would acknowledge when he is living in dreamland. Further, unlike pregnancy, there are very few effective protections against STDs and also unlike pregnancy, some of these STDs are fatal. I think people tend to discount with a wink, wink, nod, nod, go get a penicillin shot chortle chortle. It’s not that easy.

As to the HPV rate, I should have stated this was with respect to single, sexually active males. There are obviously millions of sexually active males in this country but presumably many of them are monogamous. HPV is a particular problem because it’s relatively silent. I was lucky. They caught my cervical cancer early. I had day surgery and it was removed, not to return so far and it’s been about 20 years. Lucky me that I got yearly pap tests. A friend of mine was not so lucky. SHE was a virgin before marriage and monogamous after. She thought there was no reason for her to continue to get paps after marriage. She is now dying of cervical cancer that has spread to her uterus and ovaries. She never knew she had it and never knew she was at risk. So if I’m obsessed, maybe it’s thinking that this 40 year old woman is going to leave behind a young son and many broken hearted friends. It was all so unnecessary.

Lisa N

 

[Mac6yver]

Lisa N:

Since you know the Catholic position on sexuality and you sure as heck aren’t going to convince any of US you are right and thousands of years of teachings and traditions are wrong, what is the point of your posting on this forum? Just curious, I am not saying you have no right to be here as long as you are civil.

Lisa N

This is not the first time I have had this questioned asked. I simply enjoy learning from other cultures. Whether they be religious, ethnic, or geographical. I do learn positions that I was not aware of on these forums, but I am pretty sure that the majority of people are aware of what the Church teaches regarding sex. This thread was posted for the intent of debating/discussing pre-marital sex. The original poster did not stipulate that we must debate it with only Catholic doctrine in mind.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

Lisa N:

BAHAHA!

BAHAHA Gracie?

… Now you are using the behavior of an ape to explain why sex is just a ‘social tool?’ Hopefully you do believe that humans are slightly different than other animals, even those with quite highly evolved brains.

Did I say it was JUST a social tool!?!? NO

And did I mention ONLY the apes? NO

I don’t have to believe anything, I KNOW humans are different than other animals with highly evolved brains.

My point was that reproductive behavior is not only, by definition, key to the survival of the species, but also it is an old, deep seated, behavior. It is therefore not inappropriate to use studies of closely related species to look at the similarities, AND the differences in their behaviors.

numerous studies of HUMANS and Bonobo and Chimps have doccumented the non-reproductive uses of sex.
Lisa N:

As to ‘estrus’ realize this refers to a fertile period and humans do have fertile and non-fertile periods.

Yes, I know what estrus is. I’m the one who brought it up.

My point was that humans don’t have one. Women are, physically at least, always receptive; this in an adaptive feature to promote long-term bonding. (That God is smart when he evolves a species) Sex is therefore not just for reproduction but also has a social function. Similar behavior has been seen in related species.

Since you went on to say something very similar I’m not sure if you were agreeing/disagreeing or just being obtuse
Lisa N:

……The older I get the more I realize that Moses was right all along His’ visions’ have certainly stood the test of time havent they?
Lisa N

Other than the Exodus stories I’m not too well versed in the visions of Moses, sad to say.

But indeed the human condition hasn’t changed since his day.
That is why some of the OT is timeless.

 

[Lisa_N]

Steve Andersen:

My point was that reproductive behavior is not only, by definition, key to the survival of the species, but also it is an old, deep seated, behavior. It is therefore not inappropriate to use studies of closely related species to look at the similarities, AND the differences in their behaviors.

numerous studies of HUMANS and Bonobo and Chimps have doccumented the non-reproductive uses of sex…

True but that is NOT the issue being discussed on this thread. Even the Catholic church believes that there are other reasons than reproduction, but that is what IS being discussed, whether premarital (or extramarital) sex is regrettable behavior. I am not sure how activities within ape clans relates to the issue on this thread. It would be interesting to know what is going on in Mrs Bonobo’s head but I am not sure it’s particularly germane to this discussion. I guess it seemed like instead of coming up with some kind of logical basis for your conclusions you are throwing a red herring (or red handed monkey?) into the discussion.
Steve Andersen:

Yes, I know what estrus is. I’m the one who brought it up.

My point was that humans don’t have one. Women are, physically at least, always receptive; this in an adaptive feature to promote long-term bonding. (That God is smart when he evolves a species) Sex is therefore not just for reproduction but also has a social function. Similar behavior has been seen in related species.

Since you went on to say something very similar I’m not sure if you were agreeing/disagreeing or just being obtuse .

Just wondering once again how this relates to the discussion of premarital sex. If as we believe God created humans to have long term sexual bonds to help insure the survival of our species, the idea that humans would be benefitted by multiple sex partners seems counterintuitive.

We can certainly see this in action now with the number of single women raising children and the number of men who are interested in raising another man’s kid very very limited. IOW there IS a method to the madness. Monogamy, pair bonding, and limiting sexual partners seems like the way to go.
Steve Andersen:

Other than the Exodus stories I’m not too well versed in the visions of Moses, sad to say.

But indeed the human condition hasn’t changed since his day.
That is why some of the OT is timeless.

I frankly love Jewish philosophy because it frequently demonstrates not only divine law but common sense. Even those odd dietary laws made sense and still have their place. I think the Hewbrew Bible is priceless as well as timeless.

Lisa N

 

[Steve_Andersen]

Lisa N:

Steve, again you are responding to my comments directed at Tlaloc

Sorry, you started your post with “Steve A”
So in my megalomania I assumed it was mine, mine, all mine!
Lisa N:

…As to the HPV rate, I should have stated this was with respect to single, sexually active males.

The official numbers are confusing
At least for this layman
They seem to indicate those high percentages in the general population but they are not consistent

Sorry to hear about your friend

unfortunatrly cancer is all about probabilities and (with few exceptions) not about direct causes.
I’m sure we’ve all known both the smoker who lives to 90 as well as peple such as your otherwise healthy friend who dies young

HPV or not, virgin or not no one should avoid regular check-ups regardless of their lifestyle.

IIRRC there are certain forms of cancer (I forget if it is cervical, ovarian, or breast) that have higher incidences among nuns and other celibate women

Life is strange

But it certainly beats the alternative (rimshot)

 

[Steve_Andersen]

Lisa N:

True but that is NOT the issue being discussed on this thread. …

Yeah I know

But Alterum had posted something about sex being “made” for a particular something and I, as the consummate pain-in-the-neck know-it-all, felt obliged to chime in with an “au contraire”

Sorry, I’m a consultant….I just can’t help myself. I’ll toss my 2 cents anywhere.

 

[Lisa_N]

Steve Andersen:

Sorry, you started your post with “Steve A”
So in my megalomania I assumed it was mine, mine, all mine!

That particularl post, yes, but you seemed to believe my comments about STDs were directed to you when they were directed to Tlaloc with his complete knowledge of alll sex partners LOL.
Steve Andersen:

The official numbers are confusing
At least for this layman
They seem to indicate those high percentages in the general population but they are not consistent.

True but by all accounts since STDs were taken from the auspices of the Public Health department, they have exploded in numbers and unfortunately severity as the diseases become resistent to treatments. Again the point is that there IS a risk inherent with multiple sexual partners. Please grant me that one little indulgence. The facts are quite hard to dispute.
Steve Andersen:

Sorry to hear about your friend

unfortunatrly cancer is all about probabilities and (with few exceptions) not about direct causes.

Not really. Most lung cancer is caused by smoking. Mesothelioma is caused by exposure to asbestos. Virtually 100% of cervical cancer is related to HPV. There are a number of cancers that have pretty direct causes. Some don’t, true enough but I wasn’t talking about pancreatic cancers or one of those horrid ‘bad luck of the draw’ diagnoses.
Steve Andersen:

I’m sure we’ve all known both the smoker who lives to 90 as well as peple such as your otherwise healthy friend who dies young

HPV or not, virgin or not no one should avoid regular check-ups regardless of their lifestyle.

Actually the current thinking is that if you have X# of clear paps, you don’t need to get them regularly IF you are not exposed to HPV. The problem with that directive is that one is not aware of exposure. This is a very silent killer.
Steve Andersen:

IIIRRC there are certain forms of cancer (I forget if it is cervical, ovarian, or breast) that have higher incidences among nuns and other celibate women

Religious almost NEVER have cervical cancer. Again because of the HPV factor. If you never have sexual contact, you are certainly unlikely to contract HPV. Religious DO have a higher incidence of breast cancer, again because they do not generally have babies that they breastfeed.

I work in the medical field. Most physicians believe that the majority of our diseases are ‘lifestyle’ in cause. Sure you gotta die of SOMETHING but if a person does not smoke, overeat, drink too much, or sleep around, you can cut your chances of many of our more serious diseases including cancer and heart disease the two biggie killers in this country.

Lisa N

 

[Riley259]

Mac6yver:

In my mind there are two kinds of copulating. There is sex, and then there is making love. I personally have no problem with sex outside of marriage, I did it, and I do not regret it. That is not to say that my path is for everyone, we each have our choices to make. I try not to denigrate those who choose to remain a virgin until marriage, I think it should go both ways.

It was not hard to figure out that you are not a practicing Catholic. Your statement is very revealing and points out the difference between selfless sexuality (in the context of a marriage covenant) and selfish sexuality for purposes of pleasure and recreation. I’ll pray that God will bestow the grace for you to discern the difference.

 

[Pro-Life_Teen]

Bump…

 

[Steve_Andersen]

Riley259:

It was not hard to figure out that you are not a practicing Catholic. Your statement is very revealing and points out the difference between selfless sexuality (in the context of a marriage covenant) and selfish sexuality for purposes of pleasure and recreation. I’ll pray that God will bestow the grace for you to discern the difference.

Sex for pleasure and recreation isn’t banned…if it were the Church wouldn’t allow folks who are “past it” to get married

I’m sure there are married people who act selfishly in their sex lives and unmarried folks who are selfless

To make categorical decisions about people whose situation or motives you know nothing about is awfully highhanded

 

[Tlaloc]

Pro-Life_Teen:

Bump…

no pun intended I assume…

 

[Pro-Life_Teen]

Tlaloc:

no pun intended I assume…

Did you have to comment like that?

Anyway, I replied to something you put before, if you’re interested in retorting.

 

[Tlaloc]

Pro-Life_Teen:

Did you have to comment like that?

I’m trying to keep it PG.

Anyway, I replied to something you put before, if you’re interested in retorting.

okay I’ll go look.

 

[Tlaloc]

Pro-Life_Teen:

No. Comma.
It is because I have faith in the church, yes, but I find it common sense as well.

Well given how unusual the sentiment is these days qualifying it as “common” would seem hard. Furthermore as above the way you play russian roulette with a lifetime decision makes it hard to see the “sense.”

Yes, you do have more experience. You’ve had sex. I havn’t. I’m saving it while you’re giving it away.

Sex is an experience not a commodity.

My husband, my partner, my bond, my other self. Any of those are going to fit. He is, and does now, hold a place in my heart. Because I have something for him which he shall recieve on our wedding night, not a day before. And that something no one else shall have.

And what if come your wedding night you find that the two of you are totally sexually incompatible?

Ok, so I added an s. Make it friend then. A secret to tell one friend, your best friend. In the whole world, whom you shall be with forever, until you die.

I have several best friends personally.

Let me reword what I said. Not someone you don’t know, but only know a bit.

Why would you assume that?

Someone you havn’t spent time thinking about as a life-partner.

Indeed, and I’m clear on that with my partners ahead of time if/when it is the case. Given that not everyone wants a life partner it works out rather well. Of course I did find a life partner and that’s great. I certainly enjoy our intimacy together. However that has nothing to do with intimacy shared with others.

I wouldn’t tell a secret to any of my friends, no. But I might tell my very best friend. The one I’ve known for a while and plan on knowing for years and years to come.

Like I said I have several best friends.

 

[Pro-Life_Teen]

Well given how unusual the sentiment is these days qualifying it as “common” would seem hard. Furthermore as above the way you play russian roulette with a lifetime decision makes it hard to see the “sense.”

I am the one playing roulette? What about you. Havn’t you heard about STD’s? You’re playing with the gun filled with bullets, I’m not.

Sex is an experience not a commodity.

A sacred experience.

And what if come your wedding night you find that the two of you are totally sexually incompatible?

I’m going to let God decide is we’re ‘compatible.’ I’d rather not risk my soul to check.

I have several best friends personally.

Several wives too?

Indeed, and I’m clear on that with my partners ahead of time if/when it is the case. Given that not everyone wants a life partner it works out rather well. Of course I did find a life partner and that’s great. I certainly enjoy our intimacy together. However that has nothing to do with intimacy shared with others.

… I can’t see how you can do this! Pledge to one person and then give the same to others!

Do you contracept too? Just to make sure your wife is the only one that shall have your children? What if one of your lovers ends up pregnant, shall you tell them to have an abortion?

I’m not trying to be mean, I really want to know the truth.

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

to argue your side after my post?? #70 should you care to look…

hahaha on the pun, but I agree let’s keep this PG and civil please.

 

[tuopaolo]

Is it just me or are there a couple strange links in post #115?

 

[wcknight]

Steve Andersen:

Sex for pleasure and recreation isn’t banned…if it were the Church wouldn’t allow folks who are “past it” to get married

I’m sure there are married people who act selfishly in their sex lives and unmarried folks who are selfless

To make categorical decisions about people whose situation or motives you know nothing about is awfully highhanded

Premarital sex is ‘banned’, the Church considers it a mortal sin.

The BIG difference is for married folks sex is not a sinful act but a holy act as part of the married life but for unmarried folks it is a sin. And the Church allows folks who are ‘past it’ because they must atone for it in confession, before the Church will marry them.

wc

 

[Pro-Life_Teen]

tuopaolo:

Is it just me or are there a couple strange links in post #115?

My computer does that, sorry! It makes specific words into links. I’m trying to turn it off, but I’m not sure how. ><

 

[tuopaolo]

Pro-Life_Teen:

My computer does that, sorry! It makes specific words into links. I’m trying to turn it off, but I’m not sure how. ><

That’s alright. At first I thought there was something wrong with my computer!

I would download this free program:
lavasoftusa.com/
(there are some versions you have to pay for but there’s one that’s completely free)

It gets rid of things called “spyware” and “adware” and that may be what’s wrong with your computer.

There’s also a program called Spybot Search and Destroy which is also completely free:
safer-networking.org/en/index.html

And if you don’t have anti-virus protection, you want to get that also. Here’s one anti-virus program that’s free:
www.grisoft.com/us/us_dwnl_free.php