L
LongingSoul
Guest
Every woman has a *right *to say no to sex… married, single, adult, teen, child. Every woman has a right to say no.
- Status
F
fpt
Guest
The duty of marriage comes from the conjugal state. By the vows of marriage, each one becomes a spouse with some rights, some obligations, some duties, some roles, some functions, some privileges, some competencies, some liberties and some responsibilities. The " wife " is a human female married and the " husband " is a human male married who have to respect those sexual effects (some rights, some obligations, some duties, some roles, some functions, some privileges, some competencies, some liberties and some responsibilities).
Of course that the existence of the right to say no to the conjugal request is existing, but it is not the principle. In the marriage, the refusal of the practice of the marital act has to be motivated and justified. The catholic conditions have to be reunited. Of course, the marital rape is, always,* a natural crime, an immoral act, a mortal sin and a penal crime.*
**Every woman has a right to say no to sex… married (yes, in the respect of the moral order of the marriage), single (no marriage, thus no right and no obligation and no duty, thus it is an absolute right to say no), adult (only an adult can be married), teen (cannot be married), child (cannot be married). Every woman has a right to say no. **
Every husband has this right.
F
fpt
Guest
A child, a teen, a single person have an absolute right to say no. By their state of life, they are not held by the conjugal rules: it is a truism. For a married person, male or female, the conjugal rules have to be respected. The rules of refusal are not* totally the same *between the unmarried persons and the married persons. In one case, no donation / reception of bodies because no wedding, and in the other case, a catholic marriage with the catholic rules coming from the Catholic Magisterium.
My view is quite catholic. Today, the notion of marital debt is refused and hated, inside as outside the Roman Catholic Church. The right to the body, the right of the body, and the right on the body still exist: a catholic truism. This type of refusal is morally wrong and a great error. A doctrinal refusal of those notions has effects on the validity of marriage and / or on the morality of the union of bodies.
In the conjugal catholicism, there are *the principle *of the practice of the marital act and *the exception *of the non-practice of the marital act that imply the existence of a moral regime of unilateral refusal of the marital act, and the existence of a moral regime of bilateral refusal of the marital act;
Of course, that the conjugal request has to respect** all the catholic rules**. All is not morally okay.
F
fpt
Guest
In the context of the conjugal act, no spouse has the moral right to deny the physical sexual rights of the other on his or her body and to refuse of practicing his or her physical sexual obligations, without reason. The reason of this refusal has to be normal, fair, real, realistic, objective, personalistic, phenomenological, legitimate and moral. The refusal to let the other to practice his or her physical sexual rights, without a good reason, is morally wrong. The refusal to practice his or her physical sexual obligations toward the other, without a good reason, is morally wrong. There are the catholic rules of the principle and the catholic rules of the exception:* the principle has to stay the principle, and the exception has to stay the exception. The inversion, the substitution and the replacement are unacceptable, morally speaking.*
In reason of some christian heresies and of some ideologies, *the great one being the left radical feminism, *inside the Catholic Church or outside, the notion of " Right to the body " with all the effects and the implications is fought, is hated, is disliked, is refused, is denied, is critized and thus is not seen like a rule of the catholic marriage.
No one is forced to enter into the marriage. The sexed and sexual contract of the marriage* has to be willed, wanted, desired, agreed and consented.* If the donation and the reception of bodies* is not willed by the volition*, it is a great problematic.
F
fpt
Guest
Sorry, if my examples can be seen by some persons like provocative. By advance sorry.
**
Per se, in itself, by itself, for itself, from itself, of itself and by principle**, the state of pregnancy of the wife is not an enough reason, for the wife, to refuse the marital request for conjugal sex coming from the husband and for not asking the marital request for conjugal sex to her husband. The same reasoning has to be held for the menstruations of wife and for the time of breastfeeding.
Per se, in itself, by itself, for itself, from itself, of itself and by principle, the state of pregnancy of the wife is not a enough reason, for the husband, to refuse the marital request for conjugal sex coming from the wife and for not asking the marital request for the conjugal sex to his wife. The same reasoning has to be held for the menstruations of wife and for the time of breastfeeding.
What is your view? Am I totally wrong in my reasoning? You can criticize!!! Go, go, go!!! The free speech and the free debate are catholic. If I use the word " principle ", it means that the exceptions exist, of course. The exceptional reasons can exist, of course.
**
Per se, in itself, by itself, for itself, from itself, of itself and by principle**, the state of pregnancy of the wife is not an enough reason, for the wife, to refuse the marital request for conjugal sex coming from the husband and for not asking the marital request for conjugal sex to her husband. The same reasoning has to be held for the menstruations of wife and for the time of breastfeeding.
Per se, in itself, by itself, for itself, from itself, of itself and by principle, the state of pregnancy of the wife is not a enough reason, for the husband, to refuse the marital request for conjugal sex coming from the wife and for not asking the marital request for the conjugal sex to his wife. The same reasoning has to be held for the menstruations of wife and for the time of breastfeeding.
What is your view? Am I totally wrong in my reasoning? You can criticize!!! Go, go, go!!! The free speech and the free debate are catholic. If I use the word " principle ", it means that the exceptions exist, of course. The exceptional reasons can exist, of course.
F
fpt
Guest
If the day of marriage one of spouse excludes the marital act (an unilateral refusal by personal will) the declaration of nullity is easy to get. If the day of marriage, the two spouses exclude the marital act ( a bilateral will), I think, I am almost sure , that the declaration of nullity is easy to get.
If after day of marriage, two spouses are okay not to practice the marital act for time or forever, it is okay for the validity of marriage. But, if one of spouses wants the marital act, the other must practice it (the moral obligation): the refusal is wrong and can be very sinful. And it permits to get a declaration of nullity or, best a dissolution of marriage by a papal decision, in reason of the non consummation of marriage. The spouse, who is asking for conjugal sex, is not wrong, it is in a right.
In catholic marriage, a mortification of the flesh, that is decided unilaterally, *must not have bad effects on the conjugal sexual life of the other: *a personal mortification without exterior effects. Otherwise, the spouse has to stop this mortification of the flesh. Only, the bilateral mortification of the flesh is morally okay, but when one of spouses wants to stop this mortification, the other must stop too.
The unilateral mortification, with some bad exteriors effects on the other, for what is linked to the conjugal sex, is not moral: that is a bad devotion, it is morally wrong.
If after day of marriage, two spouses are okay not to practice the marital act for time or forever, it is okay for the validity of marriage. But, if one of spouses wants the marital act, the other must practice it (the moral obligation): the refusal is wrong and can be very sinful. And it permits to get a declaration of nullity or, best a dissolution of marriage by a papal decision, in reason of the non consummation of marriage. The spouse, who is asking for conjugal sex, is not wrong, it is in a right.
In catholic marriage, a mortification of the flesh, that is decided unilaterally, *must not have bad effects on the conjugal sexual life of the other: *a personal mortification without exterior effects. Otherwise, the spouse has to stop this mortification of the flesh. Only, the bilateral mortification of the flesh is morally okay, but when one of spouses wants to stop this mortification, the other must stop too.
The unilateral mortification, with some bad exteriors effects on the other, for what is linked to the conjugal sex, is not moral: that is a bad devotion, it is morally wrong.
F
fpt
Guest
A part of the list of rights
The moral right for her to talk about her own sexuality with her husband;
The moral right for him to talk about his own sexuality with his wife ;
The moral right for her to talk about his own sexuality with her husband;
The moral right for him to talk about her own sexuality with his wife ;
The moral right for her to talk about their own sexuality with her husband;
The moral right for him to talk about their own sexuality with his wife ;
The moral right for her to explain to her husband her sexual desires, her sexual pulsions, her sexual wills, her sexual vows, her sexual wishes, her sexual requirements, her sexual hopes, her sexual needs, her sexual frustrations, her sexual difficulties, her sexual fears, her sexual temptations, her sexual sins, her sexual concupiscence, her sexual preferences and her sexual fantasies ;
The moral right for him to explain to his wife his sexual desires, his sexual pulsions, his sexual wills, his sexual vows, his sexual wishes, his sexual requirements, his sexual hopes, his sexual needs, his sexual frustrations, his sexual difficulties, his sexual fears, his sexual temptations, his sexual sins, his sexual concupiscence, his sexual preferences and his sexual fantasies ;
If a moral right exists for each one, there is a moral obligation for each one. The moral right has its corrollary, a moral obligation: the moral right to talk has as corrollary the moral obligation to listen.
F
fpt
Guest
Other rights:
The moral right for her to force herself for pleasing her husband and for satisfying her husband;
The moral right for him to force himself for pleasing his wife and for satisfying his wife;
The moral right for her to desire and to want to create a conjugal erotism with her husband, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for him to desire and to want to create a conjugal erotism with his wife, in the love and in the tenderness
the moral right for her to desire and to want to have conjugal sex with her husband, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for him to desire and to want to have conjugal sex with his wife, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for her to request the marital act to her husband, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for him to request the marital act to his wife, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for her to expect to have the conjugal request coming from her husband for the conjugal sex, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for him to expect to have the conjugal request coming from his wife for the conjugal sex, in the love and in the tenderness ;
F
fpt
Guest
Corrections and a plus
the moral right for him to expect to reach the male orgasm, during a session of the marital act, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for him to expect to reach the normal sexual satisfaction, after a session of the marital act, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for him to expect to reach the sexual appeasement, after a session of the marital act, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for her to help her husband to reach his sexual appeasement via her sexual caresses and her caresses, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for him to help his wife to reach her sexual appeasement via his sexual caresses and his caresses, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for her to expect to reach female several orgasms, during a session of the marital act, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for her to expect to be a multi-orgasmic woman , during a session of the marital act, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for her to expect to reach the normal sexual satisfaction, after a session of the marital act, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for her to expect to reach the sexual appeasement, after a session of the marital act, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for her to stay present near her husband after the session of the conjugal act;
the moral right for him to stay present near his wife after the session of the conjugal act;
the moral right for him to expect to reach the male sexual pleasures, during a session of the marital act, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for him to expect to reach the male orgasm, during a session of the marital act, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for him to expect to reach the normal sexual satisfaction, after a session of the marital act, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for him to expect to reach the sexual appeasement, after a session of the marital act, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for her to help her husband to reach his sexual appeasement via her sexual caresses and her caresses, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for him to help his wife to reach her sexual appeasement via his sexual caresses and his caresses, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for her to expect to reach female several orgasms, during a session of the marital act, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for her to expect to be a multi-orgasmic woman , during a session of the marital act, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for her to expect to reach the normal sexual satisfaction, after a session of the marital act, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for her to expect to reach the sexual appeasement, after a session of the marital act, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for her to stay present near her husband after the session of the conjugal act;
the moral right for him to stay present near his wife after the session of the conjugal act;
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
At this point FTP, you have written a novel on an 800 plus post thread that no one can wade through. I think you are just typing to hear the keyboard, there is no real dialogue or information here. Perhaps in another situation, but as it is now, no one is paying attention, and if they were so inclined to do so, it would be next to impossible to wade through the information you have posted to even try to untangle it to see what your point is.
Sorry.
Sorry.
C
clem456
Guest
What constitutes a right can be a complex thing for sure. A person does not have a right to the provision of feelings by another person. An easy comparison with slavery is can be made here.
Anything I claim as a right implies an obligation on the part of others to observe it. For example, I have a right to pursue legitimate happiness. Others have an obligation to respect that right. But I do not have the right to coerce others to provide my happiness. I cannot steal, or cheat my way to the top, or have slaves, to serve my happiness. In short, I cannot make others an object to serve my pursuit.
However, in the pursuit of my happiness, or “beatitude”, I will find pleasure in the normal discourse between those I associate with. It can be freely sought, and can be freely experienced as the fruit of good relationships.
FPT is correct to observe that married couples have an obligation to one another to give themselves conjugally. Couples that truly love one another will desire to please spouses, and* will* please spouses in all the ways that FPT has exhaustively detailed. In that context of freely given love, unitive pleasure is one of the natural fruits.
Consider that even the most coercive and abusive husband can claim these “rights” of pleasure at the expense of his wife’s objectification.
His experience of pleasure should always be subordinate to his wife’s personhood.
I agree with FPT’s observation that couples should fully appreciate the bodies of their spouses, but it is a step to far to say that the provision of pleasure by another person is a right.
Anything I claim as a right implies an obligation on the part of others to observe it. For example, I have a right to pursue legitimate happiness. Others have an obligation to respect that right. But I do not have the right to coerce others to provide my happiness. I cannot steal, or cheat my way to the top, or have slaves, to serve my happiness. In short, I cannot make others an object to serve my pursuit.
However, in the pursuit of my happiness, or “beatitude”, I will find pleasure in the normal discourse between those I associate with. It can be freely sought, and can be freely experienced as the fruit of good relationships.
FPT is correct to observe that married couples have an obligation to one another to give themselves conjugally. Couples that truly love one another will desire to please spouses, and* will* please spouses in all the ways that FPT has exhaustively detailed. In that context of freely given love, unitive pleasure is one of the natural fruits.
Consider that even the most coercive and abusive husband can claim these “rights” of pleasure at the expense of his wife’s objectification.
His experience of pleasure should always be subordinate to his wife’s personhood.
I agree with FPT’s observation that couples should fully appreciate the bodies of their spouses, but it is a step to far to say that the provision of pleasure by another person is a right.
F
fpt
Guest
I want only say that each spouse has* a moral obligation of means of trying to satisfy and to please the spouse, sexually speaking, during the session of the marital act, in letting each one acting, in the human fashion, via the conjugal caresses, even sexual (a spouse cannot invoke the catholic morality, per se, in order to refuse to receive or to give sexual caresses, in love and in the tenderness). Only, some brutal caresses, objectively speaking, can be refused to give or to receive: here the order is not the morality of the caresses, per se*, but the question of the manner, it is totally different, and thus there is a regime of morality concerning the good reasons of refusing those " bad caresses ", in these circumstances, and not per se.
F
fpt
Guest
The catholic preparation of marriage, in the details with all the subtleties, with a particular focus on the moral regime of moral order of the conjugal act*** is essential, fundamental and important. ***The accent should be made on the Right to the body and all the implications, in materiality and in the immateriality: this sexed and sexual contract has to be explained totally, without taboo. The sexual debt, the sexual obligation and the donation and reception of bodies are essential elements of the catholic marriage. The existence of sexual physical rights to give, the existence of sexual physical rights to receive, the existence of sexual physical obligations to give, and the existence of sexual physical obligations to receive have to be understood, before the day of marriage. After, the moral regime of each right has to be taught, in the details with all the subtleties. The marriage is a sexed and sexual sacrament. The moral right of making love, the moral rules of making love and the moral laws of the marital act must be proclaimed.
F
fpt
Guest
If you read the specialized literatures in link with the philosophy, the theology, the morality and the ethics (academic articles, official books), you can note that there are some stories, since almost 2000 years, where, for instance,* one of catholic spouses invokes the christian morality, largo sensu, in order to refuse to show his or her nudity to the other. *Thus, per se and by principle, that spouse refuses to undress, himself or herself, in front of the other, in favor of this spouse, this spouse refuses to be undressed by the spouse, this spouse refuses to be seen and looked totally naked, by the other. *This unilateral doctrinal refusal of showing, of giving and of offering the nudity to the other by the sight is unacceptable, morally speaking, it is totally immoral. *This spouse acts against the rights of marriage. The other spouse has the moral right to require to see the nakedness of the other, who is refusing. A catholic priest has the moral obligation to say that there is a conjugal duty of giving the nudity to the other by sight and Co. May be, this example can be seen as rare and very crazy, I agree with you, but there are few stories, even today.
My list of rights:
the moral right for her to see / to look at / to stare, totally, the male nudity of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for him to see / to look at / to stare, totally, the female nudity of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for her to be seen / to be looked at / to be stared totally naked by her husband, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for him to be seen / to be looked at / to be stared totally naked by his wife, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for her to undress herself in front of him for him, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for her to denude herself in front of him for him, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for her to be undressed by him for him, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for her to be denuded by him for him, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for him to undress himself in front of her for her, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for him to denude himself in front of her for her, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for him to be undressed by her for her, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for him to be denuded by her for her, in the love and in the tenderness;
My list of rights:
the moral right for her to see / to look at / to stare, totally, the male nudity of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for him to see / to look at / to stare, totally, the female nudity of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for her to be seen / to be looked at / to be stared totally naked by her husband, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for him to be seen / to be looked at / to be stared totally naked by his wife, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for her to undress herself in front of him for him, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for her to denude herself in front of him for him, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for her to be undressed by him for him, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for her to be denuded by him for him, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for him to undress himself in front of her for her, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for him to denude himself in front of her for her, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for him to be undressed by her for her, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for him to be denuded by her for her, in the love and in the tenderness;
J
jacktilde
Guest
I would think that at the heart of it, those acts are considered sodomy because they can’t produce children. And hey! Even a straight couple doing anal can still end up making babies sometime after the anal in the same act.
F
fpt
Guest
In the collective imaginary, we hear that the wives can use the headache in order to justify the non practice of the marital act for this evening. Thus, in my opinion, the husband has the moral right to say, " darling, you can take the paracetamol pills or equivalent and in 25 minutes, we will have conjugal sex."!!! Here, the wife has to try to find out solutions, her duties and her obligations. The* normal headache* can be cured briefly, and if she refuses, systematically, to take those paracetamol pills, she can be suspected to be not sincere, objectively speaking. In consequence, the issue is really another. The same reasoning has to be held for the husband who refuses the conjugal act. As spouse, do not be naive, do not be stupid and don’t be silly.
The moral right to propose to take the paracetamol pills for solving the headache!!!
The moral obligation to take the paracetamol pills for solving the headache!!!
The moral right to propose to take the paracetamol pills for solving the headache!!!
The moral obligation to take the paracetamol pills for solving the headache!!!
C
clem456
Guest
I just ate breakfast and did not produce a child.
Clearly, not all acts that don’t result in a child are sodomy.
Sodomy is a real thing, not just a term to define what we wish, kinda like is done with the word “marriage”.
Does this make sense?
F
fpt
Guest
Again!!!
Her moral right to require to him to take normal medical treatments for solving his erectile dysfunctions;
His moral right to take normal medical treatments for solving his own erectile dysfunctions;
His moral obligation to take normal medical treatments for solving his own erectile dysfunctions;
His moral right to require to her to take normal medical treatments for solving her own female sexual troubles;
Her moral right to take normal medical treatments for solving her own female sexual troubles;
Her moral obligation to take normal medical treatments for solving her own female sexual troubles;
His moral right to take viagra pills for solving his male impotence, if no negative effect on him;
His moral obligation to take viagra pills for solving his male impotence,* if no negative effect on him;*
Her moral right to require to him to take viagra pills for solving his male impotence, if no negative effect on him;
Her moral right to require to him to take normal medical treatments for solving his erectile dysfunctions;
His moral right to take normal medical treatments for solving his own erectile dysfunctions;
His moral obligation to take normal medical treatments for solving his own erectile dysfunctions;
His moral right to require to her to take normal medical treatments for solving her own female sexual troubles;
Her moral right to take normal medical treatments for solving her own female sexual troubles;
Her moral obligation to take normal medical treatments for solving her own female sexual troubles;
His moral right to take viagra pills for solving his male impotence, if no negative effect on him;
His moral obligation to take viagra pills for solving his male impotence,* if no negative effect on him;*
Her moral right to require to him to take viagra pills for solving his male impotence, if no negative effect on him;
E
edlinked
Guest
Ftp, like I said, we greatly disagree. For me your views are about forcing sexual acts, because of the pleasure they give, more than on the union they can represent or bring.
For me is obviously that love is not the important thing on your views, at least not the true love the church teaches (Gods love, with sacrifices and justice).
For me now, your views are more degrading. You put the utilitarian property as a forced right on marriage and in the union of persons. Using, in your views, is something that you think, can’t be done in marriage. You think abuse cannot be done or don’t know when you are abusing. Which is totally wrong to think, you can abuse even if you are married. You are abusing when you put sexual values above the value of the person, it is as simple as that (which on your views you are clearly doing).
It is interesting that you imply something like, let’s be real about them (the points Karol Wojtyla makes for example), and that we are not nuns or priests. And that Karol Wojtyla can put them on “paper” but “we” have to put them on practice, like if he didn’t lived among us (or wrote them exactly because he knew how people can take things to their own thinking). (Keep in mind this is what I am getting from your replies, let me know if I am misunderstanding).
For me that’s why your statements are approached very badly, and in the wrong way. As you know, the way of man is not the same as the way of God. Man can abuse and has abuse on many things, that’s why God states a correct path. You don’t love the body, you love the person that contains the body.
Sure we are not nuns or priests (because in this case some chose marriage), but our thinking must be very similar. We are all called to sainthood, with no exception. I think putting the person over the sexual values is the first step. The objective profile of love is universal.
The point is that you need to really understand what is love, what is true love, first of all. And I think saints (like Karol Wojtyla) are the ones that understand what true love is first, because that’s what they decide to look for more strongly in their life (than others), look for God in his attributes. And as they control the concupiscence of the flesh (always), as they have a chastity vow (most of them), they understand that love doesn’t have any problem with that, in fact they learned that love has a clear path without it.
What we get from them, is that sexual intercourse is not love (that affections from it, does not tend to love, that pleasure from it, is not love), and that you don’t love because of it, therefore love cannot force sexual acts, love will not force sexual acts, because of its own principle.
You can have the most affective sexual life, but if it is not based on the objective profile of love it will hurt one or both spouses, it’s a matter of time (that’s a fact).
That’s why moral rights cannot force sexual acts. In your way, you are forcing someone through love, this for me is not right, and very dangerous.
For me, you in a way are saying something like, in marriage the person is the greatest good in as much as we give sexual pleasure.
My point is that love doesn’t need sex, understand that I am not saying sexual intercourse is bad, but love is not that. My point is that you can have love without sexual intercourse. Love doesn’t reside in sexual pleasures and should not reside in it.
Marriage is for procreation, because the point is not about sexual pleasure, is about the union of the persons (and I am not lowering the union of persons to union of the physical bodies). Only by procreation (toward this end from both spouses), you don’t use the person as an object of use, and through this act, as persons are bodies too, pleasure comes in the equation. And it is corrected in the equation inasmuch as true love is there. If marriage is just a sexual contract, true love will not be there.
If a spouse don’t want to do something it is not necessarily because they don’t love the other, but because they might not like it or “hurts” them, then you state that love should force (as a rule) you to do something that you might not like but the other does (and we are talking about pleasure here), how is that love? Why would the act that just gives pleasure overcome the one that hurts the person, and then you expect love, to be on the side of pleasure. Because even if its affectivity, if you force it, the outcome will not be positive anyway. In my book the “sacrifice”, if you love, truly love, would be done by the person that seeks pleasure. Because you love the person, because of the kind of good pleasure is. You are stating that love will let someone be hurt (by someone that supposedly loves you) because of the pleasure of the other. Don’t you think then, the marriage will go downhill from that, as pleasure is more important.
For me is obviously that love is not the important thing on your views, at least not the true love the church teaches (Gods love, with sacrifices and justice).
For me now, your views are more degrading. You put the utilitarian property as a forced right on marriage and in the union of persons. Using, in your views, is something that you think, can’t be done in marriage. You think abuse cannot be done or don’t know when you are abusing. Which is totally wrong to think, you can abuse even if you are married. You are abusing when you put sexual values above the value of the person, it is as simple as that (which on your views you are clearly doing).
It is interesting that you imply something like, let’s be real about them (the points Karol Wojtyla makes for example), and that we are not nuns or priests. And that Karol Wojtyla can put them on “paper” but “we” have to put them on practice, like if he didn’t lived among us (or wrote them exactly because he knew how people can take things to their own thinking). (Keep in mind this is what I am getting from your replies, let me know if I am misunderstanding).
For me that’s why your statements are approached very badly, and in the wrong way. As you know, the way of man is not the same as the way of God. Man can abuse and has abuse on many things, that’s why God states a correct path. You don’t love the body, you love the person that contains the body.
Sure we are not nuns or priests (because in this case some chose marriage), but our thinking must be very similar. We are all called to sainthood, with no exception. I think putting the person over the sexual values is the first step. The objective profile of love is universal.
The point is that you need to really understand what is love, what is true love, first of all. And I think saints (like Karol Wojtyla) are the ones that understand what true love is first, because that’s what they decide to look for more strongly in their life (than others), look for God in his attributes. And as they control the concupiscence of the flesh (always), as they have a chastity vow (most of them), they understand that love doesn’t have any problem with that, in fact they learned that love has a clear path without it.
What we get from them, is that sexual intercourse is not love (that affections from it, does not tend to love, that pleasure from it, is not love), and that you don’t love because of it, therefore love cannot force sexual acts, love will not force sexual acts, because of its own principle.
You can have the most affective sexual life, but if it is not based on the objective profile of love it will hurt one or both spouses, it’s a matter of time (that’s a fact).
That’s why moral rights cannot force sexual acts. In your way, you are forcing someone through love, this for me is not right, and very dangerous.
For me, you in a way are saying something like, in marriage the person is the greatest good in as much as we give sexual pleasure.
My point is that love doesn’t need sex, understand that I am not saying sexual intercourse is bad, but love is not that. My point is that you can have love without sexual intercourse. Love doesn’t reside in sexual pleasures and should not reside in it.
Marriage is for procreation, because the point is not about sexual pleasure, is about the union of the persons (and I am not lowering the union of persons to union of the physical bodies). Only by procreation (toward this end from both spouses), you don’t use the person as an object of use, and through this act, as persons are bodies too, pleasure comes in the equation. And it is corrected in the equation inasmuch as true love is there. If marriage is just a sexual contract, true love will not be there.
If a spouse don’t want to do something it is not necessarily because they don’t love the other, but because they might not like it or “hurts” them, then you state that love should force (as a rule) you to do something that you might not like but the other does (and we are talking about pleasure here), how is that love? Why would the act that just gives pleasure overcome the one that hurts the person, and then you expect love, to be on the side of pleasure. Because even if its affectivity, if you force it, the outcome will not be positive anyway. In my book the “sacrifice”, if you love, truly love, would be done by the person that seeks pleasure. Because you love the person, because of the kind of good pleasure is. You are stating that love will let someone be hurt (by someone that supposedly loves you) because of the pleasure of the other. Don’t you think then, the marriage will go downhill from that, as pleasure is more important.
E
edlinked
Guest
And keep in mind that people should have been virgins, they should come from that. (Even if that’s not the case, the point is to have self mastery).
Of course if you are married, procreation is the objective end of your sexual instinct, we know there is going to be intercourse. The body is part of the person. But it has to be ordered by love, because the “body” can undermine the person, and will undermine the person.
A point you make is that someone can go to adultery if the spouse doesn’t satisfy your “needs”. Remember that this “needs” comes from the sexual drive, the drive has an objective, it is not satisfying with pleasure, it is procreation.
We can see that the concupiscence of the flesh is so strong that you see many people cave under it sometimes. Adultery is not necessarily because someone else didn’t satisfy your “needs”, your needs also have to be tamed by yourself. No one can feel your needs, as they are yours, and these needs in this case are your pleasures, and they are subjective. This needs will come even from before you get married. Your needs need to be controlled as they can go crazy if you don’t (you can abuse on them). You are talking as if the drive cannot be tamed, well that’s not right, as you see chastity vows. The same goes as things like, you going to the bathroom, you cannot say that you will go to the bathroom anytime, you need to control that urge for later. In fact that is kind of a wrong example, because you need to go to the bathroom sometime, which it is not the case with the sexual drive. The sexual drive can be controlled indefinitely, as long as you want, of course, in the case you have self mastery, temperance and chastity.
Your thinking that satisfaction from someone else in the case of pleasing your pleasure is the answer (for example for adultery), is wrong, first you need to tame it too. We can see an easy example in king David. He sinned very badly (adultery included), his judgment was clouded because of the concupiscence of the flesh (that’s how strong it is), the desire of the body, and people died because of him, because of that temptation. Adultery is treated not by the satisfaction of someone else to your needs (that’s not the correct approach), it is self mastery and chastity that helps you there. King David had many different ways of satisfying his sexual drive (meaning other women, that was not enough). And see the similar occasion, a prophet tells him that he has done something wrong, that’s how saints (like Karol Wojtyla) in a relational way, stir you to the correct path, because we can lose it if we are not “paying attention”.
To see the person, self mastery and chastity, needs to be part of you, if not pleasure can be the one that leads, or it will be the one that leads. That is why polygamy is also seen as a way of using as an object of use.
The approach to control it, it is not by having your spouse satisfy you (everytime the drive acts), It is by self mastery and chastity. It is something of the person of the individual, that is why it is called self mastery. Then you can think on your spouse the way you should, and order the sexual intercourse and not let egoism enter your marriage (in harmony).
That’s exactly why you shouldn’t have sex before marriage, to get self mastery. That’s why masturbation is wrong, and chastity is the way. It is because the virtue of love should be present before marriage, and know that the sexual instinct (and the concupiscence of the flesh) because it gives pleasure, if it is not corrected, it’s going to be derailed, and the one that will be hurt will be a person. And not just a person, it will be your spouse. That’s why some understand this as, purely not doing something that the spouse don’t like. Love is about wanting the best for your spouse (and not necessarily just what you think is best, as that can be subjective). The best for your spouse will end up being God, because, that’s the “best good”.
You state your moral rights or the moral rights you think are the ones that everybody like or should accept on sexual stuff, isn’t that subjectivism, with a libidinistic way of looking at things. Even the Church will not put rules, because we cannot force sexual acts by love, but they can give rules on achieving true love, because the affirmation of the value of the person is not something subjective.
You say that spouses have moral rights to satisfy and please the spouse sexually speaking. This is basically why the sexual drive has an objective end, it is not sexual pleasing, it is procreation, that’s why marriages has to be based on love, it is not for the pleasures of the body, it’s for the union of the persons (very different things). The union of persons is not merely the union of bodies. Loving is not the same as having sexual intercourse, or getting pleasure from it.
Ill tell you a way you can undermine a spouse, not affirming the value of the person, putting sexual values over the person.
Of course if you are married, procreation is the objective end of your sexual instinct, we know there is going to be intercourse. The body is part of the person. But it has to be ordered by love, because the “body” can undermine the person, and will undermine the person.
A point you make is that someone can go to adultery if the spouse doesn’t satisfy your “needs”. Remember that this “needs” comes from the sexual drive, the drive has an objective, it is not satisfying with pleasure, it is procreation.
We can see that the concupiscence of the flesh is so strong that you see many people cave under it sometimes. Adultery is not necessarily because someone else didn’t satisfy your “needs”, your needs also have to be tamed by yourself. No one can feel your needs, as they are yours, and these needs in this case are your pleasures, and they are subjective. This needs will come even from before you get married. Your needs need to be controlled as they can go crazy if you don’t (you can abuse on them). You are talking as if the drive cannot be tamed, well that’s not right, as you see chastity vows. The same goes as things like, you going to the bathroom, you cannot say that you will go to the bathroom anytime, you need to control that urge for later. In fact that is kind of a wrong example, because you need to go to the bathroom sometime, which it is not the case with the sexual drive. The sexual drive can be controlled indefinitely, as long as you want, of course, in the case you have self mastery, temperance and chastity.
Your thinking that satisfaction from someone else in the case of pleasing your pleasure is the answer (for example for adultery), is wrong, first you need to tame it too. We can see an easy example in king David. He sinned very badly (adultery included), his judgment was clouded because of the concupiscence of the flesh (that’s how strong it is), the desire of the body, and people died because of him, because of that temptation. Adultery is treated not by the satisfaction of someone else to your needs (that’s not the correct approach), it is self mastery and chastity that helps you there. King David had many different ways of satisfying his sexual drive (meaning other women, that was not enough). And see the similar occasion, a prophet tells him that he has done something wrong, that’s how saints (like Karol Wojtyla) in a relational way, stir you to the correct path, because we can lose it if we are not “paying attention”.
To see the person, self mastery and chastity, needs to be part of you, if not pleasure can be the one that leads, or it will be the one that leads. That is why polygamy is also seen as a way of using as an object of use.
The approach to control it, it is not by having your spouse satisfy you (everytime the drive acts), It is by self mastery and chastity. It is something of the person of the individual, that is why it is called self mastery. Then you can think on your spouse the way you should, and order the sexual intercourse and not let egoism enter your marriage (in harmony).
That’s exactly why you shouldn’t have sex before marriage, to get self mastery. That’s why masturbation is wrong, and chastity is the way. It is because the virtue of love should be present before marriage, and know that the sexual instinct (and the concupiscence of the flesh) because it gives pleasure, if it is not corrected, it’s going to be derailed, and the one that will be hurt will be a person. And not just a person, it will be your spouse. That’s why some understand this as, purely not doing something that the spouse don’t like. Love is about wanting the best for your spouse (and not necessarily just what you think is best, as that can be subjective). The best for your spouse will end up being God, because, that’s the “best good”.
You state your moral rights or the moral rights you think are the ones that everybody like or should accept on sexual stuff, isn’t that subjectivism, with a libidinistic way of looking at things. Even the Church will not put rules, because we cannot force sexual acts by love, but they can give rules on achieving true love, because the affirmation of the value of the person is not something subjective.
You say that spouses have moral rights to satisfy and please the spouse sexually speaking. This is basically why the sexual drive has an objective end, it is not sexual pleasing, it is procreation, that’s why marriages has to be based on love, it is not for the pleasures of the body, it’s for the union of the persons (very different things). The union of persons is not merely the union of bodies. Loving is not the same as having sexual intercourse, or getting pleasure from it.
Ill tell you a way you can undermine a spouse, not affirming the value of the person, putting sexual values over the person.
- Status