I guess we agree to greatly disagree. Here is some info:
"
Sex, however, which is above all manifested in the body, and which as a property of the body falls under the senses, creates a possibility of concupiscence. The concupiscence of the flesh is most closely linked to sensuality. Sensuality reacts to the sexual values connected precisely with the body, and this reaction possesses a directional character (inherent orderly toward something).
From this first stage of the reaction of sensuality is very easy to transition to the next one, which is desire. In the first stage, we find out that this value “reaches” the subject, whereas the case of desire, the subject clearly turns toward the value. Something in the subject starts to gravitate toward and cling to it, and moreover, some vehement, spontaneous process starts in the subject (in man) and proceeds in the direction of ultimately willing this value. Sensual desire is not yet willing, but clearly tries to become it.
This is a source of great tensions in the interior life of the person: these tensions are linked to the virtue of temperance.
The reactions of sensuality possess a directional character not merely from the side of the object, where the concupiscence of the flesh is not limited to the sensitive concupiscible power but imparts itself to the will and attempts to impose on the will its own proper relation to the object.
The direction of the reaction first of all points to the “body and sex”, and secondly to “use”. It is sensual desire that tends toward this together with “bodily love”, which seeks satisfaction in the “body and sex” through use. Once this “love” is satisfied, the entire relation to the object ceases; interest in it disappears until the moment when desire re-awakens. Sensuality finds it “outlet” in desire. The concupiscence of the flesh goes in the direction of finding “an outlet”, and after having found it, the entire relation to the object of desire breaks off. In the animal world, where sexual life is regulated by the reproductive instinct correctly aligned with the need to preserve the species, such a closing of the concupiscible reaction is completely sufficient. In the world of persons, however, a serious danger of a moral nature emerges at this point.
“Bodily love”, which grows from the very concupiscence of the flesh, does not contain in itself the value that love of the person should possess. For the concupiscence of the flesh replaces the object of love, which is the person, with another, namely the “body and sex” linked to some person. As is known, the reaction of sensuality is not related to the person as person, but only to the “body and sex” of a concrete person, precisely “as a possible object of use”. Thus, as a matter of fact, in the field of vision of desire proceeding from the concupiscence of the flesh, the person of the other sex is present not as a person but as the “body and sex”. The place of the personal value that is essential to love is taken by the sexual value itself, which in turn becomes the center for crystallizing the whole lived-experience. Because the lived-experience is accompanied by the sensual affection of love, desire acquires the character of an amorous lived-experience — one that is strong and intense, because it is firmly based on the sexual reactions of the body and on the senses. When speaking of the “sensual affection of love” we do not mean the reaction of affectivity alone, which itself does not react to the “body and the sex”, but to the “human being of the other sex” – “femininity” or “masculinity”, as the analysis in chapter II revealed. “Affection” in this case signifies a sensual state evoked first of all by the desire of the “body and sex” as that which corresponds to sensuality alone, and then by the satisfaction of this desire through “bodily love”.
This concupiscence leads to “love” that is not love, for it evokes amorous lived-experiences on the basis of sensual desire alone and its satisfaction. These lived-experiences have the person of the other sex for their object, and at the same time, they do not measure up the person, for they stop merely on the level of the “body and sex” as their proper and only content. From here the disintegration of love proceeds. With great force, the concupiscence of the flesh pushes toward bodily intimacy, toward sexual intercourse. However, this intimacy and intercourse grown out of the concupiscence of the flesh alone do not unite a man and a woman as persons, do not have the value of a personal union, and are not love in its proper (i.e. ethical) meaning. On the contrary, this sexual intimacy and intercourse that grow out of the concupiscence of the flesh alone are a denial of the love of persons, for at their basis lies the directional character to “use”—the reaction characteristic of pure sensuality. This reaction must be incorporated in a correct and honorable relation to the person, and this we call integration. When left to its own devices, the concupiscence of the flesh is not a source of the person’s love, even though it evokes amorous (erotic) lived-experiences charged with a large dose of sensual affections.
"
So?
Divorcing sex from marriage is one of the main problems of our world today. Now you can marry someone with no arms, who cannot drive, make the bed or do dishes, who cannot pick up a child or change a diaper, but the idea behind marriage is that they must be able to perform a procreative act. I cannot think of anything else that is so sex central. And it is that way because God wanted it that way. I do not know who you interact with in real life but sex seems to me MORE of a topic in real life than on the boards. Sure, not NFP because contraception makes that discussion obsolete. But people, and Catholics in general, need to be able to discuss this because it is what makes us different and sets us apart from the world. Sex is a huge part of human life, and the moral implementation of it is in fact a co- creating unification with God Himself. So I think it would be better if IRL people discussed Holy Sex and the morality thereof more. Next time you are at the store, look at the tabloids and see just how much we need to discuss sex in a Catholic perspective.