sexual sensitivity

[Jonatello]

You are conflating the natural law conception of nature (= human nature) with the materialist conception of it (= “the natural world”).

Just because something occurs in the natural world doesn’t mean it’s consistent with human nature. If that were the case, literally anything a person could do would be A-OK because, after all, it occurs in nature. That’s nonsense and we all know it.

You should really do your homework about what the Church teaches before commenting negatively about those teachings.

how can we define human nature if not by what humans naturally do?

humans naturally masturbate. they have to be taught not to. this is not human nature?

 

[Nate13]

I doubt Paul ever had the chance or interest/calling to observe dolphins or bonobos (primates), much less far away humans with different sets of taboos. I do not doubt he (like most people of all eras and cultures) had a passionate idea of what was natural and unnatural. I highly doubt it was the most accurate analysis of nature we’ve seen.

So your saying Paul was wrong in his words here? Homosexual acts are not “unnatural”? That may be a new first as far as excuses go. Paul was not “qualified” to determine whether something was natural or unnatural…

 

[Jonatello]

So your saying Paul was wrong in his words here? Homosexual acts are not “unnatural”? That may be a new first as far as excuses go. Paul was not “qualified” to determine whether something was natural or unnatural…

Did I say anything about homosexual acts?

Paul was certainly NOT qualified to be the world’s #1 authority on nature. Absolutely not. Its almost idol worship to assert otherwise, because it goes against all reason to think someone from his time who lived his kind of life could ever become, much less remain the leading expert on the sciences 2000 years later, unless he was all-knowing (godlike).

With regard to homosexual acts, those too are found in nature, I don’t know to what degree they are natural or not, but I do know that we have observed in modern times the phenomena of physically-observable hermaphrodites, and coupled with our knowledge of the role hormones and other non-observable factors play into sexual attraction nd gender, it is perfectly reasonable to assume there are non-observable hermaphrodites, or males with female-type attractions.

There’s also examples of homosexual activity in nature, both among humans who didn’t know better and animals who don’t know better.

This is not to say I condone it. Especially when it comes to male-on-male homosexuality I believe this is an area where God would have very good reason to warn us against, as it’s easily the best way to spread disease.

 

[Bookcat]

I doubt Paul ever had the chance or interest/calling to observe dolphins or bonobos (primates), much less far away humans with different sets of taboos. I do not doubt he (like most people of all eras and cultures) had a passionate idea of what was natural and unnatural. I highly doubt it was the most accurate analysis of nature we’ve seen.

how can we define human nature if not by what humans naturally do?

humans naturally masturbate. they have to be taught not to. this is not human nature?

Some animals eat their young too…

Paul is speaking of the Truth. Of what is contrary to God. Of what is proper to Man. Not about what is common among animals.

Masturbation, homosexuality, murder, adultery etc are all un-natural for man. For God did not create them for such. They are contrary to how man is created to be.

Yes man fell and such has become quite common due to his fall and to corrupt society etc but such is not how it is to be.

Thanks be to God we now in the New Man --Jesus Christ we become a new creation in him and have true life …and live according to truth and love.

 

[mark_a]

I think it’s easy to assume that any theologians that disagreed weren’t allowed to stand the test of time because they were overruled by those who disagreed.

I agree. That’s what a Holy Spirit led Church is all about.

But my post that you replied to wasn’t about consistency or unanimity, nor was it about being “very knowledgeable” in a general sense. II acknowledged that they were very very smart, but I hope you’re not saying they were “all knowing”.

Certainly not. The Church never even implies so either.

Jimmy Akin makes this abundantly clear in his book The Fathers Know Best.

To this day, we continue to learn more about the subject of sexuality and its nature by observing nature. How could anyone who lived centuries ago be expected to fully understand and codify the “nature of sexuality” when we’re still making discoveries on the subject?

When will we ever know everything there is to know about human sexuality?

Meanwhile, those of us in the here and now still need to make babies.

 

[minnesotaboy]

How long were you married? Maybe you just needed a little more time.

I’m in my 40’s and was married for more than 12 years. I don’t think it’s a matter of a little more time. Thank you very much.

 

[minnesotaboy]

Ok also you people have gotten completely off topic here. May as well go start your own discussion instead of taking over a thread I started with something that’s a real concern for me. Bravo.

 

[Jonatello]

Ok also you people have gotten completely off topic here. May as well go start your own discussion instead of taking over a thread I started with something that’s a real concern for me. Bravo.

well, we’re debating whether masturbation is bad, or if medication is a legitimate alternative

both of these cut directly to answering your concern

 

[Nate13]

Ok also you people have gotten completely off topic here. May as well go start your own discussion instead of taking over a thread I started with something that’s a real concern for me. Bravo.

I’m sorry, I did lose track of the topic there. Are you getting answers that are helpful despite the verge from the original topic?

 

[ahs]

Ok also you people have gotten completely off topic here. May as well go start your own discussion instead of taking over a thread I started with something that’s a real concern for me. Bravo.

Hi, minnesotaboy. Just to be fair, you had initially asked about masturbation being a licit treatment for PE. There have been several direct answers that give you what the Church teaches (not our opinions) and have shed light on other treatments that would not require you to sin.

In marriage such a difficulty can be treated I would think in various moral ways.

(note that one cannot for example even obtain a sperm sample via masturbation…it needs to be obtained via a moral means in marriage).

Yes, still sinful, and grave matter.

From Casti Connubii: “54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good.”

This is definitely something you should visit with a Priest about, though. My personal thoughts: this condition could only be addressed and treated within Marriage and within the marital act…the “treatment exercises” being performed in a way that do not disrupt the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital act. But, as I said, you really need to visit with a Priest about this.

There are other treatments and techniques that do not require masturbation. Have you researched this sufficiently?

There is are causes and you want to find the cause and learn the treatments and techniques.

If there’s a psychological cause, masturbation will not prevent if from happening, nor it will prevent P.E. from becoming another sexual dysfunction. Not trying to scare you, but if you just research this you will find that this is not recommended as a treatment. If it does not prove to be a remedy, you may find yourself erroneously resorting to it more. So, why not skip this and seek qualified medical help?

There may be a physical cause; that certainly warrants a physician. Aside from the religious prohibition, I do not believe that technique is medically recommended and maybe myth rather than science.

You might want to research the causes and seek some counseling too along those lines. Start with a urologist. Your course may include therapy. If you understand the cause, you can work on a controlling it without resorting to masturbation.

Have you looked into medication? There are several widely prescribed drugs with libido-suppressing side effects which are sometimes prescribed off-label for the treatment of PE. As has been said, masturbation is never morally licit for any reason.

 

[minnesotaboy]

My main question was not on the sinfulness of masturbation in general. That topic has been debated at length on this forum for years. I guess my question is weather it can be a legitimate therapeutic means to cure or control PE. There are a LOT of programs out there and most I’ve seen include it as part of their therapy. Could the principal of double effect possibly be used here? Understand, I’m not trying to find an excuse to use masturbation for my personal pleasure. I really am trying to live a chaste life style or I wouldn’t bother with this thread on such a personal and embarrassing topic. I’m not interested in medication. We already rely too much on pills for a cure for almost everything. What I don’t understand is we can use a natural, non-medicinal therapy for almost everything but sexual disfunction’s. It’s easy to stand on the outside especially if you have no experience what so ever with this problem and just give me teaching that I’m already very familiar with. I would like to marry again someday but have a hard time bringing a pre-known problem into that marriage. It would be nice to be rid of it so I can feel I’m bringing my whole self to that relationship. Please don’t bother replying unless you can truly understand how this would feel.

 

[ahs]

My main question was not on the sinfulness of masturbation in general. That topic has been debated at length on this forum for years. I guess my question is weather it can be a legitimate therapeutic means to cure or control PE. There are a LOT of programs out there and most I’ve seen include it as part of their therapy. Could the principal of double effect possibly be used here? Understand, I’m not trying to find an excuse to use masturbation for my personal pleasure. I really am trying to live a chaste life style or I wouldn’t bother with this thread on such a personal and embarrassing topic. I’m not interested in medication. We already rely too much on pills for a cure for almost everything. What I don’t understand is we can use a natural, non-medicinal therapy for almost everything but sexual disfunction’s. It’s easy to stand on the outside especially if you have no experience what so ever with this problem and just give me teaching that I’m already very familiar with. I would like to marry again someday but have a hard time bringing a pre-known problem into that marriage. It would be nice to be rid of it so I can feel I’m bringing my whole self to that relationship. Please don’t bother replying unless you can truly understand how this would feel.

The answer is no, masturbation cannot be used…not outside of the actual marital act where you would be climaxing within your spouse (in which case it would not be masturbation, but the marital act being used as treatment). It would be marital sex, not masturbation, that would be the only licit physical treatment exercises.

“Double effect” is not actaully present in the case of masturbation because marital sex can be had in the place of the illicit masturbation. Further, as I noted and quoted earlier, no reason, however grave/serious, can be put forth that can make an illicit action into a licit one. Masturbation is a gravely disordered action, reagrdless of the reason.

And if you are not married, there is no purpose for treating PE because you have no need to have intercourse. If you plan on getting married, your future spouse can be informed of the PE and be prepared to help you deal with it via proper marital sex and also via the licit treatments which do not involve masturbation as part of a “treatment”.

For a licit treatment program, research the treatment methods that do not involve masturbation as Leegal and sw85 have mentioned.

 

[brotherjoe]

I would not be so absolute on the matter. There are cases where the spirit of the law supercedes the letter of the law. Jesus made that clear with his treatment of the Sabbath. Do you have a spiritual director or a pastor you can confide in?

 

[Bookcat]

While it is understandable that one would desire to seek to overcome what can be overcome prior to marriage some things of various kinds…are not be able to be addressed until later.

It is very good that you committed to being chaste and faithful to Christ. Let us live in God!
Keep your hand on the plow and do not look back.

Everybody bring some personal difficulty to a marriage. Pme is not a reason not to get married nor an impediment to such. A person when marrying another – marries the person. They take them in sickness and health…in good times and in bad…

Know that with the Sacrament of Marriage also comes grace…

 

[PaulinVA]

Do not worry (easy for me to say…)

When the time comes(another marriage) you can practice the techniques with your spouse in a way that completes correctly and still is beneficial for treatment.

Until you are married again, it is a moot point and not something to worry about.

 

[sw85]

how can we define human nature if not by what humans naturally do?

humans naturally masturbate. they have to be taught not to. this is not human nature?

Again, think about it critically. Do you REALLY think people have been talking for two and a half thousand years about “human nature” and devising rational moral systems on this basis and it never occurred to them that people want to do immoral things?

The nature of a thing is simply that which is essential to it. Therefore the goodness of a thing is relative to the thing itself. If I want to know if a chair is good, I sit in it; if I want to know if a candy bar is good, I take a bite of it. I don’t lick the chair or sit on the candy bar because that’s not what they’re for – such is inconsistent with their natures.

Likewise, man is a being with various faculties and these faculties point toward various ends. His reproductive system points to the end of reproduction – hence it ought to be used only in a manner consistent with that end – i.e., intravaginal ejaculation, in the context of marriage.

 

[Nate13]

@minnesotaboy
Do you believe its rooted in a physical issue or a mental issue?

 

[Jonatello]

Again, think about it critically. Do you REALLY think people have been talking for two and a half thousand years about “human nature” and devising rational moral systems on this basis and it never occurred to them that people want to do immoral things?

ah but here’s the difference between most areas of morality (don’t murder, don’t steal, etc) and something like masturbation.

nature isn’t an excuse for murder because we can point to the harm it does another person.

but when violating nature is given as the REASON masturbtion is wrong, then citing its place in nature is of absolute relevance.

The nature of a thing is simply that which is essential to it.

questionable definition of “nature”, and its use in this discussion contains questionable presumptions about “essential”

Therefore the goodness of a thing is relative to the thing itself. If I want to know if a chair is good, I sit in it; if I want to know if a candy bar is good, I take a bite of it. I don’t lick the chair or sit on the candy bar because that’s not what they’re for – such is inconsistent with their natures.

this assumes A: that there is only one single utilitarian purpose for every creation, and B: that the utilitarian purpose is the ultimate purpose.

Likewise, man is a being with various faculties and these faculties point toward various ends. His reproductive system points to the end of reproduction – hence it ought to be used only in a manner consistent with that end – i.e., intravaginal ejaculation, in the context of marriage.

it points to ONE end of reproduction, which is not the ONLY end…and the “hence” isn’t some kind of automatic conclusion either. A tree serves a purpose of fruit. Does this mean that children who use the tree as a play fortress are degrading it if they don’t eat some fruit afterward? This is beside the point, as I believe there are other ends of sexuality that are every bit as central to its purpose as procreation, but even if we were to concede procreation as the sole position #1 primary purpose, the “hence” part doesn’t make much sense.

 

[sw85]

ah but here’s the difference between most areas of morality (don’t murder, don’t steal, etc) and something like masturbation.

nature isn’t an excuse for murder because we can point to the harm it does another person.

but when violating nature is given as the REASON masturbtion is wrong, then citing its place in nature is of absolute relevance.

First of all, my point is that you are not using the word “nature” correctly. In point of fact, you are equivocating between two different uses of the word “nature” – the one relating to human nature (as Catholics use it), the other relating to the material world (as atheists use it).

It is not appropriate to do so. In fact it’s no wonder you can’t make sense of the teachings – you are not using the appropriate language.

Disregard the idea of nature as a place. Think solely of human nature: that which arises from the form or essence of man.

As for harm, there’s no sense talking about it without first deciding what constitutes harm. If you mean physical harm than you have simply begged the question by elevating the material over the spiritual.

questionable definition of “nature”, and its use in this discussion contains questionable presumptions about “essential”

This is what is meant by “nature” when talking about “natural law.” Hence this is what “nature” is as far as discussions about natural law are concerned. You do realize a word can have more than one definition, yes?

this assumes A: that there is only one single utilitarian purpose for every creation, and B: that the utilitarian purpose is the ultimate purpose.

We know EXACTLY what candy bars exist for. We know this because WE MAKE THEM.

You aren’t seriously denying that chairs are made for the purpose of sitting, are you?

it points to ONE end of reproduction, which is not the ONLY end…

Correct – the other end is spousal unity. But this itself arises from the procreative nature of the sexual faculty. If sex were not procreative there would be no reason for it to be any more unitive than a handshake. Or are you seriously quibbling with the description of the reproductive system as being primarily concerned with reproduction? Hence the fact that it is constituted in such a way as to maximize the possibility of reproduction (e.g., the strength of the human sex drive, the various chemical signals emitted by women during ovulation alerting men of their fertility, the shape of the phallus and vagina both, etc.)?

This isn’t even about natural law anymore – it’s basic science. You are spitting in the face of evolutionary biology AND psychology AS WELL AS natural theology.

and the “hence” isn’t some kind of automatic conclusion either. A tree serves a purpose of fruit. Does this mean that children who use the tree as a play fortress are degrading it if they don’t eat some fruit afterward?

Oy vey.

AT WORST it can be said that it chopping down a tree is bad for the tree. This does NOT imply an obligation on the part of humans to the tree. (Does building a tree fort in a tree somehow interfere with the ability of the tree to produce fruit? No. Then it’s not even bad for the tree, is it?)

Natural law as a MORAL SYSTEM only governs HUMAN BEINGS, who alone have reason, will, and moral agency – and who therefore can ELECT to live in a manner consistent with their natures or else to REBEL against their natures (against the order God Himself has ordained for them). There is no sense talking about a tree having moral duty since the tree has no soul – no reason, no will, no moral agency, merely blandly deterministic processes moving programmatically toward its ends.

This is beside the point, as I believe there are other ends of sexuality that are every bit as central to its purpose as procreation, but even if we were to concede procreation as the sole position #1 primary purpose, the “hence” part doesn’t make much sense.

No offense, but you clearly don’t know the first thing about natural law. So on what basis do you propose to rebel against it? Every word you write is shot through with obvious misapprehension.

Do your homework; this book is a good place to start in learning about natural law. And quit rebelling against the magisterium of the Church – you have a duty in Christ to submit to their ecclesiastical authority even if you have doubts.

 

[Nate13]

No masturbation.

Here’s your reason. Every male orgasm is in principle fertile. Masturbation is a direct and willful intent to make an act that is inherently fertile for the male, infertile. This is as plain and simple as you can make it to describe why masturbation goes against our nature.