Sexually explicit discussion on a Catholic forum

[StephanieC]

But your example does not say that the average Joe/Jane person is having questions about oral sex or how they stimulate each other during sex! It says they have “questions” - and I totally 110% support CA and the other legitimate and Faithful Catholic message boards for being there to help someone in that position.

The ONLY thing I have issue with (as stated quite well in the OP and by other here) is the subject matter of SOME of the discussions here, and that they are openly available for children and voyeurs. That’s it.

And in some area of the forum, I can’t recall where I read it, but someone was asking about how they go about talking about such a sensitive subject, and their advice was to use the same sort of language you would feel comfortable using with your children or in public. Well, I don’t think I would be talking with my children or with people on the bus about how my husband and I perform in the bedroom, so how can you EVER use appropriate language given those parameters?

I am only saying that I think these discussions should be in their own area, and not accessible by those who register as children. Yep, we never know how old someone is, but we still need to be responsible adults. Regardless of how devious some kids might be.

And there are clearly some adults on this forum who would prefer to read about their Faith and not have to wade through topics about masturbation and oral sex.

~Liza

Hi Liza, thanks for your response. I really am open to having my mind changed on this topic, even though I think my position is a sound one. Please understand that I’m not belittling your view at all. I’m just assuming that since you started the thread, you’re open to hearing all points of view. (As I would assume about everyone participating in it, as well! ) It’s not like I’m a staunch “sexually explicit advocate” or anything – I’m just less concerned about that aspect of most of the threads I’ve come across. So far.

My post above about Joe/Jane Catholic seeking answers to “questions” was deliberately non-specific, because the point was, s/he didn’t know where/how to find the right answer. Anyone could fill in the blank for the question.

My thoughts on the advice “to use the same sort of language you would feel comfortable using with your children or in public” are this: it’s usually not very effective communication. There have been threads started where the poster is being so (bless their heart!) subtle that it takes 20 posts just to translate and clarify their tip-toeing to give them an answer.

Look, it seems to me that there are several “categories” of vocabulary that can be used at any time, ranging from Church Encyclical-speak all the way to vulgarities, banned by the FCC-type-speak. Not everyone is fluent in each. Those that know how to phrase their question delicately, do. Those that don’t just do their best.

 

[CuriousInIL]

I can tend to be a bit of a prude at times, certainly when compared to your average 42 year old woman on the street. But in reality I think I’m more normal and healthy, in that normal is not the common norm of current society, but what normal should be. And I believe that to include a desire to keep the sanctity and privacy of the marital bed exactly that - sacred and private.

I do also agree that people need to talk about certain things, that’s why I’m admitting that I don’t have the answers. But I do know for sure that having these types of discussions out in the open where clearly (based on the comments here) there are those who are uncomfortable with them, is not the answer.

*** And telling me to “just don’t look at them” is not a proper response. ***

~Liza

I really do not understand why this is not a proper response. Can you elaborate why you feel that way?

 

[JimG]

Perhaps the only question remaining is:

Is it permissible to be morally explicit on a sexual discussion board?

 

[love4mary]

I do NOT like the sexually explicit questions posted in these forums. I have a 13 year old son with loads and loads of questions concerning the faith that I don’t feel knowledgable enough to answer so I will direct him here to THIS forum.

Questions about masterbation, foreplay etc…is NOT what I want my son reading about when he is looking for answers to his faith questions.

These are Open forums with some of the most faithfilled and knowledgable people I have ever run across, and God Bless you all, but please, remember that minor children also are on a faith journey.

 

[gardenswithkids]

I do NOT like the sexually explicit questions posted in these forums. I have a 13 year old son with loads and loads of questions concerning the faith that I don’t feel knowledgable enough to answer so I will direct him here to THIS forum…please, remember that minor children also are on a faith journey.

Yes, minor children are also on a faith journey and people as young as 13 can join this forum. The teen years are highly formative years for chastity. I strongly suspect that many who post sexually explicit threads went off track on their own journey somewhere during their own teen years. I doubt such posters remained perfectly chaste and successfully fought every lustful thought as teens. Maybe their poor example can serve as warnings for teens to be careful.

I don’t want my minor children reading sexually explicit threads either, but we are engaged in a battle with the culture over issues of sexual purity, and many expose children to far worse stuff, calling it “sex ed” in classrooms or “entertainment” on tv. I would LOVE to protect my children from all indecency, but I can’t. I wish my children didn’t have to know what abortion is, or what divorce is, or a number of other topics that offend me. Misuse of sexuality is everywhere in our culture, and children pay the price.

The forum rules remind us that 13 year olds can join the forum. They ask we keep that in mind when posting and we can bring offensive posts to their attention. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=24025

This forum is not “rated G”. It is “rated PG-13”.

 

[Sixtus]

What do you think about it? Is it really that helpful? Or just voyeuristic discussion disguised as “help”?

I can understand where you are coming from. I can also understand why you might find it distastful. After all, the rest of the world is obsessed by sex, so surely this forum is one place you should be protected from it.

Well, actually, I have been one of those who have contributed and posted things that will no doub be read ‘the world over’, but I trust my Catholic and Protestant brothers and sisters to read it with integrity.

I also believe that Catholicism is not so much a religion but a way of life. It is about ‘who we are’ for better and worse.
I think that such issues should be discussed here. After all, we are all in need of encouragement, help and advice. I think it is far better to get advice from like minded people who really care for the soul of the questioner than going to some unscupulous forums on the net, which have not a clue about morality.

It is my hope that this forum continues to allow such threads. It is much better for the soul.

This forum is without doubt the best I have come accross ever! It is a wonderful place to be. A nice way of meeting like minded people and discussing with folk whose views are different from one’s own. I have made some wonderful friends through this forum.

Sex is part of life. This forum is part of our social experience.

 

[jmcrae]

Sex is part of life. This forum is part of our social experience.

In the real world, we close the door before we do it - I think that’s all people want, here, is a “closed” room where these kind of private discussions can take place without offending little children and other sensitive people.

 

[StephanieC]

I’m really very glad so many people have “hung in there” with this thread, and kept it civil, and really tried to express their thoughts clearly…because I think I’m starting to believe differently than I did when I originally read the first post.

I still believe that explicit language (which hasn’t really been defined yet here, perhaps partly because in order to define it, we’d probably have to give examples) in the context of clearing away confusion, erroneous thinking, scrupulosity and poor catechesis is a good thing.

I still think that parents need to investigate & spend time on any website first before giving permission to their teenagers free rein to explore them.

But I’m wondering about the logistics of a “protected” area on a forum like CAF. How would that work, I wonder? Are there any other sites out there that have a system in place so that teens are free to roam the entire board, with the exeption of one area? Is that even possible or practical? Just wondering.

 

[jmcrae]

But I’m wondering about the logistics of a “protected” area on a forum like CAF. How would that work, I wonder? Are there any other sites out there that have a system in place so that teens are free to roam the entire board, with the exeption of one area? Is that even possible or practical? Just wondering.

It’s certainly possible - I’ve seen it done elsewhere, and I’ve participated in private fora before.

We would have to trust people when they say that they are over the age of 16, and have them read and agree to a code of conduct that has written on it in plain language, “if later on we find out that you are under the age of 16, or that you are sharing your password with persons who are under the age of 16, your password to this section of the Boards will be revoked without notice.” Apart from that, as long as they behaved themselves and as long as their parents never caught them, we’d probably never know - but that’s their look-out, since they know where they are and what they have signed up for - my major concern is for people who are still in the “icky-oooh” phase of sexual development, who really don’t need to encounter this kind of thing by accident.

 

[Chancellare]

I do NOT like the sexually explicit questions posted in these forums. I have a 13 year old son with loads and loads of questions concerning the faith that I don’t feel knowledgable enough to answer so I will direct him here to THIS forum.

Questions about masterbation, foreplay etc…is NOT what I want my son reading about when he is looking for answers to his faith questions.

These are Open forums with some of the most faithfilled and knowledgable people I have ever run across, and God Bless you all, but please, remember that minor children also are on a faith journey.

The issue that has been raised here, including those of Liza’s is 'how explicit can we be, considering the wide range of readers in this site. Well, here is an example of how it is said:

“The naked body will always arouse lust. But…we cannot simply equate nakedness and sex with lust. If we think a lustful look is the only way a person can look at the human body then we subscribe to what is called ‘interpretation of suspicion’. Those who live by suspicion remain so locked in their own lusts that they project the same bondage to everyone else. They can not imagine any other way to think about the human body and sexual relationship other than through the prism of lust… When we hold the human heart in a state of continual and irreversible suspicion because of lust, we condemn ourselves to a hopeless, loveless existence… we follow the rules of ethics without a change of heart…Eventually we abandon God’s law because we simply cannot keep it. This kind of permanent suspicion effectively cuts us off from the power of the Gospel”.

I can go on and on but the speaker quoted here is none other than JPII in his Theology of the Body. The point being: there are ways to bring this issue up in the open such that the language is even acceptable by no less than the Vicar of Christ. The dissertation confronts the issue in plain language. And had JPII been half as prude as we are here, there could never have been a papal reflection on sex and its morality that tackles the very root cause of why we are stuck here in the first place.

But this is the first challenge to JPII’s reflection: One can lead the horse to the water but you cannot make him drink…

 

[Chancellare]

It’s certainly possible - I’ve seen it done elsewhere, and I’ve participated in private fora before.

We would have to trust people when they say that they are over the age of 16, and have them read and agree to a code of conduct that has written on it in plain language, “if later on we find out that you are under the age of 16, or that you are sharing your password with persons who are under the age of 16, your password to this section of the Boards will be revoked without notice.” Apart from that, as long as they behaved themselves and as long as their parents never caught them, we’d probably never know - but that’s their look-out, since they know where they are and what they have signed up for - my major concern is for people who are still in the “icky-oooh” phase of sexual development, who really don’t need to encounter this kind of thing by accident.

With due respect and in all honesty, I will not prevent a 16 year old from reading the posts in CAF, (including my own 16 year old). Why? Because I know that they are a million times safer in this site than if they sneak to surf in the open. When a child is playing in a designated safe backyard, that means he CANNOT be playing in somebody else’s backyard at that time. The more time he spends in that backyard the more chances he need not go elsewhere, etc.

 

[lizaanne]

I do NOT like the sexually explicit questions posted in these forums. I have a 13 year old son with loads and loads of questions concerning the faith that I don’t feel knowledgable enough to answer so I will direct him here to THIS forum.

Questions about masterbation, foreplay etc…is NOT what I want my son reading about when he is looking for answers to his faith questions.

These are Open forums with some of the most faithfilled and knowledgable people I have ever run across, and God Bless you all, but please, remember that minor children also are on a faith journey.

This post here makes my point, well, part of my point. The other point is that there are grown ups who don’t care to see this either. I would much prefer to read about anything else that is posted on this entire site, regardless of how much I might agree or disagree with the discussions, and not have to see topics on masturbation and oral sex. You can quote JPII at me all you want, but I will always have my own comfort level with these types of discussions, and that’s not going to change, regardless of how “enlightened” I might become.

Just because I’m not comfortable with reading about someone else’s sex life does not mean that I am not theologically mature.

~Liza

 

[jmcrae]

The issue that has been raised here, including those of Liza’s is 'how explicit can we be, considering the wide range of readers in this site. Well, here is an example of how it is said:

“The naked body will always arouse lust. But…we cannot simply equate nakedness and sex with lust. If we think a lustful look is the only way a person can look at the human body then we subscribe to what is called ‘interpretation of suspicion’. Those who live by suspicion remain so locked in their own lusts that they project the same bondage to everyone else. They can not imagine any other way to think about the human body and sexual relationship other than through the prism of lust… When we hold the human heart in a state of continual and irreversible suspicion because of lust, we condemn ourselves to a hopeless, loveless existence… we follow the rules of ethics without a change of heart…Eventually we abandon God’s law because we simply cannot keep it. This kind of permanent suspicion effectively cuts us off from the power of the Gospel”.

I can go on and on but the speaker quoted here is none other than JPII in his Theology of the Body. The point being: there are ways to bring this issue up in the open such that the language is even acceptable by no less than the Vicar of Christ. The dissertation confronts the issue in plain language. And had JPII been half as prude as we are here, there could never have been a papal reflection on sex and its morality that tackles the very root cause of why we are stuck here in the first place.

But this is the first challenge to JPII’s reflection: One can lead the horse to the water but you cannot make him drink…

Well, first, I’m assuming that JPII wasn’t writing this to students in elementary schools. I assume he intended it for adults.

Second, Yes, this kind of thing needs to be discussed - but not in front of the children.

 

[jmcrae]

With due respect and in all honesty, I will not prevent a 16 year old from reading the posts in CAF, (including my own 16 year old). Why? Because I know that they are a million times safer in this site than if they sneak to surf in the open. When a child is playing in a designated safe backyard, that means he CANNOT be playing in somebody else’s backyard at that time. The more time he spends in that backyard the more chances he need not go elsewhere, etc.

It’s definitely safer, and I do think that 16 is old enough for this stuff, but what about a 13 year old who is told here on this Board (as has happened within the past three weeks here) “yes, go ahead and do anything that seems to come naturally, since God made you, and therefore nothing you do can possibly ever be sinful - don’t listen to the Big Bad Church, which only wants to repress your sexuality and make you into a baby-making machine.” (Or words to that effect.)

A sixteen year old is old enough to realize that this person isn’t Catholic and doesn’t represent the Catholic point of view - but the 13 year old could become very, very confused (and did, in the instance that I’m referring to - she called her mother into the on-line conversation, and that was the first time I realized that she was only 13 years old - turns out that the family isn’t Catholic, and the mother agreed with the “go for it, no sin” person - and it also turns out that I, yes, me, in person! am the Wicked Witch of the West - who knew? ).

 

[gardenswithkids]

The other point is that there are grown ups who don’t care to see this either…You can quote JPII at me all you want, but I will always have my own comfort level with these types of discussions, and that’s not going to change…

I have my own comfort level as well, (which I why I quoted only part of your post ). But I don’t like the alternatives proposed on this thread.

Someone suggested speaking to a priest about these topics. Let’s hope those other posters find good priests to answer such specific questions. Unfortunately, not all priests teach in line with Church teachings, nor are all chaste. If all Catholic priests clearly taught what the Church teaches, fewer people would post sexually explicit questions. And I still don’t know how priests could get the message across to all adult Catholics without children hearing.

The protected, private area of the forum idea bothers me too. I want to protect children too, which is why I think it’s crazy to give any child unrestricted access to the internet. The forum already restricts membership to 13 years of age and asks that the language be appropriate for that. While I don’t like explicit details, I don’t recall read anything beyond a “PG-13” rating by standard used by the movie industry. If you do then please bring it to the attention of the moderators.

The moral theology section says its for questions including “theology of the body”. I often like those discussions as it relates to something near and dear to my heart–the blessing of children! I don’t want to have to go into a restricted, private area to remind people that children are blessing and if they have such a hard time chastity in their marriage then maybe they should pray about having more children.

If all sexual discussions were banished to a restricted area it’s possible *that section would draw fewer people who support the Church teachings on chastity, and would attract more who don’t support Church teachings. *The 13 year old posing as 18 might read *only *“go ahead, do what comes natural”. Somehow, people who say things like “do what comes natural” usually forget that making babies is what *naturally *comes from sexual activity.

 

[Chancellare]

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that on this site we all stop this discussion about the teachings of the church concerning the right understanding of human sexuality on the grounds that it may be accidentally viewed by those below 16 years old and for the simple reason that not all are comfortable with the topic itself.
Then we will just hope that:
No 16 year old or below will go to other smut sites out of curiosity and to test their own limits because they were not polluted by CAF discussions on sexuality. We will also have to hope that all parents will ensure that their own views about sex are in line with Church teachings and therefore they can perfectly pre-empt all questions from their children.

 

[lizaanne]

I have never suggested that they be banned in total, that would be ridiculous. I’m just saying that there has to be a better way of handling these discussions, and I don’t have the answer.

I don’t deal in hypothetical situations because I don’t live a hypothetical life.

~Liza

 

[LovedForever]

It is the parent’s responsibility to monitor their children’s internet access. So let’s put that responsibility where it belongs. The moderators of this forum do a terrific job in setting up this website. You cannot please all of the people all of the time. There will always be those who want either “more” restrictions or “less.”

That said, I think frank and open discussions on sexual matters is a healthy thing - not something to shy away from. The discussions here on these topics stem from a theologicial perspective (as it should) not some “how to” forum.

One of the important purposes of “Theology of the Body” is to teach the faithful that there is nothing to be *ashamed *of when it comes to the beauty of sex as God created it. It MUST be discussed frankly and openly to fully understand and appreciate the depth of it all.
This includes very specific and technical terms used.
Our parish priest is offering “Theology of the Body” courses for adults AND teenagers. He is a very orthodox and a wonderful priest. He makes it clear that the talks will be frank (for instance using the proper names for body parts etc.) and that this is all part of this important theology. To have the proper and healthy mindset and attitude when it comes to sex - not an unheathly attitude on either end of the extreme. Both ends distort the full beauty and purpose of God’s design for us as male and female.

 

[Sixtus]

CAF is like an extended family. It is good for the soul to talk.

What better place to discuss things that concern one most?

Surely better to get answers that are close to the heart of Christ than to take it to some of the trashy forum’s elsewhere on the net.

 

[contramundum7]

Good point Liza. I think you brought up a subject worth discussing. I’m almost 50 and I remember the days when you didn’t hear about the presidents escapades on the nightly news in lurid detail. I remember when women’s magazines didn’t have the word ‘sex’ included in every one of their headliners, and I remember a time when you wouldn’t have seen ‘oral sex’ mentioned in a Catholic magazine.(We didn’t have the internet in those days).

My point being, our society has a tasteless preoccupation with sex and has been desensitized to the point where uncouth subject matter is even acceptable on a religious forum. It seems as if nothing is sacred or private anymore. I wouldn’t mind the pendulum swinging back to a little more decoum.

Amen to that, especially the part “It seems as if nothing is sacred or private anymore” & about being obsessed with sex… I frankly don’t get it. The only good sex is in marriage, yet most portrayals on the screen involve those not married… as if married sex is boring or something ??? Of course, i wouldn’t know, since i’ve never been married… but whatever…