Strong arguments against Christopher West's marriage/sexuality books

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Ive already done that, and you responded by saying no women would ever want/enjoy that, so

I must have missed the post where you showed it to be a Holy action that God would will.

Can you direct me to that?

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Hang on…who is being accused of “playing the misogynist card”?

Me.

I totally said that Allegra hates women, that if longingsoul had her way women wouldn’t work outside the home or vote, and that any woman who isn’t all on board with anal is a repressed, “barefoot and pregnant” damsel.

 

[LokisMom]

Lol I loved Mrs. Von Hildebrand’s moniker for West: “Sex Enthusiast”. I think I’ll start calling him that from now on.

Okay so after finishing that great essay, I realize that things like this are why I generally stay away from apologists without a formal training in an accredited institution. I mean there are some good exceptions (Jimmy Akin comes to mind, maybe C.S. Lewis too), but without some good training, you just are going to eventually be led astray.

Does Heribert Jone qualify?

 

[Allegra]

Just so we’re totally clear here, you don’t believe that married couples have to provide theological foundation for every action they take in the bedroom, right? Because that sounds like a lot of work.

I would highly recommend in this day and age, that most of that be cleared up ahead of getting married. And I would in no way whatsoever feel obligated to provide theological foundation. A simple, “That’s disgusting and degrading and I will never, ever do that,” would suffice.

 

[LongingSoul]

While the “ick factor” may not be easy to scientifically quantify, I don’t think it should be dismissed entirely.

I would be very interested in how many of these anecdotal men and alleged anecdotal women who are so hot for anal foreplay are in favor of chastity in general. How many’s sex lives are heavily influenced by the porn industry?

I’ve read quite a few threads on this issue, and I have to say, I’ve never seen any one singing the praises of booty love that also saw the importance of other aspects of the Catholic teachings on sex. The closest I’ve seen is “Well, it seems disgusting and degrading to me…but I can’t think of any way to subjectively quantify disgusting and degrading…so it must be okay…for some people…”

Here’s a thought. What if people are repulsed by the idea because it goes against our nature? There are people who are struggling with the inability to explain why the sort of acts in “Shades of Gray” are disgusting and degrading. We all know they are, but who are we to say so, if some fictional character swears she really likes it?

While I appreciate that it isn’t the most scientific or subjective argument in the world. I don’t think that “because-it’s-flippin-nasty!” should be completely discounted.

In my vocational endeavours relating to the help of others in need spiritually and emotionally… I have met a fair few women that have experienced this act… but not a single one who liked it. It is often accepted as something the husband or partner wants and women like to make their man happy and meet his needs. That is the reality whether the feminists like to hear it or not. Apart from the ‘positive’(?) of satisfying their partner who will love them for it(?)… they would unanimously prefer to avoid it.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

What is a sexual action that glorifies God? I’m sorry, I’m not necessarily trying to get you to list off sex acts, I’m just trying to understand what that standard is. If you just mean procreative + unitive, then OK…

Secondly, in the same way, what is a “Godly” sexual act?

Just so we’re totally clear here, you don’t believe that married couples have to provide theological foundation for every action they take in the bedroom, right? Because that sounds like a lot of work.

Aren’t there several threads on men as “head of household” that have established that it’s actually a good thing for the husband to be in charge and his wife to submit to him in all things? Something about men being wired to think while women are primarily wired to feel? Why would sexuality be an exception?

I’m having a tough time imagining doing that with any sexual act, even things that are perfectly licit. Am I really the only one that has a tough time imagining that? Even perfectly licit foreplay… no, I can’t imagine it.

I’m not saying that anal stimulation is the same thing as other kinds of foreplay though. I’m really not.

There are millions of Muslim and Christian women in this world. It’s not the same thing as hating women by any means, but surely many of those women are complicit in the oppression of other women due to their gender. Right?

I am sorry you view sex this way. I am proud to say that my intimacy with my wife is both Holy and Spiritual and one in which God is very much involved. I have no problem thanking him for the joys that he bestows on us through this great gift. Prayer and a relationship with God should be a involved with sexuality. Often on these very boards people are told to pray and discern if a certain time is good to have sex with their spouse. Sex for humans is a Holy and Divine act. Given to us by God himself to have the power not only to be unitive with each other but with Him as well. It is within this framework that we view Catholic sexuality, it is within this framework that we must view what the Church says in things like TOB. We are called to be Holy in our actions and our deeds. All of them, even between the sheets. We are not animals but are made in God’s image. Our Bodies are temples for the Holy spirit. And God does not shut his eyes in the bedroom. If indeed anal sex is part of a Holy Union blessed in a sacramental marriage then you would have no problem saying it is part of a sacrament?

 

[Allegra]

In my vocational endeavours relating to the help of others in need spiritually and emotionally… I have met a fair few women that have experienced this act… but not a single one who liked it. It is often accepted as something the husband or partner wants and women like to make their man happy and meet his needs. That is the reality whether the feminists like to hear it or not. Apart from the ‘positive’(?) of satisfying their partner who will love them for it(?)… they would unanimously prefer to avoid it.

As the proud owner of an anal sphincter, I did not need you to tell me this. But I’m happy to have my own suspicions confimed by an experienced authority.

 

[underacloud]

A simple, “That’s disgusting and degrading and I will never, ever do that,” would suffice.

Yes, couples should discuss such things and if both or either of them feel this way the particular act should be considered a no-go.

But what if neither of them feel this way. Neither of them feel it to be disgusting or degrading, and is something they think they’d like to try together?

There may be other very good reasons not to do it, but the simple “ick factor” may not get every couple there, and we need to consider the other issues involved. That’s why the “ick factor” alone is unsufficient to settling the debate on an abstract level, although it may be (or should be) sufficient for any given couple if either object to it.

 

[mommamaree]

Me.

I totally said that Allegra hates women, that if longingsoul had her way women wouldn’t work outside the home or vote, and that any woman who isn’t all on board with anal is a repressed, “barefoot and pregnant” damsel.

Obviously, you have said none of those things or even hinted at any of it. So who was really being accused?

Is playing the misogynist card
(a) accusing others of misogyny, or
(b) making actual misogynistic statements?

Because I have seen neither attitude displayed here…

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

It is more of ‘style’ not necessarily of substance.

Interesting. Apart from the anal statement, I would agree with you. I find his delivery very rough and do not regard him as any sort of theological powerhouse. I have seen people on these boards that are more effective at getting a point across. But here is the thing, we all have focused on one thing of his. Well, do you think he put that in there by accident? No, he knew and believed what he was saying and because of that he will be branded as “that guy who thinks anal sex is ok” He chose that. It is controversial and heated. Imagine how short this thread would be if he had just left out that small small part.

But I also feel the same sort of shallow amateurishness with Matthew Kelley. Those two just do not engage me at a high level.

I think their intentions are good, and I think their message can be helpful to many in the faith. But to me, they fall flat.

 

[Xantippe]

People who cite Jone’s are not (neccessarily) making the case that he is the moral authority on this issue. Merely they cite him to show that respected theologians hold this position, and receive nihil obstat and imprimatur on their work. They also cite him as a means to refute the idea that the aceptance of anal foreplay is a purely contemporary idea at odds with the default view widely held in the Church.

Yep.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

In my vocational endeavours relating to the help of others in need spiritually and emotionally… I have met a fair few women that have experienced this act… but not a single one who liked it. It is often accepted as something the husband or partner wants and women like to make their man happy and meet his needs. That is the reality whether the feminists like to hear it or not. Apart from the ‘positive’(?) of satisfying their partner who will love them for it(?)… they would unanimously prefer to avoid it.

This has been my experience as well. Sadly too many times first hand. Which I regret and repent to this day.

 

[LokisMom]

I must have missed the post where you showed it to be a Holy action that God would will.

Can you direct me to that?

Yeah, here’s the post where I answered your question earlier about how it could ever be holy:

If it is something that both spouses enjoy, and if it helps “get them more in the mood”, and if it is used as foreplay to full, uncontraceptive, vaginal intercourse, then I personally don’t see on what moral grounds it would be any different from any other type of consensual foreplay. (other than the gross factor, but that has nothing to do with moral theology, as Brandon stated)

But then again, we are perfectly fine to disagree on this, so I respect your opinion.

You just responded by saying you didn’t feel comfortable refuting it, but that all youre going to say is that any woman who claims to like it is lying.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Yeah, here’s the post where I answered your question earlier about how it could ever be holy:

You just responded by saying you didn’t feel comfortable refuting it, but that all youre going to say is that any woman who claims to like it is lying.

I’m sorry I just am not seeing where you are asserting it is a Holy act?

 

[underacloud]

In my vocational endeavours relating to the help of others in need spiritually and emotionally… I have met a fair few women that have experienced this act… but not a single one who liked it. It is often accepted as something the husband or partner wants and women like to make their man happy and meet his needs. That is the reality whether the feminists like to hear it or not. Apart from the ‘positive’(?) of satisfying their partner who will love them for it(?)… they would unanimously prefer to avoid it.

I don’t doubt what you are saying, and find it pretty compelling.

And yet, when these discussions come up, it is mostly women who are arguing on the side that it is not inherently sinful. And it is always noted that some women actually enjoy it.

If any given woman does not enjoy it, it should not be done in her marriage. But what about these hypothetical women who do enjoy it (at least so we’re told)? We need other reasoning to address them. The “ick factor” will not do.

 

[Xantippe]

Obviously, you have said none of those things or even hinted at any of it. So who was really being accused?

Is playing the misogynist card
(a) accusing others of misogyny, or
(b) making actual misogynistic statements?

Because I have seen neither attitude displayed here…

Don’t worry about it.

The logic was something like this:

1. Alice von Hildebrand said X.
2. Alice von Hildebrand is a woman.
3. If you disagree with von Hildebrand on X you are a misogynist!!!

Nobody said it made any sense.

 

[Xantippe]

Interesting. Apart from the anal statement, I would agree with you. I find his delivery very rough and do not regard him as any sort of theological powerhouse. I have seen people on these boards that are more effective at getting a point across. But here is the thing, we all have focused on one thing of his. Well, do you think he put that in there by accident? No, he knew and believed what he was saying and because of that he will be branded as “that guy who thinks anal sex is ok” He chose that. It is controversial and heated. Imagine how short this thread would be if he had just left out that small small part.

But I also feel the same sort of shallow amateurishness with Matthew Kelley. Those two just do not engage me at a high level.

I think their intentions are good, and I think their message can be helpful to many in the faith. But to me, they fall flat.

If you’re writing seriously on sex these days, you do actually have to address non-vanilla practices or be irrelevant to your audience’s needs.

I think he had to address the issue, just as it would be necessary to mention that oral-genital stimulation is acceptable in the context of intercourse.

 

[LokisMom]

I’m sorry I just am not seeing where you are asserting it is a Holy act?

Well then you’re going to have to clarify exactly what you mean by “holy act.”

I think any foreplay that is mutually self giving, mutually enjoyable, and leads to unitive/procreative intercourse between spouses, is all part of the holy act of the marital embrace. So Im not sure what you’re looking for.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

If you’re writing seriously on sex these days, you do actually have to address non-vanilla practices or be irrelevant to your audience’s needs.

I think he had to address the issue, just as it would be necessary to mention that oral-genital stimulation is acceptable in the context of intercourse.

I wonder how close we are treading to forum limit.

But I always hear of the oral analogy but kissing and penetrating and violating an orifice is different. I would put it less on a level of Oral, and more on the level of gag reflex stimulation.

Geesh!

I’m out.

I can’t participate anymore on this thread. It is just too much.

 

[mommamaree]

Yes, couples should discuss such things and if both or either of them feel this way the particular act should be considered a no-go.

But what if neither of them feel this way. Neither of them feel it to be disgusting or degrading, and is something they think they’d like to try together?

There may be other very good reasons not to do it, but the simple “ick factor” may not get every couple there, and we need to consider the other issues involved. That’s why the “ick factor” alone is unsufficient to settling the debate on an abstract level, although it may be (or should be) sufficient for any given couple if either object to it.

The ick factor was cited by those people who advocated hygiene precautions for those couples who were going to try it, if I am recalling it correctly. (I don’t recall anyone advocating the practice, just advocating being very careful about hygiene if a couple decides to undertake the practice) I asked one question regarding the suggestions that were offered for hygiene, because a condom was mentioned, which I had thought was completely out of the question.

On the other hand, another several posters, including myself, posted regarding the medical concerns: anal fissures, rectal tears, rectal cancer, and anal incontinence. These are not about the ick factor, but rather about trauma/injury to delicate tissue not designed to accommodate penetration.

Questions about sinfulness aside, the medical concerns are pretty significant.