The immaculate misconception

  • Thread starter Thread starter Spock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
For all but one of the reasons anyone gets married. For example, you could still want to commit to spend the rest of your life with the woman you love, even if you didn’t prevent her from having sex with a woman or two.
It seems to me that giving a wife “permission” to have so-called “sex with a woman or two” might be more for your own jollies than for hers.
That depends so much on the people involved. If I fell in love with and ended up marrying someone who wanted to have an open marriage, that’s something I would have to negotiate then.
A woman who wants an open marriage and is open to negotiation about whether or not she can have an open marriage is a rare bird. She will marry you and do whatever, whomever she wants.

I remember a woman like this from my home town. Her boyfriend became a drug addict because of the pain she caused him. Her first husband shot himself. Another boyfriend tried to kill himself by jumping out of the car she was driving at 60mph.

Not that any of that could happen to you. . . . .
 
Very interesting debates. If I could nudge someone to a reply, or awaken them from a sleep–What about Time? What if a man is having sex with his wife and intends to procreate, just not at that time? After all, if a woman is already pregnant say, from intercourse of the day before, they might not know it yet. Would that make the attempt of the present day a sin? Reasoning from that, what if he knows that his wife is stubborn with regard to sex, or has had trauma around it from previous bad experiences–to the end that he is doing it with her for the sake of practice (if the notion is not too offensive) so that he might get her re accustomed to it and then ultimately agree to having another child? To sum it up, is the act of procreation referring to the overall process of getting pregnant, or to the single, solitary act of intercourse at a given moment?

Personally, I agree that sex is best practiced with the intent to procreate a child, yet still, Rome wasn’t built in a day. Arguments of 1/2 pregnancy aside, the human mind of many is hard pressed to be so decisive.

Lastly, what if a man has had a vasectomy? Pregnancy is in that case as near to impossible as you can get, but has he found a loophole if he ‘hopes’ for a miracle, and, in so hoping, unhinges his own mind into a delusion that would require the breaking of physical laws to achieve?
 
It seems to me that giving a wife “permission” to have so-called “sex with a woman or two” might be more for your own jollies than for hers.
I’d also be open to her having sex with a guy or two, though the STI and emotional concerns would probably be greater.
A woman who wants an open marriage and is open to negotiation about whether or not she can have an open marriage is a rare bird. She will marry you and do whatever, whomever she wants.

I remember a woman like this from my home town. Her boyfriend became a drug addict because of the pain she caused him. Her first husband shot himself. Another boyfriend tried to kill himself by jumping out of the car she was driving at 60mph.

Not that any of that could happen to you. . . . .
I don’t think we can generalize from one example. I fully grant that an open marriage or relationship can be a disaster, especially when, as seems to be the case here, only one of the people is really okay with it.

If someone does not even date, there will not be much potential for relationship drama. If someone dates or marries one person, there will be a lot more. Each additional relationship you add, carries with it more potential for conflict. Some people probably can’t handle the drama of one relationship, even more probably can’t handle the drama of two. But that does not mean that no one should ever date.

Regarding me, this is not something I’m seeking out. I know that multiple relationships can be an emotional mess since one is hard enough, so I wouldn’t go for it unless the circumstances were perfect. I just don’t think there’s anything immoral about people having sex outside their marriage if they do it honestly, safely, and with their spouse’s approval. Though I’d certainly be interested in hearing any secular argument for why it would be wrong.
Adultery is a lie because it traduces the vow the couple make. Lying habituates people to lying more. Do all people who ever lie become inveterate liars? No. But all inveterate liars begin with one lie.

If you want to debate whether lying is better than the truth, we can do that.
If you’ve read my posts in this thread, you’ll know that I am all about honesty and the truth. I am strongly opposed to lying. I do not see how having sex outside your marriage with your partner’s approval is lying. Not everyone pledges monogamy in their marriage vows.
 
You need to decide what is open for debate on this thread. If we posit a world that is totally devoid of religion, where not a shread of Catholic thought exists, then we only need one person’s consent for any action. There is no longer any logical reason for opposing anything. But if we posit a world where Catholics exist, then secular or not, we must factor in Catholic understanding.

Glad we seem to understand each other, too.
No, I am not speaking of a hypothetical world. I am speaking about the world as I think it is, a world where Catholicism exists, but in which the supernatural claims it makes are false. If Catholicism is false, I don’t think we should make decisions based on it’s moral teachings any more than we should make decisions based on astrology.
 
… my dear friend ,

… if you read my several yrs work on these forums you’ll see who i really am , i’m not the sum of your conclusion dear friend , you will see i try to save lives , and do you fear death ??? , of course you do even if you don’t admit it to yourself or others , death is not the end for me but just the beginning , the real life begins once we leave this messy delusion , death of the soul leads to eternal death and that is the only death we must fight with all our might , and i do for myself and all , atheism spreads spiritual and eternal death whilst zapping all hope out of man if one thinks and is honest , i’m right you know , think hard about it dear friend …

… may god bless and love you 👍🙂 ,

… john …
I’m sorry if I leapt to an incorrect conclusion. So what is your take? Do you agree with me that the rhetoric is problematic, and that Catholics should focus a lot of the energy they expend condemning homosexuality on preventing gay suicides? It just came off to me as a little callous that you were laughing at an uncharitable interpretation of a very serious point I made about people dying.

I don’t like how you followed up your comment about me making an incorrect assumption by making a couple of your own. I’m a pretty optimistic person, and death is not something I fear.
 
Whether it must or not is irrelevant. It does.
Nonsense. It may, but that is all. By this kind of “reasoning” we should abstain from driving a car, since it may lead to an accident. (But we should not drive a car when impaired.)
 
I’m sorry if I leapt to an incorrect conclusion. So what is your take? Do you agree with me that the rhetoric is problematic, and that Catholics should focus a lot of the energy they expend condemning homosexuality on preventing gay suicides? It just came off to me as a little callous that you were laughing at an uncharitable interpretation of a very serious point I made about people dying.

I don’t like how you followed up your comment about me making an incorrect assumption by making a couple of your own. I’m a pretty optimistic person, and death is not something I fear.
… my dear riend ,

… i was just laughing at a very funny comment , that was all , i did not investigate the years of history leading up to the comment , just lol , catholic rhetoric is not the problem with gay or any issues – it is the ultimate solution to all mans problems , telling gays that life - style is unnatural is a great act of merciful charity …

… do catholics spend too much time on it ??? , i don’t know , but the church approaches the q very fairly , most clergy in recent times are gay but chaste you know , i think the church has / is changing this rule again as it was problematic , i personally have no probs with gays but am bound to ty and help all know the truth and get to heaven ,…

… do you realise that everytime one is angry with another or even giving another silent treatment to express displeasure and the anger can be quite unnoticable oft , but this is ones desire to kill the other or drive them to suicide , you are killing them in your heart and maybe mind when anger is occuring , how many peoplw have died or suicided from this ??? , don’t know , but an awful lot i’d say …

… atheism is far more responsible for this than catholicism , we strive to love unconditionally thus never killing or euthanising others , don’t point the finger at catholics as being intolerant , they just have common sense dear friend , from what i see militant atheists are the most angry unloving people hell bent on destroying theism , i hope you can prove me wrong but spock never replies to my (name removed by moderator)ut and i think he’s trying to drive me to suicide , but it wobn’t work , sorry to disappoint you atheists …

… if members of the church are too vocal on homosexuality or insensitive then we need to understand their the only ones in the world with the brains to know god and his church are the ultimate solution and not the cause of all problems like so many presume , and their just trying to get the message out loud and clear so all will hear …

… may god bless and love you 👍🙂 ,

… john …
 
Very interesting debates. If I could nudge someone to a reply, or awaken them from a sleep–What about Time? What if a man is having sex with his wife and intends to procreate, just not at that time? After all, if a woman is already pregnant say, from intercourse of the day before, they might not know it yet. Would that make the attempt of the present day a sin? Reasoning from that, what if he knows that his wife is stubborn with regard to sex, or has had trauma around it from previous bad experiences–to the end that he is doing it with her for the sake of practice (if the notion is not too offensive) so that he might get her re accustomed to it and then ultimately agree to having another child? To sum it up, is the act of procreation referring to the overall process of getting pregnant, or to the single, solitary act of intercourse at a given moment?

Personally, I agree that sex is best practiced with the intent to procreate a child, yet still, Rome wasn’t built in a day. Arguments of 1/2 pregnancy aside, the human mind of many is hard pressed to be so decisive.

Lastly, what if a man has had a vasectomy? Pregnancy is in that case as near to impossible as you can get, but has he found a loophole if he ‘hopes’ for a miracle, and, in so hoping, unhinges his own mind into a delusion that would require the breaking of physical laws to achieve?
Great post! These are the questions that need to be answered.
 
Adultery is a lie because it traduces the vow the couple make. Lying habituates people to lying more. Do all people who ever lie become inveterate liars? No. But all inveterate liars begin with one lie.
Warning! Derail attempt again. The thread is NOT about adultery, it is about consensual sex without the desire to procreate (and being active about it). Can’t you just stick with the actual topic? Just for the fun of it?
 
… the answer about sex : is it ok without the intent to procreate ??? …

… quite simply you must look at man prior to his fallen state , and the q would not enter the equation , sex would always be open to new life regardless of whether it was possible or not , for instance even if the wife was already pregnant , look at all our fellow creaures here and man is just the same as them so much , but he is just another creature here in reality – an exalted place and eternal destiny unlike the others , but if man had no knowledge of good or evil he would be so perfectly natural , the q is all about taking perfectly normal , healthy , natural , human things and turning them into something dirty and evil to get more enjoyment and pleasure out of them , if one needs to twist and pervert all for this end then one is very sick indeed , study the rest of nature and learn , they are never evil , just natural , a big lesson for man too …

… may god bless and love you 👍🙂 ,

… john …
 
.

Face reality: sex is harmless when practised without coersion, when practised out of love, when practised with the desire to give and to receive. As such their practice does not concern you. Can you prove me wrong? Can you show that the natural practice of sex is somehow harmful to you? After all you are a memebr of the society, if it is harmful to you - personally, then maybe it is harmful to society as well. But if it is not harmful to you, you have no right or reason to complain and disparage they practice. It is simply none of your business.

You are begging a lot of questions, most of them by presupposing that “love” is a natural part of most sexual relationships. In fact love is a very special quality that missing from many sexual encounters. It requires a self-giving that does not come naturally. As often as not, sexual encounters are caused by a kind of will to power in which one or both parties try to exploit the other. “Romeo and Juliet” is a cautionary tale, which reminds us that there are certain boundaries that are crossed at one’s peril. Relationships are successful only in the right context. Lqws and customs may be good or bad, and never sufficient in themselves to protect us from the harm we do to ourselves. But they exist because they allow us to achieve goals that are good for society. Homosexuality was proscribed for one very good reason, it threatens the survival of society as the epitome of lust.
 
… the answer about sex : is it ok without the intent to procreate ??? …

… quite simply you must look at man prior to his fallen state , and the q would not enter the equation , sex would always be open to new life regardless of whether it was possible or not , for instance even if the wife was already pregnant , look at all our fellow creaures here and man is just the same as them so much , but he is just another creature here in reality – an exalted place and eternal destiny unlike the others , but if man had no knowledge of good or evil he would be so perfectly natural , the q is all about taking perfectly normal , healthy , natural , human things and turning them into something dirty and evil to get more enjoyment and pleasure out of them , if one needs to twist and pervert all for this end then one is very sick indeed , study the rest of nature and learn , they are never evil , just natural , a big lesson for man too …

… may god bless and love you 👍🙂 ,

… john …
It is not rational to forget that sex is the natural means of procreation, and though tyat is hardly the only purpose of having sex, forgetting what it it about is like forgetting the purpose of eating.
 
It is not rational to forget that sex is the natural means of procreation, and though tyat is hardly the only purpose of having sex, forgetting what it it about is like forgetting the purpose of eating.
… my dear friend ,

i’m talking about non - fallen man , you miss the point , completely different world to this , this world is upside down – a delusion , this is the cause of all problems …

… may god bless and love you 👍🙂 ,

… john …
 
It also seems difficult to approach the issue with a view toward bridging a common ethic for married and unmarried men. I might be single, for example, but think that for a married man in the habit of monogamy and being already in love and desirous of children, the ease of agreeing with procreational thought is high. For other circumstances, however, the ease of disagreeing is also high. Just look at the changing attitudes toward annulment. People change over time, also. The woman you loved 10 years ago is no longer that same person; but she wants a new child. My roman witts tell me that ethics must be practical, and that morality must be achievable and likewise adhere to some standard of practicality. If the gospel be the standard (if it can be found in the gospel, which is the only thing we can not and must not change), then that is the standard.

The question is all too basic for the Catholic married man, who, in the domain of behaviour the question defines is enjoying a downhill coast. For the unmarried man, the challenges are far more different. A married man has to worry about feeding a child, but yet the Church endorses the rhythm method so that he can at least enjoy some conjugal right. The unmarried man who for his own reasons cannot provide a wife for himself sees the issue differently. He sees himself further boxed into a corner by a teaching that apparently ignores the exigencies of his biology. For the same body of teaching tells him that if he masturbates, he is a moral misfit no less than if he has sex without the intent to produce a child. Is he responsible for his culture’s saturation with pornography and sexual displays of affection everywhere? To ignore his challenges and not take them into consideration seems uncharitable.

Thus the ethic/moral is that the teaching is given in the context of a process of continual Catholic living, involving reconciliation or confession, receipt of the sacraments, and a Catholic community of unmarried people within social reach.

With no disrespect to anyone intended, the figures of Adam and Eve lay in the garden of Eden and they were essentially married; but the social world of today is far more complex and the rate of female births to male births is a deceptive statistic. Women still opt for men according to income and ability to provide, and men (and women) still kill each other over money, oil, and resources with the result being that some have so little as to be unattractive to a female in comparison to the males whom ‘take the lions share.’ Therefore, until we have a just and fair Catholic society, the teachings are not wrong, they are merely difficult to maintain. For some, impossible?
 
You are begging a lot of questions, most of them by presupposing that “love” is a natural part of most sexual relationships. In fact love is a very special quality that missing from many sexual encounters.
Where did you get your statistics? Can I take a peek at the raw data? And your definition of love? And why would non-procreative love be a problem? Maybe you have a very “special” definition of love - that it must be procreative, otherwise it is not love. I have seen nonsense like this before.
Homosexuality was proscribed for one very good reason, it threatens the survival of society as the epitome of lust.
This would be a joke, if it were not so sad. Guess what, even people of the same gender can and do love each other.
 
I participated in several threads dealing with the catholic concept of “proper sexuality”. The posters uniformly said that any sex 1) outside marriage and 2) inside marriage, but not “open” to procreation is “gravely disordered, sinful, etc…”. I understand that this is the official catholic position, and I do not wish to argue against it - if that position is based only on religious grounds. You believe what you believe. It is no skin off my nose. Just keep your opinion to yourself. An example would be: the religious person believes that those practices endanger the practitioner’s “immortal soul”. Even in that case they are not welcome to give that opinion unless specifically asked for it.

The problematic part is when the posters wish to argue on secular, rational grounds. They say that masturbation, sex outside marriage or sex inside marriage but not open to procreation (active contraception or extra-vaginal ejaculation) are harmful either to the person(s) involved or to some third parties. Of course what is “harmful” is debatable. Simply not liking what other people do is not “harm”. Even if such practices harmfully affect the practitoners - but only them! - that alleged harm is none of your business.

If they can show that such practices harmfully affect some third parties, in that case they can legitimately express their concern, even when not asked for it. But I have never seen a valid argument along those lines. Some posters say that the general acceptance of masturbation, of homosexual sex, of contraception, of extravaginal ejaculation are “harmful” to society. How are they harmful? Is there any physical harm? In the old times the deeply religious do-gooders loved to lie to the adolescents and asserted that masturbation
  1. will lead to blindness, or
  2. causes to grow hair on the palms of your hands
  3. leads to mental illness
  4. permanently reduces libido, desire, and/or sexual performance
  5. permanently reduces the quantity or quality of semen
    which are, of course shameless lies.
What “harm” can possibly come out of having two people express their love and commitment to each other in a proscribed manner by the church in the privacy of their home? Some people say that the acceptance of these practices will lead to the destruction of marriage, and it will lead to the destruction of society. They say that openly accepted gay sex will lead to adolescents to accept that lifestyle (we all know that being around tall people will also cause you to become tall ;)). Or that openly accepted promisculity will lead to less stable marriages… etc… what nonsense.

When I see these “concerns” I am wondering just what society did these posters come from? Is it possible that they were born in some ideal world, where children never touched their own genitals to learn that it is a rather pleasant experience, where adolescents never masturbated, where everyone waited until their wedding night for their first experience, where there was no divorce, no adultery? When every act of sex was performed with being “open” to procreation? Which planet is that?

Surely it cannot be Earth, where people practised some type of contraception since times immemorial, where the “oldest profession” was sex for money, where the prototypes of those beautiful Greek statues practiced the highest form of brotherly love - called gay sex these days. Where adultery was rampant in every age, though not always admitted, where males kept mistresses, and women had fun with the gardeners and with each other (island of Lesbos, anyone?).

And despite (or maybe because of) these activities society did not crumble into nothingness. Indeed it is more “open” these days, but also from time immemorial the conservatives were complaining and moaning about the deteriorating “morals” - in each and every generation; remember Cicero’s “O tempora, o mores?”. The members of the older generation are not able to practise sex any more, so they spend their energy complaining about what the younger ones can do. Sheer jealousy. 🙂 And sheer misconception (maybe not so immaculate) about their own era - when people did the same things, but also practised the worst kind of “sin” of all, the hypocrisy of silence.

Face reality: sex is harmless when practised without coersion, when practised out of love, when practised with the desire to give and to receive. As such their practice does not concern you. Can you prove me wrong? Can you show that the natural practice of sex is somehow harmful to you? After all you are a memebr of the society, if it is harmful to you - personally, then maybe it is harmful to society as well. But if it is not harmful to you, you have no right or reason to complain and disparage they practice. It is simply none of your business.
I won’t argue with you regarding masturbation and gay sex. But sex outside of marriage–adultery and prostitution–may indeed be harmful to marriages and families, apart from any religious or moral issues. First, it may be harmful physically: the party involved is susceptible to sexual diseases, including HIV, which may be brought home to one’s spouse. And second, it may be harmful to the integrity of the family if the woman in the affair becomes pregnant and has a baby. I’m not saying these behaviors will necessarily bring about the downfall of society; but on a personal level, they have the potential of causing great pain and suffering for all concerned. Even mutually consensual promiscuity–open relationships, as they were once called–has a poor track record.
 
I won’t argue with you regarding masturbation and gay sex. But sex outside of marriage–adultery and prostitution–may indeed be harmful to marriages and families, apart from any religious or moral issues. First, it may be harmful physically: the party involved is susceptible to sexual diseases, including HIV, which may be brought home to one’s spouse. And second, it may be harmful to the integrity of the family if the woman in the affair becomes pregnant and has a baby. I’m not saying these behaviors will necessarily bring about the downfall of society; but on a personal level, they have the potential of causing great pain and suffering for all concerned. Even mutually consensual promiscuity–open relationships, as they were once called–has a poor track record.
You bring up important points. I do not equate adultery with out-of-wedlock sex. In my vocabulary adultery is cheating, which is a whole different ballgame. The possibility of sexual diseases is certainly there, but fortunately it can be guarded against. What I am simply saying that there is nothing inherently wrong with these relationships, if they are consented to. You did not explictly mention sex within a marriage which is not procreative, but I suspect that we agree there, too. (If not, let me know.)
 
I won’t argue with you regarding masturbation and gay sex. But sex outside of marriage–adultery and prostitution–may indeed be harmful to marriages and families, apart from any religious or moral issues. First, it may be harmful physically: the party involved is susceptible to sexual diseases, including HIV, which may be brought home to one’s spouse. And second, it may be harmful to the integrity of the family if the woman in the affair becomes pregnant and has a baby. I’m not saying these behaviors will necessarily bring about the downfall of society; but on a personal level, they have the potential of causing great pain and suffering for all concerned. Even mutually consensual promiscuity–open relationships, as they were once called–has a poor track record.
Indeed. Children who grow up in such an environment are obviously more likely to indulge in sexual relationships before they are fully mature and are susceptible to greater risks.
 
Indeed. Children who grow up in such an environment are obviously more likely to indulge in sexual relationships before they are fully mature and are susceptible to greater risks.
Maybe the engagement of pubescent teens in sexual behaviour is an important part of their development into healthy and well-adjusted adults who do not obsess over sexual matters. Certainly it does no good for a hormonally-charged adolescent to be infused with the idea that their feelings are inherently sinful and will lead to their eternal damnation unless they are denied and forcibly repressed. I know from personal experience that this is so.

The duty of caring parents is to be open to the fact that their children, when they reach a certain age, are sexual beings, who will have questions and who will desire experiences related to that part of their nature. Parents who try to repress their children’s sexuality, because they think it is improper or wrong for them to express it, may in fact be doing far more harm than they realise. If children think their parents will not accept such behaviours as their sexual feelings incite, they will hide such behaviours from their parents, and give them no opportunity to provide support and guidance. It is this set of circumstances that leads to teen pregnancy and such other problems, not the embracing acceptance of sex as a natural means of human interaction. Responsible parents should understand that sexuality is a fundamental aspect of their child’s personality, and act accordingly - by guiding their child in the formation of healthy, respectful relationships with others.
 
Maybe the engagement of pubescent teens in sexual behaviour is an important part of their development into healthy and well-adjusted adults who do not obsess over sexual matters. Certainly it does no good for a hormonally-charged adolescent to be infused with the idea that their feelings are inherently sinful and will lead to their eternal damnation unless they are denied and forcibly repressed. I know from personal experience that this is so.

The duty of caring parents is to be open to the fact that their children, when they reach a certain age, are sexual beings, who will have questions and who will desire experiences related to that part of their nature. Parents who try to repress their children’s sexuality, because they think it is improper or wrong for them to express it, may in fact be doing far more harm than they realise. If children think their parents will not accept such behaviours as their sexual feelings incite, they will hide such behaviours from their parents, and give them no opportunity to provide support and guidance. It is this set of circumstances that leads to teen pregnancy and such other problems, not the embracing acceptance of sex as a natural means of human interaction. Responsible parents should understand that sexuality is a fundamental aspect of their child’s personality, and act accordingly - by guiding their child in the formation of healthy relationships with others.
A wonderful summary. I only take exception with the hightlighted “may”. Unfortunately it is simply certain, not “may”. It is a fact that even small children like to touch their genitals for the good feeling it brings, and small girls have been observed to bring themselves to full orgasm. The youngest one was only a few months old.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top