The immaculate misconception

  • Thread starter Thread starter Spock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
From one extreme to the other! Neither permissiveness nor puritanism is a recipe for developing into healthy and well-adjusted adults…
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.
There are scientific studies which indicate that various sexual relationships during adolescence increase the probability of infidelity in marriage and diminish the probability of successful family life.
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.
Healthy, respectful relationships with others during adolescence are undermined by sexual intercourse because adolescents are not mature enough to have committed relationships and are led to believe such activity has no lasting significance.

It is sexual permissiveness which has led to countless teenage pregnancies, abortions, STDs and spoilt lives - and fanciful to think that “the embracing acceptance of sex as a **natural **means of human interaction” does not undermine the belief that we are persons rather than animals… “By their fruits you shall know them”.
 
From one extreme to the other! Neither permissiveness nor puritanism is a recipe for developing into healthy and well-adjusted adults…
Quite so - but where does the Church provide guidelines for a happy medium? It’s either procreative sex within marriage or nothing.
There are scientific studies which indicate that various sexual relationships during adolescence increase the probability of infidelity in marriage and diminish the probability of successful family life.
With or without parental knowledge and support?
Healthy, respectful relationships with others during adolescence are undermined by sexual intercourse because adolescents are not mature enough to have committed relationships and are led to believe such activity has no lasting significance.
By the modern commercial culture of entitlement, sure, but that’s because there is no middle ground between parental denial of adolescent sexuality and the idea that one should have whatever one wants, independent of consequences. There is no reason to suppose that sexual activity must have lasting significance - certainly not lasting negative significance. I myself have had sexual encounters that I have accepted as good while they lasted, but transitory. It is interesting that sex is considered to be life-altering in its negative aspects, but not in its positive aspects - it has certainly been the latter for me.
It is sexual permissiveness which has led to countless teenage pregnancies, abortions, STDs and spoilt lives - and fanciful to think that “the embracing acceptance of sex as a **natural **means of human interaction” does not undermine the belief that we are persons rather than animals… “By their fruits you shall know them”.
I think it is the rebellion of teenagers against overbearing parents that has largely led to the proliferation of teenage pregnancies. There seems to be an unwillingness to engage with sexuality as a driving force within the human psyche, particularly for adolescents; as a consequence, sex is treated as something aberrant, something to be ashamed of, even in secular culture (consider the application of the word ‘slut’ to women who are open about their sexuality). Consider the consequences of a world in which all parents knew and felt comfortable discussing the consequences of sexual behaviour with their children - do you really think teenage pregnancies, abortions and STIs would be so prevalent as they are in a culture that - despite the commercial saturation of sex - stigmatises sexual desire as a weakness or an inherent evil?
 
From one extreme to the other! Neither permissiveness nor puritanism is a recipe for developing into healthy and well-adjusted adults…

There are scientific studies which indicate that various sexual relationships during adolescence increase the probability of infidelity in marriage and diminish the probability of successful family life.
Healthy, respectful relationships with others during adolescence are undermined by sexual intercourse because adolescents are not mature enough to have committed relationships and are led to believe such activity has no lasting significance.

It is sexual permissiveness which has led to countless teenage pregnancies, abortions, STDs and spoilt lives - and fanciful to think that “the embracing acceptance of sex as a **natural **means of human interaction” does not undermine the belief that we are persons rather than animals… “By their fruits you shall know them”.
… well put dear friend 👍👍👍 sex is part of being a human being , people just need to learn and understand what a human being is and the problem is solved if you ask me , god bless you 👍🙂 , john …
 
Though I’d certainly be interested in hearing any secular argument for why it would be wrong.
Because it’s harmful to your kids.

I’ll be interested to hear from you in ten years, after you’ve had a few daughters.

Anyway, best wishes to you.
 
I think this thread merits the title: “the pinnacle of derail attempts”. Amazing how hard you guys try to avoid the actual topic itself. The point is two people, who love each other (suppose even married to each other) who do not want to procreate just yet. They want to have children later, when they can not only bring those children into the world, but also provide the proper care for them. In the meantime they do not want to forego the opportunity to love each other, to give and receive pleasure. So they do their best to avoid the conception. Sometimes they use contraception, sometime they use “forbidden” positions. They even agree that in case a pregnancy occurs, they will not abort, will not give up the child to adoption, but will try their best to raise that child as well as possible.

That is all. Do not try to add anything to it. These derail attempts are getting rather pathetic.

If you can bring up some secular arguments against this scenario, please do so - but do not change the setup. I am quite familiar with the christian view, so there is no need to regurgitate it.
 
I think this thread merits the title: “the pinnacle of derail attempts”. Amazing how hard you guys try to avoid the actual topic itself. The point is two people, who love each other (suppose even married to each other) who do not want to procreate just yet. They want to have children later, when they can not only bring those children into the world, but also provide the proper care for them. In the meantime they do not want to forego the opportunity to love each other, to give and receive pleasure. So they do their best to avoid the conception. Sometimes they use contraception, sometime they use “forbidden” positions. They even agree that in case a pregnancy occurs, they will not abort, will not give up the child to adoption, but will try their best to raise that child as well as possible.

That is all. Do not try to add anything to it. These derail attempts are getting rather pathetic.

If you can bring up some secular arguments against this scenario, please do so - but do not change the setup. I am quite familiar with the christian view, so there is no need to regurgitate it.
Fifty million butchered infants, cut apart with wires, sucked into jars with a vacuum and trucked off to a medical waste facility where their body parts are burned. That is the secular argument.

Porn addiction That is the secular argument.

Skyrocketing divorce rates. That is the secular argument.

HIV and AIDS. That is the secular argument.

The pregnant sixteen year old in high school. That is the secular argument.

Mexican sex slavery in Southern California. That is the secular argument.

40% of all US children born into homes without a father. That is the secular argument.

The feeling you have in your gut when your fourteen year old daughter’s boyfriend says, “But I love her!” That is the secular argument.

The disgust you feel welling up inside when you notice a man with his wife and children who cannot command enough self control so as to stop staring at your twelve year old daughter. That is the secular argument.

It’s a very nice scenario you have painted where “I Want to Hold Your Hand” by the Beatles meets a box of trojans and two lovers harmlessly satisfy their natural desires. But 60 years of “do not want to forego the opportunity to love each other” and “do their best to avoid the conception” has given us porn addiction, child pornography, skyrocketing divorce rates, HIV, AIDS, teenage pregnancy, mexican sex slavery, a whole generation growing up without the stability of a father in the home, and fifty million butchered infants in the US alone.

The facts in America today do not bear out your claim to “Harmless” sex. Your insistence that it is harmless is a direct contributor.

-Tim-
 
It is sexual permissiveness which has led to countless teenage pregnancies, abortions, STDs and spoilt lives…
Not that I am promoting teen sex, but wouldn’t contraceptives reduce the rate of occurances of some of the above? If I had a child that decided to engage in sex I would much prefer that he/she does it in a non-procreative manner that doesn’t result in consequences like burning pee and unwanted pregnancies.
 
Not that I am promoting teen sex, but wouldn’t contraceptives reduce the rate of occurances of some of the above? If I had a child that decided to engage in sex I would much prefer that he/she does it in a non-procreative manner that doesn’t result in consequences like burning pee and unwanted pregnancies.
Yet 60 years of pushing condoms and pills and vasectomies has left us with 50 million abortions. Does that seem odd, that the more we push contraceptives and make them available, the more abortions we get? Yes, it is counter intuitive, but it cannot be ignored. The culture of recreational sex which Spock advocates in the original post is enabled through contraception, and as such it is the root cause of abortion.

Contraception enables recreational sex. Recreational sex creates the demand for abortion. It wasn’t Albert Einstien who said, “If A leads to B, and if B leades to C, and if C is not desired, then don’t do A.” That’s why contraception is so insidious. Take it away and Spock’s argument becomes moot. It is exactly the mindset that we have to push more contraception, or make it more freely available, or that if they are going to choose to have sex, it is better with contraception than without that is the cause of the problem, not the solution. It is a very self centered way of looking at life.

And here is where everyone will say that I’m old fashioned, out of touch with reality, and that we are not going back to 1953 and the Eisenhower administration. And at that I will simply involk God’s name. That’s what the Israelites thought right before Babylon killed half of them and took the rest into exile. The People of Nineva repented and spared themselves. They had more faith in God then the Israelites and I have more faith in God than to believe that he can’t take away contraception. I tell you this though, it ain’t gonna be pretty, but he can do it, and I fear that his patience might be running thin.

-Tim-
 
Not that I am promoting teen sex, but wouldn’t contraceptives reduce the rate of occurrences of some of the above? If I had a child that decided to engage in sex I would much prefer that he/she does it in a non-procreative manner that doesn’t result in consequences like burning pee and unwanted pregnancies.
It is certainly a lesser evil than abortion.
 
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.)
According to Orthodox Jewish teaching, the main purpose of marriage is not procreation, important and essential as this is. The main purpose is love and companionship. Although I don’t agree with everything Torah Judaism teaches, I do agree with this point. At the same time, Torah Judaism is opposed to gay sex (particularly male homosexuality) as well as masturbation, while Reform Judaism is not. Conservative Judaism is in the main opposed to the former but not the latter.
 
I think this thread merits the title: “the pinnacle of derail attempts”.
No, my friend. This thread merits the title “the pinnacle of claimed-atheist backpeddling.”

Your opening salvo convered the waterfront admirably. It went on for a page. It had everything in there from gratuitous insults, myopic history, grandstanding on who has the right to speak and when, criticism of Catholic logic, as well as a broad brush claim that almost any non marital sex is fine.

And then, you got a shellacking, to use an expression favored by our President.

So now we’re down to this anemic scenario, which is played out in a hundred marriage prep classes in a hundred parishes every day. It’s like asking if there’s any non religious reason not to take the Lord’s name in vain.

Sheesh.
 
It’s a very nice scenario you have painted where “I Want to Hold Your Hand” by the Beatles meets a box of trojans and two lovers harmlessly satisfy their natural desires. But 60 years of “do not want to forego the opportunity to love each other” and “do their best to avoid the conception” has given us porn addiction, child pornography, skyrocketing divorce rates, HIV, AIDS, teenage pregnancy, mexican sex slavery, a whole generation growing up without the stability of a father in the home, and fifty million butchered infants in the US alone.
Obviously you have no idea about history. None of what you said has anything to do with the actual scenario I posited. But, hey, if you cannot answer it, make up a strawman, and burn it to the ground. I am very glad that you are not in my camp. It would be a major embarrasment.
 
No, my friend. This thread merits the title “the pinnacle of claimed-atheist backpeddling.”

Your opening salvo convered the waterfront admirably. It went on for a page. It had everything in there from gratuitous insults, myopic history, grandstanding on who has the right to speak and when, criticism of Catholic logic, as well as a broad brush claim that almost any non marital sex is fine.

And then, you got a shellacking, to use an expression favored by our President.

So now we’re down to this anemic scenario, which is played out in a hundred marriage prep classes in a hundred parishes every day. It’s like asking if there’s any non religious reason not to take the Lord’s name in vain.

Sheesh.
I had to clarify, because of the derailing comments. And look at the current posts. Even explicitly and meticulously describing the scenario, the same derailment occurs.

Sheeesh, indeed.
 
… my dear friend ,

… the q is assuming " love " is involved in the non - procreative sex , it is impossible to have this antilife mentality and still have true " love " in sex or these types of relationships full stop , you can kid yourself there is love but " love " is not just open to life it is life , it is existence and reality itself , to twist and perfevert sex by making it evil and dirty to increase enjoyment and pleasure regardless of fooling yourself it is " love " is to destroy what is the greatest expression of human love between man and woman and turn it into nothingness or evil …

… it is impossible to have " love " unless the sex is the fruit of this " love " and toi be so you need to be human which is " love " , one must define what " love " really is , and what a human being is and what sex is , rather than speculate and theorise endlessly and blindly on the supposed harmless sex as is being done here …

… humans are not meant to behave as suggested in the op , it is inhuman and monstrous the great bulk of it , people are sick and they turn sex into something sick , they do it all too often , people need to fix their hearts and minds and then all will be clear as with sexual q’s …

… but only god can fix man here , so it is no surprise that without god one cannot see the obvious – fallen man is very sick and he needs fixing dear friend , this is mostly why our whole world and existence is such a mess , true …

… may god bless and love you 👍🙂 ,

… john …
 
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.
What did you expect on a Catholic web forum? Only the Catholic view is going to be supported. Any opposition will be put out in flames, pun intended 😛 As to giving one’s opinion where it’s not wanted, it is my observation IRL that people don’t stand for it. So you really don’t have to worry about it IRL. Unless of course, you’re witnessing the same behavior in real life…is that the case? Because I have not. Sure there’s some inappropriate “two cents” given once in a while. But that’s true of someone of any culture, not just Catholic…and again, it’s usually nipped in the bud by someone who doesn’t welcome the intrusion.
The problematic part is when the posters wish to argue on secular, rational grounds. Even if such practices harmfully affect the practitoners - but only them! - that alleged harm is none of your business.
Remember that arguments are brought to the table by people who wish to discuss these matters on a Catholic online forum. Again, what do you expect in terms of response? Only what is taught from the Church is going to be favored. Anything else is not favored. I honestly don’t know why you would have thought a different outcome.

To be honest, I have no unearthly clue why anyone would bring important life senario questions to an online forum, when they have a diocese and a family priest at their disposal for such real-life counsel. This forum is a GREAT resource, but some things really should be brought to the family priest.
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.
Don’t blame just the Catholics. Over time parents have told many “lies” to keep their kids in line.
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?).
They didn’t come from any society different than your own. Real life is full of good and bad. The posters who claim they don’t know any of the above examples first hand (either in their homes or out) are just flat out lying. And we don’t see too much of that. We usually see complaining of witnessed debachery. However, again, this is a Catholic forum. Posters want to propagate good from the perspective of the Church, not propagate the negative influences of the outside world.
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.
According to the teachings of the Church, and again, remember you’re on a Catholic forum: every single deviance from the teachings of the Church affects everyone as a whole, being that we’re all connected. So Catholics are called upon by the Church to influence the actions of everyone else, either through their living example, through ‘fraternal correction’, through prayer, through lobbying, etc.

What they’re not supposed to do is (which is seen of the most diligent scrupulous persons) interject the teachings of the Church into every single exchange in real life, welcomed or not by an outside party. This is not what is taught by the Church and, as we’ve witnessed on this forum, leads to inappropriate social behaviors, which lead to (again as we’ve seen on this forum) some quite disturbing disfunctional behaviors. I’m not going to point out the posts, or the members, because that’s not fair. But suffice it to say, such behavior leaves them with no friends and wondering why they’re so alone and lonely.

However, you Spock, have wandered on to a Catholic online forum, and your questions will have Catholic answers, and your arguments will be met with Catholic responses. And you really shouldn’t have expected any less. 🤷
 
… snip… However, you Spock, have wandered on to a Catholic online forum, and your questions will have Catholic answers, and your arguments will be met with Catholic responses. And you really shouldn’t have expected any less. 🤷
I do not complain at this outcome. I tried to make it clear, if the argument is only and solely of religious grounds, that is fine. I am merely curious, if there are any arguments outside that realm. After all I would accept only a rational argument (which translates into a secular one), but I would reject a religious one.

Having seen the 8 pages so far, I can say that there were no arguments to be taken seriously. Derail attempts, making strawman arguments are the norm, sprinkled with outright idiocy. I was hoping for something better, but that is due only to my incurable optimism. I really should know better by now that rationality is “rara avis” around here.
 
I do not complain at this outcome. I tried to make it clear, if the argument is only and solely of religious grounds, that is fine. I am merely curious, if there are any arguments outside that realm. After all I would accept only a rational argument (which translates into a secular one), but I would reject a religious one.

Having seen the 8 pages so far, I can say that there were no arguments to be taken seriously. Derail attempts, making strawman arguments are the norm, sprinkled with outright idiocy. I was hoping for something better, but that is due only to my incurable optimism. I really should know better by now that rationality is “rara avis” around here.
Since you say that there are 8 pages of no serious arguments but derailing attempts, I’m not going to go through them. Some teachings of the Church have rational arguments and many cultures are in agreement. Though, I admit, some teachings of the Church are exclusive to the Church and are really based on faith in the Church. Faith is not something that can be explained and rationalized. What is bothering you the most? Name one (or a few) things that I can attempt to answer from a secular perspective. I may not be able to convince you or adequately argue with you about…but I’ll try. And we’ll see where it goes.
 
… 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 …
Reason is a natural light that is obscured by sin. Some people have the ability attributed to the fictional character," the “Shadow,” to cloud men’s minds,to convince them that their own destruction is a good thing. In a way, the TV and other media are “shadow boxes” in that same sense.
 
This is no different than saying murder isn’t wrong if its done with the proper selection of victims, and proper precautions are taken.
They aren’t remotely similar. Murder is inherently harmful as it deprives the victim and their loved ones of something of great value. Similarly, rape is wrong even if you put a pillow under your victim and do it on silk sheets.

Promiscuity however, is not inherently harmful. I have yet to hear a good secular argument for why it is wrong when done honestly and with proper precautions. I do not think that promiscuity is inherently good or bad.

Maybe this analogy will illuminate my point. Consider war. There have been plenty of unjust wars fought for terrible reasons which did a great deal of harm. But this does not mean that there are no just wars and that countries are always wrong to fight regardless of the circumstances.

By the way, in response to your later points, I do not think all sex outside marriage is good- far from it. I think that there’s currently a lot of pressure on people to have sex at times and in situations where it would be best not to. If you want to have a discussion of what types of premarital sex are harmful, feel free to start another thread and I’ll join you over there. This thread is about whether there are secular arguments that extra-marital sex is inherently wrong, not over whether there should be more or less of it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top