I hope I am not distracting from mommamaree’s point here, but I still struggle with the Catholic view on sex, despite being catechized extensively. I think part of that is because all of the Catholic documents I have read on the subject are vague, flowery and poetic rather than direct… I guess for fear of causing arousal. But still, it has the side effect of leaving questions unanswered.
The other part of the problem for me is that I have created this dichotomy between holy and unholy, clean and dirty. I know exactly what unholy and dirty are—rejoicing in the pleasures of sex, having no limitations, selfishness, exploring new ideas, not welcoming guilt and so on. So I just figure that the opposite must be holy and clean. But the opposite of what I have described as unholy is not tasking pleasure in sex, selflessness, having as many limitations as possible, never trying anything new and always feeling guilty about everything.
This would seem to require a kind of non-physical sex. No arousal, no enjoyment, no exchange of bodily fluids, as that would be dirty. But I don’t understand how that could be possible: sex cannot be a non-physical act, it is a physical one. It cannot be a completely clean event, as there are bodily fluids involved. It cannot be one that fully rejects pleasure, as consensual sex is virtually impossible if both partners are not enjoying it somewhat. It cannot be a completely selfless act, either, as it must involve the self. In other words, as a man, if I never think of myself or embrace my desires during the act, then physically the act simply won’t work and likewise for a woman. And then I’m told that I’m supposed to do this act and embrace it as it is a part of marriage, but also I’m supposed to feel guilty enjoying the sight or touch or taste of my wife, for giving in to these base, unholy/unclean desires. And foreplay is wrong, and so on.
And you can’t get much illumination because it cannot be discussed in a “dirty” (that is, direct) way.
It is all very, very confusing.