S
SwizzleStick
Guest
Oops, I myself missed the last line.
Sorry, all.
- Status
Sorry, all.
S
SwizzleStick
Guest
A search of CAF may help with your questions. Here is one thread that I found that may be helpful to you. I’m sure there are other threads as well that may be helpful if you search around.Thank you again for the responses.
Let me clear this up. I am not talking againts the catholic church:I don’t have anything againts any church. When people ask me if I am catholic or something else, I respond to them by saying that i am Christian and nothing more. I dont go to any specific church. I go anywhere where our God is worship.
Lets get on topic now, I dont want to start an argument.Please!!!
I have another question(sorry for all these questions, Im just trying learn so I can do what is correct).
I know the bible says that we should give and not expect to receive, and that’s the way I feel. During sex in the unitive pleasure part, I dont want to seek my pleasure, but my wife’s pleasure. I dont care about my pleasure, and I really mean it. I want to give my wife great pleasure so we can bond more, so hears my question:
Is searching for ways(techniques for foreplay) to give my wife more pleasure, so we can bond more, be wrong?
I heard some christian brothers say that is wrong. Whats your opinion??
Questions about the church’s teachings on ‘sex’
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=509116
M
Made_O_fGod
Guest
Thank you Swizzle. I’ll take a look at that.
R
Rau
Guest
The consumption of a piece of chocolate is often not sought for purposes of nourishment - only pleasure. I would not label that act as gluttonous.
Certainly, eating as a process does not exist to please the eater, but to nourish. It is often pleasurable, which reinforces the merits of eating (good), but perversely may in some cases encourage harmful eating. The latter perhaps reflects our less than ideal human nature.
As a chocolate lover, I strive to find that happy medium between eating for nourishment, and for pleasure, without the harmful extremes!
C
Crown_of_Stars
Guest
And thankfully it does not support this. That is awful and wrong. Mutilation is horrifying and should never be allowed. Why would they think a woman shouldn’t have a particular part of her, if God created her with it for heaven’s sake? Terrible.
B
Bruised_Reed
Guest
Well, men, also created by God, are born with a foreskin and that is removed in some cultures. Mutilating the clitoris using carbolic acid was considered for a time in the hopes of preventing masturbation; the same reason circumcision is now regularly performed in the US.
R
Rau
Guest
What bearing does circumcision have on masturbation? None to my knowledge.
R
Rau
Guest
For many years it was considered medically beneficial. However, arguments that sons should look like their dad are foolish.
C
Corki
Guest
Medical recommendations vary from country to country, especially for elective procedures. There is a body of research on the benefits of circumcision as well as research on the risks. Some doctors put more weight on the benefits while others put more weight on the risks.
It’s not just country to country, either. I moved from the east coast to Texas with an infant. Many of the pediatrician recommendations were different in the different region, including feeding schedules and allergen avoidance.
Medicine is both an art and a science. There are not always 100% solutions.
B
Bruised_Reed
Guest
I was responding to Crown of Stars post:
If I change a few words…
“…Mutilation is horrifying and should never be allowed. Why would they think a man shouldn’t have a particular part of him, if God created him with it for heaven’s sake? Terrible.”
it should carry the same weight.
E
e_c
Guest
Should we never cut our hair?
The principle of totality allows for the removal of one body part for the sake of the whole. There are health benefits to circumcision.
Likewise, Almighty God chose that as the sign of the covenant with Abraham…
The mutilation of the woman is different because it is not for the sake of the body and is never commanded habitually by God. It’s off topic to go through the whole argument of why it is wrong to harm the body in this way even if it is somehow for the sake of the soul.
Pleasure is a side effect and aid to the unitive principle, both as an incentive and as a “help to the spouses,” as was mentioned already.
The principle of totality allows for the removal of one body part for the sake of the whole. There are health benefits to circumcision.
Likewise, Almighty God chose that as the sign of the covenant with Abraham…
The mutilation of the woman is different because it is not for the sake of the body and is never commanded habitually by God. It’s off topic to go through the whole argument of why it is wrong to harm the body in this way even if it is somehow for the sake of the soul.
Pleasure is a side effect and aid to the unitive principle, both as an incentive and as a “help to the spouses,” as was mentioned already.
B
Bruised_Reed
Guest
And there are some who say that circumcision minimizes the pleasure of a man and that the health benefits are minimal. Again, if the foreskin is such a bad thing why is *every baby boy born with it? It serves a purpose (Even after menopause the uterus serves a purpose and women would be wise to avoid hysterectomies that are not medically necessary.) If it’s not medically necessary for the person why remove a healthy part of the body? If there are medical benefits why not wait until the person is an adult to make that decision?
*I’m sure there are exceptions, just like some baby girls are born without a vagina or ovaries (and I’m not referring to intersex conditions). Stuff happens.
E
e_c
Guest
It still comes under the principle of totality. “Some say” it does, at least…
R
Rau
Guest
I don’t disagree that circumcision as “routine” seems odd, but I make the point that it is - at least - a medical procedure, motivated (generally) by reasonable medical considerations) whereas clitoral mutilation can claim no such rational basis, and it is destructive of the functioning of person’s body in a very material way, sometimes with reasons that reflect the selfishness and jealously of others.
So while there is an element of commonality, it’s not reasonable to see them as two equivalents.
B
Bruised_Reed
Guest
Unless one is considering why circumcision is widespread in North America and that female circumcision was considered for baby girls as well. I’m hoping that what you mentioned in your post was considered at the time but I imagine that women were seen as non-sexual or something and therefore not at risk to masturbate like boys would be.
R
Rau
Guest
I think you ascribe quite bizarre (and very narrowly held) motives to the practice. I have never heard anyone, let alone doctors, express such ideas.
B
Bruised_Reed
Guest
Look up Dr. Kellogg. Corn flakes were invented to somehow control masturbation. Graham crackers, too but I don’t know who promoted that, but probably another Doctor.
The quote above is from the following link. I don’t know how narrow or wide the belief was but the practice is wide and people don’t now why it’s done and that it doesn’t have to be. But I think that Dr. Kellogg and his ilk had more influence than most people know. cirp.org/library/ethics/clark2006/
R
Rau
Guest
Is there no end to bizarre theories on this topic? Perhaps you should ask a Poll question:Did Circumcision become commonplace in the USA:
a) Largely in the belief that it would reduce masturbation in boys;
b) Largely in the belief that it reduced the likelihood of various medical conditions affecting the penis.
B
Bruised_Reed
Guest
I wouldn’t run a poll here; I expect members of this forum are at least slightly more informed on this topic, especially since it’s being discussed. And the way the questions are asked would skew the answers anyway.
Did Circumcision become commonplace in the USA:
a) Largely in the belief that it would reduce masturbation in boys;
b) Largely in the belief that it reduced the likelihood of various medical conditions affecting the penis.
- Status