What Is So Bad About Sex?

[thomfra]

As God’s people, we are no longer a part of this world, our society included. If you feel that there no longer can be purity in marriages, then you’ve never really understood marriage in it’s full context.

Not part of society - how did you come to that conclusion

Again - “disagree” - “understand” (see previous post).

 

[fix]

Well I could ask: How do you know whether something you say you “don’t agree with” is actually something “you don’t understand”?

If you see lust as synonymous with attraction then there must be a lack of understanding as they are defined differently.

 

[Cari]

It’s not me so much that needs to rise to the occasion . My DH has some misgivings about having relations frequently and enjoying that aspect of married life more. Please send us some prayers.

I certainly will!

But it seems to me, given this particular light shed, that the question that needs to be answered still isn’t “why is it sinful to use these things?” (though that should be answered later) and more “why does my husband feel this way, and what can we do as a couple to eliminate the problem?”

Porn (I’m thinking that’s what you mean when you use the euphimisms “erotic” and “spicy”) is, in the long run, only going to make the problem worse. Figuring out WHY your husband has these misgivings and SOLVING them treats the disease, as it were, rather than the symptoms.

Even if you don’t mean porn when you say “erotica”, etc., it still makes no sense to rail against why this is wrong when the first issue is why does he need this?

Kind of like me standing in the kitchen griping at my husband for moving the fire extinguisher while the house burns down around our ears.

 

[Tonks40]

Not part of society - how did you come to that conclusion

From God.

Again - “disagree” - “understand” (see previous post).

Methinks you need to try and understand God more and understand the world less. Just my :twocents:

Peace.

 

[maria_rose]

If you see lust as synonymous with attraction then there must be a lack of understanding as they are defined differently.

God gave us the ability to desire to love one another physically and if we keep it in the covenant of marriage Sex is wonderful. It renews the wedding vows , the unity, it generates children and brings joy.
We use spices in the kitchen to make food agreeable why not a little excitement in the bedroom.
NO, I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT USING HARD CORE PORN.
I’m sure there exist tasteful erotic poems, stories and movies.
Attraction is a combination of earthly lust and holy desire. Unless God grants you the privilege not to need that outlet and you are called to total chastity, you’ll have to be human and part of society here on earth.
That doesn’t mean you accept and live societies’ errors.

 

[Tonks40]

I’m sure there exist tasteful erotic poems, stories and movies.

No such thing.

Believe me, I’ve seen and lived both sides.

 

[fix]

God gave us the ability to desire to love one another physically and if we keep it in the covenant of marriage Sex is wonderful. It renews the wedding vows , the unity, it generates children and brings joy.
We use spices in the kitchen to make food agreeable why not a little excitement in the bedroom.
NO, I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT USING HARD CORE PORN.
I’m sure there exist tasteful erotic poems, stories and movies.
Attraction is a combination of earthly lust and holy desire. Unless God grants you the privilege not to need that outlet and you are called to total chastity, you’ll have to be human and part of society here on earth.
That doesn’t mean you accept and live societies’ errors.

One part of the issue is that we are throwing around terms without defining them. Lust, as the Church uses the term, is a sin.

There is no way to combine sin with holiness and claim that it is rightly ordered. What I think you are talking about is attraction and arousal between a husband and wife. That attraction and arousal are not sinful if it is not selfish, not objectifying, not contraceptive, and all the rest.

As to “spices” I guess that needs to be defined as well. Certainly no form of pornograhpy is good. And erotic can mean many things depending on how it is used by the person using it.

 

[bilop]

It’s not me so much that needs to rise to the occasion . My DH has some misgivings about having relations frequently and enjoying that aspect of married life more. Please send us some prayers.

Maria,

If this is your situation, I think any “erotica” will make your husband’s situation worse. It seems to me he may be in fact confusing legitimate marital sexual desire with lust. I heartily reccomend any of Christopher West’s books the theology of the body. Maybe you and you husband could read them together.

There is absolutely no problem with a married couple having as much sex as they want, and enjoying it greatly, as long as the sex is both unitive and procreative.

Unfortunately, given the society we live in, it is very hard to separate the beauty of marital sex from the sinful sex we are presented with everywhere.

God Bless, and I will say a prayer for you!

 

[LilyM]

God gave us the ability to desire to love one another physically and if we keep it in the covenant of marriage Sex is wonderful. It renews the wedding vows , the unity, it generates children and brings joy.
We use spices in the kitchen to make food agreeable why not a little excitement in the bedroom.
NO, I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT USING HARD CORE PORN.
I’m sure there exist tasteful erotic poems, stories and movies.
Attraction is a combination of earthly lust and holy desire. Unless God grants you the privilege not to need that outlet and you are called to total chastity, you’ll have to be human and part of society here on earth.
That doesn’t mean you accept and live societies’ errors.

Oh that’s right, silly me, the commandment was ‘thou shalt not use hard core porn but anything else is fair game’, because Lord knows there’s never any lust involved in soft-core at all :nope:

Lust is sinful, it should have no part of any marriage between godly people. Using smut(excuse me, ‘tasteful erotica’, like there’s any less sin to it if you call it that) is wrong for so many reasons.

There are plenty of ways to spice up your sex life without it, what is wrong with using the suggestions I gave you in my earlier post? Tell me what watching total strangers having sex or pretending to have sex can possibly do for you that a home-made steamy video couldn’t?

 

[onetimeposter]

Pornography is Evil.

If you believe in the Devil, then you had better believe that pornography is one of his greatest tools from turning people away from God.

Pornography is all about greed, exploitation, carnality and the propagation of a an overly-sexualized society.

There is nothing fun, harmless or spicy about pornography…pornography leads to obsession, compulsive behaviour and even addiction.

Would you want someone you loved to appear in X-rated films or even " soft core" films to make a few dollars?

Remember, when you are watching pornography, you are watching someones wife, brother, sister, friend on the screen. Every person on that screen had a mother…would you want to be the mother or father of that person on the screen? Is that what you would want for your children’s future?

 

[thomfra]

If you see lust as synonymous with attraction then there must be a lack of understanding as they are defined differently.

I did not say that. I said that lust and sexual arousal/sexual attraction are one and the same. I do realise that the chuch doesn’t see it that way. But I see this as an artificial construct.

No matter how hard you protest. Sex can not be classified in such a nuansed way (IMHO). We don’t think in technicalities when we are aroused.

The point is that you have sex with somebody you love. To then say at you can be a sinner whilst loving and “becoming one” with that person because you may or may not have come up with the idea to make love after reading a saucy poem is just ridiculous in the extreme.

 

[thomfra]

No such thing.

Believe me, I’ve seen and lived both sides.

Oh…congratulations to you. The reformed sinner indeed.

Unless you are willing to provide a full biographical, fact checked account, it about as useless a statement as me saying "well I’ve been a conservative Catholic, and believe me when I tell you, it just lead to heart ache and pain "

 

[Tonks40]

Oh…congratulations to you. The reformed sinner indeed.

Unless you are willing to provide a full biographical, fact checked account, it about as useless a statement as me saying "well I’ve been a conservative Catholic, and believe me when I tell you, it just lead to heart ache and pain "

You don’t have to believe me - you’re not bound to it. Look at the teachings from the Church. Maybe then you’ll see that there’s no such thing as “tasteful” erotica in any media form.

 

[davidv]

I did not say that. I said that lust and sexual arousal/attraction are one and the same. I do realise that the chuch doesn’t see it that way. But I see this as an artificial construct.

No matter how hard you protest. Sex can not be classified in such a nuansed way (IMHO). We don’t think in technicalities when we are aroused.

The point is that you have sex with somebody you love. To then say at you can be a sinner whilst loving and “becoming one” with that person because you may or may not have come up with the idea to make love after reading a saucy poem is just ridiculous in the extreme.

Why is it artifical? One (lust) is a sin and the other (arousal) is morally neutral. If our desire for eternity in heaven, there is an infinity of differece between the two.

 

[thomfra]

Why is it artifical? One (lust) is a sin and the other (arousal) is morally neutral. If our desire for eternity in heaven, there is an infinity of differece between the two.

How about reading some of the posts before you write?

 

[CuriousInIL]

And you can ‘excite’ all you want - as long as you do something that is just between the two of you and focuses on the two of you exclusively - instead of bringing in outside stimuli from third parties, which necessarily implies that the two of you really aren’t enough for each other.

There’s nothing wrong with lingerie, whipped cream, a nice slow massage - all incredibly enjoyable. There’s nothing wrong with even making your OWN private ‘movie’ or writing your own poetry celebrating your love for each other!

It’s when you bring outsiders into the bedroom - THEIR poetry, THEIR sex scenes in THEIR movies - that it becomes wrong. You can’t escape the underlying message in such situations that the two people in the room simply don’t feel like they have anything to offer themselves.

Look, I’ve been in sexual relationships and never had problems with just the two of us alone, ESPECIALLY after we had not had sex for a while! If movies and other erotica had entered the picture I could never again have felt sexy, never again felt that I was good enough. Not if my partner (or I, for that matter) needed outside help.

This raises a few questions for me. I’ll just hit two for now.

1. How do we draw the line that we are bringing in a third party–the author–when we read poetry but are not apparently bringing in a third party–the seamstress–when using lingerie?
2. Is everyone on board with the concept that there is nothing wrong with a married couple making their own private movie?

 

[thomfra]

This raises a few questions for me. I’ll just hit two for now.

1. How do we draw the line that we are bringing in a third party–the author–when we read poetry but are not apparently bringing in a third party–the seamstress–when using lingerie?
2. Is everyone on board with the concept that there is nothing wrong with a married couple making their own private movie?

1. Well that’s the thing isn’t it.
2. You’ll never catch me doing that. I am not photogenic. And seeing myself on film would probably mean I’d never have sex again… But each to their own I guess.

 

[davidv]

How about reading some of the posts before you write?

Why do you think I didn’t?

 

[LilyM]

This raises a few questions for me. I’ll just hit two for now.

1. How do we draw the line that we are bringing in a third party–the author–when we read poetry but are not apparently bringing in a third party–the seamstress–when using lingerie?
2. Is everyone on board with the concept that there is nothing wrong with a married couple making their own private movie?

1. The seamstress isn’t either describing (directly or indirectly) or acting out the sex act for purposes of arousing third parties, unlike the erotic poet or erotic movie actors/makers who ply their trade for an audience. So in the relevant sense the seamstress isn’t a ‘third party’ in that sense. It’s not like anyone even spares a thought for, let alone fantasises about, the seamstress by viewing the lingerie, for example.

Besides which lingerie, even fancy stuff, has morally neutral uses. Some women wear it as a joke, some because it’s fashionable and makes them feel pretty in a non-sexual way, for example. The only morally neutral reason to read or view porn is if you’re a government censor, and even then if it’s an occasion of lust you need to find another job. And the porn itself certainly is not morally neutral.

1. Well, maybe not as a blanket rule, it would depend on the type of movie and the purposes for which it is used, but in any event it is most certainly morally much better than viewing movied produced by or involving third parties.

I find it interesting, thom, that you’d say you’d never watch yourself having sex on camera simply because you’re not photogenic. You right there have shown the MAIN problem with porn - that it gives totally unrealistic depictions of the sex act, so that those who use it end up becoming dissatisfied with sex how God intended sex to be and think they have to do ‘one better’ by way of ‘spicing things up’.

 

[1ke]

1. How do we draw the line that we are bringing in a third party–the author–when we read poetry but are not apparently bringing in a third party–the seamstress–when using lingerie?

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;
• the end in view or the intention;
• the circumstances of the action.

The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

The morality of this situation has nothing to do with bringing in a third party. The morality of writing pornography/erotica fails the critiera above as neither the object nor the end are moral. The morality of making lingerie does not fail to meet the criteria above.

1. Is everyone on board with the concept that there is nothing wrong with a married couple making their own private movie?

No.