What is "Sex"?

Debating issues regarding sexuality

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 1157
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 249 times
Been thanked: 146 times

What is "Sex"?

Post #1

Post by Purple Knight »

I don't really condone Bill Clinton's famous lie, because it was clearly intended to deceive, but I actually agree with it.

I don't consider anything to be true sexual intercourse unless it carries the possibility of producing offspring. Oral sex? Sex with a condom? I consider that masturbation with two people. I don't consider what Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinski did to be measurably different than one of them peeping at the other in the bathroom or pasting the other's head on random naked pictures (we'll say with consent, so it'll be equal in that way). What does touching change? Even very nasty touching? To me, nothing, if the touching can't make babies.

Question for debate: Is there any precedence for this view in either religious or secular philosophy?

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: What is "Sex"?

Post #21

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to nobspeople in post #19]

[Replying to RightReason in post #15]

Married couples were intended to have sex for pleasure.
There's more to it than that (ignoring the past tense of the sentence as I'm assuming sex is also available for future use ). Sex isn't intended for anything, it simply is. Whatever 'intent' is put upon it is done so, mostly for human understanding of said act. But that's what humanity does: they just can't accept something, they have to pigeonhole it so they can 'understand' it.

Ridiculous. It is from science and observation from the world we live in that we can pigeonhole things. A woman’s breast produces milk. I think it safe to say a primary purpose of the female breast is to feed/nourish babies. To pretend, we can just arbitrarily suggest something the female breast can be used for (ex: women lactate in order to be able to water their lawns or a woman’s breast can be used as a pin cushion) is something those who seem to always be afraid to admit truth exists and there is a design/order to the world try to say. Everyone knows the truth, but there are always those who try to come up with some obscure example or hypothetical and say, “See! Who’s to say what’s truth!”
You don’t have to do anything about the procreative nature. It’s just there. And it doesn’t take away the pleasure factor

Fact is, for some, once they make themselves incapable of producing children (aka being or getting fixed, as some call it), sex becomes a lot better!
And for some, it becomes worse – feels empty. Has even been shown to break up marriages and relationships. People often regret such drastic decisions. I’ve heard many times people say they regret not having more children. I have never once heard someone say they regretted having their children.

Regardless, my comment stands because the truth remains inherent in the sexual act is a unitive nature of procreation and pleasure. That’s the design of the human body.
What you can’t do is do something purposely to block/thwart/destroy the natural procreative nature of the act.

Not entirely true. You can most certainly block the natural procreative nature of the act - happens all the time (and judging the planet's population, it would behoove us all to participate in this a lot more IMO).
Obviously, I was speaking about what man should not do – not what he couldn’t do. A man could also ejaculate into a beehive, but I wouldn’t advise it.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: What is "Sex"?

Post #22

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #21]
So after a hysterectomy, a Catholic woman is just plain out of luck?
<sigh> A hysterectomy for medical reasons would not be immoral. Although, scientific evidence shows hysterectomies were often unnecessarily performed. It used to be that was the answer to any “woman problem”, when doing so did not address the root problem the woman was probably dealing with. Hysterectomies are not as common now because we know better.

If a person can’t get pregnant because of medical reasons, that is not wrongdoing on their part. And it actually proves my point. What it means is something went wrong and a person’s fertility is not working the way it should. When the unitive nature of the sexual act is not impaired in some way, it means things aren’t working as designed.
If find some of the Catholic reasoning short sighted - and I'm an ex Catholic. Sex CAN result in procreation, but so can a test tube and the right ingredients/conditions. Forcing people to only have sex in a particular way is one of the controlling aspects of the RCC which I find ridiculous.
What do you mean in only one way? I have discovered many ways. Who decided adults shouldn’t have sex with children? The Man-boy Love Association finds it wrong to force such a narrow one-sided view of sex. Brothers and sisters are not supposed to have sex. So, I guess you think that is wrong too? Most people frown upon a person being able to have sex with their dog. Maybe you think sex should only be certain ways as well???

I also find it somewhat hypocritical that many Catholics practice natural family planning. i.e. they figure out the woman's cycle and try not to have children, but say it's ok because it's still remotely possible to happen. In other words, they more or less thwart the system and hope they get the timing right. If they don't, they get pregnant when they didn't intend to.
You have misinformation. The Church does not approve of NFP because there is still a remote possibility to conceive, rather because the couple is not engaging in the sexual act and then doing something to block/thwart/stop conception. NFP requires abstinence. It actually means NOT having sex. The couple isn’t saying we want the pleasure of having sex right now, but won’t accept the natural consequences of having sex right now.

It's like saying if someone wanted to lose weight, he doesn’t eat dessert. That is noble and moral and disciplined. What would be wrong would be for a person to want to lose weight, eat dessert and then vomit up because they don’t want the calories(consequences). That behavior is contrary to natural law. It’s not proper order. In fact, we would label it disordered.

Do you understand the difference?


If God only wanted people to achieve pleasure during 'correct' sexual relations, that would be the way it is.
Non believers always love to tweak God’s design or suggest they would have done things differently.
I think churches should leave consensual sex in the hands of those involved and butt out. Pun intended.
No you don’t. You just like to think you do. You probably wouldn’t be cool with a father and his adult daughter getting it on. You probably think like nobspeople in the post above people shouldn’t have too many children (that’s getting involved in someone else’s love life). You probably frown upon doctor/patient sexual relationships or teacher/student, even if consenting. I assume you aren’t super cool with adultery.

If you properly understood the Church’s beautiful teaching regarding sex, love, marriage you would be on board. Everyone would be on board if properly understood. It is wise, reasonable, awesome, and incredible. You should look into and not make your decision based on mis information and unsupported anti-Catholic propaganda.

User avatar
brunumb
Prodigy
Posts: 2562
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 777 times
Been thanked: 402 times

Re: What is "Sex"?

Post #23

Post by brunumb »

RightReason wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:44 pm Who decided adults shouldn’t have sex with children? The Man-boy Love Association finds it wrong to force such a narrow one-sided view of sex. Brothers and sisters are not supposed to have sex. So, I guess you think that is wrong too? Most people frown upon a person being able to have sex with their dog.
There are sound physiological and psychological reasons behind such prohibitions, not just some nonsense dished out from alleged holy books.
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 1765
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 235 times
Been thanked: 99 times

Re: What is "Sex"?

Post #24

Post by benchwarmer »

RightReason wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:44 pm [Replying to benchwarmer in post #21]
So after a hysterectomy, a Catholic woman is just plain out of luck?
<sigh> A hysterectomy for medical reasons would not be immoral.
Sigh all you want. You said:
What you can’t do is do something purposely to block/thwart/destroy the natural procreative nature of the act
A hysterectomy does all of the above regardless of how the woman came to have one. I happen to know of Catholic women (multiple) that have had them for medical reasons. Your statement suggests they can no longer enjoy sex.
RightReason wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:44 pm
If find some of the Catholic reasoning short sighted - and I'm an ex Catholic. Sex CAN result in procreation, but so can a test tube and the right ingredients/conditions. Forcing people to only have sex in a particular way is one of the controlling aspects of the RCC which I find ridiculous.
What do you mean in only one way?
Intercourse. I thought that was obvious. Any other act that doesn't deposit sperm into a place that allows pregnancy falls into your quote about thwarting the procreative nature.
RightReason wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:44 pm Who decided adults shouldn’t have sex with children?
First, I did say "consensual", but I guess I need to be more clear. I don't know where you live, but where I live we have an age of consent for sex. In other words, people who are not old enough to fully understand what's happening can't really give consent. Consent is not just saying "yes".

So, since children can't give informed consent, we as a society decide this with laws. Not religious institutions who are accountable to no one but their own holy books and various imagined deities.
RightReason wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:44 pm The Man-boy Love Association finds it wrong to force such a narrow one-sided view of sex. Brothers and sisters are not supposed to have sex. So, I guess you think that is wrong too? Most people frown upon a person being able to have sex with their dog. Maybe you think sex should only be certain ways as well???
The only way I care about is informed consent. Beyond that, I have no qualms.

In other words, I'm against rape.
RightReason wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:44 pm
I also find it somewhat hypocritical that many Catholics practice natural family planning. i.e. they figure out the woman's cycle and try not to have children, but say it's ok because it's still remotely possible to happen. In other words, they more or less thwart the system and hope they get the timing right. If they don't, they get pregnant when they didn't intend to.
You have misinformation. The Church does not approve of NFP because there is still a remote possibility to conceive, rather because the couple is not engaging in the sexual act and then doing something to block/thwart/stop conception. NFP requires abstinence. It actually means NOT having sex. The couple isn’t saying we want the pleasure of having sex right now, but won’t accept the natural consequences of having sex right now.
I think it is you who is misinformed.

From the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:
https://www.usccb.org/topics/natural-fa ... y-planning
Natural Family Planning (NFP) is the general title for the scientific, natural, and moral methods of family planning that can help married couples either achieve or postpone pregnancy.
From a Canadian site that I am familiar with when I was a Catholic:
https://serena.ca/what-is-nfp/
What is Natural Family Planning?
Natural Family planning refers to the use of knowledge of the woman’s menstrual cycle to guide the couple’s decision to time intercourse according to their plan to achieve or postpone a pregnancy.

TO PREVENT PREGNANCY:
Natural Family Planning, when used competently to prevent pregnancy, is comparable to that of the IUD and contraceptive pill, but without the side effects. It is more effective than the condom, the diaphragm, the cervical cap and spermicides.

TO CONCEIVE:
When is comes to achieving a pregnancy, couples who use NFP have a high chance (assuming no major fertility issues) of conceiving if they time intercourse to the most fertile days of the month, which Natural Family Planning can help them to identify.
In other words, abstinence is ONLY required during the period of fertility.

From the Serena site as well:
To be effective, Natural Family Planning requires a good knowledge of the signs of fertility and infertility present during the menstrual cycle. They help the couple to make informed choices about their sexual behavior depending on whether they wish to achieve or avoid pregnancy.
RightReason wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:44 pm It's like saying if someone wanted to lose weight, he doesn’t eat dessert. That is noble and moral and disciplined. What would be wrong would be for a person to want to lose weight, eat dessert and then vomit up because they don’t want the calories(consequences). That behavior is contrary to natural law. It’s not proper order. In fact, we would label it disordered.

Do you understand the difference?
Your analogy is flawed. It's more like saying if someone wants to lose weight, they eat dessert during certain times of the month when it passes right through them and only abstain when they know it will be absorbed. Sadly food doesn't work that way though, so it's not a useful analogy.
RightReason wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:44 pm
If God only wanted people to achieve pleasure during 'correct' sexual relations, that would be the way it is.
Non believers always love to tweak God’s design or suggest they would have done things differently.
Yet many non believers seem to have better ideas that would cause far less grief. How is this possible? Perhaps because some of the ideas from religions are actually just ancient ideas of men which have since been found to be lacking in many areas.
RightReason wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:44 pm
I think churches should leave consensual sex in the hands of those involved and butt out. Pun intended.
No you don’t. You just like to think you do.
Covered above. I certainly do. The only restriction is informed consent because not having that is known as rape. So claiming I don't think consensual sex should be left in the hands of people who can give informed consent is wrong.
RightReason wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:44 pm You probably wouldn’t be cool with a father and his adult daughter getting it on.
If they are both giving informed consent I don't care.
RightReason wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:44 pm You probably think like nobspeople in the post above people shouldn’t have too many children (that’s getting involved in someone else’s love life).
Wrong again. You're on a roll. Have as many children as you want. Just don't expect me to support them.
RightReason wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:44 pm You probably frown upon doctor/patient sexual relationships or teacher/student, even if consenting.
Wrong. If it is legal, informed consent, I have no issue.
RightReason wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:44 pm I assume you aren’t super cool with adultery.
No, but not because of the method they have sex. They can do whatever like like with each other and I will no longer have anything to do with either of them.

I also wouldn't want my spouse living in a nonsexual relationship with someone else, cuddling 3 nights a week with someone else, etc.

This moves beyond sex and into the realm of the relationship so not exactly the same thing.
RightReason wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:44 pm If you properly understood the Church’s beautiful teaching regarding sex, love, marriage you would be on board. Everyone would be on board if properly understood. It is wise, reasonable, awesome, and incredible. You should look into and not make your decision based on mis information and unsupported anti-Catholic propaganda.
Perhaps you missed the part where I said I was a Catholic. Not just a "cradle Catholic" who goes to mass 3 times a year, but a "confirmed as an adult, went through Catechism, learned all about the church, weekly mass, etc" Catholic. I'm not claiming I know everything, but I certainly know enough. Some of the RCC teachings are beautiful, but many are control measures wrapped in nice words.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: What is "Sex"?

Post #25

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #25]
Sigh all you want. You said:

What you can’t do is do something purposely to block/thwart/destroy the natural procreative nature of the act
A hysterectomy does all of the above
You don’t know Church teaching like you think you do. If a man had to get chemo because he had cancer (and chemo kills sperm), he could still have sex with his wife, because the chemo is necessary and he isn’t actively choosing to block the sexual act. The same goes for a woman who for medical reasons has to have her uterus taken out. The Church recognizes sometimes other things beyond our control can affect ones fertility and she condemns no one for it. Google it and learn something about the Church.
Forcing people to only have sex in a particular way is one of the controlling aspects of the RCC which I find ridiculous.

What do you mean in only one way?

Intercourse. I thought that was obvious. Any other act that doesn't deposit sperm into a place that allows pregnancy falls into your quote about thwarting the procreative nature.
I knew that is what you meant, but I was trying to be a little funny in the sense that someone would think it limiting to only be permitted to have sexual intercourse, as I can think of many ways (positions) this can be enjoyed and have never found it a difficulty/hardship in life. Also, again, you must be ill informed on Church teaching, because the Church permits things like foreplay(rubbing, kissing, sucking, etc) It only says the sexual act should be permitted to come to full completion in the way God designed in sexual intercourse.

RightReason wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:44 pmWho decided adults shouldn’t have sex with children?
First, I did say "consensual", but I guess I need to be more clear. I don't know where you live, but where I live we have an age of consent for sex. In other words, people who are not old enough to fully understand what's happening can't really give consent. Consent is not just saying "yes".

So, since children can't give informed consent, we as a society decide this with laws.
That was my point. Groups like the Man-Boy Love Association argue children can give consent. They also might argue what age defines someone as a child.


RightReason wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:44 pmThe Man-boy Love Association finds it wrong to force such a narrow one-sided view of sex. Brothers and sisters are not supposed to have sex. So, I guess you think that is wrong too? Most people frown upon a person being able to have sex with their dog. Maybe you think sex should only be certain ways as well???

The only way I care about is informed consent. Beyond that, I have no qualms.

In other words, I'm against rape.[/quote]

Ok, then, odd and a little creepy. You are cool with incest, polygamy, older men and younger males, adultery, and perhaps even some forms of beastiality (as it can be demonstrated animals can give consent). This is what happens when people do not recognize moral truth. But at least you are consistent in your erroneous thinking.

You have misinformation. The Church does not approve of NFP because there is still a remote possibility to conceive, rather because the couple is not engaging in the sexual act and then doing something to block/thwart/stop conception. NFP requires abstinence. It actually means NOT having sex. The couple isn’t saying we want the pleasure of having sex right now, but won’t accept the natural consequences of having sex right now.
I think it is you who is misinformed.

From the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:
https://www.usccb.org/topics/natural-fa ... y-planning
Natural Family Planning (NFP) is the general title for the scientific, natural, and moral methods of family planning that can help married couples either achieve or postpone pregnancy.
From a Canadian site that I am familiar with when I was a Catholic:
https://serena.ca/what-is-nfp/
What is Natural Family Planning?
Natural Family planning refers to the use of knowledge of the woman’s menstrual cycle to guide the couple’s decision to time intercourse according to their plan to achieve or postpone a pregnancy.
You don’t read very well. I said the Church approves NFP because again abstinence is required. And again NFP does not involve engaging in the sexual act and thwarting/blocking the consequences from THAT act. If the person doesn’t engage in sex during a time when their body would naturally not conceive, then that is natural, huh? That’s how God designed the body to work. No one is forbidding the natural consequences of their behavior.

.

RightReason wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:44 pmIt's like saying if someone wanted to lose weight, he doesn’t eat dessert. That is noble and moral and disciplined. What would be wrong would be for a person to want to lose weight, eat dessert and then vomit up because they don’t want the calories(consequences). That behavior is contrary to natural law. It’s not proper order. In fact, we would label it disordered.

Do you understand the difference?

Your analogy is flawed. It's more like saying if someone wants to lose weight, they eat dessert during certain times of the month when it passes right through them and only abstain when they know it will be absorbed. [/quote]

Ha, ha, ha . . . my analogy is spot on. Yours is ridiculous. If I want to lose weight, it would be pretty smart to skip an evening dessert M-F, but allow myself to have dessert on the weekend. In fact, that is healthy and not denying oneself, which tends to backfire anyway. What you don’t have a problem with is someone who eats dessert and then vomits it up as a way to control their weight.


RightReason wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:44 pm
If God only wanted people to achieve pleasure during 'correct' sexual relations, that would be the way it is.

Non believers always love to tweak God’s design or suggest they would have done things differently.

Yet many non believers seem to have better ideas that would cause far less grief. How is this possible? Perhaps because some of the ideas from religions are actually just ancient ideas of men which have since been found to be lacking in many areas.
Ha, ha, ha . . . yep, just like I said you think you know better. How about take G.K. Chesterton’s advice on some of these ancient ideas . . .

“Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up.”

RightReason wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:44 pmIf you properly understood the Church’s beautiful teaching regarding sex, love, marriage you would be on board. Everyone would be on board if properly understood. It is wise, reasonable, awesome, and incredible. You should look into and not make your decision based on mis information and unsupported anti-Catholic propaganda.

Perhaps you missed the part where I said I was a Catholic.[/quote]


No, I didn’t miss it. I just find it irrelevant because I was a cradle Catholic who went thru catechism, confirmed, weekly masse, etc. as well, but was never taught the truth of Church teaching until after college. One can be Catholic and be poorly catechized. I know that more than anyone. And again, your responses in this thread show me you do not know Church teaching or why the Church teaches what it does. In fact, you don’t necessarily reject Church teaching. You reject what you think the Church teaches. Big difference!

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 1765
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 235 times
Been thanked: 99 times

Re: What is "Sex"?

Post #26

Post by benchwarmer »

RightReason wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 9:30 am You don’t know Church teaching like you think you do. If a man had to get chemo because he had cancer (and chemo kills sperm), he could still have sex with his wife, because the chemo is necessary and he isn’t actively choosing to block the sexual act. The same goes for a woman who for medical reasons has to have her uterus taken out. The Church recognizes sometimes other things beyond our control can affect ones fertility and she condemns no one for it. Google it and learn something about the Church.
You are completely misunderstanding me. I was replying to your quote about "purposely to block/thwart/destroy the natural procreative nature of the act". Notice where I said "You said:", I did NOT say "the church actually teaches".Your quote has implications, whether you want to see them or not.

I'm debating with you at the moment, not the church. What I'm getting at is you are not giving the 'correct' reason with your quote. If you were, I have already shown the issue with it. I fully understand the RCC allows/condones nonfertile couples having sex. What I'm saying is YOU are not giving the correct reason. Maybe give the actual full teaching next time if that wasn't it?

RightReason wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 9:30 am
Intercourse. I thought that was obvious. Any other act that doesn't deposit sperm into a place that allows pregnancy falls into your quote about thwarting the procreative nature.
I knew that is what you meant, but I was trying to be a little funny in the sense that someone would think it limiting to only be permitted to have sexual intercourse, as I can think of many ways (positions) this can be enjoyed and have never found it a difficulty/hardship in life. Also, again, you must be ill informed on Church teaching, because the Church permits things like foreplay(rubbing, kissing, sucking, etc) It only says the sexual act should be permitted to come to full completion in the way God designed in sexual intercourse.
How am I ill informed? You have restated in more words exactly what I said in one.

If you are busy 'rubbing' and the male achieves orgasm before intercourse has begun, you have just thwarted pregnancy. Let me guess, as long as you continue and have intercourse as the last step it's all fine?

Thus the controlling nature of the Church. IMO, a couple in a loving relationship should get to choose how they express their love to each other and have the full gamut of sexual expression available to them. Let them FULLY choose how and when they may want to have children. NFP comes close, but as I pointed out, this is hypocritical in that if the couple really dials it in, they may as well just use a condom because the effectiveness of thwarting a pregnancy is similar.
RightReason wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 9:30 am
RightReason wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:44 pmWho decided adults shouldn’t have sex with children?
First, I did say "consensual", but I guess I need to be more clear. I don't know where you live, but where I live we have an age of consent for sex. In other words, people who are not old enough to fully understand what's happening can't really give consent. Consent is not just saying "yes".

So, since children can't give informed consent, we as a society decide this with laws.
That was my point. Groups like the Man-Boy Love Association argue children can give consent. They also might argue what age defines someone as a child.
Sure, and let them argue. I prefer to listen to scientists who study such things as brain development, etc and then make an informed choice when I vote. In your example, if somehow the MBLA rammed through a new lower age of censent, then yes, I would disagree because I understand that children cannot give informed consent.
RightReason wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 9:30 am
The only way I care about is informed consent. Beyond that, I have no qualms.

In other words, I'm against rape.
Ok, then, odd and a little creepy. You are cool with incest, polygamy, older men and younger males, adultery, and perhaps even some forms of beastiality (as it can be demonstrated animals can give consent). This is what happens when people do not recognize moral truth. But at least you are consistent in your erroneous thinking.
Wow, way to put words in my mouth. I sense a large pile of straw somewhere, that you are about to start hacking away at.

First, let's be clear. I said "informed consent". Please explain to me how any animal other than another human can give informed consent? How would you know the consent was informed, can you talk to animals? I realize there are some Biblical references to talking animals, but I haven't seen any. So no, I do not consider beastiality 'ok'.

As for the rest, as long as we are talking about informed consent, i.e. not rape, then I don't have an issue with it. What consenting adults do with each other sexually is not my concern if I'm not in a relationship with any of them. If I were in a relationship with someone and they were doing something I don't consent to then relationship over. That doesn't mean I think some god should burn them in hell for engaging in consensual sex. It does mean I am free to disengage (legally if necessary) from that relationship.

RightReason wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 9:30 am You don’t read very well. I said the Church approves NFP because again abstinence is required. And again NFP does not involve engaging in the sexual act and thwarting/blocking the consequences from THAT act. If the person doesn’t engage in sex during a time when their body would naturally not conceive, then that is natural, huh? That’s how God designed the body to work. No one is forbidding the natural consequences of their behavior.
Again, you are not understanding my point and I'm confused by your double negative "doesn’t engage in sex during a time when their body would naturally not conceive".

Couples practicing NFP ONLY abstain during the fertile period. They are free to engage in sex during the infertile period and remain "within bounds". If this is not the case, then there is no NFP going on, just plain old abstinence between periods of fertility. Clearly that would be ridiculous since without NFP you likely don't know/understand when the female is fertile.

All of that is to say that Catholic couples practicing NFP and choosing to ONLY have sex during infertile periods for some length of time (as stated in the linked sites) are in fact 'thwarting' pregnancy. i.e. they are choosing not to have sex during the fertile period because they don't want to conceive at that point.

Simple question: Does having sex during the females infertile period "block/thwart/destroy the natural procreative nature of the act"?

If you answer no, because it's 'natural' to not be able to conceive during that period you are now arguing fine print. By having sex during that period, the couple is enjoying all the benefits of sex without the possibility of "the natural procreative nature of the act". Is 'rubbing' to climax allowed during this period? Why or why not?

If you answer yes (which I doubt), then you have defeated your own argument.
RightReason wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 9:30 am
Your analogy is flawed. It's more like saying if someone wants to lose weight, they eat dessert during certain times of the month when it passes right through them and only abstain when they know it will be absorbed.
Ha, ha, ha . . . my analogy is spot on. Yours is ridiculous.
How is mine ridiculous? It is EXACTLY like NFP assuming it was possible. I learn the rhythms of my body such that I know when desert passes through me without being absorbed (I learn when sperm won't be absorbed by a waiting egg), and freely indulge (have sex) during the non absorbing (infertile) part of the month. Your analogy is akin to getting out a douche and flushing the female after intercourse hoping (futilely) that will prevent pregnancy. Which one is ridiculous again?
RightReason wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 9:30 am If I want to lose weight, it would be pretty smart to skip an evening dessert M-F, but allow myself to have dessert on the weekend. In fact, that is healthy and not denying oneself, which tends to backfire anyway. What you don’t have a problem with is someone who eats dessert and then vomits it up as a way to control their weight.
Strawman. I never said that and pointed out the flaw in your analogy, so saying that is a clear miss. Telling me I agree with your flawed analogy when I clearly don't is not a way to advance the debate.

RightReason wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 9:30 am Ha, ha, ha . . . yep, just like I said you think you know better. How about take G.K. Chesterton’s advice on some of these ancient ideas . . .

“Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up.”
And when the fence is clearly busted you should just put up with it because your religious organization says so? Thank you for at least acknowledging the fences. I did point out the control measures didn't I?
RightReason wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 9:30 am No, I didn’t miss it. I just find it irrelevant because I was a cradle Catholic who went thru catechism, confirmed, weekly masse, etc. as well, but was never taught the truth of Church teaching until after college. One can be Catholic and be poorly catechized. I know that more than anyone. And again, your responses in this thread show me you do not know Church teaching or why the Church teaches what it does. In fact, you don’t necessarily reject Church teaching. You reject what you think the Church teaches. Big difference!
Actually, in this thread I'm currently rejecting your understanding of Catholic teaching AND my understanding of it. Of course I can only reject what I think the church teaches. You can also only accept what you think the church teaches. That's kind of a moot point.

What I'm trying to show is WHY I reject both your understanding and my understanding. If the church doesn't in fact have an issue with a couple enjoying consensual sex with each other by allowing them to rub whatever they want whenever they want and finish however they want, then yes, I don't understand that particular teaching. However, my investigations and apparently yours, don't allow this. Apparently couples must 'finish' by having intercourse. You can keep that fence my friend, I have long since thrown that one in the fire where it belongs and built my own fence with the sign "No religion on this property".

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 1157
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 249 times
Been thanked: 146 times

Re: What is "Sex"?

Post #27

Post by Purple Knight »

brunumb wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 7:58 pm
RightReason wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:44 pm Who decided adults shouldn’t have sex with children? The Man-boy Love Association finds it wrong to force such a narrow one-sided view of sex. Brothers and sisters are not supposed to have sex. So, I guess you think that is wrong too? Most people frown upon a person being able to have sex with their dog.
There are sound physiological and psychological reasons behind such prohibitions, not just some nonsense dished out from alleged holy books.
There might be good reasons for other things that religions prohibit as well. This fellow has a point, and a good one. If a child says they want it (and just fyi, I wanted it well before I was 18) and the adult says they want it, this example does absolutely follow the same form of A wants it and B wants it and some uninvolved party intercedes or decides there should be intercession because they have decided the act is immoral.

1) If your rule is really keep your nose out of other peoples' business; what two people consent to, they get to do... then it includes children. I'm sorry but it does.

2) If your rule is sometimes not 1 because reasons, then any third party can intercede in any two other peoples' business as long as they think they have a good enough reason.

...Because if anyone can veto anyone else's because reasons, then everyone's reason is vetoed and it goes back to 1. All I have done here is universalise for 2. If you get to veto reasons because you think they're bad, so does he.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: What is "Sex"?

Post #28

Post by RightReason »

benchwarmer wrote: Sat Apr 24, 2021 9:51 am
RR: Also, again, you must be ill informed on Church teaching, because the Church permits things like foreplay(rubbing, kissing, sucking, etc) It only says the sexual act should be permitted to come to full completion in the way God designed in sexual intercourse.

Benchwarmer: How am I ill informed? You have restated in more words exactly what I said in one.
Not exactly. In your previous post you implied the Church only allows one behavior. That is not true, which is why I brought up kissing, rubbing, sucking, etc. Also, you mistakenly think NFP falls under blocking or thwarting the sexual act, but it does no such thing. The couple isn’t engaging in sex and then not allowing the natural consequences of that engagement.
If you are busy 'rubbing' and the male achieves orgasm before intercourse has begun, you have just thwarted pregnancy.
Well, yeah. I mean without the completion of the sexual act, you haven’t really engaged in the sexual act, rather you are just practicing mutual masturbation, which unfortunately has led many to seeing sex as something allowing us to just use the other person, seeing them as an object for our own selfish desires, having sex without commitment, not accepting responsibility, not being open to life, seeing children as mistakes and accidents, not understanding the beauty and awesomeness of sex, love, life, family, etc. In her wisdom, the Church recognizes how not living in accordance with God’s gift of sex can have negative consequences for man and hinders true human fulfilment.

Thus the controlling nature of the Church.
The Church’s teaching on this actually gives the human person more freedom.

*******

Christianity is not a religion constraining our freedom, as many think it is. This religion is about liberation; liberation from sin and ungodliness, Liberation from all which detaches us from God and one another.

Freedom is a calling to realize in ourselves what is true about us, a calling to actualize in us all what is true, good, and beautiful. The Lord came to set us free! In the Book of the Romans St. Paul tells us that some become slaves to sin when they act in ways they know are evil. Thus, freedom is not simply 'doing my thing' but rather a call to live as according to a right order.

Edmund Burke was right when he described such freedom, 'The only liberty I mean is a liberty connected with order, that not only exist along with order and virtue, but which cannot exist at all without them.' Freedom is to do what we must. There is then a clear link between freedom and duty, between liberty and virtue. Religion and education are then essential to a truly free society as they mold the moral ecology of a community.
How sad that our utilitarian and secularist society defines freedom along the lines of appetite-satisfaction.

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture ... ecnum=9993
IMO, a couple in a loving relationship should get to choose how they express their love to each other and have the full gamut of sexual expression available to them.

Sure, if they are married and if they aren’t engaging in anything beneath the dignity of man and contrary to the nature of the marital act.
Let them FULLY choose how and when they may want to have children.
The Church agrees with this and has always fought for the rights of parents the freedom in determining their own families.

NFP comes close, but as I pointed out, this is hypocritical in that if the couple really dials it in, they may as well just use a condom because the effectiveness of thwarting a pregnancy is similar.
Nope. The difference is like day and night. A condom blocks/stops the sperm from said act from fulfilling it’s natural consequences. In NFP, abstinence is required. The couple is not engaging in the act and then blocking said act. They are choosing not to engage in the act. In NFP, if the couple ever does choose to enjoy the pleasure of the sexual act, they do nothing to prevent the natural consequences of their behavior.

First, let's be clear. I said "informed consent". Please explain to me how any animal other than another human can give informed consent?
In the same way we can determine/know what someone who perhaps can’t speak or write are ok with something. We could observe the person’s body language and or participation or engagement. No words need be spoken or forms filled out.

I don’t think it would be hard to observe when an animal wants the company of a human being and wants them near them vs. when an animal wants nothing to do with someone.

As for the rest, as long as we are talking about informed consent, i.e. not rape, then I don't have an issue with it. What consenting adults do with each other sexually is not my concern if I'm not in a relationship with any of them.
So you’re cool with adultery or a teacher and student who consensually agree to have sex if the student is hoping it will improve their grade? And you have no problem with a 25 year old sister hooking up with her 28 year old brother? Or a 50 year old father getting it on with his 30 year old daughter?



Catholic couples practicing NFP and choosing to ONLY have sex during infertile periods for some length of time (as stated in the linked sites) are in fact 'thwarting' pregnancy. i.e. they are choosing not to have sex during the fertile period because they don't want to conceive at that point.
You aren’t thwarting pregnancy by not having sex. With your line of reasoning, everyone right now who is not having sex is thwarting pregnancy.

Simple question: Does having sex during the females infertile period "block/thwart/destroy the natural procreative nature of the act"?
No. Because nothing is being destroyed. What is being destroyed or blocked? No one is separating the nature of the sexual act.
If you answer no, because it's 'natural' to not be able to conceive during that period you are now arguing fine print.
Nope.
By having sex during that period, the couple is enjoying all the benefits of sex without the possibility of "the natural procreative nature of the act".

I already said, there is nothing wrong with enjoying sex. That is the design of the sexual act. It would be wrong to actively destroy or block sperm from reaching the egg.
Is 'rubbing' to climax allowed during this period? Why or why not?
No, because you are misusing God’s gift of sex.
It is EXACTLY like NFP assuming it was possible. I learn the rhythms of my body such that I know when desert passes through me without being absorbed (I learn when sperm won't be absorbed by a waiting egg), and freely indulge (have sex) during the non absorbing (infertile) part of the month.
Your example is actually what some people actually do. Lots of people know what foods the body digests more easily and eat accordingly. There is nothing wrong with that. But again, if the person didn’t want to bother paying attention to how their body works and wanted to thwart/block/destroy the design of their body, say by eating whatever they wanted and then vomiting it up, that would be disordered. Their behavior is not in accordance with the way the body is works or should be used. The bulimic is selfish and a glutton and wasteful and destructive by wanting to enjoy the pleasure of eating while not permitting the body to process/digest the food as designed.

What I'm trying to show is WHY I reject both your understanding and my understanding. If the church doesn't in fact have an issue with a couple enjoying consensual sex with each other by allowing them to rub whatever they want whenever they want and finish however they want, then yes, I don't understand that particular teaching.
I agree, you don’t. It’s about love, mutual respect, freedom, and fulfilment.
However, my investigations and apparently yours, don't allow this. Apparently couples must 'finish' by having intercourse. You can keep that fence my friend, I have long since thrown that one in the fire where it belongs and built my own fence with the sign "No religion on this property".
Yes, it appears you have, which in my opinion is all the more reason you now may be unable to see the beauty and wisdom of this teaching. You see religion or church and put your fingers in your ears and shout, “I can’t hear you. I can’t hear you.” This is a shame, because I think you’re missing a lot. Remaining open would be a good start.

Post Reply