What is "Sex"?

Debating issues regarding sexuality

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 668 times
Been thanked: 407 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?

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3353
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 256 times
Been thanked: 926 times

Re: What is "Sex"?

Post #11

Post by Miles »

Purple Knight wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 12:03 am
Miles wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 1:56 amNah. Don't buy it. You didn't say "child," but "baby." Here let me refresh your memory.

"for example your proctologist can't do his job without committing a sex act. Just think what this means if a baby has a problem in that area."


So mom brings in baby Juniper because she's having some kind of proctological problem, and Dr. Peter Pederaster can hardly wait to get his hands on some little kid's butt. Cconsidering the extremely small size of a baby's anus just what kind of hanky-panky do you see going on, particularly when the rectum opening of a 1-11 months-old baby is around 1.3 cm (0.5118 in.) ?
For him to stick his little finger in there and check for polyps. According to the dictionary this is a sex act regardless of his motivation. Every doctor who has ever done this has committed a sex act. That's why I dislike the dictionary definition.

Thing is, where the polyp isn't visible, the physician doesn't use his/her finger, but a "narrow flexible instrument, called a colonoscope."

How Common are Polyps in Children?

A polyp of the colon or large intestine occurs in about 1-2% of children. The most common type of polyp in children is a hamartoma or juvenile polyp accounting for more than 95% of polyps found. Juvenile polyps are typically found in 2 to 6 year old boys and girls but can be found in younger and older children up to about 10 years of age. Most harmless polyps are single and are found in the bottom one third to one half of the colon.


And in none of the clinical web sites I found concerning rectal polyps in children were babies ever mentioned or indicated


How are Polyps Diagnosed?


If a child presents with a visible polyp at the rectum, the diagnosis is easy to make. Most children who present with rectal bleeding that occurs with bowel movements are referred to a pediatric gastroenterologist. Your doctor will recommend a colonoscopy where the lining of the entire large intestine is examined with a narrow flexible instrument, called a colonoscope, mounted with a video camera and a light to help find the source of bleeding. When a polyp is found, the pediatric gastroenterologist will use a small grasping instrument called a snare that fits inside the colonoscope to remove and recovery the entire polyp. The polyp is then sent to the pathologist, who will look at it under the microscope to determine what kind it is. The gastroenterologist will look at the entire large intestine with the colonoscope to make sure that all polyps are found and removed. In special situations, polyps may be left behind especially if there are large numbers of polyps or removal could cause further problems such as uncontrollable bleeding.
source


Miles wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 1:56 amThing is, dictionaries don't make up definitions willy-nilly, but are guided by common usage. If a usage becomes popular dictionaries will include it as a definition. If a usage falls out of favor dictionaries will drop it, and this rational has guided dictionary entries for hundreds of years---Nothing new.
Nothing new at all. But I can still point out how that definition is not very useful and leads to things most people would find ridiculous.
Pick and choose whichever definition as you wish, but . . . . Oh, that's right you don't use dictionary definitions do you: "Good. I do have reasons for going against the dictionary. I consider that I have the better categorisation that the dictionary has the less useful one." You just make up your own definitions as need be. :roll:


.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: What is "Sex"?

Post #12

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #1]
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.


Hi purple Knight. Interesting discussion. I love how you have partially pointed out one of the Catholic Church’s understandings about sex. I love how you recognize the significance of procreation when it comes to sex. Bravo! Lots of people ignore that. Clearly, from observation of this world we live in and acknowledging the design of the world we can conclude that the sexual act has a procreative nature. This is merely acknowledging a scientific observation, but it is amazing how many people want to deny it.


Unfortunately, acknowledging this truth gets many to falsely accuse the Catholic Church as seeing the ONLY function/purpose of sex is procreative and Catholics as being commanded to have as many kids as they can. Obviously, that is anti-Catholic propaganda and not a teaching of the Church. The Church teaches the sexual act has a unitive nature of procreation and pleasure(intimacy), with the primary purpose being procreative. The Church goes on to teach that it is wrong to separate the unitive nature of the sexual act. To do so is usurping God’s design and tweaking His gift to us of sex.


You are correct in recognizing oral sex or contracepting sex as essentially mutual masturbation. The couple is not engaging in the sexual act as designed and intended and therefore not allowing for its purpose. What the couple is actually doing is simulating sex, not accepting that authentic sex comes with consequences and responsibilities.


That said, the Clinton/Lewinski act is still wrong and the parties are guilty of engaging in sexual relations/fornication even if they did not technically have sexual intercourse. Their intention was still to enjoy the pleasure of God’s gift of sex while trying to bypass the natural consequences that might occur from partaking in this pleasure. So, yes, Clinton was trying to be deceptive by claiming he did not engage in actual sexual intercourse with Monica, but no, he was not really correct and off the hook, because what he did (even excluding the lie) was still wrong. It was a misuse of God’s gift of the sexual act. And he clearly did it to enjoy the pleasure without risking his behavior getting found out with her becoming pregnant. That’s in a way doubly wrong.


God designed the sexual act to be enjoyed by those pledging a lifelong commitment to one another. The very fact that sex can result in the creation of a new life is reason enough to understand its significance and not something that should be treated as simply scratching an itch. Married couples are called to become co creators. That is an awesome power and not to be taken lightly. The Church in her wisdom recognizes this. For this reason the sexual act is only to be engaged in for married couples and quite frankly that is the only thing that makes sense anyway.
Question for debate: Is there any precedence for this view in either religious or secular philosophy?
As I explained above, your view is partially the view of the Catholic Church, in the sense of acknowledging the procreative aspect of the sexual act.

Some precedence for Catholic teaching is Sacred Scripture includes the story of Onin, who was smited by God for practicing contraception. He engaged in the sexual act, but then withdrew and ‘spilled his semen’. God found this an abomination. Also, every single Christian denomination taught the evils of contraception until around the 1930’s. Think about that. That's some precedent. All Christian denominations (Baptists, Methodists, Protestants, Lutherans, etc) taught that the use of contraception was immoral. So, I guess I have a question for others – what changed? Does truth change? Only the Catholic Church has remained unchanged in her teaching of this beautiful truth. Everyone else has seemed to have caved to the fashions of the day. We see this for same-sex relations as well. This is what happens when one’s religion is viewed more as a political democratic group instead of Christ’s Church on earth, where we did not elect Christ as our King. Rather He is our King by right of His divinity!

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3353
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 256 times
Been thanked: 926 times

Re: What is "Sex"?

Post #13

Post by Miles »

.


What I found is that having sex simply for pleasure is off limits to Catholics.


"About Catholics

Catholic Beliefs and Catholic Teachings


To have sex simply for pleasure or to have the sexual organs stimulated in such a way where pleasure is the only objective is hedonistic and wrong. To obtain sexual pleasure only for itself demeans the sanctity of humanity and hurts at least one person."

source



Gotta believe the lineup at confession is substantial.

.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: What is "Sex"?

Post #14

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to Miles in post #14]
What I found is that having sex simply for pleasure is off limits to Catholics.
Incorrect. I have sex simply for pleasure about every other night, which is the same number of times I have sex. Married couples were intended to have sex for pleasure. That’s the awesomeness of sex and part of its nature. This doesn’t take away from the biological fact that sex also has a procreative nature. You don’t have to do anything about the procreative nature. It’s just there. And it doesn’t take away the pleasure factor. What you can’t do is do something purposely to block/thwart/destroy the natural procreative nature of the act. So, you are wrong! Catholics are more than permitted to have sex just for the fun of having sex. They are free to have hot, passionate, orgasmic sex. And lots of it. You have been ill informed.

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3353
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 256 times
Been thanked: 926 times

Re: What is "Sex"?

Post #15

Post by Miles »

RightReason wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 10:24 pm [Replying to Miles in post #14]
What I found is that having sex simply for pleasure is off limits to Catholics.
Incorrect. I have sex simply for pleasure about every other night, which is the same number of times I have sex. Married couples were intended to have sex for pleasure. That’s the awesomeness of sex and part of its nature. This doesn’t take away from the biological fact that sex also has a procreative nature. You don’t have to do anything about the procreative nature. It’s just there. And it doesn’t take away the pleasure factor. What you can’t do is do something purposely to block/thwart/destroy the natural procreative nature of the act. So, you are wrong! Catholics are more than permitted to have sex just for the fun of having sex. They are free to have hot, passionate, orgasmic sex. And lots of it. You have been ill informed.
Sorry, but this is something you'll have to take up with my linked source About Catholics: Catholic Beliefs and Catholic Teachings

and


"According to Catholic Dogma, having sex for just pleasure, (whether married or unmarried), is immoral.

Thus the Catholic Church does not condemn the presence of pleasure in marital sexual intercourse, but she does condemn the use of sexual intercourse exclusively for the sake of pleasure."

source


and


THE Catechism of the Catholic Church says that “Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes” (CCC 2351).
source


and


When couples separate sexual pleasure from the one-flesh union, then sex becomes selfish whether it feels that way or not. It becomes about what he gets or what she gets instead of the two of you coming together. This attitude can undermine your sexual relationship and your marriage. This is what the Church is trying to protect you from.
source


.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 668 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Re: What is "Sex"?

Post #16

Post by Purple Knight »

Miles wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 4:50 pmThing is, where the polyp isn't visible, the physician doesn't use his/her finger, but a "narrow flexible instrument, called a colonoscope."
That's not true. Digital examinations are common.

https://www.rockvilleconciergedocs.com/ ... ntPubID=36
Colon and Rectal Polyps
Your doctor will examine your abdomen to feel for growths or enlarged organs. Your doctor may also perform a digital rectal examination. To do so, your doctor will briefly insert a gloved, lubricated finger into your rectum to check for a growth or mass. A mass may be indicative of rectal cancer, but not colon cancer.
Miles wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 4:50 pmPick and choose whichever definition as you wish, but . . . . Oh, that's right you don't use dictionary definitions do you: "Good. I do have reasons for going against the dictionary. I consider that I have the better categorisation that the dictionary has the less useful one." You just make up your own definitions as need be. :roll:
You're making what I say a joke and failing to address the reasons. I'll give you credit: You're very good at making me look stupid, but none of what I've said is as mockery-worthy as you make it sound.

Again, I didn't say the dictionary definition was incorrect. I just said I didn't like it. And I have very good reasons.

You're willing to go on any tangent to simply avoid my point that by the dictionary definition, a doctor doing what he needs to do in the proper course of his job may be, regardless of his motivations, performing a sex act on his patient. And that's why I dislike that definition.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: What is "Sex"?

Post #17

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to Miles in post #16]



Sorry, but this is something you'll have to take up with my linked source About Catholics: Catholic Beliefs and Catholic Teachings
Ha, ha, ha . . . I don’t have to take up anything with some supposed Catholic website. There are many groups/sites that call themselves Catholic that are not in line with the teachings of the Catholic Church. I am unfamiliar with the site you linked. Perhaps they are legit, perhaps they are not. But it is not they who I have to listen to.


"According to Catholic Dogma, having sex for just pleasure, (whether married or unmarried), is immoral.
Wrong. As I already explained. And your following quote contradicts your above quote.
Thus the Catholic Church does not condemn the presence of pleasure in marital sexual intercourse, but she does condemn the use of sexual intercourse exclusively for the sake of pleasure."

so, like I said, the Church does not say Catholics cannot have sex solely for pleasure, as long as they are open to life. This does not require the Catholic to do anything. It merely means the Catholic can and should love his/her spouse. The Catholic does not need to be thinking about making babies while making love.

THE Catechism of the Catholic Church says that “Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes” (CCC 2351).
Yay! Quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Now that’s more like it! Yep, lust is disordered. That doesn’t contradict anything I said, but it does contradict your point. Sex is immoral when a person tries or insists on removing the procreative aspect from the sexual act. Sex is NOT immoral when sexual pleasure and gratification occur or are even desired.
When couples separate sexual pleasure from the one-flesh union, then sex becomes selfish whether it feels that way or not.
Yep! Exactly what I said. What it doesn’t say, is it’s selfish to desire or engage in sex for pleasure!

It becomes about what he gets or what she gets instead of the two of you coming together. This attitude can undermine your sexual relationship and your marriage. This is what the Church is trying to protect you from.
Bingo! Thank you for sharing the beautiful teaching of my faith. I don’t think you fully understand it, but thank you all the same. Do you take issue with what the Church in her wisdom teaches?

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 817 times

Re: What is "Sex"?

Post #18

Post by nobspeople »

[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 8-) ). 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.
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!
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).
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3353
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 256 times
Been thanked: 926 times

Re: What is "Sex"?

Post #19

Post by Miles »

Purple Knight wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 1:29 am
Miles wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 4:50 pmThing is, where the polyp isn't visible, the physician doesn't use his/her finger, but a "narrow flexible instrument, called a colonoscope."
That's not true. Digital examinations are common.

https://www.rockvilleconciergedocs.com/ ... ntPubID=36
Colon and Rectal Polyps
Your doctor will examine your abdomen to feel for growths or enlarged organs. Your doctor may also perform a digital rectal examination. To do so, your doctor will briefly insert a gloved, lubricated finger into your rectum to check for a growth or mass. A mass may be indicative of rectal cancer, but not colon cancer.
The link is clearly addressing adult patients---note the numerous times it uses the word "your" (I counted 34)---not babies.

Miles wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 4:50 pmPick and choose whichever definition as you wish, but . . . . Oh, that's right you don't use dictionary definitions do you: "Good. I do have reasons for going against the dictionary. I consider that I have the better categorisation that the dictionary has the less useful one." You just make up your own definitions as need be. :roll:
You're making what I say a joke and failing to address the reasons. I'll give you credit: You're very good at making me look stupid, but none of what I've said is as mockery-worthy as you make it sound.

Again, I didn't say the dictionary definition was incorrect. I just said I didn't like it.
If it was correct then why didn't you use it? What other reason could there be for not using it other than you thought it was incorrect?

I'm done here.

Have a good day.


.

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2103
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 1346 times
Been thanked: 513 times

Re: What is "Sex"?

Post #20

Post by benchwarmer »

RightReason wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 10:24 pm What you can’t do is do something purposely to block/thwart/destroy the natural procreative nature of the act.
So after a hysterectomy, a Catholic woman is just plain out of luck?

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. 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.

If God only wanted people to achieve pleasure during 'correct' sexual relations, that would be the way it is. Do it right, you get the reward. Unless of course God is not capable of doing that or thinks providing all sorts of other ways to have consensual pleasure is a great way to see who he can trip up and send to confession/hell.

I think churches should leave consensual sex in the hands of those involved and butt out. Pun intended.

Post Reply