Christianity and Asexuality (Not Celibacy)

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Thought it'd be better to ask the pointed question in this particular forum, given that this would be something that I imagine isn't going to have a single answer, though from a previous discussion, there was already fragmentation even between just Christians, let alone other perspectives I got in that thread from late 2019 in the Ethics and Morality forum

Through Christianity, it isn't necessarily emphasized that everyone must engage in sex, especially if you wish to become celibate for better devotion to God, Jesus and Paul both noting as much.

But for those like myself who are not intending to do any kind of asceticism or such and intend to be in a romantic relationship if the opportunity presents itself in the future, would it be in a Christian perspective that my not really preferring sex at all or very little, is morally incorrect in any sense? This would obviously have some parallel to other sexual orientations, some of which are definitely not up for discussion and haven't really ever been in my discussions on the forum (which I stopped for several years and only recently came back late 2019)

Fundamentally, can this be said to be a struggle as regards some kind of "sin nature" and such for Christians or does it fall under something else that doesn't necessitate the same response?
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Elfkind

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,778
3,377
✟242,015.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Technically insensibility is a vice, though it is probably a lesser vice than intemperance. A healthy desire for sense pleasures--including sexual pleasures--is a virtue. This is mitigated by two factors: 1) All pleasures must ultimately be subordinated to God, and 2) The Fall created a disorder in our being, which is experienced most strongly in the sexual appetite, the strongest of appetites. So insensibility to sexual pleasures is a vice, but it is a minor vice in the modern world, and one which can't be remedied very easily.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Technically insensibility is a vice, though it is probably a lesser vice than intemperance. A healthy desire for sense pleasures--including sexual pleasures--is a virtue. This is mitigated by two factors: 1) All pleasures must ultimately be subordinated to God, and 2) The Fall created a disorder in our being, which is experienced most strongly in the sexual appetite, the strongest of appetites. So insensibility to sexual pleasures is a vice, but it is a minor vice in the modern world, and one which can't be remedied very easily.

So I'm not virtuous merely because I don't fit into the notion that having a desire for sexual pleasure with others is somehow considered what is required rather than merely a demographic norm? Seems a bit excessive and fitting people into boxes

Wouldn't not having those sexual desires make you more moral because you're not tempted by them anymore? I have no desire to sleep with someone, so in a relationship, that's one less way for me to betray their trust (not that I still couldn't do it, but not in the common notion about adultery).

By the logic you present, I'm "less fallen" than others because I don't have the sexual appetite that you claim is a common problem. Or at best, you'd argue I'm fallen, just not in the same way, which is an easy notion to seemingly dismiss that my status is somehow benign rather than condemning it in any fashion because it's easier to see it as some problem rather than a variation (same with other things I won't mention, because "promotion").

Not sure why the idea of "sin" has to extend to things that aren't habitually chosen or anything, my lack of sexual desire is not something I chose or willed in the slightest, so how can I be condemned for it at all?
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,778
3,377
✟242,015.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
So I'm not virtuous merely because I don't fit into the notion that having a desire for sexual pleasure with others is somehow considered what is required rather than merely a demographic norm? Seems a bit excessive and fitting people into boxes

Wouldn't not having those sexual desires make you more moral because you're not tempted by them anymore? I have no desire to sleep with someone, so in a relationship, that's one less way for me to betray their trust (not that I still couldn't do it, but not in the common notion about adultery).

By the logic you present, I'm "less fallen" than others because I don't have the sexual appetite that you claim is a common problem. Or at best, you'd argue I'm fallen, just not in the same way, which is an easy notion to seemingly dismiss that my status is somehow benign rather than condemning it in any fashion because it's easier to see it as some problem rather than a variation (same with other things I won't mention, because "promotion").

Not sure why the idea of "sin" has to extend to things that aren't habitually chosen or anything, my lack of sexual desire is not something I chose or willed in the slightest, so how can I be condemned for it at all?

A few quick points: Being receptive to and desirous of legitimate pleasures is a sign of a flourishing human being. Insensibility and apathy are real problems, and this would also apply to sexuality (even if it isn't commonly heard). In Catholicism and Aristotelianism virtue is found in the mean, so excessive sensibility and insensibility are both contrary to temperance. Unlike Buddhism, it's not simply the rooting out of all desire. The sexual appetite isn't the problem, the disordered sexual appetite is. It's not so much to say that you would be condemned for 'asexuality,' but more that prior to the Fall you would have had sexual desires and you would have been better off for it.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
A few quick points: Being receptive to and desirous of legitimate pleasures is a sign of a flourishing human being. Insensibility and apathy are real problems, and this would also apply to sexuality (even if it isn't commonly heard). In Catholicism and Aristotelianism virtue is found in the mean, so excessive sensibility and insensibility are both contrary to temperance. Unlike Buddhism, it's not simply the rooting out of all desire. The sexual appetite isn't the problem, the disordered sexual appetite is. It's not so much to say that you would be condemned for 'asexuality,' but more that prior to the Fall you would have had sexual desires and you would have been better off for it.
I can see that you might consider it a disability. The person involved misses aspects of life that they otherwise would enjoy. But to call it a vice requires an ethical theory that I don’t think is based on Christian principles.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: muichimotsu
Upvote 0

Tinker Grey

Wanderer
Supporter
Feb 6, 2002
11,214
5,606
Erewhon
Visit site
✟923,468.00
Faith
Atheist
But to call it a vice requires an ethical theory that I don’t think is based on Christian principles.
On top of which, how can not being interested in stuff other people are interested in be a vice? How can not doing something be a vice?

It's analogous to: You what?!?! You don't like chocolate?!?! You go to hell.
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
A few quick points: Being receptive to and desirous of legitimate pleasures is a sign of a flourishing human being. Insensibility and apathy are real problems, and this would also apply to sexuality (even if it isn't commonly heard). In Catholicism and Aristotelianism virtue is found in the mean, so excessive sensibility and insensibility are both contrary to temperance. Unlike Buddhism, it's not simply the rooting out of all desire. The sexual appetite isn't the problem, the disordered sexual appetite is. It's not so much to say that you would be condemned for 'asexuality,' but more that prior to the Fall you would have had sexual desires and you would have been better off for it.

I don't deny they are legitimate pleasures for others, you're acting like I am fundamentally repulsed by sex or don't have any desire for sexual release at all, when I do (I pleasure myself, I'm not ashamed of that). There are asexuals who are sex repulsed, I think doing some more research might behoove you in furthering this discussion, because you're speaking from assumptions about what my status is instead of actually asking qualifying questions.

I am not insensible or apathetic in the fullest sense, I merely don't have a desire to have sexual relations with other people, which is not indicative of some broken status.

And you're mistaken fundamentally to think Buddhism advocates rooting out desire, the tanha that is avoided is better translated as craving, desire is just a part of being a temporal and physical being, Buddhism advocates a middle path which you don't appear to have any knowledge of if you're going to generalize Buddhism as ascetic, when that's a choice like celibacy, neither of which I'm doing in regards to what is a status that's been my disposition since I started puberty practically.

No, I honestly think I'm far better off not wanting to have sexual desires for other people, especially with the problems that come with it. And it's not as if I'm absolutely certain, because like others, the demisexual label could apply in that, with the right person, there could be some desire for sexual intimacy, but it would likely only be with that person, because of the nature of the sexual orientation that I have.

To call it a vice is silly because this isn't a behavior, and it certainly isn't something I chose, I only really started contemplating this last year, before that, it was generally just me thinking I was straight, but it's not that simple. Romantic and sexual desires are not the same thing and me not wanting to have sex with my partner if we can help it is not me being selfish or denying romance that doesn't require physical intimacy on that level
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,778
3,377
✟242,015.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I don't deny...

You asked a question about Christianity and I gave you an answer. Obviously you don't have to abide by the answer, for you are not even Christian (and your rejection of my answer doesn't bother me, for you reject all answers you receive on this forum).

But what I've said really is part of the natural law and specifically Christian ethics (i.e. Genesis 1:28). The ultimate goal of Christianity is participating in God's own joy and beatitude. The natural appetites for joy and pleasure enter into that too, and prepare the way for strong and robust supernatural appetites. This is a basic part of historic Christianity, and is especially present in the Augustinian-Thomistic tradition (which Lewis takes up with things like his famous "mud pies" quote). That's not to say that there have never been Christians who have denied the fundamental importance of such appetites: Puritans, Shakers, Cathari, and, in a different way, Gnostics. Consequently they might not know what to make of the overwhelming joys of heaven.
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
You asked a question about Christianity and I gave you an answer. Obviously you don't have to abide by the answer, for you are not even Christian (and your rejection of my answer doesn't bother me, for you reject all answers you receive on this forum).

But what I've said really is part of the natural law and specifically Christian ethics (i.e. Genesis 1:28). The ultimate goal of Christianity is participating in God's own joy and beatitude. The natural appetites for joy and pleasure enter into that too, and prepare the way for strong and robust supernatural appetites. This is a basic part of historic Christianity, and is especially present in the Augustinian-Thomistic tradition (which Lewis takes up with things like his famous "mud pies" quote). That's not to say that there have never been Christians who have denied the fundamental importance of such appetites: Puritans, Shakers, Cathari, and, in a different way, Gnostics. Consequently they might not know what to make of the overwhelming joys of heaven.
It's not a rejection of the answer outright as something you believe, it's questioning whether it is entirely consistent as a position that is endorsing genuine freedom rather than encouraging conformity and submission above all else, which would seem to undermine the idea of free choice as valuable or even essential in the idea of the Imago Dei (which I recall has at least 3 positions, none of which are the simplistic lay idea that we are somehow legitimately resembling God like a mirror/reflection, like an Ohio representative suggested was hidden by wearing a mask to prevent viral spread)

Genesis, first off is not exclusively Christian, Jews don't necessarily hold that same idea, so maybe consider that the position should be said as a Christian interpretation of that and a particular one at that.

And I don't think the characterization that I reject all answers on this forum is remotely accurate, mostly generalizing based on my not being convinced by Christian answers, especially those utilizing irrational thinking or appeals to authority instead of the content of the argument itself. By that logic, you might as well just call me a nihilist, though even that requires more qualification about what is entailed: epistemological, metaphysical, moral, etc

Don't insinuate I don't have joy or pleasure merely because I don't have the sexual appetite "normal" people might have. That's the problem I'm seeing here, the idea that I have to regard myself as needing help for this rather than understanding without the sense of pity as if being human requires having one particular range of sexual desire, having none suggesting that you're "broken" or such.

How can one have an appetite if one is perfected? You'd be complete and no real desire could occur, same as with God as an entity having any kind of desire as described in the bible: seems to take needless mental gymnastics and verbose philosophy to try and rationalize the idea of an ontologically perfect entity having anything that resembles humanity except in the presumption that we are reflections of God, or shadows in the rough Hebrew

The joys of heaven are in the same incoherent idea as having desires or experiencing such things that are qualifiable in the first place and not necessarily able to have an idea of perfection applied to them without becoming essentially hollow
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
@zippy2006, I have some concerns with describing asexuality as a form of insensibility, since it seems to match more closely to verses like Matthew 19:9-12 or 1 Corinthians 7, and as far as I'm aware, with Catholic thought on celibacy more broadly. If celibacy is a "gift" that some are given, and in a certain sense a higher calling, why should asexuality be viewed as a deficiency rather than as a sort of spiritual gift?

I find discussions about asexuality difficult, since I think sexuality is to a certain extent a cultural construct. Would people have ever thought of themselves as asexual outside of a hyper-sexualized culture, or would they have found a celibate lifestyle more attractive and not given much if any thought to the question of sexual orientation? I would resist the OP's attempt to separate asexuality and celibacy, since I suspect that in the Christian context, asexuality would have traditionally be understood in junction with ideas like celibacy and Josephite marriages, not sexual orientation.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,778
3,377
✟242,015.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
@zippy2006, I have some concerns with describing asexuality as a form of insensibility, since it seems to match more closely to verses like Matthew 19:9-12 or 1 Corinthians 7, and as far as I'm aware, with Catholic thought on celibacy more broadly. If celibacy is a "gift" that some are given, and in a certain sense a higher calling, why should asexuality be viewed as a deficiency rather than as a sort of spiritual gift?

I find discussions about asexuality difficult, since I think sexuality is to a certain extent a cultural construct. Would people have ever thought of themselves as asexual outside of a hyper-sexualized culture, or would they have found a celibate lifestyle more attractive and not given much if any thought to the question of sexual orientation? I would resist the OP's attempt to separate asexuality and celibacy, since I suspect that in the Christian context, asexuality would have traditionally be understood in junction with ideas like celibacy and Josephite marriages, not sexual orientation.

Perhaps... But also perhaps not. At first glance asexuality is the pinnacle of insensibility. I'm not sure how you could get around that altogether.

I think your point about culture is important, though, and that complicates the whole thing. I think it is a very complicated question in general, but I would of course answer the question, "I have no sexual appetite. Is that bad on Christianity?" with, "Yes, Christianity would say that the absence of any sexual appetite would be a result of disordered human nature." I think that is the place to start, and many more questions arise once we do that.

Sorry, I realize this is a clumsy reply. You touched on all sorts of different aspects of the question, but not on any one enough for me grapple with it. If you like you could expand on one or two of those points. (Thomas' reply to objection 1 gets at the difference between lack of or aversion to sensual appetite, and celibacy.)

Another point relating to culture: someone who considers themselves asexual in our culture may not have considered themselves asexual at all in other cultures, for our culture is clearly prone to intemperance in sexual matters. So maybe in our culture the sexual appetite is expected to be 90% on average, and anyone less than 60% is considered asexual. Yet, say, in a healthier culture the average is ~20% and asexuality is <3%. (Of course I'm just making up numbers, but hopefully the point carries)

Edit: I should say that I took asexuality to mean "not really preferring sex at all or very little."
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Silmarien
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Perhaps... But also perhaps not. At first glance asexuality is the pinnacle of insensibility. I'm not sure how you could get around that altogether.

This is difficult, because there's no clear definition of what it means to be "asexual." The question of whether it is disordered is doubly complicated, because those of us who are on the asexual spectrum (for lack of a better term) often can end up with complexes about it, simply due to the stress of living in a society that is so obsessed with sex. For myself, the fact that I'm very seldom genuinely attracted to anyone is probably not a disordered sexual appetite, but the fact that I panic and repress any interest I do have almost certainly is. Just not because of insensibility.

(Note to OP: Try not to get bent out of shape when a Christian tells you that something you feel that you have no choice over is disordered or the result of the Fall. It's not necessarily condemnation, since at least the more Augustinian amongst us kind of see everything as broken.)

I think your point about culture is important, though, and that complicates the whole thing. I think it is a very complicated question in general, but I would of course answer the question, "I have no sexual appetite. Is that bad on Christianity?" with, "Yes, Christianity would say that the absence of any sexual appetite would be a result of disordered human nature." I think that is the place to start, and many more questions arise once we do that.

Sorry, I realize this is a clumsy reply. You touched on all sorts of different aspects of the question, but not on any one enough for me grapple with it. If you like you could expand on one or two of those points. (Thomas' reply to objection 1 gets at the difference between lack of or aversion to sensual appetite, and celibacy.)

Does it really, though? I really don't know how to reconcile the idea that the lack of sexual appetite is inherently disordered with Paul's insinuation that the ease with which he approached celibacy was a gift from God. It's impossible to know precisely what he means, but to me it certainly sounds a lot like what might now be considered asexuality.

I also wonder how one would be better off if they had more normal sexual appetites, seeing as how celibacy is viewed as equal (or sometimes even preferable) to marriage. Why would it be better for a celibate to have desires they're never going to act upon than to not have them?

Another point relating to culture: someone who considers themselves asexual in our culture may not have considered themselves asexual at all in other cultures, for our culture is clearly prone to intemperance in sexual matters. So maybe in our culture the sexual appetite is expected to be 90% on average, and anyone less than 60% is considered asexual. Yet, say, in a healthier culture the average is ~20% and asexuality is <3%. (Of course I'm just making up numbers, but hopefully the point carries)

Yeah, we have discussed this before. :D For anyone else reading, as a secular progressive I used to identify as asexual, but have ceased to do so since converting. I felt a lot of social pressure that I no longer do, and the only escape was to shelter under the LGBT+ banner. The rules have changed now, though, so I don't use the asexual label anymore. Which means that even within two cultures that live side by side, someone can consider themselves asexual within one but not the other.

I do think that the cultural aspect of asexuality is really complicated because of this, since it's not just that someone falling below a certain arbitrary standard of sexual appetite is considered asexual by the rest of society. It's an identity they choose for themselves because they sense that they deviate from the norm--and then they can get trapped in it. (Personally, I think this is where moral issues with asexuality may lie, since I think it's harmful to derive too much of one's sense of self from sexual orientation, whatever that orientation might be. But I'm an existentialist, not a Thomist. :D)
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,778
3,377
✟242,015.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
This is difficult, because there's no clear definition of what it means to be "asexual."

True. I tried to clarify above in an edit that I had the OP's definition in mind, "not really preferring sex at all or very little." I am thinking of it as a part of the sense appetite.

For myself, the fact that I'm very seldom genuinely attracted to anyone is probably not a disordered sexual appetite, but the fact that I panic and repress any interest I do have almost certainly is. Just not because of insensibility.

This is interesting, though. I don't fully understand what you are saying, but it seems to me that all of these things may well be related (attraction, appetite, repression, and insensibility).

Does it really, though? I really don't know how to reconcile the idea that the lack of sexual appetite is inherently disordered with Paul's insinuation that the ease with which he approached celibacy was a gift from God. It's impossible to know precisely what he means, but to me it certainly sounds a lot like what might now be considered asexuality.

1 Cor 7:7? Well, it could be, but I wouldn't say more than that. After all, Paul might also have chosen celibacy in the face of a sexual appetite which he was able to control. That is also in accord with the text.

I also wonder how one would be better off if they had more normal sexual appetites, seeing as how celibacy is viewed as equal (or sometimes even preferable) to marriage. Why would it be better for a celibate to have desires they're never going to act upon than to not have them?

Good question. :confused:

As far as I know the heart of this is the idea that celibacy is a kind of sacrifice to God. But you could also bring in incarnation theology (Hebrews 2:16-18). Saying that Christ had no sexual appetite would be some form of heresy, I gather.

Yeah, we have discussed this before. :D For anyone else reading, as a secular progressive I used to identify as asexual, but have ceased to do so since converting. I felt a lot of social pressure that I no longer do, and the only escape was to shelter under the LGBT+ banner. The rules have changed now, though, so I don't use the asexual label anymore. Which means that even within two cultures that live side by side, someone can consider themselves asexual within one but not the other.

My path to this is odd, too. I was a sort of self-made, insensible stoic. I stumbled upon Simon Tugwell, O.P., who maintains a very firm opposition to insensibility as a general theme in his works, and now he is one of my favorite theologians. Of course he doesn't talk about it in terms of sexuality, but if he were doing marriage counseling I'm sure that would come up. His point is that insensibility is dangerous in a way that most Christians can never comprehend because they have been brought up to see it as something of a virtue. Practically speaking he would advise against panic and repression, because those really are the things that lead to insensibility in the long run. :D

I think a robust sense appetite is indispensable to virtue. Is the same true of the isolated sexual appetite? Certainly not in the same way, but it's also hard to say that it would be wholly unrelated. (I want something less physical, like "erotic appetite," but I don't feel that's any better! ^_^).

I do think that the cultural aspect of asexuality is really complicated because of this, since it's not just that someone falling below a certain arbitrary standard of sexual appetite is considered asexual by the rest of society. It's an identity they choose for themselves because they sense that they deviate from the norm--and then they can get trapped in it. (Personally, I think this is where moral issues with asexuality may lie, since I think it's harmful to derive too much of one's sense of self from sexual orientation, whatever that orientation might be.)

Oh, I agree. The labeling and identities involved are probably harmful.

But I'm an existentialist, not a Thomist. :D

Tell that to Maritain. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Silmarien
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
True. I tried to clarify above in an edit that I had the OP's definition in mind, "not really preferring sex at all or very little." I am thinking of it as a part of the sense appetite.

Hmm. I am not sure that the OP's definition is directly related to sense appetite at all, since he's discussing a lack of sexual attraction to other people, not a lack of sexual appetite altogether. Going off of a Catholic analysis, we're still talking about disordered sexual appetite, though for reasons quite distinct from insensibility.

This is interesting, though. I don't fully understand what you are saying, but it seems to me that all of these things may well be related (attraction, appetite, repression, and insensibility).

I'm not sure. Your use of the term "insensibility" seems to be influenced by Tugwell, and I'm not at all familiar with how he approaches it. I don't think that not feeling sexual attraction strong enough to want to act upon it by itself has much of anything to do with insensibility, appetite, or even repression. It can lead to problems, but I don't really care for the idea that everyone who doesn't need a ton of self-control to refrain from having sex has a disordered sexual appetite. ^_^

Good question. :confused:

As far as I know the heart of this is the idea that celibacy is a kind of sacrifice to God. But you could also bring in incarnation theology (Hebrews 2:16-18). Saying that Christ had no sexual appetite would be some form of heresy, I gather.

Yeah, it would probably be veering into Docetism, at least if your reason for saying it was hatred of the physical. But I think we'd be begging the question of whether or not a certain threshold of sexual desire is really an integral part of what it means to be human.

I'm also a little bit nervous about the celibacy as "sacrifice to God" language, since if you don't already have whatever gift it is that makes that sort of sacrifice possible, you end up with a bunch of medieval bishops keeping mistresses. Or worse.

My path to this is odd, too. I was a sort of self-made, insensible stoic. I stumbled upon Simon Tugwell, O.P., who maintains a very firm opposition to insensibility as a general theme in his works, and now he is one of my favorite theologians. Of course he doesn't talk about it in terms of sexuality, but if he were doing marriage counseling I'm sure that would come up. His point is that insensibility is dangerous in a way that most Christians can never comprehend because they have been brought up to see it as something of a virtue. Practically speaking he would advise against panic and repression, because those really are the things that lead to insensibility in the long run. :D

I think a robust sense appetite is indispensable to virtue. Is the same true of the isolated sexual appetite? Certainly not in the same way, but it's also hard to say that it would be wholly unrelated. (I want something less physical, like "erotic appetite," but I don't feel that's any better! ^_^).

I'm really not sure what a robust sense appetite has to do with virtue one way or the other. ^_^ I mean, I agree that panic and repression are bad, but what exactly qualifies as a robust sense appetite? For someone, that might mean caviar and going to the opera three times a week. :D

Tell that to Maritain. :D

I was actually thinking of him, lol. Between the Josephite marriage with Raissa and that pseudo ménage à trois they had with Vera, that was quite the unconventional lifestyle.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,778
3,377
✟242,015.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Hmm. I am not sure that the OP's definition is directly related to sense appetite at all, since he's discussing a lack of sexual attraction to other people, not a lack of sexual appetite altogether. Going off of a Catholic analysis, we're still talking about disordered sexual appetite, though for reasons quite distinct from insensibility.

Sure, but it wasn't until the 7th post that we learned that. My approach to the thread has consistently been with regard to the sense appetite, but I suppose that's a good point.

I'm not sure. Your use of the term "insensibility" seems to be influenced by Tugwell, and I'm not at all familiar with how he approaches it. I don't think that not feeling sexual attraction strong enough to want to act upon it by itself has much of anything to do with insensibility, appetite, or even repression. It can lead to problems, but I don't really care for the idea that everyone who doesn't need a ton of self-control to refrain from having sex has a disordered sexual appetite. ^_^

Lol... I think we are differing on the nature of sexual attraction. I see it as more comprehensive than simply an invitation to sex acts. So again, maybe talking about eros rather than sex would be appropriate since it better represents the web of interconnected complexities.

Yeah, it would probably be veering into Docetism, at least if your reason for saying it was hatred of the physical. But I think we'd be begging the question of whether or not a certain threshold of sexual desire is really an integral part of what it means to be human.

I think the vast majority of people would say that sexual attraction is an integral part of the human experience. Further, this is one of the single most ubiquitous areas of human temptation and sin. That would be a pretty big one for Christ to skip.

I'm also a little bit nervous about the celibacy as "sacrifice to God" language, since if you don't already have whatever gift it is that makes that sort of sacrifice possible, you end up with a bunch of medieval bishops keeping mistresses. Or worse.

Isn't that like saying you're uncomfortable with promises because some are broken?

I'm really not sure what a robust sense appetite has to do with virtue one way or the other. ^_^ I mean, I agree that panic and repression are bad, but what exactly qualifies as a robust sense appetite? For someone, that might mean caviar and going to the opera three times a week. :D

^_^

Well, really even a primitive sense appetite is necessary for virtue. If you don't have desires and aversion, if you don't seek pleasure and avoid pain, if you don't care about anything or fear anything, then there's simply no possible way that you could be courageous, or temperate, or loving, or prudent, or even just. But to actually achieve virtue requires an ardent desire for the good, a visceral distaste for evil. Our e-motions are what move us, and we can never be moved to virtue (or true vice) without affectivity. For Aristotelians the world of sense is the root and introduction to the world, and the sense appetites are the root and introduction to appetite. To take a sheepishly bad example, the child who began life with an extreme and fearful love of Spaghetti-O's is the one who grows up to be St. Teresa of Avila and sets the world on fire with her love of God, not the child who finds all foods perfectly boring.

I was actually thinking of him, lol. Between the Josephite marriage with Raissa and that pseudo ménage à trois they had with Vera, that was quite the unconventional lifestyle.

I'll have to dust off that biography. :oops::)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Silmarien
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Sure, but it wasn't until the 7th post that we learned that. My approach to the thread has consistently been with regard to the sense appetite, but I suppose that's a good point.

Yeah, I don't blame you for making the assumption, and sometimes that is what people mean. But sometimes it isn't. I'm pretty familiar with the concept of asexuality, since I did identify with it for a while, but if you don't know the ins and outs of it, it's one of the more obscure and difficult ideas under the LGBT+ banner.

Lol... I think we are differing on the nature of sexual attraction. I see it as more comprehensive than simply an invitation to sex acts. So again, maybe talking about eros rather than sex would be appropriate since it better represents the web of interconnected complexities.

Possibly. It's tricky, though, because asexuality is so difficult to define. Anyone who diverges from the norm in terms of sexual appetite and/or attraction could qualify, but everyone is different.

I think the "disordered" language is a bit dangerous in this context, though. I know what it means in the Catholic context, and I think that I do have a nasty case of disordered passions related to this, but non-Christians have a lot of trouble with this type of language. When it comes to the question of asexuality, it's already so difficult because the whole secular world is telling you that you have to be sexually active, so I would be cautious of adding to that pressure by using language that people are going to misinterpret.

I think the vast majority of people would say that sexual attraction is an integral part of the human experience. Further, this is one of the single most ubiquitous area of human temptation and sin. That would be a pretty big one for Christ to skip.

Oh, I'm not saying he skipped it. I just think it's a weird argument to say that the lack of significant sexual attraction is disordered because Christ probably had a sexual appetite, both because we have no way to actually verify that, and because as far as I can tell, masculine and feminine sexuality are not really the same thing, so he did skip a full half of the human experience as far as sexuality is concerned. :D

There is also still the issue alluded to earlier: you can lack significant sexual attraction without lacking sexual appetite, so sexual sin can still apply. I just don't know why it would attach specifically to not feeling sexual attraction to anyone. That seems value neutral to me.

Another point that hasn't been addressed yet: if asexuality is an orientation (and I'm not convinced that this is the right word for it), then it is a very fluid one. I have known people who at certain points considered themselves basically asexual, and at others didn't. That can obviously be a problem in the marital context, but I don't see why the lessening of a sexual appetite would otherwise be considered disordered.

Isn't that like saying you're uncomfortable with promises because some are broken?

I would be uncomfortable if keeping one's word was seen as something that was extraordinarily difficult. It really shouldn't be. ^_^ But what I don't see is why someone who struggles with celibacy is somehow better off than someone who doesn't.

^_^

Well, really even a primitive sense appetite is necessary for virtue. If you don't have desires and aversion, if you don't seek pleasure and avoid pain, if you don't care about anything or fear anything, then there's simply no possible way that you could be courageous, or temperate, or loving, or prudent, or even just. But to actually achieve virtue requires an ardent desire for the good, a visceral distaste for evil. Our e-motions are what move us, and we can never be moved to virtue (or true vice) without affectivity. For Aristotelians the world of sense is the root and introduction to the world, and the sense appetites are the root and introduction to appetite. To take a sheepishly bad example, the child who began life with an extreme and fearful love of Spaghetti-O's is the one who grows up to be St. Teresa of Avila and sets the world on fire with her love of God, not the child who finds all foods perfectly boring.

Hmm. I obviously have some Aristotelian sympathies, but I'm not quite an Aristotelian, so I would balk a bit at just declaring Aristotelian ethics and Christian ethics to be the same thing, without any qualifiers. ^_^ I will agree that just about any ethics requires a thirst for something, though, even if I'm not sure that the connection to sense appetite is more than just analogical. Either way, I don't see why this would specifically be related to sexuality, since having an ardent desire for the good seems pretty distinct from having a desire for sexual intimacy.

I'll have to dust off that biography. :oops::)

Yeah, haha. I don't think it was quite as scandalous as it sounds, but it makes me scratch my head a bit. If you're in a chaste marriage with one sister, and the other sister cohabitates with you both throughout her entire lifetime, and all of this is going on for religious reasons, what is that even? A Josephite ménage à trois?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,947
The Void!
✟1,126,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Thought it'd be better to ask the pointed question in this particular forum, given that this would be something that I imagine isn't going to have a single answer, though from a previous discussion, there was already fragmentation even between just Christians, let alone other perspectives I got in that thread from late 2019 in the Ethics and Morality forum

Through Christianity, it isn't necessarily emphasized that everyone must engage in sex, especially if you wish to become celibate for better devotion to God, Jesus and Paul both noting as much.

But for those like myself who are not intending to do any kind of asceticism or such and intend to be in a romantic relationship if the opportunity presents itself in the future, would it be in a Christian perspective that my not really preferring sex at all or very little, is morally incorrect in any sense? This would obviously have some parallel to other sexual orientations, some of which are definitely not up for discussion and haven't really ever been in my discussions on the forum (which I stopped for several years and only recently came back late 2019)

Fundamentally, can this be said to be a struggle as regards some kind of "sin nature" and such for Christians or does it fall under something else that doesn't necessitate the same response?

I'd simply say that it falls under "something else" and doesn't necessitate the same response ... ;)
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,778
3,377
✟242,015.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Yeah, I don't blame you for making the assumption, and sometimes that is what people mean. But sometimes it isn't. I'm pretty familiar with the concept of asexuality, since I did identify with it for a while, but if you don't know the ins and outs of it, it's one of the more obscure and difficult ideas under the LGBT+ banner.

Yes, perhaps. I tend to ignore the word and listen to the description.

Possibly. It's tricky, though, because asexuality is so difficult to define. Anyone who diverges from the norm in terms of sexual appetite and/or attraction could qualify, but everyone is different.

Ah, but in this case we were speaking of a quadruple which made no mention of 'asexuality.' I'm comfortable upholding a connection between being uncomfortable with attraction & approach and a level of insensibility.

I think the "disordered" language is a bit dangerous in this context, though. I know what it means in the Catholic context, and I think that I do have a nasty case of disordered passions related to this, but non-Christians have a lot of trouble with this type of language. When it comes to the question of asexuality, it's already so difficult because the whole secular world is telling you that you have to be sexually active, so I would be cautious of adding to that pressure by using language that people are going to misinterpret.

Ah, such that I would be fueling the secular fire? With Muichi I only mentioned "disordered" in the context of an overactive or uncontrollable sexual drive. I said that a lack of a sex drive altogether is a kind of vice, is bad, but less bad than the contrary. I don't see a big problem with that language.

There is a bigger debate about the word "disordered" in Catholic circles that seems to me to amount to politeness vs. truth. I don't think that was your meaning.

Oh, I'm not saying he skipped it. I just think it's a weird argument to say that the lack of significant sexual attraction is disordered because Christ probably had a sexual appetite, both because we have no way to actually verify that, and...

No, the argument is that these desires and their entailments are such an integral part of the human experience that it would be heretical to say that God became man without entering into them.

...because as far as I can tell, masculine and feminine sexuality are not really the same thing, so he did skip a full half of the human experience as far as sexuality is concerned. :D

Not opening this can of worms. :p

There is also still the issue alluded to earlier: you can lack significant sexual attraction without lacking sexual appetite, so sexual sin can still apply. I just don't know why it would attach specifically to not feeling sexual attraction to anyone. That seems value neutral to me.

No, I agree. This is a somewhat different question. At the same time, folks who touch also tend to use other people in the process (images, audio, video, etc.). The idea that there is simply a lack of any sexual attraction in such a case is doubtful.

Another point that hasn't been addressed yet: if asexuality is an orientation (and I'm not convinced that this is the right word for it), then it is a very fluid one. I have known people who at certain points considered themselves basically asexual, and at others didn't. That can obviously be a problem in the marital context, but I don't see why the lessening of a sexual appetite would otherwise be considered disordered.

Keeping to my objective, third-person argument, absence of any sexual appetite would seem to be disordered. ;) I never said that a diminishing of the sexual appetite is problematic or sinful. In many cases that would be very good. Of course an act which is a per se cause of evil is also itself evil. If one is led to have zero sexual appetite via castration, then castration is evil.

But what I don't see is why someone who struggles with celibacy is somehow better off than someone who doesn't.

We are only examining a very particular case where that is true. But I will yield to you here. It is a difficult question and I don't pretend to have all the answers. I don't have any more than I have already given. Besides, I tried to give Muichi a traditional Christian view. I haven't claimed to understand or agree with it in its entirety.

Hmm. I obviously have some Aristotelian sympathies, but I'm not quite an Aristotelian, so I would balk a bit at just declaring Aristotelian ethics and Christian ethics to be the same thing, without any qualifiers. ^_^ I will agree that just about any ethics requires a thirst for something, though, even if I'm not sure that the connection to sense appetite is more than just analogical.

Well it's hard to separate Aristotelian ethics from historic Christianity. And if you want purely Biblical arguments there are plenty. The Jewish world thought pretty highly of fertility and children, after all. :)

Either way, I don't see why this would specifically be related to sexuality, since having an ardent desire for the good seems pretty distinct from having a desire for sexual intimacy.

Why? I suppose you could separate "the good" from all particular goods, but that leaves us in a pretty strange place. I'm not saying that sexual desire is somehow indispensable to holiness or a good life, but eros probably is, and as far as goods go, the conjugal act is very high.

Yeah, haha. I don't think it was quite as scandalous as it sounds, but it makes me scratch my head a bit. If you're in a chaste marriage with one sister, and the other sister cohabitates with you both throughout her entire lifetime, and all of this is going on for religious reasons, what is that even? A Josephite ménage à trois?

^_^ Let me know when you figure that one out. :D
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
[edit: Cutting out all but the end of the response, since I think we've gone too far off topic.]

We are only examining a very particular case where that is true. But I will yield to you here. It is a difficult question and I don't pretend to have all the answers. I don't have any more than I have already given. Besides, I tried to give Muichi a traditional Christian view. I haven't claimed to understand or agree with it in its entirety.

Alright. :) I just think that asexuality would have almost always been swept under the celibacy umbrella and not really registered as an issue. If someone didn't view it as a call to asceticism, and OP clearly doesn't, that might be different, but I'm not sure how common that would have been in the pre-modern world. Even now, it strikes me as more a secular thing, since as far as I can tell (and I don't have a huge pool to go by), religious people who don't quite conform here are more likely to be eyeing asceticism than identifying with the asexual community.

Well it's hard to separate Aristotelian ethics from historic Christianity. And if you want purely Biblical arguments there are plenty. The Jewish world thought pretty highly of fertility and children, after all. :)

I would prefer to base a biblical analysis in the New Testament than the Old Testament, especially considering that the Jewish focus on fertility led to problematic things like polygamous arrangements where you gave your slaves in marriage to your husband. :sorry:

That said, fun fact about Judaism: I was looking up the Jewish view on contraception a while back, and found out that Orthodox Judaism views procreation as primarily a masculine obligation, so female contraception is viewed much more favorably than male contraception. (Really interesting in light of all the passages where women are trying to get men to carry out their obligations: seems like it was more of a woman's right than a woman's duty.)
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0