Is sex only for procreation?

[Michie]

A quote from Frank Sheed-

[Man] dreams of it . . . he craves for it; he pictures it, is stimulated or depressed by it, drools over it. . . . [But] this drooling is not thinking, picturing is not thinking, craving is not thinking, dreaming is not thinking. Thinking means bringing the power of the mind to bear: thinking about sex means striving to see sex in its innermost reality and in the function it is meant to serve (Society and Sanity, 107).

 

[concretecamper]

Sex can alleviate the problem of sexual burning passion. Sex is pleasurable. We are allowed to enjoy sex apart from making babies

It seems logical.

But as soon as you remove the procreative mentality from the sexual act it becomes ONLY a pleasurable act. And once you reduce the sexual act to ONLY pleasure, the gender of the participants is irrelevant.

 

[tonychanyt]

See Carl's words at Posts #7, #14, #16 and #18 for starters. He sounds like a real prude to me. I don't know if he has one single good thing to say about sexuality.

Thanks for the reference. This is how to do referencing in a scholarly manner:

1. Display and indent the quoted text.
2. Selectively bold the relevant keywords that are important to the point that you are making. No need to bold the entire sentence. Have a laser-sharp focus.
3. Be concise and precise to the point. No need to quote the whole chapter.

This is what I do for others who read my posts. It is a standard high-school scholarship. If you practice this, I guarantee you: it will improve your analytical thinking. In any case, no one is required to do it

 

[tonychanyt]

But as soon as you remove the procreative mentality from the sexual act it becomes ONLY a pleasurable act.

Can you show your logic here step by step?

 

[concretecamper]

Sex can alleviate the problem of sexual burning passion. Sex is pleasurable. We are allowed to enjoy sex apart from making babies

You list 2 attributes of sex. It is pleasurable and it can make babies. Remove the making babies part, you are left with pleasure. I really needed to explain this?

 

[Lost Witness]

See Carl's words at Posts #7, #14, #16 and #18 for starters. He sounds like a real prude to me. I don't know if he has one single good thing to say about sexuality.

Carl, if you're reading this: I intend no diss to you. If sexuality isn't your thing, that's ok - I won't fault you for it. If I seem a little touchy on the matter, please understand that I've been dissed one too many times by other Christians for not being a prude.

Marriage is a necessity for me because, well, let's face it: celibacy and I just don't get along. Don't get me wrong: I'm not reckless.

Sex is no reason for anyone to get married.

 

[Lost Witness]

What's wrong with erotica?

Erotica is of the old man - the flesh that was crucified to the cross.
hope the LORD frees me of my sexual immorality and my sexually impure intentions

 

[RDKirk]

You suggested sex could be the primary motivation for marriage.

For the serious believer I don't consider this should be the case.

Well, in the 1st century, virtually all marriages--Hebrew, Greek, or Roman--were arranged, and neither sex nor love (of any definition) was the motivation for betrothal.

I would point out, though, than in 1 Corinthians, the word "marry" referred to consummation (i.e., as the Romans said, "To lead into motherhood"-- in matrimonium ducere), not betrothal. The question was whether a Christian betrothed couple should consummate. Remember that in those days of zero contraception, to consummate was "to lead into motherhood."

 

[RDKirk]

Yes technically correct, but not helpful to the average reader...

What translation did you quote ?

I'm not servant to any particular translation.

 

[Carl Emerson]

See Carl's words at Posts #7, #14, #16 and #18 for starters. He sounds like a real prude to me. I don't know if he has one single good thing to say about sexuality.

Carl, if you're reading this: I intend no diss to you. If sexuality isn't your thing, that's ok - I won't fault you for it. If I seem a little touchy on the matter, please understand that I've been dissed one too many times by other Christians for not being a prude.

Marriage is a necessity for me because, well, let's face it: celibacy and I just don't get along. Don't get me wrong: I'm not reckless.

Smile...

You are talking to a very happily married man with 5 children.

I was single for 10 years before being miraculously led to my wife - engaged in 3 weeks and married in three months. Almost 40 years ago...

Why the arranged marriage ?

Because both of us had sought commitment in relationships and never found it.

Both of us were apprehended by the Lord individually and led on a path of total commitment to His best whatever that was to be.

So our relationship started with total commitment after just three days - we knelt together before Him and dedicated our future together to His Will.

Now the romantic aspects followed - commitment, and His will first.

Agape was always the motivating factor in all aspects of our marriage including the physical.

Honestly those who are driven by lust and self centred pleasure are missing out on the beautiful gift that He has for marriage.

Lust is like a drug - you can never get enough of it.

Prude?

Hardly... but deeply conscious of what many miss out on and seeing marriages fall apart because they put the physical first.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I'm not servant to any particular translation.

My weird light is flashing...

Why hesitate to answer such a straight forward question?

 

[ZephBonkerer]

Smile...

You are talking to a very happily married man with 5 children.

...

Honestly those who are driven by lust and self centred pleasure are missing out on the beautiful gift that He has for marriage.

Lust is like a drug - you can never get enough of it.

Prude?

Hardly... but deeply conscious of what many miss out on and seeing marriages fall apart because they put the physical first.

That's awesome. I'm glad this worked out for you. And yes, I concur that self-centeredness does not make for good marriage material. Seems there's not much love to go around, and I find that quite distressing.

 

[Carl Emerson]

That's awesome. I'm glad this worked out for you. And yes, I concur that self-centeredness does not make for good marriage material. Seems there's not much love to go around, and I find that quite distressing.

There's plenty of Love available but few want it...

 

[tonychanyt]

You list 2 attributes of sex. It is pleasurable and it can make babies. Remove the making babies part, you are left with pleasure. I really needed to explain this?

Let proposition P1 = Sex has only 2 attributes.

True?

 

[concretecamper]

Let proposition P1 = Sex has only 2 attributes.

True?

Out with it

 

[tonychanyt]

Out with it

Sorry that I am slow. Out with what?

 

[linux.poet]

Lust is the human reaction to a physical need. We have a lust for food when we are hungry, we have a lust for rest when we are tired. However, when we let lust dictate our actions, when we become obedient servants of our lusts, then lust has become a god in our lives.

Scripture tells us that both Jesus and Paul "lusted." In both cases, their "lust" was for fellowship with their friends, the word "lust" being used as a metaphor to demonstrate how powerful the feeling was.

I'm concerned that epithumia is being translated improperly, given our modern English meaning of the word "lust" or at least the connotation of it. We use lust to connote sinful sexual desire, not the desire within marriage for one's spouse or my current desire to eat the lemon muffins I bought the other day and go for a walk. As proof, I have a book on my shelf entitled Not Even a Hint: Guarding Your Heart Against Lust. I don't think he's referring to my desire for cheeseburgers or Costco chicken.

Neutral desires are usually defined by "want" in English. "I wanted my husband" or "I wanted to be with my friends again". We don't use the word "lust" for those things, and our translations of the Bible should be updated to reflect that.

That's awesome. I'm glad this worked out for you. And yes, I concur that self-centeredness does not make for good marriage material. Seems there's not much love to go around, and I find that quite distressing.

I would heartily recommend Safe People by Dr. Henry Cloud and Dr. John Townsend. In that book, those two authors break down how people become unsafe and attract other dangerous people to them. I think that could help with your situation and help you find some safe, loving people to be with.

It seems logical.

But as soon as you remove the procreative mentality from the sexual act it becomes ONLY a pleasurable act. And once you reduce the sexual act to ONLY pleasure, the gender of the participants is irrelevant.

This is an example of the slippery slope fallacy. Having sex has physical and health benefits, and being in a healthy relationship helps the people within it heal from trauma and other emotional wounds.

9 Two are better than one because they have a good return for their labor; 10 for if either of them falls, the one will lift up his companion. But woe to the one who falls when there is not another to lift him up! 11 Furthermore, if two lie down together they keep warm, but how can one be warm alone? 12 And if one can overpower him who is alone, two can resist him. A cord of three strands is not quickly torn apart.

Would you deny marriage to a post-menopausal woman who wants to marry a man of similar age? Hugs, kisses, and sexuality would help ease the stress of aging for the couple and the relationship would provide some protection for them since they can take care of each other. There is protection and emotional/relationship needs involved, not just procreation.

 

[concretecamper]

This is an example of the slippery slope fallacy

No it is not. What I posted is the logical result of contraception, and it has come to pass.

 

[RDKirk]

I'm concerned that epithumia is being translated improperly, given our modern English meaning of the word "lust" or at least the connotation of it. We use lust to connote sinful sexual desire, not the desire within marriage for one's spouse or my current desire to eat the lemon muffins I bought the other day and go for a walk. As proof, I have a book on my shelf entitled Not Even a Hint: Guarding Your Heart Against Lust. I don't think he's referring to my desire for cheeseburgers or Costco chicken.

Neutral desires are usually defined by "want" in English. "I wanted my husband" or "I wanted to be with my friends again". We don't use the word "lust" for those things, and our translations of the Bible should be updated to reflect that.

We don't need an new translation every time new words get added to the dictionary.

No, neutral desires are not well defined by "want" in English. There is a difference in nuance between a desire based on a functional physical need and a desire based on a mental whim. The need for food is existential, and the lust that happens when an existential need becomes a moral basis is very different from merely wanting a new hat. The "lust of the flesh" is not the same thing as the "lust of the eyes." That's why they're different scriptural categories.

 

[linux.poet]

We don't need an new translation every time new words get added to the dictionary.

No, neutral desires are not well defined by "want" in English. There is a difference in nuance between a desire based on a functional physical need and a desire based on a mental whim. The need for food is existential, and the lust that happens when an existential need becomes a moral basis is very different from merely wanting a new hat. The "lust of the flesh" is not the same thing as the "lust of the eyes." That's why they're different scriptural categories.

The argument I've heard over the years is that sex isn't a physical need, merely a physical want.

On the other hand, I need food, but I want the lemon muffin. I don't need lemon muffins to survive - I could eat the whole wheat bread from my cupboard instead, but I want the lemon muffin. I need a hat to protect myself from skin cancer, but only want the new one - my old one will do just as well.

Likewise, humans need love and affection from each other, but they only want sex. I can get my love and affection from sex with a husband, or I can get it from platonic hugs with my female Christian friends and my support group.

The need for relationship and food is there - the want decides, well, how I want it, which thing I use to meet my needs. My point is that having a relationship with a husband is a valid way to meet the need for love and affection from another human.