Is sex only for procreation?

[Michie]

I'm not obsessed with sex, Michie. I am obsessed with not being forced into celibacy for the rest of my days. There is a difference, even if that difference isn't obvious.

Yes, I have said a lot about the Marriage Permanence Doctrine and why I reject it. It's been a sensitive matter to me, you can probably understand why.

A question: why did you defend the actions of those Church elders?

I’m not defending anything. But we only hear one side of the story. There are at least 2 other sides. I mean, coming into chat and discussing possibly dating a medium? And how your ex discusses right wing religious issues and how you wish she’d find other interests, Etc. Not a good look. I’m not trying to be mean but you have to get some self awareness on how you’ve come across. Do I know you? No. Not beyond that sex is your #1 concern. And you feel you are correct, etc. How could anyone know you when all you discuss is you are not going to be doomed to celibacy and your gripes with your exwife and the rotten sex life you had with her according to you? I mean, how can anyone know you when you refuse to discuss anything else? It just makes you look like a bitter guy looking for sex and attending dance classes. Not much else. I would hope your more multifaceted than that.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

I’m not defending anything. But we only hear one side of the story. There are at least 2 other sides. I mean, coming into chat and discussing dating a medium? And how your ex discusses right wing religious issues and how you wish she’d find other interests, Etc. Not a good look. I’m not trying to be mean but you have to get some self awareness on how you’ve come across. Do I know you? No. Not beyond that sex is your #1 concern. And you feel you are correct, etc. How could anyone know you when all you discuss is you are not going to be doomed to celibacy and your gripes with your exwife and the rotten sex life you had with her according to you? I mean, how can anyone know you when you refuse to discuss anything else? It just makes you look like a bitter guy looking for sex and attending dance classes. Not much else. I would hope your more multifaceted than that.

You're way off for a number of reasons. At this point, I think you're seizing upon whatever you think you can to justify your preferred narrative. Me supposedly dating a medium, and expressing concerns about my ex's media consumption appear to be desperate attempts to justify your narrative, with little concern for the actual details.

To say that "sex is my #1 concern" is to display a profound lack of depth and sense. It is a power and control issue for me. Nobody gets to force celibacy upon me - I won't stand for it. For me to accept permanent celibacy as my fate would be to accept second class citizenship. It would be an abomination, and I will have none of it. If you cannot understand the difference between obsession with sex and a steadfast refusal to give an inch to spiritual abuse, then you probably don't understand the value of freedom either.

When someone tries to control and manipulate me in some inappropriate way, I take it as an insult and a personal affront. I don't forget, nor do I forgive such things easily. If you disregard my boundaries in this area, I will make my displeasure known, and I will intentionally make myself abrasive and unpleasant to deal with until I am satisfied I have gotten the point across. If that doesn't work, then my ruthlessness will be severe. I once fired a $24,000 / year client in my business because of this sort of thing. I can assure you that I would not have walked away from $2,000 / month just to be a jerk. I have also banished family members from my life permanently for this kind of thing.

To say that I "refuse to discuss anything [other than my divorce]" is nowhere near a fair characterization of my posts here. My divorce had far reaching implications in many areas of my life including (1) my relationship with my then-church assembly, (2) my social circle, and (3) the level of trust and respect I now have towards other believers. It became a recurring theme in my discussions because the ramifications were so broad, not because that's all I care about.

I was so thoroughly irked by how little moral sense other professed believers behaved towards me that I nearly declared that I would never again associate with other Christians! You have demonstrated the same folly they did in some of these ways.

If you are interested in evidence that I discuss matters other than divorce, here is a thread that I started regarding sound biblical interpretation:

Applying logical thought processes to the Scriptures

There are times I've found myself in some heated debate or controversy regarding what the Word of God does and does not say regarding some moral or ethical issue. This is what I found bizarre: There have been times when I would advance some assertion in logical terms ("A implies B / A /...

www.christianforums.com

I never dated a medium, though at one time I was interested in doing so. To be fair, I really had no business dating anyone at that time anyway. She probably didn't either. Nothing ever came of it, and that's probably a good thing.

Yes I did express concern about my then-wife's excessive media consumption, but that was more on the line of "I wish she would get out more, for her sake". I don't know why you found it so horrid that I would express such a sentiment. I have a thriving social life now, and it concerns me a bit that she does not appear to have anything comparable. Why would you fault me for saying so?

 

[Michie]

You're way off for a number of reasons. At this point, I think you're seizing upon whatever you think you can to justify your preferred narrative. Me supposedly dating a medium, and expressing concerns about my ex's media consumption appear to be desperate attempts to justify your narrative, with little concern for the actual details.

To say that "sex is my #1 concern" is to display a profound lack of depth and sense. It is a power and control issue for me. Nobody gets to force celibacy upon me - I won't stand for it. For me to accept permanent celibacy as my fate would be to accept second class citizenship. It would be an abomination, and I will have none of it. If you cannot understand the difference between obsession with sex and a steadfast refusal to give an inch to spiritual abuse, then you probably don't understand the value of freedom either.

When someone tries to control and manipulate me in some inappropriate way, I take it as an insult and a personal affront. I don't forget, nor do I forgive such things easily. If you disregard my boundaries in this area, I will make my displeasure known, and I will intentionally make myself abrasive and unpleasant to deal with until I am satisfied I have gotten the point across. If that doesn't work, then my ruthlessness will be severe. I once fired a $24,000 / year client in my business because of this sort of thing. I can assure you that I would not have walked away from $2,000 / month just to be a jerk. I have also banished family members from my life permanently for this kind of thing.

To say that I "refuse to discuss anything [other than my divorce]" is nowhere near a fair characterization of my posts here. My divorce had far reaching implications in many areas of my life including (1) my relationship with my then-church assembly, (2) my social circle, and (3) the level of trust and respect I now have towards other believers. It became a recurring theme in my discussions because the ramifications were so broad, not because that's all I care about.

I was so thoroughly irked by how little moral sense other professed believers behaved towards me that I nearly declared that I would never again associate with other Christians! You have demonstrated the same folly they did in some of these ways.

As an example, here is a thread that I started regarding sound biblical interpretation:

Applying logical thought processes to the Scriptures

There are times I've found myself in some heated debate or controversy regarding what the Word of God does and does not say regarding some moral or ethical issue. This is what I found bizarre: There have been times when I would advance some assertion in logical terms ("A implies B / A /...

www.christianforums.com

I never dated a medium, though at one time I was interested in doing so. To be fair, I really had no business dating anyone at that time anyway. She probably didn't either. Nothing ever came of it, and that's probably a good thing.

Yes I did express concern about my then-wife's excessive media consumption, but that was more on the line of "I wish she would get out more, for her sake". I don't know why you found it so horrid that I would express such a sentiment. I have a thriving social life now, and it concerns me a bit that she does not appear to have anything comparable. Why would you fault me for saying so?

Nah, not going to feed into your endless drama. You tagged me in this thread. I said what I wanted to say. There has been more people than I that have grown weary of these constant replays of your issues. You just keep repeating yourself constantly playing victim. If you’ve really moved on, this would not be an issue. So you go on with your so called thriving social life. I hope one day you can truly move on and address the issues you need to address with yourself and stop the finger pointing and whining about your past and how wronged you think you were. Move on. For real.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

Nah, not going to feed into your endless drama. You tagged me in this thread. I said what I wanted to say. There has been more people than I that have grown weary of these constant replays of your issues. You just keep repeating yourself constantly playing victim. If you’ve really moved on, this would not be an issue. So you go on with your so called thriving social life. I hope one day you can truly move on and address the issues you need to address with you and stop whining about your past and how wronged you think you were.

If you want to stop digging, now would be a good time to stop digging.

 

[Michie]

If you want to stop digging, now would be a good time to stop digging.

Don’t tag me then if you don’t want to hear it.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

Don’t tag me then if you don’t want to hear it.

Why are you doing this? If you make disparaging comments against me that are not justified, I will defend myself. If I'm as predictable as you say, then you know what to do to avoid a reaction from me. Don't poke a hornet's nest and be all shocked at the results!

I've been very reasonable and respectful towards you in my interactions with you here. It's a shame you did not have the decency to do the same towards me. Is this how people in the Kingdom of Heaven are supposed to interact with each other?

I revisited all my comments on this thread - I made no mention whatsoever about my divorce or resulting excommunication on this thread. I also made no attempt to attack the "Marriage Permanence Heresy" as that was beyond the scope of this thread. So whatever your gripe is with me, well, I don't know what to make of it. Maybe you just don't like me. Fair enough, but still hardly an excuse for your boorishness.

Correction: I did mention my divorce once, but only in passing to explain why this is a touchy matter for me. Granted, it can take a long time for me to get over stuff like that - longer than it should. That's just me, though.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me in some of what I saw. I thought a lot of the tone was a bit prudish, but that assessment is a bit subjective. I could be totally wrong about that. Some people believe it is improper to get married solely for sex, but I don't see it that way - though I might question the wisdom of doing so in some circumstances.

If you aren't fond of hearing what someone here has to say, you should take it up with the moderators next time. I'm very disappointed in the lack of sense and maturity you demonstrated here. You should not go around condemning people or things you do not understand. And you should not condemn people whose only offense seems to be expressing an opinion that differs from yours.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

Strike one. Try again. It seems you are reading people's post with a cracked lense.

None of the posts you quoted display a problem with sexuality.

Are we playing baseball now? It was a subjective assessment on my part - there's no right or wrong on such assessments. I came to that assessment based on the overall tone and some of the unspoken assertions that were present in these posts. I doubt I would be the only one to pick up on that kind of thing. What do you see?

I consider myself to be a fairly reasonable guy - at least I'd like to think so.

A question: if you have a desire and sought to fulfill that desire via appropriate means, then why use terms such as "gross" and "dehumanizing" to characterize such a motivation? There are only two scenarios I know of where this would make any sense at all: Either (1) marriage is not the appropriate venue to fulfill this desire - or (2) the desire itself is gross and dehumanizing.

If (1) is true, then what would be the appropriate venue to fulfill this desire? That's a perfectly fair question to ask. There has to be some venue that is appropriate or else (2) would be true.

Also, there were some posts in this thread that mentioned agape as what should drive the marriage. While nobody went so far as to assert agape and eros are in conflict, that seemed to be the implied premise. Maybe you didn't see it that way, but I sure did.

We should not ignore the context of words and their connotative indices. They do matter. Sometimes I come across some assertion that seems to have some unspoken premise that should be addressed. Sometimes I will pick up on this and address it head-on.

This is something we all should do: if there is any unspoken premise behind our assertions, then let's either be honest about it if asked, or take some reasonable measures to avoid the appearance that we are promoting this premise. If it was not your intention to promote this premise, then why not just say so? I won't fault you for backing away from a flawed premise that you (reasonably) have no desire to stand by. I have more respect for people who expressly back away from a flawed premise than I do those who argue from this premise only to abandon and deny ever asserting it when defending it becomes inconvenient.

 

[concretecamper]

Homosexuality proceeds modern contraception by thousands of years

I see you need to qualify your statement with modern. Contraception has been around way longer than the "modern era". The point is, removing the procreative element from the sexual act leads to many things including homosexuality.

 

[concretecamper]

A question: if you have a desire and sought to fulfill that desire via appropriate means, then why use terms such as "gross" and "dehumanizing" to characterize such a motivation?

Vagueness doesn't help the discussion. However, if the desire is motivated by a selfish intent, it is wrong. Any act that is selfish dehumanizes the other.

I know of where this would make any sense at all: Either (1) marriage is not the appropriate venue to fulfill this desire - or (2) the desire itself is gross and dehumanizing.

What?

If (1) is true, then what would be the appropriate venue to fulfill this desire?

You don't fulfill the desire

There has to be some venue that is appropriate or else (2) would be true.

So you are saying there should be an appropriate venue to fulfill a selfish dehumanizing desire? Is the such a venue if you desire to see what it is like to kill someone?

 

[ZephBonkerer]

Vagueness doesn't help the discussion... So you are saying there should be an appropriate venue to fulfill a selfish dehumanizing desire? Is the such a venue if you desire to see what it is like to kill someone?

You seem to be fishing for some specific answer. I'm sorry, but I don't operate that way. It should be pretty clear what I was referring to there. If you need a hint, you might consider referring to the title of this thread.

I'm not going to play this game with you. If you want to know the answer to a question regarding what I believe, ask in good faith and I will answer in good faith. But don't waste my patience by starting with the answer you want, then formulate the questions designed to reach that answer, and then get all flustered when I supply a different answer than what you desire. That's manipulation - I do not take kindly to it.

Those quotes I supplied were perfectly reasonable examples of what I observed regarding the overall tone this thread has taken. Anyone who is not completely tone-deaf should at least understand how someone reading these could have reasonably detected at least some hint of prudishness or disdain for sexuality in these posts. I'm not saying they would necessarily agree with my assessment, only that they would at least be able to understand how I reached that conclusion.

As for myself, I am not a creep and I do not treat women as objects to be consumed and discarded for my pleasure. This is not a fair nor reasonable assessment that can be reached based on my words here. And there is nothing "gross", "dehumanizing", or "creepy" about desiring to meet a healthy sexual desire via appropriate means - that is in a way that does not objectify women or compromise anyone's dignity. Anyone who says otherwise is a prude - I don't know how to come to any other conclusion.

Edit: I don't intend the word "prude" as derogatory in any sense. An aversion to sexuality in a sense other than as a means to reproduction is the very definition of prudish.

This whole thread has gone totally bonkers. It has been bonkered royally. And no, I'm not going to cite examples this time.

I think some of you would do well to consider the following statement:

Perception Is Reality

No need to respond now. Just let it sink in for a bit.

 

[concretecamper]

I think some of you would do well to consider the following statement:

Perception Is Reality

Sounds like a statement Satan would love

 

[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).

.

 

[linux.poet]

This whole thread has gone totally bonkers. It has been bonkered royally. And no, I'm not going to cite examples this time.

I find this combination of username and message to be an instance of funny self-deprecation.

Anyway, if I marry a man who cannot produce children, I maintain that I have not sinned nor am promoting homosexuality. I'm just providing comfort to a dying man and helping him on his road in life. Nor am I wantonly demanding pleasure from him - that would be abusive in any relationship. I would be simply compensating for our mutual own physical weaknesses and needs for affection. I've made my point by my earlier Ecclesiastes quote and shall make my exit.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

Some closing thoughts:

We all have experiences that shape our views. I have a lot of views and a lifestyle that are highly unusual for someone who is active on ChristianForums - I totally get it. It takes some mental discipline to consider a perspective from someone with a different background and set of circumstances. It may not be easy, but we all should make that effort. I am an eccentric man, so I'm used to it.

I thought about this thread and came to some realization. I have posted a lot in topics dealing with sexuality, and perhaps I should cool it for a bit. When I gave thought to my inner motivation, what animated me was never about sex at all. What I saw in general (not this particular thread) was injustice, spiritual abuse, and other things that have no rightful place in the Kingdom of Heaven. If this seems hard to piece together, I won't try to persuade you now. The details are best discussed at another time.

While I understand that words like "prude" or "prudish" carry a negative connotation, it was not my intent to be derogatory. A person who has an aversion to sexuality except as a means to reproduction is the very dictionary definition of prude, or close to it.

I believe this point may have been lost in the emotion: Let's consider a desire for something - I'll call that something "D". D can be a desire for anything good or bad: chocolate cake, a good time, a raise / promotion, whatever. Suppose someone wishes to fulfill the desire for D. Now suppose there exists no venue to fulfill the desire for D that would be considered morally or ethically appropriate. If such were the case, would it not stand to reason that there is a moral problem with D itself, or the desire for D?

We have commerce to fulfill most desires. The baker supplies chocolate cake, the taverns supply beer, event promoters supply a good time, etc. Sex is unique in this regard in that most of us consider it morally inappropriate to acquire it via ordinary commerce (ie prostitution), but do not consider the desire for it morally inappropriate per se. I believe it is because some things were meant to be personal - and anything that depersonalizes it would be a kind of perversion. That kind of depersonalization of sexuality - that is one void of due care, agape, etc - would be soul-crushing to me. If at times I came across as someone who wants only sex, I assure you that nothing can be further from the truth.

I will continue to add my $0.02 to threads that discuss practical Christian living as these things are topics that are of interest to me. Some good news: last Sunday I saw the inside of a church building for the first time in months. I am hopeful that my estrangement from other believers may be coming to an end. The conversations I've had so far have assured me that common sense and common decency are still alive and well among Christians today.

Please pardon me if I came across on this and other forums as someone who couldn't get past victim - and to be fair, I probably did. My personality is such that I take my personal honor seriously. I went through a time where I felt like I had a score to settle with those elders who slandered me to my face - but in reality, I don't. I already won when I refused to give in to their lies and dishonor. The people who did this are in my past, where they belong. Let them explain their actions to the Lord when they appear before the Judgment Seat of Christ - or quite possibly in their case: the Great White Throne.

 

[dwb001]

If sex is only for procreation then why when God saw Adam was alone did He bring all the animals for companionship... and only when no suitable match was found was Eve made.

If procreation was the purpose then God suggested copulation with animals before deciding on human-human intercourse.

Genesis 2 gets a bit freaky.