Ways to make men fall in love with you?

[JRSut1000]

God made sex and it was GOOD! Sex is used for children, but I'll still have sex even if it doesnt result in kids. God made it to be pleasurable, and physically and emotionally within God's boundaries it is! Sex isnt meant to be some mindless thing like pooping or peeing, lol.

 

[Tamara224]

So.... if a woman is post-menopausal are the husband and wife never to have sex again?

 

[JaneFW]

So.... if a woman is post-menopausal are the husband and wife never to have sex again?

Good grief don't say that ...

 

[SearchingStudent]

So.... if a woman is post-menopausal are the husband and wife never to have sex again?

Ummm...I sure hope not! Cuz I'm in a WHOLE lot of trouble...had a hysterectomy at 27...no babies possible here!

 

[I Art Laughing]

It's funny you should say that because I've been reading about Augustine of Hippo. Augustine believed that even when baptised, we're still prone to concupiscence (the desire to take pleasure in other creatures, instead of in God). Sex, Augustine felt, was the ultimate act of concupiscence because it involves two humans taking pleasure in each other. Thus, you could say that the act of sex is itself a sin because it always involves concupiscence.

Because children are conceived in an act of sin, they are born with a sinful nature. Original sin is like an STD that is passed through to the next generation via sex.

Augustine did believe that Adam and Eve had sex before the fall, but it was a pleasureless act - like passing urine. Adam and Eve did not fall victims of concupiscence which plagues us and makes us fight against God. The flesh vs the spirit. Sex vs holy celibacy.

I'm not a gnostic.

 

[Athene]

I'm not a gnostic.

Are you implying that St Augustine, one of the most influential theologians in Western Christianity is a gnostic?

 

[Athene]

So.... if a woman is post-menopausal are the husband and wife never to have sex again?

yes, it would be pleasure for pleasures sake which is unholy and displeasing to God

I shouldn't be having sex either because I'm pregnant and therefore sex would be for non pro-creative reasons.

Also, you shouldn't have sex on any day other than Tuesdays because all other days have some sort of religious significance.

hope that helps

 

[I Art Laughing]

Are you implying that St Augustine, one of the most influential theologians in Western Christianity is a gnostic?

Based on what you wrote about him and what I have gathered in my reading he had some serious gnostic tendencies and what you wrote there was gnostic at its core.

Are you suggesting that pleasure is sin? And people complain because I'm always nattering on about suffering? I think God gave us the ability to feel pleasure and I'm not convinced that this is a part of the curse. I'll meditate on this. I'm more inclined to believe that suffering is part of the curse.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Is the Catholic view of concupiscence in some way part of the reasoning behind the prohibition of contraception? Keeping the procreation option open means that one can justify the act of sex as being for some other reason than pure lust thus it stops it from becoming sinful.

Why oh why couldn't the west have had some church fathers who didn't have weird neurosis about sex?

Concupiscence is temptation, not the sin itself. The prohibition against contraception is strictly about using sex for what it is for-communion between the husband and wife, and procreation. If you contracept, regardless of the method, you're not giving yourself 100% to your spouse. You're saying "I give you (almost) all of me."

To your last question, the attitudes about sex in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries was a wee bit different than the attitudes about sex today.

 

[Root of Jesse]

So.... if a woman is post-menopausal are the husband and wife never to have sex again?

If a woman is post-menopausal, would she be using contraception?

The point is to be open to life if it happens. So if you're using NFP, and choose to have sex while the woman is fertile, and a baby is conceived, you will accept it. Is NFP perfect? No, but neither is any other form of ABC.

Being open to the possibility of life is being as Mary was "Be it done to me according to Your word."

 

[Root of Jesse]

Good grief don't say that ...

No worries, the answer is "Of course you can still have sex with your husband!"

 

[Root of Jesse]

Ummm...I sure hope not! Cuz I'm in a WHOLE lot of trouble...had a hysterectomy at 27...no babies possible here!

I'm sorry you had to have a hysterectomy. No worries, there, either. The hysterectomy itself might be problematic (in the Catholic Church, that is), but only if you did it to avoid life, specifically.

 

[Tamara224]

If a woman is post-menopausal, would she be using contraception?

The point is to be open to life if it happens. So if you're using NFP, and choose to have sex while the woman is fertile, and a baby is conceived, you will accept it. Is NFP perfect? No, but neither is any other form of ABC.

Being open to the possibility of life is being as Mary was "Be it done to me according to Your word."

But there's no possibility of conception if the woman is post-menopause. Sex at that stage of life no longer has the procreative purpose.

Also if "being open to the possibility of conception" is the only thing that matters.... then there's still really no difference between NFP and BC. People who use BC can have the same mentality about being open to it if it happens. It's the same idea - trying to prevent pregnancy but if pregnancy occurs, okay.

 

[Root of Jesse]

yes, it would be pleasure for pleasures sake which is unholy and displeasing to God

I shouldn't be having sex either because I'm pregnant and therefore sex would be for non pro-creative reasons.

Also, you shouldn't have sex on any day other than Tuesdays because all other days have some sort of religious significance.

hope that helps

Oh. humor. I get it.

 

[Root of Jesse]

But there's no possibility of conception if the woman is post-menopause. Sex at that stage of life no longer has the procreative purpose.

Also if "being open to the possibility of conception" is the only thing that matters.... then there's still really no difference between NFP and BC. People who use BC can have the same mentality about being open to it if it happens. It's the same idea - trying to prevent pregnancy but if pregnancy occurs, okay.

In the Bible, Sarah was an old woman, past child-bearing years. And became pregnant. Elizabeth, in the NT, also. Both said to be barren. Your statements say that you're putting limits on what you think God is capable of...

You're wrong about people who use BC. They are using it because they do not want to get pregnant. And FWIW, most people for whom BC fails, the proverbial "oops", go to abortion. It's a mentality. Also, regarding NFP, the Catholic Church recommends that, if you're using NFP, and you don't want to conceive, the way to not have a child is to abstain from having sex.

 

[Tamara224]

In the Bible, Sarah was an old woman, past child-bearing years. And became pregnant. Elizabeth, in the NT, also. Both said to be barren. Your statements say that you're putting limits on what you think God is capable of...

That's not logical. Sarah and Elizabeth and Hannah were special cases. Those are called "miracles" for a reason. Out of the billions of women who have gone through menopause, there's three or four listed in the Bible as exceptions and those are marked as special cases.

That's like saying any virgin is likely to get pregnant because Mary did.

You're wrong about people who use BC. They are using it because they do not want to get pregnant.

You are missing the point and not really reading what I'm writing. I never said people who use BC are trying to get pregnant. (What morons would they be if they were, eh?)

I said that couples who use BC can still be open to having a child if pregnancy does occur - which it sometimes does because, as you noted, BC isn't always 100% effective.

And I know this because I'm one of those people who uses BC but am still open to the possibility of having a child if it happens.

And FWIW, most people for whom BC fails, the proverbial "oops", go to abortion.

You're going to need to site a source for this. How do you know?

My mom said each of her four kids was a failed BC method.

It's a mentality. Also, regarding NFP, the Catholic Church recommends that, if you're using NFP, and you don't want to conceive, the way to not have a child is to abstain from having sex.

Um... yeah, that's the whole point of NFP. But people using it don't abstain all the time - just during fertile times. Because they want to have sex without procreating.


You know, there's a reason 85-95% of Catholic couples don't agree with the Catholic Church's official stance on BC. It doesn't really stand the logic test.

 

[Athene]

Concupiscence is temptation, not the sin itself. The prohibition against contraception is strictly about using sex for what it is for-communion between the husband and wife, and procreation. If you contracept, regardless of the method, you're not giving yourself 100% to your spouse. You're saying "I give you (almost) all of me."

Who says that sex is for communion between husband and wife? Certainly not any of the church fathers who despised it.

This view of sex is still messed up, neurotic if ou will. It treats the act of sex with suspicion and dislike but will concede to it as necessary if done for the act of procreation. IOW sex for pleasures sake is not good, there has to be another reason to have sex that isn't so hedonistic.

To your last question, the attitudes about sex in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries was a wee bit different than the attitudes about sex today.

Yes, our modern attitudes to sex have been heavily influenced by secularism.

 

[Athene]

I don't get how one can claim that using contraception means you're not giving yourself to your spouse 100%, but then go on to advocate NFP.

 

[Athene]

Based on what you wrote about him and what I have gathered in my reading he had some serious gnostic tendencies and what you wrote there was gnostic at its core.

Are you suggesting that pleasure is sin? And people complain because I'm always nattering on about suffering? I think God gave us the ability to feel pleasure and I'm not convinced that this is a part of the curse. I'll meditate on this. I'm more inclined to believe that suffering is part of the curse.

Oh not not at all. I'm incredibly grateful to have been brought up in a non-Christian household so have none of the issues surrounding sex that many of my friends have who were brought up in Christian households.

 

[chaz345]

Yes, our modern attitudes to sex have been heavily influenced by secularism.

They have been heavily influenced, and not in a good way by radical feminism too.