We now have too many people, not too few.
Women are no longer considered property whose main value is producing children.
Reminds me of this sketch:
That's fine. You don't have to. There are things that I think people should be allowed to do that I'm not completely comfortable with.As you can probably imagine, as with contraception, I don't see sodomy as an expression of sexual purity or intimacy.
That's an interesting idea. I disagree, but it's interesting.Moreover, heterosexual couples who contracept are to a significant extent imitating--not sure of that's quite the right word--homoerotic couples, in that there sexual activity is not fruitful.
Well you're entitled to your opinion. But you are setting up strawman arguments. I wrote nothing about marriages being unhealthy without sex, or about marriage and sex being synonymous nor joy and sex. I wrote nothing about sexual maturity etc. Please don't use a response to my posts as a platform for your strawman arguments. I'm happy to discuss anything with you but please limit your responses to me to my actual comments.I would agree that responsible parenthood is a moral issue. In other words, if a married couple truly cannot support more children, then they would need to either carefully practice periodic abstinence (abstinence during the fertile period), or--if the situation is sufficiently dire--abstain entirely.
A lot of people think a marriage cannot be healthy without sex, but I think that is really false. Love and bonding can be communicated in many ways--including through the joy of self-restraining love--and there are also lots of ways to be entertained or have fun besides having sex. In short, even in marriage, love and sex are not synonyms. Neither joy and sex synonyms.
One of the benefits of such a situation is the chance to grow more in sexual maturity and freedom, learning to center one's sexuality in the brain, which greatly increases joy.
This is especially important today, because sexual maturity is in short supply, to put it mildly.
Ah, you agree with Pat that he is winning! But what do you mean by "reply"?
Why do you say "totally"? Is it possible that it is only "partial"?
You said "given up" - why is that?
You say you're "not sure" - would you explain a little further? What would make you sure?
What do you mean by "what is"?
That's fine. You don't have to. There are things that I think people should be allowed to do that I'm not completely comfortable with.
That's an interesting idea. I disagree, but it's interesting.
If only evolution had kept sexual attraction so simple. Non-heterosexual individuals are a much larger portion of the population than intersex individuals.It is obvious to me that heterosexuality is part of the structure of personhood itself. The female body is clearly made to be capable of actively receiving the male body and procreating and bonding within the context of marriage.
In the context of a romantic relationship, I would associate purity with honesty. People should be open about their intentions with one another and not seek to manipulate the other person or take what has not been offered.As far as "purity" and "intimacy", can you explain how you would understand these terms?
Well you're entitled to your opinion. But you are setting up strawman arguments. I wrote nothing about marriages being unhealthy without sex, or about marriage and sex being synonymous nor joy and sex. I wrote nothing about sexual maturity etc. Please don't use a response to my posts as a platform for your strawman arguments. I'm happy to discuss anything with you but please limit your responses to me to my actual comments.
Why do you believe that abstinence would be a better option than using contraception?My understanding--which could be wrong--is that you were saying that couples who cannot support another child should use contraception.
So I responded that from my perspective what they should do is either abstain periodically or--if really necessary--abstain entirely.
I then talked about how this abstinence can be a good thing.
Maybe I set up a straw man or took liberties by accident. But I don't see it. Maybe in the morning I'll see it.
If only evolution had kept sexual attraction so simple. Non-heterosexual individuals are a much larger portion of the population than intersex individuals.
In the context of a romantic relationship, I would associate purity with honesty. People should be open about their intentions with one another and not seek to manipulate the other person or take what has not been offered.
Intimacy, to me, is just a word for satisfaction and tranquility in a loving relationship. People have found many different ways to form and preserve this type of bond.
Why do you believe that abstinence would be a better option than using contraception?
That's something I've never heard before. What timeline of events do you believe in?I see evolution as part of God's redemptive creation after our Fall.
I'm curious now. You've said that using a condom or another form of contraception puts a barrier between two people and keeps their sexual activity from being as spiritually beneficial as it should be. Would not abstinence have the same effect, but on an even greater scale because they aren't engaging in sex at all?Hi John,
I think abstinence--whether periodic or continuous--would be better because it respects the essentially life-giving meaning of sex, as well as helping the couple to grow in psycho-sexual maturity.
I´m not going to play this game with you.Hi Quatona,
What do you mean by "basic worldview". What do you mean by "sexuality"?
You were the one asking me questions using these terms.
Why is that?
What is the objective standard you are using to determine that?
Why is that?
Why would one have to be a Catholic to see that the specific purpose of sex is procreation?
Admitting what?
Why is that?
How do you determine what is a "reliable epistemological method"?
Peace,
Pat
Yeah, that´s why "consent" is such a useful concept here: It makes sure you (or anybody) needn´t participate in a communication (sexually or otherwise) if you don´t find it acceptable.That helps a lot. I've read this several times. I hope that will help me to understand your beliefs. I think that contraception is always wrong, so I don't agree with your ideas, but as you are smarter than me, that doesn't mean I personally have the ability to refute it either.
Let's see. I would agree that sex is a form of communication. But I don't see how that would ever--under any circumstance--make it acceptable to fornicate, or adulterate, or rape, or contracept. Speaking is a form of communication, too, but that doesn't mean that everything that is said is acceptable.
If that´s your conviction, feel free to act accordingly.With immoral sex, isn't it lust, selfishness, disrespect, and the willingness to use others that is being communicated?
I don´t recall postulating a "need to act them out".Don't get me wrong. I'm not a puritan. I think that sexual feelings are very important and good, and should not be repressed. But I think that sexual freedom means actively receiving them as energy for being a more complete person, without the need to act them out.
Yes, I don´t know that there´s such a thing as "objective morality". I don´t even know what that´s supposed to mean.My understanding is that you don't believe that rape--or any act--is objectively wrong.
Not really. As far as causality is concerned, it´s more the other way round: "(Objective) morality" is a meaningless term to me, that´s why I won´t make a statement involving this concept.As I understand it, that is why the idea of morality is not part of your worldvew.
I have long understood that you believe this. I just see no reason to act upon your beliefs (or even only seriously considering them) - unless you can bring anything to the table that helps substantiating them.I believe that rape and contraception--and fornication, and inappropriate content, and adultery, and masturbation--are always intrinsically wrong, even if a person---through lack of freedom (for example, an obsessive-compulsive disorder, or mental illness, or other reason) or lack of knowledge-- is not culpable.
Then I suggest you shape your sex life according to your beliefs.In the context of marriage, I would see uncontracepted sex as a legitimate and wonderful way of communicating openness to new life and love (bonding), and respect, and tenderness, and permanent committment, etc. In this context or openness to new life and permanent monogamous committment, I wouldn't have a problem with seeing sex as a form of recreation and fun, also, as a form of diversion from troubles and stress.
If it were so important to you to maximize communication so that it includes all options you could always travel or move there.As far as your implicit comparing the use of a condom to the use of a telephone, I'm not sure I see the analogy. A telephone is used to improve communication. For example, I have a true friend in another state. If we couldn't communicate by telephone, we would be able to communicate much less.
I don´t see there´s anything wrong with reducing the communication to calling each other even though the participants are next door neighbours. People intentionally restrict their communication all the time (to certain purposes, topics, media...) - i.e. they erect "barriers" or "distances". I wouldn´t know why to call their communication wrong or immoral.So the barrier there would not be the telephone, but the distance between us. Perhaps using a condom is like inserting a distance between people more than it is like using a telephone to cross that distance.
I´m not going to play this game with you.
I don't accept that the primary purpose of sex is reproduction in every relationship. As for psycho-sexual maturity I don't accept that abstinence necessarily assists in that end. Additionally most couples already abstain for 5-7 days per month as it is.Hi John,
I think abstinence--whether periodic or continuous--would be better because it respects the essentially life-giving meaning of sex, as well as helping the couple to grow in psycho-sexual maturity.
That's something I've never heard before. What timeline of events do you believe in?
I'm curious now. You've said that using a condom or another form of contraception puts a barrier between two people and keeps their sexual activity from being as spiritually beneficial as it should be.
Would not abstinence have the same effect, but on an even greater scale because they aren't engaging in sex at all?
Yeah, that´s why "consent" is such a useful concept here: It makes sure you (or anybody) needn´t participate in a communication (sexually or otherwise) if you don´t find it acceptable.
If that´s your conviction, feel free to act accordingly.
If, however, you want to convince me of this idea you would have to do more than claim it or phrase it as a rhethorical question.
I don´t recall postulating a "need to act them out".
Yes, I don´t know that there´s such a thing as "objective morality".
I don´t even know what that´s supposed to mean.
It´s regrettable that you are unwilling or unable to explain that which is one of your keyterms, but until that happens I won´t work with it.
Not really. As far as causality is concerned, it´s more the other way round: "(Objective) morality" is a meaningless term to me, that´s why I won´t make a statement involving this concept.
I have long understood that you believe this. I just see no reason to act upon your beliefs (or even only seriously considering them) - unless you can bring anything to the table that helps substantiating them.
Then I suggest you shape your sex life according to your beliefs.
If it were so important to you to maximize communication so that it includes all options you could always travel or move there.
That´s the very point: I have yet to see a good reason for the belief that if a form of communication in a way that allows for all options it is therefore "wrong, immoral,...".
I don´t see there´s anything wrong with reducing the communication to calling each other even though the participants are next door neighbours.
People intentionally restrict their communication all the time (to certain purposes, topics, media...)
- i.e. they erect "barriers" or "distances". I wouldn´t know why to call their communication wrong or immoral.
Perhaps you should start a separate thread on this topic anyway. I don't believe in it, but it sounds fascinating.To make sure I'm on topic, I would see contraception as part of this ambivalence about being finite.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?