We don't do sex, we're Christians

[Soubrette]

A few comments on other threads inspired me to start this one. Any factual corrections welcome - I'm not up on my christian creed stuff :) Any opinions welcome but preferrable with an explanation about how said opinion was arrived at.

The premise of many Christian creeds seems to be that sex outside of the sanctity of marriage is wrong and that even within the sanctity of marriage, I'm thinking Catholicism here, should only be seen as a procreation event - not something to be enjoyed. I also watched a documentary on tv about the silver ring movement in the US - a movement trying to disseminate abstinence to teenagers.

My thoughts are two fold - first how practical is the abstinence movement. We're working against biology here folks. All those hormones racing round our bodies, horny folk get to recreate horny offspring - good survivial trait, hard to work against millions of years of evolution.

And secondly how fair is it? The main people in the documentary were married people telling other people to abstain, should any unmarried people never have sex? So the ugly, the choosy, the gay, the hard to live with - all those people have a life of celibacy to look forward to? What about the sterile, the over child bearing age people - should they be condemned to a sexless life?

Sou

[Sweetie]

I'm thinking Catholicism here, should only be seen as a procreation event - not something to be enjoyed.

Sex in Catholicism serves a two-fold purpose, procreative and unitive. Because it is to be open to procreation does not mean that it cannot also be enjoyed.

[godfry n. glad]

I'm thinking Catholicism here, should only be seen as a procreation event - not something to be enjoyed.

Sex in Catholicism serves a two-fold purpose, procreative and unitive. Because it is to be open to procreation does not mean that it cannot also be enjoyed.

Yeah, that's why most of the guys I know shy away from active Catholics... They seem to go in for 10 minutes of fun, followed by a lifetime of guilt. Or, if they are orthodox Catholics, it becomes 10 minutes of fun, followed by a month and a half of sheer terror.

[Shake]

My thoughts are two fold - first how practical is the abstinence movement. We're working against biology here folks. All those hormones racing round our bodies, horny folk get to recreate horny offspring - good survivial trait, hard to work against millions of years of evolution.
Well, from a thread I started somewhere else, I was able to find this article (http://www.humaniststudies.org/enews/index.html?id=186#n11) on how abstinence pledges aren't working, and may in fact be doing more damage than they intend to prevent! :eek:

Your second thought goes right to the heart of the problem with abstinence and the idea of "traditional" marriage. It also is coming to play in the civil union/same-sec marriage debate. Those against argue that marriage is -- in large part -- about procreation. Some of your same counter-arguments -- what about infertile people? etc. -- can be used against that statement. Should two loving people be denied to be married simply because one or both are infertile? In that respect, I'd fight back by saying that I thought Christ's message was supposed to be one of love, and isn't love what marriage should mainly be about? So again, if two people -- notice: no mention of gender or orientation -- love each other and are willing to be committed to one another, why not allow them to marry?

I don't know what it is about sex, though. Some state, Texas IIRC, had recently struck down an anti-sodomy law, and that was seen as a big victory for homosexuals. The military also is apparently afraid of sex that doesn't lead to procreation.

Who knows? Things like this will take time to change.

[slimshady2357]

I'm thinking Catholicism here, should only be seen as a procreation event - not something to be enjoyed.

Sex in Catholicism serves a two-fold purpose, procreative and unitive. Because it is to be open to procreation does not mean that it cannot also be enjoyed.

Sweetie - isn't it fair to say that procreation is the primary reason for having sex according to the Catholic church? So to say two fold as if both procreation and unity are equally valid is maybe stretching it a little?

Good points Shake and thanks for the article, I read it with interested as the silver ring thing is being exported here to the UK :) I don't know what it is about sex either, does anyone know why anal sex is illegal in some states of the US?

Sou

I'm logging out and back in as me now :fuming:

[Crumb]

I'm logging out and back in as me now

We need to get a jar that you have to put a dollar in everytime you post under the wrong name. We can use the proceeds to buy some beer and beef jerky! :cowdance: :rootbeer:

[Soubrette]

I'm logging out and back in as me now

We need to get a jar that you have to put a dollar in everytime you post under the wrong name. We can use the proceeds to buy some beer and beef jerky! :cowdance: :rootbeer:

You are not bloody kidding :blush:

:P

Sou

[Dingfod]

Or those that lack sex can buy some, if they're so inclined, that is.

[MooseIBe]

I know a few Xians who are unmarried, middle aged virgins and I always feel terribly bad for them :(. So, they never, for various different reasons, found 'the one' .. hence they never get to experience sex? that's really not fair. I mean i know it's their fault but why is it that xians have this idea that pre marital sex is the worst thing a human being can do?

[Sweetie]

Sweetie - isn't it fair to say that procreation is the primary reason for having sex according to the Catholic church?

I wouldn't say so, no. I don't see any reason why it must be declared as the primary reason over love and companionship.

However, outside of religion in general, I would say that as animals our primarily reason for having sex is procreation, if sex didn't cause procreation for human beings, would we still focus so much on it? Would that drive be still there or would the drive transfer over to that which does cause procreation? :chin:

Sex causes babies, babies need to be taken care of, mature and adult bonded relationships in my view, are the best way to provide for our future generations. Even if you use contraception, you can still get pregnant so my problem with your question in this case is that it doesn't focus on the fact that sex has actual physical consequences in the sense of, "is it fair to say that to the Church procreation is more important?" Not necessarily but is it fair to say that procreation is a big fact of life that we must deal with, ie: something that can't really be swept under the rug?

So to say two fold as if both procreation and unity are equally valid is maybe stretching it a little?

Not as far as I can tell, not as far as it trickles down, not as far as it has to do with day to day living, etc.

[seebs]

I like the Orthodox position better; it grants that there may be circumstances where the unitive aspect is important enough to justify tossing a problematic procreative aspect -- say, parents on medication that causes birth defects. This recognizes, IMHO, that we are no longer just animals.

[Soubrette]

Thanks for answering Sweetie and Seebs :)

Of course answers always seem to bring up more questions than they solve :yup:

First to Sweety's excellent post - we have a disagreement I think as to why animals have sex - imo it's not for procreational purposes, it's because it feels good. The procreational aspect is a (sometimes unfortunate) side effect of that. So yes, if it continues to feel good to do then animals, including people, will continue to focus on it - it also has other side effects, like the unity you mentioned. Animals groom not just to remove parasites (I seem to remember that some monkeys have been observed planting parasites on themselves for the pleasure of being groomed) but to bond - sex is bonding. The bonobo have sex alot, many of them aren't even at fertility yet and there is alot of observed homosexual activity. Again this shows, I feel, that animals have sex because it makes them feel good.

Now to your other point about procreation being a big fact of life - I agree but I don't think it need be as big a fact as you seem to be saying it is. Properly used contraception can cut the possibility of pregnancy down to less than one percent, of course it can fail but that logic seems to be saying that I (an hypothetical single women) have to fight against my biological instincts, live a life less rich in relationships and bonding plus the actual enjoyment of sex itself just in case I become pregnant - a chance less likely than I will die in a car accident. The cost/benefits of that argument seem very harsh to me.

As to unity and procreation being equal, I am certainly aware of some Catholics who do not believe this to be the case - that the primary reason for intercourse is procreation. Are they wrong? Or is it open to interpretation by individual Catholics? This does interest me because of all Christian Creeds, I was under the impression that Catholicism was the one with the least ability for an individual to interpret things in different ways to the orthodox church.

And finally to a point made by seebs about being no longer just animals, what is the cut off point for acceptability that unity becomes more important than procreation? Why is it not acceptable for homosexuals to achieve this unity? For people who choose not to marry for whatever reason?

Sou

Edited to make a positive into the correct negative form

[Sweetie]

I have never heard anyone assert that animals have sex because it feels good primarily.

Then there is a question of pleasure, why does it feel good?

Properly used contraception can cut the possibility of pregnancy down to less than one percent, of course it can fail but that logic seems to be saying that I (an hypothetical single women) have to fight against my biological instincts, live a life less rich in relationships and bonding plus the actual enjoyment of sex itself just in case I become pregnant - a chance less likely than I will die in a car accident. The cost/benefits of that argument seem very harsh to me.

Properly used and we know all about human error. 1 in one hundred, that's if properly used and that's only certain types of birth control. I think the facts would be something else with human error, manufacturer errors, etc. and since we don't live in a perfectly institutionalized sterile environment, when speaking of sex and pregnancy, all those things need to be taken into account.

The effectiveness of condoms is what?

How many abortions a year?

As to unity and procreation being equal, I am certainly aware of some Catholics who do not believe this to be the case - that the primary reason for intercourse is procreation. Are they wrong?

Seriously though, this question makes no sense to me.

Bonded relationships lead to babies, babies are best in bonded relationships.

Sex=accidents=babies=best in bonded relationships therefore sex=bonded relationship.

Or is it open to interpretation by individual Catholics? This does interest me because of all Christian Creeds, I was under the impression that Catholicism was the one with the least ability for an individual to interpret things in different ways to the orthodox church.

Seriously, I'm at a loss. It really doesn't matter because the end result is the same whether one reason takes primacy over the other.

[JoeP]

I like the Orthodox position better; ...
Which one is that? :sex:

In penance for flippancy, I'll try a serious response. :workload:

Rules from Christianity about sex are like social rules about anything from anywhere: probably created for controlling society, and certainly fostered for that reason if they weren't consciously created. In this case there are plenty of benign reasons for desiring this control: in ye olden dayes, sex was a pretty sure way to get pregnant, and (especially when paternity matters) that's not always desirable; a likely way to get STDs (never desirable); and sometimes a threat to social order (because casual sex could lead to serious love and people running away or breaking bonds affecting property). And there are reasons for the powerful to control it that are less benign.

So, in answer to your OP Sou, I think the rules of any religion on sex are anachronistic and worthy of challenge. People, it's time we grew up: can we promote democracy, the self-determination of people, and human rights, without also promoting rational challenge to authority?

That being said, I don't think challenging rules on casual sex rationally is going change very much. The only-for-procreation thing is 99% offset by contraception, but you have to be aware of the possibility of pregnancy. The STD thing is very real, but again, 99% offset by protection - and you still have to be aware of the risk. And it's not just a risk to you. "Yes I'm on the pill" or "Of course I don't have a disease"...

The third of my "benign reasons", that sex outside relationships can threaten those relationships, has not changed since ye olden days, the '60s notwithstanding. I don't know of any "protection" against this risk, and I don't know any way to dissect the issue rationally. It's too bound up with emotion and threat. Contrary to the joke, marriage is not a fine institution, but we need it. We're stuck with dogma here, unless anyone can show me different.

--

I will confess to not bothering to respond to all the points in the rest of the thread, except for the q about sex among animals being for procreation or pleasure. The problem there is that animals don't have reasons for doing things; they do it instinctively, or they do it because it feels good and it's instinctive to do things that feel good. Comparing reasoning humans with animals is not very useful - but I do think it's fair to understand our behaviour as animal instincts and desires plus rational thinking. Comparing ourselves with animals can't tell us how we should behave, but it can show that there's nothing "unnatural" about sex for pleasure, and all the bonobo stuff that [darn, can't find it now] mentioned.

joe