It seems that you were perplexed by that attitude as well.
Sex is never "safe". It is a powerful gift and anything powerful carries risks. Especially if done right. For me, doing sex right means extraordinary vulnerablility and openess. This is not "safe", even with a trusted, beloved, partner. It is like a swinging on a trapeze - better and more graceful (and grace-filled) when you trust your partner to catch you - but not safe. That is part of its beauty.
I do think that condoms are important to protect people (to an extent) from the physical repercussions of sex. But, too often in this age of "sexual revolution", we try to insulate ourselves from the risks both with latex and by shutting ourselves off from the depth and power of sex. This doesn't make it safe; and it doesn't make it good.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmb just put this well in my opinion, and I'll assert my very flawed summary of some/one of the main points behind the church's views on sex:
By doing anything to make sex a less extrodinary/special/unifying act you lessen it. The theological logic behind this is, by closing yourself to the life-making (and in my mind unarguably most amazing/special/important) aspect of sex, you are degrading the whole act. there are two important facets of sex in the church's eyes: 1) To create life 2) To join a husband and wife to one being (and give both pleasure)
When you remove effectively half the point, you make the act much less powerful right then, and you make it less powerful in general because the two aspects are no longer tied.
Consider a very weak analogy: I like Jello. As a kid I would greatly look forward to family gatherings and holidays because someone would usually make Jello. When I lived in the dorms, Jello was available at every meal and so I took advantage of it much more often than I had before. Unfortunately this had two effects: 1) I appreciated Jello less as it was always available, and there was no special hullabaloo needed to get it. 2) There was one less reason to be excited about family gatherings
The same is true of sex. Even assuming I am married and monogomous, if I can just have sex at the drop of a hat with no need to think of reprocussions etc then it lessens the act compared to if we had to make sure we were both completely on the same page, willing to bring new life into the world and add to the family...
As for the whole Tradition thing, I'm sorry I don't have better backup on this. I'm reaching back to theology notes from years ago which I don't have around anymore. To the best of my knowledge in any kind of official cannon form, Catholicism is among very few Christian religions that calls out the Tradition of the Church as approximately equal in authority to the Scripture. Other denominations that may/probably have similar views would be the Anglican and Orthodox churches. Effectively we're also among the few that have enough of an established hierarchy for that kind of claim to make sense as well... it was not meant at all to be a sleight to other churches, just a statement that Catholicism (I believe) puts more weight on previous teaching without necessarily requiring it all to relate directly back to scripture. The whole presence of Papal Encyclicals, Canon Law, Doctors of the Church etc... Though this argument is largely an unrelated topic to the main discussion at hand.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, Grimace. I should state for the record that, for me (and in contradition to you and the Vatican), neither marrying my partner or having children is necessary for that kind of extratordinary/special/unifying - I would say transformative - act.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: there are two important facets of sex in the church's eyes: 1) To create life 2) To join a husband and wife to one being (and give both pleasure)
When you remove effectively half the point, you make the act much less powerful right then, and you make it less powerful in general because the two aspects are no longer tied.
According to that logic having sex while you're already pregnant is "less powerful." Without further elaboration, I will respectfully disagree with this argument.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is certainly a balance to be struck between sex only as a special ritual, and sex casual as sneezing. I think modern American teenagers swing too far in the sneezing direction. But I also think the Catholic church, along with most other versions of Christianity, has been way too far in the only-for-procreation direction for the past millennium or so. And really, I think if you are going to err, better to do so on the side of sneezing. Practice makes perfect, and besides, sex is good for you. It's about the only exercise some people get.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, I forgot to mention another important aspect of the Chruch's view on Sex... It is meant to unify the husband, wife AND God... and by closing yourself to the possibility of life you are closing yourself from God. (or at least it's a overly simplified summary of it)
Basically I'd strongly reccomend reading the catechism's statements on the matter (I'll provide links if I can)
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Grimace, you will have to trust me on this. I do not advocate actions that close me off to God. Sex is a sacrament for me - a sign and symbol of God's love.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Keep in mind that I'm not saying it's perfect, just explaining what the logic is.
Keep in mind though that the key is NOT: "to have sex in order to procreate" it IS "to be open to the act of procreation". So while having sex while pregnant will not result in further procreation, you've already shown your openess to new life, and you're not actively doing anything to hinder it, it's just not an issue. Similar to if you are barren, it doesn't mean it's immoral to have sex, because you aren't actively interfering with the act.
As for "natural" methods such as the rythem method which are specifically intended to avoid procreation while still engaging in sex... they are a much more grey area, but the basic logic is that since you are not adding any external things to the act it's still open to life, just hoping to steer it away from that route. But I freely admit that this is a questionable argument at best.
kmb, as for the marriage thing... <shrug> In my opinion, the mindset is the important thing more than the actual ceremony etc... (i.e. my best friend has "known" that his fiance would be his wife for a year or so, and wont be getting married for another year or two for financial reasons, and I have no real issues with them sleeping together...)
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:And really, I think if you are going to err, better to do so on the side of sneezing. Practice makes perfect, and besides, sex is good for you. It's about the only exercise some people get.
Err on the side that increases the incidence of STDs, illegitimate children, and emotional distress, for the sake of exercise? Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think this discussion is interesting. I still see the idea that natural methods leave open possibilities to be simply inadequate. The proponents of natural methods seem to say that they are equally effective to other methods which would leave the possibilities about equal. Also, starting from the premise that all things are possible for God, there seems to be no reason that any method would be too hard for him to overcome if that was his will.
I can see a bit more a mental difference in the participants depending on the method used but I think that is very user dependent. For me, a requirement to engage in sex with someone is a willingness to have a child with that person. I am not trying to have a child and am actively trying not to conceive but I certainly am open to the fact that it is a possible consequence of my choice.
Posts: 416 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I don't think an 'illegitimate' child is a disaster; I disagree about which side causes the more emotional distress; and in any case condoms prevent both STDs and children. You should perhaps be aware that I am looking at these things from a Norwegian perspective, where these things are indeed much smaller problems.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know about the rest of you, but I find that there are a lot of different sex acts that have nothing to do with procreation, bring me closer to my partner and bring me closer to God, in that they typically end in a loud, repetitive call out to Him: "Oh, God, Oh, God, Oh, God!"
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Just what does it mean, though, to get "Closer to God" when you're having sex? The state of bliss during orgasm? Can atheists have the same enjoyment as theists, since we don't have a God to get closer to?
And how does it work that I have to use certain, specific sexual positions in order to do it? Is God checking us out? Does he say things like, "How does he make his back do that? No closeness to me for them!"
But in all seriousness--what IS this added dimension?
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you are serious about getting an answer to that question, you're going about it in a less effective way.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Becoming closer to a beloved human being, experiencing being loved, is touching love which is Divine.
It is explained pretty well in the encylical actually. Did you get a chance to read it?
It isn't about "position". In theory, part of that tapping into the Divine is the possibility of creating new life.
For a long time (did you read my long post on the history of this?) pleasure for its own sake was considered bad, so the only part of sex that was recognized as good was the procreative part. That is changing.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have never been able to reconcile the idea that it's OK for a couple to actively try not to conceive by using the rhythm method, but it's not OK to try not to conceive by other means.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ouch, I didn't think any one would read what I said much less respond. But for the most part I stand by what I said.
Some people seem to have objected to my statement -
"Sorry, but being a healthy male college student, he was certainly going to ignore that particular sin."
Admitedly, that was a clumsily worded sentence. I'm just saying that this particular person had a healthy sexual appetite, and had no qualms about expressing it. He also has a general disregard for authority, legal and religious. Further, I seriously doubt that you will find any variation of Christian Religion other than a few fringe groups who will not agree that Pre-Marital Sex is a sin. Some seem to question my moral judgement on that issue. Although, I think we can all acknowledge a few extremely rare circumstances where it would not be; trapped on a deserted island for example with no sanctifing authority.
In no way, did I intent to imply that people who make a different choice are in some way unhealthy. I simply meant that this was a healthy man with healthy appetite that he had no qualms satisfying.
Now, specifically to this one man who was my close friend, I felt more than justified in asking him to justify his obvious hypocricy. He had already chosen to sin. Once he was past that, he was faced, in my opinion, with the question of sinning responsibly or irresponsibly. In my opinion, he chose to sin irresponsibly. I don't believe one can be selective in their sins; Sin is sin.
True from the context of sin, he was compounding the sin by adding another, but he had already establish that the concept of sin was not going to prevent him from getting what he wanted. So, the sin element was already decided; he didn't care. But in his sin, he chose to ignore a sin that helped him get laid, but ignored the potentially extreme consequences that could have resulted from that sin.
So, I, a non-Catholic, can only reasonable conclude that if you are going to sin, at least do so safely and responsibly.
Regarding my explanations of safe and safer alternative sexual practices. That was in direct response to some one who asked -
"There are sexual positions that might not result in pregnancy?"
Again, I acknowledged that my statement hinge on my definition of 'sexual positions'.
Part of my point was that kids today are much much to quick to leap into sexual activity. At least with a staged approach, a girl has a chance to take some time and determine if this guy is really serious before she commits to 'going all the way'.
Further, I think kids today jump much to quickly into oral sex. Though I note it is usually the girl giving the oral sex. My advice to any very young women out there would be when your alleged boyfriend brings up oral sex, ask him to go first. Ask the guy to pleasure the girl first. Personally, I think that one request would cut out about 90% of the oral sex that is occurring.
One additional point, that I think all girls should know. This is a squicky point that most people would rather avoid discussing, but I think it is critical for girls to know.
Sadly, for nearly all boys, and a substantial number of men, sex is just an elaborate form of (the squicky part) matrubation. When a guy tries to talk a girl into oral sex, he's not thinking about a relationship or anything remotely along that line. He is thinking of his own pleasure. In a sense, the girl is merely an uncooperative device in his (squicky again) masturbatory fantasies.
Now, any girl faced with that request should ask herself if that's what she really wants? Does she want to be nothing be a wet warm device that satisfies this man? I really don't think so. And since the guy is looking at it from a self-satisfaction point of view, asking him to go first, to give her pleasure, is probably going to put an end to that particular fantasy very quickly. If he does say yes, if nothing else it indicates a level of commitment.
Now personally I don't think pre-marital sex is a sin, but at the same time, I do not claim that it is universally sin free. It is sinful in a context, and that context is found in the three magic words that I decline to tell you. All sin is found in those three words. And no it really is NOT 'God said so'.
Don't know if I made it better or worse, but there it is.
quote: Part of my point was that kids today are much much to quick to leap into sexual activity. At least with a staged approach, a girl has a chance to take some time and determine if this guy is really serious before she commits to 'going all the way'.
Further, I think kids today jump much to quickly into oral sex. Though I note it is usually the girl giving the oral sex. My advice to any very young women out there would be when your alleged boyfriend brings up oral sex, ask him to go first. Ask the guy to pleasure the girl first. Personally, I think that one request would cut out about 90% of the oral sex that is occurring.
Because all girls are so into getting oral sex, right? And guys are, by default, not into giving?
posted
It seems to me that kmbboots is saying what Paul did. Rules serve to cause infractions, because they're imposed from the outside. The only hope is to renew your mind.
[edit: Didn't see page 2 and 3. This is in response to last post on page 1 ]
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If my "alleged girlfriend" asked me to "give first" I'd be pretty happy.
But I understand your point about women giving oral sex more often than men. I don't think changing that will make oral sex less frequent, though.
Posts: 367 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
This appears to be the critical passage from the Encyclical:
quote:Nowadays Christianity of the past is often criticized as having been opposed to the body; and it is quite true that tendencies of this sort have always existed. Yet the contemporary way of exalting the body is deceptive. Eros, reduced to pure “sex”, has become a commodity, a mere “thing” to be bought and sold, or rather, man himself becomes a commodity. This is hardly man's great “yes” to the body. On the contrary, he now considers his body and his sexuality as the purely material part of himself, to be used and exploited at will. Nor does he see it as an arena for the exercise of his freedom, but as a mere object that he attempts, as he pleases, to make both enjoyable and harmless. Here we are actually dealing with a debasement of the human body: no longer is it integrated into our overall existential freedom; no longer is it a vital expression of our whole being, but it is more or less relegated to the purely biological sphere. The apparent exaltation of the body can quickly turn into a hatred of bodiliness. Christian faith, on the other hand, has always considered man a unity in duality, a reality in which spirit and matter compenetrate, and in which each is brought to a new nobility. True, eros tends to rise “in ecstasy” towards the Divine, to lead us beyond ourselves; yet for this very reason it calls for a path of ascent, renunciation, purification and healing
I don't see his point. If I am reading him correctly (and I admit that I may not be), he seems to be claiming that to have sex for reasons other than procreation (the biological function for which sex evolved) is to, somehow relegate it to the purely biological sphere, thus making it "debased."
I await correction.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots - May 05, 2006 09:44 AM "Sex is never "safe". It is a powerful gift and anything powerful carries risks ... For me, doing sex right means extraordinary vulnerablility and openess."
"I do think that condoms are important to protect people (to an extent) from the physical repercussions of sex. But, too often in this age of "sexual revolution", we try to insulate ourselves from the risks both with latex and by shutting ourselves off from the depth and power of sex."
I think kmbboots is on the right track here, and has touched on the three magic words related to why kids shouldn't have sex.
While I am a very strong advocate of complete and comprehensice sex education, too often the instuctors can not give a moral, logcial, reasonable, and most important, believable foundation for why kids should NOT have sex without resorting to religion, and religion is never going to be accepted as a reason. Saying to kids 'because God said so' is roughly the same as saying nothing at all, and in some cases worse than saying nothing at all.
But kmbboots has touched on the reason why from a very practical stand point, there is great risk in sex, risk that goes far beyond getting a disease or getting pregnant. There is tremendous power here that is not immediately recongised by teens who only see the mechanics and pleasure of it.
Because secular sex education is unable to find this moral, but non-religious, foundation, they are stuck with nothing but mechanics, and that tremendously fails in the effort to put sex into a practical perspective.
For a majority of young participants, the greatest risk of sex is emotional. It is the risk of betrayal, of being casually used and, in a sense, thrown away. Remember what I said about sex for young guys simply being a more elaborate form of mastrubation. That steals the humanity from the female (or male in some cases) partner. That reduces another human being to an object, and that brings the risk of emotional pain. Some one trusts you deeply and completely, and then you just throw them away like so much used tissue paper.
Trust me, you have never felt pain until you have felt the pain of a heartache, or the pychological pain of feeling worthless and unloved. Even when both partners enter into the act willingly, there is still great risk. Once kids are made to understand the more abstract risks, and the potential for risks and patterns that will effect a persons life negatively for their entire lives. Once the true and complete risk of sex are known, I think teens would proceed a little more cautiously.
I think this is reflected in the prevalence of oral sex among young people. Notice, as I illstrated before, that it is usually one sided. That to me is a strong indication that this is pure mechanics. That it is simply a guy engaged in a more complex form of mastrubation, and I can't believe that girls will let themselves be used and degraded that way.
Because oral sex for a young guy is an elaborate form of mastrubation, I say, if the girl asks the guy to go first, that really will put an end to 90% of the oral sex that occurs among young people. It's not about a shared encounter or experience, it's about self-pleasure and there is no self-pleasure in pleasuring someone else.
Another tip that is sure to kill a young guys requests for oral sex. More than likely the guy is trying to talk the girl into it, and more than likely, greedy as he is, he doesn't want to pull out at the last moment. So, he will try to convince the girl that there is nothing wrong with getting 'fluid' in her mouth. That it's perfectly natural, perfectly normal, and perfectly safe. Well, if he really believes that, then tell him to put some in his mouth and see how quickly his attitude changes.
Since I have greatly strayed from the central subject, let's get back to condoms. No they are not perfect, but they are something; they do offer a level of important protection. Seat belts and air bags are not perfect, but just because they don't help in each and every accident, doesn't mean we should disregard them. Just because one in a million people might suffer injury, doesn't mean we should leave the other 999,999 people unprotected.
The problem again is that too many sex ed instructors are unable to put thing into the proper perspective. The implication is that if you use a condom you are safe, but under the best of circumstances, you are merely safer, and condoms do nothing to protect from emotional vulnerability.
I believe earlier in this thread I gave a long list of alternative sexual practices, something I referred to as a 'staged' approach to sex. I also pointed out that some of those restricted methods of sex still carried the risk of pregnancy. 'Virgin Birth' while rare, is not unheard of, and I am speaking practically here, not religiously. It is possible to get pregnant without having intercourse, again, while I recommend young people start with some of these milder alternative methods, I also highly recommend that they use some method of birth control; most logically condoms and spermacide.
One last point in this long hyper-rant about the inadequacies of secular and religious sex education. Again, it has to do with the inability to establish perspective. Certainly, any competent, and I use the term loosely, sex ed teacher can not avoid the more extreme sex practices and the alternative sex practices, but acknowledging the existance of bondage, fetishes, and other sexual practices is pointless if no prespective is established.
I will use oral sex as an example. Yes, oral sex exists. Yes, some people engage in it, some people enjoy it. BUT, just because somebody is doing it doesn't mean everybody is doing it, and it certainly doesn't mean you have to do it. I can hear every young guy saying 'everybody's doing it' to his girlfried. But everybody is not doing it. Just as everybody is not engaging in bondage. So, again, the reasonable perspective is, yes, some people do this, but not everybody does it, and you certainly don't have to do it if it doesn't appeal to you. Simple as that.
Thank you for allowing me to rant and rave endlessly.
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: For a majority of young participants, the greatest risk of sex is emotional. It is the risk of betrayal, of being casually used and, in a sense, thrown away. Remember what I said about sex for young guys simply being a more elaborate form of mastrubation. That steals the humanity from the female (or male in some cases) partner. That reduces another human being to an object, and that brings the risk of emotional pain. Some one trusts you deeply and completely, and then you just throw them away like so much used tissue paper. ...
Because oral sex for a young guy is an elaborate form of mastrubation, I say, if the girl asks the guy to go first, that really will put an end to 90% of the oral sex that occurs among young people. It's not about a shared encounter or experience, it's about self-pleasure and there is no self-pleasure in pleasuring someone else.
This doesn't have to be an issue. Just like condoms can go a long way towards protecting people from STD, sex education can go a long way to protecting people from emotional trauma.
If we're talking about adults here, or relative adults, and they're consenting, there's not reason that they can't treat each other with respect, or both enjoy sexual activities. It sounds like you're saying that women shouldn't give men oral sex, because they won't get it back, and that's not fair. If so, preventing both partners from practicing isn't going to make them better
It's really an odd turn to the discussion. I've never heard the argument that teens should abstain from sex because they won't like it, and they'll have hurt feelings after. Everything about being a teenager hurts your feelings.
I am not suggesting that teens should be out having sex, but this seems like such a stretch for a reason not to do so. In my mind, the reason teens shouldn't have sex is because they're not mature enough to reliably use their head instead of their hormones to make the choice. STDs and teen-pregnancy are the important issues to me. You can get over a bad relationship, but herpies is for life.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Ask the guy to pleasure the girl first. Personally, I think that one request would cut out about 90% of the oral sex that is occurring.
I suspect that you are basing this on people that you know or some actual basis, but what you're saying sounds so foreign to me. It seems to me that whoever wants the oral sex (male or female) tends to perform it on their partner first with the hope that they will reciprocate. Then again, perhaps the people that I know are the abnormal ones.
quote:there is no self-pleasure in pleasuring someone else.
quote: Ask the guy to pleasure the girl first. Personally, I think that one request would cut out about 90% of the oral sex that is occurring.
Actually, statistics show that this is a false assumption.
I read an article in Reason that referenced a CDC study:
quote:A study by the National Center for Health Statistics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, released in September 2005, that found 25 percent of 15-year-old girls and half of 17-year-olds had engaged in oral sex.
...
The study did say something about one aspect of the alleged oral sex craze, something that contradicts conventional wisdom. Girls and boys, it turns out, are about equally likely to give and to receive. Actually, at least among younger adolescents, boys overall reported more oral sex experience than girls, but both boys and girls were more likely to report receiving oral sex than giving it—which suggests a lot of respondents are fibbing.
This finding was so counterintuitive that some “experts” chose to disbelieve it: Joe McIllhaney Jr., chairman of the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, told The Washington Post he doubted that girls were really enjoying oral sex: “I’d like to know a whole lot more about the pressure boys put on girls.” Others, such as James Wagoner of the reproductive health organization Advocates for Youth, argued that the new data subverted the stereotype of boys as predators and girls as prey.
quote:BlueWizard: there is no self-pleasure in pleasuring someone else.
Another disagreement here.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps what Wizard meant was that there is no selfish pleasure in pleasuring someone else.
It's still not entirely true, as even the most self-centered jerk in the world could still enjoy the idea of someone else really, really liking something he's doing to them, even if it doesn't give him direct physical pleasure.
But still. I think his real point was that the motivations behind wanting to be pleasured are sometimes different from the motivations behind pleasuring another, and if someone has a purely selfish motivation for the former, suggesting the latter might be a good way to find that out.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Puppy "Perhaps what Wizard meant was that there is no selfish pleasure in pleasuring someone else."
"But still. I think his real point was that the motivations behind wanting to be pleasured are sometimes different from the motivations behind pleasuring another, and if someone has a purely selfish motivation for the former, suggesting the latter might be a good way to find that out."
Yes, puppy has a much closer handle on it (no pun intended). I was not speaking universally of pleasuring someone else, I was speaking in what I thought was a well defined context.
Certainly, there is pleasure in given someone else pleasure, but there is a limit to it, and the limit is when the person receiving the pleasure is a greedy self-serving bastard who can't wait to dump you and run off and tell his friends. Who, by the way, will probably all be calling you next weekend.
In situations where giving pleasure is truly a pleasure, I suspect that there are other aspects of the relationship beyond those few minute (or seconds) of given pleasure that balance it off. In otherwords, it's part of a relationship, rather than a greedy little piggy trying to talk some sweet innocent girl into something (admitedly, that's a little overdrawn).
My statement that challenging a guy to 'play fair' elimintating 90% of requests for oral sex, is more of an illustation than an example, but especially amoung very young people, I think it is a very valid illustration. It takes a certain degree of maturity in a guy to make the transition between having sex and making love. Until that transition comes, nearly all sex for men is an elaborate form of mastrubation. It's self-pleasure, not a mutually shared experience taking place on many levels.
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: In otherwords, it's part of a relationship, rather than a greedy little piggy trying to talk some sweet innocent girl into something (admitedly, that's a little overdrawn).
My statement that challenging a guy to 'play fair' elimintating 90% of requests for oral sex, is more of an illustation than an example, but especially amoung very young people, I think it is a very valid illustration. It takes a certain degree of maturity in a guy to make the transition between having sex and making love. Until that transition comes, nearly all sex for men is an elaborate form of mastrubation. It's self-pleasure, not a mutually shared experience taking place on many levels.
First, I think there's a myth that women are the unwilling partners in sex, and that men are aggressors, tricking or coercing women into sex for the selfish pleasure of the man. In my experience, and from what I've discussed with friends, this is far from the case.
As to the idea that men need to "make love" for it to be good for the woman, I don't believe that either. First of all, either or both partners can be really bad, and the sex can be unsatisfying, even if they're "making love", however you want to define that.
Second, why does sex have to be a "mutually shared experience taking place on many levels?" Often times, even among married couples, sex is just sex. That doesn't make it a bad thing.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
There are plenty of guys and girls out there who pride themselves on their mad crazy sex skills and who employ these skills merely to boost their own egos.
quote:BlueWizard: My statement that challenging a guy to 'play fair' elimintating 90% of requests for oral sex, is more of an illustation than an example, but especially amoung very young people, I think it is a very valid illustration. It takes a certain degree of maturity in a guy to make the transition between having sex and making love. Until that transition comes, nearly all sex for men is an elaborate form of mastrubation. It's self-pleasure, not a mutually shared experience taking place on many levels.
Whether you think it's a valid illustration of anything or not, it's still statistically false.
Furthermore, "having sex" vs. "making love" is a false dichotomy. Sex takes many forms, and restricting it to such black-and-white categorization is wrong. I agree with MightyCow here:
quote:Often times, even among married couples, sex is just sex. That doesn't make it a bad thing.
Sex is different for every couple, and can vary widely even between different nights for the same couple.
quote:BlueWizard: In situations where giving pleasure is truly a pleasure, I suspect that there are other aspects of the relationship beyond those few minutes (or seconds) of given pleasure that balance it off. In otherwords, it's part of a relationship, rather than a greedy little piggy trying to talk some sweet innocent girl into something (admitedly, that's a little overdrawn).
I don't think the "greedy little piggy" mindset is nearly as common as you seem to believe.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the "greedy little piggy" mindset is nearly as common as you seem to believe.
I assumed that statement would be extreme enough that everyone would understand that I was engaging in a bit of hyperbole. I think if you simply take the first sentence relative to this quote as a stand-alone, my point is clear. To bad they don't make a 'tongue in cheek' emotocon.
Whether you think it's a valid illustration of anything or not, it's still statistically false.
I'm absolutely sure that you can find statistics to disprove what I said, but those statistics will have a context to them. In fact, someone already posted statistics that disprove what I said, but that same person also pointed out that the statistics themselves contradicted each other.
Statistics gathered from a question and answer survey, are only as good as the quality of questions and the integrity of the answers.
For example, several years back, some of the town-mothers put together a survey on drug use to be taken by the local high school students. Some of my friends denied every thing in the survey (pot smokers, one and all), and others claimed they had done every imaginable drug under the sun and did them often.
Especially, on a sex survey amoung teen, I would be very suspect of the answers. I suspect many student are claiming activities that are far more likely to have occurred in their fantasies than in their real life. Not universally so, but enough to make any survey suspect.
No one wants to be characterized as a whimpy vigin even if the survey is anonymous.
MightyCow Second, why does sex have to be a "mutually shared experience taking place on many levels?" Often times, even among married couples, sex is just sex.
Yet, even when sex is just sex among a married couple, it is certainly a 'mutually shared experience taking place on many levels'. How could it not be? I guess if the woman is eating chocolates and reading Cosmo while the husband takes care of business, that might be a different story. But quick to the point sex, between two people who have an established relationship, is probably not going to fall into that extreme of circumstance. And, if it does, then I certainly concede the point.
Remember, I am speaking in a context which I keep assuming I have clearly established. The context was that sometimes giving pleasure is pleasurable, and sometimes it is a greedy self-serving act.
'Taking place on many levels' simply confirms that sex does have levels that go beyond reciprocity. It confirms that pleasure can be given with NO reciprocity and it can still be satisfying and pleasurable for both people. BUT there is still an exchange even without reciprocity, that exchange makes it a shared experience.
Again, I keep assuming I have established a context for the statements I make, but apprently I'm not establishing it as well as I think I am.
quote:Originally posted by pH: There are plenty of guys and girls out there who pride themselves on their mad crazy sex skills and who employ these skills merely to boost their own egos.
-pH
:nonplussed:
I'd like to meet some of those people!
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlueWizard I suppose that I have an issue with the context you're trying to establish. I don't believe that married sex is inherently different than unmarried sex. Neither do I believe that men are the sexual "takers" and women are the "givers."
I feel that both of those ideas are inherently flawed, so that discussion set within that context is unrealistically limited.
Orincoro
pH No, it's pretty awesome.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
BW, I have no idea (and no interest in gussing your "three magic words". Mine are that sin is "hurting other people".
Also, generally feeling a little smug. In my experience men would rather perform oral sex than almost anything else. I am always a bit surprised to hear that this isn't generally true.
Boothby, I will respond to you in more detail tomorrow.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm gonna come down on pH's side here. I have a lot to say on that subject, but am not sure how, or even if, I want to say more than that.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
MightyCow "I feel that both of those ideas are inherently flawed, so that discussion set within that context is unrealistically limited."
Of course, I am not trying to make a statement that is all inclusive and all defining. I am speaking of an aspect of relationships that I see very clearly occuring in the world, and have even been guilty of on occassion myself. Fortunately, I am more enlightened now than I was back then.
No men aren't universally 'takers' and women aren't universally 'givers', but, with apologies, you are either blind, inexperienced, or naive if you think NO men are takers and NO women are being taken. Though perhaps I should say 'partner' or some other gender neutral term since it's not alway men 'taking' women. Sometimes it's men 'taking' men, or women 'taking' men.
I'm not trying to focus on older experienced people, although it does apply, just to a lesser degree. I am primarily thinking of teens who are new to sex and relationships, and haven't quite got their priorities set right. Again, all teens do not universally fit this pattern, but a great many of them do. I know because I've met them. I've met them in high school. I've met them in college. I've met them later in life. I've even slept with a few. I've even been one of them.
kmbboots "BW, I have no idea (and no interest in guessing) your "three magic words". Mine are that sin is "hurting other people"."
No need to guess, you already know. IF I were teaching a Sex Ed class, this would be the first assignment; 'Why doesn't the world want you to have sex?' Why does a father worry about his daughter when (assuming she is a teen) she is on a date with a teen boy?
We can say 'He doesn't want her to get pregnant', or 'he doesn't want her to be used', but when all the excuses are in, it adds up to 'People Get Hurt'.
Once I had given my hypothetical students a day to ponder the question. I would explain to them the full range of the meaning of 'HURT'. One of the problems with teens is they have a distorted idea of what 'hurt' means. To them, if it doesn't kill you on the spot, then no harm done.
I feel to establish a non-relgious moral base to sex eductation, the full spectrum of the concept of 'hurt' needs to be explored. It needs to be explored on an emotional, spritual, physical, psychological, and practical level. Once the full spectrum of the concept of 'hurt' is undertood, then follow-up concept of responsibility can be explored.
This is the one elements that I see missing from modern (religious or secular) sex education; a practical, real-world, understandable, and believable moral perspective is never established. It's either pure mechanics, or it's abstinence and 'because God said so'. Neither of which adequately does the job. Neither of which serves the real-world needs of the students.
I once summarized all moral philosophy in six words; actually, two sentences of three words each.
Do No harm. Do Some Good.
'Do no harm' is very good, but to live a truly moral life, it's not enough, you also have to 'do some good'. None of us achieves this to perfection, but, in the fewest number of words, it is the moral goal we are all striving for.
Those six words could very easily sum up the better nature of sex and relationships. If you go into them with the intent to do no harm, and with the hope of doing some good, then you are probably on the road to very healthy relationships.
posted
BlueWizard: As you point out, most sexually active people are going to go through a "taking" phase. I don't doubt that it happens, I know it does.
You worry that people will be hurt. I think that is noble, but it's going to happen. It's part of life, it's part of growing up. It happens in every relationship, whether or not sex is involved. We can't expect teens never to date, because they'll be hurt when they have a fight or break up.
I don't think it's positive to reinforce the stereotype that men are aggressive and greedy sexually, and that women are submissive and don't receive pleasure. I'm glad to see that you are willing to change that to "partner."
Again, I'm not proposing we encourage teen sexuality. I think we're all just kind of throwing around ideas here, which is good. Entertaining at least
Edit: You know, the more I think about it, maybe the more your theory makes some sense. I personally see the flaws in the ideas, or at least the gaps, but then again, I'm an adult with some experience.
Maybe it forces young adults to gain some perspective and think about their choices before jumping headlong into things, which might be the best we can hope for. In that regard, I can see where you've got a good thing going. I'll certainly give it more thought before I give up on you completely Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
I quess now that I've trimmed back at least the quantity of my words, we are more on the same page. The foundation of what I am saying is based on perspective, and the fact that in the USA, kids are given very little perspective on any aspect of their lives (driving, drinking, sex, relationships, school, values, etc...). Again, not universal, but still somewhat obvious.
By establishing the risks of sex across the full spectrum of risk (emotional, spiritual, physcial, psychological, practical) and by establishing it in a real-world context, we could build a non-religious moral foundation for secular sex education; the one thing that I feel is missing. If you can establish that moral foundation, then you have something upon which the discussions of birth control, STD, fetishes, abortion, gay people, and other critical issue can be placed. You have a framework that can put these things in perspective.
Upon that moral foundation, we give our kids the tools they need to make better sexual decisions in all aspects of sex and relationships. As it stands now, the only moral foundation seems to be religion, and that can't be allowed in public schools or colleges, and is close to universally NOT accepted by teens. So rather than TRY to think of a non-religious moral context, the sex educators give no moral context at all, or at best, a very weak token moral context.
In the end, people will do what people will do. The greedy jerks will be jerks, and the nice guys will be nice guys. But, it is important that kids know that there are truly greedy jerks out there, and that there are truly nice 'guys' out there; again perspective. Having layed a sound non-religious very practical everyday moral context, a great many of the kids in the center of the bell curve will shift toward a more responsible and considerate attitude toward sex and relationships. With a reasonable, genuine, and BELIEVABLE moral context and perspective laid before them, I don't see how they can not do so.
Keep in mind, that I am not against pre-marital sex. I'm not really sure I would want a lover who was a virgin, or at least, inexperienced in sex and relationships. I think you need to do a little living before you can truly understand you own place in life.
I'm not even against gay sex, I put it on the same moral plane as straight sex.
But gay or straight, if you have no practical perspective, how can you be expected to make practical decisions?
posted
MightyCow, part of the issue with your statement on "people get hurt... it's part of life..." is this:
Certainly pain is a part of life and it will never be wholly elimintated, and were it to be, it would probably be a bad thing in the long run. However, this doesn't stop us from trying to prevent as much pain and suffering as possible...
If you were to say: "Teens get in car accidents, it's part of life and they learn from it." then that could logically be follow to the conclusion: "you should be able to drive at the age of 12, or whenever you can see over the steering wheel and reach the pedals..."
I know this isn't the kind of thing you're proposing, but I'm just pointing out the dangerous path that that line of reasoning can lead down.
BlueWizard, I think you make a lot of good points about ways to bolster the arguments for absitence/careful sex without delving into the religious reasoning.
Something to consider for people who have been picking apart the "dangers" of sex is that in general you get them all if you get one. -Possible Emotional Trauma -Possibility of disease -Possibility of unplanned pregnancy Now you can argue that using birth control eliminates #3, and often cuts down on #2 a great deal, but none of the methods out there are perfect (especially with respect to #2). So I'd argue that at most you can discount the pregnancy issue (although never fully)
So, saying that everyone will have emotional pain doesn't lessen the fact that it IS a reason to be careful in your sexual relations...
As for the previous arguments about sex bringing one closer to God: In my mind this concept is multi-fold... 1. By bringing two individuals together as one you are merging bodies, emotions and spirits, thus creating a stronger connection to the divine. This is associated with marriage, but I think the real key is a loving and respecful relationship (in my mind the best example of this is a good marriage). 2. By opening one's self as a possible conduit of the creative power of God (i.e. allowing for procreation) you become closer to the Divine.
Eliminating some part of this can not help but diminish the act (assuming you agree with my initial statements). Now you said that within marriage not all sex is this kind of fully-giving, spiritual-oneness kind of sex, but the argument is that the possibilitiy for that connection remains.
Additionally, if you have issue with the "marriage" caviats in the Church's teachings, or pretty much anything I've said just feel free to replace "marriage" with "loving committed relationship" because that's effectively what I mean by it (whether the pomp and circumstance are added in is largely irrelevant in this discussion)
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: By opening one's self as a possible conduit of the creative power of God (i.e. allowing for procreation) you become closer to the Divine.
I think that there are all sorts of creative possibilities that don't include pregnancy. And that in many situations, the possibility of pregnancy can cause enough distress that it closes off those other possibilities. I think that people need to make their own decisions about what kind of creativity works for them and, having made those responsible decisions, be open to God working.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
That isn't how I read the passage. I see it more as saying that the seperation of body and spirit isn't working (no kidding!) and that, rather than uniting the two elements we have kept them separate and merely focused on the body. What we really need to do is to re-integrate them.
As far as the view of creation of life being purely biological. Remember that you are looking at this from a 21st century point of view. The seed of these concepts lie 20 centuries ago - more if you go back to the Stoics. Their idea of "how babies are made" was somewhat less "biological" than ours. Try and bear this in mind.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. I'm agnostic and I've had a vasectomy, so apparently because I am unable to feel the love of the divine or the feeling of creating life, sex for me will never be as good.
Which is for the best, I suppose, since things are great now and anything better would probably kill me.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
]
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
