Devout Catholics have better sex!
I know the SPLC are a bunch of liberals with an agenda to push, just saying that this 'study' is really preaching to the choir, and no one will listen to it.  It's almost like there are two parallel discourses going on in this country and no one is really speaking the same language.
(07-27-2013, 04:40 PM)Chestertonian Wrote: I know the SPLC are a bunch of liberals with an agenda to push, just saying that this 'study' is really preaching to the choir, and no one will listen to it.  It's almost like there are two parallel discourses going on in this country and no one is really speaking the same language.

There's a lot more than two parallel discourses, as it happens. You should read Alasdair MacIntyre's After Virtue--I think he correctly diagnoses the problem.
By the way, this is slightly off topic, but there was an article on the Foreign Affairs website recently about French feminists opposed to the recent imposition of homosexual marriage in France. One of the central pillars of these feminists' position was a rejection of what they saw as the "sexual Stalinism" of American feminism, instead arguing for the importance of sexual difference and in favor of the "asymmetrical pleasures of seduction."

It does seem to me that this might be a good tack to take as long as it is presented in a way that isn't absurd. After all, a whole 900-year tradition of Western thought about romantic love is based upon traditional gender roles. Some weirdo lefty who thinks that the whole idea of romantic love is just a myth used to keep women away from a fulfilling career in a cubicle somewhere and whose only stipulation about sex is that it be hygienic, though perhaps even that can be waved if all parties involved agree to it, can't offer anything like that.
(07-18-2013, 09:56 AM)eschera Wrote: I'm curious how many agree with this study?

Only if the male is uncircumcised.
???????? what does circumcision have to do with anything?
(07-25-2013, 02:01 AM)PeterII Wrote: I'm sure doing it with a clean conscience enhances the experience. 

I read this article recently which I thought was worthy of spreading and responds well I think to this sort of thing:

An exerpt...

Quote:Although sex is indeed God’s gift to us, Christians are not directly commanded by God to have great sex. Couples may find themselves incompatible in the bedroom, and they should not be bombarded with pressure from the Christian community to start having good sex and lots of it. Instead, they should find support and comfort—support that sex is not the only thing that makes a good marriage, and comfort that historically all Christians have been called by God to suffer through numerous trials.

Christians are, and should be, hopeful people. After all, we believe in the resurrection of the dead, heaven and miracles. Some couples may find themselves miraculously gifted with good sex well after their vows, and books such as the LaHayes’ and Leman’s have helped a lot of people in this area. But in this world we will certainly have trouble. The world and all who dwell in it are imperfect. Sex, too, is bound up with the world’s imperfection. Some couples may spend their whole lives struggling with their physical relationship, and it is deceptive to teach that all Christians will, or are somehow biblically required to, have good sex.

Sexual incompatibility, therefore, is a cross that some couples bear, and Christian communities could lighten this burden if we made an effort to put sex in its rightful place. If sex were viewed as a gift that, like everything else in this world, is marred by sin, it may be easier for couples to accept that bad sex is neither a reason for divorce nor an excuse to stop investing in a marriage. As with other trials, bad sex is an opportunity to rejoice in suffering (1 Peter 4:13) and to be further conformed to the image of Christ (Romans 8:29).
Supercentari,  thank you for that article.

I don't know what it is like to save sex for marriage.  I married my first and only girlfriend from high school and while I can't compare her to anyone else, we did not save it for marriage as neither of us were religious when we started out.  I went into the marriage knowing what I was getting into, in a lot of ways.  I knew what it was like sharing a house with her, I knew what it was like sharing a bank account with her, etc.  But I really love the idea of a couple spending their first night together on their wedding night.  There is a romantic mystique about it you don't have when you've already lived together for years, and I have to say that on our wedding night, we both lamented that we wish things happened differently.  We had abstained from sex for about a year before the wedding night and we sure were looking forward to it, but.... it isn't the same.

I think there must be so much supernatural grace in marrying someone without "trying before you buy."  You can talk and talk about what your life will be like together, you can discuss the way you'll set up your home, family, finances, you can communicate all you want but you stlll don't know until you're actually living together, and that first year is often the hardest.  Sex really is only a part of marriage, and not even the most important part.  People also change over the years and certain life circumstances can affect sexual desire and ability, etc.  You can start out very "compatible" but every marriage is going to have dry seasons and the "try before you buy" mentality just doesn't set you up to weather the dry seasons.
(07-26-2013, 01:30 PM)Beardly Wrote:
(07-24-2013, 02:46 PM)Gidge Wrote: Devout Catholics don't mention sex on an internet forum, or anywhere else, except with their spouse and the children when it's time to know the mystery of procreation within marriage. :eyeroll:

I really hope this is a joke.

If it's not a joke (as I suspect), then this is the puritan attitude toward sex, not the Catholic one.

I'll play it safe and keep my bedroom business in the bedroom so as not to breach the 6th or 9th Commandments in any way shape manner or form, or lead others (single people, for example) to start thinking about something that may well be an occasion of sin..

Why the "Puritan" label -- they were protestants (cf. CCC #846) ?

The marriage debt is for two purposes, and in this order :

I.  Procreation
2. A remedy against concupiscence

I know it's fashionable to publish all one's business, what with social media, blogs, --we've really become an "Oprah" generation, and I don't think this addiction to self serves any useful purpose.
Well said, Gidge.  This topic gets discussed more often and in more detail than seems prudent to me too.  And it's a shame that anyone who points it out gets labelled as a puritan. 

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)