Devout Catholics have better sex!
#21
(08-05-2013, 04:41 PM)Gidge Wrote: 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.
Did I say that we ought to publish all our private business on the internet? No, I most certainly did not. However, your original statement was what I was calling puritan.

Quote: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.

Sorry, but I just can't agree with that. Mentioning sex does not make anyone less devout. Making it a topic of discussion on the internet might make one less devout, but not merely mentioning it. On the other end of the scale, you have saints like Augustine, who in the Soliloquies compares philosophy, the love of wisdom, with sex, saying that wisdom only chooses to have "intercourse" with the most chaste. Moreover, I have profited spiritually from discussing things of a sexual nature with very close friends, who helped me deal with several issues.

However, this is all just anecdotal. My real point is that, when sex becomes a taboo, it leads to repression, in the Freudian sense. Repression, in turn, just leads to outbursts of the tabooed activity. Granted, you allow for talking to family about the matter, but that doesn't help for many people, especially when your family is not even Catholic. Now I'm not advocating that we all go air all our dirty laundry. I'm just insisting on the Catholic dogma that the soul is the form of the body, and that, as a logical consequence, you can't taboo the mention of sex.
Reply
#22
(08-05-2013, 08:44 PM)Beardly Wrote:
(08-05-2013, 04:41 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.

Sorry, but I just can't agree with that. Mentioning sex does not make anyone less devout. Making it a topic of discussion on the internet might make one less devout, but not merely mentioning it. On the other end of the scale, you have saints like Augustine, who in the Soliloquies compares philosophy, the love of wisdom, with sex, saying that wisdom only chooses to have "intercourse" with the most chaste. Moreover, I have profited spiritually from discussing things of a sexual nature with very close friends, who helped me deal with several issues.

However, this is all just anecdotal. My real point is that, when sex becomes a taboo, it leads to repression, in the Freudian sense. Repression, in turn, just leads to outbursts of the tabooed activity. Granted, you allow for talking to family about the matter, but that doesn't help for many people, especially when your family is not even Catholic. Now I'm not advocating that we all go air all our dirty laundry. I'm just insisting on the Catholic dogma that the soul is the form of the body, and that, as a logical consequence, you can't taboo the mention of sex.

I did not understand Gidges comment to be about making sex an absolute taboo.  I thought it was encouraging people to reserve the topic to appropriate situations rather than to discuss it casually.  This would be with family or in analogous situations.  Such a position does not lead to repression and is in no way inconsistent with Catholicism.
Reply
#23
(08-05-2013, 08:58 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(08-05-2013, 08:44 PM)Beardly Wrote:
(08-05-2013, 04:41 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.

Sorry, but I just can't agree with that. Mentioning sex does not make anyone less devout. Making it a topic of discussion on the internet might make one less devout, but not merely mentioning it. On the other end of the scale, you have saints like Augustine, who in the Soliloquies compares philosophy, the love of wisdom, with sex, saying that wisdom only chooses to have "intercourse" with the most chaste. Moreover, I have profited spiritually from discussing things of a sexual nature with very close friends, who helped me deal with several issues.

However, this is all just anecdotal. My real point is that, when sex becomes a taboo, it leads to repression, in the Freudian sense. Repression, in turn, just leads to outbursts of the tabooed activity. Granted, you allow for talking to family about the matter, but that doesn't help for many people, especially when your family is not even Catholic. Now I'm not advocating that we all go air all our dirty laundry. I'm just insisting on the Catholic dogma that the soul is the form of the body, and that, as a logical consequence, you can't taboo the mention of sex.

I did not understand Gidges comment to be about making sex an absolute taboo.  I thought it was encouraging people to reserve the topic to appropriate situations rather than to discuss it casually.  This would be with family or in analogous situations.   Such a position does not lead to repression and is in no way inconsistent with Catholicism.

If that is what Gidge meant (which, given , his most recent post, seems to be the case) then I don't disagree. However, my initial reaction to his original post, and I was, in my most recent post, merely clarifying what I interpreted as puritanical--namely the bar on *mentioning* sex outside of family. Talking about and mentioning are two different things, in my mind.

For the record, I don't think these sorts of articles about sex are in good taste. It might well be the case that devout Catholics have better sex, but why go and answer those sorts of questions on a survey? If I ever get married, no one needs to know what goes on in my bedroom, beyond what everyone already knows, and I, quite frankly, have no need to know what goes on in other people's bedrooms, beyond what I can already work out. This of course has exceptions for doctors and psychologists, who would actually need to know some things in certain circumstances.
Reply
#24
I think there is a profound difference between discussing sexuality in a general way (which is often necessary in our culture) and discussing your own sex life. 
Reply
#25
(08-05-2013, 11:18 PM)Chestertonian Wrote: I think there is a profound difference between discussing sexuality in a general way (which is often necessary in our culture) and discussing your own sex life. 
That's exactly what I was trying to say, but I was using a poorer choice of words.
Reply
#26
(08-05-2013, 08:44 PM)Beardly Wrote:
(08-05-2013, 04:41 PM)Gidge Wrote: 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.
Did I say that we ought to publish all our private business on the internet? No, I most certainly did not. However, your original statement was what I was calling puritan.

Quote: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.

Sorry, but I just can't agree with that. Mentioning sex does not make anyone less devout. Making it a topic of discussion on the internet might make one less devout, but not merely mentioning it. On the other end of the scale, you have saints like Augustine, who in the Soliloquies compares philosophy, the love of wisdom, with sex, saying that wisdom only chooses to have "intercourse" with the most chaste. Moreover, I have profited spiritually from discussing things of a sexual nature with very close friends, who helped me deal with several issues.

However, this is all just anecdotal. My real point is that, when sex becomes a taboo, it leads to repression, in the Freudian sense. Repression, in turn, just leads to outbursts of the tabooed activity. Granted, you allow for talking to family about the matter, but that doesn't help for many people, especially when your family is not even Catholic. Now I'm not advocating that we all go air all our dirty laundry. I'm just insisting on the Catholic dogma that the soul is the form of the body, and that, as a logical consequence, you can't taboo the mention of sex.

Devout Catholics have better sex is the title of the thread --This is why I started my original response with "Devout Catholics" -- from that title, that I recycled in my response, you made a leap of logic that I was condemning you for being less devout than me, or something to that effect, which was not my intent.  Please forgive me if I came across that way.

I don't subscribe to Freud (a pervert and drug addict), psychology, psychobabble or really have anything to do with the soft sciences as they are rife with error.

Being a man, I am all too aware of temptations of the flesh and wish to eschew them (This includes "Theology of the body" which is often refashioned as "theology of the bawdy").

(08-05-2013, 08:58 PM)JayneK Wrote: I did not understand Gidge's comment to be about making sex an absolute taboo.  I thought it was encouraging people to reserve the topic to appropriate situations rather than to discuss it casually.  This would be with family or in analogous situations.  Such a position does not lead to repression and is in no way inconsistent with Catholicism.

Thanks.

Reply
#27
Quote:Devout Catholics have better sex is the title of the thread --This is why I started my original response with "Devout Catholics" -- from that title, that I recycled in my response, you made a leap of logic that I was condemning you for being less devout than me, or something to that effect, which was not my intent.  Please forgive me if I came across that way.
I know I'm less devout than most people, so that wasn't an issue. I was rather thinking of several devout Catholics I know who do talk about sex.

Quote:I don't subscribe to Freud (a pervert and drug addict), psychology, psychobabble or really have anything to do with the soft sciences as they are rife with error.
Freud is the only psychologist (aside from those under his influence) who takes seriously the proposition that the soul is the form of the body. While I don't agree with him on everything, I think that if you simply write him off, you're doing yourself a grave disservice. However, this is not even what I was talking about. I was merely talking about repression, which even non-Freudian psychologists tend to accept as a real phenomenon.

Quote:Being a man, I am all too aware of temptations of the flesh and wish to eschew them (This includes "Theology of the body" which is often refashioned as "theology of the bawdy").
I've not read it yet. I'm still stuck back in the part of Augustine's Soliloquies where he talks about making love with wisdom.
Reply
#28
(07-29-2013, 01:05 AM)Chestertonian Wrote: ???????? what does circumcision have to do with anything?

Circumcision destroys some of the ability for the male to function sexually as God created his body to do.
Reply
#29
(09-07-2013, 08:32 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(07-29-2013, 01:05 AM)Chestertonian Wrote: ???????? what does circumcision have to do with anything?

Circumcision destroys some of the ability for the male to function sexually as God created his body to do.

then why would God, for a period of time, require His followers to circumcise?  Everything 'functioned' just fine...
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)