Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Sex for Personal Gain

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Doesn't really answer my question (which was not all that serious, I'll admit, but now it's getting interesting). Indeed, how exactly you think masochists "love their own bodies"?


  • Options
    #63
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    They dont.


  • Options
    #64
    miec
    Registered Users Posts: 856 ✭✭✭miec


    Indeed, how exactly you think masochists "love their own bodies"?

    The danger of taking every word from the bible as the literal truth is that it creates black and white thinking. Therefore the above question is relevant, what does a wife do in the situation whereby her husband is a masochists? In reality she will have to walk away if he is brutal towards her but some religions forbid this. One can maybe look to the bible for guidance but to take each word as the literal truth is dangerous.

    Similarly, the law criminalises prostitution but one can parade naked on a web cam. Lap dances are okay, porn is okay but I see them all as selling sex whether there is contact or not. Our biggest sex organ is not our genitals but our heads, it is where attraction, desire, machoism, lust, etc begins and then it spreads elsewhere, our body responds to what is in our head and a person stimulating another person via virtual methods is the same as a prostitute in my opinion. Sex sells and it is everywhere such as advertising, pop stars, film stars etc, most of them use their sexuality to increase sales or popularity. Are they really that different to a prostitute? They are selling their bodies, albeit via a different platform, to gain financially.


  • Options
    #65
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Doesn't really answer my question (which was not all that serious, I'll admit, but now it's getting interesting). Indeed, how exactly you think masochists "love their own bodies"?

    I don't think Jesus was a masochist, rather He was selfless for us. By extension I think a husband should care and have compassion for his wife.

    It would be out of context to think that is what the Christian context is encouraging people to beat their wives because they like doing it to themselves.


  • Options
    #66
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    I am glad to hear you say it, but it is not SO obvious as you think. You did after all quote scripture which said they do "not have authority over her own body". While quoting it you did not distance yourself from it expressly. I am glad to see you do that here and we agree the Scriptures are certainly not an authority in this matter. Any notion that anyone does "not have authority over her own body" when it comes to sex is abhorrent to me, and I hope to you too.

    I believe the Scriptures do have authority. It's because I believe this that I believe that husbands shouldn't rape or abuse their wives.
    1 Timothy 1:6 wrote:
    Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately.

    What I don't agree with is people abusing Scripture. Unfortunately it happens.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It would be out of context to think that is what the Christian context is encouraging people to beat their wives because they like doing it to themselves.
    Why? I only based my question on what was written in scripture and it certainly looked as if it kept the door open to that sort of thing. What did I miss?


  • Options
    #68
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I bolded the lines for you. A man is to love his wife, as Christ has loved the church. We would have to conclude that Christ was a masochist for one to be able to justify beating their wives. If people beat their wives in the name of the Gospel (which is about freedom) I can only say that it is misguided to say the least, a perversion of the message to say the most.


  • Options
    #69
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I bolded the lines for you.
    Why should I accept your interpretation though? I can read for myself. Perhaps you are the one abusing scripture.


  • Options
    #70
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Admittedly I could be. What do you think the passage is arguing? More particularly what is the importance in Paul's comparison between the relationship between Jesus and the Christian community, and a man and his wife?

    Reason with me if you object to my interpretation.


  • Options
    #71
    spoutwell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 82 ✭✭spoutwell


    'Sex for personal gain'. Eh, why else do we do it? It's not a chore, a pain or a drag - if its any of these you're either a masochist or an idiot.
    Still can't understand 'Go get f***ed'. It could be a blessing to someone who is just longing for the joy of sexual intercourse.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I believe the Scriptures do have authority. It's because I believe this that I believe that husbands shouldn't rape or abuse their wives.

    What I don't agree with is people abusing Scripture. Unfortunately it happens.

    Just because you believe it does not make it true, thankfully. I am glad you have offered no reason to think that these scriptures ARE an authority on anything at all, except that you BELIEVE they are.

    You are the one, not me, that quotes scripture that says a married man, or a woman does "not have authority over her own body". If this is what you believe then so be it. It is disgusting to me and I am glad you have not shown any reason to think it is true.

    Thankfully, since you have shown no evidence there is a god or that scripture holds any authority on anything, I do not have to answer the call you made to another user above of "Reason with me if you object to my interpretation." as I do not care what your interpretation of a meaningless authorityless text is.

    We DO have authority over our body. Our laws and society are built on this which is why we have laws on murder, rape, violence and more. And, to get back on the topic of this thread, if we have authority over our own body and we decide to have sex for money, then what grounds have we to call it immoral, make it illegal, or even to stick our nose into anyone else's business in the first place?


  • Options
    #73
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    spoutwell wrote: »
    'Sex for personal gain'. Eh, why else do we do it? It's not a chore, a pain or a drag - if its any of these you're either a masochist or an idiot.
    Still can't understand 'Go get f***ed'. It could be a blessing to someone who is just longing for the joy of sexual intercourse.
    You didn't bother to read the thread, did you?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Admittedly I could be. What do you think the passage is arguing? More particularly what is the importance in Paul's comparison between the relationship between Jesus and the Christian community, and a man and his wife?
    The phrase "husbands should love their wives as their own bodies" can easily be interpreted to mean that if you love your own body in a certain way, you should do the same for your wife, even if that way is masochistic. I see nothing in the text that would suggest otherwise.

    This is the problem with scripture - it is open to interpretation. If it were not, there would only be one unified Christian (or Islamic, or Judean or whatever) doctrine.


  • Options
    #74
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    It's more to do with general reading of texts and contextualisation. I mean why give the example of the compassion Christ had for the Christian community, and then with the phrase "In the same way" surely it's rather clear a connection is to be drawn.

    You're right in saying that numerous groups can interpret things in different ways, however I feel that it's definitely out of context to say that it is masochistic. I mean you have ignored a major part of the passage by leaving out "In the same way".


  • Options
    #75
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Just because you believe it does not make it true, thankfully. I am glad you have offered no reason to think that these scriptures ARE an authority on anything at all, except that you BELIEVE they are?

    Absolute nonsense. Follow the discussion.

    1) I quote 1 Corinthians 7 about sharing sexuality between a man and his wife.
    2) You find extremists / distortionists that have taken this passage out of context.
    3) You claim because I do not have the same interpretation as these extremists / distortionists that I do not hold the Scriptures as having authority.
    4) I explain that I do hold the Scriptures as having authority, and it is because I hold these scriptures as having authority that I expect a man to love his wife, not to abuse them.

    This is perfectly in context. Then you bring in the whole nonsense that I've only said I believe in it. However, my answer was perfectly straight in terms of reasoning as I've described above.

    My intention isn't to prove the truth of Christianity, but rather to prove that:
    1) It doesn't encourage withholding sex from ones partner as The Corinthian stated.
    2) It doesn't encourage rape in marital situations like you have suggested.

    Be a bit reasonable, if you want to discuss the truth of the Scriptures do it somewhere else. However, please don't twist the line of discussion. The intention was not to prove the truth of the Scriptures but rather to refute the two strawman arguments above against Christianity.


  • Options
    #76
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    The phrase the devil quoting scripture to his own end comes to mind tbh.


  • Options
    #77
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It's more to do with general reading of texts and contextualisation. I mean why give the example of the compassion Christ had for the Christian community, and then with the phrase "In the same way" surely it's rather clear a connection is to be drawn.
    Not at all. "In the same way" simply means that as Christ honoured the Church, a man should honour his wife. It then goes on to explain how this should be done (seeing as dying on a cross may be a bit much to ask of husbands), which is simply to do so the same way as they "love their own bodies" - some do this with pain. In my case, it would probably mean she'll drink, smoke and eat lots of Italian food.
    I mean you have ignored a major part of the passage by leaving out "In the same way".
    I didn't ignore it, I simply did not interpret it as you did. After all, it does not mention compassion at all, all that is mentioned is sanctification and cleansing. You brought compassion into the mix.


  • Options
    #78
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Right, but where is the masochism involved in the first relationship that's described? I'm still fairly confused about how that could be drawn in :confused:


  • Options
    #79
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Right, but where is the masochism involved in the first relationship that's described? I'm still fairly confused about how that could be drawn in :confused:
    How do you 'love your own body'? How does a masochist?

    Ultimately the instructions are very clear; it does not say that you should love your wife according to the "average sexual practices"? It says clearly that you should do so in the same manner as you would for yourself.

    Of course, this is probably a good thing if your husband is a shopaholic. But if he's a masochist, then realistically I see how it could cause problems.

    But hey, I didn't make the rules, did I?


  • Options
    #80
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    ^ Rubbish. Since when is masochism and shopaholicism and act of love.


  • Options
    #81
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    ^ Rubbish. Since when is masochism and shopaholicism and act of love.
    As I said, I don't make the rules - that's how the passage tells us we should show our love - as we would to ourselves - and if that is pain, then it is pain.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    The Corinthian: You're missing the point though.

    If 1) Christ's relationship to the church is meant to be the same way that 2) a man loves his wife as himself. Where does the masochism fit in?


  • Options
    #83
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    As I said, I don't make the rules - that's how the passage tells us we should show our love - as we would to ourselves - and if that is pain, then it is pain.

    Self flagillation, or self flaggilaation by proxy is not showing love to yourself, it is showing pain to yourself.

    This is basic stuff. Surprising from a usually subtle thinker.


  • Options
    #84
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Jakkass wrote: »
    The Corinthian: You're missing the point though.

    If 1) Christ's relationship to the church is meant to be the same way that 2) a man loves his wife as himself. Where does the masochism fit in?
    Sorry, but you are incorrect. The passage explains how a man should show love for his wife, which differs to how Christ showed his love. I have already explained where masochism could fit in that context.


  • Options
    #85
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    Self flagillation, or self flaggilaation by proxy is not showing love to yourself
    It is if you like it.


  • Options
    #86
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Sorry, but you are incorrect. The passage explains how a man should show love for his wife, which differs to how Christ showed his love. I have already explained where masochism could fit in that context.

    I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Unless you could argue that Christ's relationship with the church was masochistic that is.


  • Options
    #87
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    It is if you like it.

    No it isnt. Its gratifying something else.


  • Options
    #88
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Unless you could argue that Christ's relationship with the church was masochistic that is.

    The problem is that masochistic images of Christ dominate our image repetoir thanks to the homo erotic legacy church art has left us and so its hard for some to discuss Christ and the church without having these images float through their imaginations.


  • Options
    #89
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Unless you could argue that Christ's relationship with the church was masochistic that is.
    Christ's relationship with the church does not need to be masochistic. I don't think you understand the argument.
    metrovelvet wrote: »
    No it isnt. Its gratifying something else.
    The same can be said for sex.
    metrovelvet wrote: »
    The problem is that masochistic images of Christ dominate our image repetoir thanks to the homo erotic legacy church art has left us and so its hard for some to discuss Christ and the church without having these images float through their imaginations.
    Actually what I argued is completely confined to what was written. Suggesting it was influenced my Michelangelo, would be a rather feeble dismissal.


  • Options
    #90
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    The argument in Ephesians seems two fold. The phrase "In the same way" links the first relationship to the second. That would seem to be reasonable semantically. It's also suitably ironic when the passage says that part of this relationship is to keep the church & the husbands wife without blemish.

    If you want to take that out of it though, there's not really much I can say.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Jakkass wrote: »
    The argument in Ephesians seems two fold. The phrase "In the same way" links the first relationship to the second. That would seem to be reasonable semantically. It's also suitably ironic when the passage says that part of this relationship is to keep the church & the husbands wife without blemish.
    Not really, as I already pointed out. "In the same way" refers to the duty to 'love', but not that the means should be in the same way, otherwise crucifixion would be a rite of marriage. The passage plainly goes on to explain how this should be done.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement