What to do with your "sexual needs"? Here's what. [Changed to Christians only]

8kczg9v0swrydm

I think this affects a lot of modern men. Clearly, as a human being, man has sexual urges, but what is the correct way of acting on them?

I think Christopher West does a good job in differentiating between true love and slavery to "needs" in this video. True love is pure and it rejoices in the other person without trying to use them.

As someone whose heart was changed by Christ, I can fully relate to this message. The freedom He gives really is incredible!

I would recommend West's other work, especially his book "Theology of the Body for Beginners".

Mod: We've decided to change this to a [Christians only] thread as contribution from non-Christians was taking the thread off topic and causing friction.

Interesting topic.

I would add that the key consideration is that man is rational. We think (hopefully) and our actions are a result of rational consideration rather than acting out natural impulses like animals do.

Society today is obsessed with sex, which makes it somewhat difficult to have a rational conversation about. Because people so closely conflate their sexual urges with their identity, self worth and position in society, comments on this subject can be interpreted as a grievous personal insult.

Natural urges serve a number of purposes, some practical (in terms of survival, both personally and as a species), others emotional and physical (pleasure for example). If we take sex as an example, it is obviously necessary for reproduction, it is physically pleasurable and it most definitely serves an emotional need also, in terms of intimacy and relationships. Once we recognise this we can rationally ascertain what ordered position sex should take in our lives and the best circumstances in which to exercise it.

What I am getting at can be better recognised by looking at another natural urge, that of hunger. Eating serves a number of purposes too, obviously it is a biological necessity, it can also be very pleasurable and I believe that eating also has a significant emotional and social aspect to it also. With food we can clearly recognise that when we abandon rationality and the ordered satisfaction of this urge problems arise. If you separated the pleasure aspect of food from the other considerations you might just eat your favorite cake all day in copious amounts. Obviously this is a bad idea and will destroy your health. If you just ate tasteless gruel solely to keep you alive, divorced from pleasure altogether I believe you would be missing out on a wonderful part of life. (This is an apt point in current circumstances where many, due to covid, are suffering from loss of taste). If you ate solely alone all the time I think people would recognise that this is sacrificing an important aspect of eating, dining with friends and family. So we can clearly see and understand that it is objectively best to strike a balance, and to do this rational consideration is required. If we just acted on our urges things would go wrong, so we need to be careful. Obviously many do not, many are obese or otherwise unhealthy from their diets. We recognise these people as either being foolish or perhaps suffering from some dysfunction. In religious terms gluttony may be at play. Christianity has a lot to say about eating and how to order it correctly and it is probably one of the most neglected aspects of Catholic teaching, despite probably being commented on far more than sex over the years.

Obviously overindulgence with food has obvious physical consequences. But we also recognise that there are "hidden" emotional aspects too from the abuse of food. These would not be eliminated if I produced a pill that allowed you to indulge and eat as much cake as you wanted without getting fat. For example, personally I tend to overeat if bored. Using food as a crutch like this is a bad idea, and I would argue that it would still be negative even if I could take a pill that would ensure I did not get fat. But I could view this pill as giving "permission" to overindulge in food with no consequences. This would result in food taking a disordered position in my life and would have emotional and mental consequences, as well as a whole pile of knock on effects. (Perhaps I mainly exercise in order to keep weight off, if I won't gain weight perhaps I won't exercise and become unhealthy that way).

For thousands of years we have recognized that sex has an objectively ordered and proper position in our lives. It is true that a large amount of people did not exercise this but people recognized that the "best" circumstance was one where you were in a committed (hopefully loving) relationship where the physical "consequences" (i.e. children) would be welcomed. Physical and emotional pleasure also tend to be best in a circumstance where there is intimate trust and connection which can only arise in a loving relationship. (I think most people still aim for this ideal). But in a manner similar to my "food pill" we have invented a pill (i.e. artificial contraception) that has enabled and seemingly given license to people to exclude other factors of sex to focus primarily on personal sensual pleasure. For some there is now no need for considered rational thinking beyond inward considerations before engaging in a sexual relationship. This has lead to a myriad of knock on problems, not least the objectification of the other (particularly women) for sexual gratification and the central role sex occupies in western society. There are also personal consequences too, both emotionally and physically. This is not to say that the pleasure aspect of sex is not important or to be disregarded, but rather than it has taken on a disordered primacy. As a society we are still in the early days of this societal shift, but many of the problems are already apparent.

The Catholic Church's teaching on sex and artificial contraceptives is probably the one which is most "controversial" and disagreed with currently. But time will tell - I think that the Church was most astute in recognizing that artificial contraceptives enables sexuality to occupy a disordered position in society and peoples lives. People will say that contraception gives women control over if/when they become pregnant, this is true but to say that this is the only thing it has changed would be wrong. It fundamentally changes and interferes with the very nature of the act itself by eliminating what many would say is the primary function of the act. Thus the act is now no longer rationally considered within its natural framework and must become disordered - I think even the harshest critic would on consideration admit that some bad has arisen (even if they think the "good" far outweighs it).

I have concentrated on worldly rather than spiritual considerations but a word on this is needed here: obviously a disordered approach to any human urge is sinful. God wants us to be happy and to live good lives, optimal long term happiness (both here and eternally) is best achieved by doing things "properly", that is, in keeping with the ordered and intended "natural" design of God. We should be very wary of interfering and trying to change, reorder and essentially redesign humanity.

listermint

Somewhat amusingly no one addressed the elephant in the room. Catholic doctrine for Priests.

As usual with these subjects it's continually the church and it's protagonists view to look outwardly rather than internally.

Start at home first I think would be a good principle to live by.

listermint

listermint wrote: »

Somewhat amusingly no one addressed the elephant in the room. Catholic doctrine for Priests.

As usual with these subjects it's continually the church and it's protagonists view to look outwardly rather than internally.

Start at home first I think would be a good principle to live by.

Two people have posted in this thread. The video in the OP was essentially about Christopher West's own life experiences and previous sinful behavior towards previous partners. How is this not inward looking and a reflection on personal behavior?

My own post was of considerable length, you might forgive me for not having addressed every aspect of a topic as complicated as this.

What exactly are you referring to regarding "Catholic doctrine for Priests"? Celibacy? This is not a "doctrine". Is this a reference to sexual abuse? It goes without saying that this is grossly disordered and sinful.

Hotblack Desiato

Carlos Defeated Pair wrote: »

Society today is obsessed with sex

There is nothing new or surprising in this. Sex is one of the most amazing things about being alive. It has been celebrated in sculpture, art, literature, for thousands of years (Song of Solomon, anyone? or Sheela-na-gig? Phallic imagery in architecture and art goes back into prehistory.)

What was abnormal (compared to the rest of human histtory) was the period in the couple of centuries up until the latter half of the 20th century, when deeply conservative attitudes held sway. On our own island, these attitudes ruined the lives of countless people, even causing thousands of 'illegitimate' children to be treated with utter contempt, abuse and neglect, even after their deaths.

With food we can clearly recognise that when we abandon rationality and the ordered satisfaction of this urge problems arise.

But when one insufficiently satisfies the hunger urge, serious problems arise also.

Yet many (but not all) churches think it is normal, natural, indeed desirable or mandatory that unmarried persons do not indulge in sexual acts at all, even masturbation, perhaps for decades or for their entire lives. This extends to holding that entirely natural and normal sexual thoughts and urges are in themselves sinful and wrong.

Physical and emotional pleasure also tend to be best in a circumstance where there is intimate trust and connection which can only arise in a loving relationship.

That's just an opinion. A large number of people find great physical and emotional pleasure outside of (or as well as) committed relationships. What you are describing is like tasting one dish and declaring it the best ever without ever tasting anything else on the menu - indeed declaring that even considering tasting anything else on the menu would be wrong.

This has lead to a myriad of knock on problems, not least the objectification of the other (particularly women)

That's rather ironic given the way that Christianity objectifies and oppresses women. Most denominations are very far away from regarding women as the equals of men.

Larbre34

Modern Christian Church doctrine on sexual morality is derived from that invented by those in control of the Roman Catholic Church between five and fifteen centuries after the the death of Christ.

For example, the definition of matrimony as a sacrament given us by God that sets the parameters of sexual morality only appeared out of the Vatican in the 1100s. Took them long enough eh?

During the great schism, Martin Luther held weddings and marriage to be secular affairs, not tied to faith or holiness.

God made you a sexual being, for humanity to prosper. Take your natural sexual urges, find a willing and consenting partner and give glory to God as your maker through the heightened spirituality of orgasm and sexual bliss.

Yellow_Fern

listermint wrote: »

Somewhat amusingly no one addressed the elephant in the room. Catholic doctrine for Priests.

As usual with these subjects it's continually the church and it's protagonists view to look outwardly rather than internally.

Start at home first I think would be a good principle to live by.

Christopher West's video is equally applicable to priests as to laity. I would even say it is relevant to non-believers, most of whom are in long-term relationships where the immense challenge of exclusivity is typically expected.

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

There is nothing new or surprising in this. Sex is one of the most amazing things about being alive. It has been celebrated in sculpture, art, literature, for thousands of years (Song of Solomon, anyone? or Sheela-na-gig? Phallic imagery in architecture and art goes back into prehistory.)

What was abnormal (compared to the rest of human histtory) was the period in the couple of centuries up until the latter half of the 20th century, when deeply conservative attitudes held sway. On our own island, these attitudes ruined the lives of countless people, even causing thousands of 'illegitimate' children to be treated with utter contempt, abuse and neglect, even after their deaths.




But when one insufficiently satisfies the hunger urge, serious problems arise also.

Yet many (but not all) churches think it is normal, natural, indeed desirable or mandatory that unmarried persons do not indulge in sexual acts at all, even masturbation, perhaps for decades or for their entire lives. This extends to holding that entirely natural and normal sexual thoughts and urges are in themselves sinful and wrong.




That's just an opinion. A large number of people find great physical and emotional pleasure outside of (or as well as) committed relationships. What you are describing is like tasting one dish and declaring it the best ever without ever tasting anything else on the menu - indeed declaring that even considering tasting anything else on the menu would be wrong.




That's rather ironic given the way that Christianity objectifies and oppresses women. Most denominations are very far away from regarding women as the equals of men.

I have zero interest in engaging in a discussion with someone who merely plucks a handful of words from a much longer treatise in order to decontextualize them as an aid to objecting not only to an argument, but to engage in a general wholesale attack on Christianity itself. This is not a route to productive discussion or engagement (for anyone), it is not even honest engagement. I could pluck a handful of words from your piece (although if I did so in the same proportion as you did I doubt I would get a coherent sentence) decontextualize them and raise objections to them and get a nice tennis match going - but this is a waste of time.

Not that your objection and attack is a surprise, coming from someone who is a militant atheist who spends a huge amount of time online decrying something he doesn't believe in. Thousands upon thousands of posts. There is something of Herod about this behavior, reminiscent of how he disagreed and argued with John the Baptist yet felt a compulsion to listen and talk to him. You should ask yourself what the point is.

Anyway, I acknowledge that you fundamentally dislike, disbelieve and object to Christianity and its teachings. Amazing. What a shock. Thanks for letting me know. Noted. You disagree. Grand, could never have predicted that. Glad we got that straight.

Now that this is out of the way I hope an interesting discussion can be had with others who honestly seek discussion and constructive engagement, who will take an argument as it is presented, and not resort to decontextualizing snippets to aid them in banging their same old drum. Now where is that ignore button? You may as well make use of it too, seen as you have ignored 99% of my post anyway.

looksee

Mod: This is a discussion board and on topic, civil discussion is welcome.

Ex loco refugii, your response is borderline for civility. If you have an issue with a post please report it rather than making personal attacks.
Hotblack Desiato please respect the ethos of the forum and avoid sweeping generalisations.

Any responses to the feedback thread or via PM only please, thanks for your attention

santana75

I think sex is one of those powder keg topics, it's something that cant be talked about openly without defensiveness, attack or outright hostility. I've often wondered why that is and the conclusion I've come to is simple: Fear. I think people fear not being in a sexual relationship or fear not having the intimacy that sex brings with it. Is this a need? A lot of people would argue it is, and before I came to know God I wouldve said as much myself. But I view things differently now because the closer I get to God the less I feel I need from the world and all it offers. I think if you reject God then a human being will become an "idol" in your life and as such you'll try to get all your needs met from people and not from God. Which doesn't work, the divorce rate being as high as it is testifies to that. Sex has also become an idol, something even that people will create an identity through and if that is called into question they go insane with rage. Since the advent of the smartphone(2007 I think) sex crime has increased exponentially. We have unprecedented access to porn and images our ancestors never had in their lifetimes. God gave us sex and that means sex is good, but all of humanity has been corrupted by sin which means sex has been corrupted. I believe the enemy of us all uses sex as a primary weapon to destroy people, as Paul wrote that no other sin destroys the body like sexual sin. The people I know who are the most sexual promiscuous are the people who are constantly ill or theres always drama and antagonism in their lives. I think sex is a powerful, deep and mysterious force that we dont fully comprehend and that's why God gave it to us to be engaged in only in a marriage between a man and his wife. Outside of that boundary sex actually wreaks havoc in people's lives, its treated casually as people bounce from partner to partner having children with multiple people......these things are not harmless.
I think we really have to be careful when it comes to sex, treat it as something profound and holy not something casual. And outside of marriage I think you gotta stay away from it, in your actions and also in your thoughts, instead go to God and seek him.

smacl

santana75 wrote: »

Since the advent of the smartphone(2007 I think) sex crime has increased exponentially.

Can you cite any references to support that assertion? The rate of reported sex crime is up substantially over the last decade in this country (though hardly exponentially) but in this article the rape crisis centre attributes this to victims being more willing to come forward than in the past. Even at that, the reported numbers even now only represent a small fraction of the overall problem. This is hardly new.

Rape Crisis Network Ireland’s executive director Cliona Sadlier said the scale of the increase in reported sex crime suggested cultural and societal changes were now encouraging more victims to come forward.

She believed the #MeToo movement had helped empower some victims to name and report sex crimes. She also felt events such as the marriage equality referendum and the abortion referendum had resulted in Ireland “having prolonged open conversations about very difficult issues”.

The social changes had created a country in which victims felt better able to report harm done to them to the Garda, she said.

Pornography is also a concern but its effects are not as yet well evidenced.

Ms Sadlier said her organisation is also concerned that more and more teenage boys are being influenced by pornography and that more sex crimes are being committed by children.

However, she stressed research was required in that area.

Statistics from the states suggest that sexual assault is down there from the early 90s though up a good bit from 2014.

Personally, as a non-Christian, I'd consider sex to be a healthy and normal part of adult life for most people in adult relationships, and wholly distinct from marriage and starting a family. No more than speculation, but I'd guess those not sexually active who would like to be are more likely a source of problems that those who have a fulfilling sex life.

I don't think specific notions of Christian sexual morality have much value beyond like minded Christians. Even there, I'd wonder how much of the decline of the church in this country is due to arguably antiquated ideas in relation to sexuality and reproduction.

Why do you view sex as being "wholly distinct" from "starting a family" i.e reproduction? This seems bizarre.

Are you referring to homosexual relations?

smacl

Carlos Defeated Pair wrote: »

Why do you view sex as being "wholly distinct" from "starting a family" i.e reproduction? This seems bizarre.

Are you referring to homosexual relations?

The average age for people in this country to start engaging in sexual intercourse is between 17 and 18. It is by and large not with a view to starting a family. Quite the opposite in fact.

smacl

smacl wrote: »

The average age for people in this country to start engaging in sexual intercourse is between 17 and 18. It is by and large not with a view to starting a family. Quite the opposite in fact.

Be that as it may, you claimed that sex is "wholly distinct" from reproduction.

Now you seem to be saying that most people have sex "not with the intention" of reproducing, (which seems fair and probably true enough), but then you go further and say that the intention is the opposite?

In any case this is a world away from saying that the sexual act is "wholly distinct" from reproduction, so you do not believe that sex is "wholly distinct" from reproduction?

What are you trying to say?

smacl

Carlos Defeated Pair wrote: »

Be that as it may, you claimed that sex is "wholly distinct" from reproduction.

Now you seem to be saying that most people have sex "not with the intention" of reproducing, (which seems fair and probably true enough), but then you go further and say that the intention is the opposite?

In any case this is a world away from saying that the sexual act is "wholly distinct" from reproduction, so you do not believe that sex is "wholly distinct" from reproduction?

What are you trying to say?

Apologies for any confusion. What I'm saying is that most sexual intercourse in today's Ireland involves use of contraception with the express aim of avoiding pregnancy. Where contraception is not used, particularly with young people, it is more often by omission and can result in an unwanted crisis pregnancy. This is well documented within HSE research, with a decent overview here.

The problem with espousing a sexual morality bases on abstinence outside of marriage and the desire to procreate is it runs contrary to how most people behave in our society. As such, while it might be a reasonable aspiration for those wishing to adhere to strict Christian life style, it is not broadly applicable beyond that, not least to the large majority of the Irish population that consider themselves Catholic while largely ignoring church dogma when it comes to sexuality and family planning.

Yellow_Fern

smacl wrote: »

Personally, as a non-Christian, I'd consider sex to be a healthy and normal part of adult life for most people in adult relationships, and wholly distinct from marriage and starting a family. No more than speculation, but I'd guess those not sexually active who would like to be are more likely a source of problems that those who have a fulfilling sex life.

You dont define what you mean as problems, but it appears to be the opposite to me. Look at cultures like Afghanistan or Congo Basin which are the worst for child abuse and it doesnt seem to be caused by celebates.
Even in the case of Ireland, priests and such were always a rare profession but child abuse was not rare and mostly in the family.

smacl wrote: »

I don't think specific notions of Christian sexual morality have much value beyond like minded Christians. Even there, I'd wonder how much of the decline of the church in this country is due to arguably antiquated ideas in relation to sexuality and reproduction.

yet they are found in many value systems the world over.

Christian sexual morality is a bit like swotting for exam in school. You may not be glad you bothered but you probably will.

smacl

smacl wrote: »

Apologies for any confusion. What I'm saying is that most sexual intercourse in today's Ireland involves use of contraception with the express aim of avoiding pregnancy. Where contraception is not used, particularly with young people, it is more often by omission and can result in an unwanted crisis pregnancy. This is well documented within HSE research, with a decent overview here.

Ok, so you do not believe that the sexual act is "wholly distinct" from reproduction?

The problem with espousing a sexual morality bases on abstinence outside of marriage and the desire to procreate is it runs contrary to how most people behave in our society. As such, while it might be a reasonable aspiration for those wishing to adhere to strict Christian life style, it is not broadly applicable beyond that, not least to the large majority of the Irish population that consider themselves Catholic while largely ignoring church dogma when it comes to sexuality and family planning.

Is your basis for judging whether something is true, or moral, solely based on what a majority of people do?

No one has claimed that sexual relations can and should only occur with the express desire to procreate. You are the one who claimed that the sexual act has nothing to do with procreating, which I find to be a bizarre claim.

How, or why, is espousing something that most people do not do a "problem", especially given that the fact that most people do not follow christian teaching on this point is acknowledged, implicit in a thread that is basically saying that "this is a better way than what you may be doing"? Unless your point is that this is somehow an unnatural interference in normal biological behavior? Which would be a bizarre claim to make because contraception, and the attempt to divorce the sexual act from anything to do with reproduction fundamentally alters, and is against, millennia of biology and human experience.

Or is your point merely that you don't agree with/like the Christian teaching?

smacl

Carlos Defeated Pair wrote: »

Ok, so you do not believe that the sexual act is "wholly distinct" from reproduction?

No one has claimed that sexual relations can and should only occur with the express desire to procreate. You are the one who claimed that the sexual act has nothing to do with procreating, which I find to be a bizarre claim.

You are clearly misquoting me above, not sure if this is intentional or not. What I said was "I'd consider sex to be a healthy and normal part of adult life for most people in adult relationships, and wholly distinct from marriage and starting a family." The word distinct does not mean "having nothing to do with" as I'm sure you are aware. Distinct means separate yet related, e.g. Catholicism and Protestantism are two distinct forms of Christianity. Most people engage in sexual activity before getting married, hence sexual activity is distinct from marriage. Most people use contraception to avoid unwanted pregnancy, this sexual activity is distinct from starting a family. Many of those who have an unwanted pregnancy either have an abortion or put the child up for adoption, similarly many families are adoptive. Thus we see further distinction between engaging in sexual activity and starting a family.

On that basis, I'd hope you can appreciate the distinction that I'm making.

smacl

smacl wrote: »

You are clearly misquoting me above, not sure if this is intentional or not. What I said was "I'd consider sex to be a healthy and normal part of adult life for most people in adult relationships, and wholly distinct from marriage and starting a family." The word distinct does not mean "having nothing to do with" as I'm sure you are aware. Distinct means separate yet related, e.g. Catholicism and Protestantism are two distinct forms of Christianity. Most people engage in sexual activity before getting married, hence sexual activity is distinct from marriage. Most people use contraception to avoid unwanted pregnancy, this sexual activity is distinct from starting a family. Many of those who have an unwanted pregnancy either have an abortion or put the child up for adoption, similarly many families are adoptive. Thus we see further distinction between engaging in sexual activity and starting a family.

On that basis, I'd hope you can appreciate the distinction that I'm making.

What does the word "wholly" mean?

I am not misquoting, it appears you misspoke. That's ok.

smacl

Carlos Defeated Pair wrote: »

What does the word "wholly" mean?

I am not misquoting, it appears you misspoke. That's ok.

Wholly distinct still means related but separate, e.g. Islam and Catholicism are wholly distinct religions yet they are related and have much in common when compared say to Zen Buddhism or Scientology. Having an active sex life is similarly wholly distinct from getting married and starting a family. It rather surprises me that you're struggling with something this simple.

santana75

smacl wrote: »

Can you cite any references to support that assertion? The rate of reported sex crime is up substantially over the last decade in this country (though hardly exponentially) but in this article the rape crisis centre attributes this to victims being more willing to come forward than in the past. Even at that, the reported numbers even now only represent a small fraction of the overall problem. This is hardly new.



Pornography is also a concern but its effects are not as yet well evidenced.



Statistics from the states suggest that sexual assault is down there from the early 90s though up a good bit from 2014.

Personally, as a non-Christian, I'd consider sex to be a healthy and normal part of adult life for most people in adult relationships, and wholly distinct from marriage and starting a family. No more than speculation, but I'd guess those not sexually active who would like to be are more likely a source of problems that those who have a fulfilling sex life.

I don't think specific notions of Christian sexual morality have much value beyond like minded Christians. Even there, I'd wonder how much of the decline of the church in this country is due to arguably antiquated ideas in relation to sexuality and reproduction.

Before the last lockdown myself and a friend were making a documentary on porn and sex addiction in Ireland. I interviewed a lady and her husband who are based in scotland who run The reward foundation. An organisation founded to educate people about the dangers of porn in the world. They were the ones who showed me the data relating to sex crimes and the increase since smart phones became into common use.
If the decline of the church is down to what you say is, "Antiquated ideas in relation to sexuality and reproduction" then so be it. Those antiquated ideas come directly from the Bible and the word of God, for the church to change its stance on this matter is to turn away from what God explicitly commanded. God is unchanging, thats why we as Christians can put our trust in him completley. The world flips from one idea to the next. Not so long ago homosexuality was a crime in this country, now its being celebrated. If you study the history of humanity you'll see a constant back and forth. It wouldnt surprise me if in another 20 years time homosexuality was outlawed again. Thats the way world is, its fickle and it doesnt know where its going. God isnt fickle, he's clear and unchanging and thats why he can be relied upon. He's very clear about sex, it is only for a man and woman in marriage, outside of those boundaries you'll have trouble. Those laws are not to control or to deprive people of fun, theyre there to protect us and give us real happiness and joy.

smacl

smacl wrote: »

Wholly distinct still means related but separate, e.g. Islam and Catholicism are wholly distinct religions yet they are related and have much in common when compared say to Zen Buddhism or Scientology. Having an active sex life is similarly wholly distinct from getting married and starting a family. It rather surprises me that you're struggling with something this simple.

:pac: :pac: It's OK, you have clarified, what you are getting at is that most people don't have sex with the sole, or main, aim of procreating. OK, lets move on then. This seems to be a fact, certainly today, and I would presume in the past too, even with the absence of reliable contraception. In fact, Catholic teaching does not say that the main aim of sex should be to procreate, rather that in order for the act to be rightly ordered, it must be at least open to it...

The point is that the sexual act (not an "active sex life" which is a different kettle of fish you are introducing) does not have "nothing" to do with reproduction. Many people today act in a fashion that pretends that it does, and that contraception has fundamentally changed the nature of the sexual act to the degree that it has nothing to do with reproduction. Some certainly think it has changed it so (hence my pursuit of this point with you, as it appeared that is what you meant) which flies in the face of millennia of evolution and biology. Such an approach, I would argue, is not good (as I went into earlier in this thread).

santana75

santana75 wrote: »

Before the last lockdown myself and a friend were making a documentary on porn and sex addiction in Ireland. I interviewed a lady and her husband who are based in scotland who run The reward foundation. An organisation founded to educate people about the dangers of porn in the world. They were the ones who showed me the data relating to sex crimes and the increase since smart phones became into common use.
If the decline of the church is down to what you say is, "Antiquated ideas in relation to sexuality and reproduction" then so be it. Those antiquated ideas come directly from the Bible and the word of God, for the church to change its stance on this matter is to turn away from what God explicitly commanded. God is unchanging, thats why we as Christians can put our trust in him completley. The world flips from one idea to the next. Not so long ago homosexuality was a crime in this country, now its being celebrated. If you study the history of humanity you'll see a constant back and forth. It wouldnt surprise me if in another 20 years time homosexuality was outlawed again. Thats the way world is, its fickle and it doesnt know where its going. God isnt fickle, he's clear and unchanging and thats why he can be relied upon. He's very clear about sex, it is only for a man and woman in marriage, outside of those boundaries you'll have trouble. Those laws are not to control or to deprive people of fun, theyre there to protect us and give us real happiness and joy.

Yes, this is the point. Think of it this way, God, the creator, knows man best, and wants us to be happy. His 'rules' are basically the instruction manual, whereby if followed you will function best and be better off.

Western approaches to sex, broadly speaking, were revolutionised form the 70's or so onwards. That is not long ago. It is not often the brutal tyrant Mao is quoted here, but the story goes he was once asked about his opinion on the French revolution, good or bad. He paused, thought a while, and replied that it was too early to tell.

smacl

Carlos Defeated Pair wrote: »

Western approaches to sex, broadly speaking, were revolutionised form the 70's or so onwards. That is not long ago. It is not often the brutal tyrant Mao is quoted here, but the story goes he was once asked about his opinion on the French revolution, good or bad. He paused, thought a while, and replied that it was too early to tell.

Look at the relationships between poverty and child mortality versus advances in family planning, notably contraception and you might see a different picture. The following short video by Hans Rosling covers this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt4KaB_gWDc

Some more here

Improved access to and use of family planning methods would enable women to reduce closely spaced births, limit childbearing to their 20s and 30s, and thereby reduce their chances of having a baby who dies in infancy. Where contraceptive prevalence is moderate to high (30% or more), the infant mortality rate is 48% lower than the rate in countries where fewer than 10% of married women practice contraception.

The positive impact of contraceptive use is particularly strong when it helps women avoid closely spaced births. When births are separated by less than two years, the infant mortality rate is 45% higher than it is when births are 2-3 years and 60% higher than it is when births are four or more years apart.

Over the last 30 years, contraceptive use has increased and infant survival has improved in many developing countries; foreign assistance has played a critical role in these achievements. Given the scant resources available in many developing countries to meet the need for care, funding from international donors for family planning services and contraceptive supplies continues to be needed.

Put more bluntly, one could argue that a dogma which advocates against contraceptive use can be considered responsible for killing millions of babies on an annual basis.

smacl

smacl wrote: »

Look at the relationships between poverty and child mortality versus advances in family planning, notably contraception and you might see a different picture. The following short video by Hans Rosling covers this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt4KaB_gWDc

Some more here



Put more bluntly, one could argue that a dogma which advocates against contraceptive use can be considered responsible for killing millions of babies on an annual basis.

It's clear we are really plunging the depths when someone, a moderator of the Christianity forum no less, responds to the point that it is only a very short time since a major change in human sexual relations occurred and as such it's not clear yet how it will ultimately play out, by saying that it "could" be argued that the Christian/Catholic teaching on sexual morality is responsible for "killing" millions of babies each year.

You "could" argue anything. Are you arguing this? Do you believe that this is the case? Pin your colours to the mast, before you expect someone to address this "argument".

looksee

This thread has quickly dropped into the well worn path of Christian v non-Christian attitudes to sex, abortion etc. The original post was a question of how individuals - Christians specifically - deal with their sexuality, not how everyone else should deal with it.

Can I suggest - and this is not a mod action - that getting back to a discussion from a Christian point of view of how Christians deal with their sexuality might be more profitable.

smacl

Good point, I'll leave this thread to the Christians at this point. Possibly a thread that could have benefitted from the [Christians only] tag in retrospect.

This is a useful piece that touches on aspects of this topic, from a Catholic perspective: https://www.calledtomore.org/articles/called-to-freedom

The existence of objective truth and morality is the key, in my opinion, aspect to understanding the world, and life.

Samsonsmasher

Kody Orange Goth wrote: »

I think this affects a lot of modern men. Clearly, as a human being, man has sexual urges, but what is the correct way of acting on them?

I think Christopher West does a good job in differentiating between true love and slavery to "needs" in this video. True love is pure and it rejoices in the other person without trying to use them.

As someone whose heart was changed by Christ, I can fully relate to this message. The freedom He gives really is incredible!

I would recommend West's other work, especially his book "Theology of the Body for Beginners".

Isn't it Catholic doctrine that sex is purely procreative only permissible between a married man and woman and this sexual act while loving and pleasurable should be open to resulting in pregnancy (no contraception) or else it is a mortal sin - a sin punishable by damnation rather than just purgatory unless there is sincere confession and penance before natural death?

looksee

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

Isn't it Catholic doctrine that sex is purely procreative only permissible between a married man and woman and this sexual act while loving and pleasurable should be open to resulting in pregnancy (no contraception) or else it is a mortal sin - a sin punishable by damnation rather than just purgatory unless there is sincere confession and penance before natural death?

Mod: This appears to be a 'gotcha' post rather than a sincere offering on the subject of the video. You have 'quoted' the video, where in it does it suggest that this point is relevant to the discussion? Please stay on topic.

Would the OP prefer if this thread were re-titled as a Christian Responses Only thread?

Cabaal

Carlos Defeated Pair wrote: »

Society today is obsessed with sex,

You poor poor thing,
You think being interested in sex is recent? :pac::pac::pac:

Sex like or not has always been a extremely important part of our species and likely always will be until the last human dies.

I'd imagine your mistaken belief that society today is obsessed with sex is based on the media, art, magazines.

But I suppose its not like penis's were drawn or carved in numerous locations thoughout human history dating back as far as 12,000 years ago, not the mention the sexy artworks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erotic_art_in_Pompeii_and_Herculaneum
https://io9.gizmodo.com/one-of-humanitys-earliest-drawings-included-an-enormous-5887633
https://www.timesofisrael.com/first-artistic-depiction-of-sex-found-near-bethlehem-to-join-uk-lgbtq-exhibit/

Of course, this wasn't unique to western cultures it was worldwide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_erotic_depictions

Sex is great, sex is important, wishing to suppress sex and your sexuality actually makes you fairly abnormal as a person compared to the rest of our species.

smacl

Cabaal wrote: »

You poor poor thing,
You think being interested in sex is recent? :pac::pac::pac:

Mod warning: Less of the condescension please.

smacl

Mod: I'm temporarily locking this thread pending discussion with the mod team on how to proceed with it.

smacl

Mod: Thread re-opened. We've decided to change this to a [Christians only] thread as contribution from non-Christians was taking the thread off topic and causing friction. Apologies from the mod team on the late change to non-Christians posting here but this is not the thread or forum for this particular debate. Any responses to the feedback thread only please