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

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 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 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.

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 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 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).

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.