Ship of Fools: Just How is Sex "Holy?"

Thread: Just How is Sex "Holy?" Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023840

Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on :

When I took classes in theology at a conservative Catholic college the priests kept hammering home the idea that sex (within marriage) was not a sin, but a holy thing. I've heard the same thing from some evangelicals, but for the life of me I don't really understand what the hell they mean by this. Don't get me wrong; I'm happily married and enjoy sex. But to me the idea that it's somehow a divinely-appointed, sacred thing seems to me more a romanticized notion than what most of us actually experience when we have it.

Thoughts?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

well, if passionately evoking the name of one's deity is any indication...

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I suppose it's holy in the same way that eating barbecue is holy, or having a good night's sleep or a ticklefight with the children. All good gifts from God to be used right and enjoyed.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Yes. LC, but also for the continuation of His creation.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Certainly, but so do all the rest ( well, possibly barring the ticklefight).

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

Marriage is frequently used as a metaphor for relationship with God, in both the OT and NT. They didn't have joint checking accounts then, so they probably had something more concrete in mind. This may mean something.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Yes. LC, but also for the continuation of His creation.

Not in every case.

Marital sex is every bit as much a gift from God when the union is not "blessed with issue" ( and I am not being insensitive to those couples who would dearly love to have children but can't), or when, as in our case, the arrival of more children would constitute an obstetrical miracle calculated to stagger humanity.

At the risk of straying into TMI territory, we most often pray together after physical koinonia.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Squirrel:
But to me the idea that it's somehow a divinely-appointed, sacred thing seems to me more a romanticized notion than what most of us actually experience when we have it.

Thoughts?

Agreed - and the last people I would listen to about sex are Catholic priests! They are not supposed to experience it and, if they do, guilt will accompany the experience in spades, I would expect.

I think the experience of good sex is very similar to numinous, spiritual experiences. I expect the same hormones are activated in the brain.

[Smile]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I suppose it's holy in the same way that eating barbecue is holy, or having a good night's sleep or a ticklefight with the children. All good gifts from God to be used right and enjoyed.

This

(You missed chocolate!!)

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Squirrel: But to me the idea that it's somehow a divinely-appointed, sacred thing seems to me more a romanticized notion than what most of us actually experience when we have it.

Well, I have to say that I rather like it.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Squirrel: But to me the idea that it's somehow a divinely-appointed, sacred thing seems to me more a romanticized notion than what most of us actually experience when we have it.
Well, I have to say that I rather like it.

Liking it doesn't make it divinely appointed or sacred.

Good orgasms release waves of oxytonin which is also released during hugging and touching. In the brain, oxytocin is involved in social recognition and bonding, and it also plays a part in the formation of trust and generosity between people.

No wonder we like it!

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Yes. LC, but also for the continuation of His creation.

If you can't or don't want children does sex then become less holy?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Boogie: Liking it doesn't make it divinely appointed or sacred.

That's true. But I also think that sometimes people are putting it down too much.

quote:
Boogie: Good orgasms release waves of oxytonin which is also released during hugging and touching. In the brain, oxytocin is involved in social recognition and bonding, and it also plays a part in the formation of trust and generosity between people.

No wonder we like it!

But Who put the oxytocin into our brains? [Biased]

Posted by watervole (# 17174) on :

Less holy if you can't have children? Cannot see that BUT sex for simple physical gratification looks somewhat selfish , Using the other as a stimulus mechanism rather than a whole person looks like selfishness, pride and greed, That seems to be doing away with the holiness to me.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by watervole:
BUT sex for simple physical gratification looks somewhat selfish , Using the other as a stimulus mechanism rather than a whole person

And whatever that does to the holiness aspect of it, it sounds like it would make for rather bad sex as well.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

I always thought it was holy because of the intermingling of souls.

The two become one in Genesis.

Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :

quote:
Originally posted by watervole:
Less holy if you can't have children? Cannot see that BUT sex for simple physical gratification looks somewhat selfish , Using the other as a stimulus mechanism rather than a whole person looks like selfishness, pride and greed, That seems to be doing away with the holiness to me.

But are you saying that sex for simple phsyical (what about emotional stimulus) gratification is only one sided - what if the sought satisfaction/exuberance is mutual for both parties? Also, depends on whether you sex the sexual act, procreative or otherwise, a holy act - and if you do, what exactly you mean by it.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

Seems to me that (as with many things), Christians confuse passion and ecstasy with holiness.

We wouldn't say that urination was holy and yet it is an essential function for the continuation of humanity. And sexual intimacy is not the only way to build strong relationships - and often it doesn't anyway.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
long ranger: We wouldn't say that urination was holy

I might. Why not? Of course, we might run the risk of calling everything holy, which would probably diminish the concept a bit. But it's performing a function of the body that God has intended in created. Why would that not be holy?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I am puzzled as to why it would not be holy. Two people share each other's souls, bodies, bodily fluids, in harmony and intimacy. Sounds holy to me.

Of course, sex is often not intimate and soul-engendered, but I see most things as sacred anyway. They just have that inscape that denotes divine creation.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:

quote:
Originally posted by watervole:
Less holy if you can't have children? Cannot see that BUT sex for simple physical gratification looks somewhat selfish , Using the other as a stimulus mechanism rather than a whole person looks like selfishness, pride and greed, That seems to be doing away with the holiness to me.
But are you saying that sex for simple phsyical (what about emotional stimulus) gratification is only one sided - what if the sought satisfaction/exuberance is mutual for both parties? Also, depends on whether you sex the sexual act, procreative or otherwise, a holy act - and if you do, what exactly you mean by it.

Didn't you get the memo? In hetro relationships women only want sex because there's a chance they might be making babies. Take that possibility away and it's only the guy who enjoys himself. [Devil]

Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
well, if passionately evoking the name of one's deity is any indication...

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
well, if passionately evoking the name of one's deity is any indication...

Shouldn't that be

[Angel]

if sex is holy?

[Biased]

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

I suppose one (albeit more Catholic) 'take' on it would be that it's a special renewal of the sacrament of marriage in a similar way to Holy Communion being a renewal of the sacraments of baptism and confirmation.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by watervole:
Cannot see that BUT sex for simple physical gratification looks somewhat selfish , Using the other as a stimulus mechanism rather than a whole person looks like selfishness, pride and greed, That seems to be doing away with the holiness to me.

Turn that round to be sex for giving physical pleasure and gratification to your partner, who is a whole person and wants to do the same for you.

Like LC says it's as holy as sitting round the dinner table enjoying a good meal.

Bonding, love, social pleasure.

Are they holy - set apart for God? I don't know, but they are given to us by God and to be enjoyed to the full are they not?

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by watervole:
Cannot see that BUT sex for simple physical gratification looks somewhat selfish , Using the other as a stimulus mechanism rather than a whole person looks like selfishness, pride and greed, That seems to be doing away with the holiness to me.
Turn that round to be sex for giving physical pleasure and gratification to your partner, who is a whole person and wants to do the same for you.

Like LC says it's as holy as sitting round the dinner table enjoying a good meal.

Bonding, love, social pleasure.

Are they holy - set apart for God? I don't know, but they are given to us by God and to be enjoyed to the full are they not?

Well said.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Squirrel:
But to me the idea that sex is somehow a divinely-appointed, sacred thing seems to me more a romanticized notion than what most of us actually experience when we have it.

Thoughts?

D.H Lawrence , who I've always regarded as one our best thinkers on this matter, said in one of his autobiographical novels, that the trouble with sex is that it "blasts everything else away" , (in the mind that is).

It wasn't until recent years that I've discovered the truth in this . I mean yes regular MPS (mad-passionate-sex), nothing quite like it of course.
But if you should run into a state of affairs were, for various reasons, it is no longer so madly passionate or indeed so regular, you do indeed discover something rather more tender and delicate that is somewhat over-shadowed by MPS.

So in anwser to OP, I would say there Holiness is in sex but not altogether in the way we think of it . In many ways sex is something of a smoke-screen , and is therefore quite capable of generating problems as well as solving them.

As for Oxytocin ? Surely ought to be made avaiable on the NHS [Big Grin]

Posted by coniunx (# 15313) on :

I'd recommend a look at the Theology of the Body. I think a lot of what John Paul II was up to in that series of discourses was exactly explaining why sex is holy.

If you prefer a Biblical reference: Ephesians 5:31-32. Whilst there are those who see 32 as completely disconnected from 31, I think most agree that Paul is identifying the 'becoming one flesh' of marriage as a type of the unity between Christ and the Church - a theme which reflects man and woman together being made in the image of God, and the imagery of the marriage feast of the Lamb. These all related to marriage, and marriage is a sexual relationship (or is understood to be so in Christian terms, whatever Governments make of it).

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

I think the issue is whether sex is any holier than anything else in life. The Christian faith is incarnational, in that God, in the person of Jesus Christ, entered into the fullness of humanity.

So yes, sex is holy. But then good conversation with a friend, walking alone in the woods, or feeding the hungry, is also holy.

Whether sex is intrinsically more holier than these other activities is a more difficult proposition. Tradition teaches that Our Lord was celibate. Presumably, as Holiness incarnate, he didn't see it necessary to pursue a relationship on earth.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

I think, in this context, "holy" might mean "We're going to arrogate the right to regulate it. Because if we can't control what you do with your intellects, and we can't control what you do with your property, we're damned well going to try and control what you do with your genitalia."

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Whether sex is intrinsically more holier than these other activities is a more difficult proposition. Tradition teaches that Our Lord was celibate. Presumably, as Holiness incarnate, he didn't see it necessary to pursue a relationship on earth.

You've got an unstated premise (enthymeme) here, that if Christ didn't do it, it can't be particularly holy. I'm not sure how that's warranted.

Posted by LucyP (# 10476) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

As for Oxytocin ? Surely ought to be made available on the NHS [/QB]

(Tangent) It almost is, under certain circumstances - syntocinon is the synthetic analogue of oxytocin used if childbirth is not going according to plan.

Oxytocin is widely proclaimed to be a hormone of bonding/feeling good etc, which is true enough. However, sadly, but interestingly, the time in a woman's life when she is at most risk for depression is after she has had a baby. While breastfeeding may help reduce this risk,(perhaps in part because oxytocin release is involved in breastfeeding) many mothers have postnatal depression while breastfeeding. In other words, while oxytocin may be part of what helps people feel good, it is definitely not the whole story (not that anyone here is saying it is!)

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I think, in this context, "holy" might mean "We're going to arrogate the right to regulate it. Because if we can't control what you do with your intellects, and we can't control what you do with your property, we're damned well going to try and control what you do with your genitalia."

Good point - in the case of the Catholic Church this seems to be true. Precluding masturbation and birth control certainly puts the priests right inside the bedroom wielding guilt-induced control. Where they have no place whatever imo.

I think most Catholics are ignoring them these days - you see very few huge Catholic families, where it was very common in the (quite recent) past round here.

Well done them - the church will catch up eventually.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Whether sex is intrinsically more holier than these other activities is a more difficult proposition. Tradition teaches that Our Lord was celibate. Presumably, as Holiness incarnate, he didn't see it necessary to pursue a relationship on earth.
You've got an unstated premise (enthymeme) here, that if Christ didn't do it, it can't be particularly holy. I'm not sure how that's warranted.

I know that there is a Holy of Holies: but in general I am not sure that there is a comparative or ranking in holy. Is that another enthymeme?

Posted by coniunx (# 15313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I think most Catholics are ignoring them these days - you see very few huge Catholic families, where it was very common in the (quite recent) past round here.

Just how is having a smaller family ignoring Catholic teaching? Please elucidate, if you can.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I think most Catholics are ignoring them these days - you see very few huge Catholic families, where it was very common in the (quite recent) past round here.
Just how is having a smaller family ignoring Catholic teaching? Please elucidate, if you can.

Sorry - I meant ignoring anti-contraception 'rules'.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Whether sex is intrinsically more holier than these other activities is a more difficult proposition. Tradition teaches that Our Lord was celibate. Presumably, as Holiness incarnate, he didn't see it necessary to pursue a relationship on earth.
You've got an unstated premise (enthymeme) here, that if Christ didn't do it, it can't be particularly holy. I'm not sure how that's warranted.
I know that there is a Holy of Holies: but in general I am not sure that there is a comparative or ranking in holy. Is that another enthymeme?

No, it's a euphemism. "Not particularly holy" here meaning "not holy." I sho[u]ldn't have though it was a particularly unusual or opaque euphemism; perhaps it's a pond thing.

[ 05. September 2012, 17:03: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

I thought sex was thought to be holy because it is a sub-creative act, and thus a reminder of the creator of everything?

Posted by coniunx (# 15313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I think most Catholics are ignoring them these days - you see very few huge Catholic families, where it was very common in the (quite recent) past round here.
Just how is having a smaller family ignoring Catholic teaching? Please elucidate, if you can.
Sorry - I meant ignoring anti-contraception 'rules'.

But you don't need artificial contraception to keep family size low.

So smaller families aren't evidence of the use of contraceptives; it could just be that couples have taken the teaching seriously, taken the responsible decision that the right family size for them is smaller than it would have been a few generations ago, and acted accordingly. Catholic teaching encourages them to take that sort of responsible decision.

There are people who don't know that the family planning methods which support marriage - the natural ones, which accord with Catholic teaching - are just as effective as the artificial ones, but I'm assuming you're not that uninformed.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

I think that a lot of Roman Catholics use contraceptive devices. Are there any reliable studies to show what RCs do in practice? I found The Influence of Religiosity on Contraceptive Use among Roman Catholic Women in the United States which does not support your opinion, giving 0.4% of American Catholics using NFP as against 0.2% of American women in general.

I don't think the natural ones are just as effective, (re-confirmed for myself by a review of several articles)

I don't agree that artificial contraception does not support marriage (as you tried to infer as a given).

Posted by coniunx (# 15313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
I think that a lot of Roman Catholics use contraceptive devices. Are there any reliable studies to show what RCs do in practice?

Not really - the usual problems of definition of who is Catholic and what that means....

But I accept it's the case that many Catholic couples don't use natural methods; but it's not a logical step to argue that you can tell this because they don't have large families.

quote:
I don't think the natural ones are just as effective, (re-confirmed for myself by a review of several articles)

Which ones? Most recent research seems to be supporting the idea that NFP methods are as effective as nasty things like the Pill and the IUD, with method effectiveness in the 99% range and user effectiveness over 85% (Pill: 99%, 87% respectively). Examples would be the Frank-Herrmann studies in 2005 and 2010, and the Edinburgh study in 2001 - I haven't the formal citations to hand at the moment.

quote:
I don't agree that artificial contraception does not support marriage (as you tried to infer as a given).

Again, the studies seem to indicate otherwise. There was a German one back in about 1988, and one published by a US college in the mid-2000's indicating increased marital satisfaction among NFP users compared with other methods, and improvement in the marriage relationship with experience of NFP.

Certainly for me, the idea that I'd require my wife to make changes to her body to make sex sterile would indicate a pretty low level of respect and love for her body; and the alternative of placing a barrier between us during sex would be a negation of the marriage commitment of total self-giving.

Could you explain how either of those processes supports the growth of communication, mutual respect, and good self- and body-image which are so important in building marital relationship?

Whereas it's easy to see how using NFP, which by definition is understanding and respecting the nature of our bodies, and communicating continually about our state of fertility and what that means to us, does just that.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

Of course sex is holy.

I give a prayer of thanks every time I have it.

Posted by Haydee (# 14734) on :

Because if sometimes sex is holy & sometimes it isn't it allows Them to tell everyone else what to do with their genitals. If holiness didn't come into it someone might question their qualifications to make the rules.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Haydee:
Because if sometimes sex is holy & sometimes it isn't it allows Them to tell everyone else what to do with their genitals. If holiness didn't come into it someone might question their qualifications to make the rules.

I question them anyway - ie, they have none.

Posted by Haydee (# 14734) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Haydee:
Because if sometimes sex is holy & sometimes it isn't it allows Them to tell everyone else what to do with their genitals. If holiness didn't come into it someone might question their qualifications to make the rules.
I question them anyway - ie, they have none.

I would agree.

Posted by Badger Lady (# 13453) on :

quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:

Certainly for me, the idea that I'd require my wife to make changes to her body to make sex sterile would indicate a pretty low level of respect and love for her body; and the alternative of placing a barrier between us during sex would be a negation of the marriage commitment of total self-giving.

I genuine don't understand this. My partner and I do not want children. I am therefore on the pill. I don't feel Badger Gent loves or respects me any the less for it.

quote:

Could you explain how either of those processes supports the growth of communication, mutual respect, and good self- and body-image which are so important in building marital relationship?

The counter to this is that constantly having to broadcast the mood of one's ovaries could also make a woman feel rather demeaned.

quote:
Whereas it's easy to see how using NFP, which by definition is understanding and respecting the nature of our bodies, and communicating continually about our state of fertility and what that means to us, does just that.

I'm assuming that by this you mean not doing The Act when the female partner is ovulating. But how does this work if the women has a very irregular cycle and may not know? It allseems rather dangerously imprecise.

[Hosts, sorry if this is raising a whip to a deceased equine. Contraception wasn't on the list in the DH guidelines so I posted here rather than start a new thread.]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Badger Lady:
The counter to this is that constantly having to broadcast the mood of one's ovaries could also make a woman feel rather demeaned.

I had to do this for the opposite reason, to get pregnant - I was very sub fertile. It was awful - and that's why I am so anti 'natural' methods, they are the opposite of natural. I have used most other methods of contraception since we had our boys and all are far better than this crazy 'natural' idea. I didn't feel demeaned at all, but it eventually took its toll on the sex. Nothing worse than having to check temperature etc etc. rather than enjoying the moment.

Of course, once your family is complete it very can easily be the man's turn to play his contraceptive part and have the snip.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

Of course, once your family is complete it very can easily be the man's turn to play his contraceptive part and have the snip.

More often than not, I'd say. Why is it the responsibility of the woman? I don't get it.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I'd say not making love (as part of NFP) is a lot less communicative of love and affection and whatever than making love but with a little rubber whatsit on your John Thomas. I don't see that squirting into a vagina or squirting into a balloon makes any difference in the love etc. Have you any evidence for that, coniunx, or is it just your prejudice? (And how would you measure that anyway? What are the units?)

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
Certainly for me, the idea that I'd require my wife to make changes to her body to make sex sterile would indicate a pretty low level of respect and love for her body; and the alternative of placing a barrier between us during sex would be a negation of the marriage commitment of total self-giving.

I sincerely hope that you wouldn't require your wife to do anything to her body, for sex or any other reason. Because that would certainly indicate a low level of respect and love. Your quote here has a disturbingly paternalistic tone, as though you are the one who decides when there will and won't be children, and issues instructions accordingly. If that's the way it works in your relationship, and you are both happy with it, well and good. But don't assume that other women out there using conventional contraception are doing so because their partners have 'required' them to. It seems to me that the pill's main advocates are, and have been, women.

quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:Could you explain how either of those processes [edit: processes referred to are hormonal contraception and condom use] supports the growth of communication, mutual respect, and good self- and body-image which are so important in building marital relationship?

Whereas it's easy to see how using NFP, which by definition is understanding and respecting the nature of our bodies, and communicating continually about our state of fertility and what that means to us, does just that.

If it does just that for you (by which I mean, for you both) - great. But this is an ideological position and a statement of your own experience, in contrast to the studies you have (kind of) cited as evidence further up thread. My own ideological position is that, while, as I have indicated, I would not expect my husband to require me to either use or not use contraception, neither can I require him to do this. It is something we negotiate between us, as you do in a relationship. For me, sex under a NFP regime would be so fraught with fear and trepidation - my second pregnancy was so horrible that I have no intention of ever going there again, that it would likely both not happen much and also not be enjoyable. It's hard to see how this would increase mutual respect and communication in our relationship.

Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on :

If my wife and I had to put our faith in "Natural Family Planning" we'd be terrified to have sex at all, since in our case pregnancy would have very possibly resulted in a child with severe birth defects and/or medical conditions that would be manifested later on. It would also be very risky for my wife's health.

Our situation is not unique. But I guess the proponents of NFP are more concerned with their abstract notions of the "Natural Law" than they are with human suffering.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0