|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: eternal damnation for a wank?
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Can one masturbate without lustful thoughts?
I don't know about you, but if lust is defined to mean having any thoughts or sensations that are even remotely sexual or focussed on the body, I can't very often walk down the street without lustful thoughts. Esp in summer.
Does that make walking down the street sinful?
It's stupid to make it a sin anyway. You're almost as sensible making it a sin to eat or to breathe. For enybody is actually alive, of course.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
By convention, the story of Onan in Genesis is generally taken to condemn masturbation, even though most Bible scholars believe that Onan practiced coitus interruptus rather than masturbation.
Perhaps the RCC would like to 'withdraw' its objection, then?
Sorry, I'll get me coat.
More seriously, my wife is heavily pregnant (so we did the 'procreative bit' about 7 months ago) currently and has been given medical advice to abstain from making the beast with two backs with me until - well, quite a while after she gives birth. I also have BPH(sp?)/an enlarged prostate and have been given advice that I should pump the handle fairly frequently to avoid it getting any larger (the prostate, that is, not the handle). With my wife's blessing, nay encouragement, I am therefore frequently despatched to the en suite to, in her words, "sort myself out", she often being in the bedroom at the time.
Two questions: in what way is this "committing adultery" and what would the RCC suggest I do as an alternative to prevent the possibility of my prostate having to be surgically removed at a later date and thus scuppering my chances of having further procreative sex?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
The young age people got married back then is a very very important thing to remember... ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) Papio
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Matt
Nice one! I seem to remember from a RC penitential I read centuries ago that soldiers on duty could wank being as their wives were not around. I could be mistaken but why spoil a good story?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
More seriously, my wife is heavily pregnant (so we did the 'procreative bit' about 7 months ago) currently and has been given medical advice to abstain from making the beast with two backs with me until - well, quite a while after she gives birth.
Tangent alert...
I don't know if this is still the case, but the NHS used to issue an advisory booklet to expectant fathers, about how to cope with their wives' pregnancies.
The booklet did express the sentiment -- in a very prim, English way -- that regular masturbation was advisable for expectant fathers.
The authors seemed to take the view that men who were denied nookie for a few months would otherwise be tempted to play away from home.
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
Christianity is very bad at coping with single people. It is almost always assumed that you have a wife or husband, and children; tactitly/implictly even if they are not in-your-face about it.
Same with politicans. Everything is always about "familes" and children.
Some of us don't have families or children. Some of us get rather bloody tired of hearing about families and children, to be frank.
The idea that is sexually easier to be single and celibate, where that means refraining from masturbation, then it is to simply not be able to bonk your wife avery so often is rather patronising to say the least.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
if lust is defined to mean having any thoughts or sensations that are even remotely sexual or focussed on the body [...]
I find it quite difficult to define lust in the sense of sin. There's all sorts of sexual thoughts and feelings, many of them very intense, that I don't believe are sinful in the least. But although I can't define what the difference is, I find I do know pretty well what sort of sexual thoughts that it is wrong to give headspace to. My non-prescriptive and personal categories of what I see as sinful lust might be:
1) Anything that tends to depersonalise/objectify someone.
If I'm seeing and judging people on the basis of how well they might (or do) meet my sexual needs, as if that were their main purpose, then I've gone wrong. It's fine to notice that someone is attractive, but not to think of them as if that were all tht mattered about them.
2) Anything that harms my relationship with God.
Sexual thoughts that make me feel guilty, slower to pray, or unwlling to approach God, are wrong for that very reason. They may not be sinful in themselves, but until I sort out my hang-ups and false guilt, I'd better control them if I can.
3) Anything that tends to harm the intimacy which I should have with my wife.
Sex in marriage is useful (as well as pleasurable) because sharing this wonderful, intimate, private set of feelings and actions expresses and increases love. Sexual thoughts that get in the way of that, even if they are innocent in themselves, should be put aside.
4) Anything that takes pleasure in something that is objectively evil, and tends to encourage me in that evil.
I'm cautious about this as a definition, because (for the reasons ken says) I would allow more licence in fantasy and play than in reality for this as for any other sin. That said, there are sexual thoughts involving cruelty or betrayal or exploitation which go beyond mere play, and are positively harmful.
5) Anything that, on sober reflection, just plain freaks me out.
My catch-all category. I might not be able to articulate why I don't want that sort of stuff in my head, but if I start feeling uneasy about it even as I'm reaching for the Kleenex, I'd probably be better off just not going there.
I think (and I'm almost sure that I know) that it's possible to masturbate without any thoughts that I'd define as lust in the sinful sense. I'm also sure that I don't, as a matter of experienced fact, actually want to masturbate unless I am guilty of lust.
I can't, however, work up any guilt about the simple act of masturbation. I can't see that a particular way of touching oneself is wrong, and arguments about the proper use of sexual faculties or the lawfulness of sexual pleasure make no appeal to me at all. I don't go to regular confession (I have done once only), but if I did, I'd confess to the sins of thought without considering that the detail of whether they did, or did not, lead me to touch my dick, made very much difference to the gravity of the sin.
Having said that I don't (at present, with God's help) masturbate, because I find that it encourages lust, and that in trying to keep from that sin, the concrete rule "don't wank" is extraordinarily helpful. Masturbation is, in my experience, no help whatever to physical or mental chasity. Like (I'm told) smoking, it largely creates the tensions which it purports to relieve. Not masturbating has not enabled me to achieve perfect chasity (not that I expected it to) but as a practical aid to clearing my head of stuff that I think wrong and simply do not want there, it has been very useful.
I suppose that if I did ever achieve perfect chastity, I'd be able to wank without sin. But I can't imagine that I'd particularly want to - certainly not enough to make me put down a good book for the purpose. Hence, believing that Jesus was perfectly chaste, I doubt very much that he masturbated, though I don't think that masturbation in itself is a sin. If it had been, I'd expect the Bible to mention it. I don't think that wanking was invented after AD33.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
The booklet did express the sentiment -- in a very prim, English way -- that regular masturbation was advisable for expectant fathers.
That is absolutely the reverse of my own experience. I find that not masturbating makes it is easier to cope if I am (for any reason) not having sex for an extended period - and also that breaking the habit of masturbation was a lot easier (that is to say, 'was possible') during a period of abstinance.
I may be very unusual.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
1) Anything that tends to depersonalise/objectify someone.
On the difference between noticing that someone you care about as a person has got cute tits and/or a sexy arse vs focussing on her tits and/or arse as though that was all that mattered about her, I'm with you. That seems to me one of the stongest arguments against pornography, for example, although I am not pursuaded that all pornography is always sinful.
I think to have generalised bodies of either gender that are just abstract bodies, not related to any actual personhood at all, but simply abstract, as a fantasy to aid masturbation may not be immoral. To treat an actual person as an object is immoral, but I don't think one always implies the other, if you see what I mean. I am probably explaining myself very badly...
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Andreas and Papio, yes, but I would guess they still weren't having sex every or every other day like rabbits (which is how often I had to 'crack one off' at that age)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
First of all do keep in mind the great role sexuality plays in modern Western societies...
Secondly, I don't like guessing on what might life have been like 2000 (or 1000) years ago, especially when this has significant consequences in our theology...
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Secondly, I don't like guessing on what might life have been like 2000 (or 1000) years ago, especially when this has significant consequences in our theology...
An interesting sidetrack on the topic of lust is to look at classic aphrodisiacs, such as oysters. The fact that the ancients found high-protein and high-calorie foods aphrodisiac indicates but does not prove that most of the time they were pretty marginally nourished; among the symptoms of that are lethargy and lack of libido.
Equally, the old views of Heaven often mention ample food - "nectar and ambrosia", and the Norse heaven has unlimited boiled pork. That again suggests that nutrition was a serious concern.
As late as the 19th century in Canada, a common proverb was that a sign of spring was your teeth getting loose - scurvy was an inevitable consequence of the winter diet of stored root vegetables and salt meat, just like on sailing ships. And when the "spring tonics" of fresh greens and maple sap (not syrup, the straight from the tree sap) came along, feeling better translated to sexual activity.
But I don't know if the subject has been scientifically studied.
So, my point is that the behaviour of well-nourished modern teenage boys might not be exactly that of their ancestors a thousand years ago.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Point taken
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
I'm interested that basically, the argument in favor of masturbation here is mostly not engaging in any way with the argument of the RCC (as put forth by Ingo) but simply issuing pronouncements and personal convictions. I agree that masturbation is usually spiritually harmless, but conveniently, I'm not an RC so it isn't my problem.
Nonetheless, for Catholics, it seems like one has to do logically better in justifying departure from church doctrine than "everyone wants to do it and most everyone does it, so it must be okay", or resting on anecdotal evidence, or personal need stories, however much fun it is to hear WTMI about Mr. Black's private life. Indeed, the very church that discourages birth control or abortion, even to prevent maternal death is hardly going to give you a pass on "I need to wank because my doctor said it will relieve my swollen prostate." Poor you! What about the woman, now an RC saint, who refused an abortion to save her life, and did indeed die, and was canonized? Just think about your cult, should you die of your prostate engorgement! I'd stop immediately, if I were you. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
And it seems especially poor form to beat up IngoB for expressing what is pretty non-controversial Catholic teaching on the purposes of sexual activity, though I must say that he seems to be able to cope with it.
[ 25. June 2007, 14:02: Message edited by: Laura ]
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
WTMI? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I was just trying to point out what I see to be the logical inconsistencies in the RC approach to the issue.
[ETA - although I've now shared with the Ship a bit more than I'm comfortable with ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) . And I've ended a sentence with a preposition and started one with a conjunction, so there ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) ]
[ 25. June 2007, 14:12: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
You would be aware of betraying your wife, thereby impacting on your relationship with her. Potentionally doing emotional damage to your one night stand - if she fell for you for example. Point about masturbation is that it really doesn't have that impact on another person.
See, that's to me the interesting question. The vast majority of people here seem to think that masturbation is an essentially neutral bodily activity. As I've said before, masturbation is seen as a mere "genital sneeze". Frankly, I do not buy that. Sex is never "neutral" and it never lacks meaning and impact for the person having sex. This includes masturbation.
I'm not a psychologist, sex therapist, or spiritual adviser. I do not know what the most common effects of masturbation on the mind are. For men, I at least have a sample of one - myself - and some indirect insight into other men's behaviour. For women, I'm even more clueless. But two effects I can point out from my many years of masturbation are these: precision and utility. I know precisely how to get myself to orgasm with my hands, and thanks to the instant feedback I can delay or speed up nearly at will, intensify or relax as I wish. I'm in perfect control. This is very different from having sex with a woman, which is more like a dance. If I tried to get out of sex with a partner the precise genital stimulation of masturbation, I would either frustrate myself or my partner, or likely both of us. I think one can seriously spoil one's appetite here, one can build up needs that are hard if not impossible to meet for the partner. As for utility: I masturbate when I want, obviously. Masturbation is a bit like coffee, a relaxing kick, which I can deliver to myself when I find that useful. Sex with a partner is not like that, usually. There's considerable foreplay and afterplay, and I don't mean just bodily. You have to tune in with your partner, and unless you are very lucky, it simply is not the case that every time you want sex your partner wants it also. Again, masturbation can build up expectations that partner sex cannot possibly meet, and indeed lead to an entirely wrong perspective on "making love".
"I can't get no satisfaction." - because nothing but a sex slave could match the readiness and skill of one's hands?
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Doubleposting in reply to IngoB, in reaction to your link, to say that the issue of pornography is a different moral issue and certainly not inevitably involved with masturbation.
No, pornography is not inevitable. But at least for men, it is very commonly used to aid masturbation. And where it is not used, very commonly sexual fantasies are used. (Well, I admit again to having no stats. This is a guesstimate.) The typical content of the former is presumably known to all here, since the internet is full of it. As for the latter, try something like ASSTR (semi work safe entry page, not work safe text inside) to get a fair idea of what people like to fantasize about. I'm not sure that I would call that "cleaner".
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Also, most people do not fantasis about child birth whilst making love - this is one reason why children actually get born.
Certainly. Most people do not even fantasize about making a child, rather than about child birth, while making love - although that's probably more common. So? The essential point about partner sex is that one does not need to fantasize, or perhaps that one fantasizes together (role play etc.). If I need to fantasize about something else while having sex with my partner, then I would say that there's likely a problem...
quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
quite often my spouse needs to withdraw and have a wank in order to get to his climax, and of course I try to help him along. The alternative would be frustration for both of us (and yes, that's the way it used to be for us, and I can assure you this is MILES better). Are you really condemning all men who suffer with this problem (and I understand its not that uncommon) to hell for trying to have sex with their wives?!!!
Morally speaking, this likely is a case where "acquired habit" reduces or even eliminates culpability. For the sex side of things, you should consult an expert if you do not find the situation satisfactory. I would, but YMMV. It would be foolhardy for me to comment further than that.
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Sexual intercourse involving an infertile person cannot have the required purpose of being, in principle, open to the possibility of procreation. If a couple know that one of them is infertile they know that they cannot "aim" their act at creating new life. Therefore they should abstain.
No. One can be perfectly open to procreation in the sense of leaving it up to God, even if experience, knowledge, and reason suggest with certainty that it is impossible. The RCC position here is perfectly biblical, as worked out in the story of Abraham and Sarah.
quote:
Originally posted by marsupial1970:
Is chewing gum a mortal sin?
This would be more analogous to the sex of an infertile couple, which isn't sinful.
quote:
Originally posted by marsupial1970:
On the "addiction" point--isn't the Catechism basically redefining a natural human urge as an addiction? Their use of "addiction" strikes me as nonstandard, at any rate.
If so, then it was me, not the Catechism. One could say that drug addiction is based on the natural urge for pleasure and relaxation. That makes it no less an addiction.
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
The sexuality of Jesus is not something many Christians feel comfortable addressing. It doesn't bother me at all. "What has not been assumed has not been healed" (St. Gregory Nazianzen, my patron).
Oh. Would that then include sex between man and woman, which Jesus did not in fact assume?
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
But when one gets into a detailed examination of what adultery is, what its mens rea amounts to, I think the argument fails. And that's quite apart from the fact that, as an argument, it only applies to that segment of the population which are in a position to commit adultery.
That would imply a serious misunderstanding of the argument. The point is that something analogous to adultery happens, not that the person doing this is technically capable of committing adultery.
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
Adultery is immoral, surely, because one simply cannot divide one's intimate attentions between two or more people and still do full justice to either of them. ... If the same elements that make adultery sinful are also present in masturbation, then maybe masturbation is sinful. But my feeling is that, in the majority of instances, they are not.
My feeling is precisely that they are present in principle, although in practice lots of other causes can contribute (i.e., this is a mortal sin which uncommonly often is reduced to venial or nothing concerning culpability).
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If on a long train journey I use my ticket as a bookmark, that doesn't harm its function as a ticket, even though the ticket is ordered towards proving to the guard that I've paid and not to finding my place again when I come back from the toilet.
Yes, but if you eat the ticket instead, then you have clearly abused the ticket. So the question really boils down to "What is sex about?" Without a clear answer, you'll not be able to judge whether abuse or just creative "other-use" has occurred in a given situation.
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
If I say that I lust after my wife, I think I am using the word properly, and I don't see my lust as a sin.
I disagree. I would in such a case say that you desire your wife, which is not only not sinful but fantastic - may it ever be so. The difference is for me that if I lust after my wife, then I want her for sex, if I desire my wife, then I want sex for her. Lust has sex as end, desire as means.
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Two questions: in what way is this "committing adultery" and what would the RCC suggest I do as an alternative to prevent the possibility of my prostate having to be surgically removed at a later date and thus scuppering my chances of having further procreative sex?
(First, congratulations to you two and my best wishes for a good birth and a healthy child.) I assume a consciously "mechanical" release separate from sexual activity could fall under "double effect" if necessary for managing a serious medical condition. I assume your wife is in a special situation? Normally there shouldn't be a problem with gentle sex without weight resting on the belly (e.g., spoon position) at 7 months...
Eliab, a splendid post! I think your approach is not so much at odds with "natural moral law" arguments, as rather their confirmation in terms of personal experience. Such personalization of moral law concerning sexuality was precisely JPII's project, whose "Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology Of The Body" you may well enjoy.
Finally, at the end of this lengthy post I would suggest that part of the problem is that there are two different ideas at work what sex is. One side thinks that every person owns their sex. Thus every person can dispose of their sex as they wish: as long as the common good is not diminished, and all trade of such sex "property" with a chosen partner is fair and mutually beneficial, then all is well. In the case of masturbation it is almost inevitably so that nobody but the owner of the sex is concerned, and pleases himself, so what ever could be wrong with that? But the other side thinks that sex does not properly exist other than in the cooperation of a man and a woman under specific circumstances. Sex is a kind of joint project, it's a special process of interaction with one specific other person. It makes no sense to talk of the "ownership" of sex other than in the context of the partners bringing it about. From this perspective, masturbation clearly misses the point, brings about sexual pleasure but cannot in the essential sense of the word bring about sex. That this is sinful, is an additional step. But I think it's important to think about the underlying attitude to what sex really is.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I was just trying to point out what I see to be the logical inconsistencies in the RC approach to the issue. [ETA - although I've now shared with the Ship a bit more than I'm comfortable with ]
Your posts have been extremely honest, helpful, and pertinent. You should feel no discomfort.
100% kudo from me.
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Cheers! quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
You should feel no discomfort.
Well, I will if I have to give 'it' up!
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Qoheleth.
Semi-Sagacious One
# 9265
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
WTMI?
Way Too Much Information ?
--------------------
The Benedictine Community at Alton Abbey offers a friendly, personal service for the exclusive supply of Rosa Mystica incense.
Posts: 2532 | From: the radiator of life | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
WTMI?
Way Too Much Information ?
Yup.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Ah again
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But the other side thinks that sex does not properly exist other than in the cooperation of a man and a woman under specific circumstances.
Ingo, I think I understand this conviction, but obviously I don't share it. In fact, please don't take this personally, but I find it offensive to some extent because it is, for me, simply too narrow. It offends my notion of what a person is in relation to sexuality. I must be more of the other team, because I disagree with almost every word of what I cite from you here.
But here is what I don't understand: If you see sex as a sacrament, and your "specific circumstances" are those under which the sacrement takes places, then I still don't really see how it follows that all other forms of sexual activity (and I don't really know what else to all it) are sinful, does it? Or is it sinful to drink wine without any intent to celebrate communion?
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear IngoB
quote:
Oh. Would that then include sex between man and woman, which Jesus did not in fact assume?
I said sexuality not sex. We are sexual beings whether we are celibate or not.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
With respect for Ingo (who IMO has posted masterfully on this subject, and offered his perspective with characteristic assuredness), asking a Catholic for advice on the moral rights and wrongs of masturbation is a bit like asking a child for advice on what makes a good story. They'll say Harry Potter, not Dostoyevski- but you'd expect that wouldn't you? Catholics and sex? It's not really their cup of tea, is it?
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Actually, I think Catholics are fervently pro-sex. They just want it to be reproductive sex within the voluntary bonds of marriage.
Once you're married: The more, the merrier!
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Actually, I think Catholics are fervently pro-sex. They just want it to be reproductive sex within the voluntary bonds of marriage.
Once you're married: The more, the merrier!
Oh, undoubdtedly so! Randy lot! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But does this make them experts in the field? I rather think not.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Would you really want to consult someone whose area of expertise was wanking? The master masturbator?
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
I would look for somebody who had a well rounded understanding of human sexuality, the teaching of Scripture and Tradition, the ability to discern between what was of God and what was not.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Is this a realistic expectation father G? I mean, we are only beginning to understand the complex neurobiological basis of human sexuality... And let us not forget that for 2000 years Christianity has been fundamentally anti-sexual...
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
OK, I want to have all the cards open on the table... Orthodoxy is not blameless as far as anti-sexuality is concerned... Elder Sophrony (of Essex) sums Tradition up on this issue in his book ascesis and beholding (ascesis kai theoreia). "Experience of centuries showed that the love of God is possible within marriage as well, but only to a mediocre extent". And "Characteristic of the great love for Christ is that it cannot compromise with pleasures of the flesh in general, and with sexual pleasures in particular." etc etc
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
Catholics and sex? It's not really their cup of tea, is it?
The (Dominican friar) Herbert McCabe, whom I have cited on the Purity Ring thread, writes beautifully and thoughtfully about human sexuality. As do many other Roman Catholic authors. And some of the most apparently healthy relationships I am aware of are ones where one, or both, partners are RCs. You don't feel you might be over-generalising slightly, do you?
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Would you really want to consult someone whose area of expertise was wanking? The master masturbator?
Certainly! If it was expertise on wanking, I would ('though I consider myself something of an amateur exspurt, in all humility).
But if I wanted advice about the modern Catholic position on the Inquisition, I'd go to Ingo, every time.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Would you really want to consult someone whose area of expertise was wanking? The master masturbator?
Certainly! If it was expertise on wanking, I would ('though I consider myself something of an amateur exspurt, in all humility).
But if I wanted advice about the modern Catholic position on the Inquisition, I'd go to Ingo, every time.
[edit nonsense]
[ 25. June 2007, 19:32: Message edited by: dogwonderer ]
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Again, masturbation can build up expectations that partner sex cannot possibly meet, and indeed lead to an entirely wrong perspective on "making love".
"I can't get no satisfaction." - because nothing but a sex slave could match the readiness and skill of one's hands?
This seems weird. As if you are assuming that the point of sex is to get to orgasm at your chosen speed (= "satisfaction"). Which is strange coming from a Catholic.
quote:
The essential point about partner sex is that one does not need to fantasize, or perhaps that one fantasizes together (role play etc.).
Also a pretty odd thing to say I think.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
Adultery is immoral, surely, because one simply cannot divide one's intimate attentions between two or more people and still do full justice to either of them. ... If the same elements that make adultery sinful are also present in masturbation, then maybe masturbation is sinful. But my feeling is that, in the majority of instances, they are not.
My feeling is precisely that they are present in principle, although in practice lots of other causes can contribute (i.e., this is a mortal sin which uncommonly often is reduced to venial or nothing concerning culpability).
No, what makes adultery wrong is that it is a breach of faith. A lie. It it was about dividing intimate attentions then polygamy would be wrong for the same reasons, and there is no Scriptural basis for saying that. (It might be wrong for other reasons though). Also the idea that the main point of marriage or sex is "intimate attentions" seems very 19th-century. I doubt if either Moses or Jesus would have looked at it quite that kind of way.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
If I say that I lust after my wife, I think I am using the word properly, and I don't see my lust as a sin.
I disagree. I would in such a case say that you desire your wife, which is not only not sinful but fantastic - may it ever be so. The difference is for me that if I lust after my wife, then I want her for sex, if I desire my wife, then I want sex for her. Lust has sex as end, desire as means.
You still haven't addressed the question of whether the kind of sexuial fantasy that is used in masturbation is, or is always, the same thing as the klind of lust that Jesus condemns as adultery.
quote:
Finally, at the end of this lengthy post I would suggest that part of the problem is that there are two different ideas at work what sex is. One side thinks that every person owns their sex.
Talk of "ownership of sex" sounds like nonsense to me. Its not a thing that can be bought and sold. And you brought it up - no-one opposed to the RC view used such odd phrases here AFAIR. This final paragraph comes over very strongly as "we are right and you benighted Proddies just don't understand".
quote:
But the other side thinks that sex does not properly exist other than in the cooperation of a man and a woman under specific circumstances. Sex is a kind of joint project, it's a special process of interaction with one specific other person.
So what do you say to those for whom there is no "one specific other person"?
And what do you say to those for whom there cannot morally be "one specific other person" in the rukles of your church, such as the Roman Catholic man I mentioned earlier?
quote:
It makes no sense to talk of the "ownership" of sex other than in the context of the partners bringing it about.
It makes no sense to talk of it at all. I'm not sure the phrase means anything and if it does its probably a red herring.
quote:
From this perspective, masturbation clearly misses the point, brings about sexual pleasure but cannot in the essential sense of the word bring about sex.
Hooray! At last!
I think that is certainly true. Which is exactly why I think that this:
quote:
That this is sinful
probably isn't.
quote:
But I think it's important to think about the underlying attitude to what sex really is.
Yes, and thinking about it has led you to a result which shows up the illogicality of your own posuition. Precisely because masturbation is not sex, it is not clear that the rules applying to sex (such as "only in marriage") should apply to it. You still need to show that they do, and you haven't. If anything your arguments tend the opposite way. (of course in a biological sense neither is homosexuality sex, but lets not go there...)
[ 25. June 2007, 19:48: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Orthodoxy is not blameless as far as anti-sexuality is concerned...
Gosh!
Can I let you into a little secret Andreas?
No-one here, except for you and just possibly Myrrh, ever imagined that it might have been.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
The (Dominican friar) Herbert McCabe, whom I have cited on the Purity Ring thread, writes beautifully and thoughtfully about human sexuality. As do many other Roman Catholic authors. And some of the most apparently healthy relationships I am aware of are ones where one, or both, partners are RCs. You don't feel you might be over-generalising slightly, do you?
Oh, more than slightly, I'm sure (your understatement is appreciated). But even gross generalisations like 'Catholics are rather conservative when it comes to sex' are sometimes useful indicators of underlying truisms.
Truth is, Ingo himself has admitted to being no Betty Ford sexpert, and I'm sure he realises this masturbation thing is a jolly tricky business. Horses for courses- I think the RCC should stick to religion, and let the rest of us sinners get on with the carnal business of fornication, and so forth. But I know I'm over-generalising again.
[ETA apology for double-post, above- maddeningly caught in edit-flood-control nightmare]
[ 25. June 2007, 20:18: Message edited by: dogwonderer ]
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
I don't even think it's true that, compared to other Christian groups, Catholics are especially conservative when it comes to sex. Catholic theology certainly has a far more positive view of the human body, and inter alia sexuality, than do many other forms of Christian thought.
I think a certain type of conservative Catholic can compete with the most staunch fundamentalist for the trophy of 'most conservative person on sex'. But what I find interesting is that, often as not, such Catholics hail from culturally Protestant countries. I've said before that I think there is an issue with people taking essentially Protestant ideas about approaches to texts, duty, conscience and the relation of human frailty to Christian life, and importing them into Catholic practice.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fisher
Shipmate
# 9080
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The RCC says that masturbation is a grave matter. Most RCs, and a good many outside of the RCC, know that. At least a mature RC then usually cannot claim lack of full knowledge.
An incidental point of information: I'm not so sure. I'm a cradle Catholic, catechised by scary nuns, but I only came across the idea of mortal sin when I read Graham Greene. And it was the Ship (surprisingly, the source of most of my patchy knowledge of Christian orthodoxy) which alerted me to Catholic teaching on masturbation and opened that particular possible route to damnation... ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif) (hanging around this place too much may be a bad idea).
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
quote:
Originally posted by Mechtilde:
I can just imagine mentioning something like this to my confessor. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) I know exactly what he'd say: "Why are you bringing this up?"
Or, still more likely: "Well, how nice for you. Can we get back to your confession now?"
Can't imagine mine saying any different
A third of us signing in on this fairly significant point. Catholic teaching isn't applied as a monolithic formula: the fundamentals of the faith and the key struggles for any one believer always move very strongly to the foreground. All I would add is this: I have sometimes confessed to things that I don't really think that grave, because it's easier to do than to really examine my conscience for the ways in which I unambiguously and culpably harm others and go against God's will. I wouldn't be surprised if masturbation is sometimes brought up as such a spiritual displacement activity.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
while sterility is not an impediment to marriage, complete impotence is [followed by quotation from Canon Law]
Have I understood this correctly? If, while cycling into work tomorrow morning, I have an unfortunate accident then I could be barred from marriage? That's quite harsh ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) . Is it ever applied nowadays? I'd say that frowning on masturbation is fairly uncontroversial by comparison -just of more personal interest to a larger number of people. Maybe it's worth another thread sometime. In the meantime, I'll check my brakes ![[Biased]](wink.gif) .
--------------------
"Down, down, presumptuous human reason!" But somehow they found out I was not a real bishop at all G. K. Chesterton
Posts: 1327 | From: London | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Orthodoxy is not blameless as far as anti-sexuality is concerned...
Gosh!
Can I let you into a little secret Andreas?
No-one here, except for you and just possibly Myrrh, ever imagined that it might have been.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Orthodoxy is not blameless as far as anti-sexuality is concerned...
Gosh!
Can I let you into a little secret Andreas?
No-one here, except for you and just possibly Myrrh, ever imagined that it might have been.
That's just silly. I've had several discussions on the subject with Orthodox, specifically about bishops which brings with it all these kinds of perverse thinking about sexuality. (We managed to win the fight to keep married priests, but when the monastics gained power in later centuries and took over choosing bishops they introduced, or rather went back to the un-Orthodox idea of celibate bishops which we'd fought against.)
I've never heard an Orthodox priest be this blatantly misogynist and, sorry, it does seem to be a Western influence because this is simply not the teaching of the Church which sees both marriage and celibacy as equally valid ways of living, the married state is seen as God's divine organisation and we still remember our women Equal-to-the-Apostles and so on.
In the early centuries when Christ's words were taken out of context and several 'fathers' began promoting the idea of celibacy as a superior spiritual state one of the bishops, Cyril from Alexandria?, said if they, who thought this, felt so strongly about this 'as a higher way of the angels' they should also stop eating and drinking...
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
I'm interested that basically, the argument in favor of masturbation here is mostly not engaging in any way with the argument of the RCC (as put forth by Ingo) but simply issuing pronouncements and personal convictions.
Mea culpa ![[Frown]](frown.gif) I suppose the reason for this, for me at least, is that I find the conclusion so absurd that it's almost impossible to engage with the argument.
It's as if somebody told me that he could make a good case for believing that the Earth was flat. In fact, because I thinking that condemning masturbation is actually psychologically (and maybe clinically) damaging, it's more like expecting me to engage with an argument that it's OK to cross a busy motorway blindfolded.
In any event, I think that the RC case is based on a false premise, and so the argument itself doesn't really matter. That premise is that any sexual activity which does not leave open the possibility of procreation is, by its very nature, sinful.
I can't argue against that premise, simply because it is a premise, not a conclusion. What I can do, as others have done, is to point to the silliness of the conclusions that follow from this premise, and the fancy footwork the RCC has to indulge in to avoid looking completely barmy.
The most obvious example of such fancy footwork, to me, is that it's OK to prevent conception by careful timing of sexual intercourse, but not by using a condom.
Another that it's OK for an infertile heterosexual couple to have sex, even though it can't result in conception, but not for homosexuals to do so, because it's just possible that God will bring about a miracle for the infertile couple.
Apparently silly conclusions don't invalidate a premise, of course; but I hope I have at least explained why I can't engage with the RCC argument against masturbation on its own terms.
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Petrified
Ship’s ballast
# 10667
|
Posted
Surely the key is here:-
"2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure"
So if it is done for purely medicinal purposes it must be ok, the purpose not being sexual pleasure (after all women have had sex on that basis for centuries)
--------------------
At this time, a friend shall lose his friend's hammer and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night before, about eight o'clock.
SoF a "prick against Bigotterie"
Posts: 540 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
But here is what I don't understand: If you see sex as a sacrament, and your "specific circumstances" are those under which the sacrement takes places, then I still don't really see how it follows that all other forms of sexual activity (and I don't really know what else to all it) are sinful, does it? Or is it sinful to drink wine without any intent to celebrate communion?
I would agree that we are hitting the limits of arguing natural moral law here. While I can argue "objectively" that sex is ordered to procreation, and less "objectively" also that among humans this is intended to happen in a monogamous relationship, the precise moral status of having sex not so ordered is IMHO not arguable. What one needs for that is basically a moral hierarchy assigning importance. This is supposed to be part of the natural moral law, of course. For example, the instinctive reaction to murder is an indication of the natural moral importance we assign to human life.
I think that 1) sex is as important as individual bodily life, because it embodies love, but I also think that 2) nothing else in human life has been hit harder by the fall (human sinfulness) than sex. So I think we should have similarly clear feelings about sex as we have about human life, but in fact we don't. Which leaves natural moral law arguments about sex in a difficult situation. So when all is said and done, I do not think that the full truth about human sexuality is available in this life without recourse to revelation. Thus I can only convince you that my position is not self-contradictory and unreasonable given my premises, but I cannot by the force of argument make you agree with me in this case.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
This seems weird. As if you are assuming that the point of sex is to get to orgasm at your chosen speed (= "satisfaction"). Which is strange coming from a Catholic.
Please read more carefully. My point was that masturbation leads to a sort of precision in obtaining sexual pleasure. And if a habit of masturbation ingrains such precision as expectation for sexual pleasure, then partner sex will most likely disappoint. For normally the partner is not going to do it "perfectly right" as far as stimulating one's genitals is concerned, and indeed this entire way of thinking about sex is wrong from the start.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The essential point about partner sex is that one does not need to fantasize, or perhaps that one fantasizes together (role play etc.).
Also a pretty odd thing to say I think.
Context is key. I was not saying that this is the essential point of sex per se, but rather that it is the essential point in contrast to masturbation. In partner sex I'm not fantasizing about having sex, I am having sex.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
It it was about dividing intimate attentions then polygamy would be wrong for the same reasons, and there is no Scriptural basis for saying that.
Are you saying that polygamy is morally licit according to scripture? Are you turning classical Mormon now? And you should know that I consider sola scriptura arguments to be inherently flawed and irrelevant.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
You still haven't addressed the question of whether the kind of sexuial fantasy that is used in masturbation is, or is always, the same thing as the klind of lust that Jesus condemns as adultery.
That seems like a rather pointless question, since whether the means are evil or not plays no role if the end is evil anyway. It certainly is possible that one fantasizes in a good way about sex. Whether such a fantasy can be used to drive masturbation? Perhaps, people can keep several contradictory thoughts in their head at the same time. Is this likely? Not in my own experience, but YMMV.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Talk of "ownership of sex" sounds like nonsense to me. Its not a thing that can be bought and sold.
That would be news to the oldest profession of the world... Anyway, I was opposing the idea of "owning one's sex". Please read carefully.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
So what do you say to those for whom there is no "one specific other person"? And what do you say to those for whom there cannot morally be "one specific other person" in the rukles of your church, such as the Roman Catholic man I mentioned earlier?
Matthew 10:38-39.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Yes, and thinking about it has led you to a result which shows up the illogicality of your own posuition. Precisely because masturbation is not sex, it is not clear that the rules applying to sex (such as "only in marriage") should apply to it. You still need to show that they do, and you haven't. If anything your arguments tend the opposite way.
Not at all. My genitals (body) and my sexual pleasure (mind) were given to me precisely for having sex in marriage. If I use these means given to me by God for that end in some other way, this is sinful. The question just how sinful such other use is, is more difficult. But that does not change the principle judgment. If I as a marrried man go to a prostitute, assuming I have plenty of money to spend and she is doing that out of her own free will without being exploited by others, what precisely is the problem with that? Neither of us thinks this is about "love", in the sense in which I love my wife. All I do is getting my genitals stimulated for sexual pleasure, and she is getting paid for the service she provides. All fair and square? No, I'm betraying my wife. But how? Am I trying to bond into unity with the prostitute? Hardly. Am I trying to create offspring? Certainly not. So this sexual activity has nothing to do with "proper sex", just like masturbation. The betrayal is rather that God has given me my genitals and my sexual pleasure in order to bond into unity with one woman through sex open to life, and I have promised my wife that she is that very woman. There are of course very good reasons why going to a prostitute has generally worse impact on my married life than masturbation. But my point is that our sex life is supposed to have a "target", and marriage sets that "target". Missing the target is a sin, practically and etymologically...
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
Truth is, Ingo himself has admitted to being no Betty Ford sexpert, and I'm sure he realises this masturbation thing is a jolly tricky business. Horses for courses- I think the RCC should stick to religion, and let the rest of us sinners get on with the carnal business of fornication, and so forth. But I know I'm over-generalising again.
Rather, you are completely missing the point of religion, in a characteristically modern way. Religion is not a "hobby", like listening to jazz. It's not optional in that sense. It is supposed to permeate one's entire life, it's a change of the very basis on which one stands in life. Religion that dare not speak about sex is not only castrated, it's cut off at the root (pun sort of intended).
quote:
Originally posted by fisher:
Is it ever applied nowadays?
I would assume so. It's current canon law (CIC'83). Nothing stops you from living in a platonic relationship with a woman, of course.
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
What I can do, as others have done, is to point to the silliness of the conclusions that follow from this premise, and the fancy footwork the RCC has to indulge in to avoid looking completely barmy. The most obvious example of such fancy footwork, to me, is that it's OK to prevent conception by careful timing of sexual intercourse, but not by using a condom.Another that it's OK for an infertile heterosexual couple to have sex, even though it can't result in conception, but not for homosexuals to do so, because it's just possible that God will bring about a miracle for the infertile couple. Apparently silly conclusions don't invalidate a premise, of course; but I hope I have at least explained why I can't engage with the RCC argument against masturbation on its own terms.
I have given quite a number of reasons above why one may think masturbation problematic which did not rely on the premise that all sex has to be open to life. So you have no excuse to not engage with those arguments.
As for the supposed silliness and fancy footwork: using to one's advantage what occurs naturally is not the same as changing nature to suit oneself. In the latter case one always assumes moral responsibility for the circumstances of any thereby influenced act, in the former case generally not. That's simple and reasonable enough and is sufficient for the moral argument.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
nothing else in human life has been hit harder by the fall (human sinfulness) than sex.
Why do you think this? It is not clear to me why, say, our economic relations, our capacity for anger etc. aren't at least as affected by the fall. (I don't, of course, deny that sexuality is affected by the fall.)
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I have given quite a number of reasons above why one may think masturbation problematic which did not rely on the premise that all sex has to be open to life. So you have no excuse to not engage with those arguments.
No, maybe not. Sorry to sound petulant, but I just don't feel up to it right now
I just can't help thinking that sitting here wasting keystrokes on defending wanking, of all things, is not exactly offering up my life to the glory of God, whether it be moral or not.
quote:
As for the supposed silliness and fancy footwork: using to one's advantage what occurs naturally is not the same as changing nature to suit oneself.
Maybe not. What worries me what I perceive as the somewhat mobile boundary between what constitutes taking advantage of nature, and what constitutes changing nature.
None of the places that the RCC wants to put this boundary strike me as outstanding unreasonable; but many of the alternatives seem no less reasonable. That's the problem.
For example, there's nothing intrinsically unreasonable about claiming that wearing a condom is `changing nature' while timing intercourse on the basis of (yeutch!) vaginal mucous is taking advantage of nature. But, at the same time, there's no reason I can see why this claim is reasonable, beyond the fact that it is convenient and not obviously unreasonable.
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Why do you think this? It is not clear to me why, say, our economic relations, our capacity for anger etc. aren't at least as affected by the fall. (I don't, of course, deny that sexuality is affected by the fall.)
We may not be able to stop greed, anger, etc. But we find these easier to judge. I do not think that we are especially sinful concerning sex, but rather, that the faculty of reason is particularly darkened with regards to sex. Of course, we do not simply agree on all judgments concerning other sins. But a consensus concerning basics is more easily found. For example, people will not generally argue that it is just per se to strip the poor of Africa of what little they have to make the rich in the West even richer. They will rather argue about the means of making the African poor less poor. (Some will argue that rather conveniently some stripping is necessary to achieve this, but that's not my point. My point is that they feel the need to justify their actions against this moral instinct.)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
That's interesting. It might, alternatively, be that (a.) natural law on matters sexual is less restrictive than has been traditionally thought (but, say, social pressures obscured this), or (b.) a lot of Christian sexual ethics falls under revealed, rather than natural, law (and so, one wouldn't expect the general population's consciences to be formed in accordance with it), or (c.) some combination of (a.) and (b.).
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Yes, but if you eat the ticket instead, then you have clearly abused the ticket. So the question really boils down to "What is sex about?" Without a clear answer, you'll not be able to judge whether abuse or just creative "other-use" has occurred in a given situation.
If I eat the ticket, I can no longer show it to the guard.
Masturbation, however, does not prevent procreation within the context of a lifelong monogamous relationship. (Assuming such to be the purpose of sex.)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Please read more carefully. My point was that masturbation leads to a sort of precision in obtaining sexual pleasure. And if a habit of masturbation ingrains such precision as expectation for sexual pleasure, then partner sex will most likely disappoint. For normally the partner is not going to do it "perfectly right" as far as stimulating one's genitals is concerned, and indeed this entire way of thinking about sex is wrong from the start.
I understood perfectly that that was your point. And is still seems very strange to me that you are arguing as if the point of sex in marriage is sexual pleasure of the orgasm sort. so that masturbation must be banned.
And why are you always talking about men masturbating going off their wives and not applying the same rule to masturbating women not wanting sex with their husbands? That seems perhaps less unlikely to me. It is generally assumed that men are keener on sex (with their wives or anyone else) than women are. It is generally assumed that women find it much more difficult to get sexual pleasure out of penetrative sex then men do, and mostly don't regularly have orgasms during or as a direct result of it. I have no idea if anyone really knows the truth of either of those notions but both seem to be common wisdom.
quote:
Are you saying that polygamy is morally licit according to scripture?
Yes, polygamy is clealy morally licit according to Scripture. It is nowhere condemned and many polygamists are approved of, including Abraham and Moses. That does not mean it is licit for us now of course
I'll stick by Scripture rather than the traditions of your denomination. What you say only seems to make sense if you throw over both Scripture and natural theology for unthinking devotion to teachings of the Roman Catholic church. But its harshness and apparent unnaturallness is making me less likely to want to be a Roman Catholic.
As I said on the other thread, if it really is the tradition of the RC church that masturbation is commiting the sin of adultery with oneself, then may God save us from the Roman Catholics.
quote:
IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
You still haven't addressed the question of whether the kind of sexual fantasy that is used in masturbation is, or is always, the same thing as the klnd of lust that Jesus condemns as adultery.
That seems like a rather pointless question, since whether the means are evil or not plays no role if the end is evil anyway.
It is far from pointless because you haven't shown that the end - pleasure - is evil.
I'm afraid that you have not said one word so far that contradicts the very common idea that the RC church is opposed to masturbation because it is opposed to sexual pleasure. And that it is opposed to sexual pleasure because it is controlled by celibate prioests who inevitably have to spend a lot of time and effort controlling their own sexual attractions in ways that don't really apply to the rest of us. It really is a hangover from the anti-sex ant-material-world Gnosticism of the early Middle Ages. Or if it isn't you have shown no reason why not.
If you could show that all sexual fanstasy was the sort of lust that is condemned than that would, I think, establish that Christians should think of masturbation as sinful.
quote:
IngoB: [QUOTE]Originally posted by ken:
[qb]So what do you say to those for whom there is no "one specific other person"? And what do you say to those for whom there cannot morally be "one specific other person" in the rules of your church, such as the Roman Catholic man I mentioned earlier?
Matthew 10:38-39. quote:
"he who does not take up his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me."
Are you claiming that refraining from masturbation or from sexual fantasy is part of Jesus's burden for that man? How can you possibly know that? How can you say that someone who masturbates is not "taking up the cross"?
The previous verse, as you know, is "He who loves father or mother above me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter above me is not worthy of me." But you aren't claiming that married people in general should abandon sex with their partners as part of Jesus's burden are you? Or that children should leave their parents or parents desert their children.
I'm sorry, this nonsense makes me angry. And I really do think that growing children and teenagers should be protected from it. Imagine the effect on a teenager who was persuaded that their natural sexual feeligns were sinful in this way, that masturbating was a rejection of Christ, that sexual fantasy was a refusal to "take up the cross". No wonder so many people hate the churches.
[QUOTE][qb]
My genitals (body) and my sexual pleasure (mind) were given to me precisely for having sex in marriage.
Yes, but...
quote:
If I use these means given to me by God for that end in some other way, this is sinful.
Why? That seems utterly illogical and unnatural.
Why should things - any things - have only one purpose?
Why is it sinful to use things for purposes other than their main - or even only - purpose?
Is it sinful to stand on a packing case? To use a spoon to change a bicycle tyre?
This seems such an un-natural idea of what sin is, as well as an un-Biblical one.
quote:
If I as a marrried man go to a prostitute, assuming I have plenty of money to spend and she is doing that out of her own free will without being exploited by others, what precisely is the problem with that? Neither of us thinks this is about "love", in the sense in which I love my wife. All I do is getting my genitals stimulated for sexual pleasure, and she is getting paid for the service she provides.
I can hardly believe you make the comparison. Get real!
How many married men would try to keep the fact that they masturbate secret from their wives? Very few, Effectively none I would guess. How many married men would try to keep the fact that they use prostitutes secret from their wives? Almost all.
How many married men would masturbate in the presence of their wives? At lweast some. Quite a few I suspect (and vice versa of course). How many married men would have sex with a prostitute in the presence of their wives? Probably none. If anyone ever did at all we would think it a great scandal and a perversion.
The two are simply incommensurable.
And the attempt at comparing them is nonsense. Of course you would be betraying your wife in that case. And of course the prostitute really is another human being despite the commercial transaction between you. Surely people don't go to a prostitute just to get their "genitals stimulated for sexual pleasure"? If that was all then they would simply masturbate. Cheaper, safer, easier, quicker. It can't be just for genital stimulation, any more than going to the pub is just for getting alcohol down you - if that was all you wanted you could buy a bottle cheap and drink it quickly. There has to be some element of social interaction in it, even iof it is only some weird pretence. It was you who said masturbation t was a more precise way of getting off. If it, as you seem to believe, is so good it will stop men from goign through the difficult process of having sex with their wives
And I still think its odd that you keep on coming back to genital stimulation as somehow the point of sex, and by implication the point of marriage. That seems very un-catholic to me. And even un-Christian.
[ 26. June 2007, 19:01: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
