tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post2547092507491830021..comments2024-03-21T04:02:46.799-07:00Comments on Little Catholic Bubble: My correspondence with a sex educator, Part IIILeila@LittleCatholicBubblehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comBlogger114125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-25943162365811388732011-03-17T09:14:22.221-07:002011-03-17T09:14:22.221-07:00Sharon, that is excellent! Thank you!! I miss Pedr...Sharon, that is excellent! Thank you!! I miss Pedro's presence here, and I sure do hope he will jump in and comment again! We were really having a great conversation!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-32376098818580378352011-03-17T04:36:42.548-07:002011-03-17T04:36:42.548-07:00Hi! Jumping in here, hoping Pedro sees this very ...Hi! Jumping in here, hoping Pedro sees this very late interjection, because of course I thought of Pedro this morning when I read this article (you never, ever know when another person might be thinking of you! :)<br /><br />http://www.insidecatholic.com/feature/in-which-we-deal-with-a-delicate-subject.html<br /><br />I thought this point in particular was interesting (although the fact is, adultery often enough has not the least to do with "love" of another person but has everything to do with self-love):<br /><br />"from the logic of divine charity and, in particular, the theology of the sacrament of marriage, the Church's teaching about the gravity of masturbation makes perfect sense. Indeed, I would note that it can (not must, but can) be argued that it is, in fact, graver than adultery. After all, which sin -- adultery or masturbation -- at least involves the disordered love of another person and so participates, to that degree, in divine love (albeit, I repeat, in a radically disordered way)? Answer: adultery. With masturbation, even disordered love of another person is totally excluded. It is a much more purely selfish sin, reducing the core act of marriage to something ordered completely toward one's own appetite with no love for any other human being involved at all."<br /><br />I appreciate the referral to "the core act of marriage" - I like the perspective it gives to the reality of masturbation.<br /><br />It's a long article and, like Leila's philosophy in her "please read first", you may not ever agree, but it will certainly explain WHY the Church holds this teaching on masturbation. And as always happens, the more I learn about her teachings, the more grateful I am to be Catholic!Sharonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-2465439277083036662011-03-04T23:49:41.161-07:002011-03-04T23:49:41.161-07:00But I really think you're wrong to assert that...<i>But I really think you're wrong to assert that masturbation is not part of our natural design. </i><br /><br />Masturbation is no more a part of our natural design than is punching someone in the face. (Though both may be tempting.)<br /><br /><i> Masturbation doesn’t harm a human’s reproductive potential. Sperm is as close to a renewable resource as a man’s got, and clitoral stimulation does not in any way negatively affect a woman’s ability to conceive. In fact, frequent ejaculation improves the fitness of a man’s sperm, and masturbation increases the likelihood that a woman will reach orgasm with a partner.</i><br /><br />True, and completely irrelevant as to whether or not the act is disordered. (Having an adulterous affair doesn't harm anyone's reproductive abilities, either, for example, but adultery is still not moral. Same with man/boy love.)<br /><br /><i>And you’ve got to at least admit that the design of the human body does nothing to discourage us from touching ourselves.</i><br /><br />The design of the human body does nothing to discourage us from punching people in the face, either. Or "cutting" ourselves (people use that as a stress reliever). <br /><br /><i>Our hands are adept at pleasuring our genitals, which are located conveniently within our arms’ reach. In fact, when I sit, my rest naturally in my lap; when I stand, they fall just below belt level.</i><br /><br />My baby puts his finger in his nose at the dinner table, because it fits in the hole perfectly. He thinks that's pretty neat. :) We teach him to control his actions and eventually he learns not to stick his finger (or peas, or pencils) up his nose.<br /><br />From your description, one might infer that the hand should be touching the genitals (masturbating?) when you are sitting naturally, or even standing. Why wait till you're alone, if your body was designed so that your hands are always near your genitals? Why not go with the design, if that's a legitimate point? In fact, perhaps the clothing you wear in public is an impediment to nature's design for your hands, since they are naturally in constant contact with your genital area.<br /><br />Now of course, there is a time and place for your hand to touch and hold your penis, but that would be for cleaning purposes, health exams and urination.<br /><br /><i>And if we’re going to talk about nature, it’s worth noting that masturbation happens across species, especially among animals that, like humans, can easily reach their genitals. </i><br /><br />Animals also eat their own poop, eat their own young, they attack and kill each other, etc. They do these things, not as a reasoned, moral choice, but because animals act on their instincts. They have no moral culpability for anything they do. We are not animals, we are humans, and we have the ability to reason, and to make moral choices.<br />Would you agree that humans are different from animals, morally, and that just because we are inclined or tempted to do something doesn't mean we should?<br /><br /><i>So it’s not some kind perversion that we wicked humans dreamed up. </i><br /><br />Actually, all sexual sin is a perversion, and has been around since the Fall. No one had to "dream up" any sin. Just because animals can do something, doesn't mean humans can. Animals kill each other. Would you argue that humans who kill each other are simply doing what comes naturally? Or would you say there is a higher standard for humans?<br /><br /><i>It also comes quite easily to us—so easily, in fact, that it happens to many teenaged boys in their sleep. When you say the human penis wasn’t designed to deposit semen just anywhere, well, the bedsheets of millions of 13-year-olds beg to differ.</i><br /><br />I'm glad you brought that up. An involuntary deposit of sperm is not a moral issue. There is no culpability involved in any involuntary act. Sin is an act of the will (it is voluntary). Our discussion is about <i>willful</i> masturbation.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-79441890980159794232011-03-04T23:47:48.340-07:002011-03-04T23:47:48.340-07:00Pedro, I said, “Sex is for union with another pers...Pedro, I said, “Sex is for union with another person. “<br /><br />You said, <i>I didn’t say sex. I said human sexuality. Because I agree that sex is meant for two people—and masturbation is meant for solitary pleasure. </i><br /><br />Quick clarification: Masturbation isn't "meant" for anything, because masturbation is not a morally licit act. I would say that masturbation is <b>used</b> for solitary pleasure, but not <b>meant</b> for solitary pleasure.<br /><br /><i>I think human sexuality has room for both. I guess that’s our most basic disagreement: I’m drawing a line between sex and masturbation, which I think are different activities, whereas you see masturbation as a debased form of sex. </i><br /><br />Yes, you are right that this is our basic disagreement. Catholics believe that there is a sexual faculty that is an integral part of each person. The sexual faculty can be used rightly or wrongly. Our use of our sexuality can be ordered or disordered. So, any sex act is part of the use (or misuse) of our sexuality.<br /><br /><i>Maybe we can come back to that later, or maybe it’s a fundamental, unbridgeable disagreement. </i><br /><br />Yeah, that one's a fundamental, unbridgeable disagreement.<br /><br />More to come....Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-68220949387473038542011-03-04T23:07:39.103-07:002011-03-04T23:07:39.103-07:00Pedro, you said:
No, I don't see animals as ...Pedro, you said: <br /><br />No, I don't see animals as objects. I see them as living creatures made by God, and we have a responsibility to treat them humanely. Because they are living creatures, we don't punch them. As for objects... I think it's moral to punch inanimate objects, unless we are damaging someone else's property, and then it becomes immoral.<br /><br /><i>Presumably, you would be against raping kittens for two reasons: a) that's also not what they're made for, and b) that's not what our sexuality was made for. Whereas only reason b applies to a blow-up doll. </i><br /><br />I would change say we don't rape kittens because that is animal abuse. And, yes, we were not made to have sex with animals, or they with us.<br />Yes, blow up dolls were made for men to have "sex" with, and while a blow-up doll is a morally neutral object, the man who designed it and manufactured it would be sinning, if he intended that inanimate object to be used for deviant sexual practices. But the blow-up doll has no moral culpability. :)<br /><br /><i>Though I don't grant them the subjectivity I grant humans*, I don't think animals are exactly objects, either. I guess this is how I'd formulate it: kittens (and other animals) are living creatures, and therefore they should be respected, and respecting them includes not raping them. </i><br /><br />Yes, we absolutely agree.<br /><br /><i>Respect for the living also includes not raping their remains after they're gone. So that's why I think we shouldn't rape dead people (or dead animals).</i><br /><br />Well of course I do agree with that, as a Catholic. However, what if the dead person gave permission for his/her body to be raped after death? That would not be disrespectful, it would be fulfilling a dying wish of a loved one. So, in that case, if the person gave consent before death, would it be immoral to have sex with the dead body? If so, on what grounds?<br /><br /><i>*I admit there is some arbitrariness in my granting animals less subjectivity than humans, and that (conveniently) allows me to do some things to animals that I wouldn't do to humans. Like eat them. But that inconsistency is better framed as an argument for veganism than one against prohibitions on raping animals.</i><br /><br />Actually, I would not say that granting animals a lower moral status than humans is wrong. It is right of you to do so. Animals <i>do</i> have a lower moral status than humans. People instinctively know this truth, and that is why even sensitive people eat animals. <br /><br />More to come....Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-15975712929290009452011-03-04T14:15:05.401-07:002011-03-04T14:15:05.401-07:00I got the comment out of spam jail, Pedro! And, I ...I got the comment out of spam jail, Pedro! And, I will be back to address your points just as soon as possible. :)Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-60713902446362745052011-03-04T12:40:51.295-07:002011-03-04T12:40:51.295-07:00Oh, man. I wrote another long post, but I think i...Oh, man. I wrote another long post, but I think it disappeared. Maybe it's just trapped somewhere?Pedrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18379304504376414161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-45777404327830938762011-03-04T12:22:54.664-07:002011-03-04T12:22:54.664-07:00Back to the main(?) discussion:
Leila, regarding ...Back to the main(?) discussion:<br /><br />Leila, regarding points 1 & 2, we don’t have to go into for instances, because it sounds like we agree more or less. But let’s look at your answer for point 3.<br /><br />“Sex is for union with another person. “<br /><br />I didn’t say sex. I said human sexuality. Because I agree that sex is meant for two people—and masturbation is meant for solitary pleasure. I think human sexuality has room for both. I guess that’s our most basic disagreement: I’m drawing a line between sex and masturbation, which I think are different activities, whereas you see masturbation as a debased form of sex. <br /><br />Maybe we can come back to that later, or maybe it’s a fundamental, unbridgeable disagreement. But I really think you're wrong to assert that masturbation is not part of our natural design. In fact, I think biology does more to disprove your point than to prove it. <br /><br />To wit: Masturbation doesn’t harm a human’s reproductive potential. Sperm is as close to a renewable resource as a man’s got, and clitoral stimulation does not in any way negatively affect a woman’s ability to conceive. In fact, frequent ejaculation improves the fitness of a man’s sperm, and masturbation increases the likelihood that a woman will reach orgasm with a partner.<br /> <br />And you’ve got to at least admit that the design of the human body does nothing to discourage us from touching ourselves. Our hands are adept at pleasuring our genitals, which are located conveniently within our arms’ reach. In fact, when I sit, my rest naturally in my lap; when I stand, they fall just below belt level. <br /><br />And if we’re going to talk about nature, it’s worth noting that masturbation happens across species, especially among animals that, like humans, can easily reach their genitals. So it’s not some kind perversion that we wicked humans dreamed up. It also comes quite easily to us—so easily, in fact, that it happens to many teenaged boys in their sleep. When you say the human penis wasn’t designed to deposit semen just anywhere, well, the bedsheets of millions of 13-year-olds beg to differ.<br /> <br />That leaves two objections: the first is the question of oxytocin brought up by Sharon and Nubby. I still haven’t read the book they mention so, I can’t comment on his specific points. Nubby provided this quote:<br /><br />"People who have misused their sexual faculty and become bonded to multiple persons will diminish the power of oxytocin to maintain a permanent bond with an individual. Oxytocin is vital to helping a mother bond w/ her infant during breast feeding. It is also released during sex, so the more it's used, the less the power to bond w/ a person."<br /><br />I’d be interested to read the study cited*. I want to know if the authors have actual research that suggests that frequent orgasms harm a person’s ability to bond with a future spouse, or if they're speculating based on oxytocin’s role in human bonding. I WILL say, though, that we can get oxytocin several ways, including receiving a massage or eating chocolate. I’ve never heard anyone suggest that chocoholics have trouble forming relationships.<br /><br />The second is your point that people tend to think of other people when they masturbate. That's interesting, and it ties into our disagreement that I mentioned at the beginning of this post. Again, I think that fantasizing about an act is different than doing it. Not a debased form of doing it, but a separate act. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />*That quote already sends up some red flags. For example, the phrase "people who have misused their sexual faculty" suggests a clear bias, and the "will" in the first sentence indicates a certitude that I doubt the authors can legitimately claim.Pedrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18379304504376414161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-47179214386069690652011-03-04T11:54:24.764-07:002011-03-04T11:54:24.764-07:00Hi, Leila and Sharon! It took me awhile, but I ma...Hi, Leila and Sharon! It took me awhile, but I made it back before this post dropped off the first page!<br /><br />I'll start with the animal and the dead body. I think, judging by your response about punching kittens, that you see animals as objects--we don't punch them because that's not what they're made for, you said. Presumably, you would be against raping kittens for two reasons: a) that's also not what they're made for, and b) that's not what our sexuality was made for. Whereas only reason b applies to a blow-up doll. <br /><br />Though I don't grant them the subjectivity I grant humans*, I don't think animals are exactly objects, either. I guess this is how I'd formulate it: kittens (and other animals) are living creatures, and therefore they should be respected, and respecting them includes not raping them. <br /><br />Respect for the living also includes not raping their remains after they're gone. So that's why I think we shouldn't rape dead people (or dead animals).<br /><br />*I admit there is some arbitrariness in my granting animals less subjectivity than humans, and that (conveniently) allows me to do some things to animals that I wouldn't do to humans. Like eat them. But that inconsistency is better framed as an argument for veganism than one against prohibitions on raping animals.Pedrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18379304504376414161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-25526729338854642532011-02-24T14:58:24.225-07:002011-02-24T14:58:24.225-07:00I'll check back next week, Pedro. I hope you...I'll check back next week, Pedro. I hope you take a look at the Theology of the Body some time. Jason Evert's books are great (thanks, Nubby, for quoting him!) You'll find answers to a lot of your questions about Catholic teaching on sexuality. I really appreciate the fact that you are asking questions as well as giving your perspective, because so many times people who criticize Church teaching have no idea what that teaching is, and see no reason to find out. And that includes a lot of Catholics!Sharonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-88626944470446264412011-02-23T10:17:33.824-07:002011-02-23T10:17:33.824-07:00Pedro, absolutely! I have no problem taking things...Pedro, absolutely! I have no problem taking things at a leisurely pace. I can even get some laundry done!<br /><br />Good luck with the presentation!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-45854255692620133012011-02-23T05:55:13.399-07:002011-02-23T05:55:13.399-07:00Hi again, Leila. And thanks for your patience wit...Hi again, Leila. And thanks for your patience with these posts. I’m sure you’ve answered these objections before, but these are questions I’ve always wanted to raise with natural law folks and the conversation rarely gets this far. <br /><br />I've got a lot to write and think about: the animal/dead body question, the tree vs. the blow-up doll, and your last response, especially to point #3. But I've got a conference presentation this weekend and I've got to take a break. I hope you (and Sharon, and Nubby anyone else) will be willing to talk next week?Pedrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18379304504376414161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-332386498043821882011-02-22T13:58:58.155-07:002011-02-22T13:58:58.155-07:001. You believe things (including parts of our bodi...<i>1. You believe things (including parts of our bodies) are designed for specific, limited purposes AND that we are capable of discerning all of those purposes.</i><br /><br />Not necessarily. I would need more specifics. It depends on the thing, or the body part. But I do think everything has a "nature" and we ask, "What is the nature of a thing." Things definitely work best and thrive when they are used as their creator designed them to work. (Whether a human creator or a Divine One.)<br /><br /><i>2.You believe that it’s wrong to use things (including parts of our bodies) for purposes other than the ones for which they were designed. It doesn’t matter to you if we *can* use things for other purposes—the fact for you is we *should* not, because that “gets us into all sorts of trouble”.</i><br /><br />Again, not necessarily... you'd have to give me specifics. For example, I can use my hand to mix scrambled eggs, and that would work and not be immoral, but it would be better to use a fork or a mixer. But if I use a fork to work on a light socket... not a good idea. So, you really need to look at each object or body part and let analyze that way. So, give me a for instance.<br /><br /><i>3.You’re positive that the nature of human sexuality does not include self-pleasure.</i><br /><br />Yes. Sex is for union with another person. It's about giving and receiving. This "law" is written into the very design and nature of our male/female bodies. Sexual activity was not designed to be a selfish, solitary act. Love never is selfish, and it is never solitary. I will stop there, but my answer is "yes".Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-28844391067302844712011-02-22T13:08:57.994-07:002011-02-22T13:08:57.994-07:00Pedro, Hi! I have to first comment on the blow-up ...Pedro, Hi! I have to first comment on the blow-up doll vs. the tree. I think the blow-up doll is less dehumanizing, because as disordered as that is, at least there is a pretense of being with another person! :)<br /><br />Let's specifically discuss the vibrator. An inanimate object is morally neutral. It's what a person chooses to do with an object that is the moral component. So, a vibrator is morally neutral. Sex toys, including vibrators, can be legitimately used during sex between married persons (as long as the "end" of sex is carried out in the proper, normal way... i.e., genital union of spouses, with sperm deposited in the vagina). <br /><br />If a vibrator is used morally (i.e., between spouses during married sex, or even for neck pain or occupational therapy on other parts of the body like the neck, back, arms), then there is nothing wrong with using it. You can use it for moral means. If I were to use a vibrator in a way that it was not designed (say, as a doorstop or a clothes hanger, for example), then things don't "thrive" as they should, because you are using it for a disordered use. It doesn't work so well.<br /><br />Now, if the motives of a manufacturer are to do something immoral (like someone producing chemical weapons of mass destruction), the product might work very well as designed, but the use of it would be immoral. <br /><br />That may have answered more than you asked, but I hope you can see distinctions there.<br /><br />Will answer your numbered points next....Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-90084841156464416492011-02-22T12:13:18.848-07:002011-02-22T12:13:18.848-07:00Sharon: thanks for the comment. I know I've go...Sharon: thanks for the comment. I know I've got to get to the other thread, but I've got to do other, non-internet-related things today, too. I'll try to find time, because I definitely think these conversations are important. Also, I'm thinking about your idea of dehumanization, because to me it seems more dehumanizing to use a blow-up doll than a tree (and I have to emphasize that the tree is a hypothetical!!! I can't think of any good reason to masturbate with a tree!!!). I have to think about why; right now, I don't know how to respond.<br /><br />Leila: Wait! Let’s look again at that chewing gum comparison. You’re right, a person chewing gum is using an object (gum) according to its nature. But then so is a person masturbating with a vibrator or a blow-up doll.<br />You disapprove of that, because you think the masturbator is misusing his/her body. It doesn’t matter that they’re using the object as it was intended, right?<br /><br />Well, the same is true with gum, if we stick with the eating/sex analogy. The nature of chewing and tasting is tied to the virtuous purpose of extracting nutrients to fuel the body. As with sex, the pleasure of the action should not be separated from its virtue. To do so would be disordered, right?<br /><br />I might revisit the punching bag example later, but for now I want to make sure I've got the gist of what you're saying. Tell me if I’ve got all this right:<br /><br />1. You believe things (including parts of our bodies) are designed for specific, limited purposes AND that we are capable of discerning all of those purposes.<br /><br />2.You believe that it’s wrong to use things (including parts of our bodies) for purposes other than the ones for which they were designed. It doesn’t matter to you if we *can* use things for other purposes—the fact for you is we *should* not, because that “gets us into all sorts of trouble”.<br /><br />3.You’re positive that the nature of human sexuality does not include self-pleasure.<br /><br />I have issues with all three of those points, but I want to make sure I’m presenting them correctly before I write more. Have I got it?Pedrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18379304504376414161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-4431524985841566872011-02-22T05:19:01.778-07:002011-02-22T05:19:01.778-07:00Hi Pedro,
I understand there is a very active dis...Hi Pedro,<br /><br />I understand there is a very active discussion going on in Leila's Planned Parenthood post and hope you're getting to join in! With 142 comments already as of yesterday, I just know I don't have time to delve into it all, but I am praying for the participants.<br /><br />I just wanted to make a quick comment about your post, even if the discussion has moved on! :) For one, I see of course the difference between "sex" and "having sex with X". Actually, I had been thinking all along that masturbation, to me, is not sex, but would more accurately be called "sexual genital activity". But I figured I was just using a more narrow definition of sex. While the man couldn't be said to have had sex with a tree, he sure would seem on the outside to be trying. And I do believe that the hypothetical man in the tree example would certainly want to avoid parks or any place where his behavior could become public knowledge, because that man's behavior would be considered deviant even by most people with 21st century sexual sensibilities. I think most people would see that man as having behaved in a dehumanizing way, even if they wouldn't put it in those words.<br /><br />I would also say that your choices reflect more concern for yourself and others than many, many other men bother to exhibit. You did make disaster less likely.<br /><br />God bless and as I said, I'm praying for the discussion about Planned Parenthood!Sharonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-39983850848353604612011-02-20T23:52:50.181-07:002011-02-20T23:52:50.181-07:00Pedro, yes, there is quite a discussion going on o...Pedro, yes, there is quite a discussion going on on the PP post! I hope you might go over and even say a few encouraging words to "college student". Even though you are a bit liberal on the sexual issues, I think you would agree with the rest of us that the guys she is thinking of giving in to are dirtbags!!! Talk her out of it! <br /><br />Okay, so maybe I can start here: Natural Law (or, the way God designed things) says that things thrive when they are used according to their nature. So, we ask, "What is the nature of a thing?" The nature of a punching bag is to be punched. It's what it is made for, designed for. A kitten, by contrast, is not made to be punched.<br /><br />What is the nature of sex? What is the nature of a penis? When you investigate, you will see that the <i>nature</i> of sex is not to be solitary. It is designed for two. That is why there is a penis on a man, and a vagina on a woman. The penis was "made for" a vagina. That is the function of a penis, sexually. A penis was not designed to go just anywhere (hand, hole, animal, dead body) and release its contents anywhere. There is a purpose and design to sex and the human body. It's a beautiful design and when we mess with it, we get into all sorts of trouble. :)<br /><br />You are right that there is no legitimate "union" with a hand or a hole or a tree. That's because true <i>union</i> can only happen with another person, and one who is made for that union (so, man can only have true sexual union with woman). In its essence, sex is for the union and bonding and love of two people. Sex was not designed to be a solitary act, though some ( erroneously) use sexuality that way. One can "have sex" with a tree, but one cannot have "union" with a tree. There is a distinction there.<br /><br />If you and I stipulate that all humans have equal dignity, then we don't have to go into any atheist arguments. I feel satisfied that we agree on that. :)<br /><br />Now, you still haven't answered why someone couldn't, under your philosophy of sex, morally have sex with a dead body or an animal. <br /><br />And as for your "God's design for punching" question, it's not a proper analogy. Our sexuality is an <i>essential</i> part of our humanity. My femininity and your masculinity are inherent, written into our very beings. Punching and kicking? Not so much. Now, if you want to ask what the design for a hand is, then I can tell you about the nature of a hand.<br /><br />But keep in mind: The nature of human sexuality is so different from any other function, because it is the way that we transmit human life itself. That is on a whole different plane of importance and sacredness than "what is the nature of a hand" (even though hands are wonderful and important in their own right).<br /><br />As to the oreo/Coke Zero analogy. I would say that if you are ingesting those items and putting them in the place they would naturally go when ingesting, then you are okay, natural law-wise. The nature of Coke Zero is a beverage, no matter how weak or non-nutritional, and beverages are designed to go down the gullet and into the tummy.<br /><br />Gum, on the other hand, was designed to be chewed only. If you swallow gum, you are going against the nature of the thing. So, gum and Coke Zero are not comparable here. (Unless there is gum which is also designed to be eaten, and then I refer you back to what I said about Coke Zero.)<br /><br />I am very glad that you are willing to state clearly your belief that abortion takes a human life. That is wonderful to hear!<br /><br />Blessings!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-61421141905023110632011-02-20T20:40:26.545-07:002011-02-20T20:40:26.545-07:00Leila,
I see why you object to the oreo analogy: e...Leila,<br />I see why you object to the oreo analogy: eating oreos still provides calories, even if they’re worthless calories. But I’m not going to let you go with the bulimia comparison either, because I can think of two other analogies that are at least as apt.<br /><br />First, the more neutral one: masturbation is like drinking Coke Zero. Or chewing bubble gum. <br /><br />Second, the more positive one: masturbation is like eating some oreos and then going on a run to burn them off. The result is the same as purposefully vomiting—you get the pleasure of the oreos without gaining any (net) calories. But, unlike vomiting, running and masturbation both provide physical and mental health benefits. See, for example:<br />http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,401722,00.html<br /><br /> Now back to the questions, not in order:<br /><br />“If a tree or hole in the wall is okay for sex, then what about an animal? Or, a dead body? If not, why not?”<br /><br />Forgive me for answering your questions with questions, but: is it okay for me to kick or punch a punching bag? Could there be a good reason to do so? <br /><br />If so, is it okay for me to kick or punch a kitten? <br /><br />If the answer is no, do we need to explain the difference in the situations by invoking “God’s plan for kicking and punching”? <br /><br />Actually, as an interesting follow up, let me push you on your natural law beliefs. Do you think God has a divine plan for fighting? Do you think there are ordered and disordered ways for us to use our hands and feet to punch and kick? If so, where would you categorize punching a punching bag? Why would it not be subject to the same judgment as masturbation? <br /><br />“you are against your son having sex with a tree in a city park or a hole near your neighbor’s house… but why?”<br /><br />First, we need to clear up some terminology, even though I may have been the one who introduced the confusion. You can’t “have sex with” an object, for the same reason you can’t “get into a fight with” a punching bag. “Having sex with X” requires reciprocal subjectivity. At the very least that means X’s consent (I would argue it requires more, though). Masturbation, on the other hand, means pleasuring yourself. You might use an object to do that, but a woman masturbating with a vibrator is not “having sex with” that vibrator. And there is no “union” between a man and a hole or a tree. So maybe that will alleviate some of Sharon’s revulsion.<br /><br />That points to my answer for this question. You don’t masturbate where it would affect your neighbors because you recognize that, unlike a hole in the wall or a tree in the woods, they are human beings equal in dignity to you, and they have a right not to come across you naked in a park humping a publicly-owned tree. <br /><br />I know this leads to your biggest question, which is why do I think people are equal in dignity? Personally, I believe in the sanctity of life, which (most days) I believe comes from life’s divine origin. But atheists have been wrestling with the question of why to behave ethically for centuries, and they’ve come up with some pretty compelling arguments. I just don’t have the energy to make their arguments for them right now.<br /><br />Your other question, about what I would teach my kids, is a great one, and I’ll have to think about it overnight. Also, regarding your last post: I think abortion takes a human life, and if I were in charge of sex education I would tell my students that, maybe before I said anything else. <br /><br />Sharon, I know I owe you a response. Also, Leila, I see you have another good conversation going, and hopefully I'll get time to check it out in the next day or so.<br /><br />PedroPedrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18379304504376414161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-75088268309466678272011-02-20T15:24:44.385-07:002011-02-20T15:24:44.385-07:00Pedro, you said: "Even if the risk of hurting...Pedro, you said: "Even if the risk of hurting someone while driving drunk is small, the consequences would be unbearable. So one doesn't drive drunk, period. At almost 19, having a baby would have rearranged my priorities, but wouldn't have been a tragedy."<br /><br />But Pedro, there are myriad others who did just what you did sexually at 19, took precautions, got pregnant anyway, and aborted the baby. For that baby (those many babies), "the consequences are unbearable."Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-50050699705052813272011-02-20T15:19:30.577-07:002011-02-20T15:19:30.577-07:00Sharon, thank you. You covered many points that I ...Sharon, thank you. You covered many points that I didn't. I think you are right on, and I am interested to hear Pedro's response.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-1292487672116225032011-02-20T03:28:44.991-07:002011-02-20T03:28:44.991-07:00Hi Pedro,
The drunk driving analogy works, I thin...Hi Pedro,<br /><br />The drunk driving analogy works, I think, because for one thing, if everyone who drove drunk got in a serious accident, it is much less likely that people would drive drunk. But people get behind the wheel after drinking and, if they are still able to think well at all, choose to drive drunk because they know that not everyone who does so will get in an accident. And most people don't on any given night. Sex outside of marriage is risky, both for the people involved and for society. But people are willing to take the risk because maybe nothing will happen, and they can hold up people like you as an example. (The author of that book I mentioned inadvertently gave a tip on "safe" drunk driving, by the way, when she mentioned that to reduce blurred vision she would cover one eye. Worked for her. Maybe it would have helped if other drunk drivers had done the same.)<br /><br />You made what you believed were responsible choices, and maybe if you had had a baby at 18 or 19 it would have turned out fine, even though that, also, turns out poorly for many (most? I'd have to look it up) of the people who give it a try. But, it is true, some people get married at 18 or 19 and their marriages make it, and that is the spark of hope that is in the heart of every couple that age that walks down the aisle.<br /><br />You think that the use of condoms would be widespread if the message of society was, "use them or don't have sex". I would think that that message is already being tried and isn't working, but it is true that it is up to the couple. If they don't use condoms because they don't like them, or just don't happen to have any, then they are taking more of a risk than you did.... unless you had gotten one of condoms that Joyelyn Elders allowed the distribution of in Arkansas, even though she knew they were defective. She is a glaring example of a cold-hearted liberal, one who was perfectly acceptable to the man who appointed her. But if you didn't know that the condoms were defective, you would have been at risk using them. And since you didn't say that everyone should 1.) use condoms and 2.) be in a relationship that could be expected to lead to a successful marriage, just in case and 3.) be in a relationship with a virgin to reduce the chances that your partner already has an STD, just in case - well, you really haven't covered enough bases. I am willing to agree, though, that you yourself made efforts to reduce the risk in your personal life, and it turned out ok for you... in terms of worldly results.<br /><br />Except for.... the tree... You completely lose me there. What a very sad example. I can't help being just sad for someone who was so desperate for pleasure of any kind that he would unite his body with a tree... I hope that in your heart of hearts you can recognize how dehumanizing that is.<br /><br />But... if anything goes... why not?<br /><br />I have to conclude, Pedro, that given God's advice, and given Jocelyn Elders' advice, and given your advice, the one who really cares about my dignity as a human being... is God. You sound like a pleasant guy, and I'm glad you have not had to suffer in the ways you could have suffered, and I am glad children have not suffered because of your choices. But... the tree... Your line of thought leads to despair, Pedro. The despair of a human being who realizes he has united himself to a tree.Sharonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-1214326910119405612011-02-19T17:04:22.618-07:002011-02-19T17:04:22.618-07:00Hi Pedro! I appreciate the friendly spirit in whic...Hi Pedro! I appreciate the friendly spirit in which you dialogue!<br /><br />I think, first of all, that the proper food/sex analogy would not be healthy food vs. oreos, but rather proper eating vs. bulimia. <br /><br />As for my questions, I just like to walk you down the path of logical consequences, and so far you are very consistent in your belief system, so at least you have integrity (even though I think you are wrong). Let me keep going down the path, though:<br /><br />1) Would you counsel your own son that having sex with a tree or other inanimate object is a moral choice for him, should he feel the urge?<br /><br />2) If a tree or hole in the wall is okay for sex, then what about an animal? Or, a dead body? If not, why not?<br /><br />3) You are against your son having sex with a tree in a city park or a hole near your neighbor's house... but why? Is there a moral consideration? Or is it simply a social convention, or a matter of law? I'm trying to figure out why the morality of a teen having sex with a tree in the woods vs. in a park is anything other than arbitrary (morally speaking). <br /><br />Thanks!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-42368506165086587012011-02-19T16:46:55.965-07:002011-02-19T16:46:55.965-07:00Sharon, one of the points I'm trying to make i...Sharon, one of the points I'm trying to make is that it wasn't luck, and that my behavior wasn't very risky. That's why I made the parallel with gun safety education. When teaching people how to use guns, you don't just say "accidents happen." You say that accidents happen for reasons, and that they are preventable, and you show how to prevent them. <br /><br />I also want to re-emphasize that I didn't take any actions whose consequences I couldn't stomach. That's why your drunk driving analogy doesn't work. Even if the risk of hurting someone while driving drunk is small, the consequences would be unbearable. So one doesn't drive drunk, period. At almost 19, having a baby would have rearranged my priorities, but wouldn't have been a tragedy.<br /><br />You also said of masturbation: “But did you ever end a session thinking, "Wow! That was great sex!"” No*. But, since sex often gets compared to eating, let me make an analogy: I looooooove a full, healthy, balanced multi-course meal, lovingly planned and prepared and served with good conversation and a moderate amount of wine. I also sometimes pig out on oreos. The two don’t cancel each other out. <br /><br />(Note: I’m not talking about pigging out on oreos BEFORE the big family meal, which would obviously be a mistake)<br /> <br />Nubby, thanks for clarifying the Catholic position on sexuality. I didn't mean to imply that y'all are anti-pleasure. I have some problems with the stance you outline, but I DO want to make clear that I think following Catholic doctrine on sexuality will lead to happiness, healthiness and responsibility. I just don't think it's the only path to happiness, healthiness, or responsibility. <br /><br />I'll have to think about the oxytocin stuff.<br /><br />Leila, I'm really curious where you're going with these questions! Okay, it doesn't sound fun, but yeah, I think it's okay to do it with a hole in the wall, a tree, etc. The caveat is that it's done responsibly, ie. the hole in the wall doesn't lead to a neighbor's apartment, and the tree is somewhere deep in the woods and not in a city park or something.<br /> <br />*Although I have sometimes thought, “Wow! I needed that!”Pedrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18379304504376414161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-45150625191266834172011-02-19T03:08:24.094-07:002011-02-19T03:08:24.094-07:00If you'll pardon a long list of comments from ...If you'll pardon a long list of comments from me, I also would like to comment on Pedro's and miss g's experiences, where your sex lives were not in conformity with what the Church teaches as the ideal, yet you feel that there have been no apparent negative consequences in your lives. I think you might be able to see that you were among the lucky ones, not having to suffer from STD's, seriously broken hearts (at least not your own), unwed pregnancy or abortion. But there are always examples of people who have made risky choices and not had to suffer from them. I just finished reading a book by an alcoholic, and in spite of years of seriously drunk driving, she never had a car accident, never killed anyone. So - sometimes drunk driving turns out ok, right? You may not like the comparison, but I think it is a comparison worth making. You were willing to take the negative risks of sex outside of marriage, and lucky for you and some other people, you apparently didn't get burned, even though so many other people have. My point is, the fact that you were (by the grace of God, one might say) spared what other people were not spared, does not make you proof that sex outside of marriage - or drunk driving, for that matter - really isn't so bad.<br /><br />And finally, I think my points to Pedro and miss g could also be applied to Leila. Unless I read wrong (and I often do!), you also experienced consequences-free sex outside of marriage. It was fun for you as a teen, and no one got hurt. Doesn't exactly make you a poster child for abstinence, does it! :) So - what changed your mind?<br /><br />And finally (I really mean it this time), I want to point out that, if there really is a God, and if he made us out of love, and if he really tries to tell us what is best for us, and if he has never been understood to condone sex outside of marriage but warns against it, and if he loves us and wants to be with us always, and if disobeying him actually reduces our bond with him - then to me, that disobedience is the greatest tragedy of all. You know, all that we did to Jesus in his passion and death was so much less than what he allowed to happen to himself when he took on our sins. By taking on our sins, from the seemingly most benign to the most thoroughly revolting, he separated himself from his Father. Because, in varying degrees, that's what sin does. And I believe that that was by far the worst thing that he experienced in all that occurred on Holy Thursday and Good Friday. And I suspect that that truth has something to do with Leila's change of heart!Sharonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-39325219913048995072011-02-19T03:05:42.316-07:002011-02-19T03:05:42.316-07:00I happened to stumble across this blog last night ...I happened to stumble across this blog last night and have been reading all of the comments. Leila, your letter to the sex educator is beautiful. I pray that it touched her heart, and that your points were able to get through. The thinking she expressed in her own letter is pervasive and it could take time for her to consider all you had to say. Since she sincerely wants to help people, my bet is that she gave long thought to all of your points.<br /><br />I do have a couple of questions from what I've read above. I had wanted to ask Pedro about masturbation. Pleasurable, right? But did you ever end a session thinking, "Wow! That was great sex!" It may have felt great, but wasn't it such a poor substitute for the real thing? Ultimately, I believe that every sexual act outside of marriage is a poor substitute for the real thing. Jason Evert (through JPII!) expresses so well that our very bodies show the purpose of their design (union and procreation), and the fact that even the hormones produced during sex enhance bonding shows how well we are designed for the proper use of sex.<br /><br />(I do use the oxytocin example with my son who at 13 is already heading down the road of the world in his attitude toward sex. I pointed out how important that wonderful bonding is for the couple, but most especially for the well-being of the children they produce. If that bond is repeatedly made and broken, it certainly is weakened, and the chances for his own happiness in marriage, and far more importantly the happiness of his children, would repeatedly be reduced. To me, it is a very strong argument for chastity. Are teens, who just want to have fun, better off for the reduced ability to bond?)<br /><br />My post was too long, so I had to split it up. To be continued...!Sharonnoreply@blogger.com