Les: And here I thought Catholics were uptight about their sexuality.

What on earth would make someone think that?  Catholics have some of the highest birth-rates in the world; where the heck do you think all those babies come from?

Let’s see what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say on the matter:

“The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude.“

“The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit.  Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment.“

In what sense are Catholics uptight about sex?

In what sense are Catholics uptight about sex?

For the semantically-confused, people can have sex while at the same time feel uptight about doing so.  Especially when the people in question (i.e. Catholics) seem to view sex as a duty, not something to be enjoyed. Are you familiar with the old phrase “Lay still and think of England?“ I know many Victorian Brits weren’t Catholic, but it’s the same principal.

You quote the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” (though you quite tellingly provide no link); yet do you honestly believe that the “pleasure” described therein is refering to sex without the intention of procreating? You’re not fooling me.

Why else would Catholic dogma prohibit birth control and other methods of reproductive choice (not to mention any alternative sexualities)? Oh, maybe it’s because the church views sex as purely about procreation, a view which I personally find to be quite deluded and misogynistic (not to mention outdated).

As far as I can tell, overpopulating an already overpopulated planet is (by and large) a symptom of defining sexuality in binding, duty-laden terms that are usually inspired by religious dogma. And what institution in the Western world has more experience manufacturing religious dogma than the Catholic church?

Although Islam has given Catholicism a run for its money…

*And speaking of Islam (while returning to the topic at hand), I may be wrong, but don’t many Muslims consider certain garments to be sacrosanct? If so, wouldn’t semen and other bodily fluids exchanged while fucking “soil” such clothing were it not to be removed? On the other hand, maybe “non-sacred” clothing is worn for the purpose of intercourse.

Actually, historically the Catholic church was anti-nudity.  During the middle-ages people didn’t bathe, not because they had no notion of bathing, it was that the church said it was sinful to be naked.  So while Catholics now can go full monty without fear for their souls, that wasn’t always the case.

As for your choice, I would choose maintaining my heathenism as well.  In the words of the Dead Kennedys, kinky sex makes the world go ‘round.

This is a related article. There are a number of differences in opinion about what muslims can and cannot do in bed, and it also depends whether you are Shia or Sunni Muslim, for example.

Of course some Muslims are uptight about sex.  The Ayatollah Khomeini himself (in “The Political, Social, Philosophical and Religious Principles of Ayatollah Khomeini.“), said that it was improper to eat a chicken you have had sex with, or to let your neighbor eat it.  The neighbor two doors down, however, may eat it with impunity.

I got this useful tidbit of information from Reading Lolita in Teheran, by Azar Nafisi.  Highly recommended.

Just goes to show you that religion isn’t really about anyone’s soul - it is, and always has been - simply about social control.  Fundamental religion - of any stripe - is generally more concerned with keeping the faithful in line rather than keeping the faith. 

I’m with Les - let us heathen monkeys get busy while those other kooky monkeys worry about what sheet to hide under before they fuck.

Just goes to show you that religion isn’t really about anyone’s soul - it is, and always has been - simply about social control. 

Right on. No wonder the Establishment loves organized religion so much. It loves anything that produces obedient little sheep.

In the words of the Dead Kennedys, kinky sex makes the world go ‘round.

That it does.

I too am a proud heathen. At least it allows me to enjoy my life.

Darling, a true lady takes off her dignity with her clothes and does her whorish best. At other times you can be as modest and dignified as your persona requires.

Time Enough For Love
by R.A. Heinlein

Sexy Sadie: You quote the “Catechism of the Catholic Church� (though you quite tellingly provide no link)

I’m sorry.  I assumed that anyone who could type “Catechism of the Catholic Churchâ€? in their forum response would instead just type it into google and click on one of the 512,000 results.

Here you go. 

Why else would Catholic dogma prohibit birth control and other methods of reproductive choice?

Because unlike your typical “I can do anything I want without consequences!!“ liberal, the Catholic Church actually wants to help people.  Birth control will inevitably lead to unplanned pregnancies and venereal diseases.  These are widely regarded as bad things.

Condoms are the liberal answer to every question about sex.  “Be safe and have fun!!“  Guess what isn’t so fun: herpes.  Guess what else: AIDS.  Guess what else: single motherhood.

In actual use, a sexually active woman relying on male condoms will have about a 12% chance of getting pregnant every year.  That means she has about 50-50 odds of being pregnant after just four years of sexual activity.  Now what?  Where’s the father?  Will she even know who the father is?  It’s terribly irresponsible to have a child without a father.. Maybe we should just kill the baby off?

What a fine choice the condom culture has given this young woman: Single motherhood?  Or infanticide?  Decisions, decisions.  Young lady, do you feel empowered yet?

By the way, if you happen to get HIV in the process of being sexually “empowered”, the liberals will feel your plight.  They will demand easier access to the same condoms which failed to protect you.

Don’t forget the diseases like herpes, trichomoniasis, chlamydia, and HPV which only abstinence can protect you from.  The response of the Condom Crowd: stare at the ground and mutter “Ummm, living with herpes or the clap is not so bad, ok..?  And HPV isn’t guaranteed to give you cervical cancer, it only increases your risk.  Be safe and have fun…?“

Meanwhile, the Catholics advocate abstinence until marriage—a method which offers 100% protection from single motherhood and disease.  Because of this, you regard them as “uptight” and “outdated”.

Oh, maybe it’s because the church views sex as purely about procreation, a view which I personally find to be quite deluded and misogynistic (not to mention outdated).

Yes, it’s terribly mysogynistic to protect young women from boys and men who would be only to happy to use them for sexual pleasure and walk away.

If a woman demands a lifelong commitment from a man before bearing children, liberals call that “uptight” or maybe even “frigid”.  Instead, a young woman should be pressured to provide sexual pleasure to men; then liberals will label her “liberated” or “empowered”.

Without wanting to wade into what will be very hypocritical ground for me, I enter for corrective purposes only:

Sexy Sadie said: Oh, maybe it’s because the church views sex as purely about procreation, a view which I personally find to be quite deluded and misogynistic (not to mention outdated).

The Church does not view sex as purely procreative.  Sex, according the Church has a dual purpose. It is viewed as unitive and procreative.  Unitive meaning the power of sexual intercourse to strenghten the bond of love between a man and a woman. 

I do wonder how you arrived at this conclusion:

Especially when the people in question (i.e. Catholics) seem to view sex as…not something to be enjoyed.

What is the basis for this statement?

Daryl Cantrell as always throwing out his little troll hook and seeing who he can reel in with his ridiculous misguided statements - 12% chance per year of pregnancy per year using condoms? - bullshit.Please supply your proof.Ive heard from many sources over many years that condoms prevent Vds,Aids and pregnancy,98% of the time.Its because of people like you that Aids has such a strangle hold on Africa
And Zilch - LOL!..crack me up as always!

It’s been proven repeatedly, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that condom use goes a long way in preventing AIDS. This fact is simply common sense. Anyone who argues against it clearly has their own delusional agenda.

Time to get really personal: I have been on the Pill for many years, but whenever I fuck, I still have him use a condom. I know that John doesn’t have STDs, but I still want to be completely safe. This has worked great for me, since I don’t believe in abstinence and I’m never having children.

Guess what isn’t so fun: herpes.

Speaking from experience are we, Daryl?

Daryl reminds me of the guy on the left.

Me: Especially when the people in question (i.e. Catholics) seem to view sex as…not something to be enjoyed.
Consigliere:What is the basis for this statement?

You cut out the basic thrust of my statement—that, as far as I can tell, religions such as Catholicism view procreation as a duty, one which obviously can only be attained via intercourse. I did not say that Catholics necessarily believe that intercourse should not be enjoyed; what I said was that it appears that they view intercourse for the purposes of procreation as a duty. Whether or not the act of intercourse is enjoyed would seem immaterial to such a dogma. 

This conservative, uptight attitude regarding sexuality is one of the very many reasons why I do not subscribe to organized religion. And what really clinches it for me is the fact that many religious dogmas prohibit the use of birth control. To me, that necessarily implies an extremely narrow, arcane view of sex that has especially repressive implications for women.

“Feel free to enjoy sex, but only if in the process you pop out children that you may or may not even want,“ it seems to say. “Don’t fornicate,“ it says. “Don’t enjoy sex simply for its own sake,“ it seems to say.

As a woman who is childless-by-choice and who greatly enjoys the carnality and pure physical pleasures of sex, I say “no thank you” to such guidelines.

So Daryl- if we want to do something about aids and overpopulation in world, we just take away everyone’s condoms and convert them to catholicism!  Sounds like a plan.  Go for it.

Frumpa- I’m glad you liked the chickens.  But hey- I take no credit.  That’s the Ayatollah’s work.

Now that I think of it, maybe chickens are the answer to- nah.

I did not say that Catholics necessarily believe that intercourse should not be enjoyed;

What is this?

Especially when the people in question (i.e. Catholics) seem to view sex as a duty, not something to be enjoyed.

It’s not parsed at all. You said “not something to be enjoyed, which is modifying “sex.“  I see no other way to read it. 

Your new point has triggered a bastardized version of some lyrics running through my head that seems to sum up what you are conveying.  I had to share it with you:

Fuck, Fuck, wherever you may be;
I am the Queen of Fucking, said she,
And I’ll lead you all, wherever you may be,
And I’ll lead you all in the fucking said she.

Because unlike your typical “I can do anything I want without consequences!!â€? liberal, the Catholic Church actually wants to help people.  Birth control will inevitably lead to unplanned pregnancies and venereal diseases.

Define what liberal means to people who aren’t part of a dichotomous government (which includes the people of the USA and others; this is an international community).

That said, “helping people” is not on the agenda if you tell people who will undoubtedly be having sex that condoms don’t help (when they do prevent the spread of disease, according to the WHO, 99+% of the time). I’ve heard the church “disagreeing” with the WHO on that issue, and saying that viruses pass through the latex, but disagreement and spouting of alternative figures is as far as it’s ever gotten.  I’ve never seen a study that actually showed reasoning as to how all the other studies were wrong. Helping people is on the agenda if you actually educate them about what the risks are. That’s not something the Church is willing to do. Oh, but they are good at trying to mandate their beliefs on others!

Besides, I think you’re forgetting something. One, there are such things as extraneous circumstances, and those do occasionally put a dent in statistics (hence 99.8% on the pill’s effectiveness in proper use). Second, my ex-gf and several of my female friends have irregular hormonal cycles and have been on the pill since they were ~14. It’s not about them doing whatever they want without consequences, although they have been able to have sex selectively and not have to worry about pregnancy or disease to nearly the rates you’re describing. That’s where it crosses the line, not because it’s highly dangerous (it’s not), but because it stands against the church’s moral dictate.

oh, and double-dip, Daryl, my ex put pressure on me, not the other way around. Women have sex typically because they want to - that’s not so unbelievable. Sex is a natural desire, after all. Hell, I have less appetite than most of the women I know. Yes, it IS mysogynistic to say that it’s all about men using women. It grossly undervalues the role that “empowered” women play in having sex for their own personal pleasure, and sets them in the position of a man’s subservient, which they’re not.

Oh my. Why, Consi!

Just one teensy suggested emendation, if you want your ditty to scan nicely to the tune “Lord of the Dance”:

Fuck, Fuck, wherever you may be;
For I am the Queen of the Fuck, said she,
And I’ll lead you all, wherever you may be,
And I’ll lead you all in the Fuck, said she.

You said “not something to be enjoyed, which is modifying “sex.�

No, it was intended to contrast with “duty.“

Apparently I could have worded it more clearly the first time around, but the point that I was putting across is the exact same and it still stands—namely, my agreement with Les’ claim that many Catholics (along with Muslims, many other sects of Christianity, and devout followers of organized religion in general) seem unduly uptight about sex, and despite Darrell’s predictably specious arguments to the contrary (which reveal a stunning ignorance of the proven efficacy of condom use and birth control), there is quite a bit of evidence that supports that claim.

I hereby adopt zilch’s changes. 

sex with clothing mandatory?! sounds like victoria’s
secret needs to open up in egypt and start sellin some crotchless panties to the locals. linger-ee in these heer parts. haha damn, thats almost as good as pepsi and coca-cola selling water in india after they bought it out from under them!

endless opportnites await you in egypt! is this a tourism ploy?

Birth control will inevitably lead to unplanned pregnancies and venereal diseases.

WHAT THE FUCK???? Are you serious with this statement? It is birth CONTROL, stupid. There are other methods of birth CONTROL than condoms.

The appalling, dangerous ignorance and utter stupidity of the wrongly-called “conservatives” in this country is beginning to make me despair.  Again I ask, when did STUPID get to be something to strive for?

In actual use, a sexually active woman relying on male condoms will have about a 12% chance of getting pregnant every year.  That means she has about 50-50 odds of being pregnant after just four years of sexual activity.

Oh man - I hope you didn’t get that kind of math at Catholic School. If so, sorry about the years of ruler whacks you must have endured. In the public schools, they teach that probabilities aren’t additive.  Rather, you calculate independent probablities using multiplication, so that a 12% chance over 4 years is = (.12* .12 * .12 *.12) = 0.00020736, or .002%.

Further proof that this claim is false - women tend to not rely on men for anything, other than killing the occasional spider, and maybe moving heavy objects.  So, what percentage of real women do you think would entrust men with their birth control?  I’m thinking that’s somewhere around zero.

If a woman demands a lifelong commitment from a man before bearing children, liberals call that “uptightâ€? or maybe even “frigidâ€?.  Instead, a young woman should be pressured to provide sexual pleasure to men; then liberals will label her “liberatedâ€? or “empoweredâ€?.

Daryl, I do apologize for picking on your claims, but here I go again: The liberals you’re referring to sound like media inventions.  Do you actually know people who believe that - because there’s a really good chance you know some liberals?  If so, are they dicks?  They may claim to be liberals, but my guess is their sheer, um ... dickitude ... dominates their world view more than any shadow of liberalism they may posses.

True Liberalism isn’t about anything more than personal liberty, which clearly affords you guys in the numerical majority (that is - the 90% or so of Americans who profess a belief in God) to believe whatever you want.  We liberals do, however, take issue with the cultural conservative desire to bring back the “good old days”.  We tend to be more skeptical than conservatives about how good they really were.  After all, we seem to remember better than conservatives that, for every loving housewife, there was another woman who was forbidden to work, or drive, or dance, or wear pants, or watch a movie, or spit, or talk to a man, or voice her opinion - often in the name of conserving a patriarchal, judeo-christian social order.  So, to the point of the original post - that some conservative muslims want to make their followers more ashamed than they already are for doing what they feel is natural - it all provides a taste of sour deja vu - at least to American Liberals.

Cheers

Cindi, I wouldn’t pay any attention to anything Darrell says. He is clearly a delusional asshole. He makes extremely spurious claims with absoutely nothing to back them up. He is also clearly too cowardly to come back and support anything he has to say (undoubtedly because he knows he can’t. I don’t care if he is a friend of Les’; this behavior is clearly troll-like). I don’t take anything he says seriously, and I would advise every thinking person here not to, either.

We liberals do, however, take issue with the cultural conservative desire to bring back the “good old daysâ€?.  We tend to be more skeptical than conservatives about how good they really were.

Right on. As a proud liberal, I am interested primarily in personal freedom. That includes the freedom to use birth control, watch XXX-rated movies, smoke pot, get an abortion if I choose to, engage in anal intercourse, not worship a Christian god, etc. It’s about freedom of choice, man. If my freedom of choice threatens anyone, then to put it in a very blunt and admittedly juvenile manner, they need to go fuck themselves. Period.

Conservatives like to drool over the “moral” days of yore that were much like the Dark Ages in medieval Europe. Take the ‘50s, for example. The 1950s were a dark and dismal time, to be sure, which is largely why conservatives seem to love them so much. But even the era of the McCarthy witch-hunts and women being cramped up in the home did not happen exactly as the conservatives wish they did.

For one thing (and this is a fact that never fails to get conservatives’ panties in a bunch), people do not agree on the concept of morality. I personally think discriminating against gays is immoral. I think attempting to restrict women from getting abortions is immoral. I think cutting off birth control access in developing countries is immoral. I think the war in Iraq is immoral. I think the war in Vietnam was immoral. I think racism is immoral. And yet, I’m more than willing to bet that many (if not most) conservatives find the things I’ve mentioned to be extremely moral.

People simply do not agree on what makes something “moral.“ And what is more (and perhaps most critical of all) is that morals and values change over time. This is simply a fact of life, and conservatives need to get over it. The sooner they do so, the better shape society will be in.