Is Sex a Necessary Evil For the Sake of Procreation? with
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 жов 2024
- Christopher and Matt from @pintswithaquinas delve into a deeper understanding of sexual morality, moving beyond the view that sex is solely for procreation. Discover how John Paul II challenges this notion, emphasizing the importance of honoring and dignifying one's spouse. Through a personal story, we explore the potential pitfalls of utilitarian approaches in intimate relationships and highlight the significance of sincere, self-giving love.
Watch the full discussion here: • A Deep Dive Into John ...
============================================
🔥 Get 3 FREE sessions of our flagship course on Theology of the Body: www.tobforfree...
🎤 Check out the Ask Christopher West Podcast where Christopher and his beloved wife Wendy share their humor and wisdom. It's available on all streaming platforms. askchristopher...
⚡️ Click the link to join our Patron Community! Your monthly gift helps us continue to put out the message of Theology of the Body to the world. Thank you! www.tobpatron....
📚 Want to attend a course at the Theology of the Body Institute online or in person? Click the link to view our schedule: tobinstitute.o...
📍 We might be coming to a city near you! Check out our Made for More event schedule: tobinstitute.o...
🏔️ Want to join us on one of our pilgrimages? Click here: tobpilgrimages....
🛍️ Check out our store! shop.corprojec...
🌟 For professional Catholic Life Coaching, including Porn Recovery: www.stevemotyl...
============================================
Social Media:
📸 TOBI Instagram: / tobinstitute
🟦 Facebook: / tobinstitute
📸 Christopher's Instagram: / cwestofficial
🟦 Christopher's Facebook: / cwestofficial
📸 Discerning Marriage Instagram: www.instagram....
I love JPII's breakdown of utilitarianism versus the persinalistic norm. It's so useful, and we can adopt utilitarian views without realizing it.
This series was so insightful and refreshing. Thanks for reposting this clip.
Profound insight, thank you all-including Wendy!
"Honey, do you feel like an object used for pleasure when we have sex?"
"No. Do you?"
"No."
"Well okay then."
Exactly.
I did have a friend, he had some issues with the porn, etc., he told me his wife said she felt like a prostitute with the stuff he was trying...
@glennlanham6309
Well, that is why sex should primarily be for procreation. Otherwise, objectification becomes an entirely subjective issue.
@@nicksimmons1305 and there's nothing wrong with that. With good communication and realistic expectations, you can have sex for pleasure and not feel objectified. It's not evil, and saying otherwise and it's just telling consenting adults what to think
@joeyfajardo8738
Well, I certainly agree that this is the logical conclusion of Christopher West's theology, yes. :)
This is the Augustinian view. He never fully eradicated himself of his Manicheian roots.
I just realized…. Manicheianism is still around today with society viewing sex as “a necessary evil and the physical world as evil but the spiritual world as good.”
@@Justyouraverageguy172 yup!
Thank you! I mentioned this once and got a lot of backlash. I also think his personal history with impurity before his conversion played into his views as well.
False. St Augustin explained that having sex for pleasure alone is imperfect/venial, not that sex itself is bad/degrading as West frames it
@@JamesHudonI just noticed how modern culture and society today views children, marriage, and sex as evil and instead focus on the pleasure alone which is what Augustine condemns for being like Manichaeism
All things are a balance. Life ebbs and flows. Give grace to each other for being fallible.
Implying Sex is Evil is insane for a Christian. Are some believe that? 😂
No, they shouldn't, it's ridiculous
It boils down to the old teaches on sex, and trying to control the faithful sex lives -Married people were confronted with a bewildering array of teachings and prohibitions controlling and restricting marital sexuality. First and foremost was the notion that sexual intercourse rendered the participants unclean. As a result, the Church tried to restrict when, where, and how married people could have sex. Intricate regulations prohibited sex during the holy seasons of Advent, Lent, and Whitsuntide; on Sundays, Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays; and on other holy days. Intercourse was also forbidden during menstruation, pregnancy, and lactation. Moreover, newlyweds were expected to wait three nights to consummate their union and couples who had sexual relations were advised not to receive communion the next day. Related to these notions of pollution were prohibitions against sex in a church, cemetery, or other holy place. While these restrictions may sound unrealistic and even unnecessary, there was little privacy in medieval houses, so an empty church or deserted cemetery might, in fact, have provided a couple with the privacy they could not find elsewhere. It remains uncertain to what extent any of these regulations influenced actual sexual behavior.These rules were developed in the sixth century, primarily in the teachings of the penitentials.
And lot these notions I think still filter down from centuries of trying control the sexlives of married couples.
Some certainly do, yes
Toxic purity culture ends up making young people think that sex is just evil and gross and bad, even if they don’t realize it, which is why you see purity memes that joke about how weird it is for them to have sex on their wedding night because all they’ve been taught is that sex is taboo
@@milkeywilkie Mostly the wives. There taught at early age that women are gatekeepers of sex - and always told to dress modestly - which could border on body shaming. ( On the flip side of that women also learn that you can weaponize sex in your marriage) But christian women suffer more physiological problem surrounding sex - Such as sexual repression - vaginismus - which in study found it be about 3X higher in christian marriages.
Waiting for annulmentproof to come in here and start vehemently disagreeing 😅
I like the points made in this video but Chris could you name a source other than JPII that states that the primary purpose of marital sex is not procreation. Not asking as a hater just want to see if there is a line of reasoning prior to LR and TOB
I don’t understand… what do you mean
Can someone explain this whole video for me! I really do not understand
With respect, usorial" is not a word in the English language as far as I can tell. There is Uxorial, that is, befitting a wife (strange in this context). So, you need another word. Maybe just utlitarian or "instrumental". I did find one use of it (once, on the web!) when it described Usury laws. But that hardly fits your purpose.
I think a lot of what West produces, or profess's is his interpretation, and opinion piece - Just because he claims something that it doesn't mean it's necessarily so ( true ) - I'm not sure whatever made him a moral authority.
I usorial that word all the time
@@glennlanham6309 Ha! Well, my friend, you are a trendsetter!🤭
The premise is wrong. Clickbait title.
Exactly, sex properly engaged in (with your spouse) is a beautiful and holy thing. There is nothing evil or degrading or impure about it.
This is the reason I object to the mythologizing of Mary as a perpetual vigin. That myth sends a damaging message.
Nope. Christopher argues it has the exact opposite message. Watch his videos about it.
No the intention of only having sex is pro creation then it’s wrong… meaning there is still fun in sex and it still has to lead to a kid
@@PanzerEdelweissStevenDelMar555
No. I was pointing her to Christopher's explanation to Mary's virginity. He does NOT view it as a negation of sexuality.
@@nicksimmons1305 ok I don’t really understand this whole
Video??
@@nicksimmons1305 can you explain me this whole video
at least y'all can find some area of agreement...SEX!
This seems like flawed argumentation. If sex for procreation alone is a form of "using" one's spouse, then so is sex for pleasure. If sex wasn't pleasurable, then you wouldn't be "using" your spouse for pleasure. I think this is not how we should view "usage."
Edit: What I am trying to say here is that if sex has a purpose, using it for its PRIMARY intended purpose (even if alone) is not "utilitarianism" just because you can latch onto the word "using".
I think a lot of what West produces, or profess's is his interpretation, and opinion piece - Just because he claims something that it doesn't mean it's necessarily so ( true ) - I'm not sure whatever made him a moral authority.
@@sitka49
Various Catholic influencers are obsessed with the Theology of the Body. That's just the new fad.
Honestly, I think some of them are even more sex positive than JP II hinself.