Is This Controversial? Do You Agree/disagree?

[beatitude]

In the comments so far, I don't see any mercy and love and sadness at another person's hurt.

 

I also find it very interesting that virtually all the comments so far have been by men. (Blazeingstar has chosen not to reveal his/her gender.)

 

Sexuality is VERY different for men and women.

 

Sometimes I'm ashamed to be a member of Phatmass.

 

I also was taken aback by the comments.

 

Some people, men and women, have anxiety about sex - even without having had any traumatic experiences. This woman mentions the fact that she hasn't been raped as though this is just one more thing to hurt and confuse her, so she perhaps hasn't come across the idea that psychosexual problems don't have to stem from rape and that they are just part of human existence. Vaginismus is one fairly common medical issue that can make sex distressing and physically painful for women.

 

But it's true that sex is often romanticised in various Christian communities as this wonderful gift that is sure to be out of this world if only you abide by all the terms and conditions first. It's rare to hear people talk about the fact that it can be uncomfortable (from the physically painful to the laughably awkward), that the earth isn't necessarily going to move for you first time (or second time, or third time...), that anxieties can exist without any obvious good reason (just like anxieties about everything - I'm sure everyone here knows at least one person with an irrational fear that has no clear cause), that medical problems affecting sex aren't unusual. Frank discussions about all this sort of stuff would be more helpful than the purity rings and romantic 'true love waits' mentality that for many unmarried Christians do constitute the basis of their knowledge. I have come across people being shamed out of sex before marriage by being compared to boxes of chocolates already opened - in a Christian youth group. This woman was apparently scared off sex by being taught by her Sunday school teacher about how much it hurt. Now this may not be good orthodox theology, but for many Christians, it's what they get, and I don't think the right response is to immediately start talking about how they obviously just don't understand the church and how they must be narcissistic. A married couple who are much in love and who suddenly find that sex is impossible for them are not going to be helped by that approach. The emotional pain and the sense of being a disappointment to their spouse or 'faulty' somehow is what's concerning them now.

 

I don't think it's controversial to discuss this kind of stuff. It happens. It's not the end of the world. It can be dealt with.

Edited February 13, 2014 by beatitude

[SilentJoy]

I also was taken aback by the comments.

 

Some people, men and women, have anxiety about sex - even without having had any traumatic experiences. This woman mentions the fact that she hasn't been raped as though this is just one more thing to hurt and confuse her, so she perhaps hasn't come across the idea that psychosexual problems don't have to stem from rape and that they are just part of human existence. Vaginismus is one fairly common medical issue that can make sex distressing and physically painful for women.

 

But it's true that sex is often romanticised in various Christian communities as this wonderful gift that is sure to be out of this world if only you abide by all the terms and conditions first. It's rare to hear people talk about the fact that it can be uncomfortable (from the physically painful to the laughably awkward), that the earth isn't necessarily going to move for you first time (or second time, or third time...), that anxieties can exist without any obvious good reason (just like anxieties about everything - I'm sure everyone here knows at least one person with an irrational fear that has no clear cause), that medical problems affecting sex aren't unusual. Frank discussions about all this sort of stuff would be more helpful than the purity rings and romantic 'true love waits' mentality that for many unmarried Christians do constitute the basis of their knowledge. I have come across people being shamed out of sex before marriage by being compared to boxes of chocolates already opened - in a Christian youth group. This woman was apparently scared off sex by being taught by her Sunday school teacher about how much it hurt. Now this may not be good orthodox theology, but for many Christians, it's what they get, and I don't think the right response is to immediately start talking about how they obviously just don't understand the church and how they must be narcissistic. A married couple who are much in love and who suddenly find that sex is impossible for them are not going to be helped by that approach. The emotional pain and the sense of being a disappointment to their spouse or 'faulty' somehow is what's concerning them now.

 

I don't think it's controversial to discuss this kind of stuff. It happens. It's not the end of the world. It can be dealt with.

I ran out of props, but... :like:

[SilentJoy]

Even without "idolizing" virginity, I think that sex can still be terrifying for many people. I got the impression that she thought that, if she hadn't "saved herself," marital sex wouldn't have been so scary, but why wouldn't pre-marital sex have NOT been so awful? Or maybe she was trying to say that she wouldn't have sought out marriage if she knew it was going to be that bad?

 

She seems to be blaming "the church" entirely for these struggles, which I think is incorrect. Yet I can understand how such a deeply terrifying and humiliating difficulty could bring out that response.

[blazeingstar]

In the comments so far, I don't see any mercy and love and sadness at another person's hurt.

 

I also find it very interesting that virtually all the comments so far have been by men. (Blazeingstar has chosen not to reveal his/her gender.)

 

Sexuality is VERY different for men and women.

 

Sometimes I'm ashamed to be a member of Phatmass.

 

I'm female.

 

And I am a bit jaded.  I work with people her age every day.  I see her not as a victim of somewhat questionable religious teachings, but as another whiny young adult who is blaming something in her life on someone else.

 

Mind you I've just had to deal with a student who blamed his hating class on the fact that everyone else in class knew more than he did.  I see it every day.  Not only that, I went to a lukewarm Catholic college and stuck close to the other practicing Catholics and Christians.  There were girls like this, and they were mean and nasty towards other girls, especially those who had/were having sex.  Some even believed that you needed to ask for Gods' forgiveness in any "part" you had in an assault. 

 

I think I may have gone a bit softer if she had taken some responsibility, ANY responsibility for her actions.

 

Truth is, all I got from this was, "I let my young idealism turn me into a self-rigorous prick, i don't acknowledge that my attitude could of hurt anyone in any way, I have an issue and now I need someone to blame"

[arfink]

Ignatius of Loyola,

 

I agree with your sentiments and if it was the first time I'd seen it I would have been very sympathetic.  But I see these type of woe-is-me stories from the Gen-Y/Z crowd so often now that it just rolls right over me.  Maybe it's because I'm callous, but it also could be because deep down inside I think the underlying issue in all of these situations is narcissm - or well placed trolling.

 

Regardless, that person isn't on the board, it wasn't their blog that it was posted at (the blog belonged to a guy), and there's no reason to believe we have to sugar-coat things for the ostensibly fragile writer since they are probably never going to see these comments.

 

I would be very cautious with these words. First of all, you're making very sweeping generalizations about an entire generation of people based on your limited experience. I might add that I find it very ironic of you to do so, since you are part of that age group.

 

I would also be cautious about being overly blunt or harsh in your comments in this thread, for a number of reasons including linkbacks/pingbacks which could in fact lead the author here, but also because I can assure you that a large number of people both Catholics and non-Catholics have in fact been deeply hurt, oftentimes in matters of sexuality, by people who had claims to authority in the church. This stuff is not to be taken lightly, no matter how suspect you think a person's motives are, or how much you suspect them of being narcissists.

[Mary+Immaculate<3]

This reminds me of what Jason Evert talked about when addressing guys, but the same can be applied to women.

 

He basically said that if someone tries to think of sex as bad, and therefore tries to not think of it, he will go neurotic. What is needed is not the supression of sexual desire, but the perfection of it. For example, someone sees a person they find very physcially attractive, and they start to lust after him. Instead of trying to divert their thoughts, which is next to impossible, they need to first say a prayer of gratitude for this beautiful person. Not only does this stop the sin, but it causes one to recognize this person's worth in God's sight.

 

Additionally, this argument is illogical, it uses inductive reasoning. One person's accidetal, perpetual virginity doesn't account for all the wonderful marriages which have lasted precisely because they waited. Furthermore, it concludes that it is the fault of a worldwide institution, instead of the individual's personal upbringing/education/wordlview.

[blazeingstar]

Whatever. I sincerely doubt that Jesus would have reacted to the story of a person's emotional pain in the way any of you reacted.

 

Your reactions are so "up in arms" that anyone, in their pain, might possibly think of blaming the Church, that you are ignoring the story and the person behind it.

 

If/when any of you shared a story of serious emotional pain, I would try to understand your pain and show sympathy and caring and love before passing judgement.

 

If you are examples of the kinds of things members of the Catholic church would say, and the judgements you would pass, about ANY person obviously in serious emotional pain--whether Catholic or Protestant--it should be immaterial--then I don't want any part of it. I'm ashamed to be associated with all of you.

 

So leave Phatmass then, no loss to us.

 

Most of us are around her age and have dealt with the same socio-economic factors.  She did not come on here looking for advice, we were given a re-posted blog.  My feelings is that it is self-centered and very egotistical with little focus on the other...the people she snubbed, the people she idolized, even her husband, to which point, in the eyes of the church, she's not yet married to.

 

If she approached us, or Jesus, we would of given appropriate advice.  However, whenever people tried to play mind games with Jesus He totally pawned them.  I feel like He'd do the same here.
 

[NotreDame]

So leave Phatmass then, no loss to us.

 

Well, that's not nice... more opinions are always better,  but i agree with the implicit idea you are expressing... threatening to leave when you don't like something is a sort of intellectual blackmail.
 

[blazeingstar]

Well, that's not nice... more opinions are always better,  but i agree with the implicit idea you are expressing... threatening to leave when you don't like something is a sort of intellectual blackmail.
 

 

 

No, it isn't nice, but it's an extention of the whole problem I have with the author in the article.  The "Everyone is a meanie, I don't want any part of the club so I'm going to complain but still be a part of it"

[cmaD2006]

So leave Phatmass then, no loss to us.

 

 

Blazeingstar ... that was inappropriate. 

 

I actually understand Iggy's point.  She was questioning the attitude.  She didn't exactly say "ok I quit and will leave."

 

People -- please remember that we do not know each other's histories, and we are called to be charitable at all times.  This is NOT debate table (which is why I wondered about whether to move it or not) where a more combative tone is more tolerated.

 

We have had members on phatmass leave, or come close to it, because of some underlying "attitudes" that can be hurtful.  It's taken the moderating team some time to build the phamily back up.

 

So please, please remember to be charitable with your comments.  And if you don't like someone's comments go ahead and say so IN A CHARITABLE MANNER.

[blazeingstar]

And I dislike that I'm seen as some kind of meanie.  But whatever.  I really don't care or have the time for what Iggy said, and I really don't care about her membership status.

 

So for what it's worth, I'm sorry I spoke harshly Iggy.  You are entitled to your own opion

[PhuturePriest]

Whatever. I sincerely doubt that Jesus would have reacted to the story of a person's emotional pain in the way any of you reacted.

 

Your reactions are so "up in arms" that anyone, in their pain, might possibly think of blaming the Church, that you are ignoring the story and the person behind it.

 

If/when any of you shared a story of serious emotional pain, I would try to understand your pain and show sympathy and caring and love before passing judgement.

 

If you are examples of the kinds of things members of the Catholic church would say, and the judgements you would pass, about ANY person obviously in serious emotional pain--whether Catholic or Protestant--it should be immaterial--then I don't want any part of it. I'm ashamed to be associated with all of you.

 

I quite clearly stated other people taught her false theology. This is laying the blame onto other people, which is rather different than saying "Pfft, what a crazy bunch of hormones, am I right, guys?"

[NotreDame]

No, it isn't nice, but it's an extention of the whole problem I have with the author in the article.  The "Everyone is a meanie, I don't want any part of the club so I'm going to complain but still be a part of it"

 

yeah, I agree... that's why I said up front this was sort of a lose-lose thread.  If I was honest, I wouldn't appear "compassionate", if I wasn't honest, well... then it felt to me like I had to jump into someone else's pity party - unless I wrote  a big long reply with a bunch of qualifiers, but who got time for dat?

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

Well, that's not nice... more opinions are always better,  but i agree with the implicit idea you are expressing... threatening to leave when you don't like something is a sort of intellectual blackmail.
 

 

You misunderstand me. My statement was in no way a threat to leave. (I'm sure that is a disappointment to some.)

 

I can be be disappointed in, or even ashamed of my friends sometimes, but despite that, friendship and love is strong enough to rise above those feelings. I'm sure I disappoint my friends here sometimes. And, they certainly don't agree with everything I post.

 

In the past, I have taken several "sabbaticals" from Phatmass for various reasons, but I aways find myself returning. 

 

I would think it would be considered a good thing to have some non-Catholics on Phatmass. Especially since I am not someone who hangs around on the Debate thread trying to bait people. I listen a LOT, when I'm not making posts that are usually too long. :smile2: (I've been trying to develop the art  of the quick, witty, on-point remark for almost four years now, and I still am not very good at it.)

 

As I understand it, Catholics are called upon to evangelize non-Catholics. I would think that Catholics would welcome any non-Catholics who choose to visit Phatmass, because it is a yet another opportunity for Catholics to be visible examples to non-Catholics of the way that Catholics live out Jesus' commandments to love God, and to love their neighbors as themselves.

 

There are only a few visible non-Catholics on Phatmass, but I think we are useful in at least one way. Phatmass has LOTS of guests whom we know nothing about. I wouldn't be surprised if at least some of the guests are not Catholic. I hope that being reminded by the visible presence of myself and other non-Catholics that there are non-Catholics reading your posts, might also be a reminder that there are almost certainly other, invisible non-Catholics reading your posts, as well. So, all your posts, whether that is their primary purpose or not, end up being part of your evangelism to non-Catholics.

 

For the record (and anyone who has read my profile knows this), I do not consider myself a Protestant, since I am not protesting anything. "Protestant" is listed as my religion because that was the option offered that was closest to being accurate. For a long time I had no religion listed, but I decided I didn't want to mislead anyone who doesn't know me, and might not realize that I am not Catholic. However, I am not an Evangelical Protestant.

 

I am also not anti-Catholic. The Pope would call me a "person of goodwill." If I had the great honor to meet Pope Francis, I have no doubt that he would give me a heartfelt blessing, just as he would give a heartfelt blessing to a Catholic.

 

Phatmass has changed me, and continues to change me, in ways that I sometimes don't even recognize at first. Sometimes I surprise myself, and realize, "Hey, you're thinking like a Catholic." Among the visible signs of my friendly feelings toward the Catholic church in general is that I wear a Miraculous Medal 24/7, as well as a St. Joseph medal. Almost all my charitable contributions in the past few years have been to Catholic organizations, mostly to a couple of Communities of Religious Sisters and nuns, but also to others, including Phatmass. (I try to put my money where my posts are.)

 

I don't know dUST very well, but in our few conversations, dUST has been nothing but kind and welcoming to me. At least right now, God wants me here on Phatmass for His own reasons, some of which I know and some of which I likely am totally clueless.

 

Bottom line: Unless dUST decides otherwise, you (plural) aren't going to get rid of me that easily. :smile2:

 

Sorry for the OT post. Back to the scheduled program.......

[ChristinaTherese]

I don't see why she's blaming the church when most of the things that she references are protestant.

 

That and people will always have inverse reactions to some things.   She could of been taken down a notch...SHE was the smug one, and she ignored the words about sex, not those who taught her.

 

 

This is the problem, right here. She made it into an idol; she says it herself. For her, her faith was reduced simply to a somewhat unhealthy view of purity. Whether that is her fault, her parents', her priest's, I do not know, but it seems clear to me, based on this article, that her idea of sexual purity was, in essence, her god.

 

Is/was this person Catholic?

The blog this was posted on is run by someone who works for an Anglican diocese, so we can assume that the writer is a Protestant.

 

I have seen some of this from Protestants before. They have a tendency of setting virginity up on a pedestal to a point where it's unhealthy. But I'm not going to comment any further because i don't want to get caught up in this particular thread. I just wanted to add that fact (about the blog owner being a Protestant) so it wasn't just conjecture.