Is This Controversial? Do You Agree/disagree?

[cruciatacara]

It would seem charitable to assume that Blazeingstar's first post were written in this regard as well. Her first post seem to argue that the author of the article need not attempt to blame the Church for her problems for something that would not be the Church's fault (assuming it was the Catholic Church).

 

Sorry to respond here but here is where your post is. A mod can move both of ours if s/he so chooses to the thread on compassion.

 

You say  "it would seem charitable to assume..." but then we don't have to be charitable to each other anymore if we follow the line of thinking that BS is promoting because according to her  ...
 
"Or I can just keep doing what I'm doing and not care. It's a position that people can deal with. If some hurting person is driven away from the church because I gave their feelings a boo-boo then too bad for them.

People need to learn to grow up and get over things. Whining about things just makes you an annoying person."

 

So I assuming that BS can cope with what has been posted because she certainly wouldn't want us to treat her any different than she treats others.

 

If you read her posts as charitable then perhaps I do need to go back and look at them a little more closely because so far I just can't see it. I do see how the ongoing compassion debate is not relevant to the OP but it does address an issue that was raised from the OP about needing to show compassion to someone - no matter WHAT faith they are.

 

Whether the OP was a Catholic or a Prot - she is dealing with an issue that came up because her faith promoted virginity as an ideal (Caths do this as well) and for whatever reason wasn't able to move past this point. What can we do about it? Nothing really. Even if our Church or her church have made mistakes in the way they promote virginity (and I'm not saying either one has) - that isn't the real problem here - and the only real help for this woman and her husband will have to come from therapy and perhaps spiritual counseling as well.

 

For us, all we can do is pray and show compassion.

[cmaD2006]

BG45 was nice and did not simply just move this thread to debate table.  Keep it charitable and civil in here ... otherwise we'll move it.

[cruciatacara]

BG45 was nice and did not simply just move this thread to debate table.  Keep it charitable and civil in here ... otherwise we'll move it.

Please note that in my post above, I was responding to a post that CatholicCid made here but after mine was posted I noticed that CC's had been moved to the Compassion thread in Debate Table, so maybe my response should be moved there as well?

 

 

And also, if you are referring to my posts as being uncharitable, please let me know in what way they are not charitable and I will address this, as that is the whole point of my posts - that we show charity and compassion towards each other. I don't think that I have been uncharitable, merely trying to respond to what BS has posted and trying to understand how refusing to express compassion can be considered charitable. It is a razor's edge to walk but I think we can all do it if we try very hard.

[Cherie]

I sincerely apologize if anything I am saying here is too much for Open Mic. Mods, please edit if necessary.

 

I wonder how many people here commenting are married? Very few, huh? I wonder how many of those married people commenting actually saved themselves for marriage (because they were trying to adhere to Church teaching, specifically)? Probably even fewer. This is a situation that you may not fully understand unless you have been in a similar situation to the blogger, i.e. a virgin at marriage and very shocked at the fact that a satisfying sex life (the "amazing, wonderful, holy" sex life you're promised at chastity talks) does NOT come easily or even naturally. Try to understand things from that perspective, because no one seems to be doing that.

 

Let me tell you, as a married woman who DID save herself for marriage, I can totally understand the blogger's thoughts and I deeply sympathize with her. I am a member of a Catholic NFP forum, and guess what? A lot of the other married women who had saved themselves for marriage expressed similar sentiments -- maybe not the degree of anger and resentment that the blogger expresses, but they certainly felt a little "betrayed", in a way (for lack of a better word), by the way they had been taught about sex. These are devout Catholics, very well versed in the "Theology of the Body." They're not people who necessarily made an idol of virginity...they stayed virgins because it was simply the right, moral thing to do, and they fully understood why.

 

Even having the best possible theological background in regard to saving sex for marriage, I myself had to realize that the way chastity speakers (yes, even Jason Evert) speak about the "awesome" sex life you'll have if only you save yourself for marriage is not the reality. That idea that you'll just have amazing, awesome, mind-blowing sex on your wedding night because you saved sex for its intended purpose just doesn't often happen. Yes, it can become awesome. But it takes work. And honestly, it was hard for me to get around the idea that sex isn't something "bad," even when I had been taught--and knew, intellectually--that it is SACRED, not bad. I don't blame the Church, and I certainly don't regret saving myself for marriage, but I really DO think that sex education in the Church maybe should be approached differently, because this is an issue that, in my experience, comes up a lot.

 

Virginity IS held up on a pedestal when you're speaking of Theology of the Body; there's a reason why sex is only appropriate for marriage, and so virginity is the ideal. That "ideal" equals an instant pedestal, whether you intend it that way or not. If you're shooting for an ideal, there's a reason why it's an ideal, and that means it's important. Yes, I'm sure people can be prideful and make it an idol, but the situation of the blogger doesn't only happen when you make purity an idol. <----REMEMBER that, because it really is true. A lot of people here are saying, "Well, there's her problem! She made her virginity an idol!" Sorry, folks, but that's a cop out. Maybe that was her issue, but the bigger issue is one that is much more widespread and it doesn't only happen to people who idolize their awesomeness at having saved themselves for marriage. 

 

No one talks about the fact that a sex life takes work. Sometimes hard work and awkward moments and communication that involves conversations that, at first, make you embarrassed. Lots of married couples don't know exactly what's acceptable in marriage, because really NOTHING is acceptable outside of marriage, so they're confused and feel like they can't really enjoy sex because they might be doing something that's morally wrong. They spent so much time KNOWING that having sex before marriage WOULD be morally wrong ... so it can be very, very hard to just jump right into married sex when it was always something that was not "allowed," something that was often a temptation (can I get an Amen, engaged couples?), and something that you often had to fight against, not only physically, but mentally (impure thoughts = mortal sin.) So naturally, some of these people--subconsciously--look for problems surrounding the sex in their marriage, because sex was so "off limits" before marriage. For example, if they're not totally focused on the happiness of the other person while they're engaged in the marital embrace, then they feel like they're doing something wrong. People recommend the book "Holy Sex!" which, I've heard, is really good and touches on the "nitty gritty" aspects of sex in marriage, but 1) Not many married Catholics in the "saved yourself for marriage" camp have read it, and 2) I've specifically seen people advise AGAINST engaged couples reading it, because it might be "too much" for them. Really?

 

Anyway, I guess my comments are a little off topic of the original one, but I don't think this is a "Protestant" issue at all, at all, at all. I think it's very prevalent in Catholic circles, just speaking from the women I know who were in similar situations, including myself.

[blazeingstar]

I'm engaged and I don't find any of this a problem.  Maybe in 7 months when we are married.  We didn't kiss intimately before we were engaged and found no trouble doing so after engagement so sex should follow.  We already plan to take it slow.  But we also are very low-key individuals who cuddle and are very physically close without having to fight temptations all that much.  We are both

 

That said, one of my "friends" (and by here I mean person who I'm friendly to her face but avoid) didn't want to kiss until her wedding day.  I'd say she's setting herself up for problems.  When I spoke of online dating through CM and Ave, she also commented that "she was only 32 and was not desperate enough to do that and at 26 I should be ashamed I was not letting God work in my life"  So, obviously, she's a little bit off.  Four years later, she's had 2 failed relationships and I'm engaged.

 

But that's her own deal, not mine.  And I think many of the unhealthy ideas and opinions are simply fabricated by those who have other issues.

[Cherie]

But that's her own deal, not mine.  And I think many of the unhealthy ideas and opinions are simply fabricated by those who have other issues.

 

Maybe. Not sure what you're referring to in regard to "unhealthy ideas and opinions," but I think personality likely plays a huge part. If you're both low-key, great, I sincerely hope you don't have any difficulties regarding your sexual relationship in your marriage. But I think it's very unfair to basically say, "Oh, anyone who has difficulties with sex in marriage has 'other issues.'" Sure, maybe some people do. But regardless, I think an honest discussion about sex from people who are teaching us about it is better than what some people get: "Sex will be awesome, amazing, mind-blowing!!!" when in reality, it wasn't, and it took a lot of work to get there. I don't blame people for feeling a little like they were lied to about sex in marriage, because I've seen a lot of chastity speakers give an unreal picture of the reality.
 

[blazeingstar]

Maybe. Not sure what you're referring to in regard to "unhealthy ideas and opinions," but I think personality likely plays a huge part. If you're both low-key, great, I sincerely hope you don't have any difficulties regarding your sexual relationship in your marriage. But I think it's very unfair to basically say, "Oh, anyone who has difficulties with sex in marriage has 'other issues.'" Sure, maybe some people do. But regardless, I think an honest discussion about sex from people who are teaching us about it is better than what some people get: "Sex will be amesome, amazing, mind-blowing!!!" when in reality, it wasn't, and it took a lot of work to get there. I don't blame people for feeling a little like they were lied to about sex in marriage, because I've seen a lot of chastity speakers give an unreal picture of the reality.
 

 

But the same thing about "amazing mind blowing sex" can be said about the secular culture.  In reality they are dealing with the same thing.  The "loose it on prom night" never talks about how first sex is awkward, either.

[Kateri89]

I'm engaged and I don't find any of this a problem.  Maybe in 7 months when we are married.  We didn't kiss intimately before we were engaged and found no trouble doing so after engagement so sex should follow.  We already plan to take it slow.  But we also are very low-key individuals who cuddle and are very physically close without having to fight temptations all that much.  We are both

 

That said, one of my "friends" (and by here I mean person who I'm friendly to her face but avoid) didn't want to kiss until her wedding day.  I'd say she's setting herself up for problems.  When I spoke of online dating through CM and Ave, she also commented that "she was only 32 and was not desperate enough to do that and at 26 I should be ashamed I was not letting God work in my life"  So, obviously, she's a little bit off.  Four years later, she's had 2 failed relationships and I'm engaged.

 

But that's her own deal, not mine.  And I think many of the unhealthy ideas and opinions are simply fabricated by those who have other issues.

 

Off topic, but are you saying that you met your fiancé through online dating via CM or Ave?  If so, PM me please (I don't want to derail this thread even more) because I have some questions.  Thanks!

[Cherie]

But the same thing about "amazing mind blowing sex" can be said about the secular culture.  In reality they are dealing with the same thing.  The "loose it on prom night" never talks about how first sex is awkward, either.

 

Right, but I think the whole point is that the Church is someone we trust to tell us the truth about sex. The people in the Church who are teaching us are telling us the true PURPOSE of human sexuality, and why it's important to wait until marriage. And in order to get people to believe them, they say how amesome and amazing it is when you wait until you're married to have sex. I watched Jason Evert say pretty much exactly that; I read it in his book for teens on Theology of the Body, too. No talk on how communication is essential, or how it could be awkward, or painful, or messy, etc. Or even how you might feel embarrassed and "weird" about it for a little bit because it's something new and was forbidden for so long. Maybe it's not the burden of the people teaching, but like I said, what it boils down to (for me, anyway) is that I don't blame the blogger for feeling the way she does, and I don't think her feelings are that unusual at all. Even for Catholics.

[blazeingstar]

Right, but I think the whole point is that the Church is someone we trust to tell us the truth about sex. The people in the Church who are teaching us are telling us the true PURPOSE of human sexuality, and why it's important to wait until marriage. And in order to get people to believe them, they say how amesome and amazing it is when you wait until you're married to have sex. I watched Jason Evert say pretty much exactly that; I read it in his book for teens on Theology of the Body, too. No talk on how communication is essential, or how it could be awkward, or painful, or messy, etc. Or even how you might feel embarrassed and "weird" about it for a little bit because it's something new and was forbidden for so long. Maybe it's not the burden of the people teaching, but like I said, what it boils down to (for me, anyway) is that I don't blame the blogger for feeling the way she does, and I don't think her feelings are that unusual at all. Even for Catholics.

 

I guess I don't get the innate trust of the Catholic Church on sex.  Heck, most of the Saints are celebits.  Even though we've had some literature lately, it's not been from anyone with authority.

 

I always have gone with the idea that I am on my own when it comes to sex as the church's teachings are purposefully vague after the "no sex/sexual contact" before marriage bit. 

[Nihil Obstat]

I sincerely apologize if anything I am saying here is too much for Open Mic. Mods, please edit if necessary.

 

I wonder how many people here commenting are married? Very few, huh? I wonder how many of those married people commenting actually saved themselves for marriage (because they were trying to adhere to Church teaching, specifically)? Probably even fewer. This is a situation that you may not fully understand unless you have been in a similar situation to the blogger, i.e. a virgin at marriage and very shocked at the fact that a satisfying sex life (the "amazing, wonderful, holy" sex life you're promised at chastity talks) does NOT come easily or even naturally. Try to understand things from that perspective, because no one seems to be doing that.

 

Let me tell you, as a married woman who DID save herself for marriage, I can totally understand the blogger's thoughts and I deeply sympathize with her. I am a member of a Catholic NFP forum, and guess what? A lot of the other married women who had saved themselves for marriage expressed similar sentiments -- maybe not the degree of anger and resentment that the blogger expresses, but they certainly felt a little "betrayed", in a way (for lack of a better word), by the way they had been taught about sex. These are devout Catholics, very well versed in the "Theology of the Body." They're not people who necessarily made an idol of virginity...they stayed virgins because it was simply the right, moral thing to do, and they fully understood why.

 

Even having the best possible theological background in regard to saving sex for marriage, I myself had to realize that the way chastity speakers (yes, even Jason Evert) speak about the "amesome" sex life you'll have if only you save yourself for marriage is not the reality. That idea that you'll just have amazing, amesome, mind-blowing sex on your wedding night because you saved sex for its intended purpose just doesn't often happen. Yes, it can become amesome. But it takes work. And honestly, it was hard for me to get around the idea that sex isn't something "bad," even when I had been taught--and knew, intellectually--that it is SACRED, not bad. I don't blame the Church, and I certainly don't regret saving myself for marriage, but I really DO think that sex education in the Church maybe should be approached differently, because this is an issue that, in my experience, comes up a lot.

 

Virginity IS held up on a pedestal when you're speaking of Theology of the Body; there's a reason why sex is only appropriate for marriage, and so virginity is the ideal. That "ideal" equals an instant pedestal, whether you intend it that way or not. If you're shooting for an ideal, there's a reason why it's an ideal, and that means it's important. Yes, I'm sure people can be prideful and make it an idol, but the situation of the blogger doesn't only happen when you make purity an idol. <----REMEMBER that, because it really is true. A lot of people here are saying, "Well, there's her problem! She made her virginity an idol!" Sorry, folks, but that's a cop out. Maybe that was her issue, but the bigger issue is one that is much more widespread and it doesn't only happen to people who idolize their amesomeness at having saved themselves for marriage. 

 

No one talks about the fact that a sex life takes work. Sometimes hard work and awkward moments and communication that involves conversations that, at first, make you embarrassed. Lots of married couples don't know exactly what's acceptable in marriage, because really NOTHING is acceptable outside of marriage, so they're confused and feel like they can't really enjoy sex because they might be doing something that's morally wrong. They spent so much time KNOWING that having sex before marriage WOULD be morally wrong ... so it can be very, very hard to just jump right into married sex when it was always something that was not "allowed," something that was often a temptation (can I get an Amen, engaged couples?), and something that you often had to fight against, not only physically, but mentally (impure thoughts = mortal sin.) So naturally, some of these people--subconsciously--look for problems surrounding the sex in their marriage, because sex was so "off limits" before marriage. For example, if they're not totally focused on the happiness of the other person while they're engaged in the marital embrace, then they feel like they're doing something wrong. People recommend the book "Holy Sex!" which, I've heard, is really good and touches on the "nitty gritty" aspects of sex in marriage, but 1) Not many married Catholics in the "saved yourself for marriage" camp have read it, and 2) I've specifically seen people advise AGAINST engaged couples reading it, because it might be "too much" for them. Really?

 

Anyway, I guess my comments are a little off topic of the original one, but I don't think this is a "Protestant" issue at all, at all, at all. I think it's very prevalent in Catholic circles, just speaking from the women I know who were in similar situations, including myself.

I am married, and we both waited until after marriage.

 

It is true that sex on one's wedding night is not automatically 'awesome' just because you waited. But at the same time, neither of us had any illusions that it might be. I think believing that might be more due to naivete than anything else.

[blazeingstar]

I am married, and we both waited until after marriage.

 

It is true that sex on one's wedding night is not automatically 'awesome' just because you waited. But at the same time, neither of us had any illusions that it might be. I think believing that might be more due to naivete than anything else.

 

No, it's not automatically awesome, however, I don't think that's entirely a Catholic idea that sex is instantaneously great.  In fact, I don't think that it's a Catholic idea at all, rather it's a secular one that all sex is mind-blowing and should be aggressively persued.   I think that the whole "married sex is better" is very true.  It is better. However, that statement is often twisted by our culture's pre-occupation with sex and how to make it better, more exciting and more wild from the mile high club to bacon lube to his and her condoms.

[Nihil Obstat]

No, it's not automatically amesome, however, I don't think that's entirely a Catholic idea that sex is instantaneously great.  In fact, I don't think that it's a Catholic idea at all, rather it's a secular one that all sex is mind-blowing and should be aggressively persued.   I think that the whole "married sex is better" is very true.  It is better. However, that statement is often twisted by our culture's pre-occupation with sex and how to make it better, more exciting and more wild from the mile high club to bacon lube to his and her condoms.

Personally I have never heard anything that would have given me that impression. Perhaps it is more common in evangelical Protestantism.

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

Personally I have never heard anything that would have given me that impression. Perhaps it is more common in evangelical Protestantism.

 

Some Catholic women have posted here that they were given similar impressions. No matter what the official teachings of the Catholic church may be, even among Catholics, individuals may receive very different messages from their priests, their parents, and their youth group leaders. Also, I strongly suspect that women are often given different messages than men, and the men may not even realize it.

 

With regard to what sex is like if a couple has waited, I'm happy if it wasn't a big deal for you. But, every woman is different, both physically and emotionally. If some women have more trouble adjusting to married sexual intercourse, it can be due to physical issues or because their upbringing was different. That does NOT mean that the woman has emotional problems. It is simply one of the facts of life that women are very different from one another. If you got lucky, I'm sincerely happy for both of you. But, not every couple is so lucky, and that does not make their experience any less valid, and it is also not unusual.

 

I'm speaking as someone who has been married and who wasn't that lucky. I had both evangelical Protestant and Catholic influences (since I married a Catholic), so I can't separate out what ideas came from where, but the Catholic influences certainly weren't ideal.

Edited February 14, 2014 by IgnatiusofLoyola

[Nihil Obstat]

Some Catholic women have posted here that they were given similar impressions. No matter what the official teachings of the Catholic church may be, even among Catholics, individuals may receive very different messages from their priests, their parents, and their youth group leaders. Also, I strongly suspect that women are often given different messages than men, and the men may not even realize it.

 

With regard to what sex is like if a couple has waited, I'm happy if it wasn't a big deal for you. But, every woman is different, both physically and emotionally. If some women have more trouble adjusting to married sexual intercourse, it can be due to physical issues or because their upbringing was different. That does NOT mean that the woman has emotional problems. It is simply one of the facts of life that women are very different from one another. If you got lucky, I'm sincerely happy for both of you. But, not every couple is so lucky, and that does not make their experience any less valid, and it is also not unusual.

 

I'm speaking as someone who has been married and who wasn't that lucky. I had both evangelical Protestant and Catholic influences (since I married a Catholic), so I can't separate out what ideas came from where, but the Catholic influences certainly weren't ideal.

The author certainly has serious emotional issues to overcome. Perhaps they were caused by her church and her faith formation. I have no trouble believing that. Even if she had been raised in a Catholic environment, these days we know that is not a guarantee of good catechesis.

Growing up I received precisely no catechesis. It seems like the instruction this young woman received was highly flawed. I am not sure which is worse. For years I had to teach itself. This girl, if she ever comes to the Church, also has to undo who knows how much faulty teaching.