Is This Controversial? Do You Agree/disagree?

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

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.

 

I agree with you that the author in the original post clearly has serious emotional problems to overcome, however they were caused.

 

I just wanted to make sure that women here who have posted that they had physical and/or emotional issues adjusting to married intercourse don't feel that their experience makes them either unusual or flawed. Many married couples adjust easily. But, many married couples take longer to adjust. And, sometimes, the longer adjustment has to do with physical issues.

 

You may have been lucky that you had to teach yourself--and that you grew up with only brothers. When it comes to women, even Catholic families differ a LOT in the messages they give their daughters. I also know that not all the Catholic teaching I received because I was marrying a Catholic was the best--and could have been harmful. However, in my case, I was married back in the day, and I hope that things have improved a lot in the Catholic church since then. Also, in my case, there were physical issues, and unfortunately, these were not diagnosed well, so there were problems that I thought were my fault, but much later learned were not. (I'm not even going to address my ex-husband's issues--I can and will only speak for my own issues.)

Edited February 14, 2014 by IgnatiusofLoyola

[Nihil Obstat]

I am surprised you remember that I have only brothers. :hehe:

But now I have older sisters-in-law, and that is really neat. :)

 

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

I am surprised you remember that I have only brothers. :hehe:

But now I have older sisters-in-law, and that is really neat. :)

 

I try my best to remember everything that people tell me.

 

And, BTW, you were not only wise in marrying a woman you loved, but marrying a woman who comes from a loving family. It makes a BIG difference in the long run.

 

You also gained some brother-in-laws, some older, some younger, and at least one whom I imagine is a lot of fun! I miss him!

[Nihil Obstat]

They are so much fun. I am seriously lucky.

[NotreDame]

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.

 

This ^^^^ makes a lot of sense to me: naivety about sex, not just from religious culture, but from the secular culture that glorifies it. 

 

Also, I think if two virgins are getting married young, around college-age, this is probably less of an issue.  I have no proof or good reasons for this other than the fact that it seems pretty aligned with our human nature. 

 

Staying celibate through one's 20's, however, could be difficult.  I can imagine some going to great lengths to create a personal environments where sex can be avoided, but not all these environments & mindsets would be healthy mentally or spiritually.

 

Also, wouldn't staying celibate without staying chaste introduce it's own intimacy issues?  Hmm....

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

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 thought Notredame had a compassionate response.

[NotreDame]

I thought Notredame had a compassionate response.

Well, my first reply might have been, but not the 2nd.  My larger issue with "compassion" in these cases is "how do you show compassion toward a blog post?"

 

There's a difference between replying to a poster with this problem and replying to a post about this problem.  The former deserves compassion, that latter analysis.  Iggy being upset for people not being compassionate to a blog post is, well... it's a different point of view than I and others had.  

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

true, I responded before I saw this thing got a little nuts and went on for 5 pages. My post was referring to the first post.

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

true, I responded before I saw this thing got a little nuts and went on for 5 pages. My post was referring to the first post.

 

Personally, I didn't think the thread got a little nuts as it went along. I think the thread got more compassionate, and ended up in a pretty good place.

 

However, everyone sees things differently, so I am glad you have expressed your opinion. Seeing things differently is part of what makes Phatmass so interesting--and ultimately helpful.

 

Not to worry, I don't think I have any long posts left in me for this particular thread or this topic. I said what I wanted to say, and I learned a LOT.

 

I also rarely read, much less post, in the Debate forum, and I am not even reading the "Compassion" thread. (I'm busy cleaning up after the mice who have recently invaded my house due to the cold weather. Yuck!)

Edited February 14, 2014 by IgnatiusofLoyola

[Norseman82]

I think the takeaway here is to keep your promises (unless you have to sin to do it), or else don't make the promise in the first place if you never intended to fulfill it.

[Archaeology cat]

Cherie - awesome post

[cmaD2006]

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.

 

Cruciatara -- no ... I was not referring to your post being uncharitable.  I would have directly quoted your post and put your name in the thread.  *But* having said that I felt the need to clearly state in the thread to make sure that charity prevals or we'll just move everything over.

 

You're always welcome to also send a PM ... I would have had no issue clarifying it via a PM.

[cmaD2006]

Personally, I didn't think the thread got a little nuts as it went along. I think the thread got more compassionate, and ended up in a pretty good place.

 

 

I think once the split occurred this thread followed a nicer line.  Thanks everyone.

[Winchester]

My sex ed teachers and my parents were pretty good about all this croutons. It's different for guys anyway, but I don't think anyone could have come out of Darrell Lockridge's "Sex is great, fun, and I have the kids to prove it" class with an internalized prudishness about sex. The other side of this is that there are people who either avoid teaching about sex or only talk about it in a way so as to make the outlook something puritans would be proud of.

 

Excruciating pain during sexual intercourse is an issue for a doctor of medicine. It shouldn't be excruciating, even for normal sex. Unless the guy is [mod]not taking into account his partner's needs in a reasonable manner during intercourse.-BG[/mod]. This could probably be solved by taking the advice of Stereo Palma, but if that doesn't work, it's time for the doctor.

 

Also: Her parents were apparently complete idiots.

Edited February 16, 2014 by BG45

[Maggyie]

I think the takeaway here is to keep your promises (unless you have to sin to do it), or else don't make the promise in the first place if you never intended to fulfill it.

? Don't get it. The girl is breaking her promise? Or the church? Or the chastity speakers?

I really feel alot of the problem is that chastity teaching is really just teenage pregnancy prevention. It's geared toward kids. It's extremely child-like and simplified - if you finish your vegetables and don't eat the candy until AFTER dinner, you can have the yummiest desert!!! Magical unicorns. Confetti will rain from the clouds!! Yeah!!!

Or... Don't eat the desert before dinner. If you do, you'll get a horrible stomachache that makes your intestines rip open and need to throw up. Only bad children whom mommy doesn't love eat desert before dinner.

In scenario 1, if the unicorn doesn't appear you will think your teachers scammed you a bit. With scenario 2 you probably will believe the desert is poison and you're not going to eat it ever and risk your mom turning into a thing with glass eyes and a wooden tail.

I think teenagers can handle realistic sex education. And the fact is that most people don't get married until they are well into their 20s, at which point there doesn't exist sex education for adults. It's ludicrous because isn't that what success is? Married adults commencing their sex lives together? So let's leave these two people to their own devices with the facts about sex they learned during freshman year of high school to guide them.