Is This Controversial? Do You Agree/disagree?

[Socrates]

Cherie nailed it. I'm willing to bet most couples who "save themselves" for marriage are unprepared for the amount of time and effort necessary to develop a mutually satisfying sex life. I don't think this girl is whiny for venting her disappointment. I do think she needs to make a trip to the doctors if they haven't been able to consummate 5 months into their marriage.

 

I don't think Catholics are particularly guilty of promising mind-blowing sex as a reward for waiting (seems to be more of an evangelical thing), but Catholic marriage prep is abysmal. If sexual intimacy is addressed at all, it's usually a talk about NFP (and usually there is some statement about NFP enhancing your sex life which may or may not be true!).

 

Much as this may come as a shock to the hipster phatmass crowd, the Church still teaches that we must "save ourselves" for marriage.

Fornication remains a mortal sin, difficult and unpopular as this teaching may be.

 

Having been to an "ultra-conservative" Catholic college, and having grown up around many other orthodox Catholic families where the Church's teachings on purity and chastity are encouraged, I can tell you from experience that most couples who "save themselves for marriage" are happily married, and judging from the large number of children they have, their marriages are hardly sexless.

 

Also, studies confirm that married couples who cohabit before marriage are significantly more likely to get divorced than those who do not.

The rampant sexual immorality in our culture is hardly leading to better, happier marriages.

 

The woman in that blog apparently thinks (or wants us to think) that if only the Church approved of fornication, her marriage would be wonderful.  Her problems are not the fault of the Church's teachings on chastity, even if she did have a nutty Sunday school teacher.

 

Demanding the Church change its moral teachings to fit one's personal preferences is stupid.  If the Church could do that, it would possess no authority, and there would be no reason to care what it teaches one way or the other.

 

 

 

 

[Basilisa Marie]

Um, no one is advocating that the Church change any teachings, or that this woman "should" have slept around. So...? 

[ImageTrinity]

Um what? I think you misunderstood. I am in no way suggesting that the Church should change her teachings. My husband and I were both virgins and are very happily married. All I was saying is that good sex (in a marriage!) doesn't necessarily come easily.

[arfink]

Call it methods, call it messages, nobody - the chastity speakers, church representatives, etc. -  should be making such promises that if you do everything right, everything will be perfect (yeah, right!).  We must remember that when one makes a promise, one is obligated to keep it (unless the promise is of a sinful or illegal nature).  Your word is your bond.  It doesn't matter what subject it is.  People take promises at face value, and when people find that the promises don't come true, it can negatively affect their faith and after a while they begin to lose trust and then wonder what else they're being lied to about.

 

:|

[Cherie]

Um, yeah, Socrates, I think you misunderstood our answers (definitely) and even the blogger's post, too.

Maybe I'm wrong, and I can see how the misunderstanding is possible because her wording isn't the greatest, but I think she (the blogger) is simply expressing her extreme frustration at the way chastity was presented in her faith, because it didn't prepare her at all for the many possible difficulties that can occur in the new sexual relationship after marriage, and a very serious one that occurred in hers. I don't think she's ACTUALLY proposing the Church (or whatever church she's a member of) change its teaching on fornication, I think she's just exasperated and angry beause she feels she should have been taught things differently. 'Tis all. (That's what I got from it, anyway.)

[Didacus]

The woman seems to have indeed, in my opinion, been mislead in one fashion or other.  Somewhere along the way, some important things were either falsely represented (like describing sex as painful) and/or badly understood.    She lost a great deal of herself because of this, and I can sincerely sympathize with her predicament.

 

I would like for her to reconsider the Church's doctrine on sexuality however.  Many of the things which hurt her do not seem to find parallel within it.  I believe clarity would be required here, or would have been needed back when she was young.  But these things are difficult to say with that brief of story and partial details.

[Socrates]

Um, no one is advocating that the Church change any teachings, or that this woman "should" have slept around. So...? 

 

The blogger in question explicitly states that she "regrets saving sex for marriage" (though, from what she says, apparently she refuses to have sex with her husband in marriage) and blames the Church and its teachings on purity for her problems.  While she might not quite spell it out in black and white, her language sounds a lot like those dissident "Catholics" who think the Church needs to get rid of its "oppressive" moral teachings and get with the sexual revolution.  She certainly says nothing in that blog post to affirm the goodness or rightness of the Church's teachings regarding purity,  (Since I don't know this woman personally, I can only go by what she writes here.)

 

Um what? I think you misunderstood. I am in no way suggesting that the Church should change her teachings. My husband and I were both virgins and are very happily married. All I was saying is that good sex (in a marriage!) doesn't necessarily come easily.

 

My apologies for the misunderstanding.  I haven't had time to read the entire thread, so sorry if I missed something else.  I read your post as implying that most couples who save sex for marriage are the worse off for it, and would have a happier love-life if they gained some experience before tying the knot.

 

My main point was that (at least in my experience) most marriages of persons who take the Church's moral teachings on purity/chastity seriously, and "save themselves for marriage" are not miserable and sexless.

Thus, whomever or whatever is to blame for this sorry woman's problems, it's not the Church's teachings on sexual morality.

[SilentJoy]

The blogger in question explicitly states that she "regrets saving sex for marriage" (though, from what she says, apparently she refuses to have sex with her husband in marriage) and blames the Church and its teachings on purity for her problems.  While she might not quite spell it out in black and white, her language sounds a lot like those dissident "Catholics" who think the Church needs to get rid of its "oppressive" moral teachings and get with the sexual revolution.  She certainly says nothing in that blog post to affirm the goodness or rightness of the Church's teachings regarding purity,  (Since I don't know this woman personally, I can only go by what she writes here.)

 

 

 

The letter is very emotional; my take on this is that the author might not so much be arguing in favor pre-marital sex as she might be lamenting the fact that, if she'd known how she was going to respond to a sexual encounter beforehand, she wouldn't have sought out marriage to begin with.

 

Don't know.

[Basilisa Marie]

The letter is very emotional; my take on this is that the author might not so much be arguing in favor pre-marital sex as she might be lamenting the fact that, if she'd known how she was going to respond to a sexual encounter beforehand, she wouldn't have sought out marriage to begin with.

 

Don't know.

 

Yes, she's being emotional, not logical. She's also probably Anglican, as we addressed upthread. 

 

The problem isn't that she dislikes Church teaching, the problem is that she thinks that there's either promiscuous society messages or extreme anti-sex Church messages, because that's what she's experienced. She has a problem with the way her Church teaching was fed to her, and blames it for many of the problems she has with consummating her marriage. 

[CrossCuT]

[LouisvilleFan]

The blogger in question explicitly states that she "regrets saving sex for marriage" (though, from what she says, apparently she refuses to have sex with her husband in marriage) and blames the Church and its teachings on purity for her problems.  While she might not quite spell it out in black and white, her language sounds a lot like those dissident "Catholics" who think the Church needs to get rid of its "oppressive" moral teachings and get with the sexual revolution.  She certainly says nothing in that blog post to affirm the goodness or rightness of the Church's teachings regarding purity,  (Since I don't know this woman personally, I can only go by what she writes here.)

 

 

She isn't refusing to have sex with her husband. She is not capable of having sex with her husband. It sounds spot on like vaginismus, which is often caused by some type fear connected with sexual intercourse. It could be fear of pain, fear of sin, or difficulty to training the mind that it's okay to "turn on" after so many years of sincerely trying to "turn off."

 

We know the teaching is not to blame, but the author and her husband are going through a great deal of distress since they want nothing more than to consummate their marriage, and they haven't been able to. After they are finally able to consummate, and she has time to come to a healthier balance with church teaching, it's very possible she will see the wisdom is reserving sex within marrage. What we need to understand is some faithful Christian couples who waited for marriage, etc. run into many difficulties in their relationship after getting married. It's not an easy thing to open up about, especially when young newlyweds are expected to be happy and looking forward to all the joys of raising a family. Sometimes the marriage vows are tested during a mid-life crisis or after the children have left home. But sometimes the marriage vows are tested right out of the gate, when it's least expected. That can be the most frustrating of all, without much history to fall back on, or a long steady decline in the marriage to prepare for the pain. When you're tested immediately, you only have each other, your vows, God -- and decades of future life together that quickly look very hopeless.

 

This woman and her husband need prayers for sure, along with practical assistance. Based on the feedback on the original website, they are getting plenty of both, with refreshingly little judgment.

[Socrates]

She isn't refusing to have sex with her husband. She is not capable of having sex with her husband. It sounds spot on like vaginismus, which is often caused by some type fear connected with sexual intercourse. It could be fear of pain, fear of sin, or difficulty to training the mind that it's okay to "turn on" after so many years of sincerely trying to "turn off."

 

We know the teaching is not to blame, but the author and her husband are going through a great deal of distress since they want nothing more than to consummate their marriage, and they haven't been able to. After they are finally able to consummate, and she has time to come to a healthier balance with church teaching, it's very possible she will see the wisdom is reserving sex within marrage. What we need to understand is some faithful Christian couples who waited for marriage, etc. run into many difficulties in their relationship after getting married. It's not an easy thing to open up about, especially when young newlyweds are expected to be happy and looking forward to all the joys of raising a family. Sometimes the marriage vows are tested during a mid-life crisis or after the children have left home. But sometimes the marriage vows are tested right out of the gate, when it's least expected. That can be the most frustrating of all, without much history to fall back on, or a long steady decline in the marriage to prepare for the pain. When you're tested immediately, you only have each other, your vows, God -- and decades of future life together that quickly look very hopeless.

 

This woman and her husband need prayers for sure, along with practical assistance. Based on the feedback on the original website, they are getting plenty of both, with refreshingly little judgment.

 

A good response.  I actually didn't click on the original blog.  Obviously, the blogger has serious psychological problems, perhaps caused or aggravated to some extent by poor methods of religious teaching.  (I realize now, she's probably not Catholic, but at first kind of assumed she was, probably because I read this on a Catholic site.)

 

I took the post at face value, and based what I said on that.  Not knowing the blogger personally, neither I nor anyone else here can know her inner intent and soul.

 

Being married, i'm aware that all is not always bliss and joy in marriage, and there are trials.  However, I stand by my point that most women taught to save sex for marriage do not have this paralyzing phobia, and blaming and bashing moral teachings regarding chastity is out of line.  At very least, publicly speaking badly of premarital chastity seems imprudent and can create scandal, especially when so many struggle with, or outright reject, this Christian moral teaching. 

 

I guess I'm just a little sick of Christian sexual morality being blamed for every problem in the world.