Please, Define Sex

[Semperviva]

Help-
I don't know how to respond to this, or where to begin...



We are human beings capable of having sex for reproduction. THus, we are just like any other animal. The fact that we engage in sex for REPRODUCTION, DOES NOT differentiate HUMANS from ANIMALS.

So, what is the defining quality of Humans as different from animals? It is THIS:

WE CAN CHOOSE TO HAVE SEX, or NOT HAVE SEX, based on WHATEVER MOTIVATION WE SO CHOOSE -- Reproduction or PLEASURE or PAIN.
Animals do not engage in a VOLITIONAL, conscious CHOICE to have sex or not to have sex. A dog cannot go up to a she-dog (can I say beesh?), and ask for her permission in the matter of sex, nor can the she-dog make a choice to say yes to sex or NO to sex.
Animals function on instinctual patterns of their intrinsic motivations and the environment. ANIMALS DO NOT HAVE SEX FOR THE PURE PURPOSE OF PLEASURE! Yes, animals MAY experience pleasure while having sex, BUT THAT IS PURELY A BY-PRODUCT of their INSTINCT to have sex to pro-create. Natural evolution requires that ANIMALS have an instinctual need to pro-create! That is the only instinctual purpose of their sexual act.

A Human is NOT constrained by the natural evolutionary pressure to pro-create BECAUSE WE CHOOSE! We choose to have sex for pro-creation, or we choose to have sex for pleasure... or to cause pain... whatever the case is.
We are different from animals because our PRIMARY MOTIVATION to have sex is NOT INSTINCTUAL but fully CONSCIOUS choice! And based on this choice, we can choose to engage in sex for pleasure or for procreation.

Also, all acts of sex DO NOT LEAD to reproduction. Humans can have sex in a variety of natural ways and still not reproduce. For example, unless the sperm meets an egg that is available in the female at the right time of the month, she will NOT conceive! So, the sexual act has not necessarily resulted in reproduction even though there was no "unnatural tampering" involved. Infact, this absurdly risky practice is the only kind of sex encouraged by the fundamentalist stance of the Catholic Church.
Thus, when you say, "it is only through tampering with nature that reproduction is prevented", quite frankly, you are absolutely wrong!

Also, what do you deem as "unnatural"? Why do you say that? And on what basis of authority do you claim certain things as natural and unnatural?
You probably assume that the male and female genitals are a "natural" fit for each other, and serve the evolutionary purpose of procreation (but you don't believe in evolution, right?)and therefore it must be concluded that nature has decreed that any use of the genitalia other than penile/vaginal penetration for purposes of procreation is unnatural.
In making this assumption you are reducing the sexual experience among humans to that of barnyard, animalistic sex. As I said earlier, you must realize that one of the things that makes us HUMAN and different from a mere ANIMAL is that WE CAN CHOOSE based on our real dispositions! We can choose to have sex for procreation, or we can choose not too! You cannot FORCE it upon me to ONLY have sex for pro-creation because that is what ANIMALS do. They have sex ONLY to pro-create (though they are not aware of doing that, it is instinctual, and they derive pleasure as a consequence not as a GOAL achieved). You cannot make me have sex like an animal. You cannot treat a HUMAN as a mere ANIMAL by saying that sex is ONLY for pro-creation because that is how the rest of animalistic nature does it.
ALso, how do you decide natural versus unnatural acts? It is natural to masturbate deliberately? No? Well, then, is it natural to ejaculate unwittingly, like in your sleep? If the latter is okay and the former is not, then I ask you what is the difference between the two acts? The difference is the act of choice in the former and the lack of willful choice in the latter. So, this has nothing to do the "naturalness" of the act, but it has to do with the MORALITY of the act. You think it's not MORAL -- under your system of morals -- to choose to masturbate (the Catholic Church shares that with you)...
So, don't claim any artificial argument based on naturalness when what you are truly referring to is the morality of the act. And that is a whole other issue

[Semperviva]

i meant "tampering with nature" in un-natural ways such as BC, condoms, oops...

[Guest JeffCR07]

First:

Our capacity to engage in sex for a number of reasons is not what differentiates us from the animals. Rather, what fundamentally differentiates a human being from an animal is the fact that it has a free will, which Anselm defines as "the ability to keep uprightness-of-will for its own sake." This freedom has two composite parts. First, [i]reason[/i], second, [i]will[/i]. Thus, it is the synthesis of our reason and will that allows us to keep uprightness (or to do what one ought to do) for its own sake.

Second:

Modern Science, in fact, refutes your claim that "animals do not have sex for the pure purpose of please." In fact, it is commonly known that dolphins do indeed engage in sex for pleasure - a simple google search (for "dolphins" AND "sex" AND "pleasure") will show you this.

Third:

With regards to sexual ethics, we return to the first point above. An essential part of our humanity is in the synthesis of reason and will. Animals lack this synthesis, and thus we say that they will [i]necessarily[/i] or "according to their instincts.

When we refer to things being "unnatural" we do not mean that such-and-such a thing does not ever occur in nature (for monkeys masturbate, etc). Rather, what we mean is that such an action would not be natural for a HUMAN, because a human is able to, and ought to, synthesize the will and the intellect.


Intellectually, I can see that sperm, when joined with an egg, create new life. Moreover, I can see, in pure, biological terms, that the purpose of the sperm is to fertilize the egg, and to create this new life. I also see that sexual pleasure is linked to the same genital stimulation which facilitates the meeting of sperm and egg (in men, ejaculation, in women, lubrication).

Now, because I am intellectually capable of understanding this, my humanity itself demands that I integrate my reason and my actions. Thus, I understand that whenever I engage in sex, I should do so in a way that will be open to the function of the sperm and the egg.

Let's look at another example from the classics:

I see an acorn. I know that, biologically, the function of the acorn is to take root and grow into an oak tree. Because I understand this, I can synthesize my reason and my will, and thus see that whenever I plant an acorn, I should do so in a way in which such an action of planting the acorn will be open to the growth of that acorn.

If I am opposed to the acorn growing into an oak tree, then I should not plant it.

Similarly, if I am opposed to the creation of a child, I should not have sex.


In Christ,

Jeff

[photosynthesis]

Humans aren't different from animals because of their capability to make choices regarding sexual acts. We humans are different because we are created in God's image and likeness, and we have immortal souls.

Also, the Catholic Church has the authority to deem what is natural and unnatural because Jesus Christ told Peter, "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven." (matthew 16:18). The authority of the Church comes straight from God.

Also, (if I am not mistaken) I think Catholics are allowed to believe in some forms of evolution.

[Semperviva]

Well...
about the acorn thing...
if you can't afford children you can still have sex and not plan to get pregnant with NFP, or am I wrong...
so how does that follow...
I mean how does it follow that if you don't want kids you shoulden't have sex, but it seems you can do so practising NFP...
I know I'm missing something here...

[Socrates]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jun 22 2005, 07:04 PM']Help-
I don't know how to respond to this, or where to begin...
We are human beings capable of having sex for reproduction. THus, we are just like any other animal. The fact that we engage in sex for REPRODUCTION, DOES NOT differentiate HUMANS from ANIMALS.

So, what is the defining quality of Humans as different from animals? It is THIS:

WE CAN CHOOSE TO HAVE SEX, or NOT HAVE SEX, based on WHATEVER MOTIVATION WE SO CHOOSE -- Reproduction or PLEASURE or PAIN.
Animals do not engage in a VOLITIONAL, conscious CHOICE to have sex or not to have sex. A dog cannot go up to a she-dog (can I say beesh?), and ask for her permission in the matter of sex, nor can the she-dog make a choice to say yes to sex or NO to sex.
Animals function on instinctual patterns of their intrinsic motivations and the environment. ANIMALS DO NOT HAVE SEX FOR THE PURE PURPOSE OF PLEASURE! Yes, animals MAY experience pleasure while having sex, BUT THAT IS PURELY A BY-PRODUCT of their INSTINCT to have sex to pro-create. Natural evolution requires that ANIMALS have an instinctual need to pro-create! That is the only instinctual purpose of their sexual act.

A Human is NOT constrained by the natural evolutionary pressure to pro-create BECAUSE WE CHOOSE! We choose to have sex for pro-creation, or we choose to have sex for pleasure... or to cause pain... whatever the case is.
We are different from animals because our PRIMARY MOTIVATION to have sex is NOT INSTINCTUAL but fully CONSCIOUS choice! And based on this choice, we can choose to engage in sex for pleasure or for procreation.

Also, all acts of sex DO NOT LEAD to reproduction. Humans can have sex in a variety of natural ways and still not reproduce. For example, unless the sperm meets an egg that is available in the female at the right time of the month, she will NOT conceive! So, the sexual act has not necessarily resulted in reproduction even though there was no "unnatural tampering" involved. Infact, this absurdly risky practice is the only kind of sex encouraged by the fundamentalist stance of the Catholic Church.
Thus, when you say, "it is only through tampering with nature that reproduction is prevented", quite frankly, you are absolutely wrong!

Also, what do you deem as "unnatural"? Why do you say that? And on what basis of authority do you claim certain things as natural and unnatural?
You probably assume that the male and female genitals are a "natural" fit for each other, and serve the evolutionary purpose of procreation (but you don't believe in evolution, right?)and therefore it must be concluded that nature has decreed that any use of the genitalia other than penile/vaginal penetration for purposes of procreation is unnatural.
In making this assumption you are reducing the sexual experience among humans to that of barnyard, animalistic sex. As I said earlier, you must realize that one of the things that makes us HUMAN and different from a mere ANIMAL is that WE CAN CHOOSE based on our real dispositions! We can choose to have sex for procreation, or we can choose not too! You cannot FORCE it upon me to ONLY have sex for pro-creation because that is what ANIMALS do. They have sex ONLY to pro-create (though they are not aware of doing that, it is instinctual, and they derive pleasure as a consequence not as a GOAL achieved). You cannot make me have sex like an animal. You cannot treat a HUMAN as a mere ANIMAL by saying that sex is ONLY for pro-creation because that is how the rest of animalistic nature does it.
ALso, how do you decide natural versus unnatural acts? It is natural to masturbate deliberately? No? Well, then, is it natural to ejaculate unwittingly, like in your sleep? If the latter is okay and the former is not, then I ask you what is the difference between the two acts? The difference is the act of choice in the former and the lack of willful choice in the latter. So, this has nothing to do the "naturalness" of the act, but it has to do with the MORALITY of the act. You think it's not MORAL -- under your system of morals -- to choose to masturbate (the Catholic Church shares that with you)...
So, don't claim any artificial argument based on naturalness when what you are truly referring to is the morality of the act. And that is a whole other issue
[right][snapback]619854[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

This is a rant, rather than a reasoned argument, so it is dubious this person will listen to reasoned argument.

However, a few points:
[quote]The fact that we engage in sex for REPRODUCTION, DOES NOT differentiate HUMANS from ANIMALS[/quote]

No one claimed it did!

[quote]We are different from animals because our PRIMARY MOTIVATION to have sex is NOT INSTINCTUAL but fully CONSCIOUS choice! And based on this choice, we can choose to engage in sex for pleasure or for procreation.[/quote]
So what? We can choose to murder our fellow human beings, enslave them, commit genocide, etc. The fact that we as humans can choose actions does not make all choices intrinically good or noble. This is another red herring.

[quote] Infact, this absurdly risky practice [NFP] is the only kind of sex encouraged by the fundamentalist stance of the Catholic Church.[/quote]
This person knows nothing about modern NFP. And the Church does not encourage married procreative sex??

The point is that one should not engage in sex in a manner which deliberately thwarts its natural end.

[quote]and therefore it must be concluded that nature has decreed that any use of the genitalia other than penile/vaginal penetration for purposes of procreation is unnatural.
In making this assumption you are reducing the sexual experience among humans to that of barnyard, animalistic sex.[/quote]

So sodomy is now somehow "higher" and more "human" and noble, while procreative sex just is "barnyard, animalistic sex"? Isn't that a value judgment?

The point of morality is not whether or not it is how the animals do it! Humans are called to make moral choices, not just follow their instincts.
Animals will mate with any member of the opposite sex indiscriminately. Behaving like cats or dogs is not following Christian morality.
Because humans can choose, we have moral responsiblity for out actions. The end of sexual union is procreation, and we should not deliberately hinder this. The fact that we can choose our actions, does not mean we should act CONTRARY to nature.

It is hedonistic/contraceptive/sodomistic sex, that is animalistic, as it reduces the act and the other person to a mere means of satifying our sexual instincts (like a dog in heat), rather than rationally fulfilling sex's natural purpose.

Edited June 23, 2005 by Socrates

[Semperviva]

so, why is it OK plant acorns in un-fertile ground? since the purpose of acorn is not being fulfilled...

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jun 22 2005, 08:00 PM']Well...
about the acorn thing...
if you can't afford children you can still have sex and not plan to get pregnant with NFP, or am I wrong...
so how does that follow...
I mean how does it follow that if you don't want kids you shoulden't have sex, but it seems you can do so practising NFP...
I know I'm missing something here...
[right][snapback]619928[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Its ok, this is something that a lot of ppl have difficulty with.

NFP is NOT ok if the couple is viewing it as just a round-about contraceptive (but this isnt what we mean by NFP, really).

What IS ok is for a couple to have sex only at certain times in the month, even when they know that the chance of pregnancy is almost none. The reason this is ok is because the couple [i]is still open[/i] to the creation of the child if that is what God wills.

To use the acorn analogy:

Imagine you own a plot of land and you have an acorn, but some kind of extraordinary circumstance prevents you from planting that acorn in the most fertile soil. You can still plant the acorn in the soil that is nearly completely unfertile, even though you know it will most likely not grow into an oak tree, because you are [i]open[/i] to the possibility of it growing into an oak tree when you plant it.


The point here, is that the will and the reason of the human being are assenting to and acting in harmony with the function, or "end" of the action.

[photosynthesis]

I like that analogy

[Guest JeffCR07]

Thank you, I wish I could say it was mine, but I am sure that I heard it from some other source, though I cannot recall who or where it comes from.

[Semperviva]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 22 2005, 08:32 PM']
To use the acorn analogy:

Imagine you own a plot of land and you have an acorn, but some kind of extraordinary circumstance prevents you from planting that acorn in the most fertile soil. You can still plant the acorn in the soil that is nearly completely unfertile, even though you know it will most likely not grow into an oak tree, because you are [i]open[/i] to the possibility of it growing into an oak tree when you plant it.
The point here, is that the will and the reason of the human being are assenting to and acting in harmony with the function, or "end" of the action.
[right][snapback]619990[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

This makes sense! But I mean technically yes-it [i]cooould[/i] happen, but you know the chances are .01% ... so you're saying, if that .01% occurs...its all good...? okaaaay- gOtcha
[i]Grazie![/i]

[Guest JeffCR07]

sure thing, I'm just glad people are interested in learning about the difference between NFP and contraception

[LittleLes]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 23 2005, 09:08 AM']sure thing, I'm just glad people are interested in learning about the difference between NFP and contraception 
[right][snapback]620360[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


QUESTION:

Isn't NFP a form of contraception? One uses timing, the other chemicals. But the intent is the same in both cases.

LittleLes

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 23 2005, 09:25 AM']QUESTION:

Isn't NFP a form of contraception? One uses timing, the other chemicals. But the intent is the same in both cases.

LittleLes
[right][snapback]620374[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Good question, and one that many people ask, but no, there is a fundamentally different orientation between the two actions.

In the case of contraception (whether it be via pill or condom) some action is being taken which is directly and intentionally opposed to the conception of a child.

However, when NFP is done correctly, not only is no being action taking which has as its object the prevention of conception (for the only act being done is the act of having sex) but even the interior disposition of the couple is open to the possibility of having a child, such that, even if it is very very unlikely that they will conceive, should such a thing happen, the parents would still be overjoyed and welcoming of such a thing.

In Christ,

Jeff

[LittleLes]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 23 2005, 10:22 AM']Good question, and one that many people ask, but no, there is a fundamentally different orientation between the two actions.

In the case of contraception (whether it be via pill or condom) some action is being taken which is directly and intentionally opposed to the conception of a child.

However, when NFP is done correctly, not only is no being action taking which has as its object the prevention of conception (for the only act being done is the act of having sex) but even the interior disposition of the couple is open to the possibility of having a child, such that, even if it is very very unlikely that they will conceive, should such a thing happen, the parents would still be overjoyed and welcoming of such a thing.

In Christ,

Jeff
[right][snapback]620451[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

I'm afraid I'm going to have to differ with you on this point especially as it involves the use of contraceptive pills.

"not only is no action being taken which has as its object the prevention of conception (for the only act being done is the act of having sex) ..."

On the contrary, a very specific action is being taken. Intercourse is being excluded during the woman's fertile period. This might be termed "temporal contraception."

But the same effect can be accomplished , rather than waiting for correct hormonal conditions, simply by giving the hormones necessary. This might be termed " chemical contraception."

The same mechanism is used in both cases, so its "time" or "chemical." And the intent in both cases is to exclude pregnancy while recognizing that it might occur anyway in spite of the precautions taken.

LittleLes