Gratification Through Exercise...

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1661111' date='Sep 22 2008, 03:51 PM']let's look at the heart of the question here... because just like the question i keep asking on the last page here:
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=51550&pid=1660918&st=60&#entry1660918"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...p;#entry1660918[/url]

no one (save Socrates perhaps) is really answering the question, but rather giving suggestions, opinions, excuses, and advice..

Is it not intention in this matter that makes the act sinful?[/quote]
If you commit an act that you know can result sin, then you are responsible because you knowin advance the possible result.

[havok579257]

[quote name='MissyP89' post='1661076' date='Sep 22 2008, 02:08 PM']You go to the bathroom and you adjust. I understand women are sensitive, but that doesn't ean it's an unavoidable situation. Buying pants that have a longer leg or are looser in the crotch area is a quick fix. We don't have to wear sweatpants all the time.[/quote]


But how acceptable is it for a women to always wear baggy pants. If a women works in an office, I doubt she could wear loose baggy pants. How is this case not unavoidable. That is unless the women stops walking all together or never wears pants.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Theologian in Training' post='1661033' date='Sep 22 2008, 12:59 PM']Re-read what she said. She did not say it was unintentional, she knows what she is doing before she does it.[/quote]


She knows whats going to happen but her intent is not for it to happen. It is a side effect of her body. Its the same thing as a young male knowing he will have wet dreams if he goes to sleep. Its not his intent but its a side effect of his body.

[havok579257]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1661188' date='Sep 22 2008, 04:46 PM']If you commit an act that you know can result sin, then you are responsible because you knowin advance the possible result.[/quote]

This rule can not be applied to all situations. Such as the one I mentioned earlier. I mean its not like we could expect a women in above case to never walk or wear pants or big baggy pants always.

[Theologian in Training]

It is said that after the Original Sin came the Original excuse. However, since what I have said seems to make no difference, despite hearing many confessions where similar things like this have come up, the CCC states:

"By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."138 "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."

Now, in this case, there is direct stimulation, and the intention, no matter which way you try to argue it, is to get something from this direct stimulation. It is a very difficult thing to have an orgasm accidentally, especially when fully awake and aware. Even if you intend to exercise, you know that by that exercise an orgasm results, and yet continue to exercise anyway then, by all laws of logic, you are held culpable for your actions.

If you want to get even more technical, there is knowledge that what is done leads to sin, there is full consent of the will, otherwise, somewhere during the exercises, she would stop, and the intention to just "exercise" is more an excuse than a valid argument.

I don't know if that is clear enough, but I tried.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Theologian in Training' post='1661217' date='Sep 22 2008, 06:44 PM']It is said that after the Original Sin came the Original excuse. However, since what I have said seems to make no difference, despite hearing many confessions where similar things like this have come up, the CCC states:

"By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."138 "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."

Now, in this case, there is direct stimulation, and the intention, no matter which way you try to argue it, is to get something from this direct stimulation. It is a very difficult thing to have an orgasm accidentally, especially when fully awake and aware. Even if you intend to exercise, you know that by that exercise an orgasm results, and yet continue to exercise anyway then, by all laws of logic, you are held culpable for your actions.

If you want to get even more technical, there is knowledge that what is done leads to sin, there is full consent of the will, otherwise, somewhere during the exercises, she would stop, and the intention to just "exercise" is more an excuse than a valid argument.

I don't know if that is clear enough, but I tried.[/quote]
Its perfectly clear Father, its just not the answer that lets people off the hook.

[Guest]

only on phatmass

Edited September 22, 2008 by Guest

[MissyP89]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1661196' date='Sep 22 2008, 05:11 PM']But how acceptable is it for a women to always wear baggy pants. If a women works in an office, I doubt she could wear loose baggy pants. How is this case not unavoidable. That is unless the women stops walking all together or never wears pants.[/quote]

If you read my original post, I said a woman should *not* have to wear baggy pants. Instead, it's a choice of what you buy. Try on the pants and walk in them before you buy. If they cause problems, fool with different sizes or a different style.

There is more than one option.

Edited September 22, 2008 by MissyP89

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1661025' date='Sep 22 2008, 12:47 PM']Its not a common occurance, I consider common more than 50% of the population. Although there are many women who have an over-sensative part down there that anytime is comes into contact with something that produces friction causes orgasms. Some women have orgasms all throughout the day just from walking down the street in pants.[/quote]

I want to see statistics and reliable sources.

In fact, many women have difficulty experiencing an orgasm during sex - our bodies are just designed this way, because our bodies do not need to experience an orgasm in order to reproduce the way the male body does.

(Please censor this if it is too graphic.) A woman has two sensitive areas that bring her to orgasm. One is inside her body - therefore, tight pants do nothing - and one is outside her body, although it is protected by other parts since it is very sensitive to touch. This part is not exposed in the sense that pants would be able to affect it.

Using your argument, one would say that men would be more prone to spontaneous orgasm due to tight pants.

[lilac_angel]

[quote name='MissyP89' post='1661237' date='Sep 22 2008, 05:15 PM']If you read my original post, I said a woman should *not* have to wear baggy pants. Instead, it's a choice of what you buy. Try on the pants and walk in them before you buy. If they cause problems, fool with different sizes or a different style.

There is more than one option.[/quote]

Wouldn't it kind of be distracting at work, etc., to have such a problem? One could also wear long skirts if they're more concerned with having a normal existence during the day. Not that it's a common problem...

[lilac_angel]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1661239' date='Sep 22 2008, 05:17 PM']I want to see statistics and reliable sources.[/quote]

Same here... I think I'd hear about it more if this actually happened more than once in a blue strange moon.

[HisChildForever]

I find it terribly hilarious that everyone is associating tight pants = orgasm for women, when no one is discussing how this is ten times more likely to happen with a man, since his sex organ reacts to external stimulus.

[Guest]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1661249' date='Sep 22 2008, 06:25 PM']I find it terribly hilarious that everyone is associating tight pants = orgasm for women, when no one is discussing how this is ten times more likely to happen with a man, since his sex organ reacts to external stimulus.[/quote]

haha, men should not be wearing tight pants, that may just be me though, blame it on the hiphop?
and if a man had an orgasm from wearing tight pants ???
lol
i dunno
im gonna leave this alone

[Vincent Vega]

Not to mention that there are special sort of pants without individual leg holes for women...I think they're called "dresses" and "skirts"...something like that. Don't quote me, though.

[lilac_angel]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' post='1661255' date='Sep 22 2008, 06:30 PM']Not to mention that there are special sort of pants without individual leg holes for women...I think they're called "dresses" and "skirts"...something like that. Don't quote me, though.[/quote]

lol... I mentioned that... But you put it in a more witty way than I did, so kudos.