09 August, 2008

The "lic" in Catholic: Christian Sex

17th July 2007

Today, I am going to address the issue of the body in Christian tradition, and mostly from a Catholic perspective, though it's applicable to more than just that perspective. To begin, I will briefly define what sex is all about according to Catholicism: procreating, and nothing else. Even I thought that this wasn't so strict; I thought that within marriage you were allowed to have sex the way you wanted and have babies when you wanted. Well, you can have babies when you want, but you can only have sex when you intend to have a baby from said sex. In short, sex, for Catholics, is only a means to have a child. So at the heart of Catholic sex lies this motto: every time you come, you should not only want a baby to happen, but also be sure that there is a fair chance of it happening. That means no masturbation, and if you're a man, no coming anywhere else than within a woman's private parts. And for a woman, well, that could easily mean no orgasming ever at all. The female orgasm isn't biologically required for procreation, so... But then again, so is the male orgasm with today's technology. You could do without any actual sex. The Church isn't for that anyway, they want it the "natural" way, and that is, sex and making babies are inherently the same thing.

Well that's where I personally disagree. Sure enough, sex can lead to kids, but just because it has that one purpose doesn't mean it's the only purpose. Look at nipples, they aren't there only for breastfeeding; in fact, breasts are quite helpful in finding a mate to make the potential breast-sucker who will benefit from titties' having this milking faculty. So that's two "uses" for the same breast. And there's more, naturally.

The idea of sex being impossibly separable from kids is sort of vaguely pedophiliac and incestuous. Who comes thinking of the baby that will be created because of their orgasm? Talk about a disturbing thought! Imagine your father - argh, fuck it, just don't think of it. Sometimes I'm glad I know my biological father wasn't at all thinking of making babies when he came for me.

I actually didn't mean to talk of sex in this entry... I meant to talk of the body, the flesh, the sinful nasty evil flesh. Of course, it's quite related. So where am I going with this now... Let's find a nice transition shall we.

Catholicism wants you to put in the same basket all of the following: feeling horny, wanting to have sex, wanting to have a baby, wanting to bear a baby (for ladies), wanting to be a parent and raise your child for years and years, etc. That's all part of the package according to Catholicism. I see the point, but I cannot honestly consider all of these as the same thing belonging to the same package. Animals do that, but animals don't know any better, and animals don't have much of a choice; and come on, animals don't fuck because they want to be parents, they just want to fuck. Then they have babies, a fact that they probably don't connect to the sex they had, and they take care of them (well, not all animals). Consider dolphins: dolphins have sex because it's fun. They love it, and they do it all the time, with everyone. Consider Bonobo monkeys! They fuck all that moves, siblings, parents, homos, straight, anything. Breathing is the only mandatory thing you must have in order to be a potential target for a Bonobo monkey's lust, and I'm not even sure that's the limit.

And my point is? We can't pretend to be like animals, I guess. I think there are better reasons to make babies than sexual lust; that shouldn't even be a reason. The Catholic Church doesn't exactly say it is a reason, but it does say that the whole thing goes together.

How do you go about this without hypocrisy? You only have sex when you think there's a fair chance to have a baby. That means you're not getting a lot of sex, and that's alright because sex itself isn't the point. You're only trying to be fruitful and multiply, don't forget. If you happen to be Catholic (and male), that means that when your wife is pregnant, you forget about sex. If you're homosexual, you forget about sex too. If you're sterile, well you forget about sex. The Catholic Lord says that thou shalt not have any orgasm because none of them can end up being a little baby. It all makes sense once you know what Catholic sex is all about!

Ah, I still haven't reached what I meant to talk about. I'll do that in another entry. This chapter was originally called "The "lic" in Catholic: Christian Nihilism", now it's gonna be subtitled "Christian Sex". I'll write another chapter for the original topic.

let's sum up: sex is only for procreation. I never get tired of saying that because it seems just so impossibly impossible. Between you and me, if sex was only for procreation, and if I followed that rule, well, I'd be banging my head against walls 6 hours a day, just to contain the unspent energy, and with the possible hope of making myself comatose in the attempt.

Sex, for Catholics, is only a good thing for procreation, as I said a zillion times before. That also means that whenever babies aren't involved, it's evil. And that means no sex for married couples where someone is sterile! How tough is Catholicism? Do Catholic churches offer free castration services? Because that's what I'd need if I meant to be a good Catholic. Give it the cut! There's no other way.

On that bloody note, I terminate this chapter which went wrong from the beginning since I wanted to talk about the sense of touch in the Christian paradigm. Yay for digressions, though.


Dave Carrol said...

It's a very peculiar thing to me.

Onihikage said...

The problem is, many Catholics only read parts of the bible that the priests tell them to. Ergo, Song of Songs / Song of Solomon never comes up. I believe Song of Solomon was included in the Bible to tell us that sex is man and woman becoming one flesh and loving each other, body and soul, not just reproduction.

For instance, "Thy navel is like a round goblet, which never lacks mixed wine." A few scholars have said that, because of the context and original greek, they believe "navel" is actually referring to the vulva. After all, the bellybutton certainly doesn't bring forth juices, much less pleasurable juices (like wine). I believe this is the part saying that oral sex is okay. Naturally though, stuffy old scholars wouldn't want to interpret a bible verse in such a "dirty" way, but that's because they don't realize that sex between a man and his wife is a beautiful thing; it's only ugly when done in solitude or in an act of sin (adultery).

We also find verses such as, "My beloved is to me a pouch of myrrh Which lies all night between my breasts." Here we have a pouch between her breasts, filled with "myrrh," the scent of which is "sharp, pleasant, somewhat bitter." This also sounds like another familiar sexual act.

Then we also have "Your stature is like a palm tree, And your breasts are like its clusters. I said, 'I will climb the palm tree, I will take hold of its fruit stalks.' Oh, may your breasts be like clusters of the vine, And the fragrance of your breath like apples, And your mouth like the best wine! It goes down smoothly for my beloved, Flowing gently through the lips of those who fall asleep."

Here now we even have fondling of her breasts, but what do the Catholic priests say? "Pleasure in sex? Balderdash!" To which we can reply, "If sex wasn't meant to be a pleasurable act, God never would have made it feel so wonderful in the first place, because He is not a hypocrite."

Just something to bring up next time you talk to a Catholic ^/_\^