I would expect that if my "
Staci's Abortion" post gets much traffic it may well serve to expose the anti-sex people who have been masquerading as "pro-life". Since pro-life people should welcome such a development, but anti-sex people will not. Just a guess.
.
Sex is awesome. So awesome, in fact, that its procreative and unitive functions cannot be separated without destroying the meaning of sex.
ReplyDeleteI find it bizzare that in a day and age where people spend thousands of extra dollars a year to be "all natural" in what they consume, buying "organic" milk, etc., that the vast majority of women then go on to pop an artificially-synthesized hormone pill into their bodies for the same reason they put cows on hormones: to facilitate their being used as pieces of meat.
Sex cannot find its true and most beautiful expression outside of the bond of marriage.
I'm all about sex. I'm against treating human beings as a commodity or an object of pleasure whether they are the women people have sex with, or the infants they "replant" for solely convenience's sake.
So, do you think the only purpose of sex is procreation? What about people who are sterile for some reason?
ReplyDeleteI have never treated anyone as "only" an object of pleasure, but an object of pleasure is better than most ways you can relate to another person. And it goes both ways: I am always willing to be an object of pleasure for someone else as long as it is mutual. To think there is something wrong with that, as long as there is no coercion or deception, is bizarre.
Kent, I was very clear when I mentioned the functions: sex is procreative and unitive. People who are sterile, beyond childbearing years, etc., can still enjoy creative love. The openness to life must always be there.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with making someone an object of pleasure is just that: you are treating them as an object: a thing. A tool. You must recognize and respect that the other person is an end in him or herself. That does not preclude taking pleasure with another human being, of course, but the personhood of the other person must always be recognized and respected.
"The problem with making someone an object of pleasure is just that: you are treating them as an object: a thing. A tool."
ReplyDeleteNot on your life. Not unless you violate their rights and liberty while mutually giving and receiving pleasure. Well, sure some people do that (both in and out of marriage), but to my mind that is a warped and perverted thing to do.
You aren't "making" someone an object of pleasure as much as allowing that aspect of their biological (and emotional) existence to be expressed.
And nothing I said precludes recognizing and respecting the other person's personhood and sovereignty. In fact, I don't think there would be mutual pleasure in it for me unless I totally respected them as a person. That doesn't mean a life-long commitment or other sovereignty-destroying complications. In fact, those things seem to be the opposite of respecting their personhood.
I just think sex has been burdened with a lot of mysticism through religious ideas. As has life, generally.
"In fact, I don't think there would be mutual pleasure in it for me unless I totally respected them as a person."
ReplyDeleteExactly.
"That doesn't mean a life-long commitment or other sovereignty-destroying complications."
Exactly incorrect.
Commitment does not destroy sovereignty. Commitment is a perfection of sovereignty. Unless one gives oneself completely, one is holding something back.
Liberty =/= "one size fits all". If that is what works for you I wouldn't dream of forcing you to live otherwise.
ReplyDelete