If so, what do those religions say about marriage and sex for those who are either infertile/barren, or don't want kids? If sex is only for procreation, does that mean those who do not or cannot have children no longer have sex?|||It's another reaon that neither my wife nor myself accept any of those religions. We are an "infertile couple," so sex for us has nothing to do with procreation. It has to do with intimacy and outright pleasure.
If a religious or spiritual view cannot acknowledge those facets of sex, then they are not only unrealistic, they are frankly harmful.|||Not in Judaism. The ketubah (marriage contract) even makes provisions for how a man is supposed to be able to deliver sex at his wife's behest, sometimes even the number of times a week is noted.
Sex is supposed to be pleasurable in Judaism. It is taught that the woman cannot be denied and must be pleasured first. Do some have a lot of children? Yes, but that's a part of another commandment altogether (be fruitful and multiply).
In case of barren couples or couples that choose not to have children, they aren't thought of as "sinners" or falling short as such. They're "missing out" on a mitzvot (commandment), but if they can't, they can't, no judgment there.|||I can't speak for all religions, but The Song of Solomon (also known as The Song of Songs) is a book in the Old Testament that's aaaaaalllll about sex. Hell, they even mention oral sex:
Song of Solomon 2:3 "As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so [is] my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit [was] sweet to my taste."|||There are eastern religions like Taoism that focus on sex as it being a form of medication and a path to enlightenment. Tantric sex has been used for many generations to become closer with the 'source'.
The Greek god Dionysus was the god of partying and the temples devoted to him would be filled with orgies and wine.
Germanic tribes also made quite a powerful mention of sex in their pagan rituals.|||I do not believe sex is just about pumping babies out in any religion. I can see why some would ponder this question though.
I can only explain it from a Catholic point of view. Sex is one of the greatest parts about humanity so like the post above SEX = GOOD. However, Catholics believe that there is a purpose beyond pleasure (which is still very good!) to sex. One of those things is procreation. Procreation is a greater good than pleasure we can participate in making a new life... that is a very, very good thing. So pleasure cannot be our sole means while we have sex because it is not all that makes sex a good thing.
However, the communication of persons during sex is such an important part to a healthy marital relationship between and man and woman that it is suggested that one should abstain with only very good reason.
If you are infertile or barren you should still have sex with your spouse... just be open to life if it somehow happens!
Those who can't have kids at any given time for a genuinely good reason (money, medical, psychological {a lot of kids can be stressful})... should abstain during fertile periods (using Natural Family Planning is the best way to monitor this). However, resume the sexual act during infertile periods... While practicing this one should ALWAYS be open to life.
If you can no longer have children... keep on having sex.
Disclaimer: the Catholic Church is very, and in my opinion justifiably and lovingly strict about the fact that sex is only used in its proper context inside the Sacrament of Marriage and thus, should only take place in that context.|||SEX = GOOD.
I don't know why religions see it as being so *bad*
In Catholicism we were taught that, regardless of whether or not you are able to produce offspring, you have to be at least *open* to the *possibility* of having them as a result of sex. So yes, barren folks can do it too.|||At least in some like the Catholic Church- sex is about uniting the spouses and creating new life. Those who cannot have children are not prohibited from having sex. Making love will still bring the spouses closer together. But those that can have children have to always be open to life, which basically means they can't use birth control.|||Muhammad (pbuh) said that a man cant marry a barren woman. Because you have to have many children and do not be afraid to be poor because Allah will help you, and also because on day of Judgement the Muslims will be more than any other religion.
Narrated Ma鈥檘il ibn Yasar: A man came to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said: I have found a woman of rank and beauty, but she does not give birth to children. Should I marry her? He said: No. He came again to him, but he prohibited him. He came to him third time, and he (the Prophet) said: Marry women who are loving and very prolific, for I shall outnumber the peoples by you. (Book #11, Hadith #2045)|||Pumping out babies? It's not a procreation baby station. Sex is beautiful inside of a marriage, ugly outside, simply because it is a sin against your own body in premarital sex. A couple can have sex without having children, but by faith can believe God for children if they want any.|||Mormons believe that sex is for procreation first and foremost.... but also allow that it is quite pleasurable for men and women, and helps to cement a relationship.
so, in Mormonism, you get all sorts of weird ideas about sex...
I personally knew a bishop who said that any married couples who practised ANYTHING EXCEPT straight vaginal intercourse could no go to the temple (this is like saying they are the lowest of the low in terms of their church membership) and he would ask this at temple interviews.
but mormonism is completely F'd up about sex... I hear that, in BYU university, boys and girls who are 'going steady' practise a thing called 'soaking' ( http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.ph鈥?/a> ), which they think doesnt constitute 'Real' sex and so they can still claim to be celibate at bishopric interviews|||That is a teaching of Catholicism, some strict Protestant religions, and perhaps Islam.
I must say, in the interest of truth, that despite what IM has said, that is not a teaching of Mormonism:
"As you discuss this sacred matter, remember that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved. While one purpose of these relations is to provide physical bodies for God's children, another purpose is to express love for one another- to bind husband and wife together in loyalty, fidelity, consideration, and common purpose."|||If it were just for procreation we would only get the urge when it was for that reason.
It's for fun and pleasure as well as long as you're careful. I don't want to make any babby's yet and certainly don't want to get married.|||Sex has three purposes...
1) To bring union to the married couple (1 man + 1 woman)
2) To bring forth the potential to create life (they both must be open to doing so)
3) For physical pleasure|||I actually saw a fundie write once that sex not for procreation is a sin.
'Be fruitful and multiply' does not have the same meaning in an overpopulated world.|||It seems so. Religions often wants man to go against biological urges/functions but this one it respects.
After all the religious tend to breed more religious :)|||LOL not at all. God created sex to be a beautiful and wonderful thing to be enjoyed between a husband and wife.|||Oh yeah. Catholicism.|||Sex is really all about pumping out babies in biology, too.|||Yes, a lot of Mormons I know are so prudish and they just have a bunch of kids and ugh...|||It's not a problem. Those religions tend to attract people who are lousy in bed.|||Unfortunately, yes.|||so many claim
then they make exceptions for heteros
so they lie|||sex is a gift from god.|||Well, as always, people tend to over simplify the teachings. Especially those who believe differently.
One of the religions which "supposedly" believes this is the Catholic faith, which I happen to be a member of.
But simply saying that the church teaches that Sex is for procreation is an oversimplification.
When I hear similar things about the Mormon faith or certain Fundie religions.. I can't help but to think that is ALSO an oversimplification of their beliefs as well, by people outside of their religion.
From a Catholic perspective... sex is about procreation.. but it doesn't stop there.
Sex, in Catholicism is also a way in which MANKIND, enters into cooperation with God, for the purpose of bringing forth new life. It is human kinds way of participating in the creation process. A bit of the divine in all of us, so to speak.
God didn't have to involve us at all, in creation, but he chose to. He could have had little kids just ::Poof:: come into being. The couple wakes up one morning and %26lt;Voila!%26gt; there is a baby boy sleeping next to them...RIGHT?
But notice that God didn't do that.. he created a process where by it takes the cooperation of the 2 parents along with God.. to produce a new human life.
The parents must be open to each other.. open their bodies to each other and cooperate with the fundamental way in which God created them. They have to recognize each other as contributing to life.
Further more, everyone realizes that not EVERY coupling or sex act results in a child, or new life. Therefore, OBVIOUSLY there is more to the procreative aspect of sex then merely begetting children.
The truth is that to enter into cooperation with God, one only needs to be "open" to that possibility. One only needs to not block themselves off to the possibility, if it is God's will. Since it takes essentially 3 persons.. 1 male, 1 female, and 1 God to create a new life (man and women contributing their biology, God contributing a soul to the equation) AND since we don't know the mind of God and WHEN he plans on creating a new life or not... all he asks is that we be OPEN to the possibility when we have sex.
He made sex with 1 intrinsic nature.. that it is potentially procreative, but he doesn't make every sexual act result in a baby. Which ones he does and doesn't we don't know.. so we need only be OPEN to the possibility.
Therefore Sex is intrinsically "potentially procreative" in the end. It is not a guarantee.
Therefore all he asks is that we are open to the possibility..that's all. Whether or not it results in a new life.. is not our concern. We should merely not break that "cooperation" with him..which is how he designed sex.
Even infertile couples and those who don't want to have kids.. need only be "open" to the possibility.
OR ELSE, they should not have sex. OR have sex at times which carry the least chance of pregnancy (Natural Planning Method)
You can abstain from sex as much as you want..but when you DO choose to have it.. you need to only be OPEN to the possibility, regardless of if you have the parts or the fertility to actually conceive.
The Church has worked a lot on research to show that Natural Timing or Natural Family Planning methods (NFP) is even more effective then many forms of birth control, if done correctly. It takes a bit more training and some self control.. but in the end, it has less chance of accidental pregnancy then condoms or birth control pills.
With NFP you are simply choosing to abstain from sex at times when you or your partner are MOST fertile. There is nothing wrong with not having sex if you don't want the consequences...that doesn't break cooperation with God, nor pervert the intrinsic nature of sex itself.
This is the view that people generalize as "sex only for procreation" and why questions like "what if you are fertile" get asked.
______________________________
::EDIT:::
David, who posted before me, hits the nail on the head. I'm waaayyy too wordy.. I know that.. But David hits on all the right points.
I find the Catholic view of sex ELEVATES it to an even HIGHER, more mind blowing level then most people realize.
I prefer the phrase "cooperation with God" because to ME, that's what elevates sex.. you are working WITH and in conjunction with God's plan...when your sex is open to procreation.. what could be more trippy then that?
THAT.. and realizing when your sex is open to procreation.. the other person is giving themselves to you.. mind body and soul. -- MORE then in normal sex, because in normal sex, most people use contraception, and in contraception you are holding back your natural body functions just a tiny bit. You aren't TOTALLY trusting the other person. You still fear that they might get you pregnant OR that you might impregnate them... so there is just a small bit of fear and apprehension that goes along with contraception.
NOT SO in totally open, marital, monogomous, procreative sex. -- No holding back.
That's a TRIP, NO?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment