This Post Is About Sex
How did we get on this topic? We were having a conversation about talking to young women (Mollie’s post here), and persuading them to consider conservatism. One argument was that young women dread conservatives because conservatives are accused of wanting to roll back the Sexual Revolution, but that’s what brought women freedom. Then we got into the elements of the Sexual Revolution, and we landed on contraception. The arguments about contraception came up, and then I started talking about the sacred nature of sex, and I argued that contraception mitigates that. Red Feline and others disagreed - - we started talking about the nature of sex - - and rather than sidetrack Mollie’s thread, we now start a new one. This thread is devoted entirely to the nature of sex.
So let’s get started.
I love sex. Really. I look forward to it.
But just because something is enjoyable doesn’t mean it can’t also be sacred. And while I love sex, and think it’s a heck of a lot of fun, I also think it’s sacred.
- Sacred: To me that means something specific. When something is sacred, that means it has its own dignity. In plainer English, it means you can’t “use” it for any purpose but for what it was intended for. You have to respect it. An example is Communion wine. We Catholics consider it sacred, which means that we can’t just drink it because we’re thirsty. It has a special role, and we either use it for that role or not at all.
When you’re dealing with the sacred, you respect it, and you only use it for what it was intended for, and never for anything else.
Human beings, in the same way, should be considered sacred. You don’t “use” people. They have their own lives, their own freedom, and their own dignity. A president can’t just use soldiers, for instance, or throw them into danger because it may help him politically. You just don’t do things like that with people’s lives, because they’re sacred.
Parents consider their children sacred (or we expect them to). You don’t use children. If you want to play with dolls, buy a doll. If you want to have companionship, buy a puppy. But when you have a child, that child is a person in his own right, and as a parent, you respect that child’s life and dignity. You never use children.
Most of the opposition to prostitution is based on that notion that human beings are not to be “used.” You don’t use women, even if they want to be used so they can get money. Human beings have dignity, and you respect that dignity in all cases.
Sometimes the sacred comes in the form of an object, like communion wine. Sometimes, the sacred comes in the form of a person. And sometimes, the sacred comes in an action, or even a ritual.
Sex is an action. I say it’s a sacred action. My church taught me that originally, but as a man who’s been married for over twenty years, I confirm that sacredness by my own experience. Sex is at the core of my life, because my life is lived in union with another person.
Because it’s sacred, I respect it. And once I reflect on sex, I know that sex has different aspects to it.
- Sex communicates love
- Sex produces children
None of this is all that controversial. But here’s an intellectual question: Even if you grant that sex is sacred, and you can’t use it for any other purpose … does that mean that every act of sex has to fulfill every purpose? After all, it’s one thing to list qualities of sex, and demand that you can’t use sex to fulfill some other quality that isn’t on that list. But does that mean that you have to fulfill all of the qualities that are on the list, every time you have sex? If sacred means not using it for something else, does it also mean that you must use it fully?
I say yes.
My church phrases it this way: every act of sex must be open (“must be open;” now’s there’s a phrase!) to its natural purposes … in fact, it must be open to all of them. If sex’s dignity includes both procreation and communicating love, then because it’s sacred, both must be respected during every act of sex.
Now as it is, there’s a battle-worthy distinction between saying that sex [must produce] children and saying that sex [must be open to the possibility of producing] children. My church gets roasted for that distinction, but my goodness, I think that’s a way of letting people off the hook of having to produce children every time. That distinction is the church’s way of addressing the reality that while sex is sacred, people want to have it without getting pregnant.
But as for the dignity of sex:
- I find it impossible to deny that procreation is essential to the nature of sex.
- Nor can I deny that communicating love is essential to the nature of sex.
So, since the dignity of sex includes both, I can’t see a way to wriggle out of the conclusion: I must conclude that every act of sex is open to both, or else I’m having sex without respecting its sacredness. Communicating love is not enough. The possibility of producing children is not enough. It has to be both.
(OK, I’ve talked too much. Time for others to speak if they wish.)
- Comment (471)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (27)
Comments:
Dec '12
Re: This Post Is About Sex
So, sex between a married couple beyond child bearing years is what? Undignified? Sacreligious? Unsacred? I'm afraid you've lost me.
Apr '12
Re: This Post Is About Sex
Nice post, KC. Just to add...
Dietrich von Hildebrand says that procreation is the end of sex, while love is the meaning. I love that formulation. I think the CCC does a much poorer job of clarifying this point.
In my ethics class, I discuss this by comparing sex and eating. (By the time we get to sex, we've already discussed the ethics of eating and drinking.) Like sex, eating has a basic biological function, but, like sex, we elevate it in ways that the beasts cannot do. So, for us, eating is social and emotional and even aesthetic and spiritual. We don't just eat to keep our bodies "fueled". Still, we don't want to lose sight of the basic fact that eating is, fundamentally, the act of putting nutrients into our bodies. All the other layers of meaning are built on that foundation, and even if we value the other stuff more, we still need the foundation.
Likewise with sex. Fundamentally, it is a procreative activity. It can and should have deeper social/emotional/spiritual meaning for humans, but we keep the elements in balance only when we remain grounded in that basic biological foundation.
Apr '12
Re: This Post Is About Sex
You have to shoot at the target. You don't have to hit it.
Aug '10
Re: This Post Is About Sex
I'm for sex !
What was the question ?
Dec '12
Re: This Post Is About Sex
Rachel L.
You have to shoot at the target. You don't have to hit it. · 3 minutes ago
I am not less lost as a result of this answer.
Aug '10
Re: This Post Is About Sex
That was totally insensitive , and I apologize .
Would someone please direct me to the sex therapist ?
"Well Reverend, it's this darned war ......."
Edited on January 19, 2013 at 12:28amJan '11
Re: This Post Is About Sex
Good post KC. A question about this and Natural Family Planning:
Is a married couple who use artificial contraception necessarily less "open" to procreation than a similar couple that uses natural Natural Family Planning? Do they necessarily view it as less sacred?
On previous posts, it was heavily implied that NFP users definitionally welcome unplanned pregnancies as gifts from God, while those who use the Pill or condoms definitionally view the same situation as getting "cheated." One says Que Serra and goes to get a sonogram, the other gets angry and goes to an abortionist.
Though I'd wager that NFP users are -- on average -- more likely to have such a positive attitude, I think it's hubristic to think that it's the only way to get there, or that it works as well as described. Some NFP users will be upset and/or angry at an ill-timed pregnancy; some contraception users will accept that they lost a roll of the die quickly and start posting sonograms on Facebook.
Edited on January 18, 2013 at 11:44pmMar '12
Re: This Post Is About Sex
Sex as a stand alone term is too ambiguous. Sex can mean any number of activities as we learned from BJ Clinton.
Even within the confines of "sex" as sexual intercourse there are a number of different contexts.
Sex within marriage and without contraception is clearly the Catholic ideal and would be considered sacred from a Biblical viewpoint.
Sex within marriage with contraception would be problematic for Catholics who adhere to Church doctrines. But, as an expression of love, it could be considered sacred to many Christians.
Sex outside of marriage and within a premarital or comitted relationship as an expression of love and intimacy would probably not be considered sacred. But, it could be a act of a spiritual nature.
Casual sex or sex for pleasure without any emotional attachment to one's partner risks being degrading to one or both participants.
Sex for money or other material compensation is degrading to both participants.
Dec '12
Re: This Post Is About Sex
Sex within a marriage wherein one or both spouses is infertile is ________?
Mar '12
Re: This Post Is About Sex
Sex must include the possibility of causing life. When people reach the time when the woman is no longer fertile, the other original meaning of sex, that of communicating love, still exists. If that couple continues to love one another in bed, no contraception is permitted. We still hear of "unplanned" children occurring in spite of the fact that the woman appears no longer to be fertile.
It might also be noted that people marry that may (on either part) be sterile. The fact that one may be sterile does not preclude communicating love or of avoiding conception. The reasoning remains the same. They must be communicating love and they must be open to the possibility of life.
Edited on January 19, 2013 at 12:14amApr '12
Re: This Post Is About Sex
Scrutinizer: When a man and woman have sex, that is the type of activity that can lead to a child. It has procreative potential even when the biological conditions aren't right for that. By contrast, sex between two men or two women can never under any circumstances be procreative, and people who use contraceptives are deliberately tinkering with the activity so as to make it non-procreative. They self-consciously try to un-tether the act from its natural biological function.
Apr '12
Re: This Post Is About Sex
Sometimes confusion stems from our understanding of the term "potential". We're inclined to evaluate it statistically, when in this case the proper way to see it is in terms of natural kinds and their functions. So, for example, I can meaningfully say that a small shoot that grows from an acorn is a "potential oak tree" even if I know that I'm about to mow it down, thus effectively eliminating any real possibility of that oak coming to be. Likewise, the marital act is naturally procreative even when in statistical terms there is no possibility of a child being produced. NFP users are people who accept the natural potentiality of the act, but manipulate the circumstances to minimize the chance of conception. It's like the difference between bulimics and people who merely tinker with recipes to try to make them lower calorie, thus enabling themselves to eat more without actually divorcing eating from its natural biological end.
Jun '10
Re: This Post Is About Sex
Like shooting blanks. It makes a lot of noise, but it's impossible to hit the target.
Aug '10
Re: This Post Is About Sex
KC Mulville, This is an excellent post.
Aug '10
Re: This Post Is About Sex
As a silly presbyterian republican ( both institutions wavering within my portfolio) I must ask a question of the Catholics in the crowd.
Is the support of the Church's position on contraception and abortion so thin that you were nonplussed by the election results within that specific religious category of voters ?
KC, I am also a big believer in the Charlie Rich theory of life.
And I personally apologize for the stupid Lumosity ad preceding this oldie but goodie.
I think personal privacy works on many levels, including the conversations one has with God.
(and why do people call him during sex anyway ?)
May '10
Re: This Post Is About Sex
Based on the title and the rapid move to Main Feed, the on-duty editor is male.
I do fundamentally disagree with the Catholic teaching about the necessity of procreative capability in a marriage. People who choose not to procreate are missing out on one of life's richest pleasures- but I still do not see Scriptural support for the Papal theology on contraception.
May '10
Re: This Post Is About Sex
The point isn't the psychological openness of the couple at a given moment, it's whether they respect the integrity of the act itself or not.
Artificial contraception is human beings acting to interrupt the natural end of sex. NFP doesn't do that.
I've compared it before to bulimia vs. eating less as a weight-loss method.
The difference between the person who binges then makes herself throw up, so she can have the pleasure of overeating without the consequences of overeating mis-respects her body. The person who disciplines herself by eating less, respects it.
The question of which one is more serious about losing weight doesn't enter in.
Great post, KC!
May '10
Re: This Post Is About Sex
Disappointing. I was expecting something much more salacious given the heading. How do I flag something for not violating the code of conduct?
May '10
Re: This Post Is About Sex
Duane Oyen: Based on the title and the rapid move to Main Feed, the on-duty editor is male.
I do fundamentally disagree with the Catholic teaching about the necessity of procreative capability in a marriage.
Sorry if sound pedantic here, Duane, but "procreative capability" is not a condition for marriage in the Church. "Openness to children" is.
In other words, there's no reason that an infertile man or woman can't get married.
A couple who want marriage but deliberately refuse children are a different case.
The reason is that in Catholic understanding, marriage is a total self-giving and other-receiving. Refusing children is tantamount to refusing to give your own fertility and/or a refusal to receive your spouse's fertility. It's a conditional self-giving.
Edited on January 19, 2013 at 12:49amNov '10
Re: This Post Is About Sex
brown chicken, brown cow