What authority do you have to make such a recommendation for all people?
In effect, you are saying that you know that it is objectively true that each and every person should make decisions regarding sexual activity subjectively. This is called a contradiction.
Heaping praise on someone for a lifestyle choice is the same as approval, and I think that's what she's desperately seeking by writing books and being interviewed for articles where she displays fright about kissing.
You may be right. But her psychological motivation for writing this book has no bearing on the strength of her arguments.
The purpose of the human reproductive system is reproduction. That's one of its purposes.
The primary purpose, hence the name. The pleasurable nature of intercourse is ordered primarily to bringing the act about. In other words, if intercourse wasn't pleasurable, none of us would be here today.
Our digestive systems are primarily for the purpose of feeding ourselves to prevent starvation, but I can indulge in a piece of (non-necessary) candy every once in awhile.
Yes. But this is categorically different from binging and purging. You're ducking the issue.
Science came along, and let us cook our pork, refrigerate our shellfish, and separate conception from sexuality.
And science has made it possible for us to blow up innocent people with remote controlled bombs. What's your point? That all things which are possible are permissible?
Rules that were promulgated a long time ago to satisfy the needs of a pre-industrial agricultural society are not needed like they used to be.
As far as I know, the human reproductive system is ordered toward reproduction, the pleasurable nature of which also being ordered toward procreation. Has this changed? Has science discovered a new purpose for the reproductive system?
Conversely, promiscuity is marked by sadness, illness and destruction.
So, two virgins who find each other at a time when they are emotionally ready for a relationship, and who stay faithful with each other are going to suffer from one of the above maladies?
Let's see if I understand your argument. Two virgins meet. They have sex outside marriage, that is, sex without having made a lifetime commitment to each other. You are arguing that they will probably not suffer from "sadness, illness and destruction"?
If that's your argument, it's false, for the following reason.
1) The reproductive system is ordered toward reproduction.
2) Intercourse is ordered toward reproduction and the unity of the spouses, the latter end being ordered toward the further end of the proper rearing of children. (And the concommitant happiness of the spouses).
3) The act of intercourse should be engaged in with a proper understanding of its purpose.
4) Two people who engage in intercourse without professing a lifetime commitment to each other are acting without a proper understanding of intercourse, or are failing by ommission to fulfill the responsibilities that naturally come with engaging in intercourse (i.e., a lifetime commitement to each other for the purpose of bringing forth and rearing children and the mutual care of the spouses).
I guess it's possible, but you could say the same thing about undercooked pork chops or too-old clams.
That statement says a lot. Who's the lucky guy/gal?
Very good post.
"the human reproductive system is ordered toward reproduction, the pleasurable nature of which also being ordered toward procreation."
This is also true of eating. God made it pleasurable so one would try to eat and thus sustain oneself.
And I might add, even "wholesome" food is usually "tasty", and even the most indulgent of unnecessary foods provides some measure of sustenance.
In effect, you are saying that you know that it is objectively true that each and every person should make decisions regarding sexual activity subjectively. This is called a contradiction.
I can't think of a response to that, so will concede you the point. I guess I'm a bit too dogmatic about what I define as freedom.
But her psychological motivation for writing this book has no bearing on the strength of her arguments.
So, if we reach the right conclusions for the wrong reasons, it's all good? I submit that her psychological motivation in this case makes it more likely that she has made an incorrect choice. How often does panic or despair cause us to pick the right alternative from a set of possibilities?
The primary purpose, hence the name. The pleasurable nature of intercourse is ordered primarily to bringing the act about. In other words, if intercourse wasn't pleasurable, none of us would be here today.
Primary, in terms of it being the way that we all got here, but the vast majority of human sexual activity, even within a marriage, is not going to lead directly to reproduction. That could be said of other mammals that have a "heat" season, during the time of maximum fertility. And such mammals seem to be able to reproduce without the need for mutual pleasure. Of course, they do it by their instincts, and while humans have instincts, we are the creature that is able to control our instincts through reason and education.
And science has made it possible for us to blow up innocent people with remote controlled bombs. What's your point? That all things which are possible are permissible?
Certainly not. But science gives us possibilities that were not conceivable back when the religious texts were written. We have the opportunity to have sexual relations without them leading inevitably to offspring, and those ways could not have been dealt with in a pre-industrial society. Anyone from two thousand years ago that could be whisked to our era would consider a lot of what we do to be some sort of witchcraft, magic, or other product of evil.
Has science discovered a new purpose for the reproductive system?
No, but it has extended the possible uses of that system. I have a set of feet and legs with which to walk places, but science developed a way for me to use them to control gasoline and brake pedals, and go much further than I otherwise would be able to. The separation of sexual expression from reproduction allows people the possibility of utilizing the pleasurable nature of the system.
Modern anesthesia allows me the possibility of having surgery to repair my body, without suffering excruciating pain during the procedure. When anesthesia was introduced, it was questioned as morally suspect, since it was believed that suffering pain had a grace-giving effect. All that was, was a way to rationalize a world that was filled with pain, and reconcile the idea of a merciful supreme being with the fact that most people lived painful lives.
4) Two people who engage in intercourse without professing a lifetime commitment to each other are acting without a proper understanding of intercourse, or are failing by ommission to fulfill the responsibilities that naturally come with engaging in intercourse (i.e., a lifetime commitement to each other for the purpose of bringing forth and rearing children and the mutual care of the spouses).
What you're saying is that the only purpose of marriage and sexuality is to have children, all that "proper understanding of intercourse" thing. So--if an older couple meet, and she is past her childbearing years, they should not be allowed to marry and have sexual activity, since it's imposible for them to make babies? Or, is it OK because "God did that" rather than "human beings decided to control their fertility"?
I believe that we make progress to advance humanity, and even though not all science advances humanity, the majority of it does. As more and more people perceive change as positive, they either leave the old beliefs, or the old set of beliefs tries to catch up to the people, after a period of intense resistance.
You do a credible job of maintaining that resistance!