Pretty sure sexual pleasure is the result of friction, nerve endings, a bunch of neuro-chemicals, and a whole lot of fetishes. If anyone is letting us enjoy sexual pleasure, it’s the other department.
Under half of women orgasm from penetration alone, and for about one in ten it’s outright painful. For me it does pretty much nothing. I guess we could move to whether air and vibrations on clit count as friction, but I’m pretty sure that’s not what anyone had in mind. Nor whether kisses and general intimate closeness count as “sexual pleasure”.
I guess we could move to whether air and vibrations on clit count as friction, but I’m pretty sure that’s not what anyone had in mind.
At the risk of mansplaining, I suspect that actually was what they had in mind, though not exclusively. Friction doesn’t inherently mean PIV. Clitoral stimulation is still down to (the proper amount and application of) friction and (fuckloads of) nerve endings to sense it.
But more importantly, I also think that’s an overly simplistic way of seeing sexual gratification. Sex with a partner is sometimes less directly pleasurable, since the owner of the equipment often (though not always, thanks repression) knows best how to make it feel good, but sex with a partner is still usually better because of the intimacy that comes into play. And sex with a long-term partner can be exceptionally good, because you learn better and better what the other person needs.
(Obviously everyone is different though, and there are always going to be individuals with different experiences and preferences. The world is full of spectrums, not well-defined lines.)
This seems consistent with what I learned in CCD and Catholic school in the 90s-00s. We were always told that sexual pleasure was increased in a marriage and a sign of god blessing the marriage, whereas sexual pleasure outside of a marriage was cheap and damaging.
Edit: side note, I didn’t think this fucked me up until I got married and realized I’d felt ashamed every other time I’d had sex. I never believed in god, and this is pretty obviously trying to steer behavior, so I thought I was unaffected, but it’s still a brain virus
It’s pretty common, but I’ve always been very sex positive, with zero shame about nudity or bodily functions. I don’t notice any shame since I got married ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Of course, I didn’t think there was any beforehand, so who knows
That would be doctrinal breaktrough, but the long strings of popes saying whatever they find convenient at the moment tuned the formal requirements for pope to be infallible pretty high. And i won’t even mention that whatever cool thing Francis ever said as a pope have exactly zero influence on church reality.
So by “relationships” he just meant “marriage” as church always did? It’s clear from the context he is not, since lower there is mentions of “same-sex relationships”, not to mention even the word itself suggest any something wider.
I think he’s intentionally vague when using the word relationships. The word does not explicitly mean any one thing. But yeah sex within marriage has always been praised in Christianity. It’s been a big selling point of marriage in general. I don’t see anything in the article to suggest he’s explicitly blessed homosexual sex or truly changed any doctrine.
Yeah, if that was taken on a face value then the acceptance of all kinds of extramarital relationships would be a big doctrinal change, but nothing is happening, as i noted in my first post.
The reason it’s only the word of God while he’s sitting on the throne is because the holy Spirit enters through his butt and talks through him like a puppet.
Most of the time the pope is no different from any other Catholic. He has a lot of respect by virtue of his post, but what he says is not the word of God.
This changes if he speaks “ex cathedra” (Latin for “from the chair”, the throne the previous poster is alluding to). Ex cathedra means the pope is defining dogma for all the faithful as the supreme pontiff of the Catholic Church. Think of it as the difference of the US president saying something in a private conversation vs. him issuing an executive order. When the pope speaks ex cathedra, he is considered infallible in the Catholic faith.
Popes rarely speak ex cathedra. Most of Catholic theology is settled, so there is rarely need to clarify anything. The last time it happened was in 1950 about the Assumption of Mary.
Papal (and church council) infallibility does mean that the Catholic Church can never change its mind about things like homosexual marriage and abortion. The Catholic Church says it is Christ’s church on earth, and is protected by the Holy Spirit from error that could lead Christians astray. Saying that they got something as vital as “what is and is not sin” wrong would undermine the church’s entire foundation.
Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, who was appointed last July, came under fire for a book he wrote and published in the late 1990s entitled Mystical Passion: Spirituality and Sensuality.
The Pope had already tackled the vice of gluttony last week and there was no suggestion that his sermon on lust during Wednesday’s general audience was related to criticism of the cardinal.
In December, Cardinal Fernández introduced a text, later approved by Pope Francis, detailing guidelines allowing priests to bless same-sex couples relationships that were still considered sinful.
In a lengthy response posted online, Cardinal Müller said that a priest blessing a homosexual union would be committing a “sacrilegious and blasphemous act”.
Prelates around the world also released statements condemning the decision, including American conservatives, who have long been vocal in opposing the Pope’s plans for reforming the Catholic Church.
Tensions reached a nadir when the Pope evicted outspoken critic US Cardinal Raymond Burke from his Vatican apartment and revoked his salary.
The original article contains 437 words, the summary contains 161 words. Saved 63%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
I’m not a very religious person. But if Jesus (the human being) could see what his followers have become, he would be disgusted. I don’t know how they can read the bible and say that Trump is the sort of person it heralded. There is a major cognitive dissonance in the miswired brains of these ‘evangelicals’.
That is the “beauty” of that book. It is self-contradictory. It can and has been used to justify anything. Almost everyone reads just the bits they like and ignore the rest. Taken as a whole it is on par for what you would expect from 2 millennia old shepherds. Not some divinely inspired work of absolute truth.
Namibia has condemned former colonial ruler Germany for rejecting a case at the UN’s top court accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza.
Germany has offered to intervene on Israel’s behalf in the case brought by South Africa at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague.
The UN and humanitarian organisations have warned of the risk of famine in Gaza as well as the spread of disease among displaced people and have urged that more aid be allowed into the territory.
The scale of the Israeli response prompted South Africa to ask the ICJ to consider whether Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza.
Pretoria’s case included a litany of alleged Israeli offences, from the indiscriminate killing of Palestinian civilians to the wholesale destruction of Gaza’s infrastructure.
Israel has strongly rejected the allegation, calling it “baseless” and its legal team was scathing about South Africa’s submission, arguing that if anyone was guilty of genocide, it was Hamas.
The original article contains 377 words, the summary contains 161 words. Saved 57%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
doesn’t the Bible specifically warn about people like Trump?
For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.
Yes, but it doesn’t matter, these people don’t read the Bible.
They do read the Bible though, at least in my experience. I’ve gone to a number of different churches, Evangelical and otherwise, and the Evangelical or otherwise Calvinist folks were the ones that read the Bible the most and in the most detail — but perhaps also the ones who came to horrible conclusions the most often. Like that you should shine the light of Christ into the world by blocking women for promotion at your job, because 1 Tim 2:12 says that Paul does not permit them to have authority over men. (Real example, if possibly the worst one I’ve seen.) Maybe my experience is not representative, but I don’t think the problem is primarily that Evangelicals don’t read the Bible.
I have a long theory about some of the ways that Evangelicalism distorts Scripture, but one root of the issue is that (IMHO) Scripture was written by humans, reflects the biases of the authors and their societies, and has a lot of horrible things in it. If you take a sola scriptura view and then read it through a lens that’s been cultivated over years to reinforce patriarchy and supremacy (see e.g. Manifest Destiny, the curse of Ham, etc) then you will end up absorbing the genocidal and supremacist bits and not the hospitable and altruistic bits.
For them, it’s just an excuse to do whatever it is they’re doing.
For sure. People don’t want to repent. They want to find justifications for what they were already doing, or planning to do.
If you take a sola scriptura view and then read it through a lens that’s been cultivated over years to reinforce patriarchy and supremacy (see e.g. Manifest Destiny, the curse of Ham, etc) then you will end up absorbing the genocidal and supremacist bits and not the hospitable and altruistic bits.
Agreed, over the years I’ve come to firmly believe the root cause of all the Christian extremism we have nowadays is the literal interpretation of the scripture by Evangelicals. When you take every word of that book as law and you refuse to acknowledge some of it shouldn’t be relevant anymore, you end with some really absurd worldviews and beliefs. Especially in those small churches without affiliation to some larger religious body, without some authority dictating what is acceptable and what isn’t, the insanity runs amok.
This is something I admire in the Catholic church, their willingness to reinterpret the Bible to current circumstances, they get a lot of flak (deservedly so) for some things, but at least they have that going for them.
In the case of the creator of the video, they literally don’t.
The group’s leader, Brenden Dilley, characterizes himself as Christian and a man of faith but says he has never read the Bible and does not attend church.
Source, which then links to a video also on the NYTimes.
bbc.co.uk
Newest