Is a woman doing a man a favour when she has sex with him?

Remove all ads!

Like Catholicism.

I'd like to second Kitrax's comment on women faking it - my wife is one of those women too.

 

I love having sex. Doesn't matter if it's with a man, woman or by myself! Seriously, if you view it as a favour then you should charge for it.
If you don't enjoy something, you don't put the effort into it so why bother? If you're just lying there thinking of your shopping list then you might as well just buy your partner a blow-up doll and go in the spare room. I find it kind of selfish that some people make you feel bad about having sex with you.
If you're saying 'I don't enjoy it but I'll do it to make you happy' then you're in an abusive relationship

 

Now hold on a second there, Silvery, I've had days when I wasn't in the mood, but Sweetie was, uh, REALLY in the mood. I've said "I'm not really into it right now, but you really need some LKD action, don't you? I'll give it my best shot 'cuz I love ya, baby!" I don't think that makes me abusive, it just makes me honest. I'm sure there are times when I want it that she'd rather do something else, but because we love each other we do it for each other. If it happened every time, that'd be a problem, sure, but come on!

 

Men are expected to perform at the drop of a hat ... it's a burden, but I do my part.

 

You mean the hat-dropping part?

That's so typical of you, T2 - expecting a guy to satisfy you whenever you want it.

 

LKD, I wasn't talking about that situation. I was meaning the people who make a point of telling people that they hate it but do it for the sake of their partner. Drunk posting never comes across well!

 

And this is why context is important. Yes, both of those passages are in the Bible, but neither of them are rules of God for all people. The former is written to a church that had a lot of problems with lust, prostitution, etc. The latter is specifically written as Paul's desire, and not God's.

It's a common arguement, but a fatally flawed one.

 

I never pretended to be a clever individual, my friend. In fact I will openly admit I am pretty thick. However, I do have a pretty big dong!

 

A friend at work saw this thread and his immediate response was "No woman has ever done a favor for a man without an ulterior motive". I'm sure the opposite probably holds true also.

 

Hardly. It isn't who Paul wrote the letter to -- it was Paul, himself. There is no ambiguity in Paul's words:

Paul very clearly states that it is better to remain alone and celibate. Paul's words, in fact, lie at the very root of the Catholic Doctrine mandating a celibate priesthood put in place in the third century. Realize that Christ didn't leave any writings behind. None. The gospels were written later and early doctrine came directly from those who followed him and later came to head his church. When Paul stated that celibacy was better than marriage, he spoke as the head of the church. He was setting doctrine, not spouting off his opinion. Nowhere did he argue that marriage was sinful -- merely that celibacy was "better".

No ambiguity here, either. Paul thinks you should marry if you can't keep it in your pants, since marriage is better than hell.

 

... depends on the marriage.

 

Sorry, T2, but I already beat you to the punch on that one.

 

One, are you really arguing now that context isn't important? For a comparison, in one letter, Paul writes that women shouldn't speak during the service. In another letter, written at the same time, he praises another church for appointing a woman leader, a leader of the local church, who would regularly speak during the service. Context, in this situation, makes the contradiction perfectly logical.

On the contrary, he states that he would rather see this. He then follows it up by saying, in essence, "but God has other plans, so go with His".

And, of course, no one has ever taken issue with any of the ways the Catholic Church interprets the Scripture.

Actually, he wasn't. It was debatable even whether Paul was a leader of the Church. Peter and James were much better established. Paul moved around too much, but we have more of his writings left over.

 

NOG, the entire catholic church disagrees with your interpretation both of what it was that Paul was saying and in what capacity Paul said it. That alone should be sufficient evidence to conclude that perhaps this issue isn't quite the slam-dunk you assert it to be. You're a Protestant -- of course you don't agree with Catholic doctrine. Catholics see things differently, and their interpretation is no less valid than yours.

EDIT: ...and no, I'm not saying that "context doesn't matter". I'm arguing that the context you've created does little to mitigate the actual meaning of his words. If Paul was just trying to tell the Corinthians that they shouldn't **** out of wedlock, then it stands to reason that he would have told them that. Paul went further. He flatly stated that celibacy was preferable to marriage -- an institution he suggested for those who "cannot contain". Paul's was anything but a ringing endorsement of matrimony.

There are arguments to be made about the relative merits of marriage and celibacy withing the Christian faith, but those arguments usually hinge on how much weight you feel should be attributed to Paul's words -- not on what it was that Paul was actually saying. There simply isn't any ambiguity in what he said.

 

Drew, there are many cases when Catholic teaching and what's actually in the Bible don't line up, or haven't lined up in the past millenia. This is something even Catholic priests admit. There's logic and arguements and theology and reasoning, sure, but it's reasoning why they rely on things outside the scripture.

And, again, Paul flatly stated that he prefered celibacy to marriage, but also flatly stated that God had a different opinion.

 

Just how did this degenerate from wanton sex into another religious discussion? Come on people ... stay on target here.

 

... You're amazed at the leap from sex to religion? Those two have been intertwined since, well, since creation by most religions.

 

Yup, Sex and Violence, the ultimate action movie script

Just needs a third part to be a blockbuster classic.

 

How about a war? We could have a fight between the people who are damned sick of everything on the boards turning into an excuse for berating each other for their views and the people who seem to think that every discussion is an excuse to push their religious opinion at people

 

War already counts as violence.

As for the thread I thought this started as a thread about social understandings between men and women rather than about religion.