And I thought we men were supposed to treat women as persons rather than as sex objects. Silly me.
I'm currently reading The Four Cardinal Virtues, by Josef Pieper (a German, but one who writes remarkably clearly nonetheless!) He noted, in 1954, that in the current "state of affairs,"
in contradiction to the true grading and order of things, the realm of sex ... has moved to the center of attention in the general moral consciousness. In addition to this, and despite all contrary statements of principle, a smoldering subterranean Manichaeism casts suspicion on everything pertaining to physical reproduction as being somehow impure, defiling, and beneath the true dignity of man.He goes on to note that the pleasure and instinctive urge for sexual intercourse is -- and has always been considered in the Catholic tradition -- good and noble, partly because pleasure is a good in itself but largely because it is intimately connected to one of the greatest goods that human beings can accomplish: the introduction of children into the world.
On the other hand, I can't help but notice the common thread that runs through all the sexual "liberties" that people clamor for today: a disregard for or outright enmity toward children. Sex outside of marriage risks bringing children into a difficult or dangerous situation at the most vulnerable time of their lives. Contraception, masturbation, pornography, etc. all attempt to separate the pleasure of sexual intercourse from what Pieper calls "the intrinsic purpose of sexual power": procreation.
I know that some will object that sex is about much more than having babies, and that not every act of sexual intercourse necessarily results in the birth of a child. Granted. But this is no reason to excise children from the realm of sex altogether. I could just as truly say that not every act of sexual intercourse is physically pleasurable, or emotionally satisfying. Is it fair then to say that pleasure and emotions have no place in the sexual realm?
I think it's only because various voices in western culture have been trying to separate the inseparable for the past couple centuries that sex "has moved to the center of attention in the general moral consciousness." Denial leads to untruth leads to lies to cover the untruth leads to grasping for any kind of cover to keep from facing what one is denying. As Frank Herbert noted in a different context, a culture that talks too much about how it values peace must have a long experience of war. Our culture, which promotes sexual "expression" as one of the highest goods, is in reality attempting to cover up our decades of self-abuse.
Posts
1 comboxers:
Ohh... you had me until the last line:
"Our culture, which promotes sexual "expression" as one of the highest goods, is in reality attempting to cover up our decades of self-abuse."
Self abuse in what?
Sexuality in of itself is not bad, in any of it's forms. God created sexual pleasure. We don't get to judge the hows and whys of it. The only time we humans should be judging is the moment when other people rights are impacted. (ie child molestation, rape, etc.)
We talk about sex alot because we are weird about it. But then again, every culture is weird about it. Do you suppose Middle-Eastern muslims, who wrap their women from head to foot in black tents lest (apparently) uncontrollable lust somehow prevents the men from functioning, are any saner about it?
(Heh - I always thought that the orthodox dress in those countries spoke about men who have very little control or discipline. All it takes is seeing a women's face before you fall apart??)
*Ahem* Anyway, I do agree with you that a rather old fashion notion needs to come back into the modern discussion. That is, marriage is primarily to protect children. As such, if it can be managed by both parties, then they have a duty to stay together until the kids have flown the coop. It doesn't get talked about much, but I believe it does exist.
Post a Comment