Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Apparently religious people have better sex

So sayeth this survey, anyway.

I always wondered why no anti-contraception Catholic ever came out and flatly said, 'Sex is better without a condom.' Who's going to deny it?


whiteroseofsummer said...

You have a good point. I assume it's because that they believe that sex is more pleasurable using natural family planning that it will somehow undermine their arguments that sex should mainly be for procreation and bonding between husband and wife. The Church does say that sex for the sake of pleasure between husband and wife isn't necessarily bad, but a lot of anti-contraception Catholics don't seem to want to go there.

whiteroseofsummer said...

I think it also goes back to what you discussed in your post on June 29. The conversation about contraception is also, ultimately, about sex. But because people would much rather be clutching their pearls than having a blunt, honest conversation about sex, ultimately all that is left are vague, abstract arguments about the purpose of sex.

Crude said...

Yeah, I think the fumbling awkwardness about talking about sex is responsible for a lot of problems. On the Christian orthodox side, it means vague, academic arguments about the purposes of sex. On the non-Christian, secular side, there's a lot of out and out bullshitting about sex.

As in, there's this habit on the latter part to imply that (say) same-sex activity is all about 'love!' and how the Christians 'are trying to get between people who love each other!' Which, of course, the Christians tend to agree with or concede by default because pointing out the distinction would just be so awkward to everyone.

So when you pipe up and say 'Yeah, it's not the love that's the problem. It's the fucking.', everyone tends to clam up and not want to talk anymore.

whiteroseofsummer said...

There is a show called Queer as Folk that aired on Showtime a few years back. I watched all of the episodes back during my secular days. The characters spoke about sex in very graphic terms. There were absolutely no euphemisms on this show, no "let's make love" or any of that nonsense.

It was always "let's fuck" or "we're going to fuck" or "they're fucking." In fact, one of the first lines of the show is "the thing you need to know is, it's all about sex." For all it's vulgarity, I couldn't help but appreciate it's brute honesty. It was like "Wow, a 'gay' show that actually admits to the existence of the wild, hedonistic lifestyle that most 'gay' shows now try to sweep under the rug."

Now if only real people could be that blunt and honest about gay "marriage" and the like, we might actually be able to get somewhere. But alas, polite society simply does not work that way.

Crude said...

Oh, I think people have no problem being blunt in other contexts. Humorous ones, or ones meant to be showy, etc. Entertainment media in general.

But when it's time to discuss things, for a lot of people those relationships suddenly vanish and everyone in the world only has sex when they love and want to be with someone the rest of their loves or something. That's when the context and the stakes change.

There's a lot of things people don't talk about frankly when it comes to sex. The fluidity of some 'lesbian' sexuality, why people are having sex to begin with... I think, even among Queer as Folk kind of settings, inquiring about the psychological aspects of sex is very third rail. Say you find such and such a thing hot or you want to fuck, but questioning and speculating why in anything but the most guarded of settings? That's different.

whiteroseofsummer said...

Very good points. Thanks for your comments.

malcolmthecynic said...

The other problem is, if you've never had sex with a condom (or without one, for that matter), how would you know which is better?

If somebody made that claim and another person said "No, I disagree," that would pretty much end the discussion since there's nowhere I can go from there.

Crude said...

I'm pretty sure this one is obvious, man. Not to mention, I'm willing to bet some traditionalists have changed their minds about things and have past experience. I'd love to come against someone who said 'no, I disagree'. I want to hear them try to sell the superiority of condom-using sex. Just seeing if they could keep a straight face.

malcolmthecynic said...

I doubt "I disagree" would mean "condom sex is better". It would probably just be "it makes no real difference or at least is totally negligible, and the benefits of not needing to worry (or worrying much less) about children and certain STD's way makes up for whatever small differences there are."

Crude said...

Yeah, I'm going to say that 'no real difference or negligible' is a joke. Those things are legendary in their being annoying for a reason. I'm not going to deny 'less of a worry about certain STDs or children' is a factor, but at the same time I think it's obvious that, all things being equal, skipping the condom is vastly preferable.

I mean, if all that's desired is some kind of release, masturbation should suffice. Hell, given some trends in Japan that may actually be the case.

malcolmthecynic said...

Your point about masturbation is an interesting one; I wonder if the only reason people even hook up (as in, one night stands) when they're using condoms is because society expects them to or something. On the other hand, I'm pretty much completely ignorant about the goings on with people regarding sex (you know, how to make it feel good and whatnot), so hey, I may be/probably am missing something.

Nicholas Rose said...


Please forgive the shameless self promotion, but would you mind reading the latest entry on my blog about NFP and let me know what you think? I really would like to get some current feedback about my current views.

Here's the link:

Thanks and have a Blessed day!