Thursday, July 7, 2016

Normal or Not

People will tell you that the Catholic Church does not condemn homosexual people.  This is true at a certain level.  It is what the Catechism tries hard to say.  But when you look more closely at the way the Catechism is formulated, you realize that, despite itself, it still condemns homosexual persons because it recognizes them as not normal.
More precisely the Catechism sees their homosexuality as a burden they have to carry.  More explicitly we enhanced males are seen as having an urge to mansex which can never be fulfilled.  So we are still condemned by the Catechism not only to being abnormal in our urges but also to a life of hard-to-bear suffering because of our abnormality.  This is hardly to say that the Church does not condemn homosexual persons.

The Catechism thus has two parts to its treatment of homosexuality.  The first is that homosexual persons should not be discriminated against.  The second is that homosexual acts (not specified more than that) can never be approved.  The Pope has recently spoken in serious support of the first part of the Catechism.  All discrimination must be avoided.  He has not ventured into the second part about homosexual acts.  You might say that he has tiptoed in that direction because he has said, “Who am I to judge?”  Normally you judge a person on his acts, not on whatever has been built into him as a person.  
For the Pope to not judge homosexual acts is, in fact, venturing far closer to not condemning homosexual acts than most Christians are prepared to go.  
So I thank God for Pope Francis’ lead.  Unfortunately, however, the Pope’s vocabulary does not stretch to appreciating homosexuality as a valid alternative sexual orientation.  He speaks of people who “have this condition.”  Now, a condition is something outside of normal; we use the word of illnesses and disorders.  So that the Pope’s lead on not discriminating against homosexuals runs into a bit of self-contradiction as long as he continues to regard homosexuality as a "condition".  He needs to discover the language of Enhanced Masculinity!

Wednesday, June 1, 2016

The Key

In commenting on my last post, I thought, Big Whack gave good summary of the benefits of masturbation.  He wrote: “Masturbation is a profoundly important component of health, both mental and physical.  It not only relaxes us, eases tension, it lowers blood pressure, it reduces the risk of heart attack and prostate cancer.  It helps us sleep; as Arianna Huffington said to Bill

Maher, “It’s nature’s Ambien.”  You’ve hit the nail on the head as to why there is a need for a dedicated month.  We need to admit that we, as humans, are sexual beings.  It is buried deeply into our DNA.  The urge for men especially outpaces the availability of procreational outlets, or sexual partners – the common sense solution is to masturbate.”  
I have been reflecting since that masturbation is really the key to everything when re-thinking Christian attitudes to sex.  I have actually reflected on all this several times before on this blog, but each time one addresses these things you get a little bit of new insight, I guess.  

Masturbation is the key because, once you admit that there is nothing wrong, nothing sinful, about masturbation you make a statement about the nature of sex.  Basically you say that sex is good in itself and only circumstances in which it harms others make it evil.  The supreme examples of sex made evil consist, traditionally, in procreating offspring for whose upbringing you can in no way take responsibility.  That is covered by adultery and fornication.  The first thing to realize is just how far from that evil is the beauty of mansex.

Thursday, May 19, 2016

Masturbation Month

May is masturbation month.  The need for such a month says something about our society and its history.  The professed aim of those who established the annual event is to promote masturbation, get rid of the taboo and guilt attached to it and promote discussion of the practice as healthy and normal.  Excellent aims in my opinion. 
My inner musings arose in the form of two questions: “Why should anyone not want to masturbate?” and “Why should anyone want to prevent other people from masturbating?”  The traditional approach of the Christian churches is enshrined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states that masturbation has always been condemned by the Church and indicates that it is a practice to be overcome as far as anybody can.
True that represents a certain amount of liberalizing progress, because the Catholic approach used to be just simply that masturbation was a mortal sin.  Typically nobody ever tried to explain why.
What you have to remember is that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is not the inspired Word of God.  It comes down to human beings telling human beings what to do.  Hence my question: “Why should anyone want to prevent other people from masturbating?”
The people who do not want to masturbate, of course, do so out of a sense of asceticism.  But, as with food and drink, perhaps it would be better to settle for “nothing to excess”, because not masturbating at all is a type of human contortion that causes many people a lot of damage on the emotional and psychological level.
People talk about the health value of masturbation because it relaxes. But I think that the first value of masturbation is that it enables us to experience and be at home with our sexual masculine being.  There is also the fact that, with a bit of tantra, you can develop masturbation as a profoundly spiritual experience.

Saturday, May 7, 2016

The Catechism again.

I have been travelling and had another bout of illness.  That explains why it is three weeks since my last post.

I recently replied to an email from a guy who felt pressurized to conform to the teaching in the Catechism of the Catholic Church on homosexuality.

Below is the substance of my reply.

Briefly I understand the Catechism as saying that the homosexual orientation is not a disorder, but a little understood phenomenon.  Nevertheless the Catechism insists that homosexual acts are gravely disordered and can in no way be approved of.  

This I find difficult to swallow.  Medical and psychological sciences have stated that homosexuality is not an illness.  So the Catechism at least goes along with that.  But, if there is no disorder in the appetite or inclination then that inclination must be well ordered.  It seems to be built into people rather than being a disordered development.  The logic of saying that a man has a good appetite that he can never use, rather defeats my understanding.   It is difficult to see that the acts that correspond to the inclination do any harm in a mutually consensual situation.  Therefore it is difficult to see where the disorder in those acts actually comes from. 

I feel that there is an underlying principle that is part of a lot of people's mentality and that says that sex in itself is evil.  This is never formulated explicitly because it is just not Catholic.  This unspoken attitude has been most crudely applied in the case of masturbation.  There is nothing wrong with masturbation, in fact, except that it is sex.  The attitude that many have and do not even articulate to themselves amounts to: "We should not have sex except, reluctantly, for the sake of procreation."  That approach used to be terribly common among religious-minded people, even non-Catholic.  I feel we need a truly sex-positive approach and a lot of the energy put into avoiding sex could be used to develop love.

Saturday, April 9, 2016

Nobody is Obliged to do Impossible Things

The Pope recently used a Latin adage: “Ad impossibilia nemo tenetur.”  He was using it in the context of telling Capuchins how to forgive in confession rather than being rigid with penitents. He said that people often could not get out of their sins because they were psychologically conditioned or imprisoned in a situation.   But it struck me that that saying “No one is held to doing impossible things” applies so manifestly to the situation of the enhanced male.  His focus on things masculine and all the urges that that implies are pre-conscious, sub-conscious and deep in his nature.  None of this he can change.  In order not to break his nature he must go along with his urges and realize his potential for bringing the joy of masculinity into other people’s lives.

Another thought: The Catechism enforces chastity on gays.  But chastity is incumbent on all Christians because chastity simply means keeping your sexual urges and practices within reasonable bounds.  In particular this means keeping your appetites in check so that in no way do they do harm to others.  People have a tendency to confuse celibacy and chastity.  Celibacy means not being married.  Members of religious orders take a vow which is called one of chastity that couples the practice of celibacy with the Christian practice of chastity.  As I come to reflect on this now, as I integrate my enhanced masculinity or gay nature, I can see that this does not necessarily amount to a vow to forego all sexual activity, which has long been the official interpretation of the state of consecrated celibacy.  We still have our sexual nature to fulfil.

Monday, April 4, 2016


Everyone has a right to their sexual fulfilment.  That is a principle that I must have seen before in the writings of John McNeill, but it struck more forcefully only recently when I dropped into John McNeill’s blog.  It is a wonderfully liberating principle.  For religious with a vow of chastity it is particularly liberating because we were brought up to think that by our vow we renounced all sexual fulfilment. 

Experience shows that this just does not work.  For some, especially perhaps enhanced males, total sexual self-denial is very destructive of their nature as persons.  McNeill has a beautifully positive view of sex as a gift of God to human beings for their recreation and enjoyment.  McNeill makes his own somebody else’s summing up of the value of sex.  There is no such thing as bad sex.  There is only good sex, better sex and best sex.  The best sex, McNeill says, is in a loving long-term committed relationship.  Better sex is playing with somebody else.  Yes, even one night stands have their value and God rejoices to see his children enjoying themselves in this way. 
That leaves the category of simply good sex as covering solo sex.   As I have said before the sin in certain uses of sex is not in the sex itself but in transgressing the norms of love in some way, in the abuse of persons or of human lives.  Sex as such is always pleasing to God.  Mansex, I would add, is relatively free of the occasions for the transgression of way of love.  So, if mansex is your particular way of being sexually fulfilled, just get on with your fulfilment.

A corollary to everyone having the right to his sexual fulfilment would be that nobody but he is in a place to judge what he needs for his individual sexual fulfilment.  Provided that we do nothing contrary to the commandment to love one another we can do only good with sex.  Nobody else should condemn our sexual appetites or practices.  Another corollary might be that we have a duty in the sight of God to fulfil ourselves sexually, to use and develop the talents he has given us for our well-being and playful joy.

Friday, March 25, 2016

Reply to an Enhanced Male Married to a Woman

Thanks for writing.  I appreciate your need to share on these matters.
I would say that the main reason guys into mansex have issues with Catholic teaching on sex is that neither the appetite for nor the practice of mansex is supposed to exist according to Catholic moral teaching.  No matter how you read the Catechism it still says that homosexuals did not ought to exist.  Such teaching just flies in the face of scientific and empirical fact.  Men exist who need sex with men, so they have the appetite for it, and that they should fulfil rather than become human wrecks.

I see monogamy as concerning the marriage of one man with one woman for the purpose of begetting and bringing up children.  In the Catholic definition of marriage, the will to have children is essential to validate the marriage contract.  So that the sin against marriage is adultery which has the character of infidelity to the contract made with the one woman but is equally about the begetting of children in the wrong context for bringing them up correctly.  Essentially the sin is about procreating with another woman.  An underlying context, of course, is that sexual activity is inseparable and indistinguishable from procreating.  Sexual activity man to man is just not foreseen.  My contention would be that it ought to be.  
The problem is, (and you will find this somewhere on my blog), that women ought to enter into the marriage contract with the understanding that their man is going to have sexual activity with other men.  But society is not there yet.  Certainly, if the possibility of her husband entering into sexual activity with other men is not accepted at the time of making the marriage contract by the woman, she has the right to consider her husband as acting unfaithfully if he does so.  And yet you can see that the viewpoint can be very subjective.  I have heard of women who charged their husband with infidelity because he masturbated or watched porn.

For me, as you will see all over my blog.  Mansex is totally distinct from procreative sex and sex between men has a totally different signification from sex between a man and a woman.  The root meaning lies in the male to male bonding.  This, manifestly, is more necessary to some males than others.  But mansex needs discovering as a healthy value for society and even, perhaps, for married life.

For you as a married man it must be very difficult, like you say, to deny yourself your appetite for sexual interplay with men.  But, if she has found out and objected through inadequate understanding I guess you are rather at an impasse for the moment.  I know for a fact that there are homosexual venues where many of the clientele are married men.  You can tell, in particular, when the busy time in the place is between 4.30 pm and 7 pm on weekdays.  Manifestly, married men on their way home from work who cannot get to such a rendezvous later in the evening.  

Personally I do not see that as infidelity to their marriage vows, and the men might not either, but their women might see things differently.  I have no doubt also that many of the men, especially if they are Catholic, have a guilt complex about their activity in this sphere.  I would like to see men freed of every feeling of guilt in this respect.  But that would demand profound changes in the attitude of society in general.  Things are moving, but very slowly, in the right direction.