stephan huller

in other words after a woman has gone through menopause and can no longer bear children?

stephan huller

and what about viagara and the like? surely an erection without desire is problematic as lust is the focus of most of the critiques on sex

Toto

What would the basis of the objection be? There were Christians who were opposed to young people or anyone having sex, but once you get beyond that..

Besides, there was Sarah and Abraham (Genesis 18:12).

I guess the church fathers were lucky they didn't have to confront the moral dilemma of lust-free viagra.

Bronzeage

Just a technical note: Viagra does not produce an erection unless there is desire. It is not an aphrodisiac.

sotto voce

:constern02: This is mind-boggling absurdity.

Strange as it may seem today, everyone in those days, not just Hebrews, knew that fornication produced babies, and babies needed years of patient, loving care before they became acceptable, socialised adults. For similar reasons, they knew that adultery was wrong, even when they could not help doing it. An adulterer was a sociopath, 'a bit of a bastard'. So everyone who reckoned to be a decent citizen was opposed to people, of whatever age, having sexual intercourse unless they were married. Nobody objected to intercourse within marriage! (Unless it kept the neighbours awake, of course. Which, in the living conditions of the time, was probably more frequent than we may suppose.)

Americans, whose experience of real Christianity is pretty close to zero, might well think otherwise, but Christianity is not a matter of telling people not to do things, and being told not to do them. That paradigm does not even begin to take account of the word 'christ'. Even Moses, who is often thought to have been a moraliser, knew that he was only confirming what even his rabble already knew about morality; but they needed law, that had to be spelled out. Christianity was, and is, for people who knew, and know, that adultery was wrong, even when they could not help doing it. It gave them a clean, fresh start, and motivation not to return to adultery or to any other harmful, disruptive, sociopathic behaviour— such as theft, drunkenness, false witness and violence, either of hand or tongue— events the absence of which we are surely all grateful for. Christianity is not for people who think that sexual intercourse is an 'on-demand' convenience of life, as so many seem to believe today.

They took the job on condition that they gave up the more or less licentious behaviour of their employers. In exchange for their souls, in exchange for their persecution of real Christians, they bought a comfortable, cushy life, free of persecution. But they could not expect everything; they had to set an example of upright behaviour, at least on the rare occasions when they were seen by the public. Though, just as their 'offspring' do today, they quite likely indulged clandestine relationships, along with many of their subordinates. This was only to be expected, if it is the Bible that describes Christianity. As already mentioned, the real Christian has the motivation for self-control; whereas the counterfeit, the imperial agent, is no less hormonally directed than any other.

stephan huller

an aphrodisiac would presumably work through desire to achieve an erection. viagra allows men to have erections while listening to Mitt Romney sing the national anthem

Bronzeage

I believe that is contraindicated by the package literature, but maybe if he were a gay man with a thing for middle aged billionaires.

stephan huller

no, it doesn't matter. let's just suppose (hypothetically of course) you were planning on having sex with a lady and you took the pill at 8:00 pm. if you got into a fight at 8:05 pm and she stormed out of the house, you'd still have an erection at about 8:20 or something. It has nothing to do with desire.

outhouse

why would they?

and how early is another question?


one would also have to ask, did poor people get old? the mortality rate was incredibly high

Bronzeage

You just derailed your own thread. It started a Bible question and now it's about women and Viagra.

Why do you think desire would diminish because she left the house. If it's that bad, she's not actually critical to the process.