h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>I am freezing.<

Yes.

<>

It's perfectly possible to have an intense loving relationship without sex!

Two of the best relationships of my life, with men, have been non-sexual (one is still going on.) The other was my German fiance in the 1990s..

I know a man who's been celibate since 1984. He's not a priest, he simply made that choice.

<>

I am one of those people, and I've had some awesome quality stuff, I assure you!

So intensely beautiful, that I don't want to settle for anything less.

Well if it was so awesome and beautiful why are you agreeing it's not so important?

Awesome and beautiful things *are* important.

Was it with a kiwi lover by any chance?

Crikey I've just realised what you are saying. You believe such a thing should be fossilised in your memory for ever, and not sullied by some new experience which would pollute the memory of its perfection.

I find that an unbelievably depressing attitude. You starve yourself, because you once had a stupendous meal. Wow.....

My experience is that it just gets better and better......

What can I say? I am choosy, and why not? I am not going to settle for less than pretty darned good, as perfection is *so* hard to find!

He deffo wasn't a Kiwi, the very idea!

You remember me telling you about the guy who looked like a young Rutger Hauer? 'Nuff said!

He went mad and I shot him (no, I just wish I had. He's living in Thailand and we exchange emails every 3 months or so. No brain, what what a body, hoo boy! :shock:!)

What do we think of the likes of this?

http://www.topsynergy.com/reports/

Scientific match making?

>It's perfectly possible to have an intense loving relationship without sex!<

No way. It's not really really intense then in my book. In the past I have had a problem integrating intense love and sex. But it doesn't last... long.

Yes I'm fussy too. Very. All my really serious relationships have been with pretty unusual people, and if the bald facts of them are described, less than ideal in terms of compatability. Apart from one, which was a bit of a less than a heated up affair. We were just too damned compatible. i don't know what came over me.....

That scientific thing zoomer......

>>What do we think of the likes of this?

http://www.topsynergy.com/reports/

Scientific match making?<<


We think neither astrology nor biorhythms are very scientific

Plato went a deal on platonic love. The 'ideal' love. He talks all about it in the Symposium. Plato's ideas heavily fed into early Christianity. St Augustine was all for it I think.

Personally when I've been in such a situation, I won't go into details, it eventually sent me mad, literally. I don't recommend it. But in a funny way it was like the only real reaction to such a situation. And it ended things.

I couldn't have gone on indefinitely like that. He was married. We could hardly see each other. So the sex when it did happen was pretty good.......But it was impossible to bear. I can't believe how awful it was.

Different people have different psychologies and biologies I suppose, to be able to settle for the Platonic thing.

And if any christian makes any judgemental comment about it, I'll ignore them. Only I know the full facts.

It's a bit of fun! I pity anyone who took it seriously...



Vicky

Of course I meant that site, Effers, not your relationship!

Vicky

<>

No, Effers' relationship sounds more like torture than fun.

No. Effers' relationships sound very intense

Hi PP,

St. Paul's ideas have been discussed here many many times.

His mysoginy is obvious reading his words, quoted here directly from his writings.

Effers,

"Plato ideas heavily fed up into early Christianity..."

Plato, Constantino, popes' ambition, ignorance, tyranny, fear... were the ingredients to make a eastern cult (there were a lot those times)become a solid entity which has survived through the centuries.
Ah! and the fact that Christian groups could be joined easily, not like others.

Shame it wasnt the Dionisian cult the protected one

First of all, Mar, I apologise for what I said yesterday. When you said ‘celibacy in many cases triggered paedophilia’ you didn’t mean to imply that all priests are paedophiles and although to my mind that’s exactly what it does imply (and I will explain why in a bit) I accept that that wasn’t remotely your intention.
The false celibacy-paedophilia link is something I do get very angry about because of the cloud of suspicion it casts over so many people, without any justification. This isn’t to excuse myself, just to explain. In short

I would, though, like to try and state my case again (possibly in a cooler, more rational way) so:

Points we agree on (as far as I can tell):
1) Celibacy doesn’t *help* priests in their work and is therefore unnecessary
2) Paedophilia/child abuse of any description is utterly disgusting and deplorable
3) The Church has handled the whole paedophilia scandal about as badly as it could do, abandoning the people they were supposed to care for in favour of protecting their image (and I’ve said as much before – on this very thread I believe)
What we don’t agree on
Celibacy is not linked in any way shape or form to paedophilia.
For me it is that simple; there is *no* link.

I agree not everyone can live a celibate life but neither is it impossible/damaging for everyone either. And, Effers, I agree it’s probably harder for men than for women but I don’t agree that struggling with your sexual desires under the celibacy rule can trigger paedophilia.

I would imagine that for some priests celibacy probably isn’t really an issue but I do think that most struggle to live with it at some point.
Of this struggling majority I believe most struggle and cope but many struggle and fail. (I think it’s important at this point to say again *they chose* this life knowing they would face this challenge.) It does not follow though that *any* of those who struggle and fail have paedophilia triggered in them. In fact, the vast majority who find they can't abide by this rule have an affair with another adult (most of the stories you hear are about priests who've had kids with women but obviously there are a fair share who are gay).
Paedophile priests would be paedophiles whether celibate or not - the two issues are absolutely seperate and distinct.
To put it another way, we all agree (do we not?) that having a religiously inspired moral compass doesn't make you a good person. I submit that a religiously inspired sexual repression (perversion you might call it?) doesn't make you a sexual deviant.

Whether or not celibacy should be dropped probably would make a good discussion if you could find someone to defend it as good and necessary. (I'm on the record as saying it's neutral and unnecessary and I reckon on balance should just be optional if they want to increase vocations). I reject, though, in the strongest possible terms any link between paedophilia and celibacy.
The reason I feel so strongly on this is that if you follow your assumption/argument to it's logical conclusion you *are* implicating all priests as people who are more-than-averagely likely to abuse children and that is such a gross injustice!
I'll explain what I mean:
You say celibacy is/has been a trigger (you believe) for paedophilia. If that were true then you would need to keep a very close eye on any paedophiles in contact with children (i.e. vast majority of priests) because they could, at any stage, be 'triggered'. This, as I say, cast an extremely wrong and unfair cloud of suspicion over them all. We should avoid casting these suspicions, perpetrating this injustice, without very good reason. Celibacy is *not* a good reason.
Most paedophiles are *not* celibate.
Most celibates are *not* paedophiles.
Creating the impression that they are linked is wrong and unjust.

To summarise what is, I know, a very long post:
1)
2)I agree celibacy is unnecessary and the rule should probably be changed but I don't agree that it's harmful
3)Paedophilia is horrific and the Church failed badly in their handling of the problem
4)Most priests will struggle with celibacy and cope but a significant minority will not cope
5)Most of those who don't cope will enter adult sexual relationships (I was going to say normal but hey, what's normal?) just like most non-celibates enter adult sexual relationships
6)Some who don't cope are paedophiles, again like some non-celibates
7)Points 5 & 6 illustrate the fact that paedophilia is *not* linked to celibacy
8)Creating the link casts suspicion of extreme evil (I'm fairly sure none of us think paedophilia is anything less) on all celibates
9)Casting this suspicion is grossly unfair because it's unfounded.


I have heard people try to link paedophilia to homosexuality (usual argument is along then lines of men abusing boys = males attracted to males) and I am equally angry about that and robust in denying it.


To be brief celibacy does *not* trigger paedophilia.
I'm getting angry again even as I type this so I'll stop!

>Different people have different psychologies and biologies I suppose, to be able to settle for the Platonic thing.<

That's exactly the thing Effers, the quality might be the same but the need doesn't have to be.
You don't see how anyone could live without sex, I don't really understand how it can be all that important but I accept that that's the way it is for some people. I don't think that my approach is any more valid, fulfilling or intense than yours and I reject the notion that yours in more valid, fulfilling or intense than mine.

>If Christians maintain one should try to live like Christ, and if you look at it my way, it's quite a good idea really.<

I agree, most Christians have wandered a looong way from the path of Jesus and if they concentrated more on following his examples than worring about what the Old Testament or St Paul or St Peter or anyone else had to say it'd be a *big* improvement!