Healing S3xu@l Brokenness in Marriage w/ Christopher West 

My sister got involved in the kink community…brought her husband into it. Now he is trans and they are polyamorous. It never ends. They are now into something called blood play. Cutting each other to break blood in a sexual way. I’m scared to think where it goes next for them. I pray for their salvation! 🙏

I find women frigidness is aligned to what matt says about trust. As soon as we trust, feel safe, are in a good committed relationship with a man who wants to do the best he can for the relationship in the eyes of God (and vice versa), s3x comes without asking to the husband.

2:52 HE'S TOTALLY RIGHT! _"Oftentimes those who go for violence in sexual activity are reliving, in some ways recycling, traumas of their lives"_ He might not be a psychologist but he nailed it.

A good video towards the end of Lent! Lent is a season of change of a Christian towards holiness, and being free from an old addiction or even learning tools and actions to break free of an addiction. That’s a big reason for fasting, to free yourself from sin and learning what in your life is shackling you.

Gosh, Christopher has such a gift when it comes to speaking on these subjects

I think it's deceitful to "WAIT" until after they are married to divulge sexual deviances.

This is beautiful! I think it's so important to recognize that even if we're pursuing the good, the true, the beautiful, even in a realm so complex and tender and fragile as human sexuality, that doesn't mean we'll ever be free of wounded desires, interests or inclinations. But they are truly like the wolf or the boxer that we intend to starve, and need to starve. It's important to be aware that they are present, but it's just as if not more important to starve those desires that don't fully appreciate the sacredness of what is happening within pure and holy expression of sexuality. And I truly believe that's a lifelong journey.

10:00 - wow thats the correct way of thinking about it that hadn't considered before!

I found the image of pilgrimmaging into the ocean an extremely beautiful analogy!

How does one determine if something is degrading within sex? If neither spouse FEELS degraded, is that the only requirement? For example, some couples may find oral sex to be degrading, while other couples dont feel that way at all. Spanking is rather common... Is that degrading? Some may say its violent, even if its desired by both spouses.

Very good, thank you !

I feel into this community when I was 18 years old. Only online though, thank God for that. The Lord protected me going into it more the whole time, I know now. I always felt burned out and searching for more. Eventually I realised I was longing for a love men cannot give me, no matter how "dominant" they were. I need God's love and guidance. Once I met Jesus I never looked back. The addiction of porn took years to go away. Now, I don't want porn and bdsm anymore and feel sad seeing it. Most sub's seek love only Jesus can give and no sexual perversion. God saves everyone who seek help 🙏🏻 The Holy father is ready to love everyone who is accepting his love.

I’m not sure if this is an improper place to ask, but where would one be able to message Mr. West should one have a question? I have one, but I don’t feel at liberty to ask it in its entirety here. I ask as this is a very interesting clip and I look forward to watching the entirety of the discussion when I am able. That said, I can ask some of the question in the hopes that anyone could possible address it. That or it may open a topic of discussion over-all which in the right context can be beneficial to anyone other than myself. So, here it goes. My question has to do with the relation between that which is known as kink or we’ll call them “fantasies” compared to that which is explicitly allowed in marital relations, and it’s relation to heaven and the “boring heaven” concept. What I mean is: even as a trope in writing Catholic couples, they are depicted as either being unyieldingly boring or horrendously degenerate in the bedroom. This bleeds into the belief from those outside (and even within) that there is no middle ground. It’s either to be hypocritical or simply boring. For those unfamiliar with the argument for a boring heaven, (though forgive me if I am lacking or flawed in the recollection of my understanding), it is that some people cannot see Heaven as being anything other than boring. A place where we worship God throughout eternity and nothing else. An infinite church service where we have our seats and never leave. So they call that eternity boring. To argue the point however is not as easy as saying ‘it won’t be like that’, as there are a few counterpoints that I won’t discuss here. For the argument however I those who see eternity as boring would ask if one thing or another would be allowed in Heaven. Then if anyone says ‘no’ they would ask ‘why’. Specifically, ‘if God allows us to have a desire on Earth, why would it He deny it to us in eternity if it does bring us closer to Him’? What I’m trying to get at is: would all forms of desire, attraction, or enjoyment be a form of not just brokenness that is present in all of us, but degeneracy or division from God’s order? Some people have preferences such as ethnicity, hair color, height, weight, and quite literally anything else. If someone is open to God’s will, that they may form a connection with someone else, yet still has those preferences, are they at fault for disordered thinking? What if we go a step further. Some people have preferences that are more specific in an intimate nature that enters into the realm of kink and “fantasy”. These may have manifested since childhood (or more appropriately upon recognizing of the opposite sex) at certain moments in development. Are they doing against our Lord for having those wants? Obviously there are examples that I can think of, but for the sake of brevity and public respect I won’t discuss. I was attempting to think of an example to illustrate my query, but I realize that even that isn’t so easy to do. Not for indecency, but for lack of understanding. That’s why I’m asking this question. I have looked elsewhere as far as I could to answer my questions: and they all tend toward the stereotype the world has of Catholics. That “good married couples are as simple as unbuttered toast and anything more is disgraceful. And it should be shameful to ask for anything more”. I hope that didn’t come off as bitter, but I am a bit bothered by how little there seems to be in regard for the questions I wish to ask. At the risk of being too transparent, I’m a man in his thirties who has been in a few relationships. And by the grace and love of our Lord I have remained celibate despite being tempted more times than I’d like to admit. Those wants existing however have made me wonder, not just for myself but for others who could be going through the same, are we wanting things because we are broken? Are we asking for too much? Not enough? How could every want come from a distant wrong done to us? I understand that I’m likely being selfish in asking this. Expecting or wondering things I have no right to ponder on. I suppose the only justification I have is that if I can avoid hurting someone as best as I can I would like to. Including myself if I can, even if I feel as though I know I don’t deserve any mercy. So. That’s what I’m thinking from this video. And I pardon everyone for putting up with this. If you read through it all, good on you. I hope I didn’t offend or hurt anyone in asking this. Much love to you all: myself

Far out... this makes me relieved to be single

Thank you so much I am still in the darkness of feeling I need BDSM.. But I see now peace is out there ❤

Been through different "phases" with my lover and tbh IMO it brought us closer and helped process some emotionally difficulties from our past. JP2 100% is onto an important aspect of our lives. Something that can only occur in the bond of commitment that is marriage.

Funny how this video comes out a couple days after Rabbi Butt Plugs rant on Alex Jones

@Pints With Aquinas I don’t mean to bother, is there you guys can please change the thumbnail to something else? Thank you and I love your channel!

Where do the teachings of Aquinas and Liguori fit in with this?

I now say „mercy“ to myself after hearing degenerate bullshit after watching this episode.

I'm gonna post a few verses from Scripture that touch on this issue in an important way, and I think definitively go against a lot of the b-d-s-m dynamic by shedding light on the truth: _And as he was saying these things in his defense, Festus said with a loud voice, “Paul, you are out of your mind; your great learning is driving you out of your mind.” But Paul said, “I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I am speaking true and rational words. For the king knows about these things, and to him I speak boldly. For I am persuaded that none of these things has escaped his notice, for this has not been done in a corner. King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you believe.” And Agrippa said to Paul, “In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?” And Paul said, “Whether short or long, I would to God that not only you but also all who hear me this day might become such as I am, _*_except for these chains.”_* Acts 26:24-29 Notice the last part about chains. As I was reading this a while ago it clicked to me that this not only refutes those who think Christians need to constantly suffer in their life from false asceticism and be "prisoners" in this sense, but also goes against getting arou-sed by being in bondage and/or controlled by another (which btw is one of the glories of Scripture in that parts can apply to various different things, since it is inspired by the Holy Spirit!). God in a real sense wants to give us freedom, and the words on the page here are like incense rising up into the reader's heart as he reads - Paul is showing God's generosity as peacemaker and freedom-giver in wanting his potential converts to not necessarily be in the same chains as he, likely because Paul had a unique mission from God in evangelising which would often get him imprisoned, though even when when imprisoned I think it's accurate to say Paul was more free than anyone participating in b-d-s-m!

I found it interesting that the primary question from a man about bdsm tendancies shifted quickly into a discussion of frigid women. Just saying ...

Matt, big fan, but on Good Friday? I would say poor timing at the least…

My wife insists on sex with the lights on. How can I lead her away from this sinful act?

Once you become religious or your wife becomes religious all sexual fun is over... so over.......

If you need the sinfulness/disorderedness of BDSM explained to you, you’re the one with a problem.

8:13 It's kind of funny that in this thing denouncing BDSM we come full circle to bringing back the concept of submission, which is a core concept. I think with normal everyday people who like this kind of stuff, lot of BDSM stuff in practice is not really about pain per se, except on the more performative side (like namely more to do with the sex industry itself where they just go over the top as liberalism/capitalism incentivize them to), but the masochism or submissive part of it is more about sexual altruism than wanting to actually feel pain for whatever reason. Anyone who's ever given oral sex to anyone (not sure if Song of Songs has any allusions to that or not) and enjoyed the act of giving it, understands the feeling of sexual altruism, which is inherently submissive (ironically the more you genuinely enjoy giving cunnilingus, the more natural, intuitive, and manly it is, I guess, despite being a submissive act and being an act that heavily incentivizes a clean shaven face [or at least facial hair long enough to not have any sandpaper stubble anywhere]). So if you take that feeling of altruism to an even further place out of an excess of love, desire, or appreciation for the other person and wanting to please them more or as much as possible (not necessarily out of "brokenness" or anything negative), then the "masochism" starts to kick in and you begin to approach that edge of the sexual spectrum. The problem is that if the other person feels guilty or squeamish about fulfilling your desire to please them more because they feel like they're "using" you (when you actually want or crave to be "useful" to them), then it just ends there unless they change their mind. However, if the intended recipient of the sexual altruism allows themselves to enjoy their partner submitting to their more selfish lizard brain desires in a more exaggerated form, then the submissive partner is finally able to please them in the way that they long to. And for most normal, healthy people, receiving that kind of altruism should make one feel somewhat indebted (in a no pressure sort of way) and desire to return the favor. In BDSM, the term for someone who switches between dominant and submissive roles is a switch. To me, it seems like any normal couples should be "switches" to some degree (especially if you consider any kind of normal oral sex to be the baseline milquetoast submissive act), but statistically the genders seem to be a bit skewed in an unbalanced way. According to survey's I've seen in BDSM communities, women tend to be overwhelmingly about 80-90% submissive, whereas about half of men are dominant and half are switches. I'm not sure if that imbalance is due to certain aspects (e.g., promiscuity) of the community itself who were sampled which wouldn't be applicable to normal married couples, and/or other confounding variables like if there was a much higher percentage of gxy men than lxsbians relative to their respective sexes, but if not, then that indicates an undersupply of women who like taking a "dominant" role. However, it seems like most women in general enjoy having cunnilingus performed on them (I think I may have even seen some surveys about this but I don't remember concretely), so perhaps they perceive that as they themselves "submitting" to the man "dominating" them by making them feel pleasure and grow emotionally attached to them via oxytocin, etc., and/or perhaps that could be the baseline from which they feel more okay with "using" their husband's face for sexual pleasure if he would actually enjoy that. At any rate, there are a lot of parallels in the emotions involved with submitting to God and giving yourself up to Him, and doing the same for your spouse in the bedroom, except that one is sexual and the other is not. However, what's confusing is that both sexes submit to God and are both themselves the female-sex Bride in relation to God, yet in the relationship, the man has to take that role even though God is still present in everything, so mathematically trying to describe everything in discrete terms, it's almost like there are three sexes, where God is the most male, and then human males are a sort of intersex between true-male God and human female, where he has to switch from being a man in relation to human women, and then to being a woman himself as part of the Bride. So for a man to "dominate" his wife sexually (the Bible tells women to submit to their husbands, and dominance is the flipside of submission; one can't really submit to someone not willing to take the reins and accept the submission by dominating them in some form or another), I'm not sure if this is blasphemous since the man should always be submissive in relation to God and not allow himself to take God's role in that binary with a human female, even though scripture seems to indicate that the man should be dominant in the abstract sense in marriage in general and have his literal bride act as his Bride of sorts, where the man is supposed to act in the image of Jesus and guide his wife the way Jesus guides him (so that Jesus can work through the man to further enrich his wife via the husband's dedication to Jesus). One might wonder, "Would Jesus do these kinds of acts?" and then think of course not, but is that really the right question to ask? Jesus isn't described as having sex, being in a romantic relationship, or having children anywhere in the canonical Bible as far as I'm aware. If we were supposed to follow that specific example, no one would procreate and we'd already be extinct. I think Jesus is inherently a non-sexual being, and so if anything, complete abstinence is more blasphemous since Jesus has no need to physically procreate himself, and the need for the sexual act is something that specifically marks humans as lesser and lower beings totally subordinate to God in every way. Jesus forgave Mary Magdalene and told her to sin no more in response to adultery or prxstxtution I believe, not in response to her doing kinky consensual, monogamous sex acts with her husband, as far as I'm aware. The Bible does say that mankind should have dominion over, plants, animals, and the natural world (within reason, without disturbing it too much, of course), and the Old Testament is full of Isrxxl's battles for survival as a nxtion, so I don't think there's any kind of Biblical mandate for men to never be dominant in any situation whatsoever because dominance is inherently "blasphemous" or anything like that. So then another question comes up: if it's okay for men to be more dominant in bed and their wives more submissive, is the reverse okay? Perhaps to the degree a given woman actually wants that and her husband also does, but in general it seems like women's desire for that seems to statistically be much lower for evolutionary reasons, and to the degree they don't naturally want to do it very much because their biology doesn't compel them to be sexually dominant nearly as much as men's biology does, then that's fine and who cares, in my opinion. I think that precise degree of disparity is likely enough to fulfill the Biblical command for women to submit to their husbands in general, if you're trying to copy-paste that concept into the bedroom, since even marriages since Biblical times have had some flexibility in that regard (where telling wives to submit is more of a general rule, and/or even a bit of just a means to restore balance where women have an overwhelming tendency otherwise to be controlling [or maybe my brain is just incapable of even imagining from scratch the concept of living in a non-feminist patriarachal society...]), since wives have always had a tendency to be a bit controlling, and Christian societies have never been full-on like Sxxdi Arxbia or the Handmaid's Tale or anything like that as far as I'm aware. Also, in terms of oral and anxl sex supposedly being taboo (apparently they are in Islxm but people do them anyway, especially allegedly the latter to keep hymens intact), the people of Sodom wanted to perform a nonconsensual, vxxlxnt act as a group against other males who also happen to be a different species and direct messengers of God. If someone looks at all that and then singles out the anal sex (do angels even have ani?) as the absolute worst part of that, then they have something seriously wrong with their heads if that somehow outshines nonconsent, vxxlxnce, extramarital group activity, sex with non-humans, and sex with angels in specific. Lot offered his daughters in exchange, and we can assume that there would be no need for anxl in that case since they have vxgxnas, in which case that would still be massively wrong for most of the main aforementioned reasons, and it makes no sense whatsoever to assume that anxl is supposed to be the main focus of that entire story to the point "sodomy" should refer to that as opposed to all those other things. In ancient times, most of the prohibitions on sexual activities were related to cleanliness, hygiene, and disease, which is basically the same rationale for prohibitions on eating pork. The New Testament lifted culinary prohibitions, and since today we can eat pork safely and/or engage in monogamous anxl sex without those same hygiene or disease concerns, I don't see why that same spirit wouldn't also carry over from food into monogamous, consensual married adult acts if not explicitly condemned anywhere.

I clicked on the video hoping for an interesting perspective. Instead I got some feminine Freudian nonsense about deep pain and trauma. It’s really not that complicated. We have a drive to seek pleasure for its own sake and so incorporating things into the act that increase the pleasure becomes enticing even if it’s a distortion of natural act. This should be very obvious. Treating it with this insane level of fear, intensity, and seriousness as if the explanation and solution isn’t extremely obvious just makes everything worse. No different than the common cultures obsession with identifying yourself and labeling yourself with your sin/trauma/pain. Absolute folly.