Anaphrodisiacs

[Aloysius]

what do you think: do anaphrodisiacs have any place in the spirtual development of souls striving for chastity? folk-types and herbal types? more medicinal modern pill-form types? quinquina and wine?

( [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaphrodisiac"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaphrodisiac[/url] )

[Maggyie]

Hmmm... Of course it would be better to achieve purity completely sans drugs. After all, the point of striving to be pure in the flesh is to be pure in soul, and I don't think an artificially-induced chastity would be as authentic, as, say, conquering temptation through prayer. The whole "controlling the sex-drive by taking stuff" thing weirds me out in a "Brave New World" kind of way

But I suppose if it is one tool in a primarily [i]spiritual [/i]program, there's no problem.

[Aloysius]

this is why I would recommend against the modern-medicine pill-form end of the spectrum.

but building up a cultural way-of-life that includes folk anaphrodesiacs I think could be a spiritually beneficial experience. it wouldn't be producing an artificial chastity, the act of will would come into the overall act of you know, having the quinquina and wine (apparently this used to be suggested to counter sins of onanism). it wouldn't be some magical end-to-all-temptation.

but a calculated pill, on the other hand, I'm not so sure about. something designed to just take the libido off-line so you don't have to worry about it would make me wary like you.

I think folk anaphrodisiacs, however, could be a very good thing and really ought to be considered as an aid. it wouldn't be 'cheating' or anything, I don't think. one would develop the strength to avoid sexual temptation just as much in living a lifestyle that specifically included these foods/drinks iconographic and affective towards a chaste lifestyle.

hmm....

[Laudate_Dominum]

Because of this: "there are no substances that have safe anaphroditic effects without major side effects", I say no. If we assume that it is perfectly safe, etc. what do my instinct say?

1. I can imagine some unusual physiological and/or psychological condition which could create a legitimate basic for such a thing.
2. The sexual urge is not a medical condition and one does not need to be medicated for it (extreme cases excluded per above comment).
3. While avoiding sin is certainly an essential aspect of chastity, self-mastery is the more ultimate goal and medicating oneself would simply provide an artificial and temporary 'quick fix'.
4. In light of #3 I would comment that I resent the medication mentality which sees everything undesirable as an illness in need of a new pill.
5. Following directly from #4 but in a more spiritual vein I should remark that there is great value in the struggle toward purity and in the volitional habitus of authentically sustained purity which would be reduced or nullified by artificial, drug-induced "purity"- if you can even call it that.
6. This reminds me of Origen and his little castration stunt. Certainly the differences here are vast and the use of anaphrodisiacs is not so serious a matter as the Origen affair but I believe there is a certain mental similitude.

In essence, purity and chastity do not equal a lack of the sexual urge and to approach them with such an attitude cannot lead to true purity of heart. Purity of heart/chastity is ultimately about the holistic integration of the person which includes the proper ordering of the passions as well as true self-mastery and self possession. Sexuality is beautiful and sacred, and the sexual urge is a great good which ought to be understood as such. To destroy the sexual urge is to destroy a part of one's humanity; it implies a Gnostic and hostile attitude toward the fact of our sexual constitution. That would be my initial reaction anyway.

I know of some monks of a different religion who supposedly consume substances which make them incapable of sexual arousal.

[Aloysius]

I agree for the most part... but still think there might be something to a substance that is not absolute. I am particularly interested in this:
"In the old medecin , quinquina with wine was the best recommandation the avoid « onanism » ( infidelity or masturbation )."

the sexual urge is not evil, but if it were subdued to some degree by one who had no moral outlet for it (so long as it did no actual damage) just by some type of food/drink as part of a life-style that includes self mastery I am not sure.

think of oysters as an aphrodisiac, and something that would be an equivalent as an anaphrodisiac. oysters may have some chemical aphrodisiac effects, but the main part of its aphrodisiac effect is the cultural concept of oysters as an aphrodisiac. if there were a food or drink which had the same type of affect in the opposite direction, I think it might be something good for a great number of people.

from what I can tell, quinquina doesn't destroy the sexual urge magically. it lowers the sexual urge the same way oysters raise it. now, I must do more research into quinquina before making a judgement; but if it is as I say it is, as anaphrodisiac as oysters are aphrodisiacs, I think it might be something to be possibly promoted; not as a solution, but as an aid and a tool. again, only if there are no substantial damages.

hmm... in keeping with what I said, perhaps even some type of placebo effect that a fellow could assosiate a food or drink as an anaphrodisiac whether or not it actually had chemical properties to that effect.

[N/A Gone]

I would say no. Completely no.

There is no sanctification, there is no change of the soul and the will controlling the body. There is no acheiving a proper way to love.

We are replacing what we should be doing with a pill. Let the proto's get drugged up. We understand that the struggle is santifiying.

Anything that changes our cognative control I feel could have soteriological effects

[journeyman]

oysters have never had the advertised affect . . . so I'd imagine it is likely I'd see the same result with the quinquina

if there is no effect, then what's the point?

[Socrates]

At first I thought this was a typo or misspelling.

I don't think such substances would necessarily be immoral per se, but I don't think anything strong enough to substantially lower libido or sexual function could be healthy (and being "herbal" or "natural" does not make something healthy).

I for one don't think virtue can be chemically induced.

This is reminding me of the infamous "chastity belt" debate.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Maggie' post='1219158' date='Mar 25 2007, 12:36 AM']The whole "controlling the sex-drive by taking stuff" thing weirds me out in a "Brave New World" kind of way [/quote]
More of a "Clockwork Orange" sort of way, actually.

[-I---Love]

No.