Do you feel the "silence and dominate" approach to sexuality is what the Church teaches? That's never what I got from it, but my perspective is different as well. If eros is to become what it truly is, we must understand eros is not strictly sexual. If we let eros be unguided, it most becomes dominant over reason and thus distorted, no longer like a child playing and being himself, but a child telling his father what to do. The language of chastity in the catechism doesn't seem to me to indicate a total "dominance" from the onset because the phrases included in the Catechism starting at 2337, such as "integration," "long and exacting work," "laws of growth", "stages marked by imperfection" and by its rejection of "mere external constraint." (Starting at P2337.) It could be perhaps that I am misunderstanding you as well.
Do you feel the "silence and dominate" approach to sexuality is what the Church teaches? That's never what I got from it, but my perspective is different as well. If eros is to become what it truly is, we must understand eros is not strictly sexual. If we let eros be unguided, it most becomes dominant over reason and thus distorted, no longer like a child playing and being himself, but a child telling his father what to do. The language of chastity in the catechism doesn't seem to me to indicate a total "dominance" from the onset because the phrases included in the Catechism starting at 2337, such as "integration," "long and exacting work," "laws of growth", "stages marked by imperfection" and by its rejection of "mere external constraint." (Starting at P2337.) It could be perhaps that I am misunderstanding you as well.
The critical comments toward you only show the critics didn’t carefully read your article.