A Q about oral sex...sort of

[pensmama87]

The position that LongingSoul has is not based on opinion but rather conventional taboos inspired by nature and by extension, the morality of loving our neighbour. (LongingSoul is also a she. Not a he.)

You’re right. There are some things that don’t constitute crime or sin in and of themselves especially if they come from ignorance or even if driven by addiction. But they serve as taboos and we defer to the taboos because we have a natural care for the wellbeing of the wider structures like the family or the community or the species. They come from a place of morality in that regard. For example, a loving married couple not using contraception and fully conforming their sex lives to Church teaching, still wouldn’t have sex in the loungeroom in front of their visitors. It isn’t officially a crime or sin (unless the visitors are being physically forced to watch against their will) but something inside us knows that this is not a good practice to encourage or promote among people. It’s got a subtle toxicity about it that undermines healthy societal ‘norms’.

Think of how the immune system supports the body. We conduct ourselves in certain way that conforms to health. We cook food in a healthy way. We wash our hands before cooking and eating. We clean teeth. We clean ears. etc etc. If someone says ‘well I don’t wash my hands and I don’t get sick’… that doesn’t mean that if we break that norm of handwashing and dispense with the taboo, that society won’t be affected in the long term. It just means that that one person, supported by the healthy society we live in, has a free ride based on the conformity and dedication of others to the norm that underpins immunity. If everyone stopped washing their hands as a matter of course… disease would come back into society and affect everyone, especially the weakest among us.

This is what is happening with the taboo of keeping our mouths, with their balance of chemistry that supports the immune system… away from our genitals, with their own bacterial makeup that comes with the presence of our waste products. When something so basically unhealthy becomes a widely practiced norm on the principle of ‘well I do it and it doesn’t make me sick’… that’s the type of ignorance that disease and other problems are waiting for.

Oral sex has no place in human sexual conduct that is healthy or holy.** Fact.**

Opinion.

A person can practice good genital hygiene (for women it’s absolutely essential to avoid UTIs and other unpleasantness - and I remember learning as a child how to carefully clean after using the toilet and when bathing.) Interestingly, I generally use my hands to complete those cleaning tasks, and then I wash my hands, and my hands are free to touch whatever and nobody thinks that is gross.

If it’s your choice to not engage in that activity because it makes you feel squeamish, that’s perfectly fine. As a matter of fact, I prefer not to myself. But it’s not inherently dirty or gross. “Next to” is not the same as “is.”

 

[joshvanrad]

I’d like to think I keep my man-business pretty clean so this argument makes no sense, unless I’m missing something. And even if this hygiene reasoning meant something… why would someone put their dirty genitals inside of someone else’s dirty genitals? That seems more unhygienic and unnatural than performing oral stimulation.

And this whole “driven by lust” thing holds little weight with me… I am single and do not participate in any sexual acts with the opposite sex. So it’s not like I’m trying to justify my actions for receiving or giving oral stimulation to/from a woman.

Again, you are spewing complete misinformation as cold hard facts and that is completely uncalled for on a forum that people visit for cold hard facts. Please stop teaching things that the church does not have a stance on as it promotes “false scripture”. If you are going to lay out things like this you should back it up with information from the CCC or Bible. Again, please stop. It is fine to have your opinion, but to promote your opinion as the facts of the church only distorts truth.

 

[LongingSoul]

Opinion.

A person can practice good genital hygiene (for women it’s absolutely essential to avoid UTIs and other unpleasantness - and I remember learning as a child how to carefully clean after using the toilet and when bathing.) Interestingly, I generally use my hands to complete those cleaning tasks, and then I wash my hands, and my hands are free to touch whatever and nobody thinks that is gross.

If it’s your choice to not engage in that activity because it makes you feel squeamish, that’s perfectly fine. As a matter of fact, I prefer not to myself. But it’s not inherently dirty or gross. “Next to” is not the same as “is.”

It’s not an argument from ‘dirty or gross’. That’s your interpretation of what I’ve said to make my argument seem childish and meritless. It’s to do with why taboos exist and the importance of societal norms.

No matter how clean your toilet was you wouldn’t eat in there or clean your teeth with the toilet brush regardless of the amount of disinfecting you did. There are certain things that we respect out of principle as they are meaningful in a general way. A standard for everyone. We have taboos so that everyone is protected and given the best chance at health and life regardless of their faith tradition or their understanding of the science or theology of that principle.

I think it’s inherently unwise and somewhat devious to promote oral sex as a personal choice in Catholic teaching simply because it isn’t addressed specifically. And I know that every person has the capacity to understand the respect needed for general taboos and how they protect the ignorant and weak members of society.

I will certainly continue to use my voice to ask people to honestly consider the wider implications of a general practice of putting genitals in the mouth for any reason whatsoever.

 

[doglover2]

Hahaha about not cleaning your teeth with the toilet brush

Well in my opinion I don’t think there is anything bad about oral sex, I mean in my opinion sex is sex and if you’re in love with your partner it can bring you closer together

 

[severus68]

And for those readers, I appeal to common sense in considering that oral sex is not “dirty and gross” in the way of eating squid and rolling in mud as another poster suggested… but that oral sex means putting the genitals of another person into your mouth without regard for the wise taboos that dictate the overall health and wellbeing of the species.

Lust notoriously suppresses the higher sensibilites and it is entirely within the capacity of an individuals common sense to know what behaviours and practices conform to nature and the wellbeing of the species. Personal integrity often means that in these days we need to be counter cultural in our behaviours.

Don’t be tricked by this lie that ‘Catholic teaching allows oral sex’. The Catholic Church doesn’t even need to make moral judgements on things that belong to taboo by virtue of nature and the species survival.

Sex is a wonderful unitive and procreative gift from God but nothing warrants taking someones genitals into your mouth as a matter of course, not even great orgasmic feelings that hedonists use as the highest good of sex.

There is really no need to be graphic to put your views forward. Live the way you want, if oral sex is disgusting etc to you, you do not have to practise it. However, the Church does not say it is wrong as foreplay for a couple or even afterplay for the woman. It just can’t be practised as an alternative.

 

[severus68]

Also, to address more of the misinformation:

The smoking of marijuana is directly in violation of church teaching for the same reasons that getting drunk is. The smoking of marijuana immediately inhibits the reasoning and logic of the user and is therefore sinful.

With exceptions. Marijuanna does help people with MS for example. Taking opiates would be wrong unless it is for medical reasons.

Some would say that marijuaan does less harm than nicotine.

Sorry, I digress. The point is hat the Church gives us the overall rules by which we are to live. We are supposed to use our God given brains to work out the many, many details of life. Unsure, see a priest.

 

[patsa]

It’s not an argument from ‘dirty or gross’. That’s your interpretation of what I’ve said to make my argument seem childish and meritless. It’s to do with why taboos exist and the importance of societal norms.

No matter how clean your toilet was you wouldn’t eat in there or clean your teeth with the toilet brush regardless of the amount of disinfecting you did. There are certain things that we respect out of principle as they are meaningful in a general way. A standard for everyone. We have taboos so that everyone is protected and given the best chance at health and life regardless of their faith tradition or their understanding of the science or theology of that principle.

I think it’s inherently unwise and somewhat devious to promote oral sex as a personal choice in Catholic teaching simply because it isn’t addressed specifically. And I know that every person has the capacity to understand the respect needed for general taboos and how they protect the ignorant and weak members of society.

I will certainly continue to use my voice to ask people to honestly consider the wider implications of a general practice of putting genitals in the mouth for any reason whatsoever.

You claim this has nothing to do with you thinking the act is dirty/gross, yet that’s basically what you go on to argue when you compare oral stimulation to brushing your teeth with a toilet brush. (performing oral stimulation on your spouse is not at all taboo, btw… it’s a very common, accepted practice amongst married couples, catholic and non catholic)

As for your comment here: “No matter how clean your toilet was you wouldn’t eat in there or clean your teeth with the toilet brush regardless of the amount of disinfecting you did.”

I am sorry you feel as though your husband’s genitalia is comparable to a toilet, and thus dirty/unhygienic by its very nature… even if he were to shower and wash himself like everyone else. But you see, if I used this logic of yours in regards to my husband’s genitalia, I wouldn’t want his genitalia anywhere near me unless I absolutely had to. Because the only time I ever get close to a toilet is if I absolutely have to. And not only would I want his genitalia away from my mouth, but I’d want it away from my bare hands and away from the inside of my vagina as well. Because that’s how I feel about toilets.
I’m sorry, but your toilet statement seems very bizarre, to say the least. And seems like a pretty unhealthy view of sexuality and the human body, IMHO. But whatever.

Anyway, getting to the crux of the issue…

As others have said, you are free to have the personal opinion that oral stimulation between spouses is immoral. But please please please DO NOT present this opinion as Church teaching. Present it only as your opinion, because that is all it is.

There are many great, respectable catholic theology books with imprimatur that present these acts as morally neutral… some big names include Moral Theology, by Heribert Jone, Theology of the Body, by Pope JPII, and Good News about Sex and Marriage, by Christopher West. These books would not have received an imprimatur, let alone be held in such high esteem within the Church, if the Church taught that oral stimulation is intrinsically evil.

Your opinion is your opinion, and since the Church is silent on the issue, you are allowed to have your opinion, and the rest of us are allowed to have the opposite opinion. But neither one of us can claim the Church has officially spoken for either of our case. So when someone asks you about the morality of oral stimulation amongst spouses, please provide them with the correct information: that the Church has left the issue open to our own personal judgement… (and then feel free to tell them your personal opinion). To present it otherwise is false and disingenuous.

 

[LongingSoul]

There is really no need to be graphic to put your views forward. Live the way you want, if oral sex is disgusting etc to you, you do not have to practise it. However, the Church does not say it is wrong as foreplay for a couple or even afterplay for the woman. It just can’t be practised as an alternative.

Huh? Do you mean describing oral sex as putting the genitals into your mouth? There are many many threads on this forum talking about putting the penis in the vagina to describe licit sex. If it is offensive to describe oral sex in the same language I think that may be your conscience projecting itself ?? Oral sex is putting your partners genitals into your mouth.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

True, genitals are full of bacteria and things. Also true, the mouth is full of bacteria and things. Sex within marriage leads to a lot of those bacteria getting transferred between the partners, just as kissing leads to some mouth bacteria getting shared. Now if those partners also had other sexual partners, things would get a bit gross because of the number of people you could be sharing those bacteria with and whose bacteria could be getting inside you. But within a strictly monogamous relationship (which is what the Church teaches), you share a certain number of bacteria with your partner and that’s it. The body copes. You cope. People who have so much disgust about body fluids and what’s in them need to get more of a grip on reality. Normal hygiene is good enough. You don’t need to spend your life in a bubble of disinfectant.

 

[pensmama87]

LongingSoul: I do think you have a point about cultural taboos and how they arise. IIRC, in some places of the world it’s still considered very, very rude to interact with people using your left hand, because it is/was reserved for hygiene related tasks. But in places where clean water is plentiful and good hygiene practices are the norm, nobody thinks anything of using the left hand. Consider also that in Christianity, there are no longer laws about ritual cleanliness.

I would concede that in some areas of the world, where good hygiene practices are not the norm (for whatever reason), it’s probably not a good idea to engage in oral stimulation because there is a higher risk of cross-contamination. But that’s a matter of practicality, not spirituality.

 

[severus68]

Huh? Do you mean describing oral sex as putting the genitals into your mouth? There are many many threads on this forum talking about putting the penis in the vagina to describe licit sex. If it is offensive to describe oral sex in the same language I think that may be your conscience projecting itself ?? Oral sex is putting your partners genitals into your mouth.

There are as young people on CAF, as young as 16, maybe less…
Further, I am rather surprised that you keep repeating the process, shall we say, while going on about how dirty it is.

 

[LongingSoul]

You claim this has nothing to do with you thinking the act is dirty/gross, yet that’s basically what you go on to argue when you compare oral stimulation to brushing your teeth with a toilet brush. (performing oral stimulation on your spouse is not at all taboo, btw… it’s a very common, accepted practice amongst married couples, catholic and non catholic)

As for your comment here: “No matter how clean your toilet was you wouldn’t eat in there or clean your teeth with the toilet brush regardless of the amount of disinfecting you did.”

I am sorry you feel as though your husband’s genitalia is comparable to a toilet, and thus dirty/unhygienic by its very nature… even if he were to shower and wash himself like everyone else. But you see, if I used this logic of yours in regards to my husband’s genitalia, I wouldn’t want his genitalia anywhere near me unless I absolutely had to. Because the only time I ever get close to a toilet is if I absolutely have to. And not only would I want his genitalia away from my mouth, but I’d want it away from my bare hands and away from the inside of my vagina as well. Because that’s how I feel about toilets.
I’m sorry, but your toilet statement seems very bizarre, to say the least. And seems like a pretty unhealthy view of sexuality and the human body, IMHO. But whatever.

Anyway, getting to the crux of the issue…

As others have said, you are free to have the personal opinion that oral stimulation between spouses is immoral. But please please please DO NOT present this opinion as Church teaching. Present it only as your opinion, because that is all it is.

There are many great, respectable catholic theology books with imprimatur that present these acts as morally neutral… some big names include Moral Theology, by Heribert Jone, Theology of the Body, by Pope JPII, and Good News about Sex and Marriage, by Christopher West. These books would not have received an imprimatur, let alone be held in such high esteem within the Church, if the Church taught that oral stimulation is intrinsically evil.

Your opinion is your opinion, and since the Church is silent on the issue, you are allowed to have your opinion, and the rest of us are allowed to have the opposite opinion. But neither one of us can claim the Church has officially spoken for either of our case. So when someone asks you about the morality of oral stimulation amongst spouses, please provide them with the correct information: that the Church has left the issue open to our own personal judgement… (and then feel free to tell them your personal opinion). To present it otherwise is false and disingenuous.

It doesn’t seem that you have read my posts on this thread at all so I think it is a waste of time trying to reference back to what I really said. You aren’t likely to hear anyway by the sounds of it.

Oh and I’ve had a well worn copy of Theology of the Body for the last 12 years and Pope John Paul II did not say that oral sex was morally neutral. Christopher West said that oral sex and anul penetration were acceptable as foreplay, but his interpretation is highly criticised by other Church theologions on those claims.

 

[LongingSoul]

True, genitals are full of bacteria and things. Also true, the mouth is full of bacteria and things. Sex within marriage leads to a lot of those bacteria getting transferred between the partners, just as kissing leads to some mouth bacteria getting shared. Now if those partners also had other sexual partners, things would get a bit gross because of the number of people you could be sharing those bacteria with and whose bacteria could be getting inside you. But within a strictly monogamous relationship (which is what the Church teaches), you share a certain number of bacteria with your partner and that’s it. The body copes. You cope. People who have so much disgust about body fluids and what’s in them need to get more of a grip on reality. Normal hygiene is good enough. You don’t need to spend your life in a bubble of disinfectant.

I have not made any ‘eeww gross’ comments whatsoever on this topic. Those are the interpretations of others trying misrepresent my point. How people conduct their sex lives will always go with a sliding scale. Some are very adventurous. Others are very conservative. Oral and anul sex are practiced very widely by the highly active younger generation and within that set, there’s not too much concern for hygiene in those heated moments. That’s never going to change.

I do feel concern for people as part of the species and want to champion common sense in conducting healthy sexual lives. The posters on this thread are adamant that the genitals and waste elimination areas of the body are compatible with being in the mouth, but many others will find it ecologically unsound as a species practice.

 

[pensmama87]

I have not made any ‘eeww gross’ comments whatsoever on this topic. Those are the interpretations of others trying misrepresent my point. How people conduct their sex lives will always go with a sliding scale. Some are very adventurous. Others are very conservative. Oral and anul sex are practiced very widely by the highly active younger generation and within that set, there’s not too much concern for hygiene in those heated moments. That’s never going to change.

I do feel concern for people as part of the species and want to champion common sense in conducting healthy sexual lives. The posters on this thread are adamant that the genitals and waste elimination areas of the body are compatible with being in the mouth, but many others will find it ecologically unsound as a species practice.

I don’t think it’s that posters are “adamant,” but just think it’s a bit rich to say that oral-genital contact is the same as eating out of a toilet bowl. I also think you’re moving the goalposts a bit - none of us were talking about oral-anal contact at all. A person who practices good hygiene has very, very little to worry about health-wise with oral-genital contact. Is it wise for people to not engage in it in areas where good hygiene is not the norm? Probably, but as I said in my earlier post, that’s a matter of practicality, NOT spirituality. Christians don’t have laws on ritual cleanliness.

 

[Estevao]

I just have a few questions…

Is oral sex okay or is it aberrant? I’d really like to know the opinion of pre-Vatican II theologians and not what Christopher West and all the other church of nice gang have said about it being okay.

Isn’t moral sex against the natural law? I mean if sodomy is wrong because homosexual persons can’t make babies together, how is oral sex okay?

Thanks.

 

[pensmama87]

I just have a few questions…

Is oral sex okay or is it aberrant? I’d really like to know the opinion of pre-Vatican II theologians and not what Christopher West and all the other church of nice gang have said about it being okay.

Isn’t moral sex against the natural law? I mean if sodomy is wrong because homosexual persons can’t make babies together, how is oral sex okay?

Thanks.

Often times when this comes up on CAF posters will differentiate between “oral sex” and “oral stimulation.” Oral sex is defined as oral-genital contact until climax, oral stimulation is defined as oral-genital contact as foreplay leading up to the marital act. In this context, oral stimulation is not at all morally wrong because it’s not an activity unto itself.

I have no idea that any pre-Vatican II theologians discussed it much at all. Sexual issues (at least as far as the licitness of specific bedroom activities) weren’t really in societal conscience much pre-1960s, so there wasn’t much to talk about.

 

[Estevao]

Often times when this comes up on CAF posters will differentiate between “oral sex” and “oral stimulation.” Oral sex is defined as oral-genital contact until climax, oral stimulation is defined as oral-genital contact as foreplay leading up to the marital act. In this context, oral stimulation is not at all morally wrong because it’s not an activity unto itself.

I have no idea that any pre-Vatican II theologians discussed it much at all. Sexual issues (at least as far as the licitness of specific bedroom activities) weren’t really in societal conscience much pre-1960s, so there wasn’t much to talk about.

Thanks for the response. I guess the last part really shows where my mind is and where it should be. Gotta disassociate from the degenerate culture.

 

[LongingSoul]

I don’t think it’s that posters are “adamant,” but just think it’s a bit rich to say that oral-genital contact is the same as eating out of a toilet bowl. I also think you’re moving the goalposts a bit - none of us were talking about oral-anal contact at all. A person who practices good hygiene has very, very little to worry about health-wise with oral-genital contact. Is it wise for people to not engage in it in areas where good hygiene is not the norm? Probably, but as I said in my earlier post, that’s a matter of practicality, NOT spirituality. Christians don’t have laws on ritual cleanliness.

Using the example of eating from a toilet was to demonstrate the importance of respecting a things purpose and not compromising in that respect regardless of how spotlessly, hygienically clean a thing is. It’s a taboo that establishes and guards that important relationship between our health and disease. In a less important example we don’t clean the dog with our bath towel no matter how clean he is. We don’t wipe up floor messes with the dish cloth. Things have purpose and it’s irrelevant how clean we judge our own environment we still respect the taboos for the broader purpose protecting the species defenses.

As far as the oral-anal contact, it is all in the same general area but I mentioned that in relation to Christopher Wests writing regarding both oral and anal sex as being acceptable foreplay. It all just amazes me.

 

[Cricket2]

Call me a simpleton, but any person with a basic understanding of hygiene knows that putting your mouth on someones genitals for sex or any reason, is counter to species wellbeing. You don’t need to be a theologian or a priest to have this ‘advanced’ wisdom. You just need a smidgeon of a brain. For heavens sake!

I have to agree with you. I find the idea beyond disgusting and have to wonder what is going on in peoples “minds.” Good Lord!

 

[Burt_Macklin]

Often times when this comes up on CAF posters will differentiate between “oral sex” and “oral stimulation.” Oral sex is defined as oral-genital contact until climax, oral stimulation is defined as oral-genital contact as foreplay leading up to the marital act. In this context, oral stimulation is not at all morally wrong because it’s not an activity unto itself.

I have no idea that any pre-Vatican II theologians discussed it much at all. Sexual issues (at least as far as the licitness of specific bedroom activities) weren’t really in societal conscience much pre-1960s, so there wasn’t much to talk about. :shrug:

Many of the pre-Vatican II moral theology manuals are available online.

Mutual incomplete acts which are preparatory to the natural marriage act, are per se’ permitted to married people to whatever extent they are necessary or useful in order to achieve satisfactory intercourse.

Mutual incomplete acts which are not immediately preparatory to intercourse but take place at other times are not per se’ illicit, they too are virtuous and meritorious when used in moderation,

At the very least it can be said that according to solid theological authority, that incomplete mutual acts of married persons, whether in immediate preparation for intercourse or at other times are never gravely sinful as violations of chastity unless they involve serious and unjustifiable risk of orgasm outside the marriage act

Ford and Kelly - Contemporary Moral Theology Volume II Marriage Questions

Excluding the sodomitical intention it is neither sodomy nor a grave sin if intercourse is begun in a rectal manner with the intention of consummating it naturally or if some sodomitical action is posited without danger of pollution.

Fr. Heribert Jone’s Moral Theology