A Q about oral sex...sort of

[pensmama87]

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.

I have done both of those things. Then I throw the towel or dish cloth in the washer. Problem solved.

The thing is, you don’t get to decide what the end-all, be-all purpose of a thing is, and then restrict the use of that thing to just what you decide is OK, and then tell other people who disagree that we don’t have smidgens of brains or that it’s the same as if we ate out of a toilet bowl. As I said before, I personally choose not to engage in those things. But that’s a personal thing. It doesn’t make me morally superior to anybody.

As I said way back in the thread, I use my hands to clean that “same general area” - guilt by association. But I wash my hands and everything is fine. I could use the toilet, then wash my hands, and then go cook someone’s dinner! For that matter, should I start wearing gloves for diaper changes?

 

[pensmama87]

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

Ford and Kelly - Contemporary Moral Theology Volume II Marriage Questions

Fr. Heribert Jone’s Moral Theology

Thanks for the quotes - very informative. Didn’t know these were out there.

 

[patsa]

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.

Um, I have read every single one of your posts. I have specifically referred to things you have said.

Seems to me like YOU are the one who’s giving dismissive response like this as a way to dismiss my long post with no real response.

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.

I digress… you are correct that JPII does not specifically refer to any type of foreplay specifically. (must mean they’re all wrong then )

Of course there are Theologians who disagree with West on those claims. As I have said, we are allowed to disagree on the issue. It’s still a very well respected book amongst Catholics, and would NOT have received an imprimatur if there were things written on it that went against Catholic teaching.

No mention of Moral Theology? That was the book that priests used in the confessional at one point. Very important piece of work.

Sorry, but I don’t see what your point is. Are you trying to insist that Church teaching is against oral stimulation?

 

[patsa]

I have not made any ‘eeww gross’ comments whatsoever on this topic.

Hm, let’s see about that…

Just give them some information about mans natural caution regarding the transfer of bacteria between bottoms and mouths. We make a serious point of hand washing when we touch those areas before we eat so putting your gob right into or over someones waste disposal area goes against all wisdom, natural and divine. yuk!

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.

But we have spent nearly two centuries promoting handwashing after toileting and before eating as a general practice. We know how bacteria and disease works and the role of the the human immune system in being dominant over disease. We understand the huge importance of hygiene and how that is supported by general taboos in fortifying our species against these foriegn armies (disease) fighting for control.

We’ve forgone our common sense and deferred to concupiscence due to the hard work of our forebears in taking control over disease and making us think that taboos regarding hygiene don’t really matter.

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.

…Just a few of the many (and i know this because I read your posts)

You specifically said the word “yuk.” You keep talking about bacteria and diseases, and about how the act is anti hygienic and unhealthy. You compared it to not washing your hands after using the bathroom. You compared it to eating on a toilet and brushing your teeth with a toilet brush. Yet now you’re trying to tell us that you don’t mean to imply that you think the act is gross and dirty?

Look, it’s ok if you do think that. It’s your opinion, and that’s fine. What’s driving me crazy is your lack of consistency here. I’m not sure why you’re doing that, but it’s very strange.

 

[patsa]

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.

I know of one very well known pre Vatican II book that was so reliable, it was at one point required for priests to use in the confessional.

And yes, it does discuss specific acts of foreplay as being morally neutral.

amazon.com/dp/0895554720?tag=acatlif-20&camp=213761&creative=393545&linkCode=bpl&creativeASIN=0895554720&adid=1365NGMW3KV0PCB0015T&&ref-refURL=http%3A%2F%2Facatholiclife.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F12%2Fmoral-theology-by-rev-heribert-jone.html

 

[patsa]

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.

Be amazed, lady. Chris West was not the only one to have said this.

See below, taken from another thread:

I have a copy of Fr. Herbert Jone’s “Moral Theology”. This was one of the most common Pre-Vatican II Moral Theology text books.

It is set up as a confessional aid for priests, so it’s indexed by sin or potential sin and describes any mitigating factors and how serious the sin is.

So when someone enters the confessional and confesses something, Father can just look it up and see how serious the sin is

There is a section on sodomy. Jone distinguishes between what is called ‘perfect sodomy’ and 'imperfect sodomy".

“Perfect Sodomy” is when it occurs between two members of the same sex or when the act results in the waste of seminal fluid. It is always gravely sinful.

“Imperfect Sodomy” is when neither of the above conditions are true.

Jone had this to to say about “Imperfect Sodomy”

“it is neither sodomy nor a sin if intercourse is begun in the rectal manner with the intention of completing it in the natural manner” (Jone “Moral Theology” 757)

So if one went into the confession in most of the Western World ( Jone was published in 8 languages), during the 1920’s-1960’s and confessed anal intercourse as a form of foreplay, the priest would either learned that it wasn’t a sin during seminary, or looked it up in Jone’s and send you on your merry way.

 

[patsa]

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.

Estevao, here you go with another Pre Vatican II source:

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.

 

[joshvanrad]

Nice yo see someone backing things up with legitimate facts and sources, and not just trying to promote opinion as fact.

 

[phillylawyer]

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.

^This exactly! Cheers!

 

[phillylawyer]

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.)

The position that Longing soul has is based on HER personal interpretation of morality. Fixed.

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.

At this point, this conversation is going in circles. I say that there is no Church teaching prohibiting oral stimulation, but that there are some Catholics (including LongingSoul) who hold the personal belief that it is morally objectionable. LongingSoul then responds by furthering expounding upon and explaining why her personal opinion is that she finds it gross, unhygenic and that it is morally unacceptable (when I say “personal opinion” I don’t mean that is “relative” and there is no “right” answer, just that the Church has not definitely spoken on the matter).

Basically, it sounds like, we agree on the following:

1. The Church has not specifically addressed the question of whether oral stimulation is morally permissible.
2. Many faithful Catholics believe that it is morally permissible.
3. Some faithful Catholics (including LongingSoul) believe that it is not.
4. Since there is no official Church position, it is up to each faithful Catholic couple to use their own prudence and reason to decide what they think is appropriate and morally acceptable (and what each partner is comfortable with) in their relationship.

In summary, we can agree that if someone were to ask these questions, the answers would be (sorry, I try not to write TOO lawyerly, although my wife says I don’t do a very good job of that):

What is the Catholic Church’s official teaching on oral stimulation? The church does not have an official position on oral stimulation. The church’s explicit prohibitions on sexuality between married couples is limited to this - As long as they follow the three simple “rules,” then they just need to celebrate their sexuality in a way that is respectful and loving to each spouse.

What is LongSoul’s position (and some other faithful catholics) on oral stimulation? She believes it is morally objectionable.

What is PhillyLawyer’s position (and many other faithful catholics) on oral stimulation? He believes that there is nothing moral objectionable about oral stimulation as foreplay within the confines of marriage.

Cheers!

 

[LongingSoul]

At this point, this conversation is going in circles. I say that there is no Church teaching prohibiting oral stimulation, but that there are some Catholics (including LongingSoul) who hold the personal belief that it is morally objectionable. LongingSoul then responds by furthering expounding upon and explaining why her personal opinion is that she finds it gross, unhygenic and that it is morally unacceptable (when I say “personal opinion” I don’t mean that is “relative” and there is no “right” answer, just that the Church has not definitely spoken on the matter).

Basically, it sounds like, we agree on the following:

1. The Church has not specifically addressed the question of whether oral stimulation is morally permissible.
2. Many faithful Catholics believe that it is morally permissible.
3. Some faithful Catholics (including LongingSoul) believe that it is not.
4. Since there is no official Church position, it is up to each faithful Catholic couple to use their own prudence and reason to decide what they think is appropriate and morally acceptable (and what each partner is comfortable with) in their relationship.

In summary, we can agree that if someone were to ask these questions, the answers would be (sorry, I try not to write TOO lawyerly, although my wife says I don’t do a very good job of that):

What is the Catholic Church’s official teaching on oral stimulation? The church does not have an official position on oral stimulation. The church’s explicit prohibitions on sexuality between married couples is limited to this - As long as they follow the three simple “rules,” then they just need to celebrate their sexuality in a way that is respectful and loving to each spouse.

What is LongSoul’s position (and some other faithful catholics) on oral stimulation? She believes it is morally objectionable.

What is PhillyLawyer’s position (and many other faithful catholics) on oral stimulation? He believes that there is nothing moral objectionable about oral stimulation as foreplay within the confines of marriage.

Well my position would be more suitably represented thus. I believe oral sex to be an excess that arises from lust, maybe having a more similar nature to S & M or other deleterious sexual practices (urolagnia) etc. I think that there are many more things that people do that would be imprudent to list. These practices involve elements that are inherently unhealthy and risky as practices to the physical or psychological wellbeing of persons but have crossed from taboo into cultural acceptance because we culturally esteem lust over chastity and purity in a general sense.

I believe that the Church is aware (as a good parent also realises), that her ‘children’ can’t be told some things especially when the element of lust is present and that the Holy Spirit moves within the sensus filelium (sense of the faithful) to help people achieve genuine purity in body, mind and soul in other ways. Re-establishing taboos very often comes through painful experience. For example, many people who previously thought that oral sex is Catholic approved now find a natural sense of repugnance return since the John Hopkins University study showing that head, neck and throat cancers due to HPV transmitted in oral sex, have soared past the figures for throat cancers which had been exclusively attributable to tobacco and alcohol.

There is also an increasing confidence through shared voice (in women especially) to express objections to having to perform oral sex at the pressuring of their partner. When something presents as moral and acceptable, it is less likely to be denied since people genuinely want to please each other sexually and don’t want to be regarded as selfish.

So yes, I argue that oral sex is morally objectionable as something that damages the body, mind and soul on a number of levels and undermines marriage and by extension, the family.

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by LongingSoul

No doubt your other thread poster was male? Did he post the whole of that section anywhere for context or just that suitably edited bit?

Heribert Jones book was written specifically for use by Priests in the setting of the confessional. If you read that section in context you can see that it is aimed more at women who come to confess acts which they virtually ‘endure’ in a male dominated climate which existed much more in the 1920’s to 60’s.

Here is the extended version of that passage.

“Imperfect Sodomy, i.i., rectal intercourse, is a grave sin when the seminal fluid is wasted.”

“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. - Positive co-operation on the part of the wife in sodomitical commerce is never lawful, hence, she must at least offer internal resistance. However, she may remain externally passive, provided she has endeavored to prevent the sin. She thus applies the principle of double effect and permits the sin to avert the danger of a very grave evil which cannot otherwise be averted; it remains unlawful for her to give her consent to any concomitant pleasure.”

Women do have a protected right now to refuse an act inside marriage. For instance, the concept of marital rape was never concieved of when the above topic was being addressed in confessionals and women don’t need to accept reduced culpability in a sin by virtue of powerlessness in the marriage bed.

Very few women like rectal penetration and it isn’t just a ‘yuk’ issue. It is a valid objection based on their own physical and psychological health which we have a human right to consider and defend.

There really is very little consideration in discussing these issues of sexual practice, for the people, who instinctively sense the baseness of some acts, but are denied any moral support where it should be. My concerns are strongly with my own children… especially my daughter, but by extension I feel an obligation to all the ‘sons’ and ‘daughters’ that come after us. They have a right to sound moral guidance for their happiness and holiness.

 

[patsa]

Well my position would be more suitably represented thus. I believe oral sex to be an excess that arises from lust, maybe having a more similar nature to S & M or other deleterious sexual practices (urolagnia) etc. I think that there are many more things that people do that would be imprudent to list. These practices involve elements that are inherently unhealthy and risky as practices to the physical or psychological wellbeing of persons but have crossed from taboo into cultural acceptance because we culturally esteem lust over chastity and purity in a general sense.

I believe that the Church is aware (as a good parent also realises), that her ‘children’ can’t be told some things especially when the element of lust is present and that the Holy Spirit moves within the sensus filelium (sense of the faithful) to help people achieve genuine purity in body, mind and soul in other ways. Re-establishing taboos very often comes through painful experience. For example, many people who previously thought that oral sex is Catholic approved now find a natural sense of repugnance return since the John Hopkins University study showing that head, neck and throat cancers due to HPV transmitted in oral sex, have soared past the figures for throat cancers which had been exclusively attributable to tobacco and alcohol.

There is also an increasing confidence through shared voice (in women especially) to express objections to having to perform oral sex at the pressuring of their partner. When something presents as moral and acceptable, it is less likely to be denied since people genuinely want to please each other sexually and don’t want to be regarded as selfish.

So yes, I argue that oral sex is morally objectionable as something that damages the body, mind and soul on a number of levels and undermines marriage and by extension, the family.

…And as the rest of us have already told you (including the person you are responding to), you are free to have that belief/opinion if you’d like. The only restriction is that you do not present this personal opinion/belief as Church teaching. If you can agree to that, then we are all on the same page here. So, can you agree to that?

 

[patsa]

No doubt your other thread poster was male? Did he post the whole of that section anywhere for context or just that suitably edited bit?

Heribert Jones book was written specifically for use by Priests in the setting of the confessional. If you read that section in context you can see that it is aimed more at women who come to confess acts which they virtually ‘endure’ in a male dominated climate which existed much more in the 1920’s to 60’s.

Here is the extended version of that passage.

“Imperfect Sodomy, i.i., rectal intercourse, is a grave sin when the seminal fluid is wasted.”

“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. - Positive co-operation on the part of the wife in sodomitical commerce is never lawful, hence, she must at least offer internal resistance. However, she may remain externally passive, provided she has endeavored to prevent the sin. She thus applies the principle of double effect and permits the sin to avert the danger of a very grave evil which cannot otherwise be averted; it remains unlawful for her to give her consent to any concomitant pleasure.”

Women do have a protected right now to refuse an act inside marriage. For instance, the concept of marital rape was never concieved of when the above topic was being addressed in confessionals and women don’t need to accept reduced culpability in a sin by virtue of powerlessness in the marriage bed.

Very few women like rectal penetration and it isn’t just a ‘yuk’ issue. It is a valid objection based on their own physical and psychological health which we have a human right to consider and defend.

There really is very little consideration in discussing these issues of sexual practice, for the people, who instinctively sense the baseness of some acts, but are denied any moral support where it should be. My concerns are strongly with my own children… especially my daughter, but by extension I feel an obligation to all the ‘sons’ and ‘daughters’ that come after us. They have a right to sound moral guidance for their happiness and holiness.

Ummm I’m sorry but I have no idea what you’re trying to say here.

Obviously, every act of foreplay has to be consensual for both the husband and wife. What’s your point?

 

[patsa]

No doubt your other thread poster was male? Did he post the whole of that section anywhere for context or just that suitably edited bit?

Heribert Jones book was written specifically for use by Priests in the setting of the confessional. If you read that section in context you can see that it is aimed more at women who come to confess acts which they virtually ‘endure’ in a male dominated climate which existed much more in the 1920’s to 60’s.

Here is the extended version of that passage.

“Imperfect Sodomy, i.i., rectal intercourse, is a grave sin when the seminal fluid is wasted.”

“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. - Positive co-operation on the part of the wife in sodomitical commerce is never lawful, hence, she must at least offer internal resistance. However, she may remain externally passive, provided she has endeavored to prevent the sin. She thus applies the principle of double effect and permits the sin to avert the danger of a very grave evil which cannot otherwise be averted; it remains unlawful for her to give her consent to any concomitant pleasure.”

Women do have a protected right now to refuse an act inside marriage. For instance, the concept of marital rape was never concieved of when the above topic was being addressed in confessionals and women don’t need to accept reduced culpability in a sin by virtue of powerlessness in the marriage bed.

Very few women like rectal penetration and it isn’t just a ‘yuk’ issue. It is a valid objection based on their own physical and psychological health which we have a human right to consider and defend.

There really is very little consideration in discussing these issues of sexual practice, for the people, who instinctively sense the baseness of some acts, but are denied any moral support where it should be. My concerns are strongly with my own children… especially my daughter, but by extension I feel an obligation to all the ‘sons’ and ‘daughters’ that come after us. They have a right to sound moral guidance for their happiness and holiness.

This is what the passage is saying.

1. Sodomy is the act of climaxing inside the anus.
2. Sodomy is sinful.
3. Anal penetration which ends in vaginal intercourse is not sodomy.
4. Anal penetration which ends in vaginal intercourse is not sinful.
5. If a husband wants to sodomize his wife (the act of climaxing inside of her anus), she has the moral obligation to resist him.
6. If she eventually gives in and physically let’s her husband sodomize her (climax inside her anus), simply out of obedience, she is not at fault.

I’m not sure how any of this negates the crux of what Mr Jone initially said: It is neither sodomy nor sinful to begin intercourse in the rectal manner and finish vaginally.

Since this is not infallible, official Church teaching, you may disagree with Mr Jone if you’d like. But you cannot claim he’s saying something different than what it clearly says.

 

[patsa]

No doubt your other thread poster was male? Did he post the whole of that section anywhere for context or just that suitably edited bit?

Heribert Jones book was written specifically for use by Priests in the setting of the confessional. If you read that section in context you can see that it is aimed more at women who come to confess acts which they virtually ‘endure’ in a male dominated climate which existed much more in the 1920’s to 60’s.

Here is the extended version of that passage.

“Imperfect Sodomy, i.i., rectal intercourse, is a grave sin when the seminal fluid is wasted.”

“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. - Positive co-operation on the part of the wife in sodomitical commerce is never lawful, hence, she must at least offer internal resistance. However, she may remain externally passive, provided she has endeavored to prevent the sin. She thus applies the principle of double effect and permits the sin to avert the danger of a very grave evil which cannot otherwise be averted; it remains unlawful for her to give her consent to any concomitant pleasure.”

I don’t know the gender of the person who made that post. But I have no idea why you think it even matters. The reason why the part about a passive wife’s culpability when it comes to a man finishing outside of her vagina was not included in the post, was because that was neither the question nor the topic. The topic was anal foreplay. The question was whether anal foreplay is a prohibited act in Catholic teaching. The answer to that question is very clear: "it is neither sodomy nor a grave sin if intercourse is begun in a rectal manner with the intention of consummating it naturally."

 

[phillylawyer]

Well my position would be more suitably represented thus. I believe oral sex to be an excess that arises from lust, maybe having a more similar nature to S & M or other deleterious sexual practices (urolagnia) etc. I think that there are many more things that people do that would be imprudent to list. These practices involve elements that are inherently unhealthy and risky as practices to the physical or psychological wellbeing of persons but have crossed from taboo into cultural acceptance because we culturally esteem lust over chastity and purity in a general sense.

Fair enough. As I have said, the Church does not have a position on this, so we will just have to agree to disagree.

I believe that the Church is aware (as a good parent also realises), that her ‘children’ can’t be told some things especially when the element of lust is present and that the Holy Spirit moves within the sensus filelium (sense of the faithful) to help people achieve genuine purity in body, mind and soul in other ways.

I have heard the Church accused of a lot of things in the realm of sexuality, but never that the Church won’t explicitly outlaw sexual practices because her children “can’t be told” certain things and won’t listen anyway. As modern statistic show, the vast majority of Catholics don’t follow the prohibition on artificial birth control, yet the Church is still very clear on the morality of this, despite the fact many of her children “can’t be told” what to do. My personal opinion is that sex between married couples really does not have a lot of “explicit rules.” As long as one follows the three simple rules, and both parties respect and love each other, then there really aren’t a lot of rules. Rather, it is about living out the couple’s sexuality to fulfill the unitive and procreative elements in a loving, self-giving manner. But, as we have both been demonstrating, the views of Catholics may differ substantially on this point.

There is also an increasing confidence through shared voice (in women especially) to express objections to having to perform oral sex at the pressuring of their partner. When something presents as moral and acceptable, it is less likely to be denied since people genuinely want to please each other sexually and don’t want to be regarded as selfish.

It clearly goes without saying that the fact the Church does not explicitly prohibit oral stimulation does not mean that one spouse has the right to demand it even if the other spouse is uncomfortable with it. If one spouse is uncomfortable with it and feels objectified, then it would be wrong for the spouse to insist upon it. That clearly would be wrong.

I understand what you are saying that if something is deemed “morally acceptable” one spouse may feel less justified in saying he/she is uncomfortable with it. However, the fact that a spouse may feel less justified in expressing his/her discomfort with something if an act is not deemed immoral, does not make the act universally immoral for all couples. Many spouses may feel uncomfortable, for example, having mirrors in the bedroom (or having the lights on), and may even feel more justified voicing their discomfort if the Church said such actions were immoral. However, that doesn’t mean the Church does (or should) declare such acts to be universally immoral, when they are not. What it means is that husbands and wives need to do a better job communicating with and understanding and respecting what their spouse is an is not comfortable with. This principal is true not just with sexuality, I think, but in all aspects of marriage.

Thank you for the thoughtful perspective!

Cheers!

 

[patsa]

There really is very little consideration in discussing these issues of sexual practice, for the people, who instinctively sense the baseness of some acts, but are denied any moral support where it should be. My concerns are strongly with my own children… especially my daughter, but by extension I feel an obligation to all the ‘sons’ and ‘daughters’ that come after us. They have a right to sound moral guidance for their happiness and holiness.

Ok?

That’s all nice and good. You are permitted to teach your children that you believe oral and anal foreplay are sinful.

But it has absolutely 0 to do with whether or not Mr Jone’s claimed that it is neither sodomy nor a sin for spouses to engage in anal foreplay. So I’m not sure why you’re telling us that.

 

[patsa]

Fair enough. As I have said, the Church does not have a position on this, so we will just have to agree to disagree.

I have heard the Church accused of a lot of things in the realm of sexuality, but never that the Church won’t explicitly outlaw sexual practices because her children “can’t be told” certain things and won’t listen anyway. As modern statistic show, the vast majority of Catholics don’t follow the prohibition on artificial birth control, yet the Church is still very clear on the morality of this, despite the fact many of her children “can’t be told” what to do. My personal opinion is that sex between married couples really does not have a lot of “explicit rules.” As long as one follows the three simple rules, and both parties respect and love each other, then there really aren’t a lot of rules. Rather, it is about living out the couple’s sexuality to fulfill the unitive and procreative elements in a loving, self-giving manner. But, as we have both been demonstrating, the views of Catholics may differ substantially on this point.

It clearly goes without saying that the fact the Church does not explicitly prohibit oral stimulation does not mean that one spouse has the right to demand it even if the other spouse is uncomfortable with it. If one spouse is uncomfortable with it and feels objectified, then it would be wrong for the spouse to insist upon it. That clearly would be wrong.

I understand what you are saying that if something is deemed “morally acceptable” one spouse may feel less justified in saying he/she is uncomfortable with it. However, the fact that a spouse may feel less justified in expressing his/her discomfort with something if an act is not deemed immoral, does not make the act universally immoral for all couples. Many spouses may feel uncomfortable, for example, having mirrors in the bedroom (or having the lights on), and may even feel more justified voicing their discomfort if the Church said such actions were immoral. However, that doesn’t mean the Church does (or should) declare such acts to be universally immoral, when they are not. What it means is that husbands and wives need to do a better job communicating with and understanding and respecting what their spouse is an is not comfortable with. This principal is true not just with sexuality, I think, but in all aspects of marriage.

Thank you for the thoughtful perspective!

Cheers!

 

[LongingSoul]

It clearly goes without saying that the fact the Church does not explicitly prohibit oral stimulation does not mean that one spouse has the right to demand it even if the other spouse is uncomfortable with it. If one spouse is uncomfortable with it and feels objectified, then it would be wrong for the spouse to insist upon it. That clearly would be wrong.

Originally Posted by LongingSoul
There is also an increasing confidence through shared voice (in women especially) to express objections to having to perform oral sex at the pressuring of their partner. When something presents as moral and acceptable, it is less likely to be denied since people genuinely want to please each other sexually and don’t want to be regarded as selfish.

Mirrors and ‘lights on’ don’t convey the problem analogously because we are talking of the actual act itself here. It’s probably more the case with women than man (but not always) that sex with your spouse is an obligation/necessary duty of marriage. There is that sense of not being morally free to deny your spouse sex. That experience of obligation is without resentment or defensiveness regardless of your feelings of discomfort or disinterest because you want to please God, your spouse and have a happy marriage all round. When a particular practice within society is subject to taboo, that fact separates it from your experience of sexual obligation somewhat, regardless of whether it is not mentioned on the Church’s list of sins. When a practice breaks free from societal taboo and then is justified as morally permitted or at least neutral by its absence from the Church’s list of sins… it becomes part and parcel of that general obligation because lets face it, many men really like oral sex and quite a lot like anal sex for how it makes them feel and aren’t going to be satisfied by less especially feeling that there is no reason to deny apart from his wifes discomfort.

My argument is not one willing that the Church would come out and say ‘oral sex is a sin’. My argument is one from general care of our species and what we leave for the generations to come. My argument is that this practice has always been subject to taboo in society (apart from the sexually promiscuous periods of history)…. and taboo for very sound reason. Think of the practice of immunisation (again. I think I’ve used it before) There is a societal standard. All children should be immunised. This is for the best of the species. Sure some people will have good reasons not to immunise their children and should rightly be free to exercise that right. But for someone to say ‘well I think immunisation is unnecessary. I haven’t immunised my kids and they are perfectly healthy therefore I’m going to break down this societal expectation we adhere to’… well that attitude is ignorant and ungrateful and dangerous. Lots of people don’t like to immunise their kids, but know that this practice is what keeps our society healthy in the long run for everyone, especially the weaker and more ignorant among us. Lots of people either sense the bigger picture or trust those who do sense that bigger picture. So while it is not societally immoral not to immunise your kids… it is immoral to try and undermine that established expectation as having no moral basis.

The taboo around oral sex should not be dispensed with just because the Church doesn’t specify the act as sinful. It is not a generally wise practice considering the kind of sacred nature of the mouth and the specially unsanitary nature of the genital area. People will want or have to have oral sex, but others rely on sound species friendly truths regarding the ecology of the body. (I might patent that phrase!)

Thank you for the thoughtful perspective!

Likewise. It’s nice to have respectful dialogue!