? about sex

[blessedtoo]

**

Although I will agree that simultaneous orgasm is very special and should be the goal of “perfect intercourse”.

**

This is one of the most destructive myths perpetuated by the sex-therapy culture. Are we, as Catholics, supposed to define “perfect intercourse” in such mechanical terms? Who has determined that this is the goal of intercourse? As a woman who came of age during the “sexual revolution”, I can testify that these great “revelations” about the necessities for perfect sex were driven by a psychotherapy cabal bent on reaping as much profit from a dissatisfied American public as legally possible. Just do a google search on books aimed at sexual issues and you will see that many have gotten quite wealthy by preying on the (often unwarranted) insecurities of married people. Check out the covers of any woman’s magazine while standing at the cash register in your grocery store and you will learn more about the sex act (just from the cover!) than you ever thought you would need to know.

IMO, the extreme emphasis on who is having how many, when, where, and how, and how equitable is the distribution of pleasure among spouses is really contrary to what we, as Catholics, are meant to understand about the marital act.

 

[searching06]

I have been quietly reading the thread. I fully agree that the total emphasis on how many orgasms each person has, or that as the end goal or only emphasis of the marital act, is wrong; it then only focuses on the act. But it brings up a question I asked in another thread, responded to in the positive by one person: with everything discussed and considered here, is there then such a thing as just plain simple, good, fun, healthy, loving Catholic sex? Or as someone put it earlier, are we obsessed with the Church in our bedroom (or wherever we choose) to the point of dissecting it all as we have here, that Catholics are guilted into believing there is not, hence creating much of the anxiety and problems?

It often seems to me that the joke is on all of us - maybe, just maybe, whether discussing the bible or sex, that God intended things to be mysteries or cause discussion becasue it keeps us pulling towards our faith…

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

But it brings up a question I asked in another thread, responded to in the positive by one person: with everything discussed and considered here, is there then such a thing as just plain simple, good, fun, healthy, loving Catholic sex? Or as someone put it earlier, are we obsessed with the Church in our bedroom (or wherever we choose) to the point of dissecting it all as we have here, that Catholics are guilted into believing there is not, hence creating much of the anxiety and problems?

Searching,

To answer your question, Yes, I believe that there is. During the marital act, as it has been stated, as long as we have the unitive and procreative aspects there, then I feel that we (as Catholics) can enjoy sex. There is a reason that sex is enjoyable, God created it that way. I have to agree that you can sit here all day and disect if you can do this or if you can do that or if this is allowed by the Church or that is allowed by the Church. I feel that the Church is pretty “fair” when it comes to what each married couple can do within the marital embrace…as it related to foreplay and the such. I think that different people can interpret things differently.

But the simple answer to your question is IMO, Yes.

 

[Feanaro]

This is one of the most destructive myths perpetuated by the sex-therapy culture. Are we, as Catholics, supposed to define “perfect intercourse” in such mechanical terms? Who has determined that this is the goal of intercourse? As a woman who came of age during the “sexual revolution”, I can testify that these great “revelations” about the necessities for perfect sex were driven by a psychotherapy cabal bent on reaping as much profit from a dissatisfied American public as legally possible. Just do a google search on books aimed at sexual issues and you will see that many have gotten quite wealthy by preying on the (often unwarranted) insecurities of married people. Check out the covers of any woman’s magazine while standing at the cash register in your grocery store and you will learn more about the sex act (just from the cover!) than you ever thought you would need to know.

IMO, the extreme emphasis on who is having how many, when, where, and how, and how equitable is the distribution of pleasure among spouses is really contrary to what we, as Catholics, are meant to understand about the marital act.

That was a quote from me, and after reading it again, I’d have to say I probably could have worded it better. I did not mean perfect sex in the overall sense. Perfect sex, IMO, is sex that serves to draw a couple together in body, mind, and soul. That above quote seems to focus only on the physical aspect. On the other hand, I still think simultaneous climax to be a beautiful thing and such joy shared in the physical realm probably will spill over to the other realms as well. That’s just my opinion though.

 

[Feanaro]

I’ve read many posts that state “why do we have to dissect everything, do we have to go through a checklist of do’s and don’ts every time we have intercourse, or can’t we just enjoy the gift that God gave us.” The short answer to this question is yes we should enjoy the gift that God gave us. However, many of us like the dissecting part. Personally, I think dissecting it now clears up any confusion and helps many people clarify and form their conscience. This frees them to more fully enjoy the gift God gave them. I don’t think anyone here goes through a checklist before engaging in the act. That is why we talk about it now.

 

[chevalier]

Dissecting can’t be done without by some people, whereas it “kills” others. I suppose it may be a personality type thing. I think it’s not such a bad thing if kept in check, but it can lead to terrifying conclusions with just one premise wrong. Theoretically, it would be the best if we were simply able of desiring and having the kind of intercourse the Church sees as right. It’s like with the fact that the only safe sex is sex without “protection”. The Church has it right on the barriers and the focus on pleasure disconnected from procreation. Similarly, I would expect the Church to be right on other things as well. But since our desires are not perfect and the morality is as it is…

 

[LittleDeb]

This whole discussion on marital sex has been very valuable to me, and I’m so glad I stumbled upon it. Reading the Kippley article “Marital Sexuality: Moral Considerations” was very enlightening, and I would not have read it had I not been arguing the case for self-stimulation during intercourse.

I must admit, I think I’ve changed my mind about that subject. I think that in working toward having the purist, most loving and giving sexual relationship a couple can have, the end goal would probably be to do away with any kind of self-stimulation, including fantasies and other mind stimulation.

It can be, however, a long road to a pure sexual relationship within a marriage. Unfortunately, not all of us started out Catholic, some of us didn’t know the fullness of our Faith until later in life, some of us turned away from the Church for a time, some of us experienced sexual abuse in childhood, etc. And so, married couples have a variety of difficulties and obstacles brought about by these situations, and it can take time to overcome them, especially in the bedroom.

I think probably those with the best sex lives were married as virgins and discovered sexuality together. I can’t think of a more wonderful way to experience sex! Wish it had happened to me!

Chevalier, you are steadfast in your arguments. Good for you. Without your (name removed by moderator)ut I would not have contemplated this issue so thoroughly. All the other posters contributed a lot to this discussion, too. By reading opposing points of view sometimes we can really learn a lot and even change our opinions, as it happened with me.

Thanks all of you.

Peace,
Meeshy

And this, dear Meeshy, is why I participate in these threads. Thanks for the prayers. Today is a pretty good health day.

I have been quietly reading the thread. I fully agree that the total emphasis on how many orgasms each person has, or that as the end goal or only emphasis of the marital act, is wrong; it then only focuses on the act. But it brings up a question I asked in another thread, responded to in the positive by one person: with everything discussed and considered here, is there then such a thing as just plain simple, good, fun, healthy, loving Catholic sex? Or as someone put it earlier, are we obsessed with the Church in our bedroom (or wherever we choose) to the point of dissecting it all as we have here, that Catholics are guilted into believing there is not, hence creating much of the anxiety and problems?

It often seems to me that the joke is on all of us - maybe, just maybe, whether discussing the bible or sex, that God intended things to be mysteries or cause discussion becasue it keeps us pulling towards our faith…

[emphasis by me.] The answer to the bolded part is YES!! Another reason I participate here. Catholic sex is precisely all of those things because we don’t remove the procreative or unitive.

If God is in our bedrooms (where He rightfully belongs) then so too is His Church. After all, she is the bride of Christ. Where He goes, so goes His bride.

 

[searching06]

And this, dear Meeshy, is why I participate in these threads. Thanks for the prayers. Today is a pretty good health day.

[emphasis by me.] The answer to the bolded part is YES!!

OK, but how???

Another reason I participate here. Catholic sex is precisely all of those things because we don’t remove the procreative or unitive.

If God is in our bedrooms (where He rightfully belongs) then so too is His Church. After all, she is the bride of Christ. Where He goes, so goes His bride.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

OK, but how???

Well when a man and a woman love each other very much they get married. After they are married they will lay in the same bed together and…

(sorry it is one of those days )

 

[LittleDeb]

Well when a man and a woman love each other very much they get married. After they are married they will lay in the same bed together and…

(sorry it is one of those days )

searching06, I really would like to answer your question. Can you please elaborate to help me understand? “Yes, but how” was in response to my “YES!” I went on to say that it comes from not removing the procreative and unitive.

I think what is contained on this home page sums it up well for me. www.theologyofthebody.net

I discovered that every single problem I had with the Church was rooted in a misunderstanding of what it really means to be human. All of my concerns: contraception, same sex relationships, all-male priesthood, fornication, authentic marital love, equality of men and women, the definition of masculine and feminine, etc. to infinity… were answered in Theology of the Body. My dignity as a woman was affirmed in the most amazing way. My respect for men has deepened in a huge way. My respect for my own sexuality has deepened more than I can describe. My husband and I often joke that we owe our wonderful sex life to a celibate pope in Rome. I pray often for his sainthood.

I am happy to share anything I can with you.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

searching06, I really would like to answer your question. Can you please elaborate to help me understand? “Yes, but how” was in response to my “YES!” I went on to say that it comes from not removing the procreative and unitive.

I think what is contained on this home page sums it up well for me. www.theologyofthebody.net

I discovered that every single problem I had with the Church was rooted in a misunderstanding of what it really means to be human. All of my concerns: contraception, same sex relationships, all-male priesthood, fornication, authentic marital love, equality of men and women, the definition of masculine and feminine, etc. to infinity… were answered in Theology of the Body. My dignity as a woman was affirmed in the most amazing way. My respect for men has deepened in a huge way. My respect for my own sexuality has deepened more than I can describe. My husband and I often joke that we owe our wonderful sex life to a celibate pope in Rome. I pray often for his sainthood.

I am happy to share anything I can with you.

LilDeb,

I will have to second what you have said. When I read “The Good News About Sex and Marraiage” by Christopher West, it was a complete slap in the face for me. So many things became so clear to me. I understood so much about my respect for my wife, about my responsibilites as a husband, about the Catholic faith. That book really opened my eyes and has been the catalyst in our marriage that has helped us to grow closer and once you have that understanding it is amazing the things that the good Lord does for you in your marraige, we know that He has for us.

 

[PennitentMan]

searching06, I really would like to answer your question. Can you please elaborate to help me understand? “Yes, but how” was in response to my “YES!” I went on to say that it comes from not removing the procreative and unitive.

I think what is contained on this home page sums it up well for me. www.theologyofthebody.net
.
.
.

I think what searching06 means is that there is such a fine line in the bedroom.

One sometimes has trouble seperating unitive and procreative sex from and sex only for pleasure.

So, his question most probably is: How do you have “just plain simple, good, fun, healthy, loving Catholic sex” whilst keeping within the pro-creative and unitive bounds of Catholic sex.
The two sometimes seem unreconcilable…

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

I think what searching06 means is that there is such a fine line in the bedroom.

One sometimes has trouble seperating unitive and procreative sex from and sex only for pleasure.

So, his question most probably is: How do you have “just plain simple, good, fun, healthy, loving Catholic sex” whilst keeping within the pro-creative and unitive bounds of Catholic sex.
The two sometimes seem unreconcilable…

I think that there is a line, but I am not sure that I would classify it as a “fine line.” As I have mentioned in several different posts, we as Catholics have a lot of freedom in the bedroom. That includes the freedom to enjoy sex. God created sex and God gave us the pleasure of sex. If you have sex for pleasure you can still have the unitive and procreative aspects in the act, correct? If you are having sex just to have an orgasm, that is when you cross into the line of using your spouse and that is sinful. They are not an object for your sexual pleasure. It is similar to masturbation, you are using it for your own sexual pleasure.

Sex (Catholic sex if you want to label it as such) is pleasureable and that is part of it. That cannot be taken away. When having sex, we as Catholics must keep the unitive and procreative aspects within that act, from there you have a lot of freedom to make the act what you wish as long as you have not demeaned the other person.

From the CCC:

2362 “The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude.”

Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.

2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

 

[chevalier]

So, his question most probably is: How do you have “just plain simple, good, fun, healthy, loving Catholic sex” whilst keeping within the pro-creative and unitive bounds of Catholic sex.
The two sometimes seem unreconcilable…

Why even see them as bounds… I think if one sees the unitive and procreative aspect of marital love as limitations, then it’s going to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think if one sees it not as limitations but as the right way things are ordered, then one’s going to be much happier with it.

 

[chevalier]

If you have sex for pleasure you can still have the unitive and procreative aspects in the act, correct? If you are having sex just to have an orgasm, that is when you cross into the line of using your spouse and that is sinful.

I think the word “pleasure” is what creates problems. If it’s about the joy of experiencing the union - which does not have to be expressed in this way literally - then fine. But once it shifts to sensual pleasures as the focus… short way to doing it just for the orgasm perhaps.

They are not an object for your sexual pleasure. It is similar to masturbation, you are using it for your own sexual pleasure.

Yup. That’s even a proper term in canon law practice from what I know from my prof. Onanisticus usus matrimonii, masturbatory use of marriage.

Sex (Catholic sex if you want to label it as such) is pleasureable and that is part of it. That cannot be taken away. When having sex, we as Catholics must keep the unitive and procreative aspects within that act, from there you have a lot of freedom to make the act what you wish as long as you have not demeaned the other person.

Perhaps there are some other caveats. Not to come up with anything on purpose, but the idea is that looking for some room where we can do what we want without moral constraints is not a good perspective. There’s simply no such thing as leaving the moral constraints behind. There’s nothing exempt from morality. It just doesn’t work like secular laws where you have and need to have a space of freedom. Once one realises that there’s no such space of freedom in morality, it becomes easier because one stops looking for it. Instead of wondering how far we can go, perhaps we should think about how far and in what direction we should go.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

I think the word “pleasure” is what creates problems. If it’s about the joy of experiencing the union - which does not have to be expressed in this way literally - then fine. But once it shifts to sensual pleasures as the focus… short way to doing it just for the orgasm perhaps.

I agree that the word “pleasure” is what is causing most of the confusion. When the “unitive” part of the marital act is present, I believe that you will find pleasure as well. I think that, for some, it is hard to see that once you unite with your wife/husband in the marital embrace (and you are open to life) that the pleasure in that is not sinful. The pleasure derived from the foreplay, from the marital act itself is not sinful. It is good, it is pleasing to God.

Yup. That’s even a proper term in canon law practice from what I know from my prof. Onanisticus usus matrimonii, masturbatory use of marriage.

Interesting! I did not know that.

Perhaps there are some other caveats. Not to come up with anything on purpose, but the idea is that looking for some room where we can do what we want without moral constraints is not a good perspective. There’s simply no such thing as leaving the moral constraints behind. There’s nothing exempt from morality. It just doesn’t work like secular laws where you have and need to have a space of freedom. Once one realises that there’s no such space of freedom in morality, it becomes easier because one stops looking for it. Instead of wondering how far we can go, perhaps we should think about how far and in what direction we should go.

I agree. If you know what the Church teaches and you follow it, I say, go have fun in the marriage bed. Sex was made to be enjoyable, we are to enjoy love making with our spouse. We are not robots that just go into bed, get into the “assumed” position, have sex and then it is over. There is so much more to it than that and once you understand what the Church teaches about that…OH MY! Let’s just leave it at that.

Chav, we are reading the same book, even on the same page. Always good to get your insight.

 

[Feanaro]

God created sex and God gave us the pleasure of sex. If you have sex for pleasure you can still have the unitive and procreative aspects in the act, correct?

Correct, unless you consciously put up barriers to the unitive and procreative aspects of sex they should already be present. I think we define the purpose of something as being inherently present in it’s subject. In other words, we don’t necessarily have to will them, rather we must not will against them. I’d be happy to clarify this further.

If you are having sex just to have an orgasm, that is when you cross into the line of using your spouse and that is sinful. They are not an object for your sexual pleasure. It is similar to masturbation, you are using it for your own sexual pleasure.

I think it is more how we see our spouse at all times. If you are in a truly loving catholic marriage, you should never see your spouse as an object. That is why I think when spouses look forward to having pleasurable sex with each other, there is nothing wrong with that. Passion in marriage is a good thing. Again, I see pleasure as a purpose of sex, never to be separated from the other two however. Please don’t jump all over me on that one. I don’t mean pleasure sought for itself, that is hedonism.

Sex (Catholic sex if you want to label it as such) is pleasureable and that is part of it. That cannot be taken away. When having sex, we as Catholics must keep the unitive and procreative aspects within that act, from there you have a lot of freedom to make the act what you wish as long as you have not demeaned the other person.

I also don’t think that all individual acts are good as long as things end up in the right place. I think we should examine each act on their own to determine whether they are inherently disordered or not. That way we will be more clear and may enjoy sex more.

 

[LittleDeb]

I think what searching06 means is that there is such a fine line in the bedroom.

One sometimes has trouble seperating unitive and procreative sex from and sex only for pleasure.

So, his question most probably is: How do you have “just plain simple, good, fun, healthy, loving Catholic sex” whilst keeping within the pro-creative and unitive bounds of Catholic sex.
The two sometimes seem unreconcilable…

This does help, thank you. I too, think the line isn’t that fine. I am trying to remember if I said it here or another thread, but I will say it again because it is important.

From everything I have studied, experienced, and (informally) interviewed, procreative and unitive sex, naturally result in pleasure. And I mean real pleasure, not just a feeling of pleasure. I guess I would use the word joy instead. In JPII’s book, Love and Responsibility, he emphasizes that if there isn’t joy (read that as pleasure in this context) in the marital act then either the procreative, or the unitive, or both, is broken.

Note, I too, am emphasizing real joy, not just a feeling of pleasure. Pleasure is fleeting while joy stays around long after we’ve left the bedroom. When pleasure is sought, it can only bring real joy if it is for all the right reasons. If even one reason is “broken” we find that pleasure has slipped away. The comment about oral sex practices ‘missing out on heaven’ is rooted in that. It feels good for a moment, but that pleasure passes.

I guess what I am saying is that if both parties seek procreative, unitive sex, they will naturally find joy. The question is never ‘what pleasure can I get?’ The question is always, ‘What can I give?’ JPII said that if a man takes into account the different curve of arousal in a woman and works to unify that climactic moment, he has performed an act of virtue. That is real unity. That is real pleasure. That is more than a feeling, it is joy itself.

 

[chevalier]

I agree that the word “pleasure” is what is causing most of the confusion. When the “unitive” part of the marital act is present, I believe that you will find pleasure as well. I think that, for some, it is hard to see that once you unite with your wife/husband in the marital embrace (and you are open to life) that the pleasure in that is not sinful.

No, but of course it isn’t. However, the focus on pleasure is hedonism and that’s not so much a sin as it is wrong anthropology. It reduces humanity to experience of pleasurable sensations or just simply views man through the perspective of sensations. That’s a bit limiting. Besides, pleasure is not what we live for. We deserve more.

The pleasure derived from the foreplay, from the marital act itself is not sinful. It is good, it is pleasing to God.

Foreplay is a part of what centres around “the act”, so same goes for what pleasure it gives. However, focus on pleasure instead of persons is something I find unhealthy.

I agree. If you know what the Church teaches and you follow it, I say, go have fun in the marriage bed. Sex was made to be enjoyable, we are to enjoy love making with our spouse.

Yup. And joy is such a better word than pleasure, isn’t it? Besides, we’ll probably agree contraception detracts from the “fun part” when both contraception and the marital love are properly understood. Similarly, what’s degrading, disunitive or otherwise incompatible with the proper vision of marriage, that probably also detracts from the “fun”.

We are not robots that just go into bed, get into the “assumed” position, have sex and then it is over.

Yep. Besides, doesn’t that perspective lead to the focus on the “release” rather than anything else?

There is so much more to it than that and once you understand what the Church teaches about that…OH MY! Let’s just leave it at that.

Hehe. True that. On the other hand, one should be careful with the hype, I believe. First there’s the expounding of marital love and the sexual dimension of it, as something perceivedly forbidden coming into the light of day and whatnot, then I hear people talking about sex as a sacrament, drawing parallels between sexual acts and the death of Our Saviour on the cross. You get the idea. It feels like some fertility cult from ancient times.

Chav, we are reading the same book, even on the same page. Always good to get your insight.

An interesting way of seeing it, hehe. Thanks.

 

[chevalier]

From everything I have studied, experienced, and (informally) interviewed, procreative and unitive sex, naturally result in pleasure. And I mean real pleasure, not just a feeling of pleasure. I guess I would use the word joy instead. In JPII’s book, Love and Responsibility, he emphasizes that if there isn’t joy (read that as pleasure in this context) in the marital act then either the procreative, or the unitive, or both, is broken.

Yup. That leads to some conclusions. Firstly, focus on pleasure while discounting what naturally gives the cause to it, will not result in pleasure in the long run, since it will cut off its cause. Right? Secondly, to collect the fruit one gets to tend to the tree, so to say.

Another thing to say, though, is that I would still be careful about pleasure. An act in which there is no joy will probably not be unitive - I’m not talking about moods here, though, as the act might as well be comforting or soothing as far as such a range of feelings is concerned. But pleasure in the very sensual sense… depends how far it goes, what’s the outlook. Difficult to define in theory, but intuitively, one can get the gist of it, I think.

Note, I too, am emphasizing real joy, not just a feeling of pleasure.

Yup. Not like poking a rat with an electric impulse in his pleasure centre. That kind of pleasure could be provided with a pill.

When pleasure is sought, it can only bring real joy if it is for all the right reasons.

Yup. And while wanting some of that pleasure is not bad since one has the right to it and it serves a good purpose, focus on the pleasure for its own sake will go wrong. I think it feels intuitively that it’s going in the wrong direction if that’s the case.

If even one reason is “broken” we find that pleasure has slipped away.

That way even pleasure itself won’t come from obsessing on it.

The comment about oral sex practices ‘missing out on heaven’ is rooted in that. It feels good for a moment, but that pleasure passes.

…And emptiness remains, no?

Hope you didn’t mind my breaking up your post, but it’s easier to reply that way.