? about sex

[dulcissima]

Ummm… Yes, some do. But how many? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not calling for a ban on it or saying it’s absolutely and objectively demeaning. But I believe in most cases, it will involve objectification, especially if requested by the man. Again, not always, but most of the time. Besides, when I hear questions and discussion about “is position N okay or not?”, I’m wondering where the gift of self has gone. After all, we’re supposed to be self-giving, not really seeking experiences and sensations. If I had to wonder if one position or another were morally acceptable or not, I would just skip it. If I had to go to any lenghts to reconcile it with morality, I would ask myself why I want so much for it to be legitimate - what is my motive and whence my insistence.

I think these questions come from sometimes things that seem OK, really aren’t. We can’t always trust our instincts, and need to develop a properly formed conscience. Sometimes the questions do border on the ludicrous, but I just think that’s because people can have a tendency to become scrupulous. I think the Catholic Church has it really right though when it comes to teaching about sexual morality. We are given a framework of rules, and a freedom to explore within those rules. Following these rules helps ensure not only our sanctity, but also our human dignity. It also ensures that husbands and wives don’t view each other as mere objects for pleasure, and that love is not tainted by lust.

 

[dulcissima]

Hopefully we agree on subjection, dominance and the like?

Yes, definitely.

 

[Scout]

Ummm… Yes, some do. But how many? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not calling for a ban on it or saying it’s absolutely and objectively demeaning. But I believe in most cases, it will involve objectification, especially if requested by the man. Again, not always, but most of the time. Besides, when I hear questions and discussion about “is position N okay or not?”, I’m wondering where the gift of self has gone. After all, we’re supposed to be self-giving, not really seeking experiences and sensations. If I had to wonder if one position or another were morally acceptable or not, I would just skip it. If I had to go to any lenghts to reconcile it with morality, I would ask myself why I want so much for it to be legitimate - what is my motive and whence my insistence.

Hmmm… Maybe I just can’t defeat the master-slave association then. Surely, for some people it will be loving, for others it will be fine, but it is my impression that these days, “blowjob” is a mandatory institution of itself and a cultural icon, plus a sign of subjection/dominance. I don’t have a problem with what touches what, but I have a problem with even the slightest hint of subjection. Besides, I’ve always liked the decorum. Hopefully we agree on subjection, dominance and the like?

Well, the whole analysing and dissecting is in no way to my enjoyment… I don’t belong in anyone’s bedroom and, frankly, I really am not interested. I’ll have my own and that’s enough and if I won’t, that’s fine as well, but I don’t have the gift of simple answers to complicated problems. Additionally, I would hate to give a wrong answer and, in the initial setup, if I were to answer, “yes, oral sex is okay,” I might well have given a wrong impression, which I wanted to avoid. Guess I should have said it simply carried the risk of objectification and objectification was wrong.

I don’t find myself subjected to it at all. I am willing to do it, and my husband has never asked for it-it is something we both volunteer for as an act of our love for each other.

Scout

 

[chevalier]

I think these questions come from sometimes things that seem OK, really aren’t. We can’t always trust our instincts, and need to develop a properly formed conscience. Sometimes the questions do border on the ludicrous, but I just think that’s because people can have a tendency to become scrupulous. I think the Catholic Church has it really right though when it comes to teaching about sexual morality. We are given a framework of rules, and a freedom to explore within those rules. Following these rules helps ensure not only our sanctity, but also our human dignity. It also ensures that husbands and wives don’t view each other as mere objects for pleasure, and that love is not tainted by lust.

I suppose strict and detailed rules would be demeaning, not to mention bothersome. I agree with the teachings of the Church, of course, even if I don’t agree with a good number of her servants. For example, as I’ve already expressed, I just can’t see masturbation in any shape, form or context as a self-giving act, so I find any claim that it might be okay to be most bizarre. I don’t really care because I’m not a woman myself and no one seriously claims it’s ever okay for a man - and I’d never be doing that anyway, although it does feel wrong, illogical and permissive.

 

[1ke]

I
which is something i have been saying for a very long time with or without ABC if God wants you to have children you will…
everyone here seems to think That ABC is more powerful and can “remove” Gods will which it cant Nothing Man made or done is above or better than God…

This is not the basis of the Church’s teaching against contraception.

 

[chevalier]

I don’t find myself subjected to it at all. I am willing to do it, and my husband has never asked for it-it is something we both volunteer for as an act of our love for each other.

Scout

Just so you don’t feel ignored, I’ll just say I won’t be commenting on your personal situation. I really don’t belong in your bedroom and your morality is not for me to judge. I can talk about theoretical and abstract concepts, but there it ends, if you don’t mind.

 

[Scout]

Just so you don’t feel ignored, I’ll just say I won’t be commenting on your personal situation. I really don’t belong in your bedroom and your morality is not for me to judge. I can talk about theoretical and abstract concepts, but there it ends, if you don’t mind.

I understand what you’re saying, and I was just using myself as an example. Just because you believe it is subjecting someone to humiliation, doesn’t mean that everyone agrees with you. I just don’t think you should lump everyone together.

I will also say that, if you feel you don’t belong in my bedroom, then you don’t belong in any one’s either. That being said, that eliminates theoretical and abstract concepts.

Scout :tiphat:

 

[johntkd]

.
Hmmm… Maybe I just can’t defeat the master-slave association then. .

first off I want to resond to something you said earlier about BDSM, I myself am not into that in any way, howevere if a coupel is into that, well what happens in the marital bed is honorable. again if both parties are in agreement…

secondly you talk about master and slave a lot, Kind of like the “church” instilling its laws ( cannon) on us the church being the master and us being its subjective slaves, On another thread I was reading where the church has some silly law that you have to get married in your local parrish, which tells me a few things one better find a local lady in saqme parrish to marry cause if she Catholic she cant marry in your church and you cant in hers,( yes i am being picky here) but with a rule like that so is the church.

or they have different rules going on in each parrish and they dont want you to know about them, kind of like ok you are not rich or live in a rich neighborhood so you must stay in your local parrish because we give them different rules. ( again picky i know)
But to me if its a Catholic church they should all be uniform and shouldnt matter if you get married in tim buck two or cleveland should be same. ok so its off topic but again its the “master” telling its “slave” what to do is it not?
the “master slave” thing you keep reffering to is eveident in every single thing there is, you have a boss at work, you have to answer to a parent as a child, you have laws to follow as an adult and if you are Catholic you have certain rules to follow as well

these can all be looked at as master slave or they can be looked at in other ways the same goes for various positions and foreplays as well…

I hope this made some sense at least I know what I am trying to get across here but having difficulty putting it into words so i appologize for that

again my normally useless 2 cents
John

 

[RachelB]

the “master slave” thing you keep reffering to is eveident in every single thing there is, you have a boss at work, you have to answer to a parent as a child, you have laws to follow as an adult and if you are Catholic you have certain rules to follow as well

Master slave relationships are temporary evils that are coping techniques, if you will, to make do in a fallen society. Check out the verse in my signature - its from the book of Hosea. Old Testament gospel - so beautiful - you should check it out.

I’m finding this conversation interesting, because I didn’t think I was all the way converted in my heart about the “procreation” issue, but now I think maybe I am.

I have a question for the people who are asserting that sex between a man and a woman can be just for pleasure, regardless of the procreative nature - why then is it not ok for there to be sex between a man and a man or a woman and a woman? How do you draw the line? Serious question.

 

[blessedtoo]

However, I realise some people won’t even get the connection or see anything demeaning in it, sure… But is it because there’s nothing demeaning in it, or is it because we’re desensitised by all the omnipresent porn?

chevalier,
I agree with all your posts. I have to shudder when imagining what Christ’s expression might be if He were standing in the bedrooms of most Americans.

 

[johntkd]

chevalier,
I agree with all your posts. I have to shudder when imagining what Christ’s expression might be if He were standing in the bedrooms of most Americans.

you know what I wont go into details about my love life but I dont shudder at all in anything i have done and you know what else I know he was watching me the entire time, just because i am in my bedroom does not mean he cant see me or isnt watching me…

you know what else, I am glad he watches as well so he can see first hand the love flowing from me to another human being
whom he already knows I love more than life itself…
John

 

[blessedtoo]

John,
I meant no judgement at all in my statement. I specifically said “I shudder” because that is how I feel. I did not mean that to apply to anyone else. God bless!

 

[johntkd]

John,
I meant no judgement at all in my statement. I specifically said “I shudder” because that is how I feel. I did not mean that to apply to anyone else. God bless!

I didnt take it as judgemental at all I merely added that as a response so people do remember we are always watched, and i like to think always giving him something to smile about
John

 

[LittleDeb]

Ok. This is one of those threads again. But I will jump in once again. 1ke is here, and we usually hang out together in these. astegallrnc has checked in. All we need now is Setter and Fix and roll call can begin.

For those here who don’t know me, here’s the scoop. Fifteen or so years ago I was saying the same things as the OP. I used to argue that “oral sex” was good, healthy and not degrading. I used to be pro-contraception, though mostly pro-life anyway. I had no idea what “oral sex” really meant, but I was sure as heck all for it! I had no idea that there was a difference between “oral sex” and the more properly named ‘oral stimulation.’ I thought that the terms “reproduction” and ‘procreation’ were interchangeable. I thought I knew better than the Church. Then God got my attention BIG TIME. I will say that 2X4s to the head really hurt! I would suggest to anyone struggling with this issue to seek to understand. It hurts less. I envy 1ke for getting to the Truth in this area with a more accepting heart. That is certainly the way to go. As I said, “It hurts less.”

So that said…I am on a crusade. Secular sexual terms stink! Misnomers like “oral sex,” “birth control,” and “anal sex” are all terms coined by people in secular society. Secular society doesn’t define words well in the first place, and when it disagrees it defines them even worse. In discussions I usually avoid those terms and tend to use the more accurate terms commonly found in biology and used accurately by the Church. For those terms found lacking in biology I defer to the better defined terms found only in the Church. She’s 2000 years old. She knows Her stuff.

Oral stimulation is anything involving the mouth. Kissing is a form of it. Foreplay is sexual play that precedes the act of intercourse and climax (aka orgasm.) If the man reaches a climax before the woman, any oral act performed on the woman is still foreplay within that context.

The most important sexual organ is the brain. The largest sexual organ is the skin. The parallel sexual organs are the penis head and the clitoris. (They are made from the same tissue in development.) The reproductive organs are the testicles, ovaries; vas defrens, fallopian tubes; vagina, penis shaft; and uterus. Some definitions include the prostate as a reproductive organ too. All of the functional ones listed above are procreative organs.

By some (secular) techniques the penis shaft is being rendered sadly obsolete. The vagina and fallopian tubes in secular society already are. Again, sadly. Fifteen years of research on my part has shown me clearly why the Church is right and secular society is wrong.

This so called “oral sex” creates the atmosphere that the parts of the body are expendable. It then follows that the person these expendable parts are attached to are again expendable. Secular society says, “Semen doesn’t need to be deposited into the vagina. Any old place will work!” So then what becomes the purpose of the vagina? The vagina receives by its very design. It receives menstrual flow from the uterus. It receives the penis, semen and sperm. Finally, as the birth canal it receives the baby! It is not required to receive any of the above, but that is its natural design. A non-menstruating or celibate woman has not violated the design, but a sexual act that avoids the vagina violates the design. As usual…a “non-act” (abstinence) works with the design. Any “act” must work in accordance to the design.

Whew. Pant pant. Didn’t we go over and over this in the thread, “Obsession with oral sex?”

 

[searching06]

Just stating the obvious…

I personally thank you for stating the obvious; things go much better when everyone’s tactfully truthful. I would suggest reading some of the threads about NFP as there are multiple posts covering the “why nots” and some wonderful help understanding it as well.

Frankly, I am with you on my feelings in this area. But part of the great frustrations is in following Church teachings on this, which we are doing. It is maddening, or has been. Combined with NFP, which ususally gets the blame, yes, the Church restricts sexual activity if you follow her teachings. There are others who disagree and say that it does not since we are free to choose whether we have sex or not. I respectfully disagree with them.

The key is going to be in deciding to fully follow Church teachings. If so, then any sexual act is allowed as long as it ends with the man finishing inside his wife. Believe me, we used to take full advantage in between infertile times using NFP; I still personally believe as you - how can the Church or God not allow a man and woman to be physically intimate with the spouse He gave them? How is that not being loving, no matter the act? One of the debates is that as a man, I need the physical, sexual contact for intimacy, not just as as a physical release because guys just want sex. Well, I’m learning the differences, and no, it is not easy in the least. It has created hardships, especially when we first learned what the Catechism stated. Going “cold turkey” is a bummer, especially as a guy (not minimizing women here).

Reading through some of the other posts, the definition of “unitive” again comes up, and not being able to separate unitive and procreative, which by all interpretations means the man finishing inside his wife. Again, I personally debate that this is the crux of it; but my personal feelings are beside the point. A good example is the woman who is unable to get pregnant, so yes, when they have sex, it is for pleasure. They are not outside of Church teachings, I do not believe. How could they be? God made sex to be pleasurable. Are their marital relations no longer unitive because they take pleasure in it, and maybe even more so than most can because there is not the fear of pregnancy? Procreative means there is the potential for kids, not just that the husband finished inside of his wife. That obviously is not the case for them. Is there marital embrace no longer within Church teachings? Now, does that mean that they are now free of Church teachings to do other acts? Not by what the Church teaches.

These are the issue which make it so hard to not have sex to climax other than through intercourse. Someone was kind enough to post in a different thread where the Chruch does acknowledge the difficulties. Does not make it any easier, but what else can they say? Otherwise, the Church would be condoning sin.

 

[ForwardProgress]

Procreative means there is the potential for kids, not just that the husband finished inside of his wife. That obviously is not the case for them. Is there marital embrace no longer within Church teachings? Now, does that mean that they are now free of Church teachings to do other acts? Not by what the Church teaches.

Pro-Creation…for Creation…does not mean ‘potential for kids’, it means the end result of the act must have nothing ‘user created’ to keep the sperm from meeting the egg. Everything with the act, especially the end result must be the normal way of the act for conception to occur. (sperm must go where it was designed to go), regardless if conditions in the body are right or not.

Remember Elizabeth conceived in her old age, because ‘nothing is impossible with God’.

 

[fix]

Ok. This is one of those threads again. But I will jump in once again. 1ke is here, and we usually hang out together in these. astegallrnc has checked in. All we need now is Setter and Fix and roll call can begin.

I’m lurking…

 

[searching06]

I think it’s up to the individual woman. I, myself, do not find oral sex degrading in any way. There’s nothing to say that it’s wrong, as long as the man finishes through intercourse. So, it’s perfectly fine as a means of foreplay.

I find this discussion very interesting. I just don’t understand why we can’t just enjoy something God has given us without having to analyze it and disect it into a million pieces?
Scout :tiphat:

BINGO!!!

This is exactly where the resentment, frustration, misunderstandings, interpretations, etc, etc comes from. God gave us 1) our spouses 2) sex between spouses 3) that sex is to be pleasurable 4) we are to be responsible and follow Church teaching, as maddening as it may be, without using or abusing or degrading each other. It is exactly the over-analysis, splitting hairs, can’t-have-one-part-without-the-other dissection that creates issues, and frankly, why many Catholics do not bother to follow the Catechism. The guilt and anxiety that comes from it can be overwhelming - trust me. And while no one may mean to offend, it often comes across that those that do not or are struggling to understand and adhere to the Church just don’t get it, or we’re looking at things th wrong way. While we have to follow Church teachings on our sexual behavior, whether we like it or not, it can very much create and instill guilt into us that flat out takes away from the intimacy we are supposed to be creating in our marriage through intercourse, recommitting to our vows as as someone stated.

I am one of those struggling to comprehend and adhere to the Church. Everyone here has been warm and understanding in other threads. But this one just set me off all over again.

 

[searching06]

Pro-Creation…for Creation…does not mean ‘potential for kids’, it means the end result of the act must have nothing ‘user created’ to keep the sperm from meeting the egg. Everything with the act, especially the end result must be the normal way of the act for conception to occur. (sperm must go where it was designed to go), regardless if conditions in the body are right or not.

Remember Elizabeth conceived in her old age, because ‘nothing is impossible with God’.

Again, we are splitting hairs by kicking out definitions. If we are engaging in a procreative act, there is the potential for kids.

 

[setter]

Ok. This is one of those threads again. But I will jump in once again. 1ke is here, and we usually hang out together in these. astegallrnc has checked in. All we need now is Setter and Fix and roll call can begin.

Present and accounted for …looking for the right opening.