? about sex

[johntkd]

“Others?” I presume you mean, “others on the face of the earth.” I have seen no one in this thread insinuate that “anything other than missionary is perverse.”

I still suggest as I have before, a thorough study of Theology of the Body. Our late Holy Father specifically addresses how the marital act is NOT a list of don’ts, but instead he explains how we can grow in holiness through the marital act. If any sexual act is not a mutual self-giving act, it will not help us in holiness. The question by many in this thread seems to be, “how far can we go?”

The real question, as explained in TOB is, “If the marital act, the consummation, is compared to heavenly life, then how amazing must heaven be?” Since oral sex is not a mutual self-giving act, then how much of heaven are we missing by participating in it?

By others I mean exactly that Others, I know of religions that sex is reserved STRICTLY for reproduction only, etc etc

I am unable to comment on the rest of your post being as I havent yet nor prolly ever will read that book…and by your definition of “oral sex” discussed in a previous reply, I agree with you there…
John

 

[Celeste88]

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’.

Is this why we’re supposed to be “open to conception” even when we have relations with our dear husbands in old age (probably with the help of Viagra, etc) ? This is scary indeed. There is NO way I’d want to die in childbirth at age 70, 80 or 90 and leave a baby with my husband (who’d probably be in diapers himself) ! I really don’t understand why God would want us to be open to conception when we can’t normally conceive- such as being past menopause or sterility. Wouldn’t the woman - particularly an elderly or sick woman live in fear that she could get pregnant…by Divine means?

 

[Spirithound]

Is this why we’re supposed to be “open to conception” even when we have relations with our dear husbands in old age (probably with the help of Viagra, etc) ? This is scary indeed. There is NO way I’d want to die in childbirth at age 70, 80 or 90 and leave a baby with my husband (who’d probably be in diapers himself) ! I really don’t understand why God would want us to be open to conception when we can’t normally conceive- such as being past menopause or sterility. Wouldn’t the woman - particularly an elderly or sick woman live in fear that she could get pregnant…by Divine means?

A post-menopausal woman and her husband should be open to God blessing them with children in the same way that they’d be open to God blessing them with the ability to break through a metal wall with their bare hands. ie, He’s probably not going to grant that particular blessing. I believe the use of Viagra, and other similar drugs whose commercials tell us to ask our physicians, to be sinful and not open to the natural order of things.

 

[johntkd]

A post-menopausal woman and her husband should be open to God blessing them with children in the same way that they’d be open to God blessing them with the ability to break through a metal wall with their bare hands. ie, He’s probably not going to grant that particular blessing. I believe the use of Viagra, and other similar drugs whose commercials tell us to ask our physicians, to be sinful and not open to the natural order of things.

whoa wait a second before you make a statement such as that.
the church does allow use of viagra and similar meds, why you may ask? because they are not fertility meds and are not birth control they simply Increase blood flow to certain key areas, a sinus tablet works in the same way but to a different area a sinus pill increases blood flow to your sinuses which in turn reduces swelling and helps them drain thus relieveing pain.
well viagra, cialus (sp) etc increase blood flow to lower extremities, they do not increase drive they simply make things possible when the drive is already there…

Hope that was a nice way to post this, and yet still get the mechanics of it across…

 

[johntkd]

Originally Posted by ForwardProgress forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*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’.*

• now this definition i am unsure HOW you arrived at but if thats what you believe to be a definition then i guess have fun with it*
• But remember by that dfinition NFP is out as well, because the user is creating a kept plan on when fertility is to occur and most whom use NFP use to avoid “the act” on days of fertility thus the "sperm would be unable to reach the egg "from a “user created” barrier, now if they were not keeping track of fertility and had no basic idea of when they were most fertile then its a non issue because they didnt create a so called diary of fertility.*
  on that note God told man to go forth and Multiply, he never left any words about if you feel like you can handle it,if you want kids, if time is right etc etc etc. man instituted that, to make other men and women happy.

 

[Priscilla_Ann]

“Others?” I presume you mean, “others on the face of the earth.” I have seen no one in this thread insinuate that “anything other than missionary is perverse.”

I still suggest as I have before, a thorough study of Theology of the Body. Our late Holy Father specifically addresses how the marital act is NOT a list of don’ts, but instead he explains how we can grow in holiness through the marital act. If any sexual act is not a mutual self-giving act, it will not help us in holiness. The question by many in this thread seems to be, “how far can we go?”

The real question, as explained in TOB is, “If the marital act, the consummation, is compared to heavenly life, then how amazing must heaven be?” Since oral sex is not a mutual self-giving act, then how much of heaven are we missing by participating in it?

Little Deb:

I realize that I’m butting right into the middle of this discussion, but how did you determine that “oral sex is not a mutal self-giving act”? My husband both enjoy giving each other pleasure in this way, usually as a part of foreplay. We both enjoy it very much and neither of us finds it degrading in any way. We use oral sex as a way to give each other pleasure…not to see “how far we can go”. Yet you wonder “how much of heaven are we missing by participating in it”? That is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard!

 

[Spirithound]

whoa wait a second before you make a statement such as that.
the church does allow use of viagra and similar meds, why you may ask? because they are not fertility meds and are not birth control they simply Increase blood flow to certain key areas, a sinus tablet works in the same way but to a different area a sinus pill increases blood flow to your sinuses which in turn reduces swelling and helps them drain thus relieveing pain.
well viagra, cialus (sp) etc increase blood flow to lower extremities, they do not increase drive they simply make things possible when the drive is already there…

Hope that was a nice way to post this, and yet still get the mechanics of it across…

lol…excellent way to post it, and the point is well taken. I was unaware of the distinction between fertility drugs and “blood-flow drugs”. But anyways, I don’t think being open to life requires the use of them, does it?

 

[johntkd]

lol…excellent way to post it, and the point is well taken. I was unaware of the distinction between fertility drugs and “blood-flow drugs”. But anyways, I don’t think being open to life requires the use of them, does it?

some folks out there have medical conditions that actually requires these meds to be used, Insurance companies even actually pay for many of thse medicines, yes like all meds they are also abused by people not needing them, but relize this is a very real medical condition for some men.
and for these case scenarios yes its more than just being open to life its also about marital bonding, renewing the bond as some have put it…

also while I am posting i should have hit on this in the last post as well the reason these meds have warnings on them about seeing the DR is pretty simple they increase blodd pressure.
that in itself for many can be dangerous, so anyone that may be considering trying these to help dont be embarrassed to talk to your DR first dot borrow someone elses meds for this…or anything for that matter but this esspecially…

Priscilla Ann: I side with you about your post, howevere in fairness to lil Deb she clarified her position on the matter with different defintions what has been commonly reffered to as Oral sex here she is calling ( and I admit it does make sense as well)
“ORAL STIMULATION” she uses oral sex to define a finash orally also not just a “foreplay” in her definition…
John

 

[Celeste88]

on that note God told man to go forth and Multiply, he never left any words about if you feel like you can handle it,if you want kids, if time is right etc etc etc. man instituted that, to make other men and women happy.
You know, I’ve always wondered, who exactly wrote those those words down when God spoke them at the creation of the world?

 

[johntkd]

on that note God told man to go forth and Multiply, he never left any words about if you feel like you can handle it,if you want kids, if time is right etc etc etc. man instituted that, to make other men and women happy.

You know, I’ve always wondered, who exactly wrote those those words down when God spoke them at the creation of the world?

the church did didnt you know that… lol I know what you mean
they are good stories i guess
John

 

[cor]

You are correct. There must be a completed act of intercourse.

I believe moral teachers say a couple can choose to pause and complete it at a later time. Just to clarify.

 

[cor]

I really don’t understand this prejudice against sex merely for pleasure…

I’m 99% sure it is considered OK for a couple to have sex with only the subjective motive of seeking pleasure. The fact that they are only seeking pleasure does not contradict the objective meaning of the act as unitive and procreative (whereas the use of a contraceptive would for example).

I think it’s like when you go to confession it is OK to do so merely out of a fear of hell (called imperfect contrition) even though the ideal is to do it out of pure love for God (called perfect contrition)

I would ask a knowledgeable priest to make sure

 

[LittleDeb]

Little Deb:

I realize that I’m butting right into the middle of this discussion, but how did you determine that “oral sex is not a mutal self-giving act”? My husband both enjoy giving each other pleasure in this way, usually as a part of foreplay. We both enjoy it very much and neither of us finds it degrading in any way. We use oral sex as a way to give each other pleasure…not to see “how far we can go”. Yet you wonder “how much of heaven are we missing by participating in it”? That is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard!

Hi Priscilla Ann,
I hope John’s comment was able to answer part of your question on the definition of oral sex. It is a secular and badly defined term.

On the other part as to how a mutual and self-giving act is defined and why, I looked to the Church. I lot of people consider pleasure to be a purpose of the conjugal act. It isn’t. It is however, an incentive tied to the act so that we will do what is healthy for us and good for the species. Similarly, as the Church has pointed out, sleeping and eating are also pleasurable, yet again pleasure is not the purpose of either. It is no surprise that seeking eating, sleeping, and sex just for pleasure are three of the seven deadly sins; gluttony, sloth, and lust.

To experience pleasure when eating is not sinful. It is only when pleasure is sought at the expense of the purpose of eating that it becomes sinful. Just as is not sinful to engage in some eating that seems to have little nutritional value, it is not sinful to engage in the conjugal act sometimes when it is not possible to reproduce. The sinful behaviors occur with vomitoriums and contraception. They are ways to seek pleasure at the expense of the purpose.

The Church has been defining and clarifying these terms for 2000 years. Theology of the Body is considered one of the best explorations and explanations on the meaning of the body to come along in centuries, if not the entire history of the Church. It would be no surprise to many people if our late Holy Father is declared a Doctor of the Church because of this amazing teaching. He took 5 years of weekly audiences to explain it. This is no small topic. If you find my comment about missing heaven by engaging in oral sex absurd then you would also disagree with Pope John Paul II. It is his exploration of Scripture that you find absurd.

I would also suggest the book, Love and Responsibility, written while he was ‘only’ a Cardinal. He explores the act of a husband taking into account the wife’s different climatic curve to make sure she enjoys the conjugal act. He calls it a virtuous act on the part of the man. Calling a man virtuous who makes sure his wife enjoys participating? Now THAT is man who knows his stuff!! Or as I said the first time I read the quote from Love and Responsibility, “Woo-Hoo!!”

 

[johntkd]

Hi Priscilla Ann,
I hope John’s comment was able to answer part of your question on the definition of oral sex. It is a secular and badly defined term.

On the other part as to how a mutual and self-giving act is defined and why, I looked to the Church. I lot of people consider pleasure to be a purpose of the conjugal act. It isn’t. It is however, an incentive tied to the act so that we will do what is healthy for us and good for the species. Similarly, as the Church has pointed out, sleeping and eating are also pleasurable, yet again pleasure is not the purpose of either. It is no surprise that seeking eating, sleeping, and sex just for pleasure are three of the seven deadly sins; gluttony, sloth, and lust.

To experience pleasure when eating is not sinful. It is only when pleasure is sought at the expense of the purpose of eating that it becomes sinful. Just as is not sinful to engage in some eating that seems to have little nutritional value, it is not sinful to engage in the conjugal act sometimes when it is not possible to reproduce. The sinful behaviors occur with vomitoriums and contraception. They are ways to seek pleasure at the expense of the purpose.

The Church has been defining and clarifying these terms for 2000 years. Theology of the Body is considered one of the best explorations and explanations on the meaning of the body to come along in centuries, if not the entire history of the Church. It would be no surprise to many people if our late Holy Father is declared a Doctor of the Church because of this amazing teaching. He took 5 years of weekly audiences to explain it. This is no small topic. If you find my comment about missing heaven by engaging in oral sex absurd then you would also disagree with Pope John Paul II. It is his exploration of Scripture that you find absurd.

I would also suggest the book, Love and Responsibility, written while he was ‘only’ a Cardinal. He explores the act of a husband taking into account the wife’s different climatic curve to make sure she enjoys the conjugal act. He calls it a virtuous act on the part of the man. Calling a man virtuous who makes sure his wife enjoys participating? Now THAT is man who knows his stuff!! Or as I said the first time I read the quote from Love and Responsibility, “Woo-Hoo!!”

well i never considered myself “virtuous” before but I will accept it, I always figured if she enjoyed it more she would also be more willing more often rofl I suppose that was selfish thinking on my part though huh?
John

 

[chevalier]

Johntkd, it looks like you simply don’t want to argue anymore, but what you are dodging is nothing about oral sex or oral stimulation or whatever such specifically, but the idea that human dignity is to be respected. To say that the teaching of the Church does not stress the need to respect human dignity, especially the human dignity of the other spouse in the marital act, would be nonsense. It’s enough to take any document in any way relating to this matter and it will be there. To prove this by quotations would be like proving the grass is green. I have, however, specifically shown you places in which human dignity is mentioned and if you want to pretend it’s not, then well, that’s your right and I’m not going to disturb that pleasure. The idea that human dignity is for humans to define and limit is alien to Christianity as much as relativism is - because that’s a relativist idea that human dignity may be in any way alienable. Basically, it even looks like you actually agree with me when it comes to calling you out on it, but you still prefer to dodge it and turn attention to some constructs of your own making instead. Guess it’s thus pointless to continue discussing the matter with you. However, I strongly recommend that you do some reading up on human dignity and on the marital act and the meaning of love and sacrifice within it. Especially if the subject invokes emotional reactions in you. I also recommend that you heed LittleDeb’s advice.

 

[johntkd]

Johntkd, it looks like you simply don’t want to argue anymore, but what you are dodging is nothing about oral sex or oral stimulation or whatever such specifically, but the idea that human dignity is to be respected. To say that the teaching of the Church does not stress the need to respect human dignity, especially the human dignity of the other spouse in the marital act, would be nonsense. It’s enough to take any document in any way relating to this matter and it will be there. To prove this by quotations would be like proving the grass is green. I have, however, specifically shown you places in which human dignity is mentioned and if you want to pretend it’s not, then well, that’s your right and I’m not going to disturb that pleasure. The idea that human dignity is for humans to define and limit is alien to Christianity as much as relativism is - because that’s a relativist idea that human dignity may be in any way alienable. Basically, it even looks like you actually agree with me when it comes to calling you out on it, but you still prefer to dodge it and turn attention to some constructs of your own making instead. Guess it’s thus pointless to continue discussing the matter with you. However, I strongly recommend that you do some reading up on human dignity and on the marital act and the meaning of love and sacrifice within it. Especially if the subject invokes emotional reactions in you. I also recommend that you heed LittleDeb’s advice.

well you chose to cut me down and make me look like i have no clue, I heed you to actually get ,married or have a relationship so you have a clue what you are talking about, instead of using some belief you may have been taught growing up, then come back and talk to me… I have over 18 and a half years of marriage and at no time did my ex think i was ever degrading her,
so take that and chew on it a while I could go into so much detail about degrading and how i never have but its futile you know so much about sex and marriage even though you never been married what can anyone possibly ever say to you to change your mind, its obvious its the momma says attitude need more defining on that attitude see the movie " the waterboy"

dont bother responding if you dont have some actual life learned facts to back you up I dont want to hear about “well my momma says or i have a friend”
John

 

[Priscilla_Ann]

Hi Priscilla Ann,
I hope John’s comment was able to answer part of your question on the definition of oral sex. It is a secular and badly defined term.

On the other part as to how a mutual and self-giving act is defined and why, I looked to the Church. I lot of people consider pleasure to be a purpose of the conjugal act. It isn’t. It is however, an incentive tied to the act so that we will do what is healthy for us and good for the species. Similarly, as the Church has pointed out, sleeping and eating are also pleasurable, yet again pleasure is not the purpose of either. It is no surprise that seeking eating, sleeping, and sex just for pleasure are three of the seven deadly sins; gluttony, sloth, and lust.

To experience pleasure when eating is not sinful. It is only when pleasure is sought at the expense of the purpose of eating that it becomes sinful. Just as is not sinful to engage in some eating that seems to have little nutritional value, it is not sinful to engage in the conjugal act sometimes when it is not possible to reproduce. The sinful behaviors occur with vomitoriums and contraception. They are ways to seek pleasure at the expense of the purpose.

The Church has been defining and clarifying these terms for 2000 years. Theology of the Body is considered one of the best explorations and explanations on the meaning of the body to come along in centuries, if not the entire history of the Church. It would be no surprise to many people if our late Holy Father is declared a Doctor of the Church because of this amazing teaching. He took 5 years of weekly audiences to explain it. This is no small topic. If you find my comment about missing heaven by engaging in oral sex absurd then you would also disagree with Pope John Paul II. It is his exploration of Scripture that you find absurd.

I would also suggest the book, Love and Responsibility, written while he was ‘only’ a Cardinal. He explores the act of a husband taking into account the wife’s different climatic curve to make sure she enjoys the conjugal act. He calls it a virtuous act on the part of the man. Calling a man virtuous who makes sure his wife enjoys participating? Now THAT is man who knows his stuff!! Or as I said the first time I read the quote from Love and Responsibility, “Woo-Hoo!!”

Hi, Little Deb:

I have not read Love and Responsibility or Theology of the Body. I have, however, read Song of Songs in the bible. Song of Songs honors sexual love in marriage, and is a truly beautiful picture of sex between a husband and wife. I would suggest that you read it if you have not already done so.

“Woo-Hoo!”

 

[chevalier]

Hi, Little Deb:

I have not read Love and Responsibility or Theology of the Body. I have, however, read Song of Songs in the bible. Song of Songs honors sexual love in marriage, and is a truly beautiful picture of sex between a husband and wife. I would suggest that you read it if you have not already done so.

“Woo-Hoo!”

How does it invalidate anything she has said? Joy does not remove responsibility, neither does love exempt anyone from the law. Certainly the Song of Songs does not make the procreative and unitive purpose of marital act relative, nor does it elevate the pleasure or even the joy of the act above those purposes. Why therefore have LittleDeb (re-, probably) read the Song of Songs?

 

[Priscilla_Ann]

How does it invalidate anything she has said? Joy does not remove responsibility, neither does love exempt anyone from the law. Certainly the Song of Songs does not make the procreative and unitive purpose of marital act relative, nor does it elevate the pleasure or even the joy of the act above those purposes. Why therefore have LittleDeb (re-, probably) read the Song of Songs?

I suggested Song of Songs because it is from the Word of God, not the mere teachings of men, such as John Paul II. Also, Song of Songs is the most sexually explicit book in the bible, yet does not give a list of “do’s and don’t’s” regarding marital sex. More specifically, it does not suggest that those who particpate in oral sex “miss out” on something in heaven as Little Deb suggests.

 

[chevalier]

The ban on sexual activity resulting in ejaculation elsewhere than in the wife’s vagina is biblical as well. Since you’re talking to LittleDeb, who most clearly spelt out the difference between non-vaginal intercouse and mere stimulation during foreplay, I assume you’re referring to such “oral sex” as to include ejaculation? I believe that those who engage in oral sex with ejaculation commit up to mortal sin with sufficient knowledge and consent being there.

John Paul II didn’t name any technical specifics and, in case you’ve missed it, he insisted that the man should make sure the wife is satisfied, not only obtain his own satisfaction. What is your problem with the teaching of John Paul II then? The fact that he said love was not only about pleasure but also about responsibility? Or that he always underlined the importance of human dignity at every step? Or that he insisted on procreative and unitive nature of the marital act, in which he wasn’t the first anyway?