? about sex

[blessedtoo]

Incidentally, I got a copy of “Catholocism for Dummies” and in there they say that sex toys are forbidden.

We never explored or questioned this, just accepted it…

I’m not surprised by this. I really can’t imagine how “toys” could be considered acceptable. But I do know friends who have directly asked their priests about such issues, only to be told that nearly everything is acceptable within the confines of marriage and with the act culminating in the proper way. I think this whole topic is terribly unclear and really subject to individual interpretation since different answers can be found depending upon who you ask.

From a different perspective, I think it can get terribly confusing when we talk about “acts” that are outside the norm of intercourse because we veer into the territority of how to differentiate between what a married heterosexual couple and what a homosexual couple do sexually. While the basis for Church doctrine on homosexual “acts” is their non-procreative aspect as well as the disordered desire, one has to question how firm a platform we have from which to argue if everyone is engaging in the same sexual acts. Just my :twocents:

 

[searching06]

I’m not surprised by this. I really can’t imagine how “toys” could be considered acceptable. But I do know friends who have directly asked their priests about such issues, only to be told that nearly everything is acceptable within the confines of marriage and with the act culminating in the proper way. I think this whole topic is terribly unclear and really subject to individual interpretation since different answers can be found depending upon who you ask.

From a different perspective, I think it can get terribly confusing when we talk about “acts” that are outside the norm of intercourse because we veer into the territority of how to differentiate between what a married heterosexual couple and what a homosexual couple do sexually. While the basis for Church doctrine on homosexual “acts” is their non-procreative aspect as well as the disordered desire, one has to question how firm a platform we have from which to argue if everyone is engaging in the same sexual acts. Just my :twocents:

Ah, but they’re not if the acts are performed by two of the same sex. Even I have to cave in on the unitive/procreative thing on that one. Besides not being able to be true, practicing Catholics if people are practicing homosexuals, there is no way for same sex couples to be procreative in their acts - there is no opportunity for life. Male/female couples engaging in any acts, but ending in intercourse, are open to life.

 

[johntkd]

I’m not surprised by this. I really can’t imagine how “toys” could be considered acceptable. But I do know friends who have directly asked their priests about such issues, only to be told that nearly everything is acceptable within the confines of marriage and with the act culminating in the proper way. I think this whole topic is terribly unclear and really subject to individual interpretation since different answers can be found depending upon who you ask.

From a different perspective, I think it can get terribly confusing when we talk about “acts” that are outside the norm of intercourse because we veer into the territority of how to differentiate between what a married heterosexual couple and what a homosexual couple do sexually. While the basis for Church doctrine on homosexual “acts” is their non-procreative aspect as well as the disordered desire, one has to question how firm a platform we have from which to argue if everyone is engaging in the same sexual acts. Just my :twocents:

disordered acts would Most likely be difined as one that has no procreative outcome…relize although certain things are allowed within the confines of a marriage the end result still stays the same, everything else must be used as a foreplay…
the ends means is ejaculation inside the vagina…

I know this over simplifys and even makes the whole thing sound cheap ( which it is very much NOT) so please do not think I am trying to cheapen it down, I am so far from that…

 

[chevalier]

I agree, you are doing no one a kindness when you allow them to demean your person.

Yep. Therefore, neither requesting nor granting a dubious act is a good thing. Different things will be different for different people, but this doesn’t mean it’s relative. It means that demeaning contexts are wrong, while the acts performed are anciliary to said contexts, which are the primary problem.

searching06:

It may be wrong to demand such things, but not to request it, unless you already know the other person is uncomfortable; then you are sill forcing the issue.

Or unless it’s reasonable to expect the other person to be uncomfortable. Ignorance may be culpable.

And who is deciding if it is demeaning - folks here or the couple involved?

Neither. It’s a matter of existence, not a matter of decision. A decision can be made in spite of feelings. Concessions could be granted in such a decision, or it could be made in error. Decision is not the right tool to deal with sensitive matters like this, and potential discomforts of any one person in the sexual act. No decision can change how we feel. If one person feels the act is demeaning but decides it’s not and allows it to happen, such a situation is still not right. The right situation is when neither person feels the act is demeaning, unless they’re being culpably ignorant (I can name sexual practices which we would all agree on carrying a demeaning message, but I’d rather not do that).

It’s getting pretty judgemental in here, it seems.

Maybe when it comes to specifics, but there’s no general rule that everything goes, so judgement is necessary.

Different people will choose different things in line with their relationship, and no, they should not demand or demean or abuse or mistreat the other person.

My chief concern. Since oral sex so frequently carries a demeaning association, I can’t make a blanket statement like, “oral sex is okay if the man finishes in the woman’s vagina,” without knowing more. I could have added, “if it’s not demeaning to either party,” but it didn’t occur to me at the time.

But if whatever the activity or position ends in the proper way required by the Church - the man climaxing inside his wife - then it is up to the couple to decide where they are comfortable or not in their activities.

No, sorry. Certain activities are contrary to human dignity and cannot be made right by the partners’ own authority (acts which are not “humane” do not even consummate marriage). No one has the right to give up his human dignity. Certain sick people find sexual satisfaction in flogging or using dog leashes on the partner. Do you honestly think it’s all right if they both agree? I honestly don’t. And it’s just one example. Apologies for bringing it up, but I guess it couldn’t have been avoided. There are more extreme examples than this.

Others may not agree and have a very different lifestyle and sex life, and that is fine.

Within limits.

But the poster who said sometimes you need to spice things up is dead on - and it is up to the couple to decide the comfort level, I think, as long as each person is treated with love and dignity.

The part which follows after “as long as” is impossible to maintain if either party is focused on seeking pleasure or experience.

 

[johntkd]

My chief concern. Since oral sex so frequently carries a demeaning association, I can’t make a blanket statement like, “oral sex is okay if the man finishes in the woman’s vagina,” without knowing more. I could have added, “if it’s not demeaning to either party,” but it didn’t occur to me at the time.

No, sorry. Certain activities are contrary to human dignity and cannot be made right by the partners’ own authority (acts which are not “humane” do not even consummate marriage). No one has the right to give up his human dignity. Certain sick people find sexual satisfaction in flogging or using dog leashes on the partner. Do you honestly think it’s all right if they both agree? I honestly don’t. And it’s just one example. Apologies for bringing it up, but I guess it couldn’t have been avoided. There are more extreme examples than this.

.

you seem to have a very old fashioned way of thinking there is nothing demeaning about oral sex between two people that love each other, you are simply looking at how “kids” in a school yard portray it,

just because kids have a slang term for it used to insult or try to insult someone does not make it a demeaning act…

I do actually know 3 men whom think as you do, they were in my karate classes

 

[chevalier]

I will disagree here,the "pleasure serving you speak of is part of Love and non selfishness, if you were seeking only your own pleasure then thats a different story

Making it an exchange doesn’t cut it. Merely presupposing pleasure on the part of the other person doesn’t make it right to ignore unity and procreation.

I disagree here its not a fair comparison at all, you trying to compare illegal things with non illegal things which changes everything

Then forget about the legal-illegal distinction (remember that illegal doesn’t equate wrong or legal good, btw). My focus was on the diametrical difference between law work and illegal acts, the latter being so alien to the nature of the former.

Ok without going into said varieties of toys, there is nothing wrong with using most toys when used in properly,they can enhance etc.

That sounds like an excuse.

again I say there is nothing wrong with using Toys, the church even allows it,

Where?

as far as whips and chains go I am not into that but the people that are who am i to say they are wrong we dont see how they are using them ( which is a relief in itself) so how can we make judgement just because of what they are?

In how many different ways can one use a whip or chain? Does it serve lovingly to stroke the wife’s hair, by chance?

 

[johntkd]

Making it an exchange doesn’t cut it. Merely presupposing pleasure on the part of the other person doesn’t make it right to ignore unity and procreation.

Then forget about the legal-illegal distinction (remember that illegal doesn’t equate wrong or legal good, btw). My focus was on the diametrical difference between law work and illegal acts, the latter being so alien to the nature of the former.

That sounds like an excuse.

Where?

In how many different ways can one use a whip or chain? Does it serve lovingly to stroke the wife’s hair, by chance?

it might!!!
where you asked? on the toys did you follow the link i also put in that reply ???

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree I wasnt raised the same as you were obviously.you are trying to instill your way of thinking into Church law where as many of us have shown you where it is allowed , but because its against what you were raised to believe that makes us and the church wrong, sorry it dont work that way, kind of reminds me of the movie “the water boy” momma says alligators are mean cause they have all them teeth and no tooth brush,
I am the first to admit I do not believe everything the Church teaches,and many times when in discussions i have had to say Ok I can understand where you get your info but this is why i believe the way i do, Instead you are trying to use college terms tomake it sound like its a Church law which it isnt…period…

thats the end of it basically the Church allows it no matter what we may think its not immoral, can it be immoral absolutly everything can be if used wrong

you speak about oral sex as demeaning, yet I know not one single woman that sees giving or recieveing as demeaning, matter of fact you and 3 men from my karate classes are the only 4 people I personally know that even think about calling it demeaning. the 3 men in question were in my classes with thier families which consisted of a wife and some kids, I can say with total honesty not a single one of them is still married today.
they had a very old fashioned view of things that are just not accepted by most of todays women such as stay in the Kitchen barefoot and pregnant, missionary only, and women are NOT supposed to enjoy sex type of thinking, I can remember one of my students calling me up one night panicked cause “dad” was choking her mom, ( yes one of the 3) I talked him down thru the phone and found out he was mad cause wife wanted relations, which made her a nasty s*** in his opinion.

well anyways I can see already this is futile to even bother with you are definatly stuck in your ways, and thats fine ITS your own choice and nothing is wrong with that at all…

agreeing to disagree

                       John

 

[ThuribleGuy45]

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:

I think your comment is great. Reading through this whole thread reminds me of the accusation sometimes made that Catholics need a “checklist” in the bedroom to make sure they’re not sinning. God gave us the moral and natural law, not an intimacy “pre-flight checklist.”

 

[johntkd]

I think your comment is great. Reading through this whole thread reminds me of the accusation sometimes made that Catholics need a “checklist” in the bedroom to make sure they’re not sinning. God gave us the moral and natural law, not an intimacy “pre-flight checklist.”

OH MY
WHAT PERFECT RESPONSE

bravo

 

[thechrismyster]

I think your comment is great. Reading through this whole thread reminds me of the accusation sometimes made that Catholics need a “checklist” in the bedroom to make sure they’re not sinning. God gave us the moral and natural law, not an intimacy “pre-flight checklist.”

The only shortcoming i see is that most here define ‘sex-act’ as being a book. beginning, middle, climax. There is an artificial time frame that assumes sex starts on the bed and ends 30 minutes later…

what if, like good sex should, it transitions between those three stages for the life of the marriage. The entire marriage is a lovemaking act.
climaxes just bring a break. or births. or illness… just pauses.

 

[johntkd]

The only shortcoming i see is that most here define ‘sex-act’ as being a book. beginning, middle, climax. There is an artificial time frame that assumes sex starts on the bed and ends 30 minutes later…

what if, like good sex should, it transitions between those three stages for the life of the marriage. The entire marriage is a lovemaking act.
climaxes just bring a break. or births. or illness… just pauses.

you just hit the bingo jackpot friend…

 

[dulcissima]

The only shortcoming i see is that most here define ‘sex-act’ as being a book. beginning, middle, climax. There is an artificial time frame that assumes sex starts on the bed and ends 30 minutes later…

what if, like good sex should, it transitions between those three stages for the life of the marriage. The entire marriage is a lovemaking act.
climaxes just bring a break. or births. or illness… just pauses.

There is probably some real truth here, considering how many posters suggest to husband’s that doing dishes and helping out around the house is the best foreplay.

 

[johntkd]

There is probably some real truth here, considering how many posters suggest to husband’s that doing dishes and helping out around the house is the best foreplay.

I would have to say it most likely is, takes some of the household work load off which makes it less tireing which in turns means a tad more energy left over

 

[6glargento]

what if a person has premature ejacualtion?

 

[johntkd]

what if a person has premature ejacualtion?

I will private message you with a few ideas, I am not sure this forum is the actuall place to address specifics
John

 

[LittleDeb]

well deb your gang is all here let the trash fly now rofl

get em

That’s “let the fur fly.” You’ve been in enough threads with me to know that I never trash!

You speak about oral sex as demeaning, yet I know not one single woman that sees giving or recieveing as demeaning, matter of fact you and 3 men from my karate classes are the only 4 people I personally know that even think about calling it demeaning. the 3 men in question were in my classes with thier families which consisted of a wife and some kids, I can say with total honesty not a single one of them is still married today.
they had a very old fashioned view of things that are just not accepted by most of todays women such as stay in the Kitchen barefoot and pregnant, missionary only, and women are NOT supposed to enjoy sex type of thinking,

Oral sex IS demeaning. Oral stimulation is not. There is a HUGE difference between the two. That there are men who don’t see that and that there are women who feel demeaned yet cannot quite say why, is a very sad trend in society.

As I have said many times. The cherished woman is a very active participant in the marriage bed. Our bodies have a design and a purpose. Working within that design fosters much intimacy and pleasure. The best spice to add to the marriage is the advice I get from those happily married for many many years. Periodic abstinence brings a fresh perspective and a honeymoon period. Denial at one end of the spectrum and indulgence at the other end of it brings hurt feelings and distance.

I know of couples who do not practice NFP or are beyond child-bearing years who find that periods of abstinence devoted to prayer bring a lot of spice into long marriages. The people over the years who have said that marriage requires more than that do not, I’m sorry, have much credibility with me. I find more unhappiness in those who suggest external changes.

I spent many (ok way too many) years examining the topic. I have found that women who participate in oral sex, repeat not just oral stimulation, but oral sex, have to fight harder for equality. They seem to need more reassurance that they are truly a partner and help-mate in marriage. Men who participate in it seem to view women as the “same” as they are instead of as equals. Both men and women who defend oral sex seem to have trouble understanding that their spouse is actually completely different in how and why they enjoy the intimate marital act. Oral sex has a neutering effect on marriage.

My :twocents: too. Ok John, fire away.

 

[johntkd]

That’s “let the fur fly.” You’ve been in enough threads with me to know that I never trash!

My :twocents: too. Ok John, fire away.

Naaa I am not gonna fire away at all, I totally agree with your refined definition,

and as far as my “trash” comment
I actually wasnt meaning what it sounded like i was I used that word a lot that day maybe cause was “First” trash day where i moved to ( live now) and was on my mind,plus lack of another word I will file the word “fur” away for later use,

Oh and dont fall over because i actually Totally agree with you for a change ok I am sure it wont become too much of a habit rofl
and you will still have someone to rip fur from…

John

 

[chevalier]

I’m not surprised by this. I really can’t imagine how “toys” could be considered acceptable. But I do know friends who have directly asked their priests about such issues, only to be told that nearly everything is acceptable within the confines of marriage and with the act culminating in the proper way. I think this whole topic is terribly unclear and really subject to individual interpretation since different answers can be found depending upon who you ask.

Yes, I can’t either. I can’t even imagine how self-administered digital penetration can be considered acceptable “within the bounds of marital act”. It reinforces the idea that men can’t satisfy women and women are better on their own, and that the right to orgasm is purchased for participation in marital act.

I would like to think that priests, apologists and other people say that because they can’t logically deduce a concrete prohibition, not because they find the practice acceptable.

How can digital self-stimulation or other form of self-stimulation, especially with the use of a toy, be considered loving and self-giving?

 

[johntkd]

Yes, I can’t either. I can’t even imagine how self-administered digital penetration can be considered acceptable “within the bounds of marital act”. It reinforces the idea that men can’t satisfy women and women are better on their own, and that the right to orgasm is purchased for participation in marital act.

I would like to think that priests, apologists and other people say that because they can’t logically deduce a concrete prohibition, not because they find the practice acceptable.

How can digital self-stimulation or other form of self-stimulation, especially with the use of a toy, be considered loving and self-giving?

somehow I think you have missed something or decided to add something to that where was the word “self” used a husband has the ability to use such items its not up to the wife.
you are definatly missing the “BIG” picture heer and only look at things from a one person point of view, there is nothing one person in what we are talking about…
couple =2 when we are discussing a “married couple” we are talking about 2 people not one, now if you are going to keep assuming this on a one person basis such as yourself and what you would think, well I cant help you there.

what you are also failing to see is that “toys” like anything else in this world are not for everyone, some people drive chevys, some Fords, some Chryslers, and yet others drive various japanese or other makes. some people read youth bibles for better understandings some read KJV bibles and yet some others read bibles writtren in symbols that just make my eyes hurt, what you think is proper the other person may think is prudish, yet another thing you may think is prudish that same other person thinks is proper and maybe even a little out there.
if we were all the same liked the same things why is it so hard to find a person to spend the rest of your life with, why are there so many divorces, the list goes on and on…

anyways you are very much entitled to your own opinion no matter how messed up it may be,just as i am mine no matter how messed up it may be,and as long as we are within the bounds of Church rules we have no rights to push our beliefs on others, something I also have problems with myself, I will say it kind of took this thread and one other to see some of my faults on that particular issue…

 

[chevalier]

Ah, but they’re not if the acts are performed by two of the same sex. Even I have to cave in on the unitive/procreative thing on that one. Besides not being able to be true, practicing Catholics if people are practicing homosexuals, there is no way for same sex couples to be procreative in their acts - there is no opportunity for life. Male/female couples engaging in any acts, but ending in intercourse, are open to life.

Doesn’t make everything else right. E.g. if they engage in continuous sexual activity for a number of hours finishing in one intercourse after spilling seed a couple of times, that’s not right. Similarly, whatever offends the human dignity in either of them, is not right.

johntkd:

you seem to have a very old fashioned way of thinking there is nothing demeaning about oral sex between two people that love each other, you are simply looking at how “kids” in a school yard portray it,
just because kids have a slang term for it used to insult or try to insult someone does not make it a demeaning act…

I’m sorry, but it sound naive, thinking it’s just the highschoolers who see it that way. The emphasis on “blowjob” in the modern culture makes it look objectifying. Granted, it could be done as a loving act, but imagine in most instances it will belong with the activities people summarise with the “f” word rather than refer to as making love.

it might!!!
where you asked? on the toys did you follow the link i also put in that reply ???

Your link led to an apologist stating a vibrator was okay if the husband couldn’t satisfy the wife himself after ejaculating in her vagina. However, it doesn’t talk about the more elaborate “enhancers”. Artificial devices designed to enhance pleasure ring very wrong to me. Also, why would the husband be unable to satisfy the way after ejaculation in the vagina? If the inability is not on his side, but it’s simply the fact the wife will not be satisfied by a real penis but only by a vibrator, it means she has some kind of a medical problem or perhaps a psychological addiction to devices she used before following the Church’s teaching on sexual ethics (i.e. she might be conditioned by her previous masturbatory use of vibrators). Whenever such a condition occurs, it should be medicated, not catered to.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree I wasnt raised the same as you were obviously.you are trying to instill your way of thinking into Church law where as many of us have shown you where it is allowed

Umm? Nope. I see you’re trying to push forward some kind of permissivist approach which does not ring right. You insist on ignoring concerns of human dignity, as well as the aspects of unity and procreation and just focus on what can be interpreted to be allowed, as in not expressly forbidden.