? about sex

[chevalier]

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…

Do I make it sound that way, really, or does it basically ring a bell to you and you’d rather I stopped talking? Did I really come up with any bogus or controversial sources or adventurous interpretations of existing laws, or did I merely point out the concerns of human dignity and the importance of the procreative and unitive aspects? Since you freely admit you don’t really like the idea of sex merely for pleasure being wrong, as well as the Church’s teaching in the matter. Right you are in one thing: that I’m not the Pope or a bishop, nor am I quoting a magisterial document dealing with the specifics - but that’s where it ends. You’re of course free to conclude that the way I argue my points makes it look like I’m passing my inventions for Church laws, which I hope I am not and apologise if I am, but that lends no credit to your idea that mutual agreement overrides human dignity, let alone the procreative and unitive aspect of marital intercourse. So the most you can gain is to call me too strict and indeed restrictive, but you can’t really get anything to defend your position - especially in so far as it’s based on undermining the aspects of unity or procreation, or the human dignity of spouses. I doubt I’ll see you reconciling BDSM or golden showers or other disordered practices with the Ephesians. There is truly no catalogue of what’s allowed and what’s not allowed in the sexual technique, but the Church always teaches about human dignity and the obligation to respect it. See Canon 1061 here to see that marriage is consummated if the spouses have engaged in a human fashion in an act open to procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by nature. Of course, I’m not saying oral sex is not human fashion, or that some dubious practices “invalidate” actual vaginal ejaculation that took place, but the canon clearly shows the concern for human dignity and the necessity for the act to be “in a human fashion” - which obviously does not limit itself to the first conjugal act, if the canon says that’s how marriage is ordered by nature. While it’s true that oral sex (which may indeed be loving, despite in the majority of cases it will be regarded in the modern view of it) or anal sex (which is unhealthy, leads to diseases - which is cited when the same act between homosexuals is being opposed - and isn’t it still sodomy anyway?) or indeed BDSM or golden shower (not equating any of the four with any other, just before someone flames me for that) are not expressly allowed or forbidden anywhere, it’s definitely not true that it’s up to the spouses to decide what’s demeaning. They can decide what they consider demeaning and if they do, they shouldn’t perform it, but if they agree to humiliate or be humiliated by the other person for sexual gratification, that’s disordered. Any perversion should be treated, not engaged in. I’m not calling oral sex a perversion here, but deriving satisfaction from humiliating or being humiliated is a disorder and as such should be medicated, not catered to.

About “human fashion”, you can read more here, More reading here. The links I’m giving you here don’t refer to oral sex (which is our quasi-titular topic), but to the wrongness of selfishness and pleasure seeking in marital love, as well as the need to preserve human dignity.

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’re focusing on the acts, but dodging the question of human dignity as well as even occasionally the idea of unity and procreation. Marital acts need to be unitive and procreative acts, open to creating new life, respectful of the dignity of each spouse, by which spouses become one flesh. In a lot of the practices you would be willing to defend on the grounds of mere mutual consent between spouses, these qualities are doubtful if not altogether absent.

 

[chevalier]

you speak about oral sex as demeaning, yet I know not one single woman that sees giving or recieveing as demeaning,

I do not speak of it as inherently demeaning. I speak of it as demeaning in the current cultural context. I don’t negate the possibility of it being loving and respectful, but I maintain that it will often be just a “blowjob”. Oral sex is not necessarily demeaning, but a “blowjob” is. It carries the message of “servicing” someone, as well as the subjection of woman.

I know women who consider oral sex demeaning, including one who is a medical doctor and far less conservative in such matters than I am. I know one who got coaxed into sex by some guy, but said she defended herself from oral sex.

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,

Do not equate that stuff with my position.

and women are NOT supposed to enjoy sex type of thinking

As above. Both men and women are supposed to enjoy it, but neither men nor women are supposed to be seeking it primarily, focusing on pleasure and falling into hedonism. Neither men nor women are supposed to enjoy demeaning positions or acts, to which category oral sex tends to belong in the modern culture.

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.

If you’re debunking his views in order to deal with mine, then you’re basically escaping, not dealing with me actually.

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

You’ve basically equated my position with some uneducated and sexist views you’ve pulled out of your past and your experience with strange people, just in the end to tell me you agree to disagree with me. The thing is you aren’t even talking me, but to yourself.

LittleDeb:

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.

Excellent post. I agree completely. I’d only like to add that while we agree oral stimulation is not necessarily demeaning, some people will be put off by the idea, and those shouldn’t be expected to break their inhibitions or be treated like they’re not open enough.

I would also like to point out that in some instances, oral stimulation will not be an integral part of the act or the foreplay or whatever, but it will basically be a “trimmed” version of oral sex (without ejaculation in the mouth) “redeemed” by the proximity of proper marital intercourse with ejaculation in the vagina. The problem is not with the material act that takes place, but with the perspective. Something’s wrong when the marital act is the necessary evil and the oral or digital part is what everyone’s looking forward to. Similarly, construing masturbation as allowed for the wife if the husband doesn’t deliver, may lead and I believe it does indeed often lead to women purchasing the right to masturbate at the price of one vaginal intercourse.

Whatever is technically foreplay, should also be properly regarded as foreplay (or afterplay depending on the perspective) internally, in the mind and in the attitude. Wherever “oral sex” is mentioned even as supposedly within the boundaries of the marital act, it gives the impression that one’s basically talking about some kind of oral intercourse without ejaculation - basically taking the same oral sex as modern people have, but simply removing ejaculation from it and adding a vaginal intercourse to the equation to make it licit. The perspective is wrong, not the fact that the lips touched the genitals.

 

[chevalier]

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.

Yes. And even oral stimulation, if it takes the primary place over the marital act which is used as the mere price for the allowance of it, may lead to similar results, I believe. Foreplay should not be more important than the act itself, which it is supposed to serve.

When I see so much focus on particular foreplay activities, it occurs to me that foreplay is no longer seen as anciliary to the fruitful vaginal intercourse, but that the vaginal intercourse is the price to pay for having some real fun.

Oh dear. I guess I should focus on concise writing.

 

[chevalier]

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.

Nope. The apologist talking about vibrators and modern theology allowing masturbation by wife, that’s two different things that you linked when reading my post (which is probably because I was not clear enough, for which I apologise). It is believed by many and some Catholic books about marital sexuality say it’s okay for the wife to masturbate if the husband doesn’t deliver. I find that kind of claims to be an offshot of permissivist and pleasure-seeking attitudes normally exhibited by people freely disagreeing with the teaching of the Church.

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…

So far yes, although focus on pleasure is egoistic and the allowance of pleasure for the other person within the concept is often just the price to pay or something to extend one’s own pleasure. But I think I’ve clarified the matter above. I was simply bringing up another example of controversial modern theology.

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…

That’s true to some extent about practices which involve bodies alone, but playing with toys is all about objects. Toys are in no way needed for the marital act. For the marital act, a wife and a husband are needed.

 

[searching06]

Chevalier, you are being incredibly judgemental and projecting your feelings and beliefs as if they should be everyone else’s. You cannot sit there condemn everyone else, which is the way the last few posts are coming across.

It is your *opinion * and nothing more that oral sex/stimulation is demeaning. Are you inside the head of all of the other women out there? Or the men either? Maybe you find it demeaning, maybe *you *think that most women find it so. There may well be many women, one who posted here, who find it incredibly giving and intimate, no matter the position they are in when doing so. It is sexually stimulating for a man to see a woman in a submissive position, but that may well not be one for oral sex either. But here’s a point to ponder - some men like it not necessarily because he is dominating a woman, but because his wife willingly and lovingly is doing so. There is an incredible amount of intimacy in that because there is vulnerability in that.

How do you know that people engaging in a lot of foreplay, oral or otherwise, place intercourse as a lesser thing instead of the main focus, as your posts imply. How do you know that a lot of foreplay is the price of admission? Heavy foreplay absolutely adds to the intensity *and the emotional intimacy *of the final act - intercourse. I’ll tell you flat out - I love making my wife feel good during foreplay, and taking my time doing it. Because it lets me give of myself to her. Not because I want to dominate her.

I will make a clarification to my post on couples engaging in different acts. I did not mean that they can do it all night “spilling the seed” as often as they want only to end once in intercourse. They can do whatever they want, as often and as long as they want, as long as the only act resulting in climax is intercourse, and as long as both people agree that neither one’s dignity is violated. But that is for them to decide, not you, me, or anyone else.

We can do volumes of posts on the pyschology behind sex or what people find intimate vs someone else. *The bottom line *in all of these posts is that the dignity of each person must be preserved and held foremost in the intimacy of sex. It should not be demeaning or abusive, etc., per the Catechism. But it is most definitely up to the man and woman involved to decide, whether that includes oral sex/stimulation, “digital stimulation”, or other things you consider off the wall.

You are fighting so hard to make your point and putting others down (intentional or not, but it seems pretty direct) you have lost the validation of the arugment you are trying to present.

 

[johntkd]

Chevalier, you are being incredibly judgemental and projecting your feelings and beliefs as if they should be everyone else’s. You cannot sit there condemn everyone else, which is the way the last few posts are coming across.

It is your *opinion *and nothing more that oral sex/stimulation is demeaning. Are you inside the head of all of the other women out there? Or the men either? Maybe you find it demeaning, maybe *you *think that most women find it so. There may well be many women, one who posted here, who find it incredibly giving and intimate, no matter the position they are in when doing so. It is sexually stimulating for a man to see a woman in a submissive position, but that may well not be one for oral sex either. But here’s a point to ponder - some men like it not necessarily because he is dominating a woman, but because his wife willingly and lovingly is doing so. There is an incredible amount of intimacy in that because there is vulnerability in that.

How do you know that people engaging in a lot of foreplay, oral or otherwise, place intercourse as a lesser thing instead of the main focus, as your posts imply. How do you know that a lot of foreplay is the price of admission? Heavy foreplay absolutely adds to the intensity *and the emotional intimacy *of the final act - intercourse. I’ll tell you flat out - I love making my wife feel good during foreplay, and taking my time doing it. Because it lets me give of myself to her. Not because I want to dominate her.

I will make a clarification to my post on couples engaging in different acts. I did not mean that they can do it all night “spilling the seed” as often as they want only to end once in intercourse. They can do whatever they want, as often and as long as they want, as long as the only act resulting in climax is intercourse, and as long as both people agree that neither one’s dignity is violated. But that is for them to decide, not you, me, or anyone else.

We can do volumes of posts on the pyschology behind sex or what people find intimate vs someone else. *The bottom line *in all of these posts is that the dignity of each person must be preserved and held foremost in the intimacy of sex. It should not be demeaning or abusive, etc., per the Catechism. But it is most definitely up to the man and woman involved to decide, whether that includes oral sex/stimulation, “digital stimulation”, or other things you consider off the wall.

You are fighting so hard to make your point and putting others down (intentional or not, but it seems pretty direct) you have lost the validation of the arugment you are trying to present.

excellent post!!!

 

[chevalier]

Searching06, I’ve said that oral stimulation is not necessarily demeaning and I supported the disctinction between oral sex and oral stimulation. I think that invalidates your first charge against me.

I’ve also said I only have a problem with it when it’s about domination - and added that it often is. When it’s not and the partners are truly perceived as equal, then I have no problem in it. A slightest hint of inequality I have a problem with, but no hint of inequality I have no problem with.

I do not know that people engaging in a lot of foreplay focus on it more than on the intercourse, but I do not say so either. I say that when foreplay is given more attention and more focus and is looked forward to more than the intercourse itself, then something is amiss.

I also think you’re going way too forward with the link between foreplay and domination. Looks like you think I think foreplay=domination, but since when is that based in what I said? Is foreplay limited to a couple of potentially objectifying things I mentioned? Surely massaging someone, just for instance, couldn’t be classified as dominating him. Don’t put in my mouth more than I actually said.

Additionally, I need to remind you that I don’t talk about whether the foreplay is heavy or not or how much of it, but about what’s the centre of the encounter: the intercourse or the foreplay. And I repeat: foreplay is ancillary to intercourse, not the other way round.

Umm… the only act resulting in climax for the man has to be intercourse. The wife can climax after it, it’s just that the man shouldn’t be ejaculating elsewhere than in her vagina. Some moral theologians will even say it’s not even necessary for the man to participate in it, but that the woman can obtain the climax on her own by masturbation in so far as there’s some link with the marital act having taken place, but I wouldn’t go that far. At any rate, it’s perfectly fine when he brings her to the climax (not when she brings herself to the climax) after the intercourse.

As for specific kinds of stimulation, there’s a bit of confusion. I didn’t say digital stimulation was demeaning. Self-administered digital stimulation doesn’t look very unitive, it’s masturbation after all. I only brought it up as an example of some problems with modern theology.

You correctly point out that the dignity of each person needs to be held foremost, but you incorrectly state it’s for the partners to decide what violates that dignity or what doesn’t. It’s largely about how they feel, but it’s not entirely within the scope of their decision. Neither does any decision solve the problem. It very much matters how informed and how willing the decision is. You seem to adhere to the liberal principle that consent precludes harm, but that principle isn’t true.

Ultimately, I have not lost the validation of my points. My points are the following:

1. We can’t say that this or that activity is perfectly okay without any explanation. We need to be concerned with how the activities are understood. To some extent even indeed with how they are performed. For example, ejaculation can only happen in the vagina, so if we say yeah, oral sex is okay without knowing if it’s meant as foreplay or as another climax for the man, we aren’t giving good advice.
2. We can’t forget dignity or unity or procreation, so we can’t make blanket statements like this or that is okay.
3. Demeaning or humiliating is not okay, no matter if consent is actually given (e.g. by a masochistic person in a BDSM context).

How much of this do you disagree with?

 

[Spirithound]

hey…i’m Spirithound… 22/m/St. Pat’s Basilica…

you speak about oral sex as demeaning, yet I know not one single woman that sees giving or recieveing as demeaning…

Odd, because I know at least a dozen women who find it demeaning (who don’t post here).

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.

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.

Great analysis Deb! Pope Paul VI made 4 predictions of what would happen if ABC became widespread. They are:

1. Infidelity and moral decline
2. Loss of respect for women
3. Abuse of power
4. People will believe they have unlimited dominion over their own body.
   Oral and anal sex are essentially BC, so these prophecies apply. #2 is the one that I believe shows up first, and on a more widespread basis, as Deb relates in her studies.

 

[searching06]

Searching06, I’ve said that oral stimulation is not necessarily demeaning and I supported the disctinction between oral sex and oral stimulation. I think that invalidates your first charge against me.

I’ve also said I only have a problem with it when it’s about domination - and added that it often is. When it’s not and the partners are truly perceived as equal, then I have no problem in it. A slightest hint of inequality I have a problem with, but no hint of inequality I have no problem with.

Much of my “disagreement” is with how you presented things. I see the distinction between oral sex/ stimulation. But this whole thread is splitting hairs, and as someone mentioned, why can’t we just properly enjoy what God gave with dissecting it? My contention here is that it is in your opinion only that oral activity is more often about domination; if you have facts to back that up, OK. If not, you’re unfairly lumping people together.

I do not know that people engaging in a lot of foreplay focus on it more than on the intercourse, but I do not say so either. I say that when foreplay is given more attention and more focus and is looked forward to more than the intercourse itself, then something is amiss.

You implied so. It is your opinion, which is fine. This goes back to “is sex supposed to be enjoyed?” Are you going to decypher why a couple finds foreplay more intense/fun than intercourse? Are you going to then decide if they do it too long (because be honest, after climax for both, it absolutely is about continuing pleasure in the context of love) that they’ve lost focus?

Additionally, I need to remind you that I don’t talk about whether the foreplay is heavy or not or how much of it, but about what’s the centre of the encounter: the intercourse or the foreplay. And I repeat: foreplay is ancillary to intercourse, not the other way round.

Umm… the only act resulting in climax for the man has to be intercourse. The wife can climax after it, it’s just that the man shouldn’t be ejaculating elsewhere than in her vagina. Some moral theologians will even say it’s not even necessary for the man to participate in it, but that the woman can obtain the climax on her own by masturbation in so far as there’s some link with the marital act having taken place, but I wouldn’t go that far. At any rate, it’s perfectly fine when he brings her to the climax (not when she brings herself to the climax) after the intercourse.

Agreed.

As for specific kinds of stimulation, there’s a bit of confusion. I didn’t say digital stimulation was demeaning. Self-administered digital stimulation doesn’t look very unitive, it’s masturbation after all. I only brought it up as an example of some problems with modern theology.

You correctly point out that the dignity of each person needs to be held foremost, but you incorrectly state it’s for the partners to decide what violates that dignity or what doesn’t. It’s largely about how they feel, but it’s not entirely within the scope of their decision. Neither does any decision solve the problem. It very much matters how informed and how willing the decision is. You seem to adhere to the liberal principle that consent precludes harm, but that principle isn’t true.

So who decides then? It absolutely is up to the couple to decide, but they need to be informed, yes. But just because the Church puts out the Catechism does not mean the couple does not make a decision. Maybe we’re just looking at the same thing two different ways.

Ultimately, I have not lost the validation of my points. My points are the following:

1. We can’t say that this or that activity is perfectly okay without any explanation. We need to be concerned with how the activities are understood. To some extent even indeed with how they are performed. For example, ejaculation can only happen in the vagina, so if we say yeah, oral sex is okay without knowing if it’s meant as foreplay or as another climax for the man, we aren’t giving good advice.
2. We can’t forget dignity or unity or procreation, so we can’t make blanket statements like this or that is okay.
3. Demeaning or humiliating is not okay, no matter if consent is actually given (e.g. by a masochistic person in a BDSM context).

The underlying “theme” above is that a man/ woman should understand what the Church teaches on sex. If they understand/follow the teachings, they will be sticking to unity/procreation. I believe you are wrong on #3. If a couple willingly enjoys/participates in such acts for their fun and pleasure, it is not demeaning;*you *may think so, but you are not participating.

How much of this do you disagree with?

 

[searching06]

hey…i’m Spirithound… 22/m/St. Pat’s Basilica…

Odd, because I know at least a dozen women who find it demeaning (who don’t post here).

Great analysis Deb! Pope Paul VI made 4 predictions of what would happen if ABC became widespread. They are:

1. Infidelity and moral decline
2. Loss of respect for women
3. Abuse of power
4. People will believe they have unlimited dominion over their own body.
   Oral and anal sex are essentially BC, so these prophecies apply. #2 is the one that I believe shows up first, and on a more widespread basis, as Deb relates in her studies.

This works if you are talking oral sex to the point of climax somewhere other than inside the vagina. If not, then all of this again presumes - maybe it is coming across wrong because it is not stated here - that the woman is not actively, lovingly participating in an intimate act for her husband. The cherished woman is active in the marriage bed - who says oral activity is not part of that for her? But all of this points out something clearly - if a woman gives a man oral sex to climax, they are not following the Catechism in the first place, are they?

 

[katieq]

A very important distinction must be made here: whether or not this issue can be resolved on the basis of Church teachings. If the teachings of the Church are not thought to be authoritative in this matter, than arguments regarding morality will probably not convince you (as those in the posts I have read are using this as basis). If it is, than arguments to the contrary are of no importance. Which stance do you take HoBo?

(Just wondering, not attempting to attack, I just found this thread and am trying to get some bearing on it).

 

[chevalier]

searching06:

Much of my “disagreement” is with how you presented things. I see the distinction between oral sex/ stimulation. But this whole thread is splitting hairs, and as someone mentioned, why can’t we just properly enjoy what God gave with dissecting it? My contention here is that it is in your opinion only that oral activity is more often about domination; if you have facts to back that up, OK. If not, you’re unfairly lumping people together.

I don’t think I’m unfair in pointing out how oral activity is perceived in the modern culture and using a ton of caveats before saying it’s okay. Oral stimulation within the boundaries of foreplay is probably okay, but oral sex - instead of vaginal intercourse and/or involving ejaculation, is demeaning. It focuses on the male organ and its being serviced. This is different with oral stimulation within foreplay in the context of marital intercourse, but the difference is smaller if we’re starting from full-blown oral sex and removing ejaculation from the equation, than if we start from the premise of marital intercourse and add foreplay to it. This may seem incredibly theoretical to you, but I’m more than sure the difference does have practical significance.

You implied so. It is your opinion, which is fine. This goes back to “is sex supposed to be enjoyed?” Are you going to decypher why a couple finds foreplay more intense/fun than intercourse?

No, I did not so imply. A lot of foreplay is perfectly all right. What’s not all right is when marital intercourse serves to legitimatise some favourite form of foreplay and when the unitive and procreative act is not in the centre of the encounter.

Are you going to then decide if they do it too long (because be honest, after climax for both, it absolutely is about continuing pleasure in the context of love) that they’ve lost focus?

Nope, I’m not going to decide that, but if I had any way to notice that they were using the marital intercourse as a mere excuse for some other centre of the whole encounter, I would remind them that the conjugal act is in the centre. The unitive and procreative act must be in the centre. It cannot be relegated to a secondary, ancillary place. The fact that individual cases could be difficult to judge and that it would be hard to show anyone called to judge them, doesn’t invalidate the problem. Practical difficulties in judgement or enforcement do not invalidate a principle.

So who decides then? It absolutely is up to the couple to decide, but they need to be informed, yes. But just because the Church puts out the Catechism does not mean the couple does not make a decision. Maybe we’re just looking at the same thing two different ways.

It’s possible, but it’s my perception, from what you write, that your belief is that there’s no objective standard of human dignity, that it’s relative to the feelings and desires of each human being who’s the subject of that dignity. While the human being is the subject of his dignity, he’s not the lord of it, so human dignity can never be dispensed with by an individual. No one can thus say, “okay, it’s fine for me to be humiliated, I don’t mind.” I don’t exactly want to run into the discussion of how legitimate it is for a couple to decide that certain activities deemed offensive to human dignity by most of the population are not offensive in their case, but there definitely exist boundaries which a couple cannot cross. One of such boundaries would be a dominant-submissive BDSM relationship with the dom holding the submissive on the leash and the submissive barking and calling the dom “master”. That kind of thing is consented to by certain couples and found enjoyable by both, but it’s objectively disordered as it distorts the proper relations in marriage, as well as the roles, offends the dignity of the person playing submissive, and consent doesn’t fix it. Of course, you will not find a magisterial document on this, so you’re not obliged to agree with me, but I really can’t see how you possibly could. I’m bringing such an extreme example specifically for the purpose of showing you that not everything is fine to agree upon between the couple.

I believe you are wrong on #3. If a couple willingly enjoys/participates in such acts for their fun and pleasure, it is not demeaning;you may think so, but you are not participating.

We’re responsible for the development of our sexuality and what we do with it, so we’re responsible for engaging in perversions. Do you honestly believe everything would be fine to flog a person consenting or requesting it? We do not hold such a dominion over our bodies or our dignity as to sell it for money or for pleasure. Engaging in perversions, we do harm to our mental health and to the mental health of those who participate in them with us. Consent doesn’t eliminate the problem.

 

[searching06]

I give…

 

[johntkd]

I give…

I am not giving up i just aint argueing with someone whom has NO experience in the issue presented…we have Church teaching on our sides he has nothing but some long winded words… He aint going to be able to change the churches view on things anymore than I can…

to the poster whom said they know at least a Dozen, all I said was that I dont know a single woman I never said they didnt exist. they obviously do exist, we have men that find it degrading.
course he seems to think anything but missionary is perverse,

 

[johntkd]

I give…

I am not giving up i just aint argueing with someone whom has NO experience in the issue presented…we have Church teaching on our sides he has nothing but some long winded words… He aint going to be able to change the churches view on things anymore than I can…

to the poster whom said they know at least a Dozen, all I said was that I dont know a single woman I never said they didnt exist. they obviously do exist, we have men that find it degrading.
course he seems to think anything but missionary is perverse,

 

[johntkd]

I give…

I am not giving up i just aint argueing with someone whom has NO experience in the issue presented…we have Church teaching on our sides he has nothing but some long winded words… He aint going to be able to change the churches view on things anymore than I can…

to the poster whom said they know at least a Dozen, all I said was that I dont know a single woman I never said they didnt exist. they obviously do exist, we have men that find it degrading.
course he seems to think anything but missionary is perverse,

 

[Spirithound]

to the poster whom said they know at least a Dozen, all I said was that I dont know a single woman I never said they didnt exist. they obviously do exist, we have men that find it degrading.
course he seems to think anything but missionary is perverse,

I was that poster, (BTW, thanks for reading and commenting on my post), but i haven’t said anything about other non-missionary positions.

 

[johntkd]

I was that poster, (BTW, thanks for reading and commenting on my post), but i haven’t said anything about other non-missionary positions.

you didnt read my entire post on that last one or you would have relized i in no way said you wrote that the only thing directed at you was the comment about not knowing any women who found it degrading, then i went on to say there is even men who find it degrading

BUT i will clarify for you being as you skip read YOU DID NOT SAY that you find anything but missionary perverse, but others have insinuated just that,

that should make clear…

 

[Spirithound]

you didnt read my entire post on that last one or you would have relized i in no way said you wrote that the only thing directed at you was the comment about not knowing any women who found it degrading, then i went on to say there is even men who find it degrading

BUT i will clarify for you being as you skip read YOU DID NOT SAY that you find anything but missionary perverse, but others have insinuated just that,

that should make clear…

Sorry, the layout of your post made it seem so. My regrets.

 

[LittleDeb]

BUT i will clarify for you being as you skip read YOU DID NOT SAY that you find anything but missionary perverse, but others have insinuated just that,

that should make clear…

“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?