? about sex

[searching06]

Now *that *was the best post of yours I’ve read…

 

[Bobby_Jim]

In the light of what I know about the teaching of the Church, it seems to be wrong to intend male climax outside of vaginal intercourse.

In fact, since ejaculation and male climax are tied together as they are, intending climax without intending extravaginal ejaculation seems like intending to move a metre forward without intending to make a step and then making the step without intending it, you get the idea.

There are those who claim that it is possible for a man to learn to have several non-ejaculatory climaxes without a “rest” period in between, with ejaculation then on the final climax (prior to “resting”).

Not that I claim any direct experience in that regard, nor do I understand the physiology. But I think this is the essence of the so-called “tantric” sex. It gets tied up with yoga & eastern spirituality, so may not be proper for a Catholic if practiced in that way.

I don’t bring it up in relation to this question of “oral sex”, but just to probe the presumed connection of male climax and ejaculation. A possible reason to practice this might be for the man to be able to persist in intercourse long enough for his wife to acheive climax. Does this seem licit, provided the ejaculatory (final) climax occurs during vaginal intercourse? Let’s presume that any non-ejaculatory climax also happens during vaginal intercourse.

 

[chevalier]

I don’t bring it up in relation to this question of “oral sex”, but just to probe the presumed connection of male climax and ejaculation. A possible reason to practice this might be for the man to be able to persist in intercourse long enough for his wife to acheive climax. Does this seem licit, provided the ejaculatory (final) climax occurs during vaginal intercourse? Let’s presume that any non-ejaculatory climax also happens during vaginal intercourse.

Perhaps theoretically licit as an abstract concept, but here are the following problems: 1. Beginning with the normal and necessary link between male climax and ejaculation, teaching one’s body some non-standard non-ejaculatory climactic reactions based in a foreign spirituality is at the very least questionable; 2. The naturality and normalcy of ejaculation in male climax prevents the justification of ejaculation as unintended; 3. The merely theoretical possibility of there being the possibility to teach oneself to separate climax from ejaculation does not mean that intending climax without itending ejaculation is a viable concept to justify the ejaculation itself. One doesn’t watch a pornographic film for its storyline, does one? 4. In a practical application of double-effect, given the degree of wrongness of extravaginal ejaculation there doesn’t seem to be anything to justify the acceptance of a foreseen extravaginal ejaculation. 5. Even if ejaculation starts outside the vagina, the question is not where it starts but where it’s landed. The possibility of simply finishing that ejaculation inside the wife’s vagina makes silent all justifications. The absence of properly finishing in the wife’s vagina if there is such a possibility suggests that the man doesn’t want to pass his seed into her vagina, which undermines and basically defies the marital act; or that the woman doesn’t want to accept the seed, to the same result. This questions union, while it definitely has a certain (at least a certain) contraceptive vibe. That or some inexplicable aversion to seed.

In short, accidental emission doesn’t seem to be a problem, whereas an intended extravaginal emission stays a problem. The knowledge that a certain amount of emission will inevitably take place as a result of a certain act also seems a problem. The proper course seems to be to finish the ejaculation inside, so that the woman accepts the seed as it comes out. Finishing elsewhere as a result of choice bears semblance to coitus interruptus and might be a form of it.

As for all those who have a problem with my expressing my own opinions, reach to official sources and get a book on sexual morality with Nihil Obstat or Imprimatur or some author an orthodox priest can vouch for, and read that. There’s plenty of works and if you want something very logical, Aquinas is here and encyclicals are easily found at the Vatican. So is the Catechism and Canon Law.

 

[searching06]

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!”

Well, I’m going to look up Song of Songs - woo-hoo!

I agree with you Priscilla Ann that oral sex/stimulation is mutual and self-giving, especially as the husband is to make sure the wife is taken care of - BIG woo-hoo! I’ve explained, or tried to, before, that this is huge for me and other men - being sexually intimate is tied to being emotionally intimate.

What drives some of us crazy here is that I do not believe anyone is arguing against what the Church says about keeping human dignity involved/in the forefront of the marital act, but against the interpretation by some that, because some of us find oral sex as mutual and self-giving, it automatically is not in line with maintaining human dignity. Yes, the Church is to define that and I accept it, too. But if the husband and wife both agree oral stimulation is self-giving and mutual, then there is no lessening of human dignity. When you cross that line and one person is forced - then human dignity is out the window.

 

[searching06]

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?

Again with the absolute arrogance and condscension. And assuming - you know what happens with that, right?

I’ll bet if you bothered asking before condemning, you’d find that maybe, just maybe, PA knows exactly what the difference is between oral sex (to ejaculation) and oral stimulation. But you didn’t bother.

As for “I believe that those who engage in oral sex with ejaculation commit up to mortal sin with sufficient knowledge and consent being there.” I point to the first two words “I believe” - fine. And you’re correct with the Church teachings, and hell, I agree with you! But stop the condemnation of others who disagree or are trying to learn. You may not think it is condemnation, but it sure comes across as such.

What’s up with 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? ? “What is your problem”? Who do you think you are? This is absolute condescension and sarcasm - and absolutely unnecessary.

 

[chevalier]

oral sex/stimulation is mutual and self-giving, especially as the husband is to make sure the wife is taken care of - BIG woo-hoo! I’ve explained, or tried to, before, that this is huge for me and other men - being sexually intimate is tied to being emotionally intimate.

What drives some of us crazy here is that I do not believe anyone is arguing against what the Church says about keeping human dignity involved/in the forefront of the marital act, but against the interpretation by some that, because some of us find oral sex as mutual and self-giving, it automatically is not in line with maintaining human dignity.

Oral sex to climax involving ejaculation in the mouth is not self-giving and the Church teaches that any form of contraception (and ejaculation outside the vagina on purpose is contraception) is selfish and prevents the fullness of the gift of self in marriage.

Additionally you are making the claim that “some of us” say something along the lines of, “because some of you find oral sex as mutual and self-giving, therefore it’s not in line with human dignity.” Therefore, you are claiming that “some of us” link the mutual and self-giving with the incompatible with human dignity. As if mutuality and self-giving is incompatible with human dignity according to “some of us”. That claim is contrfactual (false and ungrounded) and uncharitable.

Yes, the Church is to define that and I accept it, too. But if the husband and wife both agree oral stimulation is self-giving and mutual, then there is no lessening of human dignity.

Once again, the spouses can at most decide that oral stimulation is something they want to do and they don’t consider it demeaning, or that they both consider it self-giving. They have no power to define that it’s objectively so - even with regard to themselves alone. The Church can define human dignity, the people can describe it or express what they feel violates such dignity in them or what does not. But they have no power to decide what violates such dignity in them or what does not. Similarly, whichever sins are committed against you, it’s not you who decide it’s a sin, the sin is not yours to absolve. You may decide that you don’t feel offended in your dignity, but you may not decide that something or someone did not or does not objectively violate human dignity in you. A violation of your human dignity does not occur just because you say it does (it has to be real and that’s not yours to decide), and similarly it’s not like no violation of your dignity occurs if you say it does not. If someone steals your car, the theft occurs by the very act, not because you say it does. Of course, you may decide not to report it, or not bring the charges (if it’s up to you to bring charges in your country), but the criminal law is above you and it decides when theft occurs, what punishment is to be there for it and so on. Same way, from the point of view of morality, your subjective idea of the violation or not of your human dignity is irrelevant to the objective occurence of the violation or lack of it.

In plain English: it’s possible to violate your dignity even if you think it’s all fine.

When you cross that line and one person is forced - then human dignity is out the window.

The human dignity is also out the window if the person is misinformed. The modern society brainwashes people into forgetting about their dignity and the dignity of others, especially with the use of liberal, especially seuxally liberal, media. In so far as people hold wrong ideas about their dignity, they may not even realise that it’s being violated.

And once again: people are not the lords of their own dignity and they cannot define its scope. They can only declare (but once again not define) their feelings with regard to it.

Following this reasoning, if our spouse thinks something violates his or her dignity, but it in fact objectively does not, no violation of that dignity occurs by the very act. However, since we should respect how he or she feels about his or her dignity, we should not do that, in so far as possible and reasonable. On the other hand, if something objectively violates the spouse’s dignity (and human dignity is an objective, not a subjective matter, and is not alienable), the violation occurs even if the spouses assures us it does not.

 

[chevalier]

This is not to say that oral stimulation actually objectively violates human dignity. This is to say that whether it does or not does not depend on a decision of spouses. The spouses have no authority to decide that they are not violating the human dignity of each other any more than to decide that they are not sinning by this or that act. The probability of there being an actual offence against human dignity of course drops as they both agree to the act and especially if they are informed and reasonable, but just because they say, “we are not violating each other’s human dignity by this,” doesn’t mean that their statement is true. They can be saying they aren’t violating it, but still be violating it if they simply cannot see how they are violating it. Basically, “we aren’t violating each other’s human dignity,” does not end the matter. They are not the masters or judges of their respective dignity. This doesn’t mean subjective experience is irrelevant to dignity, but it simply does not exhaust it.

 

[chevalier]

Again with the absolute arrogance and condscension. And assuming - you know what happens with that, right?

The absolute arrogance and condescension you are talking about is what you are displaying with the quote above. I strongly suggest that you re-read it and apply to it the same criteria as you do to my post.

As for “I believe that those who engage in oral sex with ejaculation commit up to mortal sin with sufficient knowledge and consent being there.” I point to the first two words “I believe” - fine. And you’re correct with the Church teachings, and hell, I agree with you! But stop the condemnation of others who disagree or are trying to learn.

I am not condemning anyone, I’m stating facts. No one can learn anything if he isn’t shown the facts and disagreement doesn’t give any special rights.

You may not think it is condemnation, but it sure comes across as such.

You probably think your first quote doesn’t have any arrogance or condescension it talks about.

What’s up with 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?? “What is your problem”? Who do you think you are? This is absolute condescension and sarcasm - and absolutely unnecessary.

There is no sarcasm. There is a real question: what’s the problem with John Paul II? Is there anything particularly limiting in the idea of procreation and unity being the purposes of the marital act (which is Church teaching) or human dignity always to be respected (Church teaching again)?

It looks like you’re a fine judge of what is absolute (sarcasm real and intended this time), I’m just a simple Catholic with some education talking about things. This is precisely who I am. Next question?

 

[searching06]

Rephrase your questions; follow the lead of how some other senior members post; show the compassion and empathy that others do and that people on the forums are looking for. You don’t have to agree, but you don’t have to come across as “superior” as you do either.

If you actually posted your original questions about JP II the way you did in your response to me, it would have come across much better - look at your own words. You first posted “What is your problem…”. In your response you posted “What’s the problem…” Huge difference, especially combined with the rest of the original post.

You noticed the intended sarcasm in my response; I ask that you apply to your own as well before you post.

And as far as the statement “I believe…” and your response of “I’m stating facts…” - again, it is context and presentation.

 

[chevalier]

Rephrase your questions; follow the lead of how some other senior members post; show the compassion and empathy that others do and that people on the forums are looking for. You don’t have to agree, but you don’t have to come across as “superior” as you do either.

Don’t distract attention from the problem at hand with ad hominem excursions, please. Let’s not change the subject.

If you actually posted your original questions about JP II the way you did in your response to me, it would have come across much better - look at your own words. You first posted “What is your problem…”. In your response you posted “What’s the problem…” Huge difference, especially combined with the rest of the original post.

If it makes you feel better, I’m glad to have spared you some anguish, although I’m surprised you’d care that much. However, this does not imply that I even partly agree with the problem that you may have with those teachings, which is not my problem and which is not necessarily (or likely) an objective problem with it. You seem to need from me not so much a milder wording as an illusion that I concede at least putatively some validity to your points, or that I suspend some validity of mine. As for my points, they can go to the moon. But the teaching of the Church is not there so that we would suspend the validity of it in our discussions - it’s authoritative.

You noticed the intended sarcasm in my response; I ask that you apply to your own as well before you post.

Funny thing, that was more or less exactly what I was going to suggest that you might be interested in trying out.

And as far as the statement “I believe…” and your response of “I’m stating facts…” - again, it is context and presentation.

Again, it’s distraction. You are free to go on and dissect my posts back and forth all you like as well as divagate on the emotional shades of the words I’ve used, but that doesn’t deal with the substance in any way. Nor does it make the teachings of the Church any less concrete, or relative in any way.

 

[johntkd]

Rephrase your questions; follow the lead of how some other senior members post; show the compassion and empathy that others do and that people on the forums are looking for. You don’t have to agree, but you don’t have to come across as “superior” as you do either.

If you actually posted your original questions about JP II the way you did in your response to me, it would have come across much better - look at your own words. You first posted “What is your problem…”. In your response you posted “What’s the problem…” Huge difference, especially combined with the rest of the original post.

You noticed the intended sarcasm in my response; I ask that you apply to your own as well before you post.

And as far as the statement “I believe…” and your response of “I’m stating facts…” - again, it is context and presentation.

Hey searching
havnt you figured out it aint gonna matter what you say, state or prove he gonna come up with some lame response to try and get you egged on he sitting back laughing at all of us, for doing exactly what he wants us to do and thats argue with him, its obvious he has no marital experience whatsoever.
he takes 2 words from a text and puts with it several more using his supposed education to make the wording look so solid. he is talking trash in every response, if you read his responses there is a cut down in every single one of them yet he trying to say he follows the church teaching to the letter. dont waste your time
its a lost cause prolly some lil kid whos mom hasnt paid enough attention to him and this is how he gets his needed attention…

John

 

[blessedtoo]

Hey searching
havnt you figured out it aint gonna matter what you say, state or prove he gonna come up with some lame response to try and get you egged on he sitting back laughing at all of us, for doing exactly what he wants us to do and thats argue with him, its obvious he has no marital experience whatsoever.
he takes 2 words from a text and puts with it several more using his supposed education to make the wording look so solid. he is talking trash in every response, if you read his responses there is a cut down in every single one of them yet he trying to say he follows the church teaching to the letter. dont waste your time
its a lost cause prolly some lil kid whos mom hasnt paid enough attention to him and this is how he gets his needed attention…

John

Your insults are truly unwarranted and unfair. The poster to whom you are referring has been thoughtful, intelligent, responsive and respectful. If a priest were to give you this same advice, would you suggest he had no credibility simply because he is not married? Does this mean the Pope can’t speak to this issue either? Clearly the poster you are disparaging has thoughtfully and prayerfully reflected on this topic (didn’t you say, Johntkd, that you hadn’t nor would read Theology of the Body?) and shared them on this thread. Diminishing his contributions in this way is uncharitable.

 

[johntkd]

Your insults are truly unwarranted and unfair. The poster to whom you are referring has been thoughtful, intelligent, responsive and respectful. If a priest were to give you this same advice, would you suggest he had no credibility simply because he is not married? Does this mean the Pope can’t speak to this issue either? Clearly the poster you are disparaging has thoughtfully and prayerfully reflected on this topic (didn’t you say, Johntkd, that you hadn’t nor would read Theology of the Body?) and shared them on this thread. Diminishing his contributions in this way is uncharitable.

my insults are not wanted? but his are ok

 

[searching06]

Your insults are truly unwarranted and unfair. The poster to whom you are referring has been thoughtful, intelligent, responsive and respectful. If a priest were to give you this same advice, would you suggest he had no credibility simply because he is not married? Does this mean the Pope can’t speak to this issue either? Clearly the poster you are disparaging has thoughtfully and prayerfully reflected on this topic (didn’t you say, Johntkd, that you hadn’t nor would read Theology of the Body?) and shared them on this thread. Diminishing his contributions in this way is uncharitable.

Blessedtoo,

No, he has not been thoughtful or respectful. And he is not a priest, and he is not the Pope. Don’t even go there. To put him on the same level is disrespectful to them. If he would like to present his education that he claims and it somehow puts him at that level, please tell us. I’ve noted where I personally thought chevalier made respectful presentations; if he does not understand or agree, he can go review the differences. I’m sorry, but perception is reality, and this horse is dead.

 

[chevalier]

No, no, no, on many levels. First, perception is not reality. Reality exists independently from perception. Perception does not cause anything to exist factually. Second, what is allowed or not is not a question of experience, but a question of norms. Norms are discussed from norms. To discuss criminal laws, you don’t need to have had experience, you don’t need to have been a criminal or policeman. No amount of empirical data amassed through personal experience can make you any more or any less correct about what is or not allowed. This is because you cannot infer norm from practice. In case of sexual morality, personal experience shows one which sensation is subjectively pleasurable or which causes harm subjectively as well. At the same time, norms, rules and principles are abstract, absolute and objective - i.e. they are the same for everyone, binding on everyone, they are not relative. In this they differ from experience. In fact, lack of preparation to approach norms is more preventive in the discussion of the morality of certain acts, then lack of personal experience of the matter. In fact, I could even discuss from your experience should you actually relay it (please don’t) for whatever reason I might need it, as it totally does not matter who actually collected the experience once it’s there for conclusions. Apart from the fact that norms don’t evene from empirical experience of facts - at least not alone. If you want a more practical example, a fresh lawyer is already more prepared to discuss the legality of an act than both a policeman who’s been after it for decades or a criminal who’s been committing it for decades, or of a contract than people who have been striking such contracts for years already (assuming they look at the contract and not at the law).

Are you prepared to stop changing the subject and state your opinion on what the Church teaches instead of trying to find flaws in those who bring up certain considerations? I could find even more flaws in my posts (let alone myself) than you have so far, but this all doesn’t remove any weight from what the Church has said in the matter (or any other matter) or what logically follows it, including the obligations of spouses to keep in mind the purposes of the act (unitive and procreative, pleasure not being the third), remember that pleasure is not a good of itself but depends on the act which causes it, remember that pleasures and sensations in a human body and mind need to be ordered and integral, that the dignity of each of them is to be respected (and that the dignity is inalienable and objective, so they can’t shut the subject by merely mutually agreeing that it doesn’t matter because they won’t feel offended or hurt). This doesn’t mean that any specific acts are automatically off limits even if they remain within the entirety of a procreative and unitive act, but this does mean that not everything is okay and that certain acts, even if they remain within the context of an act culminated in vaginal intercourse with ejaculation, may still be wrong - and even if they are fully consensual. This may be difficult to take for people who are attached to full and unrestricted choice in their bedroom activities, but it follows from the teaching of the Church. To disagree with that is not merely to disagree with a certain anonymous poster.

Blessedtoo, thank you very much. :tiphat:

 

[Feanaro]

Well, I’ve finally read this whole thread and I would just like to start by saying that I like most of the content of chevalier’s and LittleDeb’s posts. I don’t see how chevalier was being uncharitable in any of his posts unless he was attacked first. From my view he was talking about something objective. People have to realize not to personalize things that were not intended to be personal. If people are offended by the way he writes, they have to realize that this is just his style of arguing. I take it you studied philosophy chevalier?

In any case, I think people should at least familiarize themselves with how arguments should be structured to avoid letting emotions get in the way of finding the objective truth of any matter. Here is a link I think would help: philosophypages.com/lg/index.htm

LittleDeb’s distinction between oral sex and oral stimulation is one we should all embrace as Catholics. No Catholic should even question the morality of oral sex as being disordered.

The point that chevalier was trying to make however, is that doesn’t mean that anything goes as long as intercourse takes place. It depends on the acts in and of themselves, as well as where the focus is. Some acts I don’t believe are ever moral would be BDSM or anal intercourse (even if not done to completion). By focus I mean the following: Say a wife is performing oral stimulation on her husband with the intent to almost bring him to climax, however just prior to climax, they engage in intercourse just to make it official. In this case the focus is not on the actual marital embrace but on something that should only be foreplay. This of course is different than an unintentional climax on the man’s part that takes place prior to intercourse. Notice that in the latter situation however, a disordered act has indeed taken place. The only thing in question is culpability for said action.

  The other point I was going to make was I noticed above LittleDeb said that pleasure was not a purpose of sex but a pleasant result. I may be mistaken, but in a biography I read some time ago on St. Thomas Aquinas it stated that he believed pleasure was a purpose of sex. It could have been wrong and I haven’t had time to research the actual summa yet, but it basically stated that sex had a threefold purpose. 1) Procreation 2) Unitive 3) Pleasure

We may order the purposes by level of importance, but they are there to serve one another.

 

[Feanaro]

Bump!

 

[chevalier]

Feanaro, I can’t find anything like that in the summa (link at New Advent) after looking at whatever was said about matrimony or lust. Maybe I’m not looking in the right place. Here, it looks like begetting and upbringing children, and family life are the purposes of marriage. There’s an interesting passage here, but I think one needs to be careful with the understanding of the terms used and read it very carefully to avoid misunderstandings:

I answer that, Since no act proceeding from a deliberate will is indifferent, as stated in the Second Book (Sent. ii, D, 40, 1, 3; I-II, 18, 9), the marriage act is always either sinful or meritorious in one who is in a state of grace. For if the motive for the marriage act be a virtue, whether of justice that they may render the debt, or of religion, that they may beget children for the worship of God, it is meritorious. But if the motive be lust, yet not excluding the marriage blessings, namely that he would by no means be willing to go to another woman, it is a venial sin; while if he exclude the marriage blessings, so as to be disposed to act in like manner with any woman, it is a mortal sin. And nature cannot move without being either directed by reason, and thus it will be an act of virtue, or not so directed, and then it will be an act of lust.

I take it you studied philosophy chevalier?

Nope, law.

 

[Feanaro]

The only thing I could find in the summa on this subject was this:

newadvent.org/summa/5049.htm#6

It appears that Aquinas never stated what that biography attributed to him.

 

[EHRAM]

(and ejaculation outside the vagina on purpose is contraception) .

[italics added]
So accidental premature ejaculation is not something a man needs to confess?