abstaining during marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter kittyplant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
kittyplant said:
if you are married and youre using nfp to avoid pregnancy ( or abstaining for whatever reason) does abstaining mean you cant hug, kiss, cuddle or touch each other? if youre not to have sex for whatever reason does that mean you should sleep separately?
Click to expand...
You may hug, kiss and cuddle and sleep in the same bed. Why would you think you could not?
My wife is 36 weeks pregnant with our fifth. The last time we were intimate, it sent her into early labor which she had to stop. So, for the next 7 weeks or so, we will be abstaining. Do you really think we would not cuddle? Hug? Or sleep in the same bed?
 
I think the OP is conflating physical and sexual in some examples.
 
kittyplant said:
i think it’s like poster kelfa said, abstaining is hard. i know how to be chaste when i’m alone, i know how being chaste feels and when im touching someone chastely. it just seems hard, as she said, to keep it that way with husband. maybe for me, in order to keep it chaste i would have to sleep in another bed . i dont know. but thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut.
Click to expand...
When you are married and having regular sex, abstaining is not as difficult as it is before you are married and aren’t allowed to have that sexual release at all. Sleeping in a bed with your boyfriend now and having to use self control against the titillation and urgency that that position might arouse is a much different situation to sleeping beside your husband knowing that in the foreseeable future you can engage in sex again.

I’ve done periodic abstinence for 27 years now and its really no big deal anymore. When a woman is going through menopause it can be 12 months or more of abstinence but even that has the advantage of foreseeable ‘freedom’ to come.

In marriage, you tend to think in terms of the whole of married life and that perspective tempers and matures your urges.
 
maryjk said:
Talk about sarcastic

No I am not a robot. I enjoy my my husband’s company very much.

Sorry, when I hug my son, there isn’t anything sexual about it. When I kissed my mother on her cheek, no sexuality there, either. Mothering isn’t sexual.
Click to expand...
i don’t care.
 
pianistclare said:
Not all affection and touch leads to sexual intimacy.
It doesn’t. And if it does for you, then you do need to re-think what you believe.
It’s not a ridiculous notion.
You provided a quote that proves my point, btw. :rolleyes:

I’m Hispanic as well. I don’t go after every person I touch. THAT is ridiculous. My sexual drive does not govern me. When an adult, one learns to master these things.
Click to expand...
it doesnt seem that you read what i wrote nor are you trying to understand what i was trying to say. youre just being a know it all and rude, so why bother?
 
Bruised_Reed said:
I think the OP is conflating physical and sexual in some examples.
Click to expand...
possibly. but i have heard from more than one voice in the church that physical expression of love whether romantic or otherwise is part of sexuality. our bodiliness = our sexuality. and whether that’s right or wrong really all i was trying to say was that affection and sexuality are not divorced. i dont see a big difference in them anyhow but apparently i’m not allowed to express how i experience reality, since as you can see people have been arguing about this instead of just trying to listen to and understand each other… :-\
 
kittyplant said:
possibly. but i have heard from more than one voice in the church that physical expression of love whether romantic or otherwise is part of sexuality. our bodiliness = our sexuality. and whether that’s right or wrong really all i was trying to say was that affection and sexuality are not divorced. i dont see a big difference in them anyhow but apparently i’m not allowed to express how i experience reality, since as you can see people have been arguing about this instead of just trying to listen to and understand each other… :-\
Click to expand...
But not all love is of a sexual variety. You have heard no doubt of Eros, Philia and Agape?
 
Rau said:
But not all love is of a sexual variety. You have heard no doubt of Eros, Philia and Agape?
Click to expand...
yes, romantic love, family love, and God’s love?
i know that you love a spouse differently than a parent or child but i think what i mean is “bodiliness”. some people or cultures are more “bodily” than others - kissing, touching, hugging. and it is part of a person’s sexuality how they feel in their body and whether or how much they express physical affection. i think. my body is my female sexuality. i think…
 
kittyplant said:
possibly. but i have heard from more than one voice in the church that physical expression of love whether romantic or otherwise is part of sexuality. our bodiliness = our sexuality. and whether that’s right or wrong really all i was trying to say was that affection and sexuality are not divorced. i dont see a big difference in them anyhow but apparently i’m not allowed to express how i experience reality, since as you can see people have been arguing about this instead of just trying to listen to and understand each other… :-\
Click to expand...
Could you find the sources the suggest this, “our bodiliness = our sexuality”? I think I know what you might be getting at; there is something reminiscent of TotB but I’m not sure.

Having a better idea of where you are getting this from will help so if you are conflating the two, you will have a better understanding of affection and foreplay. It would be unfortunate if you and your future husband are denying yourselves gestures of physical affection that aren’t creating the problem of revving up sexual intimacy when you don’t intend to complete the act.
 
kittyplant said:
yes, romantic love, family love, and God’s love?
i know that you love a spouse differently than a parent or child but i think what i mean is “bodiliness”. some people or cultures are more “bodily” than others - kissing, touching, hugging. and it is part of a person’s sexuality how they feel in their body and whether or how much they express physical affection. i think. my body is my female sexuality. i think…
Click to expand...
Sexuality is expressed in various ways, largely through the body, but the body is not synonymous with our sexuality. All bodily expression is not sexual. I saw nothing sexual in the massage I had today, nor the wrestling play with my small children. On the other hand, affectionate bodily contact between a man and wife (or girlfriend) may very likely have a sexual flavour, either overt or underlying.
 
Bruised_Reed said:
Could you find the sources the suggest this, “our bodiliness = our sexuality”? I think I know what you might be getting at; there is something reminiscent of TotB but I’m not sure.

Having a better idea of where you are getting this from will help so if you are conflating the two, you will have a better understanding of affection and foreplay. It would be unfortunate if you and your future husband are denying yourselves gestures of physical affection that aren’t creating the problem of revving up sexual intimacy when you don’t intend to complete the act.
Click to expand...
i know i have something in a Gregory Popcak book but i have to find it. it’s not JPII but it’s something …
 
We all need physical attention / Love / Kindness. We are human and this is a massive part of being human!!

I am sorry but i think that the cuhurch has got it wrong as if a husband and wife want to be physical and get together in a sexual embrace etc then they should be able to do that freely!!!

If contraception was available in biblical times what would have been the message then?
 
ajecphotos said:
We all need physical attention / Love / Kindness. We are human and this is a massive part of being human!!

**I am sorry but i think that the cuhurch has got it wrong as if a husband and wife want to be physical and get together in a sexual embrace etc then they should be able to do that freely!!!
**
If contraception was available in biblical times what would have been the message then?
Click to expand...
The Church is actually all for that.

But sex has a purpose and it is wrong to thwart that purpose - such as engaging in sexual acts with zero intention for the act to be completed (i.e. intercourse), or to alter intercourse by inserting a barrier between man and wife or by altering the natural body chemistry of the woman (the pill, etc.) So if one isn’t prepared to conceive, one does not engage in sex - either temporarily by observing the natural fertility patterns of the woman (NFP), or permanently if need be (or until menopause, etc.)

But if a married couple is willing to accept a child, a natural gift, then yeah, they are welcome to go ahead, absolutely. Marriage is a sacrament and our sexuality is a gift to be shared with our spouse. But we have to steward it properly.

(And IIRC, there have been devices, medicines, and actions taken to avoid conception for a lot of human history. Abortion has been around a long time too. You’ll remember the story of Onan, for one thing - people still use withdrawal today even though it’s not particularly effective. But there are other things that are ancient, too. But being old doesn’t make them more legitimate than contemporary methods.)
 
ajecphotos said:
I am sorry but i think that the cuhurch has got it wrong as if a husband and wife want to be physical and get together in a sexual embrace etc then they should be able to do that freely!!!

If contraception was available in biblical times what would have been the message then?
Click to expand...
Your theology does not match the Church? who do you think is wiser in the ways of God? Why on earth would you take the Church’s word for the mercy of God if you refuse to take the Church’s word on anything else?

Why do you think God’s message is bound by the times in which it was written? You think God had no idea that a pill would be invented? That God’s word and teaching has an expiration date?

You have a warped view of mercy and justice, and a warped view of love and companionship. But it is the view of many in a hedonistic world where we demand rights from God subject to the whims of our libidos.
 
Contraception is definitely needed in this world that we live in. To help stop massive health issues and births into very poor environments. Contraception is a very good ‘invention’. One that the Catholic church needs to change its stance on!! It can save lives!
 
kittyplant said:
if you are married and youre using nfp to avoid pregnancy ( or abstaining for whatever reason) does abstaining mean you cant hug, kiss, cuddle or touch each other? if youre not to have sex for whatever reason does that mean you should sleep separately?
Click to expand...
Since hugging, kissing, cuddling, and touching are not reproductive acts, I would assume that there’s no objection to doing those things. Right?

The point of NFP isn’t to separate husband and wife, but to help them plan their potential moments of conception.
 
ajecphotos said:
Contraception is definitely needed in this world that we live in. To help stop massive health issues and births into very poor environments. Contraception is a very good ‘invention’. One that the Catholic church needs to change its stance on!! It can save lives!
Click to expand...
Keeping it in your pants is what is needed in this world. Contraception is against church teaching. You should learn more about what the church teaches and why, instead of wanting to change teaching.
 
ajecphotos said:
Contraception is definitely needed in this world that we live in. To help stop massive health issues and births into very poor environments. Contraception is a very good ‘invention’. One that the Catholic church needs to change its stance on!! It can save lives!
Click to expand...
Contraceptives do nothing that abstinence can’t do.

They also come with significant health risks of their own, environmental issues from their disposal, and fail not infrequently.

Teaching a healthy regard for sexuality, and developing self-discipline, and respecting and educating girls and women seem to be the best options. Contraception undermines all of that.
 
KendraDZ1902 said:
Keeping it in your pants is what is needed in this world. Contraception is against church teaching. You should learn more about what the church teaches and why, instead of wanting to change teaching.
Click to expand...
Tell that to all the people in the 3rd World!! In a modern world in which we live in, it is very much different to Biblical times!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top