I will reiterate what I said in a previous post:Ok now you’re just sounding pompous. If we continue down this path, we’re just going to get into an argument over character and creditability. I’m sorry but rhetorically speaking, being pompous and insulting your audience isn’t very effective. Debates online never do have the rigor of academic debates, but you seem to fail to understand the limits of vocabularly and the fact that academic reports define their terms specifically for their academic papers while dictionaries merely list the common usages of a word in common language unless you’re utilizing an etomological dictionary. Medical dictionaries give defintions of words used according to the teaching standards of say American medicine so that physicians are able to better communicate with each other. And in theological works, words are defined as well.
Your error unforunately is in thinking that such definitions are interchangable.
Please please note that the Catechism of the Catholic Church defines masturbation in a way that does not include manual stimulation during the martial acts. It further explains why it is wrong: "For here [in masturbation] sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.”
The Church as I have said a million times does not mention limiting it to intercourse.
Which includes foreplay and intercourse together. I don’t see at all your logic in thinking these broad definitions are somehow limiting definitions to refer only to intercourse.
A husband can engage in intercourse in a masturbatory way if he approaches it as being about his pleasure and fails to put his focus on his wife’s needs. The mutual self giving comes from the joint focus and enjoyment from seeing your partner receive the pleasure you give them. Manual stimulation during foreplay does not equate to self-taking masturbation but can rather be very self-giving. You’re restrictive definition of what you think is morally permissible in the sexual act is actually very focused on turning the act into the individual self-taking at the expense of the woman. Like so many people have said (and if you knew a thing about Kinsey’s findings – regardless of how controversial they are), you’d know that most women do not climax during intercourse and that it is actually very difficult for husband and wife to climax together.
It is true that sex can be done immorally, but to think that its because a hand is located on a body part just like a hand is located on the same body during masturbation, you are completely confused.
No one is stating that viewing pornography is ever morally justified.
I have also read the same ideas of your first two sentences elsewhere in a Catholic context.A couple using hands to increase arousal in preparation for intercourse, or using hands to stimulate the erogenous zones in order to assist in either reaching climax or experiencing pleasure is NOT the same thing as ‘masturbation’. Manual stimulation of erogenous zones during an entire completed act of intercourse is licit; in fact it is even the loving thing to do. We use our hands to caress each other outside of sexual intercourse, so why would it suddenly become ‘hands-off’ during a sexual encounter? It is often said that men respond visually to the sight of their wives, but women respond to their husband’s touch. We shouldn’t disregard this ancient wisdom in how men and women respond differently when it comes to the marital act.
Two things. What some people do is mostly irrelevant as we are examining the larger picture here of what is moral and what is not moral. What you’ve described above would definitely be sinful. Trouble is, I’ve heard some Catholic resources say that touching the genitals of the other person (not their own) would be considered masturbation of that person even during coitus. Clearly there is confusion.You ignored my comment that some people do stimulate their own genitals manually during the time designated for mutual self giving.
I am aware of Kinsey’s findings. One solution is longer foreplay (20 minutes).
I was not saying that anyone here was stating that pornography was morally justified.
There is a difference between pleasure and sensation. Some people that are hypersensitive find sexual sensation unpleasurable.Two things. What some people do is mostly irrelevant as we are examining the larger picture here of what is moral and what is not moral. What you’ve described above would definitely be sinful. Trouble is, I’ve heard some Catholic resources say that touching the genitals of the other person (not their own) would be considered masturbation of that person even during coitus. Clearly there is confusion.
As for Kinsey’s findings, while I’ve not read them, it would seem rather awkward for a couple to engage in foreplay for that period of time while avoiding all genital contact.
This is why there needs to be clarification of what exactly masturbation is. The CCC states it in a way that basically describes the process of the sex act itself. The sex act IS deliberate stimulation of the sex organs, and it is the derived pleasure that leads to climax of the act. If a man’s sex organs were completely numbed, he would be unable to engage in sexual intercourse as there would no sensation, thus no pleasure.
What is it that makes masturbation an evil? It misuse of the sexual faculties purely for pleasure. This is why those who engage in sexual intercourse while using birth control is sometimes called “mutual masturbation.” This can also be applied to the sin of “Onanism.” The thing about Onanism is that the sexual intercourse ONLY becomes mutual masturbation when the man withdraws before climax. The ends do not justify the means if the means are evil, but the means are not disconnected from the ends either.
Agreed. No one was disputing this.After all these posts, I think two terms are less confusing with reference to sin: autoeroticism and unchaste conjugal acts. What do you think?
What is certain is that autoeroticism is sinful, and the term is used by the Magisterium (see below). There can be confusion about masturbation depending upon the definition used. Withdrawal needs its own defintion but defeats the end (finality) of the sexual faculty like autoeroticism, in each instance. What I have seen in the Catholic documents does differentiate autoeroticism from conjugal acts (see two sections below), and the main answer to the question “What is it that makes masturbation an evil?” is given below from Persona Humana:
A. Autoerotocism:
- “acts of autoeroticism are objectively intrinsically evil” (CDF: Notification Regarding Certain Writings Of Fr. Marciano Vidal, C.Ss.R., 2)
- “masturbation is an intrinsically and seriously disordered act” (Persona Humana 9)
- “the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty” (Persona Humana 9)
Half true. It is not evil to enjoy the pleasure your spouse is giving you. In fact actively receiving that pleasure is very important to it being a loving exchange and it can be very offensive to your spouse to refuse, suppress or reject that pleasure. Part of what makes it a self giving exchange is active receptivity.Conjugal touch can be sinful if both are using each other such that the focus is on the sensation rather than on the loving exchange.
Fr Serpa told someone on CA in post that Masturbation was sinful because it was a completely selfish act. I would offer up that in opposition to that much of foreplay is often a completely selfless act.Agreed. No one was disputing this.
Half true. It is not evil to enjoy the pleasure your spouse is giving you. In fact actively receiving that pleasure is very important to it being a loving exchange and it can be very offensive to your spouse to refuse, suppress or reject that pleasure. Part of what makes it a self giving exchange is active receptivity.
Overall, this is the reason why the majority of people who responded asked the OP to look at her husband’s feelings of inadequacy and his overall discomfort.
The quote: “Conjugal touch can be sinful if both are using each other such that the focus is on the sensation rather than on the loving exchange.”Agreed. No one was disputing this.
Half true. It is not evil to enjoy the pleasure your spouse is giving you. In fact actively receiving that pleasure is very important to it being a loving exchange and it can be very offensive to your spouse to refuse, suppress or reject that pleasure. Part of what makes it a self giving exchange is active receptivity.
Overall, this is the reason why the majority of people who responded asked the OP to look at her husband’s feelings of inadequacy and his overall discomfort.
It is difficult to post on this topic. I am glad you received some help.Just want to thank everyone who posted tho there’s been some disagreement you all really were sincere and generous, and many comments were quite helpful. Sex is such a complex (and wonderful!) gift. All married people can grow in their understanding and experience of this great mystery. May we learn to love like him who gave us EVERYTHING!!
I would agree it is not a bartering system. However, when I tell my husband what my favorite flowers are, I’m not bartering with him.The quote: “Conjugal touch can be sinful if both are using each other such that the focus is on the sensation rather than on the loving exchange.”
You say it is half true, which means a deceptive statement with some truth. I did choose poor wording there, because it is not an exchange like a barter, rather it is a mutual gift giving.
You appear to be saying that couples can enjoy sex too much. I do not find the quotes you are quotting as having any implication that a couple cannot fully enjoy themselves or seek ways to increase their mutual enjoyment. The point in question is that our lust can often make us put pleasure above the fuller meaning of the sexual act and at the expense of the other person. Again, I do not think this at all implies that we should look so negatively at sexual pleasure.And right use of the senses is always moderate. I will just quote the longer exposition from Pope Pius XII, Allocution to Midwives, October 29, 1951:
Your response can be read as defensive; just in case it is, I am not accusing you of anything.I would agree it is not a bartering system. However, when I tell my husband what my favorite flowers are, I’m not bartering with him.
You appear to be saying that couples can enjoy sex too much. I do not find the quotes you are quotting as having any implication that a couple cannot fully enjoy themselves or seek ways to increase their mutual enjoyment. The point in question is that our lust can often make us put pleasure above the fuller meaning of the sexual act and at the expense of the other person. Again, I do not think this at all implies that we should look so negatively at sexual pleasure.
Ditch the vibrator and spend more time helping your husband work through whatever sexual problems he may have. The very idea that you would replace his God-created body with an inanimate object, and an object meant to represent his member alone(!), is troubling to me. The sexual relationship should not be debased in this manner, and I think it constitutes grave sin.Sometimes I need more stimulation to achieve satisfaction. My husband may be too tired for prolonged manual stimulation and or he may have trouble delaying ejaculation.
BSplease do not buy a vibrator! You’re supporting a perverse industry by doing that.
Do we as Catholics really want to join the world in bringing plastic tools into the intimacy of our holy marriages to help us “get off” ? These “sex toys” degrade the conjugal bed and the unitive sign is damaged when we consider our bodies insufficient for the “satisfaction” of this sacrament.
Not to mean we should take all the fun out of it (God forbid!) but at least keep technology out of it!
Eh, no it’s not. AFAIK vibrators are designed to look like the male sex organ, which is pretty perverse if you ask me.BS
A vibrator is simply a tool. It can be used beneficially or not. A hammer can build or it can destroy.
Work on building and maintaining a healthy marriage and sharing a fulfilling sex life.
It’s not accurate, and this entire thread has made me very sad. If even our husbands and wives are unable to relate to one another as God demands in this most basic way how sad and pagan must our world be. And much of this advice is genuinely pagan and has no place in the Christian tradition.Btw thanx to Paul whos post after all this is the most succinct and accurate!