Can my husband use a vibrator to stimulate me before intercourse is completed?

[Eileen_Fera]

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.

 

[sharmin]

of course!

 

[Eileen_Fera]

Ok so 216 people read this but only one replied. So is the answer that obvious?! I mean it is obvious that it would fulfill the procreative aspect but what about the unitive? Does it ever seem like it might interfere with the experience of it being unitive to introduce something artificial? Under what conditions does it seem to hamper rather than enhance the experience. Maybe it’s just my husbands problem in that like every other circumstance he makes this an issue about him and his sense of adequacy instead of being able to focus on his spouses needs.

 

[Petergee]

Ok so 216 people read this but only one replied. So is the answer that obvious?! I mean it is obvious that it would fulfill the procreative aspect but what about the unitive? Does it ever seem like it might interfere with the experience of it being unitive to introduce something artificial? Under what conditions does it seem to hamper rather than enhance the experience. Maybe it’s just my husbands problem in that like every other circumstance he makes this an issue about him and his sense of adequacy instead of being able to focus on his spouses needs.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM

The same Creator, Who in His bounty and wisdom willed to make use of the work of man and woman, by uniting them in matrimony, for the preservation and propagation of the human race, has also decreed that in this function the parties should experience pleasure and happiness of body and spirit. Husband and wife, therefore, by seeking and enjoying this pleasure do no wrong whatever. They accept what the Creator has destined for them.

The Church does not teach that it is immoral to “introduce something artificial” to the conjugal act. For example the Church teaches that contraception is wrong, not because it is “artificial”, as secular commentators often claim, but because of the intent to prevent the workings of our God-given fertility.

No doubt the use of such devices as you mention, if you choose to use them, could be carried to an extreme of hedonism rather than self-giving love. This is a prudential judgment which you and your husband have to make. There is certainly nothing wrong with seeking to derive enjoyment from the conjugal act. The act must always be open to conception, but the Church does not teach that being open to conception is the only possible end much less the only requirement for an act of conjugal love.

 

[Vico]

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.

If it is not part of the act of intercourse, it is masturbation. American Heritage Dictionary: **masturbation ***n.: *Excitation of one’s own or another’s genital organs, usually to orgasm, by manual contact or means other than sexual intercourse.

Persona Humana (1975) Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Item 9:

"The traditional Catholic doctrine that masturbation constitutes a grave moral disorder is often called into doubt or expressly denied today. It is said that psychology and sociology show that it is a normal phenomenon of sexual development, especially among the young. It is stated that there is real and serious fault only in the measure that the subject deliberately indulges in solitary pleasure closed in on self (“ipsation”), because in this case the act would indeed be radically opposed to the loving communion between persons of different sex which some hold is what is principally sought in the use of the sexual faculty.

This opinion is contradictory to the teaching and pastoral practice of the Catholic Church. Whatever the force of certain arguments of a biological and philosophical nature, which have sometimes been used by theologians, in fact both the Magisterium of the Church - in the course of a constant tradition - and the moral sense of the faithful have declared without hesitation that masturbation is an intrinsically and seriously disordered act.[19] The main reason is that, whatever the motive for acting this way, the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty. For it lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes “the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love.”[20] All deliberate exercise of sexuality must be reserved to this regular relationship. Even if it cannot be proved that Scripture condemns this sin by name, the tradition of the Church has rightly understood it to be condemned in the New Testament when the latter speaks of “impurity,” “unchasteness” and other vices contrary to chastity and continence."

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19751229_persona-humana_en.html

 

[Catholic90]

Vico, I believe the OP said it WAS during the act. Most women do not reach the peak with mere Part A into Part B. It really does nothing. Reality check for you, Vico! Most women need something extra before or after. That is NOT masturbation.

HE has to finish in her, but SHE does not have to peak while he does.

 

[Vico]

Vico, I believe the OP said it WAS during the act. Most women do not reach the peak with mere Part A into Part B. It really does nothing. Reality check for you, Vico! Most women need something extra before or after. That is NOT masturbation.

HE has to finish in her, but SHE does not have to peak while he does.

The definition of masturbation states “means other than sexual intercourse”.

 

[twoangels]

Ok so 216 people read this but only one replied. So is the answer that obvious?! I mean it is obvious that it would fulfill the procreative aspect but what about the unitive? Does it ever seem like it might interfere with the experience of it being unitive to introduce something artificial? Under what conditions does it seem to hamper rather than enhance the experience. Maybe it’s just my husbands problem in that like every other circumstance he makes this an issue about him and his sense of adequacy instead of being able to focus on his spouses needs.

I think Gregory Popcak’s book “Holy Sex” may be able to help you out with this one. Other objects can be permitted, but you do have a point about the unitive aspect and your husband’s comfort levels and the way it seems to be making your husband feel inadequate. I do think comfort levels trump over needs for pleasure. That said, Gregory Popcak’s book gives a lot of good advise about allowing spouses to eventually become comfortable with something on their own and to overall focus on the whole of the relationship.

 

[Nolipajoli]

The definition of masturbation states “means other than sexual intercourse”.

Foreplay and afterplay ARE part of the conjugal act. Our bodies (neither women’s nor men’s!) aren’t designed for solely, as a PP put it, “part A into part B”. Without foreplay and afterplay, the act is significantly less unitive and can be painful as well as frustrating for the wife.

To the OP, I think using a vibrator within the conjugal act is fine as long as it doesn’t make your husband feel replaced or inadequate. It should be something you both enjoy, even if only one of you gets direct stimulation from it.

 

[twoangels]

The definition of masturbation states “means other than sexual intercourse”.

Vico, using a dictionary’s definition is limiting and gives a complete incorrect understanding of human sexuality or God’s design for it. The definition you gave indicates that masturbation is often that which is used to acheive orgasm, but it implies it can still be masturbation even if the person does not orgasm. This is true in the Catholic sense. If a man young single man masturbates in his room while alone, but stops just before he’s orgasmed, he’s still sinned. He still needs to confess the sin of masturbation. The same is true for a woman. However, if you put this rule into the marital bedroom, this means most foreplay is not permitted. The man and woman must never touch each other genitals. If this is the case, then the man and the woman would likely render themselves incapable of intercourse, let alone make it nearly impossible for the woman to climax at all.

Masturbation is what happens when someone is alone or when a couple is actively refusing to engage in sexual intercourse while seeking sexual pleasure other ways.

We need to take the Catechism’s principle that sexual pleasure (not just the orgasm) is morally disordered when sought for by itself isolated from its unitive and procreative meaning. This in no way means sexual pleasure needs to be limited to intercourse (which naturally it simply is not), but it does mean that a couple should not be trying to impede the sexual process by refusing to have intercourse and that the act ought to be uniting the husband and wife. It simply is this: Sex has aims which are naturally obvious. We should not let our lusts impede those natural purposes. Thinking anything beyond that is completely overthinking the entire issue.

 

[Vico]

Vico, using a dictionary’s definition is limiting and gives a complete incorrect understanding of human sexuality or God’s design for it. The definition you gave indicates that masturbation is often that which is used to acheive orgasm, but it implies it can still be masturbation even if the person does not orgasm. This is true in the Catholic sense. If a man young single man masturbates in his room while alone, but stops just before he’s orgasmed, he’s still sinned. He still needs to confess the sin of masturbation. The same is true for a woman. However, if you put this rule into the marital bedroom, this means most foreplay is not permitted. The man and woman must never touch each other genitals. If this is the case, then the man and the woman would likely render themselves incapable of intercourse, let alone make it nearly impossible for the woman to climax at all.

Masturbation is what happens when someone is alone or when a couple is actively refusing to engage in sexual intercourse while seeking sexual pleasure other ways.

We need to take the Catechism’s principle that sexual pleasure (not just the orgasm) is morally disordered when sought for by itself isolated from its unitive and procreative meaning. This in no way means sexual pleasure needs to be limited to intercourse (which naturally it simply is not), but it does mean that a couple should not be trying to impede the sexual process by refusing to have intercourse and that the act ought to be uniting the husband and wife. It simply is this: Sex has aims which are naturally obvious. We should not let our lusts impede those natural purposes. Thinking anything beyond that is completely overthinking the entire issue.

I would like to understand the topic, yet my training is in conflict with those ideas. (I thought kissing and non-genital touching were ordinate foreplay preceeding coitus.)

So masturbation is permissible, in your opinion, between husband and wife preceeding and during coitus?

That idea presents a conflict with the teaching of the “limits of just moderation” as sexual pleasure with both the procreative and the unitive purpose:

**2362 … **The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.146

146 Allocution to midwives, October 29, 1951, Pope Pius XII:

“The right rule is this: the use of the natural procreative disposition is morally lawful in matrimony only, in the service of and in accordance with the ends of marriage itself. Hence it follows that only in marriage with the observing of this rule is the desire and fruition of this pleasure and of this satisfaction lawful. For the pleasure is subordinate to the law of the action whence it derives, and not vice versa—the action to the law of pleasure. And this law, so very reasonable, concerns not only the substance but also the circumstances of the action, so that, even when the substance of the act remains morally safe, it is possible to sin in the way it is performed.”

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM

 

[mommamaree]

I would like to understand the topic, yet my training is in conflict with those ideas. (I thought kissing and non-genital touching were ordinate foreplay preceeding coitus.)

So masturbation is permissible, in your opinion, between husband and wife preceeding and during coitus?
That idea presents a conflict with the teaching of the “limits of just moderation” as sexual pleasure with both the procreative and the unitive purpose:

**2362 … **The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.146

146 Allocution to midwives, October 29, 1951, Pope Pius XII:

“The right rule is this: the use of the natural procreative disposition is morally lawful in matrimony only, in the service of and in accordance with the ends of marriage itself. Hence it follows that only in marriage with the observing of this rule is the desire and fruition of this pleasure and of this satisfaction lawful. For the pleasure is subordinate to the law of the action whence it derives, and not vice versa—the action to the law of pleasure. And this law, so very reasonable, concerns not only the substance but also the circumstances of the action, so that, even when the substance of the act remains morally safe, it is possible to sin in the way it is performed.”

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM

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.

 

[twoangels]

I would like to understand the topic, yet my training is in conflict with those ideas. (I thought kissing and non-genital touching were ordinate foreplay preceeding coitus.)

So masturbation is permissible, in your opinion, between husband and wife preceeding and during coitus?

As I said, its not masturbation. Attitudes like this is what contributes to the stereotype that women don’t like sex.

That idea presents a conflict with the teaching of the “limits of just moderation” as sexual pleasure with both the procreative and the unitive purpose:

**2362 … **The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.146

Exactly what are you interpretting the “limits of just moderation” to mean? I see no point of conflict here whatsoever.

146 Allocution to midwives, October 29, 1951, Pope Pius XII:

“The right rule is this: the use of the natural procreative disposition is morally lawful in matrimony only, in the service of and in accordance with the ends of marriage itself. Hence it follows that only in marriage with the observing of this rule is the desire and fruition of this pleasure and of this satisfaction lawful. For the pleasure is subordinate to the law of the action whence it derives, and not vice versa—the action to the law of pleasure. And this law, so very reasonable, concerns not only the substance but also the circumstances of the action, so that, even when the substance of the act remains morally safe, it is possible to sin in the way it is performed.”

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM

You’re reading inbetween the lines and interpretting things that aren’t there. The issue isn’t at all what the Church is saying, but in your overall a problem with how you’re seeing sex. Sex isn’t just intercourse. Intercourse is an essential part that contains much of the meaning of sex, but it begins much earlier than when the couple begins to have intercourse. So long as the couple is not denying the procreative and unitive meaning of their sexuality (actively avoiding intercourse, using contraceptives, etc), the couple is not sinning.

 

[Barish]

at·ten·u·ate
[v. uh-ten-yoo-eyt; adj. uh-ten-yoo-it, -eyt]

1. to weaken or reduce in force, intensity, effect, quantity, or value: to attenuate desire.
2. to make thin; make slender or fine.
3. Electronics . to decrease the amplitude of (an electronic signal).

As in, an argument that cites cross sources is attenuated.

The American Heritage Dictionary is not “Doctrine.”

 

[Vico]

As I said, its not masturbation. Attitudes like this is what contributes to the stereotype that women don’t like sex.

Exactly what are you interpretting the “limits of just moderation” to mean? I see no point of conflict here whatsoever.

You’re reading inbetween the lines and interpretting things that aren’t there. The issue isn’t at all what the Church is saying, but in your overall a problem with how you’re seeing sex. Sex isn’t just intercourse. Intercourse is an essential part that contains much of the meaning of sex, but it begins much earlier than when the couple begins to have intercourse. So long as the couple is not denying the procreative and unitive meaning of their sexuality (actively avoiding intercourse, using contraceptives, etc), the couple is not sinning.

Thank you for the explaination. So coitus begins at foreplay. I did not know that, I thought it began later and what came before was foreplay.

I’m curious to know why the definition of masturbation would imply “that that women don’t like sex”, but no mattter. I don’t make such a generalization since everybody is different.

The “limits of just moderation” are as presented by Pope Pius XII, no interpretation by me. Each person will be responsible to understand that for themselves. He just makes the point that:

“… even when the substance of the act remains morally safe, it is possible to sin in the way it is performed.”

 

[twoangels]

Thank you for the explaination. So coitus begins at foreplay. I did not know that, I thought it began later and what came before was foreplay.

I do believe the strict definition of coitus refers specifically to sexual intercourse. I was merely commenting that viewing the marital act as beginning as intercourse is very problematic.

I think the Church overall is very wise in referring to sex in very broad terms. The Catechism doesn’t go on and on about cloitus, but about sexuality and the “acts of marriage.” I suggest you reread the entire section of the Catechism which talks about human sexuality within marriage. Heck, it may be wise to read the definition of masturbation the Catechism gives

I’m curious to know why the definition of masturbation would imply “that that women don’t like sex”, but no mattter. I don’t make such a generalization since everybody is different.

I wasn’t saying that the definition of masturbation would imply that women don’t like sex. I was saying that sex doesn’t work in the restrictive sense you described. When people have historically pursued sex with an attitude of such restrictiveness, the women do not enjoy sex. Sex becomes very one-sided.

The “limits of just moderation” are as presented by Pope Pius XII, no interpretation by me. Each person will be responsible to understand that for themselves. He just makes the point that:

“… even when the substance of the act remains morally safe, it is possible to sin in the way it is performed.”

My point was that the quote you used to try to proove your point doesn’t prove anything. You’re reading your own interpretation into the quote.

 

[Vico]

I do believe the strict definition of coitus refers specifically to sexual intercourse. I was merely commenting that viewing the marital act as beginning as intercourse is very problematic.

I think the Church overall is very wise in referring to sex in very broad terms. The Catechism doesn’t go on and on about cloitus, but about sexuality and the “acts of marriage.” I suggest you reread the entire section of the Catechism which talks about human sexuality within marriage. Heck, it may be wise to read the definition of masturbation the Catechism gives

I wasn’t saying that the definition of masturbation would imply that women don’t like sex. I was saying that sex doesn’t work in the restrictive sense you described. When people have historically pursued sex with an attitude of such restrictiveness, the women do not enjoy sex. Sex becomes very one-sided.

My point was that the quote you used to try to proove your point doesn’t prove anything. You’re reading your own interpretation into the quote.

I was formally trained in the sciences (psychology, physics, math, biology, chemistry, humanities, etc.) so as a result I learned to get defintions from the start. The problem I have in communications with others is that they lack that rigor. Kinsey is one source I used in school, and they now have some information on a website: iub.edu/~kinsey/resources/ak-data.html

Note that they use the term foreplay for the time before intromission and coitus begins at intromission. By that definition and by the medical definition of masturbation, that masturbation occurs outside of coitus: it may occur during foreplay by definition. I did study the Catechism and found that masturbation was gravely sinful, as seeking sexual stimulation outside of “mutual self-giving and human procreation”. The logic is that if a individual is masturbating in foreplay or coitis (using the scientific definitions “manual contact or means other than coitis”) then it is sinful because it is not mutual self-giving, but individual self-taking. (Similarly, viewing pornography, or imaging other people during sexual relations are inordinate. These are actions that are recommended by some non-Catholic sources.) What I had said before was:

“So masturbation is permissible, in your opinion, between husband and wife preceeding and during coitus? That idea presents a conflict with the teaching of the “limits of just moderation” as sexual pleasure with both the procreative and the unitive purpose. … even when the substance of the act remains morally safe, it is possible to sin in the way it is performed.”

You know, the substance of the act is morally safe because the intent is to complete the act correctly.

2351 “Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.”
2352 “By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. ‘Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.’ ‘The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.’ For here 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’.”

 

[Alexander_Smith]

2352 “By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. ‘Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.’ ‘The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.’ For here 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’.”

Here is where it gets confusing. What specifically is meant by “stimulation”? Does the sight of his naked wife give a man sexual pleasure? Is that stimulation? How is that different from the sexual pleasure gained by physical touch? When does sexual stimulation become masturbation in the context of the marital act? Does this mean that a husband and wife must avoid all contact with that one place until coitus begins, and while in the midst of that, must they continue until climax?

Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but it seems to me like this would entail a mostly hands off attitude about sexual relations.

 

[Vico]

Here is where it gets confusing. What specifically is meant by “stimulation”? Does the sight of his naked wife give a man sexual pleasure? Is that stimulation? How is that different from the sexual pleasure gained by physical touch? When does sexual stimulation become masturbation in the context of the marital act? Does this mean that a husband and wife must avoid all contact with that one place until coitus begins, and while in the midst of that, must they continue until climax?

Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but it seems to me like this would entail a mostly hands off attitude about sexual relations.

I had to use other writings of the Church and the dictionary for that understanding: “Excitation of one’s own or another’s genital organs, usually to orgasm, by manual contact or means other than sexual intercourse [synonym:coitus].” The definition identifies manual and non-coital forms of stimulation of “one’s own or another’s genital organs”. I think the process is non-genital foreplay, for a long time, and then coitus, which can also be for a long time. The Magisterium cannot get too specific, assuming that they should, in a general publication read by all ages, such as the Catechism.

 

[twoangels]

I was formally trained in the sciences (psychology, physics, math, biology, chemistry, humanities, etc.) so as a result I learned to get defintions from the start. The problem I have in communications with others is that they lack that rigor. Kinsey is one source I used in school, and they now have some information on a website: iub.edu/~kinsey/resources/ak-data.html

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.

Note that they use the term foreplay for the time before intromission and coitus begins at intromission. By that definition and by the medical definition of masturbation, that masturbation occurs outside of coitus: it may occur during foreplay by definition.

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.

I did study the Catechism and found that masturbation was gravely sinful, as seeking sexual stimulation outside of “mutual self-giving and human procreation”.

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.

The logic is that if a individual is masturbating in foreplay or coitis (using the scientific definitions “manual contact or means other than coitis”) then it is sinful because it is not mutual self-giving, but individual self-taking.

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.

(Similarly, viewing pornography, or imaging other people during sexual relations are inordinate.

No one is stating that viewing pornography is ever morally justified.