Catholic Sexuality

  • Thread starter Thread starter discernmentinpr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

discernmentinpr

Guest
Hello Everyone. I have a few questions regarding Catholic sexuality. These are rather explicit questions, but I am only asking in order to gain a better understanding of the Catholic teaching on sexuality.
  1. I read an article that stated that anal sex and oral sex is wrong. One, because it does not lead to the creation of new life, which is the purpose of sex according to Catholic teaching. Does this mean that when having sexual intercourse it is wrong to attempt to get aroused by these things, even if the final act is vaginal intercourse, resulting in life, possibly?
  2. Is it morally unacceptable to attempt to get aroused by thinking about your wife as an object? In other words, should arousal come purely out of love for your spouse, rather than lustful fantasies about a woman’s back side?
  3. If a man were to watch pornography, should he be able to get aroused by watching graphic exploitations of a woman? Is the arousal that a man tends to get from watching pornography showing all parts of a woman a result of the materialistic culture we live in? Is this un-normal?
Now, I know that there is not a specific Catholic doctrine on types of sex other than vaginal intercourse, but I am asking for you to infer based on different documents, and the usage of biblical texts. Thank you.
 
I’ll make an attempt here:
  1. There are different schools of thought on what is acceptable and what is not. Some will say that only vaginal intercourse is acceptable. Others will say that oral sex is OK in the context of foreplay. Some say that any kind of anal stimulation is unacceptable, some will say that minor stimulation is OK. I don’t think there’s really any concrete Dos and Don’ts. The main thing is that the male finishes inside the woman’s vagina.
  2. You shouldn’t have a desire to use her as an object, but I don’t see how looking at her beautiful body and getting aroused or desiring to do different sexual things with her is wrong.
  3. Pornography should never be used in any sense. It a perversion of sex and is a gateway to many other sins.
 
When trying to get aroused by looking at a woman, should this be done only in the context of marriage?
 
discernment(name removed by moderator)r said:
When trying to get aroused by looking at a woman, should this be done only in the context of marriage?
Click to expand...
I would say absolutely YES to this one. You should not be trying to become aroused sexually outside of marriage, as this will lead to fornication or at least to masturbation. Also, why in the world would you want to look at any woman’s body other than your wife’s? She is the one you love and marry, until death do you part. Just because you can find a woman or a picture of a woman who is better looking than your wife does not mean it is right. It is degrading your wife, and basically indicating to her that you have to see someone prettier before you can become aroused enough to have marital relations with your own wife! If you don’t desire your wife, then why did you marry her? Perhaps children and age have taken their toll and she’s not as pretty as when you married her. I have news for you – neither are you! We all age, get pot bellies, bald, fat or skinny, but it is what is inside-- the personality, the love that makes a marriage work. Concentrate on being chaste until you find the one you love, then marry her and remain faithful (marital chastity), desiring only her. Should you become aroused looking at your wife? Certainly this is permissible. Not only that, it is normal, and part of marriage.
 
So, would it be correct to say that love should be the source of sexual arousal, not the image?
By saying this, does it mean that it would take a marriage in order to be truly sexually aroused?
 
discernment(name removed by moderator)r said:
So, would it be correct to say that love should be the source of sexual arousal, not the image?
By saying this, does it mean that it would take a marriage in order to be truly sexually aroused?
Click to expand...
Remember marriage is more than a contract, it is a Covenant. Covenants have ways of being renewed. The New Covenant, for example, between us and Christ is renewed at the “marriage supper of the Lamb” - the Mass. The marriage covenant, which makes a man and a woman into one flesh, is renewed by sexual intercourse. This, and procreation, are the two purposes of sex and of sexual arousal. Using the great gift of sexual arousal for other purposes is disordered and can be mortally sinful (under normal circumstances). In other words, sex is pleasurable, but it isn’t for pleasure.
 
discernment(name removed by moderator)r said:
So, would it be correct to say that love should be the source of sexual arousal, not the image?
By saying this, does it mean that it would take a marriage in order to be truly sexually aroused?
Click to expand...
You can certainly be sexually aroused outside of marriage, but that does not make it right and in many circumstances can be actively sinful. It can certainly lead to mortal sin. It is possible to become aroused without intent, and this happens often, especially in younger people who have raging hormones anyway. But, this is not deliberate. As many people have said “take a cold shower”!!! Women can also become aroused without actively seeking to have it happen, whether when seeing a man who attracts them physically (regardless of handsomeness) or even in dreams in their sleep. It happens also to men, both young and middle-aged, and even into old age. It occurs to women all their lives also, even into old age. But, it is not something to be actively seeking. Only in marriage can the sight of the partner (clothed or unclothed) should arousal be encouraged. It can and does occur during dating, but must be resisted. It often occurs when a couple are engaged and planning their marriage, but again, must be resisted until after the marriage occurs and is blessed. Arousal should only be encouraged AFTER marriage, and that can also have to be discouraged at certain times – such as when using NFP to space babies further apart. Most women don’t want a baby every year, and neither do their husbands! They also may need to refrain during illness, late stages of pregnancy, and for other legitimate reasons. However, arousal, sexual satisfaction, should be restricted to marriage. And looking at pornography to become aroused in order to “perform” the marital act is a degrading act. How would you feel if your wife, whom you love dearly, told you to “wait until I look at some photos of some good looking men so I can become aroused”??? Wouldn’t this make you feel like you weren’t attractive to her or even actively disgusting to her? It affects women in the same manner if you were to do so to your wife!!!
 
So, for example, would it be more fitting to block out sexual thoughts completely, even though it may be trying, until marriage? And when married, is love the source of arousal? Should sexual arousal be present the minute you see a girl that you like, or is it something that grows over time, the more you fall in love, but ultimately you have to wait until marriage?
 
discernment(name removed by moderator)r said:
So, for example, would it be more fitting to block out sexual thoughts completely, even though it may be trying, until marriage? And when married, is love the source of arousal? Should sexual arousal be present the minute you see a girl that you like, or is it something that grows over time, the more you fall in love, but ultimately you have to wait until marriage?
Click to expand...
It can be present at the beginning, but usually grows as you get to know her and love her. I felt none for my husband when I met him, it was something that grew as I got to know him better & then fell in love. Either way can occur, but yes, ultimately you must wait until marriage for sexual gratification and fulfillment. Believe me, it is much more satisfying to wait, especially since you are then in a union that you know is Blessed by both the Church and by God. The waiting is not always easy (for either sex!) but it certainly does make that first time after marriage really special. The arousal after marriage can be a combination of physical, mental and spiritual as a result of both physical normal responses and of love, as well as knowing that the expression of that love in a marital relationship is a blessing from God.
 
  1. Oral stimulation is acceptable, provided it does lead to proper sexual intercourse. I would think anal sex would not be - it is contrary to human decency and values - it can cause serious harm to both partners, and in any case, an erection would already be needed, so there’s no point physically to even attempt it. Plus, doing so runs a real risk of introducing very harmful bacteria and other germs into the woman’s urinary tract and reproductive system. And, if the woman is pregnant, a urinary tract infection can be potentially fatal to the child.
  2. Why would one think of their wife or husband as an object? If they are being honest, they would see their spouse as a person to be loved, not an object to be used - it is a form of lust, and as (soon to be Saint) John Paul II said, even lusting after your wife is adultery. If you love your spouse, that is, make a willful choice to desire the absolute best for them, you would not be committing adultery.
  3. Porn = bad news. DO NOT USE!!! You know what the term ‘pornography’ comes from? Two greek words, which mean the devil’s pictures. You want to meet satan, watch porn. You want to go to hell and drag your spouse with you? As a recovering (there is no ‘recovered’) porn addict, I can tell you, watching pornography is one of, if not the, worst mistake you can ever make, for yourself and for your marriage. It is, plain and simple, exploitation of women, many of whom are children, drugged, and/or coerced into doing the acts.
 
hi, I cannot answer your question, today-i change the topic, slightly;* firstly, Try this-that prayer is a vocation*/secondly i reviewed your threads-my reply, today, suggests the language of human love transfers to explain intimacy with God (divine love) being related to prayer…being persuasive that pleasure centers of the brain might compare to prayer/as the challenge is really lived though-to chase out fear/ the heart feels, the mind thinks/ prayer might be so healing that those two are at peace…even to rest the body.

As per the following source-this document explains love-in human terms/
I relate the terms and natural affections of human love-to divine love/or in reverse:
In a suprising irony, divine love seems to be expressed in a conclusive way-in the same terms of human romantic love/
Divine love might be more familiar to how the saints prayed and expressed love/ so in contemplative prayer-one does enter into an intimacy with the Creator; for further investigation…there is a tug of war between the heart and mind in that moment before contemplative prayer…bringing up more questions than answers…
Personally-I will add-prayer is like states of water, either frozen ice or steam or water.
Prayer can be so profound to change us-that what is frozen is thawed, so to prayer heals; prayer lets us have an intimacy with God; the scary part is only momentary, there can be an instant change; so, the soul, the heart-begin to exchange love, integrating human capacity to express love to God, a spectrum of feelings to melt resistance to divine love/ there is more to prayer than words express/ Notice as you attempt contemplation-that as water changes states-you soul changes-Prayer is a process of love, itself. As water is still water-the soul is still the soul. Prayer will allow you to discover states and processes, being so profound in the experience to chase out fear. I believe that even the body is healed and (re) ordered. In the great exchange of heaven and earth-God loves firstly-we return it.
What is mature prayer?
How does contemplative prayer reduce fear?
Are fears diminished in deeper prayer?
Does intimacy with God offer solutions, when otherwise loneliness is a suffering?
Is suffering something the saints living through? Or do they discover divine love to such a degree that suffering is redefined?
Is suffering just a moral quandary for instance to avoid behaviors means to be moral?
Or does divine love heal the heart to such a profound state-so that after the intimacy with the Holy Spirit-can positive behaviors replace the immoral behaviors?

elainehatfield.com/ch113.pdf

**THE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY OF PASSIONATE LOVE **

Elaine Hatfield and Richard L. Rapson
University of Hawaii
Excerpt:
DEFINING PASSIONATE LOVE

Passionate love is a powerful emotional state. It has been defined as:
A state of intense longing for union with another. Passionate love is a complex functional
whole including appraisals or appreciations, subjective feelings, expressions, patterned
physiological processes, action tendencies, and instrumental behaviors. Reciprocated love
(union with the other) is associated with fulfillment and ecstasy. Unrequited love (separation)
is associated with feelings of emptiness, anxiety, and despair (Hatfield & Rapson, 1993, p. 5).
People in all cultures recognize the power of passionate love. In South Indian Tamil
families, for example, a person who falls head-over-heels in love with another is said to be
suffering from mayakkam—dizziness, confusion, intoxication, and delusion. The wild hopes
and despairs of love are thought to “mix you up” (Trawick, 1990).
Excerpt:
The Ancients

Since antiquity, court physicians and social observers have searched for methods to
detect “lovesickness.” In the 2nd
century A. D. Appian of Alexandria (1899) recounted this
“case history.”
During the last years of his life, King Seleucus, appointed his son Antiochus King of
upper Asia in place of himself. Appian notes:

If this seems noble and kingly on his part, even nobler and wiser was his behavior in
reference to his son’s falling in love and his self-restraint in suffering; for Antiochus was in
love with Stratonice, the wife of Seleucus, his own step-mother, who had already borne a
child to Seleucus. Recognizing the wickedness of this passion, Antiochus did nothing wrong,
nor did he show his feelings, but he fell sick, took to his bed, and longed for death. Nor could
the celebrated physician, Erasistratus, who was serving Seleucus at a very high salary, form
any diagnosis of his malady. At length, observing his body was free from all the symptoms of
disease, he conjectured that this was some condition of the mind, through which the body is
often strengthened or weakened by sympathy. Grief, anger, and other passions disclose
themselves; love only is concealed by the modest. As Antiochus would confess nothing when
the physician asked him in confidence, he took a seat by his side and watched the changes of
his body to see how he was affected by each person who entered his room. He found that
when others came the patient was all the time weakening and wasting away at a uniform pace,
but when Stratonice came to visit him his mind was greatly agitated by the struggles of
modesty and conscience, and he remained silent. But his body in spite of himself became
more vigorous and lively, and when she went away he became weaker again (pp. 317-318).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top