Conjugal sex

[Other_Eric]

How does one get aroused without some form of lust? I would think they go hand-in-hand? I mean, I guess one could pray for an erection, not sure how well that would work out though.

Lust is a self-centered distortion of human sexuality. It is neither desirable nor necessary to complete the conjugal act.

 

[CFI]

If lust is sinful, even for the married, then it makes sense that they should not be naked together outside of the context of the marital act. What do you think?

I don’t think so. It seems to me that here we have some confusion between nudity and lust. Perhaps that come from the misgivings about the body, inheritance of the Victorian era.
Nudity should be natural between spouses: they are one flesh. Nudity also can be a way to express the full gift of themselves, that it is not limited to the marital act.
On the other hand, the moral theology traditionally teach that married can have any activity that is not inherent sinful. It is not the case of nudity.

 

[AChris]

Lorrie makes a good point. At some point there has to be some form of lust for sex to work… but on the other hand, Other Eric says it all depends on the intention. But then again, what intention could they have, other than lust, when they are alone naked, but not doing anything…say just eating pizza. At least the husband, I should think, would naturally have lust…which the Church says is bad even in marriage (and therefore it is bad).

St. Paul says not to be with your wife like a prostitute…I always wondered what that meant…don’t pay her? Maybe it means have the proper intention. Respect her. Interesting.

 

[Lorrie]

Lorrie makes a good point. At some point there has to be some form of lust for sex to work… but on the other hand, Other Eric says it all depends on the intention. But then again, what intention could they have, other than lust, when they are alone naked, but not doing anything…say just eating pizza. At least the husband, I should think, would naturally have lust…which the Church says is bad even in marriage (and therefore it is bad).

St. Paul says not to be with your wife like a prostitute…I always wondered what that meant…don’t pay her? Maybe it means have the proper intention. Respect her. Interesting.

I actually started a thread about this which can be found here.

Quote from that thread regarding lust:

Lust means simply an inordinate desire for carnal sexual pleasure for itself alone isolated and separated from the unitive and procreative aspects of the conjugal act. It is selfish and at times infertile. By unitive is meant the intention of expressing that sacrificial love one has for one’s spouse and God which is necessarily fertile and must be thought of as a form of self-denial by placing God and one’s spouse before self. By procreative is meant the natural uninterruption of the possibility of giving life to offspring. The sin of lust lies in one’s intention, not in what one does or thinks during the conjugal act in order to get physically aroused. It is fine to get oneself aroused through foreplay in order to be able to perform well in expressing one’s love for one’s spouse, so long as one’s will intends only to express love to one’s wife and cooperate with God’s creativity in the divinely instituted natural gift of procreation.

Dictionary’s definition of lust:

1. 
   *]Intense sexual craving.
   *]
   1. 
      *] An overwhelming desire or craving: a lust for power.
      *] Intense eagerness or enthusiasm: a lust for life.

1. 1. 
      

      *]Obsolete. Pleasure; relish.

      intr.v., lust·ed, lust·ing, lusts. To have an intense desire, especially one that is sexual.

      Quite a difference between the two. Go figure.

 

[Albizzi]

Mm, this practice was especially true among royalty and the upper nobility; some would even go so far as to have a special ceremonial bed designed for the couple to consummate the sacrament. The point wasn’t to titillate the on-lookers, but to make sure the sacrament was consummated. Back then, people were a lot more frank about sex and the body. All babies were breast-fed and since society was more agrarian, people were more familiar with animals “doin’ what comes nat’rally”, thus by their standards, something like this wouldn’t be considered dirty or obscene.

I remember of a true story about the French king Louis XIII (XVIIth century).
This newly married king was so poorly skilled, so ignorant regarding the sexual act that he didn’t know what exactly he had to do with his wife (probably herself was a bit more ignorant than him, otherwise…).
He went to ask his cousin the Duke of Epernon (if I remember well) who was married long ago. The Duke was so happy to help the king in that crucial matter that he proposed him to attend an intercourse with his wife and possibly ask questions if necessary. That the king joyfully and gratefully accepted.
The story doesn’t says if they were naked or dressed.

 

[StillWondering]

Lorrie makes a good point. At some point there has to be some form of lust for sex to work… but on the other hand, Other Eric says it all depends on the intention. But then again, what intention could they have, other than lust, when they are alone naked, but not doing anything…say just eating pizza. At least the husband, I should think, would naturally have lust…which the Church says is bad even in marriage (and therefore it is bad).

St. Paul says not to be with your wife like a prostitute…I always wondered what that meant…don’t pay her? Maybe it means have the proper intention. Respect her. Interesting.

Hello Chris.

As Roman Army stated lust is what the Church condemns and he gave the definition in the description. Words change over time and gets added and subtracted to. However, the Church has been around for 2000 years. To me I see a lot of confusion in words not because the Church is not clear, but we tend to take the words out of context. The Church often use words in their original meaning. It is society that changes the meanings of the word. Such as the word marriage and pornography. Marriage is the exclusive and total giving of a man and a woman to each other in a life long journey seal by martial vows and, if sacramental, blessed by God’s graces. And pornography is the distortion of reality to appeal, appease, and satisfy individuals out of the natural context of such realities.

So to know what the Church teaches and what the words the Church usages actually mean, check references like the Catechism of the Catholic Church or a Catholic glossary. It would be a good idea in general to know these terms since twenty or thirty years from now, our understand of lust as a society may change, but the Church teachings will not.

In regards to the questions posted. Yes you can be naked while having sexual intercourse with your spouse. In fact, it can be very helpful since you will hide nothing from each other – which is a physical way of fully giving yourself. In sex, spouses need to fully give themselves to each other. You do not need to be naked all the time. Sex is a renew of your vows with your spouse and so can be shared in different ways as long as they are not disordered. I will not get into details but I would imagine you have an idea. On the moment you made your vows, you are well dressed. In your relationship, always be well dressed inside. Always show your spouse the love and respect they deserve. Be to your spouse as Jesus is to the Church, always present, always loving, always fully giving. If you do this, it is hard to go wrong on the details.

You can also be naked outside of sex as long as it is appropriate. Being naked in public is not only unlawful in most places, it is also given strangers something that is reserved only for your spouse. But being naked in each others company such as around the showers, changing, or trying out clothes are fine as long as you do it in respect and reverence that your spouse loves and trust you so much to continual share with you her physical self.

I think it was just three weeks ago in the second reading, it was from James, you can hear the Scriptures teaches us to distinguish between what is God’s will and what is human culture. Aspects of human culture that is loving, giving, and confirms with God’s will are good and so can be utilized for the benefit of the individual, his love ones, and/or society. The aspects that contradicts or attempts to undermined God’s will should be ignored, thrown out, or taken down. I’m mentioning this because of how we mentioned Victorian culture, American culture, and other things that are not necessarily in God’s will.

 

[larsenl1]

Mm, this practice was especially true among royalty and the upper nobility; some would even go so far as to have a special ceremonial bed designed for the couple to consummate the sacrament. The point wasn’t to titillate the on-lookers, but to make sure the sacrament was consummated. Back then, people were a lot more frank about sex and the body. All babies were breast-fed and since society was more agrarian, people were more familiar with animals “doin’ what comes nat’rally”, thus by their standards, something like this wouldn’t be considered dirty or obscene.

In royal society the king and queen lose much privacy. The king generally had an attendent to help him wipe after his first bowel movement of the morning, too. Again this points to cultural standards, not a church doctrine.

 

[Dtmccameron]

What about NOT during intercourse?

I think it might promote un-needed lusts, and Lust. Celibacy outside of marriage, but Chastity, always.

Then again, there does come a point, doesn’t there, where the sight of your naked spouse doesn’t serve to arouse, but merely cause one to muse, “Why’re they naked?” or even, “Dash it all! Put some clothes on would’ya! I just finished eating!”

 

[CFI]

I remember of a true story about the French king Louis XIII (XVIIth century).
This newly married king was so poorly skilled, so ignorant regarding the sexual act that he didn’t know what exactly he had to do with his wife (probably herself was a bit more ignorant than him, otherwise…).
He went to ask his cousin the Duke of Epernon (if I remember well) who was married long ago. The Duke was so happy to help the king in that crucial matter that he proposed him to attend an intercourse with his wife and possibly ask questions if necessary. That the king joyfully and gratefully accepted.
The story doesn’t says if they were naked or dressed.

I don’t know where you can read this story, but the real story was quite different.
Louis XIII was born on September 27, 1601. He was raised in a way that we cannot describe as modest, at least according our standards.
We know many things about Louis’ childhood by the diary of his physician, Jean Héroard. We can report something. The little child “laughs noisily when the nanny swings his penis”. Playing with him, “the Queen catches his penis”. There are many of these events in Héroard’s diary.
Louis XIII ascended to the throne in 1610, at the age of eight and a half. An year later is officially engaged with the daughter of the King of Spain, Anne of the same age.
On October 18, 1615 the marriage was celebrated by proxy in Burgos (Spain). On November 25, 1615 the marriage was solemnly celebrated in Paris. The spouses were only 14 years old, but by order of the Queen Mother, the marriage was consummated the same night. Jean Héroard took charge over check.