female arousal

[ocuinn]

For example, if you’re going to orgasm from as little as prolonged hugging, you should limit it (no shame here and I think it actually differs from couple to couple in addition to from person to person), but kill me rather than having me speculate on what intensity of involuntary reaction means that you have to stop or avoid the otherwise legitimate and customary expressions. I just don’t know and I’m not sure I even want to know.

People can have sexual dreams and nocturnal emissions for which they are not morally responsible. There is nothing sinful in experiencing something sexual for which we are not responsible. Therefore if an orgasm is the result of a hug and the act is not something that was intentionally sought we cannot be held morally responsible. No sexual reaction is morally wrong or sinful but completely natural to the human person because it is the way God made us.

We use our sense of reason to decide when we should use our sexual desires in a morally responsible way. This is the sexual action which results from the reaction if you know what I mean. The two must be separated! The action is how we act in response to our natural sexual desires. We must use our gift of reason to decide how and where we are going to direct these desires. To feel desire is not wrong in any way.

People can become scrupulous with themselves by vigorously pushing away any sexual feelings that arise. This is a mistake. By doing this the feeling is repressed and can come back more intensely in the future. What people need to do is allow these desires to be processed in the mind, thought about so that by reason we can control them and direct them in the right direction. Do not be afraid of sexual desires!

AP Quinn

 

[chevalier]

People can have sexual dreams and nocturnal emissions for which they are not morally responsible.

Correct. But the behaviour which leads to such emissions, if voluntary, is sinful in as much as it violates the 6th commandment.

There is nothing sinful in experiencing something sexual for which we are not responsible.

Yes, but we are responsible for avoiding such experiences once we have sufficient knowledge.

Therefore if an orgasm is the result of a hug and the act is not something that was intentionally sought we cannot be held morally responsible.

Correct, but a second hug in such circumstances becomes questionable, should be skipped and there is probably sin in not skipping it.

No sexual reaction is morally wrong or sinful but completely natural to the human person because it is the way God made us.

Yup, but it cannot be sought outside its proper context, pleasurable sensation from it cannot be accepted and welcome as gratification in so far as it is sexual and should be reserved for the marital act. Additionally, if we know that something will make us react sexually, we’re responsible for avoiding at least the near occasion to sin.

This is the sexual action which results from the reaction if you know what I mean.

Yup.

The two must be separated! The action is how we act in response to our natural sexual desires.

It must be separated for determining culpability, but it can’t be completely separated for the reason you state - one results from the other. This means that even if we don’t intend sexual action, we should still avoid what gives us a sexual reaction in as much as that reaction may lead us to sin. Also, if we “celebrate” the reaction, it becomes action.

We must use our gift of reason to decide how and where we are going to direct these desires. To feel desire is not wrong in any way.

Absolutely. But the actions which awake that feeling may be sinful or at the very least imprudent.

People can become scrupulous with themselves by vigorously pushing away any sexual feelings that arise. This is a mistake. By doing this the feeling is repressed and can come back more intensely in the future. What people need to do is allow these desires to be processed in the mind, thought about so that by reason we can control them and direct them in the right direction. Do not be afraid of sexual desires!

Fantasies are not allowed, however. When processing desires takes the form of sexual imagery passing through the mind and being welcome there, then it’s wrong.

 

[ocuinn]

It seems you have just spent all your time writing such a lengthy post to tell us you agree with me. Couldn’t you just have said you agree with ocuinn. I understand if you want to clarify something though. Still if I didn’t know better I could feel that you where presenting your thoughts in a way designed to reduce me to a position of inferiority. This I would find quite offensive. I have however a few clarifications of my own regarding your post:

Correct. But the behaviour which leads to such emissions, if voluntary, is sinful in as much as it violates the 6th commandment.

The Catholic Church teaches that we can NEVER be responsible for sexual dreams or nocturnal emissions and there is no evidence of any activity while awake that might lead to these dreams occuring. Especially in the case of males nocturnal emissions are completely healthy physically, psychologically and spiritually.

Correct, but a second hug in such circumstances becomes questionable, should be skipped and there is probably sin in not skipping it.

A hug my the majority of the worlds population is not considered a sinful act and I would be quite certain that if you asked any member of the clergy if it was sinful to give or receive a hug they would say that it was perfectly fine. The reactions which occur from an otherwise sexually neutral act are not the fault of the individual. Their intention is not to rebel against God and therefore they can not be held morally responsible for their reaction. It plainly states in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Catechism 2352 To form an equitable judgement about the subject’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action one must take into account…social factors that can lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.

Sexual action is not always black and white as you believe. There are many factors that need to be taken into account. These are lainly stated in the Catechism. Tom deny them is to deny the Catholic Churches teaching. Paragraph 2352 explains it well as does paragraph 1860 on mortal sin.

It must be separated for determining culpability, but it can’t be completely separated for the reason you state - one results from the other. This means that even if we don’t intend sexual action, we should still avoid what gives us a sexual reaction in as much as that reaction may lead us to sin. Also, if we “celebrate” the reaction, it becomes action.

I agree that we should try our best to avoid situations which may lead us to temptation and thus to sin. However I cannot abide the idea that we should not celebrate our sexual desires as a gift from God. Saying that these desires must be guided by reason but to not celebrate is denying a gift of God - a gift given for the purpose of sharing love and procreation.

Absolutely. But the actions which awake that feeling may be sinful or at the very least imprudent.

No in all circumstances. There are occasions when the emotions involved become so intense that they overwhelm the senses and make the will void in having sufficient control over the desire to prevent the act. Under these circumstances the act can not be deemed sinful to the individual concerned.

For example if you and I sit at a table and somebody places two apples before us. The apples don’t belong to us but your hunger is so great that you just have to eat an apple. I on the other hand see you eat the apple and I decide for the fun that I will eat the other one (not through hunger). Well My sin is greater than yours. It is stealing outright for fun wheras you are stealing out of great necessity to satisfy your ravenous hunger. You can see how the gravity of sin can be completly different in each case according to each indivvidual situation.

I am not saying we shouldn’t strive for perfection, just that it is not as black and white as you make out.

Fantasies are not allowed, however. When processing desires takes the form of sexual imagery passing through the mind and being welcome there, then it’s wrong

Only if those fantasies are deliberatly sought. Fantasies might enter the mind involuntarily. Once we realise their existence we can banish them and revert back to experiencing/focusing on the emotion of love or whatever it is that caused the lustful imagery.

AP Quinn

 

[cor]

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with having a fantasy about courting, getting engaged, getting married, and having children.

A couple just about to be married fantasizing about their upcoming honeymoon is not wrong either.

It’s only when one is desiring something illicit, like taking delight in a fantasy about adultery that there may be some morally problematic features.

As for hugs which lead to climax. I remember reading about this kind of thing (not specifically hugs but about people who become aroused by things not generally arousing) in a moral theology book but I don’t have the book to look up any longer unfortunately and I don’t want to say something wrong and misrepresent it.

There is an obligation however in the case of such an accidental climax outside of intercourse to not consent by delighting in it. Doing so is termed “morose delectation.”

 

[chevalier]

Ocuinn, it looks like we perfectly agree on everything with perhaps minor exceptions. You may have misunderstood me on a number of occasions. For example, when I say we aren’t allowed to fantasise, that doesn’t in any way imply that an involuntary act may be sinful. Only the cause of an involuntary act may be sinful. Aquinas explains it well in his passage about nocturnal emissions here.

As for “black and white”, that’s not the best metaphor because things actually are black and white even if our perception may be grey. Material sinfulness of acts is an objective matter, not relative to our perception. There’s nothing relative in the extenuating factors of ignorance or partial consent, either, and perception doesn’t matter there either. The level of knowledge and consent of an individual has a perfectly defined value if only God knows it for sure.

I admit it’s a bit unclear to me why you would quote CCC 2352 and 1860, but CCC 2352 clearly states that deliberate use of sexual faculty outside marriage is forbidden. Extenuating factors exist in abundance, but they don’t take anything away from the prohibition - they just reduce the guilt for breaking it.

Your example with hugs is a good one, but any apologist will say that if kisses are an occasion for sin for the couple, they should be made short or some couples might want (or need) to skip them entirely (this does not mean abstract and unlikely occasion, but near occasion and to mortal sin, not venial - but occasion to mortal sin should be defined by grave matter, not by our own expectation of our ignorance or deficient consent). The same goes for hugs or any non-sexual acts which put a specific individual in occasion of sin. We can’t think, “since we’re somewhat ignorant in this matter and our will isn’t currently 100% free, we can go on because the sin wouldn’t be mortal if we were to commit it as a result of the occasion we choose to put ourselves in.” This applies to what you say about overwhelming emotion. If the person knows that his emotions will be overwhelmed at some point and he might perform acts in grave matter (material component of mortal sin), I think we’re already talking about occasion for sin. As an example, if we know that drinking too much alcohol with our fellow single will make us land in bed, we shouldn’t drink so much and preferably not at all. The fact that alcohol itself is morally neutral doesn’t change this. Same with hugs - not their nature, but my reaction to them may oblige me to stay away. At what exact point it happens, I dare not speculate, but at some point it does.

Then, your example with apples seems to be a good one, but there’s one issue: it’s not a sin to take what’s not ours and eat it if the alternative is death of hunger and we can’t ask the owner of the food or he won’t let us. In that case, the universal destination of goods trumps his property rights and the good of our life which is being saved overweighs the good of his property rights. This has no equivalent in sexuality. I can reach for food if I’m litterally starving, but there’s never any excuse for deliberately reaching out for sexual pleasure outside marriage.

 

[chevalier]

A couple just about to be married fantasizing about their upcoming honeymoon is not wrong either.

It’s only when one is desiring something illicit, like taking delight in a fantasy about adultery that there may be some morally problematic features.

Fantasising about sexual intercourse would still be problematic in that case. I’ve seen a good explanation by a deacon here in these forums about why fantasising even about a spouse is wrong. Basically, if fantasies are meant to bring about sexual enjoyment, then the act is wrong, but it’s the kind of sensation we seek which makes it wrong. So, for example, as an umarried man, I’m not free to stimulate myself sexually with visual imagery of marital acts. This doesn’t mean I can’t look forward to that part of marital life or anything like that, but I can’t licitly choose to engage in daydreaming about it. For that matter, if I actually were married, I still wouldn’t be deriving pleasure from any actual act, but from the concrete imagining of an abstract act - which is not a licit source of sexual pleasure because only the marital act is. Fantasising sexually is simply a form of masturbation. It just uses mental imagery and not the hand. In that, one sins in so far as one desires the sexual gratification that comes from the activity.

As for hugs which lead to climax. I remember reading about this kind of thing (not specifically hugs but about people who become aroused by things not generally arousing) in a moral theology book but I don’t have the book to look up any longer unfortunately and I don’t want to say something wrong and misrepresent it.

There is an obligation however in the case of such an accidental climax outside of intercourse to not consent by delighting in it. Doing so is termed “morose delectation.”

Yeah, such things as they come are not free to enjoy even if we’re not at fault in obtaining them. This is actually a very difficult thing to swallow even for “experts” sometimes. Our lack of guilt doesn’t make the boon free for the taking. I’d like to get my hands on that book.