Foreplay in marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter Luke88
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Luke88

Guest
Hi, I found a book called In Pursuit of Love: Catholic Morality and Human Sexuality written by a priest Vincent Genovesi. But one page (242) is quite confusing. It looks for me that the author (known by many on this forum) contradicts himself. (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Luke88 said:
Hi, I found a book called In Pursuit of Love: Catholic Morality and Human Sexuality written by a priest Vincent Genovesi. But one page (242) is quite confusing. It looks for me that the author (known by many on this forum) contradicts himself.
Click to expand...
He’s saying that if a woman orgasms first, that’s fine, because the sex can continue and end appropriately (male orgasm with vaginal intercourse.) Basically, male orgasm, not female, is what “ends” that particular encounter.

So for example, a man performs oral sex on his wife, and she climaxes. They then have vaginal intercourse, where he climaxes. No issue. By contrast, a woman performs oral sex on her husband, where he climaxes. Not fine, because the sex ended in a way not open to life.
 
Last edited:
I understand what he wrote but in one place he wrote that oral stimulation should not lead to orgasm and a few sentences later that a wife can achieve orgasm through oral stimulation.
 
Last edited:
Luke88 said:
I understand what he wrote but in one place he wrote that oral stimulation should not lead to orgasm and a few sentences later that a wife can achieve orgasm through oral stimulation.
Click to expand...
I think in the first paragraph he’s referring primarily to male orgasm, or to women who will lose arousal after one orgasm, thus ending the encounter. It’s not uncommon for women to be able to remain aroused and interested in continuing after an orgasm, which is what I think he’s contemplating in the second paragraph.
 
I’m not even a Catholic, but the bit that confused me is this: “In the event that a woman is multiorgasmic and thus would not be inclined to lose interest in the lovemaking episode should she achieve sexual climax prior to coitus, …”

It seems to fundamentally misunderstand how many women experience sex. One does not have to be “multiorgasmic” to be interested in proceeding with coitus following a climax reached during foreplay. The author seems to be saying that if a woman is not going to have another orgasm during coitus, she would lose interest in lovemaking. This is simply not the case for many (most?) women. Men seem to assume that a woman has to have an orgasm during penetrative sex for it to be worthwhile for her. I think for a lot of women it’s perfectly normal and enjoyable to have an orgasm during foreplay without the expectation of another during intercourse.

This sort of thing doesn’t really help dispel the idea that many of us have that the Catholic Church doesn’t really understand sex, and in particular doesn’t understand sex from a woman’s perspective.
 
I’d be suspicious of any “theologian” who suggests that a decision to use contraception can be “prayerfully” arrived at by a couple.
I’d also be a bit dubious about the fact that he says anal intercourse can be legit. Regular anal intercourse is harmful.
 
It’s not a trustworthy text. There are several red flags just on one page alone. The recommendation of prolonged unnatural uses of the sex organs, and the allusion to a justified use of artificial contraception are enough to stay well away.

That being said, the point would be not to intend to achieve complete satisfaction apart from natural intercourse… despite the ability of the woman to keep going. Any acts outside the natural order need to be intended purely as preparation for the use of that order… so long lengths of time putting things where they don’t belong is not an acceptable thing to do - as one is trying to derive sexual pleasure in itself from an unnatural use of the sex organs. That’s called autoeroticism (or mutual autoeroticism).
 
Last edited:
I thought he meant the natural cycle of a woman but other fragments are more clear. It’s for sure not a good book for Catholics. And there is absolutely no reason why married couple should engage in a-intercouse. And plenty of them why they should not.
 
Last edited:
Totally agree. Really there’s no good reason for anal intercourse. In my opinion it’s actually demeaning to both partners.
 
This book was not written by THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, but, by one individual providing his best advice based on the science and theology he understood.
 
Yes, I understand that, but perhaps you can see that for me, as somebody who is merely exploring the Catholic faith, it is rather discouraging to find a priest talking about women’s orgasms and interest in sex and getting it completely wrong. To be honest, something that has always been bad PR for the Catholic Church has been celibate men talking about female sexuality.

I remember once talking to a Catholic Benedictine priest, and he said, “There can be no clearer sign of a lack of commitment in a relationship than a condom.” Now, I understand that contraception is banned in Catholicism, but I don’t think one can make the leap to saying that a condom represents lack of commitment in a relationship. My husband and I have used condoms, and we could not be more committed to each other. There are all kinds of reasons for using a condom. They may very well all be considered sinful for Catholics, but they don’t by any means all indicate a lack of commitment. I just find it annoying to be told about commitment in marriage by somebody who became a monk while still a teenager.
 
This questions seems to come up every week at least. The same answers are given and the same fight ensues.

Best answer is to speak to a priest about this directly and not to strangers who vary in opinion on an anonymous Internet forum
 
EmilyAlexandra said:
I just find it annoying to be told about commitment in marriage by somebody who became a monk while still a teenager.
Click to expand...
Hope in your exploration you can meet some priests, both married and celibate priests, and get to know them as real people. In the US, there are no teenage seminaries, I do think they still exist in India by the way.

Aside of some Indian priests, I’ve never met a priest who did not date before they were a priest.
EmilyAlexandra said:
celibate men talking about female sexuality
Click to expand...
As an old lady, the amount of mythology and misunderstanding of human sexuality in general is pretty stunning.

You may find that there are smart Catholic voices talking about the dignity and genus of women.

http://www.femcatholic.com/category/blog/womens-issues/sexuality/
 
TheLittleLady said:
In the US, there are no teenage seminaries, I do think they still exist in India by the way.
Click to expand...
The person I knew would have become a Benedictine monk (postulant, novice, etc) in the UK around 1952. He became a monk at the same monastery where he had been sent to boarding school, I would guess aged about 7, which would have been a typical age for upper-class British families to send their sons to boarding school in those days. It may be that it is quite different these days, and possibly somebody would not seamlessly transition from monastic boarding school to becoming a monk at the same monastery.

I was always a bit confused about the tradition of sending boys to seminaries. I have a friend whose father was educated at a minor seminary in Liverpool, but rather than continue to the major seminary, he moved to London, taught politics at a university, and got married and had two children. At my secondary school we had two teachers who had attended minor seminaries, one in Durham, the other in Northern Ireland. Again, both had left the seminary system at 18, attended secular universities, and married and had children. Of these three, I know that none of them maintained any connection with the Catholic Church beyond the age of 18. I appreciate that that is a small sample, but it does suggest that the system wasn’t a very good one.
TheLittleLady said:
As an old lady, the amount of mythology and misunderstanding of human sexuality in general is pretty stunning.
Click to expand...
That is certainly true. It baffles me how some people have got through their lives not even knowing where fairly important parts of their body are located, let alone what to call them.
 
Yes, UK and other lands admitted kids. There were some in the US years ago. Priests working today were by and far in seminary when they were college age

I do know a priest from India who went in seminary at age 8. He is the most joyful human I’ve ever encountered. He saw his fellow young seminarians discern out at a high rate.

On the other topic, when I was a kid my mom vowed we would know the names of our body parts after my baby sis horrified a babysitter crying her wee wee was hurt.

Thing is, sis loves this little piggy and refered to her pinkies as her wee wees.
 
Doesn’t sound confusing to me at all - am I missing something? It’s basically saying to hold off the foreplay to that ending so you both can enjoy together - because women are like ovens and men are like microwaves, so if she has an orgasm with foreplay she’s pretty much done for awhile. But if your partner is multi-climatic, then it’s ok if it happens because she would not lose interest in the lovemaking between you both and she would climax again during the actual act.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top