Foreplay when pregnant a sin if it doesn't go any further?

[beckycmarie]

I was saying that foreplay NOT to climax is acceptable outside the marital embrace (with the other exceptions I mentioned, not being excessively aroused, not lusting after the other, etc.)

Let me make sure I understand what you’re saying. Are you saying that genital activity outside the context of intercourse is okay as long as there is no climax? If so, can you provide Church teaching to back this up?

 

[Convert_in_99]

Let me make sure I understand what you’re saying. Are you saying that genital activity outside the context of intercourse is okay as long as there is no climax? If so, can you provide Church teaching to back this up?

All of my sources are off EWTN there are a few more too, but these are my favorites as they are clearest and most readable.

Here is one such post and reply.

Here is another reply.

 

[beckycmarie]

All of my sources are off EWTN there are a few more too, but these are my favorites as they are clearest and most readable.

Here is one such post and reply.

Here is another reply.

These answers are just bizarre to me.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Let me make sure I understand what you’re saying. Are you saying that genital activity outside the context of intercourse is okay as long as there is no climax? If so, can you provide Church teaching to back this up?

This is mostly right. Foreplay leading up to, but not including climax is okay for the man. However the man has to complete the act in the proper place, and this has to be the intention from the get go.

This is relaxed for women, and can be achieved several ways, however, since her climax is not tied to the transmission of life. I believe this is discussed in Theology of the Body.

I believe intercouse (at the proper time) has to be part of the entire act for no sin to occur.

 

[beckycmarie]

I believe intercouse (at the proper time) has to be part of the entire act for no sin to occur.

That is my understanding as well, but we have a few in this thread saying sexual activity outside of any intention to complete the marital act are okay as long as no one climaxes. In no way is that “open to life.” I don’t see how it can be morally permissible.

 

[Convert_in_99]

That is my understanding as well, but we have a few in this thread saying sexual activity outside of any intention to complete the marital act are okay as long as no one climaxes. In no way is that “open to life.” I don’t see how it can be morally permissible.

It is not without intention of marital relations. It is in looking forward to them such as when a couple cannot have relations when they are avoiding in NFP. These actions are preparing them ‘keeping the flame a light’ for when they can next be together in a week or so. Or when one of the spouses is unable and wants to, but can’t. In waiting for the time when they are better they can engage in mild non climaxing foreplay. Nothing over stimulating, nothing lustful or sinful, nothing climatic.

BTW why are posts from an EWTN priest bizarre?
They have some of the strictest priests I know of. Those were written by one of their priests.

 

[bilop]

It is not without intention of marital relations. It is in looking forward to them such as when a couple cannot have relations when they are avoiding in NFP. These actions are preparing them ‘keeping the flame a light’ for when they can next be together in a week or so. Or when one of the spouses is unable and wants to, but can’t. In waiting for the time when they are better they can engage in mild non climaxing foreplay. Nothing over stimulating, nothing lustful or sinful, nothing climatic.

BTW why are posts from an EWTN priest bizarre?
They have some of the strictest priests I know of. Those were written by one of their priests.

What I don’t get is what good can come of genital stimulation when you don’t intend to complete the act?

Hugging, passionate kissing, snuggling, I can see, sure.

But once you start stimulating the genitals, that can only lead to temptation, fruststration and lust. It’s like playing how far can we get away with.

Even if technically not sinful, it seems highly imprudent and likely to lead to sin.

God Bless

 

[Convert_in_99]

But once you start stimulating the genitals, that can only lead to temptation, fruststration and lust. It’s like playing how far can we get away with.

Even if technically not sinful, it seems highly imprudent and likely to lead to sin.

God Bless

And it can and it does become a source of sin for many couples but not all. That is why many priests and theologians will tell you to avoid it all together. But that doesn’t mean it is wrong for all couples, just for many couples. Every couple is different. Not everyone has strong sexual urges. In fact some persons need this in between time of even genital touching to get/keep them desiring the next marital embrace. Some do have strong urges and those who do probably should NOT be touching ‘down there’ at all during times of abstinence. We are called to know and learn our own limitations. For many this will mean a hands off approach, others might not have to go to such extremes, still others might even be able to still maintain mild genital contact. If it’s hard for you, then by all means avoid it. I’m not saying it is the path for the majority or the many. But that doesn’t mean it’s a sin in each and every case, and some cases it is actually highly beneficial to the marriage. Just depends on which personality type you are, your natural urges, your overall health, things like that.

 

[Tosk]

What I don’t get is what good can come of genital stimulation when you don’t intend to complete the act?

Hugging, passionate kissing, snuggling, I can see, sure.

But once you start stimulating the genitals, that can only lead to temptation, fruststration and lust. It’s like playing how far can we get away with.

Even if technically not sinful, it seems highly imprudent and likely to lead to sin.

God Bless

If they are married it will not lead to sin, just to babies.

 

[takers]

I’ve been reading these posts and I’ll admit I’m somewhat confused. I understand that sex outside of marriage is a sin (no problems there) and that we as Catholics need to be open to life. The statements that confuse me are where people talk about it being a sin if the husband and wife don’t completely finish the marital act with the husband ‘finishing’ in the wife’s womb.

My question is what happens when life gets in the way? Say the husband and wife are having relations with intent to finish correctly, but then a child starts crying or a neighbor knocks on the door or a ‘new’ position ends badly and you find yourself not finishing the act correctly. You start out with the intention to finish but never actually complete the act. Are the husband/wife still committing a sin?

 

[jwashu]

I’ve been reading these posts and I’ll admit I’m somewhat confused. I understand that sex outside of marriage is a sin (no problems there) and that we as Catholics need to be open to life. The statements that confuse me are where people talk about it being a sin if the husband and wife don’t completely finish the marital act with the husband ‘finishing’ in the wife’s womb.

My question is what happens when life gets in the way? Say the husband and wife are having relations with intent to finish correctly, but then a child starts crying or a neighbor knocks on the door or a ‘new’ position ends badly and you find yourself not finishing the act correctly. You start out with the intention to finish but never actually complete the act. Are the husband/wife still committing a sin?

No sin, at least not mortal, go back to the definitions that I and another poster noted. You have to start with the intent of not finishing properly. Life happens and sometimes things to work out as we expect or planned.

Joe

 

[catholic79]

I’ve been reading these posts and I’ll admit I’m somewhat confused. I understand that sex outside of marriage is a sin (no problems there) and that we as Catholics need to be open to life. The statements that confuse me are where people talk about it being a sin if the husband and wife don’t completely finish the marital act with the husband ‘finishing’ in the wife’s womb.

My question is what happens when life gets in the way? Say the husband and wife are having relations with intent to finish correctly, but then a child starts crying or a neighbor knocks on the door or a ‘new’ position ends badly and you find yourself not finishing the act correctly. You start out with the intention to finish but never actually complete the act. Are the husband/wife still committing a sin?

No, it is the intent which causes it to be a sin or not.

 

[beckycmarie]

What I don’t get is what good can come of genital stimulation when you don’t intend to complete the act?

Hugging, passionate kissing, snuggling, I can see, sure.

But once you start stimulating the genitals, that can only lead to temptation, fruststration and lust. It’s like playing how far can we get away with.

Even if technically not sinful, it seems highly imprudent and likely to lead to sin.

God Bless

I’m with you this one, bilop. I don’t see how this can be justified by saying it’s foreplay for intercourse that will happen next week.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

What I don’t get is what good can come of genital stimulation when you don’t intend to complete the act?

Hugging, passionate kissing, snuggling, I can see, sure.

But once you start stimulating the genitals, that can only lead to temptation, fruststration and lust. It’s like playing how far can we get away with.

Even if technically not sinful, it seems highly imprudent and likely to lead to sin.

God Bless

OK I agree.

But perhaps there is some confusion in this thread. In my opinion or my interpretation, the term “foreplay” doesn’t necessarily mean “genital stimulation”. Some posters are interpreting to mean that. I think that changes the discussion a great deal…

A candle lit dinner listening to Ravel’s Bolero could be foreplay.

 

[beckycmarie]

OK I agree.

But perhaps there is some confusion in this thread. In my opinion or my interpretation, the term “foreplay” doesn’t necessarily mean “genital stimulation”. Some posters are interpreting to mean that. I think that changes the discussion a great deal…

A candle lit dinner listening to Ravel’s Bolero could be foreplay.

Right, and we have some people insisting that genital stimulation foreplay is okay even if there is no intent to complete the act, such as a couple on an NFP break.

 

[BabyDoll4]

Fascinating conversation. Can I say though, to have genital stimulation and stop before climax (in my opinion) is cruel (term used lightly). I think though if you ask any person what they think foreplay means, most will have the same answer of heavy petting and genital stimulation. Logically these acts are meant to arouse the body for one or both partners to complete the marital act. So in my opinion, if the intent of completing the marital act is not there, then the “foreplay” should not be pursued. And like others have said, life does get in the way (boy do I know that!)

 

[Convert_in_99]

I’m with you this one, bilop. I don’t see how this can be justified by saying it’s foreplay for intercourse that will happen next week.

But what if it is just a day or two. Where do you draw the line?

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

But what if it is just a day or two. Where do you draw the line?

Here is something from the EWTN files:

Anything that constitutes foreplay, that is, that objectively aims beyond itself to fulfillment in marital intercourse, is not appropriate outside of marriage.

I guess this priest from EWTN is suggesting that foreplay objectively aims beyond itself to fulfillment in marital intercourse. Link:ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=309094&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2002&Author=&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=4&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at

Definition of foreplay:
erotic stimulation preceding sexual intercourse
Merriam-Webster’s Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Following these definitions, it seems like something you do a day before without planning to have intercourse would not be considered foreplay for the future marital act. Its like (bear with me, I like making analogies, but they usually turn out lame) if you have a party on Friday night, you don’t put on your makeup and get all dressed Thursday morning. You can buy the clothes beforehand, you can get a haircut etc, but you wouldn’t do the things you do to get dressed for the party until Friday.

ETA: I thought of another analogy (not saying its any better) when you heat up a car before you are going to drive it, you let it idle right before you go drive it, not the week before, not the day before, but right before, since you are prepping it for the drive.

 

[Convert_in_99]

Here is something from the EWTN files:

Anything that constitutes foreplay, that is, that objectively aims beyond itself to fulfillment in marital intercourse, is not appropriate outside of marriage.

I guess this priest from EWTN is suggesting that foreplay objectively aims beyond itself to fulfillment in marital intercourse. Link:ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=309094&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2002&Author=&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=4&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at

Definition of foreplay:
erotic stimulation preceding sexual intercourse
Merriam-Webster’s Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Following these definitions, it seems like something you do a day before without planning to have intercourse would not be considered foreplay for the future marital act. Its like (bear with me, I like making analogies, but they usually turn out lame) if you have a party on Friday night, you don’t put on your makeup and get all dressed Thursday morning. You can buy the clothes beforehand, you can get a haircut etc, but you wouldn’t do the things you do to get dressed for the party until Friday.

ETA: I thought of another analogy (not saying its any better) when you heat up a car before you are going to drive it, you let it idle right before you go drive it, not the week before, not the day before, but right before, since you are prepping it for the drive.

Thank you lifeisbeautiful, thanks for helping me. I really am trying to understand this but I have heard differently.

The priest from ewtn that you quoted was referring to someone who was not yet married. Of course they shouldn’t be engaging in foreplay.

But the priest from ewtn that I quoted said that married couples could engage in foreplay as long as it wasn’t overly stimulating, non climatic, and not done in lust in looking forward to being able to be together in the marital embrace. He was definitely referring to times where intercourse wasn’t taking place. So is he wrong?

Sorry to be blunt, but so you can never touch your spouses ‘parts’ unless you are going to have sexual intercourse within the day? That would be a mortal sin to do so, even just briefly?

Thanks for working with me lifeisbeautiful. I’m only 3 years into this and was doing what I thought was right according to what that priest said and what I heard other apologists on ewtn say.

BTW…you have nice analogies.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I am somewhat confused, having the minority opinion.

Back to the Popcak reference…“making out without going all the way”. He writes that it is permissible.

“All the way”, I’ve always interpreted as intercourse. i.e. Billy and Susan went all the way.

Making out, I’ve always interpreted as passionate kissing and petting. These activities don’t always need to lead to intercourse and climax. They don’t have to be lustful, selfish, etc. They can be an expression of love.

What I think might not be prudent is engaging in activity that would normally lead to climax, and stopping. These activities could be mutual masturbation, oral sex, or coitus interruptus.

A couple can kiss, hug,pet…and then leave it at that, and not sin.