Help!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mirror_Mirror
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
frogman80:
In my house doing the dishes for my wife is an act of foreplay. 😉

I say this jokingly, but it is true that the little things throughout the day can hit a woman like physical contact can hit a man. Although the event itself may be a time period during a day… preparing for that event should be never ceasing.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, frogman. And the idea that such preparation by a husband and wife is objectively sinful – or that God doesn’t bless it abundantly – is plainly unthinkable.
 
40.png
jegow:
It should not be seen as a scene of an entire play or a play that was made during a football game. Sure, oral sex is sexual; I don’t doubt that, what I doubt is that it falls under the term conjugal act. Oral sex is not a forerunner of consummation. It is not a part of a play to be played out because the conjugal act can be done without it. A football game still needs plays to be played by the teams, the play stills needs its scenes and acts played out but, the conjugal act does not require oral sex in order to be complete. So this view that oral sex is ok as long one finishes the deed is still not making sense. Is this true or not; that the couple would have to stop the act of OS in order to perform the conjugal act. They are two different acts. I am not twisting the words of these documents around, all the information is there. No one can say that OS transforms into the conjugal act because “it’s time”. Anyways - I am signing off for the day. Peace!
Click to expand...
This is a cut and paste of my response on the other thread.

I have been married 15 years and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that oral sex as foreplay is most defiantely part of the same sexual act.

If you are not comfortable with with it that is perfectly fine. What is not fine is trying to justify your feelings by trying to saying it is against church teaching. I have spoken with many holy priests very loyal to the church and all have said it is perfectly acceptable as long as the man’s climax is within the woman.

I would venture to guess this is not something you experienced (not that that is any of my business) and so you can say they are two separate acts. There is a definate continuety between oral sex as foreplay and sexual intercourse. Sex is so much more then just ejaculating in you wife for pete’s sake. The unitive doesn’t just come from the physical act of intercourse but from the emotional, loving, tender giving to one another. Certainly oral sex can be abused if a spouse is selfish about it, but that can happen with intercourse alone as well.

By the way as far as stopping the O.S. to have intercourse they’s plenty of other foreplay that you would have to stop to engage in intercourse -that’s why it’s called foreplay. Is it a sin to suck your wife toes? (Not that may may want to-just giving an example.) You would most likly have to stop doing that in order to have intercourse unless you are amazingly flexable.
 
One thing to consider is that “when two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I.”

The pastor who married us asked us to do one thing; to pray together every day. Short is better, so it doesn’t become a chore or burden, with additional prayers always welcome of course.

When a couple joins in marriage, they actually create a prefiguration of the Trinity with God at the top, and the spouses on either side right and left – at least according to the premarital counseling we had at Catholic Charities. This is the purpose for marriage, is to bring us closer to God.

I think that bedroom behavior is an extremely private issue, but when it all boils down to it, we are each responsible for comporting ourselves properly because quite frankly, we have brought God right into the bedroom with us. No priest or confessor can know exactly what goes on there, but God does so whatever we do, if it is not pleasing to God, then it seems selfish to indulge in making him the lone person out, or perhaps asking Him to pull the wool over His eyes for a minute while we do what we wish He didn’t know about. 😦

Alan

edit>> P.S. Julie and I have begun to accept that everything we do as a couple cannot exclude God, so whatever we do, we do it in the name of “active prayer.”
 
A priest here in Ireland at a mission years ago said that oral sex was wrong, and I agree with him.
I’m not here to tell you what’s wrong for you, I’m just saying for me I agree with the priest, my conscience and me just don’t get along with the idea.

If you wana do it fine, for me personally I think it’s disgusting, at religious instruction we were told to listen to our conscience, and that’s what I’ll be doing.
 
40.png
jegow:
Things like kissing, caressing, massaging are acts that are not necessarily only in the conjugal act, they can be done without leading into it the act itself. Oral sex – as said before – is not in that category of kissing etc.
Click to expand...
This returns to the issue of near occasion of sin. Whether or not a couple is able to engage in ANY level of physical intimacy when there is no intention of finishing the act is highly subjective based on the discernment of that particular couple.
For some, simply kissing (no tongue, mind you) is enough to unintentionally trigger climax. Such people must put very strict limitations on how they show physical affection, especially if they are not yet married. This will continue to hold true if at some point they determine they should practice continence (for NFP or any other reason). It cannot be done without leading into the act itself.
On the other end of the spectrum, there may very well be people whose libido is not so strong and can enjoy very intense physical affection without the need or the risk of finishing things illicitly.
Bottom line: You cannot base the morality of oral sex on whether or not it can be done without leading to THE ACT.

I would also appreciate a response to my argument about the “certain means” you claim are licit if and only if it is the only way to achieve arousal or climax. No elaboration on these “certain means” are necessary.
 
40.png
jegow:
Things like kissing, caressing, massaging are acts that are not necessarily only in the conjugal act, they can be done without leading into it the act itself. Oral sex – as said before – is not in that category of kissing etc.
Click to expand...
Besides, this statement seems to indicate that kissing, etc… are MORE separate as “sexual acts” than oral sex since they CAN be licitly enjoyed outside THE ACT.

You argue that oral sex is wrong because it is separate, never a part of THE ACT itself. I argue that oral sex is inseparable from THE ACT in the same way that THE ACT is inseparable from marriage.

That is not to say that it is physically impossible to separate the two, but that to divorce one from the other would be a grave offense. That is also not to say that oral sex is an essential element of THE ACT, just as THE ACT is not always an essential part of marriage. The analogy is not perfect because one cannot have an indissoluble marriage without THE ACT, but I still think it is rather poignant.
 
40.png
Eireann:
A priest here in Ireland at a mission years ago said that oral sex was wrong, and I agree with him.
I’m not here to tell you what’s wrong for you, I’m just saying for me I agree with the priest, my conscience and me just don’t get along with the idea.

If you wana do it fine, for me personally I think it’s disgusting, at religious instruction we were told to listen to our conscience, and that’s what I’ll be doing.
Click to expand...
You are right… a husband and wife should not engage in acts that cause disgust.

As for the comment from the priest:
OS can kind of be a misnomer. Some define it as a complete act; others consider any oral stimulation of the sexual organs as OS.

In what context did the priest say this? OS for teenagers is wrong. Os for unmarried people is wrong. Oral sex for when a man climaxes is always wrong… etc.
 
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
I think that bedroom behavior is an extremely private issue, but when it all boils down to it, we are each responsible for comporting ourselves properly because quite frankly, we have brought God right into the bedroom with us.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Alan, your post really captures the SPIRIT of the law, as opposed to just the letter of the law.
This is why it is so important for us, whatever our station in life, to educate ourselves so we know how much leeway we have to leave discernment to our conscience and what acts we cannot commit without pushing God away.
 
Vluvski, frogman, and many of others are all on the same page with this. In order for me to change my behavior or to view that behavior as morally wrong, I need some pretty strong evidence to do so (not just that I am being bullheaded and do not want to follow the truth), but I have yet to hear that. I still hold true that oral sex (stimulation) is not a sin when it is used as a part of the marital embrace, whatever part that may play.

If someone has a problem with OS and does not want to participate in that activity within their marriage, that is fine and I do not think that anything is wrong with that. To each his own. I am not going to convince you that you should make OS a part of your bedroom behavior. That is fine if it is not. Having said that, you cannot tell those that do not view this as moral and following God’s comands to not continue this act. It would be different if we were trying to say that watching pornography within a marriage is okay and you were saying it is not (which we know is not permitted at anytime), but we are saying that OS is accepted by the Church putting persoal opinions aside of whether is “dirty” or not.

Atleast this has a lot of us thinking. 👍
 
40.png
vluvski:
. As one priest put it, “You can swing naked from your ceiling fan if that’s what gets you going, as long as it ends with male climax within his wife’s vagina.” The same can be said of lingerie and sex toys if that is the couple’s cup o’ tea (again, another thread).
Click to expand...
Vluvski,

I heard this same thing from Fr. Stan Fortunato who present the question to his Arch-bishop as to what the husband and wife could do sexually within their marriage and that was the Arch-bishop told him.

Too funny!

Thanks for you kind approach to this 😉
 
This is a repeat post because I was not paying attention and posted this originally in the wrong thread. Opps…
Before this thread splits the argument into a hundred different directions let me restate the original issue. I hold, even still, that oral sex is sinful. How do I base this? 1) Oral sex is not part of the conjugal act because 2) the conjugal as defined by the Church is to always be unitive and procreative. 3) Oral sex is not procreative in and of itself and therefore becomes a separate action all together.

Where do I get this?

From: Humanae Vitae

12.This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance** which are both inherent to the marriage act.**

13. …. they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws*, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life*. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it***, even if only partially*, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God**** and His holy will.** See the link for the full text
vatican.va/holy_father/p…e-vitae_en.html

Where I am finding my point in the documents themselves?
  • There is an inseparable connection which man may not break between the unitive and procreative significances.
  • That to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God.
  • Couples must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage.
  1. Oral sex does not make a connection between the unitive and procreative significances. Even if the couple finishes in the coming together of the unitive and procreative, the connection was not there prior to. So when people say that oral sex is a part of the conjugal act they are wrong because the two significances, unitive and procreative, are not there together; only the unitive. By finishing in the conjugal act the couple, who didn’t start that way, then unites the two significances and only then is there a potentiality to conceive.
  2. Oral sex then can compared to mutual masturbation, which I also hold as sinful, because while it is unitive it is most certainly not procreative.
  3. Many have argued that oral sex is part of the conjugal act. I disagree with this. The Church, even though not giving a full detailed description of the conjugal act, has maintained that it be unitive and procreative inseparably. My argument is that since oral sex and the conjugal act are different just based off of their nature, (oral sex only being unitive while the conjugal act has both unitive and procreative) that they do not have the same ‘end’. By this distinction therefore oral sex should not called a part of the conjugal act. It is in this way that it is sinful.
To Be Continued …
 
  1. I agree that there are certain forms of foreplay, such as kissing, touching and etc. The nature of these forms of foreplay is not to deliberately stimulate the genitalia of the other partner. If the other partner reaches climax by anyone of these then it is merely an accident. Kissing, touching and etc. are what I would call natural forms of foreplay because by their nature they are only unitive. Oral sex however is what I would consider unnatural because it uses faculties that are meant for unitive and procreative purposes i.e. in the conjugal act, in an act that is only unitive. By the fact that this act lacks that inseparable connection is unnatural and wrong. Hence it is not part of the conjugal act either.
 
FROM ANOTHER POST

Re: NFP and Abstinence - How far is too far?
Originally Posted by jegow
4) I agree that there are certain forms of foreplay, such as kissing, touching and etc. The nature of these forms of foreplay is not to deliberately stimulate the genitalia of the other partner. If the other partner reaches climax by anyone of these then it is merely an accident. Kissing, touching and etc. are what I would call natural forms of foreplay because by their nature they are only unitive. Oral sex however is what I would consider unnatural because it uses faculties that are meant for unitive and procreative purposes i.e. in the conjugal act, in an act that is only unitive. By the fact that this act lacks that inseparable connection is unnatural and wrong. Hence it is not part of the conjugal act either.
Click to expand...
:banghead:

So long as the end act of the marital embrace is unitive and procreative that is what is important! That is what the “unitive and procreative” statement refers to. It is not referring to what happens before sexual intercourse. Twist it and turn it how you will, but you are using it to support what you are saying and not looking at the big picture.

Tell me this, why does the church say that it is okay for a husband to stimulate his wife to climax after the act of sexual intercourse? This is ACCEPTED by the Church as moral behavior. This is oral sex. This is done with the mouth or the hands. This is the same as this act occuring before sexual intercourse.

Simply because one views the act of oral sex as “dirty” or “disgusting” (IN THEIR OWN MINDS) does not mean that the act in and of itself is wrong. I think that feet are disgusting and would never put my mouth on my wife’s feet during foreplay. You on the other hand think that this is something that is a big turn on for you or your wife and you participate in this act as a means of foreplay before sexual intercourse. Should I tell you that this is wrong simply because I view it as “dirty?” Many, many, many more theological scholars have studied JPII’s TOtB and never once have I read one of them (or seen anyone post that one of them) saying that oral sex within the marital embrace is wrong.

The act performed solely for the pleasure of one or the other spouse outside of the marital embrace is wrong, within it, no.

Since kissing, caressing, massaging is only unitive, not procreative are they against the church’s teachings as well? The wife’s breasts are there for the nourishment of a young child, caressing them is unitive, not procreative, is that wrong?

Do you think that a husband and wife simply lay by each other in bed, kiss, rub each others face, back, and shoulders, maybe the knees (since those are not dirty parts of the body) and are aroused enough to have sexual intercourse. To me that is NOT nor will it ever be what sex is about. If so, no thank you. Sexual intercourse is the giving of yourself to your spouse freely and totally. Saying to your bride that this is the renewal of our wedding vows. I give you all that I have and all that I am without reservation, selflessly for you.
 
vluvski said:
You cannot base the morality of oral sex on whether or not it can be done without leading to THE ACT.
Click to expand...

If you see it as a separate act altogether then sure you can. THE ACT does not give oral sex a new moral value if oral sex precedes the completion in the conjugal act. It is actually the definition of the conjugal act that shows the immorality contained in oral sex; that it is not procreative. The basis of my argument is not whether or not it can be done without leading to THE ACT but that it can never be done without it being sinful at the same time.
40.png
vluvski:
I would also appreciate a response to my argument about the “certain means” you claim are licit if and only if it is the only way to achieve arousal or climax. No elaboration on these “certain means” are necessary.
Click to expand...
There are means that are licit when and only when they are necessary to arouse a partner that otherwise has a very difficult time becoming aroused. Oral sex is not one of these certain means so please don’t concentrate on these that much.
 
40.png
vluvski:
As one priest put it, “You can swing naked from your ceiling fan if that’s what gets you going, as long as it ends with male climax within his wife’s vagina.” The same can be said of lingerie and sex toys if that is the couple’s cup o’ tea (again, another thread).
Click to expand...
:rotfl:

Dude, the thanks are mine. I didn’t see this one the first time around.

OMG some things are so obvious it’s amazing it takes so long to figure out! :hmmm:

Regards,
Alan
 
40.png
jegow:
If you see it as a separate act altogether then sure you can. THE ACT does not give oral sex a new moral value if oral sex precedes the completion in the conjugal act. It is actually the definition of the conjugal act that shows the immorality contained in oral sex; that it is not procreative. The basis of my argument is not whether or not it can be done without leading to THE ACT but that it can never be done without it being sinful at the same time.
Click to expand...
  1. Your argument seems to be changing with every post.
  2. Essentially what you are saying in this specific instance is that oral sex is a “separate act” because it is inseparable from THE ACT itself. This makes no sense whatsoever to me!
  3. Please provide a definition of the conjugal act that explicitly excludes any and all “sexual” acts that may or may not precede or proceed intercourse.
  4. Now we’re back to needing a definition of why kissing et al do not qualify as immoral because they also lack procreativity.
40.png
jegow:
There are means that are licit when and only when they are necessary to arouse a partner that otherwise has a very difficult time becoming aroused. Oral sex is not one of these certain means so please don’t concentrate on these that much.
Click to expand...
  1. You didn’t actually respond to the argument. I realize you believe there are “certain acts” that do not include oral sex that are licit only for couples who cannot become aroused any other way. I contend that this is impossible because the act is either immoral or not immoral in and of itself .
    If it is immoral, then it does not EVER become moral just because it is necessary. To repeat, that qualifies as a means to an end.
    For example, sex in and of itself is not immoral (it is morally good). It is possible to engage in sex outside the sacrament of marriage. However, it is not immoral to do so because sex is immoral; it is immoral to do so because any use of the sexual faculties is immoral outside of marriage. Keep in mind, also, that there is a clear defining point (sacramental marriage) that changes not just the situation, but the essence of the act itself.
    The same holds true when we speak of receiving the Eucharist, as frogman noted. In and of itself, receiving the Eucharist is not immoral (it is morally good). If we cross the clear, defined line by committing mortal sin, we can no longer enjoy the moral fruits of receiving Jesus physically. It is not immoral because receiving the Eucharist is immoral, but because it is a lie to claim a relationship with God by receiving when we have severed that relationship.
 
Mirror Mirror:
So long as the end act of the marital embrace is unitive and procreative that is what is important!
Click to expand...
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, “The end does not justify the means.” Are we talking about two different things? It sounds as if you are saying that the marital embrace ends with the conjugal act and I am simply arguing that oral sex is sinful. For the reasons why see my earlier post.
Mirror Mirror:
Simply because one views the act of oral sex as “dirty” or “disgusting” (IN THEIR OWN MINDS) does not mean that the act in and of itself is wrong.
Click to expand...
Which I never said in anyway to prove my point! So don’t try and prove me wrong by saying that this was my opinion.
Mirror Mirror:
Since kissing, caressing, massaging is only unitive, not procreative are they against the church’s teachings as well? The wife’s breasts are there for the nourishment of a young child, caressing them is unitive, not procreative, is that wrong?
Click to expand...
As I explained in 4), that these are by nature an act that is only unitive. You are seriously missing the point. Would you consider saying that an infant who is breastfeeding is actually having oral sex with its mother? If you want to speak of twisting what people say, look at how you are twisting my points around. These natural acts of affection (kissing, massaging) could never be procreative by the fact that the genitals are not involved. In oral sex they are. There is a distinction being made.
Mirror Mirror:
Do you think that a husband and wife simply lay by each other in bed ….
Click to expand...
NO, and that is not my point. The point is that in whatever they do in bed, oral sex should not one of them. It is a disordered action and it is sinful.

Mirror Mirror said:
That is
Click to expand...

what the “unitive and procreative” statement refers to….

why does the church say that it is okay for a husband to stimulate his wife to climax after the act of sexual intercourse….

This is ACCEPTED by the Church as moral behavior….

Many, many, many more theological scholars have studied JPII’s TOtB and never once have I read one of them (or seen anyone post that one of them) saying that oral sex within the marital embrace is wrong….I hope that everyone admits I have been pretty patient here but I must say something. Perhaps some of will already know what that is. If indeed the Church teaches that this is an acceptable act between a husband and wife; that the Church says, “it’s ok”, “that’s really what unitive and procreative referred to” or that the Church says that it’s not sinful; I would like to see where you are getting this. Sure, maybe theologians have never said that oral sex is wrong in the marital embrace, but have they have ever said that it was ok, not sinful. If you find somewhere where this has been said I invite you all again to show me where – like what document or book, give me a page number. In other words, if this is accepted by the Church; that the Church says it’s ok; that the proof is in JPII’s TOtB then…….

SHOW ME!
THE INVITATION HAS BEEN MADE CLEAR AGAIN
 
40.png
frogman80:
You are right… a husband and wife should not engage in acts that cause disgust.

As for the comment from the priest:
OS can kind of be a misnomer. Some define it as a complete act; others consider any oral stimulation of the sexual organs as OS.

In what context did the priest say this? OS for teenagers is wrong. Os for unmarried people is wrong. Oral sex for when a man climaxes is always wrong… etc.
Click to expand...
He was talking about genital oral sex, and as their are minors on here I’m sure who could shock me ! I’ll asume their innocence and just say that he meant genital oral sex.

I think for me it’s wrong regardless of what others try to instill, I’ll leave it to your imagination as to what I mean.

Anyway what is dusgusting for one may not be for another, I don’t have to reconcile their conscience’s, I have to settle my conscience with God, and that’s about it, not a whole lot more to say on the subject.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top