Help!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mirror_Mirror
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
jegow:
And I agree with you!! I also agree that IF and ONLY IF your husband/wife has a difficult time getting aroused then certains means can be taken to do that. But then and only then. Let me post part of what I posted in the last thread since the frog guy said I should move.
You are saying OS is not completely wrong? Did you always feel this way? I guess I misunderstood… I thought your view was OS is always wrong.

Are other acts of foreplay allowed if a couple is already aroused? Kissing? Touching?

ps… it is wasted effort to talk about the exact same topic in two different threads… especially when it is off topic in one thread.
 
For the record, the Pope has actually said in the Theology of the Body that even AFTER a man’s climax, he can “attend” the woman (I forget his exact verb) to help her climax via oral stimulation.

That is part of the unitive theme.

What is the debate anyway, I think the psotings have shown the Church’s stance. If certain people object, that is fine, they don’t have to do it.
 
40.png
HappyCatholic01:
For the record, the Pope has actually said in the Theology of the Body that even AFTER a man’s climax, he can “attend” the woman (I forget his exact verb) to help her climax via oral stimulation.

That is part of the unitive theme.
I have been looking and cannot find anything specific about OS… could you help out with a quote?
40.png
HappyCatholic01:
What is the debate anyway, I think the psotings have shown the Church’s stance. If certain people object, that is fine, they don’t have to do it.
Some believe that OS (used as a means of foreplay) is not morally permissibly in marriage. Some church docs has even been been “quoted” to supposedly support this. No one has suggested that it is a necessary act in marriage… just that it is permissible.
 
I’ll poke around for the quote, might take til tomorrow. Be back soon.
 
Mouths, lips, and tounges are sexual organs. I do not see the difference in using your hands on your partner as opposed to your mouth. What about the act makes the lips, more offensive then the hands or fingers? If you can carress your spouse with your hands, why not with your lips or tougue? I suppose that I don’t see the offense in a consenting man and wife performing oral sex on one another.

As far as orgasiming, simply stop before the completion and finish through intercourse.
 
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.
I love the football analogy. It can well illustrate the other side of this argument.

Will a football team ever win if it only runs one play? The defense of the opposing team will stop them every time. A football team needs many plays in its playbook if it wants to stay in the game. In order to score a touchdown, an offense runs several different plays. Naked bootleg, 5 yard post, reverse, sweep, the long bomb…

While a team doesn’t have to run every play in their playbook every time they take to the field, and no single play is absolutely necessary, they are all still available should the team choose to use them.

Oral sex is simply one play in the playbook. As long as it isn’t used to score the touchdown, I see nothing in Catholic teachings which forbid it. Necessary? No. Permissible? Yes, within the rules of the game, as it were.
 
40.png
jegow:
And I agree with you!! I also agree that IF and ONLY IF your husband/wife has a difficult time getting aroused then certains means can be taken to do that. But then and only then. Let me post part of what I posted in the last thread since the frog guy said I should move.

. 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. Astill 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. !
Saliva does help with lubrication. Also, there are quiet a few women who have trouble reaching climax unless it is through oral stimulation.

Of course the conjugal act can be done without oral sex, it can be done without any thing but plain intercourse. It would probably not be enjoyable but it could be done.

Maybe you are thinking that oral stimulation of the man always leads to near climax.At least that is what I am guessing that you mean by the “couple would have to stop the act of OS to perform the conjugal act.” I suppose that in some it could, but it doesn’t have to at least not any more then the wife using her hand to stimulate the hubby.
 
Not to offend anyone, but I bet that more of us than not have indulged in oral sex and only oral sex for the sheer pleasure of it.It would take a whole lot of self control to stop and finish with intercourse.
~ Kathy ~
 
did jesus say anything about not having oral sex outside of marriage???
 
40.png
Katie1723:
Not to offend anyone, but I bet that more of us than not have indulged in oral sex and only oral sex for the sheer pleasure of it.It would take a whole lot of self control to stop and finish with intercourse.

~ Kathy ~
My hubby and I finish with intercourse. I don’t think that it takes much self control. the husband simply asks the wife to stop before it gets to the point of no return.

You aren’t offending anyone, at least not me. After all it is a discussion on oral sex. So different opinions should be heard.
 
Mirror Mirror:
This
If you can provide specifics, please do.
please do NOT provide specifics, this is not the place and entirely inappropriate.
if you can provide cites and links to authentic Church teaching, without lengthly quotes, please do so, but otherwise, we don’t need to know
 
40.png
puzzleannie:
please do NOT provide specifics, this is not the place and entirely inappropriate.
if you can provide cites and links to authentic Church teaching, without lengthly quotes, please do so, but otherwise, we don’t need to know
Not what you specifically do, what the Church specifically teaches. Sorry for the confusion.
 
40.png
Lapsed:
I love the football analogy. It can well illustrate the other side of this argument.
Oral sex is simply one play in the playbook. As long as it isn’t used to score the touchdown, I see nothing in Catholic teachings which forbid it. Necessary? No. Permissible? Yes, within the rules of the game, as it were.
Nice post! :clapping:
 
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!
The analogy by Lapsed was great and seems to hit the nail on the head. This is where I think you are taking a stance is that oral sex is wrong in and of itself. Oral sex is wrong if that is all a husband and wife do. If they perform oral sex on each other BEFORE they have sexual intercourse it is permissable by the Church. You cannot simply have oral sex within marriage without continuing to carry this out in sexual intercourse. Yes the couple would have to stop having oral sex to start having sexual intercourse (laws of nature), but it is one continual act. It is not as if they are having oral sex, stop stand up, walk around the room trying to decide who lays where, it is a continual thing. If you are married and have experienced this, then you will understand. If not, if you are living a chaste single life (God bless you) it may be harder to understand this. Oral sex and sexual intercourse ARE (in and of themselves) two seperate acts, but can be performed during the same marital embrace (marital embrace meaning the entire act starting with foreplay and ending in the husband’s climax in the wife’s vagina).

Several people have told you that this is true, oral sex is permitted by the Church within marriage. I think that the views are slightly different and the wording is as well. I think that it is crystal clear, but you may not. I am sticking to my guns and I am sure that you will as well. I just ask you to continue to study about this and see what you find.

If I was rude to you in any way, shape or form, I apologize, I get a little intense at times, even passionate. It is all about God’s glory and doing His will. I strive to do that in my life and pray that others do as well.

:blessyou: :gopray2:
 
40.png
deb1:
…As far as orgasiming, simply stop before the completion and finish through intercourse.
would that apply to both sexes?

after all, a woman’s climax is not necessarily related to procreation
 
40.png
steveandersen:
would that apply to both sexes?

after all, a woman’s climax is not necessarily related to procreation
No… Just applies to the man.

(It is good to strive for an experience where husband and wife complete together… although it not necessary)
 
Mirror Mirror:
If I was rude to you in any way, shape or form, I apologize, I get a little intense at times, even passionate. It is all about God’s glory and doing His will. I strive to do that in my life and pray that others do as well.
Yes, Jegow… I second this… I value your (name removed by moderator)ut on this mater, and wish to continue to have a constructive conversation.
 
Mirror Mirror:
If I was rude to you in any way, shape or form, I apologize, I get a little intense at times, even passionate. It is all about God’s glory and doing His will. I strive to do that in my life and pray that others do as well.
40.png
frogman80:
Yes, Jegow… I second this… I value your (name removed by moderator)ut on this matter, and wish to continue to have a constructive conversation.
Mirror Mirror and Frogman, thank you. I also express the same because I am sure that I am guilty of this as well – I can be a bit intense when it comes to posting sometimes, so sorry I offended you or anyone. I like what I am reading because it is helping me understand some things while there are some things that I will just have to keep studying about. However, since today is a Solemnity, I am going to take a break. Chances are I will be reading the posts but not making many comments. I have a lot of school work to do, as well as finals to study for. So again thank for being patient with me and if you find anything like quotes or sources that may be of help in explaining more please feel free to post them. Until next time – have a blessed Solemnity – talk to you later on.

👋
 
40.png
jegow:
I also agree that IF and ONLY IF your husband/wife has a difficult time getting aroused then certains means can be taken to do that. But then and only then. Let me post part of what I posted in the last thread since the frog guy said I should move.
jegow,
First of all, good luck with your studying!

As far as this statement is concerned, you were doing better with the no oral sex at all argument. You cannot have it both ways. An act in and of itself is either immoral or not immoral. Ours is not a discussion of whether the “not immoral” act is morally good or morally indifferent, so I’ll leave that to another day.

What you have stated essentially reduces oral sex to a means to an end. The means, oral sex/stimulation, does not become acceptable based on whether or not the end, arousal and eventual climax, can be achieved only by that means.

Let’s take an example we can all presumably agree on: bestiality. Let’s suppose there is a married couple, of which one spouse suffers from temptation to bestiality. So much so, in fact, that she has a hard time becoming interested without so much as thinking of that. If this couple wants to be faithful to the teachings of the church, the wife will set aside the temptation in order to “pay the marital debt” without the satisfaction of mutual interest- a truly sacrificial giving of herself. Never will it ever become permissible for her to engage in or even think about bestiality just because it is the only way for her to reach climax. Replace bestiality with homosexuality or adultery or fornication or pornography or contracepted sex, and the result is still the same.

Similarly, IF (and that’s a big if) your argument that oral sex/stimulation is immoral holds true in cases where husband and wife can both reach climax without it, it also holds true in cases where one of them cannot. (I won’t get into the legitimacy of a marriage where the husband cannot climax- another day, another thread.)

According to guidance I have received from countless reliable and orthodox sources, oral sex and any other non-sinful precursor to sexual intercourse can be licitly enjoyed given both parties are agreeable. 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).
 
Many say the following:

“if you forbid oral sex, then kissing is not allow either”

Nice try, but not quite.

Oral sex is not allowed.

Period.

Kissing does not involve genitalia, white oral “sex” does.

And BTW, oral “sex” is not sex: it is fornication. Let’s see Hebrews:

*"[Let] marriage [be held] every way in honour, and the bed [be] undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers will God judge". *(Heb. 13,4)

How can spouses fornicate, if they’re married?

Wasn’t fornication the outside-of-marriage sex?

It is, but the unnatural “oral sex” and “anal sex” are fornications as well, so that’s why the Bible says for spouses who fornicate there’s judgment.

If you have issues with it, then you need to work harder on your purity & chastity (marital chastity, I mean).

Blessings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top