Help!

[vluvski]

Latin_Catholic:

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.
Blessings.

Where does the Bible refer to the judgement for spouses who fornicate? The verse you quoted leaves plenty of room to have referred to single people who defile the marriage bed by having sex before married.
Blessings to you too!

 

[deb1]

Latin_Catholic:

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.

.

Kissing is alright then because it does not involve the genitalia, correct? Does that mean that outside of intercourse neither partner should touch one another’s genitalia?

 

[vluvski]

Latin_Catholic:

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.

Now to address the other half of your post:

I will continue to call the act “oral sex” for the sake of common understanding, since that is the most widely recognized name for the action of which we speak.

So we agree that kissing is OK- good!

According to your statement, oral sex is wrong because it involves the genitalia. If a spouse is prohibited from genitally stimulating his wife with his mouth, what about his mouth makes that body part immoral to use on his wife in that location? Many other non-genital body parts are also used for stimulation- leg, hip, abdomen, hands, etc… so what makes the mouth different? I can’t think of anything.

In order to be consistent, you would have to assert that only genital to genital contact was permissible during the marital embrace.

It is fortunate, though, that you err on the side of purity rather than impurity. Bravo on your dedication to difficult teachings.

 

[jegow]

jegow:

And I agree with you!! I also agree that IF and ONLY IF your husband/wife has a difficult time getting aroused then certain means can be taken to do that.

I suppose I should have been more specific. I did not mean that oral sex was one of those certain means. I also said in the same post that oral sex is not a forerunner of consummation but a different act all together. So I was not saying that oral sex is immoral in one way and moral in another. I do not see that being a means to complete the conjugal act.

 

[Latin_Catholic_1]

I’m taking a practical approach here:

Is it* possible* that “oral sex” is not fornication if used only to lead to intercourse?

Maybe, technically speaking, yes.

The question is: why taking chances with technicalities?

Can you be 100% sure you’ll never end up using it not as a means but rather as an end?

I believe that when it comes to sin, you shouldn’t be taking chances.

 

[vluvski]

jegow:

I did not mean that oral sex was one of those certain means.

Thanks for the clarification, at least you’re being consistent .

Help me figure out what you’re arguing here, please. Is it that oral sex is immoral on the grounds that the act itself is intrinsically evil? Or just that it is a separate act in and of itself that can never be considered part of the marital embrace?

It seems like you’re arguing the second, but please clarify so I can avoid another discertation refuting something you didn’t mean.

 

[vluvski]

Latin_Catholic:

I believe that when it comes to sin, you shouldn’t be taking chances.

Certainly, for those to whom oral sex poses a near occasion of sin, it should be avoided!

However, the issue being discussed is whether or not oral sex is morally wrong even when used directly prior to or following sexual intercourse (in other words, as part of the marital embrace).

The ability of any particular couple to be steadfast in moral application of an act that could constitute near occasion of sin is more relevant to another current thread- “How far is too far?”

We already hijacked that other thread to this topic, lets try to keep them both on track now

BTW< I’m responding to your post there.

 

[vluvski]

vluvski:

Thanks for the clarification, at least you’re being consistent .

Still thinking, here, jegow…

Would not my post hold true for any “certain means?”

The part I most strongly disagree with is that these “certain means” can be used “if and only if…”

If any “certain means” is wrong for a couple with strong libido and no difficulty reaching climax, it cannot for any reason become right for a spouse whose partner cannot otherwise become aroused.

 

[migurl]

I want to offer a clarification for those getting hung up with OS being an act seperate from the marital act. Society today has made a big deal about OS. People use it as a way to seek pleasure without getting pregnant. Now, in that case it is simply OS, nothing else. BUT when a husband and wife go into their bedroom to make love, OS doesn’t exist, oral stimulation exists. A married couple can use their body’s to please eachother and untite with eachother. In a catholic marriage when the couple is making love almost anything goes as long as the point is to end with the marital union (that is open to life). From what I understand, women sometimes need a little extra attention and men love pleasing their wives, so this is not a bad thing unless it were unwanted by either party. In a catholic union, oral sex is not a seperate thing, it is the same as a kiss or a bubble bath or a massage, it is simply a rung on the ladder, a part of the package. The rest of the world took it out of marriage and the marital embrace and put it out there for everyone to do instead.

 

[frogman80]

In these types threads, I usually ask about state in life… married, preparing for marriage, not married, or religious? This is not to discredit those who are not married, but it is to get a good handle on who were are talking to. (Also I do not feel the desire to talk about this subject with a 16 year old who really has no business worrying about this issue.) Myself… I am married. I have children. My wife and I have a healthy relationship.

There are many unmarried people who struggle with impurity. As I used to be one of those people, and since I was (and still am) striving to be a good Catholic, I got my hands on every piece of literature I could find in order to figure out if “I was sinning or not.” Most of that literature on impurity… is written with unmarried people in mind, and fails to differentiate between what is chaste in marriage, and what is chaste outside of marriage.

After spending 99% of your time looking at everything as impure… it becomes difficult to change gears when one thinks about what is permissible in marriage. How can an act so “pornographic”, “ugly”, “disgusting” and damning outside of marriage become so beautiful, loving, and saintly inside of marriage? Part of that answer is that in the realm of chastity… it is not always the act that is the problem… It is weather or not the act is used illicitly. (Think about receiving Jesus in the Eucharist with a clean soul. Now think about receiving the Eucharist while in mortal sin.)

What helped me… I fell in love with a wonderful girl who happened to be studying Theology of the Body at a Catholic University. Being a fan of philosophy and theology, I ate up everything she studied. Read love and Responsibility, read Theology of the Body. Heck… just read marriage prep books. I also had a great priest as my confessor… who also helped us with our marriage prep.

Besides books by JPII, I recommend Husband & Wife by Fr. Paul Wickens; Three to get Married by Fulton Sheen; And I know many here like some material by Christopher West. I have only seen quotes of his… but it sounds legit.

 

[vluvski]

I’m 23, preparing for marriage on May 20, 2006, and impurity is a constant battle for me, so, like frogman, I’ve done quite a bit of reading a studying to gain understanding of what it really means to be pure and chaste.

 

[jegow]

vluvski:

Help me figure out what you’re arguing here, please. Is it that oral sex is immoral on the grounds that the act itself is intrinsically evil? Or just that it is a separate act in and of itself that can never be considered part of the marital embrace?

Well believe it or not I am trying to argue the first (its being always immoral) by arguing the second (that is not at all a part of the conjugal act). From reading many posts (exhausting …:yawn: ) it appears that oral sex is most of the time being placed under the term ‘the marital embrace’. It gives ‘marital embrace’ the definition of a process and not an act since other acts (oral sex) seem to be included in it as well. Before someone gets me for this, yes, I know that processes involve different acts; such as assembling a car. It goes through an entire assembly line (or however they do that now) before a complete car exists. I am saying oral sex is not part of the process called conjugal love or even an element of it.
The way I am reading it ‘marital embrace’ really sounds like an umbrella statement; a statement that includes all sexual acts as being of the same moral value since they fall under that term.

A second clarification for our other folk who have been writing: I am not saying that caressing, kissing, touching, massaging, etc. is wrong or immoral in the proper sense of the words. I don’t want this to be an R or worse rated thread so I will spare you the full details of that clarification, ok.

 

[jegow]

vluvski:

I’m 23, preparing for marriage on May 20, 2006, and impurity is a constant battle for me, so, like frogman, I’ve done quite a bit of reading a studying to gain understanding of what it really means to be pure and chaste.

And nothing pleases me more than to hear that and God bless you for the desire to have a pure and chaste marriage.

 

[vluvski]

jegow:

Well believe it or not I am trying to argue the first (its being always immoral) by arguing the second (that is not at all a part of the conjugal act).

Okay, I can see where you’re coming from if I work backward from your conclusion. If oral sex can never be “one” with the “marital embrace,” then it makes perfect sense that it could never be moral. It would qualify as “use of the sexual faculties” outside the 1)unitive between husband and wife 2)procreative and 3)counter-concupiscent criteria that create the grounds for whether or not any sexual act is moral.

You lose me before that, though, because I don’t understand how it is inherently separate in the first place, at least any more so than any of the other aforementioned activities such as kissing, etc…

 

[frogman80]

Latin_Catholic,

Fornication comes from the Latin word “fornix” which mean a vault, or an arch, or valuated cellar. Fornix - noun turned into fornic - verb which came to describe the action of prostitutes who worked out of a fornix. Late Latin - fornicatio - means to have sex with prostitutes. The word now strictly means “voluntary sex between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman.” In the old testament it can be used symbolically to describe a forsaking of God to worship idols.

So instead of fornication… I think the word you are looking for is “Lust”

Latin_Catholic:

I’m taking a practical approach here:

Is it* possible* that “oral sex” is not fornication if used only to lead to intercourse?

Lets reword your question to: “Is it possible that ‘oral sex’ is not lust if used only to lead to intercourse?”

Latin_Catholic:

Maybe, technically speaking, yes.

The question is: why taking chances with technicalities?

Can you be 100% sure you’ll never end up using it not as a means but rather as an end?

I believe that when it comes to sin, you shouldn’t be taking chances.

I also agree that when it comes to sin one should not be wreckless. Lets put things in prospective. As a person can you you ever be 100% sure that you will never fall into sin “fill in blank”? Can you guarantee that you will never be selfish? Can you guarantee that you well never be prideful?

But as a husband with experience in this area… Although I hope and pray that my wife and I will never end up using it as an “end”… I am very sure it will not. It has never even been a second thought. Never during making love to my wife have I ever had to think to myself… “Oh shoot, this is nice… should I tell her to stop or let her keep going.” I would never want her to keep going… I think it is gross and selfish, and that is a turnoff for me.

In fact, I do not think there has ever been a need to say “stop” at all… it just naturally progresses how it should.

Other married couples may have different experience. Other married couples may handle this differently.

 

[jegow]

vluvski:

Okay, I can see where you’re coming from if I work backward from your conclusion. If oral sex can never be “one” with the “marital embrace,” then it makes perfect sense that it could never be moral. It would qualify as “use of the sexual faculties” outside the 1)unitive between husband and wife 2)procreative and 3)counter-concupiscent criteria that create the grounds for whether or not any sexual act is moral.

You lose me before that, though, because I don’t understand how it is inherently separate in the first place, at least any more so than any of the other aforementioned activities such as kissing, etc…

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.

 

[frogman80]

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.

What do you mean by “the act itself”

 

[steveandersen]

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.

There is an apt colloquialism that belies that (and no I won’t repeat it here kids)

A truly loving couple could conceivably make foreplay go on all day or longer if circumstances demanded (or allowed) before leading to “The Act”

I mean “The Act” is great and all that but by itself and separated form all other contact it seems kinda empty

I don’t see anything in dogma that suggests that “The Act” must take place within a certain time limit or other conditions.

Isn’t it appropriate that the unitive aspects be experienced in as much of the marriage as possible?

Why wouldn’t a touch here and a look there throughout the day all be part of one act?

 

[Dmitri451]

jegow, vluvski posted the following, and I’d like to get your response. It seems to me that it gets to the heart of your argument.

vluvski:

According to your statement, oral sex is wrong because it involves the genitalia. If a spouse is prohibited from genitally stimulating his wife with his mouth, what about his mouth makes that body part immoral to use on his wife in that location? Many other non-genital body parts are also used for stimulation- leg, hip, abdomen, hands, etc… so what makes the mouth different? I can’t think of anything.

 

[frogman80]

steveandersen:

A truly loving couple could conceivably make foreplay go on all day or longer if circumstances demanded (or allowed) before leading to “The Act”

Isn’t it appropriate that the unitive aspects be experienced in as much of the marriage as possible?

Why wouldn’t a touch here and a look there throughout the day all be part of one act?

That is right on.

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.