How to know if sex is unitive?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SpeakKindly
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LongingSoul said:
**I think you are trying to define ‘conjugal act’ in the way the blind monks were trying to define an elephant. ** Taking aspects and isolating them from the whole to try and make meaning won’t work because the meaning is revealed by the big picture. It’s revealed by being aware of how each part works for the whole. So the ‘conjugal act’, consists of the physical expression, as in the act… the spiritual expression, established by the vow and the intellectual expression, whereby exercising our free will we choose to love selflessly in marriage. Out of this whole process, new life blossoms naturally. Without one or the other of these elements, conjugality is impossible.

It’s sort of like equations. The formulas exist naturally waiting to be uncovered and then in following the natural process, the truth blossoms. We can arrive at answers by counting on our fingers and toes the way you would try to cheat in math as a kid… but that defies the whole purpose of the process, which is engaging the natural elements in a fruitful dialogue of creativity. The marriage, like the equation, is a dialogue of creativity that results in the blossoming of truth.
Click to expand...
A first response:

In the conjugal act what is the role and the function of the Mouth, of the lips of mouth, of the tongue, of the hands, of the fingers, of the arms, of the intimate top parts, of the sexual intimate parts, of the back, of the hair…etc. The issue of the telos!!! The teleology, a great discipline!!!

Morally speaking, in the context of the marital act:

Does she have the right to use foreplay on the body of her husband,in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to use foreplay on the body of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does she have the right to see the body of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to see the body of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does she have the right to look at the body of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to look at the body of his wife,in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does she have the right to stare the body of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to stare the body of his wife,in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does she have the right to listen the body of her husband,in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to listen the body of his wife,in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does she have the right to hear the body of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to hear the body of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does she have the right to touch the body of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to touch the body of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does she have the right to kiss the body of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to kiss the body of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does she have the right to caresse (fondle) the body of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to caresse (fondle) the body of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does she have the right to massage the body of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to massage the body of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does she have the right to lick the body of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does she have the right to be penetrated in the suitable canal of her body by her husband, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to enter into the suitable canal of the body of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to move into the suitable canal of the body of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to lick the body of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does she have the right to suck the body of her husband,in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to suck the body of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
 
LongingSoul said:
I think you are trying to define ‘conjugal act’ in the way the blind monks were trying to define an elephant. Taking aspects and isolating them from the whole to try and make meaning won’t work because the meaning is revealed by the big picture. It’s revealed by being aware of how each part works for the whole. So the ‘conjugal act’, consists of the physical expression, as in the act… the spiritual expression, established by the vow and the intellectual expression, whereby exercising our free will we choose to love selflessly in marriage. Out of this whole process, new life blossoms naturally. Without one or the other of these elements, conjugality is impossible.

It’s sort of like equations. The formulas exist naturally waiting to be uncovered and then in following the natural process, the truth blossoms. We can arrive at answers by counting on our fingers and toes the way you would try to cheat in math as a kid… but that defies the whole purpose of the process, which is engaging the natural elements in a fruitful dialogue of creativity. The marriage, like the equation, is a dialogue of creativity that results in the blossoming of truth.
Click to expand...
The male body is made for carnal conjugal love;
The female body is made for carnal conjugal love;
The male body is made for the female body;
The female body is made for the male body;
Our bodies are made for the carnal conjugal love;
The marital act is an carnal union between two different sexualities: the male sexuality and the female sexuality;

In the marriage:
Each one has to respect its own sexuality and has to respect the sexuality of the other;
Each one has to understand its own sexuality and has to understand the sexuality of the other;
The conjugal act is the union of sexes : the union of two different sexualities, the male and the female;
Each one has to discover the sexuality of the other;
Each one has to learn and to teach what is the conjugal sexuality: the aspect of development of the marital act. Each one is a teacher and a learner;
Each one has to be an active lover and a passive lover;
The marital act is a phenomenon in three moments.
 
fpt, could you please stop addressing my posts. Your replies seem obsessive and creepy and it makes me feel violated to have to read that stuff.
 
SpeakKindly said:
How are we to determine if it’s unitive?

Also, if spouses are having sex, how is one to know that the other isn’t simply lusting? Can sex be unitive and lusting?
Click to expand...
In catholicism, the essential paradigm is the enjoyment in the respect of the natural moral order of the creation. We can apply that view to the marital act (see the Song of Songs).

The conjugal passion, even the conjugal sexual passion, does not have to be opposed to the reason. Reason and passion, and passion and reason are not opposed, per se. By definition, love is passion otherwise that is not love, but the expression of the passion has to be reasoned and reasonable. Love without passion is not the love. Love is a sentiment, a will and a choice, with a reasonable passion (balance and moderation). The conjugal sexual romanticism has to be attempted, that is an obligation of means.

The fact of being a conjugal pleasure-seeker in the marital act, in the respect of the natural moral order, is the Holy Eros. The couple has the right to try to establish their Holy Eros. Each member of couple has to learn from the other and has to teach to the other: be a teacher and a learner. Each member of couple has to please to the other and has to satisfy the other, in respecting the natural moral order of the marital act: it is a donation of sexed bodies for making one flesh (body, soul and heart), in the human manner with the sexual cooperation. The marital act is not a simple coitus, otherwise it is awful and it is animalistic.

Marital act is — an act of love, a moral right, a moral obligation, a moral duty, a moral debt, a prayer, a liturgy, a language of love —, in order to: express love,
or /and in order to improve the bonding of love, or / and in order to avoid the bad effect of concupiscence, or / and in order to be an actor of the human procreation. From love, by love, in love, of love, for love. Love is the cause / reason / intention / motivation and the end / purpose / objective / goal. The catholic paradigm is very wonderful, so powerful, so useful, so joyful and so charitable: be lovable, be tender, be female or male, be honest, be natural, be spontaneous, be human, not be angelic, be charitable… and enjoy.
 
Non-contraceptive conjugal relations between husband and wife are by definition both unitive and procreative. No need to overthink.
 
JimG said:
Non-contraceptive conjugal relations between husband and wife are by definition both unitive and procreative. No need to overthink.
Click to expand...
Provided that each spouse is considerate of the other–patient, kind, generous of heart, building the other up, willing to communicate, and so on–I would think this is sufficient.

To consider your own pleasure to be paramount is not unitive. Nothing done primarily out of self-centered or selfish motives will have the full good end intended by God. Still, to put the pleasure of your spouse ahead of your own does not mean pleasure is not a legitimate part of sex. It is like deciding what kinds of foods to eat, how to arrange your house, or any of the other little legitimate pleasures in married life. They are real, but “little,” because you have to put them behind your consideration for the other person. In the ideal world, seeing to the pleasure of your spouse is one of the main things that gives you pleasure in marriage, in fact!
 
Each spouse has to try to please and to satisfy the other, sexually speaking, in the respect of the natural order of the marital act. In the context of the marital act, each one has the natural right of expecting to receive the sexual pleasures and Co, via the acts of the other. The husband is an active lover on his wife and the wife is an active lover on her husband: the donation and the reception of bodies, with the sexual cooperation. The fact of expecting, of hoping, of willing and wanting of receiving the sexual natural effects of the marital act via the intermediary of the spouse is not selfish and is not immoral. (Read the Song of Songs).

It is morally sinful for the spouse of not trying to satisfy the other, in the respect of the natural moral order of the marital act. Each one has to make its job on the other. The voluntary refusal, without good reason, of pleasing and to satisfy the other is morally wrong. The day of wedding, there is a sexual vow. The unity is linked to the honest tries of each one in favor of the other. The unilateral renouncing of pleasing and of satisfying the other, sexually speaking, in the context of the marital act, without fair reason, is morally wrong.
 
fpt said:
Each spouse has to try to please and to satisfy the other, sexually speaking, in the respect of the natural order of the marital act. In the context of the marital act, each one has the natural right of expecting to receive the sexual pleasures and Co, via the acts of the other. The husband is an active lover on his wife and the wife is an active lover on her husband: the donation and the reception of bodies, with the sexual cooperation. The fact of expecting, of hoping, of willing and wanting of receiving the sexual natural effects of the marital act via the intermediary of the spouse is not selfish and is not immoral. (Read the Song of Songs).

It is morally sinful for the spouse of not trying to satisfy the other, in the respect of the natural moral order of the marital act. Each one has to make its job on the other. The voluntary refusal, without good reason, of pleasing and to satisfy the other is morally wrong. The day of wedding, there is a sexual vow. The unity is linked to the honest tries of each one in favor of the other. The unilateral renouncing of pleasing and of satisfying the other, sexually speaking, in the context of the marital act, without fair reason, is morally wrong.
Click to expand...
If mutual charity and mutual understanding of the nature of marriage on a basic level exists, marital relations are procreative and unitive by their nature. This is built into our DNA; it doesn’t take a theology degree.
 
EasterJoy said:
If mutual charity and mutual understanding of the nature of marriage on a basic level exists, marital relations are procreative and unitive by their nature. This is built into our DNA; it doesn’t take a theology degree.
Click to expand...
During a session of the marital act, the wife has to try to provoke the sexual male pleasures, the male orgasm and the male’s ejaculation, and the husband has to try to provoke the sexual female pleasures and the female orgasms (three types or more). The male sexuality is not the female sexuality, and vice versa.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top