How to understand the Catechism? Is it proper to think of sexual desire as an itch to scratch?

[ethereality]

underacloud, let’s chalk it up to miscommunication, shake hands, and move on to better things.

 

[JNdoum]

Oh. I’m not determined to prove anything – I really considered it “case closed” after my OP that deliberate sexual stimulation outside of the marital act was never acceptable: I argued both sides and concluded in favor of the Church’s position.

Thank you for clearing this up. I suppose it wasn’t obvious from your post, as many of us assumed quite the obvious. However I don’t really see the logical fallacy of any of the arguments against it. Could you explain it again?

 

[underacloud]

underacloud, let’s chalk it up to miscommunication, shake hands, and move on to better things.

OK, will do. All the best.

 

[twoangels]

There are two points to address in this post. The first regards how to properly understand the Catechism; the second is how to refute an argument encouraging masturbation.

Is the following analysis correct?

1. 
   *]This statement establishes a working definition, so that “masturbation” here means “deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure”: It is possible that “deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to relieve sexual pressure” is not masturbation, unless “to relieve sexual pressure” is “to derive sexual pleasure”.

1. 
   It would seem to me that a person who rationalizes masturbation as “I just need to relieve myself of this pressure” is probably struggling with habitual masturbation. Sexual pressure will go away on its own if not acted upon. Fleeing the temptation may neccesitate some amount of distraction, but it will go away. However the force of habit may create an extra internal battle where it becomes difficult to know how to refuse. This can reduce his culpability, but it is still objectively grave.
   

   Someone I know commented that for him masturbation was “merely scratching an itch”, that he didn’t do it to seek sexual pleasure, but rather for relief from “that itch”. So the argument here is that it’s not sinful if you’re not lusting after someone or something and you’re not seeking sexual pleasure outside of the marital act. Even if you happen to experience some sexual pleasure from doing so, it appears from a literal reading that if you’re not seeking it, then it’s not illicit (from the principle of double effect).

   I find it greatly disturbing that a man can rationlize masturbation by claiming its more moral by further dissociating sexual pleasure from an interpersonal relationship by even removing the fantasy of another person. It seems more morally disordered than less.
   

   Do we honor God by scratching an itch? One could argue that we do, and that the pleasure experienced from itch-scratching gives glory to God insofar as we experience something good given to us by God.

   illogical circular reasoning. How can you argue you’re not pursuing the pleasure?
   

   Attempting to answer these questions myself: I think the matter is resolved when “applying it”: The sexual faculty appears to require an “other”, real or imagined, and without such an other, the sexual faculty does not function. I have a textbook, Anatomy & Physiology 4th ed. by Saladin, which affirms that mental stimulus is necessary for arousal, etc. Hence the sexual faculty cannot be used, sexual pressure cannot be relieved, without the presence of another, real or imagined.

   People can develope sexual fetuses where they find inanimate objects sexually alluring.
   

   Thus any solitary use of the sexual faculty dishonors God, who designed it to be used in the presence of another.

   This I agree with this.
   

   However, this only addresses the question of solitary efforts to relieve sexual pressure, and says nothing about seeking the assistance of another to relieve sexual pressure.

   If a person is reduced to a sexual object or tool to thus relieve you of sexual pleasure, they have turned into a masturbation tool. It is the inward focus that makes it masturbation even if sexual intercourse is occuring.
   
   I don’t have a problem with how the Church explains the sin of masturbation. It sounds more like someone is doing mental gynastics to rationalize behavior. But like I said, I think the experience of feeling like not masturbation is like avoiding scratching a misqueto bit that is just mentally driving you bonkers is probably the sign of habitual masturbation where there is less culpability. I don’t believe the sexual drive beings out feeling this way.

 

[Et_Cetera]

We all have our vices to work through I guess.

 

[InNomineDomini]

To “derive sexual pleasure” is here used as a euphemism for orgasm: ad obtinendam ex ea veneream voluptatem.

Voluptas is clear.

Everything else was needless analysis.

 

[twoangels]

To “derive sexual pleasure” is here used as a euphemism for orgasm: ad obtinendam ex ea veneream voluptatem.

Voluptas is clear.

Everything else was needless analysis.

I looked up Voluptas on wikipedia and all it says is that the word in Latin means pleasure or bliss. If we interpret the Catechism to define masturbation as stimulating yourself to the point of a climax, than that would imply that so long as you stopped short of a climax, you wouldn’t be in mortal sin. Maybe its just that our understanding of these things are tainted by the male experience.