Husband bringing Wife to "completion" after the marital act?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sealabeag
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
RolandThompsonGunner said:
Surely if God only meant for women to experience sexual gratification via vaginal intercourse, the epicenter of female sexual pleasure would be inside the vagina.
Click to expand...
In the largest study of its kind and published in The Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, only 18% of women can achieve ‘completion’ during intercourse alone.


Please don’t dismiss this question: How many posters on this thread, particularly those debating about the nature of a woman’s pleasure, are women here? It is very relevant, especially considering nearly all opinions and determinations in Christianity regarding sex (and anything else, actually) is only from the male perspective.

Edited: for spelling, because a thread is very different than a threat…thank you autocorrect
 
Last edited:
You more eloquently said what I think than I ever could, excepting that I am very Catholic and adhere to its moral instructions. Thank you.
 
My pleasure. Of course. Ahem. 😉

I agree with your point that the ladies here should be the ones to carry this discussion. I will continue to follow this thread with interest.
 
QContinuum said:
I agree with your point that the ladies here should be the ones to carry this discussion. I will continue to follow this thread with interest.
Click to expand...
I don’t buy this part. We should be able to use reason and argument to arrive at a conclusion regardless of our gender. I always see comments like this as an abdication of reason in favor of identity politics.

Spoiler: I’m a guy.
 
Might it be possible this is a situation where the couple themselves discerns to see what they feel is best?
 
Especially in morality. The moral law is accessible to reason, and not better understood depending on one’s biological sex. But, any fig leaf will do.
 
And there is much to be said for participation.

I’ve already had my say, I’m perfectly willing now to simply watch. (Which brings its own satisfaction.)

Please do not take my comment as any kind of gag order.
 
Last edited:
😂 you’re funny

As a woman, I am reluctant to post anything regarding sex here because I swiftly get backlash. If I point out that there are many women with high libidos, I’m not believed (I’m a psychologist and through patient presentation and a great deal of peer reviewed journal readings, I know a lot on the topic. Also, I’ve been a very happily married woman, with a happy husband, for twenty years…I’ll leave it at that). Once I started a thread on the topic of temptation and given that Jesus was fully man as well as fully God and never sinned, how can we learn from how He might have dealt with sexual temptation. If He faced every kind of temptation and never sinned, given that sexual temptation is one of the biggest issues we experience, and we’re instructed to be like Jesus, reason indicates consideration of how He dealt with this particular temptation would be helpful. I was swiftly flagged and berated: how you anyone ask such a question? Jesus was so busy on Him mission and was never ‘stained’ with such temptation! You need therapy for your sexual obsession! And so on. I was shocked, crushed, admittedly overreacted, and mostly was disappointed by the lack of charity. Many of the most respected posters on CA said these things and it was hurtful. ALL of this to say, a woman’s perspective is often dismissed at best and derided at worst, and apparently certain questions and opinions are extremely triggering and activate intense reaction in those with certain sensitivities, so I weigh very carefully what I say here.
 
Denying that it is at least possible for Jesus to have such (external) temptations is the strangest thing. Or that there are people with high libidos. Honestly the state of the Church with the laity is depressing.
 
This is how my husband and I approach the issue. The Bible speaks against sex outside of marriage and the act of sodomy. Much of it is grey area. As two people who want very much to please God, we’re not doing moral and mental gymnastics to justify things we shouldn’t, but it is a very private matter just between Mr Nevermore, myself, and God.
 
I just don’t see how you can reconcile female anatomy with the conclusion that only vaginal intercourse is licit between married couples. Unless you are willing to say that female sexual gratification is unimportant, I guess.
 
RolandThompsonGunner said:
We should be able to use reason and argument to arrive at a conclusion regardless of our gender. I always see comments like this as an abdication of reason in favor of identity politics.
Click to expand...
Identity politics?! I…just don’t know what to say to this. Defending a woman’s perspective has absolutely nothing to politics, nor should it be dismissed summarily just because feminists exist and can have extreme views. Reason and argument are informed by experience. A man can never understand the lived experience of a woman, and vice versa. You just proved the argument that women should be heavily involved in these discussions.
 
The marital act ought to be fully unitive and ordered to procreation. Pleasure is integral to that whole process. Pleasure encourages the act and makes God smile, so to speak.

Pleasing a woman is fun and necessary, and it should take place within the sexual encounter.
The Church doesn’t give a time or a succession program as to when that pleasure has to happen because human beings are not programmable robots. The Church is wise in recognizing this, and allowing couples to discover each other without imposing un-reasoned time-tables.

Sexual pleasure simply shouldn’t take place as a standalone action for it’s own sake, outside the marital embrace. That’s it.
 
Last edited:
NevermoreLenore said:
You just proved the argument that women should be heavily involved in these discussions.
Click to expand...
Of course they should. So should men. We’re talking about applying natural law and Catholic principles to sexual ethics. A persons gender has no bearing on their ability to reason.

By the way, I think we’re on the same side of this issue, even though I’m a man, so clearly it’s not like this just breaks down neatly along gender lines.
 
RolandThompsonGunner said:
A persons gender has no bearing on their ability to reason.
Click to expand...
Reason is informed by knowledge, which I don’t think is a controversial statement. While I agree there’s no reason to exclude men from the conversation entirely, it’s also worth recognizing when the issue affects one group, members of that group may have more specific, firsthand knowledge of many important details. So while everyone can reason, in a group discussion there’s room to consider the relative contribution each opinion and conclusion brings. It’s not much different, other than the personal nature of it, than trusting your doctor’s opinion about your bloodwork. You and your doctor are both capable of the very same reasoning, but she has specific knowledge about reading lab results that likely, though not always, makes her conclusions more complete.
 
You have NO idea 😂

Seriously though, I stopped posting a lot because people would flag what I said as giving ‘psychological advise’ and violates terms of service. It is unethical for me to diagnose and counsel specific to someone who is not my patient. However, if someone is struggling with anxiety for example I can let them know that Dialectical Behavioural Therapy has excellent material for mitigating anxiety. But I’m flagged, even though it’s general knowledge that is available with a Google search.

Sorry for the diversion…back to our regularly scheduled programming,…
 
I would also quickly interject, I merely suggested that women carry the conversation here on this matter. Not that men should be excluded.

We do have our uses. (I’m told anyway.)

This thread is fascinating. Indeed, Cajun’s statement re: frustration seems most seminal to the issue.
 
Dan123 said:
Reason is informed by knowledge, which I don’t think is a controversial statement. While I agree there’s no reason to exclude men from the conversation entirely, it’s also worth recognizing when the issue affects one group, members of that group may have more specific, firsthand knowledge of many important details. So while everyone can reason, in a group discussion there’s room to consider the relative contribution each opinion and conclusion brings. It’s not much different, other than the personal nature of it, than trusting your doctor’s opinion about your bloodwork. You and your doctor are both capable of the very same reasoning, but she has specific knowledge about reading lab results that likely, though not always, makes her conclusions more complete.
Click to expand...
We’re talking past each other. The question I’m seeking to address is not “what is sexual intimacy like for women?” Because yeah, if that was the question, I’d have to bow out. I have no idea. Don’t have the equipment. Personal experience would be necessary to have real insight.

But again, that’s not the question. The question is “if we apply natural law principles and Catholic sexual ethics, would this or that act be licit?” The ability to answer that question does not depend on subjective experience of sex as a woman. It’s a philosophical question. The ability to address that question hinges on the persons ability to reason and apply abstract principles to specific facts. It has nothing to do with their subjective experience of sex.
 
What about Christopher West’s views on sodomy do you object to?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top