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:
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.
Click to expand...
That’s fair. I agree we’re not really disagreeing perhaps just establishing terms and nuance. I would however say the question of “what is sexual intimacy like for women?” or more specifically, “what is sexual intimacy like as a woman if your sexual needs go unfufilled while your partner’s do not?”, which I think we’d both agree are questions primarily for women to answer, are a significant part of the conversation.

How can you know if a sex act is unitive without asking how women feel when their sexual needs are ignored or made secondary to a man’s gratification? And how can you know if the act is inline with Catholic teaching if you don’t know if it’s unitive?
 
Ignore my previous post.

Note that in stating his views on the question, Christopher West actually quotes several older moral theologians (from long before the Vatican II days) who held the same belief. The Church has never spoken definitively one way or the other on the topic.
 
Dan123 said:
How can you know if a sex act is unitive without asking how women feel when their sexual needs are ignored or made secondary to a man’s gratification? And how can you know if the act is inline with Catholic teaching if you don’t know if it’s unitive?
Click to expand...
Fair point. I guess what I’m saying is that reasoning with the principles themselves can be done equally well by men and women. Applying those principles may require a specifically female perspective.
 
If an act is unitive or not does not depend on if pleasure is received. If both spouses couldn’t feel anything because their nerves were busted, it would not be less unitive. (Hypothetical to demonstrate the point, don’t know if this has happened, can happen, or anything about “busted nerves.”)
 
Last edited:
Mythicalbio said:
If an act is unitive or not does not depend on if pleasure is received. If both spouses couldn’t feel anything because their nerves were busted, it would not be less unitive. (Hypothetical to demonstrate the point, don’t know if this has happened, can happen, or anything about “busted nerves.”)
Click to expand...
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Not quite true. The Bible condemns sodomy. St. Thomas Aquinas said it was immoral, within or outside of marriage, as did St. Alphonsus Ligouri, two of the greatest moral theologians of our Church. I know of no Saint or Church document that approved it. And surely the law of God written on our hearts condemns it, if we’re honest?
The Church took it to be so plainly obvious that sodomy was immoral that there was no apparent need for a specific, official condemnation of it within marriage. Maybe that fact has changed in our times, and clear condemnation is required.
 
Last edited:
In addition to your point, even if we completely remove the Catholic Church and Biblical passages, sodomy then ‘finishing inside the woman’ should not be done. Doing so causes infection, which can be dangerous and is horribly painful. Put the medical contraindication and Catholic teaching together and it’s a huge NOPE.
 
NevermoreLenore said:
In addition to your point, even if we completely remove the Catholic Church and Biblical passages, sodomy then ‘finishing inside the woman’ should not be done. Doing so causes infection, which can be dangerous and is horribly painful. Put the medical contraindication and Catholic teaching together and it’s a huge NOPE.
Click to expand...
I think sealabeag is using the old definition of “sodomy” which includes oral sex.
 
Mythicalbio said:
If both spouses couldn’t feel anything because their nerves were busted, it would not be less unitive.
Click to expand...
In theory perhaps, but a massive aspect of unity includes that you can provide and receive incredible pleasure that only you and your spouse can give each other. It is an exclusive relationship, sex is one of (if not the most) intense and ecstatic physical experiences, and the pleasure itself releases neurotransmitters that specifically promote the unitive bond (this also happens to a woman after birth and causes the intense bonding she experiences with her baby). Inherent in the unitive experience is mutual satisfaction.
 
Oh, I didn’t know that ‘sodomy’ included oral sex. Interesting. Thank you for correcting me.
 
I don’t think anyone gives it that meaning anymore, but a lot of older writings basically group everything that isn’t vaginal intercourse under “sodomy.”
 
NevermoreLenore said:
Inherent in the unitive experience is mutual satisfaction.
Click to expand...
Which does make all the more curious the design of male and female bodies. The man almost always guaranteed of pleasure through intercourse and women far less so. It is curious.
 
Dolphin said:
Actually St. JPII famously wrote this. It’s a fact, he wrote it.

Whether you agree or disagree with that is different but you can’t deny he wrote it when we have physical proof he did
Click to expand...
Dolphin said:
Read Good News About Sex And Marriage by Christopher West as he delves into TOB and Love And Responsibility . The book is at my house where I am not so I cannot quote it atm
Click to expand...
You’re wrong.

First you said it is written in love and responsability. But you quoted an indirect quote from a Christopher West book that don’t even quote an actual thing from Love and Responsaibility that said what you think.

And sorry, people who actually read and have the book Love and responsability in their home know that what you think is not in any place of this book at all.
 
The answers have been given since the beginning of time in the natural law. It was more clear before the fall though.
 
Miiiils said:
Sort of was.

Since you can’t masturbate (use your hands/mouth) to masturbate your spouse, then your only other option would be to just… continue the natural marital act (maybe try other positions), and hopefully she will climax.
Click to expand...
Re read the thread. That’s not the definitive Catholic position.
 
How do you figure that? I sincerely hope if you are married or plan to marry you reconsider this ideation, because the Church doesn’t not explicitly forbid these acts. Without proper stimulation, sex can be painful and cause injury to a woman and completely neglects her needs. Yes, women do have sexual needs and just as it is part of the wife’s role to be sexually available to her husband, also it is his duty to her. Just insisting on intercourse alone with the attitude of ‘if she gets there, cool’ is the height of selfishness and would actively work against unity.
 
RolandThompsonGunner said:
I don’t think anyone gives it that meaning anymore, but a lot of older writings basically group everything that isn’t vaginal intercourse under “sodomy.”
Click to expand...
No, but it is important to know the meaning of the word during the time in which something is written to fully understand the text. Thanks again for providing context.
Rau said:
Which does make all the more curious the design of male and female bodies. The man almost always guaranteed of pleasure through intercourse and women far less so. It is curious.
Click to expand...
I agree. It is interesting and surely God has a purpose for it all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top