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

  • Thread starter Thread starter sealabeag
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LumineDiei said:
So, no touching the genitals of the spouse whatsoever?

Just item A inserted into slot B with no touching of any body parts. Wow. Sounds like instructions for plugging in a toaster and not a loving act between spouses.
Click to expand...
It’s also clearly contrary to the design. For most women, going straight to intercourse with no warm-up would just be painful. Not to mention you still have to explain the clitoris. Design flaw?
 
Who said foreplay was forbidden? It’s clearly not. Sorry for crude language, not sure what else to use.
 
Last edited:
Miiiils said:
Well in either situation, masturbation would never be permissible, because masturbation is intrinsically evil.
Click to expand...
Why do women . . . have a certain erogenous zone . . . if the only licit way for a man to stimulate his wife is . . . strictly the marital act with, . . . no detours or pit stops along the way?
 
Last edited:
I would (and have, four of them actually. I like multiple opinions) ask a priest. I would feel most solid with them. I’ve also asked “holy couples” as I call them, married people who are in habitual grace like my godparents, and who produce holy children and are solid in their community. That is the second best option imo. Other lay people are progressively less reliable, chief among them who is least reliable is an unmarried young man not yet 30 years old.
 
At this point it seems silly to even ask ‘hey, can I make sure my wife gets an orgasm?’. I definitely wouldn’t want to be with someone who had to ask!
 
The burden of proof is with the one who claims that stimulation after the integral/procreative function of the sexual faculty is complete (insofar as that is in the couple’s control) is not autoerotic. In other words, you have to explain why this is not self-abuse… Personally, I do not see the way around the conclusion. There should rather be adequate preparation for the sexual act - but to make up for it afterwards seems rather plainly to be not ordered at all toward procreation, which is an essential element of the right use of venereal pleasure. The female organ exists exclusively to incentivize and aid with the procreative “moment” (by making it more pleasing and by physically preparing the body), wherein other benefits can be found (social, psychological, even physical).

As for the question of the “vas indebitum” - it seems to me that any usage of other parts of the body in preparation for the procreative moment must really and truly be done in view of that moment (really AS preparation), and not done simply for their own sake out of curious pleasure-seeking. This essentially rules out “acts” (protracted amounts of time spent using improper parts of the body) with the male organ - though there could be “moments”.
 
Last edited:
I’m not sure the Church is going to ever do that. Issue a teaching in what is permitted in the realm of sex.

The church teachings are pretty clear. We aren’t supposed to use contraception, and we aren’t supposed to resort to onanistic practices, because they become de facto contraceptive.

And some opinions are more authoritative than others.

The source I posted carries a “Nihil Obstat” and “Imprimatur”.

Imprimatur means that it’s printed with permission of the church.

Nihil Obstat means there isn’t anything there contrary to Church teaching.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top