If masturbation is gravely disordered

[Abu]

How strange that “masturbation” is misleadingly portrayed by some as: anything but “self-stimulation”, or by another, to climax apart from the marital act… It is really pointless to muck around without first understanding the terminology – and it seems to happen so often – first defining meaning clearly is essential, or others may be misled also.

“Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.” —Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2352

twotlj.org/G-2-9-E.html: The Way of the Lord Jesus, copyright © 2008, Germain Grisez, all rights reserved].
“An attempt to obtain sexual satisfaction plainly lacks reference to one’s spouse in either of two cases: (i) if it is intentionally directed to complete sexual satisfaction apart from marital intercourse, and (ii) if it involves reference to some third party (whether or not it is directed to complete sexual satisfaction apart from marital intercourse). In these cases, the act is wrong not only specifically as infidelity, but also on the same basis (which will be explained) as masturbation or fornication for those who are not married.”

“Hence, acts by the husband or the wife intended to intensify to orgasm her sexual arousal in continuity with any complete act of marital intercourse belong to that intercourse, and so they are marital, even if done during foreplay or after the husband’s ejaculation and withdrawal.” [My emphasis].

Self-stimulation would still be unnatural and immoral.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

This is what someone posted as coming from JPII’s Love and Responsibility:

In his book “Love and Responsibility” the late (GREAT) Pope John Paul II talks about the love that a husband must implore while “tempering his orgasm” so as to reach a climax with his wife. However, it is noted by the Holy Father that many times, due to our biological make up the husband may reach his climax before the wife does. The husband should then do what is loving and bring his wife to an orgasm after the act.

Are you saying that the above is not from the text? If so, can you please post exactly what JPII wrote?

Mirror Mirror in Post #7 provided a link to what appears to be a commentary on *Love and *Responsibility with excerpts. The post implies that p.28 of the linked document addresses manual stimulation of the wife after intercourse. All I am saying is that I can’t find that in the document. I would further say that no one has provided a source which shows either JPII or the Church saying manual stimulation of the wife after intercourse is a licit form of sexual activity. If someone claims otherwise, the burden of proof is on that person to cite the reference. Furthermore, no amount of theological speculation can substitute for a magisterial pronouncement, nihil obstats and imprimaturs notwithstanding.

I don’t have the definitive answer to the question of the licitness of post-coital stimulation to orgasm; based on what I have read, with emphasis on the CCC, I am inclined to doubt the morality of the act. I see nothing authoritative in this conversation to persuade me to the contrary. I would be grateful to discover I am mistaken

AMDG
jsa

I cannot find the specific document that I have talked about in the past and will hopefully come across it one day. Until then I will do my best to explain what I referenced earlier. If you take the time to look at the linked .pdf file on page 28 & 29 it talks about this,

“The man must take this difference” (the arousal of man and woman) “between male and female into account, not for hedonistic, but for alturistic reasons. There exists a rhythm dictated by nature itself which both spouses must discover so that climax may be reached both by the man and by tht woman, and as far as possible occur simultaneously.”

This goes back to what I had mentioned about the husband needs to “temper his orgasm” so as to climax at the same time as his wife. The above quote is taking into account the biological make up of our bodies as male and female, showing that it is easier for a male to reach an orgasm than it is for the female. This should be taken into account throughout the marital embrace. There must be a desire to show that the other person is more important than yourself in the act. This leads us to the next part:

“There is a need for harmonization, which is impossible without good will, especially on the part of the man, who must carefully observe the reactions of the woman. If a woman does not obtain natural gratification from the sexual act there is a danger that her experience of it will be qualitatively inferior, will not involve her fully as a person.”

If you disect what this is saying you will see that if the woman does not reach a climax, there is a chance, simplistically put, that she will get her feelings hurt and be let down. Hence the next line in the link

“A woman finds it very difficult to forgive a man if she derives no satisfaction from intercourse.”

So what would this be calling husbands to do? Should they try their best to reach a climax in harmony with their wives and then, failing to do so, roll over in exhaustion? Do they ignore the “natural gratification from the sexual act” of their wife? While still in the marital act, the loving thing for the husband to do would be to bring his wife to the same “natural gratification” (or orgasm) that he has just received from her. Her orgasm is not essential for the procreative aspect of the marital act, therefore it does not have to come at the same time as her husband’s and many times it will not, it is simple biology.

As we read near the end of page 28 you will see that it talks about the ‘tenderness’ that “can play a big part in harmonization of marital intercourse.”

“Precisely because a slower and more gradual rise in the curve of sexual arousal is characteristic of the female organism the need for tenderness during physical intercourse, and also before it begins and after its conclusion is explicable in purely biological terms. If we take into account the short and more violent curve of arousal in the man, an acat of tenderness on his part in the context of a marital intercourse acquires the significance of an act of virtue - specifically the virtue of contienence, and so indirectly the virtue of love.”

(bold mine)

This last quote shows you how the husband is called to be attentive to his wife and to her difference curve of ‘sexual arousal’ before during and even after the act. He is called, out of love, to be attentive to his wife and her needs and desires as well. The marital embrace is a two way street. It is both *unitive * AND procreative and part of the unitive is giving of yourself freely, faithfully and totally in a renewal of your wedding vows. It is just like when Christ says to us “This is my body…given up for you.”

Therefore within the context of the martial act it is not something that is wrong or dirty to orally stimulate your spouse before or after the actual act of intercourse which is always present with the husband’s ejaculation inside of his wife’s vagina. All that surrounds that act, while maintaining the diginity of the other person and not disrepecting them in any way, is a loving act between husbands and wives.

 

[blackrobe]

I cannot find the specific document that I have talked about in the past and will hopefully come across it one day. Until then I will do my best to explain what I referenced earlier. If you take the time to look at the linked .pdf file on page 28 & 29 it talks about this,

“The man must take this difference” (the arousal of man and woman) “between male and female into account, not for hedonistic, but for alturistic reasons. There exists a rhythm dictated by nature itself which both spouses must discover so that climax may be reached both by the man and by tht woman, and as far as possible occur simultaneously.”

This goes back to what I had mentioned about the husband needs to “temper his orgasm” so as to climax at the same time as his wife. The above quote is taking into account the biological make up of our bodies as male and female, showing that it is easier for a male to reach an orgasm than it is for the female. This should be taken into account throughout the marital embrace. There must be a desire to show that the other person is more important than yourself in the act. This leads us to the next part:

“There is a need for harmonization, which is impossible without good will, especially on the part of the man, who must carefully observe the reactions of the woman. If a woman does not obtain natural gratification from the sexual act there is a danger that her experience of it will be qualitatively inferior, will not involve her fully as a person.”

If you disect what this is saying you will see that if the woman does not reach a climax, there is a chance, simplistically put, that she will get her feelings hurt and be let down. Hence the next line in the link

“A woman finds it very difficult to forgive a man if she derives no satisfaction from intercourse.”

So what would this be calling husbands to do? Should they try their best to reach a climax in harmony with their wives and then, failing to do so, roll over in exhaustion? Do they ignore the “natural gratification from the sexual act” of their wife? While still in the marital act, the loving thing for the husband to do would be to bring his wife to the same “natural gratification” (or orgasm) that he has just received from her. Her orgasm is not essential for the procreative aspect of the marital act, therefore it does not have to come at the same time as her husband’s and many times it will not, it is simple biology.

As we read near the end of page 28 you will see that it talks about the ‘tenderness’ that “can play a big part in harmonization of marital intercourse.”

“Precisely because a slower and more gradual rise in the curve of sexual arousal is characteristic of the female organism the need for tenderness during physical intercourse, and also before it begins and after its conclusion is explicable in purely biological terms. If we take into account the short and more violent curve of arousal in the man, an acat of tenderness on his part in the context of a marital intercourse acquires the significance of an act of virtue - specifically the virtue of contienence, and so indirectly the virtue of love.”

(bold mine)

This last quote shows you how the husband is called to be attentive to his wife and to her difference curve of ‘sexual arousal’ before during and even after the act. He is called, out of love, to be attentive to his wife and her needs and desires as well. The marital embrace is a two way street. It is both *unitive * AND procreative and part of the unitive is giving of yourself freely, faithfully and totally in a renewal of your wedding vows. It is just like when Christ says to us “This is my body…given up for you.”

Therefore within the context of the martial act it is not something that is wrong or dirty to orally stimulate your spouse before or after the actual act of intercourse which is always present with the husband’s ejaculation inside of his wife’s vagina. All that surrounds that act, while maintaining the diginity of the other person and not disrepecting them in any way, is a loving act between husbands and wives.

Again, there is nothing in the passage quoted to suggest that manual or oral stimulation to orgasm after coitus is licit. On the contrary, the Holy Father refers specifically to acts which exemplify the* virtue of continence*. Continence means self-control with respect to emissions.

One may, I suppose, read “act of tenderness” to mean whatever one wishes. Anything beyond the Holy Father’s text is speculation and evidence of nothing more that what a reader wishes the text to say. And, as I have mentioned, this is not a magisterial text anyway.

AMDG
jsa

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

Again, there is nothing in the passage quoted to suggest that manual or oral stimulation to orgasm after coitus is licit. On the contrary, the Holy Father refers specifically to acts which exemplify the* virtue of continence*. Continence means self-control with respect to emissions.

One may, I suppose, read “act of tenderness” to mean whatever one wishes. Anything beyond the Holy Father’s text is speculation and evidence of nothing more that what a reader wishes the text to say. And, as I have mentioned, this is not a magisterial text anyway.

AMDG
jsa

I guess it is up to your interpretation.

 

[Govan78]

Women have a higher rate of conceiving if the woman has climaxed. It’s suggested for couples that are trying to conceive to make sure the woman reaches climax for better odds, regardless if the husband climaxed already. The fluids released from a woman’s climax help the sperm go where they need to go and provides protection from what is otherwise a hostile environment for sperm.

In the pro-creative sense, I don’t see how a woman masturbating to achieve climax after the sex-act would be disordered since the fluids from her climax raise the odds of achieving conception. Not all couples engage in oral sex, and not every woman can achieve climax from their partner through sex or a hand job. Better to ask the priest about it, just to be sure it’s not a sin anyway, though.

 

[Abu]

Post #41:
How strange that “masturbation” is misleadingly portrayed by some as: anything but “self-stimulation”; or by another, to climax apart from the marital act. It is really pointless to muck around without first understanding the terminology – and it seems to happen so often – first defining meaning clearly is essential, or others may be misled also.

“Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.” —Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2352

Self stimulatiion to climax at any time is evil.