V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
If done as part of the overall act of sexual union, it is 1.) not closed to life, 2) serves the unitive goal of sexual union.
- Status
Mary_Gail_36
New member
C
comrade1789
Guest
I found this thread because I just finished reading that anal foreplay bit in Christopher West’s Good New About Sex & Marriage and was loving the book until that point. How absolutely incongruous with the dignity of sex and marriage, what business does a baptized servant of the Most High God, a Member of the Body of Christ, has with joining their penis with their wife’s anus? I was getting so excited about this book that I was going to send it to both my protestant sisters who are contracepting in their marriages, but this is a very foul stain on the whole book. There is no way anal penetration can be Christian, my stomache churns and heart aches at this…
That being said, I googled “Catholic Teaching on Anal Sex” and found out that Christopher West came under criticism for that anal foreplay bit in his 1st edition, and that he has since corrected it in a revised edition, though my revised edition still retains this gross opinion (can anyone here with a later edition verify this please?) I found this info at davidmacd.com/blog/?p=180 which is a short, but informative look on the issue.
I hope I didn’t offend anyone, but this really does break my heart that we should even consider allowing such sacrilege to the very temples which house the Holy Spirit.
The blog I reference is put forth by a person who confesses “spent a couple of years around the gay community before I found the Lord,” poses these great points for our consideration:
I quote:
Here are my reasons why “back door” penetration is out of bounds, even when limited to foreplay between straight married couples, and even when the climax is saved for normal intercourse:
1.It is really unhealthy. There’s tearing, bleeding, bathroom complications, and a whole bunch of other health problems too nasty to mention here.
2.On moral issues, Catholicism follows a principle known as Natural Law. That means “use things according to thier purpose.” Anal sex in marriage is achieved by inserting the man’s reproductive organ into the woman’s digestive tract. That’s not very “natural.”
3.It is demeaning and violates the “Dignity of the Person,” who in this case is the woman. There is an unnatural and disproportional disparity of power between the couple during anal sex. Throughout history anal sex has been more about power than love. Even in ancient Greece where historical revisionists say it was “accepted,” the passive partner was always frowned upon, regardless of whether it was a man or a woman. Anal sex has always been about one person asserting dominance over another. In my experience, even in the modern gay community the person on the “bottom” is seen as weaker. In a recent interview, American Idol winners Chris Allen and Adam Lambert were asked “who will get the top bunk during your tour?” Adam blurted out “I wanna be the top!” The clip went all over the gay blogs because Adam, who is gay and who unexpectedly lost to Allen, was asserting his dominance.The extreme power disparity that happens during anal sex, is very distinct from the natural and moderate power interplay between a married couple during real intercourse. People who agree to be passive partners in anal sex generally have low self esteem, which is further fueled by subsequent occations of it. This becomes a downward spiral in the emotional life of passive partner. It is true whether or not anal sex is limited to foreplay. It often fosters deep seated, sometimes silent, resentment by the passive partner, which can undermine the health of the relationship.
4.In Pope JPII’s teaching “Love and Responsibility,” he pointed out that it usually takes women longer to climax than men. He also said that the man should hold his climax to coincide with the woman. Given that advice, it’s counter intuitive for the guy to advance his climax by having fake intercourse in the wrong place as a “warm up.”
5.Nowhere in the Bible does it say it’s OK, on the other hand Romans 1:24-27 says:
“women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women…”
Scripture is clearly saying women cannot have “back door” sex. The Bible doesn’t say “it’s only sex if there is climax.” I think using that excuse is like Bill Clinton saying “I didn’t have sex with that woman.”
6.Even if a couple could rationalize Romans 1:24-27 to apply only to anal sex that ends in climax, it would be precarious. Last time I checked, men aren’t always masters in self control during sex. If there is a premature climax, then the couple would be engaging in sin that is listed among the worst of the Bible. This rational for anal sex would be like trying to justify playing ball hockey on the freeway. (Of course, I propose that it is serious sin even if there is no premature “accident.”)
7.Anal sex is too much like natural intercourse to be foreplay. It is a spiritual axiom that evil always uses counterfeit perversions of holy and natural things to degrade the sanctity of those things, and there is no greater counterfeit of real intercourse than anal intercourse (even as foreplay).
That being said, I googled “Catholic Teaching on Anal Sex” and found out that Christopher West came under criticism for that anal foreplay bit in his 1st edition, and that he has since corrected it in a revised edition, though my revised edition still retains this gross opinion (can anyone here with a later edition verify this please?) I found this info at davidmacd.com/blog/?p=180 which is a short, but informative look on the issue.
I hope I didn’t offend anyone, but this really does break my heart that we should even consider allowing such sacrilege to the very temples which house the Holy Spirit.
The blog I reference is put forth by a person who confesses “spent a couple of years around the gay community before I found the Lord,” poses these great points for our consideration:
I quote:
Here are my reasons why “back door” penetration is out of bounds, even when limited to foreplay between straight married couples, and even when the climax is saved for normal intercourse:
1.It is really unhealthy. There’s tearing, bleeding, bathroom complications, and a whole bunch of other health problems too nasty to mention here.
2.On moral issues, Catholicism follows a principle known as Natural Law. That means “use things according to thier purpose.” Anal sex in marriage is achieved by inserting the man’s reproductive organ into the woman’s digestive tract. That’s not very “natural.”
3.It is demeaning and violates the “Dignity of the Person,” who in this case is the woman. There is an unnatural and disproportional disparity of power between the couple during anal sex. Throughout history anal sex has been more about power than love. Even in ancient Greece where historical revisionists say it was “accepted,” the passive partner was always frowned upon, regardless of whether it was a man or a woman. Anal sex has always been about one person asserting dominance over another. In my experience, even in the modern gay community the person on the “bottom” is seen as weaker. In a recent interview, American Idol winners Chris Allen and Adam Lambert were asked “who will get the top bunk during your tour?” Adam blurted out “I wanna be the top!” The clip went all over the gay blogs because Adam, who is gay and who unexpectedly lost to Allen, was asserting his dominance.The extreme power disparity that happens during anal sex, is very distinct from the natural and moderate power interplay between a married couple during real intercourse. People who agree to be passive partners in anal sex generally have low self esteem, which is further fueled by subsequent occations of it. This becomes a downward spiral in the emotional life of passive partner. It is true whether or not anal sex is limited to foreplay. It often fosters deep seated, sometimes silent, resentment by the passive partner, which can undermine the health of the relationship.
4.In Pope JPII’s teaching “Love and Responsibility,” he pointed out that it usually takes women longer to climax than men. He also said that the man should hold his climax to coincide with the woman. Given that advice, it’s counter intuitive for the guy to advance his climax by having fake intercourse in the wrong place as a “warm up.”
5.Nowhere in the Bible does it say it’s OK, on the other hand Romans 1:24-27 says:
“women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women…”
Scripture is clearly saying women cannot have “back door” sex. The Bible doesn’t say “it’s only sex if there is climax.” I think using that excuse is like Bill Clinton saying “I didn’t have sex with that woman.”
6.Even if a couple could rationalize Romans 1:24-27 to apply only to anal sex that ends in climax, it would be precarious. Last time I checked, men aren’t always masters in self control during sex. If there is a premature climax, then the couple would be engaging in sin that is listed among the worst of the Bible. This rational for anal sex would be like trying to justify playing ball hockey on the freeway. (Of course, I propose that it is serious sin even if there is no premature “accident.”)
7.Anal sex is too much like natural intercourse to be foreplay. It is a spiritual axiom that evil always uses counterfeit perversions of holy and natural things to degrade the sanctity of those things, and there is no greater counterfeit of real intercourse than anal intercourse (even as foreplay).
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
I guess I see it differently, even within the bounds of Catholic sexual teachings. If both spouses consent, the act ends in the appropriate way, and they take care to preserve eachothers health and safety, what could possibly be wrong with sharing every personal and intimate part/act with each other?
C
comrade1789
Guest
You may have posted this before I edited my comment, you might want to refresh and read again, which addresses your objection.
A
Ana_v
Guest
- Status