Intercourse without orgasm during fertile days

[LucyLight]

LucyLight;8403817:

Says who? Where are you getting this information from? I’m not trying to be rude…I’d really like to know. The foreplay does not involve orgasm and the couple intends to have full intercourse at a later date that is open to life. So how is that masturbation? Are you saying that couples are not allowed to have any sexual contact with each other if it does not involve an immediate act of complete intercourse? I/

Come on this guy is talking about having intercourse, purely for pleasure, which he deliberately stops before orgasm (to reduce the chances of conception) as an act in itself. Surely to stimulate himself to an erection and his wife even to orgasm with the intent to do this is mutual masturbation or maybe (because penetration takes place) contraception even if he doesn’t actually go on to ejaculatie himself

Of course,a couple becoming aroused to a greater or lesser extent just through being affectionate etc isn’t a sin but surely to go bejond kissing & cuddling into deliberate sexual stimulation, genital contact (and for these guys - penitration) must be - unless as foreplay to intercourse. I think we all know where the line is between one and the other.

I don’t agree that what the OP is doing is morally correct because he says that the wife sometimes has an orgasm during their foreplay. Although, I completely understand his frustration. I’ve said that the foreplay shouldn’t go so far that there is a risk of orgasm.

 

[LucyLight]

Hi Lucy.

A while ago, I stumbled across a writing John Kippley called, “Marital Sexuality: Moral Considerations” it was available through the “Couple to Couple League”, I inquired and it is out of print. It carried an “Imprimatur” meaning that it is free of doctrinal error.

It is refered to here:

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=444605&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2002&Author=&Keyword=marital+sexuality&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=4&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=444608&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2002&Author=&Keyword=marital+sexuality&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=3&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

Married couples are allowed to engage in erotic behavior provided they do not become overly arousing, they do not lead to orgasm, and they do cause temptation to masturbate.

How much activity would depend on the couple, some could not have this type of activity because it is overly arousing.

.

From Marital Sexuality, Moral Considerations:

and

.

Thank you:thumbsup: I’ve looked for info like this for a long time. Hopefully, this will provide some clarity.

 

[SusanneT]

SusanneT;8403939:

I don’t agree that what the OP is doing is morally correct because he says that the wife sometimes has an orgasm during their foreplay. Although, I completely understand his frustration. I’ve said that the foreplay shouldn’t go so far that there is a risk of orgasm.

I’m astonished that he is able to be so self controlled, surely there is a significant risk of him ‘accidentally’ going two far ! I’m sorry but I just can’t accept that intimacy which involves penetration is foreplay - isn’t it just sex with withdrawal ? And I don’t accept that deliberate and prolonged genital stimulation one day is ‘foreplay’ for intercourse some days later - to me it is masturbation pure & simple.

It’s just not the same as a couple couple becoming naturally & mildly aroused because they are being loving and tender with each other (but without moving on to genital contact) to maintain their intimacy during the fertile time, looking forward to actual foreplay
and intercourse when they can. For eg - if you are kissing and you become aware that your husband is becoming aroused (without going into detail) - fine. But if you then start to touch his penis deliberately to enhance thar arousal - when you know intercourse is not intended surely that is masturbation even if by amazing self control after years of practise he doesn’t ejaculate.

 

[manualman]

Yes I am.

Clinton was right; oral sex isn’t sexual intercourse anymore than chewing up your meal and spitting it out is eating. …

Most ridiculous thing I’ve heard in some time. Good luck with the Clintonian approach to honesty in life.

 

[LucyLight]

LucyLight;8404255:

I’m astonished that he is able to be so self controlled, surely there is a significant risk of him ‘accidentally’ going two far ! I’m sorry but I just can’t accept that intimacy which involves penetration is foreplay - isn’t it just sex with withdrawal ? And I don’t accept that deliberate and prolonged genital stimulation one day is ‘foreplay’ for intercourse some days later - to me it is masturbation pure & simple.

It’s just not the same as a couple couple becoming naturally & mildly aroused because they are being loving and tender with each other (but without moving on to genital contact) to maintain their intimacy during the fertile time, looking forward to actual foreplay
and intercourse when they can. For eg - if you are kissing and you become aware that your husband is becoming aroused (without going into detail) - fine. But if you then start to touch his penis deliberately to enhance thar arousal - when you know intercourse is not intended surely that is masturbation even if by amazing self control after years of practise he doesn’t ejaculate.

I think that you make some good points here. I’m just not sure that what you are describing is masturbation. If the couple is planning on having sexual intercourse at a later date that is open to life and they don’t push their own limits, then I don’t see the problem. Maybe you can make the case that a single person stimulating their own genitals, but not to orgasm is still masturbating, however, its harder to make that case for a married couple who is planning on having intercourse in a few days.

 

[LucyLight]

Most ridiculous thing I’ve heard in some time. Good luck with the Clintonian approach to honesty in life.

What? As Catholics wouldn’t we define oral sex to completion as a form of masturbation and not sexual intercourse?

 

[SusanneT]

SusanneT;8404646:

I think that you make some good points here. I’m just not sure that what you are describing is masturbation. If the couple is planning on having sexual intercourse at a later date that is open to life and they don’t push their own limits, then I don’t see the problem. Maybe you can make the case that a single person stimulating their own genitals, but not to orgasm is still masturbating, however, its harder to make that case for a married couple who is planning on having intercourse in a few days.

I can’t see it makes any difference if they are “planning on having” sex at a later date - after all how much later ? A day and week ? The fact is at that time they are not planning on having intercourse, so if they are touching each others intimate areas to become sexually aroused - deliberately surely that is masturbation - even if they stop before either (and I guess especially the husband) has an orgasm.

 

[LucyLight]

SusanneT, I’m curious about your thoughts on the links that Mary Gail 36 provided. If you haven’t clikced on them yet, they are a quick read.

 

[mcrow]

A question for all you who seem to think situation in the OP is OK:

If you start touching youself in a sexual way and become aroused, but stop before orgasm did you masturbate?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

SusanneT, I’m curious about your thoughts on the links that Mary Gail 36 provided. If you haven’t clikced on them yet, they are a quick read.

Just noting that my links don’t cover penetration and then stopping prior to completion. They cover acceptable behavior between married people.

 

[SusanneT]

SusanneT, I’m curious about your thoughts on the links that Mary Gail 36 provided. If you haven’t clikced on them yet, they are a quick read.

The writer in those quotes is basically saying that couples can be intimate during abstinance even if that intimacy leads to a level of sexual arousal, as long as that arousal is not excessive and does not lead to orgasm (other than by pure accident in couples who are inexperienced as to where to draw the line.

I agree that this is quite a liberal interpritation. Arguably I suppose it could be read as condoning intimacy which is overtly sexual, that is presumably involving genital contact, as long as it doesn’t go too far. But alturnatively it could be read as encouraging couples to be loving and intimate, without being too affraid if that results in a level of arousal. Which is a serious point because I would guess many devout Catholics are affraid of those sensations when they know that they cannot be fully expressed in intercourse, which may cause couples to shun intimacy to the detriment of their marriage.

What I do not see it as condoning is diliberate genital stimulation, not as foreplay to imminent intercourse but as an end in itself, which I’m sure I have read as the definition of masturbation (mutual or otherwise) whether or not it leads to orgasm. Nor would the behaviour permitted include sexual intercourse - cut short deliberately to avoid possible conception.

By the way for the record I don’t nesesarily agree with the Church on this (the privilage of being a non Catholic) and I’m sure lots of couples do lots of other things during abstinance, which is a matter for their conscience. I’m mearly relating my understanding of the Church’s position.

 

[manualman]

What? As Catholics wouldn’t we define oral sex to completion as a form of masturbation and not sexual intercourse?

That’s exactly the way Clinton tried to deceive his wife and America: avoid the question by dancing around definition issues. The bottom line for the OP and for Clinton is that Sex, Marriage and Babies are intertwined subjects, made that way by God as part of his mysterious and wonderful gift of sexuality to humanity. Regardless of how we try to play lawyer games with defintions, when we try to pry these things apart into separate subjects, we only ruin the gift.

 

[PbloPicasso]

I think it’s safe to say that there are many scrupulous individuals here that want to climb in bed, figuratively speaking, with other married couples. I don’t believe the act is wise. It may even be wrong. To avoid such a situation I would simply not do it. Manup, abstinence won’t kill you.

But, I do not approve of all the extreme unauthorized claims being made in the name of the Church. Seek the advice from a priest. Take some courses to learn more about this. Asking a hand full of lay people on this forum is like walking into a jungle with blood cuts and asking if there are any animals that would eat me for dinner. A wise man once told me, stay of the forums, there are so many ill people on the forums… Fr. ____, TOR.

 

[LucyLight]

I think it’s safe to say that there are many scrupulous individuals here that want to climb in bed, figuratively speaking, with other married couples. I don’t believe the act is wise. It may even be wrong. To avoid such a situation I would simply not do it. Manup, abstinence won’t kill you.

But, I do not approve of all the extreme unauthorized claims being made in the name of the Church. Seek the advice from a priest. Take some courses to learn more about this. Asking a hand full of lay people on this forum is like walking into a jungle with blood cuts and asking if there are any animals that would eat me for dinner. A wise man once told me, stay of the forums, there are so many ill people on the forums… Fr. ____, TOR.

Well said! Especially the part about scrupulous people wanting to jump into bed with other married couples .The claims some people make on these forums can sometimes be ridiculous…and with nothing to back it up. They think that it is virtuous to add a few extra rules to the rules. And I will add that often members seem to get a thrill out of debating regardless of the effect it could have on someones marriage or well being. You really have no idea if the person giving you advice has a mental illness or not. On the hand, there are plenty of helpful well meaning people on the forums. Btw, I am not speaking of anyone in particular and I am speaking of the forums in general.

 

[PbloPicasso]

Well said! Especially the part about scrupulous people wanting to jump into bed with other married couples .The claims some people make on these forums can sometimes be ridiculous…and with nothing to back it up. They think that it is virtuous to add a few extra rules to the rules. And I will add that often members seem to get a thrill out of debating regardless of the effect it could have on someones marriage or well being. You really have no idea if the person giving you advice has a mental illness or not. On the hand, there are plenty of helpful well meaning people on the forums. Btw, I am not speaking of anyone in particular and I am speaking of the forums in general.

as to your last sentence: same here.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Well said! Especially the part about scrupulous people wanting to jump into bed with other married couples .The claims some people make on these forums can sometimes be ridiculous…and with nothing to back it up. They think that it is virtuous to add a few extra rules to the rules. And I will add that often members seem to get a thrill out of debating regardless of the effect it could have on someones marriage or well being. You really have no idea if the person giving you advice has a mental illness or not. On the hand, there are plenty of helpful well meaning people on the forums. Btw, I am not speaking of anyone in particular and I am speaking of the forums in general.

Although I do agree that there can be scrupulous people on here, I doubt anyone wants to jump in bed with any married couples… At the same time there are people who have their own views on sex in marriage (and some may honestly believe they are correct) and will suport them even though they may not be in line with what the Church teaches. That is why I agree with you guys and think its best to find a good orthodox (as in loyal to the Magisterium) priest, rather than counting on the opinions of random people on here, and even sometimes random theologians (and, fwiw, the links by Mary Gail can be compatible with the concept that the situation presented by the OP is immoral, although I found it interesting that the source the apologist used to justify his answer was not a document of the Catholic Church, but one from the Couple to Couple league:shrug:.) While I do agree there is a difference between what is “acceptable” between a married couple abstaining and vs an unmarried couple, this does not mean that “anything goes” as long as no climax occurs. Climaxing outside of intercourse is not the only way of seeking sexual pleasure “isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes”
"2351 *Lust *is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes. "

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Although I do agree that there can be scrupulous people on here, I doubt anyone wants to jump in bed with any married couples… At the same time there are people who have their own views on sex in marriage (and some may honestly believe they are correct) and will suport them even though they may not be in line with what the Church teaches. That is why I agree with you guys and think its best to find a good orthodox (as in loyal to the Magisterium) priest, rather than counting on the opinions of random people on here, and even sometimes random theologians (and, fwiw, the links by Mary Gail can be compatible with the concept that the situation presented by the OP is immoral, although I found it interesting that the source the apologist used to justify his answer was not a document of the Catholic Church, but one from the Couple to Couple league:shrug:.) While I do agree there is a difference between what is “acceptable” between a married couple abstaining and vs an unmarried couple, this does not mean that “anything goes” as long as no climax occurs. Climaxing outside of intercourse is not the only way of seeking sexual pleasure “isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes”
"2351 *Lust *is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes. "

Hi, the document from the Couple to Couple league did carry an Imprimatur, meaning it was free of doctrinal error.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Although I do agree that there can be scrupulous people on here, I doubt anyone wants to jump in bed with any married couples… At the same time there are people who have their own views on sex in marriage (and some may honestly believe they are correct) and will suport them even though they may not be in line with what the Church teaches. That is why I agree with you guys and think its best to find a good orthodox (as in loyal to the Magisterium) priest, rather than counting on the opinions of random people on here, and even sometimes random theologians (and, fwiw, the links by Mary Gail can be compatible with the concept that the situation presented by the OP is immoral, although I found it interesting that the source the apologist used to justify his answer was not a document of the Catholic Church, but one from the Couple to Couple league:shrug:.) While I do agree there is a difference between what is “acceptable” between a married couple abstaining and vs an unmarried couple, this does not mean that “anything goes” as long as no climax occurs. Climaxing outside of intercourse is not the only way of seeking sexual pleasure “isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes”
"2351 *Lust *is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes. "

The link that I provided earlier was for a book written on sexual ethics written by John C. Ford. Ford was one of the theologians who played a key role in composing humanae vitae, and was instrumental in convincing Pope Paul VI that the Church’s teaching on contraception was irreformable. It is possible that he could make a mistake but he isn’t just a random theologian and his work does carry an Imprimatur

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Hi, the document from the Couple to Couple league did carry an Imprimatur, meaning it was free of doctrinal error.

Excellent! I was pointing out it wasn’t an official document of the Church, certainly not doctrine/ binding, but regardless, from what I have read, it is still compatible with the view that the situation presented by the OP can very well be immoral.

 

[PbloPicasso]

I think that all we’re saying is that everyone on here should be telling the OP to go to the correct person for this information. He needs to take it to his confessor so that he, in the light of the Holy Spirit in the sacrament can work through and to him through the priest, etc. Point is that some people seem to be exercising their own interpretive authority on this matter. This is not for us to do, it is best left in the correct authority given to him by the bishop, his priest. I’ve seen some good point made but some appear to me to be tainted with a bit of the persons own scruples. Priest, not lay people, are the correct place to go, no matter what anyone says. Send Br. JR a PM and see what he tells you. That would be better than asking a bunch of people you know nothing about. At least Br. JR is real and possesses more faculties in his vow, and his PhD. But I still say ask your local priest/confessor.