Intercourse without orgasm during fertile days

[Kit15]

Why can’t foreplay be days before the actual act? If the intention is to engage in the full act of intercourse who says foreplay must be immediately before intercourse?

Merriam-Webster online:

fore·play noun -ˌplā
Definition of FOREPLAY

1: erotic stimulation preceding sexual intercourse
2: action or behavior that precedes an event

Unless that erotic stimulation is lasting for ___ number of days before the actual sex, how can this be treated as a single extended event? If it’s died down, a second session of sexual stimulation would have to start, starting a second sexual act.

Unless your personal definition of “foreplay” includes lighter activity like date nights and holding hands I have a heard time comprehending how this reasoning works.

 

[LucyLight]

Why does it have to be a single extended event? I’m not being argumentative, just wondering your reasons for thinking this.

 

[katholicchik]

GOOD ADVICE.

 

[nfpdude]

Thanks for all your reply

 

[Catholicpotato]

I find this kind of logic odd. If your wife walked in on you mid act when you were cheating on her would it be all made ok because you didnt complete the act? What you are attempting is to have sex. The Church is crystal clear on how to “have sex” and what it is for. What is being attempted is not only against Church teaching but against any NFP rules you could come up with. You may think that you can “not finish” but eventually you will. And if you have serious reason enough to use NFP to abstain then you are being horribly irresposible with this “way around” the rules, not to mention you will be ultimately left unsatisfied which will be a friction in your marriage.

I cant think of a better way to get pregnant when you cannot than what you are describing.

 

[manualman]

Look at an absurd example for clarity. A vandal breaks into the Trojan factory and puts lots of hard to detect holes in hundreds of condoms. Are the purchasers of those condoms NOT committing sin when they use them in ignorance of their ineffectiveness? Of course it’s still sinful. Culpability for sin exists in the intent.

Sins are sins because they damage our ability to give and receive real love. Effective or not, contraceptive actions intended to grasp the pleasure of sexual intimacy while rejecting the procreative nature of it CHANGES the act subtly into something unworthy of the gift God gave us in sexuality.

 

[LucyLight]

I think the issue is weather foreplay has to be immediately before a full act of intercourse or if a couple can engage in it days before the actual event. If their intent is to eventually engage in the full act. Let me be clear, that my definition of foreplay does not involve orgasm. I also believe it would be sinful to bring each other to the brink of orgasm because you are taking chances with sin. If this is helpful or prudent for the couple would be their own business.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Sins are sins because they damage our ability to give and receive real love. Effective or not, contraceptive actions intended to grasp the pleasure of sexual intimacy while rejecting the procreative nature of it CHANGES the act subtly into something unworthy of the gift God gave us in sexuality.

It seems rather difficult to argue that not engaging in sexual intercourse is a contraceptive act.

 

[Corki]

See, but *foreplay should be *just that, the activity before intercourse/sex, not the activity at a random moment because sex will occur some day in the future. This isn’t foreplay, this is activity apart from sex. What the OP is describing really isn’t a grey area.

Not only should be, it’s the very definition of foreplay. Once penetration occurs, it’s not foreplay anymore. Neither coitus reservatus nor coitus interruptus are acts ordered toward procreation. That make them illicit use of the sexual faculty of marriage.

 

[mcrow]

Once you begin arousing each other, you’ve started a process that must be finished. Simply stopping and waiting until next week does not work. First of all, by stopping and becoming unaroused you are ending the process that is supposed to lead to possible procreation. By then waiting until next week, you then starting a new encounter that also must be completed. So, unless you are aroused the whole week and constantly in foreplay over the course of the week (that could make work a little awkward, particularly for males), then I can’t see how it’s moral.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Not only should be, it’s the very definition of foreplay. Once penetration occurs, it’s not foreplay anymore. Neither coitus reservatus nor coitus interruptus are acts ordered toward procreation. That make them illicit use of the sexual faculty of marriage.

And yet the majority opinion of catholic moralists seem to hold that amplx revervatus does not constitute grave matter…

I have looked and I haven’t been able to find any theologian who has condemned intentional incomplete acts of intercourse. Before I am willing to admit that the act is a grave matter I would like to see a reference.

ts.mu.edu/content/23/23.2/23.2.3.pdf

 

[manualman]

It seems rather difficult to argue that not engaging in sexual intercourse is a contraceptive act.

Are you arguing that if the man doesn’t ejaculate, then sexual intercourse hasn’t occured yet? Seems rather Clintonian, doesn’t it?

Wasn’t this question authoritatively answered on a Seinfeld episode??

 

[Corki]

And yet the majority opinion of catholic moralists seem to hold that amplx revervatus does not constitute grave matter…

I have looked and I haven’t been able to find any theologian who has condemned intentional incomplete acts of intercourse. Before I am willing to admit that the act is a grave matter I would like to see a reference.

ts.mu.edu/content/23/23.2/23.2.3.pdf

Rather than look for a specific theological ruling on the act, is it not more logical to ask if the act fulfills the requirements for licit marital relations?

Is it both unitive and ordered toward procreation? As described, it may be the former but certainly isn’t the latter. Sex ordered toward procreation requires more than the act of penetration.

 

[SusanneT]

I think the issue is weather foreplay has to be immediately before a full act of intercourse or if a couple can engage in it days before the actual event. If their intent is to eventually engage in the full act. Let me be clear, that my definition of foreplay does not involve orgasm. I also believe it would be sinful to bring each other to the brink of orgasm because you are taking chances with sin. If this is helpful or prudent for the couple would be their own business.

I don’t know the theology but my understanding is that any deliberate stimulation or genital contact must be intended to lead to full intercourse. Otherwise the couple are simply masturbating. It might be okay to talk and anticipate sexual contact in the future (say in the fertile phase anticipating the safe time) but that’s all - no physical contact until you can (at least attempt) intercourse. Surely even ‘anticipating’ the act must be a sin if it’s likely to lead to involuntary ejaculation ?

For sure to have actual intercourse and deliberately not ejaculate within your wife’s vagina is an act of contraception - it must be ?

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Are you arguing that if the man doesn’t ejaculate, then sexual intercourse hasn’t occured yet? Seems rather Clintonian, doesn’t it?

Wasn’t this question authoritatively answered on a Seinfeld episode??

Yes I am.

Clinton was right; oral sex isn’t sexual intercourse anymore than chewing up your meal and spitting it out is eating. You still have, in oral sex, the sin of Onanism, but with incomplete sexual intercourse between husband and wife that isn’t the case.

The practice of amplex reservatus is difficult and possibly sinful for some people, but from what I’ve read, it isn’t sinful as long as it doesn’t present an unreasonable temptation to orgasm outside of intercourse.

 

[LucyLight]

From what I’ve read (and we’ve read a lot about the morality of this sort of thing) it is a sin to be sexually intimate in any way without at least the intention (and intent is the important part) of it finishing in a way which is open to life. So if you are stimulating each other, but intending to withdraw before you ejaculate you are sinning. This is mutual masturbation - even if you don’t complete the act.

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

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Rather than look for a specific theological ruling on the act, is it not more logical to ask if the act fulfills the requirements for licit marital relations?

Is it both unitive and ordered toward procreation? As described, it may be the former but certainly isn’t the latter. Sex ordered toward procreation requires more than the act of penetration.

Applying the general rule is what the moral theologians will do except they are a lot more thorough and smarter than I am. I don’t see any particular reason to ignore what they’ve written.

I’ve seen several people take the definition of masturbation, really run with it, and then determine that it is immoral for married couples to touch each other’s genitals. I think something similar is going on here.

 

[SusanneT]

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.

 

[toughntiny]

No… you’re fine.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

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

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:

Marital chastity during the fertile time is not the same as pre-marital chastity. A married couple can engage in a degree of kissing and touching that would be objectively sinful for the unmarried; for the married couple, such behavior looks forward to the full sexual union they may legitimately have now or are postponing until later. If passion should take over, they may rather obviously engage in full marital relations.

and

Spouses should have good reason for engaging in any such activity because it may carry the remote possibility of involuntary orgasm. Such reasons would include the need to be held, to be appreciated, and even to take the edge off sexual tension. In every case the primary intention of the spouses ought to be the promotion of their marriage bond, not just the pleasure to be experienced

.