Let's See How Much We Can "Sin" Without Sinning

[pprimeau1976]

As I lie next to my wife in bed being in the mood, but know that I can’t be in the mood, a situation came to me. My wife is not “convinced” yet that NFP is the way to go. But, as anyone who has had sex can testify, there is alot more to sexual activity then the conjugal union.

Assuming that all the sexual activity is within the context of marriage, is it chaste for there to be natural (by natural, I mean of nature - I am not referring to natural law) sexual activity whose aim is solely to pleasure the woman?

My instinct is to say “no” because masturbation is sinful for a man and a woman (I think).

However, my instinct also says “yes” because the church does not condemn any sexual act in which the man is sterile through no fault of his own (i.e. vasectomy)

From my understanding, the principle behind Humanae Vitae was that it is wrong to misuse the reproductive organs for selfish reasons. However, is it perverted to wish to satisfy your spouse sexually from the male perspective if the male has no intention of climaxing? The act would satisfy me, I would get aroused, I just wouldn’t climax. From the man’s perspective, this is no different than kissing.

I apologize if the topic is crude, but I am just trying to figure this out. And if the answer is yes, the Church is beyond a doubt, pro-female.

 

[Seatuck]

The answer is that all sexual activity must take place in the context of the congugal union. So If you have absolutely no intention of it(actual intercourse )in the first place you need to not be doing the other.

 

[AndyF]

pprimeau:

You have no way of predicting the outcome anyway, right? (at least if your anything like me ).

Personally, I’m not sure if it’s healthy to get into this self analysis pensive state before every sexual activity, and I’m not one to say it doesn’t happen to me, but it seems as a nuisance and a turn off, and makes sex seem as a mechanical,scheduled procedural activity, nor do I think God intended it to be anything but spontaneous. My attitude is if it’s my wife, that’s good enough, everything else, and that includes anything beyond a microsecond of thinking about it is counter productive. As the saying goes, “Go with the Flow” and relax.

AndyF

 

[DailyBread]

As I lie next to my wife in bed being in the mood, but know that I can’t be in the mood, a situation came to me. My wife is not “convinced” yet that NFP is the way to go. But, as anyone who has had sex can testify, there is alot more to sexual activity then the conjugal union.

Assuming that all the sexual activity is within the context of marriage, is it chaste for there to be natural (by natural, I mean of nature - I am not referring to natural law) sexual activity whose aim is solely to pleasure the woman?

My instinct is to say “no” because masturbation is sinful for a man and a woman (I think).

However, my instinct also says “yes” because the church does not condemn any sexual act in which the man is sterile through no fault of his own (i.e. vasectomy)

From my understanding, the principle behind Humanae Vitae was that it is wrong to misuse the reproductive organs for selfish reasons. However, is it perverted to wish to satisfy your spouse sexually from the male perspective if the male has no intention of climaxing? The act would satisfy me, I would get aroused, I just wouldn’t climax. From the man’s perspective, this is no different than kissing.

I apologize if the topic is crude, but I am just trying to figure this out. And if the answer is yes, the Church is beyond a doubt, pro-female.

I think the key word is the part you say, through no fault of his own is the act sterile. To deny the gift of complete self in an act that leads to sexual climax for one or both spouses is not to love as God loves in himself, which is a full and complete gift of each person’s being to the other (all that is mine is the Father’s and all the Father’s is mine).
The sterile man can be likened to a poor man who wishes he could provide more to his kids and wife in the area of basic essentials such as a house for instance, but cannot. There is no intention to deny them these goods. On the otherhand, say we have the situation where the man is financially well off, but decides not to provide housing for his wife and kids. Who was the the unloving man? Who was the man who gave all he had?
In the realm of sexual love, the gift of self to the opposite sex, is your sexual being. To deny part of this on purpose, ie your fertility, is to render the act not a union of sexual beings (my whole sexual body is yours and yours is mine), but merely a disordered desire for merely pleasure as the sole good for which (sorry to be blunt) is not neccessary you have a member of the opposite sex to accomplish or even someone else for that matter. To live the call to be the unique gift of self as demanded in conjugal love, we must see what makes it unique and that is a communication of one’s sexuality to the other wholey and without reserve. Masturbation, mutal masturbation, and homosexuality can never accomplish this.
The church is prowoman because it demands a man to love as Christ loved the church giving his body to us. We dont experience heaven apart from this complete gift of his body, but in full union with his life giving love. A man’s gift of his sexuality is the same as Paul tells us. When we go to communion, we are called to take and eat his body each and everytime, not stick it in our pockets or kiss the host and walk away. True ecstasy is found in union with that body, not apart from it. Same goes for the earthly marriage as heavenly marriage.
Please reconsider this notion. This is not a denial of joy, but discovering a greater joy in the gift of self fully as opposed to merely experiencing a temporal pleasure that can only harden our hearts and turn us inward towards ourselves.