Marital Foreplay and Sex

  • Thread starter Thread starter NFP1Kate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
shipwrkd said:
Yup, check the definition in Wiki. I think you’ll find you’ve been initiating arousal without even knowing it. My point is that this entire thread depends on one’s definition of foreplay, their sexual appetite and even age. I find that a properly presented single rose or text message will usually get the ball rolling. I got the idea from the Priest that married us 42 years ago. Maybe Ron should try it 🙂
Click to expand...
You are confusing SEDUCTION with foreplay. Not the same thing at all. You are SEDUCING your wife, not performing foreplay.

The OP was discussing masturbation days before a sex act, not foreplay.
 
Marybeloved said:
No-one is more “spiritually mature” and has greater purity of heart than the saints, and NONE of them would risk any occasion of sin even at the height of their holiness.
Click to expand...
You make it sound like saints were sinless, which they were not.
 
TheRealJuliane said:
You are confusing SEDUCTION with foreplay. Not the same thing at all. You are SEDUCING your wife, not performing foreplay.

The OP was discussing masturbation days before a sex act, not foreplay.
Click to expand...
I would challenge the thought that “seduction” as a concept even applies within a marital relationship. Women may get “seduced” into the proverbial " one night stand," but in the setting of a sacramental marriage, “seduction” connotes something underhanded, nefarious, something with a less-than-respectable ulterior motive, and I don’t think those concepts are the corrects way to characterize one marital partner attempting to set the stage for a romantic encounter with the other. Unless, that is, one feels that the physical aspects of marriage are less-than-worthy.
 
Tarpeian_Rock said:
I would challenge the thought that “seduction” as a concept even applies within a marital relationship. Women may get “seduced” into the proverbial " one night stand," but in the setting of a sacramental marriage, “seduction” connotes something underhanded, nefarious, something with a less-than-respectable ulterior motive, and I don’t think those concepts are the corrects way to characterize one marital partner attempting to set the stage for a romantic encounter with the other. Unless, that is, one feels that the physical aspects of marriage are less-than-worthy.
Click to expand...
Thank you “Rock”. Before we married, I may have tried to “seduce” my wife but thankfully, she would have none of it. I take great exception to being accused of seducing my wife now. No need to for we’ve given ourselves to each other 42 years ago and those vows become stronger each day. When I smile and pat my wife on the behind, some may call it foreplay but I call it an expression of my undying love for her. Sometimes it leads somewhere and sometimes not, but if it does…there certainly is no timeline. Perhaps we should replace the word “foreplay” with “affection”. God Bless!
 
NFP1Kate said:
I am a young devout Catholic, wife, and mother. We have been practicing NFP for about a year and I have found myself very frustrated with the teachings on this. And I would like to see some original documents (not Christopher West- TOB, I want originals)

During phase 2 we enjoy foreplay that can last for days before phase 3 hits and we can have full marital relations. I cannot find any official Church teaching that states all foreplay must end in vaginal intercourse immediately following. Humanae Vitae 14 refers to preventing pregnancy, but NFP, by it’s very nature is avoiding pregnancy not preventing it. It is not onanism because there is no penetration, and he does not climax.

The forums are unclear as well. One priest says that oral sex should be avoided, another says it is perfectly fine. I see nothing wrong with oral in the original documents, JPII doesn’t discuss it in TOB, and the Code of Canon Law states “unitive” before “procreation” (that is a change from the 1917 version). Please, anyone, show me where it states that a couple commits a sin by having foreplay (even foreplay to the extent of female orgasm) without vaginal intercourse.

It seems TOB gives an ideal for sex, but how can marital sex that is less than ideal be sinful? 🤷
Click to expand...
My “non-Catholic” opinion is that keeping the intimate connection strong during fertile periods is ongoing “foreplay” for the actual act. Every relationship ebbs and flows. Anything one can do to preserve and increase intimacy and connection can’t be bad.
 
shipwrkd said:
Thank you “Rock”. Before we married, I may have tried to “seduce” my wife but thankfully, she would have none of it. I take great exception to being accused of seducing my wife now. No need to for we’ve given ourselves to each other 42 years ago and those vows become stronger each day. When I smile and pat my wife on the behind, some may call it foreplay but I call it an expression of my undying love for her. Sometimes it leads somewhere and sometimes not, but if it does…there certainly is no timeline. Perhaps we should replace the word “foreplay” with “affection”. God Bless!
Click to expand...
I really, really don’t think any sane person would argue with you here and I don’t see any arguments to the contrary elsewhere in the thread.
 
TheRealJuliane said:
You are confusing SEDUCTION with foreplay. Not the same thing at all. You are SEDUCING your wife, not performing foreplay.
Click to expand...
Seems pretty clear to me that I’ve been accused of SEDUCTION and I also get the impression that Tarpeian Rock thought along those lines. Either way, this thread seems to be straying from the OP’s question. I do, however, find ALL of the posts interesting and some especially informative. Thanks all.
 
The sin is in the intention. Oral is fine as long as it ends with intercourse the way God intended.

If you’re having oral to avoid intercourse to avoid pregnancy then that goes against the marital act.

With NFP you practice marital chastity during the fertile phase. When having oral but avoiding intercourse you become the barrier method (contraceptive mentality).
 
TheRealJuliane said:
Posting one’s opinion on a thread when one’s opinion is contrary to Church teaching is not charitable either, and wastes the OP’s time and the forum’s bandwidth. But there are some subjects that always draw the dissenters. I expected no less.
Click to expand...
Wastes no more forum bandwidth than the dozens of posters that do nothing but quote the Catechism on these types of threads. Heck, for that matter, if your worried about forum bandwidth, how about just shutting down immediately any thread that has to do with anything you can learn through either the Catechism or any other source than can be easily Googled?

Wouldn’t be too many reasons to have a forum then would there?
 
Tarpeian_Rock said:
I would challenge the thought that “seduction” as a concept even applies within a marital relationship. Women may get “seduced” into the proverbial " one night stand," but in the setting of a sacramental marriage, “seduction” connotes something underhanded, nefarious, something with a less-than-respectable ulterior motive, and I don’t think those concepts are the corrects way to characterize one marital partner attempting to set the stage for a romantic encounter with the other. Unless, that is, one feels that the physical aspects of marriage are less-than-worthy.
Click to expand...
No, the term does not necessarily have that connotation. There is nothing inherently wrong with seduction.

se·duc·tion
noun \si-ˈdək-shən
Definition of SEDUCTION
1
: the act of seducing; especially : the enticement of a person to sexual intercourse
2
: something that seduces : temptation
3
: **something that attracts or charms
**

Enticement is not manipulation, but definition 3) something that attracts or charms.

Why are we arguing about this?
 
shipwrkd said:
Seems pretty clear to me that I’ve been accused of SEDUCTION and I also get the impression that Tarpeian Rock thought along those lines. Either way, this thread seems to be straying from the OP’s question. I do, however, find ALL of the posts interesting and some especially informative. Thanks all.
Click to expand...
There is no accusation. The word “seduction” does not carry the nefarious meaning that Tarpeain Rock assigns it. Seduction in a marriage means enticement to be intimate. There is nothing wrong with being romantically seductive with your spouse. In fact, most people probably do it without even thinking about it. But call it whatever you will, buying your wife a flower is certainly not foreplay.

fore·play
noun -ˌplā
Definition of FOREPLAY
1
: erotic stimulation preceding sexual intercourse
2
: action or behavior that precedes an event

Definition 1) is the only current definition possible for this word. You just don’t use “foreplay” to mean anything except the acts leading up to sexual intercourse. Ask your wife, though. If she thinks it’s foreplay, who am I to say?

😉
 
TheRealJuliane said:
There is no accusation. The word “seduction” does not carry the nefarious meaning that Tarpeain Rock assigns it. Seduction in a marriage means enticement to be intimate. There is nothing wrong with being romantically seductive with your spouse. In fact, most people probably do it without even thinking about it. But call it whatever you will, buying your wife a flower is certainly not foreplay.

fore·play
noun -ˌplā
Definition of FOREPLAY
1: erotic stimulation preceding sexual intercourse
2: action or behavior that precedes an event

Definition 1) is the only current definition possible for this word. You just don’t use “foreplay” to mean anything except the acts leading up to sexual intercourse. Ask your wife, though. If she thinks it’s foreplay, who am I to say?😉
Click to expand...
Seduction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
In social science, seduction is the process of deliberately enticing a person to engage. The word seduction stems from Latin and means literally “to lead astray”. As a result, the term may have a positive or negative connotation. Famous seducers from history or legend include Lilith, Giacomo Casanova and the character Don Juan.[1]
Seduction, seen negatively, involves temptation and enticement, often sexual in nature, to lead someone astray into a behavioral choice they would not have made if they were not in a state of sexual arousal. Seen positively, seduction is a synonym for the act of charming someone — male or female — by an appeal to the senses, often with the goal of reducing unfounded fears and leading to their “sexual emancipation”.[citation needed] Some sides in contemporary academic debate state that the morality of seduction depends on the long-term impacts on the individuals concerned, rather than the act itself, and may not necessarily carry the negative connotations expressed in dictionary definitions.[2]
Click to expand...
Seems your both right. Funny how so many controversies depend on the definition one uses :tiphat:
 
jilly4ski said:
:ehh: So if you consent to an open marriage, adulterous affairs, threesomes, etc that is ok?
Click to expand...
I think it’s fairly obvious that these two posts refer to an open Catholic marriage. I don’t believe the things your asking about are OK (or even legal) in a civil marriage.

Short answer: NO!
 
jilly4ski said:
:ehh: So if you consent to an open marriage, adulterous affairs, threesomes, etc that is ok?
Click to expand...
Absolutely not. I’ve worked with swingers for years. and I despise them, I actually have another post about that I made today; coincidentally.
but if I’m with my wife I feel what we do behind closed doors is our business, your married the two bodies are one ect ect. not to say that I want to pervert things. But I can’t imagine saying to my wife …
I can only do it in the missionary position on fertile days,
the church doesn’t exactly hold accurate consistent teachings if you go back the past 2000 years; its really done a lot more to discredit its self on a lot of these decisions that’s why most people don’t trust its teachings. But I do agree with NFP; I just can’t imagine not having fun with my wife when I’m 'married. and doing the same 3 things every 4rth Wednesday of the month; when I know she’s not going to get pregnant. Seems like a good way to get divorced if you ask me.
 
Is sex discussed this openly in Pre-Cana? Where does one learn this kind of thing in detail?

Also, are most orthodox priests consistent when it comes to what is allowed and what is not allowed?

It seems to me that there is room for some subjective decisions here.
 
Jessup said:
Absolutely not. I’ve worked with swingers for years. and I despise them, I actually have another post about that I made today; coincidentally.
but if I’m with my wife I feel what we do behind closed doors is our business, your married the two bodies are one ect ect. not to say that I want to pervert things. But I can’t imagine saying to my wife …
I can only do it in the missionary position on fertile days,
the church doesn’t exactly hold accurate consistent teachings if you go back the past 2000 years; its really done a lot more to discredit its self on a lot of these decisions that’s why most people don’t trust its teachings. But I do agree with NFP; I just can’t imagine not having fun with my wife when I’m 'married. and doing the same 3 things every 4rth Wednesday of the month; when I know she’s not going to get pregnant. Seems like a good way to get divorced if you ask me.
Click to expand...
Why does it matter what is being consented to as long as there is consent? And why do you get to define perverted and what isn’t? The Church has (semi) clear guidelines on what “perverts” the marital act. And if we are really honest about it, would not the Church have better standing to determine what is and is not perverted (ie moral) and a random individual?

I highly doubt you could show me how Church teachings (doctrine/dogma) has changed in 2000 years (because it hasn’t) since you cannot even articulate the current expression of the teaching and seem generally misinformed on this issue, (missionary position and only on fertile days really?).
 
jilly4ski said:
Why does it matter what is being consented to as long as there is consent? And why do you get to define perverted and what isn’t? The Church has (semi) clear guidelines on what “perverts” the marital act. And if we are really honest about it, would not the Church have better standing to determine what is and is not perverted (ie moral) and a random individual?

I highly doubt you could show me how Church teachings (doctrine/dogma) has changed in 2000 years (because it hasn’t) since you cannot even articulate the current expression of the teaching and seem generally misinformed on this issue, (missionary position and only on fertile days really?).
Click to expand...
What about the 23 or so different rites of the catholic church that isn’t under the same Pope but all have claim to holy orders? that is 23 reasons the church hasn’t been consistent. Which rite is the right one? I don’t want to get off topic, from the OP so I’m going to leave it at that. I can start another thread to discuss that somewhere else.
 
jilly4ski said:
Why does it matter what is being consented to as long as there is consent? And why do you get to define perverted and what isn’t? The Church has (semi) clear guidelines on what “perverts” the marital act. And if we are really honest about it, would not the Church have better standing to determine what is and is not perverted (ie moral) and a random individual?

I highly doubt you could show me how Church teachings (doctrine/dogma) has changed in 2000 years (because it hasn’t) since you cannot even articulate the current expression of the teaching and seem generally misinformed on this issue, (missionary position and only on fertile days really?).
Click to expand...
The missionary position on fertile days was sarcastic mockary; tha’s why I mentioned the 4rth Wednesday of every month.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top