Marital Foreplay and Sex

[NFP1Kate]

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?

 

[Marybeloved]

I’m not sure what you’re asking: You mean oral sex without any intention of vaginal intercourse in the same “session” of intimacy? Like you have the oral sex and the woman climaxes, and then you move on from intimacy without the vaginal intercourse? People disagree on much here at CAF but I doubt many faithful Catholics would tell you that doing this with zero intention of ending in full natural sex at the end is fine. If you’re looking for a sentence that says “No oral sex outside of normal sexual relations leading to procreative sex” I don’t think it exists.

 

[NFP1Kate]

Yes, that is what I am looking for…I don’t think it does exist. I have done so much research, and the same HV 14 and Casti Connubi keep popping up but it doesn’t address this specifically.

My husband has many sessions where he climaxes (vaginally), but I don’t. I am ok with that, occasionally it goes in reverse. The last few days I have been told that is sinful. HOW?

If female orgasm is sinful without full intercourse, then where would we draw the line during foreplay? Kissing is ok…touch is ok…but then we’re cut off? I know Christopher West talks about it, but it seems to me he has taken some liberties.

 

[itullian]

i say once you’re married anything goes. concentual of course.

but i’m me.

 

[searching04]

Yes, that is what I am looking for…I don’t think it does exist. I have done so much research, and the same HV 14 and Casti Connubi keep popping up but it doesn’t address this specifically.

My husband has many sessions where he climaxes (vaginally), but I don’t. I am ok with that, occasionally it goes in reverse. The last few days I have been told that is sinful. HOW?

If female orgasm is sinful without full intercourse, then where would we draw the line during foreplay? Kissing is ok…touch is ok…but then we’re cut off? I know Christopher West talks about it, but it seems to me he has taken some liberties.

The million dollar question.

Bottom line is the one and only thing the church dictates is that man has to climax via intercourse; that’s it. You will get different interpretations and opinions here, and even different answers from priests. Think the line is drawn, or attempts are made to draw it, when you are having lots of foreplay and other sex without intercourse; people will look upon it as abusing sex. There is no time frame whatsoever for how long a couple can engage in foreplay - none, zero, zip. There is nothing anywhere that says the woman having an orgasm outside of intercourse or during foreplay is forbidden. Frankly, to me, that is one of the great contradictions in church teachings on sex - the woman can and the guy cannot. The question or issue becomess “are you abusing sex and engaging for pleasure only?”. Then some people try to put a time frame on it and call it sinful. If you end up with intercourse in the end, then you adhered to church teachings.

If you and your husband can engage in days of foreplay before getting to the final event, good for you! Frankly don’t know how the guy can hang on that long!

 

[1ke]

During phase 2 we enjoy foreplay that can last for days before phase 3 hits and we can have full marital relations.

I don’t believe any NFP models teach it is OK to engage in genital stimulation during fertile periods. In Creighton, this would be called “abandoning the method”

the Code of Canon Law states “unitive” before “procreation” (that is a change from the 1917 version).

I think you are reading something into the word order that isn’t there. Unitive and procreative, or procreative and unitive, it matters not because BOTH elements must ALWAYS be present in the act. They cannot be separated.

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.

You are not describing “foreplay” above. You are describing masterbation.

Actions used to prepare the couple for intercourse are “foreplay”, hence the “fore”. Actions during intercourse to help the wife achieve climax can also be considered in this context. Actions that replace intercourse are not “foreplay”. They are masterbation.

 

[searching04]

I don’t believe any NFP models teach it is OK to engage in genital stimulation during fertile periods. In Creighton, this would be called “abandoning the method”

I think you are reading something into the word order that isn’t there. Unitive and procreative, or procreative and unitive, it matters not because BOTH elements must ALWAYS be present in the act. They cannot be separated.

You are not describing “foreplay” above. You are describing masterbation.

Actions used to prepare the couple for intercourse are “foreplay”, hence the “fore”. Actions during intercourse to help the wife achieve climax can also be considered in this context. Actions that replace intercourse are not “foreplay”. They are masterbation.

Disagree and it goes to the OP’s point - there is no time frame whatsoever given for foreplay. It is allowed for the husband to bring his wife to orgasm via masturbation before, during, and after an intercourse session. Yes, if there are days before intercourse and days of foreplay (lucky couple!), I can see a question. I say it goes to intent, to some degree. Again, there is no church teaching whasoever on time frames, so how can anyone here say what is and is not permissible?

 

[Bookcat]

Neither husband or wife may “climax” outside the context of the martial act. The wife may climax within the context of the whole marital act (thus during foreplay is fine…but only when it really IS foreplay…continuous with the marital intercourse). The husband must do so only in the actual act of intercourse.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=503081&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2010&Author=&Keyword=marital+act&pgnu=2&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=60&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

It is good to note that sexual pleasure is subordinated to the marital communion. And it is not of course “anything goes” (general comment --not directed to anyone per se).

It is important in the current culture to note that Christians are to also live in *moderation *(the virtue of temperance). Our culture unfortunately is rather effected by hedonism.

 

[bmullins]

Do what is necessary for not only procreation, but unity. Satisfy one another, but make sure the ‘seed’ goes where it’s supposed to. Remember that sex is a holy thing, a moment in which you not only emulate your God, but in which you partake in that creative process that he himself designed. It’s a blessing.

 

[Bookcat]

Neither husband or wife may “climax” outside the context of the martial act. The wife may climax within the context of the whole marital act (thus during foreplay is fine…but only when it really IS foreplay…continuous with the marital intercourse). The husband must do so only in the actual act of intercourse.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=503081&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2010&Author=&Keyword=marital+act&pgnu=2&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=60&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

It is good to note that sexual pleasure is subordinated to the marital communion. And it is not of course “anything goes” (general comment --not directed to anyone per se).

It is important in the current culture to note that Christians are to also live in *moderation *(the virtue of temperance). Our culture unfortunately is rather effected by hedonism…

 

[Nate13]

Catechism:

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.

Rule of thumb is foreplay becomes its own separate act when it has become a replacement for the real thing. Notice also above it says sexual pleasure not just climax. You are not contracepting, but what you may be doing is lusting.

There really is no “if its more than 4 hours before you complete the act then it doesn’t count as foreplay” kind of rule. Really just ask yourself whether your replacing intercourse with “foreplay” because you can’t have intercourse or don’t want to have intercourse at that point and time.

The reasoning is that not just climax but sexual pleasure is meant to be enjoyed within the context of the completed or at least attempted completed marital act.

 

[searching04]

catechism:

Rule of thumb is foreplay becomes its own separate act when it has become a replacement for the real thing. Notice also above it says sexual pleasure not just climax. You are not contracepting, but what you may be doing is lusting.

There really is no “if its more than 4 hours before you complete the act then it doesn’t count as foreplay” kind of rule. Really just ask yourself whether your replacing intercourse with “foreplay” because you can’t have intercourse or don’t want to have intercourse at that point and time.

bingo !!!

 

[Nate13]

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

 

[TheRealJuliane]

i say once you’re married anything goes. concentual of course.

but i’m me.

Yes, that’s just you, not our Church. You don’t need to add anything here. We have rules and the OP is trying to understand and follow those rules. Agree or disagree, what you say is irrelevant to Catholics.

 

[searching04]

Yes, that’s just you, not our Church. You don’t need to add anything here. We have rules and the OP is trying to understand and follow those rules. Agree or disagree, what you say is irrelevant to Catholics.

So it is back to “only those who agree need post”?

 

[bmullins]

So it is back to “only those who agree need post”?

No, but it’s important to quantify that if one posts something contrary to catholic teaching that others are also free to tell them they are wrong. It goes both ways.

 

[Bookcat]

It can be argued that spouses can engage in “moderate sexual arousal” for the sake of their marital communion and love as a remote preparation for the marital act (again such is not “foreplay” for an act of intercourse --so there can be no climax of the wife…).

(of course it needs to be not a near occasion of sin --such as the intending non-intercourse climax …or frustrating one of the spouses etc etc).

In addition to this post forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9173817&postcount=9

 

[searching04]

No, but it’s important to quantify that if one posts something contrary to catholic teaching that others are also free to tell them they are wrong. It goes both ways.

Totally agree with you, wholeheartedly. But that is not what The real Julianne posted:

“Yes, that’s just you, not our Church. You don’t need to add anything here. We have rules and the OP is trying to understand and follow those rules. Agree or disagree, what you say is irrelevant to Catholics.”

So yes, it does go both ways.

 

[Nate13]

Totally agree with you, wholeheartedly. But that is not what The real Julianne posted:

“Yes, that’s just you, not our Church. You don’t need to add anything here. We have rules and the OP is trying to understand and follow those rules. Agree or disagree, what you say is irrelevant to Catholics.”

So yes, it does go both ways.

I’m ok with the post. The poster specified it was “just me” and wasn’t misrepresenting Church opinion. It still makes me wonder why they post though when the OP clearly wants to know the Church’s position. Why people choose to let out their personal frustration at the Church on threads that are not their own I will not understand.

 

[Bookcat]

It can be argued (in Catholic Moral Theology) that spouses can engage in acts that cause “moderate sexual arousal” for the sake of their marital communion and love as a remote preparation for the marital act (again such is not “foreplay” for an act of intercourse --so there can be no climax of the wife…).

(of course it needs to be not a near occasion of sin --such as the intending non-intercourse climax …or frustrating one of the spouses etc etc). (one could add too the question of prudence etc)

In addition to this post forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9173817&postcount=9

I would think that some things of course would be “too much” for anytime other than foreplay for martial relations.