Marital foreplay in the context of conjugal act??

[fpt]

In the name of catholic moral of marriage, can a wife refuse manual and / or oral stimulations done by her husband on her outside genitals as foreplay in the context of marital act???

If she refuses, by principle, is there a moral problematic?

In the name of catholic moral of marriage, can a husband refuse manual and / or oral stimulations done by his wife on his outside genitals as foreplay in the context of marital act???

If he refuses, by principle, is there a moral problematic?

What is your answer?

 

[Marybeloved]

These queries are getting numerous. I don’t think making your spouse do things that they are uncomfortable with is legitimate. I think also that refusing reasonable requests has its own problems, there could be other issues involved. Some people may have issues sharing their bodies with another and it may be deeply psychological. But I can tell you for sure that no man is going to perform rectal sex or similarly unnatural sex on me. Such things just seem to me to be purely lustful and degrading, making me into a sex toy.

 

[fpt]

These queries are getting numerous. I don’t think making your spouse do things that they are uncomfortable with is legitimate. I think also that refusing reasonable requests has its own problems, there could be other issues involved. Some people may have issues sharing their bodies with another and it may be deeply psychological. But I can tell you for sure that no man is going to perform rectal sex or similarly unnatural sex on me. Such things just seem to me to be purely lustful and degrading, making me into a sex toy.

Sorry I have written exterior organs. Thus, rectal sex is, by defintion, inside.

 

[Corki]

A wife can refuse any specific action and so can the husband. If it makes her uncomfortable or she just doesn’t like it, she can refuse. Same for the husband. The only thing required in the “marital debt” is to have conjugal relations with your spouse when reasonably requested to.

 

[fpt]

A wife can refuse any specific action and so can the husband. If it makes her uncomfortable or she just doesn’t like it, she can refuse. Same for the husband. The only thing required in the “marital debt” is to have conjugal relations with your spouse when reasonably requested to.

This presentation of the marital act with the meaning of " marital debt " seems quite strict. The marital debt, may be, is more. The canon law is talking about some sexual cooperation.

This point of view seems to be like a marital act only for babies, thus like animals because nothing about " And they shall be one flesh" with material and intellectual elements.

" And they shall be one flesh " means with the human manner???

 

[fpt]

This presentation of the marital act with the meaning of " marital debt " seems quite strict. The marital debt, may be, is more. The canon law is talking about some sexual cooperation.

Per se, if a wife agrees for marital debt, but she does not want that her husband stimulates her breasts or her clitoris with his hands, she is a weird wife. It is not a sexual cooperation. This view of sexual on cooperation is simplist, it is not human, it is animal.

 

[Nate13]

fpt;9178313:

This presentation of the marital act with the meaning of " marital debt " seems quite strict. The marital debt, may be, is more. The canon law is talking about some sexual cooperation.

Per se, if a wife agrees for marital debt, but she does not want that her husband stimulates her breasts or her clitoris with his hands, she is a weird wife. It is not a sexual cooperation. This view of sexual on cooperation is simplist, it is not human, it is animal.

While a husband may try to explain to his wife why these things should not be repugnant and are in conformity with her dignity, at the end of day it is still a sin for him to act on them against the will of his wife as it would go against the unitive purpose of sex.

 

[Corki]

fpt;9178313:

This presentation of the marital act with the meaning of " marital debt " seems quite strict. The marital debt, may be, is more. The canon law is talking about some sexual cooperation.

Per se, if a wife agrees for marital debt, but she does not want that her husband stimulates her breasts or her clitoris with his hands, she is a weird wife. It is not a sexual cooperation. This view of sexual on cooperation is simplist, it is not human, it is animal.

If a husband insists on touching his wife in ways that she finds uncomfortable or unpleasant, he is not only a weird husband but he is abusive.

 

[Corki]

This presentation of the marital act with the meaning of " marital debt " seems quite strict. The marital debt, may be, is more. The canon law is talking about some sexual cooperation.

This point of view seems to be like a marital act only for babies, thus like animals because nothing about " And they shall be one flesh" with material and intellectual elements.

" And they shall be one flesh " means with the human manner???

I think your translator broke down. This doesn’t make sense. Sorry, I can’t even tell what you are trying to say.

 

[fpt]

fpt;9178343:

While a husband may try to explain to his wife why these things should not be repugnant and are in conformity with her dignity, at the end of day it is still a sin for him to act on them against the will of his wife as it would go against the unitive purpose of sex.

I am okay, the husband cannot force her and he does not have to force her, but if wife says, I do no want these stimulations because my catholic faith says no, she is very poor woman in the intellectual meaning. She is wrong. this behavior is not good, she is perhasp in the sinful way. No conjugal charity for her husband.

 

[Corki]

I am okay, the husband cannot force her and he does not have to force her, but if wife says, I do no want these stimulations because my catholic faith says no, she is very poor woman in the intellectual meaning. She is wrong. this behavior is not good, she is perhasp in the sinful way. No conjugal charity for her husband.

This could not be more wrong. It is not sinful or even slightly wrong for a woman to deny her husband sexual activities that she does not want to participate in. She is not saying she doesn’t want to have sex with her husband, only that she doesn’t want to participate in other sexual “add ons”. To say otherwise is to treat the woman as nothing more than an object to be used by the husband to fulfill his idea of how sex* should *be. And THAT would be a sin.

And to imply that not wanting to do any particular sex act is a reflection on her intellectual abiltiy is grossly uncharitable.

 

[fpt]

fpt;9178343:

If a husband insists on touching his wife in ways that she finds uncomfortable or unpleasant, he is not only a weird husband but he is abusive.

I am okay, but wife, the day of wedding, gives her body to her husband. Thus she has a moral obligation to force herself to change her moral point of view on these normal and natural stimulations.

 

[Corki]

I am okay, but wife, the day of wedding, gives her body to her husband. Thus she has a moral obligation to force herself to change her moral point of view on these normal and natural stimulations.

Not any more than he has a moral obligation to force himself to change his moral point of view on these stimulations to conform to hers. His wishes are not superior to hers when it comes to sex. If they can’t agree on doing something, then they don’t do it.

 

[fpt]

This could not be more wrong. It is not sinful or even slightly wrong for a woman to deny her husband sexual activities that she does not want to participate in. She is not saying she doesn’t want to have sex with her husband, only that she doesn’t want to participate in other sexual “add ons”. To say otherwise is to treat the woman as nothing more than an object to be used by the husband to fulfill his idea of how sex* should *be. And THAT would be a sin.

And to imply that not wanting to do any particular sex act is a reflection on her intellectual abiltiy is grossly uncharitable.

Okay, to treat your wife as an object, as a toy, is bad, is not catholic. But, the behavior of wife, that refuses the normal and natural stimulations as foreplay, in the context of marital act, in the name of catholic faith is wrong. This type of intellectual approach is not very marital and is on sinful way. She refuses to give her body to her spouse in the natural way, It is sad, she is not a lovable wife.

 

[fpt]

Not any more than he has a moral obligation to force himself to change his moral point of view on these stimulations to conform to hers. His wishes are not superior to hers when it comes to sex. If they can’t agree on doing something, then they don’t do it.

The great issue is:

How to define the marital debt in the catholic meaning??? What are the true narural elements and the human elements of the concept of “marital debt” (And they shall be one flesh).

 

[fpt]

Not any more than he has a moral obligation to force himself to change his moral point of view on these stimulations to conform to hers. His wishes are not superior to hers when it comes to sex. If they can’t agree on doing something, then they don’t do it.

“Marital debt” means the marital act. " And they shall be one flesh " is the sentence from Bible, that resumes the concept of conjugal act.

The marital act has two types of elements because, we are human beings (body and soul): natural law.

Material elements is coming from the body.
Intellectual element is coming from the soul.

Thus, in the natural and sacramental marriage and in the context of marital act:

1. Woman has to assume her feminity, she has to want to be a female; wife has to receive the virility of her husband;wife has to give her whole feminity to her husband;

That means:
Morally speaking and per se (objectively), wife has to be okay with manual stimulations and oral stimulations on her entire body (in the respect of natural law, exterior organs, exterior genitals) made by her husband as a foreplay to marital act in the context of conjugal act.

2.Man has to assume his virility (masculinity), he has to want to be a male; Husband has to receive the feminity of his wife; husband has to give his whole masculinity to his wife;

That means:
Morally speaking and per se (objectively), husband has to be okay with manual stimulations and oral stimulations on his entire body (in the respect of natural law, exterior organs, exterior genitals) made by his wife as a foreplay to marital act in the context of conjugal act.

The canon 1096 § 1" For matrimonial consent to exist, the contracting parties must be at least not ignorant that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation."

 

[JRKH]

In the name of catholic moral of marriage, can a wife refuse manual and / or oral stimulations done by her husband on her outside genitals as foreplay in the context of marital act???

If she refuses, by principle, is there a moral problematic?

In the name of catholic moral of marriage, can a husband refuse manual and / or oral stimulations done by his wife on his outside genitals as foreplay in the context of marital act???

If he refuses, by principle, is there a moral problematic?

What is your answer?

If one spouse refuses, the only problem would be if the other spouse insists.

This stems from the great laws of Love - and especially “do unto others…”
If one spouse finds something sufficiently uncomfortable or objectionable, they have the right to say so. The their spouse should accept this, in Love, as going ahead with it will not enhance the overall experience or pleasure of the marriage act.
On the other hand, if the objecting spouse recognizes the great pleasure that a given act gives to the one they Love, perhaps they should be willing to participate occasionally out of Love…In such a case their pleasure is not necessarily derived from the act itself but from the gift of themselves that they give to their partner.

Do you get my drift??

Of course the above assumes that the acts themselves are not abusive or otherwise illicit in themselves. The ones you describe in the OP should not be a problem in this regard.

The Bottom line is that the Law of Love means that you desire NOT to cause your partner discomfort but to give all that you can in order to be as close as possible. this becomes a “ballet of Love”…

Peace
James

 

[SwizzleStick]

These queries are getting numerous. …

Indeed.

fpt, I’ve noticed too that you seem to have a huge preoccupation with the topic of aspects of marital acts. Perhaps you can discuss the topic with your spiritual director?

 

[JRKH]

I am okay, but wife, on the day of wedding, gives her body to her husband. Thus she has a moral obligation to force herself to change her moral point of view on these normal and natural stimulations.

This view is not the view of a proper Catholic Christian marriage.

On the day of wedding the HUSBAND gives his body to his WIFE. Thus HE has a moral obligation to force HIMSELF to change HIS moral point of view…

Marriage is a giving of the self to each other…it is NOT a one way street.
Measure these matters against “Love your neighbor as yourself” and “do unto others…”.
BOTH partners need to do this.

Peace
James

 

[fpt]

Indeed.

fpt, I’ve noticed too that you seem to have a huge preoccupation with the topic of aspects of marital acts. Perhaps you can discuss the topic with your spiritual director?

Natural and normal foreplay are also the hardcore (principle elements) of marital act. Otherwise, " And they shall be one flesh " does not have sense, because we are body and soul. Thus sexual intercourse, between wife and husband, would be like with the animals, if no foreplay or if nothing by principle, it is sad and that is not in the human manner.

On this forum my threads make focus on the marital act, the marriage, on the moral obligations of spouses, moral duties of spouses, marital life, because I want to get information from catholic English american lay persons on these topics in order to compare with my French understanding.

I am a jurist by my higher education and I want to know the natural law and canon law on these topics? May be in the future to write a paper, a book or the doctorate.