Marital sex in later years

[uceaglefan]

I was in a conversation with a good woman with a wonderful marriage and practicing catholic. She insists oral sex is ok to do since they are married and God approves of them pleasing each other. They are far past child bearing years and intercourse is painful. Is this permissible in the church?

 

[otjm]

Definitely not to the point of ejaculation.

 

[Emeraldlady]

I think that the first point raised for this practice should be the negative health/hygiene indications. I believe that the pressure of societies acceptance of oral sex, on young men and women, puts them at grave risk of health issues like mouth, throat, tongue, neck cancers. HPV related cancers has far surpassed the old cause, smoking. I’d imagine that its prudent for the Church to encourage sexual expression that accords with both health and human dignity, rather than oral sex.

 

[1ke]

She insists oral sex is ok to do since they are married and God approves of them pleasing each other.

As foreplay, yes. As a replacement for intercourse, no.

They are far past child bearing years and intercourse is painful.

That is common for post menopausal women, she should talk to her doctor.

Is this permissible in the church?

No.

 

[Mintaka]

Arghhhhh. It is amazing how many people will do anything odd, for years, rather than talk to their doctors. And particularly us women.

In general, “blah blah is painful” is a warning sign, not a license to take meds and cover up symptoms. Why not deal with the real problem first, not last?

And doing something at all morally iffy, in order to cover up a medical problem? Why?! Wouldn’t a good husband want her to be healthy and comfy?

Why suffer? How is that sexy or unitive?

People would not treat their dogs or cats this way. But they are okay with being cruel to themselves.

 

[iwritebooks]

The Church hasn’t really said much on the topic. Usually people are giving moral advise rooted in teaches that indirectly may touch on the issue. Or they use documents that include a perception of marriage that is deprived of it’s full meaning.

What the Catechism teaches is that sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from it’s unitive and procreative purposes. The focus here is seeking pleasure for itself. The full vision of sex is that it is unitive and oriented toward procreation. Masturbation (when you’re alone) is clearly seeking sexual pleasure for itself. A couple engaging in contraceptive activity or other sexual acts to avoid procreation, may be seeking unity but are treating the procreative nature of sex as an evil.

What we have here, though, is a couple who is seeking the fullest expression of sexual expression as they are capable of giving each other. And to the person arguing that she needs to just go to the doctor, my gosh, what is your problem! Doctors can’t always fix everything.

I would argue that those who are arguing that an elderly couple or any couple struggling with sexual dysfunction should never express themselves sexually are overthinking sexual morality. In fact, for a younger couple struggling with sexual dysfunction, a lot of overthinking morality can be the problem that is interfering with sex. I know this from experience.

 

[ahs]

Masturbation (when you’re alone) is clearly seeking sexual pleasure for itself.

To clarify, the Church does not understand “masturbation” to be something that [only] occurs “when you’re alone”. A couple can “masturbate” each other, together, and it still be “the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure” (CCC 2352). Keep in mind the context of the prohibition against such an act, which is clearly stated in the same section: “For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of ‘the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved’.” (CCC 2352, with reference to CDF, Person humana 9).

So, the context of the Church’s teaching is “the moral order” and “total meaning of self-giving AND human procreation”.
This is repeated in the section on fecundity (CCC 2366) when the Church references Humanae vitae, 11, quoting from that document, “…it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life” (HV,11; emphasis in original).
So, as 1ke mentions, if such an act is merely foreplay to the marital act, then there’s no problem. However, if the oral sex were conducted to completion in lieu of the marital act, it would not be okay.

 

[1ke]

What we have here, though, is a couple who is seeking the fullest expression of sexual expression as they are capable of giving each other.

This is where you err. The church teaching is that each act of intercourse must be ordered to both unity and procreation, a completed act. We cannot replace the act with masturbation-- alone or mutual maturbation.

And to the person arguing that she needs to just go to the doctor, my gosh, what is your problem! Doctors can’t always fix everything.

No one said, “just” go to the doctor. It is recommended that a woman experiencing pain during intercourse go to the doctor to determine what may be done to help. It happens to many post menopausal women, for a variety of reasons, and many times it can be helped.

I would argue that those who are arguing that an elderly couple or any couple struggling with sexual dysfunction should never express themselves sexually are overthinking sexual morality.

Nope, the Church is very clear on this subject. There is no harm in a couple intending to have intercourse and being unable to finish due to ED or premature ejaculation or painful intercourse. They can of course stop.

But we may NOT replace intercourse with other sexual acts to climax. That is, by definition, disordered use of our sexual faculties.

 

[iwritebooks]

To clarify, the Church does not understand “masturbation” to be something that [only] occurs “when you’re alone”.

The reason I put “when you’re alone” in parenthesis is because is because I was referring to it in that context, not because I was arguing that it is the only context rightly called masturbation. In fact, I would argue that coitus can be masturbation.

We must recognize that none of us are born pure and none of us approach sex purely. Lust is within all our sexual activity even within the context of marriage. What matters is being as holy as you are able, not lowering the bar so you can deny your own sinfulness while increasing the burden on others.

Everything you’ve said is totally true when we’re talking about willfully avoiding coitus for the sake of preventing pregnancy. I mean, withdrawal is sinful if done to avoid pregnancy, but if your fire alarm goes off in the middle of coitus, you’d had better withdraw and save your family from the fire. It is totally superficial to think of it in such mechanical legalistic terms.

 

[goout]

ahs:

To clarify, the Church does not understand “masturbation” to be something that [only] occurs “when you’re alone”.

The reason I put “when you’re alone” in parenthesis is because is because I was referring to it in that context, not because I was arguing that it is the only context rightly called masturbation. In fact, I would argue that coitus can be masturbation.

Not sure what you mean. Coitus is coitus, masturbation is masturbation.

We must recognize that none of us are born pure and none of us approach sex purely. Lust is within all our sexual activity even within the context of marriage. What matters is being as holy as you are able, not lowering the bar so you can deny your own sinfulness while increasing the burden on others.

Holiness asks for commitment. Holiness entails the practice of virtue, and we can all hope for the practice of heroic virtue. Excusing ourselves because we are weak does not contribute to virtue. Everyone has the capacity to advance in virtue.

Everything you’ve said is totally true when we’re talking about willfully avoiding coitus for the sake of preventing pregnancy. I mean, withdrawal is sinful if done to avoid pregnancy, but if your fire alarm goes off in the middle of coitus, you’d had better withdraw and save your family from the fire. It is totally superficial to think of it in such mechanical legalistic terms.

Has nothing to do with legalism. Fire alarms call for prudent action.

 

[Lee1]

I agree with emerald lady.

It all sounds perverse to me.

 

[iwritebooks]

This is where you err. The church teaching is that each act of intercourse must be ordered to both unity and procreation, a completed act.

There is a point of no return where you should not thwart the natural orientation of the act. But if things do not work, they do not work. And the unitive aspect of sex is not exclusively found in coitus, only the procreative aspect is exclusively found there.

Nope, the Church is very clear on this subject. There is no harm in a couple intending to have intercourse and being unable to finish due to ED or premature ejaculation or painful intercourse. They can of course stop.

You’re omitting the problem of delayed ejaculation where the man is incapable of reaching a climax in time to not hurt his wife through intercourse.

But we may NOT replace intercourse with other sexual acts to climax. That is, by definition, disordered use of our sexual faculties.

Okay, so sexual sins are a part of the commandments ordered to loving your neighbor as yourself. Any moral question that does not include a question of what love (caritas/agape) demands of us is NOT a moral question at all. So the question here is about the what demeans that love.

If a man tells his wife “Hon, I’m super tempted to masturbate,” and she engages in it in a disengaged manner because she can’t get into it, he is masturbating regardless of the fact that they’re engaged in coitus. There is nothing loving or mutual in simply using your spouse as a tool to get off. In fact, he’d have more dignity not to bother her at all but to simply confess his lack of chastity in that he masturbated. No more spiritual pride at convincing himself he didn’t masturbate.

Loving sex is one that afterward leaves the couple feeling happy and connected. The cuddle time afterward is where you see the immediate fruits of it: the affection, the vulnerability, the smiles, the laughter. Beyond that, there is the moral component over whether it’s prudent to have sex. And lust will always be challenged when prudence tells us we must deny ourselves. Lust is not the desire for disordered actions but the inability to control ourselves.

Not being able to have intercourse but expressing your love other ways as best you are able to is not lustful. It is loving.

And no, you’re not going to get this from Aquinas as Aquinas did not acknowledge that sex as having a purpose other than procreation. We’re talking about arranged unhealthy marriages where marriage was thought of as a lesser state to temper your lust. Today, we say that all, even the married, are called to chastity.

 

[KevinK]

The more I read such technical quotations from the CCC the more I think Jesus never spoke like this.

 

[1ke]

Not being able to have intercourse but expressing your love other ways as best you are able to is not lustful. It is loving .

It’s a sin against the sixth commandment if it includes oral or manual stimulation to climax outside of a completed act of intercourse.

And the unitive aspect of sex is not exclusively found in coitus, only the procreative aspect is exclusively found there.

Each act must be per se ordered to both, unitive and procreative. Otherwise, you are misusing your sexual faculties.

But if things do not work, they do not work. A

In which case you do not engage in disordered replacement acts.

 

[alicepat]

Yes. Thank you for this rationality. I understand the Church’s position against artificial contraception but I think it is a mistake for the Church to micromanage married couples’ sexual interactions.

 

[ahs]

The more I read such technical quotations from the CCC the more I think Jesus never spoke like this.

I’m not sure what you mean by “technical”, as I was just putting the subject matter into the context through which the Church bases its teaching on morality. And Jesus DOES speak like that [the way I directly quoted], via His Church whom He gave His very voice to teach us in matters of faith and morals (Lk 10:16).
This isn’t one of those areas where we get to pick and choose the parts we like best. What I quoted is based on the very matter of the Natural Moral Law, established by God. The Church did not institute morality or the nature of sexuality…God did.

It is totally superficial to think of it in such mechanical legalistic terms.

I didn’t put anything into mechanical legalistic terms. I framed the OP in the context of the actual teachings of the Church, which are based on moral law given by God. I didn’t say anything about any need to complete an act, even in the case of an emergency under pain of sin; that’s your mischaracterization of my actual point. I suppose I assumed that we all know that sin is a matter of the will (an act of the will), so I didn’t feel the need to clarify that circumstances outside our control would not incur the guilt of sin.

 

[ahs]

Not being able to have intercourse but expressing your love other ways as best you are able to is not lustful. It is loving .

No one said that expressing love “as best as you are able” is lust. You are misrepresenting 1ke in this case, as you did me above.
What was said, by the Church that God founded to teach us His truths, is that, in simplest laymen’s terms, “we may NOT replace intercourse with other sexual acts to climax. That is, by definition, disordered use of our sexual faculties.”
Or are you conflating “love as best as you are able” with “sexual acts to climax which are other than intercourse”? In other words, do you believe that the only way a couple is best able to show love is to have orgasms?? (Note that I am not trying to misrepresent you, the way you have done to 1ke and myself; I am asking questions to clarify what you have written so that I may understand you better.)

 

[iwritebooks]

What was said, by the Church that God founded to teach us His truths, is that, in simplest laymen’s terms, “we may NOT replace intercourse with other sexual acts to climax. That is, by definition, disordered use of our sexual faculties.”
Or are you conflating “love as best as you are able” with “sexual acts to climax which are other than intercourse”? In other words, do you believe that the only way a couple is best able to show love is to have orgasms??

Of course not. You’re overthinking it.

Lust is not the desire for disordered sexual acts. Lust is inordinate or disordered desire for sexual pleasure. It seeks sexual pleasure for it’s own sake, rather than as a means of expressing love to your spouse.

Meditating on the full meaning of sexual expression means appreciating the unitive and procreative purposes of sex and comprehending what the most idealized type of sex would be. And indeed, everyone will fall short on this. Just read how Christopher West talks about moral sex. Take it too seriously, and you’ll put so much performance pressure on yourself to have simultaneous orgasms rooted in such loving pure gentleness, you’ll be lucky to get very aroused at all. Moreover, you’ll be filled with guilt and frustration. That doesn’t mean that reflection isn’t worthwhile.

But the point is that you can only do what you’re able. There is a difference between thwarting the natural design and the sexual act, on it’s own, simply not reaching its fullest potential. One is willful. The other is not.

Sexual temptation is NOT about avoiding the sin of masturbation and contraception. Rather, it is about expressing your sexual love in full appreciation of what prudent love demands.

 

[GospelOfMatthew]

There are a lot of questions on this forum about oral sex, I suggest you search them because they have a ton of answers and all are very similar.

Basically from what I’ve read and what Christopher West and Trent Horn have said, the issue is that a guy cannot “spill his seed” outside of the reproductive act. So if oral sex or any other kind of sexual act causes ejaculation, that is sinful and not allowed. But doing these things without ejaculation and then completing the act in a reproductive way is fine.

I’ve also read that it is two different cases of the male and the female in terms of this. The male it is strictly related to the reproductive act in terms of “spilling seed” because this is what allows for it to be reproductive. As for females, this is irrelevant for them so there is no requirement as to when they have to orgasm and such. So West and Horn say oral or other methods are okay to have a female orgasm as long as this is part of the entire reproductive act at some point.

All this said, I am not married and have not had sex as I am waiting for marriage (20YO) but I have studied this quite a bit, especially from West’s book Good news about sex and marriage as well as the comments Horn has made and what JPII wrote in Theology of the Body.

To summarize: Ejaculation can only be part of the reproductive act. Oral or other sexual acts are okay as long as there is no ejaculaution. A female orgasming is not related and doesn’t have the requirement of being part of the direct vaginal reproductive act but must be part of the entire act as a collective.

 

[Vico]

…
And no, you’re not going to get this from Aquinas as Aquinas did not acknowledge that sex as having a purpose other than procreation. We’re talking about arranged unhealthy marriages where marriage was thought of as a lesser state to temper your lust. Today, we say that all, even the married, are called to chastity.

It has more goods than simply procreation, per St. Thomas Aquinas:

Summa Theologiae > Supplement > Question 49. The marriage goods
Article 1. Whether certain blessings are necessary in order to excuse marriage?

Reply to Objection 3. From the very fact that marriage is intended as an office or as a remedy it has the aspect of something useful and right; nevertheless both aspects belong to it from the fact that it has these goods by which it fulfills the office and affords a remedy to concupiscence.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5049.htm