Marital sex in later years

[Ryan1]

Why is motivation so important? Does intention trump objective considerations?

 

[ahs]

Mutual masturbation could surely be acts of love depending on the intention of the people. How can you determine the motivation behind someone else’s action?

I believe he is speaking of love objectively, not subjectively. “Subjectively”, a couple can “feel” love as they do an act. However, if an act is objectively sinful, it could not possibly be “objectively” loving, because “love”, in the objective sense, doesn’t lead to sin.
But that’s kind of a side topic.

 

[KevinK]

I stated that mutual masturbation could be an act of love; that was the extent of my assertion. You can argue it is a sin and misguided, but you cannot impugn the intent of the participants.

 

[Ryan1]

The nature of love is sacrifice. What sacrifice is involved in mutual masturbation?

 

[KevinK]

What sacrifice is involved in any type of sexual activity?

 

[Ryan1]

The surrender of one’s body to one’s spouse in the marital embrace, in payment of the marriage debt. Both parties have sacrificed their freedom in allowing the other to make reasonable requests for the payment of the debt.

 

[iwritebooks]

Holiness should involve being close to God. God has given us His Church to instruct and guide us. His Church has told us that sex must be both unitive and procreative.
In going against His Church, I wonder if you might not mistakenly prioritize the self?

I’m not arguing against the Church’s teaching. I’m arguing against how an in proper understanding of human biology, sexual response and psychology leads to false conclusions overwhat the application of Church teaching is.

Sexual pleasure begins long before a couple can even engage in intercourses. There is no moral difference between stopping sexual activity then or later. The difference is only in why you’re stopping and how. Sexual pleasure is much broader than the sexual climax. A man who masturbates but stops short of climaxing has already pursued sexual pleasure isolated from its unitive and procreative purposes.

These purposes are not constantly or equally present at all times during sexual activity. The only reason the man should normally not climax through other activities is because the male climax marks the end of sexual activity. He goes into an unaroused state. This isn’t true for the woman. She can get back into it and has to kind of decide to disengage and allow the sexual process to turn off. So for the man, to climax in another manner is to close the sexual act to any possible openness to life.

A couple not capable of engaging in the fullness of the act are not closing themselves off to procreation. The evil they suffer from is involuntary.

 

[1ke]

A couple not capable of engaging in the fullness of the act are not closing themselves off to procreation.

But that is NOT what the Church teaches. It doesn’t teach that a “couple” must be “open to life” (although people often express Church teaching this way).

It teaches that the ACT must be per se ordered to procreation.

If they are not capable in engaging in an act per se ordered to procreation (intercourse) then they may not engage in a substitute act to orgasm.