Marriage, kinds of sex when not able to have children

[misericordie]

Grtonia:

I heard a question just like this on Fr. Corapi last week. The answer was that as long as oral sex is not the goal or other types of “foreplay” and that it leads to culmination of the marital act, there is nothing wrong with it. Of course I am assuming that absolution was given the husband for the sin of contraception. Hope this helps.
Of course normal sexual relations between this couple is permited even though there is very little chance if any of conception.God Bless!

So let me get this correct: Father Corapi said that? Sure now?

 

[Katie1723]

“oral sex- a contraceptive act involving the reproductive organs used to replace sexual intercourse.
foreplay-a procreative act involving the reproductive organs culminating in sexual intercourse.”

The operative word in the definition of oral sex is “replace” sexual intercourse.

I think some might get hung up on the term “fore”-play. It is a term to describe a stage of sexual intercourse. I wish there were a better term. I am called by many friends, the semantics police. It is so much easier to converse if the terms mean the same things to all the people involved.

What about oral sex as foreplay??
~ Kathy ~

 

[p.e.driver]

SURF(name removed by moderator)URE: Look up the closest CCL teaching couple. They probably have some extras on hand and can mail you one. I don’t, but if I did I’d sent it to you. It is an EXCELLENT pamphlet.

MISERCORDIE: I think we are assuming that “oral sex” results in spilling seed so you won’t be able to culminate in the full marital act. “1/2 Oral sex” would be considered foreplay. I hope I didn’t confuse the situation further.

 

[surfinpure]

p.e.driver:

SURF(name removed by moderator)URE: Look up the closest CCL teaching couple. They probably have some extras on hand and can mail you one. I don’t, but if I did I’d sent it to you. It is an EXCELLENT pamphlet.

MISERCORDIE: I think we are assuming that “oral sex” results in spilling seed so you won’t be able to culminate in the full marital act. “1/2 Oral sex” would be considered foreplay. I hope I didn’t confuse the situation further.

Thanks, I will be sure to get a hold of the pamphlet, one way or another.

So am I correct in understanding that “oral sex” and “foreplay” can refer to the same sort of physical act that is treated in two different ways? In other words, one continues until the seed is spilled, the other stops before that and is replaced with coitus?

 

[LittleDeb]

surf(name removed by moderator)ure:

So am I correct in understanding that “oral sex” and “foreplay” can refer to the same sort of physical act that is treated in two different ways? In other words, one continues until the seed is spilled, the other stops before that and is replaced with coitus?

Yes, I would agree with most this statement that the physical acts can be the same. The only part I would have trouble with is “stops before that and is replaced with coitus.” It is about culminate not replace. It is really about stages. One does not stop one act to start another. Each act progresses to the next.

I think some of the confusion for people who finish events in an order that leaves a woman unsatisfied is derived from the idea of starting and stopping. Acts which are meant to arouse are pushed too far then stopped and replaced.

If these same acts are for the mutual enjoyment of spouses and not rushed for the gratification of one, then they will flow naturally from one to the next culminating in a mutual ending experience.

Boy, that was tough to say without getting graphic. I hope to be of help because I did a LOT of study on this while researching NFP and infertility.

 

[surfinpure]

LittleDeb:

Yes, I would agree with most this statement that the physical acts can be the same. The only part I would have trouble with is “stops before that and is replaced with coitus.” It is about culminate not replace. It is really about stages. One does not stop one act to start another. Each act progresses to the next.

I think some of the confusion for people who finish events in an order that leaves a woman unsatisfied is derived from the idea of starting and stopping. Acts which are meant to arouse are pushed too far then stopped and replaced.

If these same acts are for the mutual enjoyment of spouses and not rushed for the gratification of one, then they will flow naturally from one to the next culminating in a mutual ending experience.

Boy, that was tough to say without getting graphic. I hope to be of help because I did a LOT of study on this while researching NFP and infertility.

I considered after my post the word “culminate” instead of “replace.” It does fit better.

I find the middle two paragraphs rather confusing, primarily because they have to be so non-specific on a public forum. If you could PM me with the translation that would certainly help! LOL

I appreciate the informed advice of anyone who has so thoroughly studied NFP. We have not had much chance to do so, since we’ve only been married 3.5 years and have spent much of that time pregnant! But I’m very eager to learn all I can, even before this next baby is born.

 

[BibleReader]

MikeB.:

I had a moral question come up that I do not have the answer for and was hoping to get some insights from all the “experts”. What is allowed as far as sex within the marriage when the husband had a vasectomy years before returning to the Church and recently the wife had to have all of her reproductive organs removed. They are both in their 50’s. I know that the Church teaches that sex has to be open for procreation, yet with this case the wife cannot have children, so how does this play out as far as “no spilling the seed”. Can this couple practice oral sex etc.

As far as I know, even if one or both of the participants in the valid marriage are sterile, the “shape” of reproductive sexuality must be honored. Result: Although non-climactic masturbation of the spouse, of various sorts, is permissible (to “charge-up” one’s spouse as the couple intends climactic coital sex), non-coital climactic sex of any sort is prohibited. So, climactic oral sex, climactic anal sex, and climactic masturbation, as well as climactic interruptus, are all a “no-no.”

 

[surfinpure]

BibleReader:

As far as I know, even if one or both of the participants in the valid marriage are sterile, the “shape” of reproductive sexuality must be honored. Result: Although non-climactic masturbation of the spouse, of various sorts, is permissible (to “charge-up” one’s spouse as the couple intends climactic coital sex), non-coital climactic sex of any sort is prohibited. So, climactic oral sex, climactic a*** sex, and climactic masturbation, as well as climactic interruptus, are all a “no-no.”

Well, we know that any a*** sex is a no-no, because of Church teaching. But what if any of these other acts are “climactic” for the wife only? And what if coitus is never climactic for the wife, and she is perpetually unsatisfied with the act?

 

[Catholic2003]

surf(name removed by moderator)ure:

Well, we know that any a*** sex is a no-no, because of Church teaching.

I’ve never seen any official Church teaching that this is so. The opinions of various priests seem to be all over the map on this point, and for those priests who say “no”, the only reason that they give is a personal distaste for the act.

 

[surfinpure]

Catholic2003:

I’ve never seen any official Church teaching that this is so. The opinions of various priests seem to be all over the map on this point, and for those priests who say “no”, the only reason that they give is a personal distaste for the act.

I will have to sift through the documents on this one, but I do remember seeing it. The teaching is that this act is inherently disordered. And even if it weren’t it would continue to remain extremely unhygenic!

 

[p.e.driver]

surf(name removed by moderator)ure:

But what if any of these other acts are “climactic” for the wife only? And what if coitus is never climactic for the wife, and she is perpetually unsatisfied with the act?

The rules aren’t one sided. Acts that are climactic for wife only without the intention of culminating the act is a no-no. It is OK to climax before or after. As for never climactic, that would be a personal problem to be discussed by both spouses. The husband may be sensative to that and not ask as often, or the wife may still desire the closeness. Nobody can really guess. Either way, it is not morally wrong for her not to climax. Sometimes it is the other way around.

Well, we know that any a*** sex is a no-no, because of Church teaching.

I think the hygene assumption is that if you use a*** sex as a foreplay to coitus, it would be HIGHLY unhealthy… so obviously a*** sex by itself is wrong.

 

[p.e.driver]

surf(name removed by moderator)ure:

But what if any of these other acts are “climactic” for the wife only? And what if coitus is never climactic for the wife, and she is perpetually unsatisfied with the act?

The rules aren’t one sided. Acts that are climactic for wife only without the intention of culminating the act is a no-no. It is OK to climax before or after. As for never climactic, that would be a personal problem to be discussed by both spouses. The husband may be sensative to that and not ask as often, or the wife may still desire the closeness. Nobody can really guess. Either way, it is not morally wrong for her not to climax. Sometimes it is the other way around.

Well, we know that any a*** sex is a no-no, because of Church teaching.

I think the hygene assumption is that if you use a*** sex as a foreplay to coitus, it would be HIGHLY unhealthy… so obviously a*** sex by itself is wrong.

 

[martino]

surf(name removed by moderator)ure:

Well, we know that any a*** sex is a no-no, because of Church teaching. But what if any of these other acts are “climactic” for the wife only? And what if coitus is never climactic for the wife, and she is perpetually unsatisfied with the act?

I think we are still missing some context to properly answer your question. It is ok for those other acts to be climactic for the wife only as long as it takes place in the context of normal sex…which is to say that the husband will or has climaxed inside the vagina. If this has taken place or is about to take place then a woman who does not climax from intercourse can and should be brought to climax with one of the other acts that you described.

As I see it the only time it would be wrong is if it took place outside the context of intercourse, meaning that normal sex never took place but she was brought to climax anyway…same would go for him too!

This stuff can be really confusing but I fee like i have learned a great deal recently… and it all actually makes sense to me too!!!

As far as a*** being a no no…I dont have any documents to support this but I tend to agree with you because I do not see how that particular act could be considered foreplay because it would only seem to be pleasurable for the one who is already arroused! (i dont mean to cross the line but you get my point i hope)and I cannot imagine someone going straight from that to regular intercourse because of the hygenic aspect.

you may not feel comfortable talking about this with a guy but feel free to PM me especially if i said anything to confuse you or if you think i said anything that may not be true!!!

 

[surfinpure]

p.e.driver:

The rules aren’t one sided. Acts that are climactic for wife only without the intention of culminating the act is a no-no. It is OK to climax before or after. As for never climactic, that would be a personal problem to be discussed by both spouses. The husband may be sensative to that and not ask as often, or the wife may still desire the closeness. Nobody can really guess. Either way, it is not morally wrong for her not to climax. Sometimes it is the other way around.

Best I can tell, we agree on this, just a problem of semantics.

I think the hygene assumption is that if you use a*** sex as a foreplay to coitus, it would be HIGHLY unhealthy… so obviously a*** sex by itself is wrong.

Hygiene is an issue no matter when the act is performed, because that … part … of the body, for obvious reasons, carries a great many dangerous bacteria. Therefore the man is at risk for infection, and depending on the order of the acts, the woman may be also.

Would any guys who’d like a urinary tract infection please raise their hands?

 

[BibleReader]

surf(name removed by moderator)ure:

Well, we know that any a*** sex is a no-no, because of Church teaching. But what if any of these other acts are “climactic” for the wife only? And what if coitus is never climactic for the wife, and she is perpetually unsatisfied with the act?

Hi, surf(name removed by moderator)ure.

23 years of married life and reading suggest the following to me…

So long as the intent of the couple, in the context of a particular sexual encounter, is to go to and achieve coitus – genital sexual intercourse – then pre-coital, non-genital sex acts, such as pre-coital masturbation, are perfectly permissible. As far as I am concerned, so long as the acts are performed respectfully, in a fashion desired by the spouse and sexually-arousing to the spouse, they are not only permissible, they are blessed by God and, conceivably, morally required. (Some acts clearly violate natural pre-wired taboos, and so are not morally permitted even if they are pre-coital.) My wife and I used to teach NFP. We could always tell who the naive, lousy lovers were among the married couples when, in the course of the instruction, students would comment, with shock, “You touch her *where???!!!” *in response to the basic instruction respecting how the man gathers the Billings Mucus Method sample from between the woman’s inner and outer labia.

If intercourse, no matter how the couple varies the positioning, and no matter how much the partner charges-up his or her spouse before intercourse, does not result in climax, *but other no-coital-but-climactic sex acts do, *in my opinion the spouse with the problem has become a clinical pervert – sexuality has become so “fetishized” for that person, psychologically, that they have lost the ability to engage in normal pleasurable sexual activity.

That person has a medical and moral problem. Entertaining and so reinforcing the fetish with non-coital-but-climactic sexual activity does not respect the natural psychological shape of sex, and therefore is sinful.