Married and mastrabating, is this wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Flannelfunk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I can understand the ‘end result’ of genetic material being transferred as being for the wife…but the brain-chemical release after the act is meant for the bonding to the wife, but also to the ‘high’ for the man. And vice versa of course.

My male physiology desires that chemical release. It makes me happy.

Be honest…if you had intercourse with your wife and for some reason never ‘finished’ but she did everytime and had to stop right after, would you not be flabbergasted after the 5th or 6th time that it would happen? Wouldn’t your body, for ‘you’, seek that climax to finally get the ‘relief’? Ignoring the transmission of seed, that’s a given…that part is for her…but the chemical pleasure part.
 
ForwardProgress said:
I can understand the ‘end result’ of genetic material being transferred as being for the wife…but the brain-chemical release after the act is meant for the bonding to the wife, but also to the ‘high’ for the man. And vice versa of course.

My male physiology desires that chemical release. It makes me happy.

Be honest…if you had intercourse with your wife and for some reason never ‘finished’ but she did everytime and had to stop right after, would you not be flabbergasted after the 5th or 6th time that it would happen? Wouldn’t your body, for ‘you’, seek that climax to finally get the ‘relief’? Ignoring the transmission of seed, that’s a given…that part is for her…but the chemical pleasure part.
Click to expand...
I understand what you are getting at and that is the reason that Pope John Paul II, in Theology of the Body called for men to temper their climax as to reach their peak at the same time as their wife. If this is not possible, as he noted due to the simple biology of the act, then the husband should, out of love of his wife, bring her to climax.

In relation to your example above, I would hope that my relationship would be at the level that my wife would be concerned about my climax as much as I am about hers. That is one of the things that we must keep in mind. The marital embrace requires a committment by both spouses to continue to be selfless in the act, giving totally to the other.
 
Mirror_Mirror said:
I understand what you are getting at and that is the reason that Pope John Paul II, in Theology of the Body called for men to temper their climax as to reach their peak at the same time as their wife. If this is not possible, as he noted due to the simple biology of the act, then the husband should, out of love of his wife, bring her to climax.

In relation to your example above, I would hope that my relationship would be at the level that my wife would be concerned about my climax as much as I am about hers. That is one of the things that we must keep in mind. The marital embrace requires a committment by both spouses to continue to be selfless in the act, giving totally to the other.
Click to expand...
I agree! If only real life operated like that!! I do agree it is something we should strive for. But not everyone is married to someone who sees 100% eye to eye with the church on things of this nature, and that makes everything screwed up. This only works if both partners buy into it, which is great for 2 die-hard Catholics…but I would venture to say most married couples are on the same ‘level’ as each other (100 percent in-line with the CC) and this causes strife and this causes ‘the urge’.

My problem is the ‘you are going to hell’ mentality of the CC via mortal sin for people who MB because of a situation like above. If a person does it to deny his/her spouse with that mean intent, I would tend to agree on the mortal part.
 
Mirror_Mirror said:
The marital embrace is BOTH unitive and procreative. The two cannot be seperated from each other. Even if the wife is not fertile during a particular act, that does not elminiate the unitive AND procreative aspects of the act. They are still present.
Click to expand...
I’m confused by this claim. If a man is sterile or the woman is infertile, how could the act be procreative?
 
Leela said:
I’m wondering how that works if one of the participants is incapable of procreation.
Click to expand...
It was clearly stated:
kage_ar said:
Each act must be ordered toward procreation.
Click to expand...
However, as was mentioned in the other thread, if you have concerns about other issues, the merits of Catholicism, you should start a thread about those.

This thread needs to get back to the original issue as posted by Flannelfunk.
 
Leela said:
I’m wondering how that works if one of the participants is incapable of procreation.
Click to expand...
The idea is that both are open to life. Even though one’s body may not be able to produce it’s part for making a baby, we still need to continue the act that way. Not doing so once again becomes an offence to virtue of chastity.
 
rick43235 said:
Why in the world would he want to “tell [his] baby in a few years?” Do you discuss your sexual practices with your children? :eek:
Click to expand...
I don’t have kids…I found porn…and asked why it was there. i was / am the kid ]:eek:
 
stringbeanduck said:
The idea is that both are open to life. Even though one’s body may not be able to produce it’s part for making a baby, we still need to continue the act that way. Not doing so once again becomes an offence to virtue of chastity.
Click to expand...
What does it mean for a couple to be “open to life” when having sex as compared to a couple that is not “open to life” while having sex? I’m not trying to be dense. I really don’t see how an act can be “procreative” for a couple for which procreation is not a reasonable possibility. Does the couple need to have the desire that the woman become pregnant during each act of intercourse?
 
Oh where, oh where has flannelfunk gone? He is two pages behind! Why, I think this thread has been hijacked.
 
Leela said:
What does it mean for a couple to be “open to life” when having sex as compared to a couple that is not “open to life” while having sex? I’m not trying to be dense. I really don’t see how an act can be “procreative” for a couple for which procreation is not a reasonable possibility. Does the couple need to have the desire that the woman become pregnant during each act of intercourse?
Click to expand...
Using tools or methods for the purposes of frustrating conception, aka, contraceptive devices, hormonal pills, patches, and shots, is not being “open to life”. Sorry to be graphic, but to be clear, this includes intentionally ‘pulling out early’.
 
heathernoel said:
Oh no! I’m so sorry. That must have been so awkward 😦
Click to expand...
Hiyas:)

It hurt…A LOT !!!

IMHO…The trouble with Humanistic Theories…they depend on rose colored glasses. Seen in idealistic conditions. They seem to mis-understand that life isn’t idealistic AND you may just be having to “tell your baby”.

As always, just my thoughts
 
Leela said:
What does it mean for a couple to be “open to life” when having sex as compared to a couple that is not “open to life” while having sex? I’m not trying to be dense. I really don’t see how an act can be “procreative” for a couple for which procreation is not a reasonable possibility. Does the couple need to have the desire that the woman become pregnant during each act of intercourse?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately this goes beyond the realms of simple logic and reason which for you, as an atheist, is quite difficult to comprehend. Chastity and sex is a big part of our faith. Havard did a great job explaining what it means to not be open to life. The idea is that we respect God’s plan for us and not put any barriers between it. A couple does not need to have a desire for the women to become pregnant, but that she is “fully open” to it. And to be honest, even if a woman is supposedly incapable of having a child, nothing is impossible for God.
 
Hey guys, I am still living and everything. I just went to work and woowee look what happens!

I am going to go through all the resources or at least the majority of it and let you know what i learn.
 
Mirror_Mirror said:
The act of sex was given to us by God not for the momentary pleasure of an orgasm, but for the intimacy that is shared in giving of ourselves freely, totally, faithfully and fruitfully.

.
Click to expand...
I agree that masturbation, although difficult, should be avoided. But if the above statement is true, then why didn’t God eliminate the orgasm from sex?
 
Joya said:
I agree that masturbation, although difficult, should be avoided. But if the above statement is true, then why didn’t God eliminate the orgasm from sex?
Click to expand...
I would venture to say, just like that tasty sensation we get from eating something we like, it’s just part of it. And when used in the correct context it is perfectly fine to enjoy that tasty sensation.
 
If God did not make the male sex drive so powerful, I don’t many men would choose marriage. That said masturbation does bring in third imaginary or existing person into the marriage relationship which would make it adultery in the heart. On some level it does distance you from your wife. As you grow more distant you could find yourself using your wife for masturbating. Having sex with her but imagining it is someone else. It falls short of the ideal God intended.
 
"Mirror Mirror:
The act of sex was given to us by God not for the momentary pleasure of an orgasm, but for the intimacy that is shared in giving of ourselves freely, totally, faithfully and fruitfully.
Click to expand...
Joya said:
I agree that masturbation, although difficult, should be avoided. But if the above statement is true, then why didn’t God eliminate the orgasm from sex?
Click to expand...
God knows what he is doing. God wants us to “increase and multiply” hence the fruitful part of the above statement. The orgasm brings forth the life giving part of the marital embrace. God made sex pleasureable for a reason, again, He knows what He is doing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top