*Married Sexual Issues*

  • Thread starter Thread starter needsomehelp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

needsomehelp

Guest
The church allows a woman to reach sexual climax outside of normal intercourse, so long as it takes place within the marriage act as a whole. The reason for this is taught as follows: The woman’s climax has no bearing on the conception of a child. ie) It can happen with or without her reaching that point.

My question is then, why should a man have to reach sexual climax (you know where) if his wife is already pregnant (or during infertile times of the month)? His climax has absolutely no bearing on the giving of life, because life is already there or is not possible. It also has nothing to do with being open to life, if life is already established.

The answer to this of course will be that every act has to end objectively correct.

If that is the case, then there is a double standard between the rules of a wife and husband’s sexual climax. If a woman is allowed to climax how she pleases - since it bears no regard to giving life, then the husband should also be allowed to climax as he pleases, since/when life at certain times is not possible.

During the times that a woman is fertile, the act should of course then end in a way that is feasible to life.

The objectivity here should not imply. One can not also say that this takes God out of the equation. The couple is simply using the natural pattern of a woman’s body and doing things according to what can/cannot happen. If, by the husband ending the act elsewhere, (when life is not possible) takes God out of the equation - then so too by ALL means is God taken out of the equation when a woman climaxes outside of normal relations.

An example of this would be as follows:

There is construction on a road near your house. You know there is construction on that road, so you must drive a different path in order to avoid the hassle of the construction.

Time passes and the construction is long gone. You know it is gone, however you continue to drive on that other path because objectively it is what you are told you must do to avoid construction, when you can cleary see there is no more construction.
Thoughts and discussion welcome 🙂
 
This is a question I think many are thinking about,in a way You are rigth,but sexual contact whitin the marriage is not wrong. That if both parts wants it. Sexual issues has,and will always,be hard to understand and accept. In one hand,we must follow the rules of the Church,in the other hand we have the right to choose. Sex in marriage is what makes it a marriage,we consume the marriage by having sex,and because God has given us what we need to enjoy it,it cant be wrong. A child is always a gift from God,some are blessed whit children,some in a other way,so from this wiew as long as we have sex in a marriege,both have the rigth to enjoy it. If You feel it is wrong to have sex for no other reason then to have children,and now I don’t know if You are male or female,You need to talk about this whit Your wife/husband because it can become a issue that maybe brakes the marriage. Love in a marriage comes whit the need to give as much as You can to Your wife/husband,and whitout love,there is no marrige. Also,if You want and choose for any reason that You don’t want to enjoy sex,feeling good,my advise is that You talk about this whit a priest. You can give love in many ways,and if You love Your wife/husband,and he/she wants to enjoy sex,and You don’t,I also in that case urge You to talk whit a priest,but You do have the right to enjoy sex,not enjoy it,or have it only to get children,but using common sence,what we should do moore often,theese are things needed to be talked thru whit Your better half. But to put it short,You do have the right to enjoy sex as long as You are married,and You have the right also to give plesure. Blessings,Totterman
 
needsomehelp said:
The church allows a woman to reach sexual climax outside of normal intercourse, so long as it takes place within the marriage act as a whole. The reason for this is taught as follows: The woman’s climax has no bearing on the conception of a child. ie) It can happen with or without her reaching that point.

My question is then, why should a man have to reach sexual climax (you know where) if his wife is already pregnant (or during infertile times of the month)? His climax has absolutely no bearing on the giving of life, because life is already there or is not possible. It also has nothing to do with being open to life, if life is already established.

The answer to this of course will be that every act has to end objectively correct.

If that is the case, then there is a double standard between the rules of a wife and husband’s sexual climax. If a woman is allowed to climax how she pleases - since it bears no regard to giving life, then the husband should also be allowed to climax as he pleases, since/when life at certain times is not possible.

During the times that a woman is fertile, the act should of course then end in a way that is feasible to life.

The objectivity here should not imply. One can not also say that this takes God out of the equation. The couple is simply using the natural pattern of a woman’s body and doing things according to what can/cannot happen. If, by the husband ending the act elsewhere, (when life is not possible) takes God out of the equation - then so too by ALL means is God taken out of the equation when a woman climaxes outside of normal relations.

An example of this would be as follows:

There is construction on a road near your house. You know there is construction on that road, so you must drive a different path in order to avoid the hassle of the construction.

Time passes and the construction is long gone. You know it is gone, however you continue to drive on that other path because objectively it is what you are told you must do to avoid construction, when you can cleary see there is no more construction.
Thoughts and discussion welcome 🙂
Click to expand...
I’m still stuck on “The church allows a woman to reach sexual climax outside of normal intercourse.” Without being graphic, howso?
 
I’ve read in one of my catholic Q and A books (and I’m sorry, I don’t remember which/by who at the moment.) If the woman does not climax during sex, he may use other means to get her there if needed… However, a man and woman may not only do oral or hand (IE not ‘normal’ sex) b/c it should always lend itself to sex. If sex is part of the sacramental act of marriage- then sexual acts should always be life giving, free, etc (All the things they tell to you about what sex is). If the couple doesn’t engage in sexual intercourse, then it’s not life giving. It’s not a giving of the self, but a fulfillment of sexual desires. It’s objectifying.

This all, of course, is accord to the book I read, and along the lines I believe the OP was discussing.

My husband and I were talking about this last night, b/c we were wondering similarly… I would think that fulfilling sexual desire within the context of marriage can be loving and non-objectifying. → It’s also interesting it assumes that b/c the male will likely climax, there is no “need” for extra stimulation- what I mean is that oral or hand or whatever can be done in context of sex, as long at the end result is sex. However, is the woman does not climax, he may continue to use other means to get here there, as long as sex was involved. I should also mention the book says ideally the couple climaxes together- that intense moment as a married, sacramental marriage moment.

I didn’t sleep at all last night, just not feeling well and too much coffee, so maybe this makes no sense, but this is my understanding of it.
 
Tietjen said:
I’m still stuck on “The church allows a woman to reach sexual climax outside of normal intercourse.” Without being graphic, howso?
Click to expand...
As in, during foreplay or, if her husband reaches climax before she does, then it is permissible for her to be stimulated to climax afterwards, as well. That would still be within the whole of the marital act, not excluding the procreative aspect of it. The boundaries in specific body orientation are smaller for the male, just because of the nature of how life is transmitted. The only reason she would have to avoid an earlier climax is if it were the nature of her body that this renders her too sensitive to engage in intercourse afterward.

IOW, there is no moral requirement to exclude whateer aspects of sexual relations between a couple that are not absolutely required for the procreative aspect to take place. Rather, the other aspects are not to be pursued in a way that excludes the procreative aspect. There is a* big* difference!
 
Also, statistically, only about 15% of all females can climax from sexual intercourse alone. 85% of them need to be stimulated outside of intercourse meaning, orally or using hand. So in reply to one person about ‘the couple climaxing together’… chances are that wont happen. It would be wonderful, wouldn’t it? but thats just asking for luck.

So personally, i think its a bit obvious that god also designed it in such a way that we can have sexual relations not just with intercourse, but with oral or hand. It only makes sense to me.
 
The marital act must always be open to the possibility of giving life even when the women cannot conceive a child because the act is not only for procreation but the unitive aspect of the couple. It is a renewal of their marriage vows and they become one flesh. They are giving freely to one another. Without this the marital act becomes just selfish pleasure. Also in Genesis God is angry at Onan for spilling the seed.
 
Even during infertile times or pregnancy the husband must be in that union of intercourse each time when the seed makes its way out of his body…to do otherwise (if there is full knowledge and complete consent) would be a mortal sin…

Such would be contrary to the nature of marital intercourse…
 
Wouldn’t the argument about the woman already being pregnant and so she cannot get pregnant be similar to an infertile couple? Say a woman cannot get pregnant, as she is infertile or past menopause. Does that mean that her husband should be able to climax wherever only because creating life is near impossible? I think not.

I’ll admit I’m a bit lost on the argument. Are you stating it isn’t fair? What is given to males and females is not always equal if that is what you are saying.

And it is not stating that women can climax whenever. Then that would leave it open to masturbation, it is that if a woman has not climaxed during sex, other means from the husband can be used to help her there. Such would be similar for males, to assist him to climax but he must climax within the wife.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top