martial sex

  • Thread starter Thread starter billcu1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Portrait said:
Dearly beloved friends,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Those presently browsing this thread may find that the following alternative viewpoint has the ring of truth much more than the one enthusiastically espoused by several contributors:

"Oral Sex in Marriage

“Now, Lord, You know that I take this wife of mine not because of lust, but for a noble purpose” - Tobit 8: 7

Many Christian marriages are breaking up, as if their unity in Christ was no more binding than the attachments of a secular marriage. Moreover, many Christian marriages are struggling to survive. **One practice that contributes to the weakening of marriages is oral sex as part of foreplay in sexual relations. By oral sex, I am refering to oral-genital contact between spouses. There is no authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church permitting or forbidding oral sex as part of foreplay preceding normal marital sexual relations. ** Pope Pius XII taught: “The Creator Himself…established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation” (quoted in The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2362). The question is: “Is oral sex as foreplay ‘within the limits of just moderation’?” There are reasons to believe that it is not and is therefore damaging to true marital love.

First, oral sex is not natural. It is contrary to natural law. If oral sex is OK, then are anal sex or nasal sex also OK? There must be some natural parameters to sexual expression. Otherwise, we have little reason not to permit homosexual activity or even sex between humans and animals. Something must be natural, and therefore other things unnatural.

Second, I have been asked to counsel over a hundred married couples about oral sex as foreplay. After some time of discernment, not one has maintained that oral sex was a true expression of love. The motivation behind oral sex is often lust. The spouse is not the focus of the sexual foreplay; rather, sexual stimulation is the focus. It could almost be said that one spouse is having sex with sex rather than with the other spouse. This focus on sex rather than on the spouse is a poison to love and marriage.

Pray about this: “A man will reap only what he sows. If he sows in the field of the flesh, he will reap a harvest of corruption; but if his seed-ground is the Spirit, he will reap everlasting life” (Gal. 6: 7-8).

Nihil Obstat: Reverend Robert J. Buschmiller, February 1, 1996
Imprimatur: Most Reverend Carl K. Moeddel, Vicar General and Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati, February 5, 1996

The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are a declaration that a book or pamphlet is considered to be free from doctrinal and moral error. It is not implied that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat or Imprimatur agree with the contents, opinions or statements expressed."

Presentation Ministries

God bless, my dear friends, and thankyou for taking time to read this.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax:tiphat:
Click to expand...
Yes, your against foreplay.
Why should anyone reading this thread care, when **you admit that you don’t have **solid doctrine reasons for doing so in your faith based argument?
 
The comments, beliefs, and egos of some of the men on here are beyond hilarious! You guys that are of the “Ron Conte” camp have taken absurdity to a new level. You obviously think that you are either so good-looking, well-built, well-endowed, and completely irresistible that all your wife has to do is look at you, swoon with passion, and is physically ready to become your outlet for sexual release and she’s so overcome with your manliness and virility that she can barely contain an orgasm (if she’s even allowed that) until sex happens in the missionary position, all the while, the only touching that can occur is between penis and vagina and the necessary, but never to be conscientiously enjoyed, connection of skin on skin (that’s just a necessary evil, sorry to say).

Those who espouse those ideas could easily qualify as clinically insane, based solely on their obsessive and narcissistic ideas.
 
The_Bucket said:
With all due respect to the priest that wrote this, this is an absolute crock of you-know-what. Trying to deduce the motivation behind certain actions is precisely what we’re not supposed to do when explaining what is and is not objectively evil. When it comes to determining morality of certain actions, motivation only comes into play with things like self-defense and double-effect. Fornication is objectively evil even if the intent is to express love. IVF is objectively evil even if the intent, to bring a child into this world, is good. Theft is objectively wrong even if a thief is stealing bread to feed his family. His culpability may be less, but he’s still committing an objective wrong.

The point being made by all the people who plainly believe that JPII’s TOB is wrong and only quote Pope Pius XII when it’s convenient for them, is that oral stimulation is objectively wrong because it’s contrary to natural low. But the example being used in this case undermines this very case! The assertion is made that oral sex is unnatural and then there’s a comparison to homosexual fornication that makes little sense.

The author tries to tie the two together when they could not be further apart. Homosexual acts are immoral because they can never be ordered towards unity and procreation no matter how they are completed. They’re not immoral because the actions themselves are “unnatural.” The same goes for copulation with animals, and you can include the point that there’s also a complete lack of conscious acquiescence on the part of an animal in such an action. It’s basically akin to rape.

So now that point one is tossed aside for lack of logical congruence, we can move on to point two. The second point is basically this author asserting that he knows the motivations behind every single sexual act. That’s insane and un-Christian. **Quite frankly you could be committing serious sexual sin by having straightforward no-touching anything before intercourse sex if the mindset is to simply receive release. And honestly, I think that kind of sex probably opens oneself more to that kind of mindset than anything else because it’s robotic, impractical and out and out weird. **
Look, the advice against going too far and indulging one’s lusts is good. To ascribe motivations to certain acts based on them simply being certain acts is ridiculous.

If one spouse likes something but the other spouse is uncomfortable… but then is more or less coerced into performing those acts, then you have a serious problem. But if both parties are on board and the act is completed in a way that’s procreative and unitive, you’re in good shape. One should always remain on guard against making marital relations about himself as opposed to making it about the other and the unity between both. This is very true. Definitively stating that certain actions are always motivated by disordered lust is absolutely and completely wrong.

I should also note that ahs is exactly right about the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat in this case. There is nothing wrong with someone saying that he is uncomfortable with oral stimulation and would recommend against it because it might be lustful. There is also nothing wrong with someone saying that it’s fine and an expression of love. The Church is silent on the matter as I’ve noted over and over again. That’s probably because for some people these acts can lead to a slippery slope but for others, it’s not a big deal. There’s no objective evil present at all and the author of the piece never tries to assert one. Trying to ascribe motivations in every case, however, is indeed wrong.
Click to expand...
Good point:thumbsup:
 
Mickey said:
ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/unnatural-sexual-acts-as-marital-foreplay/
Click to expand...
In reading through this, I admit that he draws much from the Church and St. Thomas etc for his arguments, and that his arguments are laid out very logically. However, the problem is that he rests his arguments on a bunch of assumptions which I think are just plain false. If someone could show me that his assumptions are correct then I would accept what he is saying, but as it stands I cannot accept these assumptions because they lead to too many contradictions and false conclusions (that are not related to the question currently at hand).
 
LightBound said:
The comments, beliefs, and egos of some of the men on here are beyond hilarious! You guys that are of the “Ron Conte” camp have taken absurdity to a new level. You obviously think that you are either so good-looking, well-built, well-endowed, and completely irresistible that your all your wife has to do is look at you, swoon with passion, and is physically ready to become your outlet for sexual release and she’s so overcome with your manliness and virility that she can barely contain an orgasm (if she’s even allowed that) until sex happens in the missionary position, all the while, the only touching that can occur is between penis and vagina and the necessary, but never to be conscientiously enjoyed, connection of skin on skin (that’s just a necessary evil, sorry to say).

Those who espouse those ideas could easily qualify as clinically insane, based solely on their obsessive and narcissistic ideas.
Click to expand...
Remember- shirts on, lights off, and no one make a sound.
 
In my humble opinion, Ronald L. Conte jr. and his followers, about the special topic of foreplay, in the context of marital act, are touched by:

The puritanism, the jansenism, the catharism, the manicheism, the neo-puritanism, the victorianism, the sexism, the masculinism, the anti-personalism, the anti-phenomenology, the anti-sexology, the moralism, the absurdism, the angelism, the utopism, the pessimism, the negativism, the conjugal anti-erotism.

**For being totally honest, per se, it does not matter to have the Imprimitur or not. For me, the priority is the intellectual approach. **A theologian has to respect the catholic methods, not more and not less. The commun sens gives the solution about oral stimulation and manual stimulation in the context of marital act.

The position of Christopher West on sodomy seems to me wrong because, by nature this part of body is not in favor the natural process of marital act. Only, all the body and the exterior intimate parts are in link with the marital act before during and after the carnal junction. Each spouse has to prepare the body of the other for the carnal junction, in the human fashion with sexual cooperation. ** Only here, i am okay with Ronald conte.**

There is a difference between the wife and the husband (see the catholic sexology).
 
The_Bucket said:
If you’re going to appeal to authority, appeal to an authority that isn’t, quite literally, crazy.

Here are some other things Ron Conte has written:

amazon.com/Notes-Apocalypse-2012-Revised-ebook/dp/B009GKU78A/

web.archive.org/web/20110610095859/http://catholicplanet.com/future/index.htm

web.archive.org/web/20110610102304/http://catholicplanet.com/women/dress.htm

I mean, the dude thinks that dressing immodestly is not as bad as a woman wearing pants. No, really!

This of course, is utter nonsense, ignores the history of societal norms when it comes to outwear, ignores cultures where men where things like dresses, ignores cultures where women wear sarongs and the like, I could go on and on.

And it completely ignores what the Church says about modesty. So it’s not only foolish and illogical, it’s contrary to the doctrine.

So remember folks, when Mickey and Ron Conte tell you that oral stimulation during marital sex is intrinsically disordered, they also believe that women wearing pants is intrinsically disordered.

I’ve got news for you folks. Masturbation is intrinsically disordered and objectively evil. Homosexuality is intrinsically disordered (though not evil if not acted upon). My wife wearing some sweats when going to the gym is not.
Click to expand...
Ron Conte also advocates policies that would essentially reduce women to servitude (if not outright slavery) if implemented by stripping women of virtually all social, political, and legal power (link to source: catholicplanet.com/women/roles.htm).
 
I try to be fair in my critics. Each one can make mistake. One part can be good and one other can be wrong: moderation and balance are the keys.
 
fpt said:
In my humble opinion, Ronald L. Conte jr. and his followers, about the special topic of foreplay, in the context of marital act, are touched by:

The puritanism, the jansenism, the catharism, the manicheism, the neo-puritanism, the victorianism, the sexism, the masculinism, the anti-personalism, the anti-phenomenology, the anti-sexology, the moralism, the absurdism, the angelism, the utopism, the pessimism, the negativism, the conjugal anti-erotism.

**For being totally honest, per se, it does not matter to have the Imprimitur or not. For me, the priority is the intellectual approach. **A theologian has to respect the catholic methods, not more and not less. The commun sens gives the solution about oral stimulation and manual stimulation in the context of marital act.

The position of Christopher West on sodomy seems to me wrong because, by nature this part of body is not in favor the natural process of marital act. Only, all the body and the exterior intimate parts are in link with the marital act before during and after the carnal junction. Each spouse has to prepare the body of the other for the carnal junction, in the human fashion with sexual cooperation. ** Only here, i am okay with Ronald conte.**

There is a difference between the wife and the husband (see the catholic sexology).
Click to expand...
What are you saying exactly?
 
Kelfa28 said:
Yup…because all a woman can do is lie there and get pregnant.

That is all she is good for anyway.
Click to expand...
It’s things like that that make me wary of religious men in general. Growing up in a Protestant community I have heard every religious justification out there for using women for sex. It makes my skin crawl. I have even seen young women that I grew up with fall in to the same degrading trap. (I would like to clarify that neither my family or the church they attended were like that, and they were as disgusted as I was.)

That attitude of using women for their bodies, both for sex itself and using it to produce children and then backing up that belief by citing “experts” who believe that it is a grave moral wrong that women wear pants is one of the reasons I’ve always found it difficult to trust religious men. And I know that a lot of women feel the same way.
 
BlueEyedLady said:
It’s things like that that make me wary of religious men in general. Growing up in a Protestant community I have heard every religious justification out there for using women for sex. It makes my skin crawl. I have even seen young women that I grew up with fall in to the same degrading trap. (I would like to clarify that neither my family or the church they attended were like that, and they were as disgusted as I was.)

That attitude of using women for their bodies, both for sex itself and using it to produce children and then backing up that belief by citing “experts” who believe that it is a grave moral wrong that women wear pants is one of the reasons I’ve always found it difficult to trust religious men. And I know that a lot of women feel the same way.
Click to expand...
TRUE Catholics do not believe those things!!! I had no idea of such absurd beliefs until I found some comments and threads made on the forum. Thankfully, each time someone posted their warped personal interpretation, another member with AUTHENTIC CHURCH TEACHING came to the rescue.
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
What are you saying exactly?
Click to expand...
In the context of marital act, as foreplay

Husband has the moral right to touch and to stimulate all the body of wife and even the exterior intimate parts (sexual organs)
Wife has the moral right to touch and to stimulate all the body of husband and even the exterior intimate parts (sexual organs).

Oral stimulation is moral, and it is not sodomy
Manual stimulation is moral and it is not masturbation.

======> This is the mutual and reciprocal donation of bodies in the human fashion.

If you do not want to be touched by a woman , or if you do not want to touch a woman, the marriage is not for you. If you do not want to be touched by a man , or if you do not want to touch a man, the marriage is not for you. Because the marriage is a sexed and sexual contract. The right on the body, the mutual and reciprocal donation of bodies for making one flesh, in the human fashion with sexual cooperation. The fact of refusing to be stimulated by his spouse can be morally wrong. The fact of refusing to stimulate his spouse can be morally wrong.

The imperfect and complete sodomy that means the penetration of penis in the female anus, with interior ejaculation: by nature, it is immoral. Per se, an unnatural act, it is evil. T**he imperfect and incomplete sodomy, as foreplay, that means the penetration of penis in the female anus, without interior ejaculation: by nature, it is immoral. An unnatural act, it is evil, because, per se, this part is not in link the marital act and it is objectively dirty. **Here, I am not okay with Christopher West. Imperfect and incomplete sodomy is not moral, it is morally wrong. Anus has no link with natural sex.

I try to be fair in my critics. Each one can make mistake. One part can be good and one other can be wrong: moderation and balance are the keys.
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
You do a good job illustrating what I’m talking about in post 34.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I shudder to think how many times a person inquiring about Catholicism or a Catholic that’s questioning their faith happens a site that like that and is led astray from the TRUE Church. It comes down to a sin of pride when one decides to put their personal interpretation above the Magisterium and promotes it in a website, whether knowingly or unknowingly deceiving others. I find that to be the case with some who post on CAF, too- placing their personal beliefs and interpretations above the Church. ( find they usually agree with CatholicPlanet, even when they have the authentic teachings of the Magisterium placed in front of them). 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top