martial sex

[Oh_Charlotte]

…
P.S. I have repeatedly asked Conte (and his fan Portrait) if women would even be educated in his* ideal* world, and have never gotten a straight answer. I thought that was worth noting.

I am not going to look to an atheist for martial sex advice, and I have not read all this thread so don’t know what you say so I can’t comment on that, but I must say, this is a point here, and yes, worth noting.

BTW, isn’t “angry atheist” redundant? (in case you need clarifying: in my experience, they all are).

 

[Oh_Charlotte]

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.

LOL. I was wondering what these men would be like as husbands, and I think this describes it. Wife must have excellent super-enhanced imagination to keep herself happy. And interesting that you say narcissistic, because these ideas seem just that.

Remember- shirts on, lights off, and no one make a sound.

 

[Oh_Charlotte]

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.

LOL, thank you for that. Yes, that explains it I am sure.

**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…

I agree with this approach as well. And a really excellent balanced theologian can get a thing or two wrong in his suppositions, too.

[and I don’t mean this for Conte. I think that one is skewed *so far off base he should not be considered a Catholic theologian, and furthermore, since he calls himself one, he is a danger to the faithful].

… The common sense 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).

I like what you said about why you disagree as you explained in a subsequent post here. I am with you on that. I think you are right.

And I think West is still well-worth reading, as I am sure you do, too.

 

[Mickey]

One thing I have learned over the years is the way the evil one works: he will give you lots of truth, and inject just enough falsehood in it to infect the truth.

Sort of like Jone trying to justify anal penetration in the marital act as NOT being sodomy.

In my opinion, what fpt said here makes sense,

ftp also rejects Jone’s sodomital meanderings.

what Mickey says makes no sense

If you think that it makes no sense to call anal penetration…sodomy…whether it is within the marital act or not…then so be it.

 

[Mickey]

You can call us delusional if you wish,

To clarify…I am not calling you delusional per se…I am calling Jone’s and West’s teaching about allowable sodomy and that thought process which agrees with them as “delusional.”

but after 25 pages, you’ve yet to show a single example in the Bible or Tradition where the term sodomy is used in the context of marital relations ending in the normal way.

Ha! Scripture and Tradition are so far from this warped marital sodomy teaching…that the Church was certain they would not have to spell it out for you. Can you imagine Christ or the Apostles or the Church Fathers condoning Jone’s teaching.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

If you think that it makes no sense to call anal penetration…sodomy…whether it is within the marital act or not…then so be it.

I suspect that most of us aren’t so much troubled by your take on anal penetration. Maybe some are.

Then again, maybe I shouldn’t speak for others. For me, at least, it’s on the bottom of the list.

I’m really much more concerned with this idea that it is sinful for husband and wife to touch each other’s genitals in the course of a marital sex act. This is a major impediment to marital relations.

 

[Oh_Charlotte]

It is a pessimistic theology. It is a pessimistic view. This act of love is, per se, almost wrong. As catholic, I cannot be okay with it. It is not in link with the official moral and the official theology. I do not have to be okay with. That is so presumptuous.

This is a good critique. I felt what he said was not respecting open loving sharing of a husband and wife. It seemed like his core reason was that some persons he talked to felt the acts felt selfish. These feeling could well have been influenced by cultural norms as stated below.

In the USA the puritanism is so strong. It is very sad.

Yes, we have that stunted influence here for sure. But then what comes out of France in this department in the other direction is I am sure not anything you want to brag about. Right?

We are all messed up. We need wisdom of Holy Mother Church. God thing God has provided.

 

[Mickey]

Nobody has to support anything.

I see.

We know as a fact that it is not prohibited,

Really? Well you have free will to believe that if you wish.

Furthermore, are we really to believe that somehow the Church has accidentally overlooked one of the oldest know sexual acts to man for millenia?

Of course not. And as has been pointed out already…the Church is not a step-by-step manual to show people obvious sins against nature. Why would the Church have to tell you that anal penetration in the marital bed is sinful sodomy. The Church would surely expect you to know this.

 

[Oh_Charlotte]

Sort of like Jone trying to justify anal penetration in the marital act as NOT being sodomy.
ftp also rejects Jone’s sodomital meanderings.
If you think that it makes no sense to call anal penetration…sodomy…whether it is within the marital act or not…then so be it.

That is NOT what I said and you know it. Its not what fpt said either, whom I said I am in agreement with. Nice goading, since I said I did not want to discuss this act. I admit I could have said that SOME things you say are correct; I thought it was obvious I was not implying otherwise. But I said it now, so you can leave me alone.

 

[Mickey]

I was wondering what these men would be like as husbands,

Respectful and loving husbands and fathers

Wife must have excellent super-enhanced imagination to keep herself happy.

If wife needs to have anal penetration to be happy…then perhaps wife has other issues.

 

[Walking_Home]

I suspect that most of us aren’t so much troubled by your take on anal penetration. Maybe some are.

Then again, maybe I shouldn’t speak for others. For me, at least, it’s on the bottom of the list.

I’m really much more concerned with this idea that it is sinful for husband and wife to touch each other’s genitals in the course of a marital sex act. This is a major impediment to marital relations.

---

The ones that say that–are way off based on that.

 

[Mickey]

That is NOT what I said and you know it. Its not what fpt said either,

Then you better read the thread.

But I said it now, so you can leave me alone.

I see…you can spew forth snide remarks about what kind of husband someone might be while insinuating that they can’t keep their wife happy…but then when you are called on the carpet…

 

[Mickey]

I suspect that most of us aren’t so much troubled by your take on anal penetration. Maybe some are.

Yeah…there are a few here.

I’m really much more concerned with this idea that it is sinful for husband and wife to touch each other’s genitals in the course of a marital sex act.

I have not addressed that issue here. My main issue concerns sodomy within marriage as proposed by Heribert Jone and Christopher West.

 

[Oh_Charlotte]

In Eden, it would have been possible to beget offspring without foul lust. The sexual organs would have been stimulated into necessary activity by will-power alone, just as the will controls other organs. Then, without being goaded on by the allurement of passion, the husband could have relaxed upon his wife’s breasts with complete peace of mind and bodily tranquility, that part of his body not activated by tumultuous passion, but brought into service by the deliberate use of power when the need arose, the seed dispatched into the womb with no loss of his wife’s virginity. So, the two sexes could have come together for impregnation and conception by an act of will, rather than by lustful cravings" - Saint Augustine, 354 – 430 (City of God, Book 14, Chapter 26)

Wow. That sounds like a really, really messed p view of Eden before the fall… And not in line with what other mystics have explained aobut the Garden and how children woudl be begat.

Please tell me that it was much later (after more spiritual growth!) that St. Augustine said that “Jesus passed through the womb of Mary as a ray of sun passes through glass.” That rings true to me. I how Mary bore Jesus is the same way Eve without the fall would have born children. Virginally, as Mary delivered. Instead, there was the Fall, and God commanded we go forth and bear children in the way we do now. [and all that God commands us to do is good…]

But as to was to happen in the garden had there not been a fall, that is for mystics to impart, and I am not one.

First, please note that even here he is admitting that the sexual organs will be stimulated, thus assuring us that pleasure is an intrinsic part of this act.

Next, keep in mind that St. Augustine lived a life of very messed up sexuality. I have been assured by others on this website that when one has lived a life of lust it is very hard if not impossible to ever get to a stage of removing this completely from your sexual activities, or even your thoughts relating to sexual activities. It is important to realize that St Augustine’s view of sexuality is tinted by his own personal experience where he was not able to separate healthy loving sexual activity from being caught up in a lustful passion. This means that his teachings on this subject are to be understood in light of this.

This is a very reasonable explanation of why St. Augustine made that statement. He had a life of immoral sex, and then he went right to celibacy [which was good, after all that, IMO, but doesn’t afford him a good perspective to teach on sex].

 

[Oh_Charlotte]

Respectful and loving husbands and fathers
If wife needs to have anal penetration to be happy…then perhaps wife has other issues.

Mickey, if you don’t stop it, I am going to report you. I made it clear I think that act is not natural, and I clearly said i want to be left out of all discussion of it. Yet you keep trying to imply I support it. And I resent it. So STOP!

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I have not addressed that issue here. My main issue concerns sodomy within marriage as proposed by Heribert Jone and Christopher West.

It gets a little confusing here, because you have said this decrying oral stimulation:

No. Oral (or anal) sexual activity (whether finishing or not) is called sodomy

Portrait has said this, decrying both manual and oral stimulation:

There are, dear friend, other ways for spouses to express their love and affection for one another, within the marriage bed, without having to touch or stroke each others private parts. They can cuddle and tenderly caress one another and they can passionately kiss prior to carnal copulation. Moreover, touching each other in these erogenous areas can all too easily result in manual and/or oral stimulation of the sexual organs, which is indisputably perverted and indecent, especially for those who supposedly profess godliness. There is really little point in touching the genitalia, except for arousal by manipulation, which is, as I have stated, plainly wrong and unnatural.

The hand is not designed, dear friend, for the purpose of manual sexual stimulation of the reproductive organs, fulls stop. Such an action will always be aberrant since it is unnatural and therefore an abuse of those organs, even if it is preliminary to coitus

While you do seem to agree with Portrait on this matter, in general, you have not specifically mentioned manual stimulation so far as I can tell. So there’s a tendency to lump you all in as a group, though we haven’t gotten a definitive statement from you on manual stimulation.

To reiterate my position: I believe there’s a point at which interference in the marital bed of otherwise faithful Catholics comes at a risk of doing more harm than good.

That is, if a couple believes they are experiencing unitive sex, and if the pro-creative end of that sex is also not thwarted, then there’s a point at which, instead of aiding the dual purposes of unity and pro-creation, we are, in fact, frustrating it.

We all (well, I hope) we all want to follow God’s law. But I do happen to believe that such can be done without a strict scientific formula. (e.g., kissing X = OK, kissing Y = never, kissing Z = sometimes!)

 

[fpt]

My questions for understanding:

1. Is there a natural moral order of the sexual intercourses in the catholic marriage?
2. What is the nature of the natural moral order of the sexual intercourses in the catholic marriage?
3. What is the marital act? What is the fact of making one flesh? What are the constitutive elements of marital act? **Are there different moments in the context of marital act? Are there three steps (moments, periods, phases, and times) in the context of marital act? Could we call them: before during and after?
   **
4. What does sexual cooperation mean? What do the words “in human fashion" mean? What is the sexual cooperation in the human fashion, during the marital act?

**5. Are there rights of husband on the body of his wife during the marital act? What are the rights of husband on the body of his wife during the marital act? Are there rights of wife on the body of her husband during the marital act? What are the rights of wife on the body of her husband during the marital act?

1. Are there obligations (contractual obligations) of husband toward the body of his wife during the marital act? What are the obligations of husband toward the body of his wife during the marital act? Are there obligations of wife toward the body of her husband during the marital act? What are obligations of wife toward the body of her husband during the marital act?**
2. Are there duties (institutional duties) of husband toward the body of his wife during the marital act? What are the duties of husband toward the body of his wife during the marital act? Are there duties of wife toward the body of her husband during the marital act? What are duties of wife toward the body of her husband during the marital act?

8. What are the moral ends of marital act? What are the moral intentions of marital act? What are the moral purposes of marital act? What are the moral objectives of marital act? What are the moral goods of marital act? What are the moral fruits of marital act?
**
9. What is the role of wife during the marital act? What is the role of husband in the context of marital act?**

1. Could you give us the list of foreplay (the preliminaries and the sexual preliminaries, before the union of bodies), in the context of marital act, which are immoral, per se, thus sinful? Do you want to give us this list of wrong foreplay, in the details? Could you give us the list of foreplay (the preliminaries and the sexual preliminaries, before the union of bodies), in the context of marital act, which are moral, per se, thus not sinful? Do you want to give us this list of the natural foreplay, in the details?
2. Could you give me a list of intimate acts, during the union of bodies, in the context of marital act, which are immoral, per se, thus sinful? Do you want to give us this list of intimate acts, in the details? Could you give me a list of moral acts, during the union of bodies, in the context of marital act, which are moral, per se, thus not sinful? Do you want to give us this list of natural acts, in the details?
3. Could you give us the list of postcoital acts (just after the complete union of bodies), in the context of marital act, which are immoral, per se, thus sinful? Do you want to give us this list of wrong postcoital acts, in the details? Could you give us the list of postcoital acts (just after the complete union of bodies), in the context of marital act, which are moral, per se, thus not sinful? Do you want to give us this list of natural postcoital acts, in the details?
4. Do you see a difference between the words “oral sex” (wrong, per se, because there is a substitution or a replacement) and " oral stimulation on the exterior genitalia as foreplay ”?

 

[fpt]

For responding, we have to use the following academic sciences:

1. The theology of the body of human beings that has three parts:
   The theology of the body of male and the theology of sex of male.
   The theology of the body of female and the theology of sex of female.
   The theology of orgasm of male, the theology of orgasms of female.
   Thus, the theology of the mutual and reciprocal union of bodies in the human fashion (the theology of the marital act);
   And
2. The objective and realistic philosophy of body of human beings that has also three parts:
   The objective and realistic philosophy of the body of male [The metaphysics of the body of male]; philosophy of sex of male.
   The objective and realistic philosophy of the body of female [the metaphysics of the body of female]; philosophy of sex of female.
   The objective and realistic philosophy of the orgasm of male, The objective and realistic philosophy of the orgasms of female.
   Thus, the objective and realistic philosophy of the mutual and reciprocal union of bodies in the human fashion [The objective and realistic philosophy of the marital act with personalist approach with the phenomenology]. And the catholic sexology: the sexed and sexual alterity and the sexed and sexual complementarity: the narutal process of sex is not totally the same for the husband and for the wife (equity, equality, both).

The Theology is coming from the Faith and the Philosophy is coming from the Reason. Faith and Reason, and Reason and Faith are very important for the understanding. The couple Faith and Reason is the principle of all reasonnings for understanding really the natural moral law of the human beings (dual humanity, male and female with body and soul with their corollaries) and the natural moral order of the marital act.

Woman (body and soul with corollaries):
From body, there are the top part of the body, the middle part of the body, the below part of the body, the intimate part of the body (the exterior genitals, the interior genitals), the other organs and members of body.
From soul, there are the intellect, the intelligence, the reason, the reasonnings, the creativity, the liberty, the poesy, the arts, the sciences

Man (body and soul corollaries)
From the body, there are the top part of the body, the middle part of the body, the below part of the body, the intimate part of the body (the exterior genitals, the interior genitals), the other organs and members of body.
From soul, there are the intellect, the intelligence, the reason, the reasonnings, the creativity, the liberty, the poesy, the arts, the sciences.

The marital act, between wife and husband, the fact of making one flesh, in the human fashion with the sexual cooperation, has to devise in three moments: before, during and after the union of bodies, before the vaginal penetration, during the vaginal penetration and after the vaginal penetration and vaginal ejaculation: this is the phenomenon of the marital act.

 

[fpt]

For being totally honest, a theologian has to respect the catholic methods and the official doctrine, not more and not less.

If you read my messages, in the context of marital act, as foreplay, I said that the manual stimulations or the oral stimulations, on all the body (the top part of the body, the middle part of the body, the below part of the body, the intimate part of the body [the exterior genitals]), are licit, moral, natural, are not sinful, are very useful, and are acts of love (mutual and reciprocal donation of bodies). 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).

======> This is the mutual and reciprocal donation of bodies in the human fashion. Oral stimulation is moral, and it is not sodomy, and manual stimulation is moral and it is not masturbation, in the context of marital act, as foreplay.

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.
**
Here, I am not okay with Ronald Conte Jr.**

 

[fpt]

When you hear the catholic position on premarital sex (wrong act), the priests explain to us that the sexual touches, kiss, massages…etc are also wrong before the wedding, but in the marriage, they are totally moral.

Husband has the right to touch all the body of his wife. Wife has the right to touch all the body of her husband.