martial sex

[Nom_the_Wise]

Here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9912879&postcount=306

And now to get back on topic:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9917034&postcount=487

I never had a problem with foreplay, but I realized what was driving me crazy was ***the lack of specificity about the definition of foreplay ***as presented on this thread.

The terms **anal stimulation **and **oral stimulation **have been thrown around freely with very general connotations for the most part. I tried to keep most of my posts light hearted about this topic, because I believe in love and I believe in impromptu expressions of love between married couples, and I passionately believe in everyone staying out of everyone else’s bedroom.

The OP asked about cunnilingus and fellatio. There appears to be support for both of these (if cryptically written) in the Song of Songs, maybe the Book of Ruth (Boaz’s feet have been controversial) et. al… Sodomy came into the conversation because there has been debate about whether or not oral penile penetration is sodomy, which led of course to the discussion of anal penetration. The word “penetration” is not necessarily synonymous with “stimulation” which has caused pages and pages of chaos and uncharitible posts (and I do not count myself innocent).

The thread may or may not be closed. But the worst have been personal attacks which have escalated rather than abated, and clashing of rams horns with no one winning or losing. I’ve seen entire threads removed for less than what has happened here. Much less.

I’ve never heard of Catholics defending anal penetration; not only defending it but *implying *the Church’s blessing. But that’s not why I reported the thread. The level of unproductive fighting and harrassment is clearly against the forum rules and it’s up to them to close the thread or not. For myself, I plan to go through all my old theology books (books that are not accessible via Internet) and maybe I’ll start a new thread someday.

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

For those who would seek to justify anal penetration as a form of foreplay to intercourse, there are some important considerations that can’t be overlooked. To begin with, **the rectum is full of bacteria, which are dangerous to both the male and female reproductive organs. Futhermore, since the anus and rectum are simply not biologically designed to accommodate a penis, penetration can cause temporary or permanent harm. **."

I pointed this out earlier in the thread, and of course no one would believe me without sources.

The anus is *exclusively *an “out door.”

 

[Mickey]

I’ve never heard of Catholics defending anal penetration; not only defending it but *implying *the Church’s blessing.

Agreed. And also the defense of oral sex without emission.

 

[Mickey]

Interpretation (by St Nikodemus) of Canon 18 from The Canons of St John the Faster 580AD

Note that in the Canons of the Faster, from a manuscript codex which was found, sodomy has the following divisions: sodomy is of two types, either committed upon women, when men fall with them into that which is against nature, or committed upon men. Another division is that, among men, one commits the act, while the other suffers the act, while another both commits and suffers the act. The worst sin is for someone to both commit and suffer the act. And for someone to commit the act upon a woman that is not his wife is worse than committing it with men. But for someone to commit it upon his own wife is worse than committing it upon a woman who is not his wife. For these things then, we conclude that, the married couple which falls into that which is against nature, is penanced more heavily than a sodomist committing it upon another man or upon a woman who is not his wife.

 

[Mickey]

Canon C section 17 of The Canons of St John the Faster 580 AD

If someone commits sodomy upon his wife, he is penanced for eight years, eating dry foods after the ninth hour, and doing two hundred prostrations.

 

[Mickey]

Can you just LEAVE, Mickey??

A friend of mine recently said to me that he spends no more than one week on any given thread because it is ample time to submit all relevent information on a subject. I have decided to follow this advice. Arguments tend to go in circles and become uncharitable. Actually, I left this thread once already but returned after a few days.

And so I have decided to take Charlotte’s advice and depart!

I will light a candle to represent everyone on CAF at Divine Liturgy tomorrow!

Bye! :tiphat:

 

[ValPal]

Nonsense. I have never seen a teaching from a pope which condones the placing of the genitalia in the mouth as a precurser to natural intercourse.

For the 1,000th time, this is not the way the Church works. If the precursor to any action was Church approval, 99% of or actions would not be permitted. Also, assuming the Church missed this issue assumes ignorance on the part of the Church, which is, of course, utter nonsense.

Furthermore, the action you describe, which has never been understood as sodomy can, in fact, increase a woman’s chance of getting pregnant. The Church will NEVER interfere with a natural action that can increase the procreative action of sex.

 

[ValPal]

But the worst have been personal attacks which have escalated rather than abated, and clashing of rams horns with no one winning or losing.

If you carefully read the thread, you will see that the personal attacks are coming from those that cannot support their positions. Certain people are ramming their opinions down others throat with no official support, and also make unsupported and unwarranted claims about the people that are challenging their personal opinions that they put forth as fact.

Let’s stick with facts.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I quoted some that say that…and other that are less strict…as you can see from my other post. But you can bet they would be horrified by the genital-in-mouth/anal penetration argument y’all have been trying to put forth for hundreds of posts now.

Wait a second. This is not about more strict vs. less strict. It’s not about that at all.

You’re using quotations from holy men and Saints that are denying the unitive purpose of sex. In that sense, I cannot trust their views on sexuality to be representative of the Church… at all. I’m positive that Justin Martyr was a very holy man, but I cannot trust his teachings on sexuality at all if he was not aware of the dual purpose of sex.

 

[Oh_Charlotte]

A friend of mine recently said to me that he spends no more than one week on any given thread because it is ample time to submit all relevent information on a subject. I have decided to follow this advice. Arguments tend to go in circles and become uncharitable. Actually, I left this thread once already but returned after a few days.

And so I have decided to take Charlotte’s advice and depart!

Good, I am so glad. You got in a few more posts on your favorite off-topic subject, sodomy, first, just in case we had not heard enough from you on that topic.

And you even made sure to make it known that it was your own idea to leave, and nothing to do with how offensive you were here, which you took care not to admit to!

 

[Oh_Charlotte]

For the 1,000th time, this is not the way the Church works. If the precursor to any action was Church approval, 99% of or actions would not be permitted. Also, assuming the Church missed this issue assumes ignorance on the part of the Church, which is, of course, utter nonsense.

Furthermore, the action you describe, which has never been understood as sodomy can, in fact, increase a woman’s chance of getting pregnant. The Church will NEVER interfere with a natural action that can increase the procreative action of sex.

Thank you for making that clear!

 

[Oh_Charlotte]

Before this thread is closed I would like to clarify something. Christopher West in no way endorses anal sex and it is misleading to claim that he does. Here are his words on the subject.

"Again, a husband should never intentionally ejaculate anywhere but in his wife’s vagina. What, then, are we to say about anal penetration as a form of foreplay to normal intercourse?

Some might conclude based on a legalistic application of the “so long as it leads to intercourse” principle that anything goes when it comes to foreplay. But spouse who truly love each other aren’t looking to get away with as much as possible before “breaking the rules”. They’re looking to symbolize and renew their marriage commitment as sincerely as possible.

For those who would seek to justify anal penetration as a form of foreplay to intercourse, there are some important considerations that can’t be overlooked. To begin with, the rectum is full of bacteria, which are dangerous to both the male and female reproductive organs. Furthermore, since the anus and rectum are simply not biologically designed to accommodate a penis, penetration can cause temporary or permanent harm.

Aesthetically speaking, such behavior involves contact with human waste, which is tolerated when necessary but not something joyful, beautiful., and pleasing. Marital intimacy is meant to be joyful, beautiful, and pleasing to both spouses. Is it truly loving to subject one’s wife the health risks, not to mention the discomfort or even pain associated with such behavior?

Perhaps in some abstract, objective sense there is nothing to condemn mere penetration of the anus as absolutely and in every case immoral. But subjectively speaking, for all of the above reasons it is very difficult to justify anal penetration as a loving act of foreplay to the marital embrace. It is an act that seems to stem much more from the disorder of lust than from a genuine desire to symbolize and renew the marriage commitment."

LucyLIght, Thank you for pointing this out. I was wondering how West could have so much right, and yet advocate that. Thank you for doing that service of setting the record straight. It woudl be a real shame if people read on this forum and believed Mickey’s false accusations about West, and took it as authority since this forum is associated with Catholic answers.

However, I wonder how many will get this far in this thread? Mickey’s obsessively redundant posts about sodomy have made this thread very hard thread to wade through. Maybe a moderator could delete his posts, thereby cleaning it up.

So now its clear that Mickey’s accusation that West supports sodomy in marriage is just him calumniating West, just in the same way he falsely accused many other writers on this thread. Including me - immediately after I said this act is was wrong and unnatural and did not want to be included in any discussions of it. Mickey decided, instead, that I would be included, and accused me of supporting it, and also of being in agreement with Jone! Whom I had never heard of! All I know of Jone is that Mickey says here says he advocates for sodomy! (And since Mickey’s MO is made clear in this thread, its safe to assume that this author Jone is a supporter of no such thing).

 

[bunnykisses88]

LucyLIght, Thank you for pointing this out. I was wondering how West could have so much right, and yet advocate that. Thank you for doing that service of setting the record straight. It woudl be a real shame if people read on this forum and believed Mickey’s false accusations about West, and took it as authority since this forum is associated with Catholic answers.

However, I wonder how many will get this far in this thread? Mickey’s obsessively redundant posts about sodomy have made this thread very hard thread to wade through. Maybe a moderator could delete his posts, thereby cleaning it up.

So now its clear that Mickey’s accusation that West supports sodomy in marriage is just him calumniating West, just in the same way he falsely accused many other writers on this thread. Including me - immediately after I said this act is was wrong and unnatural and did not want to be included in any discussions of it. Mickey decided, instead, that I would be included, and accused me of supporting it, and also of being in agreement with Jone! Whom I had never heard of! All I know of Jone is that Mickey says here says he advocates for sodomy! (And since Mickey’s MO is made clear in this thread, its safe to assume that this author Jone is a supporter of no such thing).

I agree.

We were given this book “Good News about Sex and Marriage. Answers to your honest questions about Catholic teaching” by Christopher West. and this excerpt is question #5 in the chapter called “I Do-ing It” which was “What about anal sex?” It starts on page 93 and ends on pg 94.

We got this book at our pre-cana class. very good book!

 

[kelvinf]

Christopher West in no way endorses anal sex and it is misleading to claim that he does. Here are his words on the subject.

…

LucyLIght, Thank you for pointing this out. I was wondering how West could have so much right, and yet advocate that. Thank you for doing that service of setting the record straight. It woudl be a real shame if people read on this forum and believed Mickey’s false accusations about West, and took it as authority since this forum is associated with Catholic answers.

I agree…

He did! What was posted seems to be the new version of the book. In the previous edition, he clearly said there was nothing wrong with anal penetration per se.

 

[kelvinf]

I guess it’s time to remove the Song of Songs from the Bible.

Words like “nasty” and “degrading” are subjective. Some people describe the sex act itself this way. Others think it is nasty until they start having sex. These are solely subjective, not objective, opinions.

It’s called relativism.

And nowhere in Songs of Songs is oral sex mentioned.

 

[kelvinf]

I think it is shameful that people use Scripture (Song of Songs) to somehow justify cunnilingus and felatio.

Indeed.

 

[kelvinf]

Before this thread is closed I would like to clarify something. Christopher West in no way endorses anal sex and it is misleading to claim that he does. Here are his words on the subject.

"Again, a husband should never intentionally ejaculate anywhere but in his wife’s vagina. What, then, are we to say about anal penetration as a form of foreplay to normal intercourse?
…

This is the version I have:

A husband should never intentionally ejaculate anywhere but in his wife’s vagina. There’s nothing inherently wrong with anal penetration as foreplay to normal intercourse…

 

[The_Bucket]

This is the version I have:

A husband should never intentionally ejaculate anywhere but in his wife’s vagina. There’s nothing inherently wrong with anal penetration as foreplay to normal intercourse…

And he’s right. The reason the language was changed was because of concerns that he was being too flip about the subject and not providing caution against using our spouses to indulge lusts. He was right to make the change but to also leave the objective nature of touching in that area as neutral. Because it is.

Let me repeat this for the billionth time so it’s quite clear folks: The Church is silent on positions, what to wear or not to wear during sex, messages, and basically everything as it pertains to actions except that the husband must finish inside of his wife. Period. Anything else is speculative and theological discussion that has no binding authority over the laity.

The Church spells out clearly what is wrong when it comes to sex. Adultery. Fornication. Sexual acts between members of the same sex. Contraception. Frustration of the procreative and unitive aspects of sex, including those that do not involve artificial means. The Church spells out what is good when it comes to sex. Cementing the marriage bond between spouses. Generation of new life.

How you get there when it comes to cementing that bond is up to the judgment of the laity. I mean, I don’t see why this is difficult to understand. **If you don’t want to engage in certain actions, then by all means don’t do it!**You’re not committing any sin. But by substituting your proclivities for the actual doctrine, you are indeed doing harm. By ascribing sinful motivations to certain acts when the Church is silent on the matter, you’re making judgments that only God can make.

There are some things when it comes to sex that aren’t my cup of tea. But maybe others feel just fine and comfortable with them. They don’t feel objectified or like they’re indulging their lusts. They know how sexual unions must be completed and they do so. Okay! That’s fine with me. Since the Church makes no judgment or even discernment, it’s not my place to speak out. And to do so is actually wrong. I’ll get busy removing the plank out of my own eye thank you very much.

 

[kelvinf]

And he’s right. The reason the language was changed was because of concerns that he was being too flip about the subject and not providing caution against using our spouses to indulge lusts. He was right to make the change but to also leave the objective nature of touching in that area as neutral. Because it is.

Let me repeat this for the billionth time so it’s quite clear folks: The Church is silent on positions, what to wear or not to wear during sex, messages, and basically everything as it pertains to actions except that the husband must finish inside of his wife. Period. Anything else is speculative and theological discussion that has no binding authority over the laity.

The Church spells out clearly what is wrong when it comes to sex. Adultery. Fornication. Sexual acts between members of the same sex. Contraception. Frustration of the procreative and unitive aspects of sex, including those that do not involve artificial means. The Church spells out what is good when it comes to sex. Cementing the marriage bond between spouses. Generation of new life.

How you get there when it comes to cementing that bond is up to the judgment of the laity. I mean, I don’t see why this is difficult to understand. **If you don’t want to engage in certain actions, then by all means don’t do it!**You’re not committing any sin. But by substituting your proclivities for the actual doctrine, you are indeed doing harm. By ascribing sinful motivations to certain acts when the Church is silent on the matter, you’re making judgments that only God can make.

There are some things when it comes to sex that aren’t my cup of tea. But maybe others feel just fine and comfortable with them. They don’t feel objectified or like they’re indulging their lusts. They know how sexual unions must be completed and they do so. Okay! That’s fine with me. Since the Church makes no judgment or even discernment, it’s not my place to speak out. And to do so is actually wrong. I’ll get busy removing the plank out of my own eye thank you very much.

Who told you the reason why it was changed? And it wasn’t “changed”. The sentence was completely removed.

Let me also repeat that the Church does not teach on every single thing. The Church hasn’t said anything about the sharing of digital content which is a huge discussion topic.

No, no period. The Church teaches about moderation. So saying that couples can do whatever they like as long as the man completes in the woman is contrary to moderation.

And let me also repeat this for the billionth time: One cannot do whatever they like for 99.9% of what is supposed to be the marital act and use the remaining 0.1% to complete in the woman.

We can trick ourselves but we can’t trick God.

And you don’t expect the Church to define how long foreplay must last and how long intercourse must last or do you?

No Church teaching does not take away prudence and moderation.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Nonsense. For example, anal penetration between the opposite sex is sodomy. Anal penetration is a form of activity most often used between homosexual men. ** For a heterosexual couple to imitate homosexual activity is unconsionable. **
May I ask why you are so adament in defending the practice of anal penetration within the bond of marriage?

Oh you make me laugh Mickey

According to your logic if we see gays and lesbians kissing we shouldn’t kiss because that would be imitating them