Masterbation as an Alternative to Normal Sex

[OraLabora]

Amen!
Thank you for this perspective!

You’re welcome.

The thing with Truth when it comes to morality, is that it’s like an asymptotic curve in mathematics.

The curve (the people) never actually reach the maximum (Truth).

This is 100% the result of the Fall. Fortunately my confessor, when I confess to him on any topic at which I fail to reach 100% of the Truth, maintains that God’s grace makes up for that little gap we can never close.

And he maintains that the important thing is to be on that curve, traveling towards the Truth, no matter what our position should be on the curve. And the other thing is to never, ever despair of God’s grace.

Those who claim to have crossed over to that line known as the Truth, are either lying or engaging in self-deception Or dead and canonized. And I believe this is where St. John of the Cross and his Dark Night of the Soul come into play.

Once we’ve finished deceiving ourselves that we can ride the Truth line, and realize we are still somewhere on the curve short of it (usually arrived at because of a major meltdown into the sin we thought we’d conquered), we can then fully come to comprehend that only God’s grace will allow us to cross the gap between the asymptotic curve and the Truth.

For me it’s a been-there, done-that sort of thing.

For those who don’t know what an asymptotic curve is in math, my sincere apologies. Google is your friend

 

[chessmane4e5]

You’re welcome.

The thing with Truth when it comes to morality, is that it’s like an asymptotic curve in mathematics.

The curve (the people) never actually reach the maximum (Truth).

This is 100% the result of the Fall. Fortunately my confessor, when I confess to him on any topic at which I fail to reach 100% of the Truth, maintains that God’s grace makes up for that little gap we can never close.

And he maintains that the important thing is to be on that curve, traveling towards the Truth, no matter what our position should be on the curve. And the other thing is to never, ever despair of God’s grace.

Those who claim to have crossed over to that line known as the Truth, are either lying or engaging in self-deception Or dead and canonized. And I believe this is where St. John of the Cross and his Dark Night of the Soul come into play.

Once we’ve finished deceiving ourselves that we can ride the Truth line, and realize we are still somewhere on the curve short of it (usually arrived at because of a major meltdown into the sin we thought we’d conquered), we can then fully come to comprehend that only God’s grace will allow us to cross the gap between the asymptotic curve and the Truth.

For me it’s a been-there, done-that sort of thing.

For those who don’t know what an asymptotic curve is in math, my sincere apologies. Google is your friend

I think it more sinusoidal

Sometimes we are in the positive (obeying God’s commands) and sometimes we are in the negative. I suppose with some problems we might even be Logistic, at first we make little progress, then we make a lot, but in the end, like you said, we never quite get there. Although we might even be abs(x), where for a while in our lives we are on a continual path down, but then we find God’s good grace and suddenly BAM we are heading up. Of course, some of us might be more x squared + y squared equals r squared, and we continue to go round and round but never find the center (God).

In the end, I do believe that most sins can be overcome, for Jesus himself told us that if we ask we will receive. I think the key is what length are we willing or able to go?

 

[curl]

You’re welcome.

The thing with Truth when it comes to morality, is that it’s like an asymptotic curve in mathematics.

The curve (the people) never actually reach the maximum (Truth).

This is 100% the result of the Fall. Fortunately my confessor, when I confess to him on any topic at which I fail to reach 100% of the Truth, maintains that God’s grace makes up for that little gap we can never close.

Very, very nice analogy! Thank you, OraLabora!

(Although I’ve been consistently reading this and similar discussion forums for many months, I haven’t been participating because I just don’t have the energy to argue with the apparently permanently polarized positions on the two sides of this issue. To assist my own growth toward a moral understanding of the private and complicated issues in my particular marriage, I have scheduled a meeting this Friday with one of my parish priests who did his specialty in Moral Theology. And after the meeting, guess what??? … I promise not to burden the readers of this thread with my new-found enlightened understanding of the definitive, universal, and absolute truth as it applies to every individual and couple on the planet. )

Praying for us all,

• curl

 

[OraLabora]

I think the key is what length are we willing or able to go?

The mind is willing but the flesh is weak. Of course when you’re over 50 and married that can have a double connontation

I know in some areas I have made great strides, in other areas, much remains to be done, and in yet others I have made tiny incremental progress.

Who was it that said “it’s only when you accept yourself as you are, that you can make real progress towards change”.

Getting back to math, if it’s sinusoidal, I at least hope it’s damped harmonic motion. I don’t think I can handle a wild bi-polar ride at my age

Very, very nice analogy! Thank you, OraLabora!

(Although I’ve been consistently reading this and similar discussion forums for many months, I haven’t been participating because I just don’t have the energy to argue with the apparently permanently polarized positions on the two sides of this issue. To assist my own growth toward a moral understanding of the private and complicated issues in my particular marriage, I have scheduled a meeting this Friday with one of my parish priests who did his specialty in Moral Theology. And after the meeting, guess what??? … I promise not to burden the readers of this thread with my new-found enlightened understanding of the definitive, universal, and absolute truth as it applies to every individual and couple on the planet. )

Praying for us all,

• curl

Good luck with that. I agree that these are topics best kept in the realm of the private. That’s why you haven’t been bored with too many details about my marriage!

 

[chessmane4e5]

The mind is willing but the flesh is weak. Of course when you’re over 50 and married that can have a double connotation

I know in some areas I have made great strides, in other areas, much remains to be done, and in yet others I have made tiny incremental progress.

Who was it that said “it’s only when you accept yourself as you are, that you can make real progress towards change”.

Getting back to math, if it’s sinusoidal, I at least hope it’s damped harmonic motion. I don’t think I can handle a wild bi-polar ride at my age

Amen God knows our minds and hearts, and that is what truly matters. I know I look like a fanatic at times, but it is the coach and teacher in me, wanting to push people to their limits so they can achieve their potential.

Fish on

 

[curl]

Good luck with that. I agree that these are topics best kept in the realm of the private. That’s why you haven’t been bored with too many details about my marriage!

I didn’t mean to seem too flippant, though. These threads WERE a great help to me over months and months when I most needed information and encouragement in my battle to turn away from impurity. Now that I have am free from 99% of the former impurities and regularly confess the remaining 1%, I feel that at the moment, this is a reasonable balance in this area while I invest my energy into other areas of my life that need God’s grace and supernatural help even more. Perfect I’m not.

Praying for us all,

• curl

 

[USUlsterScot]

I have read through many of these postings and I find there is no satisfactory answer for a situation where the wife (or husband) is physically unable to partricipate in sex or because of a hormonial defficiency, is unwilling to engage in sex. No amount of counseling is going to restore desire or correct medical defficiencies. Even if my wife went to concelling and agreed to have sex, I would not want to have sex with her if she did not DESIRE it as well. The desire is necessary for active participation and MUTUAL satisfaction.

So that leaves us with abstinence for either the man or wife and the health problems that result, be them physical and or psychological.
Reporting in the American Journal of Cardiology, researchers say they’ve found that men with a low frequency of sexual activity have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease.

Men who reported sexual activity of once a month or less had a higher risk of cardiovascular disease than men who reported having sex twice a week or more, writes study researcher Susan A. Hall, PhD, of the department of epidemiology at the New England Research Institutes.

Previous studies have examined the link between erectile dysfunction (ED) and cardiovascular disease (CVD), but the new study is the first to look at frequency of sexual activity and heart risk independently from ED, the researchers say.

Hall and colleagues analyzed men taking part in the Massachusetts Male Aging Study, looking at erectile dysfunction plus other sexual function variables, such as libido.

The study included 1,165 men (average age in the 50s) without any history of cardiovascular disease (such as heart disease, stroke, peripheral arterial disease) at the start of the study. Of the participants, 213 had ED at the start of the study. The men were followed for 16 years, on average.

The researchers found that there was an increasing risk of cardiovascular disease with decreasing frequency of reported sexual activity. Compared to men who reported sexual activity at least 2-3 times a week, men with sexual activity of once per month or less had a 45% increased risk of cardiovascular disease during the study period. The findings took into account factors such as age and ED status.

“Our results suggest that a low frequency of sexual activity predicts [cardiovascular disease] independently of [erectile dysfunction] and that screening for sexual activity might be clinically useful,” the researchers write.

The researchers also looked at the role of sexual desire and the capacity for sexual activity as possible factors in heart risk. Hall tells WebMD that “men who are sexually active likely have libido and the capacity for physical activity. So the ability to have sex might be a marker for overall health.”

Hall also says that “men who are having regular [sexual] activity might be more likely to be in a supportive intimate relationship with a regular partner; this might improve health through stress reduction and social support.”

The study suggests that doctors could get clues about the cardiovascular condition and risk of patients by asking questions about their sex lives, sexual interest, and activities.

“The take-home message for men is that sexual health may predict cardiovascular health and men should consult with their doctors if they experience erectile dysfunction or sexual difficulties,” Hall tells WebMD.

To be sure, masterbation can be abused, but so can drinking or eating or almost any other behavior.

 

[chessmane4e5]

To be sure, masturbation can be abused, but so can drinking or eating or almost any other behavior.

I am sorry to hear about your situation, I will pray for you and your wife.

While eating and drinking can be abused, they are not sinful per se. In moderation, their is nothing wrong with eating and drinking.

Masturbation on the other hand, is a sin per se. Doing it one time or 100 is a sin.

I have a question though. Could the same cardiovascular benefits not be achieved by exercise? I know the study only looked at sex, but exercise would seem to play a more significant role than sexual activity. I suppose the next step for these researches is to try and compare exercise and sexual activity and see how they interact in reducing cardiovascular disease.

 

[baylee]

Sorry, I’ve been reading too many of Ron Conte’s posts. However, my actual point was that the wording in the Catechism that you quoted is complex and did not make sense as quoted. If you actually add the rest of the text it includes:

"The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.’ For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of ‘the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."

Here we can see that the Church is referring to an act outside of marriage or without one’s spouse. It says that “here” the pleasure is sought outside of the mutual self-giving sexual relationship, implying that such pleasure is to be reserved for the marital embrace and this is why it should not be done alone. I cannot find any support here for a woman to be to be denied assistance within the overall context of the marital act.

And yet it is wrong for the woman to masturbate her husband. It’s not okay for the man to climax and leave his wife wanting, but it’s okay for the woman to climax and leave her husband wanting. I know everyone would like to think that men always climax easily vaginally, but it’s not always the case. I still say to expect every sexual encounter to be done a certain way is pharisaical. Tried living my married life this way for two years and the results were not life giving at all.

 

[carinapir]

I know everyone would like to think that men always climax easily vaginally, but it’s not always the case. I still say to expect every sexual encounter to be done a certain way is pharisaical.

I agree on this point from experience as well. I really don’t know what the Church would expect one to do in that circumstance. I would think that the Church would cling to the rule that the man must complete his act inside the woman and that is reinforced by the “sex is not simply for pleasure” idea. If it cannot be completed procreatively, then is should not be completed. But that’s just my guess.

Manual stimulation beforehand, however (IMHO) is not the same thing as masturbation. To me masturbation assumes the exclusion of one’s spouse in some way.

 

[baylee]

I agree on this point from experience as well. I really don’t know what the Church would expect one to do in that circumstance. I would think that the Church would cling to the rule that the man must complete his act inside the woman and that is reinforced by the “sex is not simply for pleasure” idea. If it cannot be completed procreatively, then is should not be completed. But that’s just my guess.

Manual stimulation beforehand, however (IMHO) is not the same thing as masturbation. To me masturbation assumes the exclusion of one’s spouse in some way.

You’re probably right…which is why I can’t accept the idea that EVERY sexual encounter must be procreative. In other words, in the above example, the man must remain frustrated and the woman must allow him to be frustrated. Awesome…a recipe for disaster in a marriage…sooner or later.

 

[carinapir]

You’re probably right…which is why I can’t accept the idea that EVERY sexual encounter must be procreative. In other words, in the above example, the man must remain frustrated and the woman must allow him to be frustrated. Awesome…a recipe for disaster in a marriage…sooner or later.

If it helps, I would personally say that a lot of help could be given beforehand to hopefully allow the completion of act to be procreative. In that sense, the Church has not prescribed exactly what can take place during a larger sexual encounter between spouses, though some people might disagree.

 

[chessmane4e5]

And yet it is wrong for the woman to masturbate her husband. It’s not okay for the man to climax and leave his wife wanting, but it’s okay for the woman to climax and leave her husband wanting. I know everyone would like to think that men always climax easily vaginally, but it’s not always the case. I still say to expect every sexual encounter to be done a certain way is pharisaical. Tried living my married life this way for two years and the results were not life giving at all.

No, it is not okay for a woman to climax and then leave her husband wanting. But physiological it is “easier” for a woman to continue to have sex after climax, than it is for a man to continue to have sex after climax.

If a man can not climax “easily” vaginally, am I to believe that this man has an easier time climaxing other ways? To me, that sounds more of a psychological problem then a physical one.

 

[baylee]

No, it is not okay for a woman to climax and then leave her husband wanting. But physiological it is “easier” for a woman to continue to have sex after climax, than it is for a man to continue to have sex after climax.

If a man can not climax “easily” vaginally, am I to believe that this man has an easier time climaxing other ways? To me, that sounds more of a psychological problem then a physical one.

No, there is no psychological issue. It’s that a human being is just that…not a robot. Things don’t always work the way we think they should work every time. I think it makes much more sense to be open to life in a more general way (as in not actively seeking to avoid pregnancy)…but not at the expense of frustrating one another. That is not loving and I still say that over time this will hurt the marriage.

 

[OraLabora]

No, it is not okay for a woman to climax and then leave her husband wanting. But physiological it is “easier” for a woman to continue to have sex after climax, than it is for a man to continue to have sex after climax.

If a man can not climax “easily” vaginally, am I to believe that this man has an easier time climaxing other ways? To me, that sounds more of a psychological problem then a physical one.

It can be physical. Things desensitize with age. The vagina stretches after childbirth. Erections become less firm. All three or a combination of any of them can in fact make it difficult for a man to reach climax vaginally. Sometimes a man needs very direct and vigorous stimulation to reach climax, when the above occur.

Some men become impotent, that is, cannot obtain an erection, but can still reach climax manually. Many of these things can be brought about by age, vascular diseases, diabetes, or prostate cancer to name a few.

When these things happen, I am not certain that it is God’s intention that a couple’s intimacy has to cease. It’s one of these issues of Church teaching that I really wrestle with. The Church’s view of sexuality is one of perfection. And while I believe it her duty to teach the Truth, the reality is that we are a deeply wounded species as a result of the Fall, and for some couples, the perfect set of circumstances may never exist.

Are we to assume that they are to terminate their sexuality when circumstances brought on by age or disease are less than perfect?

Frankly I find that notion cruel. I don’t think I could ever bring myself to accuse a couple using manual stimulation alone for sexual intimacy, because age or disease has robbed them of the ability to have vaginal intercourse, of mortal sin. I believe that this would be one of those situations where extenuating circumstances reduces culpability.

 

[chessmane4e5]

Frankly I find that notion cruel. I don’t think I could ever bring myself to accuse a couple using manual stimulation alone for sexual intimacy, because age or disease has robbed them of the ability to have vaginal intercourse, of mortal sin. I believe that this would be one of those situations where extenuating circumstances reduces culpability.

You made some very good points. But no one has said that manual stimulation is sin, so long as the man climaxes during sex. If because of physical conditions, a man is unable to do this, then they should not be having sex. That situation would essentially be the same as why the Church does not allow impotent men to marry.

 

[OraLabora]

If because of physical conditions, a man is unable to do this, then they should not be having sex.

That’s what I think is cruel.

That situation would essentially be the same as why the Church does not allow impotent men to marry.

That’s true, but we’re talking of a life-long couple, married 20+ years, and suddenly they are thrust by illness or aging from sexual intimacy to no sexual intimacy. Some do, it appears, adapt to a very satisfying sex life with impotence, but unfortunately it “breaks the rules”. There are also issues on the female side that can preclude vaginal intercourse, incidentally.

I maintain that this is a situation where extenuating circumstances reduces culpability, or at least should for a period of adjustment, instead of telling them “too bad, so sad, you can’t have ANY form of sexual intimacy anymore”.

 

[distracted]

Well given that in the 13 years since I returned to the Church I never EVER heard a homily saying it was sinful, and only ONCE heard a homily that dealt with sex at all, I would say that even many Catholics can be at least partially excused… Unless our clergy are prepared to face the issue head-on and say some things that people may not like to hear in their homilies then can we be surprised that many think it’s simply OK?

Note that this is in the province of Quebec. It may be different elsewhere.

i have never heard a homily on birth control… only one on Hell and it wasn’t about how awful it was and how many go there…

there are a lot of things priests don’t homilize about… which angers me a lot…

but that doesn’t mean those things aren’t sins…

the Church is corrupted anyway… or i should say it has many corrupted persons in it…

the Church itself is not and never will be “corrupted”… but those humanoids inside it!!! yikes!

 

[Lauds]

You made some very good points. But no one has said that manual stimulation is sin, so long as the man climaxes during sex. If because of physical conditions, a man is unable to do this, then they should not be having sex. That situation would essentially be the same as why the Church does not allow impotent men to marry.

If that is really true that the Church doesnt allow impotent men to marry, then That is certainly a sorry church law, probably along with many of their sorry laws, a lot of them dont make sense. Why should a man be deprived of companionship just because thru no fault of his own he is impotent, what a sorry church law. Its no wonder that 80% of catholics dont practice at all

 

[baylee]

You made some very good points. But no one has said that manual stimulation is sin, so long as the man climaxes during sex. If because of physical conditions, a man is unable to do this, then they should not be having sex. That situation would essentially be the same as why the Church does not allow impotent men to marry.

And with that, I’m done here. Do you people even hear yourselves?