Mutual masturbation

[prettylarge]

Hair split much? I am a Bible beleiving, pope following, pentecostal, Latin loving, incense buring, Catholic Christian. God said so, God was VERY clear on what he thought of masturbation - and like it or not, bring the male to orgasm using anything but a vagina is a form of masturbation.

Can you please quote what God said about masturbation?

 

[prettylarge]

JMJ

It is.

Book of Genesis, the story of Onan. God slew him for wasting his seed.

The Church never deviated from this teaching.

He didn’t even masturbate! He just pulled out. TOTALLY DIFFERENT.

 

[prettylarge]

This is a very well thought out explanation! I like it!

However, it reinforces my belief against artificial contraception.

God’s first, FIRST, command to us. “Be fruitful and multiply.” He TOLD us to have sex, AND make babies.

How is birth control not purposely avoiding that command while still reaping the benefits of sexual pleasure?

So I guess a woman that is over 50 that cannot have babies anymore is committing a moral sin if they have sex with their husbands? You know, because they can’t have babies? Aren’t they reaping the benefits without the effect?

 

[prettylarge]

I would consider the way God is speaking that early in Genesis- When God said ‘let there be light’ He was not issuing a command to light, but rather speaking it into existence. “Be fruitful and multiply” would be more providing the ability to reproduce to man, rather than commanding it. After all, He also said that to all of the other creatures on their creation days- but these things are not even capable of sin!
In that same breath, God also went on to tell us subdue the Earth- if this was meant as a command, would living ‘in harmony’ with nature be sinful?

And of course, a great deal of holy mean fail to be fruitful and multiply- I would not consider an oath of celibacy sinful.

Great points!

 

[camerong]

"camerong:

In this way, I almost don’t think its quite right to say Catholics oppose masturbation per se. Its that we know the real alternative to be so unimaginably better that we cannot bear to be distracted by a cheap counterfeit.

Again, (as with the other two recently closed threads), why does this continue to be an ambiguity in many people’s minds? People are free to imagine that Catholics “do not oppose masturbation per se,” but if so, these Catholics are not in accord with Catholic doctrine.

And when we substitute a gift of God with distorted (turned inward) “cheap counterfeits,” we sin against ourselves and against God, which is additionally a sin against gratitude toward his goodness, a sin against self-respect, and more.

I think you misunderstood me (or more likely, I miscommunicated). Masturbation is absolutely barred in Catholicism, I am the very first to recognize this (such has been the large majority of all my posts). Anyone who tries to follow Catholicism and yet rejects its rule on masturbation is fooling themselves. In the above phrase, I was merely trying to be poetic to address the reasons behind this rule (why I said I “almost” think that"). Perhaps a better phrase would be:

“I don’t think Catholics oppose any type of sex simply because it involves sexual pleasure, but rather because we know the real alternative to be so unimaginably better that we cannot bear to be distracted by a cheap counterfeit.”

 

[fbl9]

So I guess a woman that is over 50 that cannot have babies anymore is committing a moral sin if they have sex with their husbands? You know, because they can’t have babies? Aren’t they reaping the benefits without the effect?

how can it be a sin if the couple’s actions are still open to life…remember it was not you or your wife that willed your child into existance but you were willing that he/she could exist.

 

[prettylarge]

how can it be a sin if the couple’s actions are still open to life…remember it was not you or your wife that willed your child into existance but you were willing that he/she could exist.

I don’t understand the argument at all. A young couple that has oral sex and an old couple having regular sex both know that pregnancy is not an option. So how is it any different?

 

[fbl9]

I don’t understand the argument at all. A young couple that has oral sex and an old couple having regular sex both know that pregnancy is not an option. So how is it any different?

it’s a matter of choice,the young couple choose not to allow the gift of life were as the old couple could concieve, but due to that which is not of their choosing they most likely won’t concieve.

 

[stringbeanduck]

Oh, well you made a really good argument. I now believe that the Catholic Church is the only true faith…you know, because you told me that it is. You should be on a debate team.

You inherited the smart gene too; ahh we must be brothers then.

I was simply explaining the reasoning for why we don’t have “what if” clauses in our faith. Whether you accept it as your decision is up to you, but if you do then this what you’ll believe. I think the “If you accept this; you accept it. If you don’t; you don’t. That’s all there is to it” should have said enough for that matter. Obviously you don’t seem to accept it so that matter is settled.

 

[Holly3278]

Masturbation, mutual or not is a grave sin. Now if you’re talking about sexual stimulation of both partners which ends in the normal way that marital relations are supposed to end (trying not to get graphic here) it is not a sin.

 

[tjm190]

Onan was not punished merely for disobedience. The punishment under the OT law for failing to “raise up seed for a dead brother” is not death but merely to have the widow publicly remove her brother-in-law’s sandal and spit in his face (Deut. 25:5–10).

Ergo, Onan was slain for seed-spilling. Say that 5 times fast.

And, as I said, he attempted to avoid that penalty while still receiving the benefit.

 

[tjm190]

Really? Really? The purpose of sex within a marriage is NOT deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. Not even close, not even a little bit. That’s a little like saying we eat food because it tastes good. But your characterization is even worse than that… Its not just, as secular people might say, that sex is an unifying act of love. It is, sure. But I have sex with my wife as an expression of our unity which reflects the unity of Christ and His Church. I give myself to my wife, and she to me, as Christ gives Himself to the Church. Sex within my marriage is a most Holy Office to which I have been called. And even though the pleasure is not even remotely the point, I will also say that the pleasure in Holy sex is of a completely different character than masturbation. The carnal aspect of the pleasure pales in comparison with the spiritual aspect.

In this way, I almost don’t think its quite right to say Catholics oppose masturbation per se. Its that we know the real alternative to be so unimaginably better that we cannot bear to be distracted by a cheap counterfeit.

Ah, so married couples don’t stimulate each other’s sexual organs for the sake of mutual pleasure? Quite the mindreader I see. Was it personal divine revelation that led you to this conclusion?

 

[camerong]

Ah, so married couples don’t stimulate each other’s sexual organs for the sake of mutual pleasure? Quite the mindreader I see. Was it personal divine revelation that led you to this conclusion?

I never said that. Quite the misreader, I see.

I eat certain foods because they taste goods, and I’m glad that food tastes good. But the point of eating is not the taste. And the point of sex is not mutual pleasure. Do some couples think that the point of sex is mutual pleasure? Sure, even some Catholics, I’d imagine. But just because they mistake its primary purpose does not mean that they fail to achieve the divine effects of Holy marriage. A doubting Catholic who takes the Host believing it is simply a cracker may think it is simply a cracker, but he cannot defeat the divine effect by failing to recognize it. He would, of course, experience tremendous spiritual benefits from recognizing the truth, just as a married couple would experience spiritual benefits from recognizing the full effect of their marriage.

 

[tjm190]

I never said that. Quite the misreader, I see.

I eat certain foods because they taste goods, and I’m glad that food tastes good. But the point of eating is not the taste. And the point of sex is not mutual pleasure. Do some couples think that the point of sex is mutual pleasure? Sure, even some Catholics, I’d imagine. But just because they mistake its primary purpose does not mean that they fail to achieve the divine effects of Holy marriage. A doubting Catholic who takes the Host believing it is simply a cracker may think it is simply a cracker, but he cannot defeat the divine effect by failing to recognize it. He would, of course, experience tremendous spiritual benefits from recognizing the truth, just as a married couple would experience spiritual benefits from recognizing the full effect of their marriage.

The Church’s definition of masturbation would label a couple that engages in sex for the sake of mutual pleasure as masturbation since it is- 1. Deliberate 2. Stimulation of the sexual organs and 3. In order to derive sexual pleasure.

The benefits they receive are irrelevant- the definition only covers intent and action.

 

[fbl9]

The Church’s definition of masturbation would label a couple that engages in sex for the sake of mutual pleasure as masturbation since it is- 1. Deliberate 2. Stimulation of the sexual organs and 3. In order to derive sexual pleasure.

The benefits they receive are irrelevant- the definition only covers intent and action.

Mutual mb done to and for the end is sinning,as a part of foreplay is enjoyable,but is done not for and to the end but as the beginning is good.

 

[camerong]

The Church’s definition of masturbation would label a couple that engages in sex for the sake of mutual pleasure as masturbation since it is- 1. Deliberate 2. Stimulation of the sexual organs and 3. In order to derive sexual pleasure.

The benefits they receive are irrelevant- the definition only covers intent and action.

A maxim of both secular and cannon law (not to mention common sense) is that words are to be interpreted in their context. Had you read the entire paragraph, you would have seen that the rest of 2352 gives zero doubt that masturbation could include sexual intercourse within a marriage. It reads:

“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.

 

[tjm190]

A maxim of both secular and cannon law (not to mention common sense) is that words are to be interpreted in their context. Had you read the entire paragraph, you would have seen that the rest of 2352 gives zero doubt that masturbation could include sexual intercourse within a marriage. It reads:

So the Church seems to be using masturbation to encompass all forms of that it does not approve of. Is this accurate?

 

[camerong]

So the Church seems to be using masturbation to encompass all forms of that it does not approve of. Is this accurate?

Why the emphasis on the definition of masturbation? Its really unimportant whether self-stimulation and fornication are both considered masturbation. Each are clearly prohibited in Catholicism.

 

[tjm190]

Why the emphasis on the definition of masturbation? Its really unimportant whether self-stimulation and fornication are both considered masturbation. Each are clearly prohibited in Catholicism.

As I recall, the claim was that the Onan story forbade masturbation and all non-‘standard’ intercourse was masturbation. Aside from the silliness of the claim itself, I took issue with that definition of masturbation. And here we are.

 

[surritter]

As I recall, the claim was that the Onan story forbade masturbation and all non-‘standard’ intercourse was masturbation. Aside from the silliness of the claim itself, I took issue with that definition of masturbation. And here we are.

Why can’t it suffice to say that the sin lies in the deliberate separation of the love-giving and life-giving aspects of the sexual act? That covers all the ground, despite the disagreement over terms.