OK for married couple to use vibrators?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wedge_Antilles said:
My wife and I wear winter scarfs tied around our eyes so as to avoid seeing one another nekid and stumble around the room in the dark until a baby is one day born.

Not as enjoyable, and I loathe the bruised shins that result, but whatcha gonna do?
Click to expand...
You’re exactly right. We shouldn’t even look upon each other’s nakedness because that inspires lust. I need to invest in some blindfolds ASAP and start covering myself when nursing in case my husband sees a breast!
 
nodito said:
If you don’t like Christopher West, I would recommend Germain Grisez (as another poster mentioned) or William May. Actually, William May, Robert Lawlor and Joseph Boyle Jr published an excellent book called Catholic Sexual Ethics available on amazon, that has an imprimatur. I find it a lot of more consistent with orthodox Catholic thought than anything by Conte.

Matt, you and I are on the same team. I absolutely agree that God sees all our actions everywhere, even in the bedroom, and that acts of marital love can be holy or they be tainted by sin. Conte takes this idea and imposes on married couples restrictions that the Church does not herself impose on us, but in the end, I think your instinct to cherish and guard marital love against corruption is a good one.
Click to expand...
Thanks nodito! I have read Catholic Sexual Ethics, I remember it flawing in a few areas although I forget which ones. I will check out Germain Grisez.

I appreciate your method of discussing this with me, you have been very easy to talk to and non confrontational.

I can see others have gone out of bounds in the realm of sexual ethics in this thread, perhaps because Ronald Conte does make some good points. I still am having a hard time to see where Ronald flawed in the writing I linked. I will have to read it again. I have not read his other writings, so I can’t comment.

Peace and all good!
 
ShrodingersCat said:
Like, oh I dunno, JPII? 🙂
Click to expand...
Nowhere has JPII said we can use vibrators. If thats what people are taking from his readings, its pretty scary.

Touching of the feet is not a sexual act, but common sense says if someone is about to get stimulated to the point of orgasm from a foot rub, the right thing to do would be to stop.
 
nodito said:
Much of what you wrote in your post (vis a vis immigration, environmentalism, etc) was correct. But I think you swung too far here.

Paul VI teaches that each act must be ordered toward procreation and that it does not combine with the totality of marriage to make it so that acceptable if some marital acts are not ordered toward procreation (ie the man deliberately finishing outside his wife, which is contraceptive). Yet still he maintains this is very different than periodically abstaining, The requirement is not to reproduce - it is to use our sexual faculties the way God intended within marriage.

God bless.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I did swing too far here, as I said, I understand the belief that each “finish” must be inside his wife, I’m just not sure that it is truly considered a sin by the church as long as the marriage is open to procreation.

Can you provide your source for where Paul VI teaches that “EACH” act must be toward procreation, and cannot be combined with the totality of marriage?
AdamPeter said:
This sentence is just wrong. There are few rules that the church imposes on the marital act. But this is actually one that is pretty clear. The man must finish in his wife.

That doesn’t rule out other forms of stimulation. But you are not speaking the truth here. I doubt very much that Theology of the body proposes this position.
Click to expand...
Can you provide a source that says the man MUST finish in his wife EVERY time? Or a source that says a man can NEVER finish unless he is within his wife?

I never suggested the Theology of the Body proposed doing such a thing as it doesn’t refer to specific mechanical sexual acts, but rather very specifically describes the need for being unitive, procreative, and done with continence.
 
LittleFlower378 said:
Nowhere has JPII said we can use vibrators. If thats what people are taking from his readings, its pretty scary.

Touching of the feet is not a sexual act, but common sense says if someone is about to get stimulated to the point of orgasm from a foot rub, the right thing to do would be to stop.
Click to expand...
And no where did it say you can have silk sheets on your bed…but it doesn’t mean you can’t.
 
Boats:

Pope Paul VI: "The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine,** teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. **This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.

“The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life – and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities,** the unitive and the procreative, is preserved,** the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called.” (Humanae Vitae, n. 11-12).

Marital Act, means sexual marital act using the genitals properly for their function. Because if you didnt use them to their proper function the act would no longer be pro-creative.

Hugging, kissing is not a sexual marital act but foreplay and affection.
 
LittleFlower378 said:
Boats:

Pope Paul VI: "The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine,** teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. **This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.

“The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life – and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities,** the unitive and the procreative, is preserved,** the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called.” (Humanae Vitae, n. 11-12).

Marital Act, means sexual marital act using the genitals properly for their function. Because if you didnt use them to their proper function the act would no longer be pro-creative.

Hugging, kissing is not a sexual marital act but foreplay and affection.
Click to expand...
Thank you for that, certainly adds clarity to the side discussion.

But there is absolutely nothing in Church teaching prohibiting the OP’s question, or other forms of sexual expression, as long as the acts are unitive, done with an openness to procreation, and done in continence to one’s spouse.
 
I have no idea who Ronald Conte, but my utmost sympathy is with his poor wife…although I suspect he lives with his mother, and spends too much time on the internet.
 
Gilly_flower said:
I have no idea who Ronald Conte, but my utmost sympathy is with his poor wife…although I suspect he lives with his mother, and spends too much time on the internet.
Click to expand...
Personal attacks are not tolerated on this forum. Please be charitable.
 
Boatswain2PA said:
Thank you for that, certainly adds clarity to the side discussion.

But there is absolutely nothing in Church teaching prohibiting the OP’s question, or other forms of sexual expression, as long as the acts are unitive, done with an openness to procreation, and done in continence to one’s spouse.
Click to expand...
An act using a device instead of the natural act of marital intercourse would not be an act that is open to life.
 
LittleFlower378 said:
An act using a device instead of the natural act of marital intercourse would not be an act that is open to life.
Click to expand...
Using a device INSTEAD of the natural act…yes, I could see that argument. Similar to a man masturbating by himself, I would suggest a woman masturbating by herself (ie: using a device INSTEAD of “the natural act”) is also against Church teaching.

However there is nothing in Catholic teaching prohibiting the use of marital aids, as long as it is done in a unitive and procreative manner, and with continence.
 
LittleFlower378 said:
Thanks nodito! I have read Catholic Sexual Ethics, I remember it flawing in a few areas although I forget which ones. I will check out Germain Grisez.

I appreciate your method of discussing this with me, you have been very easy to talk to and non confrontational.

I can see others have gone out of bounds in the realm of sexual ethics in this thread, perhaps because Ronald Conte does make some good points. I still am having a hard time to see where Ronald flawed in the writing I linked. I will have to read it again. I have not read his other writings, so I can’t comment.

Peace and all good!
Click to expand...
How do you judge whether someone’s writing on sexual ethics are flawed or not? I’m curious what you found erroneous in May’s book.

Also, I’m curious what you consider an “act”. I think the main difference between your/Conte’s position and most of the posters on this board is that for them “the marital act” is a whole series of motions that starts with kissing or touching one’s spouse and culminates with the husband finishing in his wife, whereas am I correct in understanding your opinion that “the marital act” starts when the husband is inside his wife and that everything up to that point is a different act?
 
nodito said:
How do you judge whether someone’s writing on sexual ethics are flawed or not? I’m curious what you found erroneous in May’s book.

Also, I’m curious what you consider an “act”. I think the main difference between your/Conte’s position and most of the posters on this board is that for them “the marital act” is a whole series of motions that starts with kissing or touching one’s spouse and culminates with the husband finishing in his wife, whereas am I correct in understanding your opinion that “the marital act” starts when the husband is inside his wife and that everything up to that point is a different act?
Click to expand...
I don’t remember what I found erroneous in May’s book, sorry, maybe I should have backed up my words. I gave the book away too so I cant go back and look.

Yes that is ONE of the differences between Conte’s and the people on this board. Everything up to that point is foreplay but not the marital act. But another difference is when you use your genitals in acts such as anal, oral, manual, and devices as such, you take away from the intended purpose of the body part. To do such things is not unitive OR pro-creative.

Ronald Conte explaines all this in the work. Where is he by the way, I havent seen his posts in a while?
 
LittleFlower378 said:
I don’t remember what I found erroneous in May’s book, sorry, maybe I should have backed up my words. I gave the book away too so I cant go back and look.

Yes that is ONE of the differences between Conte’s and the people on this board. Everything up to that point is foreplay but not the marital act. But another difference is when you use your genitals in acts such as anal, oral, manual, and devices as such, you take away from the intended purpose of the body part. To do such things is not unitive OR pro-creative.

Ronald Conte explaines all this in the work. Where is he by the way, I havent seen his posts in a while?
Click to expand...
I know that’s how he explains it. I realize you find it convincing. I guess what I’m getting at is, if Conte’s interpretation of the marital act and what is licit during sex differs from Grisez or May or West (and when those authors have imprimaturs on their works while Conte does not), why believe Conte?
 
This is another one of those threads that should be required reading in RCIA classes. It’s only fair that potential converts should know what they are signing up for.
 
WilliamE said:
This is another one of those threads that should be required reading in RCIA classes. It’s only fair that potential converts should know what they are signing up for.
Click to expand...
We absolutely do need better catechesis on marriage and sexual morality.
 
twf said:
According to some on this forum you essentially need to come together as spouses wearing a burlap bag with small holes cut appropriately. The wife is expected to close her eyes, lay down, and think of England as the husband attempts to impregnate her. Foreplay of any kind is intrinsically evil.

I exaggerate, but that’s basically what some of these more “traditionalist” (read: Jansenist) views almost boil down to. 🤷
Click to expand...
Just about spit out my coffee at that one. Too funny.

In all seriousness, though, the marital act is intended to be pleasurable as long as we are being open to life. If vibrators help make the experience pleasurable, and the end result is still procreative, then I don’t see why they would be morally impermissible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top