OK for married couple to use vibrators?

[Hoosier_Daddy]

A breath of fresh air appears!

Seriously, while I am sympathetic to the “modern” viewpoints expressed by some on this thread, we need to remind ourselves that this obsession with sexual performance and orgasm is a secular, liberal tendency and not of the church. A couple who focus exclusively on the latter may be sinning grievously, in the opinion of several Church Fathers. Of course, this does not mean (as one poster wittily said) that sexual intercourse must take place in a rapid, furtive and pleasureless manner - such a teaching runs contrary to both the Old and New Testament. But neither does it mean that we need to go all “Cosmopolitan” or “Maxim” in our approach to conjugal relations.

I’m no anthropologist but I’m guessing aids to the marital act are as old as the church.

 

[AdamP88]

A breath of fresh air appears!

Seriously, while I am sympathetic to the “modern” viewpoints expressed by some on this thread, we need to remind ourselves that this obsession with sexual performance and orgasm is a secular, liberal tendency and not of the church. A couple who focus exclusively on the latter may be sinning grievously, in the opinion of several Church Fathers. Of course, this does not mean (as one poster wittily said) that sexual intercourse must take place in a rapid, furtive and pleasureless manner - such a teaching runs contrary to both the Old and New Testament. But neither does it mean that we need to go all “Cosmopolitan” or “Maxim” in our approach to conjugal relations.

“Modern viewpoints”? Read “Love and Responsibility” by St. John Paul II. He talks a whole lot about orgasm and ensuring that the man satisfies his wife first. It’s not an “obsession”. It’s the simple idea that in every sexual act the spouses focus should be on the pleasure of the other. If you think that the Church is not concerned with this topic then you need to read around a bit.
A couple is supposed to focus on pleasing each other.

 

[nodito]

“Modern viewpoints”? Read “Love and Responsibility” by St. John Paul II. He talks a whole lot about orgasm and ensuring that the man satisfies his wife first. It’s not an “obsession”. It’s the simple idea that in every sexual act the spouses focus should be on the pleasure of the other. If you think that the Church is not concerned with this topic then you need to read around a bit.
A couple is supposed to focus on pleasing each other.

This.
Saint John Paul II:

Sexologists state that the curve in arousal in woman is different from that in man — it rises more slowly and falls more slowly. The man must take this difference between male and female reactions into account, not for hedonistic, but for
altruistic reasons.

Saint John Paul II:

There is a need for harmonization, which is impossible without good will, especially on the part of the man, who must carefully observe the reactions of the woman. If a woman does not obtain natural gratification from the sexual act there is a danger that her experience of it will be qualitatively inferior, will not involve her fully as a person…

A woman finds it very difficult to forgive a man if she derives no satisfaction from intercourse.

 

[Vico]

Though every act with pleasure, or the quietening of concpisence, as a goal is not masturbation.

Vico, you are a whizz with quoting relevant reference material, but I would gain more from your posts if you provided more elaboration on the point you are making / the conclusions you are drawing.

I am giving that the goal of masturbation as given in the Oxford Dictionary and Catechism is specifically sexual pleasure.

Then I ask a question.

 

[Xantippe]

I thought marriage was between a man and a woman, not between a man, and a woman and a sex-toy. People who support sex-toys are essentially saying to God “You didn’t do a good enough of a job designing this, so we have to improve on it!”.

No pretty nighties, then?

 

[Xantippe]

I suspect that what is at stake with the use of vibrators, or “toys” in general, is the intent behind their use. All sexual acts, rightly ordered, are of complete self-giving nature. Perhaps this separates manual stimulation from stimulation by “toy” insofar as oral stimulation is still an offering of one’s own body to the other, and use of a foreign object is not. Use of the toy may cross the line into selfish pleasure by only a hair’s breadth, but it nevertheless crosses it, methinks. As in that moment, the wife ceases to give herself to her husband in the acquisition of pleasure, and the husband ceases to give himself in aiding her in her pleasure.

I haven’t caught up with the thread, so apologies for any duplication, but what if the husband is seriously injured and has an artificial hand/reduced motor ability in an injured hand? Does that mean that the wife never gets to climax?

 

[Xantippe]

Practically speaking, a marriage where the sexual act is one-sided 100% of the time is likely to face some issues.

I know some people like to complain about “sexual denial” by the wife–but if the wife never gets to climax, that sounds a lot like sexual denial to me…

 

[LittleFlower378]

This.

A man should satisfy his wife but should use moral means, not unnatural sex acts.

I wonder what the Church would think about men with premature ejaculation to use a method of strenghthening the muscle that controls ejaculation. I forget the technical name of this. But maybe that is a way to help married men with pre mature ejaculation to bring their spouse to climax.

 

[nodito]

A man should satisfy his wife but should use moral means, not unnatural sex acts.

I wonder what the Church would think about men with premature ejaculation to use a method of strenghthening the muscle that controls ejaculation. I forget the technical name of this. But maybe that is a way to help married men with pre mature ejaculation to bring their spouse to climax.

What are some of the moral means of satisfying one’s wife?

You don’t say whether you are married or not, but I wonder if you are aware that the majority of women cannot climax from intercourse alone. That is, by the action of the man being inside his wife. I don’t think it’s just a matter of lasting long enough; it’s the way our bodies were designed.

 

[goout]

Whether or not the process of sex is “natural” is important to Catholic morality and philosophy.
Do vibrators fit into the natural order?

 

[Xantippe]

**A man should satisfy his wife but should use moral means, not unnatural sex acts.
**
I wonder what the Church would think about men with premature ejaculation to use a method of strenghthening the muscle that controls ejaculation. I forget the technical name of this. But maybe that is a way to help married men with pre mature ejaculation to bring their spouse to climax.

That’s the controversial issue, though–what counts as “unnatural sex acts.”

Normally, “unnatural sex acts” is defined by where the male is climaxing.

 

[Xantippe]

What are some of the moral means of satisfying one’s wife?

You don’t say whether you are married or not, but I wonder if you are aware that the majority of women cannot climax from intercourse alone. That is, by the action of the man being inside his wife. I don’t think it’s just a matter of lasting long enough; it’s the way our bodies were designed.

Right.

Or if it does happen, it’s once in a blue moon.

 

[LexDivina]

Why not get one of those vibrating ‘‘ring’’ things that fit onto the penis? That way the vibration is happening at the same time as intercourse while being open to life. Sound’s like win-win situation.

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

Why not get one of those vibrating ‘‘ring’’ things that fit onto the penis? That way the vibration is happening at the same time as intercourse while being open to life. Sound’s like win-win situation.

Without being graphic, there are ways in which a “regular” vibrator can be used simultaneously with penile-vaginal intercourse.

To those who are opposed to it, what about other “aides” that don’t directly stimulate? For example, there are certain pillows/contraptions that are designed to allow people to comfortably have intercourse in certain positions. Say that a woman finds intercourse in a certain position especially pleasurable, but that after a while she starts to tire of holding that position. Would it be licit for that couple to use something specially designed to support their weight while they engage in intercourse? If so, why?

As an aside, I still don’t see how the “atomic” view of sexual morality doesn’t proscribe anything other than penile-vaginal intercourse. Like, if you think that each individual act must be unitive AND procreative, as opposed to the “session” as a whole, how do you defend kissing? Embracing? Stimulation of the wife’s breasts? etc.

Also, just as a final note: most women require clitoral stimulation to achieve climax, and cannot reach orgasm solely from intercourse. If you’re opposed to everything but no-frills intercourse, what’s your solution for those women? They should just never experience sexual release with their husbands?

 

[goout]

Without being graphic, there are ways in which a “regular” vibrator can be used simultaneously with penile-vaginal intercourse.

To those who are opposed to it, what about other “aides” that don’t directly stimulate? For example, there are certain pillows/contraptions that are designed to allow people to comfortably have intercourse in certain positions. Say that a woman finds intercourse in a certain position especially pleasurable, but that after a while she starts to tire of holding that position. Would it be licit for that couple to use something specially designed to support their weight while they engage in intercourse? If so, why?

As an aside, I still don’t see how the “atomic” view of sexual morality doesn’t proscribe anything other than penile-vaginal intercourse. Like, if you think that each individual act must be unitive AND procreative, as opposed to the “session” as a whole, how do you defend kissing? Embracing? Stimulation of the wife’s breasts? etc.

Simply, the natural view would say these are natural.
Supporting weight would be different than inserting something directly into the sex act. We do need at least the ground to support us (although I believe I have surely levitated once or twice )

Also, just as a final note: most women require clitoral stimulation to achieve climax, and cannot reach orgasm solely from intercourse. If you’re opposed to everything but no-frills intercourse, what’s your solution for those women? They should just never experience sexual release with their husbands?

Orgasm can be helped along by stimulation through other natural techniques that do not involve anything other than our God given nature.

I’m not trying to be a prude here or claim that vibrators are expressly forbidden, just trying to provide what seems to be the Catholic thinking on this.

 

[Xantippe]

I’m not trying to be a prude here or claim that vibrators are expressly forbidden, just trying to provide what seems to be the Catholic thinking on this.

So, what about a wounded veteran who only has artificial hands?

Is his wife out of luck?

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

Simply, the natural view would say these are natural.

Oh, I agree that a man stimulating his wife’s breasts (for example) is perfectly natural. Most women find their breasts to be an erogenous zone, and most men find female breasts to be pretty exciting things, to put it mildly. But some people are arguing that each individual act must be in itself procreative as well as unifying, which basically means that the only licit sexual act is insertion of the penis into the vagina. My point is that holding this view basically means that not just vibrators are out, but any and all forms of foreplay.

 

[goout]

So, what about a wounded veteran who only has artificial hands?

Is his wife out of luck?

Gee I hadn’t thought about that. Does he have a mouth? (you asked, not me…)

 

[goout]

Oh, I agree that a man stimulating his wife’s breasts (for example) is perfectly natural. Most women find their breasts to be an erogenous zone, and most men find female breasts to be pretty exciting things, to put it mildly. But some people are arguing that each individual act must be in itself procreative as well as unifying, which basically means that the only licit sexual act is insertion of the penis into the vagina. My point is that holding this view basically means that not just vibrators are out, but any and all forms of foreplay.

Right. That would be an erroneous view.
The sex act involves the whole person, body and soul.
In chastity… (I might as well confuse the subject further) we are called to full human integration together.
My hands, my nose, eyes, etc…my whole self is part of properly ordered sexuality.

 

[Xantippe]

Gee I hadn’t thought about that. Does he have a mouth? (you asked, not me…)

Yeah, this discussion does get TMI pretty fast.

That might not do it, either.

The internet says that something like 10% of women have never experienced orgasm EVER, with more than that having difficulty.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anorgasmia

This sounds unpleasant:

"Frustration, restlessness, and pelvic pain or a heavy pelvic sensation may occur because of vascular engorgement. "