? on masturbation

  • Thread starter Thread starter kidsx10
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kidsx10

Guest
I recently read somewhere, maybe the updated Good News about Sex and Marriage, or a blog about that book, that if during the course of the marital act the husband climaxes before the wife, and is “done”, there fore leaving her hanging so to speak, that it is not sinful for her to bring herself to climax…with in the realms of that specific act. I can see how over time the wife would become very sexually frustrated if the majority of the time her husband is leaving her this way, which would lead to resentment, but on the other hand it seems like masturbation? Thanks.
 
I believe it’s encouraged for the husband to do it himself, or at least somehow participate.
 
My understanding is that the man is allowed to use masturbatory techniques on the woman if he climaxes before her, since it would still be considered part of the properly completed marital act. I’m not sure if the woman could bring herself to climax after the fact, you should probably ask a priest. What would probably be best if if they worked together to help her achieve climax, since that would continue the unitive aspect of the act, and probably make for a more satisfying conclusion for both parties, the woman because she is more apt to know what will help, and the man because men generally like to be able to bring their wives to climax.
 
kidsx10 said:
I recently read somewhere, maybe the updated Good News about Sex and Marriage, or a blog about that book, that if during the course of the marital act the husband climaxes before the wife, and is “done”, there fore leaving her hanging so to speak, that it is not sinful for her to bring herself to climax…with in the realms of that specific act. I can see how over time the wife would become very sexually frustrated if the majority of the time her husband is leaving her this way, which would lead to resentment, but on the other hand it seems like masturbation? Thanks.
Click to expand...
Masturbation is always wrong, there are no justifications. None. Talk to your priest.

Linus2nd
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Masturbation is always wrong, there are no justifications. None. Talk to your priest.

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
This. I really doubt Christopher West wrote in favor of this. The husband can definitely make sure that his wife reaches the climax she was not able to reach with him, but the wife should not be doing it herself. Sex is about giving love to the other person and receiving love from the other person. Self pleasure is not giving to another and is not receiving from another.
 
the question is whether the procreative and the gratification be separated. I think the intent of Church teaching is that the intercourse experience in total be open to procreation. I don’t think the church legislates on the biological timing and such. For heaven sakes, do two people need more pressure at a time like that?
 
12345678 said:
This. I really doubt Christopher West wrote in favor of this. The husband can definitely make sure that his wife reaches the climax she was not able to reach with him, but the wife should not be doing it herself. Sex is about giving love to the other person and receiving love from the other person. Self pleasure is not giving to another and is not receiving from another.
Click to expand...
I don’t care a wit about what Christopher West thinks about anything, he doesn’t speak for the Catholic Church.

Linus2nd
 
If the husband is having a hard time figuring out how to bring his wife to climax in situations like this, it is a good idea for the wife to show or describe to him what arouses her the most. It can be difficult for husbands to know how to touch in a way that pleases his wife, but it would be uncharitable for him to just give up and leave her sexually frustrated while he is enjoying satisfaction. So, if the situation is that he wants to please her but doesn’t know how, the wife may show him and help him begin to do that. But if the situation is that he doesn’t care and goes to sleep without tending lovingly to her body, then I think marital counseling is definitely in order. I am not meaning to pry into which situation it might be. These are just some thoughts for the OP to consider.
 
One more thought,

If the question is more about whether or not a climax for the wife may be sought after the husband has already climaxed, the answer is absolutely yes. The marital act is a complete gift of self, but if a wife is regularly sexually frustrated, it could lead to resentment and a feeling of being used instead of a mutual gift. I think most husbands already know this, and feel very happy about helping their wives to enjoy lovemaking, but it is possible that some do not know this or feel unable to do this. But a wife may experience her climax at any point, during foreplay, coitus, or post-coital touching, as long as it is still within the context of the marital act.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
I don’t care a wit about what Christopher West thinks about anything, he doesn’t speak for the Catholic Church.

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
Oh yeah? He has received nihil obstat and imprimatur on his work.

Who does speak for the Church, then?
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Masturbation is always wrong, there are no justifications. None. Talk to your priest.

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
12345678 said:
This. I really doubt Christopher West wrote in favor of this. The husband can definitely make sure that his wife reaches the climax she was not able to reach with him, but the wife should not be doing it herself. Sex is about giving love to the other person and receiving love from the other person. Self pleasure is not giving to another and is not receiving from another.
Click to expand...
Linusthe2nd said:
I don’t care a wit about what Christopher West thinks about anything, he doesn’t speak for the Catholic Church.

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
Sorry, misused my pronouns. When I said ‘This’ I meant I agreed with you, and when I said
“I really doubt Christopher West wrote in favor of this.” I meant a woman self gratifying.
VeritasLuxMea said:
Oh yeah? He has received nihil obstat and imprimatur on his work.

Who does speak for the Church, then?
Click to expand...
Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur only pertains to whatever is written in that specific book that has the Nihil Obstat/Imprimatur. It doesn’t mean that everything he says on the topic perfect. BTW, I still don’t think he would say it, though.
 
I think that it would be good to post this particular link in this thread… catholicnewsagency.com/document.php?n=999

(I’m NOT saying that Christopher West spoke in favour of this, because I don’t know. I’m not actually posting this article to say anything about West, but just to clarify some things).

I think we should be careful about how we talk about the marital act… I agree with Alice von Hildebrand that it should be with a certain reserve. (including in this thread).

To answer the question though, - marital union doesn’t exist for self gratification or seeking one’s pleasure, it exists for self giving.
 
VeritasLuxMea said:
Oh yeah? He has received nihil obstat and imprimatur on his work.

Who does speak for the Church, then?
Click to expand...
Not on his work, maybe on a book. Two entirely different things. He has met with a lot of Catholic opposition due to his " retreats. "

Linus2nd
 
It wouldn’t surprise me to hear that Christopher West suggested this, he seems to think that people who are right into the sexual hook up culture are closer to God than people who live chastely despite being a little prudish (see “Fill These Hearts” for the details).

Not the best person to learn about sexual ethics from that’s for sure. Try to stick with reliable folks like the Von Hildebrands and St. JP II.
 
Estevao said:
It wouldn’t surprise me to hear that Christopher West suggested this, he seems to think that people who are right into the sexual hook up culture are closer to God than people who live chastely despite being a little prudish (see “Fill These Hearts” for the details).

Not the best person to learn about sexual ethics from that’s for sure. Try to stick with reliable folks like the Von Hildebrands and St. JP II.
Click to expand...
Christopher West did NOT suggest this.

And perpetuating a lie about what he’s saying is detraction at best. What you are insinuating he said is not true.

Amazing how out of context, change a few vocabulary words can change the very meaning of something.

Let’s try this:

“Every man who knocks on the door of a brothel is looking for God”

-Chesterton
 
agapewolf said:
Christopher West did NOT suggest this.

And perpetuating a lie about what he’s saying is detraction at best. What you are insinuating he said is not true.

Amazing how out of context, change a few vocabulary words can change the very meaning of something.

Let’s try this:

“Every man who knocks on the door of a brothel is looking for God”

-Chesterton
Click to expand...
Saying what Chesterton said is one thing, saying that sex fiends are closer to God than those who live chastely (but too “prudishly” for Mr. West’s tastes) is another, and West does that all throughout “Fill These Hearts”, and goes around giving speeches based on this book.

I have a problem when Mr. West denigrates the traditional mortification that so many great saints practiced, even the person whom Mr. West makes a living writing on.
 
Estevao said:
Saying what Chesterton said is one thing, saying that sex fiends are closer to God than those who live chastely (but too “prudishly” for Mr. West’s tastes) is another, and West does that all throughout “Fill These Hearts”, and goes around giving speeches based on this book.

I have a problem when Mr. West denigrates the traditional mortification that so many great saints practiced, even the person whom Mr. West makes a living writing on.
Click to expand...
Again, you are not quoting, but detracting. Your explanation is NOT what he says.
 
agapewolf said:
Again, you are not quoting, but detracting. Your explanation is NOT what he says.
Click to expand...
"Both the great sinners and the great saints know they’re created for ecstasy. It’s the Jansenists and other “starvation-diet subscribers” who have confused us on this point. The great sinners and the great saints, in fact, are made of the very same “stuff” - a mad, burning aching, wild desire for ecstasy. What’s the difference? The great sinners head for the fast food while the great saints have discovered the living hope of the banquet.

And this, it seems, helps explain why great sinners are often the ones who become great saints. They may have been eating from the wrong menu, but at least they’re in touch with their hunger, so when the banquet shows up, they’re often the first to recognize that that’s what they’ve been looking for all along. Those who subscribe to the “starvation diet,” on the other hand, aren’t even in touch with their hunger enough to know what it means to be invited to the feast. This is why the addict, in a real way, is closer to the mystic than is the stoic. …"

“Fill These Hearts”, Christopher West, pg 42.

Right, so according to Mr. West, sex fiends are closer to God than those who are living chastely but don’t express it in the way that suits Mr. West’s tastes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top