Oral Sex and Marriage Exceptions Question

[Kelfa28]

The fact is, people who engage in oral sex or oral stimulation pragmatically do the same thing! That is, they stimulate the genitals repeatedly with their mouths. The duration, how it ends or intention does not change the name of this kind of sexual activity. And as I argued, the same holds true for intercourse, which is also a kind of sexual stimulation… The duration, intention or how it ends does not change the name nor lead to the creation of 2 names on basis of the duration, intention, or orgasm. It is still intercourse. The same holds true for oral sex. Denying this is mere wishful thinking.

People can console themselves the way they want but that wouldn’t alter anything.

Your argument says that any kind of manual stimulation of one’s genitals before sexual intercourse is wrong and sinful.

Digital stimulation is physically the same as masturbation but not when it comes to the context of the marital act.

People need foreplay in order to achieve the marital act. That is how it works. We don’t stare at each other and then suddenly engage in intercourse.
If you don’t know about this then don’t post here.

It’s far from wishful thinking…it’s reality.
There is NOTHING in the catechism that describes how foreplay within the marital act should be conducted.

THEREFORE…oral stimulation WITHIN the marital act is NOT wrong according to the Church.

Otherwise…the Church would have been specific as to how foreplay is to be conducted.

Since it doesn’t specify…it’s not sinful.

It doesn’t matter what it’s called. All that matters is the actual context of the act. If the act is involved with foreplay it’s not sinful.

If it doesn’t purposely lead to the man climaxing…it’s not sinful.

If it’s within the context of the marital act and is in preparation for the marital act to be achieved…it’s not sinful.

If it’s on it’s own and the man climaxes…then it’s lustful and considered masturbation.

Simple enough. Sexual intercourse is not black and white…except when it comes to it’s conclusion. Sexual intercourse must be both unitive and procreative…each and every time.

However that is achieved is not specified by the Church.

 

[LightBound]

The fact is, people who engage in oral sex or oral stimulation pragmatically do the same thing! That is, they stimulate the genitals repeatedly with their mouths. The duration, how it ends or intention does not change the name of this kind of sexual activity. And as I argued, the same holds true for intercourse, which is also a kind of sexual stimulation… The duration, intention or how it ends does not change the name nor lead to the creation of 2 names on basis of the duration, intention, or orgasm. It is still intercourse. The same holds true for oral sex. Denying this is mere wishful thinking.

People can console themselves the way they want but that wouldn’t alter anything.

I have requested the moderator of this sub-forum close this thread, as she has done before and as other sub-forum mods have done in their respective sections when it comes to this topic.

I think we’ve all heard enough opinions on this and since all that truly exists are opinions, it needs to be closed. Until the Magisterium issues a statement, detailing exactly what’s allowed in marital sex, other than being open to life and the act result in the husband’s completion inside his wife, it is up to the married couple to determine what their intimacy involves!!

 

[LightBound]

Your argument says that any kind of manual stimulation of one’s genitals before sexual intercourse is wrong and sinful.

Digital stimulation is physically the same as masturbation but not when it comes to the context of the marital act.

People need foreplay in order to achieve the marital act. That is how it works. We don’t stare at each other and then suddenly engage in intercourse.
If you don’t know about this then don’t post here.

It’s far from wishful thinking…it’s reality.
There is NOTHING in the catechism that describes how foreplay within the marital act should be conducted.

THEREFORE…oral stimulation WITHIN the marital act is NOT wrong according to the Church.

Otherwise…the Church would have been specific as to how foreplay is to be conducted.

Since it doesn’t specify…it’s not sinful.

It doesn’t matter what it’s called. All that matters is the actual context of the act. If the act is involved with foreplay it’s not sinful.

If it doesn’t purposely lead to the man climaxing…it’s not sinful.

If it’s within the context of the marital act and is in preparation for the marital act to be achieved…it’s not sinful.

If it’s on it’s own and the man climaxes…then it’s lustful and considered masturbation.

Simple enough. Sexual intercourse is not black and white…except when it comes to it’s conclusion. Sexual intercourse must be both unitive and procreative…each and every time.

However that is achieved is not specified by the Church.

^This^

 

[In_Training]

I see a pattern here. Science defines things one way and religion defines them a different way.

Just trying to help.

 

[ATeutonicKnight]

The fact is, people who engage in oral sex or oral stimulation pragmatically do the same thing! That is, they stimulate the genitals repeatedly with their mouths. The duration, how it ends or intention does not change the name of this kind of sexual activity. And as I argued, the same holds true for intercourse, which is also a kind of sexual stimulation… The duration, intention or how it ends does not change the name nor lead to the creation of 2 names on basis of the duration, intention, or orgasm. It is still intercourse. The same holds true for oral sex. Denying this is mere wishful thinking.

People can console themselves the way they want but that wouldn’t alter anything.

That’s like saying there is no difference between murder and self defense. After all, both end up with one person dead, right? Therefore, different words for these two things are completely unnecessary since it is the same thing. Intention defines everything, especially when it comes to morals. Wording it is important because not only do the intentions of both acts change what they are, but saying they are the same thing confuses people and makes them think certain things are morally permitted when they are not. The intent of oral sex is self-pleasure to the point of orgasm. The point of oral stimulation is oral pleasure to the other spouse in order to prepare them for the marital act. Unlike popular opinion, women are not light switches like men are. They do not just become ready for sex like we do. They are brought about slowly. If you do not do this it leads to dissatisfaction and even pain for your wife. You are no man if this means nothing to you, and you do not deserve to be married.

 

[kelvinf]

Your argument says that any kind of manual stimulation of one’s genitals before sexual intercourse is wrong and sinful.

Digital stimulation is physically the same as masturbation but not when it comes to the context of the marital act.

People need foreplay in order to achieve the marital act. That is how it works. We don’t stare at each other and then suddenly engage in intercourse.
If you don’t know about this then don’t post here.

It’s far from wishful thinking…it’s reality.
There is NOTHING in the catechism that describes how foreplay within the marital act should be conducted.

THEREFORE…oral stimulation WITHIN the marital act is NOT wrong according to the Church.

Otherwise…the Church would have been specific as to how foreplay is to be conducted.

Since it doesn’t specify…it’s not sinful.

It doesn’t matter what it’s called. All that matters is the actual context of the act. If the act is involved with foreplay it’s not sinful.

If it doesn’t purposely lead to the man climaxing…it’s not sinful.

If it’s within the context of the marital act and is in preparation for the marital act to be achieved…it’s not sinful.

If it’s on it’s own and the man climaxes…then it’s lustful and considered masturbation.

Simple enough. Sexual intercourse is not black and white…except when it comes to it’s conclusion. Sexual intercourse must be both unitive and procreative…each and every time.

However that is achieved is not specified by the Church.

Wow! I haven’t used the word sin in a single post. You are reading too much and going too far and too fast! You are the one who has been spending time saying what acts are wrong and what acts aren’t, although you have hinted that you aren’t interested in the discussion.

One first needs to understand what oral sex is before passing a moral judgement. Making moral judgements about acts is really not my thing anyways. But we must be fair in our definitions and arguments.

 

[kelvinf]

I have requested the moderator of this sub-forum close this thread, as she has done before and as other sub-forum mods have done in their respective sections when it comes to this topic.

I think we’ve all heard enough opinions on this and since all that truly exists are opinions, it needs to be closed. Until the Magisterium issues a statement, detailing exactly what’s allowed in marital sex, other than being open to life and the act result in the husband’s completion inside his wife, it is up to the married couple to determine what their intimacy involves!!

I don’t know if the mod closes a thread because you say so. The topic is not banned and for your information, there are threads on oral sex in this family section that haven’t been closed. Maybe you didn’t inform the mod.

I am sure there is a reason why threads are closed. I wonder whether it’s because you make a request.

Whatever, I didn’t start the thread.

 

[kelvinf]

I see a pattern here. Science defines things one way and religion defines them a different way.

Just trying to help.

I guess by science you mean what is practical.

It is true that sometimes the Church defines things differently. I actually always do argue that the Church defines virginity for instance differently from the way others do.

I have been challenged before to provide a source of my definition of oral sex. I have done so and it was rejected that it isn’t the definition of the Catholic Church. I agreed.

So I have asked others to provide then a different definition. Nobody has ever responded.

But we could keep all these aside and build on the definitions of other sexual acts that have been defined by the Church like fornication.

The Church defines fornication as carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. The Church does not define fornication on the basis of orgasm for instance. In this light, one can fairly define* oral sex as carnal union that involves oral genital stimulation. *

This is not a matter of science nor is it rocket science.

 

[fpt]

I guess by science you mean what is practical.

It is true that sometimes the Church defines things differently. I actually always do argue that the Church defines virginity for instance differently from the way others do.

I have been challenged before to provide a source of my definition of oral sex. I have done so and it was rejected that it isn’t the definition of the Catholic Church. I agreed.

So I have asked others to provide then a different definition. Nobody has ever responded.

But we could keep all these aside and build on the definitions of other sexual acts that have been defined by the Church like fornication.

The Church defines fornication as carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. The Church does not define fornication on the basis of orgasm for instance. In this light, one can fairly define* oral sex as carnal union that involves oral genital stimulation. *

This is not a matter of science nor is it rocket science.

Could you define the fact of making one flesh between the wife and her husband with the sexual cooperation, in the human fashion of dual humanity (male and female)??? Human nature means body and Soul and their own corollaries.

You are curious, because with you we do not know if you beleive that oral stimulation is morally wrong as foreplay, or if it is morally permissible. Your speech is not clear, in my humble opinion. According to my interpretation of you, you think that it is sinful, you are against, you will do nothing on your future wife and you will refuse her sexual touchings on you (perhaps, my understanding of your speech is false, I do mistakes). The same about foreplay with manual stimulations.

Faith and Reason, Reason and Faith

 

[kelvinf]

That’s like saying there is no difference between murder and self defense. After all, both end up with one person dead, right? Therefore, different words for these two things are completely unnecessary since it is the same thing. Intention defines everything, especially when it comes to morals.

Nice attempt. But:

1. Self defense is not equal to murder
2. Self defense does mean killing. (Very common misconception)
3. I don’t know how often self defense ends up in death but it’s problematic to claim that they both (murder and self defence) end up with a person dead. Not true! So NO to your above question.

So there is a difference between murder and self defence. It’s like comparing apples and oranges.

The intent of oral sex is self-pleasure to the point of orgasm. The point of oral stimulation is oral pleasure to the other spouse in order to prepare them for the marital act.

How do you know? How do you know people’s intention?

And why do people keep adding “to the point of orgasm” if oral sex is defined as “… that involves orgasm”? This is what confuses people. And it shows that there is no difference between oral sex and oral stimulation unless you bring in orgasm as you did. In which case, both could end up in orgasm or not. So it’s the same thing. As I have been saying, it simply seems to be a matter of how it ends. But practically, the act is fundamentally the same. This cannot be honestly denied.

Unlike popular opinion, women are not light switches like men are. They do not just become ready for sex like we do. They are brought about slowly. If you do not do this it leads to dissatisfaction and even pain for your wife. You are no man if this means nothing to you, and you do not deserve to be married.

Right, women are different from men and some men don’t understand that. That’s true. But that’s no really the point of the discussion right now.

A poster asked the difference between oral sex and oral stimulation. And for your information, it’s the poster who had created a similar thread that was heatedly debated. Apparently, no one really explained to him the difference or he simply couldn’t understand. It’s not surprising because there is not difference per se.

Otherwise we could also start differentiating between penile-vaginal stimulation vs intercourse.

You say intention matters which is true. An intention to engage in intercourse without openness to a new life doesn’t make the act “not intercourse” or simply penile-vaginal stimulation. It would have an effect on the morality of the act but the name/act doesn’t change.

So people can rightly debate the morality of acts based on intention and how they end but not on the basis of how some people choose to call them. I don’t think morality is based on name of an act.

 

[Shachath]

The question is reducible to: is there a God-ordained TELOS overarching our lives and our very organs of corporeal sense?

I affirm the TELOS and TELEOLOGICAL order of God.

So: How can one claim to be Christian or Catholic, meanwhile professing a Nihilism cancerous to created order, rebellious and insurrectionist against the God created design of the sense-organs, infused with His purposeful meaning?

Those who indulge in unnatural lust WITHIN MARRIAGE are doubly guilty of the sin of lust, according to universal Wisdom:

~Letter of Barnabas, 10.8 (74 A.D.): Moreover, he [Moses] has rightly detested the weasel [Lev. 11:29]. For he means, “Thou shalt not be like to those whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the mouth (with the body through uncleanness), on account of their uncleanness; nor shall thou be joined to those impure women who commit iniquity with the mouth.”

~Justin Martyr, Second Apology, 2.1 (mid-second century): A certain woman lived with an intemperate husband; she herself, too, having formerly been intemperate. But when she came to the knowledge of the teachings of Christ she became sober-minded, and endeavored to persuade her husband likewise to be temperate, citing the teaching of Christ, and assuring him that there shall be punishment in eternal fire inflicted upon those who do not live temperately and conformably to right reason. But he, continuing in the same excesses, alienated his wife from him by his actions. For she, considering it wicked to live any longer as a wife with a husband who sought in every way means of indulging in pleasure contrary to the law of nature, and in violation of what is right, wished to be divorced from him. And when she was over-persuaded by her friends, who advised her still to continue with him, in the idea that some time or other her husband might give hope of amendment, she did violence to her own feeling and remained with him. But when her husband had gone into Alexandria, and was reported to be conducting himself worse than ever, she–that she might not, by continuing in matrimonial connection with him, and by sharing his table and his bed, become a partaker also in his wickednesses and impieties–gave him what you call a bill of divorce, and was separated from him.

~Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus (“The Instructor”), 2.10 (A.D. 191): Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted.

If immoral pleasure mars the chastity of the marriage bed, desire becomes insipid and love grows old before the body does. The hearts of lovers have wings; affection can be stifled by a change of heart.

Marriage in itself merits esteem and the highest approval, for the Lord wished men to “be fruitful and multiply.” He did not tell them, however, to act like libertines, nor did He intend them to surrender themselves to pleasure as though born only to indulge in sexual relations. Let the Educator (Christ) put us to shame with the word Exechiel: “Put away your fornications.” Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom we should take as our instructor.

~Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, 6.20 (A.D. 307): Some complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in their power, or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife.

The Divine Institutes, 6.23: God bestowed on us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the true needs of life; so too, the genital “generating” or “generative”] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other reason than the generation of offspring.

~Epiphanius of Salamis, Medicine-Chest (“Panarion”) Against Heresies, 26.5.2 (A.D. 375): [The Gnostic Barbeliote heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conception of children. Not in order to create offspring, but to indulge in lustfulness, are they eager for corruption.

~Jerome, Against Jovinianus, 1.19 (A.D. 393): But I wonder why [the heretic Jovinian] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?

 

[Shachath]

~Augustine of Hippo, Against Faustus (the Manichee Heretic), 15:7 (A.D. 400): The [Gnostic-Manichee] doctrine that the production of children is an evil, directly opposes the precept, “You shall not commit adultery”; for those who believe this doctrine, in order that their wives may not conceive, are led to commit adultery even in marriage. They take wives, as the law declares, for the procreation of children; but from this erroneous fear of polluting the substance of the deity, their intercourse with their wives is not of a lawful character; and the production of children, which is the proper end of marriage, they seek to avoid. As the apostle long ago predicted of you, you indeed forbid to marry, for you seek to destroy the purpose of marriage. Your doctrine turns marriage into an adulterous connection, and the bed-chamber into a brothel.

Against Faustus, 22:30: For as the eternal law–that is, the will of God the Creator of all–for the preservation of the natural order, permits the indulgence of the bodily appetite under the guidance of reason in sexual intercourse, not for the gratification of lustful passion, but for the continuance of the race through the procreation of children.

Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, 11-12: For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting is free from blame, and itself is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity, no longer follows reason, but lust … [T]hey should not turn away from them the mercy of God…by changing the natural use into that which is against nature, which is more damnable when it is done in the case of husband or wife. For, whereas that natural use, when it pass beyond the compact of marriage, that is, beyond the necessity of begetting, is pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of an harlot; that which is against nature is execrable when done in the case of an harlot, but more execrable in the case of a wife. Of so great power is the ordinance of the Creator, and the order of Creation, that…when the man shall wish to use the member of the wife not allowed for this purpose, the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman. Therefore the ornament of marriage is chastity of begetting.

Augustine, On the Morals of the Manichees, 18.65: This proves that you [the Gnostic Manichichee heretics] approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage, and makes the woman not a wife, but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion.

Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence, 1.17: For although propagation of offspring is not the motive of the intercourse, there is still no attempt to prevent such propagation, either by wrong desire or evil appliance. They who resort to these, although called by the name of spouses, are really not such; they retain no vestige of true matrimony, but pretend the honorable designation as a cloak for criminal conduct … Sometimes, indeed, this lustful cruelty, or, if you please, cruel lust, resorts to such extravagant methods as to use poisonous drugs [oral contraceptives] to secure barrenness; or else, if unsuccessful in this, to destroy the conceived seed by some means previous to birth, preferring that its offspring should rather perish than receive vitality; or if it was advancing to life within the womb, should be slain before it was born. Well, if both parties alike are so flagitious, they are not husband and wife; and if such were their character from the beginning, they have not come together by wedlock but by debauchery. But if the two are not alike in such sin, I boldly declare either that the woman is, so to say, the husband’s harlot; or the man the wife’s adulterer!

 

[kelvinf]

You are curious, because with you we do not know if you beleive that oral stimulation is morally wrong as foreplay, or if it is morally permissible. Your speech is not clear, in my humble opinion. According to my interpretation of you, you think that it is sinful, you are against, you will do nothing on your future wife and you will refuse her sexual touchings on you (perhaps, my understanding of your speech is false, I do mistakes). The same about foreplay with manual stimulations.

Haha. You have asked me these questions billions of times and I have answered a couple of times. LOL. It’s like my opinion is kind of ultimate here.

Let me try again: whether an act is morally wrong or not is not for me to decide. When it comes to the morality of certain acts, what I do from time to time is to provide a source. When it’s not the Magisterium, it is usually quickly rejected. But conclusions drawn from the silence of the Magisterium is mooted!

That said, there are other aspects of certain acts we ought to consider even without considering the morality. This is usually the domain where I argue most.

Drinking the water (whether it’s toxic or not) in a toilet bowl of a water closet system for instance does not necessarily make the act immoral per se. But I would question whether it’s natural/appropriate behaviour. This is just an example. And I am just saying. I don’t want to start debating this.

Regarding manual stimulation and/or “marital masturbation”, so far, I have only slightly been observing. I have told you before that I don’t debate everything nor do I observe everything. The problematic is usually with definitions. People have different interpretations of the definition of masturbation for instance. Is there a need for a debate? Yes of course. When or whether I step into the debate shouldn’t really prevent us from discussing the current issue which is Oral Sex… (according to the title of this thread).

PS: We know that women react differently to stimuli. So one can’t really make conclusions about other people’s marriages. If one is married to a woman that believes she needs oral-genital stimulation to achieve orgasm, that does not necessarily mean the same is true or would be true for another marriage. I am saying so because people often make the conclusion that those who argue against the practice of oral-genital stimulation do not care about their wives or their future wives. It’s a claim based on a narrow way of thinking.

You know, it’s one thing to argue that most women require some form of foreplay and it’s another thing to argue that it must be oral genital contact. In fact, research done by Kinsey shows that oral stimulation as foreplay is overall the least performed act of foreplay amongst the other kinds of foreplay. (That is without considering anal peneration as foreplay). Of course, one can argue that the data was collected before the sexual revolution and might not necessarily reflect the situation today. I agree! and would be curious to see recent trends and explanations to the behavioural changes. In which case, we would be stepping fully into female orgasm and the related evolutionary theories. I have done my homework and I am prepared for the debate. But that’s not really the topic at hand.

 

[Kelfa28]

Wow! I haven’t used the word sin in a single post. You are reading too much and going too far and too fast! You are the one who has been spending time saying what acts are wrong and what acts aren’t, although you have hinted that you aren’t interested in the discussion.

One first needs to understand what oral sex is before passing a moral judgement. Making moral judgements about acts is really not my thing anyways. But we must be fair in our definitions and arguments.

I perfectly understand what oral sex is.

I’ve already explained what it is. It’s a lustful act that is akin to masturbation.

That is not what oral stimulation is in the context of foreplay.

You seem to think that there is no difference.

Unfortunately, there is a massive difference.

You still haven’t explained what exactly is permissible within the context of the marital act.

By your argument…digital stimulation of one’s spouse is totally out of the question.
Kissing is totally out of the question as it is a manual stimulation of a sex organ that leads to arousal and to sexual intercourse.

You’ve also never given any source that is relevant to the discussion and whether or not the Church teaches that oral stimulation is a sin within the context of the marital act.

I’m not interested in whether oral sex is a sin. I already know that it is.

You seem to not be able to separate acts of love that are unitive and lead to the marital act and acts that are lustful, selfish and are forms of masturbation. Believe it or not…oral stimulation is an act of love that is unitive and bonding. It’s a choice made by the married couple in order to lead to and prepare for the marital act.

It may not be for every single married couple…and that is fine…but that doesn’t make it wrong. That doesn’t mean it’s not allowed by the Church.

Do you know the difference between acts that are loving and bonding and acts that are lustful and sinful? Clearly you do not if you can’t separate what leads to the marital act and what has no intention of leading to the marital act.

You are making a moral judgement on an act. You are saying it’s wrong. It’s not because there is nothing the Church says that implies that it is wrong.

 

[kelvinf]

I perfectly understand what oral sex is.

I’ve already explained what it is. It’s a lustful act that is akin to masturbation.

That is not what oral stimulation is in the context of foreplay.

You seem to think that there is no difference.

Unfortunately, there is a massive difference.

You still haven’t explained what exactly is permissible within the context of the marital act.

By your argument…digital stimulation of one’s spouse is totally out of the question.
Kissing is totally out of the question as it is a manual stimulation of a sex organ that leads to arousal and to sexual intercourse.

You’ve also never given any source that is relevant to the discussion and whether or not the Church teaches that oral stimulation is a sin within the context of the marital act.

I’m not interested in whether oral sex is a sin. I already know that it is.

You seem to not be able to separate acts of love that are unitive and lead to the marital act and acts that are lustful, selfish and are forms of masturbation. Believe it or not…oral stimulation is an act of love that is unitive and bonding. It’s a choice made by the married couple in order to lead to and prepare for the marital act.

It may not be for every single married couple…and that is fine…but that doesn’t make it wrong. That doesn’t mean it’s not allowed by the Church.

Do you know the difference between acts that are loving and bonding and acts that are lustful and sinful? Clearly you do not if you can’t separate what leads to the marital act and what has no intention of leading to the marital act.

You are making a moral judgement on an act. You are saying it’s wrong. It’s not because there is nothing the Church says that implies that it is wrong.

There you go again. You are the one passing moral judgements on acts. So far, my argument is basically that oral sex and oral stimulation are practically the same thing. You are free to make a moral judgement on the basis of how they end but that’s another thing.

Lust is not a specific act. Lust is an inordinate desire for sexual pleasure. That means, even the marital act could be lustful depending on the motive and how it is sought out.

 

[Kelfa28]

There you go again. You are the one passing moral judgements on acts. So far, my argument is basically that oral sex and oral stimulation are practically the same thing. You are free to make a moral judgement on the basis of how they end but that’s another thing.

Lust is not a specific act. Lust is an inordinate desire for sexual pleasure. That means, even the marital act could be lustful depending on the motive and how it is sought out.

Your right…motive and how it’s sought out.

I’m saying that there could be no motive and no lust and the couple could seek it out as a loving act of bonding.

I also said that oral stimulation is not for every single couple.

You are passing judgement to and claiming you know what a couple’s motive is…I’m saying it’s perfectly allowable…because I don’t know what each couple’s motive is.

That is between the married couple.

Therefore, you can’t say it’s an act that can’t be done lovingly because you don’t know each couple’s intention.

My argument is that every couple is different and there is a very big difference between the two. I say two acts because one act can be loving and one can be selfish and lustful.

It’s up to the couple to decide and not someone else to tell them.

Sex is not black and white. It’s totally different for every couple. This is why there isn’t a how to guide by the Church on how sex can be accomplished. It only describes that acts outside the context of the marital act are lustful and sinful and that every single sexual act must be unitive and procreative.

Sex isn’t just a physical act. It’s half physical and half emotional. If you go into sex without the intent of what God permits and what the Church permits…then the entire act is lustful.
It’s not which individual physical part of the act is considered wrong or not.

 

[kelvinf]

Your right…motive and how it’s sought out.

I’m saying that there could be no motive and no lust and the couple could seek it out as a loving act of bonding.

I also said that oral stimulation is not for every single couple.

You are passing judgement to and claiming you know what a couple’s motive is…I’m saying it’s perfectly allowable…because I don’t know what each couple’s motive is.

That is between the married couple.

Therefore, you can’t say it’s an act that can’t be done lovingly because you don’t know each couple’s intention.

My argument is that every couple is different and there is a very big difference between the two. I say two acts because one act can be loving and one can be selfish and lustful.

It’s up to the couple to decide and not someone else to tell them.

Sex is not black and white. It’s totally different for every couple. This is why there isn’t a how to guide by the Church on how sex can be accomplished. It only describes that acts outside the context of the marital act are lustful and sinful and that every single sexual act must be unitive and procreative.

Sex isn’t just a physical act. It’s half physical and half emotional. If you go into sex without the intent of what God permits and what the Church permits…then the entire act is lustful.
It’s not which individual physical part of the act is considered wrong or not.

Again, it all depends on the definition of oral sex and oral stimulation. According to you, oral sex is an act that is lustful and oral stimulation isn’t. You make the claim about oral sex because you believe it is a standalone act that isn’t procreative.

But I say that oral sex and oral stimulation are practically the same. They could both be combined with intromission. But according to you, that’s not the case. In other words, if oral sex ends with intromission, then it must be called oral stimulation. If it doesn’t end with intromission, then it must be called oral sex. This is where we disagree first and foremost. That is, with the terms.

Intercourse that isn’t procreative isn’t fundamentally called differently from intercourse that is procreative. It’s still intercourse. It could simply be lustful or lovely. The same holds true for oral sex / oral stimulation. They are fundamentally carried out in the same way. That is, oral genital stimulation. How it ends is a different story. If we have to create two names on the basis of how it ends, then we ought to also have 2 names for intercourse that is procreative and intercourse that isn’t.

 

[Kelfa28]

Intercourse that isn’t procreative isn’t fundamentally called differently from intercourse that is procreative. It’s still intercourse. It could simply be lustful or lovely. The same holds true for oral sex / oral stimulation. They are fundamentally carried out in the same way. That is, oral genital stimulation. How it ends is a different story. If we have to create two names on the basis of how it ends, then we ought to also have 2 names for intercourse that is procreative and intercourse that isn’t.

But there isn’t two different names for sexual intercourse.

You still haven’t explained what your definition of foreplay is and exactly which “acts” within foreplay are permissible.

That is the crux of your argument that oral sex is the exact same thing as oral stimulation (which it isn’t) so what about digital stimulation within foreplay or touching a spouse? According to your argument…that is exactly the same as masturbation…or even mutual masturbation between couples that results in a conclusive act that is not procreative.

If oral sex and oral stimulation are the exact same thing…then what about digital stimulation in the context of foreplay and the marital act and mutual masturbation outside the context of foreplay and the marital act.

And if they are the same thing then exactly what is permissible during foreplay?
Are we not allowed to touch our spouses what-so-ever because it is an inherently lustful act?
Or are there specific “designated” areas that are permissible to touch and stimulate because that isn’t considered lustful?
Or is it just how we touch as stimulate our spouses?
Or is “oral sex” the only culprit…according to you?

This is why your argument makes absolutely no sense and it’s why the Church has nothing written about the subject.
Otherwise there would be a step-by-step field guide on how married couples conduct intercourse that is permissible by the Church.
I don’t see how you can make an argument that foreplay is allowed as you consider it a lustful act.

Almost all woman cannot achieve an orgasm if she isn’t stimulated manually. It’s sinful for a husband to take the act of martial intercourse for himself and not give to his wife.
Is a form of lust for her if he stimulates her digitally until she achieves orgasm?

If so…is a woman ever allowed to achieve an orgasm within the marital act?

 

[fpt]

All questions for understanding everything about this topic. Acception of definition of all words in the catholic way (natural way wanted by God).

1. Definition of marital act?
2. It is a phenomenon?
3. Three moments: before, during and after the complete union of bodies?
4. The naturality of the act?
5. The materiality of the act?
6. The intentionality of the act?
7. The sexual alterity?
8. The sexal complementarity?
9. The sexual cooperation, in the human fashion?
10. The Song of Songs?
11. The conjugal erotism?
12. The human intelligence about conjugal sexuality with all the corollaries, in the respect of natural moral law of the dual humanity?
13. The right of body, the right to the body, the right on the body.

ETC.

The absurdity, the angelism, the puritanism, the jansenism, the victorianism, the quietism, the fideism, the moralism, the rigorism, the pessimism, the negativism, the sexism from male, the machism, the fear of the sexual corporeity…etc about the marital act are very morally wrong and not catholic.

 

[kelvinf]

But there isn’t two different names for sexual intercourse.

Right. There exist other names (aliases) for intercourse like coitus, intromission, vaginal peneration and so on. When we hear all these terms, we understand that they mean intercourse.

There aren’t two different names for sexual activity involving oral-genital contact. In general, it is called oral sex. It involves oral stimulation of the genitals. There is nothing wrong in using the oral stimulation to refer to an act that involves oral stimulation. At the same time, this kind of activity is what is generally called oral sex.

If I bring up different dictionary definitions of oral sex, I know that some people would tell me that that’s not how the Church defines it although no one can provide a definition from the Church because there isn’t.

But I have proposed that we can look at how the Church defines fornication for instance. In that light, one can similarly define oral sex as carnal union involving oral-genital contact.

When this issue has been settled, then we can proceed further. Alternatively, we could forget both terms and simply use the term oral-genital contact. It wouldn’t change anything because we would still have to be adding “with or without orgasm”. That’s also why I say that oral sex and oral stimulation are the same thing per se. Because if they are not combined with intercourse, then they are not procreative by their very nature. If they are combined with intercourse, then practically, the complete act in question could be considered procreative.

Otherwise you have to tell me who said that oral stimulation without intercourse must be called oral sex and oral stimulation with intercourse must be called only oral stimulation.

You still haven’t explained what your definition of foreplay is and exactly which “acts” within foreplay are permissible.

Again, I first responded to the question about the difference between oral sex and oral stimulation. We can discuss foreplay later.

That is the crux of your argument that oral sex is the exact same thing as oral stimulation (which it isn’t) so what about digital stimulation within foreplay or touching a spouse? According to your argument…that is exactly the same as masturbation…or even mutual masturbation between couples that results in a conclusive act that is not procreative.

Right, my argument is that oral sex and oral stimulation are practically the same. You keep refusing but it’s a fact.

Foreplay, masturbation, touching etc could be discussed later. Right now, it’s about the difference between oral sex and oral stimulation. You are going too fast and too far.

If oral sex and oral stimulation are the exact same thing…then what about digital stimulation in the context of foreplay and the marital act and mutual masturbation outside the context of foreplay and the marital act.

See above

And if they are the same thing then exactly what is permissible during foreplay?
Are we not allowed to touch our spouses what-so-ever because it is an inherently lustful act?
Or are there specific “designated” areas that are permissible to touch and stimulate because that isn’t considered lustful?
Or is it just how we touch as stimulate our spouses?
Or is “oral sex” the only culprit…according to you?

See above

This is why your argument makes absolutely no sense and it’s why the Church has nothing written about the subject.
Otherwise there would be a step-by-step field guide on how married couples conduct intercourse that is permissible by the Church.
I don’t see how you can make an argument that foreplay is allowed as you consider it a lustful act.

I haven’t said anything about foreplay. I don’t know why you are so quick to make conclusions. Again, so far, it has all been about definitions.

Almost all woman cannot achieve an orgasm if she isn’t stimulated manually. It’s sinful for a husband to take the act of martial intercourse for himself and not give to his wife.
Is a form of lust for her if he stimulates her digitally until she achieves orgasm?

If so…is a woman ever allowed to achieve an orgasm within the marital act?

And finally, it’s currently about the definition of 2 terms. Take it easy.