Oral Sex and Marriage Exceptions Question

[Kelfa28]

I have said MULTIPLE times in my argument that oral stimulation within the context of the marital act is perfectly fine and approved by the Church.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with it as long as it is involved within the context of foreplay that leads directly to the marital act.

You seem to agree with this statement.

Oral stimulation that is lustful is wrong and not procreative and therefore wrong according to the Church.

That is my only argument.

I’m not sure why you seem to think all oral sex is the same…it’s definitely not the same. Otherwise the Church would have specified that “oral sex” is wrong both within the context of the marital act and as a form of sex that leads to orgasm without procreation.

You haven’t come up with an argument that states otherwise.

You also avoid my questions about foreplay…which go directly to the point of your argument.

I’m trying to understand why you think that all “oral sex” is the same and if so is all digital stimulation or “masturbation” the same? If so, then what is foreplay?
If not…then what is reason for your argument that all “oral sex” is the same?

You are avoiding my questions. I can’t see how your argument holds water.

 

[Christopher68]

The couple is married and wants to pleasure each other - hence, their actions are “unitive.”

And as far as “procreative,” you can’t be any more procreative than by already being pregnant!

Beyond that, many of the comments on this thread play into the worst stereotypes of our faith - i.e. micromanaging of intimacy.

 

[fpt]

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.

In catholic moral theology, in general, concerning what is “ out of the substance of the act ”, there are the circumstances and intentions (seven or eight types of circumstance and intention) that are useful in order to identify if an act is moral:

1.The “Quis”, the person who has realized the act (who);
2.The “Quibus auxiliis”, the means used or employed;
3. The “Quid”, the act that the person has made (what);
4. The “Ubi”, the place where the person has made the act (where);
5. The"Quando", the time when the person has made the act (when);
6. The “Quomodo”, the manner which the person has made the act (how);
7. The “Cur”, the motives that have motivated the person to perform the act (what for);
8. The “Circa quid”, the matter (material) on which the person has acted;

This is only a help for understanding the morality of preliminaries (the foreplay, and the sexual foreplay) in the context of marital act.

 

[kelvinf]

I have said MULTIPLE times in my argument that oral stimulation within the context of the marital act is perfectly fine and approved by the Church.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with it as long as it is involved within the context of foreplay that leads directly to the marital act.

You seem to agree with this statement.

Oral stimulation that is lustful is wrong and not procreative and therefore wrong according to the Church.

That is my only argument.

I’m not sure why you seem to think all oral sex is the same…it’s definitely not the same. Otherwise the Church would have specified that “oral sex” is wrong both within the context of the marital act and as a form of sex that leads to orgasm without procreation.

You haven’t come up with an argument that states otherwise.

You also avoid my questions about foreplay…which go directly to the point of your argument.

I’m trying to understand why you think that all “oral sex” is the same and if so is all digital stimulation or “masturbation” the same? If so, then what is foreplay?
If not…then what is reason for your argument that all “oral sex” is the same?

You are avoiding my questions. I can’t see how your argument holds water.

We have been discussing this for a long time now but you still don’t seem to get my point.

Please respond to this particular claim: According to you, if a man and a woman engage in oral-genital contact for say 3 minutes and then continue with intercourse for say 1 minute, then what they did for the 3 minutes was oral stimulation and not oral sex, right? According to me it is oral sex (which is oral stimulation of the genitals).

In sum, according to you, oral sex is when there is orgasm. If there is no orgasm/ejaculation, then it is oral stimulation. According to me, no sexual act is defined on basis of orgasm. Hence the terms oral sex and oral stimulation are more or less the same thing.

The Church defines masturbation as the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. And not whether there is orgasm or not. Meaning a boy for instance, who derives sexual pleasure from his genital must not have orgasm for the act to be masturbation. That’s my point. But based on your argument, if there is no orgasm, then what happened was rather “xyz” stimulation.

I think we have discussed enough of this. If you could at least back up your definitions with some source, then that would be cool. Otherwise, everything would just be what you want them to be.

Regarding your question about foreplay, foreplay involves sexual acts that procede intercourse. (However, others argue that foreplay is anything that precedes or succeeds intercourse, which I find problematic.)

The problem here is that, the Church does not define foreplay nor provide a list of such acts. What constitutes foreplay is hence mooted.

 

[PaulinVA]

This is all just semantics.

Stimulation that leads to or facilitates intercourse if perfectly okay.

Stimulation that is stimulation for the sake of stimulation, or is intended to be a completed act in and of itself, is wrong.

Is it stimulation or sex? Well, most people use “sex” to mean a completed act, and “stimulation” to not.

Is it lustful? Well, lust is the seeking or enjoying* inordinate* pleasure from sex or sexual activities. Seeking the *normal *pleasure one gets from one’s spouse is not lustful at all, but is normal. Arousal does not equal lust.