Oral Sex and Mortal Sin

[CrossoverManiac]

LittleDeb:

You folks are confusing OS with foreplay. The actions might seem similar but have very different intentions and entirely different results.

Foreplay is about unity, OS is about domination.

And your proof is?

Foreplay is culmination. OS is empty promises.

OS is degrading.

That’s your opinion

Foreplay is still foreplay even when it occurs right after the act. (It is still before orgasm for her.)

Fellatio is immoral because that is not where semen belongs.

Uh huh. Well, hands don’t belong in certain parts of the body, but it finds it way there during foreplay, something you seem to think is okay.

Look back to my analogy of my son and a pencil up his nose. Just because he can put it there doesn’t mean it belongs there.

It doesn’t belong there because the kid can jab himself in the brain with it. Oral sex is no more dangerous than vaginal intercourse.

Natural repulsion towards fellatio is due to it being an unnatural act.

That’s your opinion. Some people don’t find it repulsive. I find anal sex repulsive, but I won’t condemned a married couple from participating in it if they want to.

Foreplay doesn’t result in degrading the spouses. OS does.

Again, you find it degrading. Other people don’t.

Many spouses don’t even realize they are degrading or being degraded,

This sounds like those commercials on TV. “You’re sick and don’t even know it. Buy our product!” People aren’t as idiotic as you think they are.

 

[Island_Oak]

the-3rd-parent:

…I can say that the idea of it disgusts me and that I can’t imagine how it does not violate the dignity of the one giving it…

to each his own…but you shouldn’t knock until you try it-especially since, as foreplay, it offers the woman the opportunity for, shall we say, added pleasure without breaking any rules. How often do you find that opportunity from the CC? Spend too much time thinking seriously about the sexual act and you’ll conclude it’s lucky we’re driven by hormones because not much of it seems terribly “dignified” even keeping it to its most basic form.

 

[LittleDeb]

CrossoverManiac:

And your proof is?



That’s your opinion

Uh huh. Well, hands don’t belong in certain parts of the body, but it finds it way there during foreplay, something you seem to think is okay.

It doesn’t belong there because the kid can jab himself in the brain with it. Oral sex is no more dangerous than vaginal intercourse.

That’s your opinion. Some people don’t find it repulsive. I find anal sex repulsive, but I won’t condemned a married couple from participating in it if they want to.

Again, you find it degrading. Other people don’t.

This sounds like those commercials on TV. “You’re sick and don’t even know it. Buy our product!” People aren’t as idiotic as you think they are.

Pardon my response, it seemed from your lack of knowledge on the subject that you were seeking better understanding. I was obviously mistaken. These are not my opinions. They are Church teaching on faith and morals.

OS is objectively degrading. Whether one feels subjectively degraded is up to them. Oral sex is morally dangerous and has long term physical harms. Anal sex to orgasm is wrong because of it’s contraceptive nature. As foreplay it can have long term physical harms also. As with any other form of foreplay, though it is up to the couple. Personally not my bag but not immoral in the case of foreplay. OS is contraceptive by it’s very nature. Oral sex is not foreplay and foreplay is not oral sex. That OS is objectively degrading takes a lot of research to understand. Since you seem convinced it is an opinion showing you why it isn’t opinion would be a waste of time and would go off-topic.

This thread was on mortal sin related to oral sex. If a post claims it is not sinful based on an erroneous conclusion, the faithful Catholics will correct it.

 

[gogogirl]

LittleDeb:

Foreplay is about unity, OS is about domination. Foreplay is culmination. OS is empty promises. OS is degrading. Foreplay is still foreplay even when it occurs right after the act. (It is still before orgasm for her.)

OS cannot be done to completion even if it is followed by normal vaginal intercourse? I have never been in a situation where OS has been about domination. It has always been freely given in the context of a normal healthy relationship. A woman can have multiple orgasms yet a man cannot?

Natural repulsion towards fellatio is due to it being an unnatural act. Foreplay doesn’t result in degrading the spouses. OS does.

If somebody finds something repulsive, does it automatically make it an unnatural act. Some people find sex repulsive, does this mean it is due to the fact that it is an unnatural act. If a person is not repusled by it, does that mean that there is something inherently wrong with that person?

If a spouse feels degraded, then it should not be done even if it is not a questionable activity. Any activity can become degrading if approached improperly and should therefore be avoided.

 

[Island_Oak]

LittleDeb:

…OS is objectively degrading. Whether one feels subjectively degraded is up to them. Oral sex is morally dangerous and has long term physical harms. Anal sex to orgasm is wrong because of it’s contraceptive nature. As foreplay it can have long term physical harms also. As with any other form of foreplay, though it is up to the couple. Personally not my bag but not immoral in the case of foreplay. OS is contraceptive by it’s very nature. Oral sex is not foreplay and foreplay is not oral sex. That OS is objectively degrading takes a lot of research to understand. Since you seem convinced it is an opinion showing you why it isn’t opinion would be a waste of time and would go off-topic…

Other than your comments about anal sex, this is the most tangled web of misinformation wrapped up in personal opinion and put forward as fact I’ve read so far. Please be careful in your postings…you risk spreading your confusion and misunderstanding.

 

[CrossoverManiac]

LittleDeb:

That is still true. All sex outside of procreation is a sin.

Where in the Bible does it says sex outside of procreation is a sin?

Hence, contraception is intrisically evil.

You include NFP in that too?

I think you are confusing sex for procreation vs. sex for lust.

That’s the second post you made that you assume people are morons. I know the difference.

This subject has been addressed many times on this forum. Each and every marital act must be ordered towards procreation and unity. Whether it results in reproduction is entirely up to God’s design.

Wrong! If it was, there would be no need for NFP.

Actually that is Old Testament,

Read the Song of Solomon and point out to me where it makes mention of procreation.

not Church fathers.

From indiana.edu/~altergc/e104/microthemes/2pt_micro1.htm:

His main argument was that “Marriage has also this good, that carnal and youthful incontinence, even if it is bad, is turned to the honorable task of begetting children, so that marital intercourse makes something good out of the evil of lust” (St. Augustine p. 46)

Not a high opinion of sexual desire.

Sex is sinful if it is removed from procreation and unity. If it is ordered towards procreation and unity it is not only not sinful, it is holy!

Please seek understanding of the word procreation. That might solve your confusion. Procreation means that it could result in conception not that it always will.

Wrong. Many Church Fathers believe that, prior to the Fall of Man, humans reproduced asexually. Augustine went against this, only to claim that sex before the Fall was a purely mechanical act that had no form of eroticism involved. Sexual desire, he said, was a product of the Fall.

 

[LittleDeb]

Wow so many posts. Where to even begin?

Ok the highlights:

To Crossover and Island Oak: All forms of contraception are intrinsically evil. Church teaching tells us that. The Bible is not our only authority. One of the reasons (not the main one of course) contraception is evil is because it is degrading to the marital act and the spouses involved. Also Church teaching. OS is contraception. So it falls in the category. (Possibly I should hve footnoted one of the definitions of degrading. I think another than the one I intended is being inferred. I agree with Island oak about sex still being !great! even though not very “dignified” even at its most basic form.)

NFP is not contraception. Never has been. Never will be. NFP works inside God’s design of cyclical fertility. God’s design is the basis of NFP. Crossover: I am not sure why you asked if I would include NFP in the category of contraception, but there is my answer anyway.

Crossover: The Church says all sex outside of procreation is a sin. If the post meant, “the early Church’s belief that all sex outside of reproduction is a sin,” then I would agree, that statement is not in line with Catholic teaching, and as you said is probably based on early misunderstandings. But each and every marital act must be ordered towards procreation and unity. Am I reading it the way you meant? If not please help me understand your statement. I would even agree that many Church fathers thought sex for reproduction was a sin and only because it furthered the species was it tolerated. Obviously the Church has a better expression of it now.

GoGo: OS being completed for the man and then engaging in vaginal intercourse is an interesting question. Since multiple orgasms are not terribly common in men, I have not seen an incidence of this addressed by apologists. In a particular man where this was an everytime event, I would be interested in how the Church would address it. I would guess, and its just a guess that it is still contraceptive in nature. A woman’s ability to conceive is not affected by orgasm but a man’s is.

Crossover: I’ve never been a fan of Augustine. I don’t follow his work. His mother was pretty great though! (That whole part is entirely my opinion.) I would agree that many Church fathers had a very difficult time expressing their views in a way that can be clearly understood currently. They were fallible humans.

Crossover: I apologize. It did sound like you were referencing Leviticus when you talked about “reverse NFP” If that was not what you were referencing then I do apologize for that. That was the OT that I was refering to.

GoGo: I was very interested in your questions about domination and repulsion. I would agree that foreplay is freely given and received, but with the contraceptive nature of OS how can that be freely given? I think we might be disagreeing over a fairly minor definition of foreplay vs. OS. As I said before, there are many very similar aspects to them, but it is at their division that OS is a sin. Contraception is about dominating our bodies and “beating the system.” We are called to self control and working within the system. I think we agree on that.

On repulsion: Since many people don’t like to debate natural law, I am not sure if I can effectively discuss it. From my research it is based in natural law. Unnatural acts should be naturally repulsive and natural acts should be naturally attractive. From what I can tell, experience plays a big role in changing our perception of the natural and unnatural. I think what I am trying to say is that if someone finds the natural act of sex repulsive, that would probably be based on experience, or the nurture side of life rather than the nature side. I would pray that anyone feeling degraded where degrading is not in fact occuring would seek help and I agree the action should cease until the person no longer feels degraded.

 

[gogogirl]

LittleDeb:

Crossover: The Church says all sex outside of procreation is a sin.

If every marital act must be ordered toward procreation, then partaking of the marital act when procreation is clearly not possible would be sinful. In other words, having intercourse during an infertile time would be sinful because there is no chance of conception occurring. At some point you have to concede that the unitive aspect is just as important as the procreative.

GoGo: OS being completed for the man and then engaging in vaginal intercourse is an interesting question. Since multiple orgasms are not terribly common in men, I have not seen an incidence of this addressed by apologists. In a particular man where this was an everytime event, I would be interested in how the Church would address it. I would guess, and its just a guess that it is still contraceptive in nature. A woman’s ability to conceive is not affected by orgasm but a man’s is.

In this context, I do not see how you can define OS as being contraceptive in nature. According to the online dictionary, contraception is defined as the “intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures.” When using OS to completion in this context, then you are not intentionally preventing pregnancy. You are focusing on the unitive aspect. If a couple were to use it during fertile periods in order to intentionally prevent pregnancy, then yes it is sinful. I think everyone would agree with that. I think the distinction is that OS to completion is being used in addition to intercourse rather than instead of.

GoGo: I was very interested in your questions about domination and repulsion. I would agree that foreplay is freely given and received, but with the contraceptive nature of OS how can that be freely given? I think we might be disagreeing over a fairly minor definition of foreplay vs. OS. As I said before, there are many very similar aspects to them, but it is at their division that OS is a sin. Contraception is about dominating our bodies and “beating the system.” We are called to self control and working within the system. I think we agree on that.

I do agree with you about working within the system and excercising self control. The division is that OS is completed while foreplay is not. My contention is that OS can be used within the system without being contraceptive in nature. I am certain that it could be argued that it is contraceptive by the very fact that it does not allow the seed to fertilize the egg. To argue this, you would then have to argue that NFP use is immoral because there is no egg to fertilize during certain parts of the cycle.

On repulsion: Since many people don’t like to debate natural law, I am not sure if I can effectively discuss it. From my research it is based in natural law. Unnatural acts should be naturally repulsive and natural acts should be naturally attractive. From what I can tell, experience plays a big role in changing our perception of the natural and unnatural. I think what I am trying to say is that if someone finds the natural act of sex repulsive, that would probably be based on experience, or the nurture side of life rather than the nature side.

To argue that natural acts should be naturally attractive and unnatural acts would be naturally be repulsive would be great if this were truly the case. Let’s look at the example of a child that does not eat his vegetables. Eating vegetables is a very natural act and therefore should be naturally attractive. If this is the case, then why does the child find the vegetables repulsive? According to your reasoning, he must have been conditioned to dislike his vegetables. The contradiction comes because his parents are eating the vegetables, and he has been told how good it is for him. He still finds them repulsive even though eating vegetables is a totally natural act and he has not been conditioned to dislike them. You have to be wary of arguing some things from the natural law perspective because some aspects of it seem to deny our intellect and free will. Could it be the case that the child in question does not like the vegetables because he has never tried them before? Eating vegetables is not unnatural and he has not been conditioned to dislike them.

I would pray that anyone feeling degraded where degrading is not in fact occuring would seek help and I agree the action should cease until the person no longer feels degraded.

The point I was trying to make here is that some perfectly normal acts can be degrading if not approached with the attitude of love and self-giving. Anything can become degrading if not approached with the correct spirit.

 

[CrossoverManiac]

LittleDeb:

NFP is not contraception. Never has been. Never will be. NFP works inside God’s design of cyclical fertility. God’s design is the basis of NFP. Crossover: I am not sure why you asked if I would include NFP in the category of contraception, but there is my answer anyway.

NFP prevents pregnancy. NFP is a form of contraception. Don’t play these silly semantics. NFP doesn’t get a special definition all because the Church is okay with it.

Crossover: The Church says all sex outside of procreation is a sin. If the post meant, “the early Church’s belief that all sex outside of reproduction is a sin,” then I would agree, that statement is not in line with Catholic teaching, and as you said is probably based on early misunderstandings. But each and every marital act must be ordered towards procreation and unity. Am I reading it the way you meant? If not please help me understand your statement. I would even agree that many Church fathers thought sex for reproduction was a sin and only because it furthered the species was it tolerated. Obviously the Church has a better expression of it now.

Where do you think the Church got its beliefs about sex from. The Early Church Fathers set these terrible precedence and attitudes toward sex, even marital sex. It’s only recently that the Church didn’t consider it a sin for couples to have sex for reasons other than for a man to impregnate his wife.

GoGo: OS being completed for the man and then engaging in vaginal intercourse is an interesting question. Since multiple orgasms are not terribly common in men, I have not seen an incidence of this addressed by apologists. In a particular man where this was an everytime event, I would be interested in how the Church would address it. I would guess, and its just a guess that it is still contraceptive in nature. A woman’s ability to conceive is not affected by orgasm but a man’s is.

A man can’t have multiple orgasms at one time, but he can have several spaced out over a night. So, technically, if a man has vaginal intercourse and then oral sex in the same night, he’s not using oral sex as a contraceptive since they had vaginal sex leaving themselves open to procreation.

Crossover: I’ve never been a fan of Augustine. I don’t follow his work.

You ough to pay more attention. Quite a bit of Catholic theology is based on his work.

 

[Urf]

LittleDeb:

That is still true. All sex outside of procreation is a sin. Hence, contraception is intrisically evil. I think you are confusing sex for procreation vs. sex for lust. This subject has been addressed many times on this forum. Each and every marital act must be ordered towards procreation and unity. Whether it results in reproduction is entirely up to God’s design.

I honestly fail to see how Catholics can say this knowing that the one form of birth control that Catholicism officially allows obviously involves sex with the intention of NOT getting pregnant.

 

[Flopfoot]

ABC vs NFP has been done lotsa times but a quick rehash for this thread since it’s come up.

In intent they are the same - to avoid having children. However, this intent is not always wrong, sometimes a married couple has justifiable reasons for not having more children (eg, can’t afford to feed any more than they already have). If a married couple doesn’t have a good reason for avoiding more children then NFP and ABC would both be wrong due to intent.

In means they are different. The means of using ABC and then having sex is what makes it always wrong (ie, objectively wrong) regardless whether your intent is okay or not. The means of NFP is completely okay (after all, all you are doing is having normal sex at different times. No-one can ‘force’ you to have sex during fertile times if you are choosing not to do it).

Another way of looking at it.
Let’s say a couple had no idea when their fertile times were (like in old times). Let’s say they had sex every day. Then clearly there are some days when the woman is not fertile, yet they are having sex. Are they doing the wrong thing every day, except for the days when the woman is fertile? Of course not! Clearly, as an action, having sex on a day when the woman is not fertile is not in itself wrong.

The only thing that differs between the above mentioned couple having sex on an infertile day and a couple who is practicing NFP having sex on an infertile day is the intent. The first couple aren’t having sex on an infertile day because they know they can ‘get away with it’ (not having children), it’s just because they always have sex (and incidentally have no clue when it is going to result in pregnancy). The second couple has deliberately picked that day because they studied NFP.

So, if the intent to not have children is sometimes okay (which it is, Pope Paul VI wrote plenty about this, I’m sure many others have too. The Church teaches that it is okay to want to ‘space’ your children, and that there are also many other reasons why it’s perfectly legit to not want to have children) then clearly NFP is sometimes okay.

Compare the first (non-NFP) couple now to another couple which have sex every day but use ABC. The difference is not only the intent, but the means - the second couple’s sex is different because there is this artificial thing either killing or blocking sperm or doing some other disordered thing to these people’s bodies. What’s more, this second couple can have sex on fertile days and still have (almost) no chance of getting pregnant, now that is clearly disordered since God made it so that if you have sex on fertile days you will likely get pregnant. This can’t happen with NFP since the couple will never have sex on fertile days, hence they are not mucking up what God made.

There is no comparison. ABC = Objectively wrong means. NFP = Perfectly okay means.

Okay, not that brief, but hopefully satisfies people here.

 

[fix]

Urf:

I honestly fail to see how Catholics can say this knowing that the one form of birth control that Catholicism officially allows obviously involves sex with the intention of NOT getting pregnant.

The issue is not about conceiving or not conceiving. The issue is intentionally separating the two aspects of the marital act that may never be separated.

 

[Palamite]

The basic subject of “artificial birth control” has been hashed out here in the “Eastern Christianity” forum. The discussion gets quite techinical and in depth, but I think some of the folks here would appreciate what it helps unfold.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

Why is it that so many people project their disgust or negative view of oral sex upon the church. They seem to misunderstand what OS is and what part it can play in the marital act.

Oral sex within the marital act, used as foreplay, leading up to vaginal intercourse with the husband’s climax inside his wife is morally permissable by the Church. Plain and simple.

As long as OS ends in this way it is accepted. The husband can perform OS on his wife after intercourse if he so desires to orgasm. Again still accepted by the church.

If you feel that OS is gross, fine, don’t do it, but do not tell others that this is not morally accepted by the Church because you are saying something that is false. If you do not believe me, read Theology of the Body by Pope John Paul II. If that is too much, too wordy, read The Good News About Sex and Marriage by Christopher West www.christopherwest.com and you will read that this practice is acceptable by the Church.

Now when you talk about performing OS one day, without intercourse and then having intercourse the next day, that is not. Just having oral sex and not ending in the act of intercourse with the husband’s climax inside his wife is a sin. Sorry it is. You can try to create hypotheticals to make this fit, to ease your mind, but the end result is still the same.

One last thing. Sexual intercourse is the renewal of the marital vows, the giving of yourself to your spouse just as Christ gives Himself to the Church. Freely, totally, and fruitfully. Each act is open to the possibility of procreation, but do not think that you can only have sexual intercourse during fertile times. That is not what the Church teaches. Again, sexual intercourse is the renewal of the marital vows. Giving your body for your spouse just as Jesus gives His body for us. NFP can be used to avoid a pregnancy for accepted reasons many of which have been discussed.

 

[gogogirl]

One last thing. Sexual intercourse is the renewal of the marital vows, the giving of yourself to your spouse just as Christ gives Himself to the Church. Freely, totally, and fruitfully. Each act is open to the possibility of procreation, but do not think that you can only have sexual intercourse during fertile times. That is not what the Church teaches. Again, sexual intercourse is the renewal of the marital vows. Giving your body for your spouse just as Jesus gives His body for us. NFP can be used to avoid a pregnancy for accepted reasons many of which have been discussed.

I don’t think anybody is arguing what the church teaches. The question is more of why the church teaches what it does. I have not found anything in the Bible or the Catechism that directly rules out oral sex to completion within the confines of a marriage that is open to life. What is the origin of this teaching and why? Everyone sees this issue as totally black and white when I feel that there is some gray area. I can cite church teachings all day long but this is not what I am trying to get a grip on.

 

[fix]

gogogirl:

I don’t think anybody is arguing what the church teaches. The question is more of why the church teaches what it does. I have not found anything in the Bible or the Catechism that directly rules out oral sex to completion within the confines of a marriage that is open to life. What is the origin of this teaching and why? Everyone sees this issue as totally black and white when I feel that there is some gray area. I can cite church teachings all day long but this is not what I am trying to get a grip on.

Perhaps I can point you in one direction that helps explain why the Church teaches this:

…No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, (l) that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, (2) constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men’s eternal salvation. (3)

In carrying out this mandate, the Church has always issued appropriate documents on the nature of marriage, the correct use of conjugal rights, and the duties of spouses. These documents have been more copious in recent times. (4)…

…12. 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. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason…

…If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will…
HUMANAE VITAE

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

gogogirl:

I don’t think anybody is arguing what the church teaches. The question is more of why the church teaches what it does. I have not found anything in the Bible or the Catechism that directly rules out oral sex to completion within the confines of a marriage that is open to life. What is the origin of this teaching and why? Everyone sees this issue as totally black and white when I feel that there is some gray area. I can cite church teachings all day long but this is not what I am trying to get a grip on.

Sex within a marriage the Church says has to be procreative and unitive. There is nothing procreative about a man finishing outside of his wife’s vagina. Let’s make this into a brief example. Why can’t two men or two women have homosexual sex? Because no life can come out of it. Why can’t we use ABC? Because no life can come out of it. Why can’t we just have oral sex? Because no life can come out of it. Having oral sex to completion for the husband is not “open to life” unless there is some biology that I am not aware of.

I am not sure what you are searching for? If there is a gray area here, please direct me to that because it would make things a lot easier. I would love to be able to do “other things” with my wife during fertile times of the month, but it is against what the Church teaches about marriage, about chastity, about love, about sex. Again I will direct you to “The Good News About Sex and Marriage” by Christopher West. This book was a HUGE slap in the face for me. The first time I read it I did not want to believe it. I wanted to continue on in my sinful ways. Now that I read it again, it makes so much sense.

Again oral sex is permitted within a marriage as foreplay leading up to intercourse. Even after intercourse for the husband to bring his wife to an orgasm. Maybe I am missing what you are asking about. I am not great at pulling out Bible verses or the Catchesim so forgive me for that.

 

[Celeste88]

I’m puzzled by the article. How in the world can semen exposure maintain a healthy pregnancy? Something seems flawed in the study. If you ingest the…er…stuff…it’s broken down in the intestinal tract to proteins, etc. Better stick with healthy foods and prenatal vitamens…especially folic acid.

 

[gogogirl]

Mirror Mirror:

Sex within a marriage the Church says has to be procreative and unitive. There is nothing procreative about a man finishing outside of his wife’s vagina. Let’s make this into a brief example. Why can’t two men or two women have homosexual sex? Because no life can come out of it. Why can’t we use ABC? Because no life can come out of it. Why can’t we just have oral sex? Because no life can come out of it. Having oral sex to completion for the husband is not “open to life” unless there is some biology that I am not aware of.

Please forgive me. I am having a difficult time understanding the distinction between finishing outside of the vagina and deliberately having sex during infertile times. No life can be created when the woman is infertile. The church teaches that it is OK to use NFP for serious reasons. It just seems like there is a disconnect here. I am not trying to be obstinate I just want to understand this completely. I guess I can’t get passed the fact that we can’t have sex in certain manners because no life can come out of it. No life can come out of sex during infertile times. I feel that the church is inconsistent on this matter.

Humanae Vitae clearly states:

…If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will…

Deliberately abstaining during fertile times is impairing the capacity to transmit life and is therefore contradictory to the will of God. How is OS any different than the use of NFP in that it is deliberately impairing the ability to transmit life.

 

[gogogirl]

Celeste88:

I’m puzzled by the article. How in the world can semen exposure maintain a healthy pregnancy? Something seems flawed in the study. If you ingest the…er…stuff…it’s broken down in the intestinal tract to proteins, etc. Better stick with healthy foods and prenatal vitamens…especially folic acid.

The context is that some women have semen allergies and due to this their bodies tend to reject the fetus. The constant exposure to the semen helps the woman’s body become more accepting.

Here is an excerpt from an article found at: theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/24/1069522534820.html

Back in the real world of proper science, there is actually a growing body of evidence that supports some of these fantasies. For a start there’s: Oral Sex Makes Pregnancies Safer. It’s true, according to Professor Gus Dekker, a maternal-foetal medicine specialist at the University of Adelaide. Dekker compared 41 pregnant women with pre-eclampsia - a condition where the mother’s blood pressure soars during pregnancy - to 44 without. He found 82 per cent of those without the condition practised fellatio compared with 44 per cent of those with it.

The explanation? Semen contains a growth factor that helps persuade a mother’s immune system to accept sperm. Regular exposure before pregnancy helps her immune system get used to her partner’s sperm.