Oral Sex if we are practicing natural family planning?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Michael038
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
cynic:
What is this oral sex stuff about? It’s disgusting, what man would want a woman to do that? Especially your wife, whom your supposed to respect.
Click to expand...
I agreed with you at one point. But I started to realize that I thought it was disgusting because of the examples I had been given and how my fellow high school peers talked about it. Now I am a junior in college and reading up on a my Faith and realized that oral sex is not disgusting, it is society that is. Think about it, society has been talking about oral ssex for years giving teens a way to “have sex” without some of the consequences. In reality these kids are degrading themselves and the act of sex because they don’t understand the meaning behind the act. God created us, our bodies are to be loved and respected and I imagine that spouses would look upon eachother as beautiful works done by our Lord. That doesn’t exclude the more private areas. Yes, some people are going to be uncomfortable with that idea, others aren’t. I know that I myself am a little intimidated, but I realize that if I dont want to do it, my husband won’t make me, but I love him so I will at least try it if it would please him. I’ve also read up on the more medical, or rather physical aspect of oral sex, and it was interesting to learn about a womans body. Women don’t always experience the more pleasurable parts of sex, I can’t say I know for sure why cuz I haven’t gotten there yet, but i believe it has to do with her mind, time and stimulation of certain places. Some couples engage in oral sex because it gives the wife pleasure. It isn’t disgusting just because of the “parts” involved, but not everyone is going to feel comfortable with it.
 
Feanaro's Wife:
The “rules” do not change under any circumstance that we could ever imagine.
Click to expand...
Yep, so true. Although I always thought pregnancy should be an exception. I’m already open to life, or my belly wouldn’t be this big! 😃 Why not let my husband enjoy himself in a slightly different way during this time? But, who am I to question God’s laws. :ehh: So we’ll stay on the straight and narrow…:yup:
 
I think it has to do with habit as well. I mean, if for 6 months (while the pregnancy is REALLY obvious) a couple uses oral sex as a means of satisfaction, seperating it from traditional sex, then they COULD get used to it and it might become harder and harder to reach climax haivng sex the old fashioned way. I think that God puts certain rules into place because He wants to protect us from habits and situations. I mean, I imagine that after 6 or so months of that kind of activity, it may take time to get back to normal and that could cause problems within the marriage, you know, stress is supposed to leave the bedroom when a couple is making love, not rear its ugly head BECAUSE the couple want to make love. DOes that make sense?
 
40.png
rosario:
That’s exactly the point. The example of the wife was given, but that was just an example, a for instance, but what about a husband unable to complete the act in the traditional way? Shouldn’t this example be applied to both the wife and husband? I’m sure that the guidance was not just looking out for the interests of the wife.

As for the other comment regarding the type of affection a properly married couple choose to engage in, neither the Cathechism, nor Love and Responsibility embrace nor deny with any kind of specifics. The bottom line is that so long as marriage is truly pointed towards Our Lord, the act of love is present and a gift to your spouse, all day long, everyday.

It seems that this individual was asking all the rest of the people what is or is not appropriate for him to do in the intimacy with his wife. What busness is that of anyone?
Click to expand...
I think that the individual (Michael) was searching for answers of how to live a better Catholic life and how to follow the Church’s teachings on sex within a marriage. As I have mentioned other times, I do not think that this is “wrong” “dirty” “obscene” or anything like that, I think that this forum is the place to bring it up and talk about it. If not here, then where? Just go on doing whatever he feels is okay. That is the problem with so many, they do not know the truth and they are not willing to use the resources given to them to find out what the truth is. Ignorance is bliss, right? That is why so many people will say that it is okay to have oral sex within a marriage and not end in the act of sexual intercourse, because they do not understand. Sooner or later, we need to see that these guidelines set forth by the Church are not to restrain us, but to help us. So many people think that the Chruch is this big tyrant standing over us saying “don’t do this” and “don’t do that.” When in all reality, the Church is showing us how to live a better life.

Is oral sex dirty? If you make it out to be, if you look at it through society’s eyes. If it is acted on in a disrespectful manner. If not, then no it is not. It is a part of the marital embrance that is a beautiful act. Not dirty like it is portrayed, but pleasing and meaningful. A lot of it is the perception. I would never force my wife to perform those acts if she is not comfortable with them. That would make it dirty, wrong.

I think that this forum is the place to grow in our faith and to increase our knowledge of the faith. Questions like this are important to someone and they are coming to the right place to find the answers. Atleast they are not turning to society for the answers.
 
Mirror Mirror:
I think that the individual (Michael) was searching for answers of how to live a better Catholic life and how to follow the Church’s teachings on sex within a marriage. As I have mentioned other times, I do not think that this is “wrong” “dirty” “obscene” or anything like that, I think that this forum is the place to bring it up and talk about it. If not here, then where? Just go on doing whatever he feels is okay. That is the problem with so many, they do not know the truth and they are not willing to use the resources given to them to find out what the truth is. Ignorance is bliss, right? That is why so many people will say that it is okay to have oral sex within a marriage and not end in the act of sexual intercourse, because they do not understand. Sooner or later, we need to see that these guidelines set forth by the Church are not to restrain us, but to help us. So many people think that the Chruch is this big tyrant standing over us saying “don’t do this” and “don’t do that.” When in all reality, the Church is showing us how to live a better life.

Is oral sex dirty? If you make it out to be, if you look at it through society’s eyes. If it is acted on in a disrespectful manner. If not, then no it is not. It is a part of the marital embrance that is a beautiful act. Not dirty like it is portrayed, but pleasing and meaningful. A lot of it is the perception. I would never force my wife to perform those acts if she is not comfortable with them. That would make it dirty, wrong.

I think that this forum is the place to grow in our faith and to increase our knowledge of the faith. Questions like this are important to someone and they are coming to the right place to find the answers. Atleast they are not turning to society for the answers.
Click to expand...
Bravo!!
 
40.png
migurl:
I think it has to do with habit as well. I mean, if for 6 months (while the pregnancy is REALLY obvious) a couple uses oral sex as a means of satisfaction, seperating it from traditional sex, then they COULD get used to it and it might become harder and harder to reach climax haivng sex the old fashioned way. I think that God puts certain rules into place because He wants to protect us from habits and situations. I mean, I imagine that after 6 or so months of that kind of activity, it may take time to get back to normal and that could cause problems within the marriage, you know, stress is supposed to leave the bedroom when a couple is making love, not rear its ugly head BECAUSE the couple want to make love. DOes that make sense?
Click to expand...
Yep, you make very good sense. Thanks for the point of view. 👍
 
I think that in situations like this, the best source for the answer to your questions lies within the teaching of the church, namely the catechism and other books relative to the issue (Love and responsibility) As the Catechism says lust is a disordered desire and sexual desire is morally disordered when sought outside the concepts of procreative and unitve purposes, you must determine what your purposes are, even innately in the center of your soul. One might say that it would be impossible not to have lustful thoughts while being stimulated orally outside of your wife and your "marital embrace. For if this is the case, then this should be called masturbation, which is a “grave disorder” according to the Catechism, no matter what goal it is directed toward. **Since when does the Church teach that a proper and good goal can be achieved through sinful practices? ** not to mention the fact that, if we refer back to the original question set forth, it clearly shows that this practice is CLEARLY defined as sinful through the Catechism, as it is not open to life. this is obviously a conflict of interests, as the church allows for NFP, but does not allow for outside stimulations. the questions therefore is once again, is it right to fulfill a well intentioned and good practice by means of a sinful one? Grace of Christ in your discernment.
R.A.H.
 
Somebody in this forum said something to the effect “I see you are new”. I really thought that was rude and uncalled for. I may be kind of new to posting in the forum because I barely have time, but I read it on occassion.

Also, an Apologist, whoever he or they may be is not the beginning and the end of all things nor are they almighty and all knowing. Some of them write beautifully and every Catholic should read and have books or references on Apologetics.

May we all grow in faith and understanding. May all of us be able to always discern and examine our conscience, and learn.

No hard feelings towards anybody. I hope no hard feelings towards me. I hope the original person received his answer. You all take care and God Bless You, God Bless our Pope, and God Bless our Church. I’ll take my exit from this thread now. Good-Bye.
 
40.png
rosario:
Somebody in this forum said something to the effect “I see you are new”. I really thought that was rude and uncalled for. I may be kind of new to posting in the forum because I barely have time, but I read it on occassion.
Click to expand...
That was me…I said:

I see you are new. When you get the time, go to the Ask An Apologist forum (if you are truly seeking orthodox answers to life’s questions) and do a search for “oral sex”.

I am really sorry you took it as rude. My intention was to inform you of the AAA forum. Many newbies do not know where to go for certain things and I was only trying to be helpful.

There were many times when I was a new poster that I would have (and did) appreciate a nudge in the right direction. I in no way meant to imply that you were incompetent.

Malia
 
40.png
vluvski:
As you pointed out, the Catechism says “procreative and unitive.” Key word there is AND. Oral sex to the man’s climax excludes the procreative aspect, and is therefore always disordered and sinful. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Click to expand...
You have hit on, IMO, the important point but then misunderstood it. The CCC does say “and” which means, again IMO (paraphrasing the CCC to make the point),

Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from both its procreative and unitive purposes.

rather than

Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from either its procreative or unitive purposes.

The “and” in normal usage is conjunctive and means that sexual pleasure is only morally disordered if isolated from both purposes. If it is not read this way, isolation from either purpose makes it morally disordered. So, while this many in this thread have discussed and emphasized their opinions about isolation from the procreative aspect, that argument would apply also to isolation from the unitive aspect. In other words, reading the “and” as an “or” means that couples are not free to engage in purely procreative, non-unitive sexual relations (such as what may happen when using NFP to conceive–when the time is right the act is engaged in order to conceive even if the couple are not so much interested at the time which often makes the act non-unitive and just procreative).

Moreover, I do not think the issue of masturbation comes into play. In 2352, the CCC states (in part)(emphasis mine):
2352 **By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. **
Click to expand...
“Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.”[137] **“The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” **For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.”[138]

Now, if one simply focuses on the first sentence, even procreative, unitive marital relations would be considered masturbation because the marital act, even when procreative and unitive, also involves the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs for sexual pleasure (and more). So, IMO, you also need to look at the second sentence I have bolded. Here, it is clear that the CCC is talking only about acts “outside of marriage.” This therefore means that masturbation is simply not the issue when discussing marital relations.
 
40.png
Coder:
Only the marital act itself is unitive and procreative.
Click to expand...
Well, I would say “Only the marital act itself can be unitive and procreative.” But, I suppose either comment may be correct depending on your definition of “marital act.”

However, I am not sure I see the point of the comment. 2351 of the CCC is not statd in a positive “A and B must be present in order for…” Rather it is in the negative, “If isolated from A and B, then…” And, so, applying traditional “logic,” if either A or B is present, you are not isolated from A and B.
 
40.png
CuriousInIL:
You have hit on, IMO, the important point but then misunderstood it. The CCC does say “and” which means, again IMO (paraphrasing the CCC to make the point),

Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from both its procreative and unitive purposes.

rather than

Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from either its procreative or unitive purposes.

The “and” in normal usage is conjunctive and means that sexual pleasure is only morally disordered if isolated from both purposes. If it is not read this way, isolation from either purpose makes it morally disordered. So, while this many in this thread have discussed and emphasized their opinions about isolation from the procreative aspect, that argument would apply also to isolation from the unitive aspect. In other words, reading the “and” as an “or” means that couples are not free to engage in purely procreative, non-unitive sexual relations (such as what may happen when using NFP to conceive–when the time is right the act is engaged in order to conceive even if the couple are not so much interested at the time which often makes the act non-unitive and just procreative).

Moreover, I do not think the issue of masturbation comes into play. In 2352, the CCC states (in part)(emphasis mine):

Now, if one simply focuses on the first sentence, even procreative, unitive marital relations would be considered masturbation because the marital act, even when procreative and unitive, also involves the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs for sexual pleasure (and more). So, IMO, you also need to look at the second sentence I have bolded. Here, it is clear that the CCC is talking only about acts “outside of marriage.” This therefore means that masturbation is simply not the issue when discussing marital relations.
Click to expand...
40.png
CuriousInIL:
Well, I would say “Only the marital act itself can be unitive and procreative.” But, I suppose either comment may be correct depending on your definition of “marital act.”

However, I am not sure I see the point of the comment. 2351 of the CCC is not statd in a positive “A and B must be present in order for…” Rather it is in the negative, “If isolated from A and B, then…” And, so, applying traditional “logic,” if either A or B is present, you are not isolated from A and B.
Click to expand...
I am curious (no pun intended), but are you either/or, or and/or, or both a lawyer and an engineer? (or perhaps sales?) :rolleyes:
 
40.png
felra:
I am curious (no pun intended), but are you either/or, or and/or, or both a lawyer and an engineer? (or perhaps sales?) :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
lol I am both an engineer and a lawyer–I combined those together in patent law.

I guess it shows.:o
 
The church allows for oral sex as long as the end result is (always) the man climaxing inside of the woman. All this other discusion is personal opinion.

You can not have oral sex where the man is not climaxing inside of the woman. You can use oral sex as foreplay (if you chose to and are comfortable with it) but it must always end in intercourse with the man putting his seed inside the proper place.

I’m going to be crass here but I’d like to make a point. Just as the church does not dictate whether you can lick you’re wife’s (or husband’s) ear lobes or toes it doesn’t have rules for doing that on any other part of the body, as long as intercourse is the end result.
 
40.png
rayne89:
The church allows for oral sex as long as the end result is (always) the man climaxing inside of the woman. All this other discusion is personal opinion.
Click to expand...
Rayne

I have often heard this comment. Do you have a citation to where this is in the CCC or another authoritative source?
 
40.png
CuriousInIL:
Rayne

I have often heard this comment. Do you have a citation to where this is in the CCC or another authoritative source?
Click to expand...
When hubby and I took our NFP class they gave us several pamphets. One of them addressed this subject it did have an imprimatur (sp?) so I assumed it was inline with the church. I’ve also heard this answered sevearl times by different apologists in the same way. I will do some digging around and see if I can find something in writing for you.
 
40.png
CuriousInIL:
Well, I would say “Only the marital act itself can be unitive and procreative.” But, I suppose either comment may be correct depending on your definition of “marital act.”

However, I am not sure I see the point of the comment. 2351 of the CCC is not statd in a positive “A and B must be present in order for…” Rather it is in the negative, “If isolated from A and B, then…” And, so, applying traditional “logic,” if either A or B is present, you are not isolated from A and B.
Click to expand...
Yet from Humanae Vitae:
"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 A and B are both inherent to C, then A and B must be present in order for C to be present, hence vluvski was correct.
If A or B is lacking, you don’t have C.
A ˚ B not A v B (Thats the closest I could get to making the symbols on here)
 
How about those who are incapable of conceiving? Positively, no questions about it, not possible to conceive. Oral sex o.k.?

Mom of 5
 
40.png
cynic:
What is this oral sex stuff about? It’s disgusting, what man would want a woman to do that? Especially your wife, whom your supposed to respect.
Click to expand...
Shall I take this one??? :ehh:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top