Oral sex in marriage a sin?

[fabio_rocha]

me and my spousee like to perform oral sex on each other. is that a sin? if not, what about when we do till the climax?

 

[Ubenedictus]

me and my spousee like to perform oral sex on each other. is that a sin? if not, what about when we do till the climax?

oral sex till climax doesnt sound cool. The marital embrace should be both procreative and unitive, i doubt if oral sex till climax meets that criteria. This topic is usually ‘‘explosive’’.
Ubenedictus

 

[Calvin_Hobbs]

My Jesuit Formation Director said “Whatever happens between a man and wife behind closed doors is non of my business!!”

 

[bmullins]

The oral stimulation is not a sin, but the climax must be intravaginal.

 

[_Abyssinia]

me and my spousee like to perform oral sex on each other. is that a sin? if not, what about when we do till the climax?

What does the Church Teach about Oral Sex?

bustedhalo.com/features/what-does-the-church-teach-about-oral-sex

 

[fpt]

me and my spousee like to perform oral sex on each other. is that a sin? if not, what about when we do till the climax?

Oral sex on husband done by wife till the climax is wrong.
Oral sex on wife done by husband till the climax is wrong.

Oral stimulation on husband done by wife, in the context of marital act, like foreplay, is okay, I mean without the climax of husband, because it is only a natural step before the union of bodies.

Oral stimulation on wife done by husband, in the context of marital act, like foreplay, is okay. Here, wife can have several orgasms from her intimate organs that are outside, because her nature is different from male. For wife there are different types of orgasms. It is okay because it is a preparation (natural step) before the union of bodies.

If you want to have other information, you can send to me a private massage.

 

[Ron_Conte]

“Each and every sexual act in a marriage needs to be open to the possibility of conceiving a child.” (USCCB Catechism, p. 409).

Unnatural sexual acts, such as oral sex, are not open to procreation; they are non-procreative sexual acts, and so they are intrinsically evil, and always gravely immoral.

"The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. 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. " (HV 11-12)

Humanae Vitae teaches that married couples may not separate the unitive and procreative meanings into separate acts. Therefore, a non-procreative sexual act, such as oral sex, cannot be justified by a subsequent or prior procreative sexual act (natural intercourse).

The lack of climax in a sexual act does not change the act into a procreative act; it does not make the act any less non-procreative, and so the act remains intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral.

 

[Ubenedictus]

My Jesuit Formation Director said “Whatever happens between a man and wife behind closed doors is non of my business!!”

this is surprising because contraception is a sin in the RCC and is done behind closed doors, and it is none of his business? Wow!
Ubenedictus

 

[fpt]

“Each and every sexual act in a marriage needs to be open to the possibility of conceiving a child.” (USCCB Catechism, p. 409).

Unnatural sexual acts, such as oral sex, are not open to procreation; they are non-procreative sexual acts, and so they are intrinsically evil, and always gravely immoral.

"The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. 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. " (HV 11-12)

Humanae Vitae teaches that married couples may not separate the unitive and procreative meanings into separate acts. Therefore, a non-procreative sexual act, such as oral sex, cannot be justified by a subsequent or prior procreative sexual act (natural intercourse).

The lack of climax in a sexual act does not change the act into a procreative act; it does not make the act any less non-procreative, and so the act remains intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral.

Could you define " Each and every sexual act "? How do you define this sentence without bad " ism words " ?

Could you give us information on how you interpret the different steps of marital act? Are you against the sexual phenomenology on this topic? Are you against the personalism in the context of marital act?

Are you against the foreplay between wife and husband in the context of marital act? What is your thought on " The Song of the Songs "? Are you against the sexual love in the marriage?

For you, what are the moral foreplay?

What is your acception of masturbation in the context of marital act?

 

[Christopher68]

Oral sex on wife done by husband till the climax is wrong.

I suspect that the above answer represents an opinion only, as it does not even follow the Church’s logic on the issue.

 

[fpt]

I suspect that the above answer represents an opinion only, as it does not even follow the Church’s logic on the issue.

My thought:

Oral stimulation on wife done by husband, in the context of marital act, as foreplay, is, per se, totally okay.

Oral stimulation on wife done by husband, not in the context of marital act, and thus not as foreplay, is wrong.

 

[livingwordunity]

“Each and every sexual act in a marriage needs to be open to the possibility of conceiving a child.” (USCCB Catechism, p. 409).

Unnatural sexual acts, such as oral sex, are not open to procreation; they are non-procreative sexual acts, and so they are intrinsically evil, and always gravely immoral.

"The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. 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. " (HV 11-12)

Humanae Vitae teaches that married couples may not separate the unitive and procreative meanings into separate acts. Therefore, a non-procreative sexual act, such as oral sex, cannot be justified by a subsequent or prior procreative sexual act (natural intercourse).

The lack of climax in a sexual act does not change the act into a procreative act; it does not make the act any less non-procreative, and so the act remains intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral.

I wonder if a husband and wife engaging in oral and vaginal sex in the same night can be considered one “sexual act in a marriage”. In other words, does “each sexual act in marriage” mean each time the male ejaculates?

 

[Ubenedictus]

I suspect that the above answer represents an opinion only, as it does not even follow the Church’s logic on the issue.

and what is your take one the topic. Is a sexual act that consist only of oral sex procreative?
Ubenedictus

 

[fpt]

The great issues on this topic are the definitions of different concepts and their acception in link with the natural law (objective and realistic philosophy, epistemology, metaphysic, the catholic phenomenology, the catholic theology, medical sciences…etc).

On this forum we have to avoid explicit terms, thus the understanding is not quite enough clear. Often there are misunderstandings, wrong understandings, too simple acceptions and the problematic of the interpretation (lato sensu or stricto sensu).

The topic is in the context of marital act between wife and spouse.

 

[ignatius777]

My Jesuit Formation Director said “Whatever happens between a man and wife behind closed doors is non of my business!!”

Which is why jesuits dont command the kind of deference they once did. It is very unlikely I would ever seek out a jesuit to directly me properly in the ways of catholicism

 

[Golf_Zulu]

All the talk about oral or manual sex as foreplay leading to vaginal sex with the male climaxing inside the woman — inserting tab “a” into slot “b” as one poster put it — is fine for those of us capable of the procreative act. But, without one of those Old Testament miracles, some of us have out lived our procreative days. My wife and I are both in our mid 70s but still like to use our mattress for something other than a sound night’s sleep from time to time. However, due to a medical condition and the side effects of medication, I am very rarely able to achieve vaginal penetration. When I climax, I feel the sensation deep inside me but there is no ejaculate. When both enjoy our foreplay and would be very happy if it resulted in it’s true goal but we know from experience that it almost never does. In short, our sex lives have passed beyond the procreative, but we still find them very unitive. Are we wrong in participating in foreplay that we know will probably not result in vaginal sex?

 

[fpt]

All the talk about oral or manual sex as foreplay leading to vaginal sex with the male climaxing inside the woman — inserting tab “a” into slot “b” as one poster put it — is fine for those of us capable of the procreative act. But, without one of those Old Testament miracles, some of us have out lived our procreative days. My wife and I are both in our mid 70s but still like to use our mattress for something other than a sound night’s sleep from time to time. However, due to a medical condition and the side effects of medication, I am very rarely able to achieve vaginal penetration. When I climax, I feel the sensation deep inside me but there is no ejaculate. When both enjoy our foreplay and would be very happy if it resulted in it’s true goal but we know from experience that it almost never does. In short, our sex lives have passed beyond the procreative, but we still find them very unitive. Are we wrong in participating in foreplay that we know will probably not result in vaginal sex?

If my understanding is the good one, what you are trying to say is not impotence. Impotence of husband is not what you are saying.

Thus you have right to practice marital act with your wife with foreplay coming from her for you and coming from you for her: the manual stimulations and/or the oral stimulations, as foreplay, before the union of bodies, are fine.

 

[fpt]

My Jesuit Formation Director said “Whatever happens between a man and wife behind closed doors is non of my business!!”

It is possible to have a very nice interpretation of this sentence. Indeed, this sentence can mean (my hypothesis of interpretation):

" If you respect the finality of act, it is okay. The sexual art with your wife, in the context of marital act, is not my business. Your private sexual intimacy (where and how, often) is not my business, because it is your own Song of Songs. Each couple practicing the marital act is free to chose their own methods in the respect of natural law (the finality of act, and the functions of each organs) ".

 

[Uzziah1]

me and my spousee like to perform oral sex on each other. is that a sin? if not, what about when we do till the climax?

I think that the answers here which approve of oral sex as FOREPLAY, only, which LEADS TO intercourse in which the man climaxes, are correct.

Technically, there is a moral duty to develop skill in making one’s spouse find pleasure in intercourse. Functionally, this means that the man has a moral duty to arouse his wife – to “charge up” his wife. If part of that arousal is oral sex (even if the WIFE but NOT the husband climaxes in the course of the oral sex), in my opinion it is fine.

The oral sex, however, MUST be FOREPLAY – i.e., the INTENTION must be to PROCEED TO potentially fruitful intercourse. That MAKES it “unitive” and PRESERVES its “fruitfulness” component.

 

[JacarandaPurple]

Funny how these threads usually read like all the posts were written by people who discount the importance of female climax in the marital relationship. John Paul II (author of Theology of the Body) described ensuring a wife’s climax as the duty of her husband. Many, many women cannot climax from intercourse alone. You do the math.