oral sex with my wife ok?

[steveandersen]

… If I ever get married I will not perform oral sex. …

You will tell your intended about this before the wedding won’t you?

 

[DL82]

One issue that comes up here is the presumption that the man will ‘always’ have an orgasm, and that he will never have any trouble doing this.

It’s not always that easy for guys to deliver, any more than it is for women. That’s a myth, probably one that’s been created by generations of men masturbating as single men until they have no stamina left once they marry.

As I understand it, the moral law always works on the principle that “ought” implies “can” - e.g. I can’t be held to account for not single-handedly ending global warming, because that’s not something I reasonably can do.

So what is the position if a man tries to make love in a way that is unitive and creative, but on that particular occasion he just can’t finish?

 

[StratusRose]

One issue that comes up here is the presumption that the man will ‘always’ have an orgasm, and that he will never have any trouble doing this.

It’s not always that easy for guys to deliver, any more than it is for women. That’s a myth, probably one that’s been created by generations of men masturbating as single men until they have no stamina left once they marry.

As I understand it, the moral law always works on the principle that “ought” implies “can” - e.g. I can’t be held to account for not single-handedly ending global warming, because that’s not something I reasonably can do.

So what is the position if a man tries to make love in a way that is unitive and creative, but on that particular occasion he just can’t finish?

I think in this situation you have to look at your own intentions. Do you intend to finish in the moral way? If so, you’re in the clear. If not, you have problems.

 

[steveandersen]

So let me get this straight. God forbid a male to lie with a male. I have no problem with that. That means He forbade any sex between two men, oral or otherwise. But He permits the same act between heterosexuals? After all it is not one’s attractions that are the abomination it is just the act. So why would the same act between two heterosexuals not also be an abomination?

You’re missing an important point the “act” isn’t forbidden to homosexuals (or unmarried heterosexuals) because of the act itself or the parts used.

It is forbidden because sex is supposed to be unitive and generative and it can’t be both of those things with the unmarried or homosexuals

If it is those both of those things than anything the partners can want and agree upon goes.

 

[steveandersen]

One issue that comes up here is the presumption that the man will ‘always’ have an orgasm, and that he will never have any trouble doing this.

It’s not always that easy for guys to deliver, any more than it is for women. That’s a myth, probably one that’s been created by generations of men masturbating as single men until they have no stamina left once they marry.

As I understand it, the moral law always works on the principle that “ought” implies “can” - e.g. I can’t be held to account for not single-handedly ending global warming, because that’s not something I reasonably can do.

So what is the position if a man tries to make love in a way that is unitive and creative, but on that particular occasion he just can’t finish?

The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak
(Not weak dabgumit! I’m just tired and have a lot on my mind… )

To me this always raises question of what exactly is the “complete marital act”.

In a busy world it is quite conceivable (no pun intended) to start and then be interrupted by the world. Phone call, kids, pets, appointments, alarm clocks…you name it.
It is possible that hugs, glances, touches, endearing words, etc can go on for hours or days before the “ACT” actually starts.

If oral sex is OK as foreplay then how fore is fore? Foreplay can start Thursday morning and last until the guest finally leave and the kids are in bed on Saturday night… if you’re still awake.

Or in the case of DL82 something else can come up … or not. I would consider the next time just round two for the same event.

To me the unitive aspect of physical contact occurs all the time. I love holding my wife’s hand.

I just don’t compartmentalize our life into the “ACT” and then everything else.

 

[DL82]

The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak
(Not weak dabgumit! I’m just tired and have a lot on my mind… )

To me this always raises question of what exactly is the “complete marital act”.

In a busy world it is quite conceivable (no pun intended) to start and then be interrupted by the world. Phone call, kids, pets, appointments, alarm clocks…you name it.
It is possible that hugs, glances, touches, endearing words, etc can go on for hours or days before the “ACT” actually starts.

If oral sex is OK as foreplay then how fore is fore? Foreplay can start Thursday morning and last until the guest finally leave and the kids are in bed on Saturday night… if you’re still awake.

Or in the case of DL82 something else can come up … or not. I would consider the next time just round two for the same event.

To me the unitive aspect of physical contact occurs all the time. I love holding my wife’s hand.

I just don’t compartmentalize our life into the “ACT” and then everything else.

Thanks steve, I think that’s good advice. I like the idea of not compartmentalising. Sometimes the thing that puts people under the most pressure is the feeling that the ‘act’ is what matters, or that that’s the thing the Church has all these rules about. The rules are there to support the whole marriage.

On the subject of other things interrupting, if you consider things in terms of a sacramental act, it would take a lot to distract you from going to Mass. I wouldn’t cut short my attendance at Mass or at my children’s Baptism for a phone call or an appointment I’d just remembered or to stop the cat weeing on my carpet. I guess you need to treat the marriage bed in the same way.

 

[pig_boy]

That’s fine. Nobody should be doing anything they aren’t comfortable with. I do hope you will (or already have) explained those preferences with the Mrs. in your life and that she too shares the sentiment.

Why anal sex should even be a part of the discussion… AGAIN, I have no clue. Why are homosexual acts being brought up in a discussion about the heterosexual marriage bed?

Anal sex is only a part of the discussion in that it is another example of a permissible activity during foreplay that I find unedifying.

By the way, we have discussed our attitudes toward oral/anal sex and thankfully they are on the same page.

 

[pig_boy]

I think (correct me if I’m wrong) that the key part of her statement was “as much as you do”. In that the man is not entitled to an orgasm either, but since it almost always occurs with ejaculation, and ejaculation is required by the church, the man missing out on a climax isn’t really an issue. If the wife doesn’t deserve it, neither does the husband. But since his is required to happen, every thing possible should be done to try to get her to the same place. If sex isn’t reciprocal, it is using the other person’s body just to please your own, and as I understand it, the church teaches against that

It’s kind of easy to say they’re not necessary or deserved when there’s zero chance that you’re going to be denied one while making love.

The problem as I see it is you’re equating the reciprocal nature of sex solely with the physical pleasure derived from it. It still seems as if it comes across as “he got to have an orgasm so I should be able to have one.” I’ll agree that the Church teaching is that you should not take advantage of another person’s body for your only pleasure, but this hardly equates to some teaching on mutual orgasm. Your last statement continues to advance the theme of “he gets an orgasm so I get an orgasm.”

I’m not trying to say we shouldn’t love our spouses and try to make them happy (including in our sexual relationship). I’m just saying that the idea of both achieving orgasm as some sort of right within sex is strange. The Church has a teaching on men achieving orgasm during sex for a reason. It is not for the man’s pleasure. These reasons obviously don’t apply to the woman. The Church requires a man to achieve orgasm (if possible). It does not require this for a woman in order for the marital act to be complete. It also does not say failure of the woman to achieve orgasm results in some type of sin commited by the man or makes him any less loving of a husband (not that I’m accusing you of saying this).

 

[blessedtoo]

**Mt 16:18 **
And so I say to you, you are “Rock”, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

Goofyjim, I would hope you would take these words to heart and see how you are indeed wrong here. Either you trust Jesus and believe the Church canot be in error or you don’t, and if not then why be Catholic?

How absurd. Quoting that passage in no way relates to what Jim is saying.

And can everyone be honest and admit that there is NO official teaching on this issue? You can all post links from lay apologists and even priests if you wish. The fact is no one knows how the Church would pronounce on various unnatural sex acts and if you want to post your personal opinion, you should include the disclaimer that it is only that.

It is certainly possible for individual Catholic spokespeople to offer incorrect information on this topic. Just as individual priests sometimes mislead the flock on other sexual matters (ABC, masturbation), so too can apologists on various websites who are expressing their OPINIONS lead folks away from what God may have intended. The individual couple should inform their conscience as fully as possible before automatically assuming that anything goes within the marital union.

Many are attached to their own ideas of what the marital act should include. This post speaks volumes, IMO:

I do get a little nervous though, as I’ve never felt used by my husband (or he by me), I know we’ve done stuff the church teaches against, and I’m afraid of being told that I know religion is more than what we feel (otherwise, what’s the point), but I fear being told what I feel is true in my heart is not.

Many refuse to really reflect on how these acts and behaviors would be viewed by Our Lord. To be this frightened of having to “give up” a behavior we have associated with the marital act speaks to me of idolatry, not love.

 

[StratusRose]

How absurd. Quoting that passage in no way relates to what Jim is saying.

And can everyone be honest and admit that there is NO official teaching on this issue? You can all post links from lay apologists and even priests if you wish. The fact is no one knows how the Church would pronounce on various unnatural sex acts and if you want to post your personal opinion, you should include the disclaimer that it is only that.

It is certainly possible for individual Catholic spokespeople to offer incorrect information on this topic. Just as individual priests sometimes mislead the flock on other sexual matters (ABC, masturbation), so too can apologists on various websites who are expressing their OPINIONS lead folks away from what God may have intended. The individual couple should inform their conscience as fully as possible before automatically assuming that anything goes within the marital union.

Many are attached to their own ideas of what the marital act should include. This post speaks volumes, IMO:

Many refuse to really reflect on how these acts and behaviors would be viewed by Our Lord. To be this frightened of having to “give up” a behavior we have associated with the marital act speaks to me of idolatry, not love.

Yes it does. He said that the church was leading people to Hell when we know for a fact Jesus said that wouldn’t happen.

I don’t understand what is so unnatural about oral sex. If I want to kiss my husband other than on his lips does that make me bad, and vice versa? Does it mean I am using my mouth in the wrong way? So we should just let the man do his thing, roll over and go to sleep? How unfulfilling and unfair is that? There is nothing inherently evil about it which is why the church has no official teaching on it.

Are you saying that *you *know how Jesus would react to a husband and a wife engaging in oral sex? You say that this post speaks volumes about how people are attached to the idea of what the marital act should include. Don’t you think you’re being a bit hypocritical?

If it bothers your conscience then don’t do it. I think the problem is that some see oral sex as “dirty.” Sorry, but my genitalia and my husband’s are not dirty.

 

[buffalo]

Why is everyone ignoring the possible disease aspects and the moral culpability therein? Are we not to protect ourselves and loved ones from physical harm where we can?

 

[StratusRose]

Why is everyone ignoring the possible disease aspects and the moral culpability therein? Are we not to protect ourselves and loved ones from physical harm where we can?

Can you elaborate?

Because a woman can get UTIs and yeast infections from just vaginal intercourse.

 

[buffalo]

Can you elaborate?

Because a woman can get UTIs and yeast infections from just vaginal intercourse.

See post #4

 

[StratusRose]

See post #4

I seriously doubt studies like these.

These sources cite diseases such as HIV and HPV which are STDs, why should a practicing Catholics in a monogamous relationship have to worry about that?

 

[bilop]

See post #4

Any STD that can be spread by oral stimulation can surely be spread by intercourse, so I don’t think there is incremental risk.

God Bless

 

[trth_skr]

Catholics redefining Church teaching to suit their own personal taste. …

Confucious [might have] said:

Oral sex leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[buffalo]

I seriously doubt studies like these.

These sources cite diseases such as HIV and HPV which are STDs, why should a practicing Catholics in a monogamous relationship have to worry about that?

I know, I suspect the things that make it to the New England Journal.

Because the HPV virus inhabits the mouth of even monogamous couples!

 

[CuriousInIL]

The Church requires a man to achieve orgasm (if possible).

Could you please cite your support for this statement. I have long been looking for exactly this.

 

[CuriousInIL]

And can everyone be honest and admit that there is NO official teaching on this issue?

I tend to think that I disagree; but, before I do, which “issue” exactly are you meaning?

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

"pig boy:

The Church requires a man to achieve orgasm (if possible).

Could you please cite your support for this statement. I have long been looking for exactly this.

From the Catechism

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is “on the side of life,” teaches that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.” “This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, 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.”

2369 “By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood.”

2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that “entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children.” "Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses’ union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person."

(bold mine)

Please note that when reading the aforementioned sections of the Catechism of the Catholic Church you can readily see the emphasis on procreation. How can procreation happen? Only one way (as accepted by the Church) with the joining of the male sperm with the female egg. How does that happen? With the male’s orgasm inside his wife’s vagina.