No it is not. Not with your wife, or with anyone else. Oral sex is not OK.
I am thinking that you may have misread or misinterpreted JPII in your statement. The man can receive oral stimulation from his wife just not to orgasm.
Wrong. Pleasure is not just as important as procreation. The marital act must unite the husband and wife in a renewal of their marriage vows and must be procreative, open to new life. The Church does not say it “has to be” pleasurable. Mind you that is one of the effects of the sexual act and that is how God created it, but it is not the sole purpose of the act.the reason being women take a lot longer to orgasm, and pleasure of course is an important of sex, not just procreation
Please provide support for this statement. Oral sex performed on a man as foreplay leading up to intercourse is not always lust. It can be lust, very easily, but not always.
Please provide your support ofr these statement. This is not Church teaching.
You cannot say things like this and make it sound like doctrine. You have no evidence to support your opinion. Futhermore you are making assumptions about lust within a marriage.
I am beginning to think so too.
I disagree. I think its a very important topic and people need to see both sides in order to make their own judgements. Why should we be afraid to discuss sex? It’s a beautiful gift from God. There is nothing dirty or immoral about married sex and we should not feel shame discussing it. If we adults can’t discuss it amongst ourselves, how can any of us pass information on to our children? The world is screaming illicit sex is okay but here we are discussing married sex and you want to shut it down?
Oral sex/stimulation within the marital act, of course, and regarded in the proper way.
So you’re saying a woman should just let her husband have an orgasm without even trying to satisfy her sexually? Have you ever read Theology of the Body? Why shouldn’t a husband even attempt to make his wife orgasm? If he didn’t that would seems like a selfish man.I’m sorry but this sounds like it’s right out of the pages of some Betty Friedan manifesto. It sounds like the twaddle you hear on Oprah or Donahue. If physical satisfaction is what determines whether the marital act is fulfilling, or fair(whatever that means) then I think our priorities are terribly confused.
I know how He would react in my bedroom. I have always known, even the very first time this “act” was tried.
How?
Sorry. Never said that. I think it’s unnatural and un-holy. Entirely different.
I’m sorry but this sounds like it’s right out of the pages of some Betty Friedan manifesto. It sounds like the twaddle you hear on Oprah or Donahue. If physical satisfaction is what determines whether the marital act is fulfilling, or fair
If you are content with having your husband do his thing, rolling over, and going to sleep, good for you. No one is saying you should do anything you are uncomfortable with.
However for many of us women, it takes a lot longer. Our husbands WANT us to enjoy the FULL fulfillment and having us do so makes THEM happy too. If both parties are enjoying that and it ultimately ends with man inside woman, no harm is done, and in fact, quite the contrary, deep love is expressed.
I know how He would react in my bedroom. I have always known, even the very first time this “act” was tried.
Ok. Good for you. However, in my bedroom, God’s reaction is quite different! How do I know? It has brought us closer.
How?
Sorry. Never said that. I think it’s unnatural and un-holy. Entirely different.
That is entirely YOUR OPINION, and no one should make you do anything you are not comfortable with. However, many others disagree, INCLUDING popes and other theologians! Many find it no more unnatural than kissing a neck, the chest, a stomach, the small of the back, or a leg. As long as the man finishes in the woman and both parties are happy with it, there is nothing wrong with it.
To add to the quote above, i’d append it with the thought that not that both parties are not just “happy” with it, but are sacramentally fullfilled by it.
Good explanation.I would think it simply boils down to the difference between “oral SEX” and “oral STIMULATION”, as has been said here in this thread. I believe oral sex implies reaching stimulation until climax, a substitute, if you will, to actual sexual intercourse. That, obviously, is wrong on all fronts, because it is neither procreative/open to life nor the sacramental joining of husband and wife.
Now, oral stimulation is a different matter. As one poster said above, it is easy for this to fall into lust. However, just as with kissing and touching, it is the responsibility of the couple to be loving and giving and one, and not to fall into the sin of lust. Is there any church doctrine or teaching that says a part of the body is “unkissable” (as Christopher West put it) ? Again, just as kissing and touching can be temptations to lust, yet they still can be and usually are a part of the marital act, so too could the idea of oral stimulation fall into the same category: be cautious, be holy.
Its tough, really. The sad truth is much of the imagery of oral stimulation does derive from our society’s tolerance of pornography, wild media, etc. These images are most likely (and hopefully) a far cry from the gentleness and the care and the love that exists in the bedroom of a married couple. But, since this imagery and these ideas are rooted in sinful imagery, it can be very tough to place it in the proper context. hence why it must be such a tricky discussion, as found in this forum.
ok, finished my ramble, there might be some 2 cents in there
Please cite where I said that.
Yes. For you and everyone else who uses this writing by JPII as an apologetics tract for oral sex/stimulation or every other sex act, please cite the statements to support this assertion.
Where did I say a husband should be unwilling to please his wife? The fact that you would assume oral sex is the only way to achieve this is very disturbing indeed.
I did. Many posts back.
First, I have no problems with this. I did not pose the question nor do I torment myself over whether or not such acts are “allowed”. Evidence has indeed been presented.
The quote (closely) comes to what an Archbishop told Fr. Stan Fortunado when he asked the AB what was allowed in the marital embrace.
StratusRose,
Perhaps you did not mean this post the way that it sounded to me. But you seem to be telling the other poster to “warn” his intended that he will not be able to “please” her.
This last part is where my question lies. Is there support for the idea that there is a time after which the male is required to to achieve orgasm. I am still trying to see if there is support for the earlier comment that: