oral sex with my wife ok?

[Mirror_Mirror]

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

I am not sure that you are going to find a clearly defined line that says that after a husband and wife start kissing passionately that they must have sexual intercourse. That is something that the couple must determine for themselves. Again, I believe that it will fall back on the intent of the action.

If a husband were to go to his wife and start caressing her with the intent of having sexual intercourse and she welcomed that I feel that the sexual act has begun and the end result must be that he orgasms inside his wife. If she is not receptive to this, then the act ends and there is no “requirement.”

You must know for you and your spouse where that line is. I think that the old Van Halen song says it well “c’mon baby finish what you started.” If the act is started it must be completed. Again when the “act” starts must be determined on an individual basis and no one, not even the Church will give you any specific guidelines on that as it is too hard to define. There are times due to unforseen circumstances that would not allow the marital act to be complete.

 

[StratusRose]

StratusRose,

I really think that the view above is as bad as saying that oral stimulation is sinful even in the context of the marital embrace. Those who choose not to use oral stimulation as a means of foreplay are not missing out. They just have a different preference.

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.

When we approach dating in a loving way, keeping God’s will at the forefront, I cannot see that there is any sense in worrying about not being able to sexually satisfy the other after marriage. Preferences may be a topic for discussion, but I believe that, with intense love and a desire to do God’s will, any couple can learn to please each other – with or without oral stimulation.

God bless you.

You obviously did not not read this whole thread as these posts that you chose to nail me on have already been explained by other posters. And I still stand by my statement that if a man decides not to perform oral stimulation/sex on his wife, then she needs to know that. Sorry if you think that’s disturbing.

 

[StratusRose]

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.
presentationministries.com/brochures/OralSex.asp

Moreovere, I have repeatedly stated that this is MY OPINION. There is no official Church teaching on this issue, no matter how many people post their opinions as such.

There’s just no getting through to people sometimes. Another poster provided a link where Christopher West carefully explained this subject that is in line with Theology of the Body. Read it. I read the article you posted and found that it is mostly based on opinion and what the writer has heard about in other marriages. I find it very disingenuous and biased. Stating that oral sex will lead to lust is the definition of a blanket statement.

 

[JenniferMoon]

Hmmmm. How interesting that at the bottom of the article you linked you find this:

The Nihil obstat and Imprimatur are a declaration that a book or pamphlet is considered to be free from doctrinal or moral error. It is not implied that those who have granted the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur agree with the contents, opinions, or statements expressed.

I guess that means there could be another side in some other pamphlet, also not in error.

There’s just no getting through to people sometimes. Another poster provided a link where Christopher West carefully explained this subject that is in line with Theology of the Body. Read it. I** read the article you posted and found that it is mostly based on opinion and what the writer has heard about in other marriages. I find it very disingenuous and biased. Stating that oral sex will lead to lust is the definition of a blanket statement**

.

I agree.

 

[StratusRose]

Hmmmm. How interesting that at the bottom of the article you linked you find this:

I guess that means there could be another side in some other pamphlet, also not in error.

.

I agree.

Hmm, good point. I didn’t know that another person and/or organization besides the Pope could claim to be free of doctrinal or moral error. Isn’t that the definition of infallibility?

 

[JenniferMoon]

nds.edu/old/well-Palermo.htm

Am I the only one who read this??!

 

[StratusRose]

Am I the only one who read this??!

Nope, I read it too!

 

[ElizabethAnne]

You obviously did not not read this whole thread as these posts that you chose to nail me on have already been explained by other posters.

StratusRose,

It was never my intention to “nail” you, and I did read the entire thread (it took quite awhile!). If there is a place where you explained the posts, I missed it. If you feel that the topic has been already adequately addressed by other posters and that my comments were, therefore, unnecessary, then I disagree.

And I still stand by my statement that if a man decides not to perform oral stimulation/sex on his wife, then she needs to know that. Sorry if you think that’s disturbing.

Obviously this issue is of great importance to you, which, of course, is fine. That does not mean that other posters’ significant others feel the same way. I cannot remember discussing oral stimulation with my husband before we were married, and I do not have any regrets in the least.

 

[CuriousInIL]

I am not sure that you are going to find a clearly defined line that says that after a husband and wife start kissing passionately that they must have sexual intercourse. That is something that the couple must determine for themselves. Again, I believe that it will fall back on the intent of the action.

If a husband were to go to his wife and start caressing her with the intent of having sexual intercourse and she welcomed that I feel that the sexual act has begun and the end result must be that he orgasms inside his wife. If she is not receptive to this, then the act ends and there is no “requirement.”

You must know for you and your spouse where that line is. I think that the old Van Halen song says it well “c’mon baby finish what you started.” If the act is started it must be completed. Again when the “act” starts must be determined on an individual basis and no one, not even the Church will give you any specific guidelines on that as it is too hard to define. There are times due to unforseen circumstances that would not allow the marital act to be complete.

OK, we are narrowing in on the point here (although after review, I am wondering why you have been so responsive to an inquiry that started with a comment by pig boy). What is your support in Church teaching for the statement that I bolded? I have heard many say this, but as of now, I have not seen support for the concept.

 

[Pious_Mat]

If we say that oral sex is acceptable, then we essentially allow natural law to go out the window: one of the most convincing arguments at our disposal in arguing the immorality of homosexual sex is that the anus was not built to accomodate the penis. Nor, for that matter, is the mouth.

Also, if you would have asked your priest fifty years ago if oral sex was okay, he would have chastised you for even asking. Why, then, is it all of a sudden okay? Nearly two millenia worth of Catholic couples had perfectly functional marriages without it.

 

[CuriousInIL]

nds.edu/old/well-Palermo.htm

Am I the only one who read this??!

Nope, I read it too!

As did I. Is there a point or question beyond the roll call of those that read the article?

 

[CuriousInIL]

If we say that oral sex is acceptable, then we essentially allow natural law to go out the window: one of the most convincing arguments at our disposal in arguing the immorality of homosexual sex is that the anus was not built to accomodate the penis. Nor, for that matter, is the mouth.

Also, if you would have asked your priest fifty years ago if oral sex was okay, he would have chastised you for even asking. Why, then, is it all of a sudden okay? Nearly two millenia worth of Catholic couples had perfectly functional marriages without it.

Do you have any support for that last statement?

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

OK, we are narrowing in on the point here (although after review, I am wondering why you have been so responsive to an inquiry that started with a comment by pig boy). What is your support in Church teaching for the statement that I bolded? I have heard many say this, but as of now, I have not seen support for the concept.

Every act of sexual intercourse between a husband and wife must be:

#1 Unitive - uniting the husband and wife in a renewal of their marriage vows and,

#2 Procreative - open to new life

To be procreative the husband MUST orgasm/ejaculate inside of his wife’s vagina. If not, the act IS sinful (please refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church for this teaching). That is why you read the statement that it must be “completed.” Completed = the husband’s orgasm.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

If we say that oral sex is acceptable, then we essentially allow natural law to go out the window: one of the most convincing arguments at our disposal in arguing the immorality of homosexual sex is that the anus was not built to accomodate the penis. Nor, for that matter, is the mouth.

Also, if you would have asked your priest fifty years ago if oral sex was okay, he would have chastised you for even asking. Why, then, is it all of a sudden okay? Nearly two millenia worth of Catholic couples had perfectly functional marriages without it.

Have you read this thread?

 

[CuriousInIL]

Every act of sexual intercourse between a husband and wife must be:

#1 Unitive - uniting the husband and wife in a renewal of their marriage vows and,

#2 Procreative - open to new life

To be procreative the husband MUST orgasm/ejaculate inside of his wife’s vagina. If not, the act IS sinful (please refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church for this teaching). That is why you read the statement that it must be “completed.” Completed = the husband’s orgasm.

I just do not see that in the CCC. All that I see is the teaching that “To be procreative the husband MUST orgasm/ejaculate inside of his wife’s vagina” IF he orgasms. I just do not see the requirement for any orgasm.

 

[Catholic90]

Nearly two millenia worth of Catholic couples had perfectly functional marriages without it.

We have absolutely NO idea if this is even close to true! None. Zero.

There is no way you can make that statement and remain credible.

 

[patg]

If we say that oral sex is acceptable, then we essentially allow natural law to go out the window:

Please quote the natural law that is out the window…

Nor, for that matter, is the mouth.

Maybe yours isn’t, but…

Also, if you would have asked your priest fifty years ago if oral sex was okay, he would have chastised you for even asking.

Sorry, mine didn’t - but it was only 40 years ago so maybe that’s not valid.

Nearly two millenia worth of Catholic couples had perfectly functional marriages without it.

We’re waiting for those statistics…and just what pronouncement on this occured 2000 years ago? and what went on before that??

 

[JenniferMoon]

As did I. Is there a point or question beyond the roll call of those that read the article?

Are we getting snarky my friend?

The reason I inquired if anyone else had read it was because a) it was ignored by the “oral stimulation is evil crowd” and b) it proves my point!

In other words, as long as the oral stimulation serves an honorable purpose, namely, to help both of the spouses reach sexual climax through normal intercourse, it is permissible.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

I just do not see that in the CCC. All that I see is the teaching that “To be procreative the husband MUST orgasm/ejaculate inside of his wife’s vagina” IF he orgasms. I just do not see the requirement for any orgasm.

You have got to be kidding me. Let me simplify this even more for you. When you have sex with your spouse the husband MUST have an orgasm because the sexual act MUST be procreative. To have a procreative act you MUST HAVE an orgasm. It cannot be procreative without that.

If you have a specific example in mind then please provide that, but at this point I have told you and shown you how the Catholic church teaches that the act MUST be procreative and to be procreative the husband MUST have an orgasm.

Where do you not see the requirement? MUST be procreative? In order to be procreative there MUST be an orgasm.

 

[JenniferMoon]

Where’s the bang head here sign when we need it?

This is getting absurd.