oral sex with my wife ok?

[Mirror_Mirror]

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

This is getting absurd.

This one? :banghead:

This one? http://bestsmileys.com/frustrated/4.gif

This one? http://bestsmileys.com/frustrated/2.gif

This one? http://bestsmileys.com/frustrated/6.gif

 

[JenniferMoon]

Thanks! Those will do nicely!:tiphat:

 

[Seatuck]

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.

I don’t know how this came to be about but I know you are correct that some Priests used to teach oral sex was wrong. I had some seminarians look it up in their texts many which were older than Vat 2. Heribet Jone’s Moral Theology is one if you can find a copy. He clearly does not say that oral sex is wrong.

Sex was created for man and women as a sign of their marital union . That is why homosexual sex is wrong. The biological fitting while makes sense isn’t the main arguement for why homosexual sex is wrong. It is because the sexual act must be unitive and procreative at it’s climax. Which of course eliminates oral sex as a means to an end which is what has been said ad nauseum in this thread.

 

[JenniferMoon]

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

I didn’t want this post to go unnoticed. You are so right on. I am sure others here, like myself, do appreciate those two cents.

I think people do keep using the term oral sex (which is wrong) with oral stimulation (which is okay so long as it leads to vaginal sex, climax…oh goodness how many times has this been repeated? lol)

Anal sex, which keeps being brought into the discussion, is essentially a *mockery of the sex act *that God intended. It has no place in the discussion at hand.

 

[Pious_Mat]

So maybe I was wrong. Still, I feel a little hesitant about accepting oral stimulation as unsinful, since, as has been admitted numerous times here, it can often lead down a slippery slope to a deeply offending mortal sin, that is, full blown fellacio.

But I am not a married person, and therefore do not have first-hand experience of conjugal love. I do know that in order for a couple to love each other unconditionally, their physical expression of that love must be completely mutual and open to new life. If oral stimulation helps this, and does not directly contradict Church teaching, I suppose that I ought to withdraw my criticism.

However, before I come out in full blown support of oral stimulation, I would really like to see a quotation from a prominent person in the early church regarding this, since they gave very specific instructions on things such as abortion, homosexuality, etc., etc. I know that since oral sex was extremely taboo in Ancient Rome, we may not find any, but it’s at least worth looking for, isn’t it? Also, I’ve been wondering about where St. Thomas Aquinas fits into this. What say we apply his theories on sex to this situation?

Just looking for answers, not for a fight,

Mat.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

So maybe I was wrong. Still, I feel a little hesitant about accepting oral stimulation as unsinful, since, as has been admitted numerous times here, it can often lead down a slippery slope to a deeply offending mortal sin, that is, full blown fellacio.

But I am not a married person, and therefore do not have first-hand experience of conjugal love. I do know that in order for a couple to love each other unconditionally, their physical expression of that love must be completely mutual and open to new life. If oral stimulation helps this, and does not directly contradict Church teaching, I suppose that I ought to withdraw my criticism.

However, before I come out in full blown support of oral stimulation, I would really like to see a quotation from a prominent person in the early church regarding this, since they gave very specific instructions on things such as abortion, homosexuality, etc., etc. I know that since oral sex was extremely taboo in Ancient Rome, we may not find any, but it’s at least worth looking for, isn’t it? Also, I’ve been wondering about where St. Thomas Aquinas fits into this. What say we apply his theories on sex to this situation?

Just looking for answers, not for a fight,

Mat.

Theology of the Body by the late great Pope John Paul II.

 

[blessedtoo]

Theology of the Body by the late great Pope John Paul II.

He’s hardly an “early Church Father”.

Can someone please cite from this document where JPII states that oral activity is acceptable (my first request was ignored)?

 

[Backforgood]

Like many men I suffer from retarded ejaculation. If you don’t know what that is, a quick bit of googling should explain all. But basically it means when a man finds it difficult to ejaculate.

If a Catholic couple have a husband with retarded ejaculation then I cannot accept that their intercourse (by which I mean gentital-genital sex, not oral or anal sex) is wrong, as long as the intention is there to ejaculate.

As regards oral sex and other stimulation as a lead up to the sex act, for RE sufferers it is often the case that such stimulation as part of lovemaking will help to overcome the problems with ejaculating later from genital-genital intercourse. There is therefore an argument in such cases not just from saying that such stimulation is not sinful, but that to refrain from it would be sinful, as reducing the chances of ejaculation/procreation.

I’m sorry if some folks might think the above is too much information, but I think it is important that this condition be understood (I suspect it’s more common than folks may think), and with a little more sympathy than a blanket condemnation of intercourse without ejaculation would suggest.

 

[CuriousInIL]

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.

I see no support for that step in your argument either in scientific fact or in Church teaching.

 

[CuriousInIL]

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!

Not snarky at all. I was wondering what point, if any, you thought that covered and now you have answered that. Personally, I wouldn’t use it for support because it is fundamentally flawed in many respects. But, it does contain the quote you quoted.

 

[Miserissima]

With some research, I found that this topic has been hotly debated in Catholic circles for a long time. Please forgive me if I sound redundant. I’m trying to tie my thoughts together on this.

We all agree that sex is a sign of love between a man and a woman. This love must be a)freely given to each other, b)complete and total, c)faithful, and d)open to life. The question is: where, if at all, does oral stimulation fit into this?

Well, in Karol Wojtyla’s book, “Love and Responsibility,” he explains that men, by their nature, usually experience sexual orgasm much sooner than women. Although it would be best for both to climax at the same time, husbands are encouraged to help their wives to attain climax as well.

In order to be procreative there MUST be an orgasm.

Specifically regarding a man’s orgasm, he should only ejaculate inside of a woman to fulfill the requirement that coupling is procreative. Drawing on this point, a woman’s orgasm could never be strictly called procreative. However, as JenniferMoon pointed out earlier that a woman’s orgasm is a great aid in procreation – since it helps to draw sperm into the uterine cavity. Therefore, a woman’s orgasm does play a large part in the procreative act. So, a woman’s orgasm does bear directly on the procreative function, in a secondary capacity.

Now, since the man’s orgasm is fulfills the man’s role in the mutual act of procreation, how much does a woman’s orgasm fulfill the unitive aspect of the conjugal love? I was thinking of the ‘traditional’ complementarian roles that men and women have in a marriage, and how this can apply to the marriage act itself:
If a man’s orgasm is 80% procreative (physical, eros) and 20% unitive (psychological, ethos), then a woman’s orgasm is 20% procreative and 80% unitive to the overall marital act.

But both partners have to realize that their intent to give/receive pleasure in the sex act is based on giving of themselves, sharing a gift from God, and not an entitlement. So, the intent behind oral stimulation (just as in every sexual act) needs to be correct: the giving and receiving of pleasure is a gift of the giver, not a right of the receiver. Therefore if either of the couple believes that climaxing is a right, or the sex act itself is a prerogative, then they are is only using their partner as an object and are undermining the unitive aspect of coupling.

Physical expression in spousal relationships should never be “let me get from you,” but “let megive to you.” This intent maintains the dignity of the spouses, and negates the idea of “perversion” from oral stimulation. There is no form of selfishness, objectification, self-indulgence, or self-gratification in selflessly giving or graciously receiving such a gift, when there is the proper intention behind it, and “finishes in the right way.”

However, before I come out in full blown support of oral stimulation, I would really like to see a quotation from a prominent person in the early church regarding this, since they gave very specific instructions…
Mat.

The closest reference I can find is Pius XI: Casti Connubii #59: “For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”

Also, I’ve been wondering about where St. Thomas Aquinas fits into this. What say we apply his theories on sex to this situation?

I am looking at some quotes here but they all refer to oral sex, not oral stimulation. You may want to look here. If you scroll down to where Nicole Oresme is quoted, it may help a bit.

EDITED TO ADD: here is a link to Extracts from Summa Theologiae II-II at the Medieval Sourcebook. I’ll check it out and check back here later.

 

[Miserissima]

Also, I’ve been wondering about where St. Thomas Aquinas fits into this. What say we apply his theories on sex to this situation?

Here may be one allusion to oral stimulation (not oral sex):

ST II-II, 153, 2 Wherefore just as the use of food can be without sin, if it be taken in due manner and order, as required for the welfare of the body, so also the use of venereal acts can be without sin, provided they be performed in due manner and order, in keeping with the end of human procreation.

Aquinas seems to be talking about vague sexual acts with as means to their “natural” end. My below excerpts from **ST II-II, Question 154, Article 1: Whether six species are fittingly assigned to lust? ** I believe, are applicable (please note that I did not quote in full and all emphasis are mine, taken from here):

*Objection 5. ** Further, the Apostle says (2 Cor. 12:21): “Lest again, when I come, God humble me among you, and I mourn many of them that sinned before, and have not done penance for the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness that they have committed.” Therefore it seems that also uncleanness and lasciviousness should be reckoned species of lust, as well as fornication.
…
I answer that…the sin of lust consists in seeking venereal pleasure not in accordance with right reason. This may happen in two ways. First, in respect of the matter wherein this pleasure is sought; secondly, when, whereas there is due matter, other due circumstances are not observed.
…
Now this same matter may be discordant with right reason in two ways. First, because it is inconsistent with the end of the venereal act. On this way, as hindering the begetting of children, there is the “vice against nature,” which attaches to every venereal act from which generation cannot follow…

*Now, keep in mind that oral stimulation is not oral sex (i.e. does not bring a man to climax), and therefore there is no worry about it being an act from which “generation cannot follow.” I continue citing:

**Reply to Objection 5. ** As a gloss says on this passage, “uncleanness” stands for lust against nature, while “lasciviousness”…would appear to pertain to seduction. We may also reply that “lasciviousness” relates to certain acts circumstantial to the venereal act, for instance kisses, touches, and so forth.

Let’s clarify that Aquinas defines seduction later in Article 6 Objection 1 as a man seducing a virgin, or fornicating singles. Therefore, as I posited earlier, such acts are circumstantial to the marriage act are done with right reason (openness to life, etc) and careful intent as to not objectifying one’s partner, they are not sinful.

 

[Miserissima]

To continue:

Article 4, Whether there can be mortal sin in touches and kisses? Answer: I answer that, A thing is said to be a mortal work/sin in two ways. First, by reason of its species, and in this way a kiss, caress, or touch does not, of its very nature, imply a mortal sin…Secondly, a thing is said to be a mortal sin by reason of its cause: thus he who gives an alms, in order to lead someone into heresy, sins mortally on account of his corrupt intention. Now it has been stated above…that it is a mortal sin not only to consent to the act, but also to the delectation [pleasure] of a mortal sin. Wherefore since fornication is a mortal sin, and much more so the other kinds of lust, it follows that in such like sins not only consent to the act but also consent to the pleasure is a mortal sin. Consequently, when these kisses and caresses are done for this delectation [only enjoyment; pleasure], it follows that they are mortal sins, and only in this way are they said to be lustful. Therefore in so far as they are lustful, they are mortal sins.

We know that kissing (in a romantic sense) can be a near occasion of sin, but only to those who are a) unmarried and b) perpetrated on the unwilling spouse. I include the next point for those who may think that Aquinas is

**Article 11. Whether the unnatural vice is a species of lust?**I answer that, As stated above (A6,9) wherever there occurs a special kind of deformity whereby the venereal act is rendered unbecoming, there is a determinate species of lust. This may occur in two ways: First, through being contrary to right reason, and this is common to all lustful vices; secondly, because, in addition, it is contrary to the natural order of the venereal act as becoming to the human race: and this is called “the unnatural vice.” This may happen in several ways. First, by procuring pollution, without any copulation, for the sake of venereal pleasure: this pertains to the sin of “uncleanness” which some call “effeminacy.” [masturbation] Secondly, by copulation with a thing of undue species, and this is called “bestiality.” Thirdly, by copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female, as the Apostle states (Romans 1:27): and this is called the “vice of sodomy” [homosexuality]. Fourthly, by not observing the natural manner of copulation, either as to undue means, or as to other monstrous and bestial manners of copulation [anal sex, fetishes].

Between married couples and with the guidelines laid out before, oral stimulation can be in keeping with the end of human procreation. With right reason as Aquinas explains, these acts are not sinful within the unitive marital embrace.

 

[Ziggamafu]

All sexual actions outside marriage are wrong.

All sexual actions within marriage are right, provided both spouses find the actions unitive and that no such actions intentionally lead to the man’s pollution (climax outside of the vagina).

If, once the marital act is finished, it has been unitive and procreative, it is totally encouraged, blessed, and awesome.

Have fun. Sex is neither a bad word nor a dirty little secret. If you feel it is, maybe you should be a religious.

 

[mamacita]

I see no support for that step in your argument either in scientific fact or in Church teaching.

**
How can it be Procreative if the husband does not have an orgasm? Can you please answer that? Unless of course there is a disability involved… **

 

[Miserissima]

**
How can it be Procreative if the husband does not have an orgasm? Can you please answer that? Unless of course there is a disability involved… **

I think curious is making a flippant argument and means to say that a man does not always need to be able to ejaculate to introduce sperm into the woman. The chances are slim, but it is still possible if if the act is inturrupted or the male spouse “withdraws.” If that’s not the question, then I still don’t understand.

 

[JenniferMoon]

Miserissima, your posts were beautifully written and I enjoyed reading them. Thank you!

 

[CuriousInIL]

**
How can it be Procreative if the husband does not have an orgasm? Can you please answer that? Unless of course there is a disability involved… **

Ask those innumerable couples that became pregnant without a male orgasm.

 

[CuriousInIL]

I think curious is making a flippant argument and means to say that a man does not always need to be able to ejaculate to introduce sperm into the woman. The chances are slim, but it is still possible if if the act is inturrupted or the male spouse “withdraws.” If that’s not the question, then I still don’t understand.

That is not all of it. It seems to me that the “requirement” for a male orgasm blurs the line between an objectively procreative act and a subjectively procreative act and thus would have far reaching bad consequences in other areas of sexuality. I am trying to see if anyone can defend the idea of a requirement of a male orgasm without throwing other issues into disarray.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

Ask those innumerable couples that became pregnant without a male orgasm.

How is that possible? Aside from artificial insemination? Please site this and provide support for your statement.

I am still unsure what the basis is for your side. Could you please do us a favor an provide a concrete example of when the male orgasm is not required in the marital act? Aside from the couple being interrupted by some unforseen event.