oral sex with my wife ok?

[CuriousInIL]

I agree. It has crossed the line from merely ridiculous into the absurd. There’s nothing left to discuss if one side refuses to even use the proper terminology and insists on throwing in a sex act that is a perversion of the marital union (anal sex).

I’m done too.

Sad tho, because Catholic marital sex is a beautiful thing and should be discussed, but not if one side can’t support their argument.

I am sorry that so many people here cannot discuss this or other matters without reverting to the idea that there are sides. (Something I am guilty of myself.) Let’s all try to reduce this to person to person discussion and edification and not side to side arguments.

 

[CuriousInIL]

See, I agree that almost all that can be said has been said. We looked at Scripture, contemporary Catholic Literature as well as early Church Fathers. We’ve quibbled over terminology as well as having shared highly sensitive personal information about our selves and our sexuality.

A agree that we’re beating the proverbial dead horse to continue (unless someone has another resource or something else related to this topic), but the active and scholarly participation on this thread was/is in no was “ridiculous” or "absurd."

I agree totally with the last point.

 

[blessedtoo]

Sorry, had to add one more post.

Since when is Wikipedia a source for Catholic teaching or anything else for that matter?

You didn’t ask for a souce for Catholic teaching. You asked this:
**

I know that many states did ban anal sex, but has any state specifically banned oral sex?

I cited the Wiki souce which gave the answer.**

 

[blessedtoo]

Sad tho, because Catholic marital sex is a beautiful thing and should be discussed, but not if one side can’t support their argument.

I have repeatedly said I am stating my own opinion based on the sources that were provided earlier in this thread and on MY understanding of Catholic marriage. I have provided links to give an historical perspective on the issue of sodomy, which is defined as any sexual act that is not procreative, both oral and anal. I have not resorted to personal attack and insults like you and others on this thead. I have not called your relentless defense of oral “stimulation” ridiculous or absurd. I have not taken pleasure in “laughing” at your posts. I have tried to engage in a discussion based on logic with those who would claim with certainty that the Church approves of certain sexual acts where no clear teaching exists.

I also said this:

The individual couple should inform their conscience as fully as possible before automatically assuming that anything goes within the marital union.

So if you feel that you’re all squared away in the conscience department, then there should be no problem.

I also asked this twice:

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

Since this seemed to be the primary defense offered, one would think citing the quote from this document would be pretty easy. But alas, no response.

Just wanted to be clear about what is really going on here.

 

[Miserissima]

I have not called your relentless defense of oral “stimulation” ridiculous or absurd. I have not taken pleasure in “laughing” at your posts.

This is where I think you’re addressing me (although you may not have been), since I had written "…the active and scholarly participation on this thread was/is in no was “ridiculous” or “absurd.” I was responding directly to two posts (and a handful from earlier). Specifically: JenniferMoon (“It has crossed the line from merely ridiculous into the absurd”) and Yerusalyim (“My final word on this completely ridiculous thread”).

I am responding, and please forgive me if I have the proverbial wrong end of the stick, and ask your forgiveness if I have offended you.

I have tried to engage in a discussion based on logic with those who would claim with certainty that the Church approves of certain sexual acts where no clear teaching exists.

Since the teaching isn’t clear, then I think the participants here have laid a good outline for the defense of both positions.

I also asked this twice: Since this seemed to be the primary defense offered, one would think citing the quote from this document would be pretty easy. But alas, no response.

I answered that here. I believe people are referring to an earlier work of JPII, then Karol Wojtyla.

 

[Sure]

Blessedtoo,

I know of no such quotation from John Paul II. He doesn’t recommend the act, but his reasoning would seem to allow for it. You can keep searching but I know of no such quotation.

 

[blessedtoo]

This is where I think you’re addressing me .

I wasn’t addressing you, but thanks for the thoughtful reply.

I was addressing comments like these:

That’s your choice, but you’d really be missing out.

Make sure she knows this before you get married. Not many women can climax from just intercourse, and she deserves an orgasm just as much as you do.

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.

I think the problem is that you are uncomfortable with it and therefore you think that everyone else should be too even though you and the others have not presented one piece of evidence stating that it’s a sin.

it was ignored by the “oral stimulation is evil crowd”

This is getting absurd.

Blessedtoo, do you even know the difference between oral stimulation (within a loving marital union) and oral sex?

I had to laugh at this comment.Okay, this comment lets me know that you do not know the difference. I’m truly exhausted with trying to explain this over and over… ad nauseum.

Yes, I agree. I had to laugh as well.
This thread should be closed, we’re all just going in circles now. I don’t even bother replying to posts anymore because as the saying goes…you can lead a horse to water…
Done with this puritanical thread.

It has crossed the line from merely ridiculous into the absurd.

Reviewing this whole thread, it seems to me that a logical, rational discussion was attempted but was reduced to something filled with emotionalism. One has to question why people would become so irate over such a debate that they would request a thread closed.

 

[blessedtoo]

I answered that here. I believe people are referring to an earlier work of JPII, then Karol Wojtyla.

I read what you posted. Again, JPII does not anywhere in his document state that oral sex, stimulation, foreplay (whatever name you apply) is acceptable.

The links that were provided in this thread to support the OPINION that it is not acceptable have been summarily dismissed as being

…disingenuous and biased. Stating that oral sex will lead to lust is the definition of a blanket statement.

OR

I seriously doubt studies like these.

And instead, TOB continues to be put forth as a source for the acceptability of this particular sexual act:

“The Good News About Sex & Marriage” by Christopher West, a wonderful book that explains (in Q&A format) the Theology of the Body by Pope John Paul II

Christopher West’s books on JP II’s Theology of the Body.

Please refer to the teachings of the late, great JPII.

I am assuming that you have not read the Theology of the Body where Pope John Paul II talked specifically about this? You may want to look into it. Or you can simply review Christopher West’s Theology of the Body for Beginners that summarizes this teaching.

I think JPII stated in the theology of the body that it was not ok for a man to receive it from his wife, but ok the other way around,

You need to read Theology of the Body

Because this particular act was at one time considered at the least, immoral or at best, illegal (see post on sodomy) I think the burden of proof falls to those who, with certainty, proclaim it acceptable. Since TOB is the primary source quoted repeatedly, I simply asked where it specifically states this sexual act is now acceptable in a Catholic marriage. Apparently, it does not.

 

[blessedtoo]

The OP asked a simple question. I do believe he has received all the information possible to make an informed personal decision regarding this matter. In areas of sexuality where the specifics have not been clearly defined, it is vital to look at all sides of the issue.

I hope the discussion has been helpful for the OP.

 

[Miserissima]

The links that were provided in this thread to support the OPINION that it is not acceptable have been summarily dismissed as being

Gotcha! Thanks for clarifying your point for me. And I apologize if you felt that your points have been dismissed, or that you have been slighted in any way – I assure you, that in almost every post I looked for solid, concrete resources and I am satisfied with what I found.

I do agree with the premise of at least one of the quotes above, “Make sure she knows this before you get married. Not many women can climax from just intercourse, and she deserves an orgasm just as much as you do” I firmly believe that both spouses be on the same page as far as what is considered acceptable in the marriage bed. That should be addressed in Pre-Cana or in pre-marital counseling.

I read what you posted. Again, JPII does not anywhere in his document state that oral sex, stimulation, foreplay (whatever name you apply) is acceptable.

Which document? ToB or LAR? Because, in LAR, JPII does. (I did admit that it’s not in TotB, and referred you to LAR.) In the last section of LAR, titled Sexology and Ethics, he explains that a husband must take into account the different sexual arousal rate of his wife so that “climax may be reached by both the man and the woman, and as far as possible occur in both simultaneously.”

pp 270-274: Anatomically, a man must be conscious and wilful for sexual intercourse to take place, while a woman could be a passive recipient. Female arousal is a process which grows and diminishes more slowly than in a man. Since there is a moral requirement than the woman be fully involved, this requires considerable restraint and self-control on the part of the man. If a woman is not brought to orgasm and so to natural detumescence, there will be negative consequences both physiological (genital inflammation) and psychological (frigidity resulting from repeated lack of satisfaction). Feigning orgasm is counterproductive if a long-term trusting sexual relationship is to be maintained.

pp 274-276: It is clear, then, that what is needed is not so much training in technique as the fostering of a “culture of marital relations”, a culture in which mutual understanding, borne of education and a relationship of trust and good communication, comes naturally. The man must learn to offer his wife expressions of tenderness for the onset and decline of her arousal.

Yep, it’s in there. And the last sentence? That is foreplay. And afterplay.

In addition to quoting from LAR, I offered two explicit quotes from another Vicars of Christ, Pius XI, from Casti Connubii:

Marriage is a mutual commitment in which each side ceases to be autonomous, in various ways and also sexually: the sexual liberty in agreement together is great; here, so long as they are not immoderate so as to become slaves of sensuality, nothing is shameful, if the complete acts - the ones involving ejaculation of the man’s seed - that they engage in are true and real marriage acts.

AND:

#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.”

I even went through some of Aquinas’ Summa to explain that, with right reason, these acts are not sinful within the unitive marital embrace.

Because this particular act was at one time considered at the least, immoral or at best, illegal (see post on sodomy) I think the burden of proof falls to those who, with certainty, proclaim it acceptable. Since TOB is the primary source quoted repeatedly, I simply asked where it specifically states this sexual act is now acceptable in a Catholic marriage. Apparently, it does not.

You’re correct, which is why I discounted TotB and used at least three other resources: Casti Connubii, Love and Responsibility, and St. Thomas Aquinas. And yes, Christopher West’s book ON TotB addresses it, though it is only alluded to in TotB itself.

 

[StratusRose]

Blessedtoo,

How long did it take you to assemble that litany of quotes from Heathermoon and I?

Must have took a really long time.

Let’s face the facts here. There is no official church teaching on this subject. We have to consult our consciences. I stand by everything I said.

P.S. Don’t accuse us of being “emotional.”

 

[StratusRose]

I wasn’t addressing you, but thanks for the thoughtful reply.

I was addressing comments like these:

Reviewing this whole thread, it seems to me that a logical, rational discussion was attempted but was reduced to something filled with emotionalism. One has to question why people would become so irate over such a debate that they would request a thread closed.

Irate? Um, no. I don’t let threads like these ruin my day. I also don’t sit at my computer all day and come up with 1000+ word replies. It’s just not worth it. I can’t convince you and you can’t convince me.

I find it humourous that you say that you attempted a logical discussion when you cited that asinine article in an earlier post.

 

[Sure]

just to clarify…

I think what blessedtoo was looking for is a passage where JPII speaks about “oral stimulation or oral sex”. What you have quoted does not cover that. It does say that oral stimulation is incompatible, but it doesn’t address it specifically either.

 

[Delphinus85]

Why are hands off limits? Do we not use our hands to touch? Are they not used to convey physical sensation? Isn’t that a part of their natural function?

Mouths are not intended to be used as a substitue for the genitals. In fact, if people are really honest, it requires a good deal of “work” to overcome the natural distaste of mouth to genital activity. Postures required to engage in this act are a distraction from the unitive aspect of the marital act.
Really? Do you know every woman in the world? Silly.
No one has suggested the marital act must be devoid of stimulation. However the modern woman has been seduced by her culture to believe that it’s just fine to employ any means necessary to achieve that all important “fulfillment”. The fact is, the body is supremely trainable. You can train it to become so impervious to normal stimulation that it will require more and more intense and extreme measures to achieve it’s goal. Or you can train it to become equally sensitive to even the slightest touch.

The thing is, the mouth isn’t being used as a substitute for the genitals at all. It’s used for stimulation just like the hands are. Sex isn’t just about going inside your wife, it’s about the experience and the unitive nature, and the procreative nature. I have to be honest, I rather enjoy doing this to me husband because he really likes it, as stimulation. The thing is this though, the church DOES teach that it is perfectly acceptable for use as stimulation as long as it doesn’t end this way. So it really is a personal decision. If you don’t like it, don’t do it. Doesn’t mean other people can’t.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

The teaching of the Church is that oral stimulation is acceptable as forplay, as long as it culminates in the completed marital act.

God Bless

This is official Church teaching. There is nothing in Church teaching that give blanket condemnation of oral sex between a husband and wife.

ewtn.org/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=512184&Pg=Forum11&Pgnu=1&recnu=6

 

[Delphinus85]

Well we are entitled to our opinions. The mouth is not a sexual organ. Kissing is something totally different than sex.

So is oral stimulation. There is no way anyone can possibly compare oral stimulation to the power of sexual intercourse with one’s spouse. The simple thing is, hands are not sexual organs same as the mouth, yet we are allowed to use our hands to touch, but not our mouths? If you want to get into this psychologically you only need look at a child. When a baby picks up a toy new toy, what is one of the FIRST things he tries to do? Answer: put it in his MOUTH. Why? Becuase there are more nerve endings in the mouth. The infant can sense an object far better than holding it in his hands. We as adults know better than to put strange objects in our mouths, but the fact remains that the mouth is far more sensitive than the hands. Couples who have no issue with oral, can sense things in the same way as the hands as with the mouth. At the risk of being slightly inappropriate here, a person can touch and explore the genitals with their mouth more deeply than with their hands. There is an act of trust (think teeth, men) as well as close intimacy. It’s no different than the hands, and for couples that feel comfortable, it’s a more intimate form of stimulation and foreplay than just using the clumsy hands.

As with anything, it can be abused. But like with alcohol, just because something can be abused, doesn’t make it sinful. There is no law saying everyone MUST do it, but the church does say it is perfectly acceptable so long as it’s used for stimulation, and not a replacement to precreative intercourse. And that is the bind, keeping with precreation. Homosexuality is condemned because it is not life-giving. THeir method is totally irrelevant.

 

[Julian_Peters]

Thank you to all who have participated. This thread is now closed.