Permissable sexual acts

[Voice_of_Reason_1]

You are correct that female orgasm is not required for an act of sexual intercourse to be open for life (although there are studies that suggest that the contractions of the uterus may aid in conception), but there are two aspects to sex- the procreative AND the unitive. No, the husband does not have to bring his wife to orgasm, but sex is supposed to be a way for a husband and wife to show their love for one another, and the loving thing for a husband to do is to bring his wife to orgasm if she is unable to during sex.

This is different because the male and female orgasm are different. One is necessary for creating new life, the other isn’t. But in both cases, it is only licit during an act of completed intercourse, foreplay included. The female orgasm occurring before or after intercourse does not affect her ability to conceive. The male orgasm occurring anywhere except his wife’s vagina renders the vaginal intercourse sterile- making it a sin.

Open to life: act must not be intentionally sterilized in any way- either birth control or ejaculation out side of vaginal intercourse (some of the basis for this is the story of Onan, who “spilled his seed” on the floor before in order to avoid giving his brother children by his widow)
Unitive: sex is an expression of love between a husband and wife. Now, I’m chaste so I can’t say from experience, but I get the feeling I wouldn’t feel very loved if my future husband was the only one who got to fully enjoy sex. Sex is meant to bring a couple closer together, a physical expression of their love. As I said, a husband does not have to bring his wife to orgasm, but what loving husband would deny his wife the full enjoyment of sex?

(unfortunately I have an early class tomorrow and must go to bed. I look forward to continuing this discussion later)

In one sense, there is no foul for a woman achieving an orgasm through cunnalingus because she does not have the capacity to “spill seed” or nullify the procreative aspect of sex (because the orgasm doesn’t first have the option of being necessary for it). On the other hand, oral sex for the woman is still completely ungeared towards procreation (which is necessary for conjugal duty, save for this arbitrary exception by Mr. West). Felatio is not geared towards procreation either, but it’s wrong for the simple matter-of-fact of “seed-spilling?” That seems a little petty (or at least harnasses a huge double standard). It’s not as if I don’t have a million of those guys swimmin’ around in there. Really, I could have a fresh batch cooked up in 10 minutes if the procreative act was in dire need of tending. In any event…

Spilling the seed must be an intrinsic evil in itself, because it cannot be evil for the sheer lack of procreative direction (because if that were the case, no exception could be made by God, or Christopher West, for the woman’s orientation towards intercourse, despite the intolerable circumstances).

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by whm
I am not sure that you are familiar with Catholic doctrine on marital love. The statement you make above is not at all accurate.

All of the above quotes except the last one relate to another comment you made about Church Doctrine.
To refresh your memeory you said this:
Originally Posted by Voice of Reason
I can’t imagine why God would unite two people, only to stifle their passion for one another (in whatever form it takes). Of course, the Catholic Doctrine is decidedly against the idea: if even so much as kissing is arousing, you’d better be trying to make a baby, at least in theory.

I bolded the first part to illustrate your misstatement about Catholic Doctrine. Catholic Doctrine is quite specific and documented, so if you wish to states omething as Catholic Doctrine I would ask you to provide your reference.

I underlined the second part because this is what you are declaring as being Catholic Doctrine. That somehow the Church disapoves of any type of arousal unless it is trying to make a baby. Such a statement clearly shows a complete lack of understanding of Catholic teaching.

As to the final quote (of mine) about sin or scandal, my post was intended to cover a very broad set of circumstances. For instance, people kissing in public is no problem, even a nice big kiss is generally fine, but “making out” in the middle of the mall is another matter.

Finally you assert that the Church has “no good reason” to forbid certain practices.
By who’s yardstick are their reasons not God?
Have you even studied why the Church teaches as she does?

You, who are not catholic, seem to take quite an exception to a teaching that you are not even bound by.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

In one sense, there is no foul for a woman achieving an orgasm through cunnalingus because she does not have the capacity to “spill seed” or nullify the procreative aspect of sex (because the orgasm doesn’t first have the option of being necessary for it). On the other hand, oral sex for the woman is still completely ungeared towards procreation (which is necessary for conjugal duty, save for this arbitrary exception by Mr. West). Felatio is not geared towards procreation either, but it’s wrong for the simple matter-of-fact of “seed-spilling?” That seems a little petty (or at least harnasses a huge double standard). It’s not as if I don’t have a million of those guys swimmin’ around in there. Really, I could have a fresh batch cooked up in 10 minutes if the procreative act was in dire need of tending. In any event…

Spilling the seed must be an intrinsic evil in itself, because it cannot be evil for the sheer lack of procreative direction (because if that were the case, no exception could be made by God, or Christopher West, for the woman’s orientation towards intercourse, despite the intolerable circumstances).

Voice -
You are getting all wrapped up in so much detail that it makes your (and my) head swim and only confuses teh essential truths of the matter.

Sex, by it’s very nature is designed for procreation. That is what it is for and that is why God made us with these faculties. The pleasure derived from sex is designed to encourage the “unitive act” for the purpose of procreation.
The Church, when looking at sex sees it first and foremost in this light. That is in the light why God provided us with reproductive organs. That is why the Church holds that sexual act should be open to procreation. Because that is why God made us this way.

It then looks at matters pertainling to that act and determines what disciplines a Good Christian should apply in order for the act to be pleasing to God.
Church teaching then stems from this.
Acts that unnecessarily or artifically block the act from being properly completed and open to life are deemed sinful.
Likewise acts that are inherently demeaning or hurtful are sinful.

As far as foreplay goes, it can go on for just 15 minutes before completion of the act, or it can go on, off and on for a week or even two weeks. This just depends on the individuals.

In short, instead of trying to analyze every possible combination look to the root basics of why the Church teaches as she does. This will help you sort out the other things more readily.

Peace
James

 

[Voice_of_Reason_1]

James,

I’m not a Catholic, anymore (that is not to say I am unversed or whathaveyou). And these possibilities and permutations are necessary for determining whether the source for a moral precept is sound at all angles - that is, whether it stands up to the rigorous demands of logic. I assure you, my head is not swimming. However, I’m not interested in having this conversation with you unless you acknowledge these permutations. If your saying all sexual acts must be geared towards intercourse, and Christopher West is making exceptions for women who don’t achieve orgasm; and the Catechism is stating that sex must entail both procreative and unitive components, then there is a lot of room for theorizing without a lot of homogeneity between Catholics. It’s a worthy point of contention, sex being as policed as it is in Religion (just my opinion on that last bit though; feel free to disregard it).

 

[JRKH]

James,

I’m not a Catholic, anymore (that is not to say I am unversed or whathaveyou). And these possibilities and permutations are necessary for determining whether the source for a moral precept is sound at all angles - that is, whether it stands up to the rigorous demands of logic. I assure you, my head is not swimming. However, I’m not interested in having this conversation with you unless you acknowledge these permutations. If your saying all sexual acts must be geared towards intercourse, and Christopher West is making exceptions for women who don’t achieve orgasm; and the Catechism is stating that sex must entail both procreative and unitive components, then there is a lot of room for theorizing without a lot of homogeneity between Catholics. It’s a worthy point of contention, sex being as policed as it is in Religion (just my opinion on that last bit though; feel free to disregard it).

Without getting into all of the other aspects, which make my head swim, let me just say that the highlighted portion above is not an exception. The act under consideration is permissable as part of the overall sex act just as most other forms of foreplay are permissable. That is to say it is part and parcel of the procreative act. If a woman wished for her husband to do this without completing the act it then becomes, not foreplay, but masturbation which IS sinful in all cases for it is an abuse of the procreative organs and their function.

That said, I do agree that I am not the one to continue this discussion with you.

Peace
James

 

[Voice_of_Reason_1]

Without getting into all of the other aspects, which make my head swim, let me just say that the highlighted portion above is not an exception. The act under consideration is permissable as part of the overall sex act just as most other forms of foreplay are permissable. That is to say it is part and parcel of the procreative act. If a woman wished for her husband to do this without completing the act it then becomes, not foreplay, but masturbation which IS sinful in all cases for it is an abuse of the procreative organs and their function.

That said, I do agree that I am not the one to continue this discussion with you.

Peace
James

Interesting. I would argue that kissing, if it is arousing, is just lower on the same continuum of masturbation. If it excites you to even an unconscious desire to fulfil an act of intercourse that you’re not going to, then it is a sin - which the Church is decidedly against. I really don’t think we’re saying different things here, although I admit, my wording isn’t flattering to the concept (and indeed I don’t try to make it that way; I find such inter-marital prohibitions to be ghastly!). It really doesn’t seem like God wants people to enjoy themselves, even when it does no harm; doesn’t change our psychological orientation towards Him. I find it perplexing and pedantic, but that’s just me.

 

[whm]

Interesting. I would argue that kissing, if it is arousing, is just lower on the same continuum of masturbation. If it excites you to even an unconscious desire to fulfil an act of intercourse that you’re not going to, then it is a sin - which the Church is decidedly against. I really don’t think we’re saying different things here, although I admit, my wording isn’t flattering to the concept (and indeed I don’t try to make it that way; I find such inter-marital prohibitions to be ghastly!). It really doesn’t seem like God wants people to enjoy themselves, even when it does no harm; doesn’t change our psychological orientation towards Him. I find it perplexing and pedantic, but that’s just me.

I think the intent is the key in the somewhat extreme example you are giving. If I understand what you are saying, it is essentially that if a man gets an E___ during kissing, hugging etc that if the do not complete the act they or at least he is committing a sin. Well as you well know most young men have almost no conscience control over having that happen and therefore can not be committing a sin.

The key here is if they are kissing or whatever with the direct intent to get an E___ and receive a level of sexual stimulation, without intending to have intercourse. This would be a sin, but seems to me would be a rare set a circumstances. I would contrast this to kissing your wife, even passionately before going to work, which with other forms of love respect and affection, are supportive and essential to a proper sexual relationship (and may support intercourse at a later time).

I guess a third scenario would be that one spouse gets “aroused” by kissing or whatever and the other spouse for reasonable reason (headache etc) does not consent. It this case there is no sin for the aroused spouse either.

“It really doesn’t seem like God wants people to enjoy themselves,”

In a way you are correct here, he does not want us to enjoy THEMSELVES as individuals, he wants us to united as one flesh and celebrate and enjoy each other out of love for the other not for oneself. The ultimate fruit of that love is new life, a combination of the two spouses.

 

[JRKH]

Interesting. I would argue that kissing, if it is arousing, is just lower on the same continuum of masturbation. If it excites you to even an unconscious desire to fulfil an act of intercourse that you’re not going to, then it is a sin - which the Church is decidedly against.

It could be depending upon the time frame and frame of mind involved.
For instance, in the case of a married couple with a healthy sex life, such kissing on Monday could be seen as light foreplay for intercourse on Saturday. You see the intent is key. So long as the stimulating activity is geared toward the procreative act then no sin is involved.

I really don’t think we’re saying different things here, although I admit, my wording isn’t flattering to the concept (and indeed I don’t try to make it that way; I find such inter-marital prohibitions to be ghastly!). It really doesn’t seem like God wants people to enjoy themselves, even when it does no harm; doesn’t change our psychological orientation towards Him. I find it perplexing and pedantic, but that’s just me.

I agree - It is hard to carry on these types of conversations on an open forum and communicate clearly.
Whm is doing a fine job though and I think I will leave you two to discuss further.

Peace
James

 

[StJudePray4Me]

Without getting into all of the other aspects, which make my head swim, let me just say that the highlighted portion above is not an exception. The act under consideration is permissable as part of the overall sex act just as most other forms of foreplay are permissable. That is to say it is part and parcel of the procreative act. If a woman wished for her husband to do this without completing the act it then becomes, not foreplay, but masturbation which IS sinful in all cases for it is an abuse of the procreative organs and their function.

That said, I do agree that I am not the one to continue this discussion with you.

Peace
James

The bolded statement was exactly what I was going to say.

I understand what you are getting at, Voice of Reason, but it seems to me that you have already decided that all of these “rules” are silly and “pedantic.”

To me, they make sense in light of the over arching concerns about sex – that it not be used for what the Church considers the wrong reasons. I don’t think it’s so much that God, or the Church, doesn’t want us to enjoy sex and foreplay and kissing, etc., so much as He doesn’t want us to forget what they are ultimately intended for.

I think that Catholics’ attitudes toward sex have been mocked a lot in popular culture, because sex has been cheapened so much. As long as our society continues to portray sex paradoxically as both “no big deal” – do it with anyone you want, any way you want! – and “what everything is all about/what everyone wants all the time” (in terms of sex being necessary in most TV, movies, advertisements, etc) the Catholic Church will continue to be made fun of for continuing to hold it as sacred.

I think the stereotype of Catholics being dried up, frigid and “thinking of England” in regard to sex is ridiculous - I know that many of my more devout friends who married as virgins and live according to Catholic doctrines have great sex lives! (us ladies talk, you know! LOL!)

 

[LionelZivan]

It really doesn’t seem like God wants people to enjoy themselves, even when it does no harm; doesn’t change our psychological orientation towards Him. I find it perplexing and pedantic, but that’s just me.

On the contrary, it does do harm.
If arousal and foreplay are not part of a loving and procreative act celebrated within a marriage, then you are placing pleasure above life. You are placing pleasure above God’s law, and even above God himself. Do it enough times and you’ve got a heart that’s hardened and is moving away from God as its center.