A woman can - and should - enjoy the act of intercourse itself, which is open to the creation of new life, and which results in physical pleasure for the man she loves. She should not take pleasure from manual stimulation by herself or her husband, since it is solely about the satisfaction of lust.Yes, it is simply about pleasure, but not at all incompatible with Christian marriage. St. JP2 encouraged such, though I don’t think he was terribly detailed about how to go about it. If the woman doesn’t enjoy it, it won’t happen often. Which really isn’t going to help with the marriage or procreation much at all.
Not really, I think the idea of an orgasm that is triggered by my husband touching me down there and not from actual intercourse seems to me against the unitive nature of sex, just a selfish and lustful ‘quick fix’.The position that it is “OK” is on the understanding that it is occurring within the context of procreative sexual act. That act need not be deemed concluded at the moment of ejaculation. Bringing the wife to orgasm beyond that point is considered loving.
Orgasms contribute to the unitive purposes of sexual relations. Strengthening bonds of closeness and commitment to each other, quietening concupiscence, and so on.
Does that influence your thinking on the matter?
The choice is of course yours, but the view you’ve formed is at odds with what St JP2 himself wrote. Do also consider your husband’s natural desire to see you happy before rejecting his touch.Not really, I think the idea of an orgasm that is triggered by my husband touching me down there and not from actual intercourse seems to me against the unitive nature of sex, just a selfish and lustful ‘quick fix’.
The issue is in how you determine what is ‘foreplay’ a misleading, perhaps dangerous term, and what is masturbation or fornication? What if one orgasms unintentionally while being stimulated orally or manually? Such an event would be indistinguishable from what one would call mutual masturbation. To imply that ‘as long as the man eventually orgasms inside the woman’s vagina with the intention to procreate’ makes just about any preceding activity alright is to reduce the ethics of sexuality to the moment of ejaculation and subsequent fertilization. How is that any different from IVF? Masturbation is still gravely wrong if one doesn’t orgasm, so why is it given a free pass on the marital bed?The choice is of course yours, but the view you’ve formed is at odds with what St JP2 himself wrote. Do also consider your husband’s natural desire to see you happy before rejecting his touch.
I’m assuming you are currently single.
Are you aware that only about 20% of women are able to climax during intercourse?Not really, I think the idea of an orgasm that is triggered by my husband touching me down there and not from actual intercourse seems to me against the unitive nature of sex, just a selfish and lustful ‘quick fix’.
First, what happens unintentionally is of no consequence, and the fact that it was unintentional, preparatory to sex, would be sufficient to distinguish the acts from mutual masturbation.The issue is in how you determine what is ‘foreplay’ a misleading, perhaps dangerous term, and what is masturbation or fornication? What if one orgasms unintentionally while being stimulated orally or manually? Such an event would be indistinguishable from what one would call mutual masturbation. To imply that ‘as long as the man eventually orgasms inside the woman’s vagina with the intention to procreate’ makes just about any preceding activity alright is to reduce the ethics of sexuality to the moment of ejaculation and subsequent fertilization. How is that any different from IVF? Masturbation is still gravely wrong if one doesn’t orgasm, so why is it given a free pass on the marital bed?
I share Jobis’ suspicion about this idea of ‘anything goes’ foreplay. Surely there has to a boundary within which all things are occurring with respect to the natural conclusion rather than despite the natural conclusion? I mean if a bloke decides he wants to go to the loo, he doesn’t unzip in the kitchen, get everything out of the trunks along the hallway and merely be in the actual bathroom to urinate. Everything should be begun and ended within the confines of the sacred place its intended for. Anus’s and mouths aren’t the ‘rooms’ for foreplay. They have other dedicated and specific uses in the life of man.First, what happens unintentionally is of no consequence, and the fact that it was unintentional, preparatory to sex, would be sufficient to distinguish the acts from mutual masturbation.
Second, I wasn’t discussing foreplay as it happens. But rather stimulation post ejaculation to help bring the act, as the woman experiences it, to natural conclusion. It is not an act of stimulation isolated from the marital embrace (that would be masturbation) but tied to it.
How do you envisage marital relations working? No kissing, no hands, only necessary clothing removed? Genitals to come quickly into contact and then for the minimum time necessary to produce ejaculation? How clinical do you believe it needs to be to satisfy sexual ethics?
Fine, though that seems to have nil to do with the subject of my posts.I share Jobis’ suspicion about this idea of ‘anything goes’ foreplay. Surely there has to a boundary within which all things are occurring with respect to the natural conclusion rather than despite the natural conclusion? I mean if a bloke decides he wants to go to the loo, he doesn’t unzip in the kitchen, get everything out of the trunks along the hallway and merely be in the actual bathroom to urinate. Everything should be begun and ended within the confines of the sacred place its intended for. Anus’s and mouths aren’t the ‘rooms’ for foreplay. They have other dedicated and specific uses in the life of man.
Does your first sentence mean something more than your second?…Everything should be begun and ended within the confines of the sacred place its intended for. Anus’s and mouths aren’t the ‘rooms’ for foreplay.
A woman can - and should - enjoy the act of intercourse itself, which is open to the creation of new life, and which results in physical pleasure for the man she loves. She should not take pleasure from manual stimulation by herself or her husband, since it is solely about the satisfaction of lust.
Well yes I’m not promoting something the Puritans might. More the importance of preserving the ‘art’ of conjugal love as in keeping with the dignity of human beings. I honestly believe that the parameters of chaste conjugal sex can be clearly sensed within an unconditionally holy lifestyle.Does your first sentence mean something more than your second?