Y
YosefYosep
Guest
I was wondering what the Catholic Church’s actual view was on recreational sex within the context of marriage. In other words, is it still consider sinful if it’s within the context of marriage?
- Status
J
jimmy
Guest
No, it is fine.
Y
YosefYosep
Guest
By recreational I mean sex that is treated more as an activity than to produce life.
F
Francoist
Guest
If it is open to life (i.e. you’re not contracepting, etc.) then you’re fine.
J
jimmy
Guest
Yes, it is fine.
B
bzkoss236
Guest
Exactly, because recreational sex is unitive, and if open to life, you cover both aspects required in the marital embrace. You don’t have to be trying to have a baby every time you have sex, you just can’t prevent it from happening if it could happen (in other words, no using contraception).
R
R_C
Guest
“The secondary purpose of Matrimony is mutual help and the morally regulated satisfaction of the sex urge.” (“Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”, by Ludwig Ott)
Note well: morally regulated. Chastity is called for even in wedlock
C
ChibiViolet
Guest
If by “recreational,” you mean that a married couple is ONLY having sex for the physical pleasure of it than that is of grave matter as the spouses are lusting after one another–viewing one another as objects. The marital act is meant to be one of bonding at a profound level. I suggest you look into “Theology of the Body.”
J
jimmy
Guest
No it isn’t. Their sole purpose can be to enjoy sex if they want. It isn’t a sin.
C
ChibiViolet
Guest
What about marital bonding? What about real genuine LOVE? How does that come into play if spouses are looking at each other as one might look at a sex toy?
J
jpjd
Guest
With the bonds of marriage:
Sex is allowed to be fun. Fun sex does not equal lust. It is a pleasurable and emotionally unitive act that may result in procreation. As long as you do not frustrate the procreative aspect, sex may be recreational. Now, go have fun with your spouse.
Sex is allowed to be fun. Fun sex does not equal lust. It is a pleasurable and emotionally unitive act that may result in procreation. As long as you do not frustrate the procreative aspect, sex may be recreational. Now, go have fun with your spouse.
J
jimmy
Guest
Who says their looking at each other as sex toys? It doesn’t have to be about procreation. It can be simply about enjoying sex.
T
Tarpeian_Rock
Guest
So how does Ott define “chastity” relative to whether a couple is allowed to enjoy the marital act? Is the “chaste” performance of the marital act that which minimizes the pleasure of the couple? Or is “chaste” a function of frequency? His statement concerning the “morally regulated satisfaction of the sex urge” apparently doesn’t leave much room for “love” or the role love might play in a couple’s desire to be intimate.“The secondary purpose of Matrimony is mutual help and the morally regulated satisfaction of the sex urge.” (“Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”, by Ludwig Ott)
Note well: morally regulated. Chastity is called for even in wedlock
U
underacloud
Guest
“The secondary purpose of Matrimony is mutual help and the morally regulated satisfaction of the sex urge.” (“Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”, by Ludwig Ott)
Note well: morally regulated. Chastity is called for even in wedlock
I took that to be refering to what St Paul said: “it is better to marry than to burn with passion”.
That is, marriage *is *the morally acceptable way to satisfy the sex urge.
Noting that yes we still need to be chaste within marriages; eg not lust after our own spouses, not seek sex at the expense of other duties.
E
epan
Guest
I am curious about this topic. On the one hand, I think that anything which contributes to the sexual energy and intimacy of the relationship will ultimately enhance the procreative aspects and the “unitive” effect.
Having said that, I can think of many examples of erotic activity which serve this end, but which might seem lustful.
How does one reconcile this?
Having said that, I can think of many examples of erotic activity which serve this end, but which might seem lustful.
How does one reconcile this?
J
jpjd
Guest
Sex toys and lust are about satisying your sexual urges without regard to who or what is doing the satisfying. The act is only about satisfying yourself.
Sex with one’s spouse, and fun sex at that, involves giving pleasure and receiving pleasure and it is the person you are doing that with that matters because of your love for each other. This is not the same thing as lust.
Sex with one’s spouse, and fun sex at that, involves giving pleasure and receiving pleasure and it is the person you are doing that with that matters because of your love for each other. This is not the same thing as lust.
B
bzkoss236
Guest
I would say that as long as the erotic activity is put toward bringing the couple closer and what they are doing is open to life, then it is fine.
M
Moore11
Guest
recreation.
Re: meaning to do again.
Creation: meaning to create.
Kinda funny when you think about the way the OP asked and the procreative aspect of Holy sex.
Re: meaning to do again.
Creation: meaning to create.
Kinda funny when you think about the way the OP asked and the procreative aspect of Holy sex.
B
bzkoss236
Guest
Lol, are you suggesting that the real definition of recreational activity is to try and create again? (implying that they have tried to create before) So, recreational sex would be sex in which parents are trying to have another child?recreation.
Re: meaning to do again.
Creation: meaning to create.
Kinda funny when you think about the way the OP asked and the procreative aspect of Holy sex.
Lol. This does make me wonder the origins of the word.
C
ChibiViolet
Guest
You totally misunderstand the point I was trying to convey. I never said sex was not allowed to be fun–just that it should not be ONLY about fun.
- Status