Recreational Sex

[underacloud]

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.

If a couple bonds by having fun, then having sex for fun meets the unitive (bonding) purpose of sex.

In fact, if sex is fun for both spouses, I fail to see how it could not be bonding for them. We bond with family and friends by enjoying fun activities/past-times together. Sex is a unique way in which a married couple can have fun together and thereby bond. I can’t even think of how my wife and I could have fun sex without it being bonding.

 

[Widge]

Of course sex can be for fun and bonding just think of all the older married couples who are still having sex although there is no change of procreation but love remains!

 

[admonsta]

I can think of two examples of where it would not be unitive within a marriage.

1. Where one spouse doesn’t care whether the other is enjoying themselves. (disclaimer - I think there would be times where one spouse doesn’t enjoy it, but it is still unitive because the other does care, and tries to be considerate).
2. Where there is abuse or force used.

 

[R_C]

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.

Ott doesn’t go into detail or speak of chastity. He speaks of “morally regulated satisfaction”.

Some quotes from the Catechism:

Married people are called to live conjugal chastity.

Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being.

The virtue of chastity therefore involves the integrity of the person and the integrality of the gift.

Chastity includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery which is a training in human freedom. The alternative is clear: either man governs his passions and finds peace, or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy.

The virtue of chastity comes under the cardinal virtue of temperance, which seeks to permeate the passions and appetites of the senses with reason.

Lust is a disordered desire for sexual pleasure. That is not true love.

To me, chastity in wedlock means mutual satisfaction rather than mutual temptation.

 

[Sister_Terese]

No it isn’t. Their sole purpose can be to enjoy sex if they want. It isn’t a sin.

Sorry. Sexual pleasure is a a by-product, so to speak. Love and uniting that love in a physical manner should be the motivating factor in marital sex. God made sexual intercourse pleasurable, but that is not tne purpose of sex even between husband and wife. Even married couples are called to live a chaste life–and that means that sexual pleasure is not the first goal of marital sex, but a by-product to physical expression of love. And, as others have said, using artificial birth control makes the sexual act in marriage sinful.

 

[underacloud]

Sorry. Sexual pleasure is a a by-product, so to speak. Love and uniting that love in a physical manner should be the motivating factor in marital sex. God made sexual intercourse pleasurable, but that is not tne purpose of sex even between husband and wife. Even married couples are called to live a chaste life–and that means that sexual pleasure is not the first goal of marital sex, but a by-product to physical expression of love. And, as others have said, using artificial birth control makes the sexual act in marriage sinful.

There is nothing wrong with seeking pleasure in marital sex.

This from the catechism:

The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation

Spouses do nothing wrong in seeking pleasure from sex. This is official Catholic teaching on the matter.

 

[brb3]

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.”

Does Theology of Body recommend 69 Position …as procreative ?

I’ll grant you its recreational …but, not procreative.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Does Theology of Body recommend 69 Position …as procreative ?

I’ll grant you its recreational …but, not procreative.

Theology of the Body touches on no such thing.

However, there is nothing in Church teaching that says 69 would be sinful as foreplay.

 

[epan]

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.

i don’t need to get graphic for people to know that sexual behavioral preferences can be quite varied. what excites someone else, might leave me cold or even feeling uncharitable.

but… if two people are into something, and it brings pleasure to them, does this not strengthen the marriage, and ultimately the procreative bond? so what if it involves sex toys, or some other non-mainstream behavior? as long as both are into it, then there is mutual respect and love, and not objectification and lust.

 

[Sister_Terese]

Theology of the Body touches on no such thing.

However, there is nothing in Church teaching that says 69 would be sinful as foreplay.

Well, this topic has certainly plunged into the bowels of decency… I’m outta here.

 

[YosefYosep]

So no means of contraception can be involved in marital sex? I think Onan could come into play here.

Genesis 38:9
Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

So no means of contraception can be involved in marital sex? I think Onan could come into play here.

Genesis 38:9
Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother.

How trustworthy is that story? I know that men sometimes married the widow of their brother, but why would he do that on the ground when he could have finished on the exterior of her body somewhere (there are lots of places to choose from)? Is it just me or does that sound unrealistic? If a man has the option, what kind of man would pick the ground?

 

[Edward_H]

No it isn’t. Their sole purpose can be to enjoy sex if they want. It isn’t a sin.

To be a bit clearer…each spouse should have as their intent to love God by making their spouse feel loved like no other. In this way we love God, and our other in union. A trinity of love is exchanged, as it were. A foretaste of divine unity.

Over the years, sadly, marital sex has been defined down to this mutual seeking of pleasure…an understood reciprocity, as opposed to a pure gift of self, without any expectation of gift or joy returned. No 50/50. 100, expecting nothing in return. Being just as happy in the pleasure of the other even if, for whatever reason, nothing comparable is returned.

We enter intimacy seeking only the purest good of the other, with no strings of reciprocity attached.

 

[PatriceA]

So no means of contraception can be involved in marital sex? I think Onan could come into play here.

Genesis 38:9
Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother.

I’m not quite understanding where you’re going with using Onan as an example. Are you trying to find approval for contraception for married couples?

 

[PJM]

=YosefYosep;10504293]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?

The Catechism of the CC teaches that married sex has TWO purposes.

Procreation

Unification / bonding

SO LONG as sex is OPEN to the possibility of life; sex is recogonized for what it ought to be. VERY enjoyable for BOTH spouces.

 

[YosefYosep]

I’m not quite understanding where you’re going with using Onan as an example. Are you trying to find approval for contraception for married couples?

Oh no I’m trying to get an understanding of the Church’s view on contraception or preventing impregnation.

 

[PJM]

=jpjd;10504867]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.

WELL DONE:thumbsup:

Thank you

 

[brb3]

Theology of the Body touches on no such thing.

However, there is nothing in Church teaching that says 69 would be sinful as foreplay.

Why don’t u put that question to Pope Francis…or Benedict 16.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Why don’t u put that question to Pope Francis…or Benedict 16.

Because I don’t have their phone numbers?

Besides, I don’t have a reason to believe the practice is immoral, so I don’t know why I would bother asking. If I had the Pope’s contact information, there are zillions of questions I would ask before that one!

 

[Sister_Terese]

Oh no I’m trying to get an understanding of the Church’s view on contraception or preventing impregnation.

You identify yourself as a Catholic yet you don’t have any idea what the Church’s teachings are on contraception?? If you are honestly unsure, I would suggest you join an adult catechism class or consult with your confessor or another orthodox priest rather than bringing these types of questions to an online website.