Role of Pleasure in Sexual Intercourse

  • Thread starter Thread starter Feanaro
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Feanaro

Guest
**This is a two part question.
  1. Do you think pleasure in sex is a purpose of sex?
and
  1. Do you think it is sinful to seek sex with ones spouse simply for pleasure, as long as the unitive and procreative aspects are kept intact?
Please explain your answers.
**
 
Feanaro said:
**This is a two part question.
  1. Do you think pleasure in sex is a purpose of sex?
and
  1. Do you think it is sinful to seek sex with ones spouse simply for pleasure, as long as the unitive and procreative aspects are kept intact?**
Click to expand...
  1. A: One of the purposes.
  2. A: No, I don’t believe it is sinful. I am assuming that by pleasure you do not mean lust.
 
The pleasure associated with sex has the same purpose as that associated with eating. It encourages us to take part in that activity. But, the pleasure cannot not really be seen as a purpose. It is more of a side-effect.

Since the marital embrace is a very holy act–one that is an integral part of a Sacrament–I think it would be wrong to make the side-effect the primary purpose, while making the actual two purposes coincidental effects.
 
I do think pleasure can be a good purpose for sex. When you love someone, you want to give them all the good things that you can. That is the nature of love.

By keeping the unitive and procreative aspects intact, I do believe it is fine to seek sex with one’s spouse for pleasure. I think honoring the unitive and procreative aspects of sex does help to ensure that the desire for pleasure does not lead to concupiscience.
 
dulcissima said:
I do think pleasure can be a good purpose for sex. When you love someone, you want to give them all the good things that you can. That is the nature of love.

By keeping the unitive and procreative aspects intact, I do believe it is fine to seek sex with one’s spouse for pleasure. I think honoring the unitive and procreative aspects of sex does help to ensure that the desire for pleasure does not lead to concupiscience.
Click to expand...
** Agreed.

I would also add that if you see procreation as the final end of intercourse and the unitive aspect as serving procreation, ( I.E. the unitive draws spouses closer together, thereby strengthening their marital bond and creating a more loving and stable environment for their children) you can also look at pleasure as serving the unitive aspect. It is in this regard that I see pleasure in sexual activity as a purpose and not just a side-effect.**
 
The Lord made sex feel good for a reason, just as He made setting oneself on fire feel bad for a reason. Seeking pleasure in one’s spouse is a good thing provided it’s not lustfully driven. Pleasure is not the purpose of sex, but hopefully a rather very nice consequence of it.
 
StCsDavid said:
The Lord made sex feel good for a reason, just as He made setting oneself on fire feel bad for a reason. Seeking pleasure in one’s spouse is a good thing provided it’s not lustfully driven. Pleasure is not the purpose of sex, but hopefully a rather very nice consequence of it.
Click to expand...
Exactly - there are specific parts of the anatomy of both men and women that were created and exist for no other purpose than to make sex pleasurable. No other animals that we’re aware of are anatomically designed in this way. Clearly pleasure is designed to be an integral part of sex, like all pleasures it can be misused of course, but isn’t wrong in itself.
 
Feanaro said:
** Agreed.

I would also add that if you see procreation as the final end of intercourse and the unitive aspect as serving procreation, ( I.E. the unitive draws spouses closer together, thereby strengthening their marital bond and creating a more loving and stable environment for their children) you can also look at pleasure as serving the unitive aspect. It is in this regard that I see pleasure in sexual activity as a purpose and not just a side-effect.**
Click to expand...
I think this is very well put. Everyone recognizes that one of the church-sanctioned ends of intimacy in marriage is to be unitive, but a whole lot of posts in various threads seem to think of the pleasure aspect as a “poor relative.” I don’t see how intimacy can be unitive without giving pleasure to the partners, so I think you’re quite correct in seeing pleasure as a purpose to the degree that it is inextricably bound up with the unitive aspect.
 
btw, I voted incorrectly in the poll since I misread the 2nd question the first time through. I voted yes/yes, when I should have voted yes/no.
 
I voted 1-Yes 2-No

This vote seems to be winning, so it’s the way most people think of it, and yet, the church says that pleasure is not important and not to be sought…correct? :confused:

Sex is all about pro-creation and unification…that’s all they say, and nothing about pleasure…:confused:
 
The ends of marriage are these (from the Baltimore Catechism):


  1. *]To enable the husband and wife to aid each other in securing the salvation of their souls;
    *]To propagate or keep up the existence of the human race by bringing children into the world to serve God;
    *]To prevent sins against the holy virtue of purity by faithfully obeying the laws of the marriage state.

    Bishop Fulton Sheen says regarding those who seek it simply for pleasure:

    “That is not love- that is sin; that is “sex”; that is selfishness.”

    catholicmil.org/html/fultonsheen.php?id=323
 
Feanaro said:
**This is a two part question.
  1. Do you think pleasure in sex is a purpose of sex?
I agree with your earlier comment about pleasure leading to unity.**

and
  1. Do you think it is sinful to seek sex with ones spouse simply for pleasure, as long as the unitive and procreative aspects are kept intact?
I’m not sure how one would seek sex solely for pleasure and not also experience the unity without it being selfish and/or lustful.

If one seeks to have sex with their spouse with the primary focus of pleasure for themselves it usually still becomes self-giving and/or unitive during the actual lovemaking. So I guess one could seek out sex for pleasure as long as that doesn’t remain the main focus.
Click to expand...
 
I subscribe to the idea that the unitative purpose of sex includes pleasure as a collateral, and not the other way around.

The other element that is not too popular is the value of giving up pleasure as means to accomplish mortification.

I still have to see a saint canonized for seeking corporal pleasure as a means to spiritual growth.
 
Sexual response and pleasure is a gift and not sinful in anyway (as long as both partners are consenting and such)
 
Chancellare said:
I subscribe to the idea that the unitative purpose of sex includes pleasure as a collateral, and not the other way around.

The other element that is not too popular is the value of giving up pleasure as means to accomplish mortification.

I still have to see a saint canonized for seeking corporal pleasure as a means to spiritual growth.
Click to expand...
Although I agree that mortification and the idea of salvific suffering are great tools to help us grow spiritually and should be focused on more in this day and age, I see them more as personal acts. For example, when we fast we impose this on our self whereas to impose fasting on another person I would see as uncharitable, even if two people happen to be fasting at the same time.

I say this for the following reasons. The nature of sexual union involves two people becoming one in body, mind, and soul. Pleasure in intercourse, whether you see it as it’s own purpose or not, is intrinsically linked to unity. Therefore, I see the intentional withholding of pleasure from oneself to affect the unity of the act.

Now, as a man I should seek to please my wife in all things and vice versa. I believe that intercourse is no different. We should always be seeking to please the other rather than seek pleasure for ourself, but we should also be willing to receive pleasure from the other person as a gift. If I am trying to please my wife and she is not willing to receive that pleasure from me, then in a way she is withholding a part of herself from me. In this situation I see the unity of the act as being violated.
 
Feanaro said:
**This is a two part question.
  1. Do you think pleasure in sex is a purpose of sex?
and
  1. Do you think it is sinful to seek sex with ones spouse simply for pleasure, as long as the unitive and procreative aspects are kept intact?
Please explain your answers.
**
Click to expand...
Explanations of my vote:
  1. No. Pleasure should not be the only ‘purpose’. Pleasure is the reward for good deeds. Putting pleasure first, above procreative AND unitive aspects appears, by its very intent and action, to lead to objectivation of the spouse.
  2. Yes, but perhaps not seriously so. Because of reasons stated to question one. If you love your spouse as we are called to do by God, to place their benefit simply as a consequental result of our intent and action to just satisfy ourselves would be immoral.
Dan
 
shadow_fire said:
Sexual response and pleasure is a gift and not sinful in anyway (as long as both partners are consenting and such)
Click to expand...
Wrong. Not because the first part of sentence is incorrect, but because the part in parenthesis includes all sorts of horrible sins. “Partners”, oh my. “Consenting”, oh my. The very errors that God teaches us is not in our best interest. We have an owners manual. Not to follow it is error.

Dan
 
Feanaro said:
**

Now, as a man I should seek to please my wife in all things and vice versa. I believe that intercourse is no different. We should always be seeking to please the other rather than seek pleasure for ourself, but we should also be willing to receive** pleasure from the other person as a gift. If I am trying to please my wife and she is not willing to receive that pleasure from me, then in a way she is withholding a part of herself from me. In this situation I see the unity of the act as being violated.
Click to expand...
I agree with the part on giving and receiving pleasure. That is the norm in a symmetrical world.

My thesis is somewhat another step further:
The giving is unconditional such that the object of my love is also free to withold or accept at her pleasure (no pun intended). What pleases her is more important than what I perceive it to be.

Exchange of person (as opposed to exchange of goods and services) must be ready to accept asymmetry.
 
Chancellare said:
I subscribe to the idea that the unitative purpose of sex includes pleasure as a collateral, and not the other way around.

The other element that is not too popular is the value of giving up pleasure as means to accomplish mortification.

I still have to see a saint canonized for seeking corporal pleasure as a means to spiritual growth.
Click to expand...
Great points. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top