F
- Status
M
Mirror_Mirror
Guest
I would pose this question:
If pleasure is not a part of the marital embrace then why does the Church “allow” and JPII taught that the husband can bring his wife to orgasm after they have had sexual intercourse with the husband’s ejaculation inside of his wife? This is still a part of the marital embrace and still a part of the unitive aspect, obviously not the procreative. It seems like this is still for pleasure, correct?
Just came to my mind today.
If pleasure is not a part of the marital embrace then why does the Church “allow” and JPII taught that the husband can bring his wife to orgasm after they have had sexual intercourse with the husband’s ejaculation inside of his wife? This is still a part of the marital embrace and still a part of the unitive aspect, obviously not the procreative. It seems like this is still for pleasure, correct?
Just came to my mind today.
F
Feanaro
Guest
D
Dan_Grelinger
Guest
It appears that you are using purpose and result somewhat synonomously. They are two different words with two different meanings. Much of your response indicates that since pleasure is a natural result, it is a purpose.
Purpose differs with respect to perspective. What was the purpose of Jesus’ death? If you ask God or Jesus, you will get one answer. If you ask the Jews who crucified Him, you will get another. Both perspectives are correct. The Jews DID put Jesus to death to silence Him. That was their purpose. God DID allow Jesus to die, so that we may gain salvation. Would the Jews agree that THEIR purpose was to participate in the salvation of mankind? No, it was not their purpose. Was it a result? Yes. To speak of purpose then, as an absolute, will confuse, since it is not. However, results are not subject to perspective. For this reason, the poll will confuse.
If you would have asked if pleasure is a natural result, even a good one, during sexual relations, I believe all reasonable respondents would reply in the affirmative. If you ask if pleasure should be THE motivation, most reasonable readers will say no. If you say can pleasure be a motivation, subject (inferior) to the real purposes of sexual relations, again, I believe that reasonable respondants would say yes. These are much clearer questions, that dispense with the confusion that make the poll less valuable.
In summary. It is semantics, and I believe more precise words should be chosen for such a poll.
Dan
B
Black_Jaque
Guest
OK, if the purpose of food is for nourishment, there may be situations where we must eat food solely for nourishment, even though we do not enjoy it. Certain survival situations come to mind where people are reduced to eating bugs.
Can the same be said for marital relations?
In order to keep the marriage alive, should we just do it anyway?
Can the same be said for marital relations?
In order to keep the marriage alive, should we just do it anyway?
D
Dan_Grelinger
Guest
What is marriage, and what do we vow? We vow to give our bodies unconditionally to our spouses. We also know that properly ordered sex is sacred, that is, it confers grace. Part of God’s blessing (grace) is that spouses who ‘do it’, reap emotional benefits as well, and are more likely to provide good environments for raising their children. And lastly, but certainly not least, God’s command was to go forth and multiply, to work with Him in creating new life to honor, adore, and please Him.
Wouldn’t the answer then be a resounding yes? Wouldn’t ‘no’ be a denial of God’s command, His grace, and His will? Assuming that the question is at all applicable to a particular circumstance.
Dan
F
Feanaro
Guest
C
chevalier
Guest
It cannot be the primary purpose of sex because the biological purpose of sex is procreation. It’s not like the pleasure was given “first” and procreation added as a price to it. Sex is a procreative thing which brings pleasure. And unites spouses. I don’t buy the idea that God gave us sex so we could have genital pleasures. He gave us sex so we could multiply and He made it unitive and pleasurable. But to claim that pleasure is somehow primary to procreation and union, or even on an equal level, would be silly, in my opinion. And certainly the teaching of the Church mentions two purposes: procreation and union.
**
2) 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?**
Not every intercourse has to be intended for breeding offspring, although every single one must be open to it in the sense of no artificial barriers (NFP too needs a good cause). I suppose much depends on how we define pleasure. Experience of a loving union is different from pleasure in the sense of pursuit of carnal sensations. Lust in marriage is possible. Apart from lust per se, I think the focus on one’s own pleasure, one’s rights (the whole pursuit of pleasure thing), is unhealthy, not an intended state, and may be detrimental to the unitive aspect. It’s definitely a tough task to draw a line, but I believe that focusing on the pleasurable genital sensations is a sad reality and especially if it starts overweighing other things.
I think if one looks for selfish pleasure, then the unitive aspect may not remain intact. This may be the reason why you received so many no’s to your second question. The kind of pleasure that endangers the unitive aspect (selfish), doesn’t leave the unitive aspect intact.
But this is tricky: selfish or self-giving is not a question of fulfilling a list of prerequisites. It’s about the attitude. Material acts or non-acts such as doing this or not doing that, won’t make the attitude non-issue. So I think the question is of defeating egoism in sex.
Note that egoism does not preclude some exchange of services between egoistically behaving persons. Gain-gain is still about gain. Give-give is what we need. Doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy what we get or look forward to it. But it’s always about persons, not about our favourite activities or being serviced or servicing someone. Serving is different from servicing.
D
Dan_Grelinger
Guest
When constructing polls, speaking in language that is clear to the largest audience brings the best results. Contemporarily, purpose and result are not synonymous. Clarity is always best.
I don’t believe so. If we both work for the same result, but have different reasons (purposes), then subjective and objective reality do not necessarily present us with two different views. I can know that you do something for a reason that is different from mine. Both of our subjective truths can be the same, and can agree with objective truth. We can know and accept each other’s purpose.
Dan
C
Chancellare
Guest
This is an interesting point.
I have 2 items on this:
- That being said, we must be certain of the purpose of sex, which is unitative, open to life and in a self-giving way. Attaining such purpose without pleasure does not diminish the success of the attainment. God only provided pleasure as a pleasant surprise.
- The concept of survival is also subject to contextual interpretation. Survival from what? Nominally, we associate survival in the physical sense, like beating the odds against cancer or staying alive after a few weeks in the desert without food or drink. But the spiritual context of survival is not so popular. All our worst case scenarios rarely consider what will be our chances of keeping our soul intact for heaven. When all else are lost, when all cards are down, we are supposed to take a heroic stand for purity and obedience to God’s commandments instead of the call of the flesh in world that glorifies the flesh and ridicules the pure of heart. This to my mind is the ultimate definition of survival.
S
searching06
Guest
So another question arises then in all of this - whether pleasure is a purpose or intended benefit, etc, it is there. So is there sin in wanting to make sex better for you and your spouse, via massage/sensual massage or using lotions and oils? All of these, and probably things I haven’t thought of, are used for giving to your spouse in making him/her enjoy the experience more and are very self-giving as well as your focus is your spouse.
I am thinking this goes back to whether pleasure is the first intent, or ultimately being open to life in the end. To me, it is enhancing foreplay and intimacy and the excitement of being with my wife, and her with me, leading up to intercourse.
I am thinking this goes back to whether pleasure is the first intent, or ultimately being open to life in the end. To me, it is enhancing foreplay and intimacy and the excitement of being with my wife, and her with me, leading up to intercourse.
M
Mirror_Mirror
Guest
To me, I do not see a problem with a sensual massage (with or without oils, etc) leading up to intercourse as we have mentioned. Again, I think that if the massage is a sensual one, meant to arouse your spouse that this can be part of the foreplay leading up to intercourse.
If you just give your spouse a sensual massage that would cause him/her to be aroused and then you stop at that, that may be equivalent to a near occasion of sin.
If you give a back massage, a foot massage, etc that they find pleasure in, but it does not “turn them on” I do not see that this would be sinful. Again, this is my opinion, not sure if there is specific Church teachings on this.
B
Black_Jaque
Guest
Soo. What you are saying is that there is something to be said for a husband and wife doing it every week whether they want to or not?
The presumption is generally that one partner wants to but the other partner doesn’t. But what if neither spouse is particularly motivated to initiate?
Is it good for a spouse to look back and say, “well it’s been over a week, I guess we better…”?
I guess I was speaking of survival of the marriage. If both partners experience a loss of interest. Is it wise to just do it anyway, for the sake of the marriage? Because it is objectively good. Even if neither spouse finds the experience that gratifying - they are still doing good.
C
Chancellare
Guest
The initiation of sex among animals is straightforward: biological urges. Pavlovian experiments tell us that pleasure and gratification determine behavioral conditioning. At that level there is not much you and I can add to the equation. Man can exist on that level or seek gratification at the spiritual plane.
This is where my thesis rests: Sex can be viewed at the sacramental level such that pleasure in the biological sense takes a back seat to spiritual gratification. This is when some people experience joy that is ‘better than sex’. The issue of “having sex every week” takes a back seat to “how am I giving myself to you in our relationship, honey?” When the spouses take this holistic view of their relationship, the initiation of sex is just one of the myriad things that they can do to each other to make their relationship “cool”. For example, it’s no longer a surprise when the wife was so pleased with the husband’s cooking that she gets sexually aroused and initiates sex or gives him a back massage instead because she knows what pleases him. In contrast, a couple who are constantly focusing on how many orgasms each can derive out of their union every week will always find themselves in a rut 99% of the time. This is what I mean with ‘going for the gravy instead of the meat’.
Survival of marriage is a function of the love between spouses. No amount of sex can save a marriage.
B
Black_Jaque
Guest
Right. When viewed on a sacramental level, one can engage in the activity because one knows it is good for them, even if the experience isn’t quite that.
Just as a person may not look forward to confession, or rush off skipping and jumping to fulfill their Sunday obligation, can spouses fulfill their marital obligation in the same way?
I don’t know where you keep associating this with some sort of animal behavior in which the spouses are seeking the pleasure. THAT’S FAR from what I’m suggesting.
Perhaps neither spouse seeks the pleasure of the embrace, but rather seeks the effects of the embrace. In much the same way as a neophyte Catholic may not seek pleasure in confession or mass, but seeks the beneficial effects of the sacrament.
D
drafdog
Guest
Voted “Yes” that pleasure is a purpose for sexual intercourse.
Voted “No” that it is not sinful to have sex for the purpose of giving pleasure to one’s spouse.
God made sex pleasurable for a reason. It does help pair bonding and it does keep the species going.
The couple in the Song of Songs never once mentions an intent to make babies. The song is about desiring the fulness of the other’s company. It is specifically and unabashedly sexual in content. The pleasure of sex is part of its sacramentality.
Matthew
Voted “No” that it is not sinful to have sex for the purpose of giving pleasure to one’s spouse.
God made sex pleasurable for a reason. It does help pair bonding and it does keep the species going.
The couple in the Song of Songs never once mentions an intent to make babies. The song is about desiring the fulness of the other’s company. It is specifically and unabashedly sexual in content. The pleasure of sex is part of its sacramentality.
Matthew
D
Dan_Grelinger
Guest
I still believe that semantics is a problem with this question.
Purpose, intent, result. Purpose can mean both intent and result, using contemporary meanings.
From dictionary.com
Purpose
My answer is no. And, I believe I used the most accepted definition for purpose in answering my question.
If the poll asked; Is pleasure in sex “5. practical result, effect, or advantage:”, then my answer would be yes.
Can I change my answer to first question of the poll to be “Yes and No”?
Dan
Purpose, intent, result. Purpose can mean both intent and result, using contemporary meanings.
From dictionary.com
Purpose
- the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc.
- an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal.
- determination; resoluteness.
- the subject in hand; the point at issue.
- practical result, effect, or advantage: to act to good purpose.
My answer is no. And, I believe I used the most accepted definition for purpose in answering my question.
If the poll asked; Is pleasure in sex “5. practical result, effect, or advantage:”, then my answer would be yes.
Can I change my answer to first question of the poll to be “Yes and No”?
Dan
D
Dan_Grelinger
Guest
By the way, some good discussion, thanks for starting the thread.
Public adulation is a ‘benefit’ of those making public charitable contributions. If one makes those contributions for **the purpose **of obtaining those adulations, are they just? What did Christ say about those that seek public adulation for their charity? But, what if they give for other ‘good’ reasons (like they want to love their neighbor), but receive adulation as a consequence, not because they sought it?
I am suggesting that pleasure in sexual relations are the same. They have primary purposes, as well as benefits that naturally follow. We should keep our eye ‘primarily’ on the primary purposes. But, we should also **fully accept **the benefits from God that we obtain by doing what’s right.
Dan
S
searching06
Guest
Song of Songs is about Christ and His church, God and His people, the Israelites. Yes, it talks about love and the body, but that is not the purpose or meaning.
B
Black_Jaque
Guest
Ha,ha,ha! I’m not advocating that we be totally foolish!But, we should also **fully accept **the benefits from God that we obtain by doing what’s right.
I’m just musing that suppose neither spouse has an appetite for the embrace for say, some weeks. It occurs to one spouse or the other that weeks have passed by since the last time. But they feel like “ah, so what. I’m not really in the mood anyway.” Do they let it go for several more weeks? Or could it be prudent to say it’s time to put an end to the dry spell?
They may know full well that if they engage in the embrace it will be pleasurable, but their desire for that pleasure just isn’t there.
Sort of like going to mass. You may sort of enjoy the time there, yeah, a little bit, but compared to going fishing - there’s just so many other good things to do… But you know you have an obligation to go to mass. So you go anyway. Not that you loathe the experience. Perhaps they sang a hymn you liked, but that wasn’t the reason you went. The reason you went is mostly because you had an obligation to fulfill.
Do married couples have some obligation to make love? Perhaps not just an obligation to themselves, but an obligation to society, or just as Catholics?
If we really understand the marital embrace as sacramental, then it has an affect which is independent of the experience of those engaged. A symbol only has affect when those gazing upon it understand the meaning of the symbol. However, a Sacrament has a real affect. It doesn’t matter what a person understands about the Eucharist, when they receive Him, the affects take place, because the Eucharist is more than a symbol.
- Status