Sexual concessions to married couples and homosexuality

[fpt]

The right on the body, the right to the body, the right of the body are still existing? What is the nature of those rights? What are the constitutive elements of those rights? A right for one of doing or of receiving??? An obligation for the other of doing, of receiving and of letting to do !!! What is the natural moral regime of those rights?

The natural moral regime of sexual foreplay, that is the great question!!!

 

[clem456]

A person does not have a “right” to pleasure.
Pleasure is a natural part of a loving and properly ordered relationship (it can also be part of a disordered relationship.)

Obviously, a couple that loves one another and wants the best for each other wants to enjoy each other in the way that God intended. Patience and consideration in the sex act definitely contribute to the good of a properly ordered sex act. Pleasure serves the good, it is not a right, or an end in itself.

 

[fpt]

A person does not have a “right” to pleasure.
Pleasure is a natural part of a loving and properly ordered relationship (it can also be part of a disordered relationship.)

Obviously, a couple that loves one another and wants the best for each other wants to enjoy each other in the way that God intended. Patience and consideration in the sex act definitely contribute to the good of a properly ordered sex act. Pleasure serves the good, it is not a right, or an end in itself.

In the context of the marital act, each spouse has the natural obligation of means to please and to satisfy the other,*** in the human fashion, in respecting the natural moral order of the marital act.*** Each one is here for giving and receiving conjugal sexual pleasures and conjugal orgasms. An obligation of means for each one to be an active lover on the other for reaching* the conjugal joys of the union of bodies.*

Each one has to try to provoke the physical natural emotions in favor of the other.

 

[fpt]

A person does not have a “right” to pleasure.
Pleasure is a natural part of a loving and properly ordered relationship (it can also be part of a disordered relationship.)

Obviously, a couple that loves one another and wants the best for each other wants to enjoy each other in the way that God intended. Patience and consideration in the sex act definitely contribute to the good of a properly ordered sex act. Pleasure serves the good, it is not a right, or an end in itself.

Do you know that the couple has the natural moral right of making love for seeking of conjugal pleasures and conjugal orgasms, if the material order of the marital act is respected? The union of bodies, with the only intention of getting the conjugal joys of the union of bodies is not sinful, per se. That intention is totally morally good.

 

[fpt]

A person does not have a “right” to pleasure.
Pleasure is a natural part of a loving and properly ordered relationship (it can also be part of a disordered relationship.)

Obviously, a couple that loves one another and wants the best for each other wants to enjoy each other in the way that God intended. Patience and consideration in the sex act definitely contribute to the good of a properly ordered sex act. Pleasure serves the good, it is not a right, or an end in itself.

Are you against the notion of the marital debt with all the moral regime that she implies? The right to the body, the right on the body, the right of the body, the donation / the reception of bodies, the sexual rights on the body of the other, the wife’s body is the husband’s body, the husband’s body is the wife’s body, the sexual privileges of each one on the body of the other, the rights to give conjugal sexual pleasures and conjugal orgasms to the other, the rights to receive conjugal sexual pleasures and conjugal orgasms from and by the other. *The marital debt is one of elements of the marriage. The marriage implies many sexual vows, in favor of the other. *

The fact of neglecting his wife, sexually speaking, without fair reason is morally wrong, in two levels,** in the quantity and the quality. **The fact of neglecting her husband, sexually speaking, without fair reason is morally wrong, in two levels, in the quantity and the quality.

Philosophically speaking and theologically speaking, I have some questions:

What are the conjugal sexual pleasures? A goal, a right, an obligation of means, a purpose, an objective, an end, a finality, a tool and / or a mean ??? What are the conjugal orgasms? A goal, a right, an obligation of means, a purpose, an objective, an end, a finality, a tool and / or a mean???

Each one has the natural moral obligation of means, coming from the marital contract, to try to be a good lover.

 

[clem456]

Do you know that the couple has the natural moral right of making love for seeking of conjugal pleasures and conjugal orgasms, if the material order of the marital act is respected? The union of bodies, with the only intention of getting the conjugal joys of the union of bodies is not sinful, per se. That intention is totally morally good.

It’s not about pleasure being moral or immoral. It’s about the word “right”. Pleasure is not a “right”, that’s all.

 

[fpt]

It’s not about pleasure being moral or immoral. It’s about the word “right”. Pleasure is not a “right”, that’s all.

You need to know that the moral order of the sexual intercourses between husband and wife is composed by moral suborders coming from the different elements of what the marriage is. The mariage is, in the same time, an a sexed and sexual institution, a sexed and sexual contract, a sexed and sexual consortium and a sexed and sexual covenant between two persons. Each one of them has it own moral order, thus the articulation has to be done what is very difficult to understand in the details with all the subtleties. The type of this institution/contract/consortium/covenant is a donation and a reception of human persons in the sexed alterity and in the sexed complementarity, for making one flesh: body, heart and soul. Each spouse is held of respecting the rights of the other, the obligations of the other, the duties of the other, the roles of the other, the functions of the other, the competences of the other, the competencies of the other and the responsibilities of the other. Thus, there are: the moral order of the sexual intercourses between husband and wife coming from the institution; the moral order of the sexual intercourses between husband and wife coming from the contract; the moral order of the sexual intercourses between husband and wife coming from the consortium; and the moral order of the sexual intercourses between husband and wife coming from the covenant.

In practice, in the context of the marital act, each spouse has the moral obligation to try to be the best lover in favor of the other: he or she has to be an active lover and a passive lover,* an obligation of means* for each, in order to permit to the other of getting the conjugal joys of the union of bodies.

The right of each member of couple to expect to receive the conjugal pleasures and the conjugal orgasms via the lovable actions coming from the conjugal lover. The obligation of means for one is the right to expect to receive from the other. The obligation of means for one is the right to expect to receive from the other. The conjugal pleasures and the conjugal orgasms of each one are provoked by the other and by the sexual cooperation. The right to the sexual cooperation exists. A bad sexual cooperation (no quality and no quantity) without just reason is morally wrong.

 

[fpt]

Some corrections

You need to know that the moral order of the sexual intercourses between husband and wife is composed by moral suborders coming from the different elements of what the marriage is. The mariage is, in the same time, an a sexed and sexual institution, a sexed and sexual contract, a sexed and sexual consortium and a sexed and sexual covenant between two persons. Each one of them has it own moral order, thus the articulation has to be done what is very difficult to understand in the details with all the subtleties. The type of this institution/contract/consortium/covenant is a donation and a reception of human persons in the sexed alterity and in the sexed complementarity, for making one flesh: body, heart and soul. Each spouse is held of respecting the rights of the other, the obligations of the other, the duties of the other, the roles of the other, the functions of the other, the competences of the other, the competencies of the other and the responsibilities of the other. Thus, there are: the moral order of the sexual intercourses between husband and wife coming from the institution; the moral order of the sexual intercourses between husband and wife coming from the contract; the moral order of the sexual intercourses between husband and wife coming from the consortium; and the moral order of the sexual intercourses between husband and wife coming from the covenant.

In practice, in the context of the marital act, each spouse has the moral obligation to try to be the best lover in favor of the other: he or she has to be an active lover and a passive lover,* an obligation of means* for each, in order to permit to the other of getting the conjugal joys of the union of bodies.

The right of each member of couple to expect to receive the conjugal pleasures and the conjugal orgasms via the lovable actions coming from the conjugal lover. The obligation of means for one is the right to expect to receive from the other. The conjugal pleasures and the conjugal orgasms of each one are provoked by the other and by the sexual cooperation. The right to the sexual cooperation exists. A bad sexual cooperation (no quality and no quantity) without just reason is morally wrong.

Morally speaking, each must attempt to be the best lover in favor of the other, in quality and in quantity. This right is not absolute, of course. But, each one is held to try to give the other what is possible to provoke: to do the best possible. Each spouse must try to act, objectively speaking, for permitting the reaching of the conjugal joys of the union of bodies. A husband has to try to satisfy his wife and vice-versa, sexually speaking, in the respect of moral order of the marital act. The obligations of means of each one still exist. The right of expecting to receive conjugal joys of the marital act, via the natural actions of the other, exists.

It is morally wrong for each one *of not doing something that deprives *the other of conjugal joys of the union of bodies, objectively speaking, without fair and real reason.

 

[edlinked]

My problem with what I think you are saying is that you put too much emphasis on the sensual part and the bodily part. In arousing , in stimulation, orgasm, giving me an idea that if I dont get that arousment I can’t have true love, or kind of reducing love to sexual actions. And that is not true. Sex values are only the material for love, they do not tend to see the true whole person, and they don’t affirm its true value. (Keep in mind that I am not saying they should be omitted, but they have to be subordinated to the value of the person). The sex act should be made in harmony, between man and woman and not with egoism. This is because the point is that both should be in it together. And if they tend to “use” each other is because of kind of a “side effect” of the sexual act that has its objective end in procreating.

It is clear that personhood and rationality generates morality.
The dignity of the person decides morality.
Ethics as a scientific system finds its confirmation in morality that corresponds to it. This becomes important because we need to understand where morality comes from and then where ethics comes in, in the equation. As we said ethics depends on morality, and morality is intertwined with love. They are related, as love is the way to act in relations between persons, and morality is decided by the dignity of the person. And remember what was said earlier by the late Holy Father: that love reveals the meaning of the person and, through the person, of all “flesh,” the whole of creation.

I assure you that stimulations (oral stimulation for example) apart from the sexual intercourse that directs itself to procreations are not obligations. Meaning that there is no truth that if they are not there true love will not be achieve. The only sexual act obligated is the one that gives rise to procreation directly. In fact you see it the other way, because true love can be there even without sex stimulations, or sexual intercourse. But off course in this case spousal love permits it (sexual intercourse) in the relation between man and woman, permits it only in marriage, but with responsibility, the responsibility to love the spouse. Because even in marriage, sexual intercourse if not controlled by the personalistic norm and love, it will show its utilitarian characteristic. Sexual values should be subordinated to the value of the person.
The obligations in marriage rely on reciprocal love, spousal love, not on sexual situations, off course sexual situations complement love but, don’t tend to love, don’t tend to the affirmation of the person. The existential end has to be based on love, and has to come from love.

That’s why a better approach is to see what objectively is love and then go from that.

I am not saying sensual values or pleasure are bad, as it isn’t, but you can’t forget that it tends to utilize (sensual part, the body), even if you don’t want it to, because that is its characteristic, and its abuse can be very easily done (so it needs love vividly alive in your conscience). Also pleasure is completely subjective which give rise to many problems. Pleasure as pleasure don’t turn to love, doesn’t tend to it naturally. Because love is something that you are constantly deciding. In fact “sexual love” turns to love because of the person, because of its reflection to the other person, not because he has a man body or she has a woman body (and they connect), that’s the sexual drive “the instinct”, I guess I could say the existential instinct.

“When the sexual drive is understood fundamentally as the drive toward delight, then the whole interiority of the person is thereby canceled.

A subject equipped with interiority as man is, a subject that is a person, cannot leave to instinct the whole responsibility for the drive, disposing himself only toward delight, but he must take up full responsibility for the way he uses the sexual drive. This responsibility constitutes the fundamental, vital component of mans sexual morality.

At first the union of persons, of a woman and a man, must be achieved by love, and then sexual intercourse between them can be an expression of this mature union.

A crystallizing center of the sensual affective erotic lived experiences, must be firmly joined in the consciousness and the will with the relation toward the value of the person—the person who in a sense provides the content of those lived experiences. Only then can one think about the union of persons and their belonging to each other. Without this, then, “love” has merely an erotic meaning and does not have the essential meaning—that is, a personal meaning: it leads toward a sexual union, but one that is not justified by a true union of persons. This situation has a utilitarian character…

The body should be humble toward the great affair of human happiness. How often does the body insinuate that by itself it possesses the key to the mystery of happiness. “Happiness” would then be identified with delight alone, with the sum of pleasures provided by the body and the sexus in the relationship between a woman and a man”.

 

[fpt]

My problem with what I think you are saying is that you put too much emphasis on the sensual part and the bodily part. In arousing , in stimulation, orgasm, giving me an idea that if I dont get that arousment I can’t have true love, or kind of reducing love to sexual actions. And that is not true. Sex values are only the material for love, they do not tend to see the true whole person, and they don’t affirm its true value. (Keep in mind that I am not saying they should be omitted, but they have to be subordinated to the value of the person). The sex act should be made in harmony, between man and woman and not with egoism. This is because the point is that both should be in it together. And if they tend to “use” each other is because of kind of a “side effect” of the sexual act that has its objective end in procreating.

It is clear that personhood and rationality generates morality.
The dignity of the person decides morality.
Ethics as a scientific system finds its confirmation in morality that corresponds to it. This becomes important because we need to understand where morality comes from and then where ethics comes in, in the equation. As we said ethics depends on morality, and morality is intertwined with love. They are related, as love is the way to act in relations between persons, and morality is decided by the dignity of the person. And remember what was said earlier by the late Holy Father: that love reveals the meaning of the person and, through the person, of all “flesh,” the whole of creation.

I assure you that stimulations (oral stimulation for example) apart from the sexual intercourse that directs itself to procreations are not obligations. Meaning that there is no truth that if they are not there true love will not be achieve. The only sexual act obligated is the one that gives rise to procreation directly. In fact you see it the other way, because true love can be there even without sex stimulations, or sexual intercourse. But off course in this case spousal love permits it (sexual intercourse) in the relation between man and woman, permits it only in marriage, but with responsibility, the responsibility to love the spouse. Because even in marriage, sexual intercourse if not controlled by the personalistic norm and love, it will show its utilitarian characteristic. Sexual values should be subordinated to the value of the person.
The obligations in marriage rely on reciprocal love, spousal love, not on sexual situations, off course sexual situations complement love but, don’t tend to love, don’t tend to the affirmation of the person. The existential end has to be based on love, and has to come from love.

That’s why a better approach is to see what objectively is love and then go from that.

I am not saying sensual values or pleasure are bad, as it isn’t, but you can’t forget that it tends to utilize (sensual part, the body), even if you don’t want it to, because that is its characteristic, and its abuse can be very easily done (so it needs love vividly alive in your conscience). Also pleasure is completely subjective which give rise to many problems. Pleasure as pleasure don’t turn to love, doesn’t tend to it naturally. Because love is something that you are constantly deciding. In fact “sexual love” turns to love because of the person, because of its reflection to the other person, not because he has a man body or she has a woman body (and they connect), that’s the sexual drive “the instinct”, I guess I could say the existential instinct.

“When the sexual drive is understood fundamentally as the drive toward delight, then the whole interiority of the person is thereby canceled.

A subject equipped with interiority as man is, a subject that is a person, cannot leave to instinct the whole responsibility for the drive, disposing himself only toward delight, but he must take up full responsibility for the way he uses the sexual drive. This responsibility constitutes the fundamental, vital component of mans sexual morality.

At first the union of persons, of a woman and a man, must be achieved by love, and then sexual intercourse between them can be an expression of this mature union.

By my different messages, i want only to say that each member of the couple is under the natural conjugal yoke of the other about the marital act. Each one can require a conjugal minimum and this minimum is not the simple coitus, of course. The unilateral refusal of sexual acts to give and to receive can be very problematic.

Per se, a spouse can not use the catholic morality in order to refuse to give or to receive sexual foreplay in the context of the marital act.

If a spouse refuses to touch the intimate parts of the other seen as sexual foreplay, because for this “particular spouse”, it is a masturbation, there is a great issue!!! By principle, each one can require to touch the other and to be touched by the other in the human fashion: there is a moral regime of the opposability of sexual foreplay. Of course nothing is absolute, but the rules are. What are those rules?

 

[fpt]

My problem with what I think you are saying is that you put too much emphasis on the sensual part and the bodily part. In arousing , in stimulation, orgasm, giving me an idea that if I dont get that arousment I can’t have true love, or kind of reducing love to sexual actions. And that is not true. Sex values are only the material for love, they do not tend to see the true whole person, and they don’t affirm its true value. (Keep in mind that I am not saying they should be omitted, but they have to be subordinated to the value of the person). The sex act should be made in harmony, between man and woman and not with egoism. This is because the point is that both should be in it together. And if they tend to “use” each other is because of kind of a “side effect” of the sexual act that has its objective end in procreating.

It is clear that personhood and rationality generates morality.
The dignity of the person decides morality.
Ethics as a scientific system finds its confirmation in morality that corresponds to it. This becomes important because we need to understand where morality comes from and then where ethics comes in, in the equation. As we said ethics depends on morality, and morality is intertwined with love. They are related, as love is the way to act in relations between persons, and morality is decided by the dignity of the person. And remember what was said earlier by the late Holy Father: that love reveals the meaning of the person and, through the person, of all “flesh,” the whole of creation.

I assure you that stimulations (oral stimulation for example) apart from the sexual intercourse that directs itself to procreations are not obligations. Meaning that there is no truth that if they are not there true love will not be achieve. The only sexual act obligated is the one that gives rise to procreation directly. In fact you see it the other way, because true love can be there even without sex stimulations, or sexual intercourse. But off course in this case spousal love permits it (sexual intercourse) in the relation between man and woman, permits it only in marriage, but with responsibility, the responsibility to love the spouse. Because even in marriage, sexual intercourse if not controlled by the personalistic norm and love, it will show its utilitarian characteristic. Sexual values should be subordinated to the value of the person.
The obligations in marriage rely on reciprocal love, spousal love, not on sexual situations, off course sexual situations complement love but, don’t tend to love, don’t tend to the affirmation of the person. The existential end has to be based on love, and has to come from love.

That’s why a better approach is to see what objectively is love and then go from that.

I am not saying sensual values or pleasure are bad, as it isn’t, but you can’t forget that it tends to utilize (sensual part, the body), even if you don’t want it to, because that is its characteristic, and its abuse can be very easily done (so it needs love vividly alive in your conscience). Also pleasure is completely subjective which give rise to many problems. Pleasure as pleasure don’t turn to love, doesn’t tend to it naturally. Because love is something that you are constantly deciding. In fact “sexual love” turns to love because of the person, because of its reflection to the other person, not because he has a man body or she has a woman body (and they connect), that’s the sexual drive “the instinct”, I guess I could say the existential instinct.

“When the sexual drive is understood fundamentally as the drive toward delight, then the whole interiority of the person is thereby canceled.

A subject equipped with interiority as man is, a subject that is a person, cannot leave to instinct the whole responsibility for the drive, disposing himself only toward delight, but he must take up full responsibility for the way he uses the sexual drive. This responsibility constitutes the fundamental, vital component of mans sexual morality.

At first the union of persons, of a woman and a man, must be achieved by love, and then sexual intercourse between them can be an expression of this mature union.

A crystallizing center of the sensual affective erotic lived experiences, must be firmly joined in the consciousness and the will with the relation toward the value of the person—the person who in a sense provides the content of those lived experiences. Only then can one think about the union of persons and their belonging to each other. Without this, then, “love” has merely an erotic meaning and does not have the essential meaning—that is, a personal meaning: it leads toward a sexual union, but one that is not justified by a true union of persons. This situation has a utilitarian character…

The body should be humble toward the great affair of human happiness. How often does the body insinuate that by itself it possesses the key to the mystery of happiness. “Happiness” would then be identified with delight alone, with the sum of pleasures provided by the body and the sexus in the relationship between a woman and a man”.

Two direct questions:

In the vows of the marriage on the marital act, each one agrees with the fact of being seen naked, touched, massaged, licked, sucked, aroused, excited and stimulated, in the human fashion on all the body, the primary erogenous parts and the secondary erogenous parts, by the other, in the love and in the tenderness??? Yes or No???

In addition the wife agrees with the fact of being penetrated vaginally by the penis of her husband and of receiving his ejaculation inside her, vaginally, and the husband agrees with the fact of penetrating his wife vaginally with his penis and of ejaculating inside her, vaginally??? Yes or No???

If the answers are negative, there is a great problematic, in my humble opinion!!!

 

[fpt]

My problem with what I think you are saying is that you put too much emphasis on the sensual part and the bodily part. In arousing , in stimulation, orgasm, giving me an idea that if I dont get that arousment I can’t have true love, or kind of reducing love to sexual actions. And that is not true. Sex values are only the material for love, they do not tend to see the true whole person, and they don’t affirm its true value. (Keep in mind that I am not saying they should be omitted, but they have to be subordinated to the value of the person). The sex act should be made in harmony, between man and woman and not with egoism. This is because the point is that both should be in it together. And if they tend to “use” each other is because of kind of a “side effect” of the sexual act that has its objective end in procreating.

I am not saying sensual values or pleasure are bad, as it isn’t, but you can’t forget that it tends to utilize (sensual part, the body), even if you don’t want it to, because that is its characteristic, and its abuse can be very easily done (so it needs love vividly alive in your conscience). Also pleasure is completely subjective which give rise to many problems. Pleasure as pleasure don’t turn to love, doesn’t tend to it naturally. Because love is something that you are constantly deciding. In fact “sexual love” turns to love because of the person, because of its reflection to the other person, not because he has a man body or she has a woman body (and they connect), that’s the sexual drive “the instinct”, I guess I could say the existential instinct.

“When the sexual drive is understood fundamentally as the drive toward delight, then the whole interiority of the person is thereby canceled.

A subject equipped with interiority as man is, a subject that is a person, cannot leave to instinct the whole responsibility for the drive, disposing himself only toward delight, but he must take up full responsibility for the way he uses the sexual drive. This responsibility constitutes the fundamental, vital component of mans sexual morality.

At first the union of persons, of a woman and a man, must be achieved by love, and then sexual intercourse between them can be an expression of this mature union.

A crystallizing center of the sensual affective erotic lived experiences, must be firmly joined in the consciousness and the will with the relation toward the value of the person—the person who in a sense provides the content of those lived experiences. Only then can one think about the union of persons and their belonging to each other. Without this, then, “love” has merely an erotic meaning and does not have the essential meaning—that is, a personal meaning: it leads toward a sexual union, but one that is not justified by a true union of persons. This situation has a utilitarian character…

The body should be humble toward the great affair of human happiness. How often does the body insinuate that by itself it possesses the key to the mystery of happiness. “Happiness” would then be identified with delight alone, with the sum of pleasures provided by the body and the sexus in the relationship between a woman and a man”.

***Because of many " wrong views " ***about the conjugal sexual pleasures and the conjugal orgasms from the marital act, or on the modus operandi of the marital act (in the past as today coming from thinkers, inside and / or outside of the Roman Catholic Church), the necessity of the valorization and even of exaltation of conjugal pleasures and co seems to me to be very important.

When you read the type of moral theology coming from Ronald Conte jr or other groups (you can search on the forum, there are many examples), that is so sad, so awful, so unnatural, so dehumanized, so angelic, not physical, not sexed, not sexual, not erotic, not sensual…etc. Each member of couple has to understand its rights, its obligations, its duties, its functions, its roles, its competences, its competencies and its responsibilities, in the details with all subtleties. In my messages, I am focusing on the pleasures and Co, because in the past as today, some persons have problems with that. The natural virtues and the supranatural virtues are for helping to make good choices and to be in the moderation.

By my sentences, I am talking about what is always morally wrong and only in function of circonstances. Thus, if a thinker makes a wrong identification in putting an act in the wrong place** (always morally wrong, but that it is good and can become wrong, only in function of circumstances), the understanding of the moral regime will be very difficult, and*** the real live, inside the couple, will be almost impossible.***

My aspect has to be studied, and yours also. It was not my study and my choice. Your message is a complement that is very important.

 

[edlinked]

Morality doesn’t reside in pleasure, this should be clear. Love also is not pleasure, it is far from it, in fact pleasure can even become anti love if you let it. The erogenous zones if stimulated can give pleasure regardless of love.

“Pleasure by its very essence is a good that is merely temporary, belonging solely to a given subject—its not a supra subjective or transsubjective good. So as long as this good is considered to be the complete basis of the moral norm, there can be no way of transcending what is good only for me. “

Yes the only obligated sexual act, is the vaginal penetration because that’s the only way to procreate. The couples understand that. So if they understand about that, they know that the body has a role, but then there is where love enters in the equation. In fact love should have entered it from before marriage. (The relation between persons is love, the summary of the commandments is to love like Jesus loves.) That is why sexual intercourse should only be done after marriage, because at that point love is suppose to have reach certain maturity between the couple. Where “sexual love” is not the primary reason, but procreation from the loving of persons, of a man and a woman. Love before marriage should help guard from the utilitarian property, as sexual intercourse wasn’t even in the mix. (You love the other because of the person.)

Affectivity leans on things about the person of the other sex not directed at the body (femininity, masculinity, etc). Tenderness enters in affectivity. Sensuality leans directly to the body and has a utilitarian characteristic. (It is said men tend to be more sensual and women tend to be more affective). Both of these constitute the subjective profile of love. Neither of them tend to the affirmation of the value of the person. So the most important part of love, is the objective profile, this takes what is the will and the human interiority (spirit) giving its personal character. This is the one that gives the affirmation of the value of the person, it is mainly a decision. (Love can be seen as an integration of love)

—You say:
Quote:
“”Per se, a spouse can not use the catholic morality in order to refuse to give or to receive sexual foreplay in the context of the marital act.””​

When is love something about owing things, worst if they are seen as sexual obligations. So because I am married you owe me this or that, isn’t that the utilitarian characteristic talking? The basic principle is giving yourself (spousal love), wanting the best for the other, sometimes more than for yourself. For me, if someone doesn’t want to do something (some sexual act), your love for the other will help you refrain from something the other person would believe it hurts him as a person (for the sense that you cannot state that my pleasure is more important than you, and in love, in spousal love that will not be a problem, because you want all the good for the person). Pleasure is not a problem for love, as love gives the proper value to the person, love knows that pleasure needs to be subordinated. Also, where is the love virtue, self mastery, the abstinence, the moderation, the temperance, sex cannot be as strong as to let you do something that could hurt the other person, just because it feels good (for a moment). As love wants the best for the other person, in fact as God is the “absolute good”, you will want God for the other. For example, I am a guy and I don’t think oral stimulation is needed or nice (in giving or receiving) (would it give pleasure, probably yes, as you are stimulating erogenous zones), I am more inclined to state that the woman needs more stimulation, not the man (but I can only talk for myself). Then if my future wife would want that type of stimulation and for me it offends me in a way (or viceversa), then I am sure that her love would be greater than a sexual action, therefore the sexual action will not be done, simply because she understands that it could hurt me. Sexual values are being subordinated to the dignity of the person in a way.

Also, doesnt love include sacrifice too. Spousal love should have similar characteristics don’t you think. (The “sacrifice” should be for the more important value)(Even the sacrifice is not seen much as a sacrifice because you love, that’s the power love has).

The problem with sex is that man and woman have different sexual rhythms. Only love can suppress the utilitarian property, as abuse can be done very easily in the sexual act (and most of the times more easily to women. In fact women tends easier to love (to give herself) because of the characteristics of affectivity (in short words it creates an ambient of closeness), but affectivity if not corrected can idealize and destroy love).

You cant state that the morality of the marital act states that persons have to, in a sense, subordinate sexually. It’s the other way around, affirm the value of the person, affirm the value that it always has had, that value is always above the sexual value. Well, a person has the sexual values, not the other way around.
The right of the marital act is not to give pleasure, is to love. It is not to get someone to climax, it is to love the person of the other sex and procreate. Only In love, things will be in harmony, because you are respecting each others essence, affirming each other values, over other values.

"The utilitarian mentality point is to obtain the greatest possible pleasure, which the sexual sphere provides in such a prominent degree in the form of libido. Catholics ethics, however, protests in the name of its personalistics presuppositions: one may not be led by the “balance of pleasure” alone where the relation to the person comes into play— the person may not in any way be an object of use.”

 

[edlinked]

“Only loving excludes using.

The person is a kind of good to which only love constitutes the proper and fully-mature relation.

“The value of the person as such is contained in the essence of love. And if we might rightly say that the one who loves a person is thereby just toward him, it will not be true at all to state that loving a person consists in being only just toward him.

Symptoms of the sexual drive must be assessed in man on the level of love and actualizations of the drive belong to the cycle of responsibility, precisely the responsibility for love.

Sexual morality results from the fact that persons not only have a consciousness of the finality of sexual life, but also a consciousness of being persons.

A conviction that man is a person leads to accepting the postulate that using should be subordinated to loving."

 

[Ana_v]

Even if we suppose that oral or anal penetration between a married couple, isn’t sinful, isn’t it still the case that oral and anal penetration is an activity that places one in near occasion of grave sin?

Also, if the question of whether such activity is in-itself sinful, is an open question, then it can be argued that even if the act is not intended as an end, and that the intended end is natural intercourse, we still have to consider the basic principle that ends don’t justify the means.

So even if the end in mind is unitive and procreative, if the means to that end is intrinsically evil [insert here certain types of foreplay or stimulation], then said means are not permissible.

 

[Rau]

Even if we suppose that oral or anal penetration between a married couple, isn’t sinful, isn’t it still the case that oral and anal penetration is an activity that places one in near occasion of grave sin?

Also, if the question of whether such activity is in-itself sinful, is an open question, then it can be argued that even if the act is not intended as an end, and that the intended end is natural intercourse, we still have to consider the basic principle that ends don’t justify the means.

So even if the end in mind is unitive and procreative, if the means to that end is intrinsically evil [insert here certain types of foreplay or stimulation], then said means are not permissible.

I am yet to hear an argument that kissing the genitals is intrinsically evil, for a married couple, in any circumstance, other than where orgasm is to be produced by that act. If you have one, please share it.

 

[fpt]

In my humble opinion, when each one of us reads the messages of this thread, there must be many misunderstandings for different reasons. The topic and the subtopics are very particular and not easy because of: links between the sociogenesis of each and the psychogenesis of each one that can be so different, the difficulties, per se, to think about this “specific” topic without taboo in the details with all the subtleties, the necessity to have in his or her mind that the 4 ends of marriage and of the marital act can be or are concomitant, the forgetting of the existence of different moral orders of the marriage that have to be articulated, the fact of forgetting a principle called the marital debt and its own moral regime in all the dimensions respecting the natural moral order, the fact of forgetting the notion of the sexual yoke of each member of the couple concerning the sexuality, the fact of forgetting the difference between the existence of rights and the use of those rights…etc.

Yes, I repeat and claim that, per se and by principle a spouse can not use the catholic morality in order to refuse to give to the other or to receive from the other some sexual foreplay, in the human fashion, in the context of the marital act. Yes, each one has “the right to work on the body of the other”, in love and in the tenderness, in the context of the marital act. By exception the refusal is morally okay, yes, of course, but with some just, good, real and objective reasons. The doctrinal refusal of the existence of rights to practice some sexual foreplay or to receive them, is against the sexual vows of the marriage. The* doctrinal reductionism* of the marital act to a simple coitus is awful.

Again, all in the respect of the natural moral order of the marriage and of the marital act.

If the fiancée does not want to be touched in the love and the tenderness, sexually speaking on all her body, by her future husband (her present fiancé), she is not ready for the marriage: she has to agree with the fact of being a conjugal passive lover and he has to agree with the fact of being a conjugal active lover. The sexed and sexual contract and the sexed and sexual institution imply the right / obligation for the husband of being a conjugal active lover on her body: massages, kisses, touchings, licks, suctions on her top parts and on her intimate parts, before, during and after the complete union of bodies. If she does not want, doctrinally speaking, to receive the masculinity of her future husband by his different caresses, she is not capable to enter into the marriage. * The notion of preference of caresses exists and the moral regime is existing, but there is a preference, only, after the testing not before.*

If the fiancé does not want to be touched in the love and the tenderness, sexually speaking on all his body, by his future wife (her present fiancée), he is not ready for the marriage: he has to agree with the fact of being a conjugal passive lover and she has to agree with the fact of being a conjugal active lover. The sexed and sexual contract and the sexed and sexual institution imply the right / obligation for the wife of being a conjugal active lover on his body: massages, kisses, touchings, licks, suctions on his top parts and on his intimate parts, before, during and after the complete union of bodies. If he does not want, doctrinally speaking, to receive the feminity of his future wife by her caresses, he is not capable to enter into the marriage. The notion of preference of caresses exists and the moral regime is existing, but there is a preference, only, after the testing not before.

My humble advice:

If you don’t want to be touched in the love and the tenderness, physically and sexually, the marriage isn’t for you. If you do not want to touch in the love and the tenderness, physically and sexually, the marriage is not for you.

The caresses have different forms: manual, digital, oral, lingual, by hands, by fingers, by tongue, by lips, by the breasts, by all the body. Why do you want deprive the spouse to receive or to give some type of caresses in the context of the marital act, by principle??? Are you serious?

 

[fpt]

Corrections and a plus

In my humble opinion, when each one of us reads the messages of this thread, there must be many misunderstandings for different reasons. The topic and the subtopics are very particular and not easy because of: links between the sociogenesis of each and the psychogenesis of each one that can be so different, the difficulties, per se, to think about this “specific” topic without taboo in the details with all the subtleties, the necessity to have in his or her mind that the 4 ends of marriage and of the marital act can be or are concomitant, the forgetting of the existence of different moral orders of the marriage that have to be articulated, the fact of forgetting a principle called the marital debt and its own moral regime in all the dimensions respecting the natural moral order, the fact of forgetting the notion of the sexual yoke of each member of the couple concerning the sexuality, the fact of forgetting the difference between the existence of rights and the use of those rights…etc.

Yes, I repeat and claim that, per se and by principle a spouse can not use the catholic morality in order to refuse to give to the other or to receive from the other some sexual foreplay, in the human fashion, in the context of the marital act. Yes, each one has “the right to work on the body of the other”, in love and in the tenderness, in the context of the marital act. By exception the refusal is morally okay, yes, of course, but with some just, good, real and objective reasons. The doctrinal refusal of the existence of rights to practice some sexual foreplay or to receive them, is against the sexual vows of the marriage. The* doctrinal reductionism* of the marital act to a simple coitus is awful.

Again, all in the respect of the natural moral order of the marriage and of the marital act.

If the fiancée does not want to be touched in the love and the tenderness, sexually speaking on all her body, by her future husband (her present fiancé), she is not ready for the marriage: she has to agree with the fact of being a conjugal passive lover and he has to agree with the fact of being a conjugal active lover. The sexed and sexual contract and the sexed and sexual institution imply the right / obligation for the husband of being a conjugal active lover on her body: massages, kisses, touchings, licks, suctions on her top parts and on her intimate parts, before, during and after the complete union of bodies. If she does not want, doctrinally speaking, to receive the masculinity of her future husband by his different caresses, she is not capable to enter into the marriage. * The notion of preference of caresses exists and the moral regime is existing, but there is a preference, only, after the testing not before.*

If the fiancé does not want to be touched in the love and the tenderness, sexually speaking on all his body, by his future wife (her present fiancée), he is not ready for the marriage: he has to agree with the fact of being a conjugal passive lover and she has to agree with the fact of being a conjugal active lover. The sexed and sexual contract and the sexed and sexual institution imply the right / obligation for the wife of being a conjugal active lover on his body: massages, kisses, touchings, licks, suctions on his top parts and on his intimate parts, before, during and after the complete union of bodies. If he does not want, doctrinally speaking, to receive the feminity of his future wife by her caresses, he is not capable to enter into the marriage. The notion of preference of caresses exists and the moral regime is existing, but there is a preference, only, after the testing not before.

My humble advice:

If you don’t want to be touched in the love and the tenderness, physically and sexually, the marriage isn’t for you. If you do not want to touch in the love and the tenderness, physically and sexually, the marriage is not for you.

The caresses have different forms: manual, digital, oral, lingual, by hands, by fingers, by tongue, by lips, by the breasts, by all the body. Why do you want to deprive the spouse to receive or to give **any types **of caresses in the context of the marital act, by principle??? Are you serious?

The vows of the marriage are linked to notion of " the right on the body " and Co. The modus operandi of the marital act is not linked to the angelic nature. We are human, not angels.

In the context of the marital act:

The natural right to touch the other on all the body is existing, in the human fashion in love and in the tenderness; The natural right to be touched by the other on all the body is existing, in the human fashion in love and in the tenderness. The sexual yoke is still existing. Each one has the natural right to require to touch the other and / or to require to be touched by the other, in the human fashion in love and in the tenderness.

The wife must agree with the fact of being touched by her husband, in the human fashion in love and in the tenderness. The husband must agree with the fact of being touched by his wife, in the human fashion in love and in the tenderness. The moral opposability of these moral rights is existing: the obligation to be touched by her husband, if he wants, and the obligation to be touched by his wife, if she wants. All the body can be touched and Co, in the human fashion, even the sexual external organs, except the anus. The obligation for him to touch her wife, if she wants, and the obligation for her to touch her husband, if he wants.

The refusal of the right of the other without good reason is totally morally wrong.

The exceptions exist, but they have to stay exceptions.

 

[Emily2014]

Forgive my intervention but does anyone else find this thread more prurient than philosophical.

 

[Rau]

Forgive my intervention but does anyone else find this thread more prurient than philosophical.

No, merely repetitive.