Sexual concessions to married couples and homosexuality

[fpt]

Can you define rights please?

The way I understand rights, one human being does not have rights over the body of another for the purposes of pleasure. We have the right to eat and move about freely and private property etc… but even those rights are not absolute.

It is good that God made the conjugal act pleasurable. The pleasure serves the good of the act, properly ordered. The pleasure involved in foreplay is part of that good, properly ordered. Is it considerate for me to prepare my wife for intercourse in various ways, and vice versa? Well yes of course. It is considerate on my part, and the pleasure is a great aspect of that.

But to claim the pleasure, or the stimulation of another, as a right goes too far, doesn’t it?. It seems to be the flip side of the same coin as Conte Jr’s “theology”.

In Catholic Canon law, traditionally speaking, the notion of the right on the body, of the right to the body and of the right of the body is very essential for explaining the mutual donation and reception of bodies. The wife gives her body and the husband give his body, the husband receives her body and the wife receives his body.

During the session of the marital act, each spouse has minimum physical rights on the body of the other in order to make one flesh, in the human fashion. Each spouse has to cooperate actively and passively, otherwise the reality of the sexual junction of bodies is not possible, in the human fashion. The husband has physical rights on the body of his wife and vice-versa, otherwise it is crazy.

For instance, in the context of the marital act, objectively speaking, if the wife say yes for the marital act, the husband has the right to require of seeing her nudity, totally, and she cannot invoke the catholic morality in order to refuse to make love naked. By principle, the husband has right to stare the nudity of his wife. The doctrinal refusal of showing the nudity to the other in the context of the marital act is morally wrong and can be a cause of nullity if it was before the wedding. By defintion, the marriage is the donation and reception of nudities. Unilaterally, the refusal to offer her nudity to her husband by the sight is problematic, per se. The acception of the definition of sin of masturbation seen as Ronald Conte Jr established as a doctrine before the celebration of the wedding is a cause of nullity of marriage, in my humble opinion. A wife who refuses to touch the sexual parts of her husband in invoking the catholic morality, in the context of the marital act, is not entered into the marriage.She is under the yoke of her husband. The sexual submission in the respect of moral order of the marital act. Of course, the execution by the force is totally is morally wrong, but the right of husband is still existing. The existence of one right is different of the execution of this right, but by principle this right has to practice, apart exception, of course.

 

[fpt]

In Catholic Canon law, traditionally speaking, the notion of the right on the body, of the right to the body and of the right of the body is very essential for explaining the mutual donation and reception of bodies. The wife gives her body and the husband gives his body, the husband receives her body and the wife receives his body.

During the session of the marital act, each spouse has minimum physical rights on the body of the other in order to make one flesh, in the human fashion. Each spouse has to cooperate actively and passively, otherwise the reality of the sexual junction of bodies is not possible, in the human fashion. The husband has physical rights on the body of his wife and vice-versa, otherwise it is crazy.

For instance, in the context of the marital act, objectively speaking, if the wife *says *yes for the marital act, the husband has the right to require of seeing her nudity, totally, and she cannot invoke the catholic morality in order to refuse to make love naked. By principle, the husband has right to stare the nudity of his wife. The doctrinal refusal of showing the nudity to the other in the context of the marital act is morally wrong and can be a cause of nullity if it was before the wedding ( a doctrinal exclusion of principle). By definition, the marriage is the donation and reception of nudities. Unilaterally, the refusal to offer her nudity to her husband by the sight is problematic, per se. The acception of the definition of sin of masturbation seen as Ronald Conte Jr established as a doctrine before the celebration of the wedding is a cause of nullity of marriage, in my humble opinion. A wife who refuses to touch the sexual parts of her husband in invoking the catholic morality, in the context of the marital act, is not entered into the marriage. She is under the yoke of her husband. The sexual submission in the respect of moral order of the marital act. Of course, the execution by the force is totally is morally wrong, but the right of husband is still existing. The existence of one right is different of the execution of this right, but by principle this right has to practice, apart exception, of course.

When love is present, all is okay, but when there are difficulties, the use of the catholic rules is helpful for each one.

The notion of conjugal sexual rights is important for solving the moral issues. What is okay or not? Be a good spouse or not about the sexuality? The nullity of marriage is possible, if some things are against the sexed and sexual moral order of the formation of marriage.

 

[fpt]

Can you define rights please?

The way I understand rights, one human being does not have rights over the body of another for the purposes of pleasure. We have the right to eat and move about freely and private property etc… but even those rights are not absolute.

It is good that God made the conjugal act pleasurable. The pleasure serves the good of the act, properly ordered. The pleasure involved in foreplay is part of that good, properly ordered. Is it considerate for me to prepare my wife for intercourse in various ways, and vice versa? Well yes of course. It is considerate on my part, and the pleasure is a great aspect of that.

But to claim the pleasure, or the stimulation of another, as a right goes too far, doesn’t it?. It seems to be the flip side of the same coin as Conte Jr’s “theology”.

If a wife refuses to stimulate the body of her husband by her caresses, like foreplay, sexually speaking, during the session of the marital act, in invoking the catholic morality, this refusal is morally wrong, per se. Her motives are unfair, non charitable and unnatural. Her theology is crazy. If before the wedding, it was for her a doctrinal exclusion, the nullity of the marriage is so probable.

 

[bisco1]

saint paul says to give our bodies to each other, in marriage, so the devil doesn’t get any leverage. in all charity, wouldn’t refusing to do that be a problem?

 

[fpt]

In the context of the marital act, the refusal of sexual caresses to give, and the refusal to receive those caresses can be sinful: sins by omission. Each spouse has the moral obligation to try to respect the normal sexual expectations of the other. The refusal of caresses to give or to receive is* abnormal*.

 

[edlinked]

Fpt, For me your views don’t add up to what love stands for. I state Karol Wojtyla’s book because for me your views lack some keypoints. Love and responsibility states the right way to approach a relation between a woman and a man (most importantly in marriage as sexual intercourse is found there). For example one thing I think you are implying: you minimize love over sexual rights. When I read your views marriage is just kind of a sexual contract, where the love and the tenderness is very vague (or maybe depends on each person).

For me marriage is where a man and a woman because they love each other, they have been given the gift of procreation. You know That Karol Wojtyla didn’t “like” the word reproduction because for him procreating encapsules the natural order and the personal order. In a sense, help God in the creation.
“It is evident that in this case the point is not merely the beginning of life in a purely biological sense, but the beginning of the existence of the person; hence it is better to say procreation.”

The right approach is to learn from love. But we need to know that love is not something subjective and that it depends on each person. The subjective profile takes that part of love, but the important part is the objective profile, and that is the same to everyone (affirm the value of the person). I keep stating this, but keep in mind that Karol Wojtyla thought it was important to state that sexual values don’t tend to love, and to write about what is love and the integration of love, and the dangers of not giving this the importance it deserves. The importance of that statement is what I see wrong on your view.
So analyzing from that point: Sexual rights rely and should be based on love, not as you put them, as marital obligations. They shouldn’t be “forced”, worst if they are sexual acts, because love is not something to be forced on someone (it is a personal constant decision of the individual that is giving himself). Morality is not about sexual values, it is what’s right toward the dignity of the person. Marriage is not about having sex, it is about procreation based on love.

That’s why I told you that your approach is wrong. The moral duty is to do good and base you actions toward good (good meaning, what is good to God, or makes you closer to God). Pleasure is subjective and not a good, when comparing it to persons.
Off course, for you to procreate there is a sexual act, but it can’t be ordered by the pleasure of the body. In marriage there has to be reciprocal giving, and for the giving to be true, the giving has to be based on love (that’s why the term is spousal love). That’s why sex can complement love, but sex cannot make love, because its finality is not love. Only persons direct sex to love. That’s why you can love regardless of sex (sexual intercourse). Sex as sex, will procreate and give pleasure regardless of love. The key is that we know that the person is greater than sex (in a practical way).

You are saying that if someone is uncomfortable doing something, it doesn’t matter because the spouses have the rights? That is where I state your approach is completely wrong. The right of spouses doesn’t rely on sexual obligations because of the pleasure of the body. The pleasures of the sexual act is a “side effect” (a favorable one too) of the love between persons. But the person is never beneath their sexual values because the one that contains them, is in fact the person. You don’t love your wife because of her body (or because she gives you sexual pleasure) or viceversa, you love your spouse because of the person (and that’s the appropriate way to treat persons). God made that the man and the woman connect to procreate, and that, in that act they keep loving each other (this is the good pleasure). But the problem and danger of the sexus and the body, is that its natural characteristic is an utilitarian property. That’s why you need to get over that (or conquer it in a sense, this is where self mastery comes in), because if not you will put a person as an object of use. (In the case you let the sexus and the body write the rules, or lead)
Sexual intercourse (sensuality) is important, but love is not sexual intercourse, or arousing, and if you don’t have self mastery (temperance, abstinence, etc), you will tend to use a person as an object of use.

That is why marriage has to be based on love, not on sensuality. What could be sinful is, not affirming the value of the person, not that a spouse don’t want to do something because it “hurts” the spouse interiority.

That’s why I wrote about the way the sexual values appear on a person (explanations by Karol Wojtyla not mine): they appear as sensuality and as affections. Neither of them tend to love (to the objective profile that affirms the value of the person). Sensuality needs to be corrected if not they will put a person as an object of use. This should be always on our conscience, because the sexual values will tend to its characteristics.
Even affectivity and tenderness have a great role in love, but if not ordered correctly they can be their enemies too.
.

 

[edlinked]

“It is impossible to question the truth that the love of a man and a woman is to an enormous extent based on affection, which is the material that natural affectivity should constantly provide in order to join thoroughly the objective profile of love with the subjective one. The point is not so much the “first” raptures of affectivity, which in a certain sense “artificially“ amplify the value of the beloved person by referring to the lived experience of “femininity” or “masculinity”. But even more so, the point is a constant contribution of affection, its constant commitment in love, for affection makes a woman and a man close to each other, it creates the interior atmosphere of communicativeness and reciprocal understanding. On this substratum tenderness is something natural and true, something authentic. A great deal of such tenderness is needed in marriage, in the entire life together where, after all, not only a “body” needs a “body”, but above all a human being needs another human being.”

But as I quoted before, tenderness (affectivity) needs guidance.

“The institution of marriage justifies the sexual intercourse of a given man with a given woman in the sense that it creates the objective framework in which a durable union of persons can be realized. (of course, on condition on monogamy and indissolubility).
However, the realization of this union between the persons Y and X in each distinct act of conjugal intercourse constitutes a separate moral problem, an interior problem of marriage. The point is that every such act, every conjugal act, has to possess its interior justice, for without justice we cannot speak of the union of persons in love. Thus, a distinct problem exists — one immensely from the viewpoint of morality and the culture of the person — of conforming conjugal intercourse itself to the objective demands of the personalistic norm. Precisely in this sphere the realization of the demands of this norm is particularly important, and at the same time —let us not conceal this— particularly difficult, for a whole nexus comes to light of interior factors and exterior circumstances that facilitate the reduction of this act of the reciprocal love of persons to the level of “using”. If anywhere, it is particularly here that we ought to speak of responsibility for love. Let us once add that this responsibility is for life and also for health ---- it is a whole nexus of fundamental goods that together determine the ethical value of each fact of conjugal intercourse. “

 

[edlinked]

“Sin is a violation of the true good. For the true good , which is the concern of love between a man and a woman, is above all the person, and is neither affection for its own sake nor, much less, pleasure for its own sake. After all, these are secondary goods and from them alone it is impossible to build love, that is, the durable union of persons, even though these goods are so strongly manifested in love’s subjective, psychological profile. A person may never be sacrificed for them, however, for that would introduce an element of sin into love.

“Sinful love” is not else but precisely a system of reference between two persons Y and X in which affection alone, and even more so pleasure alone, assumes the dimension of the self reliant good and determines everything, ignoring the objective value of the person and the objective laws and principles of interaction and relations between persons of different sex.

Sin which is contained in sinful love dwells by its very essence in free will. The concupiscence of the flesh is merely its “hotbed”. For the will can and should prevent the “dis-integration” of love; it should prevent pleasure or even affection alone from assuming the dimension of the self-reliant good, to which everything else is subordinated in the relation toward the person of the other sex or within the reciprocal interaction and relations between persons. The will can and should be guided by objective truth. It can, and so it should, demand that reason give it the true vision of love and of the happiness that love can bring to a woman and a man (so much evil proceeds here from a false, purely subjectivistic vision of happiness in which the “fullness of good” was replaced by a mere “sum of pleasures”). “

This is a good foot note on the book:
"In discussing the good and evil of human acts, St Thomas applies the Dionysian formula, i.e., “Evil results from any single defect, but good from the complete cause.” This means that a morally good act requires the goodness of all its sources together, namely of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances, including the consequences.
Action in conformity with conscience is thus always morally good, but it is not at the same time always morally right. However, conscience, even if being erroneous, always obliges to action in conformity with it, because the one who errs does not know by definition about his error. The possibility of making a mistake in such an essential issue inclines one toward particular care for the accuracy of one’s moral recognitions. The only way you guarantee this accuracy is to strive for ever deeper knowledge of who man is in his objective structure. To present precisely this structure of man, a man and a woman, within the totality of their vocation to reciprocal love, is the main task of this book. "

 

[Rau]

It would seem self-evident to me that the ‘scope’ and ‘extent’ of physical actions that a couple might adopt in their sexual relationship is a negotiation.

“He” might want to lick the inside of his wife’s ears. “She” might detest that. What is right? The answer is: what love dictates.

 

[edlinked]

It would seem self-evident to me that the ‘scope’ and ‘extent’ of physical actions that a couple might adopt in their sexual relationship is a negotiation.

“He” might want to lick the inside of his wife’s ears. “She” might detest that. What is right? The answer is: what love dictates.

Yes in a sense that’s right. But then the problem arises in fact, to some actions where you don’t know if its extent is an abuse or not, and that’s the difficult part. Because we know we can abuse on them.

 

[Rau]

Yes in a sense that’s right. But then the problem arises in fact, to some actions where you don’t know if its extent is an abuse or not, and that’s the difficult part. Because we know we can abuse on them.

The partners must communicate. There is no substitute for that.

 

[fpt]

In my messages, I am talking about “**doctrinal exclusion” **or “wrong view about the moral theology”, the doxa. If there is a preference (the order of the preference), that implies some testings and some attempts, otherwise it is not a preference.

For a normal adult not touched by wrong troubles of the “psyche” (largo sensu, no spiritual disease, no sensible disease), in the marriage, between lovers, the human touchings in the human fashion are normal are natural.

The invocation of the catholic morality in order to say no for touchings, nothing, only union of bodies, is a manifest sign of lack of love, is not respectful of sexual vows and is incompatible of the state of marriage. This refusal shows the bad faith. In the marriage at the beginning, we have to test for the love in order to satisfy the other. Preference is preference after the tests, not without them.

 

[fpt]

Fpt, For me your views don’t add up to what love stands for. I state Karol Wojtyla’s book because for me your views lack some keypoints. Love and responsibility states the right way to approach a relation between a woman and a man (most importantly in marriage as sexual intercourse is found there). For example one thing I think you are implying: you minimize love over sexual rights. When I read your views marriage is just kind of a sexual contract, where the love and the tenderness is very vague (or maybe depends on each person).

For me marriage is where a man and a woman because they love each other, they have been given the gift of procreation. You know That Karol Wojtyla didn’t “like” the word reproduction because for him procreating encapsules the natural order and the personal order. In a sense, help God in the creation.
“It is evident that in this case the point is not merely the beginning of life in a purely biological sense, but the beginning of the existence of the person; hence it is better to say procreation.”

The right approach is to learn from love. But we need to know that love is not something subjective and that it depends on each person. The subjective profile takes that part of love, but the important part is the objective profile, and that is the same to everyone (affirm the value of the person). I keep stating this, but keep in mind that Karol Wojtyla thought it was important to state that sexual values don’t tend to love, and to write about what is love and the integration of love, and the dangers of not giving this the importance it deserves. The importance of that statement is what I see wrong on your view.
So analyzing from that point: Sexual rights rely and should be based on love, not as you put them, as marital obligations. They shouldn’t be “forced”, worst if they are sexual acts, because love is not something to be forced on someone (it is a personal constant decision of the individual that is giving himself). Morality is not about sexual values, it is what’s right toward the dignity of the person. Marriage is not about having sex, it is about procreation based on love.

That’s why I told you that your approach is wrong. The moral duty is to do good and base you actions toward good (good meaning, what is good to God, or makes you closer to God). Pleasure is subjective and not a good, when comparing it to persons.
Off course, for you to procreate there is a sexual act, but it can’t be ordered by the pleasure of the body. In marriage there has to be reciprocal giving, and for the giving to be true, the giving has to be based on love (that’s why the term is spousal love). That’s why sex can complement love, but sex cannot make love, because its finality is not love. Only persons direct sex to love. That’s why you can love regardless of sex (sexual intercourse). Sex as sex, will procreate and give pleasure regardless of love. The key is that we know that the person is greater than sex (in a practical way).

You are saying that if someone is uncomfortable doing something, it doesn’t matter because the spouses have the rights? That is where I state your approach is completely wrong. The right of spouses doesn’t rely on sexual obligations because of the pleasure of the body. The pleasures of the sexual act is a “side effect” (a favorable one too) of the love between persons. But the person is never beneath their sexual values because the one that contains them, is in fact the person. You don’t love your wife because of her body (or because she gives you sexual pleasure) or viceversa, you love your spouse because of the person (and that’s the appropriate way to treat persons). God made that the man and the woman connect to procreate, and that, in that act they keep loving each other (this is the good pleasure). But the problem and danger of the sexus and the body, is that its natural characteristic is an utilitarian property. That’s why you need to get over that (or conquer it in a sense, this is where self mastery comes in), because if not you will put a person as an object of use. (In the case you let the sexus

With the quotes, you talk about the conjugal love, here, you explain the immaterial moral order, it is totally fair, moral, ideal and catholic. But, you forget the material aspect, the materialisation by the marital act: the material moral order of the marital act and co.
If one spouse deny the conjugal rights of the other without good reason, it is going against the Conjugal Justice. The conjugal contract is not respected. The doctrinal exclusion of sexual foreplay to give and to receive, is, per se, a bad reason? It is not catholic. It is totally unfair.
The marital act is done for 4 ends:
The expressing of the conjugal love;
The fact of being a procreator, the participation to the human creation, make babies, to be open to the life;
The fact of improve the bonding of the conjugal love;
The fact of avoiding the wrong effects of the concupiscence: here, if one spouse refuse and deny, doctrinally speaking, the physical rights of the other, the great risk is the adultery, the masturbation, the bad feelings, the conjugal sexual frustration without just reason. Yes, each spouse is the “keeper angel” of the sexual chastity of the other.

Do you wish to get marriage with a spouse who before the wedding uses the catholic moral for saying: no sexual foreplay because it is morally wrong, no sexual caresse!!! and thus impose to you, unilaterally, this situation. Are you serious!!!

 

[fpt]

edlinked;12618153:

Fpt, For me your views don’t add up to what love stands for. I state Karol Wojtyla’s book because for me your views lack some keypoints. Love and responsibility states the right way to approach a relation between a woman and a man (most importantly in marriage as sexual intercourse is found there). For example one thing I think you are implying: you minimize love over sexual rights. When I read your views marriage is just kind of a sexual contract, where the love and the tenderness is very vague (or maybe depends on each person).

For me marriage is where a man and a woman because they love each other, they have been given the gift of procreation. You know That Karol Wojtyla didn’t “like” the word reproduction because for him procreating encapsules the natural order and the personal order. In a sense, help God in the creation.
“It is evident that in this case the point is not merely the beginning of life in a purely biological sense, but the beginning of the existence of the person; hence it is better to say procreation.”

The right approach is to learn from love. But we need to know that love is not something subjective and that it depends on each person. The subjective profile takes that part of love, but the important part is the objective profile, and that is the same to everyone (affirm the value of the person). I keep stating this, but keep in mind that Karol Wojtyla thought it was important to state that sexual values don’t tend to love, and to write about what is love and the integration of love, and the dangers of not giving this the importance it deserves. The importance of that statement is what I see wrong on your view.
So analyzing from that point: Sexual rights rely and should be based on love, not as you put them, as marital obligations. They shouldn’t be “forced”, worst if they are sexual acts, because love is not something to be forced on someone (it is a personal constant decision of the individual that is giving himself). Morality is not about sexual values, it is what’s right toward the dignity of the person. Marriage is not about having sex, it is about procreation based on love.

That’s why I told you that your approach is wrong. The moral duty is to do good and base you actions toward good (good meaning, what is good to God, or makes you closer to God). Pleasure is subjective and not a good, when comparing it to persons.
Off course, for you to procreate there is a sexual act, but it can’t be ordered by the pleasure of the body. In marriage there has to be reciprocal giving, and for the giving to be true, the giving has to be based on love (that’s why the term is spousal love). That’s why sex can complement love, but sex cannot make love, because its finality is not love. Only persons direct sex to love. That’s why you can love regardless of sex (sexual intercourse). Sex as sex, will procreate and give pleasure regardless of love. The key is that we know that the person is greater than sex (in a practical way).

Corrections and a plus

With the quotes, you talk about the conjugal love, here, you explain the immaterial moral order, it is totally fair, moral, ideal and catholic. But, you forget the material aspect, the materialisation by the marital act: the material moral order of the marital act and co.
If one spouse denies

the conjugal rights of the other without good reason, it is going against the Conjugal Justice. The conjugal contract is not respected. The doctrinal exclusion of sexual foreplay to give and to receive, is, per se, **a bad reason. **It is not catholic. It is totally unfair.
The marital act is done for 4 ends:
The expressing of the conjugal love;
The fact of being a procreator, the participation to the human creation, make babies, to be open to the life;
The fact of improve the bonding of the conjugal love;
The fact of avoiding the wrong effects of the concupiscence: here, if one spouse refuses and denies, doctrinally speaking, the physical rights of the other, the great risks are the adultery, the masturbation, the bad feelings, the conjugal sexual frustration without just reason. Yes, each spouse is the “keeper angel” of the sexual chastity of the other.

Do you wish to get marriage with a spouse who before the wedding uses the catholic moral for saying: no sexual foreplay because it is morally wrong, no sexual caresse!!! and thus impose to you, unilaterally, this situation. Are you serious!!!

If a engaged person claims that she / he has the moral right to refuse the sexual foreplay to give or to receive in invoking the catholic morality, she / he is not ready for the catholic marriage. This view of imposing, unilateral, no sexual touching, only, the union of bodies, is awful.

In the past, the priests used the term of conjugal debt, it is the state of marriage. When you enter into the marriage, all normal person, not crazy, knows that. The canon law is protector. There are priests who say it, today, but the modern society does not like. but the sexual yoke is existing, i am sorry; if you refuse that, you cannot enter into the marriage.

 

[fpt]

fpt;12618306:

If a engaged person claims that she / he has the moral right to refuse the sexual foreplay to give or to receive in invoking the catholic morality, she / he is not ready for the catholic marriage. This view of imposing, unilaterally,

no sexual touching, only, the union of bodies, is awful.

In the past, the priests used the term of conjugal debt, it is the state of marriage. When you enter into the marriage, all normal person, not crazy, knows that. The canon law is protector. There are priests who say it, today, but the modern society does not like. but the sexual yoke is existing, i am sorry; if you refuse that, you cannot enter into the marriage.

The Song of Songs talks about many sexual caresses and sensual acts for the conjugal lovers. The doctrinal refusal of those acts, by principle, is awful, is unfair and is a shame.

 

[fpt]

Fpt, For me your views don’t add up to what love stands for. I state Karol Wojtyla’s book because for me your views lack some keypoints. Love and responsibility states the right way to approach a relation between a woman and a man (most importantly in marriage as sexual intercourse is found there). For example one thing I think you are implying: you minimize love over sexual rights. When I read your views marriage is just kind of a sexual contract, where the love and the tenderness is very vague (or maybe depends on each person).

For me marriage is where a man and a woman because they love each other, they have been given the gift of procreation. You know That Karol Wojtyla didn’t “like” the word reproduction because for him procreating encapsules the natural order and the personal order. In a sense, help God in the creation.
“It is evident that in this case the point is not merely the beginning of life in a purely biological sense, but the beginning of the existence of the person; hence it is better to say procreation.”

The right approach is to learn from love. But we need to know that love is not something subjective and that it depends on each person. The subjective profile takes that part of love, but the important part is the objective profile, and that is the same to everyone (affirm the value of the person). I keep stating this, but keep in mind that Karol Wojtyla thought it was important to state that sexual values don’t tend to love, and to write about what is love and the integration of love, and the dangers of not giving this the importance it deserves. The importance of that statement is what I see wrong on your view.
So analyzing from that point: Sexual rights rely and should be based on love, not as you put them, as marital obligations. They shouldn’t be “forced”, worst if they are sexual acts, because love is not something to be forced on someone (it is a personal constant decision of the individual that is giving himself). Morality is not about sexual values, it is what’s right toward the dignity of the person. Marriage is not about having sex, it is about procreation based on love.

That’s why I told you that your approach is wrong. The moral duty is to do good and base you actions toward good (good meaning, what is good to God, or makes you closer to God). Pleasure is subjective and not a good, when comparing it to persons.
Off course, for you to procreate there is a sexual act, but it can’t be ordered by the pleasure of the body. In marriage there has to be reciprocal giving, and for the giving to be true, the giving has to be based on love (that’s why the term is spousal love). That’s why sex can complement love, but sex cannot make love, because its finality is not love. Only persons direct sex to love. That’s why you can love regardless of sex (sexual intercourse). Sex as sex, will procreate and give pleasure regardless of love. The key is that we know that the person is greater than sex (in a practical way).

You are saying that if someone is uncomfortable doing something, it doesn’t matter because the spouses have the rights? That is where I state your approach is completely wrong. The right of spouses doesn’t rely on sexual obligations because of the pleasure of the body. The pleasures of the sexual act is a “side effect” (a favorable one too) of the love between persons. But the person is never beneath their sexual values because the one that contains them, is in fact the person. You don’t love your wife because of her body (or because she gives you sexual pleasure) or viceversa, you love your spouse because of the person (and that’s the appropriate way to treat persons). God made that the man and the woman connect to procreate, and that, in that act they keep loving each other (this is the good pleasure). But the problem and danger of the sexus and the body, is that its natural characteristic is an utilitarian property. That’s why you need to get over that (or conquer it in a sense, this is where self mastery comes in), because if not you will put a person as an object of use. (In the case you let the sexus and the body write the rules, or lead)
Sexual intercourse (sensuality) is important, but love is not sexual intercourse, or arousing, and if you don’t have self mastery (temperance, abstinence, etc), you will tend to use a person as an object of use.

Conjugal love is act of will for making one flesh in the human fashion, with a sexual cooperation. In the marriage and in the context of the marital act, *we love with the soul, the heart and the body. The negation of the sexual conjugal love by the refusal of the existence of some sexual rights on the body of the other is a great problematic. This doctrinal refusal is not very catholic. *The marriage is a sexed and sexual sacrament.

The marriage is a free choice, it is not an obligation. If you are are not okay with the sexual rules of the catholic marriage, the catholic marriage is not for you. You can not impose, unilaterally and by principle the non execution of rules, or the changing of rules. The marital act is not angelic: it is a carnal and sexual act.

Per se, there is a moral order of the marriage and of the marital act. The rules are the rules, they are not negociables. The moral regime of this order is existing: principles and exceptions. You choose the person, not the conjugal rules.

 

[fpt]

It would seem self-evident to me that the ‘scope’ and ‘extent’ of physical actions that a couple might adopt in their sexual relationship is a negotiation.

“He” might want to lick the inside of his wife’s ears. “She” might detest that. What is right? The answer is: what love dictates.

The moral regime of the modus operandi of marital act, and thus the moral regime of the modus operandi of foreplay and of sexual foreplay has to respect the functions and roles of foreplay and of sexual foreplay, otherwise it is wrong. All is not morally acceptable, of course. The limits are still existing, that is a truism. Foreplay or sexual foreplay are not substitutions and replacements. They do not have to be an obsession or a routine. The modifications for satisfying the other and for pleasing the other are essential, the charity to do or not to do, to change, to try other things. The physical language by touchings cannot be excluded, by principle.

The marriage implies an exchange of fluids. The vows of the marriage are composed for one part by an agreement on an exchange of fluids between husband and wife. The fact of not being aware of that is a great problematic!!!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The marriage implies an exchange of fluids.

I can hardly imagine any less helpful thing one might say about marriage.

fpt, where is CHRIST in your explanations? Why is this issue so important to you?

 

[fpt]

I can hardly imagine any less helpful thing one might say about marriage.

fpt, where is CHRIST in your explanations? Why is this issue so important to you?

I want to explain that the material aspect of the marriage and of the marital act has to be accepted by each member of couple. The angelism are the heresies on the material aspects of the human nature are so powerful,* even today.* The doctrinal negation, and the doctrinal denegation are existing.

Before all the marital act is material, immaterial, natural, supranatural, spiritual, sensible, affective, emotional and religious.

 

[fpt]

I want to explain that the material aspect of the marriage and of the marital act has to be accepted by each member of couple. The angelism and the heresies on the material aspects of the human nature are so powerful,* even today.* The doctrinal negation, and the doctrinal denegation are existing.

Before all the marital act is material, immaterial, natural, supranatural, spiritual, sensible, affective, emotional and religious.

Why this fight???

By readings and after discussions with acquaintances, I state that inside the church as outside, the understanding of the moral order of the marriage and of the marital act is very often misunderstood, in the details with all the subtleties. There are the heresies, the ideologies… etc. The effects on the couple are horrible, terrible, and monstrous: the adultery, the masturbation, the conjugal rape, the lack of sexual charity to give and to receive, the fact of being in a state of a conjugal nun or a conjugal monk without just reasons, the impossibility to be happy sexually for stupid reasons…etc.