Sexual play within marriage

[Kendy]

Ok, I know we have gone over this many times on this forum, But I am still struggling. Why is it wrong to to engage in sexual play with your spouse if you are not wanting to have intercourse?

This is is one of those things when I feel like a bunch of single men just don’t understand the sexual dynamics between couples. And I feel bad for saying it because I like to show more respect for the church than that, but this little thing just annoys me.

Sometimes, a couple just want to show each other a little bit of affection, but they are not in the mood for intercourse? What’s wrong with that? Help me understand.

Kendy

 

[quasimodo]

Ok, I know we have gone over this many times on this forum, But I am still struggling. Why is it wrong to to engage in sexual play with your spouse if you are not wanting to have intercourse?

This is is one of those things when I feel like a bunch of single men just don’t understand the sexual dynamics between couples. And I feel bad for saying it because I like to show more respect for the church than that, but this little thing just annoys me.

Sometimes, a couple just want to show each other a little bit of affection, but they are not in the mood for intercourse? What’s wrong with that? Help me understand.

Kendy

A discreet defintiion might help

 

[Kendy]

A discreet defintiion might help

It could include anything that you might do before intercourse, except something like anal sex, which I think it intrisically wrong.

 

[MilesXpisti]

Are we talking about cuddling and kissing, or a we talking heavy petting/genital stimulation?

 

[Kendy]

Are we talking about cuddling and kissing, or a we talking heavy petting/genital stimulation?

I suppose we could include any of it since I am not sure where the line is. Is going to “second base” permissible?

Anywho, I suspect petting/genital stimulation is where the real issue is.

 

[MilesXpisti]

I suppose we could include any of it since I am not sure where the line is. Is going to “second base” permissible?

Anywho, I suspect petting/genital stimulation is where the real issue is.

It’s difficult to classify modes of behavior, given the sheer diversity of sexual activity, but I would say probably not for “second base”, as this could be construed as indirect genital stimulation, and definitely not for direct stimulation of the sexual organs. To derive pleasure (albeit unfulfilled) from the sexual organs out of the context of sexual intercourse, and the conjugal act as a whole, is using them outside of the purpose which Our Lord intended, making it essentially mutual masturbation, again without the benefit of orgasm.

 

[Kendy]

It’s difficult to classify modes of behavior, given the sheer diversity of sexual activity, but I would say probably not for “second base”, as this could be construed as indirect genital stimulation, and definitely not for direct stimulation of the sexual organs. To derive pleasure (albeit unfulfilled) from the sexual organs out of the context of sexual intercourse, and the conjugal act as a whole, is using them outside of the purpose which Our Lord intended, making it essentially mutual masturbation, again without the benefit of orgasm.

Yes, I know the party line, but I am not convinced. So, be so kind as to justify it for me if you are able.

 

[MilesXpisti]

Yes, I know the party line, but I am not convinced. So, be so kind as to justify it for me if you are able.

Convincing you is more a matter of fact than of hard logic. Only in the context of the Creator’s purpose for humanity, expressed in His first commandment to them, “be fruitful and multiply”, and the institution of marriage does sex first gain its just and appropriate meaning. Once one establishes that sex is by definition the means of human propogation intended by God toward that end, it is merely a case of function following form. Our Lord intended that sexual activity be only that which served to fulfill the unitive and procreative aspects of the conjugal act, that is, to serve to both bring forth life and foster love and charity between man and wife. You cannot divorce the two; it can never be all about procreation or all about unity. The brain exists to regulate biological function and the higher cognitive functions. Take the first away and the human dies instant. Take the other away and the body exists for the brief time it may without external assistance.

In the case of the behavior you describe, yes, it can be used to show affection, but it has removed the procreative aspect. It delivers pleasure and closeness but is not open to life, any more than masturbation or sodomy. It is in this that man diverges from God’s intended purpose for sexual behavior.

 

[Kendy]

Convincing you is more a matter of fact than of hard logic. Only in the context of the Creator’s purpose for humanity, expressed in His first commandment to them, “be fruitful and multiply”, and the institution of marriage does sex first gain its just and appropriate meaning. Once one establishes that sex is by definition the means of human propogation intended by God toward that end, it is merely a case of function following form. Our Lord intended that sexual activity be only that which served to fulfill the unitive and procreative aspects of the conjugal act, that is, to serve to both bring forth life and foster love and charity between man and wife. You cannot divorce the two; it can never be all about procreation or all about unity. The brain exists to regulate biological function and the higher cognitive functions. Take the first away and the human dies instant. Take the other away and the body exists for the brief time it may without external assistance.

Please, elaborate on the highlighted portion.

In the case of the behavior you describe, yes, it can be used to show affection, but it has removed the procreative aspect. It delivers pleasure and closeness but is not open to life, any more than masturbation or sodomy. It is in this that man diverges from God’s intended purpose for sexual behavior.

So, let’s take a concrete example. Husband pinches his wife’s nipples in the middle of the day while they are gardening and no one is around. Maybe, they will have sex later that evening, but this is their way of teasing each other and building up anticipation through out the day? Would this be permissble?

 

[MilesXpisti]

Please, elaborate on the highlighted portion.

The preceding was just an analogy of a biological construct having two primary functions, and showing how taking away either of the functions causes the overall detriment to the person as a whole. Obviously, sinning sexually will not cause overt death of the body (disease not withstanding), but it does cause an exclusively human type of death: the death of spirit.

Kendy:

So, let’s take a concrete example. Husband pinches his wife’s nipples in the middle of the day while they are gardening and no one is around. Maybe, they will have sex later that evening, but this is their way of teasing each other and building up anticipation through out the day? Would this be permissble?

Personally, I would err on the side of caution this instance and not do so. If there were prior commitment to engage in the conjugal act, then sure. But to wind each other up and then decide not to follow through…sin or no, that’s just plain mean. But my previous comments dealt with the heavier end of the spectrum, involving direct genital stimulation.

 

[Kendy]

The preceding was just an analogy of a biological construct having two primary functions, and showing how taking away either of the functions causes the overall detriment to the person as a whole. Obviously, sinning sexually will not cause overt death of the body (disease not withstanding), but it does cause an exclusively human type of death: the death of spirit.

hum…

Personally, I would err on the side of caution this instance and not do so. If there were prior commitment to engage in the conjugal act, then sure. But to wind each other up and then decide not to follow through…sin or no, that’s just plain mean. But my previous comments dealt with the heavier end of the spectrum, involving direct genital stimulation.

Would it still be mean if they were both ok with this outcome?

Okay, a spicier example: Husband is feeling aroused, but wife is not in the mood of intercourse. However, she would not mind performing oral sex on him (let’s assume to remove the possibility of her feeling used that this is something she enjoys); he is satisfied with this compromise. Let us also assume, that the couple is infertile so that they are not choosing this alternative to avoid pregnancy.

Now, I have a real hard finding the moral harm here. Who has been hurt? The Holy Spirit, I presume, but I am not sure why.

 

[boppaid]

hum…

Okay, a spicier example: Husband is feeling aroused, but wife is not in the mood of intercourse. However, she would not mind performing oral sex on him (let’s assume to remove the possibility of her feeling used that this is something she enjoys); he is satisfied with this compromise. Let us also assume, that the couple is infertile so that they are not choosing this alternative to avoid pregnancy.

Now, I have a real hard finding the moral harm here. Who has been hurt? The Holy Spirit, I presume, but I am not sure why.

Kendy, you bring up some valid points that I have wondered about myself.

 

[Kendy]

Kendy, you bring up some valid points that I have wondered about myself.

Thanks. If I could be convinced of this, I would be a 100% assenting catholic, but alas, I am just not buying it.

Anyone knows what the orthodox church teaches about this?

 

[leonie]

hum…

Would it still be mean if they were both ok with this outcome?

Okay, a spicier example: Husband is feeling aroused, but wife is not in the mood of intercourse. However, she would not mind performing oral sex on him (let’s assume to remove the possibility of her feeling used that this is something she enjoys); he is satisfied with this compromise. Let us also assume, that the couple is infertile so that they are not choosing this alternative to avoid pregnancy.

Now, I have a real hard finding the moral harm here. Who has been hurt? The Holy Spirit, I presume, but I am not sure why.

Yeah, but they are using sex for strictly their own pleasure and not including God. It’s taking something holy (martital intercourse) and treating it like it isn’t holy.

Of course, it hurts them. If you went into a Church, and took the Eucharist out of the tabernacle and ate the hosts like potato chips while you watched tv, who would it hurt? It would hurt Jesus, and it would hurt you.

 

[setter]

hum…

Would it still be mean if they were both ok with this outcome?

Then they are both immature and adolescent in their appreciation for the theological process of the body.

Okay, a spicier example: Husband is feeling aroused, but wife is not in the mood of intercourse. However, she would not mind performing oral sex on him (let’s assume to remove the possibility of her feeling used that this is something she enjoys); he is satisfied with this compromise. Let us also assume, that the couple is infertile so that they are not choosing this alternative to avoid pregnancy.

Now, I have a real hard finding the moral harm here. Who has been hurt? The Holy Spirit, I presume, but I am not sure why.

The moral harm is not always readily evident, which is why sin is often so deceptive and insiduous in it’s enticement and effect. simple put: A lie is a lie ia a lie, no matter how harmelss or mutually pleasurable it is. To have sexual pleasure apart from sexuaql intercourse in ultimately frustrating at best, and to have sexual climax apart from sexualk intercourse is gravely sinful, always.

 

[Kendy]

Yeah, but they are using sex for strictly their own pleasure and not including God. It’s taking something holy (martital intercourse) and treating it like it isn’t holy.

Why does it include God only if it involves intercourse? How is pleasuring one’s spouse, presumably because you love him, unholy?

Of course, it hurts them. If you went into a Church, and took the Eucharist out of the tabernacle and ate the hosts like potato chips while you watched tv, who would it hurt? It would hurt Jesus, and it would hurt you.

I am not seeing the correlation here? If you believe that the eucharist is the body of Christ then you understand the harm you have done. If you don’t, then we are dealing with another issue, but you don’t really understand the harm. So, what is it that I am failing to believe, which prevents me from seeing the harm?

 

[Kendy]

Hi Setter

Then they are both immature and adolescent in their appreciation for the theological process of the body.

The moral harm is not always readily evident, which is why sin is often so deceptive and insiduous in it’s enticement and effect. simple put: A lie is a lie ia a lie, no matter how harmelss or mutually pleasurable it is. To have sexual pleasure apart from sexuaql intercourse in ultimately frustrating at best, and to have sexual climax apart from sexualk intercourse is gravely sinful, always.

With all do respect, this simply restates the point that I am seeking to understand. Again, I know the party line.

 

[MilesXpisti]

Okay, a spicier example: Husband is feeling aroused, but wife is not in the mood of intercourse. However, she would not mind performing oral sex on him (let’s assume to remove the possibility of her feeling used that this is something she enjoys); he is satisfied with this compromise. Let us also assume, that the couple is infertile so that they are not choosing this alternative to avoid pregnancy.

Now, I have a real hard finding the moral harm here. Who has been hurt? The Holy Spirit, I presume, but I am not sure why.

The moral harm lies in using the sexual organs for something it was not intended for. A common misconception is that religion should deal with the soul and leave the body alone (for matters of consentual sexuality, barring of course rape or other injuries against chastity), and nothing could be further from the truth. The infallible doctrine of the Church deals not only with what we believe, but how we express that belief in everything we do. We may not feel that the experiences you have described do any harm, and that our consciences are justified in engaging in them, but the fact of the matter is that conscience is to be tempered with Truth. We bend our internal understanding to the Truth, not the other way around.

The insidiousness of this behavior is that because it is typically expressed in privacy, it is somehow thought to be out of the purview of God, expressed in whole by the teaching and authority of the Church. Harm is sometimes not overt and not acute. A good example is smoking; in a short amount of time it may do little or no damage, but in time it can be life-threatening. The behavior describe not only damages charity between man and wife, leading inexorably to objectification not only of person but of the sexual act as a purely pleasurable enterprise, but does damage to the attitude toward the sanctity of the conjugal act as it was intended by the Creator.

 

[leonie]

Why does it include God only if it involves intercourse? How is pleasuring one’s spouse, presumably because you love him, unholy?

Because God can intervene and produce life. By acceping that possibility, you are including God.

I am not seeing the correlation here? If you believe that the eucharist is the body of Christ then you understand the harm you have done. If you don’t, then we are dealing with another issue, but you don’t really understand the harm. So, what is it that I am failing to believe, which prevents me from seeing the harm?

I think what you are failing to see is the sacredness of marital intercourse.

Our society treats sex like it’s just a stress relief or something fun to do. When, in fact, it is holy. It is the covenant act of the sacrament of matrimony.

Having sex outside of the marital embrace is like snacking on the Eucharist.

 

[Kendy]

The moral harm lies in using the sexual organs for something it was not intended for.

Sexual organs are clearly partly, although not exclusively, intended for sexual pleasure.

A common misconception is that religion should deal with the soul and leave the body alone (for matters of consentual sexuality, barring of course rape or other injuries against chastity), and nothing could be further from the truth.

I don’t have this misconception. In fact, I am wondering what harm is done to the body?

The infallible doctrine of the Church deals not only with what we believe, but how we express that belief in everything we do. We may not feel that the experiences you have described do any harm, and that our consciences are justified in engaging in them, but the fact of the matter is that conscience is to be tempered with Truth. We bend our internal understanding to the Truth, not the other way around.

Agreed.

The insidiousness of this behavior is that because it is typically expressed in privacy, it is somehow thought to be out of the purview of God, expressed in whole by the teaching and authority of the Church.

Insidious seems like a strong, but certainly, I realize that nothing is outside the purview of God. But I simply don’t understand why God would be bothered by this anymore than I would understand why God would be bothered if I had a piece of chocolate when I was not hungry just because I enjoy a piece of chocolate. And BTW, please don’t suggest that I am implying that spouses are like chocolate

Harm is sometimes not overt and not acute. A good example is smoking; in a short amount of time it may do little or no damage, but in time it can be life-threatening. The behavior describe not only damages charity between man and wife, leading inexorably to objectification not only of person but of the sexual act as a purely pleasurable enterprise, but does damage to the attitude toward the sanctity of the conjugal act as it was intended by the Creator.

1. How does it damage the charity between the spouses?
2. On the question of it “leading inexorably to objectification” this is a question of fact, which could be illustrated through social scientific research, but by making it without that evidence, I find it to be a convenient claim to support an already decided position.
3. As to do the damage to the sanctity of thed conjugal, this is basically saying that God is upset about this. Fair enough, God is entitled to be upset about whatever he wishes, but luckily for us, I find that God is pretty good about explaining why he’s upset.

Kendy