Sexual play within marriage

[st_ignatius110]

Let us also assume, that the couple is infertile so that they are not choosing this alternative to avoid pregnancy.

Abraham and Sara were considered “infertile.” What would have happened if they chose to go against God’s command?

 

[johnnyjoe]

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.

By this standard, marital relations in the infertile time are called into question, for there is pleasure and closeness, but it is naturally closed to life.

Pleasure and closeness is part of the marital sacrament at all times… it is the glue that binds. God made pleasure a PART of the marital embracel, but he did not make it the ONLY part of the marital embrace. There’s the rub, eh?

My take on the matter is that if don’t want to go to Toledo, you best not get on the bus. If you get on the bus and think you can hop off, then you better be prepared to eventually go all the way to Toledo, for the Holy Spirit works well with our passions, and sometimes we have to give a name to the “fruit” of those passions.

Perhaps this gets us into the “serious reason” question more than anything else. Why fear completing the act if you have the urge to “play”?

Sometimes I wonder if the knowledge given us by the practice of NFP leads us to believe we are the ones who decides we can “have” a baby. Only the Holy Spirit is the Lord and Giver of Life, and if you feel the urge to “show each other a little affection”, then perhaps it is the Holy Spirit blowing on the embers of passion. There are many who hope for a child in the fertile time who don’t receive the gift of new life, and there are many who think they know the limits of fertility, and from dancing on the edges find themselves with a blessing growing between them.

You know, the heart of the matter is the FOCUS. Is sexual play part of the complete giving of oneself, or is it a recreation? Many have danced around the actions and intentions of the marital embrace, and the target of the effort is usually what takes you off the mark with the Church.

 

[setter]

Hi Setter


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

I was alluding to that the sexual stimulation and sexual activity that you are questioning is not consonant with the love language (“theological process”) of the body. To violate the love language of the body via sexual activity that deviates from or perverts the intended purpose and function of married conjugal love is sin, simply put. Or if not explicitly sin (tantalizing one another for the sake of sexual stimulation alone), then it is immaturity and lack of prudence, simply put.

 

[johnnyjoe]

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.

Well sometimes there is a fine line between consentual mutual masterbation and foreplay. That line is usually crossed by climax. When does the exchange of sexual stimulation cross the line into “use”? Do you think that can ever occur?

 

[Kendy]

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

So, God’s ONLY interest in the sexual act is to produce life?

Second, we all know that expert NFP users can go years without REALLY allowing God in. In my hypothetical situation, the couple is not trying to prevent pregnancy; they are generally open to pregnancy, and this non-reproductive act is not intended to avoid pregancy but to use a particular method to pleasure one’s spouse.

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

Well, I don’t I am. I am just not sure how this makes it less sacred. Ad hominem arguments are usually evidence that someone does not have a good logical argument.

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.

I think you are unfairly accusing me about having an attitude about sex, which I do not have. I agree with you that sex is generally treated lightly in our society and I, too, find this problematic. However, I do think pleasure one’s spouse is treating sex at all lightly.

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

Sorry, but I am not seeing the correlation. Because someone is not having intercourse does not mean that He or she is not taking sex seriously.

 

[Kendy]

Abraham and Sara were considered “infertile.” What would have happened if they chose to go against God’s command?

Not relevant.

 

[MilesXpisti]

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

But you cannot divorce the two. Sex must be open to the possibility of life (which has and can happen even with seemingly infertile couples, both in antiquity and in the modern age). Anything else is a violation of its intended purpose.

Kendy:

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

The damage done to the body is not at issue. It is the damage done to the spiritual life, as a result committing mortal sin.

Kendy:

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

The basis really is quite simple. Openness to life must be present. Without exception. You yourself profess the intrisic evil of sodomy. Why is it evil?

Sodomy = No openness to life
Masturbation = No openness to life
Mututal Masturbation = No opennes to life
Oral sex = No openness to to life

1. How does it damage the charity between the spouses?

Because charity in the context of marriage and more importantly the marital act is drawn from the act of complete emotional and physical self-giving. In the case of oral sex, there is no self giving and no reciprocation, openess to life not withstanding.

Kendy:

1. 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.

Oh? One of the leading means of sexual objectification is pornography. Investigate its effects on marriage, even in those cases where it is consumed by both spouses. And the case is that all sexual sin causes problems in marriages. Look at the divorce rate of marriage where the spouses were co-habitating or sexually active before marriage.

Kendy:

1. 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.

God does not get upset. Filled with righteous anger, certainly, but upset, no. God does not leave it for you or I to decide why He’s really angry. He does not leave it to us to decipher His rules of morality. That is the Church’s function.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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

Well, I wasn’t going to say anything in this thread, but I can’t let this pass.

The sexual organs obviously have two functions, procreation and pleasure. My ears do not have a pleasure function. My eyes do not have a pleasure function. My liver does not have a pleasure function. However, during sex, the sexual organs do accomplish two things that they were obviously intended for: to bring children into the world (potentially) and to give pleasure.

If pleasure is not one of the functions, then please explain why a woman’s breasts are erogenous zones. That has nothing to do with procreation. Please explain why women are capable of multiple orgasms when NONE are required for procreation.

God designed these things for a reason.

I am determined to comply with the teachings of the Church, but doggone it, I want an intellectually satisfying answer as to why I deny myself what appears to be a gift from God.

I wonder if we are not all paying the price for Augustine’s sins.

 

[Kendy]

My take on the matter is that if don’t want to go to Toledo, you best not get on the bus. If you get on the bus and think you can hop off, then you better be prepared to eventually go all the way to Toledo, for the Holy Spirit works well with our passions, and sometimes we have to give a name to the “fruit” of those passions.

Well, maybe you don’t want to go to Toledo. Maybe, there’s a city on the way to Toledo that you would like to visit.

Perhaps this gets us into the “serious reason” question more than anything else. Why fear completing the act if you have the urge to “play”?

You are assuming that there has to be fear. Perhaps, there is no fear just the desire to express one’s sexual affection in a particular manner. For example, let’s say on the same day, a couple had a sexual contact, which ended in intercourse but then had another contact, which did not end that way. You can call it insidious if you like, but it’s hard to argue that the couple is not open to life.

Sometimes I wonder if the knowledge given us by the practice of NFP leads us to believe we are the ones who decides we can “have” a baby.

Certainly, it does. I have watched in amusement as people argue that NFP is open to life, but more effective at preventing pregancy than ABC. Now, while you may argue that each sexual act using NFP is techically open to life. I find that the argument that the couple is open to life very unpersuasive.

You know, the heart of the matter is the FOCUS. Is sexual play part of the complete giving of oneself, or is it a recreation? Many have danced around the actions and intentions of the marital embrace, and the target of the effort is usually what takes you off the mark with the Church.

I don’t think we can aswer that for everyone. I think many people have intercourse for recreational purposes, and I also think that MARITAL contact that does not end with intercourse can be self-giving if the INTENT is to give oneself to one spouse in a particular way, presumably in a manner that you believe would bring your spouse joy. I think this is an instance where one’s intend matters a lot more than one’s action, but only God can know our intentions.

Kendy

 

[Kendy]

By this standard, marital relations in the infertile time are called into question, for there is pleasure and closeness, but it is naturally closed to life.

Pleasure and closeness is part of the marital sacrament at all times… it is the glue that binds. God made pleasure a PART of the marital embracel, but he did not make it the ONLY part of the marital embrace. There’s the rub, eh?

My take on the matter is that if don’t want to go to Toledo, you best not get on the bus. If you get on the bus and think you can hop off, then you better be prepared to eventually go all the way to Toledo, for the Holy Spirit works well with our passions, and sometimes we have to give a name to the “fruit” of those passions.

Perhaps this gets us into the “serious reason” question more than anything else. Why fear completing the act if you have the urge to “play”?

Sometimes I wonder if the knowledge given us by the practice of NFP leads us to believe we are the ones who decides we can “have” a baby. Only the Holy Spirit is the Lord and Giver of Life, and if you feel the urge to “show each other a little affection”, then perhaps it is the Holy Spirit blowing on the embers of passion. There are many who hope for a child in the fertile time who don’t receive the gift of new life, and there are many who think they know the limits of fertility, and from dancing on the edges find themselves with a blessing growing between them.

You know, the heart of the matter is the FOCUS. Is sexual play part of the complete giving of oneself, or is it a recreation? Many have danced around the actions and intentions of the marital embrace, and the target of the effort is usually what takes you off the mark with the Church.

 

[Kendy]

I was alluding to that the sexual stimulation and sexual activity that you are questioning is not consonant with the love language (“theological process”) of the body. To violate the love language of the body via sexual activity that deviates from or perverts the intended purpose and function of married conjugal love is sin, simply put. Or if not explicitly sin (tantalizing one another for the sake of sexual stimulation alone), then it is immaturity and lack of prudence, simply put.

Perhaps, you can explain why it is immature and imprudent?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Sodomy = No openness to life
Masturbation = No openness to life
Mututal Masturbation = No opennes to life
Oral sex = No openness to to life

Miles-

If you search the Ask An Apologist section of this forum, you will find that the Apologists there have repeatedly stated that oral sex and anal sex are permissable within the total context of a sexual act that includes vaginal intercourse with ejaculation occuring exclusively within the vagina.

Unintended accidents happen, of course, for which you are not culpable.

 

[MilesXpisti]

Miles-

If you search the Ask An Apologist section of this forum, you will find that the Apologists there have repeatedly stated that oral sex and anal sex are permissable.

You’re going to have to furnish me with some links on that little statement. Because oral sex can be used so long as the orgasm of the man is within his wife. The same, though I can’t imagine why anyone would bother, could be true of sodomy, again so long as the man ejaculates within his wife. But I refuse to believe that any credible apologist on this board has said that oral sex or sodomy to climax is morally permissible.

 

[Kendy]

Well sometimes there is a fine line between consentual mutual masterbation and foreplay. That line is usually crossed by climax. When does the exchange of sexual stimulation cross the line into “use”? Do you think that can ever occur?

Of course, but I think “use” is a matter of one’s intention rather than one’s actions. My cousin’s husband, they are going through a divorce, does not really bother with potentially sexually problematic foreplay. Instead, he gets his business done and goes to bed. The act is perfectly within the teachings of the church, but there is no doubt that she’s being used.

 

[setter]

Well, I wasn’t going to say anything in this thread, but I can’t let this pass.

The sexual organs obviously have two functions, procreation and pleasure.

God designed these things for a reason.

I am determined to comply with the teachings of the Church, but doggone it, I want an intellectually satisfying answer as to why I deny myself what appears to be a gift from God.

All that is needed to “comply” with Church’s teachings is to keep intact the two-fold purpose married conjugal love: unitive and procreative (as MilesXpisti has been doing an artful job articulating).

Sexual pleasure apart from the procreative purpose is grave sin, simply put.

I recommend the book “Theology of the Body” by Christopher West to develop one’s intellectual appreciation for the *theological *and biological process of conjugal married love.

 

[setter]

Miles-

If you search the Ask An Apologist section of this forum, you will find that the Apologists there have repeatedly stated that oral sex and anal sex are permissable within the total context of a sexual act that includes vaginal intercourse with ejaculation occuring exclusively within the vagina.

Unintended accidents happen, of course, for which you are not culpable.

Oral sex and anal sex are misnomers. A more accurate terminology is oral stimulation or anal stimulation.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I was alluding to that the sexual stimulation and sexual activity that you are questioning is not consonant with the love language (“theological process”) of the body. To violate the love language of the body via sexual activity that deviates from or perverts the intended purpose and function of married conjugal love is sin, simply put. Or if not explicitly sin (tantalizing one another for the sake of sexual stimulation alone), then it is immaturity and lack of prudence, simply put.

As a woman posted in a similar thread, if there is not some stimulation in advance of penetration, things get broken.

There is nothing immature about foreplay. Natural lubrication is part of the overall design.

 

[MilesXpisti]

All that is needed to “comply” with Church’s teachings is to keep intact the two-fold purpose married conjugal love: unitive and procreative (as MilesXpisti has been doing an artful job articulating).

Sexual pleasure apart from the procreative purpose is grave sin, simply put.

I recommend the book “Theology of the Body” by Christopher West to develop one’s intellectual appreciation for the *theological *and biological process of conjugal married love.

Thank you, setter. This was the point that I was trying, and obviously failed to make. It’s just that I assumed anyone here over the age of 12 was well aware that sex had a pleasurable, unitive aspect, and I was emphasizing its joining to the procreative aspect to show the proper attitude toward sex. Mea culpa.

 

[Randy_Carson]

All that is needed to “comply” with Church’s teachings is to keep intact the two-fold purpose married conjugal love: unitive and procreative (as MilesXpisti has been doing an artful job articulating).

Sexual pleasure apart from the procreative purpose is grave sin, simply put.

I recommend the book “Theology of the Body” by Christopher West to develop one’s intellectual appreciation for the *theological *and biological process of conjugal married love.

Thanks, my wife and I already own that book. I know his parents, Soren and Bonnie West personally.

I think the point of the OP is that some mid-afternoon fondling that heightens the anticipation of the evening activity is unitive.

 

[setter]

Of course, but I think “use” is a matter of one’s intention rather than one’s actions. My cousin’s husband, they are going through a divorce, does not really bother with potentially sexually problematic foreplay. Instead, he gets his business done and goes to bed. The act is perfectly within the teachings of the church, but there is no doubt that she’s being used.

**1750 **The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;
• the end in view or the intention;
• the circumstances of the action.

The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts. (CCC)