Sexual play within marriage

[setter]

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

If you have read the book then you should be able to educate the rest of us as to the intellectual basis and reasoning for what constitutes licit conjugal love and marital expressions.

Originally Posted by** Randy Carson **
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.

 

[johnnyjoe]

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.

Is your point that since a dysfunctional marriage has “use” in it, it’s okay?

I struggle to see how “use” in a dysfunctional marriage that is intercourse justifies non-intercourse “use” of the sexual powers?

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Here is one of dozens:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=104514&highlight=oral

Michelle Arnold was the apologist.

 

[setter]

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

I was referring to foreplay for the sake of foreplay. A couple can only get the engines reving up and not put the vehicle into drive before frustration or temptation for substitute gratification becomes a problem. To perist otherwise is immaturity, would you not agree?

 

[Randy_Carson]

If you have read the book then you should be able to educate the rest of us as to the intellectual basis and reasoning for what constitutes licit conjugal love and marital expressions.

I said at the outset that I was hesitant to respond to this thread. My compliance with Church teaching is out of obedience, but not out of conviction. At least, not yet. I am open to being convinced.

I edited my post, but only after you responded, so to make sure you saw my addition, here it is again:

“I think the point of the OP is that some mid-afternoon fondling which heightens the anticipation of the evening activity is an example of the unitive role of sexuality.”

I’m trying to understand why it is not.

 

[Kendy]

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.

Fine. What if the purportedly insidious sexual act occured within half an hour of sexual intercourse? Are we still not open to life?

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.

All well and good, but you implied that I thought that the church should not comment of harm to the body.

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

I think Sodomy is intrisically wrong because the evidence of its “wrongness” is produced by the act. Sodomy leads to infections and diseases.

God is kind enough to give us pain. He not only tells not to touch the fire, but in case we don’t believe him and touch the fire anyway, there will be tangible consequences. Part of my struggle with this issue is that I am looking for the burn marks.

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.

We may have to delineate what is meant by self-giving. Right now, I am not convinced that masterbating one’s spouse is not emotionally or physical not self-giving. The person performing the act is certainly giving to his or her spouse, and as for the reciprocation, I think that generally it’s not good to be a tit for tat partner. Sexually or otherwise. Imagine that you made your spouse a sandwich and then said, “what are you going to do for me now?” It would take away from the gift of the sandwich. However, in the generally context of this marriage your spouse may return the favor by making you breakfast in bed, not because he want to pay you back for last week’s sandwich but because he loves you. In both instances, the acts are self-giving and all that is required from the other spouse is “Thank You.”

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.

Well, I would disagree with you on any of this, but I fail to see the relevance.

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.

I never said that he leaves it to me; I only said that he usually explains why he’s righteously angry. I am only seeking to understand his righteous anger, and I am confessing that I don’t.

Kendy

 

[Randy_Carson]

I was referring to foreplay for the sake of foreplay. A couple can only get the engines reving up and not put the vehicle into drive before frustration or temptation for substitute gratification becomes a problem. To perist otherwise is immaturity, would you not agree?

Not yet.

Foreplay for the sake of foreplay is a sin just as solo masturbation is a sin.

Foreplay for the sake intimacy between a loving NFP couple during her fertile periods when they have decided not to have intercourse for valid reasons SEEMS unitive on the surface.

As I have said, I want to be convinced otherwise. Then I can be the apologist instead of the apologee!

 

[Kendy]

**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)

Agreed. Yet, I am having trouble with the circumstances of the action in this particular instance.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Fine. What if the purportedly insidious sexual act occured within half an hour of sexual intercourse? Are we still not open to life?

This is exactly the kind of legalistic splitting of hairs that I object to. And if half an hour beforehand is okay, what if the baby down the hall starts crying and interupts things by an hour? Two hours? Just where do you draw the line between licit foreplay and illicit fooling around?

Shall we begin measuring the length of the tassels on our robes, next?

 

[Kendy]

Is your point that since a dysfunctional marriage has “use” in it, it’s okay?

I struggle to see how “use” in a dysfunctional marriage that is intercourse justifies non-intercourse “use” of the sexual powers?

No, but it seems taken for granted that intercourse allievates the problem of use and that the lack of intercourse automatically implies use. My answer to your question is simply put, is that use, in this context, exists only in the intention of the partner.

Kendy

 

[MilesXpisti]

Here is one of dozens:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=104514&highlight=oral

Michelle Arnold was the apologist.

Michelle said that oral stimulation is permissible, not oral sex, and that is an absolutely vital distinction. Oral sex is the stimulation of the genitals to orgasm, and act which is analagous,
at least in effect (sexual pleasure outside the context of the marital act) to masturbation.

 

[apricot_yogurt]

Nothing wrong with foreplay, and it has a legitimate use in helping the wife get lubricated.
Sperm should always be deposited in the vagina so God can do his work. Excluding accidental emmisions, of course, which one has no control over.
Nothing wrong with a bit of nipple tweaking/butt slapping.

 

[MilesXpisti]

This is exactly the kind of legalistic splitting of hairs that I object to. And if half an hour beforehand is okay, what if the baby down the hall starts crying and interupts things by an hour? Two hours? Just where do you draw the line between licit foreplay and illicit fooling around?

Shall we begin measuring the length of the tassels on our robes, next?

That example is specious. Obviously that is not illicit, because the intent of the man and woman was to engage in the just expression of the marital act. With mutual masturbation and oral sex, the effect is the achievement sexual pleasure while frustrating the procreative aspect of the marital act.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Michelle said that oral stimulation is permissible, not oral sex, and that is an absolutely vital distinction. Oral sex is the stimulation of the genitals to orgasm, and act which is analagous,
at least in effect (sexual pleasure outside the context of the marital act) to masturbation.

Michelle said that producing an orgasm in the wife before intercourse was permissable.

How are you going to do it BEFORE intercourse without doing so manually or orally?

Sorry to get so graphic here.

 

[Kendy]

I said at the outset that I was hesitant to respond to this thread. My compliance with Church teaching is out of obedience, but not out of conviction. At least, not yet. I am open to being convinced.

I edited my post, but only after you responded, so to make sure you saw my addition, here it is again:

“I think the point of the OP is that some mid-afternoon fondling which heightens the anticipation of the evening activity is an example of the unitive role of sexuality.”

I’m trying to understand why it is not.

I am glad someone understands me

 

[Kendy]

Not yet.

Foreplay for the sake of foreplay is a sin just as solo masturbation is a sin.

Foreplay for the sake intimacy between a loving NFP couple during her fertile periods when they have decided not to have intercourse for valid reasons SEEMS unitive on the surface.

As I have said, I want to be convinced otherwise. Then I can be the apologist instead of the apologee!

You are in so much trouble. :tsktsk:

It’s amazing how quickly a thread about sex gets rolling.

 

[Randy_Carson]

That example is specious. Obviously that is not illicit, because the intent of the man and woman was to engage in the just expression of the marital act. With mutual masturbation and oral sex, the effect is the achievement sexual pleasure while frustrating the procreative aspect of the marital act.

You’re correct, of course. I was trying to illustrate point. I do understand about culpability and intent.

However, life happens. Sometimes the start of the love making and the conclusion of the love making are separated by considerable periods of time. Where is the cut-off?

Moreover, why is it illicit to start in the garden in the afternoon and finish in the bedroom later that night?

 

[Randy_Carson]

You are in so much. :tsktsk:

In so much what? WHAT?

*Hot water with the Church? *

Don’t leave me hanging.

 

[Kendy]

That example is specious. Obviously that is not illicit, because the intent of the man and woman was to engage in the just expression of the marital act. With mutual masturbation and oral sex, the effect is the achievement sexual pleasure while frustrating the procreative aspect of the marital act.

I may have created some confusion. I meant, a sexual act that lead to ejaculation, followed by intercourse. In other words, two ejaculations, one session.

 

[Kendy]

In so much what? WHAT?

*Hot water with the Church? *

Don’t leave me hanging.

Oops, I meant trouble. I corrected that.