Sexual play within marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kendy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I can’t believe I read the whole thing. This is a rather confusing topic, isn’t it? Personally, I always want to do exactly what the Church teaches and I see nothing wrong with NFP even though my wife and I don’t use it. I see how NFP is open to life. To me it’s a no-brainer that it is.

The real question in this thread is, properly stated; Is there a time limit on foreplay before it has to lead to the proper completion of the married act?

Let’s say the husband comes home tired, puts his coat away and starts to get ready for supper. A few minutes later, the love of his life comes home too and he asks her how her day went. Instead of answering his question, she approaches him unbuttoning her coat with that look in her eyes, takes him into her arms and presses herself against him as they kiss – as she wordlessly says what ‘could be’ tonight if this is what he wants. He responds in kind and they stimulate each other for awhile, then she wiggles away, giggles and says, “Later, the kids will be home soon.” Hubby spends the evening in delightful anticipation. That night, they continue what they began and it ends in with the possibility that a child might be conceived.

I say that this is all one marriage act even though the foreplay was interrupted for several hours till the kids went to bed.

Let us now say that the above scene has just happened in another household except that the wife is a stay-at-home mother who is seeing daddy off to work. This time she is wordlessly telling him what he might expect to finish when he gets home from work at the end of the day and she giggles and wiggles away with, “Later, you’ll be late for work.” And everybody at work though he was smiling at them. That night, they finish what they began and it’s open to life.

I say that this is just one marriage act stretched out over a whole day.

Next, a similar scene has just happened in another household at five in the morning where a young wife has just worldlessly told her husband what he can expect to finish when he gets back from his weekend deployment with his reserve unit. When he gets home Sunday evening, they finish what they began and it’s open to life.

I say this is just one marriage act stretched out over a weekend.

Next, a similar scene takes place the day her husband will leave with his unit for a year in Iraq and she wordlessly tells him what he can expect to finish when he gets back in the states.

I say this is just one marriage act stretched out over a whole year. They completed the last marriage act just a few hours earlier and it was open to life!

I sure I’ve got this one right. A lot of people are just confused because they don’t realize that each single marriage act begins when it begins and ends when it ends and doesn’t have to be continuous. There can be several pauses in the middle, just no false endings. If you are grabbing your love when he/she passes by and giving them a kiss, a caress or a squeeze, this is just foreplay that will continue till it ends. Just let it end as God intended it, then let the next act begin.
 
Please explain why women are capable of multiple orgasms when NONE are required for procreation.
Click to expand...
Actually the female orgasm DOES serve a creative function.

As I have argued above. The process involves upwards muscular contactions which helps lift the life carrying semen towards the womb, thereby giving it a ‘free ride’ to enable a greater chance of a sperm reaching an egg.

So it is wholly incorrect to say female orgasm has no life-giving benefits.

It seems logical that Almighty God would not create something without their being a purpose 🙂
 
My wife and I are figh-, argu-, discussing this very topic. It was she, with her newly found conscience, who found this thread and left it on my computer to find. I have read all 4 pages and while I’ll do as I’m told, I agree with Kennedy - I’m obedient but not convinced.
And nowhere did I see mentined in the thread about pregnant sex. Let’s say I’m doing it, bringing a baby into the world for God, going to raise it Catholic, we’ve done that twice. Yet someone wrote, “every act of marital intimacy that occurs must be open to life.” Unless I’m wrong about biology, my wife cant get pregnant again right then. Even intercourse isn’t open to life becuase there is already life. So what then?
This hair splitting is rediculous and not unifying my marriage. We used to have a good time bringing children into the world, but now I see occasions of sin in every little corner, and I think I’m going to opt out of the whole process for a while. I’ve got hobbies.
 
BoJangles said:
My wife and I are figh-, argu-, discussing this very topic. It was she, with her newly found conscience, who found this thread and left it on my computer to find. I have read all 4 pages and while I’ll do as I’m told, I agree with Kennedy - I’m obedient but not convinced.
And nowhere did I see mentined in the thread about pregnant sex. Let’s say I’m doing it, bringing a baby into the world for God, going to raise it Catholic, we’ve done that twice. Yet someone wrote, “every act of marital intimacy that occurs must be open to life.” Unless I’m wrong about biology, my wife cant get pregnant again right then. Even intercourse isn’t open to life becuase there is already life. So what then?
This hair splitting is rediculous and not unifying my marriage. We used to have a good time bringing children into the world, but now I see occasions of sin in every little corner, and I think I’m going to opt out of the whole process for a while. I’ve got hobbies.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you read the thread that well if you think you must abstain during pregnancy. The woman’s lack of fertility (if the result of nature) has nothing to do with being open to life. You may have intercourse during pregnancy as long as your wife is willing (i.e., if it doesn’t hurt her).
 
Of course I dont think that one must abstain during pregnancy, I’m merely pointing out that there is no hope of conception at that point, there is no openess to life because there is already life. I’m pointing out that there are lots of mitigating circumstances. And she may have sex during pregnancy as long as I’m willing as well.
 
BoJangles said:
Of course I dont think that one must abstain during pregnancy, I’m merely pointing out that there is no hope of conception at that point, there is no openess to life because there is already life. I’m pointing out that there are lots of mitigating circumstances. And she may have sex during pregnancy as long as I’m willing as well.
Click to expand...
There is equivocation in your argument. A logical argument is an ** equivocation** if the definition of a term changes in the course of the argument whereas the conclusion is valid only if the definition remains constant. Here follows your argument:

Premise 1: The Church says that all marital acts must be “open to life” (meaning that the couple must not do anything that would suppress fertility IF they were fertile).[Rule of thumb: Imagine that you and your spouse are both fertile at the time of the act even if you are not. Then, don’t do anything that would render you infertile “IF” you were fertile and you are ok.]

Premise 2: The Church allows couples to engage in the marital act when the woman is pregnant even though the marital act is not “open to life” (meaning she cannot conceive another child while pregnant).

Conclusion: There are exceptional cases when the Church allows couples to not obey premise one.

The conclusion is invalid because the definition of “open to life” has changed during the argument.

It does not matter, using the Church’s definition of “open to life,” whether the couple is fertile or infertile (so long as the infertility is due to natural causes, i.e., time of cycle/pregnancy/after menopause, or if artificial, was not intended as a prevention of pregnancy, i.e., surgery to remove cancer). All that matters is that they have done nothing to suppress the man’s fertility (withdrawal, prophylaxis, oral alone, etc.) or the woman’s fertility (the pill, etc.) purposely. The act must be such that “IF” he were fertile and “IF” she were fertile, then conception would have been possible.

Naturally-caused infertility at the time of the act is immaterial using the Church’s terms, and timing is not something that makes an act “not open to life” by the Church’s definition. That is why NFP is permissible.

Stimulating each other just short his climax and then quitting so as to prevent pregnancy would not be open to life because it would be suppressing their fertility. Stimulating each other and quitting short of climax because his climax couldn’t be achieved is “open to life” because of their intention for completion.

Hugging and kissing, etc. in anticipation of a future completion of the marital act at some later time is not suppressing their fertility. It is part of the necessary foreplay that leads to the successful completion of the act.

This is not rocket science. The pattern becomes clear to those who are not intentionally obtuse. The truly simple-minded don’t ask for these types of explanations.
 
leonie said:
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.
Click to expand...
David and his men ate the host/shew bread
 
I would so dearly love to give you my opinion of this thread. But if I did that, you would report me to a moderator and I would be banned so I will not comment, nor come here as it only winds me up
 
I just finished reading this whole thread and have become thankful that I am not Catholic. My wife and I have a great passion for each other, and I could not imagine tip toeing around strange rules contrived by celibate priests about how my wife and I expressed our love for each other.

-Tim
 
I think it demonstrates the knots people can tie themselves in. The pharisees are back I think!
What happens between a husband and wife is by and large completely their own business (and God’s)👍
My wife and I will certainly continue to enjoy a healthy guilt-free relationship of spontaneity…
 
It is not about a juvenile rule based mindset. It is about proper formation of conscience. It seems few want that as it means changing the way we lead our lives. It always comes down to authority. What has the Pope said? A new dictatorship of relativism?
 
There’s no problem with changing my life, but some of the ideas here are evidence of a “juvenile rule-based mindset” if you want to call it that. That’s how to tie yourself so much in knots that you forget what being a Christian is all about!
What happens between me and my wife is between us - FULL STOP - and God.
 
jack_hawkins said:
There’s no problem with changing my life, but some of the ideas here are evidence of a “juvenile rule-based mindset” if you want to call it that. That’s how to tie yourself so much in knots that you forget what being a Christian is all about!
What happens between me and my wife is between us - FULL STOP - and God.
Click to expand...
I was not referring to you or anyone specifically. My point is this idea that moral acts, particularly sexual ones, are exempt from moral reasoning simply because they are private is illogical.

Imagine that argument used for other areas?

I think the notion that people are scrupulous over these issues is because we do not want to submit to proper authority. Once one submits it is not a burden. The “knot” issue seems to come from wanting one thing knowing it is really wrong.
 
The “knot” issue seems to come from wanting one thing knowing it is really wrong.
Click to expand...
No, it is the simple truth that the RCC got this one wrong. I don’t believe it is malicious, its just that the RCC theologians have no experience with sex or marriage and have followed some of the bad teachings of Augustine.

Only someone who has never been married could come to the silly conclusion that sex is harmful or not mutual if the man doesn’t finish in the woman. Quite to the contrary, I believe all these silly rules reduce a mutual loving spiritual experience to its base biological function.

-Tim
 
God created marriage and He created sex for marriage. He created sex NOT ONLY as a way to procreate, but also as a beautiful way for the man and woman to express their love for each other. For someone to actually believe a married couple is not allowed to use sexual activities to express that love is absolutely ridiculous to me. Obviously coming from people who have no idea what love between a woman and man is. Yes, procreation must be left open at all times. But if sex is only for procreation than why would God make it pleasurable? Also, if its only for procreation why don’t women release eggs more often? Is it a sin for a married couple to intimate during a pregnancy? Because even if they go all the way to intercourse then, they are not being open to life and are only doing it for their own pleasure.

This whole argument of a married couple not being allowed to be intimate without intercourse is such a silly argument, I’d laugh if it wasn’t so sad that people actually believe this. If the Church actually believes this, it will be one teaching I won’t agree with at all.
 
Timmy_Z said:
I don’t believe it is malicious, its just that the RCC theologians have no experience with sex or marriage and have followed some of the bad teachings of Augustine.
-Tim
Click to expand...
Then when you get sick enough to need a doctor’s care, you better make sure they have had what you have, or they won’t know how to treat you.
 
*The *toughest teaching of the Chruch must surely be the one on Sex.

Admittedly, I am still struggling with the concept of the Church’s teachings on a few sexual issues.

I don’t disagree wholly with the teachings, but I struggle to see the logic in some of them. I’m also one of them that follow, but don’t understand.
But I respect the Church so that I won’t go ahead and do that they Chruch says is wrong.

I’ll not derail the thread though 🙂

PM
 
davidv said:
Then when you get sick enough to need a doctor’s care, you better make sure they have had what you have, or they won’t know how to treat you.
Click to expand...
Without getting into the Tall Grass on this issue, I don’t believe this kind of comparison is helpful. First, I don’t feel it’s apt to compare intimacy in marriage to a disease, which this analogy in effect does. Further, the whole “doctor” analogy falls short in that the issue isn’t whether one’s doctor has HAD the illness, but rather, has LEARNED about it, studied it, and understands it. In choosing a doctor, do you inquire as to whether they’ve personally had the same thing you’ve got? “I’d like to make an appointment with Dr. Jones, but only if he’s had kidney stones, too . . .”

I think many of the posts here go to the issue of questioning a full understanding and appreciation of -as opposed to a perhaps over-spiritualized, idealized concept of - marital intimacy.
 
ThuribleGuy45 said:
Without getting into the Tall Grass on this issue, I don’t believe this kind of comparison is helpful. First, I don’t feel it’s apt to compare intimacy in marriage to a disease, which this analogy in effect does. Further, the whole “doctor” analogy falls short in that the issue isn’t whether one’s doctor has HAD the illness, but rather, has LEARNED about it, studied it, and understands it. In choosing a doctor, do you inquire as to whether they’ve personally had the same thing you’ve got? “I’d like to make an appointment with Dr. Jones, but only if he’s had kidney stones, too . . .”

I think many of the posts here go to the issue of questioning a full understanding and appreciation of -as opposed to a perhaps over-spiritualized, idealized concept of - marital intimacy.
Click to expand...
But to make the claim that the learned men, and women, of the church who have provided the teachings don’t know anything about marriage and intemacy is also ludicrous.
 
Hmmm, lots of things floating around here. I think that what the Church teaches about sex between a married couple in the Catechism is fairly simple and I would tend to agree with Mr. Hawkins that there seems to be a fair amount of Pharisitical (is that even a word?) thought being bandied about.

To me this is one of those areas that the Church will never nail down and put out a list of specific “do’s” and “dont’s”…thank goodness for that:) As such we are expected by the Church to read the catechism, try to understand the teaching and form our consciences…and then follow our conscience. I don’t know about the rest of you but for the most part I know when something isn’t right sexually. Meaning that I know, for example that just using my wife to relieve my sexual urges is wrong. Even though I may be operating within the letter of the catechetical law (being open to life, finishing inside of her…etc) I know in my heart that it is wrong. Just like I know through personal experience that masturbation does in fact harm my marriage (I am NOT making that judgement for anyone other than myself). So you can drive yourself crazy trying to define every act as “good” or “sinful” but the reality is that if you are honest with yourself you know in your heart what is right and what is wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top