Sexual play within marriage

[PennitentMan]

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.

The OP has proven that while this would hold true in most cases, there certainly are times when all things may seem good, pure and lovely to a person, but the Church says “no, it’s wrong”.

This is where I have a tough time too, I know that in my heart I am able to distinguish good from bad, but certain things just seem to be perfectly fine and wholesome, but the Church says “No” and gives vague explinations, very open to interpretations…again, as seen on this post.

I still defer to the teachings of the Church though.PM

 

[DallasCatholic]

The OP has proven that while this would hold true in most cases, there certainly are times when all things may seem good, pure and lovely to a person, but the Church says “no, it’s wrong”.

This is where I have a tough time too, I know that in my heart I am able to distinguish good from bad, but certain things just seem to be perfectly fine and wholesome, but the Church says “No” and gives vague explinations, very open to interpretations…again, as seen on this post.

I still defer to the teachings of the Church though.PM

The Church does not define everything, as I pointed out in the first part of my post. That is where your fully formed conscience comes in. I have not found anything “…perfectly fine and wholesome, but the Church say “No”…” could you give an example of what you are referring to?

 

[PennitentMan]

DallasCatholic:

could you give an example of what you are referring to?

This whole thread is an example of that.

The couple is loving, mutually respectful, sees nothing wrong with what they are doing, both are consenting to it, they are not hurting themselves, each other or anyone else, enjoying themselves, and they are pracitcing Catholics, open to life and the unitive/procreative aspects of sex, but then the general consensus here is that it’s wrong.

PM

 

[fix]

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.

So, Christ is not the authority behind the Church? What is wrong is that we make ourselves an authority.

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.

Nonsense. I could say only one with an erroneous conscience could accept it is loving to act in such a way.

Quite to the contrary, I believe all these silly rules reduce a mutual loving spiritual experience to its base biological function.

It is not about silly rules. It is about proper understanding and desiring our behavior is correctly ordered. The same argument you make is made by those who defend homosexual acts. If it “feels” loving then it must be love? Right?

 

[fix]

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.

The point is we need a well formed conscience to act correctly. It is not about rules for the sake of rules. Many claim by following their conscience they are acting in accord with God’s will, but a subjective consceince does not justify us.

 

[Vico]

I think you are exactly right Fix when you say

“The point is we need a well formed conscience to act correctly. It is not about rules for the sake of rules.”

In January Kendy wrote:

“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 permissible?”

This is a good example of action that requires discrimination. We want to avoid the near occasion of sin, so although one might have the aim to complete the action in the long term, but in the short term the sexual tension from the excitement could lead to sin (by not making it to the evening).

Seems that we have to remember the twofold aspect of unity and procreation (openness to life) correlating to feeling and function. When the feeling is directed to God we have spiritual joy and calmness, when towards sensuality we have sensual enjoyment and excitement which may lead us towards temptation.

 

[YipYupYep]

Geezzzz

A question about a couple wanting to play a little game of “grab *ss & tickle” turns into 4 pages of quotations of doctrine! Get Over It!
Prelude to intercourse? Maybe - if we’re lucky
Prelude to another child? Maybe - if we’re lucky
Another “Geez would you quit squeezing me!” Admonition - Usually
Daily reminder that we’re still kids in love, crave our physical relationship, and can “gross out our children at will” by kissing/hugging each other in the kitchen? - Oh Yeah!:thumbs up:

I was thinking the same thing. What’s up with all of this?

To the OP: Any type of fore play is okay for a consenting adult man and woman joined in Holy Matrimony as long as it ends in sexual intercourse.

If it starts on Monday and ends on Friday that’s your business. There is nothing off limits between the two of you as long as it ends is the correct manner whenever that may be.

 

[Vico]

Yip Yup Yep, you said: “I was thinking the same thing. What’s up with all of this?” to Jay’s comment “…turns into 4 pages of quotations of doctrine! Get Over It!”

Well, not everybody is so strong as to avoid sinful thoughts or actions between the time of foreplay and the time of intercourse when that time is extended. So avoiding that situation can be the right action for some couples.

 

[YipYupYep]

Well, not everybody is so strong as to avoid sinful thoughts or actions between the time of foreplay and the time of intercourse when that time is extended. So avoiding that situation can be the right action for some couples.

Okay, I hear you, but what sinful thoughts? Its my argument that one can not have a sexual sinful thought about ones own lawfully wedded wife or husbands provided it ends in sexual intercourse. No one is made out of stone, its okay to be free with your thoughts and actions. What goes on is there business, sanctified by the sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and between just the two of them.

Do you see a problem with that?

 

[Vico]

It is the couples own business, and they make or break the relationship depending on their attitude too, and you are the only one that knows your intention for sure.

Surely one can have sinful thoughts about the spouse when the idea is to get aroused by yourself through fantasy (even of the spouse) or by appropriating sex from your spouse, rather than receiving it as a gift. Kenneth Henderson wrote it well: “Lust is the desire to use another for ones own selfish pleasure, while love is to will the greater good of another.” In Theology of The Body by Christopher West - (This book is about Pope John Paul IIs talks on marriage.) - wrote similarly “12. Marriage in no way justifies lust. Thus a man can commit adultey in his heart with his own wife if he treats her as nothing but an object to satisfy his own instinct.” (p. 237)

 

[YipYupYep]

Surely one can have sinful thoughts about the spouse when the idea is to get aroused by yourself through fantasy (even of the spouse) or by appropriating sex from your spouse, rather than receiving it as a gift.

How deep does the Church go into the marriage bed. Sounds like there is three of them in there!!!

(Ephesians 5:21-28). 21) Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22) Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. …

 

[emeraldcoast]

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

I am just going to simply agree with your post and be thankful that I do not have to be worried by this kind of “stuff” in my marriage. Praise God!

God Bless!

 

[Vico]

It is interesting comment by Kendy: “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.”

I remember how nice it was to be hugged by my mother or father when I was a child. However, there was no arousal. Now in marriage, affection can be wonderful too, but has consequences, perhaps more for the male than the female, due to a quicker and stronger physiological response. So a couple expressing affection physically may becomes a tease and lead to pelvic congestion and being in a state of arousal can leave one succeptible to sinful thoughts or actions (near occassion). Now how is that considerate of the spouse? Perhaps it’s better to wait or be more moderate in affection. (Aren’t we trying to be in the Holy Spirit rather than materially oriented? – Pneumo vs. sarx.)

 

[fix]

How deep does the Church go into the marriage bed. Sounds like there is three of them in there!!!

There are three including Jesus. Is He not part of marriage?

 

[coco2]

My, oh my. I had no idea there were so many rules and regulations dealing with sex within a marriage. I find it hard to believe God would consider playful affection a grave sin. How can this behavior possibly lead to sinful thoughts??? How can any thoughts about your mate be sinful?

Rape is a grave sin. Murder is a grave sin. Abortion is a grave sin. Sexually abusing children is a grave sin.

Playful affection that leads to or does not lead to sex within marriage is not a grave sin.

 

[Vico]

It seems that playful affection in marriage would be alright, if it is respectful, i.e. not lustful (meaning not treating the other as a sex object for your own gratification).

Also, once aroused one can begin thinking about getting release from the excitement in ways that are not marital intercourse. So due consideration must be taken to avoid that.

 

[fix]

My, oh my. I had no idea there were so many rules and regulations dealing with sex within a marriage.

Not so many rules. Simply do good and avoid evil. The problem is we need a good conscience.

 

[thistle]

The only rule for sex within a marriage is that the marital act must be completed inside the woman. Any type of foreplay leading up to that is entirely up to the husband and wife to agree on.
There is no Church document explicitly banning any particular type of foreplay. People who say certain acts are not allowed are always unable to come up with a Church document and instead throw up vague generalisations about unnatural acts and opinions of disgust. None of these are relevant.

 

[Julian_Peters]

Thank you to all who have participated. This thread is now closed.