sexual sensitivity

[minnesotaboy]

Ok this is a touchy subject so be prepared. I was married now single. I have for a long time suffered from pre-mature ejaculation. This may have been some of the cause for the failure in my marriage, among other things of course. I have just received a declaration of nullity and decided I may start looking for another relationship/future wife. I have looked into some of the methods for treating this condition and most if not all include some form of masturbation exercises as training. I know this is normally sinful behavior but am wondering if in the pursuit of treating a condition such as this is it still sinful? I am really torn as to even looking for a future mate if I am unable to fulfill her in this area. I know there is more to marriage than sex so we needn’t even go there. I am sincerely looking for some real theology in this area if there is any.

 

[Bookcat]

Such would not be moral…it would actually be gravely sinful. When though you are married there would I think be various moral approaches to your difficulty.

 

[ahs]

…I have looked into some of the methods for treating this condition and most if not all include some form of masturbation exercises as training. I know this is normally sinful behavior but am wondering if in the pursuit of treating a condition such as this is it still sinful?..

Yes, still sinful, and grave matter.

From Casti Connubii: “54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good.”

This is definitely something you should visit with a Priest about, though. My personal thoughts: this condition could only be addressed and treated within Marriage and within the marital act…the “treatment exercises” being performed in a way that do not disrupt the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital act. But, as I said, you really need to visit with a Priest about this.

 

[Bookcat]

In marriage such a difficulty can be treated I would think in various moral ways.

(note that one cannot for example even obtain a sperm sample via masturbation…it needs to be obtained via a moral means in marriage).

 

[Leegal]

There are other treatments and techniques that do not require masturbation. Have you researched this sufficiently?

There is are causes and you want to find the cause and learn the treatments and techniques.

If there’s a psychological cause, masturbation will not prevent if from happening, nor it will prevent P.E. from becoming another sexual dysfunction. Not trying to scare you, but if you just research this you will find that this is not recommended as a treatment. If it does not prove to be a remedy, you may find yourself erroneously resorting to it more. So, why not skip this and seek qualified medical help?

There may be a physical cause; that certainly warrants a physician. Aside from the religious prohibition, I do not believe that technique is medically recommended and maybe myth rather than science.

You might want to research the causes and seek some counseling too along those lines. Start with a urologist. Your course may include therapy. If you understand the cause, you can work on a controlling it without resorting to masturbation.

 

[twoangels]

Ok this is a touchy subject so be prepared. I was married now single. I have for a long time suffered from pre-mature ejaculation. This may have been some of the cause for the failure in my marriage, among other things of course. I have just received a declaration of nullity and decided I may start looking for another relationship/future wife. I have looked into some of the methods for treating this condition and most if not all include some form of masturbation exercises as training. I know this is normally sinful behavior but am wondering if in the pursuit of treating a condition such as this is it still sinful? I am really torn as to even looking for a future mate if I am unable to fulfill her in this area. I know there is more to marriage than sex so we needn’t even go there. I am sincerely looking for some real theology in this area if there is any.

A woman can morally be “fulfilled” other ways, and it does seem that many men learn to delay themselves in a moral manner. Honestly I don’t know why it’d cause failure in a marriage.

 

[Newbie2]

A woman can morally be “fulfilled” other ways, and it does seem that many men learn to delay themselves in a moral manner. Honestly I don’t know why it’d cause failure in a marriage.

I can see how it could. Think about it, it must be frustrating for both partners in the marriage.

 

[Leegal]

Honestly I don’t know why it’d cause failure in a marriage.

I see that it would. In fact, he thinks it’s what broke up his marriage.

I think it’s serious enough because it bothers him.

 

[Jonatello]

From Casti Connubii: “54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good.”

why is “nature” so often treated like a foot in hokey-pokey? (“put left foot in, take left foot out, put left foot in and shake it all about”)

half the time, we invoke “nature” to say something is terrible because it “goes against nature”.

the other half the time, when something is shown to be natural, we say “nature isn’t an excuse”.

to make matters more confusing, since when is masturbation against nature? have we actually looked at nature? its seen all throughout nature, including among humans who haven’t been taught otherwise (and didn’t have to learn it). Its automatic and has to be taught out of people, not into people.

One thing I struggle with is that, while the great theologians who have contributed to our faith were generally very very smart, they still had to use limited understanding about various sciences and things to frame their guiding concepts of things like what sexuality is and what its natural purposes/benefits are.

I’m not saying i’m totally convinced its okay, but every rationale I’ve so far heard for it being wrong comes off extremely flimsy.

 

[minnesotaboy]

I didn’t say it’s what broke up my marriage. I said “it may have been some of the cause”. I honestly don’t know for sure but I do know it was a source of frustration for both of us. I guess what I’m really looking for is a moral way to deal with this that is in line with church teaching before I enter another relationship. It almost seems pointless to pursue another marriage when the intimacy within it would suffer from such a big road block. And please don’t say it’s not that big a deal unless you’ve experience with it. It is a very big deal.

 

[mark_a]

One thing I struggle with is that, while the great theologians who have contributed to our faith were generally very very smart, they still had to use limited understanding about various sciences and things to frame their guiding concepts of things like what sexuality is and what its natural purposes/benefits are.

The great theologians have been very knowledgeable and consistent in realizing that sex belongs in marriage between one man and one woman. Theologians that disagree have not withstood the test of time and are therefore not so great. For example, can we name the Lambeth theologians who slightly cracked open the door on 1900+ years of Christian teaching about the evils of contraception?

 

[Jonatello]

The great theologians have been very knowledgeable and consistent in realizing that sex belongs in marriage between one man and one woman. Theologians that disagree have not withstood the test of time and are therefore not so great. For example, can we name the Lambeth theologians who slightly cracked open the door on 1900+ years of Christian teaching about the evils of contraception?

I think it’s easy to assume that any theologians that disagreed weren’t allowed to stand the test of time because they were overruled by those who disagreed.

But my post that you replied to wasn’t about consistency or unanimity, nor was it about being “very knowledgeable” in a general sense. II acknowledged that they were very very smart, but I hope you’re not saying they were “all knowing”.

To this day, we continue to learn more about the subject of sexuality and its nature by observing nature. How could anyone who lived centuries ago be expected to fully understand and codify the “nature of sexuality” when we’re still making discoveries on the subject?

 

[sw85]

Have you looked into medication? There are several widely prescribed drugs with libido-suppressing side effects which are sometimes prescribed off-label for the treatment of PE. As has been said, masturbation is never morally licit for any reason.

 

[Jonatello]

Have you looked into medication? There are several widely prescribed drugs with libido-suppressing side effects which are sometimes prescribed off-label for the treatment of PE. As has been said, masturbation is never morally licit for any reason.

With all due respect, I don’t believe medication should ever be seen as a universal answer to something like this.

Medication should never be promoted over natural methods if there’s a natural way to treat the problem. Medication a for-profit product (often patented and proprietary) with typically large risk of side effects, dependency-creating (even if the dependency isn’t chemical), costs large amounts of money which some people don’t have, not universally available (thus not a universal answer), is often the result of morally questionable practices, supports a crooked industry that gets rich off of convincing people they need pills for everything, and works to suppress knowledge of natural remedies.

How is going into debt and risking physical side effects while paying for poison and being in bondage to profiteers of the day more respectful of our God-given bodies than doing something that does not harm it?

 

[fhansen]

Ok this is a touchy subject so be prepared. I was married now single. I have for a long time suffered from pre-mature ejaculation. This may have been some of the cause for the failure in my marriage, among other things of course. I have just received a declaration of nullity and decided I may start looking for another relationship/future wife. I have looked into some of the methods for treating this condition and most if not all include some form of masturbation exercises as training. I know this is normally sinful behavior but am wondering if in the pursuit of treating a condition such as this is it still sinful? I am really torn as to even looking for a future mate if I am unable to fulfill her in this area. I know there is more to marriage than sex so we needn’t even go there. I am sincerely looking for some real theology in this area if there is any.

How long were you married? Maybe you just needed a little more time.

 

[Nate13]

why is “nature” so often treated like a foot in hokey-pokey? (“put left foot in, take left foot out, put left foot in and shake it all about”)

half the time, we invoke “nature” to say something is terrible because it “goes against nature”.

the other half the time, when something is shown to be natural, we say “nature isn’t an excuse”.

to make matters more confusing, since when is masturbation against nature? have we actually looked at nature? its seen all throughout nature, including among humans who haven’t been taught otherwise (and didn’t have to learn it). Its automatic and has to be taught out of people, not into people.

One thing I struggle with is that, while the great theologians who have contributed to our faith were generally very very smart, they still had to use limited understanding about various sciences and things to frame their guiding concepts of things like what sexuality is and what its natural purposes/benefits are.

I’m not saying i’m totally convinced its okay, but every rationale I’ve so far heard for it being wrong comes off extremely flimsy.

That “nature” your being sarcastic about was not only created by God, but designed by God in His image. You are never going to understand this if you don’t understand that “nature” and “natural” are not the same. While you might call masturbation the “natural option” as opposed to taking medication, it is certainly not the option that is in line with our “nature”. Another reason you don’t get this is because the word “natural” has become incredibly ambiguous in today’s society. It has essentially become meaningless to call something “natural”.

 

[Jonatello]

That “nature” your being sarcastic about was not only created by God, but designed by God in His image. You are never going to understand this if you don’t understand that “nature” and “natural” are not the same. While you might call masturbation the “natural option” as opposed to taking medication, it is certainly not the option that is in line with our “nature”. Another reason you don’t get this is because the word “natural” has become incredibly ambiguous in today’s society. It has essentially become meaningless to call something “natural”.

You completely bypassed my question, and I wasn’t being sarcastic at all, i was making a colorful but straight-forward analogy. We are not consistent with regard to invoking/rejecting “nature” as a reason for things. Half the time we criticize things for being against nature, the other half of the time we say nature isn’t a good reason to do something. Sometimes its the same exact thing: masturbation. How in the living lunar lakes it sarcasm to point that out?

God is the one who designed nature, absolutely…but masturbation found throughout nature. Humans as well will automatically masturbate without being taught. It is something they have to be taught and trained not to do…which is fine, there are natural inclinations that we learn to avoid, but its because there’s a clear universally understood victim by doing so. The only thing that is proposed to be harmed by masturbation is the “nature” of sexuality, which is like circular illogic: “Don’t follow nature if it goes against nature.”

 

[sw85]

With all due respect, I don’t believe medication should ever be seen as a universal answer to something like this.

Medication should never be promoted over natural methods if there’s a natural way to treat the problem. Medication a for-profit product (often patented and proprietary) with typically large risk of side effects, dependency-creating (even if the dependency isn’t chemical), costs large amounts of money which some people don’t have, not universally available (thus not a universal answer), is often the result of morally questionable practices, supports a crooked industry that gets rich off of convincing people they need pills for everything, and works to suppress knowledge of natural remedies.

How is going into debt and risking physical side effects while paying for poison and being in bondage to profiteers of the day more respectful of our God-given bodies than doing something that does not harm it?

With due respect to you, I didn’t ask for a rant about the evils of pharmaceutical companies (or whatever) and such is no use to the OP.

No, it is not a “universal” answer. It is one possible answer among many, and one he ought to look into it. Drugs with antilibidinal effects (most SSRIs for instance) are cheap, abundantly available, and relatively safe for the vast majority of people.

You completely bypassed my question, and I wasn’t being sarcastic at all, i was making a colorful but straight-forward analogy. We are not consistent with regard to invoking/rejecting “nature” as a reason for things. Half the time we criticize things for being against nature, the other half of the time we say nature isn’t a good reason to do something. Sometimes its the same exact thing: masturbation. How in the living lunar lakes it sarcasm to point that out?

God is the one who designed nature, absolutely…but masturbation found throughout nature. Humans as well will automatically masturbate without being taught. It is something they have to be taught and trained not to do…which is fine, there are natural inclinations that we learn to avoid, but its because there’s a clear universally understood victim by doing so. The only thing that is proposed to be harmed by masturbation is the “nature” of sexuality, which is like circular illogic: “Don’t follow nature if it goes against nature.”

You are conflating the natural law conception of nature (= human nature) with the materialist conception of it (= “the natural world”).

Just because something occurs in the natural world doesn’t mean it’s consistent with human nature. If that were the case, literally anything a person could do would be A-OK because, after all, it occurs in nature. That’s nonsense and we all know it.

You should really do your homework about what the Church teaches before commenting negatively about those teachings.

 

[Nate13]

You completely bypassed my question, and I wasn’t being sarcastic at all, i was making a colorful but straight-forward analogy. We are not consistent with regard to invoking/rejecting “nature” as a reason for things. Half the time we criticize things for being against nature, the other half of the time we say nature isn’t a good reason to do something. Sometimes its the same exact thing: masturbation. How in the living lunar lakes it sarcasm to point that out?

God is the one who designed nature, absolutely…but masturbation found throughout nature. Humans as well will automatically masturbate without being taught. It is something they have to be taught and trained not to do…which is fine, there are natural inclinations that we learn to avoid, but its because there’s a clear universally understood victim by doing so. The only thing that is proposed to be harmed by masturbation is the “nature” of sexuality, which is like circular illogic: “Don’t follow nature if it goes against nature.”

Maybe you can help me out then here with something St. Paul wrote:

Romans 1:26-27
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Paul seems to have a very clear idea of what is considered “natural” and “unnatural”. How did Paul come to define what were considered “natural” sexual relations and why was calling sexual relations “unnatural” the exact same as calling them wrong? You have said it yourself that masturbation is found by itself in nature, and others would be as quick to remind us that homosexuality is found in nature. If homosexual acts are found in nature just as masturbation is, how could Paul deem it “unnatural”? Obviously he could call it immoral, wrong, a grave sin, or any of the other ways we have for saying something is wrong, but he described it by calling it “unnatural”.

Do you think maybe there is something more to determining whether something is “natural” or “unnatural” outside of just whether it occurs in nature without outside (name removed by moderator)ut? Cancerous tumors can arise “naturally”, but we don’t consider those to be natural do we?

 

[Jonatello]

Maybe you can help me out then here with something St. Paul wrote:

Romans 1:26-27
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Paul seems to have a very clear idea of what is considered “natural” and “unnatural”. How did Paul come to define what were considered “natural” sexual relations and why was calling sexual relations “unnatural” the exact same as calling them wrong? You have said it yourself that masturbation is found by itself in nature, and others would be as quick to remind us that homosexuality is found in nature. If homosexual acts are found in nature just as masturbation is, how could Paul deem it “unnatural”? Obviously he could call it immoral, wrong, a grave sin, or any of the other ways we have for saying something is wrong, but he described it by calling it “unnatural”.

Do you think maybe there is something more to determining whether something is “natural” or “unnatural” outside of just whether it occurs in nature without outside (name removed by moderator)ut? Cancerous tumors can arise “naturally”, but we don’t consider those to be natural do we?

I doubt Paul ever had the chance or interest/calling to observe dolphins or bonobos (primates), much less far away humans with different sets of taboos. I do not doubt he (like most people of all eras and cultures) had a passionate idea of what was natural and unnatural. I highly doubt it was the most accurate analysis of nature we’ve seen.