Sexuality question!

[bmagana]

I really need help, i can’t find definitive information on the female orgasm, official church teaching doesn’t say much.
Regarding male climax, everything is crystal clear, it has to happen during normal intercourse everytime, i know, so here it is:
If me and my wife plan on having normal intercouse, is it morally acceptable for me (not her) to bring her to orgasm manually or orally immediately before intercourse?
How about manually stimulating during the actual intercourse to help us both climax?
And If she can’t reach orgasm during normal intercourse, is it permissible for me, to help her reach it either manually or orally right after i am done?

Basically, in a nutshell, what i need to know is, if female orgasm stimulated orally/manually is morally acceptable surrounding normal sexual intercourse, or, it definitively has to happen during the marital act alone.
Sorry for being explicit, but i need to clarify this, thank you

 

[underacloud]

In my opinion, everything you’ve said is permissible.

You won’t find any official Church teaching on this. The Church doesn’t go into the minutiae of everything we do, in sex or other areas of morality. The key principles for sex are that it is order to procreation and unitive.

Ordered to procreation means the man finishes inside the wife, so whether the wife orgasms before, during, or after, it is entirely irrelevant to this requirement.

So the matter of unitive sex. Well, unitive can be interpreted in a few ways - enjoyable, bonding, etc. The female orgasm definitely facilities the unitive aspect of sex. JPII in his Theology of the Body encouraged husbands to be considerate of their wives in this regard. The ideal, as he saw it, is for orgasm to coincide. But if this isn’t possible…and let’s face it, it’s a lovely aim, but relatively rare (unless you’re a very lucky couple)…then orgasm at another stage during the marital embrace is good too.

But like I said, there isn’t any official Church teaching, so there are opinions contrary to this too. In the end, you’ll need to decide for yourselves whether the sex you have is procreative and unitive, which are the only real requirements the Church places on us.

 

[TrixieMcGee]

Well, it is just fine with the Church’s teaching as long as the sexual acts contains or ends in the male orgasm inside the wife. Most people don’t know that over 70% of women cannot come to orgasm through vaginal intercourse alone. So if the Church taught against this, then it would mean 70% of Catholic women would never be able to reach orgasm, which doesn’t make any sense.

 

[Corki]

Well, it is just fine with the Church’s teaching as long as the sexual acts contains or ends in the male orgasm inside the wife. Most people don’t know that over 70% of women cannot come to orgasm through vaginal intercourse alone. So if the Church taught against this, then it would mean 70% of Catholic women would never be able to reach orgasm, which doesn’t make any sense.

 

[twoangels]

amazon.com/Holy-Sex-Toe-Curling-Mind-Blowing-Infallible/dp/0824524713

In summary though, no, it is not sinful. Certainly there still is a masculine prospective in how we understand female sexuality even among Catholic apologists on the topic. There has been some recognition that women’s body’s and sexual urges do not seem designed to at least easily climax through intercourse. I personally think that even thinking its a moral ideal to climax together is based more on assumptions and not on facts about how God designed women differently from men.

 

[Other_Eric]

My reading of Wojtyla indicates that the female orgasm ought to occur simultaneous with the male orgasm or not at all. Deliberately achieving orgasm separate from one another anulls the uniquely intense moment of the communion of persons meant to be shared by spouses in favor of crude hedonism.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

My reading of Wojtyla indicates that the female orgasm ought to occur simultaneous with the male orgasm or not at all. Deliberately achieving orgasm separate from one another anulls the uniquely intense moment of the communion of persons meant to be shared by spouses in favor of crude hedonism.

Easier said than done… lol. I would caution against taking that advice too far, it’s good if it works for you as a couple but if it doesn’t then don’t abandon the pleasurable act altogether.

 

[twoangels]

My reading of Wojtyla indicates that the female orgasm ought to occur simultaneous with the male orgasm or not at all. Deliberately achieving orgasm separate from one another anulls the uniquely intense moment of the communion of persons meant to be shared by spouses in favor of crude hedonism.

He does claim “There exists a rhythm dictated by nature itself which both spouses must discover so that climax may be reached both by the man and by the woman, and as far as possible occur in both simultaneously.”

I have yet to see any such evidence that such a rhythm exists. If it does exist, my assumption is that women are designed to climax before intercourse to prepare her body for it and then additionally during intercourse. I did read a theory that women’s capacity for multiple climaxes may have a evolutionary component dealing with multiple partners. The woman could have sex with one man and then the next. I believe, though, such conclusions stem from a still masculine interpretation that women are designed to primarily climax during intercourse. It obviously is not God’s intent for women to have multiple male partners at once.

I have a very hard time believing that the female orgasm is similar in purpose to the man’s orgasm. Whether a woman gets pregnant has far more to do when she has sex than what she experiences during sex. I have yet to see an actual study that indicates that statistically more pregnancies occur among orgasming women than not. There are theories about how different mechanisms might rush sperm up, but I think those come merely from looking for the connection.

 

[nodito]

My reading of Wojtyla indicates that the female orgasm ought to occur simultaneous with the male orgasm or not at all. Deliberately achieving orgasm separate from one another anulls the uniquely intense moment of the communion of persons meant to be shared by spouses in favor of crude hedonism.

Eric, if deliberately achieving orgasm during the marital act but not simultaneously with your spouse somehow damages the unitive aspect of intercourse, then couldn’t we also say that the male orgasm must occur simulatenously with the female orgams or not at all?

 

[12345678]

My reading of Wojtyla indicates that the female orgasm ought to occur simultaneous with the male orgasm or not at all. Deliberately achieving orgasm separate from one another anulls the uniquely intense moment of the communion of persons meant to be shared by spouses in favor of crude hedonism.

In Love and Responsibility, although he points out the ideal is simultaneous orgasm, he pretty much encourages a husband to help his wife achieve it after the husband has reached climax if she did not reach it.

Hedonism would be if the wife was doing it herself, but a husband can lovingly help his wife achieve orgasm, and actually Wojtyla talks about the possibility of frigidity if the wife does not climax at all.

 

[Other_Eric]

Eric, if deliberately achieving orgasm during the marital act but not simultaneously with your spouse somehow damages the unitive aspect of intercourse, then couldn’t we also say that the male orgasm must occur simulatenously with the female orgams or not at all?

The male orgasm is directly tied to the completion of the marital act, the female orgasm is not. Therefore, your attempt to draw a parallel fails. Further, the key qualifier in my previous comment is the word “deliberately.” Exactly as Wojtyla points out, the husband has the responsibility to see to it that orgasm is experienced simultaneously with his wife, but failing that, any reading which purports to find in Wojtyla an obligation for a husband to masturbate his wife I find juvenile and salacious.

 

[thewanderer]

He does claim “There exists a rhythm dictated by nature itself which both spouses must discover so that climax may be reached both by the man and by the woman, and as far as possible occur in both simultaneously.”

Just from this passage it seems pretty clear that JPII is encouraging men to help their wives acheive orgasm, even if they don’t reach it simultaneously. He says both spouses need to work to help each other climax, and that in so far as this is possible they should try and climax simultaneously. In other words, the ideal is for both to climax. This is qualified by saying they should try, as far as possible, to get there simultaneously, but that does not remove the previous statement that they should both climax, its just a qualifier to help understand more about the ideal way for them to both get there.

 

[Other_Eric]

Just from this passage it seems pretty clear that JPII is encouraging men to help their wives acheive orgasm, even if they don’t reach it simultaneously. He says both spouses need to work to help each other climax, and that in so far as this is possible they should try and climax simultaneously. In other words, the ideal is for both to climax. This is qualified by saying they should try, as far as possible, to get there simultaneously, but that does not remove the previous statement that they should both climax, its just a qualifier to help understand more about the ideal way for them to both get there.

“Ideal” does not equal “obligation.” While the ideal is for both husband and wife to achieve climax, this does not imply an obligation, still less does it imply permission to achieve orgasm outside of coitus.

 

[thewanderer]

“Ideal” does not equal “obligation.” While the ideal is for both husband and wife to achieve climax, this does not imply an obligation, still less does it imply permission to achieve orgasm outside of coitus.

Ideal, as in that which is to be aimed for. As in husband needs to aim to acheive this. He ought to try to acheive tthis simultaneously with his own climax *if possible, *but even if this is not possible he ought to aim to bring his wife to climax. This seems to me to be pretty clearly what JPII is saying. o you have any authoritative Church teaching saying that he is incorrect in his understanding on this point?

 

[Other_Eric]

Ideal, as in that which is to be aimed for. As in husband needs to aim to acheive this. He ought to try to acheive tthis simultaneously with his own climax *if possible, *but even if this is not possible he ought to aim to bring his wife to climax. This seems to me to be pretty clearly what JPII is saying. o you have any authoritative Church teaching saying that he is incorrect in his understanding on this point?

The Church authoritatively teaches that the purpose of the sexual act is dual, that it be unitive and open to life. This is de fide. An act of masturbation fulfills neither of these two purposes, since it is obviously not open to life, nor is it unitive (a hand or a mouth is not a sexual organ). You wish me to provide documentation to substantiate this, and I will, but first, let’s get specific. Which of these aspects of the sexual faculty do you deny the importance of in order to rationalize your new, stylish masturbatory ethic? Once I know that, I’ll know what documentation to provide.

 

[thewanderer]

The Church authoritatively teaches that the purpose of the sexual act is dual, that it be unitive and open to life. This is de fide. An act of masturbation fulfills neither of these two purposes, since it is obviously not open to life, nor is it unitive (a hand or a mouth is not a sexual organ). You wish me to provide documentation to substantiate this, and I will, but first, let’s get specific. Which of these aspects of the sexual faculty do you deny the importance of in order to rationalize your new, stylish masturbatory ethic? Once I know that, I’ll know what documentation to provide.

See, here’s the thing, I have no problem with Church teaching about masturbation, I just don’t see how what was suggested is masturbation. Which is why I asked for Church teaching which specifically says that JPII’s understanding of this situation is incorrect.

 

[Other_Eric]

See, here’s the thing, I have no problem with Church teaching about masturbation, I just don’t see how what was suggested is masturbation. Which is why I asked for Church teaching which specifically says that JPII’s understanding of this situation is incorrect.

If you have no problem with the Church’s teaching on masturbation, then neither will you have a problem with the fact that this particular sexual act remains illicit whether performed upon oneself by either oneself or another.

 

[thewanderer]

If you have no problem with the Church’s teaching on masturbation, then neither will you have a problem with the fact that this particular sexual act remains illicit whether performed upon oneself by either oneself or another.

Like I said, I do not see how what JPII is suggesting is immoral. If you have Church teaching to back up your claim that it is immoral then feel free to post it. Circumstances, do, in fact, often make all the difference as to whether an act is moral or not. Lets look at having sex, for instance, there are many circumstances which make it immoral and then many circumstances which make it perfectly moral, in fact it even becomes an obligation. My problem is not with Church teaching on masturbation but rather with the idea that what JPII is promoting is masturbation.

 

[Other_Eric]

Like I said, I do not see how what JPII is suggesting is immoral. If you have Church teaching to back up your claim that it is immoral then feel free to post it. Circumstances, do, in fact, often make all the difference as to whether an act is moral or not. Lets look at having sex, for instance, there are many circumstances which make it immoral and then many circumstances which make it perfectly moral, in fact it even becomes an obligation. My problem is not with Church teaching on masturbation but rather with the idea that JPII is promoting masturbation.

The problem as I see it is that you are reading into Wojtyla’s text something that just isn’t there. He only says climax should occur for both husband and wife and should attempt to be achieved simultaneously. He does not say what to do if female orgasm is not achieved. Into this silence, it seems you have inserted an exception to the Church’s teaching on masturbation. This, it must be said, directly contradicts the Church’s vision for human sexuality. If you believe the late pope articulated an exception, show me that explicitly. If all you have to go on is your weak inference based on something Wojtyla didn’t actually say, then forgive me, I’ll throw my lot in with the Church’s crystal clear prohibition on masturbation.

 

[thewanderer]

The problem as I see it is that you are reading into Wojtyla’s text something that just isn’t there. He only says climax should occur for both husband and wife and should attempt to be achieved simultaneously. He does not say what to do if female orgasm is not achieved. Into this silence, it seems you have inserted an exception to the Church’s teaching on masturbation. This, it must be said, directly contradicts the Church’s vision for human sexuality. If you believe the late pope articulated an exception, show me that explicitly. If all you have to go on is your weak inference based on something Wojtyla didn’t actually say, then forgive me, I’ll throw my lot in with the Church’s crystal clear prohibition on masturbation.

See, then the problem here is that we are reading the same words but believe they say something different, that is going to be hard to fix.

To be honest, if you really want to talk about what is involved, what is being discussed is when it is licit for a husband to stimulate his wife sexually. I see no problem with such stimulation within the context of the sexual act. The difference, I believe, in our opinions comes from a difference in our understanding of what constitutes the context of the sexual act. If you want to argue that what I understand JPII to be saying is actually a form of masturbation you will need to expand your argument further.