Sexuality question!

[Other_Eric]

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.

What I am saying is that coitus is sufficient to bring the woman to climax. Coitus fulfills the pursoses of unity and openness to life required of the sexual act. I am unaware of any method of stimulation outside of coitus that fulfills the two requirements the Church defines for the sexual act.

 

[thewanderer]

What I am saying is that coitus is sufficient to bring the woman to climax. Coitus fulfills the pursoses of unity and openness to life required of the sexual act. I am unaware of any method of stimulation outside of coitus that fulfills the two requirements the Church defines for the sexual act.

Unfortunately this is not at all true for many women.

 

[Other_Eric]

Unfortunately this is not at all true for many women.

If a woman is absolutely unable to achieve climax unless she strays outside of the boundaries that Holy Mother Church has defined for sexual expression, then she has the options of either seeking the services of a physician to correct the problem or simply accepting her lack of climax as part of the cross our Lord asks her to bear.

 

[thewanderer]

If a woman is absolutely unable to achieve climax unless she strays outside of the boundaries that Holy Mother Church has defined for sexual expression, then she has the options of either seeking the services of a physician to correct the problem or simply accepting her lack of climax as part of the cross our Lord asks her to bear.

Again, would you care to provide proof that your interpretation of Church teaching is correct? I am actually open to having a discussion about this, but I just don’t see any such teaching as you claim to exist.

 

[Other_Eric]

Again, would you care to provide proof that your interpretation of Church teaching is correct? I am actually open to having a discussion about this, but I just don’t see any such teaching as you claim to exist.

Again, I refer to the Church’s dual purposes for sexual activity: unity and openness to life. Which do you deny the importance of? All I have said is that the woman must achieve her climax within the boundaries established by the Church. You’re asking for documentation that denies permission to go outside of the Church’s sexual ethic for this one, particular act?

Let’s be blunt. You are attempting to carve out an exception to sexual morality for masturbation. You seem to claim that this is ok just because you call it something else or redefine the sexual act to include practices that are neither unitive nor procreative in nature. Following this, you want me to produce documentation that specifically says why you can’t do this. Seriously?

 

[Cat]

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.

My husband and I were virgins when we married, and we have have been married 33 years.

We’re really good at sex. We are quite skilled in the Act of Marriage and know each other extremely well, in all senses of the word “know.”

But in 33 years, we’ve achieved simultaneous orgasm twice.

To be very honest, we don’t like it. We prefer to climax separately so that we can enjoy each other’s climax, rather than being so caught up in the bliss of our own climax that we aren’t even aware of the pleasure that our spouse is enjoying.

I don’t know Polish, so I can’t translate. But I’m guessing that what is meant is that the climaxes should both occur during the same act of marriage. There shouldn’t be a significant delay; e.g., the husband climaxes, then both parties fall asleep, or go watch TV, and then a few hours later, the husband helps his wife to climax. This type of “non-simultaneous climaxing” reduces the Act of Marriage to a pleasure-seeking physical experience by each individual spouse rather than one act that binds both spouses together.

I hope that this is clear. It’s kind of hard to describe what I mean without transgressing forum rules about explicitness. I hope I haven’t done so.

 

[thewanderer]

Again, I refer to the Church’s dual purposes for sexual activity: unity and openness to life. Which do you deny the importance of? All I have said is that the woman must achieve her climax within the boundaries established by the Church. You’re asking for documentation that denies permission to go outside of the Church’s sexual ethic for this one, particular act?

Let’s be blunt. You are attempting to carve out an exception to sexual morality for masturbation. You seem to claim that this is ok just because you call it something else or redefine the sexual act to include practices that are neither unitive nor procreative in nature. Following this, you want me to produce documentation that specifically says why you can’t do this. Seriously?

Not at all, on the contrary I am arguing that the actions in question are not removed from either the unitive or procreative element. I am asking you to show me where the Church condems them as masturbative. If the Church does not do so explicitly please reference the teachings you believve imply this and then explain your argument in more detail.

 

[Other_Eric]

My husband and I were virgins when we married, and we have have been married 33 years.

We’re really good at sex. We are quite skilled in the Act of Marriage and know each other extremely well, in all senses of the word “know.”

But in 33 years, we’ve achieved simultaneous orgasm twice.

To be very honest, we don’t like it. We prefer to climax separately so that we can enjoy each other’s climax, rather than being so caught up in the bliss of our own climax that we aren’t even aware of the pleasure that our spouse is enjoying.

I don’t know Polish, so I can’t translate. But I’m guessing that what is meant is that the climaxes should both occur during the same act of marriage. There shouldn’t be a significant delay; e.g., the husband climaxes, then both parties fall asleep, or go watch TV, and then a few hours later, the husband helps his wife to climax. This type of “non-simultaneous climaxing” reduces the Act of Marriage to a pleasure-seeking physical experience by each individual spouse rather than one act that binds both spouses together.

I hope that this is clear. It’s kind of hard to describe what I mean without transgressing forum rules about explicitness. I hope I haven’t done so.

Correct me if I’m mistaken, but it appears from your testimony that you and your husband deliberately avoid simultaneous orgasm because you prefer something else. Forgive me, but this sounds like a fetish; that is, a disordered perversion of the sexual act towards a purely hedonistic end. It may be mild in your case as you’ve described it, but that’s what it seems to be.

 

[Cat]

Correct me if I’m mistaken, but it appears from your testimony that you and your husband deliberately avoid simultaneous orgasm because you prefer something else. Forgive me, but this sounds like a fetish; that is, a disordered perversion of the sexual act towards a purely hedonistic end. It may be mild in your case as you’ve described it, but that’s what it seems to be.

Yes, you are mistaken.

Are you married?

 

[Other_Eric]

Not at all, on the contrary I am arguing that the actions in question are not removed from either the unitive or procreative element. I am asking you to show me where the Church condems them as masturbative. If the Church does not do so explicitly please reference the teachings you believve imply this and then explain your argument in more detail.

Digital stimulation is masturbation. Period. You want to call it something else? How is an act of digital stimulation either unitive or procreative? Perhaps you don’t mean digital stimulation. Perhaps you mean to refer to connecting the female reproductive organs with one end of her husband’s digestive tract. How is this either unitive or procreative (bear in mind, the homosexual community will love to make use of whatever rationalization you come up with for this one)?

Then it seems you want me to produce a list of every distorted sexual practice and every permutation of such that the depraved mind can concoct where the Church condemns each one specifically. Forgive me, I find this puerile. The standard is both procreative and unitive. If one or both are missing, the act is condemned. Therefore, you must be denying one of them. Which is it?

 

[nodito]

Digital stimulation is masturbation. Period.

No, masturbation is stimilation of the genital organs outside of the act of intercourse.

 

[Other_Eric]

Yes, you are mistaken.

Are you married?

if I am mistaken, I sincerely apologize. Please clarify.

I have been married, if you must know. However, I generally decline to discuss my personal affairs on this forum beyond the bare facts of my having been married and the fact of my son, whom I raise.

 

[thewanderer]

Digital stimulation is masturbation. Period. You want to call it something else? How is an act of digital stimulation either unitive or procreative? Perhaps you don’t mean digital stimulation. Perhaps you mean to refer to connecting the female reproductive organs with one end of her husband’s digestive tract. How is this either unitive or procreative (bear in mind, the homosexual community will love to make use of whatever rationalization you come up with for this one)?

Then it seems you want me to produce a list of every distorted sexual practice and every permutation of such that the depraved mind can concoct where the Church condemns each one specifically. Forgive me, I find this puerile. The standard is both procreative and unitive. If one or both are missing, the act is condemned. Therefore, you must be denying one of them. Which is it?

Again, please provide the Church’s own teaching on this matter from which we can have a discussion. I am not going to change my understanding simply because some random person I don’t know told me to. Like I said, I am open to discussing this, but I want to start any such discussion on a solid basis of common agreement, the Church’s official teachings.

 

[Other_Eric]

No, masturbation is stimilation of the genital organs outside of the act of intercourse.

Intercourse, by definition, cannot occur if, say, a hand is in the way.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Intercourse, by definition, cannot occur if, say, a hand is in the way.

A hand, maybe, but not a finger or two.

 

[thewanderer]

I will post a passage from the CCC.

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."137 “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."138

from: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM

Now, you might believe this is saying something else than I do, in which case it is likely that we will continue to disagree with each other, and thats ok.

The bolded part is the explanation for why masturbation is a sin, it is because sexual pleasure is sought outside of the sexual relationship of a a married couple. So, such stimulation is fine within the context of unitive and procreative sexual activity, but is gravely sinful outside of such a situation.

Just so you know, I’m not going to be online much over the weekend, so I might not be able to reply until Monday.

 

[underacloud]

Acts of forplay, in the context of a marital act involving completed intercourse, are both unitive and procreative. They are unitive in that they contribute to the bond/unity of the spouses, through their mutual acts of giving pleasure to one another, and they are procreative in that they facilitate the intercourse to follow. Thereby they enhance, not decrease, the procreative nature of the marital act.

Acts of foreplay may be non-unitive for a number of reasons: if they are not enjoyable to the spouses, if they are dangerous, if they are degrading.

Acts of foreplay may be non-procreative if they involve the husband ejaculating, thereby preventing the proper completion of the act. If it’s deliberate, it is sinful, If it is accidental, it is unintended and therefore not sinful (unless perhaps they should have known better).

Many moral theologians have adopted this viewpoint and importantly they have not been corrected by the Church.

I try not to buy into these discussions too often as they end up going around in circles, precisely because there are no official Church documents to answer such questions, but I just thought I’d present this viewpoint for the sake of the OP, who seems concerned about this. I would suggest looking further into the work of JPII in his Theology of the Body and books written on the subject such as those by Christopher West. West’s work has been criticised by some, but importantly has received the nihil obstat and imprimatur, indicating that it is free from doctrinal error.

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

According to my moral theology book, Moral Theology from 1951, which has two Nihil Obstats, and two Imprimaturs, it has this to say on the matter (All emphasis is as it is written):

752. -III Imperfect Acts that are sexually stimulating (kissing, embracing, etc.) are lawful or forbidden according to the following rules:

1. They are always lawful in connections with the marriage act, whether preparatory thereto or as a completion thereof.

This pertains to looks, kissing and touches - Wives who do not obtain complete satisfaction may procure it by touches immediately before or after coition since the husband may withdraw immediately after ejaculation. Some authors believe she may do so also when the husband withdraws in an onanistic manner. The same can not be said of the husband should the wife withdraw since the seed would thus be wasted.

 

[guiltycatholic]

Go and get a book called Good News About Sex and Marriage. The author covers these very issues and answers all these questions (and many more) clearly. Just keep in mind that whatever the exact boundaries and rules are, the point of them is to prevent sex becoming only about pleasure.

 

[twoangels]

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.

Actually I’ve been reading Love and Responsibility more, and he also states that the pull out method deprives a woman of a sexual climax. There are other things he states that gives me the impression that he believes the woman is merely slower to orgasm. He doesn’t seem to recognize that most women cannot vaginally orgasm.

I think his ethics are off. I think his study of sexology may be flawed. I don’t think Wests and Popcak’s statement that the woman can climax other ways comes from Wojtyla.