Strong arguments against Christopher West's marriage/sexuality books

[LokisMom]

I think there is legitimate reason to consider it sinful. There is medical evidence that verifies that it can damage the woman’s rectum, and since Catholics believe that all sexual acts must be unitive and procreative, this sort of foreplay can result in poop getting in the woman’s vagina and urethra, which causes infection. Some women may claim they get off on anal stimulation, but I don’t think any will claim that nothing makes them feel closer and more loving to their spouse than a good bladder or cervical infection. As with most forms of sexual sin, the woman gets to bear the all the consequences of this action, all for the pleasure of the man. It doesn’t take a very large stretch to say this is not self-sacrificing love on the part of the man, and is a form of objectification.

It’s also nasty.

Just sayin.

This raises an important point, because even if this act proves to be licit, there are still responsibilities and precautions that should take place for the health of the woman. Wearing a condom during said foreplay to keep the man clean for vaginal penetration, or doing it in the shower so that there is opportunity to wash off, would both be important things to consider.

 

[mommamaree]

This raises an important point, because even if this act proves to be licit, there are still responsibilities and precautions that should take place for the health of the woman. Wearing a condom during said foreplay to keep the man clean for vaginal penetration, or doing it in the shower so that there is opportunity to wash off, would both be important things to consider.

But Catholics are not permitted to use condoms during sexual relations, even if not for contraceptive purposes. For example, an infertile couple where one spouse has an STD is not allowed to use a condom to prevent transmission of the STD, even though contraception does not factor into it. So how would it be okay for the couple to use a condom to enable anal penetration?

 

[LokisMom]

I also want to point out something for the folks who are saying, since this act can be painful if not done with care, it must therefore be inherently sinful…

And Im sorry for the TMI, but sex for me the first 3 times was EXTREMELY painful. It probably took my husband 30 minutes to be able to “go all the way in” the first time because it was so painful to me, it had to keep being taken out and put back in slowly, little by little.

It hurt and I bled the first 3 times, not just the first time. And even nowadays, if we don’t do it for longer than a week, it will be slightly painful again. There are also certain positions that hurt or are uncomfortable to me. Giving oral stimulation makes my neck and my jaw cramp up.

…But the key in all these things I mentioned above is that they are 100% consensual on my part, and I WANT to do those things, and I still enjoy them.

Again, I am so sorry for the TMI and Im glad I am anonymous here.

But my point is that just because something may be a bit painful/uncomfortable does not automatically make it inherently sinful, if the person still wants to do it anyway. Communication and consideration for the other person are extremely important, and no one should every be doing anything they are not comfortable with.

 

[agapewolf]

But Catholics are not permitted to use condoms during sexual relations, even if not for contraceptive purposes. For example, an infertile couple where one spouse has an STD is not allowed to use a condom to prevent transmission of the STD, even though contraception does not factor into it. So how would it be okay for the couple to use a condom to enable anal penetration?

because ejaculation won’t occur while in use. The condom is sinful because its contraceptive. Using it in the scenario of not passing STDs-- it still functions contraceptively as it blocks semen.

 

[LokisMom]

But Catholics are not permitted to use condoms during sexual relations, even if not for contraceptive purposes. For example, an infertile couple where one spouse has an STD is not allowed to use a condom to prevent transmission of the STD, even though contraception does not factor into it. So how would it be okay for the couple to use a condom to enable anal penetration?

They cant have a condom on during foreplay, and then take it off during vaginal penetration? Since ejaculation isnt happening during foreplay, I dont see why it would be wrong to have one on for hygiene purposes and then take it off for the real thing.

But if you are correct then I guess the only answer then would be the shower.

 

[LokisMom]

because ejaculation won’t occur while in use. The condom is sinful because its contraceptive. Using it in the scenario of not passing STDs-- it still functions contraceptively as it blocks semen.

Yes, this.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

The thing that makes me uncomfortable about these discussions is that they make women out to be stupid creatures who can’t possibly know what they want, and men out to be monsters. To me, it’s far more degrading to tell someone that you know better than they do about what they want.

I think there is legitimate reason to consider it sinful. There is medical evidence that verifies that it can damage the woman’s rectum, and since Catholics believe that all sexual acts must be unitive and procreative, this sort of foreplay can result in poop getting in the woman’s vagina and urethra, which causes infection.

There are ways to mitigate those risks (cleaning). But regardless, Catholic moral theology doesn’t always line up with what medicine says. Even though there are health benefits of masturbation, it is still a sin. Moreover, there are many, many things that you could do with your time that would be much riskier than anal sex that there is no moral prohibition against.

Some women may claim they get off on anal stimulation, but I don’t think any will claim that nothing makes them feel closer and more loving to their spouse than a good bladder or cervical infection. As with most forms of sexual sin, the woman gets to bear the all the consequences of this action, all for the pleasure of the man.

As I said, there are ways to mitigate it. And again, if this is something that the woman enjoys, how is it “all for the pleasure of the man”? Just because it would not be for you, does not mean that your sensibilities should automatically carry into someone else’s marriage.

It doesn’t take a very large stretch to say this is not self-sacrificing love on the part of the man, and is a form of objectification.

Does sex have to be self-sacrificing to be moral? If it’s something that they both want to try, or that they both enjoy, how is it objectification? What sets this apart from oral or manual foreplay?

It’s also nasty.

That really seems to be the crux of the issue.

Just sayin.

There is a confession guide for priests that explicitly says that it is not a sin as long as a few conditions are met. Those conditions are pretty much the same for every sex act, so I’m not sure why anal is singled out.

And let’s face it, the Catholic Church has never been afraid to explicitly call out acts, especially sexual acts, as sinful. If this were objectively sinful, wouldn’t something have been said about it? But instead of prohibiting it, the Church has left it open. Well, for the most part. There’s still the confession guide that states clearly that it is not sinful.

 

[LokisMom]

The thing that makes me uncomfortable about these discussions is that they make women out to be stupid creatures who can’t possibly know what they want, and men out to be monsters. To me, it’s far more degrading to tell someone that you know better than they do about what they want.

There is a confession guide for priests that explicitly says that it is not a sin as long as a few conditions are met. Those conditions are pretty much the same for every sex act, so I’m not sure why anal is singled out.

And let’s face it, the Catholic Church has never been afraid to explicitly call out acts, especially sexual acts, as sinful. If this were objectively sinful, wouldn’t something have been said about it? But instead of prohibiting it, the Church has left it open. Well, for the most part. There’s still the confession guide that states clearly that it is not sinful.

 

[LongingSoul]

The thing that makes me uncomfortable about these discussions is that they make women out to be stupid creatures who can’t possibly know what they want, and men out to be monsters. To me, it’s far more degrading to tell someone that you know better than they do about what they want.

There is a confession guide for priests that explicitly says that it is not a sin as long as a few conditions are met. Those conditions are pretty much the same for every sex act, so I’m not sure why anal is singled out.

And let’s face it, the Catholic Church has never been afraid to explicitly call out acts, especially sexual acts, as sinful. If this were objectively sinful, wouldn’t something have been said about it? But instead of prohibiting it, the Church has left it open. Well, for the most part. There’s still the confession guide that states clearly that it is not sinful.

I don’t know if you’ve actually read the Fr. Jone guide? Here is the relevant passage for your reference.

MORAL THEOLOGY by Fr. Heribert Jone (TAN)

Pg. 539

Section 757

Part I

“Imperfect Sodomy, i.i., rectal intercourse, is a grave sin when the seminal fluid is wasted.”

“Excluding the sodomitical intention it is neither sodomy nor a grave sin if intercourse is begun in a rectal manner with the intention of consummating it naturally or if some sodomitical action is posited without danger of pollution. - Positive co-operation on the part of the wife in sodomitical commerce is never lawful, hence, she must at least offer internal resistance. However, she may remain externally passive, provided she has endeavored to prevent the sin. She thus applies the principle of double effect and permits the sin to avert the danger of a very grave evil which cannot otherwise be averted; it remains unlawful for her to give her consent to any concomitant pleasure.”

Sounds like a great treatise for a womans sexual role doesn’t it.

 

[LokisMom]

I don’t know if you’ve actually read the Fr. Jone guide? Here is the relevant passage for your reference.

Sounds like a great treatise for a womans sexual role doesn’t it.

Hm?

Nothing she said negates Jone. In fact, everything she says is perfectly in line with it. Im not sure what youre trying to say?

 

[underacloud]

Sounds like a great treatise for a womans sexual role doesn’t it.

From my reading of what is quoted, he is making it clear that a wife is not guilty of the sin of (completed) sodomy on the part of her husband, as long as she does not cooperate in it.

It is exactly the same logic that permits a spouse to have sex with a contracepting spouse, as long as their objection is clear.

So, if a woman came to confession to confess the sin of completed anal sex, the priest would assure her that if she did not directly cooperate in it, but passively accepted her husband’s sin, then she has not sinned herself.

And I see no reason to interpret this as a recommended action; merely a morally acceptable one.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Sexual actions in a marriage HAVE to Glorify God. God made your body God is present in the action. Sodomy is not Godly. It just isn’t.

But here is my specific problem. If you cannot make the argument that anal stimulation is Holy, that God intends this to help procreate with Him.

Everyone is just saying gee, where is this specific act done in a certain way explicitly forbidden.

But the problem arises in that in equality of sexuality it serves no purpose other than to make the woman submit and the man to dominate.

It is sinful. If it is not, please show me any situation in which this could be called Holy. That you would proudly stare God in the adoration chapel in the eye and say, Yes, Lord we invited you into our marriage and our union. With that act.

 

[thewanderer]

Thewanderer,

I would never intentionally accuse you or anyone else here of condoning what I described. If what I said came across as an accusation, then I sincerely apologize. I was connecting two things in my mind: the conversation happening here, and my memory of what had been confided to me. The laissez-faire attitude I spoke of is the attitude that I have witnessed growing in Western culture, and it is due to the prevalence of pornography. I am so sorry that my sharing a terrible story sounded like an accusation. I really feel horrible about that. Please forgive me for not being more careful and clear in my post. I will be more circumspect in the future about how I participate in such a delicate conversation. My point was more of a cultural “mea culpa”, in that, our culture at large is placing pleasure above every other consideration, including ignoring or dismissing dangerous consequences. Does that make more sense?

Again, I am sorry. I respect your perspective and appreciate what you have said thus far in the thread.

Don’t feel bad! It was just a misunderstanding, those are so easy over the internet.

 

[Allegra]

The thing that makes me uncomfortable about these discussions is that they make women out to be stupid creatures who can’t possibly know what they want, and men out to be monsters. To me, it’s far more degrading to tell someone that you know better than they do about what they want.

There is a confession guide for priests that explicitly says that it is not a sin as long as a few conditions are met. Those conditions are pretty much the same for every sex act, so I’m not sure why anal is singled out.

And let’s face it, the Catholic Church has never been afraid to explicitly call out acts, especially sexual acts, as sinful. If this were objectively sinful, wouldn’t something have been said about it? But instead of prohibiting it, the Church has left it open. Well, for the most part. There’s still the confession guide that states clearly that it is not sinful.

I suspect the Church hasn’t called it out as objectively sinful, because it isn’t objectly sinful. However, that doesn’t mean that it isn’t sinful in common practice (in all but the most bizzare, theoretical scenarios) and what is called an occasion of sin. Technically, injecting heroine isn’t objectively sinful, but since in order to do it in most places one has to break the law and support a violent drug industry, it is sinful in practice in most if not all scenarios.

 

[thewanderer]

For many years I was in a position of hearing about the intimate things of womens married life. I very quickly had to learn the art of poker face in my role as a companion, despite the desire to go . (Catholic marriage and family counselling/course org.)

Women by nature will err towards an unhealthy submissiveness in the sexual environment of relationships. I know there will be hoots and raspberries at this point… but facts is facts. Women need to support other women and mothers need to thoroughly teach and guide their daughters with that in mind. My own daughter who is 20, and I have a very honest, open relationship (please God it stays that way). I find the same reaction when she is talking about the things that her friends are doing. These young women think they are so modern and worldly and yet they have made themselves into willing and submissive sexual objects.

Yes, I agree that this can definitely happen and so it is a good thing to talk to other women about to make sure they don’t fall into this trap.

 

[Estevao]

I find it funny that the misogynist card has been played several times ITT given that the author of the essay is a woman.

 

[underacloud]

I find it funny that the misogynist card has been played several times ITT given that the author of the essay is a woman.

I’m not sure what you mean.

Those who are “playing the misogynist card” are in agreement with the author (as you note, a female). I’m not sure why that’s funny, ironic, or whatever.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I suspect the Church hasn’t called it out as objectively sinful, because it isn’t objectly sinful. However, that doesn’t mean that it isn’t sinful in common practice (in all but the most bizzare, theoretical scenarios) and what is called an occasion of sin. Technically, injecting heroine isn’t objectively sinful, but since in order to do it in most places one has to break the law and support a violent drug industry, it is sinful in practice in most if not all scenarios.

I will definitely grant that it definitely isn’t something that couples should just try on a whim without talking first and having a solid foundation of trust and communication.

And I would definitely agree that from a Catholic perspective, it would be very easy for it to be sinful, though I don’t think any more or less so than oral foreplay. But I don’t think that it’s bizarre at all for a couple to give it a shot in the spirit of love and exploration. It sounds bizarre to me that couples can try all sorts of things without a problem, but that anal play would inherently present problems. The idea that there is one and only one body part that couples should never be ok sharing is strange.

Of course, no one should feel like they have to and no one should expect it. I’m just not convinced that it’s inherently degrading.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I find it funny that the misogynist card has been played several times ITT given that the author of the essay is a woman.

I know, it’s almost like women are unique, thinking people who can look at a set of facts, an idea, or an argument, evaluate it, and draw their own conclusions. Go figure.

 

[Estevao]

I’m not sure what you mean.

Those who are “playing the misogynist card” are in agreement with the author (as you note, a female). I’m not sure why that’s funny, ironic, or whatever.

Not really, some posters ITT who are pro-anal sex seem to think one could only oppose it because of an emotionally aversion to it because it’s “icky”.

Given that this is a common attack against women, i.e. that they don’t think logically but emotionally, I found it funny that Alice von Hildebrand seems to be the recipient of this attack for opposing anal sex.