The marital act

[fpt]

In the context of the marital act, each member of couple needs to make a focus on the preliminaries, on the sensual foreplay, on the sexual preliminaries on all the body of the other. The marital act is not a “simple coitus”, otherwise it is very animalistic. The marital act without preliminaries seems very abnormal, except bilateral conjugal fantaisies, in the respet of the natural moral order. The preliminaries are very human, they are acts of carnal love (the sexual cooperation in the human fashion). Each one is an active agent and a passive agent in function of three moments of the act, in function of wills, in functions of periods of life, in function of all elements of the circumstance.

**Liberty, creativity and imagination during the 3 moments of the marital act, in respecting the natural moral order of the materiality of the marital act between wife and husband, are the rules. **Normally speaking, almost everything is morally permissible and even very lovable, useful, helpful, joyful, exciting and pleasurable during this act. *There are some natural prohibitions, but not a lot, in reality. *The conjugal carnal tenderness even with some conjugal sensuality, without conjugal sex (without the total marital act), is morally permissible, and everybody knows the conditions and rules: the " creative abstinence ", not like brother and sister, is morally okay.

 

[clem456]

I don’t think a man would be sinning if he looked at his wife and thought about her in a sexual way as long as he does it because he loves and respects her and sees the beauty of her sexuality. He should not dwell on these thoughts without acting them out with his wife or use them for masturbation.

I do think it is sinful though if a man ONLY cares about his wife’s sexuality and doesn’t really care about her soul and other aspects of who she is. Even if they are following the rules, he is not making love in a unitive way…he is just lustfully releasing his needs.

Right, lustfully is the key word there.

It’s possible to have lots of anxiety about the violation of rules in the bedroom. The desires and intentions of the couple are important to consider. And perhaps the reason the Church does not jump into the bedroom legalistically is, it is very difficult to measure things of the heart, like the type and depths of one’s love and/or intentions in doing certain acts.

 

[travissbeloved]

Right, lustfully is the key word there.

It’s possible to have lots of anxiety about the violation of rules in the bedroom. The desires and intentions of the couple are important to consider. And perhaps the reason the Church does not jump into the bedroom legalistically is, it is very difficult to measure things of the heart, like the type and depths of one’s love and/or intentions in doing certain acts.

I agree there are times when intentions are good even when things may go wrong. However it is helpful to have sources such as the Catechism and Humane Vitae to help learn more about what is and is not permissible so we may do our best to stay within Catholic teaching…while still having an enjoyable, unitive time together of course.

 

[clem456]

…
while still having an enjoyable, unitive time together of course.

I’ll have to remember that spiel next time. “Dear let’s be unitive”

 

[Rau]

What I specifically had in mind was something like anal penetration. That is not foreplay in any real sense; it does nothing to prepare the spouses for intercourse. It is a substitute for coitus, not a preparation.

Just because it happens in the same love making session as coitus, that does not make it legitimate.

God Bless

Anal is pretty off- putting and perhaps inadvisable for health reasons, and for that reason it may be wrong. But in general, I dont see a problem with mutual pleasuring at any time. One is not called to get to coitus quickly, reach ejaculation in a time efficient way or otherwise avoid pleasure in the bedroom.

 

[travissbeloved]

Anal is pretty off- putting and perhaps inadvisable for health reasons, and for that reason it may be wrong. But in general, I dont see a problem with mutual pleasuring at any time. One is not called to get to coitus quickly, reach ejaculation in a time efficient way or otherwise avoid pleasure in the bedroom.

True, but if a couple had to stop having sex so the husband could go wash his genitals off from having anal penetration I don’t think either of them would really be “in the mood” by the time he was done…it’d pretty much be like starting all over.

 

[bilop]

True, but if a couple had to stop having sex so the husband could go wash his genitals off from having anal penetration I don’t think either of them would really be “in the mood” by the time he was done…it’d pretty much be like starting all over.

That’s an issue, but I think the bigger issue is that it’s not actually foreplay. It does nothing to prepare the couple for relations. It is a penetrative act that they are doing instead of coitus.

Other licit acts (oral or manual stimulation of the genitals of either partner, caressing, kissing, etc.) pave the way to coitus.

God Bless

 

[travissbeloved]

That’s an issue, but I think the bigger issue is that it’s not actually foreplay. It does nothing to prepare the couple for relations. It is a penetrative act that they are doing instead of coitus.

Other licit acts (oral or manual stimulation of the genitals of either partner, caressing, kissing, etc.) pave the way to coitus.

God Bless

Great point, thank you!

 

[Rau]

That’s an issue, but I think the bigger issue is that it’s not actually foreplay. It does nothing to prepare the couple for relations. It is a penetrative act that they are doing instead of coitus.

Other licit acts (oral or manual stimulation of the genitals of either partner, caressing, kissing, etc.) pave the way to coitus.

God Bless

What ‘paves the way’ may be in the eye of the participant? But also, from where comes the idea of preparing? Foreplay only means “before”. Preparation is necessary, but why should that define a limitation on acts? Is there another act which is not off putting/unhealthy etc that you would also flag as illicit?

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Well, since the thread has “gone there” I want to fine tune some things. What if the conversation was about anal play and not anal sex? Then there would be less reason to

stop having sex so the husband could go wash his genitals off from having anal penetration I don’t think either of them would really be “in the mood” by the time he was done…it’d pretty much be like starting all over.

I’ve wondered about the logistics of that act if the couple is to finish the right way.

And not every time of course. For example, I might have lobster only once a year. It’s not something I have every week or every month. I mean, to be honest I don’t even like lobster that much but I like to expand my palate.

 

[clem456]

What ‘paves the way’ may be in the eye of the participant? But also, from where comes the idea of preparing? Foreplay only means “before”. Preparation is necessary, but why should that define a limitation on acts? Is there another act which is not off putting/unhealthy etc that you would also flag as illicit?

It’s un-natural. The parts are not made to work that way, without getting too explicit. The same argument could be made against oral stimulation as well, although it is not quite the same. Kissing is a natural expression of affection. However, aggressively ravaging someone through oral stimulation could be said to be unnatural also, so again, intent goes a long way in determining the morality…

 

[Rau]

It’s un-natural. The parts are not made to work that way, without getting too explicit. The same argument could be made against oral stimulation as well, although it is not quite the same. Kissing is a natural expression of affection. However, aggressively ravaging someone through oral stimulation could be said to be unnatural also, so again, intent goes a long way in determining the morality…

Your first sentence is agreed if proceeding to ejaculation - there is a solid logical and moral foundation. But, one could debate the purposes for which hands, fingers, breasts, tongues, toes and so on were all made, and thus their proper “place” in the bedroom! In the throws of coitus (or prior) one may desire to ravage the spouse with (welcome) kisses, in numerous places. Should one refrain? What should the “intent” be?

I suspect it is not fruitful to take a legalistic, hair splitting, scrupulous approach.

 

[underacloud]

When you check footnotes source:
138 CDF, Persona humana 9.
139 CDF, Persona humana 9.

newadvent.org/library/docs_df75se.htm

It’s clear the CC 2352 talks about self masturbation.

No, it’s clear that the catechism and Persona Humana are discussing human sexuality as a total concept and that Catholic sexual ethics stem from the fundamental purpose (finality) of the sexual faculty.

From Persona Humana:

Speaking of “the sexual nature of man and the human faculty of procreation,” the Council noted that they “wonderfully exceed the dispositions of lower forms of life.”[9] It then took particular care to expound the principles and criteria which concern human sexuality in marriage, and which are based upon the finality of the specific function of sexuality.

In this regard the Council declares that the moral goodness of the acts proper to conjugal life, acts which are ordered according to true human dignity, “does not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives. It must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of the human person and his acts, preserve the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love.”

Note again here, and in all discussions of Catholic sexual ethics, that human procreation is one of the two objective standards on which all sexual ethics are based. If you doing anything sexual while excluding the potential for procreation (eg mutal masturbation), you have failed to meet the objective criteria.

 

[bilop]

What ‘paves the way’ may be in the eye of the participant? But also, from where comes the idea of preparing? Foreplay only means “before”. Preparation is necessary, but why should that define a limitation on acts? Is there another act which is not off putting/unhealthy etc that you would also flag as illicit?

Maybe, and I don’t mean to exclude screenplay, which is permissible to bring the woman to climax.

As for other acts, I would question if fetishes are legitimate,even in the context of the marital act.

God bless

 

[Rau]

Maybe, and I don’t mean to exclude screenplay, which is permissible to bring the woman to climax.

As for other acts, I would question if fetishes are legitimate,even in the context of the marital act.

I hesitate to ask…but what is “screenplay”?

From where comes the idea that sensual interactions should be for the purposes of preparation?

I suppose a fetish is a quirky piece of self-indulgence. From what you say, I presume you are not comfortable, but can’t articulate a reason to regard it as illicit.

 

[Jaaanosik]

No, it’s clear that the catechism and Persona Humana are discussing human sexuality as a total concept and that Catholic sexual ethics stem from the fundamental purpose (finality) of the sexual faculty.

From Persona Humana:

Note again here, and in all discussions of Catholic sexual ethics, that human procreation is one of the two objective standards on which all sexual ethics are based. If you doing anything sexual while excluding the potential for procreation (eg mutal masturbation), you have failed to meet the objective criteria.

The IX of the document talks about self masturbation only.
How do we know?
Because just a few lines what you quoted from V we read:

This same principle, which** the Church holds from Divine Revelation and from her authentic interpretation of the natural law,** is also the basis of her traditional doctrine, which states that the use of the sexual function has its true meaning and moral rectitude only in true marriage.

The IX quote says:

Even if it cannot be proved that Scripture condemns this sin by name, the tradition of the Church has rightly understood it to be condemned in the New Testament when the latter speaks of “impurity,” “unchasteness” and other vices contrary to chastity and continence.

There is no other way how to understand the contradiction about these two statements.

 

[thewanderer]

The IX of the document talks about self masturbation only.
How do we know?
Because just a few lines what you quoted from V we read:

The IX quote says:

There is no other way how to understand the contradiction about these two statements.

What contradiction? the first one goes on to say that it is held by tradition, and that the basis of the tradition comes from Divine revelation and the natural law. The second one says that while it is not mentioned by name in scripture, tradition is still right to hold this as true as it is held in scripture (Divine Revelation) more generally under the terms “impurity” and “unchasteness”. In other words, both statements confirm that the basis for this teaching is in Divine Revelation, and because of that it is held by the tradition of the Church as true. Absolutely no contradiction whatsoever.

 

[clem456]

Mutual stimulation between two married partners using the hands is not necessarily masturbation. Masturbation is selfish pleasure for it’s own sake, not for the sake of a Godly intimacy between marriage partners.

But could this selfish pleasure take place in the context of marriage? Of course it -could-. It depends on intent and disposition, not whether or not one uses one’s hand on his/her partner. It’s not the body parts involved, it’s the people and their intent. If a man wants his wife to manually stimulate him for his own pleasure’s sake, he is using his wife and the pleasure as an object. The concept of objectification is key in sexuality. JP2 explains objectification at length in Theology of the Body.

 

[bilop]

I hesitate to ask…but what is “screenplay”?

From where comes the idea that sensual interactions should be for the purposes of preparation?

I suppose a fetish is a quirky piece of self-indulgence. From what you say, I presume you are not comfortable, but can’t articulate a reason to regard it as illicit.

Sorry, I typed “afterplay” and Android changed it It is permissible, and laudable, for the husband to stimulate his wife to climax after he has climaxed, if she has not.

Not all sensual interactions. Hugging, kissing, caressing, are appropriate within the context of a completed marital act, or outside of that context.

I’m specifically talking about direct genital stimulation, which is permissible only in the context of the completed marital act (before or after).

God Bless

 

[Rau]

Mutual stimulation between two married partners using the hands is not necessarily masturbation. Masturbation is selfish pleasure for it’s own sake, not for the sake of a Godly intimacy between marriage partners.

But could this selfish pleasure take place in the context of marriage? Of course it -could-. It depends on intent and disposition, not whether or not one uses one’s hand on his/her partner. It’s not the body parts involved, it’s the people and their intent. If a man wants his wife to manually stimulate him for his own pleasure’s sake, he is using his wife and the pleasure as an object. The concept of objectification is key in sexuality. JP2 explains objectification at length in Theology of the Body.

I agree up to the bolded piece. I don’t see wrong in the seeking of personal pleasure, including its optimisation, where this is in the context of a willingly given, mutual, loving engagement of the two (married) persons. It goes off the rails when one party dominates or subjugates or subordinates the other for personal outcome.