Do you accept that general taboos have an important and authoritative place in society that is tied to the common good of all? For example, the general rule of handwashing or the general rule of not eating raw meat, or the general rule of not sharing toothbrushes.
None of these is addressed by the Magisterium and of course people can choose not to follow those general rules and may even be forced to break the general rule out of necessity if there is no other choice. But to take a position of ideological opposition to the general rule itself as being wrong or irrelevant or an offense against the individuals right to choose… is a sympton of secularism. It is only in recent times that oral and anal sex have become mainstream sexual behaviours. Many young people who haven’t had strong moral grounding aren’t even aware that these acts were ever considered unnatural. They are groomed by the anything goes society we live in, to enjoy what was once considered taboo on many levels. ‘Grooming’ is a well know factor in suppressing the humans sensitivity to moral truth.
As a general rule, oral and anal penetration are an unnatural bodily union and have already contributed to the weakening of societies biological and moral immune system. Of course people can choose to do whatever they like behind the closed doors of their own house, but to then promote those standards are acceptable societal standards is selfish and irresponsible and a rejection of the notion of a common good of all.
Jesus was rebuked because His disciples did not wash their hands before eating. His response should be our own as well, when we confront questions of hygiene.
Eating steak tartar (raw) is not dangerous if we know that the steer was properly raised and butchered. Eating raw fish happens every single day around the world.
I lent my daughter my toothbrush while on vacation when she lost her own.
So, as you rightly pointed out, there is the general rule, and then there are exceptions, even necessary exceptions, where it is acceptable to ignore a rule.
Societal taboos change with time, place, culture, etc. They are not universal or static. They usually serve a purpose for the common good of everyone. In the case of sexual taboos, any that are dependent upon hygiene will fall out of common knowledge when daily hygiene standards increase. We have seen a dramatic and historic change in hygiene standards in the 19th and 20th centuries. We have indoor plumbing, toilets instead of chamber pots, hot water for frequent bathing, all kinds of inexpensive soaps, cleansers, lotions, perfumes. We have flushable toilet paper, even wet and lightly scented flushable wipes! Our hineys have never been so clean and fresh, in all the history of humanity! So, the concern of trace amounts of urine or fecal matter is easily addressed with a quick hop in the shower. Problem solved.
With respect to taboos associated with STD transmission, and the secondary diseases that may result, I stand by what I said before. For a previously chaste, totally monogamous couple, those taboos DO NOT APPLY. It is simply not applicable to such a couple. The secular world argues for safer sex (condoms) and birth control. The Church teaches chastity and fidelity. If a couple sides with the Church all their lives, then those social taboos related to public health and STDs and whatnot simply have zero binding on said couple. For instance, the world argues for condoms to reduce the chances of STD transmission. But the Catholic couple knows condoms are forbidden. If we are free from such general rules BECAUSE of chastity, then we are free from them all BECAUSE of chastity. That is the freedom that chastity offers. You are free to kiss or touch all of your spouse’s body directly, with no physical barrier, and there are no off-limits areas.
Now, with all of what I say, I acknowledge and embrace the Church’s teaching that fellatio to completion is off-limits, as is anal sex. But the Church does NOT say that oral-genital contact is immoral, or that one spouse may not touch the other on their bottom. I am not arguing for either completed fellatio or anal sex. They are both a substitution for the holy marital act, and are therefore wrong, all hygiene issues aside. But we cannot extrapolate and say that, therefore, no mouth on genitals and no hands near the bottom. Furthermore, many good examination of consciences list oral sex and anal sex as mortal sins, but are careful to say immediately following that oral stimulation is permitted as foreplay. So, there you go. It is not that genitals and hineys are gross or dirty. We are simply not permitted to perform sexual acts INSTEAD OF coitus, but those body parts are not therefore untouchable or unkissable.
So, to summarize: taboos have their place, but have lots of exceptions to the general rule, and are very dependent of time, place, persons, culture. And what the Church does not see fit to forbid, neither may we usurp Her authority to forbid. I think the Church is very clear about the proper ends of sexual relations, and the holiness of the marital act, and the boundaries within which the Catholic couple may act. If we try to bind the conscience of others beyond what the Church herself does, it is our sin, not the couple who is acting within the freedom the Church provides.
Every married couple must discern for themselves what actions feel loving and holy and pleasing. They each have their own way of kissing and caressing and positions for coitus and things they love about each other’s bodies. It is different for every single couple. So, if you don’t like something or don’t want to do it, then of course, don’t do it. But please do not assume that your aversion equals a moral prohibition, because it doesn’t. (Remember, I am not talking about what the Church already prohibits, such as fellatio or anal sex.)
all I said is that urine is sterile. It is therefore not a good comparison to feces.