The unitive purpose of sex

[Mary_Gail_36]

What the heck? Homosexual acts are not ordered toward procreation by their nature, as such they are immoral. All sexual acts between husband and wife are ordered toward procreation even if intercourse is taking place. One thing leading to another is not just a thing that occurs within a particular instance. It spans days. That’s why when you’re courting, toeing the line is dangerous. You always tend to go a little bit further the next time even if you started out pretty innocently.

All I’m saying is that the unitive purpose of sex is not intercourse. It is not another word for “the two becoming one flesh.” It refers to the bonding. That bonding begins before you are having intercourse. It exists within all marital acts. All marital acts are ordered toward intercourse, but they do not always lead to intercourse within that particular instant. I’m not at all saying that a couple can substitute oral sex for intercourse. If you can physically engage in intercourse and are using it in place to avoid an unwanted end of intercourse, you are sinning. However if you cannot engage in intercourse, it is not sinful to allow the man to climax outside of you. In fact, in my experience, forbidding him to climax outside of you actually frustrates sexually difficulties and makes it less likely that he’ll be able to do it again. There is nothing worse than feeling like you’re being punished and rejected because you sexually failed and having that pressure on you the next time you attempt intercourse. It works against the nature of sex. The next time you have sex, you stay tense, you have difficulty getting fully aroused, you fail again and it creates a vicious cycle. You really do have to be less legalistic about it. Your sexual pleasure is not morally justified through intercourse, and it is refusing to accept the whole purpose by saying “Oh you weren’t able to climax inside of me. I reject your orgasm then. Sorry, you can’t have it. You just didn’t do well enough.”

There is a difference between that and thwarting it. If you can have sex and can ejaculate inside the woman, than there is something else going on with your intentions in avoiding intercourse and you actually are refusing to give a part of yourself.

Twoangels, do you not see what you are describing is masturbation? If it is not intended, then it’s unintended.

It is not procreative for him to finish outside. I hate to be this graphic, but the more outside stimulation men get, the more difficult it is to finish regularly. That’s why secular doctors prescribe masturbation to men with prematurity problems.

I’m not trying to be insensitive at all, but you must see that if it isn’t through intercourse, male climax is not procreative.

Why not contact Greg Popcak? He’s a psychologist well versed in Catholic human sexuality.

exceptionalmarriages.com/services.htm

I do want you to get the truth specific to your problem.

 

[Wardog]

I don’t think this is true. As long as the couple is open to life in general, the marriage is valid. Intending to contracept at some point or not fully understanding the Church teaching regarding the practice doesn’t make a marriage invalid.

This is incorrect according to Humanae Vitae. Pope Paul explicitly rejected the idea that married couples’ sex life should be considered in totality. Meaning that even if you already have 10 kids, “each and every marital act” must be ordained to procreation.
In doing so, Pope Paul rejected the majority recommendations of his own birth control council, which action he also defends in Humanae Vitae. He said they were wrong and he was the only one who could correctly define the Church’s teachings in this matter.

 

[Wardog]

I never mentioned oral, manual or anal sex. They are not permitted “instead” of intercourse. They could be a prelude to intercourse, but not replace it.

I mentioned a level of sexual activity that does not become too arousing as to reach climax or feel tempted to reach climax in an illicit way. (outside of intercourse)

I don’t think I mentioned NFP training in my post.

I don’t know why you disagree with Pope Paul’s writing; what part of “each and every marital act” is not clear. Anything other than genital to genital contact is sodomy, defined as an unnatural sex act. Nothing in Humanae Vitae allows for anything other than natural sex that leads to procreation.

 

[searching04]

The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that **each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. **(12)

I know what you said is taught at NFP training; but the Pope was pretty clear. Unless you can explain how oral, manual or anal sex “retain(s) its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life”

For the original poster and to answer this:

If I am reading your quote and presentation above, you do not approve of or believe the church allows for any other sexual activity other than intercourse? Is that what you mean? I’m not sure.

That said, there is absolutely nothing anywhere in any church teachings that restrict manual or oral or any other stimulation or sexual activity, nor is there anything whatsoever that says couples are not to mutually enjoy sex and each other’s bodies out of love and respect - as long as the final act is the man climaxing via intercourse.

Your last quote above makes sense and fits if it is in the context of where the man climaxes.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I don’t know why you disagree with Pope Paul’s writing; what part of “each and every marital act” is not clear. Anything other than genital to genital contact is sodomy, defined as an unnatural sex act. Nothing in Humanae Vitae allows for anything other than natural sex that leads to procreation.

I am not in the least referring to sodomy, please stop implying that I am, and that I am against any encyclical of the Church. Please read my post.

I

never mentioned oral, manual or anal sex. They are not permitted “instead” of intercourse. They could be a prelude to intercourse, but not replace it.

I mentioned a level of sexual activity that does not become too arousing as to reach climax or feel tempted to reach climax in an illicit way. (outside of intercourse)

I don’t think I mentioned NFP training in my post

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=444605&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2002&Author=&Keyword=marital+sexuality&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=4&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=444608&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2002&Author=&Keyword=marital+sexuality&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=3&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

 

[searching04]

That’s exactly WHY they boiled it down to those things. It’s a warm, safe blanket that covers every type of sex that does not include “insert tab A into slot B and repeat”. This is also why the Church can never go back on this in any way. If they do, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down and apparently you will have people having sex with goats and picnic tables on a regular basis. Unfortunately, they make no distinction between people who have gay sex for money and married couples expressing their love for one another in a sacramental relationship and they think we are too stupid to tell the difference- so it has to be boiled down to the most mechanical and basic of functions.

LaSainte - bingo.

 

[searching04]

What the heck? Homosexual acts are not ordered toward procreation by their nature, as such they are immoral. All sexual acts between husband and wife are ordered toward procreation even if intercourse is taking place. One thing leading to another is not just a thing that occurs within a particular instance. It spans days. That’s why when you’re courting, toeing the line is dangerous. You always tend to go a little bit further the next time even if you started out pretty innocently.

All I’m saying is that the unitive purpose of sex is not intercourse. It is not another word for “the two becoming one flesh.” It refers to the bonding. That bonding begins before you are having intercourse.

Reading thru the posts, I want to go back to your original question and maybe offer a different answer. You are correct that “unitive” is not just intercourse. The church declares that all sex has to end in intercourse, and that it is both unitive and procreative, and the two cannot be separated. But the unitive does indeed include emotional bonding; the “two become one flesh” thing is used to try to describe it, but it is not the whole intent, and yes, it does make it sound like unitive is only physical. Think it is all in interprettion, or in trying to explain it. “Unitive” is absolutely both physical and emotional. The issues, problems, differences come into play when people disagree with the teachings.

It exists within all marital acts. All marital acts are ordered toward intercourse, but they do not always lead to intercourse within that particular instant. I’m not at all saying that a couple can substitute oral sex for intercourse. If you can physically engage in intercourse and are using it in place to avoid an unwanted end of intercourse, you are sinning. However if you cannot engage in intercourse, it is not sinful to allow the man to climax outside of you.

And this is the problem. I agree with you and disaree wholeheatedly with church teachings on sex, that all sex must end in intercourse, no matter what. The problem is also that those teachings cannot and do not address situations like yours. If the church made exceptions for one thing or another, the impression is it would have to make exceptions for everything - gay sex, animals, children, multiple wives. I don’t believe that to be the case, but it is where we are. However, church teachings are what they are, and do not allow for the husband to climax outside his wife. They do not allow for us as couples to decide or even really deal with sexual issues as you seem to be dealing with, or to decide that sexual activities other than intercourse can be bonding and unitive without being procreative, when intercourse and more children are not an option.

In fact, in my experience, forbidding him to climax outside of you actually frustrates sexually difficulties and makes it less likely that he’ll be able to do it again. There is nothing worse than feeling like you’re being punished and rejected because you sexually failed and having that pressure on you the next time you attempt intercourse. It works against the nature of sex. The next time you have sex, you stay tense, you have difficulty getting fully aroused, you fail again and it creates a vicious cycle. You really do have to be less legalistic about it. Your sexual pleasure is not morally justified through intercourse, and it is refusing to accept the whole purpose by saying “Oh you weren’t able to climax inside of me. I reject your orgasm then. Sorry, you can’t have it. You just didn’t do well enough.”

There is a difference between that and thwarting it. If you can have sex and can ejaculate inside the woman, than there is something else going on with your intentions in avoiding intercourse and you actually are refusing to give a part of yourself.

Think you had mentioned in another post about how you questions how a loving God could/would dictate things about sex when couples have these types of issues to work through. I agree with you and can only say you are not alone. But I am also in no way any authority on church teachings; I just don’t fully understand them either. However, I do deeply believe and I think there are times when couples must get guidance, pray, and use their hearts and consciences in deciding how to act and proceed in sex in their marriage. I cannot believe a loving God will condemn that. God bless.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I hope I am not butting in a conversation that wasn’t mine, but I here’s what I have learned. This is a little detailed, so pardon my french.

The husband may be stimulated manually or orally as foreplay (not to climax) but his climax is to occur only in his wife’s vagina, never outside it. Period.

The wife may be brought to climax through manual or oral stimulation directly before or after the husband’s climax in the vagina. (Or if she is one of the few lucky ducks, during the marital act itself!) This must always be in the context of a completed ejaculation of the husband in his wife’s vagina. A woman may never be stimulated to climax outside of this context.

Outside of the marriage act what is allowed depends on each individual couple. The main rule here is that neither spouse is allowed to climax outside of the marriage act, or engage in activities that lead the other spouse to consider mastrubation to relieve sexual tension. Most couples can engage in hugging, kissing, cuddling close on the bed or couch, that sort of thing. Some people aren’t too aroused by touching each other’s breasts or chest. So that would be allowed for them. There are even some out there (though not as many) who can engage in light petting or genital touching. (Though it must be certain that this comes no where close to a climax.) See it is different for each couple.

So that is what I have learned. Hope it helps.

in a nutshell, this is the understanding I have as well. John Kippley wrote a paper on this, it used to be available, but it’s out of print.

It’s called “Marital Sexuality: Moral Considerations” it has an Imprimatur as well.

You write much more clearly than I do!

 

[searching04]

I agree with the first part. I disagree with the last. You are assuming that the only sexual difficulty couples can have is premature ejaculation. There is delayed ejaculation and there is vaginismus among other things. In my marriage, we’ve dealt with both. The treatment for vaginsmus was very difficult for me to adjust to all the Church’s teaching. We did our best adjusting it but in the end some of those adjustments lead to sexual problems dysfunctions in my husband. We finally had to come to terms with the fact that we were already under a lot of pressure and had to follow the program as presented to us. In doing that, my husband regained most of his ability. We still have issues and he no longer thinks that his issues are the result of my vaginismus. But ultimately if we want to have successful intercourse, we learned we had to stop pressuring ourselves to do it perfectly. Sex can’t be forced, it has to be surrendered into and that means you can’t be nitpicking about how you climax. To tell him he can’t because he failed to do it through intercourse is a punishment and a rejection. If anything that is against my marital vows. I have to accept him regardless of his imperfections. Its not giving yourself fully to the other person if you’re attitude is “all or nothing.” Its like telling someone in the special olympics that what they did means nothing because its not the real olympics.

Again, I will first say God bless, because this is exactly one of the areas/issues the church makes no allowance for whatsoever. Because if it did, it could open pandora’s box. Your situation is totally different than a couple who may have the option or having intercourse or not. The church and some members here will simply say, however, that the only allowable answer is to suffer, suck it up, bear it, deal with it, no matter the negative impact on your relationship with the spouse God gave you, because no matter what, sex has to always be unitive and procreative.

I do not and never have understood this; I just have to keep trying to. But I will say I have to believe with all my heart, even as much as I struggle in my faith and trust in God, that I cannot believe that God will condemn you if you have sex to climax other than intercourse while you work through what is a medical issue, but work towards totally following church teachings on intercourse when you are able. This is where couples have to get guidance, pray, make a decision with their hearts and conscience, and depend on a meriful God.

 

[Nate13]

@Wardog
“each and every marital act”
haha the “marital act” is incredibly vague and is so on purpose. The best definition your going to get is male climaxes in woman he is married to. I don’t get where your getting this genital contact only thing.

@twoangels
This is a nice explanation that gives further insight into the idea of “one flesh”.

skipmoen.com/tag/basar/

To tell him he can’t because he failed to do it through intercourse is a punishment and a rejection.

It’s a cross.

 

[Nate13]

To tell him he can’t because he failed to do it through intercourse is a punishment and a rejection.

It’s a cross.

 

[twoangels]

The Church disagrees. NFP involves both abstinence and sex during the infertile period.

Homosexuality is actually addressed in the Bible. Many of the other issues are based on what I refer to as “Sola Tradition.”

NFP involves abstainence during the fertile time. It works through the abstainence. You would be engaging in sex during your infertile time regardless of NFP. NFP may give you more motivation to take advantage of your infertile time than if you were not using it, but it is not dependant on you using it.

 

[LaSainte]

This is incorrect according to Humanae Vitae. Pope Paul explicitly rejected the idea that married couples’ sex life should be considered in totality. Meaning that even if you already have 10 kids, “each and every marital act” must be ordained to procreation.
In doing so, Pope Paul rejected the majority recommendations of his own birth control council, which action he also defends in Humanae Vitae. He said they were wrong and he was the only one who could correctly define the Church’s teachings in this matter.

I understand this, but intent to contracept, albeit a possible sin, does not invalidate a marriage as long as the couple is open to having children.

 

[LaSainte]

Again, I will first say God bless, because this is exactly one of the areas/issues the church makes no allowance for whatsoever. Because if it did, it could open pandora’s box. Your situation is totally different than a couple who may have the option or having intercourse or not. The church and some members here will simply say, however, that the only allowable answer is to suffer, suck it up, bear it, deal with it, no matter the negative impact on your relationship with the spouse God gave you, because no matter what, sex has to always be unitive and procreative.

I do not and never have understood this; I just have to keep trying to. But I will say I have to believe with all my heart, even as much as I struggle in my faith and trust in God, that I cannot believe that God will condemn you if you have sex to climax other than intercourse while you work through what is a medical issue, but work towards totally following church teachings on intercourse when you are able. This is where couples have to get guidance, pray, make a decision with their hearts and conscience, and depend on a meriful God.

YES. I pray that this is right and I feel that although the Church does not comment on specifics such as this so as not to publicly open up a can of worms, I do think she allows her priests to advise people in their specific circumstances for these types of things. this is why we go to priests for advice when a teaching seems too general or vague. I know I’m going to take a lot of flak for this because everyone here likes to think of the Church as being totally and completely transparent and clear in dealing with each and every possible moral dilemma, but it is possible that this is not always the case. It takes the Church a long time to comment on such things, sometimes centuries. In the meantime we rely on our priests to guide us.

I may be wrong though. I would not want to advise anyone to go against church teaching.

 

[twoangels]

Twoangels, do you not see what you are describing is masturbation? If it is not intended, then it’s unintended.

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure.

Note it says sexual pleasure, not sexual climax. If the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs to derive sexual pleasure is immoral, than even if it is a part of foreplay in marriage, it would be indeed immoral. In fact, secular sources do indeed call masturbation a part of foreplay. They don’t say “well it really isn’t masturbation” because we’re the only ones who are trying to decipher between sinful sexual acts and legimate ones.

Meanwhile if manual stimulation to the point of climax is always masturbation, it would also be immoral to make the woman climax before or after intercourse. She would only be permitted to climax through intercourse which is not possible for most women because of the biological make up of her body. Even the g-spot is the internal portion of her clitorus. Looking more at her biology and how her arousal patterns differ from men’s, her climax causes increased lubrication and she typically remains in an aroused state afterward making her fully capable of being able to engage in intercourse. This would seem to indicate that the female climax works toward the procreative end by making intercourse easier for the woman. Women are also capable of multiple orgasms. As such, I think God designed the female orgasm to assist with her ability and to reward her for engaging in intercourse. Its procreative end works toward accepting her husband physically. Other than that it serves no other procreative purpose. And I see all these Catholics sitting around scratching their heads over the fact that its difficult for a husband and wife to climax at the same time, and rationalizing manual or oral stimulation of the woman out of a sense of “Its just not fair otherwise.”

So what makes an act masturbation? Ok, let’s keep reading the Catechism:

“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.”

So a non masturbatory act of manual stimulation includes

1. It is within the context of marriage
2. It occurs inside the sexual relationship of husband and wife (meaning they’re together pleasuring each other)
3. it involves the total meaning of mutual self giving and human procreation.

Now 3 is where everyone is getting hung up on. Three is also utterly being ignored in the case of female orgasm. Constantly it is stated “Well her climax may not have a procreative purpose and out of a sense of justice its not fair if only the man climaxes.” However my argument is that the procreative purpose for the woman is to help with intercourse. And not to help with intercourse in just that particular instant. It helps in future instances. A woman does not have to climax each and every time, but if she never does, it makes sex difficult. This I learned from experience.

The other experience taught me (as I tried to indicate before) that if you’re goal is to engage in intercourse and intercourse fails, denying the man a climax reduces his ability to perform later. His orgasm while in this instance occuring outside of the woman’s body is actually the procreative purpose of sex at a future date. Denying it frusterates the sexual problems and rejects him.

So ultimately the point is this for both men and women. If the husband and wife are going to actively reject engaging in sexual activity (because the woman is fertile, because the woman has a yeast infection and has to finish treatment before she can have sex) than the couple should not be getting so hot and bothered as to substituting other acts to be in place of intercourse while they deny their bodies what they really want.

However, when a couple has sexual difficulties where the couple is completely open to intercourse, may have even engaged in intercourse but its just not working, the man’s climax actually is a part of accepting him and still a part of the procreative purpose. Why? Because as I’ve learned, if you don’t do this, the sexual difficulties occur more frequently. Denying the man his climax violates the unitive (the bonding) purpose of sex as well. It is actually possible to engage in sexual intercourse that is not unitive. I know because my husband and I have tried this in order to follow the overly legalistic interpretation. In this case the pain is so terrible for the woman that she has to mentally disconnect herself from the experience (as if she were being raped) while meanwhile the husband has to mentally disengage from his wife and fantasize about a positive sexual experience to attempt to maintain an erection. In the end it doesn’t work anyway. The only thing that works with sexual difficulty is letting go of your sexual standards and surrendering to whatever happens.

 

[Warrior1979]

NFP involves abstainence during the fertile time. It works through the abstainence. You would be engaging in sex during your infertile time regardless of NFP. NFP may give you more motivation to take advantage of your infertile time than if you were not using it, but it is not dependant on you using it.

I assume you disagree with Humanae Vitae?

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances,** the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile,** thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.

 

[Nate13]

The other experience taught me (as I tried to indicate before) that if you’re goal is to engage in intercourse and intercourse fails, denying the man a climax reduces his ability to perform later. His orgasm while in this instance occuring outside of the woman’s body is actually the procreative purpose of sex at a future date. Denying it frusterates the sexual problems and rejects him.

So ultimately the point is this for both men and women. If the husband and wife are going to actively reject engaging in sexual activity (because the woman is fertile, because the woman has a yeast infection and has to finish treatment before she can have sex) than the couple should not be getting so hot and bothered as to substituting other acts to be in place of intercourse while they deny their bodies what they really want.

However, when a couple has sexual difficulties where the couple is completely open to intercourse, may have even engaged in intercourse but its just not working, the man’s climax actually is a part of accepting him and still a part of the procreative purpose. Why? Because as I’ve learned, if you don’t do this, the sexual difficulties occur more frequently. Denying the man his climax violates the unitive (the bonding) purpose of sex as well. It is actually possible to engage in sexual intercourse that is not unitive. I know because my husband and I have tried this in order to follow the overly legalistic interpretation. In this case the pain is so terrible for the woman that she has to mentally disconnect herself from the experience (as if she were being raped) while meanwhile the husband has to mentally disengage from his wife and fantasize about a positive sexual experience to attempt to maintain an erection. In the end it doesn’t work anyway. The only thing that works with sexual difficulty is letting go of your sexual standards and surrendering to whatever happens.

I see what your point is. Your basically saying the couple both go into sex with the intent to have it ordered towards procreation. It doesn’t happen, but you are still left with a man completely fired up to go and to leave him at this point time after time can cause lasting problems. I can see the difficulty this would cause and I would feel safe saying that any actions after would have less culpability and may be considered venial sins in most cases and would not be grave sins. I would talk to a priest though and get help working through the spiritual aspects of the problem.

 

[Nate13]

I understand this, but intent to contracept, albeit a possible sin, does not invalidate a marriage as long as the couple is open to having children.

I hope you can see Wardog’s sarcasm coming through in all of his posts He is not a fan of Church teaching on this matter and is just trying to stir dissent. I have argued with him enough in the past to know where he stands on the issue haha. He is right though in this matter regardless of the sarcasm that the Church teaches that every act should be non-contraceptive and you can’t just say in general the whole of my marriage is non-contraceptive. Would you ever be content with saying you loved your spouse in general most of the time? You go forward with the intent to try and succeed every time, because Jesus told us it was possible with his help. To settle for less is to doubt God.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure.

Note it says sexual pleasure, not sexual climax. If the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs to derive sexual pleasure is immoral, than even if it is a part of foreplay in marriage, it would be indeed immoral. In fact, secular sources do indeed call masturbation a part of foreplay. They don’t say “well it really isn’t masturbation” because we’re the only ones who are trying to decipher between sinful sexual acts and legimate ones.

Meanwhile if manual stimulation to the point of climax is always masturbation, it would also be immoral to make the woman climax before or after intercourse. She would only be permitted to climax through intercourse which is not possible for most women because of the biological make up of her body. Even the g-spot is the internal portion of her clitorus. Looking more at her biology and how her arousal patterns differ from men’s, her climax causes increased lubrication and she typically remains in an aroused state afterward making her fully capable of being able to engage in intercourse. This would seem to indicate that the female climax works toward the procreative end by making intercourse easier for the woman. Women are also capable of multiple orgasms. As such, I think God designed the female orgasm to assist with her ability and to reward her for engaging in intercourse. Its procreative end works toward accepting her husband physically. Other than that it serves no other procreative purpose. And I see all these Catholics sitting around scratching their heads over the fact that its difficult for a husband and wife to climax at the same time, and rationalizing manual or oral stimulation of the woman out of a sense of “Its just not fair otherwise.”

So what makes an act masturbation? Ok, let’s keep reading the Catechism:

“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.”

So a non masturbatory act of manual stimulation includes

1. It is within the context of marriage
2. It occurs inside the sexual relationship of husband and wife (meaning they’re together pleasuring each other)
3. it involves the total meaning of mutual self giving and human procreation.

Now 3 is where everyone is getting hung up on. Three is also utterly being ignored in the case of female orgasm. Constantly it is stated “Well her climax may not have a procreative purpose and out of a sense of justice its not fair if only the man climaxes.” However my argument is that the procreative purpose for the woman is to help with intercourse. And not to help with intercourse in just that particular instant. It helps in future instances. A woman does not have to climax each and every time, but if she never does, it makes sex difficult. This I learned from experience.

The other experience taught me (as I tried to indicate before) that if you’re goal is to engage in intercourse and intercourse fails, denying the man a climax reduces his ability to perform later. His orgasm while in this instance occuring outside of the woman’s body is actually the procreative purpose of sex at a future date. Denying it frusterates the sexual problems and rejects him.

So ultimately the point is this for both men and women. If the husband and wife are going to actively reject engaging in sexual activity (because the woman is fertile, because the woman has a yeast infection and has to finish treatment before she can have sex) than the couple should not be getting so hot and bothered as to substituting other acts to be in place of intercourse while they deny their bodies what they really want.

However, when a couple has sexual difficulties where the couple is completely open to intercourse, may have even engaged in intercourse but its just not working, the man’s climax actually is a part of accepting him and still a part of the procreative purpose. Why? Because as I’ve learned, if you don’t do this, the sexual difficulties occur more frequently. Denying the man his climax violates the unitive (the bonding) purpose of sex as well. It is actually possible to engage in sexual intercourse that is not unitive. I know because my husband and I have tried this in order to follow the overly legalistic interpretation. In this case the pain is so terrible for the woman that she has to mentally disconnect herself from the experience (as if she were being raped) while meanwhile the husband has to mentally disengage from his wife and fantasize about a positive sexual experience to attempt to maintain an erection. In the end it doesn’t work anyway. The only thing that works with sexual difficulty is letting go of your sexual standards and surrendering to whatever happens.

I do not understand, having been married 14 years mind you, how a male orgasm outside of intercourse is intended to be procreative for a later date. In can’t be procreative for a later date, it has to be procreative when it happens.

How are babies made? That is the procreative part. The act must be the same act as if when a baby is conceived.

Since you have been arguing that any marital act is unitive, the procreative part must not be separated. If he is climaxing outside of intercourse, it’s separated. Think Onanism

There is no way you can convince me that assisting your husband to climax outside of intercourse is not masturbation.

.

 

[Nate13]

I do not understand, having been married 14 years mind you, how a male orgasm outside of intercourse is intended to be procreative for a later date. In can’t be procreative for a later date, it has to be procreative when it happens.

How are babies made? That is the procreative part. The act must be the same act as if when a baby is conceived.

Since you have been arguing that any marital act is unitive, the procreative part must not be separated. If he is climaxing outside of intercourse, it’s separated. Think Onanism

There is no way you can convince me that assisting your husband to climax outside of intercourse is not masturbation.

I think we should hold off bringing down the hammer on this situation haha. The fact is they went in to intercourse with the full intent of having it ordered towards procreation. Once both parties are fired up and ready to go, it is much harder to turn back and say oh well I guess it won’t happen. I believe a lower level of culpability would be present at this time. It would not make the action right, but I do not believe it could be considered a mortal sin in most cases because of the reduced culpability of both persons considering the state they were in when the decision was made.