The use of simulated restraint within marital act

[EmbarrassingQ]

Would it be sinful for a couple to use “love cuffs” or other forms of simulated restraint (not actual restraints) during the marital act. Specifically if a person does it because they know it arouses their partner (and perhaps themselves as well.)

Thanks in advance and mods, if this question is not allowed or in the incorrect place please forgive me and feel free to move it or delete it.

 

[flyingfish]

Would it be sinful for a couple to use “love cuffs” or other forms of simulated restraint (not actual restraints) during the marital act. Specifically if a person does it because they know it arouses their partner (and perhaps themselves as well.)

Thanks in advance and mods, if this question is not allowed or in the incorrect place please forgive me and feel free to move it or delete it.

Why would it be immoral? Even actual restraints would be okay. The Church doesn’t allow things like ejaculating outside of the woman during intercourse, but aside from that there are no restrictions on what you can do.

Have fun IMO

 

[EmbarrassingQ]

Why would it be immoral? Even actual restraints would be okay. The Church doesn’t allow things like ejaculating outside of the woman during intercourse, but aside from that there are no restrictions on what you can do.

Have fun IMO

Actually the church DOES have restrictions other than the one you mentioned. Sodomy for example is sodomy whether in marriage or outside marriage. Causing pain to another for sexual pleasure is another immoral thing. Selfishly using sex to satisfy your desires with no regard for the desires or satisfaction of your partner is immoral. In Catholic theology, the sacred act is about self-Giving and so there are many things that can be immoral within the marital act.

I appreciate your time but I’d specifically like the opinion/advice of faithful Catholics on whether or not the use of “love cuffs” when not used for selfish reasons would be problematic.

 

[flyingfish]

Actually the church DOES have restrictions other than the one you mentioned. Sodomy for example is sodomy whether in marriage or outside marriage. Causing pain to another for sexual pleasure is another immoral thing. Selfishly using sex to satisfy your desires with no regard for the desires or satisfaction of your partner is immoral. In Catholic theology, the sacred act is about self-Giving and so there are many things that can be immoral within the marital act.

I appreciate your time but I’d specifically like the opinion/advice of faithful Catholics on whether or not the use of “love cuffs” when not used for selfish reasons would be problematic.

Hmm, I’ve seen before on this forums that anal sex is okay as foreplay as long as the male doesn’t ejaculate there.

 

[EmbarrassingQ]

Hmm, I’ve seen before on this forums that anal sex is okay as foreplay as long as the male doesn’t ejaculate there.

I’ve heard of that too and believe it is very incorrect and even if it were ok in theory, in practice it would be wrong, twisted and dangerous.

 

[flyingfish]

I’ve heard of that too and believe it is very incorrect and even if it were ok in theory, in practice it would be wrong, twisted and dangerous.

Is there even a right answer on this topic, or do different faithful Catholics disagree? Has the Church ever put out something definitive on what’s okay as foreplay and what isn’t?

 

[EmbarrassingQ]

Is there even a right answer on this topic, or do different faithful Catholics disagree? Has the Church ever put out something definitive on what’s okay as foreplay and what isn’t?

The original question is a serious one that I genuinely need help with from Catholics. Your last couple posts are getting off topic and are threatening to undermine the credibility of my thread. Please stop posting.

 

[Monica4316]

I’m not married and I don’t know that much about Church teachings on this… but… there’s something about this that doesn’t seem right to me. Sex between spouses is an expression of conjugal love, it’s about offering the gift of self to another person…it’s based on love, not lust. Introducing things like simulated restraint seems reducing sex in a way, lowering it from what God intended… sorry if that’s not what you expected/wanted to hear… perhaps most people wouldn’t see anything wrong with it. But it’s almost like reducing sex to a make-belief event, almost making it pornographic, and basing it all on arousal, - when really it’s the love between spouses that should come first. It seems the focus is off, here. Think of it this way… in the way God intended it, the couple during marital act should focus entirely on each other. Here, the other person is not loved simply for who they are, but they’re being given a fake “role” to play…it seems more driven by lust than love. Even the fact that some people are aroused by using restraint and such things, - it doesn’t mean they’re sinning, but it does seem to come from fallen human nature, I’m sorry I don’t want to insult anyone… none of us are perfect yet. I just can’t imagine this being part of God’s plan for sexuality. Many people might say it’s okay because on the surface it is, but when you go deeper, something seems off. My honest opinion:shrug:

 

[DeOppressoLiber]

As a married Catholic, I don’t see anything that is strictly against the CCC with using restraints between consenting adults.

Any answer you get past that probably has more to do with a persons personal hang ups more than their faith.

As for it degrading the marriage act as the above poster was saying… That’s completely up to you and your spouse to answer. If either of you feels that way than it does. If you both think it just adds some fun and spice to your relationship, than it doesn’t.

Don’t get so caught up in the solemness of the act that you take all the joy out of it. I’m not so sure there’s necessarily anything wrong with having a little lust for you spouse.

 

[Cadaverini]

I’m not married and I don’t know that much about Church teachings on this… but… there’s something about this that doesn’t seem right to me. Sex between spouses is an expression of conjugal love, it’s about offering the gift of self to another person…it’s based on love, not lust. Introducing things like simulated restraint seems reducing sex in a way, lowering it from what God intended… sorry if that’s not what you expected/wanted to hear… perhaps most people wouldn’t see anything wrong with it. But it’s almost like reducing sex to a make-belief event, almost making it pornographic, and basing it all on arousal, - when really it’s the love between spouses that should come first. It seems the focus is off, here. Think of it this way… in the way God intended it, the couple during marital act should focus entirely on each other. Here, the other person is not loved simply for who they are, but they’re being given a fake “role” to play…it seems more driven by lust than love. Even the fact that some people are aroused by using restraint and such things, - it doesn’t mean they’re sinning, but it does seem to come from fallen human nature, I’m sorry I don’t want to insult anyone… none of us are perfect yet. I just can’t imagine this being part of God’s plan for sexuality. Many people might say it’s okay because on the surface it is, but when you go deeper, something seems off. My honest opinion:shrug:

Even though i heavily disagree on the Catholic idea of what and when and how and why and who with sex should be, i’ll tackle this from a catholic standpoint.

God made our bodies to feel the intense pleasure of sex, yes?
And they are a married couple, yes?
they are not using contraception, right?
he is ejaculating within the woman, yes?

Then have at it with love cuffs if it is for both peoples pleasure. Give equally as you take, never be selfish and always discuss radical ideas to make sure both parties consent.

Blorp,
Cadaverini

 

[Verbum_Caro]

A
As for it degrading the marriage act as the above poster was saying… That’s completely up to you and your spouse to answer. If either of you feels that way than it does. If you both think it just adds some fun and spice to your relationship, than it doesn’t.

D.O.L,

Are you familiar with the opening chapter of C.S. Lewis’ The Abolition of Man?

In it, Lewis describes a textbook which analyzes an anecdote about the poet Samuel T. Coleridge and a waterfall that is called sublime. The textbook goes on to say that when a man called the waterfall sublime “he appeared to be making a remark about the waterfall . . . Actually . . . he was not making a remark about the waterfall, but a remark about his own feelings. What he was saying was really *I have feelings associated in my mind with the word ‘Sublime’, *or shortly, ‘I have sublime feelings.’”

Lewis points out that this analysis is problematic.

I wonder if the same can be said for looking at the actions of couples in the same way – i.e. saying that what they are doing isn’t degrading unless one of them feels degraded.

So, two questions come to my mind: Are we able to say of something “that is degrading” and not mean that we feel degraded? And, can something be objectively degrading, even apart from how the people doing that something feel about it?

God bless,
VC

 

[ContegoFides]

EmbarassingQ,

I consider myself to be a faithful Catholic - or at least I try to be. IMO there’s nothing wrong with what you have proposed.

From a philosophical standpoint, and Church teaching, sex within marriage has dual intertwined purposes - unitive and reproductive. So long as you do not interfere with either, what you do with your spouse during a sex act must be good.

I assume that you are not using artificial birth control and that the husband ejaculates inside his wife’s vagina. If so, then you are not interfering with the reproductive aspect of sex.

So, the only possible way “love cuffs” would be bad is if they interfered with the unitive aspect of sex.

I could see situations in which they could be, such as when one partner does not want to use them or somehow feels demeaned by them.

However, that is not your question. You have posited that the spouses are aroused by their use, (or at least no objection is made) and also no real restraint happens. In this context, I don’t see an interference in the unitive aspect of sex.

I do see a possible danger, though, in that the use of toys may engender a selfish “pleasure only” attitude towards the act. However, if that is considered and is not there, then again I see no problem with it.

In other words, have a well-formed conscience about what sex within marriage is. From there you can decide in good conscience what is good. I suggest a work entitled “The Good News About Sex and Marriage.” Just google it - or find it on the bookstore at Catholic.com.

My personal opinion is that I wouldn’t use such toys - but that’s just me.

 

[The_Bucket]

I second ContegoFides. That sort of thing is not necessarily my cup of tea but then again, maybe my preferred flavors aren’t liked by everyone else.

As long as you’re not frustrating potential procreation, doing something to which your spouse objects, or treating your spouse fully like an object of lust instead of love, then you’re fine.

 

[JPayne]

My views about the topic are mostly like DeOppresso"s. I do not see how it would be a problem as long as there was consent in the use by both sides, and the selfishness aspect wasn’t a factor. After that,. have at it

God bless,
Jesse

 

[Verbum_Caro]

As long as you’re not frustrating potential procreation, doing something to which your spouse objects, or treating your spouse fully like an object of lust instead of love, then you’re fine.

I don’t have an opinion (or at least, haven’t formed one) regarding the actual question involved.

I wonder, instead, about how we are to approach the question. Is it true that so long as the procreative and unitive ends are not frustrated, both consent, and no one is objectified that all acts are fine?

Could something go beyond the bounds of decency, in itself? Could something while preserving the ends of marriage and consented to still be unnatural and not in keeping with right reason?

VC

 

[The_Bucket]

I’d imagine that if you’re going into something beyond the bounds of decency then you’re probably going the objectifying route, correct? I won’t get into specifics but there are things that I can certainly think of that go beyond decency and are still done and yeah, I’d consider them immoral based on the fact that they’re just being done to be lustful and they’re objectifying.

But I don’t think being aggressive or even restraining during the act goes down that route. That sort of “surrendering” seems pretty well within the bounds of being OK. Now as for some serious weird bondage and stuff I don’t care to mention in a polite forum like this… yeah I’m pretty sure that’s a perversion of sexuality.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I’d imagine that if you’re going into something beyond the bounds of decency then you’re probably going the objectifying route, correct? I won’t get into specifics but there are things that I can certainly think of that go beyond decency and are still done and yeah, I’d consider them immoral based on the fact that they’re just being done to be lustful and they’re objectifying.

Thanks The Bucket. It still seems to leave me with a question, though. If a couple aren’t doing something to be lustful (since that is their own internal disposition) nor objectifying one another (again, it seems that would be their own internal disposition) then it seems like it all depends on how they feel about it.

But, could there be something where the very actions themselves (apart from the intent or motives or viewpoint of the actors) aren’t in accord with the dignity of persons?

VC

 

[The_Bucket]

Probably, after all some people either genuinely believe or at least convince themselves that abortion isn’t murder. But the Church isn’t going to lay down guidelines on every potential action in every part of human life. Even as verbose and overarching as the Catechism is, it doesn’t come close to doing that and that’s why everyone has a conscience.

 

[DeOppressoLiber]

D.O.L,

Are you familiar with the opening chapter of C.S. Lewis’ The Abolition of Man?

In it, Lewis describes a textbook which analyzes an anecdote about the poet Samuel T. Coleridge and a waterfall that is called sublime. The textbook goes on to say that when a man called the waterfall sublime “he appeared to be making a remark about the waterfall . . . Actually . . . he was not making a remark about the waterfall, but a remark about his own feelings. What he was saying was really *I have feelings associated in my mind with the word ‘Sublime’, *or shortly, ‘I have sublime feelings.’”

Lewis points out that this analysis is problematic.

I wonder if the same can be said for looking at the actions of couples in the same way – i.e. saying that what they are doing isn’t degrading unless one of them feels degraded.

So, two questions come to my mind: Are we able to say of something “that is degrading” and not mean that we feel degraded? And, can something be objectively degrading, even apart from how the people doing that something feel about it?

God bless,
VC

Bolding Mine^^^^

In a situation such as this, where Church teaching doesn’t specificly clearify the Bibles view or proscribe the act, I would fall back to this verse to answer your question.​

Romans 14
12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.

14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.​

So yes, I would say a persons feelings on this can change the reality. If one of the two sincerly belives it is wrong and a sin, then for them it is wrong and a sin.

to your post above
“But, could there be something where the very actions themselves (apart from the intent or motives or viewpoint of the actors) aren’t in accord with the dignity of persons?”

I won’t speak to all hypothetical situations, but in the specific case of placing handcuffs around someone’s wrist… No, that physical act it’s self is not degrading the dignity of a person. The degradation come from the intent, circumstances and motivation of the cuffer towards the cuffee (yes I think I just created a new word there )

 

[Liberanosamalo]

Sex is a mystery… a sharing between a couple on the deepest level. It is such a powerful force that every mental and human emotion can be affected by it, in ways that tie a man and woman together for life. It is about trust, and unity on a profound level. The receptors in the brain react to it on a level to rewire a person’s entire emotional core.

It’s playing with fire.

Sometimes when people play with fire they do not know what they are unleashing.

At what point does the idea of playful “cuffs” become one person’s latent sadism? Or how willing is one person to accomodate someone else’s fantasy?

And what deep dark recesses of the mind are quietly being unleashed when a man is having sex with his bound wife? He may not even know what mental corner he is turning. Nor may she.

While objectively such an item may be neutral, it could be a thing that sets a fire that burns out of control in someone’s mind.

I’d be very careful. The path to hell begins with one small step. And no, I’m not being dramatic. In our porn-soaked world some have to ratchet up the behavior to get the same level of satisfaction. Be very cautious before you unleash this particular brand of the hounds of hell. I promise it won’t stop at just cuffs. I’ve heard too many stories.