The use of simulated restraint within marital act

[The_Bucket]

Liberanosamalo, I 100% agree that sex is a mystery, and it can either be a powerful glue for a relationship or a weapon of mass destruction.

That said, I know that a huge part of sex, especially for women, is surrendering. You can use whatever term you like for this phenomenon, I prefer ravish, but its well documented in behavior and literature. Sure, in the course of martial relations, both spouses surrenderer themselves completely to the other, but you well know that during the act, many women like to very literally and quite physically surrender themselves to their husbands. It’s about being as vulnerable as possible but also safe. So maybe it was even her idea!

Like I said before, handcuffs are not my cup of tea and honestly, while I totally respect where you’re coming from on the “slippery slope” front, let’s face it: anything sexual, even “plain vanilla” relations, can lead down the wrong path if you’re not vigilant. So I’d just say the cuffs are not sinful and leave it at that… with a reminder to always pray for chastity no matter what.

 

[kage_ar]

A husband is commanded to love his wife as Christ loved the Church. Would you see Christ doing degrading things to the Church?

 

[ContegoFides]

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?

Good question. My gut tells me yes, but I’m having trouble defining the line. For example, outright injurious torture - if “genuinely” consented to (and I have no idea how that could happen) - appears to be crossing the line and objectively immoral regardless whether the dual aspects of sex are kept. However, where do you draw the line? On the other end of the extreme is the OP’s question, which appears at face value to be harmless (no actual restraint, no harm, and otherwise within a licit act).

My initial sense is, again, that the key is to rely on a well formed conscience. Know the goodness and philosophy of sex, form your conscience in conformity with Church teachings, have an active prayer life in which you are striving to come closer to God… and I think your conscience will tell you when you are crossing or have crossed the line.

A husband is commanded to love his wife as Christ loved the Church. Would you see Christ doing degrading things to the Church?

Agreed. This is a great starting point in forming your conscience about what might be good between married persons.

 

[Irish_Girl_68]

I believe in a healthy, satisfying sex life with one’s spouse. And, I’d typically say if you’re married and otherwise following the rules of the Church regarding relations it would be OK. That said, I take exception with this particular idea because S&M, bondage, etc. are so frequently themes of pornographic material. While I realize your intent is loving, the idea (at least for me) tends to promote a pornographic theme into the marital act. IMO, it seems to cheapen a very holy act.

 

[DeOppressoLiber]

I believe in a healthy, satisfying sex life with one’s spouse. And, I’d typically say if you’re married and otherwise following the rules of the Church regarding relations it would be OK. That said, I take exception with this particular idea because S&M, bondage, etc. are so frequently themes of pornographic material. While I realize your intent is loving, the idea (at least for me) tends to promote a pornographic theme into the marital act. IMO, it seems to cheapen a very holy act.

Uhhhhh…

Sexy clothing and lacy underthings are a common theme of pornography too. Should we obstain from that as well? Seriously people, don’t envent things to judge yourself on, certainly not just because they might have something in common with unseemly practices.

 

[Irish_Girl_68]

I didn’t judge anyone nor will I. The OP is free to do as he chooses. He did, however, ask for an opinion. I gave mine.

 

[kage_ar]

Uhhhhh…

Sexy clothing and lacy underthings are a common theme of pornography too. Should we obstain from that as well? Seriously people, don’t envent things to judge yourself on, certainly not just because they might have something in common with unseemly practices.

And if those things cross the line and degrade the wearer, they are also wrong.

Sex is not a sport, it is not a passtime.

Sex is between husband, wife and God.

If you would not wear it in front of Jesus, don’t wear it in the bedroom.

 

[camerong]

And if those things cross the line and degrade the wearer, they are also wrong.

Sex is not a sport, it is not a passtime.

Sex is between husband, wife and God.

If you would not wear it in front of Jesus, don’t wear it in the bedroom.

What?!? I don’t think I would be comfortable having sex in front of Jesus, but clearly its okay.

Handcuffs are not objectively degrading. At least, no one has proven them to be. And if handcuffs are also not subjectively degrading, then they are not degrading in either sense.

I’d consider myself a very hard-line Catholic, and I think its extremely clear this kind of thing is entirely in line with Theology of the Body. Handcuffs, vibrators, outfits, etc., are all completely acceptable as long as they follow the several rules the Church has laid out or which can be derived from these rules (the act involves ejaculating inside the woman, the act respects the wishes of each spouse, the act does not involve anyone besides the spouses). I will also say that anal sex, while it practically is difficult to comply with these rules (particularly because the penis becomes unsuitable to be put into a vagina afterwards), it could theoretically be in line with the Church’s rules. Anyone who says otherwise is in disagreement with most Catholic thinkers and authors on the subject.

 

[kage_ar]

What?!? I don’t think I would be comfortable having sex in front of Jesus, but clearly its okay.

Handcuffs are not objectively degrading. At least, no one has proven them to be. And if handcuffs are also not subjectively degrading, then they are not degrading in either sense.

I’d consider myself a very hard-line Catholic, and I think its extremely clear this kind of thing is entirely in line with Theology of the Body. Handcuffs, vibrators, outfits, etc., are all completely acceptable as long as they follow the several rules the Church has .

We must welcome Jesus into our marriage bed. God is part of all we do, of all we are, and is part of our marriage.

The big question again, husbands love your wife as Christ loved the Church. Would Christ love His Church while tying her up or using sex toys on her?

 

[camerong]

We must welcome Jesus into our marriage bed. God is part of all we do, of all we are, and is part of our marriage.

The big question again, husbands love your wife as Christ loved the Church. Would Christ love His Church while tying her up or using sex toys on her?

I agree about out welcoming Jesus into the bed, and its an extremely important point you raise. I pray before, after, and often during (though not aloud!) sex.

But the analogy you have raised just doesn’t work. Would Christ insert His penis into the Church? The standard is useful in general terms to guide loving actions, but its a meaningless standard by which to judge sexual actions.

If one must think in these terms, though I think it unnecessary, the better way to consider it is the old WWJD (in the same situation). If Christ were a husband with a wife who wanted to be handcuffed during sex, He might well do it. At least, we can say His Holiness would not clearly prohibit it.

The issue is whether it is a unitive and procreative act. If so–and I would argue these things underlie any stated “rules”–it is acceptable. Outfits, handcuffs, talking in certain ways, being rough, and other things we would cringe to think of Christ doing all perfectly satisfy these requirements, and are thus acceptable in the marital bed.

Hey, we’re Catholic after all. 6 kids and no outfits allowed?! C’mon! (kidding)

 

[presidentjlh]

But the analogy you have raised just doesn’t work. Would Christ insert His penis into the Church?

I’m sorry…I couldn’t help but burst out laughing, I hope that’s not an evil to find that latter sentence funny. It just…I couldn’t help it.

 

[PatriceA]

What?!? I don’t think I would be comfortable having sex in front of Jesus, but clearly its okay.

Handcuffs are not objectively degrading. At least, no one has proven them to be. And if handcuffs are also not subjectively degrading, then they are not degrading in either sense.

I’d consider myself a very hard-line Catholic, and I think its extremely clear this kind of thing is entirely in line with Theology of the Body. Handcuffs, vibrators, outfits, etc., are all completely acceptable as long as they follow the several rules the Church has laid out or which can be derived from these rules (the act involves ejaculating inside the woman, the act respects the wishes of each spouse, the act does not involve anyone besides the spouses). I will also say that anal sex, while it practically is difficult to comply with these rules (particularly because the penis becomes unsuitable to be put into a vagina afterwards), it could theoretically be in line with the Church’s rules. Anyone who says otherwise is in disagreement with most Catholic thinkers and authors on the subject.

This is what I was thinking as well.

I think its a conversation that needs to be just between the husband and wife and what each of them feels comfortable with.

I really don’t need anyone else coming into the bedroom conversation that should just be between me and my husband and tell me that things like handcuffs and whatnot are unacceptable. Nor do I want to tell anyone else either. That’s crossing a boundary of conversation that should only happen between spouses.

 

[vera_dicere]

Pretty much what I was thinking has been mentioned above by several of the posters, that if the husband and wife are fully okay with it, that no one is being harmed or objectified by it and that the teachigns of the Church are upheld in regards to no BC, man finishing in woman, et al, then have it.

The only problem I could see with it, is what happened in Gerald’s Game.

 

[shondrea]

I think the problem a lot of people have is what they know from porn, from the headlines, from the tabloids, from the racy stories about BDSM sex bars and whatnot. A bedroom is not a BDSM sex bar, and I think we need to remember that.

Think about what’s in the head of a couple thinking about using soft restraints in the bedroom. I’m very attracted to the idea. Why? Is it because I want to be hurt? Is it because I want to be helpless? No. It’s because if a woman is willing to play like that, she must have full and deep and amazing trust in her husband, knowing he will cause her no harm and treat her lovingly. And the husband will feel how deeply his wife trust him and the responsibility he has.

D/s and associated acts are NOT just about sex, my friends. There is just as much emotional and mental joy taken in the act. Now, there are many things that one shouldn’t do in the bedroom from a Catholic point of view, things that bring about both physical and emotional pleasure, but I don’t feel that a little restraint, a sexy piece of underwear, a slow, sensual undressing for your partner, or underdressing your partner yourself…I don’t think those are problems.

I’m no theologan. I don’t know church teachings on this particular subject. There may well be something that contradicts my opinion, and I will accept that. But I think that simply saying, No, that’s dirty and pronographic and degrading, is taking it in a purly physical context, without thinking about the emotion closeness it can help, HELP foster. It should not be the primary means of feeling trust and closeness in the marital act, but it’s a way that can help bring it about.

It takes a lot of love and trust and peace and inner restraint to do that responsibly.

 

[kage_ar]

The reception of Christ’s in the Eucharist is where the Body of Christ recieves Christ physically into Her Body.

 

[The_Bucket]

The reception of Christ’s in the Eucharist is where the Body of Christ recieves Christ physically into Her Body.

Hey I get the analogy, but I doubt my wife would wear a babydoll in front of Christ, despite the fact that it’s perfectly OK to do so in front of me… I’d even encourage it.

 

[Liberanosamalo]

Shondrea, that was very romantic… all about trust and closeness.

If only the human brain and emotional receptors always worked like that.

Let’s look at another alternative. While not based on my own personal experience, it’s based on what I know about certain personality types.

Suzy and Joe have been married for a while. Getting a little bored. Want to try something “new” to spice up the bedroom. Joe suggests “love cuffs.” Suzy, ever eager to please her man, agrees. It takes a lot of trust in Suzy’s head. (But maybe deep down there is a place in her heart she is ignoring that tells her this is weird and she’s not totally comfortable with it.)

So on with the cuffs. What Suzy doesn’t know is she’s helping Joe act out one of his secret fantasies. It has nothing to do with her trust or her ultimate submission to him. It has everything to do with the excitement for him of a woman being completely helpless and in his control. And for the first time in years, it is the best sex he ever had. He thinks about it the next day at the office. He starts obsessing over the memory. The next time, out come the cuffs. Suzy is not quite as happy to please because something has changed. He’s not as loving. He’s more insistent. A few months of this and the cuffs aren’t doing it for him. He wants to enact a new scenario… first he has to find her in the house and then cuff her and do the deed. And tie her feet to something. Then the sex for him is like it was that first time. He goes online to find other ways to act out his “fantasy.”

He has unleashed his inner predator. Emotionally and mentally can he ever look at sex in the same way again? Suzy had no idea she was playing with fire. It might not end with her. Let’s be completely blunt about the percentage of rapists who are married or have girlfriends. Does a woman completely know what is lurking under the surface in her man’s head when she consents to this? And how many men operate on the theory that deep down every woman has a “rape fantasy.” Does a wife need to encourage that in her husband? Is that making him holier? Bringing him closer in union with her and God? At what point do you cross a line between a unitive act and something that becomes a horrible fantasy?

No, not every man is like this. But there are enough that crossing the line between “playful” and “predator” is a very risky proposition.

Shondrea, you live in an ideal world. Total submission can occur without the cuffs. But the cuffs can be the beginning of a rapid downhill slide with some people.

 

[camerong]

To the OP, if he or she is still reading…

The Church Herself has never made an infallible proclamation regarding whether restraints or similar things are appropriate in the martial bed. The overwhelming majority opinion on this topic from moral theologians is that they are acceptable as long as they satisfy the requirements that each spouse is comfortable with it. This is the position taken by the book Holy Sex!: A Catholic Guide to Toe-Curling, Mind-Blowing, Infallible Loving, a book endorsed by Christopher West and highly orthodox moral theologians such as Janet Smith.

Some Catholics obviously disagree about the topic, but I have researched this topic a great deal, and I have not found convincing arguments contrary to the above position.

Ultimately, this is an issue that is up for interpretation, however, as I have stated, the majority opinion is that the behavior you have mentioned is acceptable.

 

[PatriceA]

Shondrea, that was very romantic… all about trust and closeness.

If only the human brain and emotional receptors always worked like that.

Let’s look at another alternative. While not based on my own personal experience, it’s based on what I know about certain personality types.

Suzy and Joe have been married for a while. Getting a little bored. Want to try something “new” to spice up the bedroom. Joe suggests “love cuffs.” Suzy, ever eager to please her man, agrees. It takes a lot of trust in Suzy’s head. (But maybe deep down there is a place in her heart she is ignoring that tells her this is weird and she’s not totally comfortable with it.)

So on with the cuffs. What Suzy doesn’t know is she’s helping Joe act out one of his secret fantasies. It has nothing to do with her trust or her ultimate submission to him. It has everything to do with the excitement for him of a woman being completely helpless and in his control. And for the first time in years, it is the best sex he ever had. He thinks about it the next day at the office. He starts obsessing over the memory. The next time, out come the cuffs. Suzy is not quite as happy to please because something has changed. He’s not as loving. He’s more insistent. A few months of this and the cuffs aren’t doing it for him. He wants to enact a new scenario… first he has to find her in the house and then cuff her and do the deed. And tie her feet to something. Then the sex for him is like it was that first time. He goes online to find other ways to act out his “fantasy.”

He has unleashed his inner predator. Emotionally and mentally can he ever look at sex in the same way again? Suzy had no idea she was playing with fire. It might not end with her. Let’s be completely blunt about the percentage of rapists who are married or have girlfriends. Does a woman completely know what is lurking under the surface in her man’s head when she consents to this? And how many men operate on the theory that deep down every woman has a “rape fantasy.” Does a wife need to encourage that in her husband? Is that making him holier? Bringing him closer in union with her and God? At what point do you cross a line between a unitive act and something that becomes a horrible fantasy?

No, not every man is like this. But there are enough that crossing the line between “playful” and “predator” is a very risky proposition.

Shondrea, you live in an ideal world. Total submission can occur without the cuffs. But the cuffs can be the beginning of a rapid downhill slide with some people.

Well of course there are going to be situations and different personality types that it would be a bad idea to include these kind of toys in a relationship. That’s where a couple should be having a very deep and serious bedroom conversation before, and after if necessary, about such things. And if they can’t have that conversation for whatever reason, maybe they shouldn’t be having relations until they can.

 

[camerong]

Shondrea, that was very romantic… all about trust and closeness.

If only the human brain and emotional receptors always worked like that.

Let’s look at another alternative. While not based on my own personal experience, it’s based on what I know about certain personality types.

Suzy and Joe have been married for a while. Getting a little bored. Want to try something “new” to spice up the bedroom. Joe suggests “love cuffs.” Suzy, ever eager to please her man, agrees. It takes a lot of trust in Suzy’s head. (But maybe deep down there is a place in her heart she is ignoring that tells her this is weird and she’s not totally comfortable with it.)

So on with the cuffs. What Suzy doesn’t know is she’s helping Joe act out one of his secret fantasies. It has nothing to do with her trust or her ultimate submission to him. It has everything to do with the excitement for him of a woman being completely helpless and in his control. And for the first time in years, it is the best sex he ever had. He thinks about it the next day at the office. He starts obsessing over the memory. The next time, out come the cuffs. Suzy is not quite as happy to please because something has changed. He’s not as loving. He’s more insistent. A few months of this and the cuffs aren’t doing it for him. He wants to enact a new scenario… first he has to find her in the house and then cuff her and do the deed. And tie her feet to something. Then the sex for him is like it was that first time. He goes online to find other ways to act out his “fantasy.”

He has unleashed his inner predator. Emotionally and mentally can he ever look at sex in the same way again? Suzy had no idea she was playing with fire. It might not end with her. Let’s be completely blunt about the percentage of rapists who are married or have girlfriends. Does a woman completely know what is lurking under the surface in her man’s head when she consents to this? And how many men operate on the theory that deep down every woman has a “rape fantasy.” Does a wife need to encourage that in her husband? Is that making him holier? Bringing him closer in union with her and God? At what point do you cross a line between a unitive act and something that becomes a horrible fantasy?

No, not every man is like this. But there are enough that crossing the line between “playful” and “predator” is a very risky proposition.

Shondrea, you live in an ideal world. Total submission can occur without the cuffs. But the cuffs can be the beginning of a rapid downhill slide with some people.

Liberanosamalo: in the book I mentioned in my above post, the author addresses this issue directly, with actual life experiences of clients he counseled.

The antidote for the kind of thing you mention is a loving, unitive, Godly sexual relationship. The effects you mention can result merely from having regular ol’ sex… the man obsesses over it, wants more and different kinds of sex… suddenly turns to the internet for it… If the hypothetical couple can turn dysfunctional from using a set of furry handcuffs, the handcuffs are merely an innocent catalyst igniting a much larger underlying problem that itself needs to be addressed. For couples with a healthy sexual relationship, cuffs, outfits, vibrators, etc., are no problem. Believe it or not, men do have the power to see their wives in a French maid outfit without becoming obsessed with having sex with an actual French maid.