The use of simulated restraint within marital act

[DeOppressoLiber]

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.

Judging by some of the post here, we could start a new thread “is laughing at this a sin?” and half the people would say yes.

 

[The_Bucket]

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.

Exactly. The problem wouldn’t then be the cuffs or whatever “spice” is added, but the man’s inner struggles. And honestly, leaving the sex life the way it was won’t prevent someone from releasing is “inner monster.” It’s going to come out based on what kind of person he is, not a specific triggering event. If he’s really that kind of a sick person, he shouldn’t be in any kind of intimate relationship, sexual or not and you can’t blame inanimate objects on “releasing the demons” as it were.

 

[camerong]

Exactly. The problem wouldn’t then be the cuffs or whatever “spice” is added, but the man’s inner struggles. And honestly, leaving the sex life the way it was won’t prevent someone from releasing is “inner monster.” It’s going to come out based on what kind of person he is, not a specific triggering event. If he’s really that kind of a sick person, he shouldn’t be in any kind of intimate relationship, sexual or not and you can’t blame inanimate objects on “releasing the demons” as it were.

Indeed. Now, let me add, that’s not to say that some things won’t have that affect. Watching porn, going to a strip club, or having a threesome might well have this effect on the man (or woman!). But these things differ materially from cuffs, outfits, etc. And the often stated rules–the act must be unitive, procreative–are the perfect guidelines. Threesomes and porn aren’t unitive because they pull the sexual attention outside of the couple. Handcuffs and outfits can be unitive, because they draw the couple closer together, in the very same way that going horseback riding, instead of the typical staying-in-and-watching-TV, draws the couple closer together.

 

[The_Bucket]

Yeah, and if you handcuff yourself to your spouse you can be drawn even CLOSER together!

 

[KostyaJMJ]

From what I have read about this problem we are called to avoid any anti-christian hedonism in the sex act. This means that any pleasure seeking must not lead to the violation of an obligation that binds under the pain of sin. With the sex act we can group the duties and obligations that pertain to intimacy into three categories.

1.procreation – nothing can be done to destroy the natural procreative nature of the sex act.

2.relief of concupiscence – The use of marital intimacy is supposed to lead to the protection of chastity. Anything that would leave one of the spouses tense and unsatisfied would be sinful pleasure seeking.

3.justice and charity – each spouse must not do anything that causes the other unnecessary pain or repugnance

Obviously, what is attractive to one person might be repulsive to another so it is an area that requires a great deal of sensitivity and compromise. Restraints, while not sinful per se can lead to sin if they are used in a manner that lacks charity or leaves one spouse uncomfortable or unsatisfied.

You can read more about the problem here in “Marriage Questions” starting at chapter 10.
archive.org/details/contemporarymora012987mbp

 

[kage_ar]

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.

If Christ is welcome in your bedroom, remember any costume she wears IS in front of Christ.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

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.

Cameron,

Could you explain what you mean when you say an overwhelming majority of moral theologians?

Thanks,
VC

 

[camerong]

Cameron,

Could you explain what you mean when you say an overwhelming majority of moral theologians?

Thanks,
VC

What I mean is that I have read materials by a number of Catholic moral theologians, and it all supports the above statement. I have not heard of any who disagree with how these basic guidelines, given in Humane Vitae, apply to the marital bed. I say “overwhelming majority” instead of “all” because I do not know of every moral theologian’s position; however, the position I described above is followed by a wide array of moral theologians, including several who are strictly orthodox.

This consensus underlies the discussions in books such as Holy Sex! and The Good News about Sex and Marriage.

 

[RockyRoad]

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.

I think you’ve done a great job answering the question very simply!

 

[Verbum_Caro]

What I mean is that I have read materials by a number of Catholic moral theologians, and it all supports the above statement.

If you could, would you mind listing the ones you have read (if it is a manageable list)? Or you could PM if you think that is better.

Thanks,
VC

 

[Doc_Keele]

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.

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.

Both very sensible and balanced posts

 

[OraLabora]

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

No that’s not OK, because the act must finish vaginally and going from the anus to the vagina is a serious health risk.

 

[Doc_Keele]

No that’s not OK, because the act must finish vaginally and going from the anus to the vagina is a serious health risk.

You think the vulva and vagina aren’t already colonized with faecal bacteria?

 

[lizaanne]

You think the vulva and vagina aren’t already colonized with faecal bacteria?

Do you honestly think any woman would want the penis there after it has been in her anus?

I find the concept revolting myself in any case. But I suppose that’s for another discussion - one I won’t be participating in.

With regard to the OP - I think that one has to consider what it is they are simulating. You are pretending to dominate and restrain your spouse. Marriage is not about one spouse dominating or restraining the other - it is about mutual giving and sharing of ourselves with each other. I personally feel that restraints of any kind, pretend or real, are a misuse of the marital act by leading one or both spouses into a fantasy state that can become a distraction or even substitution for reality.

~Liza

 

[The_Bucket]

You think the vulva and vagina aren’t already colonized with faecal bacteria?

I’m guessing not nearly as directly as it would be in this circumstance. But I’m pretty sure that could be remedied by cleaning before resuming to completion. But as lizaane said, that’s another conversation and not really one I want to get into either because I’m sure it would result in a gigantic uproar… and because I don’t know what my own feelings on the subject are at least in terms of its morality.

I do have to take a slight issue with the idea that marriage doesn’t include any form of domination or submission. I think that aspect is there and frankly, very important. Wives should be submissive to their husband’s wishes… provided that they are good and moral decisions. And husbands should love their wives, do everything they can to protect them and their families even to the point of laying down their own lives for them… and of course they should take their wives’ good advice when they provide it!

I think the idea of total submission to the other is critical to marriage and while I don’t think the use of handcuffs, real or simulated, is necessary or even provides a solid analogy to this submission, I don’t think it’s wrong or misguided provided the parties’ hearts are in the right place. After all, I think most wives would agree that they like their husbands to take the lead and take control in many circumstances, including the bedroom. I wouldn’t care to use simulated restraints to exercise this modicum of control (and control in a good way, not in an abusive fashion) but I can see how it would be appealing to some.

 

[lizaanne]

I do have to take a slight issue with the idea that marriage doesn’t include any form of domination or submission. I think that aspect is there and frankly, very important. Wives should be submissive to their husband’s wishes… provided that they are good and moral decisions. And husbands should love their wives, do everything they can to protect them and their families even to the point of laying down their own lives for them… and of course they should take their wives’ good advice when they provide it!

I think my thoughts were leading more in the area of simulated violence during sex and domination/submission in that sense. You are very correct in your comments here and I agree with them fully.

~Liza

 

[Liberanosamalo]

an innocent catalyst igniting a much larger underlying problem that itself needs to be addressed.

A perfect way of describing it!

I’m with Bucket…maybe if you handcuffed yourselves together, that is splitting the difference.

But I have huge issues with the idea of the wife as prisoner, victim, property or whatever that such a fantasy may be part of… a larger underlying problem a wife may only begin to realize after a few months or years of marriage. I’d be very wary of unsetting that tripwire.

Or if the husband wants to wear the fuzzy cuffs… I can’t begin to go there as to what issues he might have that he’d like that idea…

 

[The_Bucket]

Without getting too… earthy… I can really understand where the whole restraint thing would be fun. She “can’t” go anywhere and you can tease, playfully taunt and basically do whatever you want and she’s totally submissive to it. And giving myself a woman’s mindset, I can see why one would enjoy that since women are ALREADY making themselves far more vulnerable than men are during the process sex. This just heightens that sense of vulnerability, but a “victim” mentality is where it would get really weird.

Again, I can understand the concept and don’t think it’s wrong at all or even that it’s a slippery slope for well-adjusted people. Some folks just can’t restrain themselves and what they WANT is to be vulnerable for longer but they feel obligated to respond physically when their spouses have been focusing on them for so long. With a restraint, even a simulated restraint, they “can’t” do that and thus no longer have that nagging feeling that they should really be reciprocating.

I wouldn’t care for restraints not because I think it’s really weird but I prefer other ways of being dominant (not violent, but dominant) in that scenario. I’m a bigger and fairly athletic guy, 6’2", 225lbs., which I can easily bench press and I’m twice my wife’s weight. So I don’t feel that assistance is needed to incorporate some restraining, I would prefer to use my own physicality and I think my wife would agree. Sorry if that crosses into the “too earthy” area. Mods, feel free to censor if it is.

 

[RockyRoad]

From what I have read about this problem we are called to avoid any anti-christian hedonism in the sex act. This means that any pleasure seeking must not lead to the violation of an obligation that binds under the pain of sin. With the sex act we can group the duties and obligations that pertain to intimacy into three categories.

1.procreation – nothing can be done to destroy the natural procreative nature of the sex act.

2.relief of concupiscence – The use of marital intimacy is supposed to lead to the protection of chastity. Anything that would leave one of the spouses tense and unsatisfied would be sinful pleasure seeking.

3.justice and charity – each spouse must not do anything that causes the other unnecessary pain or repugnance

Obviously, what is attractive to one person might be repulsive to another so it is an area that requires a great deal of sensitivity and compromise. Restraints, while not sinful per se can lead to sin if they are used in a manner that lacks charity or leaves one spouse uncomfortable or unsatisfied.

You can read more about the problem here in “Marriage Questions” starting at chapter 10.
archive.org/details/contemporarymora012987mbp

That was very well put. I think the OP said that it was something they both enjoyed. And if that is the case you’ve addressed it beautifully.

 

[RockyRoad]

And husbands should love their wives, do everything they can to protect them and their families even to the point of laying down their own lives for them… and of course they should take their wives’ good advice when they provide it!

I’m still waiting for the good advice!!!

OMGosh…my wife is going to kill me if she reads this post. I’ve been getting good advice whether I wanted it or not for 26 years…yesterday!