"Third Base" Within Marriage, is it Right?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Regulaguy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Regulaguy

Guest
Hello,

I joined the Church this past Easter Vigil and I came from a sort of declining Methodist faith. This means that I have made a lot of 180 degree turns when it comes to some very important moral beliefs. I only very recently conceded to the belief that masturbation is indeed wrong in and of itself no matter what justifications one may be able to come up with. I conceded this point based on the fact that I declare to believe everything the Catholic Church teaches, and I don’t want to pick and choose my favorite dogmas. I could use some further reinforcement on this issue though.

There is also another related topic I am still fuzzy on. Let’s say a married couple is practicing natural family planning, and the wife is currently in phase II (fertile), and they are not yet financially or otherwise prepared to have a child. They still want to be able to express that physical affection and love to one another. I’m sorry for being graphic, but I’ll get to the point. Is it wrong for them to pleasure one another orally or otherwise without engaging in actual intercourse? I’m guessing the answer is yes based on what I’ve read, but again, I could use a great deal of logical, left-brained, apologetic-style reinforcement on this matter if you could please. My own logical, argumentative mind is causing some inner conflict over this, and my fiance, while very thoughtful, doesn’t have the words to “convince” me.

Thank you in advance for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Mark
 
Yes, it would indeed be wrong and for the same reason masturbation is wrong. Sexual stimulation is reserved only for actual intercourse.
 
Yeah, foreplay needs to end with the p-in-v. Oh, and you shouldn’t be doing that with your fiancé. Just an FYI.🙂
 
As the other two posters said, any climax must be within the context of the proper sexual act, otherwise it is little more than masturbation.

The purpose of human sexuality is to unite two individuals into a single, united whole. This takes places primarily on the wedding night, and is reinforced and reenacted every subsequent time you and your spouse have sex. To focus on the pleasurable aspects of the act (oral pleasure, orgasm, etc.) without acknowledging the unitive aspects of it is really to miss the point entirely. While it may feel good, and you genuinely mean to express your love through it, climax without the proper form (geared towards procreation) is a rejection of some part of your spouse. You are not giving yourself entirely to them because you withhold a portion of yourself, your fertility.

I hope this helps… and that I’m making sense… it’s early…
 
Thank you guys for the responses. They are all very helpful. I want to preface my response by reaffirming the fact that I accept the teachings of the Catholic Church to be the Truth and I must follow the laws of the heart even if my head wants to argue. This discussion is helping my mind catch up with my heart.

@KendraDZ1902: I am sorry if I worded this question in such a way that suggested that I was doing this with my fiance. We are most certainly not participating in any sexual acts before we are married. That line is pretty clear. We do, however, discuss all this serious stuff quite regularly.

@DavidJoseph and ProdglArchitect: Like I say above, I agree with you, and thank you for saying it the way you do. How would you respond to these questions?

If we can only take part in sexual acts if they end in intercourse, how do we clearly define sexual acts? If we define sexual acts as something that causes arousal of sexual organs, then I would need to refrain from even kissing her unless we’re going to go all the way. Do we define sexual acts as purposefully involving the sexual organs? Is it because of the nature and purpose of those organs, is it something unique about those particular parts of the body? If so, what is it about them?

Second, I remember reading something published by a past Pope, at least I think it was, probably John Paul II, if I remember correctly. He was saying that, because of the nature of male sexuality, it is certainly wrong to bring him to climax outside of intercourse, BUT, because of the nature of female sexuality and the fact that her climax has nothing to do with actual fertility, it IS OK to bring her to climax by other means, but only if actual intercourse is the goal or has already taken place, and he goes so far as to say that it should be considered the duty of the husband to do that for her if actual intercourse was not “sufficient.” That all sounds good and loving and wonderful, but is there any additional comment that anyone can offer to this point? I just don’t fully understand yet. It hasn’t clicked.

Thank you in advance for your reply.
 
If we can only take part in sexual acts if they end in intercourse, how do we clearly define sexual acts? If we define sexual acts as something that causes arousal of sexual organs, then I would need to refrain from even kissing her unless we’re going to go all the way. Do we define sexual acts as purposefully involving the sexual organs? Is it because of the nature and purpose of those organs, is it something unique about those particular parts of the body? If so, what is it about them?
Click to expand...
A sexual act is any deliberate use of the genital sexual faculty. See for example, these teachings:

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: “the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty.”[1]

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: “every genital act must be within the framework of marriage.”[2]

A practical example: Let’s say that a husband goes to an office party without his wife. When he returns, he admits to her that he had a little too much to drink, and something sexual happened with one of the secretaries. Well, his wife wants to know if a certain line was crossed. Essentially, she wants to know if there were any sexual acts of any type, or if it was just “making out”. That is the distinction. The mere fact that arousal occurs from making out does not imply it is a sexual act.

Do we define sexual acts as purposefully involving the sexual organs?
Yes, it is the deliberate use of the sexual organs in a sexual manner.

Is it because of the nature and purpose of those organs, is it something unique about those particular parts of the body? If so, what is it about them?
Yes, it is because they have the three-fold purpose of the unitive, procreative, and marital meanings.

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: “Now according to Christian tradition and the Church’s teaching, and as right reason also recognizes, the moral order of sexuality involves such high values of human life that every direct violation of this order is objectively serious.”[3]
[1] Cardinal Seper, CDF, Persona Humana, n. IX; inner quote is from Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes, n. 51.

[2] Cardinal Seper, CDF, Persona Humana, n. VII.

[3] Cardinal Seper, CDF, Persona Humana, n. X.
 
DavidJoseph said:
Yes, it would indeed be wrong and for the same reason masturbation is wrong. Sexual stimulation is reserved only for actual intercourse.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. “Foreplay” is allowed between a married couple provided it culminates in natural intercourse.
 
Wow! Thank you so much for this. I will look into those documents you reference Ron Conte.

And yes, drforjc, I was thinking the same thing.
 
drforjc said:
Incorrect. “Foreplay” is allowed between a married couple provided it culminates in natural intercourse.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t referring to foreplay; I was referring to 3rd base as an end in itself, not as a means to an end. So actually, what I said was 100% correct.
 
If we define sexual acts as something that causes arousal of sexual organs, then I would need to refrain from even kissing her unless we’re going to go all the way.
Click to expand...
My fiance and I have had to be honest about acts or situations that make us unusually vulnerable to loosing self control. Some situations are obviously dangerous and inappropriate for our stage but there are a couple of little things that are unusually problematic. These are quite far from the “borderline” for most people but we know we have to be sensitive and help each other.

I’ve found it helpful to learn about symbolic action or non verbal communication. I want every act to be honest non-verbal communication. I don’t want to do something due to co-dependency or to get something else in return, or to manipulate her. I want my actions to say something that is honest, beautiful and good for us and our relationship with God.

Obviously this is not always easy in the heat of the moment, but discussing it and thinking about it has been helpful to us. It has also been good for our developing communication skills.

( We are older than the average couple in this situation and have more knowledge of the faith than the average young couple. It is also likely to be easier for older couples to keep one’s head on straight : )
 
Ron_Conte said:
A practical example: Let’s say that a husband goes to an office party without his wife. When he returns, he admits to her that he had a little too much to drink, and something sexual happened with one of the secretaries. Well, his wife wants to know if a certain line was crossed. Essentially, she wants to know if there were any sexual acts of any type, or if it was just “making out”. That is the distinction. The mere fact that arousal occurs from making out does not imply it is a sexual act.
Click to expand...
To me, and I hope my husband, “making out” with a coworker would most definitely cross the line!
 
misspriss said:
To me, and I hope my husband, “making out” with a coworker would most definitely cross the line!
Click to expand...
Making out definitely crosses the line, however, if it was a “would you rather” thing, I would definitely choose him making out with someone and not sex. Lesser of 2 evils?
 
Regulaguy said:
Wow! Thank you so much for this. I will look into those documents you reference Ron Conte.

And yes, drforjc, I was thinking the same thing.
Click to expand...
Please don’t. They are not all Catholic Teaching. Some are just his opinions or take on the matter in question. Stay away from Catholic Planet. 👍
 
Hi Regulaguy! Welcome to the Catholic Church! You are blessed!

Rather than get to the technicalities of your question, I have a great book recommendation for you. Its Gregory Popcak’s Holy Sex! It covers the catechism, various views on sex and where they came from, and God’s plan for the best sex ever, all in an engaging, easy-read way. It will put the whole sex thing into perspective, and when you have that, you can revisit your question, and if you still don’t have an answer to some specific query you can call his counseling service. I do think that when you read this you can answer most questions you come up with yourself. I like this book even better than Christopher West’s book on the topic. Its a keeper!
 
P.S. to the above post: I see you are to be married. Popcak has a great book: Just Married: The Catholic Guide to Surviving and Thriving in the First Five Years of Marriage Its just the thing! Getting off to an awesome start in the important foundational years of your life together will bless you both immensely all of your days, as well the lives of the generations to follow. Popcak has been successfully guiding married folk for years**, and he truly knows the path to making sure you have the best, most thriving and fulfilling marriage ever, forever!

** And I think its because he is a humble man, who has reaped graces from years of daily Mass, AND he has a heart of truly wanting to help people - so much so that he made it his vocation, and also, he has truly sought Gods wisdom - something God gives in heaps when we truly seek it. Then he has years of working with actual couples, putting this wisdom into practice. And you will recognize God’s wisdom in his work. It not like he is giving you titillating “secret” or “exclusive” information only the elite or extra-smart or extra-pious are privy to, like some religious writers tend to come across, but instead, the simplicity the truths he shares and his advice will resonate with you - your reaction will be, “Of course! This seems natural and right!”
 
@DavidJoseph: Thank you for clarifying. 🙂

@Joegrane: Thank you very much for sharing your perspective and experience. That is a very helpful way in which to think about this. Yes, I imagine you are right when you say that an older couple has an easier time keeping their heads on straight haha! We too discuss this sort of thing. We both want to get each other to heaven, first and foremost.

@misspriss and KendraDZ1902: I think that Ron Conte was merely using that situation as an analogy to explain the major difference between a sexual act and a non-sexual act. I’m sure he too agrees that making out with a co-worker would be crossing the line of what is permissible, but it isn’t the same as actually having sex outside of marriage.

@Convert in 99: I’m confused. I looked up both of the documents he references. One is from a Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and the other is from the second Vatican Council. I find both of them on the Vatican’s website. How are either of those two documents not Catholic Teaching, and what is Catholic Planet?

@Eliza10: Thank you so much for the book recommendations! I will add them to my reading list, which is getting longer and longer. I have so much awesome Catholic stuff to read, including Christopher West’s book “Good News About Sex and Marriage” (we got it for free from our Pre-Cana group), not to mention the Catechism.
 
@Convert in 99: Ah, I see now. Someone was nice enough to PM me a website about Mr. Conte explaining what you mean. Don’t worry. I am eager to learn, but I am not as easy to fool. I plan on reading those two documents, seeing as they’re produced directly by the Church, but I do not plan on joining Mr. Conte’s group or anything. Thank you for looking out for me.
 
Regulaguy said:
@misspriss and KendraDZ1902: I think that Ron Conte was merely using that situation as an analogy to explain the major difference between a sexual act and a non-sexual act. I’m sure he too agrees that making out with a co-worker would be crossing the line of what is permissible, but it isn’t the same as actually having sex outside of marriage.
Click to expand...
But the analogy failed, and imagined scenario of the wife’s thinking is bizarre. Its ALL not okay to his wife. 🤷
 
Well of course it’s all not OK. I don’t believe that was the purpose of the analogy.

Let’s go back to the sort of question I was asking, which was this, given that there are many ways of expressing affection physically, the majority of which result in some degree of sexual arousal because of the way that the male body works, is there some sort of distinction that we can draw between what is OK and what is not OK outside of marriage, and also within marriage? I was trying to start a discussion about how we make that kind of distinction. I believe that Ron Conte’s analogy contributes to such a discussion by providing an example of a distinction between two like acts, the making out, and actual sex. Yes, both are wrong in this case, so it is somewhat of a weak analogy maybe, but it is still relevant, in my opinion, because it shows how two acts can be similar in that they “involve” the same “parts”, but extremely different in the nature of that involvement.

You are correct that the analogy fails completely, if you take it to mean that one of those acts is is right, and one is wrong, because yes, they are both obviously wrong, to vastly differing degrees, but still wrong.
 
Regulaguy said:
Thank you guys for the responses. They are all very helpful. I want to preface my response by reaffirming the fact that I accept the teachings of the Catholic Church to be the Truth and I must follow the laws of the heart even if my head wants to argue. This discussion is helping my mind catch up with my heart.

@KendraDZ1902: I am sorry if I worded this question in such a way that suggested that I was doing this with my fiance. We are most certainly not participating in any sexual acts before we are married. That line is pretty clear. We do, however, discuss all this serious stuff quite regularly.

@DavidJoseph and ProdglArchitect: Like I say above, I agree with you, and thank you for saying it the way you do. How would you respond to these questions?

If we can only take part in sexual acts if they end in intercourse, how do we clearly define sexual acts? If we define sexual acts as something that causes arousal of sexual organs, then I would need to refrain from even kissing her unless we’re going to go all the way. Do we define sexual acts as purposefully involving the sexual organs? Is it because of the nature and purpose of those organs, is it something unique about those particular parts of the body? If so, what is it about them?

Second, I remember reading something published by a past Pope, at least I think it was, probably John Paul II, if I remember correctly. He was saying that, because of the nature of male sexuality, it is certainly wrong to bring him to climax outside of intercourse, BUT, because of the nature of female sexuality and the fact that her climax has nothing to do with actual fertility, it IS OK to bring her to climax by other means, but only if actual intercourse is the goal or has already taken place, and he goes so far as to say that it should be considered the duty of the husband to do that for her if actual intercourse was not “sufficient.” That all sounds good and loving and wonderful, but is there any additional comment that anyone can offer to this point? I just don’t fully understand yet. It hasn’t clicked.

Thank you in advance for your reply.
Click to expand...
My question is, can a husband be brought to climax outside of intercourse when the couple is clearly beyond child bearing age? Wouldn’t age be a mitigating factor as long as the unitive, self giving properties of the relationship were intact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top