Unitive "foreplay only" a grave matter?

[nobeerinheaven]

In light of this article, I agree some couples can go a little bit past cuddling, as long as their actions don’t get them too aroused. To me, that basically means you are getting some sexual pleasure, but not for the purpose of sexual arousal.

Ok, so you say that - but this is what the article says, which seems to give greater liberty in these matters than you will admit to (i.e. it is not a “little bit” past cuddling - it is anything past cuddling that doesn’t push a couple to temptation of sin):

Spouses may engage in activities they know will be sexually arousing, providing they intend to keep such activities under control. Spouses may engage in these activities with the intention of experiencing a certain degree of sexual pleasure, provided they intend to keep such activities and degree of pleasure under control.

This is important, as you seem to be imposing a scrupulous conscience on others, describing violations of this scrupulosity as grave matter. That’s not right. One can fool around with his or her spouse “with the intention of experiencing a degree of sexual pleasure.” One need not, as you say, devoid oneself from any purpose of sexual pleasure in these activities. It is fine to want sexual pleasure (and get that sexual pleasure from one’s spouse) without intending to engage in sex afterwards.

Additionally, the moral principles applying to the advice against oral sex as “foreplay only” seem to be that these actions are of necessity overly stimulating and thus an occasion for sin. Though this may be true for many couples, it is not true of necessity - and unless this condemnation is based on sui generis moral principles (and that is unlikely), then the underlying principle still defaults to couples and what they know to be overly stimulating in their own lives.

This reads much more like the following: “It is condemned to stimulate your partner to the point that they’d be willing to sin, which seems to be true in the case of oral sex, which is why couples should not engage in that unless they are planning on continuing to full marital relations.” Not: “Oral sex as ‘foreplay only’ is condemned - that is where the Church draws the line as too much foreplay unless sex is involved.” The reason why this latter reading seems false is that the Church doesn’t draw lines in the sand - it applies universal moral principles to practical situations for the moral guidance of its flock, to the best of its ability. There is no universal principle that I can see which entails that oral sex is of necessity sinful as foreplay only - except that oral sex is typically too stimulating for couples to engage in without temptation to sin.

 

[Paul2274]

Hi Paul,

As I have posted, intent is most important. If you can avoid becoming “excessively aroused” and having your “playful teasing” turn into actions that should be used only as foreplay for intercourse, then you are doing just fine.

You’re right it really does all boil down to intent.
And previously when you said that “limits” or “the line” are different for everyone. I think there is a confusion about what actually constitutes foreplay. I’m not going to get into the middle of this already warm debate here, but that is what I think.
The teasing part of things I think that most couples who actually have a mutual loving desire for each other will willingly throughout the day make hints to each other (by eye contact or facial expressions or a kiss stolen around the corner so the kids can’t see or a quick “grab” or “pinch” …etc) to keep things “spicy” between each other. Now this is far from “orgasmic” play, mind you. When we get to the full act we are really into each other and enjoy knowing that we love each other. The “full act” doesn’t have to happen everyday but the affection that we express to each other is almost everyday.

Paul

 

[rlg94086]

You’re right it really does all boil down to intent.
And previously when you said that “limits” or “the line” are different for everyone. I think there is a confusion about what actually constitutes foreplay. I’m not going to get into the middle of this already warm debate here, but that is what I think.
The teasing part of things I think that most couples who actually have a mutual loving desire for each other will willingly throughout the day make hints to each other (by eye contact or facial expressions or a kiss stolen around the corner so the kids can’t see or a quick “grab” or “pinch” …etc) to keep things “spicy” between each other. Now this is far from “orgasmic” play, mind you. When we get to the full act we are really into each other and enjoy knowing that we love each other. The “full act” doesn’t have to happen everyday but the affection that we express to each other is almost everyday.

Paul

Well said.

 

[nobeerinheaven]

I’m not sure I track this “intent is important” discussion.

What intent is sinful, and what intent is morally permissible?

Where does this division between permissible and impermissible sexual intentions come from?

 

[Kitteh]

I just don’t understand how natural sexual human behavior can be considered a sin.

 

[rlg94086]

I’m not sure I track this “intent is important” discussion.

What intent is sinful, and what intent is morally permissible?

Where does this division between permissible and impermissible sexual intentions come from?

CCC:

Marriage under the regime of sin
1606 Every man experiences evil around him and within himself. This experience makes itself felt in the relationships between man and woman. Their union has always been threatened by discord, a spirit of domination, infidelity, jealousy, and conflicts that can escalate into hatred and separation. This disorder can manifest itself more or less acutely, and can be more or less overcome according to the circumstances of cultures, eras, and individuals, but it does seem to have a universal character.

1607 According to faith the disorder we notice so painfully does not stem from the *nature *of man and woman, nor from the nature of their relations, but from sin. As a break with God, the first sin had for its first consequence the rupture of the original communion between man and woman. Their relations were distorted by mutual recriminations;96 their mutual attraction, the Creator’s own gift, changed into a relationship of domination and lust;97 and the beautiful vocation of man and woman to be fruitful, multiply, and subdue the earth was burdened by the pain of childbirth and the toil of work.98
1608 Nevertheless, the order of creation persists, though seriously disturbed. To heal the wounds of sin, man and woman need the help of the grace that God in his infinite mercy never refuses them.99 Without his help man and woman cannot achieve the union of their lives for which God created them “in the beginning.”

**2351 ***Lust *is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

 

[newbetx]

I just don’t understand how natural sexual human behavior can be considered a sin.

Depends on what one calls “natural.” And how “natural” relates to us as humans. If you are referring to “natural” as animalistic, then it can be (and likely is) sinful. We are expected to behave at a higher level than animals. sexual behavior is should be done as part of love, not lust. Even mutually agreed sexual relations to relieve lust is not love. We are called to a loving relationship with regards to sex with our spouses. Ultimately, it should climax (literally) with the openness to the opportunity to create life.

A post can not do justice to this question. Please read about the Theology of the Body. Christopher West has several book and audio options. I have heard some other good intros, as well.

Peace be with you!

 

[nobeerinheaven]

I just don’t understand how natural sexual human behavior can be considered a sin.

The problem is that, through original sin, we are naturally disordered. Likewise, many things that seem well and fine are deemed wrong. It is natural for many people to masturbate; yet, these actions are gravely wrong.

Catechism’s definition of lust

That’s neither here nor there, really. We’ve determined that desiring sexual pleasure is not sinful, per se. So when is a desire for sex *lust *- when it is closed to life or intends to push the other away in the sexual acts? More specificity is required, unfortunately.

 

[Doople]

What’s foreplay to you? Anything can be foreplay from back rubs to OS.

 

[Geaux_LSU]

Wait…so let’s say, for example:

A husband and wife are fully clothed sitting on the couch, and they are cuddling and holding each other very close while the sun comes up. Both are sexually attracted to each other, and both get lots of sexual/emotional pleasure from doing this. However, they’re not having sex and not planning on having sex. They’re just enjoying being close to each other, occasionally kissing each other, running hands through each other’s hair, being affectionate, whispering ‘i love you’, etc. There is no objectifying (lust) going on.

What I get from reading most of the responses on this forum is that they’re sinning. Badly. Simply because they’re getting sexual/emotional pleasure outside of intercourse without going “all the way”. Seriously???

How is this normal interaction between a husband and wife sinful? This thinking seems puritanical, at best. It’s as if the only interaction between husband and wife that should be arousing is intercourse, period. Going from the many posts here, the logical thing for the husband and wife to do in this situation is to stop cuddling once they’re aroused. Seriously???

I really hope the Church doesn’t teach this.

 

[bmullins]

Wait…so let’s say, for example:

A husband and wife are fully clothed sitting on the couch, and they are cuddling and holding each other very close while the sun comes up. Both are sexually attracted to each other, and both get lots of sexual/emotional pleasure from doing this. However, they’re not having sex and not planning on having sex. They’re just enjoying being close to each other, occasionally kissing each other, running hands through each other’s hair, being affectionate, whispering ‘i love you’, etc. There is no objectifying (lust) going on.

What I get from reading most of the responses on this forum is that they’re sinning. Badly. Simply because they’re getting sexual/emotional pleasure outside of intercourse without going “all the way”. Seriously???

How is this normal interaction between a husband and wife sinful? This thinking seems puritanical, at best. It’s as if the only interaction between husband and wife that should be arousing is intercourse, period. Going from the many posts here, the logical thing for the husband and wife to do in this situation is to stop cuddling once they’re aroused. Seriously???

I really hope the Church doesn’t teach this.

I think your idea of sexual pleasure isn’t the same as commonly understood. I don’t see sitting side by side on the couch touching each other as a sexual activity. A sexual activity is something that directly pertains to sex. So you can rub your hand through your wife’s hair without it being sexual, and you can do it with it being sexual. I get much emotional pleasure from sitting and cuddling with my wife on the couch. I find a fondness for her and an attraction. There is a line though in what is clearly intended as sex (genital stimulation) and what is not.

In most relationships, genital stimulation is something that only occurs if someone wants sex (whether or not it occurs immediately before, or hours before as an enticement, it is still a clear indicator of sexual activity. That stimulation should be finished in the proper way.)

 

[Bookcat]

In terms of such signs of affection such “unitive acts” that are sexually stimulating.
One will find as I recall various judgments regarding this matter. Even among orthodox Catholic moral theologians. The Church does not get per se into detail in this area.

Certainly if such leads climax not continuous with the marital act (husband only during intercourse) or to other serious sins mentioned it is gravely disordered. Such comes from the Church’s Teaching in terms of the Marital act and in terms of masturbation etc.

If it is a near occasion of the above (without some necessity etc) such too “can” potentially fall into the grave area. Such is applying the understanding in moral theology in regards to the near occasion to mortal sin. Hence too one can find mention of avoid that which is “vehemently” arousing. Again this is mortal theologians applying principles.

One can also note the “frustration” aspect. So that too can play into considering a particular act.

I think too that certain very directly stimulating actions are in the least are to be avoided when such is not going to be “foreplay”.

So can certain unitive actions such as passionate kissing be possible in marriage outside of foreplay? Yes…but one needs to guided by prudence, chastity and charity.

As to during times when one has a serious reason to abstain for a period of time…well one needs to be particularly prudent (and it may be that one need not abstain due to near occasion of sin anyhow…depends on what the serious reason is in that case…such is part of the NFP use to avoid judgment). Here is a recent article that gives the take of two theologians zenit.org/article-33689?l=english – note that they say “it seems to us”…I imagine that various discussions among theologians as to various aspects of the question can take place…but in general certainly I would say if it is a “near occasion” and one “must avoid relations” then I would avoid that which starts the engines too much for sure…

( PS: As to NFP. The term the Church uses more often in documents in recent years is “serious reasons”.)

 

[TrueLight]

So can certain unitive actions such as passionate kissing be possible in marriage outside of foreplay? Yes…but one needs to guided by prudence, chastity and charity.

I really have no idea what this means. Can you go a little more into how or why kissing within a marriage needs to be prudent?

 

[Bookcat]

I rally have no idea what this means. Can you go a little more into how or why kissing within a marriage needs to be prudent?

Well we need prudence in every action in life first off…

In terms of kissing? For the reasons I gave above. In terms of the “timing” of such.

 

[TrueLight]

Well we need prudence in every action in life first off…

In terms of kissing? For the reasons I gave above. In terms of the “timing” of such.

 

[Bookcat]

For example if one is abstaining from marital relations for some serious reason …(or heck even at other times…depending on circumstances) one does not want to “get the engines going” too much…which passionate kissing can do…hence a prudent judgment as to the timing of certain forms of affection is needed (as explained in more length above…and in the link).

 

[TrueLight]

Thanks. I just read the link. I understand what you mean now.

I do find the below to be a good admonition:

We warn against an overly scrupulous interpretation of what we’ve said. A mark of a healthy relationship is the freedom between spouses to love one another and express appropriate affection during “feast” or “famine.” If certain types of arousing behavior should be avoided during times of abstinence, this emphatically does not mean that spouses should be distant toward one another. There are a hundred ways to express love and affection non-sexually that can deepen spousal unity during these times: back scratches, foot rubs, hugs, sharing a glass of red wine, watching a good video, taking a road trip, going out to dinner. The most important thing is not to stop talking to one another.

Emphasis mine.

 

[Bookcat]

Thanks. I just read the link. I understand what you mean now.

I do find the below to be a good admonition:

Emphasis mine.

yes of course

---

CCC:

1806 Prudence is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it; "the prudent man looks where he is going."65 "Keep sane and sober for your prayers."66 Prudence is “right reason in action,” writes St. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle.67 It is not to be confused with timidity or fear, nor with duplicity or dissimulation. It is called auriga virtutum (the charioteer of the virtues); it guides the other virtues by setting rule and measure. It is prudence that immediately guides the judgment of conscience. The prudent man determines and directs his conduct in accordance with this judgment. With the help of this virtue we apply moral principles to particular cases without error and overcome doubts about the good to achieve and the evil to avoid.

1809 Temperance is the moral virtue that moderates the attraction of pleasures and provides balance in the use of created goods. It ensures the will’s mastery over instincts and keeps desires within the limits of what is honorable. The temperate person directs the sensitive appetites toward what is good and maintains a healthy discretion: "Do not follow your inclination and strength, walking according to the desires of your heart."72 Temperance is often praised in the Old Testament: "Do not follow your base desires, but restrain your appetites."73 In the New Testament it is called “moderation” or “sobriety.” We ought "to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world."74

 

[TrueLight]

yes of course

---

CCC:

" We ought "to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world."74

Amen.

 

[Bookcat]

In addition to my longer post above which addressed the initial question I would add too in general in terms of marital relations that we are also not “hedonists” (at times Christians can be tempted to take the view “of the world”) and we need to observe moderation.

CCC:

2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.146  (emp. added)

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#III