Use of Sexual Aids/Toys

[chicago]

I’m with Seatuck on this. I don’t have all kinds of documentation and writings readily available to cite at my fingertip. But the testimony of many older Catholics would have oral sex having been taught to them as nothing more than mere perversion to be absolutely avoided and seen as sinful. I don’t think that there is much doubt, then, about what she is saying in that the idea of it being a legitimate form of morally acceptable foreplay, while possibly quite true, is a new one which has only been promoted in recent decades and popularized, in particular, by the rise of Karol Wotyla to be pope. Indeed, when he was first promoting these concepts in the 60s, they were considered quite radical and condemned by some.

My conclusion, therefore, would be that this question as to what is allowable in foreplay/afterplay is something within the realm of fair theological opinion/debate and that such is what all positions on it basically are to be considered at this point in time.

 

[blessedtoo]

Fr. Larry Richards in his teachings says (while talking about the sins of fornication and oral sex) that “anything is allowed within the confides or marriage as long as it is leading up to intercourse and is not demeaning to either spouse.” Fr. Stan Fortunado once asked an arch-bishop what was allowed as foreplay within marriage to which the arch-bishop replied “they can swing from the cieling fans if they wish as long as the act ends in the husband climaxing inside his wife’s vagina.” I believe even Fr. John Corapi has talked about this on several occasion.

Did you not see the above posts?

In Catholicism for Dummies it says they are not permitted. Page 192.

Interesting. Does “Catholicism for Dummies” have an Imprimatur or a Nihil Obstat?

It does indeed have both. And the words it uses in relation to sex toys is ‘strictly forbidden.’

In addition, see this link:

Regarding the question on the NFP Forum and oral sex: There certainly is much confusion regarding certain behaviors in marriage, as there are certain theologians claiming certain behaviours are O.K… , such as this particular one. This behaviour is contrary to natural law (even as foreplay) and here is why:
The fact that the spouses may engage in the marital act immediately after they have engaged in this other kind of act does not make these two acts the same action, just as the fact that I make take another footstep immediately after I have taken a previous footstep does make the two footsteps the same action. Therefore, this kind of sexual action in question cannot be justified by saying that it leads to the marital act; it is by nature a separate actionwhose object is gravely immoral.

ewtn.org/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=501557&Pg=Forum11&Pgnu=1&recnu=2

 

[Seatuck]

What?!? I am not sure what your ‘older relatives’ have to say about it, but what makes you think that the words of your “priest from EWTN” are better then what I have told you.

I am sure that plenty of people do experience it this way. I am not taking a poll to ask what methods of foreplay others use, however, you are saying that oral sex as a means of foreplay is wrong. The burden of proof, as I have stated is on you.

Now if you do not want to take TOTB as a guide, then that is your decision. I have mentioned Christopher West, who has done extensive study on the TOTB and his book “The Good News About Sex and Marriage” says that oral sex is permitted by the Catholic Church. Again, I will ask you, if Pope John Paul II, the leader of the Catholic Church for so many years, spent a lot of time talking about the female orgasm and the husband’s need to provide that for her (even after the husband has climaxed inside her)?

If you do not feel that you want to have oral sex as foreplay within your marriage, so be it. It is not for me to judge, but all the teachings that I have heard over the years have drawn me to the conclusion that oral sex/oral stimulation within the marital union is fine as long as it is not demeaning to my wife and as long as the husband ejaculates inside his wife’s vagina.

If you want to show me otherwise, then please provide the documention for this. I have never seen this in all of my research on this topic.

Please forgive me as I do not have a copy of TOTB in front of me to provide an answer to your question specifically. I do believe that JPII did reference Pope Paul V’is teaching entitled Humanae Vitae.

Again, if you feel that this is wrong for you, then by all means do not participate in the acts, but to come out and tell me that it is wrong and that it is against what the Church teaches. If you want to show me where it says that the Catholic Church says that oral sex is wrong, please do provide that information. Over the years, here at CAF I have been through this debate with several people and presented the same challenge to them and have yet to have someone show me that.

HV is about the regulation of Birth not the marital embrace. It talks of allowing periodic incontinence not anything else.

There is a book of moral theology by Heribet Jone and others where manual stimualtion is mentioned in the assistance of the wife’s climax nothing else as far as I can recall. (that’s where that teaching comes from)

This is not about my personal likes or dislikes. This is about getting a handle on the constant teaching of the church. I didn’t say i thought it was wrong but that I know I am pretty sure up to recent times the church did teach it was wrong . Wish we could get a reference showing the constant teaching of the magesterium. Doesn’t appear that we will in this conversation.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I think you are all barking up the wrong tree here.

Here are a few passages from the ONLY authority (not older relatives, not some priest, not Joe Catholic) but the CCC…

**2352 **By *masturbation *is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.” “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.”
To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.

Note the part that states “outside of marriage”.

Now let’s add in…

**2363 **The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.
The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.

Now take both and together and you have your answer.

If the act is done in love for one another and leads to the transmission of life then it’s OK with the CCC.

That’s my take.

 

[blessedtoo]

Note the part that states “outside of marriage”.

So based on your interpretation, a man or woman can engage in the act of masturbation as long as he/she is married? If you are going to stretch the meaning of the passage you quoted, that is how one could interpret it. It does not specifiy that this is acceptable only within the marital act of intercourse; it simply says within marriage. How broad an interpretation are you willing to accept?

 

[iamrefreshed]

So based on your interpretation, a man or woman can engage in the act of masturbation as long as he/she is married? If you are going to stretch the meaning of the passage you quoted, that is how one could interpret it. It does not specifiy that this is acceptable only within the marital act of intercourse; it simply says within marriage. How broad an interpretation are you willing to accept?

No, that’s not what I think. You only took the first part of the message. I don’t think you understand.

The second passage states what is acceptable. You can’t take one passage without taking the second. In fact, you must take all passage of the CCC to lead a pure life.

I don’t accept any “interpretation”, I accept the CCC.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

HV is about the regulation of Birth not the marital embrace. It talks of allowing periodic incontinence not anything else.

There is a book of moral theology by Heribet Jone and others where manual stimualtion is mentioned in the assistance of the wife’s climax nothing else as far as I can recall. (that’s where that teaching comes from)

This is not about my personal likes or dislikes. This is about getting a handle on the constant teaching of the church. I didn’t say i thought it was wrong but that I know I am pretty sure up to recent times the church did teach it was wrong . Wish we could get a reference showing the constant teaching of the magesterium. Doesn’t appear that we will in this conversation.

I still have no reason to change my mind based upon anything that you have stated. Again, let me reimnd you that the burden of proof is on you to show that the Church teaches that this is not acceptable.

 

[Timidity]

The only mention of sex toys in the Bible that I know of speaks in very negative terms. The words are attributed to God, and He speaks of the women who use them as “fornicating” with them. If this is to be taken literally, then one does “use” a sex toy, but actually she has sex with it. In this light, it seems that using a sex toy during the marital embrace would be morally equivalent to the wife having sex with her husband and another man during the marital embrace.

Having said that, the passage does not specifically address the use of such objects within the marital embrace. Furthermore, the passage is (obviously) only referring to those are are used internally, not the modern electric ones that can be used more externally. On top of all that, there is another moral issue in that the sex toys of the day were usually idols of pagan gods, so some argue that the idolatry was the issue, not the fornication.

 

[LittleDeb]

All of these issues were recently challenged in my real life so I have been researching with a fervor. Those who have seen me on the boards in recent weeks will notice that yes, I AM picking these threads right now. I have yet to have been brief so please forgive me.

The crusade I am on is that the terms themselves are secular and therefore badly defined. “Oral sex,” “anal sex,” and “sex toys,” don’t actually mean what they appear to mean. What the Church teaches is that every aspect of the marital union must be in accordance with God’s design. The *design is what is very important to discern. *The only way to really understand the design is to really know The Designer. His design is perfect, flawless, and unmistakably His.

Sex toys–The body is not designed to be penetrated by an object. The obvious exceptions are to diagnose, treat, or preserve health. An example relevant here is the apparatus used in a vaginal ultrasound. It looks very much like a sexually stimulating toy. It is NOT stimulating. I can tell you from experience it can be very invasive and can take some major relaxation to be comfortable.

But because the term “sex toys” is secular and poorly defined then licking chocolate from a spouse’s finger or running a flower or a feather up his or her spine would be defined as such. None violate the design of the food, the flower, or the chicken, so are free to be used as such.

Some of the other examples in my crusade have been mentioned here. Oral sex is very badly defined. Oral stimulation is very much in accordance with the design. Kissing is a prime example. The lips, mouth, and tongue are designed to suckle, lick, and taste. The mouth however is not designed to be penetrated. Semen is not designed to be consumed. But since our spouse’s body is our very own, not an inch of it is off-limits.

And of course the veeery worst of the definitions is anal sex. Properly understood anal stimulation is any stimulation on or near the anus. The anus is actually more of an exterior organ. What secular definitions call “anal sex” is more properly termed, rectal penetration. The rectum is not designed to be penetrated. The sphincter muscle is not an intake muscle. It can only safely expel without damage. That is why when one gets a colonoscopy, he or she is given a muscle relaxant.

And finally our bodies are not designed to achieve sexual arousal by our own hand, married or unmarried. It counters the design and teaches the body an improper response.

When I met Christopher West I enjoyed his presentation, but had been studying Theology of the Body long before I ever heard of him. I talked to his assistant about my disappointment for his use of these poorly defined terms in his books. She assured me he had already been taken to task for it and was working on correcting it.

Whew. I think I am done. Maybe I should just copy and paste this into the thread, “? about sex.”

 

[blessedtoo]

LittleDeb,
Excellent post! Very articulate and thorough. I especially appreciate your approach from the perspective of “design”. And I completely concur with your conclusions! God bless.

 

[chicago]

Anyone else remember when the now commonly used word “sucks” had a much more serious, vile connotaion as a vulgarity and slur?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I was kinda shocked to see this thread.

Using such devices within a marital relationship is probably not a sin, but consider the facts,
Buying such devices supports an industry that is anything but Christian. Buying such products supports an industry that is most likely involved in pornography or other things that are sinful.

To be an accessory to such an industry.

Jim

 

[chicago]

Which is why I’ll soon be launching the enterprize, Catholic Sex Toys! That’s right, join us in the play room as we have fun for Jesus! All our products are handmade right here in the good 'ol U.S. of A. by expert moms who are faithful and orthodox, daily communicants. And 10% of all sales support pro-life causes.

It’s all the buzz. So get a handle on this exciting product. It’s going to be a really big thing. Coming soon to a store near you!

 

[LittleDeb]

LittleDeb,
Excellent post! Very articulate and thorough. I especially appreciate your approach from the perspective of “design”. And I completely concur with your conclusions! God bless.

Thank you! I am trying to sort through all of these thoughts as I re-research.

Which is why I’ll soon be launching the enterprize, Catholic Sex Toys! That’s right, join us in the play room as we have fun for Jesus! All our products are handmade right here in the good 'ol U.S. of A. by expert moms who are faithful and orthodox, daily communicants. And 10% of all sales support pro-life causes.

It’s all the buzz. So get a handle on this exciting product. It’s going to be a really big thing. Coming soon to a store near you!

sick. sick. sick. But I will give you one courtesy clap for the attempt at humor.

 

[ThuribleGuy45]

But because the term “sex toys” is secular and poorly defined then licking chocolate from a spouse’s finger or running a flower or a feather up his or her spine would be defined as such. None violate the design of the food, the flower, or the chicken, so are free to be used as such.

Sorry, but I find this a little bizarre and even offensive. If my wife and I are walking somewhere, and she’s eating - let’s say, a “chocolate” ice cream cone that gets ahead of her, and asks me to lick some up that’s dripping on her hand, I don’t find that to fit any reasonable definition of “sex,” “sex toy,” having sex in public, or anything close to that. What ever do you mean?

 

[whatevergirl]

I was kinda shocked to see this thread.

Using such devices within a marital relationship is probably not a sin, but consider the facts,
Buying such devices supports an industry that is anything but Christian. Buying such products supports an industry that is most likely involved in pornography or other things that are sinful.

To be an accessory to such an industry.

Jim

That’s a great point, and one of the key reasons that once my husband and I ‘refound’ our faith again–stopped our continuance of these ‘toys.’ And, one cannot serve man and God. Once you desire to follow God with your whole heart–you simply cannot justify playing with these toys, and feeding an industry like this.
Good post, Jim!

 

[whatevergirl]

Sorry, but I find this a little bizarre and even offensive. If my wife and I are walking somewhere, and she’s eating - let’s say, a “chocolate” ice cream cone that gets ahead of her, and asks me to lick some up that’s dripping on her hand, I don’t find that to fit any reasonable definition of “sex,” “sex toy,” having sex in public, or anything close to that. What ever do you mean?

Not sure that’s what was meant.

 

[cor]

INow for you to say that Pope John Paul II was simply voicing his ‘opinion’ is one of the most foolish lines that I have ever heard in my life. You mean to say that when JPII spoke about the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of the Catholic Church that he was just voicing his opinion? When he spoke of the female orgasm, he did that as an opinion? Don’t you think that if the Chruch held that oral sex was not allowed then he would have taken a stance against it rather than supporting it in Theology of the Body?

Where does JPII (not Christopher West) take a stance in support of oral sex?

Sometimes popes merely express their opinion. We are to discern how authoritative their teaching is based on the context, i.e. the character or form of the document, how often it is repeated, the way it is presented – things like that. Sometimes a pope will simply say that he is presenting merely his own opinion. Like, for example, with Benedict XVI’s book, Jesus of Nazareth

Still others seemed charmed by the fact that the pope wrote that because his book is not a magisterial act, “everyone is free to contradict me.” Beyond those angles, there was little interest in follow-up, in large part because a pope discussing Jesus strikes most people as the ultimate in “dog bites man” developments – that is, the most normal thing in the world.

ncrcafe.org/node/1056

 

[cor]

HV is about the regulation of Birth not the marital embrace. It talks of allowing periodic incontinence not anything else.

There is a book of moral theology by Heribet Jone and others where manual stimualtion is mentioned in the assistance of the wife’s climax nothing else as far as I can recall. (that’s where that teaching comes from)

I think you are referring, there, to “Moral Theology” by Heribert Jone, a Franciscan priest. He actually does talk about “anal sex” in Moral Theology. If you have the book, try looking it up. My understanding is that pre-Vatican II moral theologians were divided on the issue of “anal sex” – with some saying it was forbidden absolutely and others saying that some forms of it were ok. I don’t have the book anymore, so unfortunately, I can’t quote it for you.

 

[cor]

Thank you for your post. It was very well-reasoned and thought out. I appreciate it very much.

All of these issues were recently challenged in my real life so I have been researching with a fervor. Those who have seen me on the boards in recent weeks will notice that yes, I AM picking these threads right now. I have yet to have been brief so please forgive me.

The crusade I am on is that the terms themselves are secular and therefore badly defined. “Oral sex,” “anal sex,” and “sex toys,” don’t actually mean what they appear to mean. What the Church teaches is that every aspect of the marital union must be in accordance with God’s design. The *design is what is very important to discern. *The only way to really understand the design is to really know The Designer. His design is perfect, flawless, and unmistakably His.

Sex toys–The body is not designed to be penetrated by an object. The obvious exceptions are to diagnose, treat, or preserve health. An example relevant here is the apparatus used in a vaginal ultrasound. It looks very much like a sexually stimulating toy. It is NOT stimulating. I can tell you from experience it can be very invasive and can take some major relaxation to be comfortable.

But because the term “sex toys” is secular and poorly defined then licking chocolate from a spouse’s finger or running a flower or a feather up his or her spine would be defined as such. None violate the design of the food, the flower, or the chicken, so are free to be used as such.

Some of the other examples in my crusade have been mentioned here. Oral sex is very badly defined. Oral stimulation is very much in accordance with the design. Kissing is a prime example. The lips, mouth, and tongue are designed to suckle, lick, and taste. The mouth however is not designed to be penetrated. Semen is not designed to be consumed. But since our spouse’s body is our very own, not an inch of it is off-limits.

And of course the veeery worst of the definitions is anal sex. Properly understood anal stimulation is any stimulation on or near the anus. The anus is actually more of an exterior organ. What secular definitions call “anal sex” is more properly termed, rectal penetration. The rectum is not designed to be penetrated. The sphincter muscle is not an intake muscle. It can only safely expel without damage. That is why when one gets a colonoscopy, he or she is given a muscle relaxant.

And finally our bodies are not designed to achieve sexual arousal by our own hand, married or unmarried. It counters the design and teaches the body an improper response.

When I met Christopher West I enjoyed his presentation, but had been studying Theology of the Body long before I ever heard of him. I talked to his assistant about my disappointment for his use of these poorly defined terms in his books. She assured me he had already been taken to task for it and was working on correcting it.

Whew. I think I am done. Maybe I should just copy and paste this into the thread, “? about sex.”