Use of Sexual Aids/Toys

[LittleDeb]

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?

Sorry about that. I did use the word ‘would’ instead of ‘could.’ My bad. I read that post about 10 times before I posted checking for offensiveness. I focused more on the “chicken” line than the “chocolate” one.

In fact what you bring up helps to more clearly define it. You illustrate a time where it would not be sexual. BUT if that lick, even in public, caused a sexual arousal, the horrible definition of the term, “sex toy” would cause it to be categorized that way. That is really what I mean, that something very innocent between spouses could cause sexual arousal. Since it is not just a look or a touch, but is something exterior, the horrible definition of “sex toy” could define it that way.

And obviously another good point you note is that it is your wife who is asking you to lick her hand. That action is very intimate. I would only lick dripping ice cream from my own son’s hand, but possibly not my best friend’s son’s hand, and certainly not a stranger’s hand. My point is that the term, “sex toy” is an affront to intimacy.

 

[ForwardProgress]

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!

You joke, but there are many such things…google Christian Sex Toys or Catholic Nudism, etc…it’s pretty funny and sad how they twist scripture to fit their agenda. That description is pretty much right on! They don’t even use ‘live’ models…

There’s even another site based on ‘Christian Sex’. Pretty much everything goes, because it’s in Song of Songs… Even solo, oral, toys, videos, it’s all good, because its for Jesus. If you are not easily tempted into sin, message me and I’ll give you the link. It’s good for a few laughs and downright disgust on what people think is OK in a Christian context. But again, only if you aren’t tempted to sin by viewing such things should you go there.

 

[Smber2c]

Sorry to resurrect what may be a awkward topic, I just had a question and didn’t want to start a new thread on my own.

My girlfriend went camping yesterday with some of her Christian girl friends and returned saying they called her a prude for her sexual beliefs. (note: we’re not having sex of any size, shape, or color) So, I tried to come here and look up teachings on what the Church said.

I really expected this: “No toys, no oral, no anal.” .
Which really I’m okay with. One thing I saw on several threads was that is has to be procreative (which many suggest starting in one position before finishing in the other), but also not degrading to either party.

Question #1, who decides what degrading is? Is whatever okay if the 2 people agree and it’s procreative? I have trouble imagining that some of what could be done isn’t objectively degrading.

Secondly, if one might clarify on this clarification:

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.

You say the mouth is to suckle, lick and taste…but not designed to be penetrated. Um…(forgive me is this seems crude, I really just want to understand proper teaching) so are you saying a husband may go below the belt but the wife should not? That’s what penetrating the mouth sounds like to me.
Also, in saying that a mouth is made to suckle, lick, and taste; would that mean one may kiss, etc…the entire spouse excepting what was mentioned in the last question?

Honestly, to me oral sex means below the belt. And as such I don’t ever want to experience it. Same with the toys and certainly the anal. Am I a prude like my girlfriend? (maybe that’s a good sign)

 

[LittleDeb]

You say the mouth is to suckle, lick and taste…but not designed to be penetrated. Um…(forgive me is this seems crude, I really just want to understand proper teaching) so are you saying a husband may go below the belt but the wife should not? That’s what penetrating the mouth sounds like to me.
Also, in saying that a mouth is made to suckle, lick, and taste; would that mean one may kiss, etc…the entire spouse excepting what was mentioned in the last question?

Honestly, to me oral sex means below the belt. And as such I don’t ever want to experience it. Same with the toys and certainly the anal. Am I a prude like my girlfriend? (maybe that’s a good sign)

Please remember in this that these are only my understandings of Church teaching, not Church teaching itself. Those are found in the Magisterium of the Church.

With that said, I actually did carefully word that particular statement. (Another one I wasn’t as careful with, but that one I was.) I said “designed to BE penetrated.” I was alluding to control. An example: when one puts food in ones own mouth it is referred to as eating. When food is forced into someone’s mouth it is forced feeding. A similar action is happening yet the person whose mouth it is has a different level of control. So while trying to not be graphic I will say that what I was referring to is that one may lick, suckle, and taste (and kiss) any part of the spouse’s body as long as that it is in the context of proper control. I am just having trouble keeping it PG-13 here. There are different ways to do similar actions. One way is a penetration of the mouth, the other is simple reception. (If someone has a better way to word that, please help me.)

Are you a prude? I don’t know. You are chaste. That alone doesn’t make you a prude. That does imply holiness. But if there are certain things you won’t do because they are “dirty,” just make sure that you are using God’s definition of “unclean” rather than a constantly changing cultural definition of it. Example: abstaining from sexual relations during menses commanded
in Leviticus was based on their culture at the time. It was a cleanliness issue. Blood carries disease and they couldn’t fight it then. But abstaining from homosexual relations is in a different section. It applies to all time.

I worded my response based on being consistent in Church teaching. Some theologians (I think wrongly) argue that rectal penetration is fine within the marital union. So what they seem to be arguing is that it is alright for a female to be rectally penetrated because a male is the only one with the proper equipment to penetrate (short of using digits or toys.) I argue that this line of thinking is inconsistent with Church teaching. Since both males and females have rectums the rules are the same. Since males cannot be rectally penetrated with the male anatomy, then females cannot be either. Same body part same rule. But there are theologians and perhaps other posters here who would disagree. I say that by the design of the rectum it is not meant to be penetrated in a sexual act by anything or anyone.

Foreplay is not required (but highly recommended .) Are you obligated to go “below the belt” in foreplay? Certainly not. What is a prude? I am not sure if there is a good definitive answer of the term. I would say a true prude is someone who views the human body in any context, as something undignified. But that as always is just my :twocents:

 

[Renton405]

I can agree with the Church if the teachings are that sex toys are not permitted, don’t use them, don’t care to so it does not affect me and my wife personally. However, in reading this article, I am going to have to respectfully disagree with Fr. Matthew Habiger on the following:

The Catholic Church does not teach that “oral and anal sex” are wrong. Now let me clarify, they teach that if they are used in foreplay leading up to intercourse with the husband’s climax inside his wife then they are “acceptable.” Now if they are used by themselves they are wrong. I am not sure I understand why they would want to have anal sex and then vaginal sex (not the most sanitary), and that echos what Christopher West says about it.

Now if Fr. Habiger meant that oral sex or anal sex to orgasm for the man then I agree that those are wrong. If oral sex is used as foreplay within the marital act and it is not demeaning to either party then it is allowed and it leads upto intercourse with the husband climaxing inside his wife’s vagina. Also, the husband can bring his wife to climax after he has his climax as long as it is within the same marital act.

I think anal sex would be catagorized as “Sodomy” which the CC is very against…I think they are talking about natural intercourse… since anal and oral sex dosen’t lead to babies it would be an Unnatural act and be sin…there are also health dangers of having anal sex and then natural intercourse after…

Even within marriage oral,anal and toys would be more for self-gratification rather than loving ones partner. And not for procreation either since anal and oral sex dosen’t allow that… I remember in marriage counseling at my Church(Cana Retreat) they teach that if it dosen’t allow for the love of both partners AND for procreation then it is unnatural…Anal and oral sex isn’t fully giving oneself to their partner and has nothing to do with procreation so it falls up short …

 

[burnside]

I am a bachelor,so i am not too well versed in this area.However,
when oral sex is mentioned i tend to think,“wasn’t that what Bill
Clinton had with Monica Lewinski?”
Anal sex,it seems to me,is what a man might use with his wife in
order to avoid an unwanted pregnancy,when they have run out of condoms.Then you are hardly in a position to criticize Gays.
On the subject of sex aids,i have heard of a guy who had to be taken to hospital by his girlfriend.The medical staff had a good laugh,one of them saying,“i wouldn’t like to tell you what was jammed in the anus”.
It all sounds rather like sexual perversion to me.Probably the same people throw up their arms in pious,hypocritical horror when a schoolteacher has an affair with an older than her years 14 year old girl.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

I am a bachelor,so i am not too well versed in this area.However,
when oral sex is mentioned i tend to think,“wasn’t that what Bill
Clinton had with Monica Lewinski?”
Anal sex,it seems to me,is what a man might use with his wife in
order to avoid an unwanted pregnancy,when they have run out of condoms.Then you are hardly in a position to criticize Gays.
On the subject of sex aids,i have heard of a guy who had to be taken to hospital by his girlfriend.The medical staff had a good laugh,one of them saying,“i wouldn’t like to tell you what was jammed in the anus”.
It all sounds rather like sexual perversion to me.Probably the same people throw up their arms in pious,hypocritical horror when a schoolteacher has an affair with an older than her years 14 year old girl.

…and you are aware of the Church’s teachings in these areas right? Oral sex? Anal sex? Condoms? What the Church teaches about sex between a husband and wife?

 

[burnside]

…and you are aware of the Church’s teachings in these areas right? Oral sex? Anal sex? Condoms? What the Church teaches about sex between a husband and wife?

My position is to agree with Renton 405’s reply to you.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

My position is to agree with Renton 405’s reply to you.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[ShaunHarris]

The used of sex toys is important. proper used of these stuffs must always be considerable so that you can avoid accidents.

---

VibratorWarehouse - Discount Adult Superstore
www.VibratorWarehouse.com

 

[TarkanAttila]

Consider the very nature of a “sex toy”. To bring in a “sex toy” drives home an idea that sex is a form of “play” - of entertainment. I am not saying that it isn’t, and that one shouldn’t make sex somewhat fun. But… well, I think Fr. Habiger already explained it fairly well.

The point being, the point of our lives is not pleasure.

 

[ethereality]

Seems like owning firearms: Easy to use properly, just as easy to use improperly. I suppose my conclusion is the same in both cases: Alone, I wouldn’t bother, and only if necessary would I own or use one.

(edit: There’s more that could be said: Just like firearms, they seem to be used improperly more often than not …)