When "normal" sex is difficult or impossible

[content]

All of us would agree that God gave us sex for a husband and wife, and to procreate. Also for our enjoyment, or He could surely have designed us to reproduce without the enjoyment of the act. Reading the Song of Solomon alone would seem to show us that there is a lot of plain ol’ desire and enjoyment involved. If a couple is at a place in their lives where conception cannot possibly occur (post-menopause, hysterectomy, etc) and “normal” intercourse is difficult to impossible (erectile dysfunction issues, obesity, other physical issues) then why the dogmatic idea that sex is “wrong” if the man doesn’t finish inside the woman?

Why would giving a spouse pleasure in this area be wrong? The Scriptures and church say that it is wrong to withhold sex from a spouse without very good reasons, and only for a short time. I don’t need to get into all of that. So, wouldn’t withholding sexual enjoyment just because a man is unable to finish “inside” be wrong? I just can’t see that, although that is the impression I have gotten from some posts. Unfortunately, age and physical issues make it so that not all men can finish in the traditional manner. I can’t imagine a way to be more cruel to a husband than to refuse sexual activities because he is having problems completing the act inside the vagina.

Please, I hope that my post is in no way coming across attacking anyone. This is such an emotional issue, one I am writing about with tears in my eyes. Let’s see, how to drive a man from the church but to say that God won’t allow Him sexual activity anymore because he is having physical issues in that most sensitive of areas.

 

[LilyM]

Trying and unintentionally having problems completing the act inside the woman is a different matter from a deliberate choice to frustrate God’s design for the marital act as revealed to us by the Church by a deliberate decision not to finish inside the woman.

Such a decision renders the act no more than mutual masturbation. May as well be a blow up doll or his or own right hand that such a man has in bed with him instead of a wife. It’s not the total self-giving that God intended married sex to be.

And if a woman is more concerned with her own sexual enjoyment than doing God’s will in her married life and holding off if her partner is incapable, then she too may just as well have her own right hand for a partner rather than a real live husband.

 

[littleton]

The procreative and unitive meanings of sexual union are fulfilled even if the husband ejaculates in the entrance of the vagina, for such an act is open to life. I will provide a moral theology citation for this later when at my office. God bless you. Peace of Christ.

 

[1ke]

All of us would agree that God gave us sex for a husband and wife, and to procreate. Also for our enjoyment, or He could surely have designed us to reproduce without the enjoyment of the act. Reading the Song of Solomon alone would seem to show us that there is a lot of plain ol’ desire and enjoyment involved.

Yes, sex is pleasurable, but that is not its purpose.

If a couple is at a place in their lives where conception cannot possibly occur (post-menopause, hysterectomy, etc) and “normal” intercourse is difficult to impossible (erectile dysfunction issues, obesity, other physical issues) then why the dogmatic idea that sex is “wrong” if the man doesn’t finish inside the woman?

It is not a “dogmatic idea”. It is divinely revealed truth. All sexual acts must be BOTH unitive and objectively procreative (that has nothing to do with being subjectively infertile through menopause). In other words, using the sexual faculties for anything else is disordered.

Why would giving a spouse pleasure in this area be wrong?

Because it is a disordered use of the sexual faculties. It does not use them as God designed them, and it goes against the moral law that God gave us.

The Scriptures and church say that it is wrong to withhold sex from a spouse without very good reasons, and only for a short time. I don’t need to get into all of that. So, wouldn’t withholding sexual enjoyment just because a man is unable to finish “inside” be wrong?

No. There is a difference between *withholding *intercourse and being *unable *to engage in intercourse due to infirmity. They are not the same thing. Masterbation is the stimulation of sexual organs outside of intercourse and yes it is wrong to do this

I just can’t see that, although that is the impression I have gotten from some posts. Unfortunately, age and physical issues make it so that not all men can finish in the traditional manner.

That is a natural consequence of aging and illness. That does not mean one may substitute masterbation for intercourse.

I can’t imagine a way to be more cruel to a husband than to refuse sexual activities because he is having problems completing the act inside the vagina.

You are not refusing sexual intercourse, he is unable to engage in it.

Refusing morally disordered activities may seem “cruel” but if the husband forms his conscience properly he will see that asking a wife to engage in mortally sinful activities is the cruetly. Hell is cruel, and it’s eternal.

. Let’s see, how to drive a man from the church but to say that God won’t allow Him sexual activity anymore because he is having physical issues in that most sensitive of areas.

I’m sorry, this man has a very poor understanding of the Church and of God. I am very sorry this is such an emotional issue and pressure is being put on you. Some physical issues can be overcome, and some are permanent.

I think the man needs to talk to a priest.

Sex is NOT the central activity of our being. If it is so important to the man that he would leave the Church over it-- then he is entirely too focused on sex and has a disordered relationship with the pleasure sexual intercourse can bring.

 

[Seatuck]

Content, try getting one of the studies on Theology of the Body.
A very inexpensive one is available from TheGift Foundation. It’s called Naked Without Shame.

You need to understand that there is meaning behind the marital act. It is designed to convey a message. It is the sign of the Sacrament of marriage. It represents and element of God’srelationship with and his love for us. It actually mirrors an element of God’s relationship within himself. When we take away an element we change the meaning of it.

giftfoundation.org/

 

[content]

Content, try getting one of the studies on Theology of the Body.
A very inexpensive one is available from TheGift Foundation. It’s called Naked Without Shame.

You need to understand that there is meaning behind the marital act. It is designed to convey a message. It is the sign of the Sacrament of marriage. It represents and element of God’srelationship with and his love for us. It actually mirrors an element of God’s relationship within himself. When we take away an element we change the meaning of it.

giftfoundation.org/

Thank you for the link, I will look into it. Your note is very gentle and much appreciated. Thank you again.

 

[cenpress]

Content, try getting one of the studies on Theology of the Body.
A very inexpensive one is available from TheGift Foundation. It’s called Naked Without Shame.

You need to understand that there is meaning behind the marital act. It is designed to convey a message. It is the sign of the Sacrament of marriage. It represents and element of God’s relationship with and his love for us. It actually mirrors an element of God’s relationship within himself. When we take away an element we change the meaning of it.

giftfoundation.org/

Well said, Seatuck!

And it should be added that even though a woman may be menopausal, post-menopausal, infertile, et al, sexual union between a husband and wife ought still be “open to life.” Always. Because, you see, God can still work His miracles despite our physical incapabilities. The sexual union between a husband and wife is what fulfills and renews the sacrament of marriage, and likewise, makes us most like God. Never are we closer to Him than when a husband and wife share their union on the marital bed.

 

[littleton]

The procreative and unitive meanings of sexual union are fulfilled even if the husband ejaculates in the entrance of the vagina, for such an act is open to life. I will provide a moral theology citation for this later when at my office. God bless you. Peace of Christ.

Here is a good source: harmonymedia.com/cdrom/welcome/welcome.htm under the question: “What sexual activity is permissible for elderly married couples?” Obviously this can be applied to married couples for other reasons than age.

 

[searching06]

Trying and unintentionally having problems completing the act inside the woman is a different matter from a deliberate choice to frustrate God’s design for the marital act as revealed to us by the Church by a deliberate decision not to finish inside the woman.

Such a decision renders the act no more than mutual masturbation. May as well be a blow up doll or his or own right hand that such a man has in bed with him instead of a wife. It’s not the total self-giving that God intended married sex to be.

And if a woman is more concerned with her own sexual enjoyment than doing God’s will in her married life and holding off if her partner is incapable, then she too may just as well have her own right hand for a partner rather than a real live husband.

Your insensitivity is appalling. It is one of the reasons I rarely come here anymore - the sanctimonious answers from certain people, instead of what could have been some encouragement and direction to the Catechism, and maybe, just maybe, some modicum of understanding.

 

[searching06]

Content,

I will first say you and your husband are in my prayers. I am by no means full of answers, but do fully understand what you are going through. My first suggestion is to read the Cathechism, talk to a priest, take the info and responses here - including mine - with a grain of salt. The Catechism is what it is, so we must change to fit it, but you have to determine where you need to go spiritually. I am sure that is blasphemy to some here, and yes, my wife and I follow what the Church says, but it is by no means so easy and matter-of-fact as many here propose or suggest.

That said, I don’t understand either how God gives us a wife, in my case, and the Church says when and how we can and cannot have sex - it’s not even just sex, it is being ultimately intimate. I understand your concerns because it does negatively affect our relationship; the lack of and infrequent sexual intimacy hurts overall intimacy and no amount of holding hands and cooking dinners, and offering it up makes up for it. Maybe one day it will.

We used to do what we wanted, when we wanted, and followed NFP in between. We thought we still open to life and within Church teachings because we are married and God gave us to each other. We were there for each other when we needed and wanted. However, we learned probably only five years ago what the Catechism teaches, and that was it. There is no sex in between phases of NFP, and no finishing any other way than inside my wife. (Luckily, I am able and we get pregnant easily.) My wife is much more understanding and accepting of it. I have been frustrated for years and combined with life’s other issues, it puts a strain on our relationship, too. I do not understand either - mentally, spiritually, emotionally - exactly what you state so well: how can we have each other, but not be allowed to have each other? Somewhere in the Catechism it states the Church understands the difficulties of married couples in this area. But I just don’t know. The choice becomes either no sexual intimacy and an intense frustration and negative impact on and in a relationship, or following what the Church teaches. Does God and the Church really expect and want it to be that way? In your case, I wonder exactly what you do. How can God put two people together and not allow sexual intimacy?

The problem in all of this has been discussed in other posts - how can the Church say other than it does because it then opens the door to approving of sin or other sins. I do not think or feel it is anywhere near as simple as so many people on these forums think; I don’t think the Church addresses the issue hardly at all. I cannot see how God in His love and mercy would condemn a husband and wife in your situation, or expect that such difficulties in a marriage is acceptable. The answer which has come up in other posts for this situation has basically been “well, if you don’t have sex, even for the rest of your marriage, then you just have to deal with it”, and “offer it up”, and every other word is “disordered” per the Catechism. It is maddening.

I know this will open up a blast from many; this issue has been discussed and covered in depth in many posts. I will end by saying that though I completely question what the Church teaches in this area, we follow it, even to the detriment of our relationship, because though I am not sure I fully believe or accept it, I cannot expect my wife to do otherwise.

 

[searching06]

Yes, sex is pleasurable, but that is not its purpose.

This has been debated in other posts - it is not THE purpose, but it is inherent in the act as God designed it. You cannot separate the pleasure from sex any more than we are supposed to not separate unitive and procreative.

It is not a “dogmatic idea”. It is divinely revealed truth. All sexual acts must be BOTH unitive and objectively procreative (that has nothing to do with being subjectively infertile through menopause). In other words, using the sexual faculties for anything else is disordered.

I would debate this, though I may well be wrong. This gets into the intent and heart of the individuals involved and is for them and God to determine; it is where I do not understand or believe that, in this case, the Catechism can be, shoud be, or is so black and white. Are individuals performing other acts to achieve sexual intimacy because “normal” sex is impossible or because they wish to avoid pregnancy? Huge difference.

Because it is a disordered use of the sexual faculties. It does not use them as God designed them, and it goes against the moral law that God gave us.

No. There is a difference between *withholding *intercourse and being *unable *to engage in intercourse due to infirmity. They are not the same thing. Masterbation is the stimulation of sexual organs outside of intercourse and yes it is wrong to do this

That is a natural consequence of aging and illness. That does not mean one may substitute masterbation for intercourse.

You are not refusing sexual intercourse, he is unable to engage in it.

Refusing morally disordered activities may seem “cruel” but if the husband forms his conscience properly he will see that asking a wife to engage in mortally sinful activities is the cruetly. Hell is cruel, and it’s eternal.

I’m sorry, this man has a very poor understanding of the Church and of God. I am very sorry this is such an emotional issue and pressure is being put on you. Some physical issues can be overcome, and some are permanent.

I think the man needs to talk to a priest.

Sex is NOT the central activity of our being. If it is so important to the man that he would leave the Church over it-- then he is entirely too focused on sex and has a disordered relationship with the pleasure sexual intercourse can bring.

Here we go with “disordered” over and over; it may be what the Catechism states, but people here throw the word around like there’s nothing to it. I think sex is important in a marriage, too, and I don’t believe in any way I’m disordered. Don’t sit there and tell anyone that it is not important or that you believe that the lack of sex would not have a hugely negative impact on a marriage. Or do you? Is the man thinking of leaving the Church because he places so much attention on sex or because he cannot understand how the Catechism teaches what it does, and that it appears so contrary? There’s more to that than just a focus on sex.

 

[searching06]

All of this has me thinking about two more things. One is an honest question: what happens to all of the other people of other faiths or no faith who practice other-than-intercourse acts to completion for the man, and whatever else as consenting adults (even maintaining each other’s dignity) because they do not believe in their heart of hearts, even believing in God, that they are wrong? Are they all going to hell because the Catholic Church calls everything else disordered? Is God in His mercy going to say, “Oh, well; should have been Catholic?” And what of Catholics who believe the same? Why do you think it causes so much grief? Because people do not understand, nor does the Church help us understand, why it teaches what it does.

And I can honestly say I have also given thought as to whether I could leave the Catholic church over this issue, exactly for the contradictions and utter frustration it presents. If it was not for my believing in the True Presence, and for my family, I would have to give it serious consideration. As it is, I’ll keep struggling the rest of my days, because even my weak prayers bring no answers or help.

 

[1ke]

Here we go with “disordered” over and over; it may be what the Catechism states, but people here throw the word around like there’s nothing to it. I think sex is important in a marriage, too, and I don’t believe in any way I’m disordered.

If you must have sex at any cost, then yes your desires are disordered.

We are all called to chastity within our state of life: single and married. Chastity within marriage means using the sexual union only as God designed it. If you cannot-- for whatever reason-- then you do not. If you desire sex above God’s will, then yes it’s disordered desire. (BTW, I’m not saying “you” personally, just “you” in the general sense).

Don’t sit there and tell anyone that it is not important or that you believe that the lack of sex would not have a hugely negative impact on a marriage. Or do you?

Sex is not AS important as doing God’s Will. Inability to have intercourse happens through old age, infirmity, temporarily or permanently. It is part of the human condition. Sex is not THE overriding aspect of the marriage. It is one component, and it must be understood from God’s perspective and we should alway seek to do God’s Will. I suggest that those who pursue it at all costs or who say a marriage cannot survive without sexual gratification (not the same as sexual intimacy by the way) that they have absorbed the secular culture’s view of sex and not God’s or the Church’s.

Is the man thinking of leaving the Church because he places so much attention on sex or because he cannot understand how the Catechism teaches what it does, and that it appears so contrary? There’s more to that than just a focus on sex.

“The Man” in question isn’t Catholic, isn’t Christian in fact.

And, the OP has on two different posts stated that her husband:

(1) Has impotency issues
(2) Wants to do S&M Bondage, use pornography, and have anal sex.

It seems he has some more serious issue than “impotency” and I don’t see how one can be “impontent” to the point saying “normal sex” is “difficult or impossible” and yet engage in these other activities which require full functionality. Hmm… something doesn’t add up. So, it seems not that he is totally incapable, but that he wants to engage in disordered activities. Maybe “normal” activities no longer interest him. I don’t know that, but taking the two posts together, well, it seems likely.

Personally, I think there is some sexual dysfunction and he needs some counseling.

 

[bilop]

Why do you think it causes so much grief? Because people do not understand, nor does the Church help us understand, why it teaches what it does.

It causes so much grief because we love our sins. Sin feels good at the moment. “Give me chastity, but not yet.” I speak from experience. I probably spent 20 years in mortal sin. Not going to Mass, fornication, contraception, other impure acts. Again, It feels good at the moment, but drives us away from God and leads us to spiritual death.

We need to conform our will to God through His Church. First through obedience, but then through study and understanding.

It’s not easy, and we all fall. But it’s necessary to follow Jesus.

May God Bless you in your struggles.

 

[searching06]

It causes so much grief because we love our sins. Sin feels good at the moment. “Give me chastity, but not yet.” I speak from experience. I probably spent 20 years in mortal sin. Not going to Mass, fornication, contraception, other impure acts. Again, It feels good at the moment, but drives us away from God and leads us to spiritual death.

We need to conform our will to God through His Church. First through obedience, but then through study and understanding.

It’s not easy, and we all fall. But it’s necessary to follow Jesus.

May God Bless you in your struggles.

Thanks -

 

[searching06]

It causes so much grief because we love our sins. Sin feels good at the moment. “Give me chastity, but not yet.” I speak from experience. I probably spent 20 years in mortal sin. Not going to Mass, fornication, contraception, other impure acts. Again, It feels good at the moment, but drives us away from God and leads us to spiritual death.

We need to conform our will to God through His Church. First through obedience, but then through study and understanding.

It’s not easy, and we all fall. But it’s necessary to follow Jesus.

May God Bless you in your struggles.

I don’t think it is necessarily/exactly/always because we love our sins. The grief comes from not understanding, being able to accept, or submit wholly without understanding to the fact that the Church says God gives us our spouses to love and yes, have sex with (yes for the ultimate purpose of kids), but then tells us how and when we can or cannot do so. I do not see wanting to make love to my wife and have her do so with me as loving sin. That causes the grief.

The Church says it is a sin if a husband and wife have intercourse where the man finishes inside (open to life), but then move on to other means of finishing the man out of intimacy. But it is permissible to help the woman achieve orgasm manually if she is unable to do through intercourse. But is this loving sin or each other? Is the sin in the intent of the husband and wife - to purposefully avoid having kids all the time through other methods sex instead of intercourse or contraception, or the acts? Or is it the Church cannot say otherwise because it opens the door to exceptions and definitions of intent? This is where Catholics and other faiths have issues with this/us - it seems like control, not faith.

And for Content, I do remember somehwere in another thread/post, someone quoted a very conservative, faithful Bishop or Cardinal (go figure I cannot remember who) who said as far as sex and what Catholics can do, “they can swing from the fan/rafters” as long as the man finishes inside his wife. While pornography is a no-go, other acts of stimulation are allowed as long as the end result is the man finishes inside of you, and there is mutual consent, dignity. Fun is supposed to be part of sex. While some will disagree, I think you and your husband have to determine the consent, dignity, respect part.

 

[content]

Well, to answer the above - yes, there are some impotency issues, but not total and complete impotence. Slower to arouse, a difficult time becoming hard, and it is much much harder to finish the act than 20 years ago. He is generally unable, literally, to finish in the “normal” way. As far as the desires noted above for role playing, etc - this has been a part of him for many years, even when he wasn’t having the impotency issues. I have always avoided such activities because I wasn’t comfortable with them. As I have found out over time, he felt like I rejected him. I didn’t mean that to be the case, but it was. So I wasn’t trying to give two different stories, I just wasn’t entirely clear.

His desire for those activities hasn’t changed, even if some of his ability to actually do them has diminished. The fact that I have not been willing to engage in many of his fantasies has resulted in much hard feelings between us, and his feeling like he had to look at porn to get some of those desires met. I am NOT agreeing with his decision, believe you me… it was extremely painful for me when I found out.

I assure you that I have in no way tried to be deceptive or give conflicting messages. It is very uncomfortable for me to discuss these issues, but I am a very very new Catholic and want to follow the wisdom of the church in this area. As far as his church beliefs - he is Catholic. A cradle Catholic, and just very recently started attending Mass once and awhile after being away from the Church for 25+ years. He doesn’t remotely see why the Church should care what we do in the bedroom since we are quite married and all that. He doesn’t attend church regularly, but is happy for me to go.

 

[Gizmo]

It is very uncomfortable for me to discuss these issues, but I am a very very new Catholic and want to follow the wisdom of the church in this area. As far as his church beliefs - he is Catholic. A cradle Catholic, and just very recently started attending Mass once and awhile after being away from the Church for 25+ years. He doesn’t remotely see why the Church should care what we do in the bedroom since we are quite married and all that. He doesn’t attend church regularly, but is happy for me to go.

Well God bless you for wanting to know and follow the wisdom of the Church. It seems like there is more than one issue going on and so I would recommend that you go talk to a priest. A starting point to explain to your husband why the Church cares about what goes on in the bedroom is because all of us are called to holiness, no matter what vocation, and the sexual union is intimately connected to your vocation as a husband and wife as well as your growth in holiness.

 

[1ke]

So I wasn’t trying to give two different stories, I just wasn’t entirely clear.

No, you misunderstand… I didn’t think you were trying to be deceptive or give different stories. The two things, taken together, just led me to believe there were some serious disordered desires on the part of your husband that went pretty deep. Your further info just confirms it.

And, you are not comfortable with these requests, so you should not engage in those activities. I am sorry your husband feels rejected. I am sorry you are going through this.

I am a very very new Catholic and want to follow the wisdom of the church in this area. As far as his church beliefs - he is Catholic. A cradle Catholic, and just very recently started attending Mass once and awhile after being away from the Church for 25+ years.

He doesn’t remotely see why the Church should care what we do in the bedroom since we are quite married and all that. He doesn’t attend church regularly, but is happy for me to go.

And, God bless you for seeking to do God’s will. I hope your prayers and sacrifice will help him come to the Church.

Maybe some of the Christopher West books will help him understand the deep and profound mystery that the Sacrament of Marriage is, and why these things are not in coformity with our dignity as person’s made in the image of God.

 

[JFonseka]

Take my words with a grain of salt here, coming from a virgin, but I feel that if you believe that vaginal sex is boring after a while, it’s saying that God’s gift in sexuality is boring and hence you are lingering into thought patterns and sexual deeds that have room for the devil to take over, what next? Oral sex, then anal, and I don’t even know what other perverse forms will take over once the others start to get boring.

Be happy with what God gave you! Do not degrade your wife, do you men want to take something up your butt?