No, that’s not impotence, but it sounds like it could be several other problematic things worth looking into before marriage. Not least that the man would know this to begin with, especially if it’s a first marriage.Now I know the provisions of sex within marriage for Catholics, but I’m wondering about this scenario: if a man is unable to finish during the act of sex, but can finish during other acts, would this fall under the category of impotence?
I don’t see how that would be a thing, unless a symptom of some psychological issue. Or possibly a result of Porn induced erectile dysfunction.Now I know the provisions of sex within marriage for Catholics, but I’m wondering about this scenario: if a man is unable to finish during the act of sex, but can finish during other acts, would this fall under the category of impotence?
I know a man who has conditioned himself (mostly by fantasizing) so that he will only finish during a certain act…and I know another who has essentially been conditioned to not finish during sex.I don’t see how that would be a thing, unless a symptom of some psychological issue. Or possibly a result of Porn induced erectile dysfunction.
It wouldn’t be impotence though.
These men would need to address these issues before they could be suitable husbands.I know a man who has conditioned himself (mostly by fantasizing) so that he will only finish during a certain act…and I know another who has essentially been conditioned to not finish during sex.
That would fall into the category of a psycho-sexual issue. And yes, they would certainly have to overcome this before they could be a good husband.I know a man who has conditioned himself (mostly by fantasizing) so that he will only finish during a certain act…and I know another who has essentially been conditioned to not finish during sex.
Erectile dysfunction is impotence.I don’t see how that would be a thing, unless a symptom of some psychological issue. Or possibly a result of Porn induced erectile dysfunction.
It wouldn’t be impotence though.
If he is planning to live a chaste Catholic life, he needs to condition himself otherwise.I know a man who has conditioned himself (mostly by fantasizing) so that he will only finish during a certain act…and I know another who has essentially been conditioned to not finish during sex.
this makes me think of a different question. don’t want to start a new thread though.No, that’s not impotence, but it sounds like it could be several other problematic things worth looking into before marriage. Not least that the man would know this to begin with, especially if it’s a first marriage.
It is difficult to believe the man would not know.this makes me think of a different question. don’t want to start a new thread though.
what if a man doesn’t know he is impotant until afgter he is married? is that even possible?
would the couple be required to split up?
According to Theology of the Body, the man has to finish inside the vagina, no ifs or buts. If he has difficulty getting aroused, some other acts may be used in order to get him to the point of being able to penetrate and ejaculate in the woman, but he cannot use those acts to climax.It’s an interesting question.
What if either of the spouses (or both for that matter) are not able to achieve climax during the marital act itself, but are able to do so afterwards through the use of other acts that do not directly result in procreation?
Do they sin by so doing? Is this considered a form of masturbation, even though they are pleasing each other, being intimate together as a married couple, and not doing something alone? If so, are they required just to abstain from the additional acts that let them reach their peak? Or to abstain entirely? (since the marital act would not seem open to procreation if at least the husband doesn’t climax during it, even if this is not intentional)
Looks like it gets complicated.
Sexual intercourse by a sterile couple is “procreative” - the act is properly “ordered” to procreation. That the act fails for reasons of sterility does not change this. There is no requirement for sterile persons to abstain,It’s an interesting question.
What if either of the spouses (or both for that matter) are not able to achieve climax during the marital act itself, but are able to do so afterwards through the use of other acts that do not directly result in procreation?
Do they sin by so doing? Is this considered a form of masturbation, even though they are pleasing each other, being intimate together as a married couple, and not doing something alone? If so, are they required just to abstain from the additional acts that let them reach their peak? Or to abstain entirely? (since the marital act would not seem open to procreation if at least the husband doesn’t climax during it, even if this is not intentional)
Looks like it gets complicated.
You’re changing the premise of the question. We are not assuming the husband “has difficulty getting aroused”. To the contrary, we are assuming there’s no problem there. Only that during the marital act itself, he cannot “finish”. Just as many wives are aroused and “in the mood” for the marital act, yet cannot reach climax during the act itself…no matter how much they wish to.According to Theology of the Body, the man has to finish inside the vagina, no ifs or buts. If he has difficulty getting aroused, some other acts may be used in order to get him to the point of being able to penetrate and ejaculate in the woman, but he cannot use those acts to climax…
So after the marital act is over and complete, in order to reach climax the wife is morally free to engage in what is clearly masturbation, with her husband’s assistance and (probably, nowadays) that of some battery operated toy? All the early saints and Church Fathers would have called her a prostitute for this. Of course, that doesn’t mean they’re right (not an infallible pronouncement). But still, it gives one pause.The woman does not necessarily have to climax during the sex act, since her orgasm is not intrinsically linked to the life-giving portion of sex, but to the unitive portion. Her husband can “help her get there” if she struggles to orgasm during sex… I believe the phrasing is “within the context of the act”, so just before or after.
It is not “useless” to say that, it is merely a statement of the morally correct intention.…So saying the husband has to “finish inside the vagina” is useless - he would if he could, but is unable. So what then? Only options are: 1) Abstain from sex altogether. 2) Continue to engage in the marital act, and reach his climax afterwards with his wife assisting, through the use of other acts (basically she would be masturbating him). 3) Continue to engage in the marital act, but resign himself to never achieving a climax.
Can you point to the sources you are referencing here?…is not intrinsically linked to the life-giving portion of sex, but to the unitive portion. Her husband can “help her get there” if she struggles to orgasm during sex… I believe the phrasing is “within the context of the act”, so just before or after.
Well, in that case, no the man cannot climax outside of the marital act deliberately ever. By accident in the process of trying to have natural intercourse is not sinful. But if he knows 100% that he won’t and decides to go for a more manual method, that isn’t OK. In any case, in real life, if a guy can orgasm by masturbating, he isn’t fully impotent; it’s likely a psychosexual thing and could possibly be fixed with therapy or medication. This would be the best course of action.You’re changing the premise of the question. We are not assuming the husband “has difficulty getting aroused”. To the contrary, we are assuming there’s no problem there. Only that during the marital act itself, he cannot “finish”. Just as many wives are aroused and “in the mood” for the marital act, yet cannot reach climax during the act itself…no matter how much they wish to.
So saying the husband has to “finish inside the vagina” is useless - he would if he could, but is unable. So what then? Only options are: 1) Abstain from sex altogether. 2) Continue to engage in the marital act, and reach his climax afterwards with his wife assisting, through the use of other acts (basically she would be masturbating him). 3) Continue to engage in the marital act, but resign himself to never achieving a climax.
So after the marital act is over and complete, in order to reach climax the wife is morally free to engage in what is clearly masturbation, with her husband’s assistance and (probably, nowadays) that of some battery operated toy? All the early saints and Church Fathers would have called her a prostitute for this. Of course, that doesn’t mean they’re right (not an infallible pronouncement). But still, it gives one pause.
You can see how very, very complicated this all gets.
Love and Responsibility by JPII. There is a review article at the link below, which sort of implies what I said on pg. 28 but isn’t said explicitly; it’s in the book though, apparently.Can you point to the sources you are referencing here?
For other readers, “Love and Responsibility” was written by the “future” JPII.Love and Responsibility by JPII. There is a review article at the link below, which sort of implies what I said on pg. 28 but isn’t said explicitly; it’s in the book though, apparently.
catholicculture.com/jp2_on_l&r.pdf
Good News about Sex and Marriage: Answers to Your Honest Questions about Catholic Teaching by Christopher West, directly quoted here:
spot.colorado.edu/~tooley/CatholicismOralSex.html