FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Missionary position
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Is this sort of discussion fitting for a public forum?
(11-18-2010, 09:47 AM)Rosarium Wrote: [ -> ]Is this sort of discussion fitting for a public forum?

Probably not. I just wondered if the Church allowed that type of thing.
(11-18-2010, 09:47 AM)Rosarium Wrote: [ -> ]Is this sort of discussion fitting for a public forum?

This discussion does seem to have gone into dangerous waters.

I suppose this would be my fault...I tried to ask a genuine question in a charitably vague manner and it's developed into this.  Mea culpa.  :pray:
(11-18-2010, 10:11 AM)3Sanctus Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-18-2010, 09:47 AM)Rosarium Wrote: [ -> ]Is this sort of discussion fitting for a public forum?

This discussion does seem to have gone into dangerous waters.
Mea culpa.   :pray:

same here. mea maxima culpa  :pray:
(11-17-2010, 10:01 PM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-17-2010, 09:17 PM)CanadianCatholic Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-17-2010, 09:14 PM)ardens Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-17-2010, 09:10 PM)ardens Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-17-2010, 09:07 PM)CanadianCatholic Wrote: [ -> ]The ends do not justify the means. I ask this seriously, since I wonder about these things - can we justify sex acts that are evil in principle by saying that they will lead to conception? Are there sex acts that are evil in principle?

what do you mean by evil? I mean, I can understand classifying sodomy as wrong, but isnt everything else just fair game?

??? I guess that's what I'm asking you. Doesn't the Church say every sex act besides vaginal sex is intrinsically evil?
No mention of that in my marriage classes. And I go to SSPX, so its not like Im at some liberal hippy church. My priest said "do what you want, as long as it ends where it should"....Sex is not solely for procreation, its also for fun, and to enjoy each other and bond and all that. The Church doesnt want us to be "hole-in-the bedsheet" people

I disagree, I believe that sex is solely for procreation because that is what God intended it for.  It is not to "get each other off," or "for fun" as you put it - this is just mutual masturbation in my opinion. 

As far as the missionary position being the most licit, I agree here as well.  When the woman is on top, this is a show of dominance over the man.  I believe in ancient Jewish apocrapha, the story of Lilith, Adam's alleged "first wife," Lilith refused to submit to her husband in the marital act, wanting to be on top and be in the dominant position.  The woman on the bottom,  on her hack and showing her stomach to the man, is the position of submission, which is even seen in animals (when my little wiener dog pees on the rug, I scold her and she gets on her back and shows me her belly - a show of submission).

I think this is a dreadful attitude toward women. I don't know what your intention is, but it looks as though you've just compared women to dogs. Besides, no decent man is thinking about making his wife show her submissiveness during the marital act. There may be people who choose their positions based on symbolism, but generally people choose their positions based on what feels good to them.
What Satori said...  Positions might be chosen for a handful of factors, like who's had the toughest day  :laughing:.  I think it'd be pretty rare for a couple to base their decision on submissive vs. dominant poses.
(11-18-2010, 01:14 PM)miss_fluffy Wrote: [ -> ]What Satori said...  Positions might be chosen for a handful of factors, like who's had the toughest day  :laughing:.  I think it'd be pretty rare for a couple to base their decision on submissive vs. dominant poses.

You reminded me ... Sometimes there's the "female superior" position because the husband has a bad back, or something like that. Seriously, most married people are just trying to be affectionate and have fun with each other, not making grand statements about hierarchy. But I guess that's bad, too -- no warm feelings or good times allowed.

Incidentally, a woman in the missionary position is not "showing her belly." She's facing her husband.
Its probably not a good idea to marry a guy that insists on you showing your submissiveness anyways. That whol "showing your belly like a dog" statement makes me sick...
I think this discussion has pretty much run its course.  I won't lock it yet, but if it starts getting any more "descriptive" I will.  I don't mind the discussions as far as "talking points" so one knows what to ask their priest and form questions, but please, let's not get actual answers from this discussion, and let's keep it as "unblue" as possible.

These are really questions for one's pastor, especially if one is going to act on the answers.  And, you know, it's embarrassing to talk about sex with a priest, but really he's the only one who can give an authoritative answer.  So, just ask him and then run away blushing after you get the answer.  That's what I would do.
Allow me to relate what Fr. Prümmer (Handbook of Moral Theology) has written concerning this topic:

Under Unnatural Consummated Sins of Impurity:

A male committing sodomy (unnatural carnal intercourse) with another male is ‘perfect sodomy’ while when done with a female is ‘imperfect sodomy.’ Both are considered sinful. (Sec. 525, 2)

The following are then named as sexual perversions: sadism, masochism, fetishism, and homosexuality.



Under The Obligations of Marriage: The Lawfulness of the Conjugal Act:

Quote:Principle. The conjugal act is lawful and even meritorious as often as it is not opposed to the benefit of offspring and conjugal fidelity. (Sec. 859, 1)

The intrinsic reason for this (I Cor. vii, 3) is that the conjugal act is not only necessary for the propagation of the human race but also for the fostering of married love.  As often as one of these purposes is desired, the conjugal act is lawful, provided that no other ills or inconveniences ensue.  Consequently the partners in marriage are not obliged to exercise sexual intercourse simply for the sake of procreation.  Therefore this act is lawful even if both parties are sterile, also during the time of lactation of pregnancy, on Sundays and on feast days; but it is forbidden to exercise the sexual function by means of onanism or with serious danger to health or at the same time causing scandal to others, etc.

Circumstances of the Conjugal Act.  Not only the conjugal act itself but also touches and looks and all other acts are lawful between the married, provided that there is no proximate danger of pollution and the sole intention is not mere sexual pleasure.  Therefore in ordinary circumstances the confessor should not interrogate married persons about these accompanying acts.



Quote:Sec. 862, 3. Sins of the Married.

Principle. a) Whatsoever is directly and seriously opposed to the benefits of offspring and conjugal fidelity is a grave sin against chastity; b) anything that is done for mere sexual pleasure is a slight sin, provided it is not directly contrary to the offspring or to conjugal fidelity; c) whatever is useful for or necessary for the perfect fulfillment of the conjugal act and the fostering of marital love is not sinful.

Sec. 863 states that solitary and conjugal onanism are both grievously sinful.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10