FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Missionary position - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Archives (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Theology and Philosophy (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Missionary position (/showthread.php?tid=40181)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Re: Missionary position - Historian - 11-17-2010

(11-17-2010, 10:36 PM)Walty Wrote:
(11-17-2010, 10:01 PM)Nic Wrote: 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).

But if you're going to make that argument then you have to explain why nearly every animal known to man has sex in a position other than missionary.
Most animals copulate in positions appropriate for their physiology.



Re: Missionary position - Historian - 11-17-2010

(11-17-2010, 10:39 PM)Walty Wrote:
(11-17-2010, 10:23 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: If sex is purely for procreation reasons then there should be no sex while pregnant, or during infertile times including past menopause. No old folks should be having sex then. When has the Church ever taught this?

It took a long time for the concept of marriage being both for procreation and also unity to take hold in the Church.  I'm not entirely sure of when it began to be taught, but it certainly got a big push after the Council.  I'm fairly certain that it was being taught beforehand as well so it's not as if we should just chalk it up to modernism (not to mention the whole part where sex as a powerful force for unity makes complete sense).

It is still acknowledged, however, that sex is primarily for procreation.

Sure, but St. Paul also said marriage was so we don't burn up - that there's a licit outlet.  In fact, that concept can be found in St. Augustine, etc.


Re: Missionary position - Historian - 11-17-2010

(11-17-2010, 10:34 PM)Walty Wrote:
(11-17-2010, 09:26 PM)CanadianCatholic Wrote:
(11-17-2010, 09:22 PM)Walty Wrote: The fact that sodomy is sinful proves that there are certain things which creep into human sexuality that simply don't have a place between two spouses.  All I'm asking is how we know for sure that sodomy is the only one and, if it is, what distinctly sets it apart from other things.
Because its against procreation, against nature. Not too mention its just gross.(And yeah, i know that's not a fantastic argument)
Anyways, I think Im confused. What do you guys ,mean by "positions"? Cause theres alotta them, and as long as teh penis is where it should be, whats the big deal?
As far as foreplay, im pretty sure you can do what you want, as long as it all ends where it should. Theres condemnation of sodomy in the Bible isnt there? I dont think there is for other stuff....im trying real hard not to get too graphic here, but I think I may be confused as to what ppl are talking about here....

People shouldn't be in this thread if they're going to get offended by serious but clear talk.  So here goes:

"Sodomy" as far as I know has no concise definition, but I think I'm right in assuming everyone here means anal sex.  Yes, it's freaking disgusting and I have no idea why anyone would want to do it in the first place.  But the question remains as to why that one particular thing is sinful under any circumstance and other things are not.  For example, why is it permissible to have oral sex as long as it is not to completion, but it is not ok to have anal sex as long as it is not until completion?  Both involve penetration (even if we might call it unfinished) of  something that isn't the vagina.  What's the difference?  Again, I ask simply because the answer may give us a further clue into what is and is not permissible in other areas of intercourse.

Well, you will find pre-V2 manuals of moral theology say anal sex is licit as foreplay.  Fr. Jone's book is one of them:

Quote:Imperfect Sodomy, i.i., rectal intercourse, is a grave sin when the seminal fluid is wasted."

"Excluding the sodomitical intention it is neither sodomy nor a grave sin if intercourse is begun in a rectal manner with the intention of consummating it naturally or if some sodomitical action is posited without danger of pollution."

Quote:And all of this brings up other questions as well.  I most definitely believe that sex can and does easily become perverted into all sorts of strange garbage.  What's the line?  Something as weird and messed up as bondage seems obviously sinful, but other things seem to fall on a slippery slope.

Bondage is sinful if it demeans the dignity of the person.  Obviously, there is "slap-n-tickle" vs. bullwhips and shock collars.

You should ask your priest this stuff.  Especially since you are getting married.  Seriously.


Re: Missionary position - Historian - 11-17-2010

(11-17-2010, 10:36 PM)Walty Wrote:
(11-17-2010, 10:01 PM)Nic Wrote: 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).

But if you're going to make that argument then you have to explain why nearly every animal known to man has sex in a position other than missionary.

If our standards of sexual behavior are based on the animal kingdom, we're in trouble.  It is not uncommon for males to mount other males or for males to mount outside of their species.  For some animals, mounting is also used as a form of dominance, forms of masturbation are common to most creatures, and clearly animals do not mate with pro-creation in mind.

So I'm thinking that looking at animals for behavioral traits in mating might not work out so well.  Especially when you consider Black Widows kill the men afterwards...



Re: Missionary position - Historian - 11-17-2010

(11-17-2010, 09:22 PM)Walty Wrote: The fact that sodomy is sinful proves that there are certain things which creep into human sexuality that simply don't have a place between two spouses.  All I'm asking is how we know for sure that sodomy is the only one and, if it is, what distinctly sets it apart from other things.

Oh, I just saw this.

Sodomy has a specific meaning.  It doesn't mean anal sex.  It means sex between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.  Since anal sex is presumed to be the favored method of gay men, it has taken on that meaning.

St. Thomas defines it as such:

Quote:Thirdly, by copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female, as the Apostle states (Romans 1:27): and this is called the "vice of sodomy."

ST II-II Q 154 A 11




Re: Missionary position - icecream - 11-17-2010

huh, i always though sodomy meant anal sex too


Re: Missionary position - icecream - 11-17-2010

what about food and sex? some couple like to throw hamburgers at each other. is that licit?


Re: Missionary position - CrusaderKing - 11-17-2010

(11-17-2010, 11:16 PM)icecream Wrote: what about food and sex? some couple like to throw hamburgers at each other. is that licit?

You nutbag! lol :laughing: :jester: :pointlaff: Next you'll be mentioning whipped cream, syrup... oops, better not give anyone any ideas!

You married couples out there, do yourselves a favor; take showers together, and the whole issue of the missionary position will be a moot point. Plus, you'll save $$$ on your water bill. 


Re: Missionary position - icecream - 11-17-2010

hehe!!


Re: Missionary position - Historian - 11-17-2010

(11-17-2010, 11:15 PM)icecream Wrote: huh, i always though sodomy meant anal sex too

It does in common speech, but in theology it usually means something more specific.