Delicate question about sexuality (warning: graphic language)
#51
(04-18-2018, 04:20 PM)austenbosten Wrote:
(04-18-2018, 02:54 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: It's not "a-okay", but it is not inherently a mortal sin. (What Tamill keeps incorrectly asserting)

Every major moral theologian during the 20th century and before Vatican II accepted what Jone write. "Excluding the sodomitical intention it is neither sodomy nor a grave sin if intercourse is begun in a rector manner with the intention of consummating it naturally, or if some sodomitical action is positived without danger of pollution."

It is not a grave sin, if there is not the intention of completing the intercourse, or risk of completing it in an unnatural manner.

No one is saying this is a good thing, but every major moral theologian in the past century says it is not a grave sin.

So are you saying that sodomy is not sinful as long as he intends to complete in intercourse?

With Jone, I would posit, it is not, formally, sodomy.

Personal opinion : Within otherwise proper marital relations, absent any circumstances which aggravate it, rectal intercourse which terminates properly is sinful because disordered, but, because not preventing the primary end, it is not gravely disordered.

(04-18-2018, 04:20 PM)austenbosten Wrote: So you are saying a man could sodomize his wife to the point of completion and immediately finish in the natural manner and it would be fine?

Again, it is only sodomy if it is intended to end improperly (whether it ends properly or not).

He can't do so to his completion because it would then be sodomy, properly speaking, and a grave sin.

He could not do so even to near the point of completion because this would present a grave risk of sodomiacal pollution. That risk constitutes a grave sin.

(04-18-2018, 02:54 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(04-18-2018, 02:00 AM)austenbosten Wrote: However for the man, this act, no matter when it occurs, is gravely sinful.

Incorrect.

The same holds here as with the woman, but yes, men and women are different. Complete pleasure for a man is naturally accompanied by ejaculation. This must happen within the body of the woman in the proper place, else there is a frustration of the primary end of marriage.

Thus his complete pleasure in any other manner is a grave sin against nature.

(04-18-2018, 02:00 AM)austenbosten Wrote: So you are saying a woman is free to enjoy masturbation, despite the Church condemning it, since it does not frustrate the primary end of marriage?

Again, we're being a bit of a sophist turning around particular terms rather than the action.

Within the marital act, whatever is necessary to achieve the proper end of the act is licit. If there is intentional or negligent frustration of the primary end there is always grave sin. Otherwise whatever occurs during the act which does not constitute a risk for or actual frustration of the proper end is not more than a venial sin.

If immediately attached to the marital act, then we are not talking about masturbation by the very fact that it is attached to that marital act.

(04-18-2018, 02:00 AM)austenbosten Wrote: What would constitute as masturbation for a woman?

Deliberate venereal pleasure, obtained through one's own physical actions, outside of the context of a proper marital act.
Reply
#52
(04-18-2018, 05:01 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Again, it is only sodomy if it is intended to end improperly (whether it ends properly or not).

He can't do so to his completion because it would then be sodomy, properly speaking, and a grave sin.

He could not do so even to near the point of completion because this would present a grave risk of sodomiacal pollution. That risk constitutes a grave sin.

So you are saying that it is the intention that constitutes whether or not the act of penetrating a rectum is a sin. Is that correct?


(04-18-2018, 05:01 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(04-18-2018, 02:00 AM)austenbosten Wrote: So you are saying a woman is free to enjoy masturbation, despite the Church condemning it, since it does not frustrate the primary end of marriage?

Again, we're being a bit of a sophist turning around particular terms rather than the action.

It is not sophist if I am using the same definition as the Catechism.

(04-18-2018, 05:01 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Within the marital act, whatever is necessary to achieve the proper end of the act is licit. If there is intentional or negligent frustration of the primary end there is always grave sin. Otherwise whatever occurs during the act which does not constitute a risk for or actual frustration of the proper end is not more than a venial sin.

So my response would be that female orgasm is not necessary to achieve proper end of the marital act.

So at what point does it go from licit to sinful in regards to non-copulation?

(04-18-2018, 05:01 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: If immediately attached to the marital act, then we are not talking about masturbation by the very fact that it is attached to that marital act.

So then a masturbation is a natural act, provided it is within the context of the marital act, yes?

(04-18-2018, 05:01 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(04-18-2018, 02:00 AM)austenbosten Wrote: What would constitute as masturbation for a woman?

Deliberate venereal pleasure, obtained through one's own physical actions, outside of the context of a proper marital act.

So how does this fit with both the Catechism definition, and Persona Humanae, which doesn't make such a distriction. In fact, PH condemns the opinion that masturbation is wrong only that it is radically opposed to loving communion.


Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk
Reply
#53
Austenbosten Wrote:So my response would be that female orgasm is not necessary to achieve proper end of the marital act.

You have to have a woman to have sex with in order to engage in the marital act (which also has a unitive purpose), and few women will marry a man who doesn't care whether or not women have orgasms. Such a man also likely has a higher risk of enduring wifely infidelity if married, too.
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
Reply
#54
(04-19-2018, 06:56 AM)VoxClamantis Wrote:
Austenbosten Wrote:So my response would be that female orgasm is not necessary to achieve proper end of the marital act.

You have to have a woman to have sex with in order to engage in the marital act (which also has a unitive purpose), and few women will marry a man who doesn't care whether or not women have orgasms. Such a man also likely has a higher risk of enduring wifely infidelity if married, too.

You are taking far more into what I said than what I plainly said. A woman does not always orgasm during or after intercourse. However just because she doesn't orgasm doesn't mean the proper end of the marital act hasn't been achieved, otherwise it would be a grave sin to have intercourse without the female achieving orgasm.

There is a unitive purpose, but it is subsided to the primary which is procreation. Hence sex open to life but without pleasure can still be licit, but sex in the opposite is a grave sin.

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk
Reply
#55
Sex talks always seem to get to this point. A women's orgasm is not tied to procreation so the women doesn't need to orgasm. Why do some men always try to reach the conclusion that they don't have to give their wife and orgasm.

It would be a sin for a man to not attempt to give his wife an orgasm. Cause if he doesn't he is putting the women in a near occasion of sin. He is getting h her aroused and then leaves her hanging . This could very well lead her to commit sin with another or herself or not be unnative during sex and closed off. The sin would be on the man also since he put his wife in that situation . Also what kind of man is any husband who ignores his wife's orgasm and just focuses on his own since his is directly tied to life.
Reply
#56
(04-19-2018, 09:29 AM)havok579257 Wrote: Sex talks always seem to get to this point.  A women's orgasm is not tied to procreation so the women doesn't  need to orgasm.  Why do some men always try to reach the conclusion that they don't have to give their wife and orgasm.

It would be a sin for a man to not attempt to give his wife an orgasm.  Cause if he doesn't he is putting the women in a near  occasion of sin.  He is getting h her aroused and then leaves her hanging .  This could very well lead her to commit sin with another or herself or not be unnative during sex and closed off.  The sin would be on the man also since he put his wife in that situation .   Also what kind of man is any husband who ignores his wife's orgasm and just focuses on his own since his is directly tied to life.

That is kinda the point I am trying to make. Women do not need to orgasm in order for the act to be licit. However, should the woman desire to have an orgasm, it should be up to the husband to give her one, whether through intercourse, or manual stimulation before or immediately after. To make the woman stimulate herself to orgasm to me is forcing her to masturbate, which not only is the husband culpable in that sin, but he is also sinning against charity.

A wife who gives her husband one of the most pleasurable feelings during one of the highest expressions of love, should not be expected to "rub herself out" while the husband walks off to go make himself a sandwich.

Some are saying it's okay for the woman to do that herself, I argue in the negative.
Reply
#57
(04-19-2018, 01:14 PM)austenbosten Wrote:
(04-19-2018, 09:29 AM)havok579257 Wrote: Sex talks always seem to get to this point.  A women's orgasm is not tied to procreation so the women doesn't  need to orgasm.  Why do some men always try to reach the conclusion that they don't have to give their wife and orgasm.

It would be a sin for a man to not attempt to give his wife an orgasm.  Cause if he doesn't he is putting the women in a near  occasion of sin.  He is getting h her aroused and then leaves her hanging .  This could very well lead her to commit sin with another or herself or not be unnative during sex and closed off.  The sin would be on the man also since he put his wife in that situation .   Also what kind of man is any husband who ignores his wife's orgasm and just focuses on his own since his is directly tied to life.

That is kinda the point I am trying to make.  Women do not need to orgasm in order for the act to be licit.  However, should the woman desire to have an orgasm, it should be up to the husband to give her one, whether through intercourse, or manual stimulation before or immediately after.  To make the woman stimulate herself to orgasm to me is forcing her to masturbate, which not only is the husband culpable in that sin, but he is also sinning against charity.

A wife who gives her husband one of the most pleasurable feelings during one of the highest expressions of love, should not be expected to "rub herself out" while the husband walks off to go make himself a sandwich.

Some are saying it's okay for the woman to do that herself, I argue in the negative.
Yeah, I am also very leary of the wife stimulating herself afterwards by herself.  I very well may be wrong in my thinking but I just have a hard time personally accepting it.

Although I think there is nothing wrong with a wife stimulating herself during intercourse with her husband.  Without her stimulating herself during the actual act, the couple never will experience mutual orgasm.  Since the man is not able(in most circumstances) to stimulate his wife and perform intercourse.  To me before, during, after or all of the above together are ok for the women during the marital act.  It is not masturbation since that is something you would do alone.  Her stimulating herself during actual intercourse would be in the context of the marital act.
Reply
#58
(04-19-2018, 06:48 AM)austenbosten Wrote: So you are saying that it is the intention that constitutes whether or not the act of penetrating a rectum is a sin.  Is that correct?

Yes.

Intention is key for morality, because both sin and merit are as a result of human actions (which involve the will), not "acts of man" (which are instinctive or not willed).

There is, for example, clearly a difference between accidentally doing so and intentionally doing so, just as there is such a distinction between every action.

If I a barista and accidentally use spoiled milk in making a latté, it's a far different action than wanting to harm him by using spoiled milk. Materially the action is identical. Formally they are far different.


(04-18-2018, 05:01 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(04-18-2018, 02:00 AM)austenbosten Wrote: Again, we're being a bit of a sophist turning around particular terms rather than the action.

It is not sophist if I am using the same definition as the Catechism.

It is if that definition does not apply to a particular action except materially.

For instance theft is defined by most as the taking of something which is not yours against the will of its possessor. By that definition repossessing a car is theft, except clearly it's not formally theft.

If one then continues to call this action theft, ignoring the formal difference, then the only reason is to get an emotional, not a logical reaction from his hearers/readers. This is the "talking point" practice of the politicians. That is sophistry.

Regarding your labels, I showed how what you are calling "sodomy" cannot be properly defined as such, and at least one moral theology handbook which specifically says that such action is not. It is not as if I'm just making this up because I want it to be this way. This is what reliable moral theologians say.

(04-19-2018, 06:48 AM)austenbosten Wrote: So then a masturbation is a natural act, provided it is within the context of the marital act, yes?

Again, sophistry. It is not formally masturbation within the context of the marital act.


(04-18-2018, 02:00 AM)austenbosten Wrote: What would constitute as masturbation for a woman?
(04-18-2018, 05:01 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Deliberate venereal pleasure, obtained through one's own physical actions, outside of the context of a proper marital act.
So how does this fit with both the Catechism definition, and Persona Humanae, which doesn't make such a distriction.  In fact, PH condemns the opinion that masturbation is wrong only that it is radically opposed to loving communion.

The Catechism is not a moral theology book, nor is Persona Humanæ. Moral theology is not about one document, but about having studied and compared the various sources to tease out principles of actions which can then be prudently applied.

Further, no one has claimed, much less I, that the malice of masturbation is "because it is opposed to loving communion." What I did say is that touches upon one's own body or one's spouse within that "loving communion" of marital intercourse, or immediately attached to it are not masturbation.

That is supported by nearly all modern, orthodox moral theologians including :

Halligan, O.P. (Administration of the Sacraments, 1964) : "This sin [masturbation] consists in the separate and complete venereal satisfaction or use of the generative faculty without carnal intercourse."

Jone, O.F.M. Cap. (Moral Theology, 1962) : "Pollution [masturbation] is complete sexual satisfaction obtained by some form of self-stimulation ... directly voluntary pollution is always gravely sinful," but later Jone specifically says, "wifes who do not obtain complete satisfaction [in the marital act] may procure it by touches immediately before or after coition since the husband may withdraw immediately after ejaculation," meaning he does not define this as direct voluntary masturbation which he previously said is always sinful without exception, and he clearly allows that the husband ends his participation after ejaculation.

Prümmer, O.P. , (Handbook of Moral Theology, 1962) : "Sexual pollution (also termed by doctors onanism, masturbation -manu stupratio) is the emission of seed or its equivalent outside sexual intercourse."

Davis, S.J., Moral and Pastoral Theology, 1958) : "Pollutio proprie definitur actus completus venereus sine concubitu, sive naturali in copula sive innaturali."

I think my point is made. 

Within the context of the marital act, or immediately attached to it, self-pleasure by the woman to completion, which was not obtained during the marital act where the man did obtain this complete pleasure is not masturbation.
Reply
#59
@MM

I guess then it may be okay. It just seems wrong and contradictory to a loving union communion of spouses to have the wife give a man an orgasm, but it would be permissible for her to procure one at her own hands, instead of the husband doing the work. To me it seems like a contradiction.

I guess it could be a result of the sad society we live it. On the one hand, it is Puritanical and thus sex is viewed as disgusting. On the other hand, the pornographic culture has made disgusting acts of sex seem normal.

I don't know, it just doesn't sit well with me.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)