Poll: Do you agree that the missionary position is the ideal position for marital sex and that it is ordinarily the only licit sex position?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
4
0%
0 0%
45
0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Missionary position
#41
(11-17-2010, 09:53 PM)Rosarium Wrote: This is why I wrote:

(11-17-2010, 08:13 PM)Rosarium Wrote: I think if a proper married couple are intending to engage in the marital act properly for the right reasons, then the exact details of it are unimportant.

I have no idea what it is like to be married, but I am sure when it comes to procreation, things are less planned out. It isn't like (as far as I know), a man and woman plan out the act in advance.

And since people are not being explicit about what these acts are, it is left to everyone's imagination. We should be careful when discussing this topic because it would be easy to have false impressions of what another thinks.
I hear ya Rosie
Reply
#42
(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).
Reply
#43
I do believe there are sex acts which are sinful in principal, mainly the ones that can cause injury to one or both parties, and those that involve dysfunctional role-playing and the like.  The specific acts are too many to list, and it wouldn't be prudent.  But if it harms, and separates you from your spouse in some way, then it's a problem.  This is something that married people struggle with from time to time.  For example, fantasizing about someone else during the act, or wanting to incorporate something that reduces one partner's dignity.  These temptations arise from our animal side, and they're fairly easy to recognize.  Basically, be there with each other, for each other, and put the other before yourself.  Your body's belong to each other in marriage, so there are few lines to be drawn.
Reply
#44
(11-17-2010, 12:56 AM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(11-17-2010, 12:52 AM)Baskerville Wrote: I am gonna be a complete modernist here and say that any position works so long as the semen go in the right spot in the end.

I'm just wondering what theological writers and schools you base your view on.

None I just happen to think other positions then the missionary (other than sodomy) are okie doke
Reply
#45
(11-17-2010, 08:19 PM)CanadianCatholic Wrote: This whole thread is making me laugh....and trust me, no matter what way ya do it, if the stuff ends up where it should, you"ll get pregnant....

My sentiments exactly. :laughing:
Reply
#46
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?
Reply
#47
(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.

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.
Reply
#48
(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.
Reply
#49
(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.
Reply
#50
(11-17-2010, 10:01 PM)Nic Wrote: 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.
What if there is no "top"? Sex is not symbolic when it occurs.

Quote:  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).

This is from the 13 century Jewish writings. These same people rejected the Gospel of John (among others). I'd rather not use their myths for determining morality.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)