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
#71
(11-18-2010, 12:47 AM)Walty Wrote:
(11-17-2010, 10:56 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: You should ask your priest this stuff.  Especially since you are getting married.  Seriously.

That's true.  My problem is that I have a hard time listening to just one priest.  There's too much variance of opinion out there regarding theological matters, even among trad priests.

Find a priest you think is reasonable and trustworthy, get an answer, and proceed with moral certitude.  In other words, do the best you can to get the right answer from a legitimate authority and stop stressing about it.  God's not an idiot nor is He petty (not that you are saying that - you are not).  He wants us to do our reasonable best at all times, and in this case, this is what we should do.  We don't have to ask 30 priests and average the answers.  We wouldn't be able to function in life if we did that with everything.
Reply
#72
(11-18-2010, 03:26 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(11-18-2010, 01:34 AM)icecream Wrote: nobody take my hamburger question seriusly?

OK, I will take it seriously.  It is licit.  So is dressing up with clown makeup and spraying each other with seltzer bottles.

yes!!!!!!  ;D
Reply
#73
(11-18-2010, 12:27 AM)Servus_Maria Wrote: As repulsive as the thought of anal penetration is I can't see how (between spouses) it's much different as a form of fore play than oral sex. Is there a list of sexual acts which are prohibited, even if it ends in semen being deposited into the vagina?

If there is, I don't know about it, and it would be a pretty short list.  We're Catholics, not Protestants.  The Church is based in Rome among Italians, not Salt Lake City among Mormons or Calvinists.

This is stuff one can't go by what is said on a forum.  Really, one has to talk to their pastor.

But, IMO and understanding, the general rules are:

1) It has to be open to pro-creation, even if that is the final act.
2) If it is something that carries a high risk of spilling the seed outside of vaginal penetration it has to be avoided; that can be something that is different for different people of course.
3) It cannot be dehumanizing.  Even if the spouse wants to be dehumanized, you should not do it.
4) It is licit for the man to satisfy the woman by means other than during the copulative act, but only in the proximate time of the man finishing where he is supposed to.  I.e., it has to be part of the overall event of marital embrace and not just a side-dish.
5) One isn't supposed to treat their spouse as a harlot, or be over-aggressive, or brutal, or animalistic.

That is based on stuff I have read and heard from priests and others, and I only offer it for discussion, not for anyone to act on.  It has no nihil obstat or imprimatur. :tiphat:
Reply
#74
(11-18-2010, 12:03 AM)CanadianCatholic Wrote: Ok! Now that's what I thought quis. Yes its nasty, but I thought anal wasnt sinful as long as it didn't finish that way.

Besides being nasty to many people, there are a multitude of other reasons to avoid it including health and safety issues.  The reality is that the anus wasn't designed to be used that way.
Reply
#75
(11-18-2010, 03:40 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: 3) It cannot be dehumanizing.  Even if the spouse wants to be dehumanized, you should not do it.

So BDSM would be out of the question even if both partners were both into it since there are automatically unequal roles and someone has to be "dehumanized"?  ???
Reply
#76
(11-18-2010, 06:03 AM)Bearded Man Wrote:
(11-18-2010, 03:40 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: 3) It cannot be dehumanizing.  Even if the spouse wants to be dehumanized, you should not do it.

So BDSM would be out of the question even if both partners were both into it since there are automatically unequal roles and someone has to be "dehumanized"?  ???

There are shades of dehumanization in dominance. If my spouse asked to be treated like an animal - or to roleplay as if she were an animal - I'd say absolutely 100% no. Otherwise, I wonder if it would be ok. Is it intrinsically evil, for example, if my spouse wants to play at complete servitude - even physical restraint - in the bedroom?
Reply
#77
(11-18-2010, 06:10 AM)ardens Wrote:
(11-18-2010, 06:03 AM)Bearded Man Wrote:
(11-18-2010, 03:40 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: 3) It cannot be dehumanizing.  Even if the spouse wants to be dehumanized, you should not do it.

So BDSM would be out of the question even if both partners were both into it since there are automatically unequal roles and someone has to be "dehumanized"?  ???

There are shades of dehumanization in dominance. If my spouse asked to be treated like an animal - or to roleplay as if she were an animal - I'd say absolutely 100% no. Otherwise, I wonder if it would be ok. Is it intrinsically evil, for example, if my spouse wants to play at complete servitude - even physical restraint - in the bedroom?

I mean, say my wife was a "submissive" and that was the only way she could have a sexually fulfilling relationship, wouldn't it be my duty as a husband to be a "dominate"?
Reply
#78
(11-18-2010, 06:24 AM)Bearded Man Wrote:
(11-18-2010, 06:10 AM)ardens Wrote:
(11-18-2010, 06:03 AM)Bearded Man Wrote:
(11-18-2010, 03:40 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: 3) It cannot be dehumanizing.  Even if the spouse wants to be dehumanized, you should not do it.

So BDSM would be out of the question even if both partners were both into it since there are automatically unequal roles and someone has to be "dehumanized"?  ???

There are shades of dehumanization in dominance. If my spouse asked to be treated like an animal - or to roleplay as if she were an animal - I'd say absolutely 100% no. Otherwise, I wonder if it would be ok. Is it intrinsically evil, for example, if my spouse wants to play at complete servitude - even physical restraint - in the bedroom?

I mean, say my wife was a "submissive" and that was the only way she could have a sexually fulfilling relationship, wouldn't it be my duty as a husband to be a "dominate"?

Dominance is different than abuse and degradation.  For example, the man putting his weight on his wife is a dominating type thing, but it's natural and normal.  Slapping her around and calling her nasty names is abuse, even if she likes it.  I hear that some women like to be tied down, and that seems fine, because I guess it could be thrilling and it is a sort of trust exercise between loving spouses, but if you tie it so tight as to cause injury, then that's abusive.

If one of the partners asks for abuse and degradation, then I believe it would be the duty of the other spouse to refuse, and encourage them to heal from whatever ailment causes them to want these things.
Reply
#79
(11-18-2010, 12:50 AM)Walty Wrote:
(11-18-2010, 12:27 AM)Servus_Maria Wrote: As repulsive as the thought of anal penetration is I can't see how (between spouses) it's much different as a form of fore play than oral sex. Is there a list of sexual acts which are prohibited, even if it ends in semen being deposited into the vagina?

That's what I was trying to get at.  I have a hard time understanding how anal sex could be seen as anything other than a perversion. 

So, if you aren't at all tempted to engage in such acts, why are you even worried about whether or not they're sinful for married people?
Reply
#80
(11-18-2010, 09:13 AM)miss_fluffy Wrote:
(11-18-2010, 06:24 AM)Bearded Man Wrote:
(11-18-2010, 06:10 AM)ardens Wrote:
(11-18-2010, 06:03 AM)Bearded Man Wrote:
(11-18-2010, 03:40 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: 3) It cannot be dehumanizing.  Even if the spouse wants to be dehumanized, you should not do it.

So BDSM would be out of the question even if both partners were both into it since there are automatically unequal roles and someone has to be "dehumanized"?  ???

There are shades of dehumanization in dominance. If my spouse asked to be treated like an animal - or to roleplay as if she were an animal - I'd say absolutely 100% no. Otherwise, I wonder if it would be ok. Is it intrinsically evil, for example, if my spouse wants to play at complete servitude - even physical restraint - in the bedroom?

I mean, say my wife was a "submissive" and that was the only way she could have a sexually fulfilling relationship, wouldn't it be my duty as a husband to be a "dominate"?

Dominance is different than abuse and degradation.  For example, the man putting his weight on his wife is a dominating type thing, but it's natural and normal.  Slapping her around and calling her nasty names is abuse, even if she likes it.  I hear that some women like to be tied down, and that seems fine, because I guess it could be thrilling and it is a sort of trust exercise between loving spouses, but if you tie it so tight as to cause injury, then that's abusive.

If one of the partners asks for abuse and degradation, then I believe it would be the duty of the other spouse to refuse, and encourage them to heal from whatever ailment causes them to want these things.

Nevermind...best to stop this before it goes further. I'll ask a priest.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)