foreplay in the sexual act
#1
Excuse me for this graphic posts but its a question I must ask. Reading Catholic Answers, I have learned that foreplay (i.e. oral sex) is permitted between husband and wife as long as the man finishes in the woman. Did the church allow this foreplay prior to Vatican II? Or is it a recent novelty? Isn't this a form of sodomy that cries for vengeance?
Reply
#2
(04-13-2011, 12:56 PM)st.dominic_savio Wrote: Excuse me for this graphic posts but its a question I must ask. Reading Catholic Answers, I have learned that foreplay (i.e. oral sex) is permitted between husband and wife as long as the man finishes in the woman. Did the church allow this foreplay prior to Vatican II? Or is it a recent novelty? Isn't this a form of sodomy that cries for vengeance?

From my knowledge of moral theology, I would say that such foreplay *may* be considered permissible (never recommended) if it is truly intended as foreplay, and is analogous to kissing etc.  The problem with something like oral sex is that it is usually like anal sex -- very objectively demeaning, perverse, intended to arouse precisely because it is perverse / demeaning, and this is not what sex is about.

Thank God I am no one's spiritual director / moral advisor, but if this were a real stumbling block for someone I might say that oral sex could in this limited sense be permitted, but I would never never never cavalierly encourage it ... I just think it might be tolerable.

I do not think it falls under the category of sodomy that cries to Heaven for vengeance, which refers to the use of sexuality outside of the procreative end.

That all said, the moral theologians did not always agree and perhaps there were some who unilaterally condemned all oral sex, I don't know?
Reply
#3
(04-13-2011, 12:56 PM)st.dominic_savio Wrote: Excuse me for this graphic posts but its a question I must ask. Reading Catholic Answers, I have learned that foreplay (i.e. oral sex) is permitted between husband and wife as long as the man finishes in the woman. Did the church allow this foreplay prior to Vatican II? Or is it a recent novelty? Isn't this a form of sodomy that cries for vengeance?

They say, that kind of thing is what the movie "Aliens" is about.  

http://www.culturewars.com/Reviews/MonstersReviews.html
Reply
#4
From another thread (which was locked):

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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to my quotation of Sec. 525, 2, Quis wrote:

"The section you cite is "consummated sins".  "Imperfect sodomy" as a prelude to proper consummation is what Jone considers licit, not imperfect sodomy as consummated (i.e., the guy finishes in the wrong place) because the act is not pro-creative."


Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't include Quis' advice at the end of that thread:

QuisUtDeus Wrote: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.
Reply
#5
Nah, it only cries out to heaven if two men do it, because the idea of a woman and a man doing it isn't disgusting to most Catholics.
Reply
#6
(04-13-2011, 06:44 PM)Melkite Wrote: Nah, it only cries out to heaven if two men do it, because the idea of a woman and a man doing it isn't disgusting to most Catholics.

It cries out to heaven if two men (or two women) do it because there is no possibility of pro-creation and the sexual act is always reduced to being mutual scratching posts.

Don't distort the theology.
Reply
#7
*shrug* I don't see the problem with it, but then again I am a relatively new Traditional Catholic, and I do have a sordid sexual background.
I think oral sex can be beneficial to the woman, and can lead to multiple orgasms which can make the marital embrace far more enjoyable for both husband and wife.

As for oral sex for the man... IDK.  Most men I know don't really need help in the "heating up" department when it comes down to the act.  But I would assume that, based on my above comment, that a wife could orally stimulate her husband to an erection, thus allowing the marital embrace to commence.
Reply
#8
(04-13-2011, 06:44 PM)Melkite Wrote: Nah, it only cries out to heaven if two men do it, because the idea of a woman and a man doing it isn't disgusting to most Catholics.

Catholics still show a natural disgust at the thought of two men having sex.

Obviously, it's not your case.
Reply
#9
(04-13-2011, 06:44 PM)Melkite Wrote: Nah, it only cries out to heaven if two men do it, because the idea of a woman and a man doing it isn't disgusting to most Catholics.

The difference, of course, is that the latter (in your post) doesn't necessarily exclude imperfect sodomy, whereby the reproductive function of the generative faculty can still be accomplished insofar as the completion of the generative faculty is conducive to reproduction. However, the former (in your post) can only be perfect sodomy, whereby the reproductive function of the generative faculties is inevitably frustrated and has no possibility of success.

It is not the intrinsic idea of sodomy that Catholics find so disgusting per se. The sin against nature accomplished by homosexual sodomy via perfect sodomy is what is so disgusting to Catholics.
Reply
#10
(04-13-2011, 12:56 PM)st.dominic_savio Wrote: Excuse me for this graphic posts but its a question I must ask. Reading Catholic Answers, I have learned that foreplay (i.e. oral sex) is permitted between husband and wife as long as the man finishes in the woman. Did the church allow this foreplay prior to Vatican II? Or is it a recent novelty? Isn't this a form of sodomy that cries for vengeance?

I would say that oral sex would never be permissible, as it is not for the purpose of procreation. Oral sex would be solely for the satisfaction of lustful pleasures, without an coupling of the natural purpose of consummation. At least with vaginal sex (i.e. natural sex) without contraceptives, the pleasure of both parties would be coupled with procreative purpose. Then again, I am a virgin and know little of the anatomy of genitalia, or the most effective means of intercourse.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)