foreplay in the sexual act

[OCLittleFlower]

But you know, that's what I like about Authoritarian institutions:  I don't have to agree;  I just have to obey.  In a Democracy you have to worry about all that stupid consensus stuff. 

Can I put this in my sig?  It's amazing!

[OCLittleFlower]

Wait so sodomy between two guys cries to heaven for vengeance but not between a woman and a man?  Can I get some details on that?  Why would there be a difference, its an abuse of the sexual faculties and naturally disordered, why should it matter if its between a man and a man or a woman and a man?

Imperfect sodomy that is not done to completion does not because it still results in the pro-creative act.  The reason sodomy cries out for vengeance is it destroys the unity of husband and wife, family, etc. in the temporal realm because it reduces sex to being separate from those things.

I suspect that if the OT were written today, birth control would cry out for vengeance as well, for the same reasons.  Maybe even louder.

Remember vengeance has nothing to do with the gravity of the sin in and of itself.  It is asking for Divine Intervention to stop or reduce the occurrence of that sin in the temporal realm.

I'm still confused.  imperfect sodomy is anal sex between a man and a woman and perfect sodomy is between two men?  And you say the difference is that the former still results in the procreative act while the latter has no chance.  Maybe I slept through health class but I didn't think a person could get pregnant through anal sex....?

Yes, imperfect sodomy is unnatural acts between a man and a woman.

No, it has the possibility of leading to the procreative act before completion.  Whereas in perfect sodomy there is no possibility.  Let be blunt:  you start in the anus and finish in the vagina.

At the very least, this seems wrong for the reason that it endangers the woman's health if certain bacteria and such got where it didn't belong.  We teach children to wipe "front-to-back" for a reason.

[Historian]

At the very least, this seems wrong for the reason that it endangers the woman's health if certain bacteria and such got where it didn't belong.  We teach children to wipe "front-to-back" for a reason.

Well, this isn't secular humanist health class so I'm not going to go into details about how to make an unnatural act safer.  But safety isn't necessarily an issue, though certainly it can be.

I just personally think it's gross and stupid.  You won't see me interested in it.  :shrug:

[Historian]

What we need is the section from "Moral Theology" by Fr. Heribert Jone about these types of topics posted (I'd be happy to type it up) and a "When in doubt, don't do it or ask your priest about it.".

[Dante Alighieri]

Why does it matter whether the seed is sprinkled on the floor (i.e. masturbation) or in a sterile vagina? In either case it is not for procreation, and a waste of seed that could be avoided. For example, a couple who has sex while the woman is pregnant would mean fertility is impossible at that time.

I'm curious about this as well.

A vagina is not sterile.  A woman or man is sterile.

One of the basics of moral theology is that the moral ends of acts are natural and ordered.  The natural and ordered end of sexual relations is insemination.  We cannot force fertilization to occur, but we can be responsible for ensuring the natural and ordered end of the act whether fertilization is apparently possible or not.

Unlike Monty Python would have people believe, it's not "every sperm is sacred".  I mean, there is loss of seed even when the act is done licitly and naturally.  As is true with many sins, it is the nature and end of the action that goes to its sinfulness.

But does this also apply to pregnant women? In other words, is it licit to have intercourse with your pregnant wife? I don't have a particular horse in the race, so to speak, for an answer. I would simply like to know if, when I am married and having children, sex with my pregnant wife would be considered valid.

[newyorkcatholic]

This thread moved quickly to discussing of anal sex, sodomy between men, etc.  But let us not forget the original question was about oral sex. 

My own opinion was the oral sex *as foreplay* was tolerable/permissible but for many reasons not a good idea (demeaning).

On one hand we can compare to anal sex and emphasize it's wrong-seemingness.

But what about comparing it to caressing, kissing, petting?  These acts are clearly licit, intercourse without this is mechanical, can even be painful, that's now how the human bodies work. 

I don't think oral sex is the same as kissing .... but I don't see that when used as foreplay it is the same as anal sex between men either, at all.

[Mithrandylan]

Over/under for thread: 450 posts.

I say over.

I am seeing a popular surge of late, in threads devoted to sexuality of various forms. This could be good or bad.  ???

I wouldn't be quick to assume it to be bad.  Consider that sex is (more often than not) a part of any straight lay catholics life but talking about it (rather, having a place to talk about it) is difficult because you will get all wrong answers if approaching the world with these questions and I don't think everyone is entirely comfortable talking to a priest about it.  I think it better here than calling a radio show or trying to find answers in a magazine.

[Walty]

Over/under for thread: 450 posts.

I say over.

LOL

:laughing: :laughing:

[Walty]

Why does it matter whether the seed is sprinkled on the floor (i.e. masturbation) or in a sterile vagina? In either case it is not for procreation, and a waste of seed that could be avoided. For example, a couple who has sex while the woman is pregnant would mean fertility is impossible at that time.

I'm curious about this as well.

Quis gave a good response here, but I might just add that, in laymen's terms, we just have to do our job.  That is acting naturally and morally in regards to sex.  We cannot discount that God performs miracles and can, as with Sarah, bring life even in a sterile woman.  He does not do this with masturbation or contraceptive sex because we are purposefully frustrating the ability for new life to emerge and are rejecting that possibility with our free will.  Intercourse, even while sterile, is open to children.

[Historian]

Why does it matter whether the seed is sprinkled on the floor (i.e. masturbation) or in a sterile vagina? In either case it is not for procreation, and a waste of seed that could be avoided. For example, a couple who has sex while the woman is pregnant would mean fertility is impossible at that time.

I'm curious about this as well.

Quis gave a good response here, but I might just add that, in laymen's terms, we just have to do our job.  That is acting naturally and morally in regards to sex.  We cannot discount that God performs miracles and can, as with Sarah, bring life even in a sterile woman.  He does not do this with masturbation or contraceptive sex because we are purposefully frustrating the ability for new life to emerge and are rejecting that possibility with our free will.  Intercourse, even while sterile, is open to children.

+1