«Natural Law & Sexual Ethics» @ Princeton, by Prof. Ed Feser
#11
(04-19-2015, 08:46 PM)Dirigible Wrote:
(04-19-2015, 07:50 PM)Geremia Wrote: 37:13 needs a correction/clarification: He says oral or manual stimulation is not a perversion of the natural end of sexual faculties, as long as it is directed toward vaginal intercourse. However, oral sex is never a necessary means to the completion of the marital act!

As mentioned here, St. Alphonsus di Liguori also treats oral sex in Theologia Moralis [PDF p. 325], n. 916 ("copulam in vase præpostero" or "copulating in a preposterous orifice") and says that most moralists agree it is always a mortal sin, even if the act finishes in v​a​g​i​n​a​l intercourse (in vase debito ["the due orifice]), because "est vera sodomia, quamvis non consummata" ["it is truly sodomy, even if incomplete].

Now, the husband could stimulate, orally or manually, the wife or the wife herself. St. Alphonsus discussed this (also mentioned here):
Quote:Interestingly, St. Alphonsus even says that, because the female is generally not as warm (aroused) as the male, that the female can arouse herself (touch herself) even after insemination. St. Alphonsus's question is Theologia Moralis l. 6, n. 919 [PDF p. 328-329 of this]: "An autem, si vir se retrahat post seminationem, sed ante seminationem mulieris, possit ipsa statim tactibus se excitare, ut seminet?" ["Whether, if the man pulls out after insemination (ejaculation), but before the insemination of the woman, she can still excite herself with touches, that she inseminate?"]. In this context, "inseminate" means "ejaculate" (for a male) or "be wet" (for a female); it could, perhaps, also be translated as "orgasm." The moralists who thought she couldn't didn't realize the "semen mulieris" ["female seed"] "est necessarium ad generationem" ["is necessary for conception"]. But most moral theologians agree it is permissible. Here's a rough translation of St. Alphonsus's explanation:
Quote:The reason is that the woman's insemination pertains to the completion of the conjugal act, which consists in the insemination of both Spouses; thus, as the woman can touch herself in preparation for copulation, so also can she to perfect the act of copulation: … All [moral theologians] thus concede that women, who are naturally more frigid, can excite themselves with touches before copulation so that they inseminate while having marital intercourse.
Note: This only applies to the female!
So, certainly the husband can touch the wife so that she complete the act, but never can the wife orally or manually stimulate the husband's genitals.

So, manual stimulation of women was permissible when it was believed that the female orgasm was necessary for procreation, but now that we know it's not, it's no longer permissible?
Come now fellas. The primary purpose of sexual intercourse is procreation. The secondary purpose is to cement a conjugal relationship between a husband and wife. The notion that a wife is merely an incubator for children is brutal in the extreme. She should be pleased and integrated in the relationship as a full partner... not a mere serf.

You can piously nit-pick all you like about the conjugal act... how, when, where and all that, but it it is what it is and custom and native restraint will determine appropriateness.
Reply
#12
(04-19-2015, 09:57 PM)Oldavid Wrote:
(04-19-2015, 08:46 PM)Dirigible Wrote: So, manual stimulation of women was permissible when it was believed that the female orgasm was necessary for procreation, but now that we know it's not, it's no longer permissible?
Come now fellas. The primary purpose of sexual intercourse is procreation. The secondary purpose is to cement a conjugal relationship between a husband and wife. The notion that a wife is merely an incubator for children is brutal in the extreme. She should be pleased and integrated in the relationship as a full partner... not a mere serf.

You can piously nit-pick all you like about the conjugal act... how, when, where and all that, but it it is what it is and custom and native restraint will determine appropriateness.

I was being sarcastic.  :P
Reply
#13
(04-19-2015, 04:17 PM)Dirigible Wrote: I am highly dubious of the idea that ever in the history of the world has a single fornicator, sodomite or masturbator been convinced to change his ways by a natural law argument.

I was, a good deal of that came prior to my eventual conversion that lead me from atheism, to a belief in God, Christ's Resurrection and finally the Catholic Church.
Reply
#14
(04-20-2015, 06:19 AM)Leonhard Wrote:
(04-19-2015, 04:17 PM)Dirigible Wrote: I am highly dubious of the idea that ever in the history of the world has a single fornicator, sodomite or masturbator been convinced to change his ways by a natural law argument.

I was, a good deal of that came prior to my eventual conversion that lead me from atheism, to a belief in God, Christ's Resurrection and finally the Catholic Church.

Peculiar. Maybe it's just me. May I ask how that happened?
Reply
#15
Reading his articles and books, at first frustrated with what I was reading, later coming to understand that he was basically correct.
Reply
#16
(04-19-2015, 08:46 PM)Dirigible Wrote:
(04-19-2015, 07:50 PM)Geremia Wrote: 37:13 needs a correction/clarification: He says oral or manual stimulation is not a perversion of the natural end of sexual faculties, as long as it is directed toward vaginal intercourse. However, oral sex is never a necessary means to the completion of the marital act!

As mentioned here, St. Alphonsus di Liguori also treats oral sex in Theologia Moralis [PDF p. 325], n. 916 ("copulam in vase præpostero" or "copulating in a preposterous orifice") and says that most moralists agree it is always a mortal sin, even if the act finishes in v​a​g​i​n​a​l intercourse (in vase debito ["the due orifice]), because "est vera sodomia, quamvis non consummata" ["it is truly sodomy, even if incomplete].

Now, the husband could stimulate, orally or manually, the wife or the wife herself. St. Alphonsus discussed this (also mentioned here):
Quote:Interestingly, St. Alphonsus even says that, because the female is generally not as warm (aroused) as the male, that the female can arouse herself (touch herself) even after insemination. St. Alphonsus's question is Theologia Moralis l. 6, n. 919 [PDF p. 328-329 of this]: "An autem, si vir se retrahat post seminationem, sed ante seminationem mulieris, possit ipsa statim tactibus se excitare, ut seminet?" ["Whether, if the man pulls out after insemination (ejaculation), but before the insemination of the woman, she can still excite herself with touches, that she inseminate?"]. In this context, "inseminate" means "ejaculate" (for a male) or "be wet" (for a female); it could, perhaps, also be translated as "orgasm." The moralists who thought she couldn't didn't realize the "semen mulieris" ["female seed"] "est necessarium ad generationem" ["is necessary for conception"]. But most moral theologians agree it is permissible. Here's a rough translation of St. Alphonsus's explanation:
Quote:The reason is that the woman's insemination pertains to the completion of the conjugal act, which consists in the insemination of both Spouses; thus, as the woman can touch herself in preparation for copulation, so also can she to perfect the act of copulation: … All [moral theologians] thus concede that women, who are naturally more frigid, can excite themselves with touches before copulation so that they inseminate while having marital intercourse.
Note: This only applies to the female!
So, certainly the husband can touch the wife so that she complete the act, but never can the wife orally or manually stimulate the husband's genitals.

So, manual stimulation of women was permissible when it was believed that the female orgasm was necessary for procreation, but now that we know it's not, it's no longer permissible?
I think you need to watch the video. This is not meant to be offensive, but most Orthodox I have encountered have a very impoverished understanding of Natural Law. We do not subscribe the Locekean version.
Reply
#17
(04-19-2015, 09:34 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote:
(04-19-2015, 09:11 PM)Cyriacus Wrote: In the Greek conception, women were defined more by emotion and bodily life than men, who were understood as possessing superior rational faculties that made governing sexual continence more feasible. Female sexuality was conceived as something potentially threatening, through seduction, and married women were largely confined to private life in the household, in part due to anxieties over adultery. Female sexuality was also seen as potentially pathogenic, leading to hysteria when not sated. Through the sexual act, and pregnancy, a woman's womb could be anchored firmly in place, so it would stop crashing around inside her body, colliding with other organs, which causes erratic thought and behavior.

It was routine for men to marry later, generally expected to refrain from intercourse longer, whereas women were married at much younger ages.

http://www.alternet.org/when-women-wante...h-more-men

It is interesting that Ligouri seems to have a view of women that anticipates the modern or Victorian one, one that became rooted in evangelical Protestantism.

But why is this greek view helpful? Clearly its wrong if one is a Christian.

Are you being serious?
Reply
#18
(04-24-2015, 03:14 PM)Papist Wrote:
(04-19-2015, 09:34 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote:
(04-19-2015, 09:11 PM)Cyriacus Wrote: In the Greek conception, women were defined more by emotion and bodily life than men, who were understood as possessing superior rational faculties that made governing sexual continence more feasible. Female sexuality was conceived as something potentially threatening, through seduction, and married women were largely confined to private life in the household, in part due to anxieties over adultery. Female sexuality was also seen as potentially pathogenic, leading to hysteria when not sated. Through the sexual act, and pregnancy, a woman's womb could be anchored firmly in place, so it would stop crashing around inside her body, colliding with other organs, which causes erratic thought and behavior.

It was routine for men to marry later, generally expected to refrain from intercourse longer, whereas women were married at much younger ages.

http://www.alternet.org/when-women-wante...h-more-men

It is interesting that Ligouri seems to have a view of women that anticipates the modern or Victorian one, one that became rooted in evangelical Protestantism.

But why is this greek view helpful? Clearly its wrong if one is a Christian.

Are you being serious?

Yes, very much.
Reply
#19
(04-24-2015, 03:04 PM)Papist Wrote:
(04-19-2015, 08:46 PM)Dirigible Wrote:
(04-19-2015, 07:50 PM)Geremia Wrote: 37:13 needs a correction/clarification: He says oral or manual stimulation is not a perversion of the natural end of sexual faculties, as long as it is directed toward vaginal intercourse. However, oral sex is never a necessary means to the completion of the marital act!

As mentioned here, St. Alphonsus di Liguori also treats oral sex in Theologia Moralis [PDF p. 325], n. 916 ("copulam in vase præpostero" or "copulating in a preposterous orifice") and says that most moralists agree it is always a mortal sin, even if the act finishes in v​a​g​i​n​a​l intercourse (in vase debito ["the due orifice]), because "est vera sodomia, quamvis non consummata" ["it is truly sodomy, even if incomplete].

Now, the husband could stimulate, orally or manually, the wife or the wife herself. St. Alphonsus discussed this (also mentioned here):
Quote:Interestingly, St. Alphonsus even says that, because the female is generally not as warm (aroused) as the male, that the female can arouse herself (touch herself) even after insemination. St. Alphonsus's question is Theologia Moralis l. 6, n. 919 [PDF p. 328-329 of this]: "An autem, si vir se retrahat post seminationem, sed ante seminationem mulieris, possit ipsa statim tactibus se excitare, ut seminet?" ["Whether, if the man pulls out after insemination (ejaculation), but before the insemination of the woman, she can still excite herself with touches, that she inseminate?"]. In this context, "inseminate" means "ejaculate" (for a male) or "be wet" (for a female); it could, perhaps, also be translated as "orgasm." The moralists who thought she couldn't didn't realize the "semen mulieris" ["female seed"] "est necessarium ad generationem" ["is necessary for conception"]. But most moral theologians agree it is permissible. Here's a rough translation of St. Alphonsus's explanation:
Quote:The reason is that the woman's insemination pertains to the completion of the conjugal act, which consists in the insemination of both Spouses; thus, as the woman can touch herself in preparation for copulation, so also can she to perfect the act of copulation: … All [moral theologians] thus concede that women, who are naturally more frigid, can excite themselves with touches before copulation so that they inseminate while having marital intercourse.
Note: This only applies to the female!
So, certainly the husband can touch the wife so that she complete the act, but never can the wife orally or manually stimulate the husband's genitals.

So, manual stimulation of women was permissible when it was believed that the female orgasm was necessary for procreation, but now that we know it's not, it's no longer permissible?
I think you need to watch the video. This is not meant to be offensive, but most Orthodox I have encountered have a very impoverished understanding of Natural Law. We do not subscribe the Locekean version.

As I said above, I was making a sarcastic joke at Geremia"s expense. I apologise to him for that.
Reply
#20
(04-24-2015, 03:49 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote:
(04-24-2015, 03:14 PM)Papist Wrote:
(04-19-2015, 09:34 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote:
(04-19-2015, 09:11 PM)Cyriacus Wrote: In the Greek conception, women were defined more by emotion and bodily life than men, who were understood as possessing superior rational faculties that made governing sexual continence more feasible. Female sexuality was conceived as something potentially threatening, through seduction, and married women were largely confined to private life in the household, in part due to anxieties over adultery. Female sexuality was also seen as potentially pathogenic, leading to hysteria when not sated. Through the sexual act, and pregnancy, a woman's womb could be anchored firmly in place, so it would stop crashing around inside her body, colliding with other organs, which causes erratic thought and behavior.

It was routine for men to marry later, generally expected to refrain from intercourse longer, whereas women were married at much younger ages.

http://www.alternet.org/when-women-wante...h-more-men

It is interesting that Ligouri seems to have a view of women that anticipates the modern or Victorian one, one that became rooted in evangelical Protestantism.

But why is this greek view helpful? Clearly its wrong if one is a Christian.

Are you being serious?

Yes, very much.

It seems like your question is predicated on the false premise that Christian thought and all Greek thought are diametrically opposed to one another.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)