Embarrassing question about marital activity
#21
(01-12-2016, 11:25 AM)Renatus Frater Wrote: We know female orgasm was not a mystery to St. Augustine. . . .

I was being sarcastic with that statement.  It is a comedic trope in the popular culture of the United States to refer to the female orgasm as a mysterious and unknowable thing.

I agree with your post -- the moral law is clear and unchanging.  It is not hiding from us (since we are not Gnostics).  We can rely on the saints and priestly teachers to help us understand how to apply the moral prescriptions of the saints and the Church in our lives. 

It is an error of our time to suppose a time in the past wherein people were chaste and did not desire the same sorts of sexual acts that people desire today.  That is false -- and we know it is false since the fathers spoke about these sexual acts in the context of applying Catholic moral principles to understand their licitness.
Reply
#22
Knowledge of human biomechanics, though, is superior thanks to mechanistic science and logical positivism (limited, though, as those frameworks can be).

I get the impression that some here believe human science is incapable of walking alongside theology and that somehow progress in scientific understanding of the created world can never help us better understand the teachings of Christ and better apply them to our lives.

One could get the impression that traditional Catholics see an opposition between knowledge and faith.

But that would oppose the very foundation of a document like Humanae Vitae, which was written only after extensive review of scientific literature on the subject of human biology as well as the sources of perennial Church teaching.

Theology cannot oppose reason, and as soon as it starts to, we get into trouble with respect to the maintenance of sanity.  Cults could care less about sanity, but the Catholic Church does care.
Reply
#23
Can you explain how knowledge of human biomechanics has changed the Church's teaching on chastity in marriage?
Reply
#24
I'm still confused, why hasn't anyone addressed the OP directly. Can a husband engage in foreplay, bringing her to orgasm, so long as sexual intercourse follows. Yay, or nay?
Reply
#25
(01-12-2016, 03:27 PM)Leonhard Wrote: I'm still confused, why hasn't anyone addressed the OP directly. Can a husband engage in foreplay, bringing her to orgasm, so long as sexual intercourse follows. Yay, or nay?

You clearly didn't listen to ermy's and mine references.
Reply
#26
(01-12-2016, 03:31 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: You clearly didn't listen to ermy's and mine references.

Got a transcript?

At any rate I know Edward Feser said it was alright and appropriate.
Reply
#27
Of course I don't. Why you're complaining, then?
Reply
#28
(01-12-2016, 03:36 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: Of course I don't. Why you're complaining, then?

Because I don't see why its that hard to answer the OP, unless the sermon is very evasive, dodgy and doesn't really address it in the end.
Reply
#29
(01-12-2016, 03:27 PM)Leonhard Wrote: I'm still confused, why hasn't anyone addressed the OP directly. Can a husband engage in foreplay, bringing her to orgasm, so long as sexual intercourse follows. Yay, or nay?

Probably yes, so long as there is no penetration of the wife with something other than the male sex organ and the wife does not have an effusive orgasm.  As you say, intercourse must occur and there must be an effusion on the part of the husband inside his wife.  This question is answered in the first 5 minutes of the talk that I posted. 

There are other sorts of foreplay that have not been asked about, so I am not taking those into account here.  These are also addressed in the talk that I posted, which has as its specific purpose to answer questions about foreplay between husband and wife.
Reply
#30
(01-12-2016, 04:55 PM)ermy_law Wrote:
(01-12-2016, 03:27 PM)Leonhard Wrote: I'm still confused, why hasn't anyone addressed the OP directly. Can a husband engage in foreplay, bringing her to orgasm, so long as sexual intercourse follows. Yay, or nay?

Probably yes, so long as there is no penetration of the wife with something other than the male sex organ and the wife does not have an effusive orgasm.  As you say, intercourse must occur and there must be an effusion on the part of the husband inside his wife.  This question is answered in the first 5 minutes of the talk that I posted. 

There are other sorts of foreplay that have not been asked about, so I am not taking those into account here.  These are also addressed in the talk that I posted, which has as its specific purpose to answer questions about foreplay between husband and wife.

1. Why can the female not have an "effusive orgasm?"
2. How on earth does one make sure that the orgasm is not an effusive one?
3. If the mouth is allowed, why on earth is a finger not?

I mean, I have SSA, so this stuff is never gonna come up for me anyway, but I remain curious about the moral implications of the above questions.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)