Embarrassing question about marital activity
#31
1. Why can the female not have an "effusive orgasm?"  I don't know.

2. How on earth does one make sure that the orgasm is not an effusive one?  By exercising self-control.

3. If the mouth is allowed, why on earth is a finger not?  You've made a misstatement. Penetration of the female with anything other than the sex organ is not allowed.

Once again, all these questions and more could be answered by listening to the talk that I posted.  That talk even addresses the basic question about which you are curious -- what are the moral implications of these things and why. 
Reply
#32
(01-12-2016, 06:31 PM)ermy_law Wrote: 1. Why can the female not have an "effusive orgasm?"  I don't know.

2. How on earth does one make sure that the orgasm is not an effusive one?  By exercising self-control.

3. If the mouth is allowed, why on earth is a finger not?  You've made a misstatement. Penetration of the female with anything other than the sex organ is not allowed.

Once again, all these questions and more could be answered by listening to the talk that I posted.  That talk even addresses the basic question about which you are curious -- what are the moral implications of these things and why.
The penetration issue strikes me as odd. And though you meant it as a joke, I do wonder how familiar St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus were with female orgasms and anatomy.  The "internal vs. external" issue in these situations seems:
a. Quite difficult to ensure in a consistent, reasonable manner and
b. Based on shaky reasoning. A woman might use a tampon without sin. A man may give oral sex to his wife in the context of completed intercourse without sin. So if insertion of objects other than the penis can be licit, and stinulation can be licit within the context of the sexual act, why would insertion during such acts be illicit?  I can see how one could view it as less than ideal, but not as "always mortally sinful" as the speaker in the conference says.
Reply
#33
(01-12-2016, 03:11 PM)ermy_law Wrote: Can you explain how knowledge of human biomechanics has changed the Church's teaching on chastity in marriage?

I'm not claiming it has.
Reply
#34
What I'm claiming is that the Church has made its teaching on marriage very clear, and neurotic moralists suffering from the disease of scrupulosity have made it very complicated.

The Church's teaching on the purpose of matrimony is that it is for the purpose of generating new life.  Human males do not experience erotic climax without ejaculation of seed.  For this reason, the male may never experience orgasm deliberately unless it is during copulation.  Female human orgasms are so fundamentally different from those of males that it's actually impossible to define exactly (for some women) when it occurs as well as its duration.

But that's irrelevant anyway.  Autoeroticism is strictly forbidden by natural law for any reason whatever.  The fact that some traditional Catholic moralists would claim that it's okay for a woman to self-stimulate even if it is during intercourse with her husband tells me that these so-called moralists actually do not understand the nature of human sexuality as something shared between the male and and female human being in a marriage bond.

Church doctrine sets the principles by which we are to understand what is and is not "permissible."  The opinions of Fr. Ripperger are of no consequence.  He's not the Magisterium.

Some of these weirdos want to start talking about measurements.  These are the holes in the sheets kind of people.

The only thing we need to worry about according to the Church is that erotic experiences remain shared between husband and wife (do I really need to define autoeroticism for any of the adults here?) and that human male seed is not wasted or blocked from its natural purpose and pathway.

I can't see how anyone ever added anything to that with either a straight face or without a hidden agenda.
Reply
#35
(01-12-2016, 08:20 PM)Joseph11 Wrote: Autoeroticism is strictly forbidden by natural law for any reason whatever.  The fact that some traditional Catholic moralists would claim that it's okay for a woman to self-stimulate even if it is during intercourse with her husband tells me that these so-called moralists actually do not understand the nature of human sexuality as something shared between the male and and female human being in a marriage bond.

I don't recall ever hearing anyone claim this behavior is morally permissible.

I agree with your first two paragraphs.

The remainder of your comment relies upon a usage of "Magisterium" that doesn't make sense to me. The opinions of priestly experts and moralists as to the practical implications of the Church's moral theology are very important. This is doctrine taking the form of pastoral action.
Reply
#36
(01-11-2016, 03:42 AM)Matt1992 Wrote: I'll try to ask this super embarrassing question that's bothering me and my wife in the most non-scandalizing way possible (but it's probably not a good idea to read this if you're not married and avoiding all sexual thoughts).

My wife and I haven't been married very long and we are both very conservative/traditional when it comes to sexual matters, and the only way we've departed from "missionary" intercourse is that I often will perform oral sex on her before we have intercourse. Since we're both so new to the whole sex thing, I honestly usually have a problem lasting very long because I still feel overwhelmed by how good she looks, so this really helps that problem.

My wife really likes this but says that she's worried that this is like engaging in masturbation, so she is struggling with guilt over it. She's also so embarrassed about it that she's terrified of me asking our priest about this even in confession, and just talking about it makes her turn extremely red so I'm trying to spare her any unnecessary embarrassment by asking in anonymity. So is doing this a sin, or is it morally fine as long as it's done before having intercourse that's open to life (I'm assuming it's definitely a mortal sin if it isn't part of intercourse)? 

So you've got lots of stuff to comb through here, but as a married guy I'd like to offer my 2 cents. There are certain positions and techniques that stimulate you both in a way that is satisfying and well within moral theology. Not to be graphic, but if you hold yourself in as deep as you can go your wife should be able to make contact with your pubic bone for stimulation. The key is that you can't be flying through her like a piston in an engine. Let her do the work. If you let her set the pace it is rather unlikely that you will loose it long before she does. For the same reason, many people say "girl on top" is another solution to this issue. Again, with "girl on top" she can use your pubic bone for stimulation.

Lastly, sex is highly mental for both the man and woman regardless what the imbeciles in social science say. Where your mind wanders so does the body. There's a lot of people here that are probably going make me never forget these words, but focus your mind on your wife's pleasure. Put it in your mind that as the 2 of you are engaged in the martial embrace YOU are her giving her the gift of that pleasure and she is basking in it! At that very moment you have a tremendous amount of influence over her. You are a living legend to her and you should live it up! Once you comprehend and embrace the magnitude of the influence you have over your wife at that moment, your own pleasure becomes much less interesting (trust me) and the less you focus on it the less you will feel yourself at the edge of a cliff.

As a general note, sex is often treated as a power struggle and in some senses it is. We have been groomed to believe (wrongly) that the person directing the sex is the one "in control" and being "in control" flexes the ego. In truth however, it is the one doing the least activity that has it made. Think about it rationally. It requires a lot more effort to be moving your entire body in the service of someone else than it is to sit back and enjoy the show ya know? Stroke (pun intended) your wife's ego a bit and enjoy the aftermath  Sticking tongue out at you
Reply
#37
(01-12-2016, 08:56 PM)ermy_law Wrote:
(01-12-2016, 08:20 PM)Joseph11 Wrote: Autoeroticism is strictly forbidden by natural law for any reason whatever.  The fact that some traditional Catholic moralists would claim that it's okay for a woman to self-stimulate even if it is during intercourse with her husband tells me that these so-called moralists actually do not understand the nature of human sexuality as something shared between the male and and female human being in a marriage bond.

I don't recall ever hearing anyone claim this behavior is morally permissible.

It was in the recorded lecture posted early in this thread.  The priest says "some moralists" say the woman may self-stimulate during intercourse.  I'd really like to know to whom he is referring, so that I can warn everyone that they are weird beyond belief.

(01-12-2016, 08:56 PM)ermy_law Wrote: I remainder of your comment relies upon a usage of "Magisterium" that doesn't make sense to me. The opinions of priestly experts and moralists as to the practical implications of the Church's moral theology are very important. This is doctrine taking the form of pastoral action.

I'm kind of surprised it doesn't make sense to you.  The Magisterium refers to the actual public teaching of the Apostolic Succession (an excellent example is the modern CCC).  The Magisterium does not refer to the private opinions of theologians.  Some people followed Kung off a cliff.  Others followed Jansenius off a cliff.  Theology is not doctrine, even if a saint wrote it.  It's speculative analysis, and some of it can be really wrong-headed and the product of biases that are incompatible with sanity and faith, again, even if a saint wrote it.  Canonization doesn't retroactively obviate all a person's errors.  It merely means they practiced charity to a heroic degree.
Reply
#38
I see what you mean.  "Some moralists" would no doubt include the moralists in the post-Vatican II milieu, who are not actually teaching Catholic morality.  In that sense, I'm sure one could find "some moralist" to support any behavior.

I understand your point about the Magisterium, but the terms tends to refer to something smaller than just "all the teachings of the Church on every subject."  While there are broad moral concepts and laws taught at the level of the Magisterium, the implementation of those concepts is left to pastors, who use as an aid the moral theology manuals and the tradition of the Church.  At any rate, part of the Magisterium, though, includes the consensus of the fathers (the consensus concept works to obviate the problems that you mention about singular opinions of saints).  So, it is important for a moral theologian to cultivate and explicate the consensus, which is what is being done in the lecture that I posted (and that lecture also includes prior distillation of the moral concepts through the moral theology manuals).

In sum, where there is a consensus of the theologians on a topic, that is part of the deposit of Faith.  With regard to morality, the consensus of the theologians has been distilled into moral theology manuals.  The moral theology is then taught to the people through the pastors.  The lecture that I posted in an example of that.  So, at its base, the teachings explained in that lecture are rooted in the Magisterium and should be heeded by all Catholics. 
Reply
#39
(01-13-2016, 10:15 AM)ermy_law Wrote: I see what you mean.  "Some moralists" would no doubt include the moralists in the post-Vatican II milieu, who are not actually teaching Catholic morality.  In that sense, I'm sure one could find "some moralist" to support any behavior.

When he says "some moralists" in the context to which I have referred regarding female self-stimulation during intercourse, he does not mean some moralists in the sense of "bad moralists."  I assume when he refers to "some moralists" in a negative sense, he is referring to ones such as the Redemptorist Bernard Haring.  However, in this regard, he is referring to the opinions of people who are in his opinion "good moralists."
Reply
#40
Perhaps. As I recall, the opinion given suggested that those moralists were incorrect about this particular described behavior. So, in this instance, they would be "bad moralists."
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)