Delicate question about sexuality (warning: graphic language)
#21
(04-16-2018, 04:18 PM)Ludovicus Wrote: The second paragraph that you quoted was not complete.
 
Quote:The main reason is that, whatever the motive for acting this way, the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty. For it lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes "the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love."[20] All deliberate exercise of sexuality must be reserved to this regular relationship. Even if it cannot be proved that Scripture condemns this sin by name, the tradition of the Church has rightly understood it to be condemned in the New Testament when the latter speaks of "impurity," "unchasteness" and other vices contrary to chastity and continence.

But what is considered conjugal? It seems it would be the penetrative act does it not?
Reply
#22
Ludovicus,

If you are so clear and up on the moral teachings of the Church and studied on moral theology to make arguments over such points, why are you asking questions here to people who obviously do not have your level of training or of expertise.
Reply
#23
Reposting Magister Musicae's first answer because it is the correct one:

Quote:(snip)

1. The primary purpose of the marital act is the procreation of children. 
2. Secondary purposes of the act include the expression of mutual love and the calming of concupiscence by the pleasure of the act (usually by the completion of the act).
3. The primary purpose of the act can never be directly and intentionally frustrated without grave sin.
4. Sexual pleasure by oneself outside of the context of the marital act is not licit.

You are correct by these principles that a woman can be stimulated (by herself or her husband) to complete pleasure as long as the man has completed the act and this is all within the same marital act. This is because the primary purpose is achieved, and thus the secondary ends are legitimate. The self-stimulation of the woman, provided it is immediate, is not masturbation, because it would be legitimate for her to do this during the act itself. If there is a notable break between the man's completion and the woman's actions on herself, or a very long time during which the woman is given such pleasure, then this is a new action and illicit because it is masturbation.

If the man did not complete the act, then further self-pleasure is not licit because this is masturbation, not the continuation of the act, since the act has stopped. The first end is not possible, so the second is no longer licit.

The incomplete act is considered a prolonged act of touching, which is licit between spouses, like a kiss or other embrace. If there is risk of pollution, such acts are not licit. The degree of risk of such incontinence will determine the degree of sin.

Now to your question. The first thing to realize is that oral sexual contact (just as with sodomiacal-like contact) is not a noble type of contact, but a base one. It is not a grave sin if it does not risk incontinence or pollution and the marital act finished correctly, but it is certainly not a highly dignified manner of acting. It also risks introducing bacteria and other diseases into parts of a woman's body where those bacteria or diseases normally do not develop, thus potentially interfering with her fertility or a child's development. Something may not be sinful, but still is not a good way of acting. We should not only be concerned with whether we are sinning, but also whether we are tending toward the more dignified behavior or more base behavior.

If we apply the above principles, however, you can see that so long as you and your wife do nothing which frustrates the primary end of the marital act (by removing the seed in any significant way or preventing it from reaching its proper place in her body) then this is licit. 

(snip)
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
Reply
#24
(04-16-2018, 04:21 PM)austenbosten Wrote:
(04-16-2018, 04:18 PM)Ludovicus Wrote: The second paragraph that you quoted was not complete.
 
Quote:The main reason is that, whatever the motive for acting this way, the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty. For it lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes "the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love."[20] All deliberate exercise of sexuality must be reserved to this regular relationship. Even if it cannot be proved that Scripture condemns this sin by name, the tradition of the Church has rightly understood it to be condemned in the New Testament when the latter speaks of "impurity," "unchasteness" and other vices contrary to chastity and continence.

But what is considered conjugal?  It seems it would be the penetrative act does it not?
sex is not mechanical and God didn't make it that way.  He didn't make it so part A inserts into part B, consumate for 1-10 minutes and then complete and be done.  that's not the way sex is.  the normal conjugal act is so much more than just penetration.  I mean the normal conjugal act is not only physical but mental.  i mean the church has NEVER stated sex is just penetrative acts and even trad priests will not take that approach.

Women are not like men.  They can't flip a switch and suddenly be turned on.  Us men can.  We see our wife naked and we are ready to go.  Women were not made to be like this.  Not all, but the vast majority need to be turned on to provide lubrication for the act of penetration to begin.  To say sex should only be penetrative would mean sex most of the time would not be possible.  You need lubrication to perform the act or there is great risk to injury or pain to one or both spouses.  Not to mention as men get older and women, their sex drives diminish.  Its not realistic to assume older men will need no help getting ready for the penetrative act.  So then once a man no longer is able to get ready without any assistance the couple would be barred from sex.  Some men need assistance at all times.  So by that logic, this couple could never even consummate their marriage.  Also there is no decree from the church that I know of that says a man must be able to get an erection on his own, without touch to be able to marry.  Cause that what the line of thinking your purposing says.
Reply
#25
(04-15-2018, 08:52 PM)Ludovicus Wrote: Hi,
 
As I said in my post of presentation, I am French.
 
Some subjects are quite taboo on french forums and I don’t feel confortable about the idea of talking about the subject of this post with a priest,
 
So, even if I am embarrassed, I thought that this forum would be the best place in order to get answers.
 
Unfortunately, before our conversion, my wife and I committed reprehensible acts, such as oral sex (which, for me, is different from oral stimulation that I considere, based on my researchs and the answers that I got from two traditionalist priests, as being licit) and onanism.
 
By the grace of God I have been able to cease these habits and now it is clear for me that there is only one way to complete a proper marital act.
 
However, I am wondering about the morality of a certain situation.
 
I know that it is licit for a woman that would not have reached orgasm before her husband to stimulate herself (or to be stimulated by him) to completion. It is also licit if, after a first intercourse, the wife and the husband engage immediatley in a second one. In this case foreplay (such as manual or oral stimulations) are certainly allowed too.
 
Is it immoral if, in the two cases that I just mentioned, semen (from the previous intercourse) remains and is « * involved »? The more critical point being probably in the case of oral stimulation.
 
Please forgive the bluntness of my language, I do not intend to shock or disgust anybody. What is shocking or disgusting for some people may be accpetable for others, this is also true for Catholics. I just want to have a clear idea about the morality of that situation.
 
Thank you in advance.
 
Oremus pro invicem.
 
Ludovicus
 
* The word is probably not correct in this sentence but I can’t find an other one. 

Saint Alphonsus said that oral foreplay is a mortal sin ! 

https://www.catholic.com/qa/catholic-the...l-pleasure

https://ronconte.wordpress.com/2015/11/2...-chastity/
Reply
#26
(04-16-2018, 04:03 PM)havok579257 Wrote:
(04-16-2018, 03:40 PM)Ludovicus Wrote:
Quote:If you have already ejaculated into your wife's vagina and afterwards she takes your penis into her mouth and gets some residual semen in her mouth, that is all right as long as you do not ejaculate again into her mouth.

Does anyone else agree with this?

Please, let me know your opinion about the subject of this thread. It would be very helpful.

Yes that would be correct.  Although the thing to remember is for the couple this would in essence be another sexual act and would require the man to finish again the right way.  If he can't because he tried but it was to soon, then no fault.  Although if he knows he won't be able to again or is just using it for pleasure with no intent to climax then I think it would be a sin.  Since every time a couple has sex the man must finish the proper way and the couple must always attempt for the man to finish every time they start sex.  Sometimes it doesn't happen but that's not because the couple makes it not happen.  I would just look at it that every time a man finishes the sex act for him is finished and if continues on then it would be a new sex act for him and he would be required to finish a second time.  The women is not held to this since her orgasm is not directly tied to procreation and a women can have no or multiple orgasms in the course of one completed sex act.

Thank you, Havok579257.

Quote:Although the thing to remember is for the couple this would in essence be another sexual act and would require the man to finish again the right way. [...] Although if he knows he won't be able to again or is just using it for pleasure with no intent to climax then I think it would be a sin. [...] I would just look at it that every time a man finishes the sex act for him is finished and if continues on then it would be a new sex act for him and he would be required to finish a second time.

Your reasoning is coherent and interesting.

However, if it is not a new marital act (or sex act), it could be considered as an imperfect act and, in this case, it would not be illicit. I am just wondering. Maybe the principle of imperfect acts cannot be applied here.
Reply
#27
(04-16-2018, 05:13 PM)Tamill Wrote:
(04-15-2018, 08:52 PM)Ludovicus Wrote: Hi,
 
As I said in my post of presentation, I am French.
 
Some subjects are quite taboo on french forums and I don’t feel confortable about the idea of talking about the subject of this post with a priest,
 
So, even if I am embarrassed, I thought that this forum would be the best place in order to get answers.
 
Unfortunately, before our conversion, my wife and I committed reprehensible acts, such as oral sex (which, for me, is different from oral stimulation that I considere, based on my researchs and the answers that I got from two traditionalist priests, as being licit) and onanism.
 
By the grace of God I have been able to cease these habits and now it is clear for me that there is only one way to complete a proper marital act.
 
However, I am wondering about the morality of a certain situation.
 
I know that it is licit for a woman that would not have reached orgasm before her husband to stimulate herself (or to be stimulated by him) to completion. It is also licit if, after a first intercourse, the wife and the husband engage immediatley in a second one. In this case foreplay (such as manual or oral stimulations) are certainly allowed too.
 
Is it immoral if, in the two cases that I just mentioned, semen (from the previous intercourse) remains and is « * involved »? The more critical point being probably in the case of oral stimulation.
 
Please forgive the bluntness of my language, I do not intend to shock or disgust anybody. What is shocking or disgusting for some people may be accpetable for others, this is also true for Catholics. I just want to have a clear idea about the morality of that situation.
 
Thank you in advance.
 
Oremus pro invicem.
 
Ludovicus
 
* The word is probably not correct in this sentence but I can’t find an other one. 

Saint Alphonsus said that oral foreplay is a mortal sin ! 

https://www.catholic.com/qa/catholic-the...l-pleasure

https://ronconte.wordpress.com/2015/11/2...-chastity/

Please do not quote anything from ron contes site  .  His views on sex are not right.  I guess that's a charitable way of saying it .  His views should not be something a Catholic follows.
Reply
#28
(04-16-2018, 05:13 PM)Tamill Wrote: Saint Alphonsus said that oral foreplay is a mortal sin ! 

https://www.catholic.com/qa/catholic-the...l-pleasure

Perhaps you'd do well to read the sites you quote, since Dom Hugh writes in the first one :

Quote:St. Alphonsus and all the traditional moral theologians of the Church do not allow what is called "oral sex" as part of foreplay for natural sexual intercourse.

That seems to match what you are saying, but you omit to read or take into account :

Quote:Whether this prohibition is gravely binding or not is another question. If the first reason [risk of wasted seed] is the issue, then the practice of oral stimulation is gravely wrong. Period. If the second reason [emotional attraction to the oral sexual action] is the issue, the matter may be venial, but this does not change the answer regarding what is permitted, since we are not permitted to deliberately commit a venial sin.
Reply
#29
I've got an idea for you. Buy a pair of hand cuffs, dangle them during your next romp, and tell your wife to call you Mr. Christian Grey. Given how women respond to that junk you probably won't have to do any manual or oral stimulation for her, and she'll still loose her mind. Problem solved! My counseling fee is $50 btw....
Local anti-feminist.....if you think women deserve special treatment without any accountability for their actions expect to hear from me!
Reply
#30
(04-16-2018, 06:20 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(04-16-2018, 05:13 PM)Tamill Wrote: Saint Alphonsus said that oral foreplay is a mortal sin ! 

https://www.catholic.com/qa/catholic-the...l-pleasure

Perhaps you'd do well to read the sites you quote, since Dom Hugh writes in the first one :

Quote:St. Alphonsus and all the traditional moral theologians of the Church do not allow what is called "oral sex" as part of foreplay for natural sexual intercourse.

That seems to match what you are saying, but you omit to read or take into account :

Quote:Whether this prohibition is gravely binding or not is another question. If the first reason [risk of wasted seed] is the issue, then the practice of oral stimulation is gravely wrong. Period. If the second reason [emotional attraction to the oral sexual action] is the issue, the matter may be venial, but this does not change the answer regarding what is permitted, since we are not permitted to deliberately commit a venial sin.

It does not change anything. We are not permitted to do venial sin. Saint Alphonsus said that oral sex is contra natura. So it's a mortal sin even if it is done just for foreplay.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)