Delicate question about sexuality (warning: graphic language)
#31
(04-16-2018, 06:00 PM)havok579257 Wrote:
(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Please do not quote anything from ron contes site  .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.


I don't care about Ron Conte. What is important is what Saint Alphonsus said about anal and oral foreplay. Many catholics do not know that Saint Alphonsus condemned such foreplay very explicitly (and even manual foreplay if the woman does not reach orgasm : there is not a right to orgasm outside coitus for St Alphonsus !)  

You have many maintream priest (not "rad trad" priest) who condemned anal and oral foreplay (and even manual foreplay for some). Ron Conte and Fr Hugh Barbour are pro pope Francis and even pro Amoris laetitia ! (Not certain for Fr Hugh Barbour) 

So if you are really a traditionnalist you should follow what St Alphonsus said (Doctor of all the doctors on moral theology). The Church said that we must always follow his teaching. 


https://www.catholic.com/qa/catholic-the...l-pleasure (Fr. Hugh Barbour, O. Praem)

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/colum...earts-2164 (Rev. Gregory Gresko)

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/...ody_debate (Fr. Maurizio Faggioni)

https://catholicstrength.com/tag/aquinas...violation/ (Brian Harrison)

http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marital-foreplay.htm (Thomas Morrow)

So anal and oral foreplay is most certainly a mortal sins. But orthodox theologians are not sure about the morality of manual foreplay. In my opinion we should avoid also manual foreplay if there is not a serious reasons. 


All the moral theolgians have condemned oral and anal foreplay. There was only disagreement among theologians on the question of the gravity of sin (mortal or venial). 
Reply
#32
(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. 

What is important is what Saint Alphonsus said about anal and oral foreplay. Many catholics do not know that Saint Alphonsus condemned such foreplay very explicitly (and even manual foreplay if the woman does not reach orgasm : there is not a right to orgasm outside coitus for St Alphonsus !)  

You have many maintream priest (not "rad trad" priest) who condemned anal and oral foreplay (and even manual foreplay for some). Ron Conte and Fr Hugh Barbour are pro pope Francis and even pro Amoris laetitia ! (Not certain for Fr Hugh Barbour) 

So if you are really a traditionnalist you should follow what St Alphonsus said (Doctor of all the doctors on moral theology). The Church said that we must always follow his teaching. 


https://www.catholic.com/qa/catholic-the...l-pleasure (Fr. Hugh Barbour, O. Praem)

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/colum...earts-2164 (Rev. Gregory Gresko)

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/...ody_debate (Fr. Maurizio Faggioni)

https://catholicstrength.com/tag/aquinas...violation/ (Brian Harrison)

http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marital-foreplay.htm (Thomas Morrow)

So anal and oral foreplay is most certainly a mortal sins. But orthodox theologians are not sure about the morality of manual foreplay. In my opinion we should avoid also manual foreplay if there is not a serious reasons. 


All the moral theolgians have condemned oral and anal foreplay. There was only disagreement among theologians on the question of the gravity of sin (mortal or venial). 
Reply
#33
(04-17-2018, 06:15 AM)Tamill Wrote:
(04-16-2018, 06:00 PM)havok579257 Wrote:
(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.


I don't care about Ron Conte. What is important is what Saint Alphonsus said about anal and oral foreplay. Many catholics do not know that Saint Alphonsus condemned such foreplay very explicitly (and even manual foreplay if the woman does not reach orgasm : there is not a right to orgasm outside coitus for St Alphonsus !)  

You have many maintream priest (not "rad trad" priest) who condemned anal and oral foreplay (and even manual foreplay for some). Ron Conte and Fr Hugh Barbour are pro pope Francis and even pro Amoris laetitia ! (Not certain for Fr Hugh Barbour) 

So if you are really a traditionnalist you should follow what St Alphonsus said (Doctor of all the doctors on moral theology). The Church said that we must always follow his teaching. 


https://www.catholic.com/qa/catholic-the...l-pleasure (Fr. Hugh Barbour, O. Praem)

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/colum...earts-2164 (Rev. Gregory Gresko)

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/...ody_debate (Fr. Maurizio Faggioni)

https://catholicstrength.com/tag/aquinas...violation/ (Brian Harrison)

http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marital-foreplay.htm (Thomas Morrow)

So anal and oral foreplay is most certainly a mortal sins. But orthodox theologians are not sure about the morality of manual foreplay. In my opinion we should avoid also manual foreplay if there is not a serious reasons. 


All the moral theolgians have condemned oral and anal foreplay. There was only disagreement among theologians on the question of the gravity of sin (mortal or venial). 

Just so we are clear what your purposing.  Your purposing women not orgasm during sex.  Since we now the VAST majority can not orgasm without stimulation of their sexual organ which is the clitoris.  You condemn all forms of stimulation to the women.  So your logic says women, except for a small percentage should not be orgasming during sex.  

Also please tell me if stimulation is bad and only penetration is acceptable what in the world is the clitoris for?  It's a sexual organ that is located on the outside of the body that can not be involved during penetration due to anatomically where it's at.  So why is it there?  To tempt women?  

Your logic does not make sense.  God made the clitoris to be the opposite of the penis.  He also made it located on the outside of the body not accessible during penetration alone.  The VAST majority of women can not orgasm due to penetration alone.  So why we're women made like this if only penetration is allowed?  

Not to mention if stimulation is not allowed how are older men supposed to be ready to go?  Older men usually can not just be ready to go without some so called motivation.  So then by your logic only men who have lots of testerosterone or a high sex drive when older can have sex.  Doesn't make sense.
Reply
#34
We know since a few years that oral stimulations between sexual partners are at high risks of contamination by papillomaviruses that ultimately can trigger serious mouth and throat cancers.
The highest risk is for the man orally stimulating his wife, though the opposite is also quite possible.
The famous actor Michael Douglas underwent a throat cancer some  years ago and didn't made a mystery that this was due to this bad sexual habit.
Papillomaviruses are inocuous in the woman's vagina but not in the man's or his wife's mouth.
Certainly God placed these viruses here purposely in order to prevent sexual partners stimulating through this unnatural way.
Soooo, ladies and gentlemen, in my opinion using your hands to enjoy sex is OK, but not your mouths. God made them for eating or speaking and nothing else.
Reply
#35
(04-17-2018, 05:26 PM)maso Wrote: We know since a few years that oral stimulations between sexual partners are at high risks of contamination by papillomaviruses that ultimately can trigger serious mouth and throat cancers.
The highest risk is for the man orally stimulating his wife, though the opposite is also quite possible.
The famous actor Michael Douglas underwent a throat cancer some  years ago and didn't made a mystery that this was due to this bad sexual habit.
Papillomaviruses are inocuous in the woman's vagina but not in the man's or his wife's mouth.
Certainly God placed these viruses here purposely in order to prevent sexual partners stimulating through this unnatural way.
Soooo, ladies and gentlemen, in my opinion using your hands to enjoy sex is OK, but not your mouths. God made them for eating or speaking and nothing else.

1. Hover is spread through oral stimulation’s when people have had lots of sexual partners.  A women who has not had sex before marriage will not have the hog virus.  Also the risk of men getting hog from oral sex on women is very small.  Although again, your arguing from a secular point of view where we have lots of sexual partners, not just the one your married to.  

2. Michael Douglas could have got HPV from oral sex or from other things. We don’t know, we just know what he thinks about how he got it. Also HPV just doesn’t pop up on people who are not sexually active with only one person. To get HPV you need to be in sexual contact with someone who has it. Easily avoidable if you only have sex when your married. Also you logic is God gave us this disease to avoid oral stimulation doesn’t make sense. Then why do we have all those other sexual disease? Do diswade is from having sex at all? Your logic doesn’t make sense .

Your logic makes no sense.  It’s not grounded in Catholic moral teachings and it contradicts itself saying manual stimulation is ok but not oral.  To be rationale consistent either both are approved or neither.  If th mouth can not be used for sex because it’s not it’s primary purpose, then how can the hands be involved since it’s not it’s primary purpose?  If your going to make an arguement at least be consistent on your arguement.
Reply
#36
(04-17-2018, 05:45 AM)Tamill Wrote:
(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.

St. Alphonsus taken alone is a very good source, but is not Catholic Moral Theology.

When other reliable moral theologians take a different opinion, then one is safe in following that opinion. Such has been defined by the Magisterium against rigorism. This means if at least one of the major moral theologians or at least a few of the more notable ones take a position that something is not a grave sin, then we cannot hold someone to not do it under pain of grave sin.

Most moral theologians take the tact that so long as the marital act finishes correctly and there is no adulterous thoughts or a contraceptive intention during it, what occurs during it never amounts to more than a venial sin. That is the opinion of the vast majority of moral theologians.

Venial sin is still sin, but there is an infinite chasm between venial and mortal sin. While both are an offense to God no quantity of venial sin will add up to mortal sin. Mortal sin completely destroys Sanctifying Grace. Venial sin cannot touch it. They are of a fundamentally different nature, not merely a separation of degree.

Also even if we were to say that oral sexual contact were contra naturam (contra takes the accusative, BTW), what is contra naturam is not per se a grave sin. A action which is  "against nature" does not define the gravity of the sin, but that it is always forbidden, an there are no possible excusing causes.

For example, St. Alphonsus (and all moral theologians) hold that lying is a sin which is contra naturam. This is because it is to use abuse a faculty (communication) by saying or communicating something which is contrary to what is in the mind. It is an abuse of our intellective faculty which has as its object Truth, not falsity.

As such a lie is always sinful. Nothing can excuse a lie. Lying is, actually, per se a grave sin, however, in the majority of cases it does not concern grave matter, so it is per accidens a venial sin.

A deliberate venial sin is still an offense to God, but it is a venial sin, and always will remain a venial sin.

The majority of moral theologians hold that oral sexual contact within the context of the marital act which does not cause grave risk of pollution is at most a venial sin.

In fact, Dom Hugh (Fr Barbour), the priest you quoted admits that oral contact is not necessarily a grave sin. Your own quote, thus undermines your case.

No one is saying it is a good thing, but it is not a grave sin.

If you cannot understand this distinction you have no business reading or trying to advise people on moral theology matters. Leave that to priests and those who have studied the matter.
Reply
#37
(04-17-2018, 05:43 PM)havok579257 Wrote:
(04-17-2018, 05:26 PM)maso Wrote: We know since a few years that oral stimulations between sexual partners are at high risks of contamination by papillomaviruses that ultimately can trigger serious mouth and throat cancers.
The highest risk is for the man orally stimulating his wife, though the opposite is also quite possible.
The famous actor Michael Douglas underwent a throat cancer some  years ago and didn't made a mystery that this was due to this bad sexual habit.
Papillomaviruses are inocuous in the woman's vagina but not in the man's or his wife's mouth.
Certainly God placed these viruses here purposely in order to prevent sexual partners stimulating through this unnatural way.
Soooo, ladies and gentlemen, in my opinion using your hands to enjoy sex is OK, but not your mouths. God made them for eating or speaking and nothing else.

1. Hover is spread through oral stimulation’s when people have had lots of sexual partners.  A women who has not had sex before marriage will not have the hog virus.  Also the risk of men getting hog from oral sex on women is very small.  Although again, your arguing from a secular point of view where we have lots of sexual partners, not just the one your married to.  

2. Michael Douglas could have got HPV from oral sex or from other things.  We don’t know, we just know what he thinks about how he got it.  Also HPV just doesn’t pop up on people who are not sexually active with only one person.  To get HPV you need to be in sexual contact with someone who has it.  Easily avoidable if you only have sex when your married.  Also you logic is God gave us this disease to avoid oral stimulation doesn’t make sense.  Then why do we have all those other sexual disease?  Do diswade is from having sex at all?  Your logic doesn’t make sense .

Your logic makes no sense.  It’s not grounded in Catholic moral teachings and it contradicts itself saying manual stimulation is ok but not oral.  To be rationale consistent either both are approved or neither.  If th mouth can not be used for sex because it’s not it’s primary purpose, then how can the hands be involved since it’s not it’s primary purpose?  If your going to make an arguement at least be consistent on your arguement.

Papilloma viruses are naturally present in many women unknowingly to them. They may be contaminated  with or without an intercourse.
If Michael Douglas so many times notwithstanding the shame said his throat cancer was due to oral sex he had with (probably many) women, he didn't invented this, he was told by doctors.
We should know that there is a risk even if it is small and we must cease practicing it.
Reply
#38
(04-17-2018, 06:20 AM)Tamill Wrote: All the moral theolgians have condemned oral and anal foreplay.

But not as per se grave sins ...
Reply
#39
(04-18-2018, 12:28 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(04-17-2018, 06:20 AM)Tamill Wrote: All the moral theolgians have condemned oral and anal foreplay.

But not as per se grave sins ...

It seems contradictory that the moral theologians have been the most stringent critics of sodomy, but anal foreplay is a-okay  :huh:

It still seems to me that women are not permitted to "stimulate themselves to completion" and that the husband should be the one to do it.  After all, can anyone truly argue that in the event a woman stimulates herself to completion after copulation has occurred no sin, but if a woman stimulates herself to completion outside of copulation is a grave sin.  So the act is not sinful, but merely the time the act occurs.

However for the man, this act, no matter when it occurs, is gravely sinful.

So it seems to me the argument here, is that women are not the same as men.  Therefore there are certain acts that are permitted to women, but gravely prohibited for men.  So if that is the case, then it would seem that there would also be certain sins that women are permitted to conduct, since in the case of stimulation to completion it is always gravely sinful for the man, and not for the woman.
Reply
#40
(04-18-2018, 02:00 AM)austenbosten Wrote: It seems contradictory that the moral theologians have been the most stringent critics of sodomy, but anal foreplay is a-okay.

It's not "a-okay", but it is not inherently a mortal sin. (What Tamill keeps incorrectly asserting)

Every major moral theologian during the 20th century and before Vatican II accepted what Jone write. "Excluding the sodomitical intention it is neither sodomy nor a grave sin if intercourse is begun in a rector manner with the intention of consummating it naturally, or if some sodomitical action is positived without danger of pollution."

It is not a grave sin, if there is not the intention of completing the intercourse, or risk of completing it in an unnatural manner.

No one is saying this is a good thing, but every major moral theologian in the past century says it is not a grave sin.

(04-18-2018, 02:00 AM)austenbosten Wrote: It still seems to me that women are not permitted to "stimulate themselves to completion" and that the husband should be the one to do it.  After all, can anyone truly argue that in the event a woman stimulates herself to completion after copulation has occurred no sin, but if a woman stimulates herself to completion outside of copulation is a grave sin.  So the act is not sinful, but merely the time the act occurs.

The context of the act matters.

Sexual intercourse with your finacée the night before marriage and the night after your marriage are different acts. The only difference is that one is within the context of a marriage and the other is not. Sexual pleasure is not within the marital act in the first case and is in the next case. One is a grave sin, the other might be a meritorious act.

Similarly, a secondary and licit end of the marital act is the complete pleasure of each spouse which helps toward marital fidelity and mutual support.

So long as the primary end is not frustrated, there is never more than venial sin in seeking a secondary end (presuming no intention against the primary end, or fidelity). It is sinful if done in a disordered manner, but if not against any of the ends of the act, then it is not gravely sinful.

Again, every major moral theologian in the past century accepts that the woman can obtain within the context of the marital act or immediately after complete pleasure, so long as the man completes the act. None requires that only the man can produce this pleasure for the woman, although, I think you are clear on why that is the proper thing.

These acts of touch are legitimate to them during the act, so as long as the act is not yet complete.

(04-18-2018, 02:00 AM)austenbosten Wrote: However for the man, this act, no matter when it occurs, is gravely sinful.

Incorrect.

The same holds here as with the woman, but yes, men and women are different. Complete pleasure for a man is naturally accompanied by ejaculation. This must happen within the body of the woman in the proper place, else there is a frustration of the primary end of marriage.

Thus his complete pleasure in any other manner is a grave sin against nature.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)