Delicate question about sexuality (warning: graphic language)
(04-17-2018, 11:58 AM)havok579257 Wrote:
(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.
* 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 !

Please do not quote anything from ron contes site  .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. (Fr. Hugh Barbour, O. Praem) (Rev. Gregory Gresko) (Fr. Maurizio Faggioni) (Brian Harrison) (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.

The clitoris is not an external organ because 9/10 of the organ is inside the vagina and this part is supposed to be stimulated by the penis.

Women need more times to be aroused because of the anatomy of females genitals.The vagina and the clitoris need more time to be completely filled with blood because it's ten time more bigger than the penis ! 

Women have many more erogenous parts than men ! 

St Alphonsus tolerated manual stimulation of the woman (if there was a serious need) in order that she could climax during the coitus (and only during the coitus). 

You know the rule : the end does justify the means 

If not, we can easily justify every perverse acts in order to "help" the woman to climax (sodomy, oral sex, pornograhy, sex toys...)

Messages In This Thread
RE: Delicate question about sexuality (warning: graphic language) - by Tamill - 04-18-2018, 01:16 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)