Mutual Masturbation Within Marriage - A Debate I'm Having

[Sojourner]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='15 February 2010 - 12:20 AM' timestamp='1266214833' post='2057414']
It all depends on what you define as foreplay. As far as I'm concerned it starts with HIM doing the dishes and ends hours later in intimacy.I agree with the premise that as long as intercourse is accomplished you have fulfulled one of the purposes of marriage.

Intimacy is not a checklist of A. B. C.
[/quote]
I agree with this.

One thing I have learned in the last year of marriage (which, granted, is not an extensive amount of experience) is that it's difficult to separate out the various aspects of marriage to analyze them.

To use a medical analogy, there is a specific organ we call the "heart." But, the proper function of the heart is dependent on the functionality of many other bodily organs and systems. In the same way, we can in one sense isolate the marital act as being of prime importance, but the proper functioning of that aspect of marriage in the whole is dependent on so many other things in the context of the marital relationship.

As far as the CCC, I think it leaves something to be desired, definitionally speaking. I think it's clear that marital acts should all be ordered to procreation, but pleasure is an aid in achieving that goal for both participants. If we're stopping at pleasure without seeing pleasure as being a means to an end rather than an end in itself, that's a problem. But at what point does something become "masturbation" and stop being a tool a couple can use in the context of the procreative marital act? To be clear, an act does not need to have the actual effect of being procreative in order to be considered procreative in nature. It needs to be an procreative in type.

[Varg]

[quote name='Raphael' date='14 February 2010 - 09:11 PM' timestamp='1266199865' post='2057329']
I'm having a debate with someone on mutual masturbation within marriage. This individual believes that it is permissible. I say that it is immoral. We both agree that foreplay is permitted within marriage, but I argue that it must be in the proper context (unitive and procreative intercourse), whereas he argues that it can be apart from sexual intercourse. My argument follows. I want to know what people think, especially married folks.

=============

First, the Latin nowhere implies that masturbation is necessarily performed on oneself. Second, the word in English is defined clearly as the stimulation of one’s own genitals or another’s. Third, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2352) states:



While at first it seems the quote is calling the act immoral based on fornication, the final sentence makes it clear that in masturbation, sexual pleasure is sought without mutual self-giving or human procreation. Masturbation is immoral because it takes place outside of that context. Even if mutual self-giving is the intention of the spouses, masturbation is incapable of achieving procreation.

It is fallacious to claim that because one sexually pleasurable act is immoral in marriage, all sexual pleasure is immoral in marriage. It is also fallacious to claim that because sexual pleasure is moral within marriage, all means of achieving that pleasure are moral. The ends do not justify the means. The CCC (2362) summarizes, quoting Pope Pius XII, “The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.”

Now, as I said, if foreplay precedes vaginal sexual intercourse, then it is moral, provided that the acts within it are moral. What we are dealing with is a foreplay that includes masturbation, that is, by the Catechism’s definition, deliberate stimulation of the genitals (not necessarily one’s own) to derive sexual pleasure outside of self-giving and procreative love (which means that manual genital stimulation within the context of non-contracepted vaginal sexual intercourse is moral and not defined as masturbation). If foreplay includes masturbation, it is immoral.
[/quote]
By mutual masturbation do you mean protected sex?

Edited February 15, 2010 by Varg

[mcts]

[quote name='Varg' date='15 February 2010 - 06:30 AM' timestamp='1266233454' post='2057464']
By mutual masturbation do you mean protected sex?
[/quote]

I'm pretty sure that he means manual stimulation of the genitals.

[Veridicus]

I don't understand what the issue is precisely? Intentional ejaculation outside the context of a marital vaginal intercourse cannot be open to procreation. Therefore it violates one of the two intrinsic components of the sacramental character of the marriage act and degrades its dignity.

I voted no as I do not consider pre-intercourse foreplay 'masturbation' since it is ordered toward the unitive and openly procreative intercourse to immediately follow.

And with regard to Slappo's comment...I believe my wife read somewhere in JP2's Theology of the Body lectures that it was his opinion that one of the goals of marital sexuality was for the couple to learn to achieve climax simultaneously. I don't know the moral specifics about how it is handled if the man.../clearing throat/...unintentionally completes his part of the act a bit early.

Edited February 15, 2010 by Veridicus

[KeenanParkerII]

I find the Catechism pretty explicit and disagree with a lot of the views here. If all that matters is I ejaculate inside my wife, I can masturbate all day long every day and just hold off ejaculating. The catechism is so simple and explicit because the act of masturbation is wrong period.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='KeenanParkerII' date='15 February 2010 - 08:35 AM' timestamp='1266244513' post='2057486']
If all that matters is I ejaculate inside my wife, I can masturbate all day long every day and just hold off ejaculating.
[/quote]

No you could not because such self-stimulation would be utterly bereft of unitivity. Ejaculating inside your wife is not [i]all [/i]that matters.

[Varg]

[quote name='mcts' date='15 February 2010 - 08:15 AM' timestamp='1266239704' post='2057474']
I'm pretty sure that he means manual stimulation of the genitals.
[/quote]
It's just I once saw someone call protected sex "mutual masturbation", which is what confused me here.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Varg' date='15 February 2010 - 09:04 AM' timestamp='1266246272' post='2057498']
It's just I once saw someone call protected sex "mutual masturbation", which is what confused me here.
[/quote]

In a facetious sense you could argue that since there is no direct genital contact when a condom is used. A handshake is a handshake even if you're wearing gloves I suppose.

[KeenanParkerII]

[quote]No you could not because such self-stimulation would be utterly bereft of unitivity. Ejaculating inside your wife is not all that matters. [/quote]

Oh. Well, my wife and I can just self-stimulate ourselves all day without finishing. It's the same difference. Again, there is a reason the catechism's definition is so simple.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Okay, so people seem to be confusing foreplay and masturbation.

Deliberate stimulation of the genitals is moral if it is within the context of otherwise moral sexual intercourse (i.e. unitive and procreative). In such a context, it is not termed masturbation. It is foreplay (or may occur afterwards if the wife has not reached climax, in keeping with Wojtyla's [u]Love and Responsibility[/u]).

What we're talking about here is whether mutual masturbation, which is not within the context of sexual intercourse, is moral or immoral. Can two spouses manually stimulate one another for pleasure without intending for it to go somewhere? The answer is no.

Now, there are situations, of course, where a couple does this with every intention of having it go somewhere and something interrupts it...child starts screaming in a nightmare or something. However, they still intended for it to go somewhere. They're not guilty of a sin.

The problem is that using sex, which is meant for both procreation and unity, in order to accomplish something less than that double purpose, is abusing sex.

It's not a matter of making a checklist for marriage, it's a matter of making sure that sex is all that it's supposed to be and that we do not misuse it.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='KeenanParkerII' date='15 February 2010 - 09:12 AM' timestamp='1266246765' post='2057503']
Oh. Well, my wife and I can just self-stimulate ourselves all day without finishing. It's the same difference. Again, there is a reason the catechism's definition is so simple.
[/quote]

[s]You cannot self-stimulate all day without finishing because it is not unitive or open to procreation. It is not the 'same difference.' If you insist on a simple evaluation of the catechism (2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure) then vaginal intercourse itself could satisfy the definition. There is deliberate stimulation of the genital organs by the other spouse's genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. The catechism does not state "the deliberate [b]manual[/b] stimulation" so how are we to know that vaginal intercourse is not to be included? Reason & inference are necessary which means the definition is not irreducibly simple. I do not have any real reason to try to convince you that something is okay when you are not okay with it.[/s]

See Raphael's post.

Edited February 15, 2010 by Veridicus

[KeenanParkerII]

I thought Raphael made a good post. But as you were saying; if we're just drawing this all from personal reason and inference then we'll be here all day because essentially I disagree.


[quote]Okay, so people seem to be confusing foreplay and masturbation.

Deliberate stimulation of the genitals is moral if it is within the context of otherwise moral sexual intercourse (i.e. unitive and procreative). In such a context, it is not termed masturbation. It is foreplay (or may occur afterwards if the wife has not reached climax, in keeping with Wojtyla's Love and Responsibility).

What we're talking about here is whether mutual masturbation, which is not within the context of sexual intercourse, is moral or immoral. Can two spouses manually stimulate one another for pleasure without intending for it to go somewhere? The answer is no.

Now, there are situations, of course, where a couple does this with every intention of having it go somewhere and something interrupts it...child starts screaming in a nightmare or something. However, they still intended for it to go somewhere. They're not guilty of a sin.

The problem is that using sex, which is meant for both procreation and unity, in order to accomplish something less than that double purpose, is abusing sex.

It's not a matter of making a checklist for marriage, it's a matter of making sure that sex is all that it's supposed to be and that we do not misuse it.[/quote]

I agree with most of the. But by this explanation it would still be cool to sit there mutually masturbating for as long as you want, just as long as you finish properly. Maybeeeee people could argue this results in the act of procreation thus contributes to it, but I consider that a bit of a cop out.

Anyways, those are my $0.02. You don't have to agree.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='KeenanParkerII' date='15 February 2010 - 10:41 AM' timestamp='1266248492' post='2057517']
I thought Raphael made a good post. But as you were saying; if we're just drawing this all from personal reason and inference then we'll be here all day because essentially I disagree.




I agree with most of the. But by this explanation it would still be cool to sit there mutually masturbating for as long as you want, just as long as you finish properly. Maybeeeee people could argue this results in the act of procreation thus contributes to it, but I consider that a bit of a cop out.

Anyways, those are my $0.02. You don't have to agree.
[/quote]

I would make the argument that using one's wife simply as a sperm receptacle is immoral. While it seems to fit all the technical definitions, it does not seem loving. However, that does not disprove my point or disagree with it.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Genital stimulation should serve to make sex better. Sex, by definition and by nature should be unitive and open to life. Mutual masturbation may be a pleasurable experience, but it is not properly called "sex," since it does not and cannot achieve the ends of sex. As such, it is a misuse of sexuality and is taking the place of sex.

Sex is a great gift from God but it can also become a very powerful weapon of the devil. Sex destroys marriages when it is not used properly. Sex can help people draw close to God, but if they are not using it for God's purposes, it does not achieve the good it was meant for. Instead, it becomes a burden and a curse.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='KeenanParkerII' date='15 February 2010 - 09:41 AM' timestamp='1266248492' post='2057517']
But by this explanation it would still be cool to sit there mutually masturbating for as long as you want, just as long as you finish properly. Maybeeeee people could argue this results in the act of procreation thus contributes to it, but I consider that a bit of a cop out.
[/quote]

I don't think I would ever say I thought that is 'cool'...but every moral articulation has morally questionable activities which may be permissible by the phrasing of the moral guideline. I would consider your example a settling and self-deprivation of the intimacy of marital intercourse. I would imagine most couples' legitimate foreplay is in a sense an arousal of the senses which create an heightened desire for the unmatched intimacy of intercourse.


That does raise a question worth pursing while Raphael and other's who are well read are posting on this topic. Would mutual masturbation (that is mutual stimulation very near to the point of climax) with the intent of getting 'close to climax' and then 'finishing properly' be permissible if the female had dyspareunia and couldn't handle her husband for very long without experiencing profound pain? He would be climaxing inside of her but vaginal intercourse would not be the 'means' of acheiving this end.

Edited February 15, 2010 by Veridicus