Mutual Masturbation Within Marriage - A Debate I'm Having

[tinytherese]

Something tells me that the book "Holy Sex" probably addresses this issue.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='kafka' date='16 February 2010 - 04:48 PM' timestamp='1266356887' post='2058021']
the nature of the marital act is not defined by the orgasm alone. That is the lowest aspect, or the human/proles aspect. A manuel stimulation is a damaged proles act that does not meet all three. It does not even fully meet the lowest aspect. The particular circumstance means nothing to the inherent nature of the act itself

all three meanings must be met. All three must be met, otherwise it is inherently evil.
[/quote]

So as long as the husband orgasms, all is good right?

[Lil Red]

[quote name='tinytherese' date='16 February 2010 - 05:01 PM' timestamp='1266364887' post='2058098']
Something tells me that the book "Holy Sex" probably addresses this issue.
[/quote]
+JMJ+
it does.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Kafka, regarding the scenario of genital stimulation for one's wife after male orgasm has occurred (which, I must point out, is entirely different from the subject of this thread)...

Your argument presupposes that genital stimulation is inherently wrong. Viewed from the context of the Catechism, a part of the definition of masturbation is that it outside "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved." Not all genital stimulation can be considered immoral because not all genital stimulation fits the definition of masturbation. For it to be immoral, it must be for the purpose of pleasure outside of the mutual self-giving and procreative context of sexual intercourse.

So we need to know if genital stimulation after male orgasm is within the context of the sexual act (which would make the stimulation a part of intercourse, not a separate act). The question becomes: when does the sex act end? If the sex act ends with male orgasm, then any stimulation after that is immoral. If, however (as I argue), the sex act ends with the finality of mutual self-giving found in orgasm, then the sex act is not complete until both parties reach orgasm [b]or[/b] until one party reaches orgasm and the other definitively fails to reach orgasm (i.e. despite their best efforts, the couple cannot achieve mutual orgasm). (I argue that failure point because at that point the act has failed to reach its climax, although it may still be fruitful, and anything further could not be considered a part of the same act because it would be starting a second sexual act.) Stimulation is not a separate act, but a part of sexual intercourse, hopefully intended by the married couple to assist in the union and procreation of the act. That is in keeping with natural law, since it is more loving and unitive for the husband to bring his wife to the completion of the act with him and since female orgasm assists in fertilization.

However, I'd ask that this topic be continued on another thread if you really wish to pursue it. It isn't relevant to the topic of this thread.

[Slappo]

[quote name='TradMom' date='16 February 2010 - 01:49 PM' timestamp='1266356973' post='2058022']
[i]....you have failed to prove that stimulating a female to orgasm after a male is evil by nature. The act is still procreative, unitive, and marital and in fact directly aids in procreation. You also have not proved that such stimulation is a whole separate act. Please try again. [/i]

+Praised be Jesus Christ!

To better clarify my earlier comments,I find what Brother Adam said sums up my thoughts perfectly. While I am not squeamish about bodily functions (it would be impossible after eight children), there are many, many if's, and's, but's and what if's connected to this topic. IF someone is married validly within the Church, has taken all the classes necessary, has been in good communication with their pastor/priest and hopefully has a spiritual director, then one SHOULD have a formed conscience - at the very least when it comes to marriage. And considering the fact they are engaging in an act that could produce children, therefore potentially making them parents - I hope and pray they have some sense and yes, a formed conscience. There should not be a need to sit down with another and ask "If I do this....before I do that...is that okay or is it a sin?" A married couple living under the tenets of the Church had better be able to figure these things out. There have been times in our Church when we have just gone overboard to the point of being salacious regarding some of these things, and I am sorry, but I do take objection to discussing every single thing which ultimately belongs wholly to the couple and God. Breaking down every single action and possible deed/stroke or exploit seems to me to border on the voyeuristic.

Pax,
TradMom
[/quote]

TradMom,

The point is there are MANY MANY Catholics who had BAD marriage prep, a priest that doesn't follow Church teaching, many don't have spiritual directors, and besides openly talking about these situations they will have poorly formed conscience and may be committing sins of grave matter by engaging in what they believe to be moral.

Also, as I stated in one of my earlier posts, intimacy that lets both spouses reach climax is vital to the actual physical and psychological health of the woman. Organs are meant for certain functions and when those functions don't occur when they should, it causes health issues. The woman's body is triggered to release pressure during climax which eases inflammation that can occur. If this is never triggered, serious health problems can develop. It is important stuff to talk about, but it has to be done in a mature fashion and in a manner which will uphold the sacredness of the marital act.





EDIT: And to keep with the thread topic. I believe Micah and my assertions to show that such intimacy as above is not considered mutual masturbation and would therefore not be a reason to think mutual masturbation is morally acceptable.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Slappo

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Raphael' date='16 February 2010 - 07:10 PM' timestamp='1266365434' post='2058105']
That is in keeping with natural law, since it is more loving and unitive for the husband to bring his wife to the completion of the act with him and since female orgasm assists in fertilization.
[/quote]

I would like to add that some women rarely experience orgasm from intercourse alone, and that many women do not experience orgasm every time they have intercourse.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='TradMom' date='16 February 2010 - 04:49 PM' timestamp='1266356973' post='2058022']
Breaking down every single action and possible deed/stroke or exploit seems to me to border on the voyeuristic.
[/quote]

And who did this?

[N/A Gone]

/edit--not worth it. (Mod please delete)

Edited February 17, 2010 by Revprodeji

[HisChildForever]

I would feel silly too.

[N/A Gone]

I am not sure if that was aimed at me.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='16 February 2010 - 07:42 PM' timestamp='1266367349' post='2058117']
I would like to add that some women rarely experience orgasm from intercourse alone, and that many women do not experience orgasm every time they have intercourse.
[/quote]

Agreed.

Christopher West on the subject of foreplay:

[indent]
The acts by which spouses lovingly prepare each other for genital intercourse (foreplay) are honorable and good. But stimulation of each other’s genitals to the point of climax apart from an act of normal intercourse is nothing other than mutual masturbation… An important point of clarification is needed. Since it’s the male orgasm that’s inherently linked with the possibility of new life, the husband must never intentionally ejaculate outside of his wife’s vagina. Since the female orgasm, however, isn’t necessarily linked to the possibility of conception, so long as it takes place within the overall context of an act of intercourse, it need not, morally speaking, be during actual penetration… Ideally, the wife’s orgasm would happen simultaneously with her husband’s [orgasm], but this is easier said than done for many couples. In fact, if the wife’s orgasm isn’t achieved during the natural course of foreplay and consummation, it would be the loving thing for the husband to stimulate his wife to climax thereafter (if she so desired).
[/indent]

Christopher West, Good News about Sex and Marriage: Answers to Your Honest Questions about Catholic Teaching (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Publications, 2000), 90-91.

And Vincent Genovesi:

[indent]
According to the Church’s traditional teaching, it is neither unnatural, perverted, nor immoral for couples to seek sexual stimulation and arousal by means of oral (…) intercourse, but such activity should not be continued to the point of orgasm… Sexual climax, however, is to occur only after vaginal penetration… On another matter of marital sexuality, some wives may need reassurance. Should it happen that she fails to achieve sexual fulfillment in the act of sexual intercourse, a woman is morally permitted, according to the Church’s teaching, to seek and achieve orgasm by other means.
[/indent]

Vincent Genovesi, In Pursuit of Love: Catholic Morality and Human Sexuality (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1996), 242-43.

Edited February 17, 2010 by mommas_boy

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='mommas_boy' date='17 February 2010 - 02:01 AM' timestamp='1266390094' post='2058229']
Agreed.

Christopher West on the subject of foreplay:

[indent]
The acts by which spouses lovingly prepare each other for genital intercourse (foreplay) are honorable and good. But stimulation of each other’s genitals to the point of climax apart from an act of normal intercourse is nothing other than mutual masturbation… An important point of clarification is needed. Since it’s the male orgasm that’s inherently linked with the possibility of new life, the husband must never intentionally ejaculate outside of his wife’s vagina. Since the female orgasm, however, isn’t necessarily linked to the possibility of conception, so long as it takes place within the overall context of an act of intercourse, it need not, morally speaking, be during actual penetration… Ideally, the wife’s orgasm would happen simultaneously with her husband’s [orgasm], but this is easier said than done for many couples. In fact, if the wife’s orgasm isn’t achieved during the natural course of foreplay and consummation, it would be the loving thing for the husband to stimulate his wife to climax thereafter (if she so desired).
[/indent]

Christopher West, Good News about Sex and Marriage: Answers to Your Honest Questions about Catholic Teaching (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Publications, 2000), 90-91.

And Vincent Genovesi:

[indent]
According to the Church’s traditional teaching, it is neither unnatural, perverted, nor immoral for couples to seek sexual stimulation and arousal by means of oral (…) intercourse, but such activity should not be continued to the point of orgasm… Sexual climax, however, is to occur only after vaginal penetration… On another matter of marital sexuality, some wives may need reassurance. Should it happen that she fails to achieve sexual fulfillment in the act of sexual intercourse, a woman is morally permitted, according to the Church’s teaching, to seek and achieve orgasm by other means.
[/indent]

Vincent Genovesi, In Pursuit of Love: Catholic Morality and Human Sexuality (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1996), 242-43.
[/quote]

Why did I receive a negative point on this post? Oh, maybe somebody missed the positive button. Meh.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='mommas_boy' date='17 February 2010 - 06:20 PM' timestamp='1266445201' post='2058506']
Why did I receive a negative point on this post? Oh, maybe somebody missed the positive button. Meh.
[/quote]
Fixed it

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='mommas_boy' date='17 February 2010 - 05:20 PM' timestamp='1266445201' post='2058506']
Why did I receive a negative point on this post? Oh, maybe somebody missed the positive button. Meh.
[/quote]
I didn't give you a negative, but a lot of people can't stand Christopher West. I'm not his biggest fan myself, but I think the gist of what he says is good.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='17 February 2010 - 05:23 PM' timestamp='1266445437' post='2058510']
Fixed it
[/quote]

Thanks Cmom! :wink: