Mutual Masturbation Within Marriage - A Debate I'm Having

[Ziggamafu]

Traditionally speaking, masturbation refers to self-pleasure from the genitals (male or female) and pollution refers to the wasting of the male seed. Almost nobody makes the distinction anymore, but in traditional vocabulary masturbation and pollution are defined as distinct sins; hence, a man may commit the sin of masturbation without committing the sin of pollution. Now, that being said: if by mutual masturbation we mean both marital partners self-stimulating, then it is clearly a sin, for masturbation is masturbation. However, if the spouses are stimulating each other as a means of foreplay, so long as the sin of pollution is not the goal (i.e., the stimulation is real foreplay, not an end in itself) then it is both morally permissible and good - and it certainly would not be defined as "masturbation".

Edited February 18, 2010 by Ziggamafu

[Socrates]

My word, this thread is filthy!


[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='18 February 2010 - 08:42 AM' timestamp='1266500520' post='2058753']
Traditionally speaking, masturbation refers to self-pleasure from the genitals (male or female) and pollution refers to the wasting of the male seed. Almost nobody makes the distinction anymore, but in traditional vocabulary masturbation and pollution are defined as distinct sins; hence, a man may commit the sin of masturbation without committing the sin of pollution. Now, that being said: if by mutual masturbation we mean both marital partners self-stimulating, then it is clearly a sin, for masturbation is masturbation. However, if the spouses are stimulating each other as a means of foreplay, so long as the sin of pollution is not the goal (i.e., the stimulation is real foreplay, not an end in itself) then it is both morally permissible and good - and it certainly would not be defined as "masturbation".
[/quote]
I think that sums it up quite nicely.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Socrates' date='18 February 2010 - 02:38 PM' timestamp='1266521881' post='2058870']
My word, this thread is filthy!

[/quote]
[img]http://www.theimaginaryworld.com/cormatt10.jpg[/img]

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='18 February 2010 - 09:42 AM' timestamp='1266500520' post='2058753']
Traditionally speaking, masturbation refers to self-pleasure from the genitals (male or female) and pollution refers to the wasting of the male seed. Almost nobody makes the distinction anymore, but in traditional vocabulary masturbation and pollution are defined as distinct sins; hence, a man may commit the sin of masturbation without committing the sin of pollution. Now, that being said: if by mutual masturbation we mean both marital partners self-stimulating, then it is clearly a sin, for masturbation is masturbation. However, if the spouses are stimulating each other as a means of foreplay, so long as the sin of pollution is not the goal (i.e., the stimulation is real foreplay, not an end in itself) then it is both morally permissible and good - and it certainly would not be defined as "masturbation".
[/quote]

We have a winner.

[let_go_let_God]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='18 February 2010 - 08:42 AM' timestamp='1266500520' post='2058753']
Traditionally speaking, masturbation refers to self-pleasure from the genitals (male or female) and pollution refers to the wasting of the male seed. Almost nobody makes the distinction anymore, but in traditional vocabulary masturbation and pollution are defined as distinct sins; hence, a man may commit the sin of masturbation without committing the sin of pollution. Now, that being said: if by mutual masturbation we mean both marital partners self-stimulating, then it is clearly a sin, for masturbation is masturbation. However, if the spouses are stimulating each other as a means of foreplay, so long as the sin of pollution is not the goal (i.e., the stimulation is real foreplay, not an end in itself) then it is both morally permissible and good - and it certainly would not be defined as "masturbation".
[/quote]


[quote name='Brother Adam' date='18 February 2010 - 06:21 PM' timestamp='1266535316' post='2059012']
We have a winner.
[/quote]

Agreed. This is well said Ziggy.

+1

God bless-
LGLG

[Fiat_Voluntas_Tua]

Raphael,

Take a look at some of GEM Anscombe's essay's on contraception...she talks about masturbation within marriage on a par with contraception within marriage. I believe the article is entitled, "Chastity and Contraception", but I could be wrong. Regardless, it is clearly immoral, for the act of masturbation does not have the intent of openness to fertility (I distinguish between [i]masturbation as foreplay[/i] [i]to intercourse[/i] and [i]masturbation as an end independent of intercourse[/i]...these are two different TYPES of acts). Masturbation is basically a form of birth control when it is done independent of intercourse.

One may wonder whether sexual intercourse in some contexts could be considered masturbation, and I would say as you have defined it, yes it can be. And I think this isn't much of a problem either, for I think married couples can have sexual intercourse and be doing something immoral. After all does it really matter [i]how[/i] the sexual organs are stimulated for the act to qualify as masturbation? I think it surely does not. In short, intercourse can sometimes be classified as masturbation. Feel free to disagree, it has been awhile since he have 'debated'. Also, I would like to hear how the debate goes with this guy.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Fiat_Voluntas_Tua' date='13 March 2010 - 02:31 AM' timestamp='1268465463' post='2072268']
Raphael,

Take a look at some of GEM Anscombe's essay's on contraception...she talks about masturbation within marriage on a par with contraception within marriage. I believe the article is entitled, "Chastity and Contraception", but I could be wrong. Regardless, it is clearly immoral, for the act of masturbation does not have the intent of openness to fertility (I distinguish between [i]masturbation as foreplay[/i] [i]to intercourse[/i] and [i]masturbation as an end independent of intercourse[/i]...these are two different TYPES of acts). Masturbation is basically a form of birth control when it is done independent of intercourse.

One may wonder whether sexual intercourse in some contexts could be considered masturbation, and I would say as you have defined it, yes it can be. And I think this isn't much of a problem either, for I think married couples can have sexual intercourse and be doing something immoral. After all does it really matter [i]how[/i] the sexual organs are stimulated for the act to qualify as masturbation? I think it surely does not. In short, intercourse can sometimes be classified as masturbation. Feel free to disagree, it has been awhile since he have 'debated'. Also, I would like to hear how the debate goes with this guy.
[/quote]

I think a couple that contracepts is essentially practicing masturbation through sex, as would an NFP-using couple that approaches the method with a contraceptive mentality.

[MIKolbe]

How can you approach NFP without a 'contracepting' mentality? If you are using NFP to HELP with conception; ok, I see your point. But if you are looking at it to 'space out' pregnancies; how can you do that without a contracepting mentality?

I think I am understanding why Apo rejects it.

This is a confusing to me, which could be why I see parts of it as hypocritical.

Does not one commit adultery but lustful thoughts? ie 'mens rea' without 'actus reas'...

How is this different in NFP?

I do not what to 'conceive', but I use nature to achieve this. again..'mens rea' without 'actus reas'

I am just confused, I think.....

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='zunshynn' date='15 February 2010 - 02:58 AM' timestamp='1266220699' post='2057441']
Obviously it is immoral behavior. But what is the point of referring to them as "dirty pigs"? I'm grateful that God would never consider anyone a "pig", no matter how bad their sins are. If God forgives and loves every person for their innate dignity, regardless of their sins and failures in regards to purity, shouldn't we, who are just as impure before God, without the gift of His mercy?
[/quote]

it was just a knee-jerk response...but at the same time, Jesus does warn us about "casting pearls among swine."

i guess i just don't understand why Catholic married couples would want to masturbate! Sex is given to us as a gift from God when we finally find our soul-mates, the person who completes us, and are united with them into ONE in the Holy Sacrament of Marriage. God is giving couples to each other, giving them the gift to enjoy each other, to truly become "one flesh" in the act of sexual intercourse. It's like that's not good enough...we have to keep finding ways to abuse our privileges. Let's keep doing things our own way, and try to justify our perversions...

"pigs" comes to my mind, I guess because they are animals...and sometimes we can act out our most base desires...like the animals do by instinct...and i just find masturbation dirty, filthy and disgusting...

Edited March 13, 2010 by dominicansoul

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='MIkolbe' date='13 March 2010 - 12:38 PM' timestamp='1268501908' post='2072379']
How can you approach NFP without a 'contracepting' mentality? If you are using NFP to HELP with conception; ok, I see your point. But if you are looking at it to 'space out' pregnancies; how can you do that without a contracepting mentality?

I think I am understanding why Apo rejects it.

This is a confusing to me, which could be why I see parts of it as hypocritical.

Does not one commit adultery but lustful thoughts? ie 'mens rea' without 'actus reas'...

How is this different in NFP?

I do not what to 'conceive', but I use nature to achieve this. again..'mens rea' without 'actus reas'

I am just confused, I think.....
[/quote]

The contraceptive mentality is one which approaches sex primarily or solely as a means of pleasure. A couple practicing NFP may be using it with the intention to space out children while expressing their union in a way open to life. That would be moral. A couple practicing with the intention to seek pleasure primarily or solely, however, has a bad intention.

Like any good thing, NFP can be abused in a bad act. That doesn't make NFP bad, but it makes the sexual act that misuses it bad.

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

I'm not a Catholic, so I will not attempt to answer any of the arguments raised in Catholic theology for or against masturbation.

However, it seems to me that there might be situations where intercourse is not possible for some reason, and mutual masturbation, while not being the ideal, might help prevent something worse, such as a spouse cheating.

As I understand it, typically, pregnant women may not have vaginal intercourse about 6 weeks before delivery and 6 weeks after. 12 weeks of celibacy may be a long time for a man who is highly sexed. Sure, you can argue that the man SHOULD exercise self-control. But, some men have a stronger sex drive than others. If a man could be vulnerable to cheating, wouldn't mutual masturbation be better than the man cheating?

Similarly, a woman who has had a hysterectomy isn't allowed to have sex for 4 to 6 weeks after the operation--same argument applies.

I tend toward mercy rather than the "letter of the law" particularly when the intent in this kind of situation is not to avoid sex, but to avoid a greater threat to the marriage. The couples in my arguments would have intercourse if they could, but for health reasons are prevented from it.

To carry it further, what if a man is permanently impotent due to disease? Is it a sin for him to give his wife pleasure? Maybe by the "letter of the law." Not to me.

But, to my mind, in these kind of situations, if breaking the "letter of the law" will help keep the bond between the couple, I'm going to be merciful. Marriage is tough enough anyway. All these couples want to do is love each other--not misuse or abuse each other.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='IgnatiusofLoyola' date='19 March 2010 - 12:39 PM' timestamp='1269016792' post='2075712']
I'm not a Catholic, so I will not attempt to answer any of the arguments raised in Catholic theology for or against masturbation.

However, it seems to me that there might be situations where intercourse is not possible for some reason, and mutual masturbation, while not being the ideal, might help prevent something worse, such as a spouse cheating.

As I understand it, typically, pregnant women may not have vaginal intercourse about 6 weeks before delivery and 6 weeks after. 12 weeks of celibacy may be a long time for a man who is highly sexed. Sure, you can argue that the man SHOULD exercise self-control. But, some men have a stronger sex drive than others. If a man could be vulnerable to cheating, wouldn't mutual masturbation be better than the man cheating?

Similarly, a woman who has had a hysterectomy isn't allowed to have sex for 4 to 6 weeks after the operation--same argument applies.

I tend toward mercy rather than the "letter of the law" particularly when the intent in this kind of situation is not to avoid sex, but to avoid a greater threat to the marriage. The couples in my arguments would have intercourse if they could, but for health reasons are prevented from it.

To carry it further, what if a man is permanently impotent due to disease? Is it a sin for him to give his wife pleasure? Maybe by the "letter of the law." Not to me.

But, to my mind, in these kind of situations, if breaking the "letter of the law" will help keep the bond between the couple, I'm going to be merciful. Marriage is tough enough anyway. All these couples want to do is love each other--not misuse or abuse each other.
[/quote]

There can never be any excuse for sin. Mercy is a matter of love; is it loving to cheat on your spouse with yourself? Is it more loving to practice chastity and abstinence for your spouse? How is it that a man who lusts after a woman commits adultery, but a man who masturbates does not?

Don't make the mistake of thinking that opposing the letter of the law is always the same as embracing the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law against masturbation is a matter of love and chastity. Masturbation for any purpose is irreconcilable with the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. This is why it is inherently evil.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='IgnatiusofLoyola' date='19 March 2010 - 04:39 PM' timestamp='1269016792' post='2075712']
As I understand it, typically, pregnant women may not have vaginal intercourse about 6 weeks before delivery and 6 weeks after. 12 weeks of celibacy may be a long time for a man who is highly sexed. Sure, you can argue that the man SHOULD exercise self-control. But, some men have a stronger sex drive than others. If a man could be vulnerable to cheating, wouldn't mutual masturbation be better than the man cheating?
[/quote]
Raphael covered the moral bit better than I can, but I will say that I know of no prohibition on a pregnant woman having intercourse up to going into labour, unless there is another medical reason or her waters have broken. Nor is there necessarily a 6 week prohibition afterwards for a normal vaginal delivery without bad tearing. But even if there was such a prohibition, the loving and honourable thing for both spouses to do is to express their love in another, chaste way. How can it be said that the man truly loves his wife if he cheats on her merely because of a 12-week stint of abstinence? That's not to say that it's easy, but then, real love isn't easy. Real love is self-sacrificing.

[Innocent]

Hi! Welcome to Phatmass, IgnatiusofLoyola!

[quote name='IgnatiusofLoyola' date='19 March 2010 - 11:09 PM' timestamp='1269016792' post='2075712']
12 weeks of celibacy may be a long time for a man who is highly sexed. Sure, you can argue that the man SHOULD exercise self-control. But, some men have a stronger sex drive than others.
[/quote]

I understand what you are trying to say, your main aim is to avoid the sin of infidelity and you're suggesting we ought to make a concession for this sake. No doubt the aim of avoiding the sin of infidelity is a very good one, but my understanding is that a Catholic cannot think in this way, because one of the basic moral principles taught by the Church is that "It is not licit to do evil so that good may result from it."

[quote][url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html#The%20Dignity%20of%20the%20Human%20Person"][b]CCCC 375.[/b][/url] [b]What norms must conscience always follow?
[/b]

There are three general norms:
1) one may never do evil so that good may result from it;
2) the so-called Golden Rule, “Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them” (Matthew 7:12);
3) charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience, even though this does not mean accepting as good something that is objectively evil.[/quote]


I'm just sharing my thoughts from my (male) perspective:

Surely if a man cannot practice self-control for a mere 12 weeks that must indicate that he has deeper problems with impulse-control, and this poor self-mastery he has is going to damage the relationship he has with his wife.

What I mean is, if a husband cannot stay continent for such a short period as that isn't he endangering the marriage already with his poor self-control? For example, what would happen if during this period he is unexpectedly put into a situation when another person is very much available and willing to be his partner in sin?

Once a person is willing to put gratification above responsibility it's very easy to slip into tunnel-vision and escalate into pornography and worse, starting from self-abuse.

Also, why give special concessions to the sex drive? If a person had a very strong urge to commit murder or arson everyone would agree that he SHOULD restrain himself, no matter how strong the drive is. If he's unable to restrain himself, perhaps he ought to be admitted for treatment. Of course, you could say that murder and arson are not the same thing as self-gratification, but that comes close to the crux of the matter: i.e., is self-abuse morally wrong or not? If it is wrong, there's absolutely no excuse to do it.

God is understanding and forgiving about our weaknesses if we repent, and we must be understanding about the weaknesses of one another too, but that doesn't mean that we can ever accept that it's okay to do wrong.

It seems to me that if opposing the letter of the law meant willingness to lower the standard of perfection there would be no point in trying to live as a Christian at all.

Edited March 20, 2010 by Innocent

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

Innocent---Thank-you for the welcome. That meant a lot!

I understand your points. I think I make a concession for the sex drive because it is one that most people share, and the reason for its existence is the continuance of the human race--a positive thing.

I agree, in an ideal world, 12 weeks of celibacy (or whatever the length of time is) is something that a husband should be able to endure for the love of his wife.

I still wonder about the example of a man who is permanently impotent. Out of love, the wife should be able to share in his celibacy. But, I have a hard time believing that it is sinful for a husband to satify his wife's sexual needs when the "normal mechanism" is not available--despite the teaching against mutual masturbation. BTW--Has the Catholic church taken a stand one way or the other on mechanical devices that allow an impotent man to achieve an erection?

I'm probably always going to disagree on issues like this, because I tend to choose "mercy" over "teachings." But, I find all the points of view expressed so far give me lots of food for thought. And, I know that if I choose "mercy" over "teachings" in some circumstances, that means I have to consider my motives very carefully, and be willing to accept that there are possible negative consequences.

That's probably why I could never become a nun. I watched the "Nun's Story" again yesterday, and thought that Audrey Hepburn's question of why she should immediately answer the bells to go to prayer when she was in the middle of caring for a patient (and, although she didn't mention this) if she were in the operating theatre, was a fair question. I would always choose the human being who needed me over the bells, because "love thy neighbor" is also God's teaching, although it conflicts with the vow of obedience in this case. I would hope that a mother would always choose caring for her child who needed her, even if it meant missing Mass, for example.

The trouble I have with many of the "rules" is that by following them "to the letter" even if that means withholding love or care for another, we're assuming that we, as humans, can ever understand the true mind of God. I see the "teachings" or the "rules" as a guide, but even if we believe they are "divinely inspired," it seems to border on egotistical to think that any human being understands more than a tiny segment of what God knows. (We're never going to agree on the Papal infallabillity, so it seems pointless to discuss it. Plus, as I understand it, the teaching that the Pope can be infallible is relatively new (in church history terms) and has only been invoked once, on a subject that has nothing to do with mutual masturbation.

Please don't misunderstand me. If I disagree, or don't understand, it is not out of disrespect for the teachings of the Catholic church or the views of anyone on this forum. I don't claim that I understand the mind of God better than anyone else who posts here. But, I come out of a different tradition, so some views of the Catholic church aren't as obvious to me (although I suspect we would agree on many subjects).