Nfp Scenarios - Adult Material Thread

[MissScripture]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='1459832' date='Feb 12 2008, 12:19 PM']Right. It's the second scenario that I was talking about, and he was purposefully avoiding kids (so it seemed to me).[/quote]
By original scenario, I meant the scenario the original poster posed, where it was stated that avoiding kids was only part of the reason that he was not in the mood.

[rkwright]

[quote name='dUSt' post='1459446' date='Feb 11 2008, 09:54 PM']Can you back this up with church teaching, because I think this is completely wrong.[/quote]

I have heard conflicting answers on this, I've had nuns and priests tell me one thing and others tell me the opposite. A well founded answer backed with Church teaching would be helpful!

[XIX]

Unfortunately, I did a little bit of google-ing. Not only was I unable to find a document that specifically addresses foreplay, I also found a couple of sites that commented that the Church has not specifically addressed this topic. I read through the Catechism and all I could find that really seemed to relate to foreplay was here:
[quote]2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life"150 teaches that [b]"it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."[/b]151 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."152[/quote]

It doesn't seem to make exceptions for sexual acts that don't reach climax. And intuitively, I don't see why there would be such an exception. A couple that engages in sexual activity without climax is essentially doing the same thing as a couple which does reach climax. It's just that the first couple doesn't engage in nearly as much of it; they are different magnitudes of the same sin.

Another thing worth mentioning is that the CCC lists a bunch of other sexual sins (fornication, pornography, lust). Never once does it list an exception for sexual acts that don't result in climax. So I don't see why foreplay would be different.

If someone else could find a document that addresses this issue more directly, that would rock. And of course, I am more than open to being corrected. However, just reading the chastity section of the CCC, it seems clear to me that any act that is intended to be both sexual and non-procreative is gravely sinful. I don't think it makes exception for sexual acts that stop short of climax.

Now I want to make something else very clear, as I am sure there are little quirks in a marriage that can make things a bit trickier in practice. Someone mentioned that middle aged people don't always have everything working as well as they would like. Would it be a sin for a couple to start towards intercourse but ultimately find themselves incapable of getting there for whatever reason? Of course not! And I would guess that there are times in a marriage when a couple would start to naturally get intimate with each other, and get themselves rather worked up before they realize where they could be headed. While every person must examine his/her own conscience with regards to the intention of such an act, I imagine that it would not be sinful.

What I think could be sinful is if someone if thinking "man, I would really like to have intercourse, but she is fertile. Maybe we can just mozy around second base for a bit. We won't have a climactic situation or anything, we'll just get ourselves aroused for awhile, enjoy ourselves, and then we'll stop."

That would be a willfully sexual act which is not at all open to life. However, we need to realize that we are human, and that very often we have sexual experiences that we had no intention of pursuing. Hence, you must examine your own conscience. If you are uncertain as to whether you are in sin, bring it up in confession, explain your situation to the priest, and leave the judgment to God.

Edited February 13, 2008 by XIX

[dUSt]

Okay, based on this reasoning:

It would be sinful for me and my wife to kiss unless it ended in intercourse.
It would be sinful if my wife grabbed my butt in the grocery store while nobody was watching.
It would be sinful for me to rub on my wife's leg in the back row of a movie theatre.

This is all foreplay.

Seems ridiculous to me, and even more ridiculous that the church would deem this sinful, which I don't believe it does.

Also, in the context of marriage, all of these things do eventually lead to intercourse... eventually.

If you're going to tell someone these things are a sin if they do not lead to intercourse, what is the timeframe you will give them? Must it me immediate? Within 15 minutes, an hour, a day? You see how subjective this can be? I don't think it's by accident that the church does not specifically address this issue.

I can tell you one thing, if a husband and wife aren't allowed to engage in any type of foreplay without it leading to intercourse, a lot of marriages would be in trouble. Me and my wife are in a constant state of foreplay. I can't imagine what my marriage would be like if we weren't.

[Guest]

[quote name='dUSt' post='1460228' date='Feb 12 2008, 08:31 PM']Okay, based on this reasoning:

It would be sinful for me and my wife to kiss unless it ended in intercourse.
It would be sinful if my wife grabbed my butt in the grocery store while nobody was watching.
It would be sinful for me to rub on my wife's leg in the back row of a movie theatre.

This is all foreplay.

Seems ridiculous to me, and even more ridiculous that the church would deem this sinful, which I don't believe it does.

Also, in the context of marriage, all of these things do eventually lead to intercourse... eventually.

If you're going to tell someone these things are a sin if they do not lead to intercourse, what is the timeframe you will give them? Must it me immediate? Within 15 minutes, an hour, a day? You see how subjective this can be? I don't think it's by accident that the church does not specifically address this issue.

I can tell you one thing, if a husband and wife aren't allowed to engage in any type of foreplay without it leading to intercourse, a lot of marriages would be in trouble. Me and my wife are in a constant state of foreplay. I can't imagine what my marriage would be like if we weren't.[/quote]

good points, in my opinon it sorta begs the question why certian people feel the need to preach what they couldnt even begin to practice ?

[Lil Red]

[quote name='dUSt' post='1460228' date='Feb 12 2008, 05:31 PM']Okay, based on this reasoning:

It would be sinful for me and my wife to kiss unless it ended in intercourse.
It would be sinful if my wife grabbed my butt in the grocery store while nobody was watching.
It would be sinful for me to rub on my wife's leg in the back row of a movie theatre.

This is all foreplay.

Seems ridiculous to me, and even more ridiculous that the church would deem this sinful, which I don't believe it does.

Also, in the context of marriage, all of these things do eventually lead to intercourse... eventually.

If you're going to tell someone these things are a sin if they do not lead to intercourse, what is the timeframe you will give them? Must it me immediate? Within 15 minutes, an hour, a day? You see how subjective this can be? I don't think it's by accident that the church does not specifically address this issue.

I can tell you one thing, if a husband and wife aren't allowed to engage in any type of foreplay without it leading to intercourse, a lot of marriages would be in trouble. Me and my wife are in a constant state of foreplay. I can't imagine what my marriage would be like if we weren't.[/quote]
and i'm pretty sure this is why the Church has not specifically addressed this issue. because it limits us too much, to grow in love with our spouse.

[XIX]

[quote name='dUSt' post='1460228' date='Feb 12 2008, 08:31 PM']Okay, based on this reasoning:

It would be sinful for me and my wife to kiss unless it ended in intercourse.
It would be sinful if my wife grabbed my butt in the grocery store while nobody was watching.
It would be sinful for me to rub on my wife's leg in the back row of a movie theatre.

This is all foreplay.

Seems ridiculous to me, and even more ridiculous that the church would deem this sinful, which I don't believe it does.

Also, in the context of marriage, all of these things do eventually lead to intercourse... eventually.

If you're going to tell someone these things are a sin if they do not lead to intercourse, what is the timeframe you will give them? Must it me immediate? Within 15 minutes, an hour, a day? You see how subjective this can be? I don't think it's by accident that the church does not specifically address this issue.

I can tell you one thing, if a husband and wife aren't allowed to engage in any type of foreplay without it leading to intercourse, a lot of marriages would be in trouble. Me and my wife are in a constant state of foreplay. I can't imagine what my marriage would be like if we weren't.[/quote]
Well sheesh, if you are going to throw virtually all physical and non/physical contact under the category of "constant foreplay," then yeah, there's going to be a lot of foreplay that's okay. I think your definition of "foreplay" is what's ridiculous. By your logic, I'm engaging in foreplay with the chair I am sitting on. Later tonight, I'm going to be unfaithful to my chair and engage in foreplay with my cell phone--which can in fact lead to intercourse if I am asking a girl out on a date and she says yes and we get married in 3 years or so. Then I'm going to shake my boss's hand--is that also foreplay?

I tried to use a common sense definition of "foreplay" as an inherently sexual activity. I'm not talking about things that "can" lead to intercourse, I am talking about thing that, if they happen, would probably lead to intercourse. Sure, pouring your wife a bowl of cereal could theoretically lead to intercourse. But it's not an inherently sexual activity. Short kisses are not inherently sexual. French kisses maybe, but not short close-mouth kisses. They *could* lead to sex, but who cares, mowing the lawn could also lead to sex. Putting your hand on her leg could lead to sex, but something like that is likely to exist purely as a sign of non-sexual affection. Especially if it takes place in the movie theater and not your bedroom.

All of the scenarios you mentioned can lead to sex, but they can just as easily lead to a 3-hour conversation and just falling asleep together. A common-sense definition of foreplay probably won't include anything that happened in the grocery shop, either.

"Second base," however, really doesn't exist unless it's a sexual action. I'm baffled that you would put sexual groping anywhere in the same neighborhood as being affectionate in the movie. I thought it was pretty clear that I was not referring to general affection, and I think it's very obvious that "foreplay" is not a word that describes such affection. Otherwise, chaste unmarried couples all over the world would also engage in foreplay. Do you think unmarried couples should be allowed to engage in foreplay? Or do you just think that they should completely eschew all physical contact, on the grounds that it could lead to sex?

Edited February 13, 2008 by XIX

[Guest]

[quote name='XIX' post='1460315' date='Feb 12 2008, 09:42 PM']Well sheesh, if you are going to throw virtually all physical and non/physical contact under the category of "constant foreplay," then yeah, there's going to be a lot of foreplay that's okay. I think your definition of "foreplay" is what's ridiculous. By your logic, I'm engaging in foreplay with the chair I am sitting on. Later tonight, I'm going to be unfaithful to my chair and engage in foreplay with my cell phone--which can in fact lead to intercourse if I am asking a girl out on a date and she says yes and we get married in 3 years or so. Then I'm going to shake my boss's hand--is that also foreplay?

I tried to use a common sense definition of "foreplay" as an inherently sexual activity. I'm not talking about things that "can" lead to intercourse, I am talking about thing that, if they happen, would probably lead to intercourse. Sure, pouring your wife a bowl of cereal could theoretically lead to intercourse. But it's not an inherently sexual activity. [size=5]Short kisses are not inherently sexual. French kisses maybe, but not short close-mouth kisses. They *could* lead to sex, but who cares, mowing the lawn could also lead to sex. [/size] Putting your hand on her leg could lead to sex, but something like that is likely to exist purely as a sign of non-sexual affection. Especially if it takes place in the movie theater and not your bedroom.

All of the scenarios you mentioned can lead to sex, but they can just as easily lead to a 3-hour conversation and just falling asleep together. A common-sense definition of foreplay probably won't include anything that happened in the grocery shop, either.

"Second base," however, really doesn't exist unless it's a sexual action. I'm baffled that you would put sexual groping anywhere in the same neighborhood as being affectionate in the movie. I thought it was pretty clear that I was not referring to general affection, and I think it's very obvious that "foreplay" is not a word that describes such affection. [size=5] Otherwise, chaste unmarried couples all over the world would also engage in foreplay. Do you think unmarried couples should be allowed to engage in foreplay? Or do you just think that they should completely eschew all physical contact, on the grounds that it could lead to sex?[/size][/quote]

i wish males in their twentys could touch and kiss a female they cared for without it leading to sexual sin.... heh watching tv now'a days its tough not to enter into mortal sin....

Edited February 13, 2008 by Guest

[XIX]

It's very hard, but it's not impossible. Very important not to kill yourself over it if you fall.

[url="http://www.freedomeveryday.org/"]http://www.freedomeveryday.org/[/url]

Edited February 13, 2008 by XIX

[XIX]

Dust, would you agree or disagree with me if I said that certain actions that are almost exclusively sexual by their very nature should be avoided unless you have some intention of going all the way?

[rkwright]

[quote name='XIX' post='1460315' date='Feb 12 2008, 08:42 PM']Well sheesh, if you are going to throw virtually all physical and non/physical contact under the category of "constant foreplay," then yeah, there's going to be a lot of foreplay that's okay. I think your definition of "foreplay" is what's ridiculous. By your logic, I'm engaging in foreplay with the chair I am sitting on. Later tonight, I'm going to be unfaithful to my chair and engage in foreplay with my cell phone--which can in fact lead to intercourse if I am asking a girl out on a date and she says yes and we get married in 3 years or so. Then I'm going to shake my boss's hand--is that also foreplay?

I tried to use a common sense definition of "foreplay" as an inherently sexual activity. I'm not talking about things that "can" lead to intercourse, I am talking about thing that, if they happen, would probably lead to intercourse. Sure, pouring your wife a bowl of cereal could theoretically lead to intercourse. But it's not an inherently sexual activity. Short kisses are not inherently sexual. French kisses maybe, but not short close-mouth kisses. They *could* lead to sex, but who cares, mowing the lawn could also lead to sex. Putting your hand on her leg could lead to sex, but something like that is likely to exist purely as a sign of non-sexual affection. Especially if it takes place in the movie theater and not your bedroom.

All of the scenarios you mentioned can lead to sex, but they can just as easily lead to a 3-hour conversation and just falling asleep together. A common-sense definition of foreplay probably won't include anything that happened in the grocery shop, either.

"Second base," however, really doesn't exist unless it's a sexual action. I'm baffled that you would put sexual groping anywhere in the same neighborhood as being affectionate in the movie. I thought it was pretty clear that I was not referring to general affection, and I think it's very obvious that "foreplay" is not a word that describes such affection. Otherwise, chaste unmarried couples all over the world would also engage in foreplay. Do you think unmarried couples should be allowed to engage in foreplay? Or do you just think that they should completely eschew all physical contact, on the grounds that it could lead to sex?[/quote]

I think your examples are straw men. The things dust mentioned are more sexual, by far more than 'mowing' the lawn. BTW, how does shaking your bosses hand lead to sex... unless you're planning on sleeping with your boss??

Dust's examples all can be (They don't have to be) proximate causes of sex.

I also think your definition of 'foreplay' is too narrow. You exclude some of the things that dust mentions which might very take place in order to arouse the spouse. To borrow some language from prose... dust's wife might be feeling 'frisky' in the watermelon aisle and grab his butt, they get outside and kiss and get home... and 9 months later dust has a new avatar. But say they get home and someone calls dust and says phatmass is down... so dust is no longer 'frisky' and thats the end... was the kiss sinful? I think not.

Edited February 13, 2008 by rkwright

[Guest]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1460435' date='Feb 12 2008, 10:17 PM']I think your examples are straw men. The things dust mentioned are more sexual, by far more than 'mowing' the lawn. BTW, how does shaking your bosses hand lead to sex... unless you're planning on sleeping with your boss??

Dust's examples all can be (They don't have to be) proximate causes of sex.

I also think your definition of 'foreplay' is too narrow. You exclude some of the things that dust mentions which might very take place in order to arouse the spouse. To borrow some language from prose... dust's wife might be feeling 'frisky' in the watermelon aisle and grab his butt, they get outside and kiss and get home... and 9 months later dust has a new avatar. But say they get home and someone calls dust and says phatmass is down... so dust is no longer 'frisky' and thats the end... was the kiss sinful? I think not.[/quote]


that was right on

[Guest]

[quote name='XIX' post='1460352' date='Feb 12 2008, 09:55 PM']It's very hard, but it's not impossible. Very important not to kill yourself over it if you fall.

[url="http://www.freedomeveryday.org/"]http://www.freedomeveryday.org/[/url] [/quote]

thanks for the link

[CatherineM]

We are also very physically playful with each other almost all the time, but I guess you could say it is all foreplay, and I just need hours or days of it ahead of time.

[XIX]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1460435' date='Feb 12 2008, 10:17 PM']I think your examples are straw men. The things dust mentioned are more sexual, by far more than 'mowing' the lawn. BTW, how does shaking your bosses hand lead to sex... unless you're planning on sleeping with your boss??

Dust's examples all can be (They don't have to be) proximate causes of sex.

I also think your definition of 'foreplay' is too narrow. You exclude some of the things that dust mentions which might very take place in order to arouse the spouse. To borrow some language from prose... dust's wife might be feeling 'frisky' in the watermelon aisle and grab his butt, they get outside and kiss and get home... and 9 months later dust has a new avatar. But say they get home and someone calls dust and says phatmass is down... so dust is no longer 'frisky' and thats the end... was the kiss sinful? I think not.[/quote]
Well no, of course not. The intention--whether it's explicit or implicit--it to get to intercourse.

If my post was a strawman--and I guess it probably was--then yours could be also. I never meant to say that any of your scenarios could realistically be considered sinful. I don't think any of Dust's scenario's could be considered sinful.

I think I have been un-clear in expressing myself. If so, I take full responsibility.