Let's talk about sex, baby.

[MikeK]

You know how you're out with a group of friends, laughing it up, having a good old time, talking about work or Michael Vick or The Donnas or whatever when this guy jumps into your conversation uninvited and everybody just kind of looks at eachother awkwardly? I hate that. I mean, I feel bad for the guy, but if you wanted his opinion you would have asked him for it.

I'd imagine it would be even worse if you talking about marital relations and you specifically asked the creepy loner not to join your conversation and he did anyway.

 

[Globalnomad]

I side with MikeK and Geo. I have never felt anything yucky nor degrading about oral sex ... ever since I started doing it in the context of a loving and mutually respectful relationship. Before that, yes, I did think of it as kind of yucky.

Moral of the story: let's not confuse a yuck-reaction with a moral judgement.

To pick up a minor point that someone made at some point in this thread:

if a husband in his forties develops a chronic erectile dysfunction that medicine and loving wifely support cannot help (and he does not want to try psychotherapy or Viagra), but he is still very happy to pleasure his wife in other ways, and she loves to reciprocate, in a way that gives him physical pleasure and emotional happiness - is there any priest or moralist alive who will dare to say that instead, they need to live as brother and sister for the rest of their lives (forty years or so)? Or would that fall under Matthew 5:32?

 

[Miss Shelby]

I know you kid about this Mike, but I do understand how it an be a strange concept to grasp.

A few years ago a poster named Credo posted something about family and Trinitarian (a response to an inquisitive question asked my his young daughter)-- love and how it relates, of course there isn't a carnal sexual parallel. But it IS quite awesome. I saved it to my private drafts, but I am at home and my mouse doesn't right click. Control x isn't doing the job with it either, to copy and paste, but I will post it when I get to work tomorrow. I thought it was a really cool thing when I first read it.

Originally Posted by Credo

My 7 year old was asking awhile back how it could be that Jesus was God. I asked her to make the sign of the cross and as she did we both said "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." I told her that's who God is: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I asked her who the Son was and she knew right away it was Jesus, but she was still having trouble. So I brought up the issue of a triangle. How many sides? 3 she said. The 3 sides are separate from one another but together make up the triangle. Now, what if you took one of those sides away, do you have a triangle anymore. No, she said. I told her that's the way it is with God. If you took one of the persons away, you don't have God anymore.

The best way that I view God is the family. When we mark ourselves with the sign of the cross, we say "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." We are saying alot in that one gesture. We are invoking the very name of God, how He identifies Himself. How do we identify ourselves? By family names. When we say "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" what are we saying about God? God is a family. He is not some solitary loner out in the cosmos. And the family is the best way that we image God, the Eternal Father, the Eternally Begotten Son, and the love that exist between the two is so great that it is another distinct person called the Holy Spirit.

When we love each other and take each other in marriage, Jesus tells us that the two become one flesh. They are still two persons, but now have a unity that makes them one, and this is a unity of love. This love is so great, that nine months later, that love has to be given a name. So, the two have become one, and as a result have become three, yet they're all still one.

This is how we best image God, the family. This is why God created us to begin with. Not so He could wield authority and power of us as creatures, but so He could share His family love with us. This is why the Son came down to us in the human form of Jesus Christ, to bring us back into that family love. That's why we call each other brothers and sisters, because we have the same Divine Father and the same Divine Brother, Jesus, and the same Divine Spirit living in us. God becomes our creator from the moment of conception. God becomes our Father from the moment of baptism. We as Catholics are building up the family of God on earth, and we take God's own family name as our own when we are baptised and express that name as our own when we say "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."
.

 

[plmarquette]

<sigh>

So what's your point ?
That Catholic's , Protestant's , and people in general know very little about the rules, regulations , doctrine & dogma of their own faith and have opinions (usually flawed) about everyone else?

That some of the church fathers were a bit anal when it came to sex, relationships, and life apart from fasting, prayer , and ministering to those in need ?

That the "precana conference" that most of us that were married in the 60's , 70's , and 80's skipped because we already "knew it all" prior to slipping on the ring and saying "I do"?

Inquiring minds want to know ( sad smile and wink)

or , perhaps, that we all need to be more flexible, that we do not get bent out of shape ( praying hands..)

 

[MikeK]

So what's your point ?

My point is that I asked you not to participate. Twice. I was even polite the first time. I understand that this is intruiging subject matter, and that maybe you just can't help yourself. Feel free to read along as you wish, but please, kindly stop posting in this thread. This is a thread for Catholics to discuss what they believe the correct interpretations of Catholic teaching are on this matter. There is a "For Married Couples Only" forum on here where I would have posted this if I sought the oppinions of people from other denomonations. I don't. I posted it here, in the Catholic forum, with a specific request that only Catholics respond. Thanks.


I like that post, Michelle.

 

[Filia Mariae]

You know how you're out with a group of friends, laughing it up, having a good old time, talking about work or Michael Vick or The Donnas or whatever when this guy jumps into your conversation uninvited and everybody just kind of looks at eachother awkwardly? I hate that. I mean, I feel bad for the guy, but if you wanted his opinion you would have asked him for it.

I'd imagine it would be even worse if you talking about marital relations and you specifically asked the creepy loner not to join your conversation and he did anyway.

Mike- you crack me up.

 

[hsilgne]

My point is that I asked you not to participate. Twice.
.

Maybe three times is a charm? I guess we'll see.

 

[hawko]

What if your wife slept with someone else and said it had nothing to do with her love for you? We both know that would be a ridiculous position to espouse.

"Rules" about how a husband and wife express their love exist because some things aren't loving. JPII was clear in his Theology of the Body that a contraceptive act, for example, is never loving. The intent might be loving, but the act cannot be because of the very nature of contraception.

What makes an act loving is not intent alone, or feelings alone. The act itself possesses a moral quality. Yes, your intent must be good too. But the act must also be good. And feeling loving doesn't make it good.

I was once told by a priest (in the confessional) that any sex act that is mutually agreeable between a husband and a wife is acceptable and not sinful. Then another time, I was told that certain sex acts between a husband and wife are sinful. So, who are we supposed to believe ? That is why, I turn to the Lord in all situations for guidance and direction from the Holy Spirit.

 

[zhilan]

Originally Posted by Credo

My 7 year old was asking awhile back how it could be that Jesus was God. I asked her to make the sign of the cross and as she did we both said "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." I told her that's who God is: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I asked her who the Son was and she knew right away it was Jesus, but she was still having trouble. So I brought up the issue of a triangle. How many sides? 3 she said. The 3 sides are separate from one another but together make up the triangle. Now, what if you took one of those sides away, do you have a triangle anymore. No, she said. I told her that's the way it is with God. If you took one of the persons away, you don't have God anymore.

The best way that I view God is the family. When we mark ourselves with the sign of the cross, we say "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." We are saying alot in that one gesture. We are invoking the very name of God, how He identifies Himself. How do we identify ourselves? By family names. When we say "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" what are we saying about God? God is a family. He is not some solitary loner out in the cosmos. And the family is the best way that we image God, the Eternal Father, the Eternally Begotten Son, and the love that exist between the two is so great that it is another distinct person called the Holy Spirit.

When we love each other and take each other in marriage, Jesus tells us that the two become one flesh. They are still two persons, but now have a unity that makes them one, and this is a unity of love. This love is so great, that nine months later, that love has to be given a name. So, the two have become one, and as a result have become three, yet they're all still one.

This is how we best image God, the family. This is why God created us to begin with. Not so He could wield authority and power of us as creatures, but so He could share His family love with us. This is why the Son came down to us in the human form of Jesus Christ, to bring us back into that family love. That's why we call each other brothers and sisters, because we have the same Divine Father and the same Divine Brother, Jesus, and the same Divine Spirit living in us. God becomes our creator from the moment of conception. God becomes our Father from the moment of baptism. We as Catholics are building up the family of God on earth, and we take God's own family name as our own when we are baptised and express that name as our own when we say "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."
.

Miss Shelby,

I don't want to side-track this thread, but do you think you could post this in a new thread?

 

[Gwendolyn]

Whoops! Wrong spot!

 

[geocajun]

I was once told by a priest (in the confessional) that any sex act that is mutually agreeable between a husband and a wife is acceptable and not sinful. Then another time, I was told that certain sex acts between a husband and wife are sinful. So, who are we supposed to believe ? That is why, I turn to the Lord in all situations for guidance and direction from the Holy Spirit.

Yea, it's tough to rely on just the advice of clergy - my wife was told that using contraceptives were alright, and I was told that abortion is alright in certain circumstances. The good news is that we have our own ability to investigate these things, and therefore you can take responsibility for finding out what the church teaches on your own, and not worry about being misled by any clergymen.

 

[Filia Mariae]

I was once told by a priest (in the confessional) that any sex act that is mutually agreeable between a husband and a wife is acceptable and not sinful. Then another time, I was told that certain sex acts between a husband and wife are sinful. So, who are we supposed to believe ? That is why, I turn to the Lord in all situations for guidance and direction from the Holy Spirit.

You are supposed to believe the teaching of the Church, which is inspired and protected by the Holy Spirit.

 

[helenofbritain]

You are supposed to believe the teaching of the Church, which is inspired and protected by the Holy Spirit.

True, but the fact is that the Holy Spirit has never inspired anyone to say "Oral sex to climax is a Good Thing" or "Oral sex to climax is a Bad Thing" in such frank terms. And grey area teachings are hard to follow, when you're not sure if your on the black side of the line or the white one.

 

[helenofbritain]

And trust me, I spent a couple of hours yesterday trying to find something that did more than imply anything, and failed. Though I did find this useful website...

 

[MikeK]

2 hours? Thanks HOB.

 

[geocajun]

True, but the fact is that the Holy Spirit has never inspired anyone to say "Oral sex to climax is a Good Thing" or "Oral sex to climax is a Bad Thing" in such frank terms. And grey area teachings are hard to follow, when you're not sure if your on the black side of the line or the white one.

are you referring to the case of a man or a woman when you say that? In the case of a man, it is no different than coitus interuptis, or onanism which are both disallowed.

 

[Filia Mariae]

True, but the fact is that the Holy Spirit has never inspired anyone to say "Oral sex to climax is a Good Thing" or "Oral sex to climax is a Bad Thing" in such frank terms. And grey area teachings are hard to follow, when you're not sure if your on the black side of the line or the white one.

I was responding to the assertion that anything a husband and wife do, as long as they're both fine with it, is morally licit. That statement is clearly outside the bounds of Catholic moral theology.

With respect to the oral sex to climax thing, the Church obviously cannot define every single thing that could occur in the nedroom. So the question becomes, what is the purpose and proper context of sex, and does a given activity serve that or not?

For a man to deliberately reach climax outside of intercourse is a separation of what are inseparable ends of sex. For a woman to climax during the oral sex doesn't seem problematic, as long as it is a part of the whole sex act and not separate from it.

 

[helenofbritain]

2 hours? Thanks HOB.

Sad, I know. But Angus was a preschool and Anna was napping and sometimes it's cool to just... read and learn stuff. It's been a while since I finished my degree... I need to keep my brain in gear

 

[hsilgne]

... and I was told that abortion is alright in certain circumstances.

What the..... ?

 

[helenofbritain]

are you referring to the case of a man or a woman when you say that? In the case of a man, it is no different than coitus interuptis, or onanism which are both disallowed.

I had to google those, geo But I get that now and I concur. But, for men, I guess this is where the grey area kicks in. Example:

Mr Man is desiring some "variety" (I think that's the word) and Mrs Woman is happy to oblige. Does said variety count as extended foreplay if they move onto sex 5 seconds before he finishes? Or are they being immoral because he almost climaxed - ahem - externally? Or are they immoral because the intent wasn't really to have sex? Or am I over-thinking this?