Let's talk about sex, baby.

[Gwendolyn]

Because I don't for one minute believe that oral sex between a man and his spouse is of a lower dignity. Nor do I think that there's anything wrong with describing sex as fun. It can be alot of things to alot of people, but it should be fun and we should keep it fun. There is nothing undignified about fun. I don't think God only smiles upon vanilla sex.

I don't think it's one of those "if it suits you, go for it" things.

Though personally, performing or receiving oral sex would make me feel degraded and detached from my (hypothetical) spouse. It wouldn't be properly unitive.

 

[geocajun]

Though personally, performing or receiving oral sex would make me feel degraded and detached from my (hypothetical) spouse. It wouldn't be properly unitive.

When I comments such as this from virgin armchair theologians (you certainly aren't alone in the "ew, oral sex is unholy and yucky crowd" I have to remind myself that I have yet to see a comment from anyone who is actually married.

 

[Monica child of God 1]

MikeK I know you want this to be a Catholic only thread but I had to say that something about it reminds me of Dr. Suess

"Would you like it on a box, on a chair or with a pear?"

He, he.

M.

 

[Maggie893]

When I comments such as this from virgin armchair theologians (you certainly aren't alone in the "ew, oral sex is unholy and yucky crowd" I have to remind myself that I have yet to see a comment from anyone who is actually married.

Jason, I don't normally disagree with you but this post reeks of "if the majority of affected people say it's ok, it must be". Under that premise then only single, pre-menopausal women should determine if abortion is ok and only single people can determine if sex out of marriage is ok and only gay people can determine if homosexuality is ok. And priests can't possibly understand anything about marriage because they aren't married.

I know you don't believe that which is why I'm a bit surprised at your response. I'm assuming there is a lot more thought behind your stance than this though.....

 

[zhilan]

Jason, I don't normally disagree with you but this post reeks of "if the majority of affected people say it's ok, it must be". Under that premise then only single, pre-menopausal women should determine if abortion is ok and only single people can determine if sex out of marriage is ok and only gay people can determine if homosexuality is ok. And priests can't possibly understand anything about marriage because they aren't married.

I know you don't believe that which is why I'm a bit surprised at your response. I'm assuming there is a lot more thought behind your stance than this though.....

I may be wrong but I think he was referring to the "yucky" factor as opposed the theology.

 

[geocajun]

Jason, I don't normally disagree with you but this post reeks of "if the majority of affected people say it's ok, it must be". Under that premise then only single, pre-menopausal women should determine if abortion is ok and only single people can determine if sex out of marriage is ok and only gay people can determine if homosexuality is ok. And priests can't possibly understand anything about marriage because they aren't married.

I know you don't believe that which is why I'm a bit surprised at your response. I'm assuming there is a lot more thought behind your stance than this though.....

Maggie, I did not pose an argument, I only contrasted the naive commentary of virgin armchair theologians with "those living the sacramental life of marriage"

If I had to pose an argument, I would say the following: There is nothing at all immoral about spouses pleasuring one another through oral sex and this is consistent with the teaching of the church, so long as the male does not complete outside of the womans vagina.

That said, I can cite the teaching of the church concerning onanism, and I submit there is no doctrinal declaration on oral sex, and in lieu of this, I submit that many of us married folks do have the benefit of our experiences to tell us that it is both loving, and good for our marriage, and that it is not at all yucky or unholy. It is quite the opposite.

 

[Maggie893]

Maggie, I did not pose an argument, I only contrasted the naive commentary of virgin armchair theologians with "those living the sacramental life of marriage"

If I had to pose an argument, I would say the following: There is nothing at all immoral about spouses pleasuring one another through oral sex and this is consistent with the teaching of the church, so long as the male does not complete outside of the womans vagina.

That said, I can cite the teaching of the church concerning onanism, and I submit there is no doctrinal declaration on oral sex, and in lieu of this, I submit that many of us married folks do have the benefit of our experiences to tell us that it is both loving, and good for our marriage, and that it is not at all yucky or unholy. It is quite the opposite.

And there you have it. I knew there was more to it. While you didn't pose an argument, your statement stood as a contradiction which inferred an arguement and knowing you there had to be more.

 

[epiclesis]

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.

If right click doesn't work, press the little button on your keyboard you most likely have that looks like a little dropdown menu. a key or two or three on either side of the space bar, usually.

(sorry for unrelated post... )

 

[Monica child of God 1]

I am wondering if there is anything from Church Fathers that the catechism stance is based on. I ask because I was recently reading an EO book that mentioned that all penile/anal and penile/oral contact was outside of the bounds of sexual activity approved for married Orthodox people. (I don't remember him mentioning anything about vulva/oral contact.) This surprised me especially because there was no qualification on how the marital act was completed. The writer eluded that this is according to big "T" Tradition but didn't list any sources or writings.

So again, I ask if you all know of any writings of Church Fathers, preferably pre-schism, on this topic?

M.

 

[Domenico]

Reading these posts sure doesnt make me feel optimistic about my future sex life. Is it really all about the missionary position? And as someone who is not "open to life" because he cannot concieve children, it seems like I shouldnt be having sex anyway.

Which is a pity, coz my mates talk about it a lot and assure me its awesome.

 

[MikeK]

When I comments such as this...

Geo, thanks for saying that so much nicer than I would have before I got a chance to.

 

[RoseofLima]

Reading these posts sure doesnt make me feel optimistic about my future sex life. Is it really all about the missionary position? And as someone who is not "open to life" because he cannot concieve children, it seems like I shouldnt be having sex anyway.

Which is a pity, coz my mates talk about it a lot and assure me its awesome.

First of all- I can assure you that this is NOT the case. Anyone who has ever been pregnant will tell you that creativity, for sure, is an essential part of married love. Anyone who has children can tell you the same thing. As much as I know the spiritual realities of what sex expresses and the very real grace communicated through our physical union-- the idea that some sort of tantric, other worldly act is how sex will actually be within marriage goes out the window once you are immersed in the realities of the married life. Real married people have time crunches, stress, emotial lives, families of origin and in laws who can cause issues (not even in a negative annoting way- but illness, troubles, etc.) . We are body and soul- and sex, as all things, varies throughout our lifetime in the balance between spirit and flesh. Sometimes, because of life's circumstances the balance lies towards the body, other times towards the soul--properly ordered it will always include both aspects-- but not always in equal measure.

Because one is not able to have children does not mean that one is not open to life. One still cannot act outside the parameters of what the Church teaches about sex...but one can still have sex with their spouse. You only need to be open to the possibility of a baby and do nothing intentional to prevent pregnancy from occurring.

 

[geocajun]

I am wondering if there is anything from Church Fathers that the catechism stance is based on. I ask because I was recently reading an EO book that mentioned that all penile/anal and penile/oral contact was outside of the bounds of sexual activity approved for married Orthodox people. (I don't remember him mentioning anything about vulva/oral contact.) This surprised me especially because there was no qualification on how the marital act was completed. The writer eluded that this is according to big "T" Tradition but didn't list any sources or writings.

So again, I ask if you all know of any writings of Church Fathers, preferably pre-schism, on this topic?

M.

There are quotes from the church fathers stating that sex in general is bad and dirty. These guys were suffering from their culture and their ignorance on the matter and none of that stuff ever made it to become formal doctrine.

 

[geocajun]

Geo, thanks for saying that so much nicer than I would have before I got a chance to.

I had to re-write it a few times myself, Mike.

 

[hsilgne]

This thread needs some off the wall sarcasm to deal with the discomfort this subject generates.

Where's Cosmic Charlie when you need him?

 

[Filia Mariae]

I didn't say "between other people". I was referring to the love between husband and wife.

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.

 

[Rhamiel]

Filia Mariae, well said.

 

[plmarquette]

PLM, your knowledge of Catholic teaching is as impressive as your reading comprehension. Thanks for your input. I specifically asked non-Catholics to kindly not post in this thread, why you gotta be like that?

Why am I like that... cold little brother... cold ..
for 42 years I was a cradle catholic....
for the last 10 I have worshiped as a word of faith ; protestant , and now as a jail minister & letter writer

truth, regardless of what side of the fence, is still truth ... the reason Jesus came was to testify to the truth ...

we all have some granola bars in our christian fellowships ( fruits, flakes, and nuts) as well as some archaic teachigs that once were dead on , and now are a bit
out of place ... we as a body , regardless of denominational affiliation, need to start focusing on what we are doing right .... ask God for help in the rest , and go back to the simple message the Holy Spirit left us through the prophets , apostles, fathers and mother church ...

 

[plmarquette]

I didn't want to get graphic but my understanding of this is that it's okay for the wife to have an [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] from oral or manual stimulation, but the husband must [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] inside the wife no matter what.

So this proves that the Church doesn't elevate men and oppress women.

Science 101
within the monthly cycle of a woman's uterus and the release of the egg, there is a small window of opportunity for fertilization (rythm method).

before or after that window, where the sperm reside is irrelevant, as no pregnancy will occur. the science of the day was extremely rudimentary and the concept of the sperm was a miniture infant , like a seed, that grew within the female in size only ...no concept of genetics, interuterine development... etc.

it is the science used / available , the concept of what was taking place, and the advice given by men, not the church , nor the holy writ, nor God, that is in question here in ...

the only reference I've been able to find in 10+ years of reading the bible is one in the old covenant that states that it is wrong for a man to touch rather than give his wife pleasure , hence wasting his seed ( as if he had only a certain amount available ...); which is a violation of the covenant of marriage , to dishonor , to disrespect

 

[MikeK]

<sigh>