Mutual Masturbation Within Marriage - A Debate I'm Having

[Veridicus]

[quote name='KeenanParkerII' date='15 February 2010 - 08:35 AM' timestamp='1266244513' post='2057486']
If all that matters is I ejaculate inside my wife, I can masturbate all day long every day and just hold off ejaculating.
[/quote]

No you could not because such self-stimulation would be utterly bereft of unitivity. Ejaculating inside your wife is not [i]all [/i]that matters.

[Varg]

[quote name='mcts' date='15 February 2010 - 08:15 AM' timestamp='1266239704' post='2057474']
I'm pretty sure that he means manual stimulation of the genitals.
[/quote]
It's just I once saw someone call protected sex "mutual masturbation", which is what confused me here.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Varg' date='15 February 2010 - 09:04 AM' timestamp='1266246272' post='2057498']
It's just I once saw someone call protected sex "mutual masturbation", which is what confused me here.
[/quote]

In a facetious sense you could argue that since there is no direct genital contact when a condom is used. A handshake is a handshake even if you're wearing gloves I suppose.

[KeenanParkerII]

[quote]No you could not because such self-stimulation would be utterly bereft of unitivity. Ejaculating inside your wife is not all that matters. [/quote]

Oh. Well, my wife and I can just self-stimulate ourselves all day without finishing. It's the same difference. Again, there is a reason the catechism's definition is so simple.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Okay, so people seem to be confusing foreplay and masturbation.

Deliberate stimulation of the genitals is moral if it is within the context of otherwise moral sexual intercourse (i.e. unitive and procreative). In such a context, it is not termed masturbation. It is foreplay (or may occur afterwards if the wife has not reached climax, in keeping with Wojtyla's [u]Love and Responsibility[/u]).

What we're talking about here is whether mutual masturbation, which is not within the context of sexual intercourse, is moral or immoral. Can two spouses manually stimulate one another for pleasure without intending for it to go somewhere? The answer is no.

Now, there are situations, of course, where a couple does this with every intention of having it go somewhere and something interrupts it...child starts screaming in a nightmare or something. However, they still intended for it to go somewhere. They're not guilty of a sin.

The problem is that using sex, which is meant for both procreation and unity, in order to accomplish something less than that double purpose, is abusing sex.

It's not a matter of making a checklist for marriage, it's a matter of making sure that sex is all that it's supposed to be and that we do not misuse it.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='KeenanParkerII' date='15 February 2010 - 09:12 AM' timestamp='1266246765' post='2057503']
Oh. Well, my wife and I can just self-stimulate ourselves all day without finishing. It's the same difference. Again, there is a reason the catechism's definition is so simple.
[/quote]

[s]You cannot self-stimulate all day without finishing because it is not unitive or open to procreation. It is not the 'same difference.' If you insist on a simple evaluation of the catechism (2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure) then vaginal intercourse itself could satisfy the definition. There is deliberate stimulation of the genital organs by the other spouse's genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. The catechism does not state "the deliberate [b]manual[/b] stimulation" so how are we to know that vaginal intercourse is not to be included? Reason & inference are necessary which means the definition is not irreducibly simple. I do not have any real reason to try to convince you that something is okay when you are not okay with it.[/s]

See Raphael's post.

Edited February 15, 2010 by Veridicus

[KeenanParkerII]

I thought Raphael made a good post. But as you were saying; if we're just drawing this all from personal reason and inference then we'll be here all day because essentially I disagree.


[quote]Okay, so people seem to be confusing foreplay and masturbation.

Deliberate stimulation of the genitals is moral if it is within the context of otherwise moral sexual intercourse (i.e. unitive and procreative). In such a context, it is not termed masturbation. It is foreplay (or may occur afterwards if the wife has not reached climax, in keeping with Wojtyla's Love and Responsibility).

What we're talking about here is whether mutual masturbation, which is not within the context of sexual intercourse, is moral or immoral. Can two spouses manually stimulate one another for pleasure without intending for it to go somewhere? The answer is no.

Now, there are situations, of course, where a couple does this with every intention of having it go somewhere and something interrupts it...child starts screaming in a nightmare or something. However, they still intended for it to go somewhere. They're not guilty of a sin.

The problem is that using sex, which is meant for both procreation and unity, in order to accomplish something less than that double purpose, is abusing sex.

It's not a matter of making a checklist for marriage, it's a matter of making sure that sex is all that it's supposed to be and that we do not misuse it.[/quote]

I agree with most of the. But by this explanation it would still be cool to sit there mutually masturbating for as long as you want, just as long as you finish properly. Maybeeeee people could argue this results in the act of procreation thus contributes to it, but I consider that a bit of a cop out.

Anyways, those are my $0.02. You don't have to agree.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='KeenanParkerII' date='15 February 2010 - 10:41 AM' timestamp='1266248492' post='2057517']
I thought Raphael made a good post. But as you were saying; if we're just drawing this all from personal reason and inference then we'll be here all day because essentially I disagree.




I agree with most of the. But by this explanation it would still be cool to sit there mutually masturbating for as long as you want, just as long as you finish properly. Maybeeeee people could argue this results in the act of procreation thus contributes to it, but I consider that a bit of a cop out.

Anyways, those are my $0.02. You don't have to agree.
[/quote]

I would make the argument that using one's wife simply as a sperm receptacle is immoral. While it seems to fit all the technical definitions, it does not seem loving. However, that does not disprove my point or disagree with it.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Genital stimulation should serve to make sex better. Sex, by definition and by nature should be unitive and open to life. Mutual masturbation may be a pleasurable experience, but it is not properly called "sex," since it does not and cannot achieve the ends of sex. As such, it is a misuse of sexuality and is taking the place of sex.

Sex is a great gift from God but it can also become a very powerful weapon of the devil. Sex destroys marriages when it is not used properly. Sex can help people draw close to God, but if they are not using it for God's purposes, it does not achieve the good it was meant for. Instead, it becomes a burden and a curse.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='KeenanParkerII' date='15 February 2010 - 09:41 AM' timestamp='1266248492' post='2057517']
But by this explanation it would still be cool to sit there mutually masturbating for as long as you want, just as long as you finish properly. Maybeeeee people could argue this results in the act of procreation thus contributes to it, but I consider that a bit of a cop out.
[/quote]

I don't think I would ever say I thought that is 'cool'...but every moral articulation has morally questionable activities which may be permissible by the phrasing of the moral guideline. I would consider your example a settling and self-deprivation of the intimacy of marital intercourse. I would imagine most couples' legitimate foreplay is in a sense an arousal of the senses which create an heightened desire for the unmatched intimacy of intercourse.


That does raise a question worth pursing while Raphael and other's who are well read are posting on this topic. Would mutual masturbation (that is mutual stimulation very near to the point of climax) with the intent of getting 'close to climax' and then 'finishing properly' be permissible if the female had dyspareunia and couldn't handle her husband for very long without experiencing profound pain? He would be climaxing inside of her but vaginal intercourse would not be the 'means' of acheiving this end.

Edited February 15, 2010 by Veridicus

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='15 February 2010 - 11:13 AM' timestamp='1266250404' post='2057540']
That does raise a question worth pursing while Raphael and other's who are well read are posting on this topic. Would mutual masturbation with the intent of getting 'close to climax' and then 'finishing properly' be permissible if the female had dyspareunia and couldn't handle her husband for very long without experiencing profound pain?
[/quote]
In that context, I believe it would be moral, however undesirable (I think everyone would admit to that).

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Someone was pointing out to me elsewhere that my argument seems like needless legalism. Christ got onto the Pharisees about placing heavy burdens on others that kept them from God. So here's my response to that:

God made man in His image, male and female. Sexuality images God. A part of salvation is theosis, wherein a person becomes more like God. Sin disfigures man and makes him less like God. Therefore, we must strive to reflect God and be more like Him in all things and avoid sin. This includes morality, and since our sexuality images God in a special way, this particularly includes sexual morality. God is one and three. He is diversity in unity. In sex, a man and a woman come together and give themselves in love, the way that the Father and Son give themselves in the Holy Spirit. Two become one: unity. From that unity, children naturally come forth: diversity. In each of those children is an indelible stamp of their parents' unity. Each child looks like a mixture of the parents: unity in diversity. The children and parents, though different, are all one: diversity in unity. The family is an image of God. Sexuality is the foundation of the family. If we abuse sexuality, we blaspheme God and mar His image in ourselves.

To remove either unity or openness to life from sexuality, even with good intentions, is to use sexuality for something lower than its natural goals. This is why mutual masturbation, which takes place outside of unitive and procreative sexual intercourse, is immoral. The Church teaches against this because the Church wishes couples to experience the goodness and chastity of marital relations as they are meant to be, in order to draw them closer to Christ. God loves us and wants no less for us than the very best. Mutual masturbation cannot accomplish the very best of sex for us. Instead, it prevents us from having true sex and replaces it with a counterfeit.

The Church's teachings on sexuality are not constricting, but liberating. Mutual masturbation keeps us from being able to experience all the joys of sexuality and its fruitfulness.

We are images of God. If we know who God is, we know who we are. If we know who we are, we ought to act accordingly.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Raphael' date='15 February 2010 - 11:15 AM' timestamp='1266250542' post='2057542']
In that context, I believe it would be moral, however undesirable (I think everyone would admit to that).
[/quote]

How would that be undesirable?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='15 February 2010 - 11:32 AM' timestamp='1266251553' post='2057551']
How would that be undesirable?
[/quote]
Obviously more desirable than the alternative, but still undesirable compared to all that sex is meant to be.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='15 February 2010 - 10:32 AM' timestamp='1266251553' post='2057551']
How would that be undesirable?
[/quote]

I would say it is undesirable because it lacks the intimacy achieved by vaginal intercourse. In this scenario, penetration is the necessary but unpleasant (since the wife has dyspareunia) conclusion of the manual stimulation .

Edited February 15, 2010 by Veridicus

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Raphael' date='15 February 2010 - 11:35 AM' timestamp='1266251751' post='2057554']
Obviously more desirable than the alternative, but still undesirable compared to all that sex is meant to be.
[/quote]

Hm, I agree that it would be unfortunate for the married couple but in my opinion, it's more unfortunate that the wife has to experience such physical pain.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='15 February 2010 - 01:29 PM' timestamp='1266258567' post='2057585']
Hm, I agree that it would be unfortunate for the married couple but in my opinion, it's more unfortunate that the wife has to experience such physical pain.
[/quote]
That's what I said. It's unfortunate that they can't experience pain-free sex, but given the circumstances and the fact that the object of the act described is moral (although not in itself terribly desirable), then what was described seems better than trying to have very painful intercourse.

[mommas_boy]

I agree with many of the sentiments expressed in this thread. I believe masturbation to be different in nature from foreplay, and that foreplay is, in itself, often necessary for the marital act to take place, or for climax to be achieved by both members. I believe both of these are honorable intents.

[Slappo]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='15 February 2010 - 10:29 AM' timestamp='1266258567' post='2057585']
Hm, I agree that it would be unfortunate for the married couple but in my opinion, it's more unfortunate that the wife has to experience such physical pain.
[/quote]

The pain of the wife would be undesirable for both husband and wife if the husband loved her. No husband wants his wife to be in pain (nor wife her husband), therefore it is undesirable both for husband and wife that those are the circumstances in which they can have intercourse.

[havok579257]

ok maybe i am not thinking right, but i thought a couple could have "crazy hang from the raftors sex" as long as the man ended properly. i thought as long as you are open to life and unative, then its ok(obviously with in reason of course). meaning mutal stimualtion or oral stimulation si fine just as long as the man ends right and the act is unative for the spouses. is this not right?