Mutual Masturbation Within Marriage - A Debate I'm Having

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='havok579257' date='15 February 2010 - 03:37 PM' timestamp='1266266278' post='2057606']
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?
[/quote]
Read the whole thread. Mutual masturbation is defined as genital stimulation occuring [i]outside[/i] of sexual intercourse.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Raphael' date='15 February 2010 - 03:40 PM' timestamp='1266266423' post='2057607']
Read the whole thread. Mutual masturbation is defined as genital stimulation occuring [i]outside[/i] of sexual intercourse.
[/quote]

i did read it, but someone posted something about mutal stimulation to the point of near climax and then the man was only in the act of intercourse for a few moments and someone said that woulkd be morally permissable but not ideal. maybe i am misinterperating it.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='havok579257' date='15 February 2010 - 02:56 PM' timestamp='1266267390' post='2057615']
i did read it, but someone posted something about mutal stimulation to the point of near climax and then the man was only in the act of intercourse for a few moments and someone said that woulkd be morally permissable but not ideal. maybe i am misinterperating it.
[/quote]

I should have phrased it better. I meant genital stimulation within the context of the marital act. The difference in that post I was trying to emphasize was that rather than the foreplay being merely stimulatory it is actually the means of achieving climax with penetration only occurring near the last moment. I was discussing the moral extent to which stimulatory foreplay was allowed to go in the case of dyspareunia where vaginal penetration causes the female physical pain.

This was a much different context than the mutual stimulation within the context of intercourse that I was discussing prior to that post and I was trying to emphasize that difference.

Edited February 15, 2010 by Veridicus

[XIX]

[quote name='Raphael' date='15 February 2010 - 12:30 PM' timestamp='1266251433' post='2057549']
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.
[/quote]
If anybody is guilty of legalism, it's the person who claims that masturbating all day only to end up inside of the wife is [i]technically [/i]permissible.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='XIX' date='15 February 2010 - 07:20 PM' timestamp='1266279624' post='2057708']
If anybody is guilty of legalism, it's the person who claims that masturbating all day only to end up inside of the wife is [i]technically [/i]permissible.
[/quote]

I said that it would [i][b]seem[/b][/i] technically permissible, before going on to point out that it would still be immoral.

It is never moral to masturbate. As I pointed out, genital stimulation within the context of sexual intercourse is moral, but if it treats the wife merely as a sperm receptacle (as would the scenario you present), it is also immoral. This is because it objectifies her.

Regarding the scenario involving sexual pain, however, I think it's unlikely that this involves objectification, since the reason for having sex is clearly union and procreation, but this cannot be done without immense pain (except at the very end, since the act must end this way). I would argue that the man would be treating his wife with dignity and love, while still trying to engage in sexual intercourse with her (instead of substituting something else). This would be worlds away from two people spending the whole day giving one another sexual pleasure that is neither unitive nor procreative and then trying to fulfill the moral law by squeezing in a few minutes of sexual intercourse at the end. That would be mutual objectification. That is highly legalistic.

The law exists to free us. To fulfill the law with the intention of doing the minimum is not virtuous. However, the law also provides people in the pain scenario with a guide to understand what they may do. People in the pain scenario, I would argue, act virtuously by following the law. In a different set of circumstances, however, it seems the individuals give themselves over to vice.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Raphael' date='15 February 2010 - 06:32 PM' timestamp='1266280345' post='2057712']
It is never moral to masturbate. As I pointed out, genital stimulation within the context of sexual intercourse is moral, but if it treats the wife merely as a sperm receptacle (as would the scenario you present), it is also immoral. This is because it objectifies her.
[/quote]

Which is why I asked about the dyspareunia scenario because it seems to border as close as would be morally permissible along this line of reasoning.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='15 February 2010 - 07:38 PM' timestamp='1266280689' post='2057714']
Which is why I asked about the dyspareunia scenario because it seems to border as close as would be morally permissible along this line of reasoning.
[/quote]
Already edited my post above to include that. Sorry.

[XIX]

[quote name='Raphael' date='15 February 2010 - 08:32 PM' timestamp='1266280345' post='2057712']
I said that it would [i][b]seem[/b][/i] technically permissible, before going on to point out that it would still be immoral.
[/quote]
Right. That's why you're not the legalistic one. You're delving into the spirit of the law.

[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. [/quote]
This on the other hand attempts to construct a technicality whereby masturbation is okay.

Legalism is a two way street. The law can be falsely manipulated to give us extra allowances just as easily as it can constrict us.

Edited February 16, 2010 by XIX

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='XIX' date='15 February 2010 - 08:13 PM' timestamp='1266282817' post='2057724']
Right. That's why you're not the legalistic one. You're delving into the spirit of the law.


This on the other hand attempts to construct a technicality whereby masturbation is okay.

Legalism is a two way street. The law can be falsely manipulated to give us extra allowances just as easily as it can constrict us.
[/quote]
Sorry, when you quoted me, I assumed I was the target. My apologies.

[XIX]

I apologize also.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='XIX' date='15 February 2010 - 07:13 PM' timestamp='1266282817' post='2057724']
This on the other hand attempts to construct a technicality whereby masturbation is okay.

Legalism is a two way street. The law can be falsely manipulated to give us extra allowances just as easily as it can constrict us.
[/quote]

To be fair, I think Keenan was playing advocatus diaboli by taking what he perceived as legalism on our part to the extreme. His preceding posts in no way reveal any desire for hedonistic license and in fact demonstrate the exact opposite. He takes the letter of the law even more rigidly than Raphael and I were in the sense that he thinks [i]less [/i]foreplay should be allowed.

[TradMom]

+Praised be Jesus Christ

I rarely post or read the debate table, and perhaps it is a good thing I don't because these kinds of threads/conversations drive me crazy.

There are so many if's, what's, interpretations , etc., that I am not sure anybody other than the parties involved can make a moral, serious and holy decision.

I apologize in advance if my thoughts/opinions appear too strident, but I honestly do not believe this is something that anybody can answer (or attempt to answer) for another. I am also somewhat (and here's the traditional mother in me) put off by the very debate. I certainly know that to instruct the ignorant is an important act of mercy, but for goodness' sake, this is a little overboard.

We celebrated our 25 wedding anniversary this summer. If a young couple in our parish approached me (in all seriousness) with this question, I would advise them to follow their conscience and leave me out of the details. Some of the comments in this thread truly border on being offensive and I am not sure what is worse - trying to determine the myriad possibilities of what can possibly occur in a marital bed or the private act itself.

Pax,
TradMom

Edited February 16, 2010 by TradMom

[Lilllabettt]

If I feel I am uncomfortable with/am offended by explicit discussion about the morality of mutual masturbation within marriage, then I am careful not to click on the thread titled "Mutual masturbation within marriage."




Just saying.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Lilllabettt

[Thy Geekdom Come]

It's a real moral issue. Therefore, it [b]should[/b] be discussed, but maturely.

As for just following one's conscience, the conscience must be formed. I think it's silly to think that we can form consciences without addressing real-world topics. As evidenced by the traffic of this thread so far, a lot of people are interested in the topic, which only makes it more apparent that this is a real-world topic in need of discussion.

[Saint Therese]

It seems like a debasement of the sanctity of the marital act to me.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Saint Therese

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Saint Therese' date='16 February 2010 - 01:30 PM' timestamp='1266345004' post='2057925']
It seems like a debasement of the sanctity of the marital act to me.
[/quote]
Agreed.

[Saint Therese]

The question that jumps out at me is: WHY would anyone want to do this? Isn't it sort of rejecting intimacy with the spouse? ( i'm excepting of course cases mentioned above re physical problems). And isn't physical intimacy between spouses supposed to be about strengthening the marriage bond?

Edited February 16, 2010 by Saint Therese

[Varg]

[quote name='Saint Therese' date='16 February 2010 - 01:38 PM' timestamp='1266345523' post='2057930']
The question that jumps out at me is: WHY would anyone want to do this? Isn't it sort of rejecting intimacy with the spouse? ( i'm excepting of course cases mentioned above re physical problems). And isn't physical intimacy between spouses supposed to be about strengthening the marriage bond?
[/quote]
The truth is, most some people care about pleasure more than they care about marriage bonds.

[Saint Therese]

Yes, but that's lust, and a sin. Objectifying the spouse as a pleasure object, even beyond the discussion of the act itself, is gravely wrong, and I'm sure would be injurious to the marriage.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Saint Therese

[Thy Geekdom Come]

The explanation I was given by the other person in the debate was that he's very busy and has a lot going on that makes this necessary. I don't know how work, school, or any other kind of being busy could make time with our spouses so rare that somehow mutual masturbation is possible or desirable while sexual intercourse is not. If I were faced with that situation, I would have to re-analyze my priorities and see if I'm putting my wife where she belongs.

The only other reason someone would want to do this that I can think of is if their avoiding children. Seems like an awfully immoral and ungratifying way to have sexual pleasure.

I was told by the person in question that this is to keep the passion alive when sex is not an option.

Yes, it would have to be injurious to marriage. What frightens me is that I suspect a person using this approach to sexuality will think they are doing good until the love grows cold from mutual objectification.

Love demands sacrifice. With the grace of God, I would forgo sexual pleasure indefinitely if receiving it meant objectifying my wife.