Mutual Masturbation Within Marriage - A Debate I'm Having

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Raphael' date='16 February 2010 - 03:38 PM' timestamp='1266349118' post='2057966']
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.
[/quote]
Or they could just be bored.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='16 February 2010 - 02:41 PM' timestamp='1266349280' post='2057967']
Or they could just be bored.
[/quote]
Ah, yes, I forgot, the great moral motivator that brought us such television classics as Jackass.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Raphael' date='16 February 2010 - 03:50 PM' timestamp='1266349836' post='2057974']
Ah, yes, I forgot, the great moral motivator that brought us such television classics as Jackass.
[/quote]
No clue what that is, but after 20-30 years of marriage some people do get bored with sex. Its no longer sacred-interesting-exciting etc, so they look for something else. Thats why
marriage encounter is so good with older couples - it helps them re-connect with their spouse on a level past their dishes, garbage, laundry, mow the grass routines.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='16 February 2010 - 03:15 PM' timestamp='1266351330' post='2057983']
No clue what that is, but after 20-30 years of marriage some people do get bored with sex. Its no longer sacred-interesting-exciting etc, so they look for something else. Thats why
marriage encounter is so good with older couples - it helps them re-connect with their spouse on a level past their dishes, garbage, laundry, mow the grass routines.
[/quote]
Of course, I just hope they're not telling them to try to engage in immoral activities, like deliberate genital stimulation outside of sexual intercourse.

[HisChildForever]

[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?
[/quote]

Married couples who engaged in premarital sex (as well as premarital sexual relations) and/or married couples who do not understand the sanctity of the marital act may think of mutual masturbation and other immoral sexual activity as a way to keep things "interesting."

[HisChildForever]

Oh, Cmom beat me to it. This is what happens when you start your reply and then walk away for an hour.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='16 February 2010 - 03:32 PM' timestamp='1266352358' post='2057990']
Oh, Cmom beat me to it. This is what happens when you start your reply and then walk away for an hour.
[/quote]
lol, I've done that before.

[kafka]

[quote name='Slappo' date='15 February 2010 - 03:28 AM' timestamp='1266222530' post='2057449']




I would add that stimulation even after vaginal intercourse has occured can be meant for the purpose of procreation and unity as reaching the height of sexual pleasure is essential for both the man and woman. For the man it is essential that this occurs for intercourse to be completed. For the woman it is essential for her physical, psychological, and emotional health. This stimulation after intercourse would be for the purposes of the woman reaching this height if it did not occur within the context of vaginal intercourse.

Also, for both man and woman, reaching this height is helpful to procreation. For the man, obviously more sperm is present, and for the woman, the chain reaction that occurs in her body aids the sperm to reach the egg.

[b]However, because stimulation after vaginal intercourse is for the purpose of procreation and unity and is still occuring in the [u]context[/u] of intercourse, it is not considered masturbation.[/b]


If someone finds error with the above, I'd love to talk about it as I've never seen documented teaching from the Church that fully supports what I say, but theologically I find no fallacy.


All in all I agree with Micah that masturbation is immoral even within the context of spousal relations.
[/quote]
Two points:

First

Once sexual intercourse ceases to be an act, whatever one chooses to do next is a whole new act. A couple is either having sex or they are not. They are engaging in the marital act or they are doing something else before or after. Your 'context' above means nothing to the nature of the marital act. To come up with an absurd example, one could commit murder in the context of intercourse. A couple is making love or they are not. It is that simple.

Second

Every human act has its own nature (or species if you will) called the moral object. The nature of the act is either based on God's Nature which is Goodness, Justice, Mercy, Love, etc. hence it is good, or not based on God's nature meaning lacking in goodness or evil. The intentions or purposes(your word) or circumstances/consequences can never change the nature of the act. Never, never, never. If the nature of the act is evil the intentions and consequences in your scenario are default, the whole act is immoral because the moral object of the act is evil. The nature of the act does not in any way depend upon purpose/intention or consequences. The purpose/intention and or consequences do not change the nature of any act, whatsoever. They cannot make an act moral. All they can do is lessen the the gravity of an act. eg a lie told is always inherently evil, but not always a serious sin depending on circumstance. To put it blunt your speculation is bad moral theology.

The three fonts of morality all must be good in order for a human act to be moral. They are:

Intention
Moral object (the inherent nature of the act)
Circumstance/Consequences. The good must outweigh the bad.

The moral object or nature of sexual relations is one that is reflect the three ends of marriage. Saint Augustine:

"We should not forget that the Church assigns three ends to marriage, which St. Augustine sums up by the words proles, fides, sacramentum -- offspring, fidelity, the sacrament."

These three ends of marriage as a whole also find their expression in marital sexual relations particularly, as the procreative meaning, the unitive meaning, and the marital meaning. To be moral, each and every sexual act must have all three meanings, which constitute one threefold moral object that is procreative, unitive, and marital. (btw This is Dr. Hildebrand's teaching)

Stimulation by nature does not meet any of these hence it is inherently evil. Stimulation by itself is not procreative. Stimulation by itself is not unitive. Stimulation by itself is not marital. The circumstances mean nothing to the morality of the act itself. The nature of the act of stimulation itself whether self-induced or induced by another is a whole new act inherently different than sexual relations. It is a whole different moral species.

Edited February 16, 2010 by kafka

[Brother Adam]

Kafka you have failed to prove that stimulating a female to orgasm after a male is evil by nature. The act is still procreative, unitive, and marital and in fact directly aids in procreation. You also have not proved that such stimulation is a whole separate act. Please try again.

[kafka]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='16 February 2010 - 04:24 PM' timestamp='1266355467' post='2058009']
Kafka you have failed to prove that stimulating a female to orgasm after a male is evil by nature. The act is still procreative, unitive, and marital and in fact directly aids in procreation. You also have not proved that such stimulation is a whole separate act. Please try again.
[/quote]
maybe I read him wrong. I was presuming that the couple was finished in engaging in the marital act itself. Was I wrong?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='kafka' date='16 February 2010 - 05:36 PM' timestamp='1266356199' post='2058015']
maybe I read him wrong. I was presuming that the couple was finished in engaging in the marital act itself. Was I wrong?
[/quote]
You are assuming the marital act is over because one of the two people involved had an orgasm. That is a solo performance, marriage is a duet.

[kafka]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='16 February 2010 - 04:41 PM' timestamp='1266356479' post='2058017']
You are assuming the marital act is over because one of the two people involved had an orgasm. That is a solo performance, marriage is a duet.
[/quote]
the nature of the marital act is not defined by the orgasm alone. That is the lowest aspect, or the human/proles aspect. A manuel stimulation is a damaged proles act that does not meet all three. It does not even fully meet the lowest aspect. The particular circumstance means nothing to the inherent nature of the act itself

all three meanings must be met. All three must be met, otherwise it is inherently evil.

[TradMom]

[i]....you have failed to prove that stimulating a female to orgasm after a male is evil by nature. The act is still procreative, unitive, and marital and in fact directly aids in procreation. You also have not proved that such stimulation is a whole separate act. Please try again. [/i]

+Praised be Jesus Christ!

To better clarify my earlier comments,I find what Brother Adam said sums up my thoughts perfectly. While I am not squeamish about bodily functions (it would be impossible after eight children), there are many, many if's, and's, but's and what if's connected to this topic. IF someone is married validly within the Church, has taken all the classes necessary, has been in good communication with their pastor/priest and hopefully has a spiritual director, then one SHOULD have a formed conscience - at the very least when it comes to marriage. And considering the fact they are engaging in an act that could produce children, therefore potentially making them parents - I hope and pray they have some sense and yes, a formed conscience. There should not be a need to sit down with another and ask "If I do this....before I do that...is that okay or is it a sin?" A married couple living under the tenets of the Church had better be able to figure these things out. There have been times in our Church when we have just gone overboard to the point of being salacious regarding some of these things, and I am sorry, but I do take objection to discussing every single thing which ultimately belongs wholly to the couple and God. Breaking down every single action and possible deed/stroke or exploit seems to me to border on the voyeuristic.

Pax,
TradMom

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='kafka' date='16 February 2010 - 05:48 PM' timestamp='1266356887' post='2058021']
the nature of the marital act is not defined by the orgasm alone. That is the lowest aspect, or the human/proles aspect. A manuel stimulation is a damaged proles act that does not meet all three. It does not even fully meet the lowest aspect. The particular circumstance means nothing to the inherent nature of the act itself

all three meanings must be met. All three must be met, otherwise it is inherently evil.
[/quote]
Hey I'm just going by what you are posted:
"Once sexual intercourse ceases to be an act, whatever one chooses to do next is a whole new act. A couple is either having sex or they are not. They are engaging in the marital act or they are doing something else before or after."

It depends on how you define "sexual intercourse doesn't it. A B and C or an intimate sacred interaction between a married couple. Brother Adam got it right.

[Veridicus]

I cannot imagine a circumstance where a married couple is 'too busy' for intercourse but mutual masturbation would be a giant time savings. I reject that as a line of reasoning meant to substantiate mutual masturbation within marriage.

And Varg is correct: too many people care more about sexual pleasure than the marriage bond.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Veridicus

[tinytherese]

Something tells me that the book "Holy Sex" probably addresses this issue.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='kafka' date='16 February 2010 - 04:48 PM' timestamp='1266356887' post='2058021']
the nature of the marital act is not defined by the orgasm alone. That is the lowest aspect, or the human/proles aspect. A manuel stimulation is a damaged proles act that does not meet all three. It does not even fully meet the lowest aspect. The particular circumstance means nothing to the inherent nature of the act itself

all three meanings must be met. All three must be met, otherwise it is inherently evil.
[/quote]

So as long as the husband orgasms, all is good right?

[Lil Red]

[quote name='tinytherese' date='16 February 2010 - 05:01 PM' timestamp='1266364887' post='2058098']
Something tells me that the book "Holy Sex" probably addresses this issue.
[/quote]
+JMJ+
it does.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Kafka, regarding the scenario of genital stimulation for one's wife after male orgasm has occurred (which, I must point out, is entirely different from the subject of this thread)...

Your argument presupposes that genital stimulation is inherently wrong. Viewed from the context of the Catechism, a part of the definition of masturbation is that it outside "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved." Not all genital stimulation can be considered immoral because not all genital stimulation fits the definition of masturbation. For it to be immoral, it must be for the purpose of pleasure outside of the mutual self-giving and procreative context of sexual intercourse.

So we need to know if genital stimulation after male orgasm is within the context of the sexual act (which would make the stimulation a part of intercourse, not a separate act). The question becomes: when does the sex act end? If the sex act ends with male orgasm, then any stimulation after that is immoral. If, however (as I argue), the sex act ends with the finality of mutual self-giving found in orgasm, then the sex act is not complete until both parties reach orgasm [b]or[/b] until one party reaches orgasm and the other definitively fails to reach orgasm (i.e. despite their best efforts, the couple cannot achieve mutual orgasm). (I argue that failure point because at that point the act has failed to reach its climax, although it may still be fruitful, and anything further could not be considered a part of the same act because it would be starting a second sexual act.) Stimulation is not a separate act, but a part of sexual intercourse, hopefully intended by the married couple to assist in the union and procreation of the act. That is in keeping with natural law, since it is more loving and unitive for the husband to bring his wife to the completion of the act with him and since female orgasm assists in fertilization.

However, I'd ask that this topic be continued on another thread if you really wish to pursue it. It isn't relevant to the topic of this thread.

[Slappo]

[quote name='TradMom' date='16 February 2010 - 01:49 PM' timestamp='1266356973' post='2058022']
[i]....you have failed to prove that stimulating a female to orgasm after a male is evil by nature. The act is still procreative, unitive, and marital and in fact directly aids in procreation. You also have not proved that such stimulation is a whole separate act. Please try again. [/i]

+Praised be Jesus Christ!

To better clarify my earlier comments,I find what Brother Adam said sums up my thoughts perfectly. While I am not squeamish about bodily functions (it would be impossible after eight children), there are many, many if's, and's, but's and what if's connected to this topic. IF someone is married validly within the Church, has taken all the classes necessary, has been in good communication with their pastor/priest and hopefully has a spiritual director, then one SHOULD have a formed conscience - at the very least when it comes to marriage. And considering the fact they are engaging in an act that could produce children, therefore potentially making them parents - I hope and pray they have some sense and yes, a formed conscience. There should not be a need to sit down with another and ask "If I do this....before I do that...is that okay or is it a sin?" A married couple living under the tenets of the Church had better be able to figure these things out. There have been times in our Church when we have just gone overboard to the point of being salacious regarding some of these things, and I am sorry, but I do take objection to discussing every single thing which ultimately belongs wholly to the couple and God. Breaking down every single action and possible deed/stroke or exploit seems to me to border on the voyeuristic.

Pax,
TradMom
[/quote]

TradMom,

The point is there are MANY MANY Catholics who had BAD marriage prep, a priest that doesn't follow Church teaching, many don't have spiritual directors, and besides openly talking about these situations they will have poorly formed conscience and may be committing sins of grave matter by engaging in what they believe to be moral.

Also, as I stated in one of my earlier posts, intimacy that lets both spouses reach climax is vital to the actual physical and psychological health of the woman. Organs are meant for certain functions and when those functions don't occur when they should, it causes health issues. The woman's body is triggered to release pressure during climax which eases inflammation that can occur. If this is never triggered, serious health problems can develop. It is important stuff to talk about, but it has to be done in a mature fashion and in a manner which will uphold the sacredness of the marital act.





EDIT: And to keep with the thread topic. I believe Micah and my assertions to show that such intimacy as above is not considered mutual masturbation and would therefore not be a reason to think mutual masturbation is morally acceptable.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Slappo