Mutual Masturbation Within Marriage - A Debate I'm Having

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Raphael' date='16 February 2010 - 07:10 PM' timestamp='1266365434' post='2058105']
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.
[/quote]

I would like to add that some women rarely experience orgasm from intercourse alone, and that many women do not experience orgasm every time they have intercourse.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='TradMom' date='16 February 2010 - 04:49 PM' timestamp='1266356973' post='2058022']
Breaking down every single action and possible deed/stroke or exploit seems to me to border on the voyeuristic.
[/quote]

And who did this?

[N/A Gone]

/edit--not worth it. (Mod please delete)

Edited February 17, 2010 by Revprodeji

[HisChildForever]

I would feel silly too.

[N/A Gone]

I am not sure if that was aimed at me.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='16 February 2010 - 07:42 PM' timestamp='1266367349' post='2058117']
I would like to add that some women rarely experience orgasm from intercourse alone, and that many women do not experience orgasm every time they have intercourse.
[/quote]

Agreed.

Christopher West on the subject of foreplay:

[indent]
The acts by which spouses lovingly prepare each other for genital intercourse (foreplay) are honorable and good. But stimulation of each other’s genitals to the point of climax apart from an act of normal intercourse is nothing other than mutual masturbation… An important point of clarification is needed. Since it’s the male orgasm that’s inherently linked with the possibility of new life, the husband must never intentionally ejaculate outside of his wife’s vagina. Since the female orgasm, however, isn’t necessarily linked to the possibility of conception, so long as it takes place within the overall context of an act of intercourse, it need not, morally speaking, be during actual penetration… Ideally, the wife’s orgasm would happen simultaneously with her husband’s [orgasm], but this is easier said than done for many couples. In fact, if the wife’s orgasm isn’t achieved during the natural course of foreplay and consummation, it would be the loving thing for the husband to stimulate his wife to climax thereafter (if she so desired).
[/indent]

Christopher West, Good News about Sex and Marriage: Answers to Your Honest Questions about Catholic Teaching (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Publications, 2000), 90-91.

And Vincent Genovesi:

[indent]
According to the Church’s traditional teaching, it is neither unnatural, perverted, nor immoral for couples to seek sexual stimulation and arousal by means of oral (…) intercourse, but such activity should not be continued to the point of orgasm… Sexual climax, however, is to occur only after vaginal penetration… On another matter of marital sexuality, some wives may need reassurance. Should it happen that she fails to achieve sexual fulfillment in the act of sexual intercourse, a woman is morally permitted, according to the Church’s teaching, to seek and achieve orgasm by other means.
[/indent]

Vincent Genovesi, In Pursuit of Love: Catholic Morality and Human Sexuality (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1996), 242-43.

Edited February 17, 2010 by mommas_boy

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='mommas_boy' date='17 February 2010 - 02:01 AM' timestamp='1266390094' post='2058229']
Agreed.

Christopher West on the subject of foreplay:

[indent]
The acts by which spouses lovingly prepare each other for genital intercourse (foreplay) are honorable and good. But stimulation of each other’s genitals to the point of climax apart from an act of normal intercourse is nothing other than mutual masturbation… An important point of clarification is needed. Since it’s the male orgasm that’s inherently linked with the possibility of new life, the husband must never intentionally ejaculate outside of his wife’s vagina. Since the female orgasm, however, isn’t necessarily linked to the possibility of conception, so long as it takes place within the overall context of an act of intercourse, it need not, morally speaking, be during actual penetration… Ideally, the wife’s orgasm would happen simultaneously with her husband’s [orgasm], but this is easier said than done for many couples. In fact, if the wife’s orgasm isn’t achieved during the natural course of foreplay and consummation, it would be the loving thing for the husband to stimulate his wife to climax thereafter (if she so desired).
[/indent]

Christopher West, Good News about Sex and Marriage: Answers to Your Honest Questions about Catholic Teaching (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Publications, 2000), 90-91.

And Vincent Genovesi:

[indent]
According to the Church’s traditional teaching, it is neither unnatural, perverted, nor immoral for couples to seek sexual stimulation and arousal by means of oral (…) intercourse, but such activity should not be continued to the point of orgasm… Sexual climax, however, is to occur only after vaginal penetration… On another matter of marital sexuality, some wives may need reassurance. Should it happen that she fails to achieve sexual fulfillment in the act of sexual intercourse, a woman is morally permitted, according to the Church’s teaching, to seek and achieve orgasm by other means.
[/indent]

Vincent Genovesi, In Pursuit of Love: Catholic Morality and Human Sexuality (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1996), 242-43.
[/quote]

Why did I receive a negative point on this post? Oh, maybe somebody missed the positive button. Meh.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='mommas_boy' date='17 February 2010 - 06:20 PM' timestamp='1266445201' post='2058506']
Why did I receive a negative point on this post? Oh, maybe somebody missed the positive button. Meh.
[/quote]
Fixed it

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='mommas_boy' date='17 February 2010 - 05:20 PM' timestamp='1266445201' post='2058506']
Why did I receive a negative point on this post? Oh, maybe somebody missed the positive button. Meh.
[/quote]
I didn't give you a negative, but a lot of people can't stand Christopher West. I'm not his biggest fan myself, but I think the gist of what he says is good.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='17 February 2010 - 05:23 PM' timestamp='1266445437' post='2058510']
Fixed it
[/quote]

Thanks Cmom! :wink:

[Ziggamafu]

Traditionally speaking, masturbation refers to self-pleasure from the genitals (male or female) and pollution refers to the wasting of the male seed. Almost nobody makes the distinction anymore, but in traditional vocabulary masturbation and pollution are defined as distinct sins; hence, a man may commit the sin of masturbation without committing the sin of pollution. Now, that being said: if by mutual masturbation we mean both marital partners self-stimulating, then it is clearly a sin, for masturbation is masturbation. However, if the spouses are stimulating each other as a means of foreplay, so long as the sin of pollution is not the goal (i.e., the stimulation is real foreplay, not an end in itself) then it is both morally permissible and good - and it certainly would not be defined as "masturbation".

Edited February 18, 2010 by Ziggamafu

[Socrates]

My word, this thread is filthy!


[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='18 February 2010 - 08:42 AM' timestamp='1266500520' post='2058753']
Traditionally speaking, masturbation refers to self-pleasure from the genitals (male or female) and pollution refers to the wasting of the male seed. Almost nobody makes the distinction anymore, but in traditional vocabulary masturbation and pollution are defined as distinct sins; hence, a man may commit the sin of masturbation without committing the sin of pollution. Now, that being said: if by mutual masturbation we mean both marital partners self-stimulating, then it is clearly a sin, for masturbation is masturbation. However, if the spouses are stimulating each other as a means of foreplay, so long as the sin of pollution is not the goal (i.e., the stimulation is real foreplay, not an end in itself) then it is both morally permissible and good - and it certainly would not be defined as "masturbation".
[/quote]
I think that sums it up quite nicely.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Socrates' date='18 February 2010 - 02:38 PM' timestamp='1266521881' post='2058870']
My word, this thread is filthy!

[/quote]
[img]http://www.theimaginaryworld.com/cormatt10.jpg[/img]

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='18 February 2010 - 09:42 AM' timestamp='1266500520' post='2058753']
Traditionally speaking, masturbation refers to self-pleasure from the genitals (male or female) and pollution refers to the wasting of the male seed. Almost nobody makes the distinction anymore, but in traditional vocabulary masturbation and pollution are defined as distinct sins; hence, a man may commit the sin of masturbation without committing the sin of pollution. Now, that being said: if by mutual masturbation we mean both marital partners self-stimulating, then it is clearly a sin, for masturbation is masturbation. However, if the spouses are stimulating each other as a means of foreplay, so long as the sin of pollution is not the goal (i.e., the stimulation is real foreplay, not an end in itself) then it is both morally permissible and good - and it certainly would not be defined as "masturbation".
[/quote]

We have a winner.

[let_go_let_God]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='18 February 2010 - 08:42 AM' timestamp='1266500520' post='2058753']
Traditionally speaking, masturbation refers to self-pleasure from the genitals (male or female) and pollution refers to the wasting of the male seed. Almost nobody makes the distinction anymore, but in traditional vocabulary masturbation and pollution are defined as distinct sins; hence, a man may commit the sin of masturbation without committing the sin of pollution. Now, that being said: if by mutual masturbation we mean both marital partners self-stimulating, then it is clearly a sin, for masturbation is masturbation. However, if the spouses are stimulating each other as a means of foreplay, so long as the sin of pollution is not the goal (i.e., the stimulation is real foreplay, not an end in itself) then it is both morally permissible and good - and it certainly would not be defined as "masturbation".
[/quote]


[quote name='Brother Adam' date='18 February 2010 - 06:21 PM' timestamp='1266535316' post='2059012']
We have a winner.
[/quote]

Agreed. This is well said Ziggy.

+1

God bless-
LGLG

[Fiat_Voluntas_Tua]

Raphael,

Take a look at some of GEM Anscombe's essay's on contraception...she talks about masturbation within marriage on a par with contraception within marriage. I believe the article is entitled, "Chastity and Contraception", but I could be wrong. Regardless, it is clearly immoral, for the act of masturbation does not have the intent of openness to fertility (I distinguish between [i]masturbation as foreplay[/i] [i]to intercourse[/i] and [i]masturbation as an end independent of intercourse[/i]...these are two different TYPES of acts). Masturbation is basically a form of birth control when it is done independent of intercourse.

One may wonder whether sexual intercourse in some contexts could be considered masturbation, and I would say as you have defined it, yes it can be. And I think this isn't much of a problem either, for I think married couples can have sexual intercourse and be doing something immoral. After all does it really matter [i]how[/i] the sexual organs are stimulated for the act to qualify as masturbation? I think it surely does not. In short, intercourse can sometimes be classified as masturbation. Feel free to disagree, it has been awhile since he have 'debated'. Also, I would like to hear how the debate goes with this guy.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Fiat_Voluntas_Tua' date='13 March 2010 - 02:31 AM' timestamp='1268465463' post='2072268']
Raphael,

Take a look at some of GEM Anscombe's essay's on contraception...she talks about masturbation within marriage on a par with contraception within marriage. I believe the article is entitled, "Chastity and Contraception", but I could be wrong. Regardless, it is clearly immoral, for the act of masturbation does not have the intent of openness to fertility (I distinguish between [i]masturbation as foreplay[/i] [i]to intercourse[/i] and [i]masturbation as an end independent of intercourse[/i]...these are two different TYPES of acts). Masturbation is basically a form of birth control when it is done independent of intercourse.

One may wonder whether sexual intercourse in some contexts could be considered masturbation, and I would say as you have defined it, yes it can be. And I think this isn't much of a problem either, for I think married couples can have sexual intercourse and be doing something immoral. After all does it really matter [i]how[/i] the sexual organs are stimulated for the act to qualify as masturbation? I think it surely does not. In short, intercourse can sometimes be classified as masturbation. Feel free to disagree, it has been awhile since he have 'debated'. Also, I would like to hear how the debate goes with this guy.
[/quote]

I think a couple that contracepts is essentially practicing masturbation through sex, as would an NFP-using couple that approaches the method with a contraceptive mentality.

[MIKolbe]

How can you approach NFP without a 'contracepting' mentality? If you are using NFP to HELP with conception; ok, I see your point. But if you are looking at it to 'space out' pregnancies; how can you do that without a contracepting mentality?

I think I am understanding why Apo rejects it.

This is a confusing to me, which could be why I see parts of it as hypocritical.

Does not one commit adultery but lustful thoughts? ie 'mens rea' without 'actus reas'...

How is this different in NFP?

I do not what to 'conceive', but I use nature to achieve this. again..'mens rea' without 'actus reas'

I am just confused, I think.....

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='zunshynn' date='15 February 2010 - 02:58 AM' timestamp='1266220699' post='2057441']
Obviously it is immoral behavior. But what is the point of referring to them as "dirty pigs"? I'm grateful that God would never consider anyone a "pig", no matter how bad their sins are. If God forgives and loves every person for their innate dignity, regardless of their sins and failures in regards to purity, shouldn't we, who are just as impure before God, without the gift of His mercy?
[/quote]

it was just a knee-jerk response...but at the same time, Jesus does warn us about "casting pearls among swine."

i guess i just don't understand why Catholic married couples would want to masturbate! Sex is given to us as a gift from God when we finally find our soul-mates, the person who completes us, and are united with them into ONE in the Holy Sacrament of Marriage. God is giving couples to each other, giving them the gift to enjoy each other, to truly become "one flesh" in the act of sexual intercourse. It's like that's not good enough...we have to keep finding ways to abuse our privileges. Let's keep doing things our own way, and try to justify our perversions...

"pigs" comes to my mind, I guess because they are animals...and sometimes we can act out our most base desires...like the animals do by instinct...and i just find masturbation dirty, filthy and disgusting...

Edited March 13, 2010 by dominicansoul

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='MIkolbe' date='13 March 2010 - 12:38 PM' timestamp='1268501908' post='2072379']
How can you approach NFP without a 'contracepting' mentality? If you are using NFP to HELP with conception; ok, I see your point. But if you are looking at it to 'space out' pregnancies; how can you do that without a contracepting mentality?

I think I am understanding why Apo rejects it.

This is a confusing to me, which could be why I see parts of it as hypocritical.

Does not one commit adultery but lustful thoughts? ie 'mens rea' without 'actus reas'...

How is this different in NFP?

I do not what to 'conceive', but I use nature to achieve this. again..'mens rea' without 'actus reas'

I am just confused, I think.....
[/quote]

The contraceptive mentality is one which approaches sex primarily or solely as a means of pleasure. A couple practicing NFP may be using it with the intention to space out children while expressing their union in a way open to life. That would be moral. A couple practicing with the intention to seek pleasure primarily or solely, however, has a bad intention.

Like any good thing, NFP can be abused in a bad act. That doesn't make NFP bad, but it makes the sexual act that misuses it bad.