Can Anyone Give Me A Good Answer To My Question?

[havok579257]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1858435' date='May 5 2009, 12:10 PM']Unnatural to do. This is the Church's teaching. I could not tell you if it is unnatural to like the "idea" since I have no clue what "idea" it is you are referring to. However, I have an ASSUMPTION of what you are thinking of, and if it IS what I am thinking of, I would call it degrading.

Furthermore, you will begin to view pregnancy as a "cover" for your sexual practice. This just destroys the beauty of pregnancy.



EXACTLY.[/quote]


to you its degrading, but that does not apply to everyone. if my wife likes such a thing, it does not mean she likes being degraded. but just to show further proof of it being subjective from person to person. some people think oral stimulation is absolutly wrong and one of the most degrading things in the world, yet the church teachs oral stimulation is ok. which means it can't be degrading, yet some people still think it is.


pregnancy as a cover for sexual practices? how so? i really don't think people will be getting pregnant just to have certain kinds of sex.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1858444' date='May 5 2009, 12:18 PM']to you its degrading, but that does not apply to everyone. if my wife likes such a thing, it does not mean she likes being degraded. but just to show further proof of it being subjective from person to person. some people think oral stimulation is absolutly wrong and one of the most degrading things in the world, yet the church teachs oral stimulation is ok. which means it can't be degrading, yet some people still think it is.[/quote]

As far as I know, the Church has no actual teaching on oral stimulation. It is lumped into the category of foreplay. The man must end the proper way.

[quote]pregnancy as a cover for sexual practices? how so? i really don't think people will be getting pregnant just to have certain kinds of sex.[/quote]

No, but the pregnant woman will not be seen as precious so much as an object of pleasure.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1858434' date='May 5 2009, 05:10 PM']Buts thats just your opinion. Just because a man does not end correctly does not mean he is inot respecting his wife and just because a man does not end properly does not mean the wife is being respected. also if a man does not end properly does in no way mean the couple is any less unnitive then if he ends properly unless that is the personal feelings of one of the couple.[/quote]
No, it isn't just an opinion. I have to find this again, but I was reading that, in the act of intercourse (regardless of whether the woman achieves orgasm), [spoiler]the woman's vagina literally drinks in the man's semen.[/spoiler] It is a complete union.
[quote name='havok579257' post='1858434' date='May 5 2009, 05:10 PM']The problem with the procreative aspect is that you are already doing that by being pregnant and you can't get pregnant again while being pregnant. its an oxymoron in this one instance. i mean if your saying that unless you can be procreative during sex and being pregnant does not already cover that aspect, then anyone having sex during pregancy is doing it only out of their own desires. which isn;t the case at all.[/quote]
By that reasoning, the Church wouldn't allow couples to engage in intercourse during the non-fertile parts of a woman's cycle. Wouldn't give much incentive for breastfeeding, since that delays the return of fertility for most women. Anyway, the Church doesn't say that you can only have sex if that specific act is going to be procreative. It says you cannot purposefully render it sterile (in case of the chance), and that you cannot ignore the unitive aspect.

[quote name='havok579257' post='1858440' date='May 5 2009, 05:13 PM']Its only not unnative if one of the couple feels that way. like another example would be is some couples might not consider it unnative if the women does not orgasm. although other couple might consider it unnative as long as sex is performed. this is subjective to each couple. so a man not ending right not being unnative is subjective to each couple.[/quote]
As I said earlier, it isn't up to the couple. It isn't subjective. It is only unitive if it is actual vaginal intercourse.

Edited May 5, 2009 by Archaeology cat

[havok579257]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1858443' date='May 5 2009, 12:15 PM']The unitive aspect is OBJECTIVE. It is not to be interpreted subjectively.[/quote]


I would like to see the evidence that if a man does not end properly, that the unnative aspect of marriage has not happened. cause that would mean any couple who starts having sex and the man can not finish due to whatever reason, has not had a unnative sex experience.

whats unnative for some couple is not un-unnative for another couple. unnative is subjective. one couple could say unless a man and women orgasm, the couple was not completly unnative. that their sexual act was not unnative to them. that something was left out. while another couple could say, the mere act of intercourse between a man and a women is completly unnative for them, even if for whatever reason, one of them can not finish. so who is right? its subjective because there is more than one answer to this question and unnative is solely dependent upon what one couple consititues as not being unnative.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1858448' date='May 5 2009, 12:24 PM']I would like to see the evidence that if a man does not end properly, that the unnative aspect of marriage has not happened. cause that would mean any couple who starts having sex and the man can not finish due to whatever reason, has not had a unnative sex experience.

whats unnative for some couple is not un-unnative for another couple. unnative is subjective. one couple could say unless a man and women orgasm, the couple was not completly unnative. that their sexual act was not unnative to them. that something was left out. while another couple could say, the mere act of intercourse between a man and a women is completly unnative for them, even if for whatever reason, one of them can not finish. so who is right? its subjective because there is more than one answer to this question and unnative is solely dependent upon what one couple consititues as not being unnative.[/quote]

"Unitive" is when the husband and the wife come together and participate in the marital act in accordance with Church teaching.

[havok579257]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1858446' date='May 5 2009, 12:23 PM']As far as I know, the Church has no actual teaching on oral stimulation. It is lumped into the category of foreplay. The man must end the proper way.



No, but the pregnant woman will not be seen as precious so much as an object of pleasure.[/quote]


from my understanding from the massive debate this board had about 6 months ago, the chruch teachs oral stimulation is ok as long as it leads to intercourse sex act. as long as the couple is open to life, then oral stimulation is fine, lets say, to get the ball rolling.

unless its the pregnant women who wants such things. so how does that work, if its the women who wants such things?

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1858448' date='May 5 2009, 05:24 PM']I would like to see the evidence that if a man does not end properly, that the unnative aspect of marriage has not happened. cause that would mean any couple who starts having sex and the man can not finish due to whatever reason, has not had a unnative sex experience.

whats unnative for some couple is not un-unnative for another couple. unnative is subjective. one couple could say unless a man and women orgasm, the couple was not completly unnative. that their sexual act was not unnative to them. that something was left out. while another couple could say, the mere act of intercourse between a man and a women is completly unnative for them, even if for whatever reason, one of them can not finish. so who is right? its subjective because there is more than one answer to this question and unnative is solely dependent upon what one couple consititues as not being unnative.[/quote]
In the case of a couple not being able to finish for some reason, because the intent was there to finish correctly, they have not sinned. The Church doesn't teach that this is the ideal, or that it is completely unitive, as far as I know. The key here is the intent.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1858451' date='May 5 2009, 12:27 PM']from my understanding from the massive debate this board had about 6 months ago, the chruch teachs oral stimulation is ok as long as it leads to intercourse sex act. as long as the couple is open to life, then oral stimulation is fine, lets say, to get the ball rolling.

unless its the pregnant women who wants such things. so how does that work, if its the women who wants such things?[/quote]

You missed the word "foreplay" in my post. Oral stimulation is acceptable as foreplay but it is NOT acceptable by itself. It is NOT acceptable for the man to finish outside of the "proper area."

[havok579257]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1858447' date='May 5 2009, 12:23 PM']No, it isn't just an opinion. I have to find this again, but I was reading that, in the act of intercourse (regardless of whether the woman achieves orgasm), [spoiler]the woman's vagina literally drinks in the man's semen.[/spoiler] It is a complete union.

By that reasoning, the Church wouldn't allow couples to engage in intercourse during the non-fertile parts of a woman's cycle. Wouldn't give much incentive for breastfeeding, since that delays the return of fertility for most women. Anyway, the Church doesn't say that you can only have sex if that specific act is going to be procreative. It says you cannot purposefully render it sterile (in case of the chance), and that you cannot ignore the unitive aspect.


As I said earlier, it isn't up to the couple. It isn't subjective. It is only unitive if it is actual vaginal intercourse.[/quote]


1. Your referring to something out of a science book. I know what your talking about though. Although it does not comes from the church.

2. But you can be fertal while breastfeeding and you can get pregnant while on your period because semen survives up to seven days inside a women. This specifically deals with a women who is pregnant who has NO CHNACE of getting pregnant again because they are already pregant. All the pther situations you said have the chance to get pregnant, this does not have the chance.

3. It is up to the couple. We can't control how people feel, no one can. So until we can control each person's feelings about what is unnative and what's not, then its subjective. Unless your saying the chruch teachs it SHOULD be considered unnative so we will just throw every couple under this big net of what should and what should not be unnative to a couple. Is this what you mean?

[havok579257]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1858455' date='May 5 2009, 12:30 PM']You missed the word "foreplay" in my post. Oral stimulation is acceptable as foreplay but it is NOT acceptable by itself. It is NOT acceptable for the man to finish outside of the "proper area."[/quote]


I never said oral sex, I said oral stimualtion, 2 very different things. the church, like i said, says oral stimulation is ok, oral sex is not.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1858453' date='May 5 2009, 12:29 PM']In the case of a couple not being able to finish for some reason, because the intent was there to finish correctly, they have not sinned. The Church doesn't teach that this is the ideal, or that it is completely unitive, as far as I know. The key here is the intent.[/quote]


Ok, so when your talking about being unnative and the way your saying the church is talking about being unnative is not directly realed to a couple and what they find unnative, that does not matter according to what you are saying. Unnative as you are referring to it, is not about feelings, but just about a man and a women uniting their bodies as the church see's as right. So feelings have nothing to do with the word unnative in the way we are talking about?

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1858461' date='May 5 2009, 12:35 PM']I never said oral sex, I said oral stimualtion, 2 very different things. the church, like i said, says oral stimulation is ok, oral sex is not.[/quote]

I suppose you are defining oral stimulation as foreplay, and oral sex as an act itself outside of foreplay with the man "ending" in an improper fashion.

So then what, exactly, is your question?

[havok579257]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1858467' date='May 5 2009, 12:38 PM']I suppose you are defining oral stimulation as foreplay, and oral sex as an act itself outside of foreplay with the man "ending" in an improper fashion.

So then what, exactly, is your question?[/quote]


ok, obviously this is my fault because i lead you down the wrong path here. what i was refering to is a pregnant couple, who is already open to life because their pregnant, and the women wnats the man to pull out for she can see the final act. the question being only in this rare case of already being pregnant, why is this not alright? since you already fullfil the open to life aspect with already being pregnant and their is NO CHANCE of getting pregnant, your being unnative with your spouse and your doing it not out of lust but out of love?

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1858473' date='May 5 2009, 12:42 PM']ok, obviously this is my fault because i lead you down the wrong path here. what i was refering to is a pregnant couple, who is already open to life because their pregnant, and the women wnats the man to pull out for she can see the final act. the question being only in this rare case of already being pregnant, why is this not alright? since you already fullfil the open to life aspect with already being pregnant and their is NO CHANCE of getting pregnant, your being unnative with your spouse and your doing it not out of lust but out of love?[/quote]

In this instance, the couple is putting their own will or desire before God's will or desire. Despite the circumstances (i.e. pregnancy) the couple is still called to finish the marital act the proper way. The only benefit or gain of the act you have described is one's own personal pleasure.

I should add that we are ALWAYS called to be open to life. Being open to life does not suddenly end when the woman gets pregnant. It is a continuous calling. [Being open to life is a "whole" that also encompasses familiar issues - abortion and euthanasia.]

Edited May 5, 2009 by HisChildForever

[havok579257]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1858486' date='May 5 2009, 12:55 PM']In this instance, the couple is putting their own will or desire before God's will or desire. Despite the circumstances (i.e. pregnancy) the couple is still called to finish the marital act the proper way. The only benefit or gain of the act you have described is one's own personal pleasure.

I should add that we are ALWAYS called to be open to life. Being open to life does not suddenly end when the woman gets pregnant. It is a continuous calling. [Being open to life is a "whole" that also encompasses familiar issues - abortion and euthanasia.][/quote]


But how is a couple

a. not being open to life since they are already pregnat? you can't be much more open to life that that.

b. by not ending right, not being open to life, since they are already pregnant and have no possibility of getting pregnant while pregnat unless the women has 2 uterues or its within the first few weeks of conception?


Also if the women has her uterus removed, is a couple called to never have sex again because by having sex they are not being open to life because life is not possible.