Marital Foreplay and Sex - Page 13

epan · #**181** Jun 5, '12, 6:24 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by NFP1Kate

I am a young devout Catholic, wife, and mother. We have been practicing NFP for about a year and I have found myself very frustrated with the teachings on this. And I would like to see some original documents (not Christopher West- TOB, I want originals)

During phase 2 we enjoy foreplay that can last for days before phase 3 hits and we can have full marital relations. I cannot find any official Church teaching that states all foreplay must end in vaginal intercourse immediately following. Humanae Vitae 14 refers to preventing pregnancy, but NFP, by it's very nature is avoiding pregnancy not preventing it. It is not onanism because there is no penetration, and he does not climax.

The forums are unclear as well. One priest says that oral sex should be avoided, another says it is perfectly fine. I see nothing wrong with oral in the original documents, JPII doesn't discuss it in TOB, and the Code of Canon Law states “unitive” before “procreation” (that is a change from the 1917 version). Please, anyone, show me where it states that a couple commits a sin by having foreplay (even foreplay to the extent of female orgasm) without vaginal intercourse.

It seems TOB gives an ideal for sex, but how can marital sex that is less than ideal be sinful?

My "non-Catholic" opinion is that keeping the intimate connection strong during fertile periods is ongoing "foreplay" for the actual act. Every relationship ebbs and flows. Anything one can do to preserve and increase intimacy and connection can't be bad.

The Bucket · #**182** Jun 5, '12, 11:41 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by shipwrkd

Thank you "Rock". Before we married, I may have tried to "seduce" my wife but thankfully, she would have none of it. I take great exception to being accused of seducing my wife now. No need to for we've given ourselves to each other 42 years ago and those vows become stronger each day. When I smile and pat my wife on the behind, some may call it foreplay but I call it an expression of my undying love for her. Sometimes it leads somewhere and sometimes not, but if it does...there certainly is no timeline. Perhaps we should replace the word "foreplay" with "affection". God Bless!

I really, really don't think any sane person would argue with you here and I don't see any arguments to the contrary elsewhere in the thread.

shipwrkd · #**183** Jun 5, '12, 12:44 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheRealJuliane

You are confusing SEDUCTION with foreplay. Not the same thing at all. You are SEDUCING your wife, not performing foreplay.

Seems pretty clear to me that I've been accused of SEDUCTION and I also get the impression that Tarpeian Rock thought along those lines. Either way, this thread seems to be straying from the OP's question. I do, however, find ALL of the posts interesting and some especially informative. Thanks all.

fuzzypjs · #**184** Jun 7, '12, 6:42 am

The sin is in the intention. Oral is fine as long as it ends with intercourse the way God intended.

If you're having oral to avoid intercourse to avoid pregnancy then that goes against the marital act.

With NFP you practice marital chastity during the fertile phase. When having oral but avoiding intercourse you become the barrier method (contraceptive mentality).

rotlex · #**185** Jun 7, '12, 3:30 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheRealJuliane

Posting one's opinion on a thread when one's opinion is contrary to Church teaching is not charitable either, and wastes the OP's time and the forum's bandwidth. But there are some subjects that always draw the dissenters. I expected no less.

Wastes no more forum bandwidth than the dozens of posters that do nothing but quote the Catechism on these types of threads. Heck, for that matter, if your worried about forum bandwidth, how about just shutting down immediately any thread that has to do with anything you can learn through either the Catechism or any other source than can be easily Googled?

Wouldn't be too many reasons to have a forum then would there?

TheRealJuliane · #**186** Jun 7, '12, 3:37 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tarpeian Rock

I would challenge the thought that "seduction" as a concept even applies within a marital relationship. Women may get "seduced" into the proverbial " one night stand," but in the setting of a sacramental marriage, "seduction" connotes something underhanded, nefarious, something with a less-than-respectable ulterior motive, and I don't think those concepts are the corrects way to characterize one marital partner attempting to set the stage for a romantic encounter with the other. Unless, that is, one feels that the physical aspects of marriage are less-than-worthy.

No, the term does not necessarily have that connotation. There is nothing inherently wrong with seduction.

se·duc·tion
noun \si-ˈdək-shən\
Definition of SEDUCTION
1
: the act of seducing; especially : the enticement of a person to sexual intercourse
2
: something that seduces : temptation
3
: something that attracts or charms

Enticement is not manipulation, but definition 3) something that attracts or charms.

Why are we arguing about this?

TheRealJuliane · #**187** Jun 7, '12, 3:43 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by shipwrkd

Seems pretty clear to me that I've been accused of SEDUCTION and I also get the impression that Tarpeian Rock thought along those lines. Either way, this thread seems to be straying from the OP's question. I do, however, find ALL of the posts interesting and some especially informative. Thanks all.

There is no accusation. The word "seduction" does not carry the nefarious meaning that Tarpeain Rock assigns it. Seduction in a marriage means enticement to be intimate. There is nothing wrong with being romantically seductive with your spouse. In fact, most people probably do it without even thinking about it. But call it whatever you will, buying your wife a flower is certainly not foreplay.

fore·play
noun \-ˌplā\
Definition of FOREPLAY
1
: erotic stimulation preceding sexual intercourse
2
: action or behavior that precedes an event

Definition 1) is the only current definition possible for this word. You just don't use "foreplay" to mean anything except the acts leading up to sexual intercourse. Ask your wife, though. If she thinks it's foreplay, who am I to say?

shipwrkd · #**188** Jun 8, '12, 12:36 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheRealJuliane

There is no accusation. The word "seduction" does not carry the nefarious meaning that Tarpeain Rock assigns it. Seduction in a marriage means enticement to be intimate. There is nothing wrong with being romantically seductive with your spouse. In fact, most people probably do it without even thinking about it. But call it whatever you will, buying your wife a flower is certainly not foreplay.

fore·play
noun \-ˌplā\
Definition of FOREPLAY
1: erotic stimulation preceding sexual intercourse
2: action or behavior that precedes an event

Definition 1) is the only current definition possible for this word. You just don't use "foreplay" to mean anything except the acts leading up to sexual intercourse. Ask your wife, though. If she thinks it's foreplay, who am I to say?

Quote:

Seduction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
In social science, seduction is the process of deliberately enticing a person to engage. The word seduction stems from Latin and means literally "to lead astray". As a result, the term may have a positive or negative connotation. Famous seducers from history or legend include Lilith, Giacomo Casanova and the character Don Juan.[1]
Seduction, seen negatively, involves temptation and enticement, often sexual in nature, to lead someone astray into a behavioral choice they would not have made if they were not in a state of sexual arousal. Seen positively, seduction is a synonym for the act of charming someone — male or female — by an appeal to the senses, often with the goal of reducing unfounded fears and leading to their "sexual emancipation".[citation needed] Some sides in contemporary academic debate state that the morality of seduction depends on the long-term impacts on the individuals concerned, rather than the act itself, and may not necessarily carry the negative connotations expressed in dictionary definitions.[2]

Seems your both right. Funny how so many controversies depend on the definition one uses

Jessup · #**189** Jun 9, '12, 8:18 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by itullian

i say once you're married anything goes. concentual of course.

but i'm me.

I couldn't have said it better.

jilly4ski · #**190** Jun 9, '12, 8:29 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jessup

Quote:

Originally Posted by itullian View Post
i say once you're married anything goes. concentual of course.

but i'm me.

I couldn't have said it better.

So if you consent to an open marriage, adulterous affairs, threesomes, etc that is ok?

shipwrkd · #**191** Jun 9, '12, 10:05 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by jilly4ski

So if you consent to an open marriage, adulterous affairs, threesomes, etc that is ok?

I think it's fairly obvious that these two posts refer to an open Catholic marriage. I don't believe the things your asking about are OK (or even legal) in a civil marriage.

Short answer: NO!

Jessup · #**192** Jun 9, '12, 3:57 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by jilly4ski

So if you consent to an open marriage, adulterous affairs, threesomes, etc that is ok?

Absolutely not. I've worked with swingers for years. and I despise them, I actually have another post about that I made today; coincidentally.
but if I'm with my wife I feel what we do behind closed doors is our business, your married the two bodies are one ect ect. not to say that I want to pervert things. But I can't imagine saying to my wife ..
I can only do it in the missionary position on fertile days,
the church doesn't exactly hold accurate consistent teachings if you go back the past 2000 years; its really done a lot more to discredit its self on a lot of these decisions that's why most people don't trust its teachings. But I do agree with NFP; I just can't imagine not having fun with my wife when I'm 'married. and doing the same 3 things every 4rth Wednesday of the month; when I know she's not going to get pregnant. Seems like a good way to get divorced if you ask me.

TrueLight · #**193** Jun 9, '12, 4:06 pm

Is sex discussed this openly in Pre-Cana? Where does one learn this kind of thing in detail?

Also, are most orthodox priests consistent when it comes to what is allowed and what is not allowed?

It seems to me that there is room for some subjective decisions here.

jilly4ski · #**194** Jun 9, '12, 4:47 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jessup

Absolutely not. I've worked with swingers for years. and I despise them, I actually have another post about that I made today; coincidentally.
but if I'm with my wife I feel what we do behind closed doors is our business, your married the two bodies are one ect ect. not to say that I want to pervert things. But I can't imagine saying to my wife ..
I can only do it in the missionary position on fertile days,
the church doesn't exactly hold accurate consistent teachings if you go back the past 2000 years; its really done a lot more to discredit its self on a lot of these decisions that's why most people don't trust its teachings. But I do agree with NFP; I just can't imagine not having fun with my wife when I'm 'married. and doing the same 3 things every 4rth Wednesday of the month; when I know she's not going to get pregnant. Seems like a good way to get divorced if you ask me.

Why does it matter what is being consented to as long as there is consent? And why do you get to define perverted and what isn't? The Church has (semi) clear guidelines on what "perverts" the marital act. And if we are really honest about it, would not the Church have better standing to determine what is and is not perverted (ie moral) and a random individual?

I highly doubt you could show me how Church teachings (doctrine/dogma) has changed in 2000 years (because it hasn't) since you cannot even articulate the current expression of the teaching and seem generally misinformed on this issue, (missionary position and only on fertile days really?).

Jessup · #**195** Jun 9, '12, 5:16 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by jilly4ski

Why does it matter what is being consented to as long as there is consent? And why do you get to define perverted and what isn't? The Church has (semi) clear guidelines on what "perverts" the marital act. And if we are really honest about it, would not the Church have better standing to determine what is and is not perverted (ie moral) and a random individual?

I highly doubt you could show me how Church teachings (doctrine/dogma) has changed in 2000 years (because it hasn't) since you cannot even articulate the current expression of the teaching and seem generally misinformed on this issue, (missionary position and only on fertile days really?).

What about the 23 or so different rites of the catholic church that isn't under the same Pope but all have claim to holy orders? that is 23 reasons the church hasn't been consistent. Which rite is the right one? I don't want to get off topic, from the OP so I'm going to leave it at that. I can start another thread to discuss that somewhere else.