Could it be that the requirement that all acts of intimacy end in an action that is ordered towards procreation leads to sub-optimal long term results?

Yes, that is a misunderstanding.

Yeah, and me and @TechieGuy and a million other people have a very difficult time understanding why.

Within the confines of marriage :+1:
Both parties are coolio with the act :+1: :+1:
Must intend to have vaginal intercourse ending with ejaculation in the vaginal canal :woman_shrugging:

I don’t intend to be difficult, I accept the Church’s teaching, I just don’t understand it.

That’s the “ordered towards procreation” part.

But again, it’s not saying that one must START with the intention to finish.

It’s the “if you get to the point where the man is going to ejaculate you must intend for it to happen in the vaginal canal”

You can start whatever, do whatever, take whatever time you need. You can start to mess around with NO intention to “finish” at all. But If you do get to the point of finishing you need to do it in the vagina.

Right, I get that. What I was saying is that I don’t understand the why.

Words like “disordered” get tossed about but it doesn’t explain it in a way I can take the message to heart.

It would be simpler if there was a formula to follow but I’ve yet to see one. In my own search for chastity in my marriage I’ve done research and gone to prayer and found what I think me, my wife and God are happy with.

If there is going to be a male orgasm, the penis has to be in the vagina. Everyone keeps saying “end with” but not everyone ends their act of love with the male orgasm.

Foreplay can mean so much in so many ways. It might be hugging your spouse through the day, lingering fondles, kissing, etc., to more direct stimulation in bed. In my mind, foreplay is a frame of mind that can bring closeness in much of the time a couple is spending time together and of course, more focused in the bedroom or where ever.

I don’t feel guilty if I’m sexually affectionate with my wife or vice versa and it doesn’t get to the point of intercourse or orgasm. What may have started with some fondling yesterday, may not end with orgasm until tomorrow. That sexual attention from yesterday, to me, is part of a long process that in this example, plays out over two and a half days. What started yesterday wasn’t intended to be the end of itself but is part of a long process. We were showing affection and within that, there was no intention of orgasm.

That’s how I practice it and I feel good about it. I’m a convert and it is very different from before when our affection would often lead to orgasm without penetration at all. Some will think I’m wrong but until the Church, very explicitly spells it out, I have to try and find the right righteous way.

I’m surprised I haven’t seen it yet but I’ve seen this topic come up often where someone will claim that only coitus is allowed. For many reasons, this is not at all practical and I don’t think it is good advice. All I can do is try to find my way to live a righteous life. I’m still seeking and hoping the search never ends.

Now that you’ve mentioned it someone will do that. lol

Where’s Ron Conte when you need him?

1 Like

Is there a reason for this that you can give besides “The Church declares this to be God’s Will?”

Don’t steal, don’t murder, these are obvious.

This other, not so much.

1 Like

Thank you. Married couples can engage in stimulating activity provided it doesn’t lead overwhelming temptation to finish illicitly.

The reason is that if the man finishes someplace else on purpose that becomes a de facto contraceptive act.

Grant that we do not always achieve what we set out to do or sometimes have to put the best of intentions aside for legitimate reasons. Stick with the reason we form the basis for our intentions.

We know that the intention taught by the Church is ordered towards welcoming children who are intended as a fruit of a couple’s marriage by God while at the same time uniting the couple more deeply by mutual self-gift.

What is your reason for not wanting that? If you’re trying to make sense of the rule, contrast its intention with the intentions that lead you to do otherwise. In the case you are thinking of, do you really intend to separate the ends for which the act is intended by God? For instance, it would not be OK to supplant holy intentions with self-centered ones. (See the prayer of Tobit.)

I suspect you may just be afraid that sometimes your bodies are not going to cooperate with your intentions. For instance, what if the act is too painful to finish? Well, of course that makes carrying out your intention impossible to support. It is not the intention of God to interpret his plan for marriage that way. Sometimes you want to do one thing but are prevented by practical reasons you can’t control.

Well, intend to. Occasional accidents aren’t sinful.

My wife is post-menopausal - there won’t be any children conceived no matter where the seed winds up.

And because of the physical changes that can occur in post-menopausal women, penetration is sometimes painful.

However, we find other activities that include ‘finishing in the wrong place’ to be mutually pleasurable and generate feelings of close connectivity.

Let me start with saying that I’m sorry to hear about your occasional difficulties. That stinks.

It seems that a lot of the other responses address situations where the couple intends to engage in coitus but doesn’t for various reasons. My post is not meant to address those situations. The licit engagement of sexual activity is twofold - ordered to life and unity of the spouses. I might be reading more into your posts than you intended, so take this for what it’s worth. If you and your wife engage in “other activities”, without the intended end of coitus, you are missing the ordered to life component. It doesn’t matter that your wife is menopausal. It doesn’t matter that it feels good and is unitive. That is only half the ballgame, and all the (legitimate) reasons in the world why you can’t have coitus will not excuse that essential component.

But, what do I know? I’m just a layperson sharing my understanding of Church teaching. Ultimately, this is best discussed with your spiritual director or your pastor.

I’m aware of the Church Teaching - is there an explanation that is clear by natural reasoning why this act in these circumstances is wrong?

1 Like

I can’t speak for @TechieGuy but I sorta see it like… you can eat cookies without committing gluttony, right? It’s not eating in order for nourishment as God created us to do but cookies are yummy and if we eat a few every once in awhile no biggie. We are just enjoying a part of life. But, if we orgasm without penis in vagina it’s a sin. I just don’t get it.

What you describe is masturbatory, which is grave matter against the sixth commandment.

I think a better analogy using cookies is this: what the OP is describing is like putting some cookies in one’s mouth, chewing them up a bit and then spitting them out without ever having intending to swallow them. That is surely a misuse of the purpose and gift of food.

Natural reasoning, OP: sexuality is designed for procreation and unity. When you intentionally use your sexuality only for unity, it is a misuse of the gift.

Yeah, that analogy didn’t help me understand the “natural reasoning” that the gift is only good when it’s aimed at procreation.

1 Like

Is chewing gum and spitting it out without swallowing a misuse of the facility and gift of food and, thus, disordered?

Depends on whether you define gum as food.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit