(NSFW) Marriage Act Question


#1

I am interested in knowing of any church teachings on prostate stimulation in males. I’ve scoured the forums for an answer and online for Catholic resources but have found nothing helpful (no direct answers). I am married and have done this to myself before I was married (already confessed, I know it was wrong then), but I would like to know if this is permissible in wedlock if mutually agreed upon by spouses and I do “finish” like normal where it is meant to be.

The two arguments I’ve seen are, “Anything goes within the marriage act as long as the seed goes in the right place,” and, “Anal is always wrong.”. I err towards the latter to be safe of course, but neither usually have strong backings or sources. Please let me know! An official apologist answer would be great too! Thanks!


#2

I have always taught that it is wrong. That part of the body is not meant for that. Sure, it might be physically possible and/or enjoyable, but it is not what makes the sexual act unitive. It is wrong to think that as long as a person concludes the sexual act in the appropriate place that they were justified in doing x, y, and z (which were non-unitive) before that conclusion happened. In the conjugal act, the husband and wife completely give the gift of themselves to each other. Part of that is their gift of fertility, the potentiality of new life. My argument has always been that the sexual act is one act and that there should always be the unitive and procreative elements present; once either of them are taken away from the act itself, the nature of that sexual act has changed.

CCC *2366 **Fecundity is a gift, an *end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life," teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life." "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."


#3

How does this affect the unitive or procreative aspects? I don't get how your statements address the question.


#4

Yea I don't get the previous poster's answer either. So long as its a part of foreplay, it shouldn't break the unitive and procreative meaning. That said, one could argue that even among hetorsexuals, anal is sodomy and thus clearly prohibited by the bible. Granted you called it something other than sodomy and I'm just like "What is that?" granted, maybe I don't want to know.

I think the bigger question of your motivation. Is it lustful? Does it respect the dignity and feelings of your spouse? Does it respect the dignity of the marital act or profane it? A lot of people have their own opinions, but ultimately I think its best to form your conscience based on the Catholic moral principals. I mean there's just so many varieties of behaviors a person can do that it gets tedius and perhaps even inappropriate to even have the Church list them all and make a generalized ruling. Its far better to accept the principals and learn to apply them. We all come to this with our own hang up and temptations and it can scew the judgments of our consciences. What I'd say is that in my opinion, it doesn't seem right because I can't imagine a chaste heart wanting to pursue such a thing. I don't see how it respects the dignity of the marital embrace. But at the same time, I've learned that I've been presumptious about such things in the past about sexuality and have learned I made my judgments primarily in ignorance.


#5

Ok, my apologies, I did misunderstand what was being said. This is why my reply made no sense. I am sorry for the confusion. I thought the original poster was asking about anal sex. After carefully reading his question again, I realized I didn't understand what he was talking about. However, after searching some of the terminology on Google, I would say that prostate stimulation is wrong. First, it sounds a lot like masturbation. Even though the genitals are not directly involved, the person committing it is still in it for the same end product of masturbation. Second, from the sites I got the information from it says that this can be harmful and even fatal if done the wrong way or too aggressively. In addition to the immorality, anything with a risk of causing fatality is worth not doing.


#6

I think the poster is talking about his wife doing it to him during normal intercourse. Would this be wrong?


#7

In my opinion, it’s fine. :thumbsup:


#8

Old thread, but since someone spreading erroneous teaching is linking to it, I will respond with what the Catechism actually says.

2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."144 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:
[INDENT]The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.145 Catechism of the Catholic Church § 2362 quoting Pius XII's address to midwives.[/INDENT]

As for concerns about masturbation, that is stimulation outside of "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."* CCC 2352. So by the words of the Catechism, stimulation inside the context of an encounter that leads to intercourse is NOT masturbation. In fact, sometimes such stimulation is necessary to prepare one partner or the other for intercourse.

So, enjoy yourselves by seeking the pleasure that God has provided, however you like, but keep it "within the limits of just moderation".

Now, what are the "limits of just moderation?"

Anything that the truly human performance of activities that are noble, honorable, self-giving, enriching in joy and gratitude.

I would say that this is anything objectively harmful or subjectively degrading or demeaning to either partner would NOT be "within the limits of just moderation".

The Church does not provide a "checklist" because "just moderation" varies from couple to couple. There are no body parts that are specifically off-limits, although some activities are so objectively harmful or unhealthy that they are never permissible, such as anal intercourse. But other than these, they are up to the couple. Some couples may find giving oral stimulation enjoyable, others may find it demeaning. This does not only refer to acts of foreplay, but intercourse itself: Different couples may be comfortable or uncomfortable with different sexual positions or sex during menstruation.

Additionally, remember that intercourse is God has designed as the proper expression of married sexuality. This is far more of an issue for men than for women. Male sexuality is limited in a way that female sexuality is not. Men are "one hit wonders", while women have the capability to be the Energizer bunny (keep on going and going and going). (Nature shows this in anatomy. Male pleasure is intrinsically linked to intercourse, female pleasure is merely associated with it.)

To reduce sexual morality to finishing with tab A in slot B misses the point.

So, to determine whether this activity is OK or not, ask yourself the following questions:

Is this a loving activity or a lustful activity?
Is this intrinsically unhealthy?
Is this degrading, demeaning, or uncomfortable to either partner?
Does this enhance intercourse or is this a substitute for intercourse (especially for men)?

If you answer each question honestly, you will have the answer to your question.


#9

From a very good priest, who instructed us during our marital formation, as long as the right bits end up in the right place, anything else is okay (of course there are provisos such as don't hurt your spouse, and if she is uncomfortable with the practice, then rethink)

But looking objectively at this particular act, if it is within the context of normal relations, it's acceptable.


#10

[quote="admonsta, post:9, topic:228877"]
From a very good priest, who instructed us during our marital formation, as long as the right bits end up in the right place, anything else is okay (of course there are provisos such as don't hurt your spouse, and if she is uncomfortable with the practice, then rethink)

But looking objectively at this particular act, if it is within the context of normal relations, it's acceptable.

[/quote]

Remember that for an action to be moral it must be objectively proper, with a right intent, under appropriate circumstances. CCC 1755.

Objectively, there is no reason why it would not be acceptable within the context of normal relations, unless it is unhealthy. (Not a doctor, don't know for sure.) Objectively, the only requirements are (1) don't hurt your spouse and (2) make sure the parts end up in the right place.

However, the act may be morally problematic based on intent and circumstances. Thus my list of questions.

Thinking of sexual morality in strictly objective terms is a mistake, one that both your priest and Fr. Gow have both made, although in very different ways. Your priest downplayed the subjective element, while Fr. Gow wants to make his personal preferences and ideals part of the objective moral law. But this is understandably difficult for priests to understand the details of intent and circumstances in a marital sexual relationship for obvious reasons.


#11

as thoughtfulone mentioned, prostate stimulation does not have to be a form of masturbation anymore than direct penile stimulation has to be. either could be done by the man’s wife. i respectfully disagree with you on that point, father. i think that prostate stimulation is a perfectly moral part of the marriage act, provided both partners are comfortable with it and desire it. as for the risk of fatality, pregnancy carries a much greater risk and this risk is still considered perfectly acceptable. if the act is not masturbation (e.g., the wife is performing the stimulation), then there is correspondingly much less risk of there being too much aggression.

even though the op is not technically about anal sex, this does raise a valid point. the anus is an erogenous zone because of the proximity of the prostate (in males) or the clitoris (in females; yes, the clitoris does extend that far internally) and because it is perfectly normal for the anus to stretch to the width required to insert a penis or sex toy without pain or damage of any kind. after all, there are bowel movements that are easily thicker than any man could hope to be and length is not an issue because the rectum is much longer than the vagina. because the area is decidedly sexual and because using the anus for sexual foreplay does not necessarily result in pain (physically or otherwise), it is reasonable to conclude that God built us this way in His own infinite wisdom and that the anus is as legitimate an erogenous zone as the ear or the neck; perhaps the anus should be considered to be a more legitimate erogenous zone than those areas because of the clearly sexual biological structuring.

on the other hand, in order for the sex act of that particular session to be both unitive and procreative, the penis has to end up in the vagina (or, as i’ve heard it argued, at least some of the semen has to be close enough to allow impregnation). if the penis was recently in the anus and is used to penetrate the vagina, then that could result in a yeast infection that, while not generally debilitating, is not at all pleasant or healthy. anal penetration is also so stimulating to men that accidental orgasms in the rectum are more than possible; one would expect this to happen at least on occasion if anal sex is practiced with any kind of regularity. if the man does not ejaculate in his wife’s vagina in a reasonably short period of time (which may be a physical impossibility for many men), then that particular act would not be procreative. to paraphrase you, men are like microwaves: they finish and they’re done. in this way, anal sex could easily be considered an occasion to sin.

so, i don’t even know what to think. i’m so confused and i’ve tried for quite some time to really understand. it isn’t nearly as clear as you indicate. anal sex and anal play can easily be loving, healthy, respectful, and comfortable. anal play can also easily be procreative as well as unitive for both partners and is not necessarily a substitute for intercourse, although anal sex is more problematic.


#12

Unnatural sex acts even when they eventually lead to the natural, mutually and fully giving unitive, procreative sex act are still unnatural sex acts. Duh. They are not altered from their rancid sinful fact just because at some point you do the sole good one.

That's trying to fool ourselves and God. It won't work. That equation that suddenly that act is ever made ok is profane and stupid. All unnatural sex acts are not merely sinful, but degrading. It stands alone and will be judged alone, whether or not you eventually do the one moral, clean, natural, correct act. The marriage that practices unnatural sex acts, even if 'the flow of semen' ends in the right place- will corrupt that one good act, it is no better than practicing contraception, statistically, the marriage will strain and break.

It'd be better for you to ask and answer why it is that you aren't fully and completely satisfied in the correct, moral, clean, fully unitive and mutually giving, procreative natural sex act. Even animals do better by instinct.

My husband and I do, we didn't know such things existed, and we are shocked, dismayed and utterly disgusted that some 'catholics' want to do these feral things and then teach there could be anyway to make them less so! We have a full, wholesome, Catholic marriage, blessed by God. We are fully and completely enriched and satisfied within the natural sex act. We know those things are only and always disgusting, even if somehow they weren't gravely offensive to each other and to God we'd still not be even remotely tempted since we get all that we need, by blessing of God and true love, the right way. Why'd we ever even slightly want wrong ways?

Corruption of soul eventually expresses itself in action. She/he may claim they fine and good, but the soul knows when we've been degraded and humiliated and used for pleasure. May take years. But it's already begun to go wrong. Such things have NO place in Christian marriage. If God lives in you, you'd also avoid these sinful things and do SOLE good one. You'd have a instinct and conviction against the sinful and unnatural stuff. The natural, sole morally good, unitive, procreative spousal relation should also be more than enough for you as far as satisfaction and pleasure goes. Just because there are some loud catholics that teach these errors, doesn't mean they aren't grave errors. Those who think that way can only be helped by God. Those who teach them will be punished more severely. Nonetheless, I have stood up for truth and for good. Unnatural sex acts are gravely sinful. And now you know, you've been warned.

Pope Paul VI:
"The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that **each and every **marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act." (Humanae Vitae, n. 11-12).

you can NOT twist that into meaning 'so long as the sinful act leads to the right one, there is no sin' = wrong and false. You'll be punished for that attitude as well as the grave sin. I feel sorry for those who aren't completely fulfiled, as we are in our marriage. I just pity them. God has blessed us, and we'd never dream of doing such rotten things to each other. Not as lovers, not as Christians, not as Catholics. Not as those who love each other and love God truly and fully.


#13

You've not only managed to resurrect an old thread, but an old thread that had already previously been resurrected.

If you can find one that's been resurrected twice, and you can get it a third go round, I'd be very impressed.


#14

your self-righteous diatribe not only resurrected an old thread, it actually manages to repetitively go on for several paragraphs without answering the original question or any subsequent ones. all that you really do is unequivocally state that you’re against it.


#15

Anal intercourse is ALWAYS sinful! Always! It is sodomy, which scripture directly forbids.

[quote="chaela_may, post:11, topic:228877"]
as thoughtfulone mentioned, prostate stimulation does not have to be a form of masturbation anymore than direct penile stimulation has to be. either could be done by the man's wife. i respectfully disagree with you on that point, father. i think that prostate stimulation is a perfectly moral part of the marriage act, provided both partners are comfortable with it and desire it. as for the risk of fatality, pregnancy carries a much greater risk and this risk is still considered perfectly acceptable. if the act is not masturbation (e.g., the wife is performing the stimulation), then there is correspondingly much less risk of there being too much aggression.

even though the op is not technically about anal sex, this does raise a valid point. the anus is an erogenous zone because of the proximity of the prostate (in males) or the clitoris (in females; yes, the clitoris does extend that far internally) and because it is perfectly normal for the anus to stretch to the width required to insert a penis or sex toy without pain or damage of any kind. after all, there are bowel movements that are easily thicker than any man could hope to be and length is not an issue because the rectum is much longer than the vagina. because the area is decidedly sexual and because using the anus for sexual foreplay does not necessarily result in pain (physically or otherwise), it is reasonable to conclude that God built us this way in His own infinite wisdom and that the anus is as legitimate an erogenous zone as the ear or the neck; perhaps the anus should be considered to be a more legitimate erogenous zone than those areas because of the clearly sexual biological structuring.

on the other hand, in order for the sex act of that particular session to be both unitive and procreative, the penis has to end up in the vagina (or, as i've heard it argued, at least some of the semen has to be close enough to allow impregnation). if the penis was recently in the anus and is used to penetrate the vagina, then that could result in a yeast infection that, while not generally debilitating, is not at all pleasant or healthy. anal penetration is also so stimulating to men that accidental orgasms in the rectum are more than possible; one would expect this to happen at least on occasion if anal sex is practiced with any kind of regularity. if the man does not ejaculate in his wife's vagina in a reasonably short period of time (which may be a physical impossibility for many men), then that particular act would not be procreative. to paraphrase you, men are like microwaves: they finish and they're done. in this way, anal sex could easily be considered an occasion to sin.

so, i don't even know what to think. i'm so confused and i've tried for quite some time to really understand. it isn't nearly as clear as you indicate. anal sex and anal play can easily be loving, healthy, respectful, and comfortable. anal play can also easily be procreative as well as unitive for both partners and is not necessarily a substitute for intercourse, although anal sex is more problematic.

[/quote]


#16

[quote="IndigoDreamz, post:15, topic:228877"]
Anal intercourse is ALWAYS sinful! Always! It is sodomy, which scripture directly forbids.

[/quote]

that's not quite true. i already looked into that because, as i said, i've been confused and in need of guidance on this issue for years. the destruction of sodom and gomorrah was because of homosexuality, not anal sex per se. chapter 19 of genesis relates that the men of the city (every single one of them) insisted on gang-raping the male guests in lot's home. (they were actually God's angels, sent to destroy the place after delivering lot and his family from the coming devastation, so they were in no real danger.) in fact, it might not even be that clear. the footnote in my new american bible says, "isrealite tradition was unanimous in ascribing the destruction of sodom and gomorrah to the wickedness of these cities, but tradition varied in regard to the nature of this wickedness. according to the present account of the yahwist, the sin of sodom was homosexuality, which is therefore also known as sodomy; but according to isaiah, it was a lack of social justice; ezekiel described it as disregard for the poor, whereas jeremiah saw it as general immorality." (emphasis mine)

the definition that you use is a legal one, outside of the church entirely. but even that definition is wide, including anal sex, oral sex, and bestiality. [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law]) the church has no problem with oral sex, as long as it leads up to the husband's ejaculation in his wife's vagina. for many men, it is even a requirement for the normal marital act.

the catechism is silent on an actual definition as well. this would have been covered under the sixth commandment, if at all. sexual sins that are enumerated there include lust (ccc 2351), masturbation (ccc 2352), fornication (ccc 2353), pornography (ccc 2354), prostitution (ccc 2355), rape (ccc 2356), homosexual acts separate from homosexuality itself (ccc 2357-2358), contraception and sterilization (ccc 2370), artificial means of procreation (ccc 2376-2377), adultery (ccc 2380), divorce (ccc 2384), polygamy (ccc 2387), incest (ccc 2388), sexually abusing children (ccc 2389), and cohabitation (ccc 2390-2391). nowhere is anal sex or sodomy mentioned. the index of the catechism also has no mention of sodomy or anal sex that i have been able to find.

again, i'm searching for answers here. i don't know what's right or wrong in this regard and i'm trying to find out. yelling at me is not helping me.


#17

[quote="Carmentalis, post:12, topic:228877"]
Unnatural sex acts even when they eventually lead to the natural, mutually and fully giving unitive, procreative sex act are still unnatural sex acts.

[/quote]

Please define an unnatural act.


#18

The OP was not discussing anal sex. He was asking…nearly 3 years ago… if prostate stimulation as part of foreplay was allowed. Prostate stimulation as part of foreplay is literally stimulating the prostate by inserting a finger or object to create or intensify arousal as a prelude to or even during normal vaginal intercourse.


#19

I agree with a previous post on the subject: If one's mindset becomes "We can do anything as long as it winds up as vaginal intercourse!", then the point has been missed entirely.


#20

You know, I am always wondering where some Catholics learn this kind of things from and surprised at the way they talk about it as if it was some ordinary thing. Such acts and such talks are just plain disgusting, especially on such a forum.


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