3
4

Questions and Answers on Catholic Marital Sexual Ethics (self.Catholicism)

kmo_300 が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]Blockhouse 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (11子コメント)

What then of the moral licitly of the man manually or orally stimulating the woman before or after the marital act? If orgasm is held to be a moral good in promoting the unity of the spouses, and if the woman's orgasm has no bearing on whether life is transmitted, and if the woman cannot achieve orgasm during normal relations (which, alas, many cannot), it would seem to be not only licit, but an act of justice.

(Actually, modern science promotes the idea than the woman's orgasm after the act inproves chances of transmission of life, since the cervix experiences muscle contractions that may introduce more of the seed into the uterus. Therefore, it may even be that the woman's orgasm after the marital act may be a moral good and the production thereof is not intrinsically disordered.)

[–]Hurrah_for_Karamazov 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (10子コメント)

If orgasm is held to be a moral good in promoting the unity of the spouses

Why couldn't one just deny this. I'd argue that a female orgasm exists so that the marital act is complete. That is, if sex were painful, women wouldn't want to have sex at all, which would clearly be problematic. If the marital act is complete without said orgasm, then I fail to see the problem. We have plenty of faculties that become unnecessary when their further ends are met without their immediate ends being met. Sexual pleasure exists for the purpose of getting people to have sex and create life. It's not its own end. Calling it "unitive" is just to make it seem as couples can do anything if they just enjoy it and it "brings them closer together emotionally."

The idea that it's an act of "justice" just seems really silly to me. Just because things are not equal does not mean they are unjust. It is only unjust to not give someone what he or she deserves. Is the argument that women deserve an orgasm?

Think of this hypothetical. A husband becomes really good at controlling his orgasm. He is able to orgasm separate from ejaculation (which is possible, incidentally). Do you think it would be morally licit for him to ejaculate in his wife's vagina, and then receive non-ejaculatory, orgasmic oral sex for the next hour from his wife? This to me seems absurd. To see the orgasm or sexual pleasure as some end in itself, completely separate from the procreative act, seems clearly perverse to me.

[–]Blockhouse 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (9子コメント)

I'd argue that a female orgasm exists so that the marital act is complete.

If that marital act is complete without said orgasm, then I fail to see the problem.

Either I'm having trouble with understanding what you wrote, or you don't seem to have advanced an internally consistent logical argument. Can you help me out here?

Also, I shared your comment with my wife to try to get a female perspective to the subject. She got so mad that she almost broke my iPad. She states that the converse argument that women don't deserve orgasms simply because they cannot experience their orgasm before or simultaneous with their husbands' is clearly unjust on its face.

[–]Hurrah_for_Karamazov 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (8子コメント)

The completion of the marital act is ejaculation in the vagina. The orgasm (for either sex) is not the completion of the marital act. It exists solely so that people ejaculate into vaginas, so that life is created, not as an end in itself.

No one "deserves" an orgasm. She doesn't deserve an orgasm any more than you deserve an orgasm. If you ejaculate into her vagina without orgasming, no injustice has taken place, even if she does orgasm. Sex exists for the creation of life, not for orgasming.

[–]avengingturnip 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

What is the record for the number of times the word orgasm appears in a single comment in the /r/catholicism subreddit?

The answer is 7, 7 times.

[–]Hurrah_for_Karamazov 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Orgasm. 8.

:)

[–]PolskaPrincess 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Sex exists for the creation of life, not for orgasming.

Sex has a dual-purpose. You seem to solely focus on the procreating aspect, at the detriment to the unitive aspect..

[–]LimeHatKitty 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This. They cannot be separated.

[–]Hurrah_for_Karamazov 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't really think I am. I'm just not equating extreme pleasure with "unitive." Just because both couples really like it doesn't make it "unitive." And further, I'm saying that a thing can't be unitive if it's totally separate from the procreative act.

Let's take the hypothetical of a man who can no longer ejaculate. He can orgasm, but he can no longer ejaculate. Would it be morally licit for his wife to bring him to orgasm orally only? If not, why not? If so, would it be morally licit for him to make her orgasm digitally or orally during the same sexual encounter? Either before or after his orgasm. Can anyone seriously say that this couple is "having sex," much less committing a marital act? I would argue that while both couples are enjoying themselves greatly, their acts are not unitive because they are not even related to procreation. The sexual pleasure is being treated as an end in itself, totally separate from what sex is actually for.

I mean, what is the time limit on post-coital female orgasms, anyway? Like, can the husband wait 5 minutes? 10? Is it immoral after an hour? And if there's no time restriction (which, I have no idea what it would be), why even make the requirement that it be "in the same session" or "around the same time as the ejaculation" or whatever? Is the act less "unitive" because it takes place 4 hours later? I'd imagine most wives would say it feels just as unitive.

[–]Blockhouse 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Sex exists for the creation of life, not for orgasming

See, that makes it sound as if orgasm is a regrettable side effect of sex that would be better if it didn't' exist. Secondary ends of the marital act (which, yes, are subservient to the principal ends of transmitting life) include cooling the fires of concupiscence. If it were wholly illicit to engage in sex for the purpose of orgasming, then it would be illicit to have relations with a woman who has had a hysterectomy or who had passed through menopause, since the transmission of life would be so unlikely as to be untenable as a directly intended outcome.

[–]Hurrah_for_Karamazov 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

No, it's not a "side-effect." It's just not its own end, as it's being treated here. And no, that's not the reason it's not immoral to have sex with a woman who had a hysterectomy. That is not wrong because it's still using the organs in a way aligned with their natures, even if their natures aren't being fully realized. The sexual act is identical to the couple with no hysterectomy. The nature of the acts are identical, because the nature of the organs are identical, even if they aren't physically identical in that moment. This is why it would be immoral for the couple to misuse the sexual act, even if the woman has a hysterectomy. No oral sex between such a couple. No contraception between such a couple (even if it's pointless). Because those things fundamentally pervert the nature of the act. Even when procreation is impossible.

If you'd like more information: http://beatushomo.blogspot.com/2013/06/nfp.html

[–]Blockhouse 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't deny that the Church teaches that it is licit to have sex with a woman with a hysterectomy. My question is why does she teach that? If, as you say, sexual pleasure cannot be directly willed as an end, what other end is licit in such an act?