Log in

No account? Create an account
Why on earth do Catholics believe *that*???
and since I'm promoting lately, I may as well pose a question... 
5th-Mar-2007 09:23 pm
this came up in one of the recent catholicism discussions, but was never really addressed.

what forms of affection are allowed, and what not allowed, during the abstaining period of NFP? I'm thinking a lot of people have the idea that anything goes, as long as it isn't intercourse (that could get you pregnant), and doesn't involve something artificial...
9th-Mar-2007 08:13 pm (UTC)
does this really mean there's an expectation to avoid oral sex during the fertile periods, just because we do it along with vaginal intercourse sometimes but not this time?

yes, actually. I've read about that (oral sex) specifically, not in the catechism but in a NFP taching manual (I babysat a family where the mom taught NFP classes and I picked up and read one of her supplies while she was out). I mean, it's sex during fertility, but without fear of pregnancy. basically, what contraception is.

I don't see it as a detriment to unity. NFP is something a couple prayerfully decides to do, for whatever reason. you weigh your reasons against your desire for unity at that precise moment, and decide which wins out. having sex every day or even every week isn't a requirement for marriage, but neither is practicing NFP at all. physical unity is important, but avoiding it is temporary. other unity is important, too, like praying about whether to abstain or accept a (possible) pregnancy, being on the same page with your spouse as to whichever you ultimately decide, and together making the necessary sacrifices.
9th-Mar-2007 08:28 pm (UTC)
I'm going to have to agree to disagree with the teaching manual, then.

To place oral sex between consenting spouses on the same level as contraception is, IMNSHO, completely misunderstanding the need for a unitive sexual aspect in a marriage, and I also personally find that concept offensive*. The fact that not all married couples have that need at the same level (or at all) doesn't mean that those who do are doing something "wrong."

God doesn't mean for us to deliberately self-flagellate via sexual frustration. We're not animals to let it rule us, but sexual feelings in and of themselves are neither disordered nor shameful.

Asking someone to accept such a high level of sexual frustration is essentially asking them to give up part of the marriage. In many marriages -- I'd even dare to say most -- physical expressions of love are an intrinsic part of the relationship. I don't see what's so terrible about that.

* This does not mean I am offended by you or this conversation.
9th-Mar-2007 09:09 pm (UTC)
can't make you agree ;) just stating what I've read, have always been to the understanding of, and incidentally, makes sense to me.

a lot of people would disagre that condoms distort unity in any way, either, but that doesn't make their use licit.

the fact is, need/desire/want/whatever aside, sex also makes babies. I don't think it's my place to try to come up with loopholes to this fact. and that's what I feel an oral sex exception would be..

though I also feel, personally, that that by iteslf would be, well, not very unitive. I tend to think "embrace" when I think unity, and other things are just foreplay or what not.
9th-Mar-2007 10:46 pm (UTC)
To place oral sex between consenting spouses on the same level as contraception is, IMNSHO, completely misunderstanding the need for a unitive sexual aspect in a marriage

I don't think it's that hard to see a link. Certainly you know that many people take advantage of oral sex's lack of conception powers.

What does the consent of the spouses have to do with it?

I think you're a little close to isolating the 'unitive aspect' in sex. If we're morally avoiding the procreative, I don't see right away that we can still demand the same level of unitive pleasure. Do you? As an informal rule of thumb, as it were, I would consider that any act that is intended to lead to an orgasm should probably be off-limits during the time that we're abstaining from sex. I don't see a reason to think that we're just abstaining from procreation itself, and not from the whole act of sex; so by extension, I would say we're abstaining from the 'other' side of sex, the "unitive" or the pleasurable. Remembering that these are only abstracted distinctions and don't (or shouldn't) really exist in a couple's sex life.

I partly base this on another idea I have, that any act that leads to an isolated orgasm of one person of a couple, and not the other, is not a good idea, at least as a continued habit. Engaging in, say, similarly-pleasurable acts like oral sex during the time we're morally avoiding sex itself seems like this same principle, multiplied by two. Do you agree with that or is this unfounded?
This page was loaded Mar 18th 2019, 2:41 pm GMT.