If a woman does not reach the climax in the marital act at the time when the husband achieves it (he achieves it before she does), is it morally permissible for her to be stimulated (by herself or her husband) until she achieves it? I am interested in the Catholic viewpoint.

### The Catholic position. *There are many other sources, I just picked one at random* > "the unnatural vice." This may happen in several ways. First, by procuring pollution, **without any copulation, for the sake of venereal pleasure**: this pertains to the sin of "uncleanness" which some call "effeminacy." Secondly, by copulation with a thing of undue species, and this is called "bestiality." Thirdly, by copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female, as the Apostle states (Rm. 1:27): and this is called the "vice of sodomy." **Fourthly, by not observing the natural manner of copulation, either as to undue means, or as to other monstrous and bestial manners of copulation.** > > Summa Theologica - Whether the unnatural vice is a species of lust? **Basically, if you are married the venereal act must always be unprotected and end inside.** They will often also point out this particular situation in Genesis 38, quoted from the NKJV to reflect the catholic preference for the MT Old Testament. > NKJV: 8 And Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife and marry her, and raise up an heir to your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the heir would not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in to his brother’s wife, that he emitted on the ground, lest he should give an heir to his brother. 10 And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; therefore He killed him also. Right, so Onan pulled out and the average catholic person suggests that this was the problem. (I humbly disagree, but that's off-topic here) I think this side of the issue is well understood so let me show the Jewish side of it. ### The Jewish position (Talmud) The ancient Jewish views come from rabbinic interpretations like the Talmud and later writings. As Christians and Jews understand, sexual acts are supposed to be within marriage. And focus on procreation. A focus is not the same as the outright demand of the catholic position. Here are some quotes of the English from the Talmud in Nedarim 20b. > However, the Rabbis said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Yoḥanan ben Dehavai. Rather, **whatever a man wishes to do with his wife he may do. He may engage in sexual intercourse with her in any manner that he wishes**, and need not concern himself with these restrictions. As an allegory, it is like meat that comes from the butcher. If he wants to eat it with salt, he may eat it that way. If he wants to eat it roasted, he may eat it roasted. If he wants to eat it cooked, he may eat it cooked. If he wants to eat it boiled, he may eat it boiled. (Nedarim 20b:4 ) > The Gemara relates: A certain woman, who came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi to complain about her husband, said to him: My teacher, I set him a table, using a euphemism to say that she lay before him during intimacy, and he turned it over. **Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to her: My daughter, the Torah permitted him to engage in sexual intercourse with you even in an atypical manner, and what can I do for you if he does so?** (Nedarim 20b:6 ) I'm sure we are adult enough to understand the euphemism of a "turned-over table" here in the context of a woman who is upset about it. But I'm going to quote the Talmud again because I really don't want this euphemism to be misunderstood. > The Gemara wonders about the proof from Tamar itself: But weren’t there **Er and Onan**, her previous husbands, who presumably engaged in sexual intercourse with her? The Gemara responds: Er and Onan engaged in sexual intercourse in an atypical manner, i.e., anal intercourse, and therefore she was still a virgin. (Yevamot 34b:1 ) The verse about Onan has mixed opinions but from what I can tell primary objectionable act is that Onan was disobeying God by blatantly disregarding his levirate marriage obligation. Not even putting it in the wrong hole itself. Looking through other things on Sefaria I found all kinds of instructions like... > Approach her lovingly and passionately, so that she reaches her orgasm first. - Iggeret Hakodesh, 13th C. (found in this article ) Also, I looked in Mi Yodeya (J:SE) - What are reasons of מצוות עונה marital sex? 3. Wife is longing for Husband & 4. Husband simply does not want to be tempted to sexual sin. (Additionally the answer starts with wives have a right to sexual pleasure just as they do clothing and food... so yeah) ### Quick side by side | **Aspect** | **Catholic Position** | **Ancient Jewish Position** | |--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------| | **Core Principle** | Sex must always unite procreation and unity; no exceptions. | Sex should prioritize procreation but allow marital freedom for pleasure or preventing sin. | | **Scriptural Basis** | Genesis 38 (Onan), natural law theology (Aquinas). | Genesis 38 (Onan), Leviticus 15, Talmudic interpretations. | | **Flexibility** | Rigid; universal rules apply to every act. | More flexible; depends on intent, context, and rabbinic opinion. | Ancient Jewish regulations are pragmatic and interpretive, shaped by rabbinic debate, and don’t enforce a universal procreative mandate for every act. Catholicism, with its rigid systematic theology (Augustine, Aquinas, etc), insists on procreation as mandatory in every instance. ### Things I've checked already... I've looked at these aspects so far... but I'm giving up and asking you guys now. - Jesus did not abolish the Law (Matthew 5:17-18) - Flee from sexual immorality (1 Corinthians 6:18-20) does not contradict the previous Jewish understanding in any way. - Galatians 3 // Acts 15 Both of these passages do not suggest that any previous sexual laws or understandings of immorality had changed. - The marriage as an icon of Jesus and the Church in Ephesians 5:25-33 doesn't retroactively change the previous understandings either, if anything it strengthens them. - And of course, we have the entire book of Song of Songs which urges us to Love God with the same passion as two people in passion. (This is mentioned here as well ) ### Question On what basis do the Catholics change the original ancient understandings on this subject? No traps here... honestly curious as, to why the Catholics made this rigid universal rule when none existed previously. Edit: Talmud is way too late to be valid in the format I presented. Making my question a frame issue. I'm not deleting this though as the answers are insightful.

Note that my question is asking about married couples, not just any two people engaging in intercourse. According to the Catholic Church, would a husband in wife be in sin if they committed any of the following acts: 1. Anal sex 2. Oral sex (Manual sex) 3. Sex during pregnancy with knowledge of that pregnancy. 4. Sex after menopause. The reason I ask for these is because it seems that birth control is immoral since it leaves out the openness to life. So what about these circumstances? Also, perhaps one could add whether or not these are mortal or venial sins?

Years ago, I recall being taught that Benedict XVI once said that it was licit for a husband to perform cunnilingus on his wife in order to help her climax if she did not during the ordinary process of the marital act. My memory could be fuzzy, and perhaps it was JP2 who said this (would make sense, given his large contribution to catholic sexual ethics), but I'm 90% certain that I was told it was Benedict XVI. I would like to know what the source is for this claim, however, and I have been unsuccesful when searching for it in the past online.

Human sperm are known to live for up to 74 days inside a man's body , after which they are reabsorbed by the body. This means that, if a man releases sperm in an ejaculation, the sperm would have been reabsorbed anyway unless that man found a woman within 75 days. There is the story of Onan, but it seems to refer to coitus interruptus (practicing some form of contraception) when a woman is available and the man's holy duty (Levirate Marriage) was to raise children with his dead brother's widow, who would inherit the property. A separate category is spilling seed when one is not dating anyone. Please state what Christian denomination you are answering from (Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, etc.) and then explain (with sources) what is the current position of your Church on the matter of "wasting seed", in the following scenarios: 1) Masturbation, where someone is "single" or a wedding is not planned within 75 days 2) Using condoms during premarital sex, e.g. to prevent catching an STD (I understand this one is a bit of a tough one, since premarital sex itself may be prohibited by some denominations, but given that it does take place, there must be some opinions regarding whether health concerns or wasting seed takes precedence?) 3) Using condoms within a marriage (e.g. as a form of contraception) NOTE: This question is NOT asking about abortion or birth control pills.

It seems that sex is always a sin, as evidenced by the fact that Jesus had to be born of a virgin and not by traditional conception in order to be sinless. Is this true? Any viewpoint is welcome.

Just to be clear, polygamy and group sex go against my conscience. I am a Christian, and I ask this question sincerely. Polygamy is not explicitly or unambiguously forbidden in the Bible. In fact, it is regulated (see, for example, Exodus 21:10 ), and wise patriarchs saw no problem in marrying many women (see, for example, 1 Kings 11:3 ). *First,* in the polygamy-practising society described in the Bible, if one were in a polygamous marriage, would group sex within that marriage be morally acceptable? Normally group sex involves committing the sin of fornication or adultery, but I do not see what sin it would be in a polygamous culture. *Second,* is there any biblical, historical, or cultural grounds to think that any of the polygamists in the Bible would have actually engaged in group sex, regardless of whether their society considered it morally acceptable?

After an interesting set of articles put forward in the chatroom, I'm curious to know if any christian denominations have said a marriage can continue in heaven, and if the conjugal act continues in heaven. PS. I find the topic interesting but I am one of the Christians that believe marriage and sexual feelings vanish after death.

There is a story in the Bible that Adam and Eve ate the fruit and thus sinned against God. But other religions, including some Christians, describe that they were having intercourse and that's why God threw them out of the garden. Which Christian groups believe this, and what is their reasoning?

> By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. CCC 2352 So does this mean I need to buy extra gold bond medicated powder to avoid jock itch (and mortal sin), or is that just excessive scrupulosity? The real question is, is the 'grave matter' involved in masturbation always involve ejaculation or does the offense against chastity lie in your intentions? And the source of consternation in this is that in conjugal sex, ejaculating outside of your wife is considered the 'grave matter' so I'd have to imagine the rationale for that being bad is totally different than the rationale for masturbation being sinful but I don't know why.