Getting Frisky: Incomplete Sexual Acts
Selections of Theology for Married Couples: Part V
From a Reader: Please help us in clarifying a long standing confusion. Is it sinful for spouses to orally and manually stimulate each other’s genitals while abstaining from full marital union?
My Response:
Yes, it is sinful for spouses to orally or manually stimulate each other's genitals while abstaining from the marital act. In that case, you are effectively looking at mutual masturbation. That's quite different from the same acts used as foreplay for the completed marital act (male ejaculation in the vagina). For more on this, please see my articles on the "Cardinal Rule" of the marital act and on the moral permissibility of oral and manual stimulation. I hope this helps.
Response of the Reader:
…even if there is no climax of either spouse? What about this from The Way of the Lord Jesus?
http://twotlj.org/G-2-9-E.html
see #1h
“Living a Christian Life received a Nihil obstat from Rev. Kevin T. McMahon, S.T.D., and Imprimatur from His Eminence, James Cardinal Hickey, Archbishop of Washington, 16 November 1992, and was published by Franciscan Press, Quincy University, Quincy, Illinois, copyright © 1993, all rights reserved.”
The Text Referenced:
“Marital sexual acts short of intercourse are good in themselves if they (i) are necessary or helpful to marital intercourse and/or (ii) express and foster marital affection. Still, even if good in itself, an act short of intercourse can be bad due to a wrong intention or some circumstance. Thus, such acts become bad if they either (iii) are intended to bring about complete sexual satisfaction apart from marital intercourse or (iv) are in some other way at odds with the good of marital communion.176
i) Mutually agreeable erotic words, looks, gestures, and bodily contact of various sorts, including manual and oral stimulation of the genitals, can prepare psychologically and/or physiologically for marital intercourse, and can intensify the experience of communion and make it more gratifying. Self-stimulating acts also can prepare oneself for intercourse.
ii) In the intervals between marital intercourse, interaction leading to moderate sexual arousal can both bring about a continuing experience of one-flesh communion and prepare indirectly and remotely for eventual marital intercourse. Thus, when abstinence from intercourse is appropriate, married couples sometimes rightly express and foster their affection by sexually stimulating interaction.”
N.B.: For the sake of space, I have only provided the text of paragraphs 2-5 of this section. I would strongly recommend that you read the entire section (h), plus section the g) The married sometimes commit venial sins against chastity.
My Second Response:
Thank you so much for bringing this text to my attention! I have spent a great deal of time over the last few years researching Catholic sexual ethics (and that doesn't include what I learned in seminary), yet I am always thrilled when I find a new-to-me text. I have already added a link to the page on our Resources page.
So although I have touched on this in several other articles (particularly, "Making Out with Your Wife"), I have not treated "incomplete acts" in genere at length. The thing that you have to distinguish is whether these acts are proximate to (soon before or after) or remote from (not soon before or after) the complete marital act. Proximate sexual acts are what we commonly refer to as either foreplay or afterplay, repsectively. Remote acts are all those acts that couples use in the times (hours, days, and weeks, hopefully not often more) between complete marital acts, which when used rightly foster ongoing (habitual) marital intimacy.
Now, what is permissible when proximate is not necessarily so when remote. On a practical level, we can think about the arousal curve. If you were to give your husband a blowjob, stop before he ejaculates, get up, and go about your day, you have aroused him and (hopefully) had a time of spousal bonding, but you have also signaled to his body that it is time for sex and then cut him off. That's a great way for him to suffer from the infamous "blue balls" (the female version of which is called "blue bean"). Now this is problematic on a moral level because it raises the risk of masturbation and adultery. If you scroll down to section 2., g, "The married sometimes commit venial sins against chastity," you will see that this can be venially sinful.
The Text Referenced:
“ii) As has been explained, incomplete sexual acts by the married can be good if they are oriented toward marital intercourse or, more generally, toward maintaining and fostering the ongoing marital communion, but are gravely bad if oriented toward any complete sexual act other than marital intercourse. However, sometimes the married intentionally seek or maintain incomplete satisfaction in acts whose orientation is ambiguous, inasmuch as they serve neither the habitual intention of marital communion nor any intention at odds with it, but are motivated by inadequately integrated emotional sexual desire, which might eventually lead toward marital intercourse but also might constitute a temptation to violate the marital good. (While not grave matter in themselves, such sins will be grave matter if they are occasions of other sins: masturbation, adultery in the heart, and so on.)
In both (i) and (ii), there is no violation of the marital good because the intention is in no way contrary to it. But there is a violation of sexual morality, because the intention bears on sexual arousal and satisfaction, and the act is morally defective due to inadequately integrated desire. All such defects would be overcome by perfect marital chastity, but even spouses who never will anything at odds with marital love can be motivated by erotic feelings that are not integrated with their good will, and so sometimes commit venial sins against marital chastity.”
A Liturgical Analogy:
Let us use an analogy: that of a priest preparing for and saying Mass. (Please don't be offended, I am not the first to see the parallels between the Mass, the Wedding Feast of the Lamb, and the marital union.) A priest should live in communion with Christ. His whole day should be both a thanksgiving for the Masses he has celebrated and preparation for the Masses he will celebrate. In order to grow in that communion and better prepare for the next Mass, he should take time for prayer throughout the day (the Divine Office, meditation, the Rosary, etc.) such that hardly an hour passes without him intentionally raising his mind and heart to God in prayer. This is called his remote preparation for Mass. Then, just before Mass, he makes his proximate preparation by reciting the preparatory prayers prescribed in the Missal. Amongst these prayers is his statement of intention to say the Mass. Then he vests, he goes to the altar, and he begins Mass. Now, understand that everything in the Mass leading up to the Consecration is preparation for the Consecration and everything in the Mass after the Consecration is effectively a thanksgiving for the Consecration. Once he starts Mass, it is sinful for a priest to stop Mass, unless there is a grave reason as indicated by the Missal (for example, a fire, flood, or attack). If he stops prior to the Offertory without a grave reason, it is at least venially sinful. If the priest stops after the Offertory without a grave reason, it is a mortally sinful sacrilege.
So, to bring this back to the marriage bed, our lives with our spouses should be filled with moments of intentional intimacy. These can be as distant as a text or a letter or as close as making out, fondling each other's genitals, or flashing the other with one's genitals or breasts. These can be fun, light-hearted, and brief ways to keep the spark of romance alive. But when you pass from the light and brief to the intense and prolonged, you are effectively moving into that realm of proximate preparation. Why would a priest start vesting for Mass and then not say Mass? Why would you or your spouse start taking clothes off while making out and then not complete the act? There's probably no sin involved, but at the very least it could be morally dangerous.
Let's say that then you move into the realm of more passionate oral or manual stimulation. Again there is a difference between a brief caress or even a kiss to your spouse's genitals or breasts and what are commonly known as a handjob/fingering or a blowjob/eating out. Once you've moved into the realm of these more sexually intense stimulations it is analogous to the priest who has started Mass. You are in the realm of foreplay. If you break off without a grave reason, it is probably at least venially sinful. Similarly, if you move so far as to actual penis in vagina penetration and stop before completing the act (male ejaculation) without grave reason, then you have probably committed a mortal sin. More on grave reasons to stop below.
Now, the healthy sexual tension that exists between man and wife can make that flow from one stage of the arousal curve to the next move very quickly and there is often no verbal statement of intention; our bodies speak clearly enough...but do they? What we intend to communicate is not always what is communicated. Thus, it is important that spouses clearly, verbally communicate their needs and intentions. So, for example, a wife makes a point to show her husband her breasts as she gets out of the shower. He responds by kissing and caressing her. She senses by his intensity that he intends for this to lead to the marital act. She, however, did not have that intention (she needs to get ready for something, she was getting ready for bed and is tired - the reason is not important); rather, she showed him her body as a means of fostering their habitual intimacy. It is perfectly fine and good for her to communicate what her intention was/is and what her needs are. On the other hand, it is also good for the husband to communicate what his intentions and needs are.
Marital Debt
As I wrote about in my article on the marital debt, both spouses have equal rights to the body of the other. This means that if your spouse requests (all the more if they demand) the debt and you don't have a grave reason to refuse, then you are morally obliged to pay it. Further, if you sense that your spouse needs the debt to be paid (even if they have not asked for it), you are obliged to pay it. Failure to pay the marital debt without grave reason, can be morally sinful as I discussed in the article linked above. But for the sake of the example, let's say that she communicates that she had not intended to initiate the marital act and asks if he intends to ask for the debt. He responds that, no, he does not intend to ask for the debt nor does he sense that he is at any particular risk (this applies just as much to wives as to husbands!); rather, he had thought that she was initiating and so he was trying to fulfill (what he perceived to be) HER request for the debt. In this scenario, it is perfectly fine for them to stop.
But let's say that this scenario had progressed to the bedroom (or wherever) without either one verbally communicating their intentions and he had begun to finger her. Again that is an act that is more appropriate to proximate preparation. So by moving to that level both spouses have effectively (non-verbally) consented and committed to the full marital act. Yes, verbal communication is good and if they have a good reason to stop, then they should verbally communicate that. Otherwise, it would be better (morally safer) to complete the act that they have started.
A word on moral unity/continuity.
Many human acts require multiple steps. For example, you don't just shoot an M4A1 carbine (gun). You have to load the magazine, put the magazine into the well, pull and release the charging handle, take the weapon off safe, take a shooting posture, acquire the sight picture on your target, and squeeze the trigger. Technically, only the last step was shooting the carbine. However, if I were speaking casually about a news story of someone shooting someone, it could be reasonably assumed that the shooter also completed some or all of the proceeding steps. Similarly, the marital act is technically just male ejaculation with his penis in his wife's vagina. Yet, it is commonly known that it usually takes a few steps to get to that point. So another way to look at proximate preparation for the marital act is that all these individual incomplete sexual acts have a certain moral unity with the completed act. Or you could look at is a moral continuity: there is a direct (or almost direct) flow from one act to the next which culminates in the marital act.
To use another liturgical analogy:
Priests are required to ensure the moral unity/continuity of their recitation of the Breviary (Divine Office). Ideally, there is also a real unity/continuity. Here are some examples. A priest says Prime from start to finish without any interruptions. There is both moral and real unity/continuity in his recitation. Another priest is saying Prime and gets an urgent text from his superior after the first Psalm. He pauses, reads, and replies to the text. Then he completes the hour. The interruption only lasted a minute or so. In this case there is moral unity/continuity, but not real unity/continuity. That fulfills his duty to recite the office of Prime. Another priest is saying Prime in the confessional and gets to the end of the first Psalm when a penitent comes in. This penitent is the start of a line which takes up his time right up until time to say Mass. So the priest says Mass and then finishes the hour. Here there is neither moral, nor real unity/continuity. In other words, he didn't just pause, he stopped, did something else, and then came back to it. That does not fulfill his moral obligation to say Prime.
Let's turn back to the bedroom.
A couple starts by making out in their bedroom, they move to more intense foreplay, and then they complete the act. There is real and moral unity/continuity in the act. Another couple is in the middle of foreplay and then they move from the bathroom to the bedroom (or one runs to grab a towel, a toy, or lube), and then they complete the act. There was a pause, so there is not that real unity/continuity, but there is that moral unity/continuity. A similar example would be if a child interrupts them and then one parent quickly throws on a robe and takes the child to bed (5 min is one thing, an hour is another!), and then they get back into it and complete the act. Another couple, however, starts getting physically intimate with some foreplay and the wife achieves orgasm. All of a sudden she is sleepy and ready for bed. So, they go to bed and pick up the next day for "his turn" and complete the act. In this example, there is neither moral, nor real unity/continuity. Effectively, the husband helped his wife to masturbate on one day and then they performed the marital act on the next.
Grave reasons to stop the act.
Now to the reasons to stop the Mass (fire, flood, attack, etc.), one can add several for why to stop the marital act. An easy one is injury to one of the spouses (yes, this happens; ask any ER doctor or nurse) or intense discomfort or pain. Illness is another one, to which I would add a woman on her period (see this article for more on period sex). For example, the wife would like to request the debt and the husband has been ill, but thinks that he is feeling well enough to fulfill the debt, so he consents. During the act, he realizes that he is too ill or in too much pain to reasonably continue. They should stop. The physical well-being of the spouse is a good reason and can be a grave reason to stop. I address the infamous headache in the article on the marital debt. Another reason to stop is when the privacy necessary for the modest completion of the act has been breached. For example, you forgot to lock the door and a kiddo walks into the room. On that note, failure to ensure modesty (i.e., privacy) can be a grave sin of negligence and/or scandal. Lock the door! Better to have to pause or stop indefinitely because a little one is knocking at the door than to roll over and see a little one at the foot of the bed. There are, of course, other reasons to stop, so use your best judgement.
“My question is on the theme of breastfeeding (i.e., a husband orally drawing breast milk from his wife's breasts). I have seen the act called "adult breastfeeding" and even "erotic lactation" on secular sites.”