Help Me Reach 12 on the Manly Scale of Absolute Gender

If you like the patriotic work we're doing, please consider donating a few dollars. We could use it. (if asked for my email, use "")

Monday, February 21, 2011

In case you were wondering

How often have you asked yourself:
Are unnatural sexual acts moral to use as foreplay, prior to an act of natural marital relations open to life?
Roman Catholic theologian and Bible translator, Ronald L. Conte Jr., has the answer:
This all-too-common question asks whether married couples might use various types of unnatural sexual acts — manual sexual acts (masturbation of self or spouse, or various devices used in the same way), or oral sexual acts, or anal sexual acts — in the context of a subsequent, concomitant, or prior act of natural marital relations open to life.


So my answer to the above question is that neither the intention (purpose) to use an act as foreplay, nor any circumstances whatsoever, can justify a sexual act that is intrinsically evil. Unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil due to the deprivation of the procreative and unitive meanings. And the presence or absence of sexual climax does not change the moral object. An unnatural sexual act with sexual climax has the same evil moral object as an unnatural sexual act without sexual climax. The moral object has not changed, and so the moral nature of the act has not changed; it remains intrinsically evil. Therefore, no type of unnatural sexual act, with or without climax, can be used by a married couple at any time, regardless of whether or when an act of natural marital relations occurs.
So, I guess defunding Planned Parenthood's contraceptive candy store is just a first step. We have much more work to do.


  1. Hebrews 13:4 -Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but fornicators and adulterers God will judge

    (If you are married, anything goes!. Any other activity requires repentance).

    I am not surprised that an sexually repressed (maybe even celibate) man talked rings around the question, and then came up with a "you are evil" answer. But that is the Papist way. No matter what you do, you are evil.

    It's almost as if by helping poor women with medical issues related to their private parts, we may as well be embroidering a giant red letter on their examination gowns. But then again, that was a Calvinist solution, wasn't it?

    Y'know General, it seems there is something that the Papists and the Reformers can agree on after all! I love it when there is solidarity on important issues of the day.

    And whether Betty Sue is having hawt non-missionary sex with her husband is an important issue of the day!

  2. I'm with TheoTranslator Cunte! All those demands for foreplay, when she won't even agree to a three-way, is Teh UnGodly. The only KKKhristian thing to do is for the man, and only the man, to say to the not-man: "One, Two, Three, Go!"

    And all this modern emphasis of making the nasty lasty longer -- wicked! We're heard it from a holy thinker that holding it in the stinker for any more time than is needed for procreation (guys, you know what that means, heh-heh) is a venereal sin. So next time the little layin' lady whines "What, so soon again?" you can just tell her it's the way the Lord would anoint her. Jehovah ain't no 60-minute man.

  3. What is this 'foreplay' word that is mentioned?

  4. General, Sir:

    Sorry to be late for the morning roll-call, but I was engaging in some intrinsically evil sex act* and lost my feed for a few minutes--I hates me some streaming video!

    Sir, could you, um, clear up something for me? ."natural marital relations"? I thought those were the 1st cousins a lot of fundies are married too.

    *Full disclosure, there warn't gonna be any other kind happening

  5. "Unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil due to the deprivation of the procreative and unitive meanings."

    Based on what I have read in the papers (I know, I know) I thought the only kind of sex the Catholic church appoved of was man on boy anal and or oral sex? I thought it was part of their novitiate training or something. Am I wrong General?

  6. TheoTranslator Cunte??

  7. Sorry for being serious for a moment, but I read the whole argument. It is based on a hideous amount of assumptions, many undeclared, others unproven, mostly demonstrably false. It is a nice discussion, but full of more holes than a block of swiss cheese. I will get to answering soon.

  8. jcricket said...
    TheoTranslator Cunte??

    Well, he's a theoloogiean and a Bibbelical translanter, so I thought I'd shorten that to a kewl descriptor of TheoTranslator, eh? And I must have hit the wrong key when I was spelling his name. DOH! In now way did I mean to suggest that this learned man and his focus on the evillity of sex was a cunt, or even an olde Englishe Cunte. Farthest thing from my mind. If I ever meet the man, I will apologize right to his farce.

  9. Thanks for explaining that one, Bukko. For a while there I thought you were a disparaging my comment above it in a most vile manner. It bothered me a lot.


We'll try dumping haloscan and see how it works.