Question: Is the usage of sex toys allowed during sexual intercourse?
An additional question: “When is oral sex allowed in a Catholic marriage?” is also answered in this post.
Not long ago, I got a comment on this blog that asked something like: If an act of sexual intercourse is free, total, faithful, and fruitful, can sex toys be used to stimulate either party to orgasm?
The reason given is a very valid reason - that men, by their nature, tend to reach orgasm very quickly, often before women. Thus the question of the use of sex toys was raised.
Now that’s a question that I had never before then answered, but I thought it was good enough a question to devote a whole post too, with some additions to the reply I gave then.
Generally, in an act of sexual intercourse that is free, total, faithful, and fruitful, it is hard to go far wrong.
Before he was elected Pope John Paul II, Karol Wojtyla wrote in his book “Love and Responsibility” that in an act of sexual intercourse, the couple should strive to attain climax at the same time. This highest point of the sexual union between husband and wife should be shared by both.
This ideal certainly is hard to achieve, given that, as said above, men reach orgasm much quicker than women. It is therefore the husband’s responsibility to slow down and “read” his wife’s body language, which will tell him when she is about to climax.
This is one area when oral sex is allowed between husband and wife - to help the woman to climax at the same time as the husband.
However, in the event that the man does climax first, it is also his responsibility to ensure that his wife also climaxes during this act of sexual intercourse by physical stimulation.
Unfortunately I’ve found no further response to this, presumably because at the time “Love and Responsibility” was written, the development of sex toys was not so prevalent.
However, moral theology has equipped us with some useful tips to handle this question, until a more capable source is discovered.
The first principle is called “double effect”. This means that when a couple has sex, they do not have sex only for pleasure. Pleasure is an effect of having sex, the aim of which is for couple bonding and procreativity.
Certain bodily functions required for survival of the human race have pleasure attached to them. Eating, drinking, shitting, farting, sleeping, resting, etc, are all required for survival of the human race, and God has wisely attached pleasure to these functions. Having sex too is necessary for the survival of the human race, and also has pleasure attached to it.
There is nothing wrong with taking pleasure in any of these bodily functions. The trouble only begins when pleasure becomes the main reason we carry out such functions.
If we eat simply because eating is pleasurable, we get fat and unhealthy, and this leads to various illnesses. Modern day science tries to allow us to eat for the pleasure of eating through the invention of pills that allow us to eat without gaining weight. This is different from bulimia, which is another illness altogether.
It is hard to shit for the pleasure of shitting, but laxatives can be used. There is no need to go into what side effects this can have.
Likewise, when we have sex for pleasure, trouble occurs. Modern society tells us that there is nothing wrong with having sex for pleasure only. From using sex for pleasure only comes various tools that we use to strip the bonding and procreativity from sex.
Condoms and the Pill and other contraceptives attempt to remove the procreativity part of sex. Unknown to many, it also removes the bonding aspect. This is because it is impossible to separate the two. We can’t prove that contraceptives remove the bonding aspect of sex, since this is experienced on a level that is hard, if not impossible, to measure, but there is a direct correlation between the increase of contraceptive usage and the increase of marriages ending in divorce.
In other words, contraceptives place more than a mere physical barrier to a healthy sexual relationship; it places an emotional and psychological barrier as well, which is the level at which bonding is experienced.
Understanding these, it becomes essential then that if we value our relationship with the one that we’re having sex with, we won’t want to use sex solely for pleasure.
Thus, in answer to the question on the use of sex toys in the act of sexual intercourse, the couple must honestly ask themselves: Is pleasure the main purpose of using sex toys in an act of sexual intercourse?
Another related matter regarding the use of sex toys is the dignity of the human person. Now there are numerous kinds of sex toys limited only by the imagination. Some of these sex toys reduces the dignity of the persons having sex, many of which stem from sexual fantasies, such as the use of sadomasochistic tools, uniforms, and other tools.
One key aspect of the act of sexual intercourse is that both partners have to respect the dignity of each other as human persons, partners of opposite gender who complement each other in their differences. At all times should these differences be respected and given proper dignity.
The use of sex toys should never result in the lowering of dignity of another person. Understanding these, a mature couple should be able to make their own choices regarding the use of sex toys in their sexual relationship.
Ultimately, the Catholic Church is not going to send police priests into your bedroom (or wherever it is you have sex) and catch you in the act of violating church teachings. It is up to the individual or couple to make their own choices, while striving to perfect their conscience as best as they can, according to Church teachings.
Related articles:
Filed under: FAQs, General, Holy Matrimony, Interreligious Dialogue, Moral Theology, Relationships, Sex
[...] Following a comment in this post, I decided to add an additional link to this post, because yes, there is one exception to this negative answer to oral sex in a Catholic marriage. The post linked will provide what is hopefully an adequate explanation. [...]
[...] In the proper context, oral sex can be consonant with Catholic sexual morality. (Outside of this context, oral sex - like other forms of sodomy - is not in keeping with the beauty and dignity of sexuality.) When we recognise that love-making is procreative we are not saying that every sexual act needs to result in conception; rather each act needs to be open to the transmission of human life. Acts that are closed to life, such as sodomy and masturbation, are therefore incompatible with the meaning of love-making. [...]
You quoted above: “When we recognise that love-making is procreative we are not saying that every sexual act needs to result in conception; rather each act needs to be open to the transmission of human life. Acts that are closed to life, such as sodomy and masturbation, are therefore incompatible with the meaning of love-making. […]
If my wife is pregnant, we should be able to perform those other sex acts because she is already preganant and therefore human life is not being neglected. Correct?
Hi Brian,
I know of some people who use pregnancy as a contraceptive. Sounds strange, doesn’t it? What these people do is that when they are pregnant, they continue to have sex until they can no longer do so, and then they abort the baby. Is that correct?
What I’m trying to say here is that the marital act, for it to be a renewal of marriage vows, must be open to the transmission of life, regardless of when it is done in.
If it is alright to perform the sex acts you are thinking of when your wife is pregnant, there should be no reason for it to be wrong to do it when your wife is not pregnant. But if it is wrong to do them when your wife is not pregnant, doing them when she is pregnant doesn’t make them right.
Hope that helps.
God bless,
Catholic Writer
Of course, sex toys is allowed! it depends on the couple who likes to try sex toys or not. For me, sex toys are ok.
CW: Link removed.
Hi Ryan,
By that logic, anything goes so long as the couple is willing to try it. But we all know that is not true. There are something that are a violation of marital vows if used in an act of sexual intercourse.
God bless,
Catholic Writer
I don’t follow the logic with which you responded to Brian about why you can’t perform other sex acts when the wife is pregnant. His question argues that while it is NOT acceptable when the wife is capable of becoming pregnant, it seems logical that it would be ok when their is no chance of creating new life. It is definitely NOT a contraceptive act.
Please clarify.
In fact, by being pregnant, I would argue that each and every sex act is already open to life, and is therefore not separating the two facets of marital sex: unitive and procreative.
Just my opinion,
But if I were pregnant, don’t think I’d be into anything that was ‘kinky’ or ‘unatural’ - I’d be focused on more loving, ‘normal’ sex as far as is possible, and be thinking more about the baby that was growing inside me and respecting that miracle of life, trustig my husband would be feeling the same.
Ryan,
As a Catholic, I don’t think “sex toys” can be acceptable at all - it tends to make one think of lust more than love. Just doesn’t seem right to me - guess everyone’s conscience is different…
Hi Jan,
Sorry for the very late response. I thought I had responded before, but apparently I was mistaken.
Let us assume that the sex act that Brian is talking about is having sex with condoms. Very simple, I know, but it makes things easier to explain. Now is it right for a Catholic couple to have sex using a condom, regardless of whether the woman is pregnant or not? The answer is ‘no’. The reason behind not so much that sex using a condom is a contraceptive act, but that the mentality behind that act is contraceptive itself. It doesn’t matter when a couple has sex using a condom, whether the woman is fertile or not, whether the woman is pregnant or not; it is always wrong for a couple to have sex using a condom.
Now if you replace “sex using a condom” with any other sex act that Brian might be talking about, you will see that it doesn’t matter whether when the couple performs those sex acts. Whether the woman is fertile or not, whether the woman is pregnant or not, if it is wrong to perform those sex acts at any one point of time, it is always wrong to perform those sex acts.
However if those sex acts are done as foreplay, or as part of a complete act of sexual intercourse which includes vaginal penetration and ejaculation inside the vagina, then it is alright. But excluding vaginal penetration and ejaculation, it makes the sex act contraceptive. To put it simply, it turns what is a life-giving and bonding act into a pleasure-seeking act.
Hope that clears things up!
God bless,
Catholic Writer
Hi Cath,
Because everyone’s conscience is different, it doesn’t mean that some thing is right for someone and wrong for another person. If something is right for any human objectively, it is right for all humans. The Church teaching of conscience says to follow your conscience, yes, but it also says that your conscience must be formed according to church teaching. Following an improperly formed conscience knowingly is no more right than going against your conscience.
God bless,
Catholic Writer
I understand that a sexual act intentionally completed in male orgasm not during intromission is contrary to the end of sex and is immoral - it defeats the natural purpose of sex. It is not so obvious the degree to which female orgasm does or does not follow the same rule.
We have found that during love-making (as part of foreplay) that if I bring my wife to orgasm though clitoral stimulation alone, while she is satisfied to some degree, she also is not fully and totally satisfied and that she is immediatly ready for intercourse and a more complete orgasm with vaginal stimlulation (and that we are more successful in her achieving this more complete orgasm in this manner). Thus, within the context of complete marital intercourse, achieving a non-vaginal orgasm as a stepping stone to vaginal orgasm seems reasonable.
There appears to be a difference between a female orgasm with partial satisfaction of the sexual desire and one with a more complete satisfaction. It also appears that a wife’s orgasm does not have the same finality with regard to transmission of life as does a husband’s. Can it be that the reason intending a man’s orgasm outside of marital intercourse is wrong does not apply to intending a wife’s clitoral orgasm? If the couple is abstaining from intercourse for serious health reasons, can it be OK for the husband to intentionally cause his wife’s clitoral orgasm though they are not going to go on to vaginal penetration and intercourse?
Hi Tommy J,
I’m not a sex expert, theologian, or priest; just a lay person trying to share what I know; and making intelligent guesses at what I don’t know, so don’t take my word for it. But I’ve learnt much more ever since writing about these matters on this blog than I did just from reading it up alone.
What you say about achieving a non-vaginal orgasm as a stepping stone to vaginal orgasm, within the context of complete marital intercourse seems reasonable indeed. I believe that the focus is to achieve complete marital intercourse, and any action that is not bad in itself used to achieve this is alright.
It is wonderful that you have come to be aware of the differences between men and women, so that a greater harmonization can be achieved for the good of yourself and your marriage.
According to Pope John Paul II’s “Love and Responsibility” (written in 1960), he writes that a man’s orgasm has a short build-up period and a short cool-down period. A woman, on the other hand, takes much longer to build up to reach climax, and takes a much longer period to cool down (paraphrasing what the pope wrote as he is more descriptive). He explains that “if we take into account the short and more violent curve of arousal in the man, an act of tenderness on his part in the context of marital intercourse acquires the significance of an act of virtue - specifically, the virtue of continence, and so indirectly the virtue of love.
Interestingly, he also adds that if a woman does not obtain natural gratification from the sexual act there is a danger that her experience of it will be qualitatively inferior, will not involve her fully as a person. He adds that women who sometimes fake orgasm to satisfy a man’s pride may be doing something that is unhelpful to her in the long run. I am told that Chapter Five of “Love and Responsibility” is where all the juicy bits are; I’ve only read parts of it, because I didn’t make it through Chapter Two.
As for your last question, I believe that such clitoral orgasm is actually masturbation, which is the “stimulation, by manual or other means exclusive of coitus, of one’s own or another’s genitals to orgasm”.
Hope this helps answer your questions!
God bless,
Catholic Writer
You have mentioned earlier about the need to be open to life in the sex act. What about a situation where a wife has had a hysterectomy, and no possibility of life resulting from sex exists? According to your logic, wouldn’t any sex act, including vaginal intercourse, be illicit? You have also stated that the contraceptive intent in such acts as condom use, even during pregnancy, makes it illicit. Then what about natural family planning? Although pregnancy may occur (just as it could using a condom), the intent is to PREVENT pregnancy.
Hi Mike,
Welcome to Catholic Writings! Just a note to say that I’m not a sex expert, moral theologian, or clergy. I’m just a lay person who wants to bring out these frequently undiscussed topics, and hopefully provide answers to those seeking for something Catholic. I could be wrong, but I’ll try my best to answer your questions.
Thank you for writing in with this comment. It is sometimes a difficult teaching of the Church to accept because the matter frequently not adequately dealt with, the knowledge of the people responding is lacking, or the questions are simply not answered. I hope this blog can help to address some of those questions.
Firstly, it is not the sex act that is not open to life; it is the contraceptive act that is not open to life. For a wife who has had a hysterectomy, I assume that the surgery was not done so that she could not have children. Most hysterectomies are not done for contraceptive purposes, I believe. In such a case, it is not sinful. Not being able to bear children is a foreseen but unintended consequence of having a hysterectomy.
However, there are two purposes to the sex act between a husband and wife:
1. For bonding (physical, emotional, and spiritual)
2. For babies
Even if the second one is not possible, through no fault of the couple (i.e. not contraceptive), the sex act is still licit because it still fulfills the first purpose.
Both contraceptives and natural family planning usually have the same intention - to delay pregnancy due to reasons usually known only to the couple. If either is used to prevent pregnancy completely, as opposed to delaying pregnancy, then the intention is wrong, no matter the means used.
If the intention is moral, such as delaying pregnancy due to economic reasons, then the difference between using contraceptives and using natural family planning becomes crucial. Natural family planning respects the human body, especially the fertility cycles of the woman. By using natural family planning, there is no single instance during sexual intercourse in which a contraceptive (against conception) action is carried out.
Using contraceptives however does not respect the fertility cycle of a woman (and hence does not respect her body), and it is in preventing conception (interfering with the sexual act) during the act of sexual intercourse that makes the use of contraceptives immoral.
You may ask about the morality of using the Pill, since it does not directly prevent contraception during the sex act. Using the Pill for contraceptive purposes is also immoral because likewise it does not respect the woman’s body and her fertility cycle. Using synthetic chemicals designed to resemble hormones, the Pill (depending on the type) acts to change the structure of the woman’s reproductive system, so that she cannot conceive (hence contraceptive).
There are other types of oral contraceptives that are abortificent, which means rather than preventing pregnancies, it aborts one after conception occurs. Some oral contraceptives change the lining of the womb so that a fertilised egg is not able to attach itself to the lining and is discarded. This too is abortificent.
I hope this answers your questions. Please feel free to dialogue further.
God bless,
Catholic Writer
The above is true, but there are medical situations where a “birth control” hormone is needed. My wife for example was having abnormal bleeding that was to the point of being a danger to health. The docotors determined that her normal monthly hormone shift was not, well, normal.
They put her on a low dose birth control hormone that is also used to correct this problem. It worked for the most part. They did tell her that it would not cause an abortion and it also would not protect 100% against pregnancy. They said it was used to regulate her normal cycle.
We continued to have sex. She eventually became pregnant. After our child was born the problem did not return. The doctors said this is normal and the body will sometimes be corrected by having a normal pregnancy.
So the true question with the “Pill” is what it is being used for and what it’s side effects are. If it is be used as a contraceptive then it is not permissible. If it is being used as a treatment for a medical condition and does not cause an abortion as a side effect then I believe that it is permissible even if the unintended side effect is a lower risk of becoming pregnant.
Am I incorrect?
What of the issue where the woman has had a hysterectomy ue to medical reasons, two children have come into the marriage, and there is a deep love bettween partners. Life WILL NOT result from any secual activity. Why is oral sex or male / female masturbation thought of so negatively in alovin relationship??
Hi Michael,
The Catholic Church only requires that a couple be “open to life” at each and every act of sexual intercourse, not that life must result from every act. Being open to life means more than being open to babies. It means, first and foremost, that every sexual act be a gift of one’s body to the other person. It means a communion of persons. It means that life can bear fruit in other ways.
Used alone, oral sex and male/female masturbation, the communion of persons is absent. Rather, used alone, they are sought after for the sexual pleasure that they bring the persons involved. The aim of the act is no longer that of a gift of one’s body to the other, but the sexual pleasure of both.
However, when oral sex is used as part of the conjugal act, usually to help the woman to reach climax, it is not a problem.
Hope that helps.
God bless,
Catholic Writer
dude i so do not want to be catholic.
too many rules by catholics, not by god the father
and it’s only god’s business what we do in our bedrooms, not yours!
Hi wow,
Thank you for sharing your opinion. It is unfortunate that you would let a few simple rules get in your way of your search for God.
God bless,
Catholic Writer
Hi Wow,
If you knew that these laws put down by God was for your happiness and your happiness alone, then you really wouldn’t mind them. Take your time to discover what God has created and made to govern the happiness of his children and you will discover joy everlasting.
That’s a good answer…
I have erectile dysfunction as a result of prostratectomy (cancer) with no erections and seminal fluids. But I am somewhat capable of reaching climax. I am having very much difficulty in finding out what I ‘can or cannot do” sexually as a catholic. This type of question is unique and one that no one seems to want to talk about in cluding priest. We are lost and want to do the right in the eyes of god, Some direction is very much desired as sexual desire still knocks st the door. What to do? I have been under penile rehab for 15 months with no avail except for an occasional erection via injections. I am usually in the flacid state when mother nature calls. Mutual stimulation, oral, vibrators viable avenues or not? Thank you.
Hi Marc,
I’m no religious or theologian, so I won’t guarantee that if you follow my advice, you will be right by the Church. But in the light of the absence of proper advice from a priest, I would follow the rule of thumb that says that mutual stimulation, oral stimulation, and vibrators can be used only in the context of a full act of conjugal love.
Fortunately, where ejaculation is not possible, there are other ways of showing love that does not involve sexual intercourse. The act of sexual intercourse should not be reduced to simply satisfying one’s sexual desire. As humans, we have the unique ability of self-control that enables us not to give in to our otherwise animalistic instincts.
Hope this helps!
God bless,
Catholic Writer
Dear catholic writer,
You fail to mention what i am particularly looking for. You say, since fortunately I do not have ejaculate then there are other ways of showing love. Do you have any suggestions as to what these other ways might be from an intimacy and sexual need context?
Hi Marc,
What are you particularly looking for?
As for other ways of showing love, recall the times when you used to show love to your wife before you were married, and during times when sexual intercourse was not possible e.g. when she was fertile (if you were practising NFP), when she was sick, when she was pregnant or just after giving birth, etc.
The term ’sexual need’ is a misnomer, for sex is never a ‘need’ for human persons like us. You won’t find such a term in Wikipedia, for example.
‘Sexual desire’ is a more appropriate term. It is not a need because we won’t die if we don’t get it.
Hope that helps. If I’m still missing the point, please make it clear for me what exactly you are looking for.
God bless,
Catholic Writer
Thank you. I guess I’m looking for ways to fulfill my marital obligation to my wife. I’m thinking maybe I just need to be affectionate, close, do favors for her and spend time together quietly for intimacy and IC when the time is right when ever I have a sufficient erection. I agree, sex is not necessary especially at age 64, but the call is there continuously and more strongly as one lives close with his mate. Some self sacrifice and prayers will be needed which is acceptable. My focus needs to be on loving and not sexual gratification as some diehards with ED tend to lead you to believing.
Thank you for your time and understanding. Appreciate your frankness and steadfastness on this issue with me.
God bless you in all that you do,
Marc
Thanks Marc. You have shared wisely and correctly.
May God bless you in your marriage as well, and help you into through this new stage of your life together with your spouse.
God bless,
Catholic Writer