Answering Objections Against Oral Stimulation Within Marriage

In this article, we thoroughly debunk a couple common objections against the morality of oral sexual stimulation used as foreplay between Catholic spouses. 

---

At the Apostolate, we have devoted several articles on which acts of marital foreplay are morally legitimate and which are not. Controversially, we have taken several opportunities to defend the moral legitimacy of oral-genital sexual foreplay between spouses, so long as it does not constitute a proximate occasion for orgasm outside the moral parameters of the marriage act. What I would like to do in this article is to address the core counter-argument against this position, as this has been a cause of scrupulosity for some of our readers. 

The main objection against this form of marital foreplay, taken from Alphonsus Liguori, is that the act of oral stimulation, otherwise referred to as irrumation, inasmuch as it simulates penetrative intercourse, constitutes the essence of sodomy properly so-called and for this reason must be condemned as intrinsically evil, with or without orgasm. Just as, for example, incomplete sexual acts with a third party wouldn’t be any less adulterous than a consummated sexual act with a third party, so incomplete irrumation is no less sodomitic than complete irrumation. This objection, however, fails for a couple of reasons, which is why this argument has been largely abandoned by most moralists of the last century and a half. For one, the sinfulness of adultery does not consist essentially in this or that type of sexual act, but in the pursuance of any sexual relationship whatsoever with someone other than one’s spouse. That is what constitutes the malice of adultery. Consummated acts of adultery may be considered more grave than unconsummated acts of adultery, in one sense, but they share fundamentally the same guilt by virtue of the object of sexual pleasure. Therefore, to conflate complete with incomplete irrumation simply begs the question that the malice of consummated irrumation consists merely in oral-genital contact and not in its manner of pollution which would designate it as a sin against nature in the first place. It also conflates anal penetration and oral-genital contact, which is simply not reasonable. 

More fundamentally, though, when dealing with questions of incomplete acts of marital foreplay that are done without a proximate danger of pollution, we should analyze each of these acts not according to some arbitrary standard of what does or does not happen to simulate the act of intercourse (after all, could not the same be said of certain forms of manual stimulation?), but according to the act’s intrinsic ability to signify conjugal love through bodily symbolism. If a sexual gesture is fundamentally incapable of signifying conjugal love through bodily symbolism, then such a sexual act would be morally compromised. It is on this basis that many BDSM sexual acts must be condemned, for they are incapable of signifying conjugal love between husband and wife. Therefore, if one wants to argue against the moral legitimacy of oral-genital sexual contact between a husband and a wife, one would need to demonstrate that such a sexual gesture is fundamentally incapable of signifying conjugal love. Since spouses use each other’s mouths for affection and sexual love all the time, I simply do not see how such an argument could be made convincingly. For myself, I do think this type of argument could be persuasively made against something like anal foreplay for reasons that are more obvious, but short of a foreseen proximate danger of pollution stemming from the oral-genital contact itself, there is simply no convincing argument that this form of foreplay could not be integrated within the framework of conjugal affection and sexual love. I want to close this article with two quotations from esteemed moralists who, in my judgment, make the case quite convincingly. The first is from Fathers John C. Ford and Gerald Kelly, who write: 

“[While oral-genital contact may be] repugnant and shocking to a great many people, and intolerable to some, … their morality cannot be decided on the basis of emotional reactions, which though normal, are apparently not universal. People differ very widely in their estimates of what is shameful or disgusting in sexual matters, these differences being the result of differing cultural backgrounds, family attitudes, sexual education, natural temperament, and other factors.” (Contemporary Moral Theology, Vol ii, Marriage Questions, pg. 228)

They go on to write, 

“[Oral-genital sexual acts] would obviously be grave sins against chastity if they involved a serious and unjustifiable risk of orgasm outside intercourse. But provided this is excluded, most theologians today would say that in these acts there is certainly no grave sin against conjugal chastity; and probably no venial sin as long as the partners have a justifying reason, for instance that these acts are necessary or useful to the achievement of satisfactory sexual relations. In other words, these acts are considered morally (not aesthetically) comparable to other incomplete preparatory acts as far as their essential chastity is concerned. Their “obscenity” or “nastiness” does not make them unchaste” (Contemporary Moral Theology, Vol ii, Marriage Questions, pg. 229).

Finally, there is the great moralist and confessor Servant of God Fr. Felix Cappello, who writes: 

“Those are called imperfect acts, in which the ultimate termination of venereal acts does not occur, which is the full effusion of semen (or the full resolution of nature, i.e., orgasm). Such are touches, kisses, embraces, obscene words. These acts, even if they are not directed to the marriage act, are licit if they are performed for some honorable purpose, e.g. to foster mutual love, and there is no imminent danger of pollution; they constitute a venial sin if they are performed for pleasure alone. Some make an exception for certain extremely obscene acts, e.g. inserting the genitals into a woman's mouth, … licking the genitals, etc., which are sometimes performed between spouses. These acts, however, are not condemned as grave sins precisely because they are obscene, but because they can hardly ever be performed without imminent danger of pollution; Hence, if it were de facto clear that in certain persons those acts of this kind do not induce danger …, they would not be gravely sinful.” (Fr. Felix Cappello, SJ, Tractatus Canonico Moralis, De Sacramentis)