Can an Orgasm Outside of Sex Be Permitted if the Other Spouse Asks?

Can a Catholic spouse ever permit an unintended orgasm outside of sex when the other spouse asks for sexual affection? This article examines a difficult question in marital chastity, the principle of double effect, and why Catholic moral theology distinguishes between deliberately procuring orgasm and tolerating an unintended one for a proportionately serious reason. 

---

While there are many disputed questions in Catholic moral theology about marital chastity, one question that is not disputed and which enjoys universal consensus among theologians and popes is that spouses can never deliberately procure an orgasm outside the immediate context of conjugal intercourse. And yet those same moral theologians do acknowledge that it is one thing to deliberately procure an orgasm outside of conjugal intercourse, and quite another to permit an unintended orgasm for a proportionately serious reason while internally resisting the pleasure of the unnatural orgasm itself. The reason for this distinction stems from what is referred to as the principle of double effect whereby the direct action chosen is licit but the unintended consequences of the action are permitted for a proportionately grave reason. In this case, the proximate danger of an imminent orgasm is foreseen and permitted because of a supervening just cause that overrides the precept to strenuously avoid this proximate danger. Moralists have offered various reasons that would qualify for constituting such a proportionately grave reason, but one such reason may come off as rather surprising: adhering to the request of a spouse who asks for incomplete sexual expression knowing that this very well could constitute a proximate danger of unintended orgasm.

Now, again, let’s be very precise about the kind of situation we are discussing. We are not referring to a situation where a spouse adheres to a request for an unnatural sex act per se. To adhere to a request like this would be gravely sinful in each and every circumstance. We are instead talking about a situation where a spouse requests a sexual act that is foreseen to involve a proximate danger of pollution where the act taken by itself would be otherwise completely licit were it not for this foreseen imminent danger. Therefore, just as it is licit for an unmarried person to offer a chaste kiss to his or her fiancé even if this causes unintended arousal that is not consented to for a just cause, so it would be licit for a married person to engage in an otherwise licit sexual act with the unintended effect of causing an imminent danger of pollution, so long as a proportionately grave just cause is present. In this case, the just cause would be fulfilled on part of the spouse who is asked by virtue of the request made by the other spouse. 

According to moralist Ballerini, referring the incomplete sexual acts that are foreseen to carry with them a proximate danger of orgasm,

“[i]f the question is specifically asked about the spouse who adheres to the request, St. Alphonsus himself holds the doctrine of Sanchez to be probable that in the recipient of the request these are licit (Sanchez says, not mortal) acts …, although there is a risk of pollution in either, provided the recipient of the request does not consent to the orgasm itself; because then the recipient of the request is offering something licit, to which he or she is bound because of the right of one who asks, who, although he sins, nevertheless does not lose his right to ask”. (Ballerini, Opus theologicum morale in Busembaum medullum)

While it could indeed be disputed to what extent spouses are bound to adhere to requests for incomplete sexual acts as opposed to the full marriage act, what does seem clear enough is that in Catholic moral theology, your spouse’s requests for sexual expression in marriage carry much more weight than how we are accustomed to thinking about conjugal rights in the modern era, so much so that most moralists think they are weighty enough to override the prudential obligation to strenuously avoid the proximate danger of pollution. The reason for this from a theological point of view stems from St. Paul’s teaching about the remedial effects marriage has on the plague of concupiscence, and the obligation to assist the other spouse in receiving the benefits of this remedy must be taken very seriously is therefore not merely a matter of conjugal love but also conjugal justice. 

Therefore, if a spouse sincerely requests incomplete expressions of sexual love, even if he or she sins in the imprudence of the request by virtue of the foreseen proximate danger of orgasm, a spouse can licitly adhere to the request without scruples so long as there is no proximate danger of consenting to the orgasm itself.