Can Spouses Sexually Stimulate Themselves to Prepare for the Marriage Act?

Can Catholic spouses engage in self-stimulation as preparation for the marital act? Drawing on the Catechism and the traditional consensus of Catholic moral theologians, this article explains why self-stimulation ordered toward conjugal relations with one’s spouse is not considered masturbation in the morally condemned sense.

---

Some refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church’s teaching on masturbation and wonder if this kind of act would qualify: “By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure”. Yet, if we interpret the Catechism’s definition of masturbation too strictly without considering the words that immediately follow, then it would also imply the immorality of mutual sexual stimulation between spouses even in immediate preparation for the marriage act. For immediately after this definition, the Catechism provides key context for what this definition actually refers to:

“‘the deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.’ For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of ‘the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order’”.

Hence it is specifically referring to the stimulation of sexual organs outside the ends of marriage. Of course, for the present purposes of this article, we are not speaking here about incomplete self-stimulation with no intention to prepare for mutual sexual acts with the other spouse. On that question, you can read how theologians (1) have discussed that matter. Here, we are speaking of a situation when the husband or the wife, in preparation for the marriage act, wishes to arouse themselves by stimulating their own genital organs while waiting for mutual sexual relations with their spouse. 

It may surprise some to find out that on this point, there is virtual unanimity among theologians both classical and modern that such an act not only avoids mortal sin but is not even considered venially sinful. To understand why this is uncontroversially licit, we need to get at what makes sexual pleasure as such licit in the first place. It is not so much a specific sexual act or mode of sexual expression that legitimizes a sexual act, nor is it a joint intention to perform the consummated marriage act, but rather it is the object of sexual pleasure. That is, in order for sexual pleasure in general to be legitimate, the object of that pleasure must be none other than one’s lawful spouse. For he or she to whom the marriage act itself is permitted, so also are permitted those pleasures which accompany the marriage act. 

So long as this remains the case, the only circumstances that would make sexual pleasure unlawful would be the circumstance in which it is enjoyed, not the pleasure itself. Hence, the reflex principle articulated by almost all theologians that short of adultery, sodomy, pollution (orgasm enjoyed outside the conjugal act), rape, or contraception, nothing directly offends against conjugal chastity in a gravely sinful manner. It is for this reason that Alphonsus (2) teaches that a spouse may engage in sexual self-touch “so that he can dispose himself for the marriage act”. Therefore, so long as there is no proximate danger of (male) orgasm, spouses can self-stimulate in preparation for the marriage act, and in some cases, this may be necessary for mutually satisfying conjugal relations. 

Footnotes:

1. Among theologians who hold that this would either be licit or at most venially sinful are: Pauludanus, Sanchez, Noldin; Regatillo, Archbishop Lanza, Bucceroni, Ballerini, Lehmkuhl, Noldin, Tanquerey, Vermeersch, Cappello, Genicot-Salsmans, Marc, Aertnys, Matharan; Merkelbach, Caharel, McHugh-Callan (“solidly probable”); Slater (“the probable opinion of many”), Lynch, Cardinal Eijk, and others. Those who believe they are mortally sinful are: Alphonsus, Diana, Sporer, Billuart, De Smet, Vasquez, Bishop Kenrick, and others. We at the Apostolate for Marital Intimacy prefer to endorse and counsel the safer course of action. You can analyze perspectives on both sides by reading our Compendium.

2. St. Alphonsus Liguori, Theologiae moralis, q. 936