>> I don’t know where you are denominationally, but you seem to be a person who believes, as I do, that God designed and created sexual love and called it good. (You do believe that, don’t you?)
Right on.
>> If that’s so, you might consider that God twined together two purposes with sex: the delight and attachment of the spouses, and the the continuation of the human race.
Absolutely true.
>> Both are sacred purposes, and the first thing anybody notices about sex is that the two purposes are srongly linked. Physically conjoined. This is not accidental. This is designed, and providential.
Also true.
>> Marital intercourse was given a form by God that does not deliberately separate sexual union from natural fertility.
I believe God intended several possible forms of marital contact — some of which can be separated from fertility. My disagreement only comes with your assertion that each sacred purpose (closeness and procreation) cannot stand on its own ... spousal closeness can be a reason for contact beyond procreation alone.
The idea that traditional intercourse is the only appropriate form of sexual interaction (or at least the only interaction leading to a finale) tends to limit the purpose of marital sex to procreation alone. Marital sexual contact is intended to continue long after procreation has ceased, not to mention when couples have physcal disabilities which might hinder traditional contact (paralysis, or whatever).
Other forms of contact can contribute significantly to spousal closeness — one of the two sacred purposes. That such activities were made pleasurable is as divinely inspired as the pleasurable status of traditional intercourse.
>> Love-play, fine, oh my. Contact, costumes, positions, and pleasures, fine, oh my.
Agreed.
>> But sexual intercourse that is deliberately made non-fertile [...] frustrates either the procreative or unitive meaning of intercourse, and usually both.
Extracurricular forms of marital contact certainly don’t frustrate the unitive meaning of intercourse ... they can enhance it. Such contact simply focuses solely on the unitive meaning of intercourse outside of its procreative meaning — both were divinely intended, and both can stand alone as reasons for marital contact.
In fact — marital unity was specifically INTENDED to qualify, by itself, as a reason for sexual contact (traditional or extracurricular) in cases where procreation and/or traditional intercourse is not possible (for instance — in the 6-weeks after cesarian surgery).
H
If you mean "contact" in the broadest sense of the word, of course. You don't have to have intercourse every time you have "contact." (My, wouldn't you be busy!)
But intercourse itself is a different matter. The very words "sexual union" indicate a union of sexual organs. This would mean something other than sodomy, which is not (accurately speaking) a sexual union at all.
"My disagreement only comes with your assertion that each sacred purpose (closeness and procreation) cannot stand on its own ... spousal closeness can be a reason for contact beyond procreation alone."
Of course. No disagreement here. There are many times when spouses can have intercourse when getting a baby started is not what you have in mind, but spousal closeness is. During pregnancy, for one! After menopause. Or during the frequently-recurring naturally infertile times. Goodness, nothing wrong with that.
"The idea that traditional intercourse is the only appropriate form of sexual interaction (or at least the only interaction leading to a finale) tends to limit the purpose of marital sex to procreation alone."
I assume that by "traditional intercourse" you mean "with the sexual organs," i.e. normal intercourse. As I mentioned before, you can have intercourse when you're fertile, and then a new baby is a real possibility; or you can have intercourse when you're not fertile, and then a new baby is not a possibility. Fine either way.
But in neither case are you deliberately choosing an abnormal form of intercourse (like Onanism, or Sodomy) in which the act is turned away from its normal form so that there isn't even a connection with procreation. (That's what per - verted means: per= thoroughly, vert = turned.)
Both these things (Onanism and Sodomy) are condemned by God in the Bible, and both of them involve choosing some perversion of intercourse, and not the real, straight, honest thing.
" Marital sexual contact is intended to continue long after procreation has ceased, not to mention when couples have physcal disabilities which might hinder traditional contact (paralysis, or whatever).
Agreed.
"Other forms of contact can contribute significantly to spousal closeness — one of the two sacred purposes. That such activities were made pleasurable is as divinely inspired as the pleasurable status of traditional intercourse."
It's always a little ambiguous what you mean when you say "contact." Like, lots of people like cuddling, which doesn't necessarily result in intercourse when intercourse is not appropriate. There are all kinds of "interaction," and without expressing myself too salaciously, I want to say --- hey, feel free. (I've said that repeatedly in prior posts, and I don't know how I can say it in a more seemly way without jumping though the screen and waving my arms.)
But intercourse itself (not "contact," but intercourse) is a sacred thing, and I'm trying to find an analogy which would make sense to you. This is difficult because unfortunately we live in a coarsened and dulled culture where we don't share a recognition of sacredness on any level.
One way to express it, is that ejaculating semen into someone's mouth or rectum is something that is intrinsically shameful, so much so that I hesitated a long time before I wrote that sentence. It is something one could do with a whore, or even with a boy, because there is nothing specifically marital about it. The people may be married, but the act itself is not a marital act.
In fact it strongly suggests contexts where it is all about one person being serviced and the other person doing the servicing. That is, an instrumental act. A servile act. A matter of using another person: and use is use, even if it is mutual.
And one doesn't get a sense of love from the realization that they've used someone, or been used.
"Extracurricular forms of marital contact certainly don’t frustrate the unitive meaning of intercourse ..."
Once gain, an ambiguity of lanaguge. Merriam-Webster notes the second meaning of "extracurricular" as extramarital. But I don't think you're speaking of adultery, are you?
"...in cases where procreation and/or traditional intercourse is not possible (for instance — in the 6-weeks after cesarian surgery)."
Jewish law requires abstinence from intercourse for 6 weeks after childbirth. I think there are mulitple good reasons for that --- certainly, from the postpartum woman's point of view! Physically, she needs time to recover. Hormonally, she is flooded with prolactin and oxytocin: she needs to establish her nursing relationship with the baby--- intensive mother-baby attachment time. Loving husbands have understood that for millennia. I hope.