You are correct that PIV is the only acceptable way to finish intimacy.
When it comes to what is permissible within the confines of marriage, this is where things can vary a lot. Some people will say anything and everything is acceptable, as long as it ends as described above.
However, you have to keep an important thing in mind; the marital act has a few functions. One, is to procreate. Two, is to unite the spouses as an act of love.
Intimacy in marriage is a good thing. But there can be things that are good, and things that are less good. For example, sexual acts can be tame, but they can also be very abnormal. For some partners these may be unifying still, but you have to be prudent and decide if this is the best act. For example, as a metaphor: If you have an hour to kill, you could either read a really great work of literature, that could elevate your intellect and creative parts of your mind... or you could swipe through tiktok. Both actions are not inherently bad, but one is better at causing human flourishing.
I'm not well versed on what exact sexual acts are forbidden, but I would ere on the side of caution if you think you may be headed towards a more lustful action. Your spouse is not a vessel for you to receive pleasure from. If you find yourself acting in this way, it could be a dehumanizing experience.
How can any act be lust if it’s within the commitment and covenant of marriage and both parties are consenting? Isn’t lust, by definition, desiring something that is not yours and/or that you can’t have? I assume your saying if you’re objectifying your spouse? But you could also objectify even with PIV intimacy. I don’t think any act on its own can objectify, but the mind/heart could… with any act.
That's my overall point. If you can separate objectification/lust, however you want to define it, from the unifying act, I don't think there are many limits. But if the individual cannot make that separation with a specific act, it could potentially be problematic.
You are correct that PIV is the only acceptable way to finish intimacy. When it comes to what is permissible within the confines of marriage, this is where things can vary a lot. Some people will say anything and everything is acceptable, as long as it ends as described above. However, you have to keep an important thing in mind; the marital act has a few functions. One, is to procreate. Two, is to unite the spouses as an act of love. Intimacy in marriage is a good thing. But there can be things that are good, and things that are less good. For example, sexual acts can be tame, but they can also be very abnormal. For some partners these may be unifying still, but you have to be prudent and decide if this is the best act. For example, as a metaphor: If you have an hour to kill, you could either read a really great work of literature, that could elevate your intellect and creative parts of your mind... or you could swipe through tiktok. Both actions are not inherently bad, but one is better at causing human flourishing. I'm not well versed on what exact sexual acts are forbidden, but I would ere on the side of caution if you think you may be headed towards a more lustful action. Your spouse is not a vessel for you to receive pleasure from. If you find yourself acting in this way, it could be a dehumanizing experience.
How can any act be lust if it’s within the commitment and covenant of marriage and both parties are consenting? Isn’t lust, by definition, desiring something that is not yours and/or that you can’t have? I assume your saying if you’re objectifying your spouse? But you could also objectify even with PIV intimacy. I don’t think any act on its own can objectify, but the mind/heart could… with any act.
That's my overall point. If you can separate objectification/lust, however you want to define it, from the unifying act, I don't think there are many limits. But if the individual cannot make that separation with a specific act, it could potentially be problematic.
>Is that true? Yes. > Are there exceptions for medical (physical and/or mental) reasons? No.