Objection 1: It would seem that no venereal act can be without sin.

Now every venereal act is a great hindrance to virtue.

Therefore no venereal act can be without sin.

Therefore, seemingly, no venereal act is without sin.

But in the venereal act a man uses only what is his own, except perhaps in adultery or rape.

Now original sin is transmitted to children by concupiscence, without which no venereal act is possible, as Augustine declares (De Nup.

For the venereal act consists in the emission of semen which is the surplus from food, according to the Philosopher (De Gener.

We may also reply that "lasciviousness" relates to certain acts circumstantial to the venereal act, for instance kisses, touches, and so forth.

Whether the Lust That Is About Venereal Acts Can Be a Sin?

Therefore neither can there be any sin in venereal acts.

Objection 1: It would seem that lust about venereal acts cannot be a sin.

Therefore there can be no sin in venereal acts, and consequently lust is no sin.

Whether No Venereal Act Can Be Without Sin?