Asexuality and Marriage

[Miss_Felicity]

Not sure if anyone has touched on this but asexual people are capable of having sex they just don’t have a preference towards it. I don’t know this person but I have mutual friends with someone asexual who is married to someone sexual, granted the spouse’s sex drive is on the lower end of the spectrum (because sex drive is a spectrum) they compromise and have a bit more sex than the asexual spouse would want and a bit less than the sexual spouse wants. It’s working for them.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Misty - I have to say I am intrigued by your thought process and rationale. I whole heartely believe that a person’s identity is important and noone can change that. However I can’t understand (and I am truly sorry about this) why someone wouldn’t investigate if there was a “cause”. This could be your identity (ie how you were made) OR it could be a medical condition causing the lack of desire (and the lack of desire to have desire). Surely a truly asexual person (ie it’s how they were made) CANT be fixed. So your comment about asexuals not wanting to be fixed is an odd one (to me anyway) as there wouldn’t be a " fix".

If the asexuality is due to a condition and you are not willing to look into it or be “fixed” (IF and that’s a big IF it is a condition and not your identity), I think the answer to your question would be different. Your analogy of chocolate is slightly wrong as there isn’t a fix for not liking chocolate. I’m sure if there was, people would look into it.

I think you need to have a big think about what you want. In one post you said you might be able to cuddle. In another you said you may be able to satisfy someone sexual.

I wish you luck in your possible relationship though! I hope you manage to find what you are looking for

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Yes, you make sense and I commend you for your discretion. I was trying to figure out how to phrase things in my post because I know this is an open forum.

This is why I mention that it is possible that a wife with no libido and not ever wanting to initiate for her own benefit, might find that marital relations are pleasant in the context of marriage with a husband she loves. One doesn’t ever have to desire it ahead of time to find it pleasant during and to be happy about it after and find that it promotes intimacy. If the body organs function in a healthy fashion, then the lack of desire can be dealt with.

So I would think that it would help, if you have not already done so, to read up on Catholic teaching on marriage and marital relations. A good online resource is The Way of the Lord Jesus, by Germaine Grisez. It is a several volume work, but it is very easy to find the volume and chapters dealing with marriage and sexuality. Another good resource is Catholic Education Resource Center, also online. They have many articles on marriage and sexuality too.

Learn about Christian marriage then, and see how your feelings are toward this man you are getting to know. I will say that some people are totally grossed out by the idea of sexuality and that then when they meet their future spouse, they find that they are not opposed to it. But they were thankful for their prior aversion, because it helped them remain chaste. If the idea of marital relations continues to make you uncomfortable, then I would agree that marriage is not likely to be your vocation. But if your aversion lessens, even if you never feel desire (some women never feel an ounce of desire until after their marriage is consummated), then I would guess that marriage is still on the table for you.

Another important thing to consider is: how do you feel about pregnancy and having children? Marriage is for the procreation and education of children. And marriage naturally includes sexual relations, which often bring about children. Does the idea of family and home and children bring you joy and anticipation? Or does it make you feel apprehensive.

Again just some things for you to consider. None of my thoughts here are meant to impose, just to try to help you work through this.

(And one personal note that might help you…I have only ever wanted to be so intimate with my own husband. The idea of ever being with anyone else just plain grosses me out, even theoretically in a morally licit context like remarrying as a widow. So maybe your feelings aren’t too unusual, you know?)

You make some interesting points about being open to children. If I were sexual, of course I would be open to children. However, my enthusiasm level for them is pretty well ambivalent. I mean, to be very honest, I could take them or leave them. I’m sure I would get joy out of having them, but it is not like I really realy really really want or anticipate them.

The openness to life and the procreative part of the definition of marriage, I think, is the real question here. To those who are here arguing that my marriage would be considered valid even without sexual relations, how do you deal with the procreative aspect of the definition of marriage?

One might argue, since procreation is a part of the definition of marriage, sexual desire on the part of both parties is necessary, or, at least the sexual act, even if the desire does not exist. So, then, it would seem that I am either required to have the desire or required to have the sex even without the desire if I wished to marry another, even if that other would be willing to sacrifice sexual relations to marry me or even ift hat other person was asexual himself. Is this true? And, agian, what of those arguing that my marriage would be valid even without sex? How do you view the apparent necessity for procreation at least if it is physically possible?

Could one argue that the issue is, if the people have sex, THEN, there must be an openness to life? I mean, that seems at least sort of to be the case with NFP. However, I suppose that, even in those cases, at least one child is expected to come of the marriage?

So, then, is a desire for sexual relations or at least having sex a requirement for a valid marriage?

Also, so fr as discovering after marriage that I may like sex, what if I still, in fact, don’t? What do I do then?

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Not sure if anyone has touched on this but asexual people are capable of having sex they just don’t have a preference towards it. I don’t know this person but I have mutual friends with someone asexual who is married to someone sexual, granted the spouse’s sex drive is on the lower end of the spectrum (because sex drive is a spectrum) they compromise and have a bit more sex than the asexual spouse would want and a bit less than the sexual spouse wants. It’s working for them.

Interesting points, as I’ve had another very sexual friend of mine say that marrying someone sexual would put a great emotional strain on both of us. My argument was, if he wanted sex, then I could give it to him, but I would have to make it quite clear that it might not be as “good”, if you will, as it would be with a sexual person as my “heart” wouldn’t be as “in it”.

May I ask if these two people are Christian? Catholic/ I might actually be interested in speaking with them if they would be willing to do so. Contact me privately, please, if you think there’s some potential in this.

Thanks.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

As far as getting treatment and the question of me “not being me”, I guess my point is, which comes first, the mental desire or the lack of hormones (physical situation)?

If it is the mental lack of desire that results in the lack of production of hormones, then, in a sense, if Iwere to change that, it would be like altering who I am.

However, if the reduced sex drive originates purely in my physical aspect and that is what is causing my lack of mental desire, then, folks may have a point.

The question is, what is causing what here?

And, if it is purely mental in origin, is it simply prefrence or disorder?

AGain, I really have no desire to have desire. I think this is why I have no desire to seek “treatment”.

Another issue is adoption: Would that fulfill the part of the definition of marriage that is open to life? Even so, though, it still doesn’t seem like it would properly fulfill the “procreative” aspect as “procreation” implies sexual relations “rpoducing” / “creating” children.

Indeed, could the two of us, if married, produce in a non-sexual way? To me, that almost seems like that would violate some Catholic teaching on marriage as well. I mean, it would still be both of our, shall we say, genetic material but we wouldn’t exchange it in the traditional sexual manner. Hmm…

A further question would be: Could not having sexual desire fall under the same category as not having properly functioning sexual equipment or being “too old” to have sex? AFter all, these exceptions, as I understand it, are made since all other requirements of marriage are there. We don’t deny the elderly the right to be married simply because they are too old to have sex. I would argue that we allow them to be married because the other elements which I have described in myself are still present with them – the deep love and eternal commitment to each other that I so long for in my and the other’s life.

Related to the question of age, as I understand it, two elderly people, even if their equipment still functions, if they do not have the desire or at least very little desire to have sex sex simply because of old age, would they be permitted to marry? If they were, would they be required to seek treatment for their lack of desire? I suppose not since children would likely be quite out of the question. However, even without desire, they are still permitted to get married. Contrarily, what if two elderly people marry and they do still have strong desire? Would they then be permitted to engage in sexual relations, even if children were impossible or would they be required to refrain?

I’m pointing all of these issues out here because it would seem that there are exceptions made in the procreation department all the time. Why would my case be different? Or, would it be?

 

[GEddie]

I would say that hormones first come from the body, and they generate the desire within the mind.

But it is a little more complicated than that. While some people spout off endlessly about their desire for sex (usually during youth), it is usually the presence of the other’s body, perceived by the senses, that releases hormones and triggers the desires. Else modesty would not be an issue.

So the cascade of events would be senses —> brain (subconscious) ------> hormones --------> desire (mind) --------> behavior.

The gates can close at any point.

ICXC NIKA

 

[MysticMissMisty]

I would say that hormones first come from the body, and they generate the desire within the mind.

But it is a little more complicated than that. While some people spout off endlessly about their desire for sex (usually during youth), it is usually the presence of the other’s body, perceived by the senses, that releases hormones and triggers the desires. Else modesty would not be an issue.

So the cascade of events would be senses —> brain (subconscious) ------> hormones --------> desire (mind) --------> behavior.

The gates can close at any point.

ICXC NIKA

But, here, it seems you’re contradicting yourself. You’re first putting sexual desire, at its root, as a physical (non-mental) reaction. Then, lastly, you place the “brain” (I interpret the "mental) as the root cause yielding hormonal reactions.



In any case, you yourself state that this is your opinion: “I would say…” Is there any scientific/philosophical proof as to what comes first? Especially in cases where someone does not even desire to have desire? Indeed, I can see a case being made for “disorder” when the person wants desire but doesn’t have it. I mean, truly, can something like this even be proven, whether it originates ultimately in the mind/soul(?) or in the body?

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Adding to the openness to life/procreative aspect question:

I would say that, if I were sexual, of course, I would be open to life as a result of the sexual act.

However, since I am asexual, I just wouldn’t be too thrilled about having sex in order to create life.

Indeed, the question becomes, even if we’re dealing with totally sexual people, if, for whatever reason (other than not being open to life), they both decided never to have sex after marrying, then would their marriage be valid? Even if, like me, if they had sex, they would be open to life?

 

[SilverShadow22]

The bottom line is that marriage be open to sex, and all sex must be open to life.

How and when all the details come to arranged is between the two people in the marriage.

In the case of elderly, I suppose they’re expected to consummate. After that, it comes down to whatever they can manage, and what they desire.

 

[1ke]

if, for whatever reason (other than not being open to life), they both decided never to have sex after marrying, then would their marriage be valid?

Yes. Valid, but not indissoluble.

Can. 1061 §1. A valid marriage between the baptized is called ratum tantum if it has not been consummated; it is called ratum et consummatum if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.

§2. After a marriage has been celebrated, if the spouses have lived together consummation is presumed until the contrary is proven.

Can. 1141 A marriage that is ratum et consummatum can be dissolved by no human power and by no cause, except death.

Can. 1142 For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can dissolve a non-consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is unwilling.

 

[LethalMouse]

The way I read your post is that you have not experienced even cuddling. Perhaps your theory on how these things will be is not as accurate as you think. And perhaps I can only assume there are grander issues at play here…I have never met anyone wuth sexual disorders that didn’t have causal factors.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Yes. Valid, but not indissoluble.

Can. 1061 §1. A valid marriage between the baptized is called ratum tantum if it has not been consummated; it is called ratum et consummatum if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.

§2. After a marriage has been celebrated, if the spouses have lived together consummation is presumed until the contrary is proven.

Can. 1141 A marriage that is ratum et consummatum can be dissolved by no human power and by no cause, except death.

Can. 1142 For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can dissolve a non-consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is unwilling.

Canon 1061, para. 2 is interesting in that it presumes that, if a couple has lived together for a long period, the marriage has been consummated. For one or two asexuals, this may not be the case. It seems that these canons have not even taken into consideration situations of asexuality. This, indeed, makes things very confusing. What if it is “proven otherwise” that a marriage has not beeon consummated after a long period of time. Does that, then, not make it a marriage. Or, rather, does the “unless otherwise proven” clause relate only to situations where the two wish the marriage to be dissolved?

In a way, it asexual marriage in any form is permitted, it may be a good thing that it can be dissolved, especially ifthe other partner is sexual, the asexual partner is unwilling to have sex and the sexual partner therefore is not finding his/her needs met.

Very confusing indeed.

So, then, also, would a marriage between people whose sexual equipment does not work be able to be dissolved also? What about a marriage between those that are too old?

It seems that the presumption is that sex will happen sooner or later. So, then, is this simply because canon law has not taken asexuality into account or has it and does not allow marriage unless sex is to be a part of it at some point? In other words, is consummation eventually a requirement? Again, then, what about those who can’t or won’t for reasons other than not being open to life?

 

[MysticMissMisty]

The way I read your post is that you have not experienced even cuddling. Perhaps your theory on how these things will be is not as accurate as you think. And perhaps I can only assume there are grander issues at play here…I have never met anyone wuth sexual disorders that didn’t have causal factors.

Again, you, like many others, are presuming that it is a disorder and not simply a dislike of sex at a preferential level.

Again, I would encourage folks who haven’t already done so to look up asexuality to get a clearer picture of what is at play here.

 

[1ke]

What if it is “proven otherwise” that a marriage has not beeon consummated after a long period of time. Does that, then, not make it a marriage.

It’s really very straightforward. It is a valid marriage (barring any other invalidating factors) at the time of the exchange of consent (ratum tantum).

It is indissoluble when consummated (ratum et consummatum).

So, then, also, would a marriage between people whose sexual equipment does not work be able to be dissolved also?

Impotence is an impediment to valid marriage. There is nothing to dissolve, it is invalid.

Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.

§2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt about the law or a doubt about a fact, a marriage must not be impeded nor, while the doubt remains, declared null.

§3. Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 1098.

What about a marriage between those that are too old?

Define “too old”. The Church does not define an upper limit on age. If the couple has no impediments to valid marriage, they may marry like any other couple.

It seems that the presumption is that sex will happen sooner or later.

Of course it does. Procreation of children is the primary end of marriage.

So, then, is this simply because canon law has not taken asexuality into account or has it and does not allow marriage unless sex is to be a part of it at some point? In other words, is consummation eventually a requirement? Again, then, what about those who can’t or won’t for reasons other than not being open to life?

Canon law has no need to take “a-sexuality” into account. Marriage is open to those who are not impeded. *Some people *may be impeded. The impediment may be physical or mental. That is just the way it is.

 

[GEddie]

But, here, it seems you’re contradicting yourself. You’re first putting sexual desire, at its root, as a physical (non-mental) reaction. Then, lastly, you place the “brain” (I interpret the "mental) as the root cause yielding hormonal reactions.



In any case, you yourself state that this is your opinion: “I would say…” Is there any scientific/philosophical proof as to what comes first? Especially in cases where someone does not even desire to have desire? Indeed, I can see a case being made for “disorder” when the person wants desire but doesn’t have it. I mean, truly, can something like this even be proven, whether it originates ultimately in the mind/soul(?) or in the body?

No contradiction.

The brain and the mind are not the same. The mind resides in the brain, but this is piggybacked on a raft of deeper biological functions, including operation of the senses and regulation of the body chemistry.

Sexuality is physical, so of course it requires the action of the brain, as the body-control center. But a lot can happen there before the conscious mind becomes involved.

ICXC NIKA

 

[MysticMissMisty]

It’s really very straightforward. It is a valid marriage (barring any other invalidating factors) at the time of the exchange of consent (ratum tantum).

It is indissoluble when consummated (ratum et consummatum).

Impotence is an impediment to valid marriage. There is nothing to dissolve, it is invalid.

Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.

§2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt about the law or a doubt about a fact, a marriage must not be impeded nor, while the doubt remains, declared null.

§3. Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 1098.

Define “too old”. The Church does not define an upper limit on age. If the couple has no impediments to valid marriage, they may marry like any other couple.

Of course it does. Procreation of children is the primary end of marriage.

Canon law has no need to take “a-sexuality” into account. Marriage is open to those who are not impeded. *Some people *may be impeded. The impediment may be physical or mental. That is just the way it is.

So, then, canon law would consider asexuality a mental impediment to marriage? Even if both parties, whether both asexual or only one, loved each other romantically and deeply? I suppose the same would be the case for impotent people, which, being quite honestly with folks, seems very unfair to me.

So, then, what if an asexual person either marries another asexual person or a sexual person and they both agreed to have sex even if one or both did not desire it simply for the procreation of life? Since there was no sexual desire for one or both parties (an impeditment to the procreation of life?), would the marriage still be valid?

Indeed, is sexual desire necessary for marriage, according to the Church’s definition? Or, rather, as long as the parties have sex, would their marriage still be recognized?

In the case of impotence, would the marriage of such person still be invalid even if they adopted and raised children? I just think it would be a horrible situation for two people who love each other not to be able to get married simply because of a physical disability. Again, just my opinion, but it is a very strong one and is a difficult one to overcome, I must say, especially as a person with a physical disability (blindness) myself.

 

[GEddie]

Impotence as a bar to marriage is not unfair. It simply reflects the nature of marriage.

Marriage is inherently about sexuality, about forming a bond through it so as, if it be the will of God, to give body to that bond via children.

If sexual fulfillment cannot happen, there is no possible marriage bond to deny. Fairness isn’t an issue.

“Deep love” isn’t enough; there are many forms of human love that cannot be formalized as marriage.

ICXC NIKA

 

[LethalMouse]

Again, you, like many others, are presuming that it is a disorder and not simply a dislike of sex at a preferential level.

Again, I would encourage folks who haven’t already done so to look up asexuality to get a clearer picture of what is at play here.

Depends of trans is a disorder or not.

I would say a trans person has a disorder, ther is no “trans”

I would say these pansexual, asexual, treesexual and whatever else is a disorder. I have never met one that upon leaning a bit about them has issues that make sense to lead to it. Denial doesn’t make it less true any more than my denying 2+2=4 makes it not 4.

There is also much to be said about modern social cobditioning toward these things. Being any of these makes one “unique” and victim status is especially coveted in our society. Everyone wants to be “special” “enlightened” and weild the narrative they are those while everyone else is just being a meanie head.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Impotence as a bar to marriage is not unfair. It simply reflects the nature of marriage.

Marriage is inherently about sexuality, about forming a bond through it so as, if it be the will of God, to give body to that bond via children.

If sexual fulfillment cannot happen, there is no possible marriage bond to deny. Fairness isn’t an issue.

“Deep love” isn’t enough; there are many forms of human love that cannot be formalized as marriage.

ICXC NIKA

So, if I would not get sexual fulfillment from the act after marriage, but even if the other person did from me, I would still not be permitted to marry because I wasn’t being fulfilled by it? So, then, both people must inherently have sexual desire in order to have a valid (?) marriage?

I guess what I am concerned with here is the unitive aspect of the sexual act? Or, rather, is that unitive aspect referring to marriage as a whole? Does the sexual act itself have to be unitve or can it simply be for the procreation of children?

If the sexual act itself has to be unitive, then I am wondering, since I may not find fulfillment in it, whether that unitiveness would therefore not exist? I mean, we could be united in our desire to have children from the act, but likely would not be in the pleasure derived from the act.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Also, let us say that I married because I thought that there may even be the possibility of feeling desire once I engaged in the consummation of that marriage. If, however, it turned out that I did not after the sexual act had already taken place, then what?

Would both of us, because I did not feel fulfilled by the sexual act, have to abstain from any future sexual relations?