Changing mind during sex?

[underacloud]

In fact, the idea of “demanding” it is, in my opinion, outrageous. To insist on something - out of the blue - over the reluctance of one’s spouse…is this how married couples are to behave? Surely not.

No. I completely agree.

I think the marriage debt is an important principle, but perhaps misunderstood or misapplied. It is a positive obligation that spouses owe to each other, for very good reasons. It is best understood from the perspective of the spouse who does not deny a reasonable request, out of love for their spouse. When understood from the perspective of the spouse who “demands” the debt regardless of circumstances, because they have this right to it, it becomes something that can be unloving - such a request does not seem reasonable, although a boorish spouse may fail to understand this.

I would extend your observation to note that the deferral of sex (say, during fertile time) for a reasonable time is also reasonable when the couple are yet to form a common view on their need or otherwise to avoid.

Yes, this is IMO how reasonable (again, that important word) spouses behave.

 

[SWolf]

-]/-]

A “grave physiological concern” is not the only reason that the marriage debt may be denied. There are other factors too. And more generally the debt itself is only owed when it is “reasonably asked for”. Certainly, people’s understanding of the term “reasonably” will differ.

Is it reasonable to demand the marriage debt during the fertile time when husband and wife have already mutually agree to avoid conception (for just reasons)? My answer (my opinion) is no. I’m not sure whether you would agree or disagree?

what other factors? Be specific.

Unless a Ouse is expecting sex several times a day, more likely than not it is reasonable.

Paul actually states the only time you can deprive your spouse of sex is during times of mutual consent, which means even if one spouse does not feel like it, it is still a marital duty.

 

[SWolf]

In fact, the idea of “demanding” it is, in my opinion, outrageous. To insist on something - out of the blue - over the reluctance of one’s spouse…is this how married couples are to behave? Surely not.

I would extend your observation to note that the deferral of sex (say, during fertile time) for a reasonable time is also reasonable when the couple are yet to form a common view on their need or otherwise to avoid.

Is it wrong to demand a husband gets a job instead of playing video games?
Is it wrong to demand a housewife keeps the house in order?
Is it wrong to demand a spouse plays more with the kids if they are being neglected?

When someone is failing their marital duties, a spouse has the right to demand they live up to them.

 

[pensmama87]

Is it wrong to demand a husband gets a job instead of playing video games?
Is it wrong to demand a housewife keeps the house in order?
Is it wrong to demand a spouse plays more with the kids if they are being neglected?

When someone is failing their marital duties, a spouse has the right to demand they live up to them.

What we are saying, though, is that it is not always reasonable to maintain the same level of expectation of our spouses. There are times when they are not capable: illness is a big example.

Spouses can also have disagreements on how things should be done. There is no one standard of how frequently sex should occur, there is no one standard of how clean the house needs to be, there is no one standard of how spouses should spend their leisure time. These are things they agree upon together, and out of charity they should both consider their spouse’s feelings when making these decisions, and then adjust based on circumstances.

 

[Memaw]

So they should have stopped to call their priest?

You’re making this far more complicated than it is. The principles are clear and any straight thinking Catholic ought to be able to apply them. The Church does not expect us to run to our priest any time we are faced with a moral dilemma. A well formed conscience should be able to work through most moral issues, especially uncomplicated ones - and this one is simply not that complicated. That’s my opinion.

Did I say that? No !! your saying it!! The question was asked, “after the fact”, not during. For goodness sakes lets get real. Sounded to me like they both agreed to wait so why is everyone blaming the woman. God Bless, Memaw

 

[LongingSoul]

Is it a sin to start having sex but change your mind about having sex during a fertile period and stop before he’s finished? Is this allowed?

Is this situation one where both had planned to be abstinent to avoid pregnancy… threw caution to the wind upon getting too cuddly… and then hit with reality after starting intercourse, pull away and abort the act?

In that case I would think this is no sin… however if the act were finished in a non procreative way there would be a sin on that count. I don’t imagine that it is physically healthy to do this on a regular basis and would constitute sin if it became habitual.

 

[Electricaleng]

Is it a sin to start having sex but change your mind about having sex during a fertile period and stop before he’s finished? Is this allowed?

Why would you do that? That just sounds rude to me. Not fair to your spouse one bit. Problely not a sin for say, but I am thankful my wife doesn’t pull junk like that. Husbands shouldn’t do that either. That seems like a husband that would just finish quick and not try to please their wife. Just not good for a relationship.

 

[Rau]

Is it wrong to demand a husband gets a job instead of playing video games?
Is it wrong to demand a housewife keeps the house in order?
Is it wrong to demand a spouse plays more with the kids if they are being neglected?

When someone is failing their marital duties, a spouse has the right to demand they live up to them.

You assume facts not in evidence. And even when in evidence, the first response is not to make a demand. We speak of a loving, spousal relationship, where each deserves the benefit of the doubt.

 

[underacloud]

Did I say that? No !! your saying it!! The question was asked, “after the fact”, not during. For goodness sakes lets get real. Sounded to me like they both agreed to wait so why is everyone blaming the woman. God Bless, Memaw

Not sure why you feel the need to reply twice to this post; maybe you forgot that you did. Anyway, posts #22 and #23 addressed this and it doesn’t need to be rehashed.

 

[underacloud]

-]/-]

what other factors? Be specific.

Unless a Ouse is expecting sex several times a day, more likely than not it is reasonable.

Paul actually states the only time you can deprive your spouse of sex is during times of mutual consent, which means even if one spouse does not feel like it, it is still a marital duty.

Some other factors noted are illness, drunkenness, non-support, adultery, frequency, insanity, danger to baby while pregnant. These are examples but not comprehensive. Other factors that affect the reasonableness of the request will apply. And as I noted, people will differ on their understanding of “reasonable”.

 

[Vico]

Some situations where abstinence is ordered, even if not mutually agreed upon are:

1. if the spouse has been unfaithful to the extent of adultery (until forgiveness of the injured party).
2. if there is a danger of the infection of disease.
3. if the request is unreasonable.
4. if it be under conditions that are genuinely harmful and distressing.
5. if it is going to be abused by the sin of onanism.
6. if a pregnancy would be fatal or highly dangerous.
7. medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called "indications are present that exempt from the positive debt of fecundity, even for the entire period of marital life, however natural sterile periods may be utilized.
8. when the risk of medically unadvised pregnancy is not acceptable to the wife
9. not allowing the proper amount of time or privacy.

 

[underacloud]

Thanks Vico. Do you have a reference for that list? It looks familiar, but I can’t recall from where.

 

[Vico]

Thanks Vico. Do you have a reference for that list? It looks familiar, but I can’t recall from where.

~

Section V. Obligation, in T.G. Wayne - Morals and Marriage, published in 1936, EWTN has the document in their library:

 

[SWolf]

You assume facts not in evidence. And even when in evidence, the first response is not to make a demand. We speak of a loving, spousal relationship, where each deserves the benefit of the doubt.

How far?

My dad knew a guy who lost his job and spent the next 1.5 years playing video games. Is that adequate time to make a demand, given the incredible amount of damage he was doing the the relationship?

Is a woman who is never in the mood, take to the point where months pass by without intercourse, enough to make a demand, given the damage the woman is doing to her marriage?

 

[LightBound]

How far?

My dad knew a guy who lost his job and spent the next 1.5 years playing video games. Is that adequate time to make a demand, given the incredible amount of damage he was doing the the relationship?

Is a woman who is never in the mood, take to the point where months pass by without intercourse, enough to make a demand, given the damage the woman is doing to her marriage?

Gee whiz! If a woman is not in the mood for months and her poor man isn’t getting any, instead of being a complete jerk and demanding sex, maybe he ought to encourage her to seek some kind of professional help, be it a medical check-up if sex is painful or she has no drive whatsoever, or counseling, if she has suddenly developed an aversion to intercourse with her spouse. In fact, he probably could stand to attend counseling with her, if he’s come to the point that demanding she give him some as her wifely duty instead of working with her to overcome the problem. His attitude and behavior may very well be the root of the problem.

 

[SWolf]

Some situations where abstinence is ordered, even if not mutually agreed upon are:

1. if the spouse has been unfaithful to the extent of adultery (until forgiveness of the injured party).
2. if there is a danger of the infection of disease.
3. if the request is unreasonable.
4. if it be under conditions that are genuinely harmful and distressing.
5. if it is going to be abused by the sin of onanism.
6. if a pregnancy would be fatal or highly dangerous.
7. medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called "indications are present that exempt from the positive debt of fecundity, even for the entire period of marital life, however natural sterile periods may be utilized.
8. when the risk of medically unadvised pregnancy is not acceptable to the wife
9. not allowing the proper amount of time or privacy.

Thanks for this.

I actually find this very reasonable, and will expand my previous definition to include these, as some do not directly relate to physiological issues (adultery and onanism, for instance).

However, my point still stands that a spouse has a moral responsibility to allow normal marital relations, even if in some circumstances they don’t want to. Mutual consent is, of course, always the ideal.

The principle is this: whenever either the husband or the wife
seriously and reasonably asks for the marriage due the other is
bound to render it. Reasonably asks: no one in marriage engages
to become a convenience for another’s passion; neither must force
their every wish on the other; they are equal and, particularly
as regards the marriage act, have the same rights. It is most
desirable that the action should be mutual. This will not be too
difficult if the two love one another in a human way and are
ready to be considerate and make sacrifices, if each tries to
serve the other, and if it is realized that for their happiness
together the act should be the comfort and content of both.

 

[Rau]

How far?

My dad knew a guy who lost his job and spent the next 1.5 years playing video games. Is that adequate time to make a demand, given the incredible amount of damage he was doing the the relationship?

Is a woman who is never in the mood, take to the point where months pass by without intercourse, enough to make a demand, given the damage the woman is doing to her marriage?

To answer your first question, “as befits a loving spousal relationship”.

As to the remainder of your post, why do you focus on extreme cases?

 

[SWolf]

To answer your first question, “as befits a loving spousal relationship”.

Which would include demanding a stop to activities, or refusals, that do strong damage to a marriage. Obstinate refusal of sex damages a marriage. Refusal to support a family financially damages a marriage.

As to the remainder of your post, why do you focus on extreme cases?

I have many married friends. The second issue is common enough where I don’t think they would label it as extreme.

 

[Rau]

Which would include demanding a stop to activities, or refusals, that do strong damage to a marriage. Obstinate refusal of sex damages a marriage. Refusal to support a family financially damages a marriage.

I have many married friends. The second issue is common enough where I don’t think they would label it as extreme.

Yet such circumstances are not in evidence in the OP’s Circumstances. Obstinance is not in evidence. Refusal to support a marriage financially is a hypothetical created by you, but not relevant to this thread.

I have married friends too . My friends are fortunate not to feel the need to resort to demands.

 

[LongingSoul]

How far?

My dad knew a guy who lost his job and spent the next 1.5 years playing video games. Is that adequate time to make a demand, given the incredible amount of damage he was doing the the relationship?

Is a woman who is never in the mood, take to the point where months pass by without intercourse, enough to make a demand, given the damage the woman is doing to her marriage?

Hold on? Your dad’s friends are of the video game generation. How old are you??

Also, you are saying that if the mutual exchange of conjugal relations is not amicable, that the parties can ‘demand’ their sexual satisfaction from the spouse? Are you married? Is this how you resolve your need for sexual satisfaction??

My guess is that you are motivated in your opinion by detached idealism without a real experience of the marriage relationship. Hopefully readers will detect this anomaly and not think this is a true Catholic approach.