Daycare as grave matter

[Lea101]

I have read that it’s Christian teaching to not hold back on sex-but couldn’t this in a way be a form of emotional manipulation and wouldn’t the potential outcome be the wife feeling resentment or some other negative feeling towards the husband and marriage?

This has been something I’m curious about for quite some time now. If a person doesn’t want to have sex but forces herself/himself to do it in fear of hell…

I don’t know. It’s really uncomfortable to think about. Marriage looks unattractive as I get older, lol!

 

[Rozellelily]

Don’t let it put you off lol.
While this is said online,I have never heard of any men having this mindset in real life (at least not in Australia).
The rare times I come across it irl,is usually when I read/see on the news a man who was arrested due to raping his wife.
So by law,it’s taken quite seriously here,but I think Priests like Father Chad Ripperger could display a bit more sensitivity when talking about marital “rights” online and be aware that some people may come from cultural backgrounds where there’s already some “ambiguity” around sex in marriage and a woman’s “boundaries”.
For example,in my background,prior to changes in 2003 there was a clause stating “Whoever coerces a female not his wife into sexual intercourse by force or threat of imminent attack upon her life or body or the life or body of a person close to her, shall be sentenced to a prison term of one to ten years”.

 

[LittleFlower]

I think kindy is different from daycare though? I went to kindergarten for maybe 2 half-days a week from the age of 4.5 yrs to 5.5 yrs. That’s what I thought kindergarten was, whereas I think of daycare as being a nine-to-five, five-days setup from the age of about 6 wks. But this was in Australia, so maybe the terms have different meanings elsewhere.

I attended kindy—I was around 3/4. Before that I was at home with Mum, and was occasionally put in daycare.

But she had a huge network of other mums, and they would do things together with us that were age appropriate. It wasn’t just Mum and me at home alone.

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

I don’t know. It’s really uncomfortable to think about. Marriage looks unattractive as I get older, lol!

A lot of these threads definitely don’t help, lol. I keep telling myself it’s all about holding out for the right guy.

 

[phil19034]

Rozellelily:

I have read that it’s Christian teaching to not hold back on sex-but couldn’t this in a way be a form of emotional manipulation and wouldn’t the potential outcome be the wife feeling resentment or some other negative feeling towards the husband and marriage?

This has been something I’m curious about for quite some time now. If a person doesn’t want to have sex but forces herself/himself to do it in fear of hell…

I don’t know. It’s really uncomfortable to think about. Marriage looks unattractive as I get older, lol!

Ugh… once again that’s NOT the Christian or Catholic understanding.

It’s NOT about the act of sex. It’s about making love. There is a very fine distinction.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to make love to an unwilling participant. It’s also VERY DIFFICULT to make love to a spouse who is simply going through the motions of sex for his/her spouse.

Such sexual actions are lustful and often non-unitive. Husband & wife are one flesh. When one spouse hurts the other, they are hurting themselves

I pray this helps.

God Bless

 

[Lea101]

If I’m not wrong, marital rape is still not legally recognized here. Or at least it’s a topic of debate here. Sigh. Not unsurprising to see a guy who thinks he’s entitled to sex

 

[Lea101]

Is it a sin for a spouse to deny sex if she/he doesn’t feel like having sex that night (e.g. Not simply in the mood for it, doesn’t feel close/aroused by spouse etc)?

Edit: how are you defining ‘making love’? I’ve gotten confused.

 

[Rozellelily]

If I’m not wrong, marital rape is still not legally recognized here

That’s sad to know.

 

[Rozellelily]

Thanks Phil.While I understand the difference you are making between making love and having sex the Father in the video does not really elude to this.
He instead refers to an example of an unreasonable request as being asked to do it on the bus.
Doesn’t some caution need to be taken when talking about issues like this because I would think the priest would realise that while Catholic marriage is meant to be “other focused” in Catholic theory/teaching,but that doesn’t necessarily mean that 100 % of Catholic men are living this way in reality.
All Catholics should be making love in marriage ,but in practice/reality not all are and some are “having sex”.
If a person reluctantly agrees to make love isn’t this still a problem though?
Would a reasonable man expect or coerce his wife into making love if she didn’t feel to -even for “heavens sake”?

What sort of situations would you consider reasonable or unreasonable to ‘refuse’ love making?

 

[phil19034]

Is it a sin for a spouse to deny sex if she/he doesn’t feel like having sex that night (e.g. Not simply in the mood for it, doesn’t feel close/aroused by spouse etc)?

Edit: how are you defining ‘making love’? I’ve gotten confused.

No, it’s not a sin for a spouse to deny sex on any particular day.

What is a problem is a patterned behavior of consistently denying sex.

Depending on the reason, it may or may not be sinful. For example, withholding sex from spouse as a form of blackmail would be sinful. While sometimes there are psychological issues which would not be sinful. But still a serious / grave issue for the marriage.

 

[pensmama87]

If a person reluctantly agrees to make love isn’t this still a problem though?
Would a reasonable man expect or coerce his wife into making love if she didn’t feel to -even for “heavens sake”?

What sort of situations would you consider reasonable or unreasonable to ‘refuse’ love making?

I’m not sure it refers to reluctance, so much as, our spouse requests sex and even though it wasn’t what we were planning on doing right then, we love them and so agree. If done right, the other spouse shouldn’t even know we weren’t initially raring to go.

And in charity, if we think our spouse is having a hard time, we don’t ask. I really think it’s no more complicated than that.

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

I’m not sure it refers to reluctance, so much as, our spouse requests sex and even though it wasn’t what we were planning on doing right then, we love them and so agree. If done right, the other spouse shouldn’t even know we weren’t initially raring to go

I don’t think anyone has any beef with that. What people are pushing back against is the idea that if one spouse isn’t in the mood, the other has the right to go “too bad, I invoke the marital debt, now pay up.” That’s, at best, coercive and creepy.

 

[pensmama87]

It is coercive and creepy. But I don’t get the sense that anybody who mentions the marital debt is advocating creepy or coercive behavior…that attitude comes from a very small segment of mostly unmarried people.

 

[phil19034]

Doesn’t some caution need to be taken when talking about issues like this because I would think the priest would realise that while Catholic marriage is meant to be “other focused” in Catholic theory/teaching,but that doesn’t necessarily mean that 100 % of Catholic men are living this way in reality.
All Catholics should be making love in marriage ,but in practice/reality not all are and some are “having sex”.
If a person reluctantly agrees to make love isn’t this still a problem though?
Would a reasonable man expect or coerce his wife into making love if she didn’t feel to -even for “heavens sake”?

What sort of situations would you consider reasonable or unreasonable to ‘refuse’ love making?

1. you have to understand the context of Father’s talk. He’s NOT speaking in a pastoral context. He is the leader of a Religious community of exorcists. He’s speaking about situations that exist that present opportunities for demons to enter the marriage. He’s not talking about every single, individual situation - he’s speaking in generalities. He’s also appears to be speaking primarily to an audience with an above-average understanding of Catholic theology. It’s also important to understand that his talk isn’t pastoral and it isn’t a talk about marriage counseling. Again, it about situations where demons can enter the marriage and how to spiritually protect your marriage.
2. A spouse reluctantly making love is an issue, but sin may or may not be involved. The concerns involve the motives, reasons, knowledge, etc. For example: if the husband is in the mood and attempts to romantically initiate sexual activities with the wife and she “reluctantly gives in” - why was she reluctant? Was she not in the mood but then became in the mood during the act? Or was she sulking the whole time? Did the husband truely know her feelings or not? Was her yes to the martial act an act of sacrifice & love for her husband, or just an act of submission so he would leave her alone? Some situations would be spiritually good, while others would be spiritual bad. But again, it’s not individual acts that are the problem, but rather established behavior patterns that are. Because if the wife doesn’t say yes in a reluctant situation out of sacrifice and love, then it’s not “making love.”
3. Again, denying sex for individual situations isn’t really an issue. The issue comes with patterns. Does spouse unjustly hold a grudge when mad and withhold sex for a lengthy period of time? Does the spouse know that the other spouses sexual needs are not adequately being met and doesn’t care? Does the spouse use sex as a means of control? Does the couple go for long periods without sex (months) due to only one spouse? Does one spouse consistently selfishly “peer-pressure” sex without concern or care for other spouse’s feelings? Etc.

Again, it’s not really situational, but rather behavioral. Outside of spousal rape: one individual situation most likely isn’t sinful, but a behavioral issues can lead to sin.

I pray I’m making some additional sense.

 

[Lea101]

I don’t think anyone has any beef with that. What people are pushing back against is the idea that if one spouse isn’t in the mood, the other has the right to go “too bad, I invoke the marital debt, now pay up.” That’s, at best, coercive and creepy.

I think this basically sums up my thoughts. I totally get the concept of withholding sex unnecessarily as ‘wrong’, but then again it would lead to a spouse reluctantly having sex because she/he wouldn’t want to sin, and that can be psychologically damaging to the spouse since sex is such an intimate act.

Because if the wife doesn’t say yes in a reluctant situation out of sacrifice and love, then it’s not “making love.”

In theory it can sound nice but I’m thinking how this might play out in real life. Say the wife doesn’t feel like it, her immediately going ‘I’ll give in because I absolutely love him’ can be unlikely. We usually hesitate when it comes to doing the things we don’t want to. She might think ‘ugh I really don’t want to because xyz but if I don’t I would be sinning’. In that case would she be sinning because she doesn’t want to sin? Lol

 

[phil19034]

In theory it can sound nice but I’m thinking how this might play out in real life. Say the wife doesn’t feel like it, her immediately going ‘I’ll give in because I absolutely love him’ can be unlikely. We usually hesitate when it comes to doing the things we don’t want to. She might think ‘ugh I really don’t want to because xyz but if I don’t I would be sinning’. In that case would she be sinning because she doesn’t want to sin? Lol

It would NOT be a sin to say no in a particular instance. The sin comes in if a selfish pattern of behavior develops.

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

No, I agree. I don’t think the concept of the marital debt is creepy properly understood and applied. It just gets taken extremely literally by, as you mention, a small crowd of hyper-dogmatic single people.

 

[phil19034]

Edit: how are you defining ‘making love’? I’ve gotten confused.

Making love is more than just sex. There has to be an exchange of ones self. It is as much spiritual as it is sexual. It’s an exchange of persons and becoming one flesh. And totally rooted in sacrificial love for one another.

It’s far more than simply having sex and/or any physical relations.

God Bless

 

[Rozellelily]

I agree that people shouldn’t use denying sex as a means for control or just not caring about sex altogether,but in reality how often are these situations really happening?
If the Father isn’t speaking pastorally but just in generalisations isn’t it a bit strange that he would solely pin point the withholding of sex as an “entry point” for the devil,but not also address and acknowledge that the “pushing of sex” on someone reluctant too could be just as much spiritually damaging to the Marriage/entry point for the devil, and not to mention the emotional effects on the person.

I agree where you mentioned about it being more attitudal rather than situational but I’m not sure if I 100 % received the same message from the priests speech and he did seem to be excessively dismissive of people’s feelings.
I don’t think we should just go around stating to people whatever is true and think it’s ok to state it because it is true and disregard their feelings/the effect.
This to me seems a bit uncharitable.

 

[phil19034]

I agree that people shouldn’t use denying sex as a means for control or just not caring about sex altogether,but in reality how often are these situations really happening?

I believe it happens far more than most know.

If the Father isn’t speaking pastorally but just in generalisations isn’t it a bit strange that he would solely pin point the withholding of sex as an “entry point” for the devil,but not also address and acknowledge that the “pushing of sex” on someone reluctant too could be just as much spiritually damaging to the Marriage/entry point for the devil, and not to mention the emotional effects on the person.

I don’t know exactly what Father was thinking at that moment, but I have believe that he was speaking to a select audience.

Most people (esp those attending his talk) know that pushing sex on the spouse is wrong and opens the marriage to the demonic. So my guess, is he didn’t focus on discussion points his audience already knows.

Instead he was focused on points that might not be in their forethoughts.

Finally, as I have mentioned before. This particular priest (in my opinion) has a tendency to speak in his talks as if he’s addressing an audience possessing a graduate school level education in Catholic Theology / Philosophy.

God Bless