Discuss: Married Sexuality

[TheRealJuliane]

it’s saying that when each person denies himself/herself instead of demanding from the other, then will the expression of love be in the right order. then this section of Humanae Vitae asserts the beauty and fruits and good of such self-sacrifice:
each person develops his/her own personality
each person receives spiritual blessings
tranquility
peace
help in problem solving
thoughtfulness
loving consideration of the other
repellance of self love
arrouses charity
arrouses sense of responsibility
"… And finally, it confers upon parents a deeper and more effective influence in the education of their children. As their children grow up, they develop a right sense of values and achieve a serene and harmonious use of their mental and physical powers. "

sexual self-control for the good of the other, while still allowed to seek to give and receive pleasure when intimacy does happen. this pretty much brings about all the things in marriage that spouses truly seek.

So…Not making demands if the other person doesn’t respond favorably? That kind of self-control? Sorry for being dense.

 

[monicatholic]

So…Not making demands if the other person doesn’t respond favorably? That kind of self-control? Sorry for being dense.

not making demands at all. to be willing to give of oneself by controlling one’s passions is a great gift with great fruits, as HV asserts…

 

[twoangels]

Wow, daily sex. My husband and I are newlyweds and I think my husband would even protest at the idea of having sex daily. I think its a sad thing when you reduce the marital embrace to a physical ritualistic chore the married couples perform.

This is overall how I see it. The unity husband and wife are supposed to strive toward is one of mutual love, where you truly do learn to love each other as if you were one person. That is to say that we’re called to love our neighbor as ourselves, but the difficulty is that we experience our own sufferings and joys much more directly than we do the suffering and joys of others. We tend to thus accomidate our own wants, desires and needs ahead of others. In marriage, the goal is to strive to mutually consider your needs together as a couple. Thus the sexual unity isn’t about one spouse’s needs being put above the other spouses needs because one spouse is the “leader.” and the other isn’t. Nor is the sexual unity about mutually conforming to a daily sex night so that neither of your needs and desires are considered. It is rather about striving to truly be one and thus growing to make the unity of your marriage stronger. For both spouses, this may mean having sex on days where only the other person really wants it. It may mean not having sex when you want it because you mutually put the needs of the other spouse ahead of the desire to have sex. Part of what can go into this consideration is the fertility of the woman. But it could be other things as well related to mental wellbeing, physical well being, etc. The key is to love.

Certainly just as we have an obligation to go to Mass every Sunday and Holy Day of obligation, couples should be striving to express their love sexually at some level of regularity. But just as we don’t have an obligation to go to daily Mass, we do not have an obligation to have sex daily. Our goal should be to love God and our spouse. As such, going to some Masses during the week or Mass daily may be a particular individual’s devotion. Another individual might have a daily rosary or may pray the Liturgy of the Hours. And certainly non-Mass devotions can be added in addition to attending daily Mass, but not going to daily Mass isn’t a sin nor is it a sin to not have sex as often as possible. Sexual unity isn’t even acheived solely through the sexual act itself. The unity is gained through all the other ways you express your love to your spouse and these expressions of love can build for an experience of greater unity within the sexual act. Its the same as how you can get more out of Mass if your faith life outside of Mass is rich with devotions and love. When I went to daily Mass, I’d arrive a half hour before Mass to pray. I found doing this helped me more fully participate in the Mass. My mind wasn’t off thinking about other things I needed to get done anymore. It was fully focused on the Mass.

In the same respect, I wasn’t unreasonable about going to daily Mass. I wouldn’t insist that I couldn’t offer to pick someone up around the time that the daily Mass was running because it deprived me of going to Mass. I wouldn’t drive out to the chapel in a blizzard.

The thing is, the more unified a couple is in all the other aspects of their marriage, the less issue the couple will have with feeling resentment, anger and rejection. They won’t have to deal with this as much because they both are mutually willing to sacrifice for each other and trust each other enough to know that the other isn’t going to selfishly reject them sexually in a manner that demeans the value of their own sexual urges. All your doing by making it a daily obligation is covering up whatever lack of unity you have with obligation. Its no different than stopping your children from fighting by stepping in and making the temporary decision for them. The children actually will have matured much more once they have learned to truly compromise with each other and to come to decisions they can mutually be ok with without needing to just go with some decision that makes neither of them happy.

 

[baylee]

My first response to your post is to laugh and think “i must show this to my wife”. If you are a man and have been married for any time whatsoever, odds are you’d have the same reaction.

My second reaction is to think this is a *very unhealthy *view of marital “duties”.

First, this expection puts an unfair burden on the wife to satisfy the needs of the husband. It is very, very tilted in the man’s favor. (and yes, i’m a man.) Very few women would find this agreeable, whereas most men would probably “give it a go”.

Second, I don’t think having sex every night will create the intamacy you think it will. It is more likely to become routine, burdensome, and possibly boring. Moderation my friend is good.

Thirdly, sometimes (during that time) why would you want to?

Your idea sounds great to me, as a man, but I don’t think it would be spiritually beneficial. In my experience, it has been a challenge, a very Godly challenge, to contain my own wants and desires for that of my wife. Practicing a degree of abstinance is very healthy. What does Paul say? “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman” (1 Cor 7).

What better way to show your wife that you love her than to put her first? A good way to show this self-sacrifice is by waiting patiently until such a time as she’s interested, despite your own personal wants. Isn’t this the gospel?

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your male perspective on this. You have good points and good questions…especially “that time” question. I wondered that as well.

I really think the OP has some sort of scrupulosity/OCD in the area of sex with her husband. It appears that this has worked fo r them as a couple, but I wonder how long it will last until it just won’t be a realisitc goal/someone starts to resent it.

 

[Onedayatatime]

I don’t think married couples should default to having sex every night. Sex is often better when you haven’t had it very recently.

I’m a man and, I think like most men, would prefer to have a bit more sex in our marriage. But every night? I think sex is more special when the husband and wife chose it, as opposed to seeing it as an expected routine.

That’s a routine that many would like to have :takeoff:

 

[FrenchGwen]

Sex every night? lol

Anyone who thinks this or actually does this is either (a) not married (b) young and married or (c) young, married and childless

Honestly ? Not even THAT is true… I got married thinking the “newlywed time is THE time to have lots of great sex”. Turned out no, it wasn’t, because we were not yet able to have it (neither LOTS, nor GREAT)
even now, after 2+ years of marriage, when we still range in the c) category. … I would add a d)category : young, married, child- and JOBless.

 

[C_S_P_B]

I propose an imperfect analogy.

Neither the Bible nor the Catechism say that a husband must bring home his paycheck every week. What if he doesn’t feel like it or decides he doesn’t want to go to work on a particular day. A wife should be understanding and sacrifice her desire for the good of her husband. They should jointly discuss how often she needs money and their mutual willingness to earn money. After all money is the root of all evil and can be used for sinful purposes. Money leads to greed and therefore we must show some personal restraint regarding how much money is earned.

So although no husband should deprive a wife of his paycheck, no expectation or entitlement mentality is appropriate. After all if a husband just submitted his paycheck to his wife, he might be taken for granted and only valued for his ability to earn money. If a wife uses a husband for his money then it is entirely acceptable for him to withhold his money. If a wife spends money frivolously, without proper respect for her husband as a person, then reducing or withholding “monetary favors” is fine.

Natural Monetary Planning (NMP) is good because it facilitates restraint and makes the experience of having money all the more satisfying. Therefore a time of abstinence from money serves to enrich a marriage.

At the end of every week, there should be no expectation of a paycheck being deposited in a bank account, because one interpretation or opinion cannot be applied generally to everyone. We are all have the freedom to decide what works for us in our marriages.

These statements are equally “valid:”
· The less money we have and the more restraint we show in earning money, the holier we become.
· The less sex we have and the more restraint we show in having sex, the holier we become.

For egalitarians, just switch the roles, since some wives want sex more than their husbands and some wives are the primary earners.

Use of absurd analogies is useful. I am not equating sex to money but rather am using this analogy to point out duties, expectations, withholding and sacrifice.

 

[searching04]

This assumes that all married sex is unitive. If sex begins to feel like a job, I don’t really see how it’s unitive. You get the physical enjoyment (maybe), but if one or both spouses are thinking “oh geez, I don’t have time for this, I need to put a load of laundry in the washer/I am so tired/I need to sleep,” then I don’t see much emotional benefit arising from that.

Also, as a PP pointed out, sex can be an occasion of sin (even within marriage) – it’s quite possible to objectify one’s spouse, treat them in an unloving way, or deliberately entertain sinful thoughts during the marriage act. Whether that is more likely with frequent intercourse, I don’t know. But if an instance of intercourse is an occasion of sin for one or both spouses, it isn’t truly unitive.

Please define this and give examples of what would qualify in your mind. If both partners are willingly participating in and giving of their bodies to their partners in whatever act or manner, there is no sin in that. If something is forced, then I’d agree.

You also didn’t answer my questions on NFP, which I’m interested in hearing your take on.

 

[searching04]

Moderation is very subjective, but I do find that we average 3 or 4x a week. It is usually because of a cranky child who doesn’t sleep, illness, or plain old exhaustion. If our goal wasn’t every night our average might be even worse.

So are you not using/following NFP at this time? Sorry for the personla question, but 3 - 4 times a week doesn’t seem possible unless you’re always opend to always having more children.

We followed NFP for so long because we cannot afford more children, but it has had an incredibly negative impact emotionally on us. My wife would differ, but to me, it has. I’d be excited for 3 - 4 times a month at this point, but it just isn’t possible with the combination of NFP and schedules.

 

[searching04]

I’ve never read this before, but that is more or less what I was trying to say (much less eloquently though lol). I’m glad it’s supported in Humanae Vitae.

Where is the quote from, please? It sounds wonderful, it sounds as it is to be the ideal or the goal, but it cannot be directed and is definitley not always realistic.

 

[Rico_S]

Interesting thread. I have a couple of random thoughts:

1. So…Abstaining from the marital embrace when the other may not want relations is more holy than offering ones body to the other when you don’t want relations?
2. Having relations too often can reduce the impact/joy/meaning of the act. Does this apply to other sacramentally significant acts…such as mass?

 

[monicatholic]

Where is the quote from, please? It sounds wonderful, it sounds as it is to be the ideal or the goal, but it cannot be directed and is definitley not always realistic.

the quote is from a papal encyclical called Humanae Vitae vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

So…Abstaining from the marital embrace when the other may not want relations is more holy than offering ones body to the other when you don’t want relations?

the Church directs us toward both total self giving AND restraint and self control for the good of the other. can you imagine what marriages would be like if both persons practiced BOTH!!! (I can.)

Having relations too often can reduce the impact/joy/meaning of the act. Does this apply to other sacramentally significant acts…such as mass?

just as in sexual relations within marriage, there are obligations to celebrate the Holy Mass and other sacramental relaities. each person needs to be careful that “obligation” doesnt become/ remain the singular motivation. others on this thread have appropriately treated the aspect of "obligation. "

 

[violet81]

So are you not using/following NFP at this time? Sorry for the personla question, but 3 - 4 times a week doesn’t seem possible unless you’re always opend to always having more children.

That average is for non-fertile weeks.

Just to add…

My opinion stems from a couple of things:

1. Concupiscence is a valid reason to marry
2. Though it doesn’t seem to be taught anymore, it use to be taught that denying the marriage right for anything less than a serious reason is a mortal sin.

If denying the marriage right is/was a mortal sin then the rejection must have disastrous affects on the psychology of the individual rejected.

I have had long periods of abstinence in my marriage for many reasons. Everything ranging from deployments over-seas to chemotherapy treatments…and of course NFP (especially trying when the cycles are wonky). Because God offers us so many opportunities to practice self-control and moderation it seems unnecessary to me to impose it upon ourselves.

As for it becoming boring, or being a burden to women…
Here is a scientific fact that may be of interest.

The more frequently a woman has an orgasm the longer and more intense they become and the easier it is for her to climax.
The more frequently a man has an orgasm the shorter and less intense they become and the more difficulty he has in reaching climax.

Given the above it would seem that sex everyday may actually be a greater burden to the husband.

After this I am going to step out of the discussion. Many people have shared their opinion- some of them quite passionately- and because of the intimate nature I don’t care to continue to defend myself. So I will just watch everyone else share their opinions with earnest curiosity but if you disagree with me I understand and I accept that. If you believe that I am seriously mistaken then just pray that my eyes will be opened.

 

[violet81]

ETA:
Not sure what “that time” is. Do you mean the fertile time? Or the menstrual time?

ETA2:
I do not disagree with abstinence for couples who agree upon it for a time. If prayerful discernment leaves both spouses to feel that it may be beneficial then who am I to judge that?

 

[violet81]

Wow, I don’t know what to think. If the things you discussed are the Church’s teachings on marital relations, then I’m not living a Catholic marriage. I’m perfectly happy going through life w/o sexual relations, and my husband knows and understands that. It may be tied up in the fact that we’re infertile.

Code of Canon Law:

Canon 1135 Each spouse has an equal obligation and right to whatever pertains to the partnership of conjugal life.

 

[cviolette]

So are you not using/following NFP at this time? Sorry for the personla question, but 3 - 4 times a week doesn’t seem possible unless you’re always opend to always having more children.

We followed NFP for so long because we cannot afford more children, but it has had an incredibly negative impact emotionally on us. My wife would differ, but to me, it has. I’d be excited for 3 - 4 times a month at this point, but it just isn’t possible with the combination of NFP and schedules.

I have never followed NFP but isn’t it just a few days a month that you can’t have relations?

 

[searching04]

I have never followed NFP but isn’t it just a few days a month that you can’t have relations?

No, not really; we are blessed in that my wife gets pregnant easily. Maybe we are too restrictive on the times or length of phases, but we’ve just had to be careful and phases seem to stretch out. And now as we are older and she is getting pre-menopausal, its hard to tell anything! Somehow, according to the Church, and to some posters here, it is all supposed to bring the couple closer. That just isn’t our case.

There are always other factors in life that affect things and sex is often the easiest to pin it on; however, I also think that the lack or infrequency of sex, because it is so intimate and necessary in a relationship, can “permeate” and affect the entire relationship, It is also the hardest thing to discuss when spouses differ on accepting and understanding Church teachings.

 

[cviolette]

No, not really; we are blessed in that my wife gets pregnant easily. Maybe we are too restrictive on the times or length of phases, but we’ve just had to be careful and phases seem to stretch out. And now as we are older and she is getting pre-menopausal, its hard to tell anything! Somehow, according to the Church, and to some posters here, it is all supposed to bring the couple closer. That just isn’t our case.

There are always other factors in life that affect things and sex is often the easiest to pin it on; however, I also think that the lack or infrequency of sex, because it is so intimate and necessary in a relationship, can “permeate” and affect the entire relationship, It is also the hardest thing to discuss when spouses differ on accepting and understanding Church teachings.

Relationships are never easy. I think that some woman don’t realize just how much their lives would improve with sex. The husband is happier and treats you better and with a little effort you can enjoy it too. Plus, how can you feel close to your spouse if you are not intimate? I certainly don’t understand the no sex relationships.

 

[Monica4316]

Where is the quote from, please? It sounds wonderful, it sounds as it is to be the ideal or the goal, but it cannot be directed and is definitley not always realistic.

it is from Humanae Vitae I agree that it’s not the case for all couples but it is the ideal that we should all strive for imo.

 

[twoangels]

Use of absurd analogies is useful. I am not equating sex to money but rather am using this analogy to point out duties, expectations, withholding and sacrifice.

What you’re doing is comparing sex to a job. Its not just an imperfect analogy but a really poor analogy that doesn’t work at all. Not having sex on a daily basis doesn’t deprive the family of food, clothing and shelter. It doesn’t harm anyone. Sex is definitely good for a marriage, but if you want to compare it to a job, consider it as if a husband thought his sole purpose in the marriage was to make money. He bent over backwards to earn money for his family, to work unnecessary amounts of overtime and as such to deprive his family of his presense, time and attention.

Certainly we have the duty to be intimate, but a daily duty? Absolutely not! And of course it isn’t about one particular spouse being in the mood. But its rather silly for both spouses to go about having sex when neither has the drive or energy to do so. That’s more like working unneccessary overtime.

There’s more to a healthy marriage than just sex and periodically abstaining for a grave reason (like you don’t have medical insurance to pay for prenatal care and delivery of your child), can truly be the more sacrificial thing a couple does for the good of the family. The question is not “Do I make the sacrifice?” but rather “Which sacrifice do I make out of love? Which good ought I to be preferring over another.” When you’re employed, you do need breaks, you need sleep and you need time to spend with your family and to worship God, etc. You also may need to take breaks from work that you can’t predict: like being there for the birth of your child around your child’s due date or taking a legimate sick day because you have strep throught. The wrong sacrifice is made if you sacrifice your income and your job stability for taking an unnecessary break out of laziness or some other vice. Similiarily, if you choose having sex as a greater good over the physical and mental health of your spouse, or the financial well being of your family, your motivation is a vice. That’s lust. If a couple knows they have no medical insurance and that Dad is unemployed and they’re barely supporting their 3 children on welfare, it may in fact be irresponsible if you know you’re fertile because again your family has far more needs than just sex.