Discuss: Married Sexuality

[sojo]

Am I the only one feeling entirely squeamish about all this talk of sex and marital debt? Married over 30 years, adore my husband and me him, and as adult converts, we both partook of the “free sex” era so not prudes. But this really turns my stomach.

The humorous male tidbits to lighten the mood are expected, but even that kind of appalls.

All I keep thinking, (and I’m trying hard to find a charitable way of putting this), is the the OP is trying to fabricate a religious/spiritual excuse for an overactive sex drive. Every day as a goal, whether you both want it or not? That is just… so very wrong. And it is not Catholic teaching.

Sex is nice. Its good. It is NOT the foundation of marriage. It is one small, and not entirely mandatory way of expressing and promoting unity. Cuddling your newborn between you is massively unifying. Your husband catching your newborn at birth and cutting the cord and carrying your child to you - its mind-blowingly unifying. Helping a disabled and sick spouse to the bathroom and cleaning him up lovingly instead of in disgust - that’s unifying. Supporting each other through the death of parents or, heaven forbid, your own children - that is unifying. We are one. We love and sacrifice. To make such an enormous to do about sex is to cheapen the act itself.

To enter into the holy act of matrimony with so many preoccupations about duties, debts and obligations just seems wrong and misplaced.

I’m sorry - I had planned not to reply to this thread, but the more I read the more upset I got.

And did someone actually say it is against the church and a SIN for two permanently infertile people to marry at all??? Is that true? Do you all believe that?

 

[violet81]

ll I keep thinking, (and I’m trying hard to find a charitable way of putting this), is the the OP is trying to fabricate a religious/spiritual excuse for an overactive sex drive.

My opinion changed over time with prayerful reflection. It has nothing to do with my drive. My drive goes up and down like everyone else’s.

I will unapologetically say things on a message board (anonymously…by the way… my name isn’t really violet81) for the sake of exploring topics that would be in bad taste to explore as an in-person discussion. The wonderful thing about a message board is that reading or not reading is entirely voluntary.

I’m sorry - I had planned not to reply to this thread, but the more I read the more upset I got.

Why did you keep reading?

 

[jilly4ski]

And did someone actually say it is against the church and a SIN for two permanently infertile people to marry at all??? Is that true? Do you all believe that?

I don’t remember seeing this. Infertile couples may marry. An impotent person may not marry. Impotency here means unable to have sex not infertility. This condition usually has to be permanent in order for it to be an impediment to marriage.

 

[fbl9]

I don’t remember seeing this. Infertile couples may marry. An impotent person may not marry. Impotency here means unable to have sex not infertility. This condition usually has to be permanent in order for it to be an impediment to marriage.

How does one know they are unable to have sex unless they have tried? Aren’t we supposed to wait until we are married before we try having sex?

 

[violet81]

How does one know they are unable to have sex unless they have tried? Aren’t we supposed to wait until we are married before we try having sex?

Most of us will know based on our feelings if it is even in the realm of possibility.

While we aren’t suppose to purposely think lustful thoughts, our bodies will still show signs of attraction. If our bodies are showing signs of attraction then it is a good sign our bodies are capable of the act of procreation.

 

[jilly4ski]

How does one know they are unable to have sex unless they have tried? Aren’t we supposed to wait until we are married before we try having sex?

When a couple prepares for marriage they are asked if to their knowledge the are able. Objectively if a man cannot obtain an erection, or if there had been accident a man would know he was impotent. With women it would be more difficult to tell, but permanent impotence in women is pretty rare.

 

[fbl9]

The question came first then i thought after posting. A male i can understand how he might know but a female wouldn’t really be able to know. But like it has been stated ultra rare.

 

[Debora123]

It became apparent in various threads here that many of us have different ideas about sex and sexual duty.

This is my understanding of the duties of the marriage vocation.

We are to be as united as it is possible to be, and the key to unity is sex. Therefore, we are to have sex as much as is reasonably possible.

The assumption is that every evening will lead to sex. It isn’t that one person initiates and hopes for an affirmative response…the affirmative response is expected. Initiating isn’t even required because the act is so expected. Night time falls…the couple heads to bed and strips off their clothes and lay together. Pillow talk- hugging- sex- shower- sleep. Thats the norm…not something that happens when the stars align just right and both couples are in the mood. The exceptions to this are things like menses, illness, extreme exhaustion, lack of privacy, agreed upon fasting period, or if one partner has had an affair. If sex will not happen…for whatever reason…then it should be announced compassionately so that neither spouse must face rejection in the evening.

It is very similar to communion. We go as much as we can. Daily is preferable. We receive each time we go unless we have committed a grave sin.

Because both spouses expect to be intimate, and both spouses know that sex is better when things are going well…each spouse has even more reason to work out marital issues. Neither spouse is wishing and hoping and praying their spouse will say “ok”. Nobody is using sex as a weapon to get what they want. Nobody is feeling “dirty” because sex is part of the job description of their vocation, not something they do because they like it. Whether or not they like it is besides the point.

NFP interferes with the marriage duty…so it can only be practiced if it is agreed upon. Many polite spouses will say they agree…but when a rift develops in the relationship then the NFP must be discontinued. If the unitive aspect of marriage is threatened then you can be certain that “family planning” is not Gods plan for you.

One judges the necessity of NFP by whether the fear of pregnancy is equal or close to equal amongst both spouses. Only then can it really work without hurting the relationships unity.

If there is any question as to the serious reasons to avoid then the deciding vote goes to the Husband. He is the leader and (ideally) the provider… The wife must communicate effectively her needs so that her husband can provide for them.

If anybody has a different understanding please discuss! I believe my approach to this is most theologically accurate, so I want to know if someone has a different opinion from the theological point of view.

I haven’t read any of the responses yet, but I don’t need to. I know about 99% of everyone here is going to disagree with you. And not only disagree, but probably fight with you.

Anyhow, I agree with you completely. Except for maybe the whole deciding vote thing. I wouldn’t necessarily say the husband gets the upper hand in this, especially considering men generally have a harder time doing the right thing when it comes to sex, he may be more easily driven by hormones when attempting to make a good decision. (Note: generally. Not always. lol)

 

[twoangels]

I think in practice there is a “utilitarian bargain” that must be recognized. I know this may be contrary to what was written in Love & Responsibility, but discarding this notion seems to lead to an entitlement mentality in either sex to expect the other to “sacrifice.” Practical and ideal often seem to conflict in real life.

Therefore there it might be necessary to say, “you need to do your part or I won’t do mine.” Not ideal, but it keeps both husband and wife from taking advantage of the other, which if allowed to continue. with no penalties, usually leads to disaster.

Unilateral sacrifice is a nice concept but both men and women can be unilaterally selfish and not inclined to change unless there are some repercussions. Otherwise we are easily able to let the other do all the sacrificing and someday, if they are “nice” enough, maybe we will change.

I would disagree. I think weighing everything out in marriage to make sure everything is fair ends up driving a couple mad and will distance them. As my parents always taught me, marriage is not 50/50. Its 100/100. Each spouse has to generiously give their all into the marriage. If you’re constantly trying to make it fair, you’re failing to be generous and overall that motivation stems from two things: a lack of trust in your spouse (which isn’t good for your marriage) and a desire to not put in anymore than you are required to (which is selfish and thus not good for your marriage either). I would say it is out of striving to give all of yourself (all your effort included) to love your spouse that ultimately would lead a spouse to be less likely to say no to sex unless there is a reasonable reason to say no (a baby crying, you seriously and honestly do not have the energy to participate in the act, your sick, etc). I would say where it is a sin to say no the most is when it is done as a manipulation. Depriving your spouse of the loving affection and intimacy of the marital union because you’re mad at them is manipulation and does violate your vows to love your spouse. However the same can be true for other things. If you get mad at your spouse and punish your spouse by not going to work or by refusing to contribute to the household chores, you’re sinning because ultimately you are withholding your love.

Yes, we are all sinners and so at times we will put in less and things won’t be as fair as they could be, but this is where mercy is needed. But if both individuals are striving to live up to their marital vows, than whatever unfairness comes are small bits of selfishness and human imperfection, not large bits. You can’t force love out of someone. Love must be freely given. To attempt to force it out of someone by depriving your spouse of some other loving gesture will be you taking just as much a part in the destruction of your marriage as your spouse is.

 

[violet81]

I would say it is out of striving to give all of yourself (all your effort included) to love your spouse that ultimately would lead a spouse to be less likely to say no to sex unless there is a reasonable reason to say no (a baby crying, you seriously and honestly do not have the energy to participate in the act, your sick, etc).

This is not actually true. I know many many men and women who can testify to that fact. I know men who accommodate their wife in every imaginable way and are still constantly rejected. I know women who are extremely accommodating wives but can’t get their spouse to budge even an inch in areas they want them to.

I agree that we should all try and do our best but if we are being severely taken advantage of after we have given it our all then one method of sending a strong statement is to withhold some of that selflessness, or possibly even separate for a time.

 

[baylee]

Then thing I don’t agree with is letting mood set the pace. I think routine is important. Even if the routine is 2x a week and not daily. I am not a stickler for the “daily” part…just the “routine” part.

I would suggest that the truth is somewhere in the middle. We shouldn’t rely on our moods and we shouldn’t make sex routine. Sometimes our moods are not respectful of our spouse. Routine makes sex…well…routine and I would suggest that that is not respectful of God’s intent for sex. I think ultimately we need to be flexible when it comes to sex with our spouse.

 

[violet81]

Routine makes sex…well…routine and I would suggest that that is not respectful of God’s intent for sex.

Flexibility is certainly necessary because it is a physical act and we don’t always have the physical ability to make it happen.

I don’t understand how routine is disrespectful of Gods intent. If you are lumping “routine” in with boring… then I just disagree.

 

[monicatholic]

I agree that we should all try and do our best but if we are being severely taken advantage of after we have given it our all then one method of sending a strong statement is to withhold some of that selflessness, or possibly even separate for a time.

i dont get it, violet. first you propose that sexual intimacy should be the goal of every married day. you’ve been unwilling to consider your position is an extreme interpretation, even in light of the beautiful and prophetic papal encyclical Humanae Vitae.

now you assertt that in some situations, withholding some of that selflessness might be an appropriate “method” of changing a severly ungrateful spouse’s behavior.

but according to your previous assertions, one spouse’s daily duty is supposed to dispel the feelings of rejection and insecurities. yet, here we have the possibility of the other spouse remaining unloving, despite the other spoiuse’s daily routine/ ritual/ duty of proof.

none of this falls together for me. i think youir argument is falling apart because your premise was faulty.

scripture and the teaching authority of the Church all promote kindness, goodness, mututal, fruitful, self giving that also INCLUDES personal restraint are all parts of a good marriage.

 

[violet81]

i dont get it, violet. first you propose that sexual intimacy should be the goal of every married day. you’ve been unwilling to consider your position is an extreme interpretation, even in light of the beautiful and prophetic papal encyclical Humanae Vitae.

now you assertt that in some situations, withholding some of that selflessness might be an appropriate “method” of changing a severly ungrateful spouse’s behavior.

but according to your previous assertions, one spouse’s daily duty is supposed to dispel the feelings of rejection and insecurities. yet, here we have the possibility of the other spouse remaining unloving, despite the other spoiuse’s daily routine/ ritual/ duty of proof.

none of this falls together for me. i think youir argument is falling apart because your premise was faulty.

scripture and the teaching authority of the Church all promote kindness, goodness, mututal, fruitful, self giving that also INCLUDES personal restraint are all parts of a good marriage.

It is my understanding that it is mortal sin to deny your spouse the marital debt. I don’t believe it is a mortal sin to separate if narcissism and irresponsibility are prevailing. I apologize if I am mistaken.

What is my argument that seems to be failing?
That prioritizing the marital act is a way of insuring that the above mortal sin does not take place?

The only thing I said about personal restraint was that life often requires it without the need for it to be imposed. This has been my experience… Cumulatively I have probably abstained more days in my marriage than I have not. We have been separated for weeks, months, and a year once. We have practiced full abstinence to prevent pregnancy. Life creates innumerable obstacles that work against my intent. It is one of the reasons for the intention for “daily” since actually managing to do it daily or even close to daily often proves impossible.

The comment you quoted was responding to someone else’s specific comments about being “used”.

 

[freerf]

We have been separated for weeks, months, and a year once. We have practiced full abstinence to prevent pregnancy. Life creates innumerable obstacles that work against my intent. It is one of the reasons for the intention for “daily” since actually managing to do it daily or even close to daily often proves impossible. QUOTE]

Violet, I find this topic very interesting and necessary.

Obviously it is one in which a lot of people have strong feelings. It’s interesting all the different view points. Many men obviously feel short changed. There are so many expactations of “being a man” and what that entails, and very few for “being a woman” . . .at least in the “pleasing your husband” category. It’s like these days “pleasing your husband” is seen as a weakness. Possibly a shadow of the uglier aspects of the feminitst movement creeping in.

I applaud the OP for considering her husbands feelings and considering her marriage so important as to be a thing to be handled carefully, or “fragile”. This is a beautiful way of looking at marriage. Giving oneself sexually is an inexpensive way to say I love you. I do not think, however, the OP has a very good theological basis for making this a general rule for the entire Catholic community.

Obviously the OP is fortunate in the degree to which she enjoys the marital act. Unfortunately, many women are not so fortunate. . .

Each of us paints devotion according to their own passions and imagination. He who is addicted to fasting thinks himself very devout if he fasts, he who loves to pray thinks himself very devout for loving to pray. . . (Introduction to a Devout Life) etc…

Love can manifest itself in many different ways. Let us remember many marriages with great sex lives fail. We are called to love, not merely to have sex with one another.

 

[sojo]

Violet wrote (snip)

It is my understanding that it is mortal sin to deny your spouse the marital debt.

OK, this is getting really uncomfortable now. I’m an adult convert, so maybe I’m missing something. Could we PLEASE have a someone with some real authority just answer the above? Is it a MORTAL SIN to deny your spouse the “Marital Debt”???

And Violet - FYI - you asked why I’m still reading… well, because this is because sometimes it is human nature to watch a train wreck in motion. What you are saying is so unloving and so against any Catholic teaching I received that I’m just really shocked.

Where on earth does it say that it is a mortal sin to deny sex to your spouse. Where on earth are you getting the idea that sex is the be all and end all of a relationship?

 

[violet81]

Sojo

I got my information from this souce:
audiosancto.org/

A podcast I frequently listen to.

I am not sure where the priest giving the sermons got their information. Google wasn’t helpful.

But I can’t figure out for the life of me what is unloving about anything I have said.

Where on earth does it say that it is a mortal sin to deny sex to your spouse. Where on earth are you getting the idea that sex is the be all and end all of a relationship?

I have only said that it is very important. Clearly if there are legitimate reasons for prolonged abstinence then Gods grace would supply the couple with what the relationship may be lacking as a result of the abstinence.

 

[violet81]

Violet, I find this topic very interesting and necessary.

Obviously it is one in which a lot of people have strong feelings. It’s interesting all the different view points. Many men obviously feel short changed. There are so many expactations of “being a man” and what that entails, and very few for “being a woman” . . .at least in the “pleasing your husband” category. It’s like these days “pleasing your husband” is seen as a weakness. Possibly a shadow of the uglier aspects of the feminitst movement creeping in.

I applaud the OP for considering her husbands feelings and considering her marriage so important as to be a thing to be handled carefully, or “fragile”. This is a beautiful way of looking at marriage. Giving oneself sexually is an inexpensive way to say I love you. I do not think, however, the OP has a very good theological basis for making this a general rule for the entire Catholic community.

Obviously the OP is fortunate in the degree to which she enjoys the marital act. Unfortunately, many women are not so fortunate. . .

Each of us paints devotion according to their own passions and imagination. He who is addicted to fasting thinks himself very devout if he fasts, he who loves to pray thinks himself very devout for loving to pray. . . (Introduction to a Devout Life) etc…

Love can manifest itself in many different ways. Let us remember many marriages with great sex lives fail. We are called to love, not merely to have sex with one another.

Thank you for the compliment.

My opinion on this topic has changed over time… influenced by what I have read and the result of my prayers. It isn’t necessarily because my appetite is naturally greater than most womens.

 

[cviolette]

There are many expectations of men and I would think that you face many challenges. But make sure you understand that there are other challenges for women other than having sex. We do maintain the household. Cooking, cleaning and taking of the children. Trusting our husbands with the major decisions is not always easy. Raising children in this world is not easy. Many time the schools are working against how you want to raise your children. I have had to pull one of my children out of school to homeschool him. I think that I am blessed to have the more enjoyable job of raising the children and do appreciate all the sacrafices that my husband makes.

Obviously it is one in which a lot of people have strong feelings. It’s interesting all the different view points. Many men obviously feel short changed. There are so many expactations of “being a man” and what that entails, and very few for “being a woman” . . .at least in the “pleasing your husband” category. It’s like these days “pleasing your husband” is seen as a weakness. Possibly a shadow of the uglier aspects of the feminitst movement creeping in.

 

[violet81]

And Violet - FYI - you asked why I’m still reading… well, because this is because sometimes it is human nature to watch a train wreck in motion. What you are saying is so unloving and so against any Catholic teaching I received that I’m just really shocked.

Being so angry seems like an inappropriate response. Agreeing or disagreeing is one thing…but anger? hostility? I really don’t think I deserve that.