Discuss: Married Sexuality

[searching04]

Wow!

How about if the husband wants relations,(and there is no reason not to) they have it.
And if the wife wants relations(and there is no reason not to) they have it.
If they both want to(no reason not to) they have it.
If they both don’t want to, then they don’t have relations.

Wow! It’s not that complicated.

Beautiful, man; just beautiful!

 

[cviolette]

Great post.

I for one will endorse violet81’s formula for marriage success. When we were first married we had sex daily or more! After 3 children, a large farm and off farm career, and 17 or 18 years of marriage we were down to maybe twice a month. We were also cross-way’s in our thinking about raising our kids, running the farm, mad about the little things always and always going after the other to prove our point!

One morning about 6 years ago I was reading on the internet about a recent study of married sexuality and marital happiness. It talked about frequency of sex and normal for married couples of our age was about 6 times a month and they reported that they were on average “happy”. At that point of my life I would have been happy with that too! What really caught my eye was that there was a comment that there were these outliers in every age group that having sex almost daily and reported off the chart marital happiness scores…thinking back on those first years of marriage I began to think about the differences from those first year to then.

The reasons we were not having sex were things as simple as not going to bed at the same time and as major as us not supporting the other with decisions about the kids and the farm and letting the daily irritants become more than they really are (being exhausted and crabby!).

After reading the article I thought I would try an experiment (to be fair not having sex often was a two way street she has hardly ever in our marriage said absolutely not to sex, but that being said, I maybe knew better than to ask sometimes!) I would attempt to have sex daily for a month and see what changed, I also had been thinking about my actions with the kids and other interactions and had decided to change my behavior in that regard at about the same time.

After a couple of weeks she finally asked what was up? I told her about the article! She laughed, read it and we are still at it! It’s not just the sex, but the behavior change on my part then has caused a behavior change on her part, the sex is like the glue that keeps us together and allows the stress and irritants of the day to melt way.

She has become a leader in her industry and grown our business, I have weathered some awful tough storms in my career and our relationship has been solid and provided us the support to grow as individuals and a family.

If anyone would have told me 5 years ago what was going to happen in my life both good and bad over the next 5 years I would have told them that they were nuts! Without the changes that we made 6 years ago I doubt the marriage would have withstood the bad elements and we would not have had the good either!

 

[baylee]

I thought it showed his sense of humor. CSPB always breaths fresh air into a thread with his wit.

Oh yes…hysterical. Making light of another’s post is funny as long as “you” aren’t the butt of the joke apparently. It’s interesting how often those who judge another’s post for whatever reason go on to do the very same thing they accuse the other of doing. Ah, the irony.

 

[baylee]

Although I don’t agree with the tone, the idea is a fresh one. I think there may be some truth to it.

The idea of wanting to please your husband is something many here are not comfortable with. Some women have even expressed that they think the OP must be “afraid” of her husband or enslaved in some way. Wowzers!

CSPB is providing a somewhat harsh reality check here: many men are unhappy with their sex lives. The inappropriate answer, the uncaring and unchristian answer is “so what”? But unfortuantely, that seems all too common these days.

The OP perhaps has taken the opposite extreme, but I guarentee you this: her husband is probably enjoying it.

Hmmm…I’m thinking I’m the woman who you are saying thinks she is afraid of her husband. No, I did not say she was afraid OF her husband. I think she may be afraid that she will lose her husband or afraid that her husband will lose his self control. These are not healthy reasons to have sex every day…call me crazy.

Now if the person truly wants and enjoys having sex every day and the reasons are solely to please her husband that is different…I say, go for it! I have no problem with the general idea that wives should strive to please their husbands as often as they can for the right reasons. However, the basis of this thread was whether daily sex avoids problems in a marriage…the focus is on the bad things that could/would happen if it’s not done this way.

Apparently, no one is allowed to discuss the OP’s experience, despite the fact that the OP made it personal by offering her own life experience (whether she intended to or not). I think if this was meant to be a post about the “theory” of daily sex and how it affects a marriage, then it could have left out personal information. And even if it was just a post on the theory, I would still have the same feelings if it was being done solely to avoid problems in a marriage.

 

[Paul1961]

:slapfight::slapfight::slapfight:



Wow. I haven’t read the thread in a couple of days…being distracted by Christmas and all. I’m surprised they haven’t shut it down.

“CSPB is providing a somewhat harsh reality check here: many men are unhappy with their sex lives. The inappropriate answer, the uncaring and unchristian answer is “so what”? But unfortunately, that seems all too common these days.”

This is the prevailing attitude.

I certainly may have missed it over the course of all these posts but I want to focus on one part of the equation. The husband(or wife) that wants sex wants their spouse to want sex. We want an enthusiastic partner. We don’t want “pity sex” or “it’s my duty” sex.

We all want to be wanted. When I ask DW if she want to head upstairs to play, I do not want to hear,“If you want to.” I want her to race me to the stairs.

Paul

 

[twoangels]

I thought I was keeping up with this thread and no where did I see women say anything to suggest that they did not want to please their husbands or that such a goal was something to deride.

Rather I see a premise that most people base their sex life on communication between the spouses. When one spouse expresses a desire the other lovingly complies unless there is a real reason not to. To these posters, scheduling sex every night without asking either oneself or one’s spouse if it agreeable at that time seems foreign and contrary to the values their marriage is based on (communication, love, consideration, etc.).

Of course in the progression of this thread it seems like the OP actually does something similar in practice, but the words of her theory (as posted in the original post) come off as a couple has to strive for relations every night in order to not deprive the other spouse of his or her marital rights.

That is pretty much the impression I got. I, however, do think it is ok for an individual couple to pursue sex every night if they find that helpful for their marriage, but I don’t think that is for all couples. Overall though, communication is important. If you have one spouse dictating everything to the other spouse while the other spouse feels that anything other than blind obedience is a sin, I don’t think that is a healthy relationship. I have trouble seeing how any of the needs of the obedient spouse could be addressed. Spouses can’t read each other’s minds.

 

[C_S_P_B]

Paul,

You mean something like this?
**Jamie O’Neal - Like A Woman **

or

**Brad Paisley - Little Moments **

 

[sojo]

Sojo,
Don’t let this worry you. The OP has proposed *her opinion *of what is Catholic teaching. I’ve found or heard no official teachings supporting this opinion, nor has anyone quoted the CCC. All the “official” teachings so far seem to support moderation, charity, love, etc. rather than the “debt” or yoke you fear.

The OP chooses to express her love for her husband this way and more power to her imo. Going from “personal opinion” to “offical teaching” is light years away though.

Peace.

Thank you for this clarification. Honestly, I really do appreciate hearing this.

I dearly love the Church and even though its been years since my initial conversion (it is always ongoing), I’m still learning so much all the time. When I first read these views, I assumed lots of people more educated in the Church teachings would jump all over her premise. When that didn’t happen, I became really concerned.

Finding Christ and the Catholic Church has totally transformed my marriage. It is a profound vocation, and it transforms everything. It was just a little unsettling to hear this legalistic and quite sexualized take on it, and to call something a mortal sin… that is not to be taken lightly.

 

[violet81]

Finding Christ and the Catholic Church has totally transformed my marriage. It is a profound vocation, and it transforms everything. It was just a little unsettling to hear this legalistic and quite sexualized take on it, and to call something a mortal sin… that is not to be taken lightly.

The marriage-debt was taught by Augustine and Aquinas, though it doesn’t seemed to be mentioned anymore except by very traditionalist priests. I don’t know if it got thrown out with limbo, or just isn’t mentioned anymore.

But that is where my information came from…I didn’t make it up… I just don’t know if/why it seems to not be mentioned anymore since it use to be commonly accepted.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

I certainly may have missed it over the course of all these posts but I want to focus on one part of the equation. The husband(or wife) that wants sex wants their spouse to want sex. We want an enthusiastic partner. We don’t want “pity sex” or “it’s my duty” sex.l

I think that is what everyone prefers but I am assuming that talk about marriage debt doesn’t include couples who actually desire one another. There is simply no reason to talk about obligation for things that are pleasant or that we want to do. The reminder is simply that a married couple owe each other mutual “service” when it is asked for or they can sense that it is desired. It is an obligation to love your spouse and perhaps hide your reticence when things aren’t perfect and rosy.

 

[m_crane]

Wow!

How about if the husband wants relations,(and there is no reason not to) they have it.
And if the wife wants relations(and there is no reason not to) they have it.
If they both want to(no reason not to) they have it.
If they both don’t want to, then they don’t have relations.

Wow! It’s not that complicated.

Beautiful, man; just beautiful!

That’s Beautiful, woman: just beautiful!

Thanks though for the indorsement!

 

[searching04]

Wow!

How about if the husband wants relations,(and there is no reason not to) they have it.
And if the wife wants relations(and there is no reason not to) they have it.
If they both want to(no reason not to) they have it.
If they both don’t want to, then they don’t have relations.

Wow! It’s not that complicated.

That’s Beautiful, woman: just beautiful!

Thanks though for the indorsement!

I stand happily corrected - and good for you!

 

[Julianna]

My issue was with searching04 giving Julianna a call out for caring what the OP’s sex life is like. If a person is going to push their sex life online then she is going to get responses that she may or may not like…especially when she seems to be pushing that her way is the “right” way (which, btw, is condescending to those who don’t do it the “right” way). To slap someone on the wrist for questioning the OP is ridiculous. The OP put herself out there. I’m not shaming her but I’m not going to coddle her either.

thank you…you explained it well. The door was open…I just stepped in…

Still not sure why folks need a “right” way to have sex…there is no such thing…as a “right” way. It it all subject to what the “couple” decide together. I think some are a bit to puritanical.

and then there are those who are into voyerism…and like this type of thread.

 

[Julianna]

A number of posters have shown you that your thinking is **NOT Church teaching…**so how can it be “right”? It might work for your marriage, but that doesn’t mean it is right for all. I think it is your inability to re-evaluate the latter that has caused some posters to get annoyed with you…and come off condescending.

I have nothing against your posts and what you do in your marriage is your business, but I honestly am concerned for you. I think that things may seem great for you, but I seriously worry that your routine is based on fear and lack of trust. Maybe it’s not conscious, but **I think you are afraid you will lose your husband if you don’t make yourself available to him every day…and I don’t think you trust his ability to control himself if you don’t make yourself available to him every day. ** You aren’t giving him an opportunity to grow in his faith and spirituality. It reminds me of a parent that is scared that something will happen to their child and doesn’t trust their child to make good choices, so they watch their every move and give them little freedom to grow up.

I hope I don’t sound mean violet. I really wonder whether this is what’s best for you, your husband and your marriage in the long run.

you typed the words right off my keyboard.

 

[CuriousInIL]

What puzzles me most about many of the responses in this thread is that they seem to assume that the OP was asserting that daily relations was church teaching and then criticizing the lack of support for that position. I’m puzzled, because I reread post 1 and simply don’t see that assertion. Rather, I see a request for discussion and so I don’t see the need for the criticisms. Agree or disagree is fine, but why the hand wringing?

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.

 

[monicatholic]

What puzzles me most about many of the responses in this thread is that they seem to assume that the OP was asserting that daily relations was church teaching and then criticizing the lack of support for that position. I’m puzzled, because I reread post 1 and simply don’t see that assertion. Rather, I see a request for discussion and so I don’t see the need for the criticisms. Agree or disagree is fine, but why the hand wringing?

ok, fair enough question. but the item you didnt highlight from the original post was this closing assertion and inquiry:

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.

and so, i posited direct text from our most relevant teaching on human sexuality, Humanae Vitae and some followed with CCC. nowhere in these texts do they even infer our OPs most “theologically correct” interpretation. and yet, OP still holds and argues her position.

of late, Aquinas and Augustine were both mentioned (in the same sentence!!) as asserting a “marriage debt.” sure enough, OP couldnt have read much Augustine because his directives on the marriage debt maintained strident factes of Manicheaism, which most certainly DID NOT propose daily intercourse as the aim of daily married life. in fact Augustine taught in direct opposition to this.

neither Aquinas, Augustine nor the OP are infallible teachers on the subject (though the Church has significantly incorporated the thinking of two of the three listed) .

but we’re not left to figure this out on our own. the Church has spoken beautifully, sublimely, AWESOMELY on this most intimate subject. always ‘restraint’ is mentioned. why… WHY… would we need to consider a superCatholic view on this? doesn’t the Church’s teaching promote marital holiness well enough for OP?

ps. it is no concern of mine that OP may come off as condescending. my only concern is that OPs assertions of “most correct” are, in fact, wrong by very virtue of overstating Church teaching.

 

[violet81]

but we’re not left to figure this out on our own. the Church has spoken beautifully, sublimely, AWESOMELY on this most intimate subject. always ‘restraint’ is mentioned. why… WHY… would we need to consider a superCatholic view on this? doesn’t the Church’s teaching promote marital holiness well enough for OP?

I had a logical sequence that included the fact that intention does not always lead to the act, that the average drive based on statistics seemed to be about 3-5x a week. Another poster even mentioned a statistic about frequent relations related to happier couples and cited his own marriage as an example. You incorporate that with the old-fashioned idea of the “marriage-debt” and St Paul’s epistles exhorting us be mindful of the others needs… and it led me to the logical conclusion that an intention for daily would be a good formula for marriage success.

NOW… I also acknowledged the value of abstinence as a spiritual discipline…I even mentioned it in my first post as to reasons to avoid. What I did not acknowledge was the value of letting mood decide the frequency. I saw that as a formula that has less chance of success.

 

[monicatholic]

violet, you fail to admit the strength of a proposal such as " most theologically correct" when promoting daily intercourse as a marital “goal” or “intent.” and you seem to demote to the category of “mood” all subjective reasons to avoid intercourse.

you have a bias. you asked for discussion. you seem unwilling to consider that your conclusions are extremist, instead concluding this discussion isn’t everyone’s ‘cup of tea.’

it’s my cup of tea, violet. i love my generous husband and i love being generous with my generous husband. *** but I’ll only promote my subjective views based on experience and bias SO FAR as they coincide with Church teaching***.

i won’t propose my “most theologically correct” conclusions as such when there isn’t teaching to support it.

and on a personal note which might serve as a cautionary note: i sure as heck will be careful to ***not ***classify my husband’s “needs” as the unstoppable, oversexed compulsions codified as ‘average’ by recent “research.”

 

[violet81]

violet, you fail to admit the strength of a proposal such as " most theologically correct" when promoting daily intercourse as a marital “goal” or “intent.” and you seem to demote to the category of “mood” all subjective reasons to avoid intercourse.

you have a bias. you asked for discussion. you seem unwilling to consider that your conclusions are extremist, instead concluding this discussion isn’t everyone’s ‘cup of tea.’

it’s my cup of tea, violet. i love my generous husband and i love being generous with my generous husband. *** but I’ll only promote my subjective views based on experience and bias SO FAR as they coincide with Church teaching***.

i won’t propose my “most theologically correct” conclusions as such when there isn’t teaching to support it.

and on a personal note which might serve as a cautionary note: i sure as heck will be careful to ***not ***classify my husband’s “needs” as the unstoppable, oversexed compulsions codified as ‘average’ by recent “research.”

You might be making a point my articulation was poor. In my own mind I see it as a combination of statistics and theology. I guess I should have stated it as such… that my conclusion came from both and not just theology.

 

[C_S_P_B]

violet, you fail to admit the strength of a proposal such as " most theologically correct" when promoting daily intercourse as a marital “goal” or “intent.” and you seem to demote to the category of “mood” all subjective reasons to avoid intercourse.

you have a bias. you asked for discussion. you seem unwilling to consider that your conclusions are extremist, instead concluding this discussion isn’t everyone’s ‘cup of tea.’

it’s my cup of tea, violet. i love my generous husband and i love being generous with my generous husband. but I’ll only promote my subjective views based on experience and bias SO FAR as they coincide with Church teaching.

i won’t propose my “most theologically correct” conclusions as such when there isn’t teaching to support it.

and on a personal note which might serve as a cautionary note: i sure as heck will be careful to ***not ***classify my husband’s “needs” as the unstoppable, oversexed compulsions codified as ‘average’ by recent “research.”

violet81 proposed a generous view marital relations that approached daily relations (and then in subsequent posts shared her views on abstinence). She said she believe this approach was “theologically accurate.” Since violet81’s view is NOT contrary to Catholic Church teaching,how can it be incorrect?

You have brought up the term most “theologically correct” in your post #195 and then take it even further and move the quote mark, changing the emphasis to “most theologically correct.” This appears to be your term, unless you are quoting someone else, but you did not cite anyone else’s post containing this term. This seems disingenuous since in criticizing someone, the use of quotes is often used to draw attention to something they wrote in order to refute it.

It seems like you are reframing the issue, exaggerating, attributing the reframed issue onto violet81 and then saying it is wrong because it is not specifically taught. This is emotional projection, emotional reasoning and lacks logic.

An idea can be consistent with teaching or inconsistent. So generally It can be either described as true or not true. If two views are both consistent with teaching, then both are true. Since both are true, one cannot be the “most theologically correct.” Although one view may work in practice better than the other or work in practice for certain people better than the other. But both are still equally true and neither one is more correct.

If something is not specifically taught, but is consistent with truth and not contrary to truth, it is not wrong.

it is no concern of mine that OP may come off as condescending. my only concern is that OPs assertions of “most correct” are, in fact, wrong by very virtue of overstating Church teaching.

This is wacky logic because how can a view that is consistent and not contrary to Catholic teaching can be deemed wrong? monicatholic, using the same wacky logic, one could conclude that any Catholic married couple that engaged in relations every day are wrong. Yet I am not aware that the Catholic Church teaches that daily marital relations are wrong. There are other criteria that are used to determine right or wrong and it appears your attempt at application of logic to deem the OP’s beliefs as wrong is faulty.