Discuss: Married Sexuality

  • Thread starter Thread starter violet81
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C_S_P_B said:
Fasting is another word for abstaining. So in **violet81’s **usage it meant not having sex, which does often go along with forgoing peasurable things so simultatneously the two might go together but there are no Catholic rules on this.

I am trying… but Oh… I can’t resist… The former general discipline and now Lenten discipline of “no meat on Friday’s” only refers to food. (But of course there is no problem with also fasting from sex.)
Click to expand...
lol
 
violet81 said:
She is not allowed to do that.

I would find yourself a traditionalist priest to talk to. Maybe he could talk to her about her responsibilities. An N.O. priest is probably not going to help you much.
Click to expand...
 
violet81 said:
…and the key to unity is sex. Therefore, we are to have sex as much as is reasonably possible.
Click to expand...
The key to unity is NOT sex. I have been married for over 40 years and can tell you this absolutely. Being united involves all sorts of things but sex is just one part of the package.
As for sex itself, being able to ‘let it go’ when the other party is tired, unwell or just not ‘in the mood’ is just as great a sign of affection (maybe more) as physical intimacy itself - that is basic consideration for your partner, and as it involves a sacrifice (a little understood thing these days) it is something that we can offer to God.
We are required not to deprive our partners of physical intimacy to an extent that it might undermine the relationship and/or encourage temptation to infidelity. Couples who love each other will find a balance (after a short while) without anyone doing any shouting or looking over the garden fence. Some couples might regard every day as their ‘norm’ but I seriously doubt that there are many of them.
 
This is what I am wondering. Is she saying that frequent marital relations is wrong, or is she saying that to suggest it is “most theologically accurate” is wrong?
Click to expand...
ok, once more for the distracted crowd. she (that would be me) is saying my argument is with your assertion that daily relations as a goal being 'most theologically correct is

WRONG.

it is not MOST theologically correct.

and let’s be a little disingenuous yourself, CGSPCB (ahem.) you asked why it’s theologically incorrect? again, for the distracted crowd, i insist it is NOT the ***MOST ***theologically accurate as OP initially posited. you know what “most” means, dontcha? and so, to posit something beyond what the Church teaches as the BEST interpretation of what the Church teaches is wrong.

please dont claim to remain confused.

OP later, by the way, backed off from that assertion.

martinsjr, unless your wife is gravely ill or unless some other circumstance is making sex painful for her, she may be committing grevious sin by refusing you marital intimacy. if any medical or psycholigical conditions are present she is obligated to try and find soloutions to help her fulfill her vocation as wife and mother.

finally, CGSPCB (ahem.) it is my opinion your attempts at humor are boorish with vague undertones of bullying. i too dont like sloppy thinking, less do i like sloppy humor. but that’s just me. perhaps you, in your quest for a lifelong treasure, will find a woman who likes that sorta thing, and daily sex, too.
 
OK, monicatholic, what answer is “most theologically accurate?”

I think I understand “most” In order to make a comparison there must be two alternatives. So you must be saying that there is a more theologically correct answer.

You say that the violet81’s opinion (as originally stated) is not the “most theologically correct” and that is wrong. So are you saying that it is it is wrong that it is the most theologically accurate or that it is not theologically accurate and therefore wrong?

Please be clear. You keep saying WRONG. Is it totally wrong or partially wrong? If it is only partially wrong, then it must also be partially right, which is where the confusion may be. People can easily get confused if you say something is wrong but only mean it is partially wrong by a matter of degree.

Also, I don’t get the (ahem) thing, so maybe I am one of the distracted crowd in addition to being boorish. Perhaps God makes all types of people and there is someone out there that is a perfect match for me. Humor is a good test of a person and a treasure certainly would need a sense of humor to appreciate me. I also like treasures that do not tarnish easily are multi-faceted and have sparkle. Maybe there is a glimmer of hope if I watch for a bright smile and twinkely eyes.
 
baylee said:
Hmmm. Sounded to me like fasting “period” meant more than just one day per week. Otherwise, why have a goal of daily sex? I don’t know. I still feel like your posts keep evolving as things move along. Maybe it’s me.
Click to expand...
Are you really failing to understand the difference? What actually happens vs a goal?
 
searching04 said:
Are you really failing to understand the difference? What actually happens vs a goal?
Click to expand...
Actually, I think what she meant in her OP was that the fasting period was agreed upon as part of the original goal of daily sex. Of course, like I said earlier, it seems as if her position continues to change as we go along here. Maybe she’s not so sure of her stance afterall.

Btw, have you given thought to my earlier question to you? Why is it that, if Church teaching does not have a rule on frequency of sex, you are not displeased with the OP’s suggestion that *daily *sex (ie. frequency=daily) is “most theologically correct”? Why is it that you only take issue with those of us who suggest that something less than that is a better course of action and appears to be more in line with Church teaching regarding moderation and self-denial?

And why is it that only those of us who disagree with the OP that have trouble understanding, are being disingenuous and are being condescending. How convenient. I’m beginning to think that some of the men in this thread are projecting some of their own issues in here.
 
baylee said:
Actually, I think what she meant in her OP was that the fasting period was agreed upon as part of the original goal of daily sex. Of course, like I said earlier, it seems as if her position continues to change as we go along here. Maybe she’s not so sure of her stance afterall.

Btw, have you given thought to my earlier question to you? Why is it that, if Church teaching does not have a rule on frequency of sex, you are not displeased with the OP’s suggestion that *daily *sex (ie. frequency=daily) is “most theologically correct”? Why is it that you only take issue with those of us who suggest that something less than that is a better course of action and appears to be more in line with Church teaching regarding moderation and self-denial?

And why is it that only those of us who disagree with the OP that have trouble understanding, are being disingenuous and are being condescending. How convenient. I’m beginning to think that some of the men in this thread are projecting some of their own issues in here.
Click to expand...
I believe my position is very clear, but I don’t know how else to articulate it.
Except for exceptions like the ones in my list, and an agreed upon fasting period, spouses should make it a priority to be available for the marital act every evening.

I still think it is most theologically accurate because the first priority is to avoid denying your spouse his/her marital rights either intentionally or unintentionally. If the priority is moderation then I guess a person would have a different opinion.
 
StevieD said:
The key to unity is NOT sex. I have been married for over 40 years and can tell you this absolutely. Being united involves all sorts of things but sex is just one part of the package.
As for sex itself, being able to ‘let it go’ when the other party is tired, unwell or just not ‘in the mood’ is just as great a sign of affection (maybe more) as physical intimacy itself - that is basic consideration for your partner, and as it involves a sacrifice (a little understood thing these days) it is something that we can offer to God.
We are required not to deprive our partners of physical intimacy to an extent that it might undermine the relationship and/or encourage temptation to infidelity. Couples who love each other will find a balance (after a short while) without anyone doing any shouting or looking over the garden fence. Some couples might regard every day as their ‘norm’ but I seriously doubt that there are many of them.
Click to expand...
Thank you! You said everything I was thinking after reading this thread.
 
violet81 said:
I believe my position is very clear, but I don’t know how else to articulate it.
Except for exceptions like the ones in my list, and an agreed upon fasting period, spouses should make it a priority to be available for the marital act every evening.

I still think it is most theologically accurate because the first priority is to avoid denying your spouse his/her marital rights either intentionally or unintentionally. If the priority is moderation then I guess a person would have a different opinion.
Click to expand...
Meanwhile…back in the “real world”…:rolleyes:
 
violet81 said:
I still think it is most theologically accurate because the first priority is to avoid denying your spouse his/her marital rights either intentionally or unintentionally. If the priority is moderation then I guess a person would have a different opinion.
Click to expand...
I disagree with the premise that having to ask (either verbally or non verbally) for the marital act is somehow denying ones spouse of their marital rights. And making the spouses ask is not sinful and not making each other ask is not “most theologically accurate.”
 
Quote from searching04

Funny also that if you read the posts, the men are the ones defending violet and the women seem to be the ones questioning, though I may have missed something. Does that men men just want sex? No. I think it means just as someone posted a long way back - men view/use sex as their totally giving of themselves to their wives in the most intimate way possible (and we wish our wives would, too). Limit that ability and/or opportunities, and it limits a very key piece of our expressing love and intimacy with our spouses, and raises huge disagreements with the church.

I still wholeheartedly agree with your premise, and combined with Consecrated’s post, is perfect.
Reply With Quote

Well, I am a woman and I think women also view sexual relations as their totally giving of themselves to their husbands in a very intimate way. I agree that we should not limit that ability and/or opportunities because it will limit a very key piece of our expressing love and intimacy with our spouses.

I always anticipate having relations with my dh every night unless I am physically unable to participate.

However, I often wonder if you and the other men of this thread understand that most women would like their husbands to totally give of themselves to their wives with intimate conversation. Women crave and want their husbands to talk to them INTIMATELY. I think this would be more of a sacrifice/ total self-giving for the husband than his self-giving during sexual relations.
 
Yes, I love music too and you can experience many emotions when listening to it. If your spouse enjoys the same type of music that would be a wonderful common interest. But shared intimacies with words enables you to build trust, respect and become closer than ever.
 
violet81 said:
I just wanted to get something off my chest:

I AM FULLY AWARE THIS DISCUSSION IS NOT EVERYONE’S CUP OF TEA

I did not start the thread in any kind of way to brag about my sex drive (that idea is laughable to me), to guilt women or men who disagree, or indulge an obsession for sex talk. Nor did I post it so that people could pat me on the head and tell me I don’t have to work so hard.

I did start the thread because similar issues were being brought up in multiple other threads. My answer to most of those threads was what was written here, so it seemed most efficient to just start a new thread on the topic.

This is the way I see it… God has a different plan for different families according to their personalities and needs. I have no doubt that some families out there might benefit by prioritizing sex as a unitive ritual…even if it isn’t everyday… If the reader is one of those families then God might use this thread to plant a seed.

If this thread pisses you off then it means either 1. you have some deeply rooted anti-sex attitudes, 2. you really believe my opinion is incorrect 3. God just isn’t calling you to this kind of arrangement.

I was quite open to hearing arguments that used Church resources, studies, or statistics. I think that actually belittling me or making accusations about my intent was unnecessary.
Click to expand...
You keep posting!
 
I certainly wouldn’t mind seeing this thread die. It was quite the headache.
 
monicatholic said:
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.’

Your pushing so hard “from the other direction” can be viewed as extremist, don’t you think? The 'most theologically correct" was her opinion based on what she has read, etc. So what is the problem? You don’t seen to want to accept or acknowledge it was her opinion, but you sure are fighting against it.

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***.

Nothing violet has said is against church teachings, not one bit. However, your opnion and view about daily sex as a goal and what the church says is also your opinion. The church does not teach or dictate frequency.

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.”
Click to expand...
 
monicatholic said:
ok, once more for the distracted crowd. she (that would be me) is saying my argument is with your assertion that daily relations as a goal being 'most theologically correct is

WRONG.

it is not MOST theologically correct.

and let’s be a little disingenuous yourself, CGSPCB (ahem.) you asked why it’s theologically incorrect? again, for the distracted crowd, i insist it is NOT the ***MOST ***theologically accurate as OP initially posited. you know what “most” means, dontcha? and so, to posit something beyond what the Church teaches as the BEST interpretation of what the Church teaches is wrong.

please dont claim to remain confused.

OP later, by the way, backed off from that assertion.

martinsjr, unless your wife is gravely ill or unless some other circumstance is making sex painful for her, she may be committing grevious sin by refusing you marital intimacy. if any medical or psycholigical conditions are present she is obligated to try and find soloutions to help her fulfill her vocation as wife and mother.

finally, CGSPCB (ahem.) it is my opinion your attempts at humor are boorish with vague undertones of bullying. i too dont like sloppy thinking, less do i like sloppy humor. but that’s just me. perhaps you, in your quest for a lifelong treasure, will find a woman who likes that sorta thing, and daily sex, too.
Click to expand...
So your arguments are about the definition of “most” and daily sex?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top