Discuss: Married Sexuality

[Kaizmom]

sure, that can be.

I’ve never heard of this… in what way would it be a sin?

(just trying to learn lol)

This could be a sin because the sex is the consummation of the marriage. It is where both parties give of each other freely, totally and completely. For one party to obstain from sexual relations when the other does not, then you are not taking the welfare of the other party into consideration and husband and wife are to SERVE each other. I am not saying that everytime one wants it, the other has to do it because it is very easy to cross the line to objectifying the other person and treating them like an object which is another sin. If you are chosing to live celibatly- GREAT! However, make sure you both are choosing that or depriving the spouse of the marital act is a sin.

Samantha †

 

[AnaTurin]

Just at night?? What about mornings and afternoons too?

Overall, I would agree with your assessment, except for the part of having sex because it’s our “duty” even if we don’t feel like it. If one of them doesn’t feel like it, they should accommodate the one that does, but really, if BOTH of them aren’t in the mood, that would be kind of silly to “just do it” out of a sense of duty for their vocation, wouldn’t it?

 

[czechestowa]

Hello,
Just came across your thread recently. By and large I agree with what you said. Though one part where I think you err is that NFP interferes with the marriage duty as if it militated against a good marriage. It has its part to play even in a happy sex life as saint paul advices to come apart for a while and then come together again. Another area you could look at is when you say 'take of clothes,pillow talk,hugging,sex,shower,these could be preceded by and followed by prayer even a short prayer as tobit did.
God bless.

 

[1inICXC]

Wow, icant believe this thread’s still around. I saw it long ago and kinda regretted not commenting but looks like I get a second chance.

While OP makes several good points about the unitive purpose of sex and the similarity with the Eucharist, she also makes one HUGE omission. Or rather 2.

One- just because that’ s one of the purposes of sex it doesn’t mean that purpose is always accomplished, just as the procreative isn’t as eitherll, therefore, as we humans, generally fall short of living according to our intended purpose our daily lives we implicitly and obviously do so with our sexual life. Any single one of us would be lying if we claimed that our love making ALWAYS attained it’s sublime purpose and never yielded to at least some kind of carnal venial sin therefore we should only be having sex when we are as freed as possible from our sinful instincts or when we are in a state in which we know that we will reach the intended purpose to the greatest extent possible.

If one of us had an exhausting day and sex feels like a duty then there is no reason to HAVE to have it. Again, if one of us is feeling lustful, the sexual embrace should not be the outlet for it.

Second omission, The Eucharist is a Sacrament and it is between a human person and a Divine Person…and I cantcontinuebecause one of my little ones woke up…

 

[moon1234]

Carnal wantings or thoughts about your spouse are NOT wrong as long as they are not disordered. It is part of what “to have and to hold” means. Venial sin need not enter into the love or desire of one spouse for the other.

*Again, if one of us is feeling lustful, the sexual embrace should not be the outlet for it.*You may be confusing lust “Which is the disordered attention paid towards the opposite sex, typcially not your spouse.” with simple desire to be with your spouse. The bible warns a wife to not say no to her husband lest he become frustrated and contemptous.

The marital embrace is EXACTLY the proper way to deal with wants and desires for sex. As long as each act is open to life (meaning you are not doing something to purposefully avoid having a child) then sex is the proper outlet for desire.

Marriage is ALSO a sacrament. It was raised to the level of a sacrament by Christ. Each time you consumate your marriage (have sex willingly and without contempt and properly ordered) you reaffirm the sacrament and also receive sacramental grace. This is NO different that going to Church on Sunday when you feel run down. Do you abstain from receiving the Eucharist unless you are well rested, bright eyed and chipper? No, that is not necessary nor would it be desired as you would not receive the sacrament grace that flows from receiving the Eucharist.

Sex is sometimes HARD for one spouse. They may be tired, not in the mood, etc. It is at this time that you need to still be open to your spouse. Did you promise in your vows “For better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do you part.”?

Being tired from a days work is, in my opinion, not an excuse to frustrate your spouse.

 

[karow]

Some people need to get a clue. The only people having sex everyday…are those who are getting paid for it and those who are paying for it. Regular people have a life…you know jobs to go to, bills to pay, children to take here or there, elderly parents to care for…sex is the last thing on their minds. How many women have you heard of who had a baby and had to have sex with her husband within hours after birth or days after birth? I’d flat out tell him…take a hike boy-ooo

This.

I skimmed through the thread with my husband, and both of us got a good chuckle over some of the ideas therein. We’re convinced more than one poster is either 1.) single claiming to be married and indulging in wishful thinking; 2.) trying to guilt trip a spouse (“See, it says right here on CAF you’re supposed to have sex with me every day!”; or 3.) not living in reality.

I’m willing to put the entirety of my faith into the fact that I’ll be judged for many, many things at the threshold of the Pearly Gates before whether or not I had daily sex with my husband. In our 11 years of wedded happiness, I don’t think we’ve had sex every day for more than a week, 10 days at a stretch, max. After the birth of our twins it was, by mutual agreement, a good nine months before we had sex again.

Anyone who persists in the belief that daily sex is a right, obligation, or necessity needs to further their understanding of both marriage and basic human relationships.

 

[moon1234]

a good nine months before we had sex again.

Holy Moley. He must have a free parking pass in heaven. No one would want to be around me if I went THAT long.

Some couples must just not have much sex drive. If it is a mutual agreement then it is fine.

Where I think a LOT of tension comes from is when one partner desires the other and is rejected.

 

[karow]

a good nine months before we had sex again.

Holy Moley. He must have a free parking pass in heaven. No one would want to be around me if I went THAT long.

Some couples must just not have much sex drive. If it is a mutual agreement then it is fine.

Where I think a LOT of tension comes from is when one partner desires the other and is rejected.

Trust me, our sex drives are quite lively. Now.

We did, however, have infant twins when we went on our nine-month sexual hiatus. For one thing, we didn’t even sleep in the same bed until the girls were seven months old. I slept in a recliner in the living room with one one girl and my husband slept with the other in our bed. It was the only way we figured out how to stop them from waking each other up. On top of that we were up every 2-3 hours breastfeeding. My husband took a whopping two weeks off of work when they were born, so he was hustling at a full-time job on 3-4 hours of sleep per night the first six months of their lives. I was too worn down just keeping them fed and clean most days to even take a shower, much less cook, clean, or do laundry. And I’ll say something here I’ve never told anyone: I was so worn out with it all when they were a mere three months old that I cut “breast holes” in some old sweatshirts so I could plug one girl on each breast without having to lift up my shirt. I wore those sweatshirts around the house, day after day, for months. Seriously, that’s how exhausted I was.

We’ll look back on those first two years now and laugh, not knowing how we lived through it. I’m surprised we started having sex again when the girls were as young as they were. Neither of us were even remotely interested in sex. Not a twitch. We’ve both been through some experiences in our lives, including combat and multi-national hiking treks, and we agree what caring for those babies was the most physically demanding, bone-crushingly exhausting endeavor either of us been through.

 

[LIT56RD]

Carnal wantings or thoughts about your spouse are NOT wrong as long as they are not disordered. It is part of what “to have and to hold” means. Venial sin need not enter into the love or desire of one spouse for the other.

*Again, if one of us is feeling lustful, the sexual embrace should not be the outlet for it.*You may be confusing lust “Which is the disordered attention paid towards the opposite sex, typcially not your spouse.” with simple desire to be with your spouse. The bible warns a wife to not say no to her husband lest he become frustrated and contemptous.

The marital embrace is EXACTLY the proper way to deal with wants and desires for sex. As long as each act is open to life (meaning you are not doing something to purposefully avoid having a child) then sex is the proper outlet for desire.

Marriage is ALSO a sacrament. It was raised to the level of a sacrament by Christ. Each time you consumate your marriage (have sex willingly and without contempt and properly ordered) you reaffirm the sacrament and also receive sacramental grace. This is NO different that going to Church on Sunday when you feel run down. Do you abstain from receiving the Eucharist unless you are well rested, bright eyed and chipper? No, that is not necessary nor would it be desired as you would not receive the sacrament grace that flows from receiving the Eucharist.

Sex is sometimes HARD for one spouse. They may be tired, not in the mood, etc. It is at this time that you need to still be open to your spouse. Did you promise in your vows “For better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do you part.”?

Being tired from a days work is, in my opinion, not an excuse to frustrate your spouse.

*Again, if one of us is feeling lustful, the sexual embrace should not be the outlet for it.*You may be confusing lust “Which is the disordered attention paid towards the opposite sex, typcially not your spouse.” with simple desire to be with your spouse. I tend to disagree with this thought. I lust after my wife and my wife alone. It may be typically not your spouse, but that does not mean that lusting for your wife is wrong.

Sex is sometimes HARD for one spouse. They may be tired, not in the mood, etc. It is at this time that you need to still be open to your spouse. Did you promise in your vows “For better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do you part.”?

Being tired from a days work is, in my opinion, not an excuse to frustrate your spouse. It has taken me thirty plus years of marriage to understand that I am not a pervert or misfit for desiring my wife.

 

[moon1234]

Poor cathchiese over the last 50 years has caused many people to struggle with issues like this. I am glad you know better now.

 

[GraceDK]

It may be typically not your spouse, but that does not mean that lusting for your wife is wrong.

.

Yes it is.
Acc. to the church Lust = reduction of another person to the their sexual value alone. It is a tendency to overlook the person, and strip her value down to that one point in your mind, where she becomes an object of selfish pleasure.
Now you may say you desire sexual union with your wife in order to express love and renew your bond together with the pleasure that is a very nice side effect, but Lust is and has always been a negative term. Love and lust are opposites.

 

[Paul1961]

Unfortunately, the church has a definition of lust that does not match the dictionary and our use of the word. This is the root of the problem when discussing “lust” with a spouse.

Dictionary
Lust
1 a : pleasure, delight b : personal inclination : wish
2
: usu. intense or unbridled sexual desire : lasciviousness
3
a : an intense longing : craving b : enthusiasm, eagerness <admired his lust for life

Nothing wrong with dictionary lust. The church changes the definition.

For those history experts, is this an issue of language translations or changing over the millenia?

 

[GraceDK]

Unfortunately, the church has a definition of lust that does not match the dictionary and our use of the word. This is the root of the problem when discussing “lust” with a spouse.

Dictionary
Lust
1 a : pleasure, delight b : personal inclination : wish
2
: usu. intense or unbridled sexual desire : lasciviousness
3
a : an intense longing : craving b : enthusiasm, eagerness <admired his lust for life

Nothing wrong with dictionary lust. The church changes the definition.

For those history experts, is this an issue of language translations or changing over the millenia?

Nr. 2 I think fits the bill. Lust basically is the opposite of mastering/bridling ones sexual desires. People who don’t master their sexual desires become promiscuous and engage in impure acts and thoughts such as we see all over the culture now, porn, masturbation, infidelity, fornication etc. = not controlling one self.
Lust means using one self or another human person as a sex object, instead of letting sexual desire be directed and formed by authentic love.

You can be pretty sure that the church’s use of words is generelly more accurate and historically correct than that of popular culture.
I think you will however, agree with me, that most people wont really understand what you’re talking about - or may even roll their eyes - if you use such words as lust, sin, temperance, fornication etc…

Ps. I think you have a somewhat bitter and sceptical tone against the church… try to ask yourself where that comes from.

 

[Julianna]

This.

I skimmed through the thread with my husband, and both of us got a good chuckle over some of the ideas therein. We’re convinced more than one poster is either 1.) single claiming to be married and indulging in wishful thinking; 2.) trying to guilt trip a spouse (“See, it says right here on CAF you’re supposed to have sex with me every day!”; or 3.) not living in reality.

I’m willing to put the entirety of my faith into the fact that I’ll be judged for many, many things at the threshold of the Pearly Gates before whether or not I had daily sex with my husband. In our 11 years of wedded happiness, I don’t think we’ve had sex every day for more than a week, 10 days at a stretch, max. After the birth of our twins it was, by mutual agreement, a good nine months before we had sex again.

Anyone who persists in the belief that daily sex is a right, obligation, or necessity needs to further their understanding of both marriage and basic human relationships.

Thank you. Some people on here don’t live in the “real world”. Sad to say.