Marital debt duty to have sex

[stinkcat_14]

Yes, there is still no need to “ask for a night off” provided there is an otherwise healthy and normal sex life.

How would you define a healthy and normal sex life?

 

[Lea101]

Even if a spouse who has been refused realizes they will have sex again sometime soon, an unreasonable refusal is still a sin. Now, as my first post stated, the Church leaves it up to our prudential judgement as to what is a reasonable cause.

Here’s the thing though. If the refused spouse knows he/she will have sex again soon, why would that spouse assume the refusal is unreasonable?

In your example above, the wife would know she will get what she wants soon enough. The husband would have also let her down gently. I honestly can’t see the sin there. A decent and refused spouse will simply process the rejection in a healthy manner after that feeling of brief disappointment. I’m sure most spouses here and elsewhere wouldn’t want to have sex with a tired or uninterested spouse anyway? So why should the wife expect sex from an uninterested/probably annoyed husband in the first place? I’m asking a lot of questions here because I never understood this topic.

Perhaps she says “Honey, how about in the morning, I would really like to read this book?” Assuming the question was sincere, she did not refuse, she just asked him to withdraw the request.

Isn’t this just playing semantics at this point? A refusal in most healthy marriages simply mean postponing sex, although the date and timing is ambiguous at that point of time. Unless your point is that the spouse is asking for permission to not have sex?

If, however, he grudgingly says ok, but after a few minutes of boredom renews (perhaps a little more “convincingly”) his advance, she should know that he did not really concur with her request. So further refusal is at that point a sin, IMO.

That’s honestly terrible behavior for a spouse IMO. To initially agree and then put her in am uncomfortable situation where she has to say yes in fear of sin. On a more gender specific note, women would have a harder time to…ahem…fully enjoy sex if she’s not in it mentally.

Also want to bring in Nfp. If the couple already agreed on using Nfp to avoid kids at the moment, it should be perfectly fine for either spouse to refuse sex throughout her fertile period. Or else OP basically has a point, lol.

 

[Lea101]

This would normally be dependent on the couple. If one spouse constantly feels rejected (period of time), chances are the sex life ain’t healthy

Of course other variables like lack of lust etc comes to play here.

 

[1ke]

You can’t just look at the individual refusal in isolation.

Yes, you can. That’s how morality works. Morality does not look at some sort of totality—
there are those who tried that argument via-a-vis contraception.

Each act is moral or immoral, not the totality of acts, and must be judged on objective criteria of morality.

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

Each act is moral or immoral, not the totality of acts, and must be judged on objective criteria of morality.

I can think of many examples in which that isn’t true. For example, is having one beer immoral, assuming you’re of legal drinking age? Almost certainly not for most situations. Is having twenty beers immoral? Sure. Individual acts that are innocent in themselves can become immoral in the aggregate.

 

[1ke]

If the couple already agreed on using Nfp to avoid kids at the moment, it should be perfectly fine for either spouse to refuse sex throughout her fertile period.

Actually, it’s not.

Either of the spouses is free to change their mind about avoiding or achieving or “whatevering” at any point and to evaluate whether their reason for avoiding remains or is not that serious anymore.

A spouse is certainly free to ask for sex, even if they previously had a discussion about avoiding.

 

[1ke]

That is not how the morality of acts works.

In the case of beers, it is a question of whether each beer is moral. After one beer, the question is whether another beer is moral given the current circumstances. Or the next.

It’s not one versus twenty. It’s each decision to have a beer.

 

[Lea101]

Free to ask, definitely. But free to refuse as well!

 

[blackforest]

By the time a spouse is refusing both sex and counseling, and skeptical that guilt trips over a “moral obligation” will remedy the situation in any meaningful or sustainable manner. Intimacy is still lacking, and simply “putting out” at this point is slapping a band-aid on a severed artery.

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

You’re just bracketing the “act” in a way that helps your argument. Every human action is going to be the aggregation of a series of smaller acts. Some of these are so small that they don’t merit much moral analysis.

Besides, you’re reinforcing my analysis anyway by acknowledging that the presence or absence of repetition impacts the morality of each individual instance. So, bringing it back to sex, a refusal might be fine if the spouse isn’t regularly being deprived. But that refusal might become immoral if it follows a series of refusals, just like that beer might be made immoral by the ten that preceded it.

 

[tafan2]

Here’s the thing though. If the refused spouse knows he/she will have sex again soon, why would that spouse assume the refusal is unreasonable?

Again, I was trying to separate the morality of two different acts. The response of the rejected spouse has no bearing on the sinfulness of the initial act (the refusal). This discussion, ( I hope) for all of us is NOT about judging our spouse. It is about bettering our own behavior, forming our own conscience. I stated explicitly, the proper response to a refusal is to ASSUME one’s spouse had a reasonable cause for declining sex. But the refusal of sex was still sinful if there was not a reasonable cause.

That’s honestly terrible behavior for a spouse IMO.

If it is, I have been guilty of it. I do agree with BoomBoomMancini on this point, I can typically tell when “no…but I’m willing to be convinced” and “no, really, just no.”". Although if I am not sure, and it seems like a good time, I might still work on a little seduction. No means no, normally comes along with some sort of obviously reasonably cause, typically fatigue, so this is rarely the case.

I will also say, this has gone both ways in my marriage and I never feel like I have been put on the spot in fear of sin. I rarely, if ever, have to think of the sin of marriage debt, instead I think that I need to lovingly respond to a want of my wife. If I do not do that, then I look back on it and realize I sinned. Yes, it has happened, and I made sure I apologized to her later. I actually find it surprising that people on this thread think its okay to spurn one’s spouse’s advances for just wanting to watch a game or read a book. I suppose if I don’t want to feed my kids today because I just want to watch football, that’s ok too (as long as its not a habit, and they get fed tomorrow).

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

I actually find it surprising that people on this thread think its okay to spurn one’s spouse’s advances for just wanting to watch a game or read a book. I suppose if I don’t want to feed my kids today because I just want to watch football, that’s ok too (as long as its not a habit, and they get fed tomorrow).

I mean, c’mon. Surely you recognize that being denied sex on a given day and being denied food are two totally different things. Thats just not an effective analogy.

 

[Aquinas11]

I actually find it surprising that people on this thread think its okay to spurn one’s spouse’s advances for just wanting to watch a game or read a book. I suppose if I don’t want to feed my kids today because I just want to watch football, that’s ok too (as long as its not a habit, and they get fed tomorrow)

Or even better analogy: if an earning spouse chooses not to go to work one day because they want to watch football, which in turn means that the non-earning spouse can’t spend money on that item they want (but dont need) that’s ok too.

 

[tafan2]

Well, you are correct, my kids can go an make a sandwich and feed themselves, even if we miss out on a family dinner, my wife has not moral recourse if I refuse sex. So, considering the age of my children and the ability of feeding themselves, refusing my wife would in my mind be much more grave. But all analogies have some flaws.

 

[Lea101]

Again, I was trying to separate the morality of two different acts. The response of the rejected spouse has no bearing on the sinfulness of the initial act (the refusal).

I get what you mean. I don’t mean to keep blending those two together. I guess I keep going back to it because I don’t understand how one commits a sin against the other when the other party does not mind (regarding sex).

Although if I am not sure, and it seems like a good time, I might still work on a little seduction. No means no, normally comes along with some sort of obviously reasonably cause, typically fatigue, so this is rarely the case.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with ‘trying your luck’ in ambiguous situations, where you’re not sure. That’s a normal part of seduction isn’t it.

My problem is that both parties supposedly believe that it’s a sin to refuse, which basically leaves the wife no choice but to accept if she’s trying to avoid sin (even though the husband already knows she doesn’t want to).

Edit to add: would you want your spouse to lay there and close her eyes? Assuming she’s simply and genuinely not interested in having sex that night. If not, I don’t see why a spouse would keep making advances knowing that the other is not into it.

I rarely, if ever, have to think of the sin of marriage debt, instead I think that I need to lovingly respond to a want of my wife

Well, that’s good for you. If your wife feels the same way, good for her as well. But that doesn’t mean there are spouses out there who never think about whether they’re sinning by refusing or not.

I suppose if I don’t want to feed my kids today because I just want to watch football, that’s ok too (as long as its not a habit, and they get fed tomorrow).

I wish people stop giving weird examples like this. Feeding your kids/your other responsibilities in life is not the same as sex.

Both of us will readily and passionately admit sex is deeper and more complex than say, feeding your kid. For starters, it’s a complete gift of self that has serious consequences when abused. You would force your kids to eat for their good, but you wouldn’t force your wife for sex period.

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

I wish people stop giving weird examples like this. Feeding your kids/your other responsibilities in life is not the same as sex.

Both of us will readily and passionately admit sex is deeper and more complex than say, feeding your kid. For starters, it’s a complete gift of self that has serious consequences when abused. You would force your kids to eat for their good, but you wouldn’t force your wife for sex period.

This is definitely a topic that lends itself to terrible analogies.

 

[Lea101]

Exactly. It’s like people forget how important sex is.

My rule (though obviously not perfect): if it’s not grave sin to force that person to do xyz…probably not a good analogy lol

 

[Aquinas11]

would you want your spouse to lay there and close her eyes? Assuming she’s simply and genuinely not interested in having sex that night.

Did she want him to not sit there and close his eyes while he involuntarily forked over money to her for wasteful things she doesn’t need? Assuming he’s simply and genuinely not interested in wasting resources

 

[Lea101]

Or even better analogy: if an earning spouse chooses not to go to work one day because they want to watch football, which in turn means that the non-earning spouse can’t spend money on that item they want (but dont need) that’s ok too.

Is it a better analogy? since a spouse isn’t obligated to buy another unnecessary things? Only gold diggers believe that

Also, taking a day off isn’t a sin at all.
Unless it’s a pattern or laziness, then one would be shirking their responsibilities at home and at work. And again, everyone here seems to agree that unnecessary refusal over a period of time is sinful.

Unless we’re in agreement?

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

Did she want him to not sit there and close his eyes while he involuntarily forked over money to her for wasteful things she doesn’t need? Assuming he’s simply and genuinely not interested in wasting resources

WOMEN BE SHOPPIN’, Y’ALL.