Marital debt duty to have sex

  • Thread starter Thread starter chasingcars
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Never have I heard or read the kind of unhealthy views on marital sex as I’ve read here.
Some Christian married couples actually love each other righteously.
 
I am not going to explain my posts, I tried to summarize once, so that people would not misrepresenting my positions, which have been very consistent. That obviously did not work. So I will try again.

I believe it would be sinful for me to refuse my wife for a trivial reason, such as wanting to watch a football game. This is completely inline with the theological sources which have been referenced on this thread.
 
No absolutely not! I’m saying it sounds like a lot of husbands in this thread coerce their wives to the point where the wife thinks if she doesn’t consent it’s sinful. That isn’t sinful. The husband is sinning. Honestly, this thread is insanity and disrespectful to marriage. None of this sounds like the wedding feast of Christ
 
Last edited:
If your wife asked you to have sex during a football game knowing you feel that if you say no it’s sinful is coercion on her part.

This logic allows for someone to ask for sex every day. What marriage has this? No realism here in this thread IMO
 
I made no statement about what my wife knew or not, only that I would be treating her very badly to refuse for such a trivial reason.
 
iwritebooks said:
The marriage debt is an older term the Church has done away with
Click to expand...
I believe it is more accurate to say that it has done away with an old erroneous “Canon Law” type approach to the fundamental concept found in the NT and tradition.

Namely that Christian marriage involves freely giving/promising bodily rights to ones equally loving partner.

Now some ways of interpretting that are clearly wrong (eg marital rape whether it be physical or psychlogical).

But some issues accepted in secular society would not be acceptable to our Church. A partner does not have wholly autonomous bodily rights in a Christian marriage. To unilaterally decline to have sex or even children simply for personal reasons in the medium to long term would be highly problematic.
 
Last edited:
But if she knows you will feel bad, SHE can then coerce you whenever she wants

How is saying yes because if you said no you would feel guilty, not the same as coerced sexual assault?
 
Last edited:
GospelOfMatthew said:
No absolutely not! I’m saying it sounds like a lot of husbands in this thread coerce their wives to the point where the wife thinks if she doesn’t consent it’s sinful. That isn’t sinful. The husband is sinning. Honestly, this thread is insanity and disrespectful to marriage. None of this sounds like the wedding feast of Christ
Click to expand...
I haven’t seen any husbands in this thread talking about coercing their wives. Both husband and wife owe the marital debt, so there is nothing specifically related to gender in this thread
 
You are actually arguing that requesting sex from your spouse is sexual assault. Absurd.
 
No, that doesn’t make sense. Sex is healthy and is a reaffirming of the marriage bond, it IS a reaffirming of our faith and love of Christ.

But I think this love of Christ can be abused and should not be assumed. Consent is needed every time and shouldn’t be assumed. Using the knowledge that denying the marital duty is sin shouldn’t be a motivation to have sex, it should be to love your spouse as Christ loves the Church.

Please don’t put words in my mouth when they aren’t what I’m saying.
 
Last edited:
Your are obviously referring to me as a husband that is coercing his wife, as I am the only one who is arguing in favor of the Church’s teaching on marital debt. I have said explicilty I do not judge my wife’s response ( no need to since I understand her very well in this regard).

Again, I will summarize my point, if I refuse a request for sex from my wife for a trivial reason ( eg watching football, I am a football fan) I am sinning. That’s it, no more, no less.
 
tafan2 said:
Again, I will summarize my point, if I refuse a request for sex from my wife for a trivial reason ( eg watching football, I am a football fan) I am sinning. That’s it, no more, no less.
Click to expand...
It is hard to believe that some people have an issue with that.
 
As I said earlier, I have been in these discussions before on this forum. They are always the same. I was initially surprised, would actually say shocked, that Catholics think it’s okay to refuse your spouse for any reason what so ever. But no more. It is cruel behavior, but no longer surprising that many Catholics find it acceptable.
 
But how is it cruel though? If a spouse were to say no out of spite/malice, there’s an issue. But if someone would rather take some time to unwind that day, how is it cruel? And again, it wouldn’t be cruel if the other spouse isn’t affected by it
 
Needing time to unwind is a symptom of fatigue, which I have stated multiple times is a reasonable cause for saying no. But you people do not pay attention. I will try again:

If I refuse my wife’s request for soley a trivial reason such as wanting to watch a football game, I am sinning.
 
No, I don’t think in the slightest you coerce your wife, you don’t understand my point, I haven’t been clear enough. I think your wife has the ability to coerce you knowing you will feel guilty by denying her. I am not saying actual coercion is taking place or ever has, all I’m saying is that it could happen.
 
Last edited:
What could happen is beside the point. But if she is sure I have no reasonable cause to refuse, then her request is, by definition , reasonable. Hence, you are saying that a reasonable request for sex is sexual assualt. I put no words in your mouth. It’s an absurd argument.
 
Last edited:
Yes, you keep saying this. I don’t think people care much about whether you personally think you’re sinning, but rather, you’re saying it’s objectively a sin.

I.e. If your wife turns you down for a trivial reason, she is sinning. If a person turns their spouse down for a trivial reason, they are sinning.

And honestly, wanting to unwind doesn’t necessarily mean that person has fatigue to be quite honest. Unless you have a very loose definition of fatigue from what I guessed (I.e something other than ‘extreme’ tiredness).
tafan2 said:
But if she is sure I have no reasonable cause to refuse, then her request is, by definition , reasonable.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily? Someone may have a less than pure intention (lust) for sex without the other knowing. While a request for sex isn’t assault, it can be manipulative for someone to keep asking for sex knowing the other will say yes out of guilt even if they don’t personally want to.

I think GospelofMatthew may be describing a scenario where someone is pressuring the other for sex, knowing that the person won’t say no even if he/she wants to. E.g. Even after your wife said no, and you know she doesn’t have your idea of a good reason so you keep asking her knowing that she would feel guilty and eventually give in

Or maybe that example you gave where the husband comes back and asks for sex again even though he initially said yes to her request for postponing. The wife in that situation would now feel pressured because she doesn’t want to sin.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
Both husband and wife owe the marital debt, so there is nothing specifically related to gender in this thread
Click to expand...
While the concept goes both ways, perhaps gender is brought up because women on average have lower sex drives than men. So they would be the ones having sex when they don’t want to. Also given the whole wife=submit thing, it does add additional anxiety for people.

Women’s sexuality can also be annoying in a way, as a lot of them would need to have mental clarity for them to climax. If they are reeeaaaallly not in the mood, muscles tense up and sex can be painful.

That would explain at least half of the controversy.
 
Lea101 said:
Yes, you keep saying this. I don’t think people care much about whether you personally think you’re sinning, but rather, you’re saying it’s objectively a sin.
Click to expand...
Objectively:. The church says an unreasonable refusal is a sin. I will repeat, the Church leaves the determination of reasonable to our prudential judgement. But moral theologians agree on several causes: illness, fatique, adultery, abuse.

Now, it is impossible to argue coherently that any cause would be reasonable. Why would the Church have the teaching at all? So there are causes that are sinful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top