Marital debt duty to have sex

  • Thread starter Thread starter chasingcars
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
QwertyGirl said:
However, teaching a concept is one thing, promising it to another until death do us part is a very different thing.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.
If one enters into a Catholic marriage somehow not understanding despite years of Catholic education what the teaching is behind the vows one is making and freely intending that then of course one is not morally bound in that regard.

But when that is realised then further adult decisions are likely necessary if ones partner did understand and promise such…for significant and legitimate cross expectations re sex have now come to the fore…such as we are all arguing now.

Likely many couples resolve the difference in expectations by a mutual charity that exceeds the difference in just expectations.

But for the rest it grieves me. There will be ongoing marital discord as both positions are just. The problem is unknown different expectations over what the vows mean.
 
Last edited:
Sophie111 said:
But making a free promise has further meaning regardlesss. A promise maker or giver is being dishonest with not only their partner but themselves if they consistently later act as if the free gift was never made at all.
Click to expand...
See, this is where you’re wrong. The gift is not in the past. The marital vows are about striving to continually give the gift. It is a daily decision to continually say yes to your marital vows. At no point has the gift been so received that the other person now has ownership to take.
 
You do not seem to understand my position despite explaining a partner has no “right” to force delivery on the free promise.
We must then agree to disagree.
God bless.
 
You consistently hold it is not morally acceptable to refuse a partner sex for trivial reasons. You believe there is a just expectation that sex should be freely given even if it is not coerced by the tolerant requesting partner.

You still do not see that this high moral stance is itself a form of subtle psychological coercion.
It is likely at some later date you have communicated this alleged teaching to your wife…or asked your priest to explain it to her?

Please watch your language.
 
Last edited:
Sophie111 said:
You do not seem to understand my position despite explaining a partner has no “right” to force delivery on the free promise.
Click to expand...
You have no right to take. Physically assaulting someone is an extreme form of taking.
 
You fail to see how refusing to lovingly respond to one’s spouse can be sinful. A weird, grotesque combination of puritanism and the metoo mivement, I suppose. People assume that if a person is simply enjoying a leisurely activity, the opportunity to be intimate with one’s spouse is a burden.

Oh, and one word offended your sensitive ears, yet intentionally mistepresenting other people’s opinion does not phase you at all.
 
Last edited:
The counter position to the Church’s traditional teaching on marital relations seems to be that one should not feel obligated to love one’s spouse because it may, in the future, place a reciprocal burden on the spouse to love you.
 
tafan2 said:
yet intentionally mistepresenting other people’s opinion
Click to expand...
You are welcome to advise how the below is at variance with your stated views…
You consistently hold it is not morally acceptable to refuse a partner sex for trivial reasons.
Click to expand...
You believe there is a just expectation that sex should be freely given even if it is not coerced by the tolerant requesting partner.
Click to expand...
It would be helpful in your position to tackle the following question…not doing so doesnt really aid your allegations
It is likely at some later date you have communicated this alleged teaching to your wife…or asked your priest to explain it to her?
Click to expand...
May I politely observe its one thing to say I misrepresent your position, its another to assume I intentionally do so.
 
You seem to have lost sight of the issue which is about one-off requests.

I personally agree with you that a pattern of longer term declines requires good reason.

I and most others disagree with you that one-off requests cannot be justly denied for what you regard as trivial reasons.
 
Last edited:
Sophie111 said:
May I politely observe its one thing to say I misrepresent your position, its another to assume I intentionally do so.
Click to expand...
You intententionally implied that I thought someone had the right to take sex from their spouse, calling out me by name to the exclusion of all others. So cherry pick statements out of context now all you want. I most certainly, explicitly, and on multiple occasions stated strongly I did not feel this way.
 
I have not lost sight of that. Never, I have said that morality is a matter of individual acts. Certainly harming one’s spouse, by way of refusal, multiple times will be more damaging than doing it once. But treating one’s spouse poorly a single time is still wrong.
 
Sophie111 said:
40.png
tafan2:
yet intentionally mistepresenting other people’s opinion
Click to expand...
You are welcome to advise how the below is at variance with your stated views…
You consistently hold it is not morally acceptable to refuse a partner sex for trivial reasons.
Click to expand...
You believe there is a just expectation that sex should be freely given even if it is not coerced by the tolerant requesting partner.
Click to expand...
It would be helpful in your position to tackle the following question…not doing so doesnt really aid your allegations
…this high moral stance is itself a form of subtle psychological coercion. It is likely at some later date you have communicated this alleged teaching to your wife…or asked your priest to explain it to her?
Click to expand...
May I politely observe its one thing to say I misrepresent your position, its another to assume I intentionally do so.
Click to expand...
As you have not refuted my above restatement of my understanding of your position it would appear accurate.
I additionally observe you just made it clear you hold it to be true for single one-off occasions.

Nothing more to say then.
I find your view abhorrent and not in accord with Catholic teaching.
I get it you disagree.
 
Last edited:
Tafan/stinkcat, to be clear, even though I disagree with your positions, I do understand that neither of you is advocating marital rape. Just to clear that up.
 
No. not claiming your take is accurate, you accused me of “maybe” believing it’s ok to rape one’s wife. Sorry, not going to let you deflect that one. If I said “No one, but maybe Soohie111” believes it’s ok to euthanize one’s elderly mother", you would likely get mad. Well guess what, I’m mad. And I will not sit here and argue with you about my other statements. Again, your behavior is really contemptible.
 
Last edited:
The fact that you have to say that, I hope, shows others the degree they have taken this discussion down the gutter
 
But treating one’s spouse poorly a single time is still wrong.
Click to expand...
How is saying no to sex one time treating someone’s spouse poorly? I do not understand why this is a bad thing

What exactly is the question of this thread even? Are you looking for our personal opinions and views, Catholic teaching to back up your claims, or just discussion? Seems like the thread has just become you shutting down people’s opinions and I’m not sure what the actual question is here - is there one?
 
Last edited:
The purpose of this thread was to explain the marital debt. When I get back to my computer I will post quotes of the documents which have been linked which do so.
I am not looking for any answer. If you do not see that rejecting intimacy from one’s spouse for no good reason is wrong, well I don’t know what to say .
Somehow, saying one should choose sex with one’s wife over a trivial activity such as watching a football game, is really, really offensive to some. The argument seems to be that doing so causes some type of reciprical future obligation that amounts to coercion, or even rape.

There have been other absurd arguments made, for example it’s horrible behavior to give a wife a massage in order to get her in the mood (no romancing allowed). Or the almost humorous statements that a male’s anatomy will simply not work if he is not in the mood (still trying to wrap my head around how anyone can be married with a healthy sex life and think that). Or the idea that a spouse should not even feel the need to ask for a postponement. Or the idea of what kind of wife would want sex when she knows her husband is available. Or the idea that any of this is not just advocating rape, but it is sexual assault.
I could go on, but yes, there are some really weird ideas out there. Like I said earlier, a weird and grotesque merging of puritanism (which has for too long affected even Catholic thinking in the USA) and the new #metoo movement.
 
Last edited:
I think a lot of the issue is, is it a sin to reject the advice/request once as compared to many times in a row. Once I don’t think it’s bad at all and to pressure someone by using “hey you will sin if you say no” → that is coercion and can lead to worse.

Rejecting a bunch of days in a row is bad yes, but it’s subjective to each marriage as to how many of days in a row that is. I think there can be a lot of coercion here if the idea of sinning is used as coercion.

I just don’t understand how rejecting sex once is sinful. If it is sinful, I am sorry that I don’t understand. But I really get it. Who has sex every night? You know what they say, everything in moderation.
 
tafan2 said:
Or the almost humorous statements that a male’s anatomy will simply not work if he is not in the mood
Click to expand...
Serious? You have never heard of erectile dysfunction? Lots of men can’t get/maintain what is needed especially when not in the mood. The stats are much higher with women.

Would it be a fair guess to say your on the younger side? Things may change for you or your wife soon enough.

They are not hilarious scenarios.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top