Marital debt duty to have sex

  • Thread starter Thread starter chasingcars
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
1ke said:
I sugggest you read Augustine on this topic. You do literally vow sexual fidelity in perpetuity. Refusing the marital embrace with your spouse continually and unreasonably, who is bound to you and no other, can tempt them to adultery and masturbation.
Click to expand...
Chastity means we should not be enslaved by our sexual passions. It means we should be able to look at another person, even naked, without lusting after them. Using your spouse as a masturbation tool doesn’t make it any less masturbatory. There’s nothing loving about being reduced to the appropriate vessel for the man. It’s extremely demeaning to the woman to speak of making love in such terms.

We need to recognize that historically, marriages were arranged and generally relationships were unhealthy. Celibacy was seen as holier because it wasn’t even expected that married couples could be friends. So the rules about bringing in Christian charity were hampered by an incomplete vision of what romantic love could look like when truly elevated to agape.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
40.png
QwertyGirl:
My concern is more on the other side of the equation…why would anybody want to have sex with someone who didn’t want to have sex with them?
Click to expand...
I am not sure how this is relevant to the question. If you owe me $1000, your obligation does not go away just because you don’t feel like paying me the $1000. If someone makes a promise, then it is important for them to keep that promise.
Click to expand...
The duty ( even Paul avoids calling it a debt as its a covenant relationship not a financial contract) is not uncircumscribed.

The spouse still always has the freedom to avoid paying your “debt” (though not to break the promise) by separating which is your equivalent of declaring bankruptcy.

To force payment in the manner you describe tempts banruptcy proceedings. So good luck with this over simplified and impersonal 2D fincial approach to what is in fact a 3D covenant relationship!
 
Last edited:
Loud-living-dogma said:
The reality is that there is a huge difference in the levels of libido for men and women. So, guess what, it’s not “one night” here and there where the woman probably doesn’t want to, and the man probably does. I think this is an issue for a high percentage of married couples, I bet.
Click to expand...
While it is commonly assumed that men have higher sex drives than women, this is certainly not true across the board. It can be the other way around; and things like illness, hormone imbalances, or even working night shifts can negatively affect libido. Just saying.
 
Sophie111 said:
To force payment in the manner you describe tempts banruptcy proceedings. So good luck with this over simplified and impersonal 2D fincial approach to what is in fact a 3D covenant relationship!
Click to expand...
If one spouse is refusing to honor his or her obligations, demanding payment is not going to help the relationship. That I agree. That, however, is a practical matter, it has nothing to do with the moral obligation that spouses have towards one another. If one spouse decides to default on their obligation, I am not sure there is anything that really can be done to resolve that without the refusing spouse being convicted of their sin.
 
It’s also not true that the difference is “huge” for most couples. It is something people should definitely discuss before marriage though. If one person is in the mood daily and one is in the mood once every six months, it’s gonna be a bad time for both.
 
One does not need a good reason for declining one offs.
One does need a good reason to do so perpetually.
That reason may include a husband who consistently seeks and engages in sex in a less than personal or loving manner.
 
Please catch up already to the here and now of the Magisterium not a fallible local Diocese of yester year.

You are mistaken and there is nothing you can source for us to prove your extreme position. Do come back when you can quote something current and Magisterial.
 
Sophie111 said:
One does not need a good reason for declining one offs.
Click to expand...
Can you cite some Church teaching on that?
Sophie111 said:
One does need a good reason to do so perpetually.
That reason may include a husband who consistently seeks and engages in sex in a less than personal or loving manner.
Click to expand...
Once again, let’s see some Church teaching on that. Now, if a wife asks a husband to find a job in a less then personal or loving manner, is that sufficient reason for the husband to avoid finding a job to support the family?
 
Clearly Jesus would reply to such a sinfully impersonal, blinkered, demonising and non compassionate approach by saying: “If the husband is without shared responsibility in this matter let him throw the first stone…”

This abstract approach is too legalistic and impersonal to be worthy of the name Christian.
 
Part of the issue in this entire thread is that people are saying “the church says this” or “the church believes this” or “the teaching of the church is this”.

So many bold faced claims with zero evidence to back them up on both sides of the aisle here
 
QwertyGirl said:
My concern is more on the other side of the equation…why would anybody want to have sex with someone who didn’t want to have sex with them?
Click to expand...
This is true. Though I think some people just get angry at still feeling rejected by their spouse who does submit to going through the motions. I think this is also where the reputation that women don’t like sex comes from.

Good sex is mutual. And yes, it can be frustrating to continually be left with feeling unwanted and undesired, but merely submitting doesn’t rid of that rejection. That person will still feel rejected.

There is an element of making time for each other to foster your relationship and love. This can include time for physical affection that may lead to sex. But merely submitting can be like having a romantic date where your spouse just isn’t engaged in talking to you and where any small topic leads to an argument. There’s something deeper going. The concept of the “marriage debt” doesn’t solve the problem.
 
Sophie111 said:
Clearly Jesus would reply to such a sinfully impersonal, blinkered, demonising and non compassionate approach by saying: “If the husband is without shared responsibility in this matter let him throw the first stone…”

This abstract approach is too legalistic and impersonal to be worthy of the name Christian.
Click to expand...
Pure speculation on your part. But your view of marriage is pretty scary. People get married and they have zero obligation to one another. You are free to have that view, but that is not consistent with Church teaching.
 
That is the purpose of purgatory. But holiness is infinte, one can never reach compete holiness on earth. I am not arguing perfection lol, I understand that.

I am commenting because the person I replied to was acting very pious as if they have never sinned and I am reminding that you can’t be thinking “okay I’m holy” because holiness is a constant journey of growth
 
stinkcat_14 said:
People get married and they have zero obligation to one another.
Click to expand...
I did not say there was zero obligation, just as Jesus never said the woman did not commit adultery.

What he did point out was the arrogance of a person demonising another, putting burdens on others…without even realising that there is a bigger log in his own eye that implicates accusors even more sinfully in the matter at hand.
Obligations are not one way nor are they uncircumscribed.
 
Last edited:
Sophie111 said:
What he did point out was the arrogance of a person demonising another, putting burdens on others…without even realising that there is a bigger log in his own eye that implicates accusors even more sinfully in the matter at hand.
Click to expand...
I am not really sure what your point is. Are you saying that a spouse who refuses sex is always married to someone who has a bigger log in their eye and so that justifies their refusing sex? Also, marriage is not a burden that is imposed on someone. It is an arrangement freely entered into. If one wants the right to refuse sex to someone for any reason whatsoever, then the solution is simple. Stay single. If you get married, you are agreeing to the fact that you agree to have sex with someone when reasonably requested. Unless there is a good reason for not engaging in the act.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
I am not really sure what your point is.
Click to expand...
Given your above approach I dont think that surprises anyone here reading thus far.
None of us can see our own backs and we must trust others when they suggest someone has stuck a sign there and we dont understand the cryptic things passers by say to us. It takes time.
 
Sophie111 said:
Given your above approach I dont think that surprises anyone here reading thus far.
None of us can see our own backs and we must trust others when they suggest someone has stuck a sign there and we dont understand the cryptic things passers by say to us. It takes time.
Click to expand...
You are free to make whatever innuendos you like, but I am of course sticking to what the Church actually teaches. I agree that it is not a particularly comfortable teaching. The Church often asks us to do things that we are not really comfortable doing. Part of it is our society, we are often afraid to actually call a sin a sin.
 
It’s the word “debt” that is the issue. Sexuality - like love, affection, kindness, appreciation, and honor - should be approached with willingness and joy. “Debt” has a puritanical ring to it and implies a guilt-ridden obligation . . . not at all a way to foster a healthy marriage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top