Marital debt duty to have sex

  • Thread starter Thread starter chasingcars
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
blackforest said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think the problem is that term debt is only problematic when there are marital issues. Most of us have mortgages and they don’t cause most of us a lot of distress. They are an arrangement freely entered into that clearly benefits the borrower and the bank. It is when a crisis occurs that the mortgage becomes a burden.

In some ways, marriage is a similar arrangement. When one gets married, one agrees to freely give sex to the other party. While there are some limitations there is not an option for one party to universally end the sexual relationship. That doesn’t seem a big deal when the couple is madly in love, but easy to forget during the ups and downs of the marriage. The ups and downs of the marriage however do not end the obligation of the marital debt.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
You are free to make whatever innuendos
Click to expand...
The usual comeback when its politely suggested to reflect and pray on a view that you yourself said you do not understand.
Our discussion has come to a natural conclusion then.
God bless.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
When one gets married, one agrees to freely give sex to the other party. While there are some limitations there is not an option for one party to universally end the sexual relationship.
Click to expand...
There’s a disconnect here. Most people would agree with you that one spouse can’t unilaterally end the sexual relationship in general. One spouse can’t go, “the park is closed and it ain’t reopening, period” without good reason.

That’s very different than saying that people are implicitly agreeing to have sex on demand at any time unless there’s a medical reason they can’t. You have an obligation to attend to your spouses sexual fulfillment but you don’t have to be some kind of on-call gigolo.

I think this debate is mostly academic anyway, since most couples intuitively work this out without anyway having to resort to making some kind of legal argument.
 
Sophie111 said:
The usual comeback when its politely suggested to reflect and pray on a view that you yourself said you do not understand.
Click to expand...
I actually don’t need to pray and reflect on your opinion, since it is your opinion and it has nothing to do with me. If you think I am arguing against Church teaching, then by all means, feel free to point that out with references.
 
BoomBoomMancini said:
That’s very different than saying that people are implicitly agreeing to have sex on demand at any time unless there’s a medical reason they can’t. You have an obligation to attend to your spouses sexual fulfillment but you don’t have to be some kind of on-call gigolo.
Click to expand...
I never said anything about medical reasons as the only reason why someone would not be available for sex. There are plenty of reasons that would be legitimate and even if one did not have a legitimate reason one could always ask for forbearance.
 
No, one could insist on forebearance. A spouse who tries to push in the face of a good natured declination is behaving terribly.
 
Last edited:
If one has a good reason, one can insist on forbearance. In a good marriage, if there is a healthy relationship, forbearance should be pretty easy to handle. The problem is that to insist on forbearance when it is not warranted is not a sign of a healthy marriage either.
 
Sophie111 said:
Dont take this approach when it comes to negotiating the marital promise 🙂…can only end in tears and likely divorce.
Click to expand...
I agree, many people reject Church teaching. Nor did I say that if a man refuses to have sex with his wife that the wife should demand that he perform the act then and there. I never suggested anything of the sort. But the fact of the matter is that the husband or the wife does not have the moral right to refuse sex for any reason whatsoever. Like I said, in our society we are often afraid to call a sin a sin. If a husband or wife refuses sex without a sufficient reason, it is sin, pure and simple. Now if the spouse sins too much, it very well can cause divorce and tears. Sin does have bad effects, I do agree with you.
 
Last edited:
iwritebooks said:
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.
Click to expand...
I did not say any of these things. Moreover, why does everyone assume it’s the man who desires his spouse and the woman who is supposedly demeaned by being desires sexually? I’m a woman, for the record in case you were not aware.

Desire for your spouse in marriage is natural and normal. It is good. Sexual intimacy between spouses is natural and normal and good.

The idea that desire for your spouse is bad or lustful is not a Catholic idea.

It is normal to desire your spouse. It is wrong for a spouse to repeatedly rebuff and thwart their spouse sexually, because then that natural desire can become something disordered. And that can lead to sin. Note I said can, not that it automatically does.
 
BoomBoomMancini said:
I think this debate is mostly academic anyway, since most couples intuitively work this out
Click to expand...
Based on the number of posts I’ve see on CAF in my time here that are about this exact thing— one spouse freezing out the other sexually for lengthy periods or for good and the frozen spouse coming here completely despondent, dejected, and rejected — I would say it is not at all academic.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
I agree, many people reject Church teaching.
Click to expand...
If you believe a marriage can be saved by enforcing Church teaching or denying one’s own sinfulness in the matter then I suggest your cause is lost.

We are now going around in circles, your limited view of these matters is now clear so there really is no more left to say. Over and out.
 
Sophie111 said:
If you believe a marriage can be saved by enforcing Church teaching or denying one’s own sinfulness in the matter then I suggest your cause is lost.
Click to expand...
When did I say anything about saving a marriage? I am talking about the obligations of marriage. When one person unilaterally rejects the obligations of marriage, I am not sure that it can be “saved”. At best the refused spouse is going to spend a lot less time in purgatory.
 
Well, but no one disagrees that the scenario you’re describing is wrong. We’re talking a couple with an otherwise healthy sex life where one partner isn’t feeling it on a given night.
 
Actually, I don’t think that’s what we are talking about at all.

From the beginning of the thread, pretty much everyone on this thread has distinguished between reasonable and unreasonable requests and reasonable and unreasonable refusal.

I don’t believe we are talking at all about the occasional “I don’t really feel up to it tonight” discussions between spouses.
 
1ke said:
I don’t believe we are talking at all about the occasional “I don’t really feel up to it tonight” discussions between spouses.
Click to expand...
That’s exactly what I’m discussing with stinkycat, unless I’ve grossly misunderstood him/her.
 
BoomBoomMancini said:
That’s exactly what I’m discussing with stinkycat, unless I’ve grossly misunderstood him/her.
Click to expand...
I think the problem is that morality is not dependent on feelings. If a couple has a healthy sex life and even if one spouse has no good reason for not wanting sex, then forbearance would be pretty easy to arrange. I see not tonight maybe tomorrow morning as a much different animal than “you get nothing take it or leave it”. And for some reason they always seem shocked when someone offers to leave them. But even in the former case, it would require charity on the part of the refused spouse.
 
That’s the problem when a thread starts to get long with many people contributing-- tangents and discussions of only one aspect of a topic. Context gets lost. Thanks for clarifying.
 
We can probably meet in the middle and say spouses should not refuse a reasonable request without a good reason. It depends on how frequently the requests are being made. If a spouse has sex with their spouse on Monday, and then their spouse attempts to have sex again on Tuesday, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the first spouse to say “not tonight, I’m kinda tired.” If it’s been months, “not tonight, I’m kinda tired” becomes much less reasonable.
 
Years ago, I attended a church that said if the wife refused sexual relations with her husband, she could be excommunicated; moreover, it was an offense that could be met with divorce. Even when abuse was involved, the man was almost always right and the woman in sin. The weight of the matter was put on the wife as to what she could do better to encourage her husband to treat her with respect. It was a true patriarchal church that placed lots of guilt on the women when things went awry in a marriage.

I love how Christ looks out for both men and women and teaches that all are to be treated with love and respect, especially in marriage! This is a teaching that our Church, of course, strongly upholds. Think about it - Marriage is a Sacrament. It is so amazing how God blesses through the Sacraments. Cling to them!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top