Perhaps a better solution is to let each couple work this out for themselves. You are making a lot of assumptions about what other women want, what is best for other women, and what is best for the families. Look up the priciple if subsidiarity. It might help.Better solution is that men start to share responsibility and do their share (50)% of all childcare duties. For example, if mom stays at home for the first 1/2/3 years, then the dad should stay at home for the next 1/2/3 years (same amount of years as the mom
I do find it interesting that posters reject Church teaching and then start to dictate how much childcare one spouse should do. There is right or wrong amount of childcare for each spouse to do, as long as the children are adequately cared for.Perhaps a better solution is to let each couple work this out for themselves. You are making a lot of assumptions about what other women want, what is best for other women, and what is best for the families. Look up the priciple if subsidiarity. It might help.
That would be great according to whom?If there was a some kind of gender-neutral “house-parent culture” where half of stay-at-home parents were dads and the other half were moms, that would be great.
The part about male anatomy was addressed with regards to ED. But the post I am referring had nothing to do with that, it said specifically if a guy is not in the mood it is almost impossible for him to perform.Someone here already addressed this statement so I won’t. However, you seem to keep ignoring comments about female sexuality. Where sex can be painful or not satisfying if she isn’t in the mood. I wonder why.
According to whom. In my marriage, I happen to make more than my wife. She could earn more money, but chooses not to. That is her choice, should I reduce my income so we can be equals?Exactly. And it should not be so. Marriage should impact men and their careers just as much as women’s.
That was one of the biggest strawman arguments on this thread. Nobody has argued that there are not just reasons to decline sex, and pain or discomfort is certainly one of them. But nobody has suggested otherwise. Like I said, people need to stop reading things into what people say.As to female problems of pain or discomfort, I stated explicitly that would obviously be a just cause to decline.
What does society need to be equal? Like I said, I make a lot more than my wife, she could earn twice as much as she does, but she chooses to earn less. Why is that a bad thing? It is her choice, made for her reasons. Just like the choices I made were my choice made for my reasons. And of course, we discussed our choices with each other and are at peace with them. So why should we care what others think?If half of stay at home parents were dads and half were moms, then society would be much more equal. There would be more succesful female scienticists, doctors, politicians etc. and there would be more women in positions of power.
Perhaps this is a good segue into what I promised yesterday, a restating of the traditional church teaching.I see nothing wrong with either spouse saying “no sorry not today” and not saying when they want to because that’s still a form of pressure. If it’s a healthy marriage, there will be sex at some point anyway, this the term not today instead of not ever .
g) Unreasonable refusal of marital intercourse is a grave matter. As has been explained, each spouse’s right to intercourse has limits, and usually when either is reluctant to have intercourse, the other should not insist. Still, sometimes a spouse has no justifying reason for being unwilling to cooperate. Such unwillingness can be motivated by anger and hatred, an unreasonable desire to avoid offspring, the manipulative use of marital intercourse to compel compliance in other matters, excessive preoccupation with other activities, and so on. Sometimes, too, one spouse without good reason travels alone or stays away from home for some time, thus depriving the other of the opportunity for marital intimacy. In all such cases, when the spouse deprived of marital intimacy makes it clear, by saying so or in any other way, that he or she desires it, the other should cooperate lovingly, and refusal is a grave matter.
The wrong of unreasonable reluctance to engage in marital intimacy admits of parvity but, like other injustices, only in cases in which, typically, the one who suffers the wrong considers it insignificant: for example, because intimacy is not denied for long and the unreasonable motive is not ill will but only some understandable weakness.
Of course, sometimes the spouses disagree about whether a refusal of marital intercourse is reasonable. Then both should try to find a harmonious solution, but if that is impossible, the spouse deprived of desired intimacy must remain faithful. Moreover, such a spouse should be tolerant, for even when a denial of intimacy is plainly unjustified, physical force, psychological coercion, nagging, and resentment are both incompatible with marital love and ineffective for obtaining the loving cooperation required for true marital communion.
V. OBLIGATION
BY marriage a man and woman grant to one another certain rights
over their bodies for the begetting of children, the increasing
of love, the healthy ordering of passion. The fulfilment of this
concession is a matter of justice, its denial an injustice,
though a couple who are still newly in love may smile at such
terms. Justice, however, is a living virtue and not confined to
cold legal forms.
The principle is this: whenever either the husband or the wife
seriously and reasonably asks for the marriage due the other is
bound to render it. Reasonably asks: no one in marriage engages
to become a convenience for another’s passion; neither must force
their every wish on the other; they are equal and, particularly
as regards the marriage act, have the same rights. It is most
desirable that the action should be mutual. This will not be too
difficult if the two love one another in a human way and are
ready to be considerate and make sacrifices, if each tries to
serve the other, and if it is realized that for their happiness
together the act should be the comfort and content of both.
There are exceptions to the obligation of rendering the marriage
due. A married person is not strictly bound to grant it if the
other has been unfaithful to the extent of adultery. Normal
relations are only re-established by the generous forgiveness of
the injured party. There is no obligation if there is a danger of
the infection of disease. Or if the request is unreasonable, if
it be under conditions that are genuinely harmful and
distressing, then it may be refused. This particularly affects
the woman; she has not promised to be the man’s slave, but the
sharer of his human life, of his control as well as of his ease.
It is commonly held that a woman to whom pregnancy would be fatal
or highly dangerous is not bound to render the due; the request
for it would be unreasonable. Finally, there is no obligation of
granting it, rather the reverse, if it is going to be abused by
the sin of onanism.
There is no obligation of asking for the due except when harm
would be done by abstinence, a weakening of love, a risk of
impurity. In this connection, husband and wife will learn to
interpret and anticipate the wishes of each other.
By mutual consent married couples may abstain from intercourse
either for a time or for ever, not as evading the obligations of
their state, but as an offering and sacrifice to God. They must
not deny the existence of the right, but may forgo the exercise
of it.