Marital debt duty to have sex

  • Thread starter Thread starter chasingcars
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Did you just ask why inequality is a bad thing? Isn’t that obvious?
 
But how is saying no one time unreasonable? I think this unreasonableness only comes into play after saying no a bunch of times in a row, and the exact amount is up to the spouses themselves.

But even if it is sinful, what does it matter? It should be a motivation to get marriage counseling not a motivation to have sex in order to not sin. Is this something people actually confess? “Father, I did not have sex with my wife when she asked me if I wanted to.” … If you wanted to, and you said no because you didn’t want to. What is the issue?
 
Last edited:
GospelOfMatthew said:
But how is saying no one time unreasonable?
Click to expand...
If someone says no for selfish reasons, then that is morally wrong. Suppose a husband is mad at the wife, the wife wants to make up and asks to have sex. The husband is perfectly willing, except that he wants to teach his wife a lesson and refuses out of spite. Are you saying that one time refusal is morally acceptable?
 
So is that your whole arguement? That we as a society should allow parental leaves of abscence?
 
No that would immoral because it’s using sex as manipulation and coercion, which is why I said in multiple posts earlier that this debt stuff can lead to coercion and at an extreme, sexual assault due to no full consent.

That said, if a spouse says “I’m not interested today, I’d rather watch tv” how is this sinful? Sounds like some are saying it’s sinful unless the spouse ‘schedules a time to have sex in the future’… lol give me a break. People have a right to not be interested and to not mitigate their consent by saying when they will be interested (as if they know at point X if they will be interested at point Y :roll_eyes:). Absurd
 
Last edited:
When you have been rejected on a single instance, did you feel hurt or pain? Or your wife, has she felt this pain from a single rejection?

If that’s too personal to answer that’s fine, but I’m struggling to understand this
 
Last edited:
Well, I would imagine I would. An unjust refusal is not an issue in my marriage. Which brings to mind the positive aspect of this teaching, namely the joy of a marraige where both spouses know the other is always there for them.

But if my wife was to ask me, and I refused for no good reason, I am sure she would be upset and hurt, I know her that well. She would be justified. I rejected her advance for no good reason. No explanation would make it even worse, which is what you seem to be saying is ok. I am pretty sure my wife would expect an explanation.
 
ETA, do not read my previous reply to mean that I expect sex everytime I ask. We have busy schedules, I do not always know when my wife is tired, or has to get up early in the morning, etc. Declining for a valid reason is not unusual. But always, without exception accompanied by an explanation and an alternate proposal.
I add this note because of the ridiculous charges that have been made based on assumptions og my behavior.
 
Except not one person has made any if these claims. Not a one. Indeed, we have given many examples of reasonable causes to declare need a request, none of them even close to being as rigid as you claim. Why the lies?
 
Last edited:
tafan2 said:
But if my wife was to ask me, and I refused for no good reason, I am sure she would be upset and hurt, I know her that well. She would be justified. I rejected her advance for no good reason. No explanation would make it even worse, which is what you seem to be saying is ok. I am pretty sure my wife would expect an explanation.
Click to expand...
A person who refuses sex has a reason to refuse it. They are trying to satisfy their own need. It is not either’s spouse’s place to dismiss the others’ needs. Rather, the other spouse must present their own needs and the two must be mutually submissive to each other’s needs, negotiating when and how such needs are met.

The spouse has a right to expect their spouse to care for their need to be loved sexually. Insisting on sex right at this moment with no good reason as to why you can’t wait while simply insisting your spouse has no good reason to say no is demeaning. BOTH spouses must communicate. The moral ideal is that both spouses mutually consent to both the times they abstain and the times they engage in sex. Regardless of what need is being presented, any spouse lording any of their needs over the other spouse is sinful.

Husband and wife must be submissive to each other in all things. This means they do not have the right to judge each other’s stated needs as inferior to their own or get into arguments about what’s a need and a want. The man’s submission to his wife is like that of Christ. The Christ-like examples he should look to are the crucifixion and the washing of His disciples feet.
 
LumineDiei said:
Anything else is considered unreasonable…including a little bit of self-care such as watching their favorite ball game or getting to read a book.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear about this disingenuous behavior of one side of the discussion, the above quote was obviously directed at me. From a previous post when I responded to the same claim

“Needing time to unwind is a symptom of fatigue, which I have stated multiple times is a reasonable cause for saying no.”

I simply find it strange that those who oppose the teaching of the marital debt find the need to use such techniques in their arguments. They never point to a church teaching to back up their claim, they repetitively fall back on ad hominem attacks and dishonest arguments. I repeat, why?
 
This is my issue, why do you believe we all have a need for sex to be fulfilled? You specifically write that spouses fill this need for sex. Being in need of sex is lust. Need is a strong word. I think you mean want
 
Yet traditional Church teaching also warns us to be on guard against lust in marriage and to avoid an inordinate sexual desire for your spouse.

Traditionally there would be many times when a couple was not to have sex. To this day, many of our Eastern brethren abstain from relations before receiving communion, on fast days and during fasting seasons, etc. I don’t think the Church ever intended the marital debt to mean “a spouse has a right to ask for relations every single day”.
 
I have disputed none of what you say here. Why imply otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Ok, I will not call you a liar if you will admit you made a mistake and no one has insisted any if the things you claimed we did.
 
Last edited:
GospelOfMatthew said:
This is my issue, why do you believe we all have a need for sex to be fulfilled? You specifically write that spouses fill this need for sex. Being in need of sex is lust. Need is a strong word. I think you mean want
Click to expand...
Lust is a lack of self-control, a slavery to sexual passion. It prevents someone from being able to avoid obeying their passion when it would be harmful to do so.

Sexual need is about recognizing the good sex produces in marriage. Sex serves two goods in marriage: the unity between husband and wife and the procreation of children. Couples especially have a need for the unitive aspect of sex. The good of children is a fruit that I would say is good but not always a need. It is more of a bonus blessing (if it weren’t, we’d be mandating couples with fertility problems to undergo IVF or to adopt. But even adoption is not mandatory). The principles of responsible parenthood govern prudent sexual activity in marriage and call us to temperance. What keeps us from being too stingy with the abstinence is our need for sexual unity.

If we let lust to rule our marriage, then we either try to be responsible parents by doing evils to the sexual act or the functions of our bodies to mitigate the evils of our slavery to lust OR we act like a gambling addict in denial about his gambling product, insisting that there’s nothing wrong with his gambling and denying that he is not morally responsible if he can’t provide for the needs of his family due to his lack of self-control.

Between the two, I would say the first is a grave sin rooted in lust.
But the second is double the evil: as it is a mortal sin in our slavery and obedience to lust AND in the spiritual vanity involved in denying that we’re morally responsible for the consequences of severe sexual imprudence.

But this doesn’t mean the same thing AT ALL as the culture’s values. Afterall, contraception doesn’t actually help a couple grow in chastity and thus doesn’t have that extra element of guarding us against the other extreme of being sexually stingy. Afterall, there are consequences to the marriage if you try to use NFP to allow parenthood to be optional or rooted exclusively in wanting a child.
 
Last edited:
twf said:
Yet traditional Church teaching also warns us to be on guard against lust in marriage and to avoid an inordinate sexual desire for your spouse.
Click to expand...
I don’t think we can avoid arguing past each other without agreeing on what “inordinate” sexual desire is. Because I would argue that inordinate desire is that which orders sexual expression away from what love demands. But others seem to think it means desiring sexual favors deemed unnatural.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top