Marital Debt

[frogman80]

Thanks for being patient with me! … what about this question from a few posts ago:

Would it be wrong for a woman to choose to have sex with her husband even if she doesn’t feel like it?

 

[Katie1723]

frogman80:

Thanks for being patient with me! … what about this question from a few posts ago:

Would it be wrong for a woman to choose to have sex with her husband even if she doesn’t feel like it?

In a word…no
~ Kathy ~

 

[cargopilot]

frogman80:

This link contains a long (but interesting) article about Marriage, sex, roles, requests, duties… etc… etc… The article even lists some questions that husbands and wives should ask themselves to make sure the are not being selfish.

It is worth a skim:
catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1001

Hi frogman80,

I finally had a chance to read your link, and found it very true and to the point. Thank you for posting it.

Since the Sacramental marriage is a vocation, I think there are are many who are simply ill-equipped to enter marriage, unable to share themselves to the extent necessary for the marriage to be successful. Those who are unable to recognize this in themselves, or are in self denial, will usually just wind up in divorce court, always blaming the other for their own failures. They should just remain single. I have a good friend who realizes this in himself and he will never marry. There are those who just aren’t cut out to be married.

Then there those who believe they know more than the Church herself does about marriage. They will try to convince themselves and others that another way is better. They will create and promote their own marital recipie, even when it opposes the Church, and then when it fails, it will be everybody elses fault but theirs. You may have noticed this with the failed marriages of others. They rarely accept any of the blame for themselves. They had nothing to do with the failure, it’s ALWAYS his or her fault. It can be wise to listen to those who have attempted and failed at marriage using their own formulas, but only if one is able to learn from the mistakes of others.

So, when seeking marital advice, stick with that given by the Church. She has been in the marriage business for nearly two thousand years. Couples who follow the Church’s teachings on marriage to the letter, enjoy a divorce rate of almost zero. Take it from me, the true Sacramental Catholic marriage rocks. WOOHOO!

 

[Consecrated]

migurl:

Again, you are looking at this wrong. There is a BIG difference between slaming your wife down on the bed and taking off her clothes etc and ASKING to be united as one in an act established by GOD. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. COMMUNICATION!!! A man should not be expected to bottle up his feelings, especially if they are loving and unitive. He should be able, with complete understanding from his loving wife, to ask for her love in that way. After he asks, the two should discuss whether or not the time is appropriate. It may turn out that she has a very good reason not too. So, the husband will say, I understand and the wife will feel so loved because he was wiling to let go of what he wanted for her sake. And likewise if they decide to go ahead, even though she isn’t really in the mood, the husband will feel very oved because his wife was willing to give of herself even though she wasn’t motivated of her own will, ie DOING SOMETHING FOR SOMEONE ELSE OUT OF LOVE FOR THEM, NOT YOURSELF. LOVE does not look at the marital embrace as some burden to be forced upon them. FOr those fo you struggling with this concept, there is a deeper issue that you need to look into and that is the essence and meaning of Catholic, spousal LOVE.

Very well put.

In normal, relatively stable marriages, the issue is usually less about a husband insisting, demanding, or pridefully laying claim to the marital debt, and more about the wife wrongly thinking (unconsciously influenced, perhaps, by the false feminism so prevalent in our culture) that she owns her own body and may do with it as she likes.

As other posters have pointed out, when a person gives him/herself in marriage, he/she is doing just that. GIVING. Saying, “I promise to be here for you in good times and in bad… etc.” Not, “I promise, except when I am tired, frustrated with you, not in the mood, fill-in-the-blank]”

Giving = freely placing oneself in the hands of the other.

Katie1723:

EVERYONE has the right to say NO. It is not limited to one sex or another. As to “why”, I suppose that depends on the individual.I believe it is called freedom of choice.

This is not what the Church teaches. With free-will we are ABLE to sin, but we do not have the RIGHT to sin. And denying the marriage debt is sometimes a sin.

A man (or woman, for that matter) who requests intimacy, UNLESS he has been GROSSLY negligent (as in, “unfaithful”, not as in, “annoying or inconsiderate”) in his role, has every right (yes, I said right) to expect at least an “Ok, baby, but I need a little help getting in the mood”. Hopefully, men who have even a little respect for their precious wives will listen to her concerns (whether it’s an uncomfortableness with intimacy during menstruation, or whatever).

Example: During both of my pregnancies, I struggled with a low libido (happens sometimes ). So was my husband, good and kind in so many ways, to be expected to “do without” for 9 MONTHS simply b/c I never felt like it?? THAT is unreasonable. We talked about it a lot, and I learned to be generous, and he learned to be understanding. Looking back, those times of physical intimacy did more to unite us spiritually than times when we’re both in the mood, b/c we were growing in virtue and selflessness.

Why can’t a women choose to see her husband’s request as a humble acknowledgement of his need for closeness instead of an insult?
Why must a reasonable request for intimacy be even mentioned in the same sentence as the word RAPE???
Why is it selfish for the husband to request, but not selfish for the wife to refuse?

Bottom line: The marital debt is a teaching of the Church. If you’re Catholic, you’re bound to obey in faith first, and seek understanding second. The Church does nothing willy-nilly. If you want to have a happy marriage, you must always strive to be generous and give freely of yourself: body, mind, and soul. That is the ideal. “Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

 

[cynic]

Ha!

Have you ever been in any situation (not necessarily related to sex) where you have “not felt like it” but done it anyway? Have you ever been in a situation where you are required to fulfill a duty… and do it regardless of your feelings?

Would it be wrong for a woman to choose to have sex with her husband even if she doesn’t feel like it?

you have weird dangerous views. Sex has nothing to do with housework - wanting to has everything to do with it. What if a husband wanted unity but the wife didn’t at that point in time? would there be true intimacy is the wife is just giving in. Feeling like it is the whole point, vaild sexual deisre should be about satisfying the others feelings - but it has to be mutual.

“Would it be wrong for a woman to choose to have sex with her husband even if she doesn’t feel like it?”

No not at all, it would be entirely appropriate. And quite frankly I’m not sure what type of man could become aroused with the knowledge that his wife wasn’t.

 

[migurl]

cynic:

What if a husband wanted unity but the wife didn’t at that point in time? would there be true intimacy is the wife is just giving in. Feeling like it is the whole point, vaild sexual deisre should be about satisfying the others feelings - but it has to be mutual.

Yes there would be true intimacy. Marriage is about giving of oneself, for better or worse, sickness and in health for richer or poorer, til death do you part. A spouse should find joy in knowing that by gving of themselves they bring happiness to their spouse. YOu may try to turn int around and say “how come the other spouse can’t find joy in denying himself or herself the marital act to please the other?” Well, God place the marital act within marriage, we are required to perform it in order to consumate the marriage, we must be open to life and to the expression of love God gave to married couples. If you don’t like the idea of belonging to someone else and having to make decisions not based on just your own desires, then don’t get married in the catholic church.

 

[Katie1723]

migurl:

… Well, God place the marital act within marriage, we are required to perform it …

You make it sound like a circus act. I think mutual desire is what is necessary. Makes for a nicer “performance”
~ Kathy ~

 

[frogman80]

cynic:

you have weird dangerous views. Sex has nothing to do with housework - wanting to has everything to do with it.

Weird and dangerous… no. Normal… yes. Since your profile says you are a protestant, it is understandable how a simple teaching of Catholicism could be so foreign to you. Above all though, I think you simply missed or misunderstood the point. (I dunno… maybe you are just here to stir up trouble! )

cynic:

What if a husband wanted unity but the wife didn’t at that point in time? would there be true intimacy is the wife is just giving in.

I agree… reluctantly “giving in” would make intimacy difficult. “Giving in” is different form a spouse giving themselves to the other. For a spouse to give themselves to the other requires love, trust, patience, dedication the the marriage vows… etc(virtue in general)… etc. (A spouse requesting… requires those same attributes.)

cynic:

Feeling like it is the whole point, valid sexual desire should be about satisfying the others feelings - but it has to be mutual.

Have to disagree with you here. Love is the “whole point.” When it comes to loving my spouse… in whatever way… Making love, doing work around our home (“house work”), getting up and going to a job… sometimes my feelings have to come second. My wife loves me in similar ways also… to such a degree that it is quite humbling.

cynic:

…quite frankly I’m not sure what type of man could become aroused with the knowledge that his wife wasn’t.

Making love to a spouse who doesn’t want any part of it… that is not what I am talking about. (And again, I agree with you… it would be difficult.) I do believe in helping a wife to want a part of it… this “helping” starts from the time you wake up till the time you go to sleep. If there is a real reason that cannot be helped… a husband should be aware in the first place, and simply not ask.

 

[Penny_Plain]

Consecrated:

As other posters have pointed out, when a person gives him/herself in marriage, he/she is doing just that. GIVING. Saying, “I promise to be here for you in good times and in bad… etc.” Not, “I promise, except when I am tired, frustrated with you, not in the mood, fill-in-the-blank]”

As I understand this teaching, it is fair game for the huz to wake me up at 3:30 in the morning and demand satisfaction of the “marital debt.”

Does this mean I can wake him up at 3:30 in the morning and demand that he hoover the living room?

 

[Consecrated]

Katie1723:

You make it sound like a circus act. I think mutual desire is what is necessary. Makes for a nicer “performance”

                    ~ Kathy ~

migirl was just trying to make a point.

And all we are saying is, when a spouse makes his/her need for intimacy known, the other should give of him/herself willingly OUT OF LOVE and with at least the desire to be as “into it” as possible. When did marriage become all about feelings instead of love?? Feelings come and go. They are sometimes good and sometimes bad. We have little control over them.
“Love is patient, love is kind… it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury”

Our love is only subject to our emotions when we allow it to be.

Granted, it is not loving for one spouse to make an unreasonable request for intimacy, but more to the point, IT IS NOT LOVING TO DENY SPOUSE INTIMACY WITHOUT A GOOD REASON, and it is certainly not loving to deny spouse without even giving a reason and opening the topic to communication. That is how marriages fail.

I don’t know how else to say it.

This is what the Church teaches. What’s the big deal?

 

[Consecrated]

Penny Plain:

As I understand this teaching, it is fair game for the huz to wake me up at 3:30 in the morning and demand satisfaction of the “marital debt.”

Does this mean I can wake him up at 3:30 in the morning and demand that he hoover the living room?

One difference between a request for intimacy and a request for vacuuming is that the first is a direct renewal of the sacrament of marriage.

Each spouse can make requests of the other (love, prayers, vacuuming, pickles ice cream and Dr. Pepper in the middle of the night ). And most of the time, with reasonable requests, the other spouse, in selflessness and humility, should honor that request. If you make a demand (for ANYTHING) for the sake of making a point, then you’ve missed the point yourself.

Keeping in mind the purpose of marriage, asking for relations with one’s spouse is a “reasonable request.” A serious situation would have to exist for the request to become unreasonable.

 

[frogman80]

cynic:

… frankly I’m not sure what type of man could become aroused with the knowledge that his wife wasn’t.

(I just read this part of your post again… are you married? Male / Female? )

So you are saying that a husband and wife need to be aroused at exactly the same time before any requests are made right! This at least means a man must wait for his wife to be aroused before he could even think about becoming aroused!! (I know you really don’t think that… but I am starting to wonder if others do…)

 

[cynic]

Yes giving oneself in marriage unconditionally means being there , supporting them, loving them, when you don’t feel like it. However sex is different. Again I’d ask if you knew that your wife was doing it only for your sake, even galdly, what is your …er… excitement… based on?

It seems like Catholics don’t want to see the hypocrisy in this, something is judged as lustfull (like for contraception), but not so on this issue. I think it’s cause one partner ‘submiting’ to the other like that might lead to more catholics being born, thus it’s ok.

 

[migurl]

cynic:

Yes giving oneself in marriage unconditionally means being there , supporting them, loving them, when you don’t feel like it. However sex is different. Again I’d ask if you knew that your wife was doing it only for your sake, even galdly, what is your …er… excitement… based on?

It seems like Catholics don’t want to see the hypocrisy in this, something is judged as lustfull (like for contraception), but not so on this issue. I think it’s cause one partner ‘submiting’ to the other like that might lead to more catholics being born, thus it’s ok.

Again, you miss the point. I’m going to switch the roles here. Say after my fiance and I get married, I want to engage in the marital act, but he is very stressed. I will do what I can to make him more relaxed and make the marital embrace as pleasing to him as I can. I would get joy out of being so close to him AND knowing that with all likelihood I will have helped relax him and take his mind of stressful things. KNowing that someone else loves you so much that they are willing to do something (whether it be dishes or sex) when they aren’t “in the mood” would flatter me so much that I would be excited. Hope that makes sense.

 

[Penny_Plain]

migurl:

Again, you miss the point. I’m going to switch the roles here. Say after my fiance and I get married, I want to engage in the marital act, but he is very stressed. I will do what I can to make him more relaxed and make the marital embrace as pleasing to him as I can. I would get joy out of being so close to him AND knowing that with all likelihood I will have helped relax him and take his mind of stressful things.

That depends on the guy, doesn’t it?

There are times when that is a good approach to take with the huz. There are times when the approach to take is to make him a martini and beat him senseless in Scrabble. There are times when the approach to take is to leave him alone until he feels better and the last thing he wants is somebody whispering sweet nothings in his ear. The trick is knowing which is which, and I still get it wrong after 18 years of marriage.

I don’t think anyone is saying that it would be wrong to hit on him in such a situation. Might help. Where I draw the line is the idea that he has the duty to go along with it if he doesn’t want to.

For those of you who are taking the position that the spouse has the duty to satisfy the marital debt (or whatever phrase you wish to use; I prefer “make whoopie” because it’s more dignified), how does that match up with the Church’s teaching on contraception?

We’re not to use it. We can use NFP to manage things or play the odds, but the essence of NFP is that during some parts of the month you can whoopify, and others you can’t. Doesn’t this rule of compulsory whoopification mean that one partner can, in essence, overrule the other’s decision to use NFP?

Just curious how the two match up.

 

[CuriousInIL]

Penny Plain:

That depends on the guy, doesn’t it?

There are times when that is a good approach to take with the huz. There are times when the approach to take is to make him a martini and beat him senseless in Scrabble. There are times when the approach to take is to leave him alone until he feels better and the last thing he wants is somebody whispering sweet nothings in his ear. The trick is knowing which is which, and I still get it wrong after 18 years of marriage.

I don’t think anyone is saying that it would be wrong to hit on him in such a situation. Might help. Where I draw the line is the idea that he has the duty to go along with it if he doesn’t want to.

For those of you who are taking the position that the spouse has the duty to satisfy the marital debt (or whatever phrase you wish to use; I prefer “make whoopie” because it’s more dignified), how does that match up with the Church’s teaching on contraception?

We’re not to use it. We can use NFP to manage things or play the odds, but the essence of NFP is that during some parts of the month you can whoopify, and others you can’t. Doesn’t this rule of compulsory whoopification mean that one partner can, in essence, overrule the other’s decision to use NFP?

Just curious how the two match up.

This was such an interesting post, but off this topic, that I started a new thread on it "NFP and Marital Debt
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1140950#post1140950

 

[CuriousInIL]

This has been quite interesting but has gotten away from my original post quite a bit.

Let me try to rephrase.

Assuming (and that means not debating) the existence of the church teaching that there is a marital debt, i.e., an obligation of a spouse to comply with a reasonable request for marital relations,

1. What is the church teaching, if any, as to whether being on your period is sufficient in and of itself to be an appropriate reason to refuse an otherwise reasonable request?
2. What is your personal opinion on the issue, reasonable or not? Would you/do you refuse or not? Would you/ do you make any such requests?
3. Is this an issue in your marriage and how, if at all, was it resolved?

 

[frogman80]

CuriousInIL:

This has been quite interesting but has gotten away from my original post quite a bit.

Let me try to rephrase.

Assuming (and that means not debating) the existence of the church teaching that there is a marital debt, i.e., an obligation of a spouse to comply with a reasonable request for marital relations,

1. What is the church teaching, if any, as to whether being on your period is sufficient in and of itself to be an appropriate reason to refuse an otherwise reasonable request?
2. What is your personal opinion on the issue, reasonable or not? Would you/do you refuse or not? Would you/ do you make any such requests?
3. Is this an issue in your marriage and how, if at all, was it resolved?

CuriousInIL,

You thread has been hijacked… sorry I take part of the responsibility. I also believe your questions have already been answered through out this thread at nausea.

1. There are some women who actually “miss” their husbands more during this time, and need/want that intimacy and closeness. Some women may not be as comfortable with thier husbands approaching them during this time, but I would ask WHY… Is it insecurity… physical pain… health concern? Insecurity can be overcome… if a husband wants and desires his wife even during this time… it should at least tell the wife that her husband loves her enough to look past the issue. I guess I am saying, it all depends on why a woman doesn’t “want to” during her period. Again… Church teaching has already been discussed in this thread… You want more… read “Theology of the Body”. Read the article I posted a link to. Is this a hypothetical, or do you actually have a specific situation in mind. Are you married?
2. My wife does not mind. So I would not hesitate to “ask” my wife if I could take care of her.
3. All issues in our marriage… including this one start with communication. This issue actually came up on our wedding day of all days… we talked about it; there was never even a thought between either of us NOT to have relations.

 

[frogman80]

Penny Plain:

For those of you who are taking the position that the spouse has the duty to satisfy the marital debt (or whatever phrase you wish to use; I prefer “make whoopie” because it’s more dignified), how does that match up with the Church’s teaching on contraception?

We’re not to use it. We can use NFP to manage things or play the odds, but the essence of NFP is that during some parts of the month you can whoopify, and others you can’t. Doesn’t this rule of compulsory whoopification mean that one partner can, in essence, overrule the other’s decision to use NFP?

Just curious how the two match up.

See the new thread started:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1141051&postcount=2

frogman80:

The essence of NFP… abstaining.
NFP is one of many techniques used in a marriage to assist a couple in abstaining during fertile periods. Any abstaining in a marriage… (with help from NFP or other)… needs to be done with mutual agreement. If both spouses are in mutual agreement… no “request” will be made. However, if a “request” is made, it is a duty of both spouses to be prudent and discuss whether or not the decision to abstain should be rescinded.

 

[frogman80]

cynic:

Yes giving oneself in marriage unconditionally means being there , supporting them, loving them, when you don’t feel like it. However sex is different. Again I’d ask if you knew that your wife was doing it only for your sake, even galdly, what is your …er… excitement… based on?

It seems like Catholics don’t want to see the hypocrisy in this, something is judged as lustfull (like for contraception), but not so on this issue. I think it’s cause one partner ‘submiting’ to the other like that might lead to more catholics being born, thus it’s ok.

Have you ever been married? Are you married? Are you male or female?

So when it comes to sex, married people should not focus on unconditional love and support? It seems that you are saying feelings come above unconditional love and support. I am saying with unconditional love and support, “conducive” feeling will flow. In fact, I am also saying without unconditional love and support… finding mutual feelings… conducive to making love… will be difficult.

I think you are just misunderstanding how Catholics really view this. Please read this article to get a better understanding of a Catholic view point. Apparently I am not able to communicate this to you in my own words.

catholicculture.org/docs…cfm?recnum=1001