Marital modesty?

[fpt]

In the couple, is there a marital modesty? What is the conjugal modesty? What are the constitutive elements? In the real life, what is it? Some examples? What are the immodest conjugal acts between spouses? Are there any immodest acts within couple or no?

Can you talk of conjugal modesty in the couple???

 

[fermat]

I would say that their is modesty. While I can enjoy my wife’s body, I will not abuse that privilege and I will respect her.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Does the concept of marital modesty also mean that the spouses guard their physical modesty and do not let themselves be seen unclothed by their husband/wife? I have a sense that was the expectation at various times and places in the past.

 

[fpt]

My questions:

In catholic theology and in catholic philosophy, is it possible, useful and normal to use the term “conjugal modesty”?

Are there any immodest acts within couple or no?

If the answer is yes, what are the constitutive elements? What are the keys for understand?

What are the acts that each spouse has to be okay for being a true couple in link with the natural law, even if according to the culture of each spouse, these acts, these behaviors can be seen bad and strange, but in reality in link with the true natural law? Spouses sometimes are in the moral obligation to struggle against false idea on the intimate acts, otherwise there are big risks: no intimity, no conjugal sex life, no intimate joyful… with the other risks, other sins: adultery or masturbation, no affection in the couple, fighting in the couple…etc.

 

[fpt]

Are there any fundamental behaviors that wife and husband have to agree with, by principle, for be a true couple?

What are the mimimun elements, that have to be agreed by each of spouses, otherwise the marriage could be… may be a “pseudo-marriage”?

According to canon 1096 § 1" For matrimonial consent to exist, the contracting parties must be at least not ignorant that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation."

Sexual cooperation??? What is the legal or canonical minimum for that marriage be??? What is the normality, the minimum, see the maximum???

Saint Paul Says "

How must we react if one spouse is in love with you, but is objectively prudish, puritan, or has no sexed behavior in link with its sex (gender).

The principles, if i understand the catholic teaching:
Woman has to give her whole feminity to her husband;
Woman has to receive the virility of her husband;
Man has to give his whole masculinity to his wife;
Man has to receive the feminity of his wife;

Must each one of spouses force himself on some acts, behaviors in link with the conjugal act (before, during and after), but also about non-sexual intimacy, how to dress, for instance, like a woman and no as a nun or as a gentleman and not as a caveman.

According to me, couple has not to be prudish, puritan, victorian, jansenist, rigorist, scrupulist??? What are the objective elements in order to discern?

“It is not unusual for a godly wife to feel she is acting like a harlot if she were to do certain things for her husband” Why this quotation and this statement??? I think, that it is real ,sometimes, for bride young too much devout.

 

[ballin]

Are there any fundamental behaviors that wife and husband have to agree with, by principle, for be a true couple?

What are the mimimun elements, that have to be agreed by each of spouses, otherwise the marriage could be… may be a “pseudo-marriage”?

According to canon 1096 § 1" For matrimonial consent to exist, the contracting parties must be at least not ignorant that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation."

Sexual cooperation??? What is the legal or canonical minimum for that marriage be??? What is the normality, the minimum, see the maximum???

Saint Paul Says "

How must we react if one spouse is in love with you, but is objectively prudish, puritan, or has no sexed behavior in link with its sex (gender).

The principles, if i understand the catholic teaching:
Woman has to give her whole feminity to her husband;
Woman has to receive the virility of her husband;
Man has to give his whole masculinity to his wife;
Man has to receive the feminity of his wife;

Must each one of spouses force himself on some acts, behaviors in link with the conjugal act (before, during and after), but also about non-sexual intimacy, how to dress, for instance, like a woman and no as a nun or as a gentleman and not as a caveman.

According to me, couple has not to be prudish, puritan, victorian, jansenist, rigorist, scrupulist??? What are the objective elements in order to discern?

“It is not unusual for a godly wife to feel she is acting like a harlot if she were to do certain things for her husband” Why this quotation and this statement??? I think, that it is real ,sometimes, for bride young too much devout.

I think what this comes down to is a good culture. When I say GOOD, I mean a culture that is built around safe guarding what Bl. John Paul II denotes as the “personal sensitivity” of an individual.

In such a culture, there would be per-existing norms that govern the form of dress between a husband and wife as well. In most cultures, including the cultures of the West before they took a dip toward moral regression after the sexual revolution, the husband and wife outside acts of sexual intimacy will share a relationship similar to a brother and sister.

The same degree of bodily privacy that an unmarried couple would observe would be present outside sexual intimacy. But at the same time, there will be more of a trust between the spouses as well. So it wouldn’t be uncommon for a married couple to be a little more laid back and little less concerned about their dress in the privacy of their home and presence of each other.

But that being said, this form of relaxation comes by understanding the limits of each other or out of necessity. A husband will know what would lead on his wife toward sexual arousal and vice versa. So they should avoid such forms of conduct or dress if they aren’t looking to have sexual intimacy at that moment in the first place.

This sort of understanding of the limits of each other take time. So at the beginning of a marriage, couples would probably not engage in such activity but be more cautious around each other. That is natural and in-fact good. But as they learn more about each other, they can comfortably make some concessions between each other on their form of dress and how revealing it might be.

So the plumb line in all of this is to dress in such a way that you don’t lead others to lust or in a way that you would show yourself in a way that is limited to a moment of sexual intimacy with your spouse. This includes, not showing yourself to even your spouse himself or herself in a way reserved for sexual intimacy if you are not going to pursue it at that moment in time.

Hope that helps!

 

[Nate13]

I would define immodesty as “unveiling what should not be unveiled”. The whole point of being married is that you are giving your entire self to your spouse. In privacy, between a husband and spouse I do not believe there is such a thing as “immodesty”.

There are broader definitions of “immodesty” that you could say apply within marriage such as the cases when one spouse dresses or acts in a way with the desire to make their spouse lust. If you considered that to fit under immodesty then yes marital modesty exists. “Immodest” sounds like the wrong word to describe it though. “Unchaste” would be a better word to use.

 

[Curious_Seed]

In the couple, is there a marital modesty? What is the conjugal modesty? What are the constitutive elements? In the real life, what is it? Some examples? What are the immodest conjugal acts between spouses? Are there any immodest acts within couple or no?

Can you talk of conjugal modesty in the couple???

Sexuality is an expression of love. Husband is to love his wife; wife is to love her husband. But, if there be unresolved conflict between both, then, like all expressions of our lives seeking definitions, counsel should come from Christ and Church.

 

[fpt]

I would define immodesty as “unveiling what should not be unveiled”. The whole point of being married is that you are giving your entire self to your spouse. In privacy, between a husband and spouse I do not believe there is such a thing as “immodesty”.

There are broader definitions of “immodesty” that you could say apply within marriage such as the cases when one spouse dresses or acts in a way with the desire to make their spouse lust. If you considered that to fit under immodesty then yes marital modesty exists. “Immodest” sounds like the wrong word to describe it though. “Unchaste” would be a better word to use.

Woman has to give her feminity to her husband in the context of marital act, in the context of private tenderness (non sexual), in the context of daily life; Woman has to be a female – body and soul --. Wife has a moral obligation to charm, to seduce, to be attractive for her husband and to honor, to love her husband (body and soul).
The same for the husband.

I am okay, in the marriage, per se, there is no immodesty, the only question is marital chastity. But, immodesty is for some catholic even in the marriage a part of chastity, a general concept that is larger.

I prefer to say marital charity, I mean true love – natural and supranatural – soul and body. Marital charity means the respect of duties and obligations of wife by the wife and by her husband;

Marital charity means the respect of duties and obligations of husband by the husband and by his wife;

Marital charity means the respect of rights of husband by his wife;
Marital charity means the respect of rights of wife by her husband;

In the couple there is: the alterity and the complementarity (body and soul).

 

[fpt]

“It is not unusual for a godly wife to feel she is acting like a harlot if she were to do certain things for her husband” Why this quotation and this statement??? I think, that it is real ,sometimes, for too much devout bride.

Why, why? It is a shame!!!

 

[fpt]

“It is not unusual for a godly wife to feel she is acting like a harlot if she were to do certain things for her husband” Why this quotation and this statement??? I think, that it is real ,sometimes, for too much devout bride.

Why, why? It is a shame!!!

I know why:

As there is no holy good and fair sexual education made by the parents because parents are much prudent, too much prudish, too much liberal, to much scrupulous, too much jansenist, to much putitan…etc.

Wife and husband have a duty, that is the education boys an girls in order to give a choice: stay single, be priest, be nun, be monk, be friar, be married.

Marriage means conjugal sex life: Copula Carnalis with the different elements: foreplay, body union, afterplay, then Childbirth, education, family life…etc.

On wedding day, bride gives herself to her husband the right of her body. The groom gives himself to his wife the right of his body. Egality, equity, alterity, complementarity.

For being clear, if the bride or the groom does not want to have to touch, to kiss, to caresse, to rub, to use its hands, its body, its mouth, its tongue, its lips in order to make love (marital act) to its spouse, she or he has to say no the day of the marriage.

To be touched by her husband is normal, natural and a good thing; to be touched by his wife is normal, natural and a good thing. Per se, that is not negotiable. In function of circumtances, it can be quite different.