"Marriage is Not Consent"

[jesucated]

Some ideas expressed here are pretty disturbing.
If I were married, the idea would never even cross by mind. The notion that one could rape his beloved wife is beyond disgusting. A Christian man is supposed to show his love for his wife to the point of imitiating our Saviors sacrifice of His own life.
Think more John Chistostym and less Muhammed.
A wife is a person made in the image of God, a person weaker than yourself, and a person you have vowed to love, cherish, and protect unconditionally, not a toy.

I think we need to remember that rape, while in the vast majority of cases committed by men against women, can happen to both men and women. To make it purely one directional does an injustice to all.

I’d also add that the Muhammad crack is completely unnecessary and destructive.

 

[Rau]

…“Why would anyone in a loving marriage want to say ‘no’ to a request for marital relations with their spouse if it was possible for them to do so (i.e. have relations)?”

Persons might not “want” to say no, but circumstances may make “no” a very reasonable answer at the time.

I am suggesting that if both spouses were “truly loving and unselfish”, there would be no ‘no’s’ unless something serious prevented them from doing so. Just “not wanting to”, is not serious. It is selfish as it is focused on oneself, and not the spouse. Just like

If both spouses are (always) “truly loving an unselfish” and that’s a high bar indeed), then the sex will not be requested when circumstances - obvious to the requester - make it inopportune or an impost. Can there be situations then when a reasonable answer is no? Of course. Whether those matters are “serious” can be debated.

 

[mikekle]

What gives any of us the right to judge her?

Exactly and its not necessarily sinful to admire the beauty of the human body, I mean, its in our nature to be attracted to the opposite sexes bodies.

It only becomes sinful or a problem when you start lusting, point is there is a line between admiring beauty and lusting.

Its the enemy at work when people start thinking the nude body is somehow dirty or nasty and should be covered up.

 

[Michael68]

What is wrong with the West? There used to be a thing called privacy and decency.
How does God expect us not to lust when you can’t check out a box of cereal without seeing a sensual magazine or stranger or whatnot?

No self control?

 

[jesucated]

This thread reads like a bunch of men trying to tell women what the right thing is to do with their own bodies. It’s creepy.

I could certainly be wrong about this, but between the screen names and the comments it really seems like men desiring more control over women.

 

[GEddie]

Exactly and its not necessarily sinful to admire the beauty of the human body, I mean, its in our nature to be attracted to the opposite sexes bodies.

It only becomes sinful or a problem when you start lusting, point is there is a line between admiring beauty and lusting.

Its the enemy at work when people start thinking the nude body is somehow dirty or nasty and should be covered up.

Our human bodies are cause for rejoicing; not shame!

ICXC NIKA

 

[Bradski]

Wisdom from Abigail Breslin, a 21 year old popular culture actress from New York City:

“you are not obligated
to have sex with someone
that you’re in a relationship with
dating is not consent
marriage is not consent”

So much is wrong with this. The world continues its path towards selfishness.

Dan Grelinger

Just a shot in the dark here, Dan…but you’re not married, are you.

 

[mVitus]

The answer to that question is “Why would anyone want to have sexual intercourse?”

Does the desire go away because a spouse does not want to? Not in my experience.

I will turn the question around to one that is more pertinent: “Why would anyone in a loving marriage want to say ‘no’ to a request for marital relations with their spouse if it was possible for them to do so (i.e. have relations)?”

Many have assumed that I am somehow justifying marital violence. I am not. I am suggesting that if both spouses were truly loving and unselfish, there would be no ‘no’s’ unless something serious prevented them from doing so. Just “not wanting to”, is not serious. It is selfish as it is focused on oneself, and not the spouse. Just like marital violence is.

Now I speak as an unmarried man who can’t see getting married anytime soon, but this seems disturbing. I’m just envisioning that conversation.

Man: Want sex?
Woman: Not really.
Man: Then lie back and think of England.

I’m more inclined to say that sex should be forgone then considering that sex, to the fullest of my understanding, is supposed to be unitive and I cannot see how unwanted sex could ever be unitive.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

The answer to that question is “Why would anyone want to have sexual intercourse?”

Does the desire go away because a spouse does not want to? Not in my experience.

I will turn the question around to one that is more pertinent: “Why would anyone in a loving marriage want to say ‘no’ to a request for marital relations with their spouse if it was possible for them to do so (i.e. have relations)?”

Many have assumed that I am somehow justifying marital violence. I am not. I am suggesting that if both spouses were truly loving and unselfish, there would be no ‘no’s’ unless something serious prevented them from doing so. Just “not wanting to”, is not serious. It is selfish as it is focused on oneself, and not the spouse. Just like marital violence is.

So what’s changed for you Dan?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2042145#post2042145

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

Dan, I think when the Catechism speaks of “consent”, it means that marriages exist under a sort of umbrella of general consent. As in, both parties agree that the relationship will be sexual. A marriage in which both parties agree “We’ll never have sex” isn’t really a marriage. It must be consummated.

There’s also an implied consent that’s only present in marriage. For example, if my wife and I are laying in bed, I don’t need to expressly ask her permission to rest my hand on her breast. Now, if I were to just cup a woman’s breast on the street, I’d rightly get arrested.

That said, that doesn’t mean a spouse can’t decline sexual contact on any particular night. The general framework of consent means it’s okay for one spouse to attempt to initiate. It doesn’t mean that the other can’t say “not tonight.” And if they do, you can’t badger them or try to coerce them.

 

[steve93]

No self control?

What is going on??!
The posts from the “marital consent” and the “more of the world’s craziness…” threads are mixed together.
???

 

[jtauke]

But the Catholic Church teaches that for married couples, consent has already been given, and ‘no’ is withdrawal of consent, and a grave sin.

You’re way off base man…

A spouse is in NO way required to have sex whenever the other wants.

 

[jtauke]

However if you are married and your spouse wants to have sex with you even if you do not feel like it, most of the time you should. I thought a major part of marriage and family was making some sacrifices on behalf of the other person. The breadwinner still has to go to work even when they do not feel like it. If you have children, you still need to be a parent to them even when they have driven you crazy all day long. Why would that not apply to sex?

It’s ironic, because what you’re describing is a horribly dysfunctional relationship.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

The obvious implication of this statement is that you are allowed to engage in sexual activity with someone that you have a relationship with (other than a valid marriage), if you choose to do so.

What would be true would be to say:

“You are not PERMITTED to have sex
with anyone you have a relationship with
unless that person is your true spouse.”

In addition, marriage is consent.

From the catechism: "The Church holds the exchange of consent between the spouses to be the indispensable element that “makes the marriage.” If consent is lacking there is no marriage.

“The consent by which the spouses mutually give and receive one another is sealed by God himself.”

Dan Grelinger

What you think is obvious isn’t the message at all. Breslin posted this verse on her IG account to raise awareness during Sexual Assault Awareness Month. I don’t know where you saw this quote but every single mention of if that I’ve found has that context. And I’m relieved that most on this thread grasp the message even without the SAAM hashtag.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Actually both sides are correct in this matter.
However we have to realise that society has changed in its understanding of what “consent” means.

Canonically it cannot be denied that marriage vows have always been understood to essentially establish exclusive carnal rights of each partner to the body of their partner which no other person may interfere with. This is part and parcel of the marriage contract in the eyes of both State and Church. Some describe this as implicit consent.

But marriage is expected to also involve a covenant of persons and mutual self giving and concern. This some describe as explicit consent when it comes to particular acts.

There is obviously a harmony that is possible that respects consent at both implicit and explicit levels.

It is the implicit consent which makes it immoral for a spouse to give their body to another even if the partner should agree. This also makes it, traditionally, somewhat immoral for a woman to cleanse herself after unconsented sex with her husband (while a virgin may).
It is this consent which makes it immoral for a spouse to regularly refuse sex for no proportionate reason (sometimes it may be a duty to remedy concupiscence even if not really in the mood).

Of course a spouse always has the right to decline particular occasions. But if it becomes a constant decline then the implicit consent originally given is being denied.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

It is heartening that there is a rare consensus here that marital rape is a valid concept, spouses do NOT have the right to treat each other as sex slaves. As I sadly do remember prior CAF topics that featured some claiming that a spouse who does forcefully claim “marital rights” cannot be guilty of rape, only of spousal abuse, whereas the classic deviant stranger rapist does not have any rights to sex with the victim.

(Many with this attitude also seem to think that acquaintance rape is just a known risk of being sexually active outside of marriage, and so only virgins or chaste married women, can be truly innocent victims of this crime; and yes, I know rape is not just a man on woman crime, but people with “traditional” attitudes about rape being a crime of lust, not violence or power, also tend to assume men can’t be raped.)

As for the apparent contradiction with the Church belief in the “marital debt” and that “marital rape” is a thing. I recall another MT topic a few months ago, that asked, if it was okay to steal money from someone who was in debt to you, and while some said that isn’t really theft because the “thief” has a right to the funds, it seemed most agreed it was still a sin to steal the money, and in this case the “thief” was doing it surreptitiously by using a reloadable debit card linked to the debtor’s bank account. I assume it’s also a sin for someone to invade the debtor’s home with guns ablazing and beat them up to take back the money owed.

So, just because there is a “marital debt” does not mean a spouse has the right to resort to violence to claim it. I guess this also falls under “ends don’t justify the means”.

 

[Rau]

…So, just because there is a “marital debt” does not mean a spouse has the right to resort to violence to claim it. I guess this also falls under “ends don’t justify the means”.

Well yes, but thankfully I don’t recall anyone suggesting otherwise. The debate was around whether saying “no” in marriage (without a quite serious reason) should ever occur.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Well yes, but thankfully I don’t recall anyone suggesting otherwise. The debate was around whether saying “no” in marriage (without a quite serious reason) should ever occur.

I don’t think anyone on the prior topic actually stated it would be justified for a spouse to claim “marital rights” through force; but I do recall posters arguing that while this would be abusive, immoral and sinful, such a spouse would not be guilty of the specific sin of rape because of the whole “marriage equals consent” idea. So they would only be guilty of abusing their spouses, not raping them.

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

But the Catholic Church teaches that for married couples, consent has already been given, and ‘no’ is withdrawal of consent, and a grave sin.

The Catholic Church also teaches that rape is a sin, and forcing sex on someone who does not want it is rape.

 

[steve93]

I think we’re confusing things here regarding consent. For example one spouse consenting to intercourse even if she to tired to enjoy it just to be nice is clearly not in the same ball park as a man physically raping his crying wife.
I’m still waiting for “starwarstrooper” to explain to us how not raping your wife is being a “do-gooder” “white knight” and not sufficiently red pilled.