"Marriage is Not Consent"

[Xantippe]

I think an unreasonable refusal is a big deal each and every time. It is grave matter. See the quote from Germain Grisez’s book I gave above.

An unreasonable refusal 10% of the time, huge deal. Lets a couple has sex 10 times a month, once a month there is an unreasobable refusal? I suspect a big underlying problem in the marriage.

We have yet to establish what “unreasonable” refusal looks like.

 

[Xantippe]

Circumstances contribute to judging what is unreasonable, and the “regularity” of refusal (or, the amount of time devoted to sex recently, and similar measures) is part of those circumstances.

That’s an interesting point.

Let’s say that the couple last had sex 10 minutes ago and one spouse makes a request.

Is it unreasonable of the other to demur? Has the refusing spouse committed “grave matter” according to Germaine Grisez?

 

[Vico]

Yes,but isn’t this what the OP was quoting this girl/actress as saying?

“you are not obligated
to have sex with someone…
marriage is not consent”

I thought her whole “premise” was because she was raped she was telling other women that they shouldn’t feel that sex was something they ****had to agree on under any circumstances.
IOW,it should be a loving act decided on by two individuals instead of an act of obligation (in the negative sense).
I can’t imagine many people would have a healthy attitude towards sex if they felt it was something they were obligated to do as opposed to something that they enjoy.
At the same time,if the husband and wife had vastly different sex drives I think that’s a personal matter that they should work out between each other instead of simply just having a sexless marriage-eg:there may be a medical issue or maybe they could try herbal medicine that increases interest etc…

I did not know that she was raped. It seems to be a more general statement with regard to consent, because of the grouping dating and marriage together.

Consent is given in marriage only to proper conjugal relations, which does not include sinful acts. I don’t know what you mean by obligation in the negative sense, it is a moral obligation or St. Paul would not have stated it as such.

 

[Rau]

We have yet to establish what “unreasonable” refusal looks like.

It can’t be established definitively. It is internal to the one who declined. There is a positive obligation on each spouse which is not quantified. The obligation, like the positive precepts (eg. “Love thy neighbour”), is directional only.

 

[tafan]

We have yet to establish what “unreasonable” refusal looks like.

I would say we have yet to establish agreement in the principle itself. . Starting a discussion on applying a principle is likely to be not too productive when everyone seems to not fully agree with the Church’s clear teaching.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Both of we have little problem with terminiology. So I will try to be clear, I initially said that a reasonable request cannot be refused. What I meant that it is only a reasonable request if the other spouse has no reasonable cause to be excused. I may think that having sex tonight is a good idea, but I have no idea my wife has had a really bad headache all day. When she reasonable says no, my request is immediately unreasonable.
So what lets keep it simple (like the Germain Grisez) did and simply say an unreasonable refusal is wrong. The person refusing is making the moral act here, so it is that person’s reason that matters, not the person requesting sex.

So when you say
“A reasonable single request for sex may always be refused and it may well be moral to do so.”, it is also poor wording, but you copied from me.

Let me be clear, each and every single unreasonable rejection is wrong, gravely wrong. The frequency and how regular it occurs only matters with how bad one’s marriage is being damaged.

You may still not be getting it.

You seem to believe “reasonable” is easily and accurately judged by the desperate party.
I am suggesting that no matter how “reasonable” a young married red blooded man may think he is…he isn’t. In case there is confusion, no, he isn’t.
It takes years to understand that not only are men very different, but women are in fact from another planet too and what is reasonable on Mars cannot be guaranteed to be reasonable on Venus.

And this unconscious self-deception operates even more strongly when one gets “the miseries” as somebody put it below.
It also operates on the shunning party’s side too, young brides often do not truly understand the extent of, ahem, almost out of control “needs” of some basically good men. There is nothing reprehensible or even ignoble about sex as being a necessary chore of marriage. You buy a house you mows the lawns. It wouldn’t be a life if house ownership was mainly about mowing lawns and sweeping paths and vacuuming rooms…but surely there is a noble place for choosing to do such things as part of a bigger picture.

There is no one size fits all textbook re what is “reasonable” between married couples in this area. Both must accept some level of meeting in the middle and significant sacrifices are required to make marriages work if they can at all…especially in the sexual area if there is significant difference in levels of expected “sincerity” and libido.

Of course you would never force your wife physically.
Yet YOU do clearly believe in applying moral pressure when YOU believe you are “reasonable” and she isn’t on each and every occasion.
The Church does not seem to teach that.
You may be right to see objective sin if a wife will only ever have sex if it is not a chore.
But if it comes to that you may need to ask yourself how she got into that state. The male may be responsible!

It isn’t about what YOU believe to be reasonable because in marriage there must be a “WE” about what is reasonable.

If that cannot be negotiated and neither are willing to make the necessary sacrifices therefore required there is a marriage problem far greater than just sex that likely needs to be resolved…if it can.

Mental accusations of “unreasonable denial” re particular occasions aint going to solve that!

 

[tafan]

Blue horizon, I most certainly do not believe in applying moral pressure to my wife to get sex. Heck, I have never needed to. . I have posted absolutely nothing that would even come close to implying that is ok.

I have said that it is any spouse’s duty to provide moral guidance on any act they think their spouse may be wrong. I specifically said, in this case timing was important so it would not be interpreted as you say. Please do not accuse me unjustly again.

Furthermore, let me be clear, the person who is refusing sex is making the moral decision, not the requester. So it is the refuse whose conscience must decide reasonableness.
I have been clear that when a husband has been refused, for any reason, he cannot force himself (physically or mentslly) on his wife.

Again, my consistent point is:, the unreasonable refusal of sex is morally wrong, grave matter. Each and every refusal.

That is the clear church teaching. You guys obviously cannot accept the Church’s teaching ( going all the way back to St Paul, btw), on this point. .

 

[Vico]

We have yet to establish what “unreasonable” refusal looks like.

I posted this before based upon R Section V. Obligation, in T.G. Wayne - Morals and Marriage, published in 1936, EWTN has the document in their library:
ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/MORMAR.txt

One woman suggested adding item 8 below.

Justified Abstinence
Abstinence can lead to a weakening of affection or a risk of impurity, yet here are some situations where refusal (abstinance) is ordered, even if not mutually agreed upon:

1. if the spouse has been unfaithful to the extent of adultery (until forgiveness of the injured party).
2. if there is a danger of the infection of disease.
3. if the request is unreasonable.
4. if it be under conditions that are genuinely harmful and distressing.
5. if it is going to be abused by the sin of onanism.
6. if a pregnancy would be fatal or highly dangerous.
7. medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called "indications, may exempt from the positive debt (of fecundity) for the entire period of marital life, however natural sterile periods may be utilized.
8. not allowing the proper amount of time or privacy.

 

[pensmama87]

Vico, we’ve visited unreasonable refusal, and now #3 on this list invites us to discuss unreasonable requests! Which must mean there can, in fact, be such a thing. I think that could contradict tafan’s post earlier.

Surely, if one spouse needs to consider the good of the other before refusing, a spouse should consider the good of the other before requesting, too?

 

[Vico]

Vico, we’ve visited unreasonable refusal, and now #3 on this list invites us to discuss unreasonable requests! Which must mean there can, in fact, be such a thing. I think that could contradict tafan’s post earlier.

Surely, if one spouse needs to consider the good of the other before refusing, a spouse should consider the good of the other before requesting, too?

Of course. There is the matter of charity however, to be Christlike is not to be charitible to others such as the weak that may be helped to not fall into sin by having marital relations even when there is other reason not to.

1 Cor 5, 8

5 Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer; and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.

8 But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. 9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.

 

[Rau]

…I have said that it is any spouse’s duty to provide moral guidance on any act they think their spouse may be wrong. I specifically said, in this case timing was important so it would not be interpreted as you say.

The second sentence is most important. More than timing…it is only good to “provide moral guidance” where one expects that will be fruitful.

 

[Rau]

Vico, we’ve visited unreasonable refusal, and now #3 on this list invites us to discuss unreasonable requests! Which must mean there can, in fact, be such a thing. I think that could contradict tafan’s post earlier.

Surely, if one spouse needs to consider the good of the other before refusing, a spouse should consider the good of the other before requesting, too?

If the request is unreasonable (eg. currently riding in a taxi), then the refusal will be reasonable.

 

[tafan]

The second sentence is most important. It is only good to “provide moral guidance” where one expects that will be fruitful.

Yea, and it’s the third time I have included that in my explanation, I have included it evrrytime when I have made that point. Yet the accusations continue. . Thee apoarent hatred of this particular teaching seems to lead to a lack of charity.

 

[Rau]

Yea, and it’s the third time I have included that in my explanation, I have included it evrrytime when I have made that point. Yet the accusations continue. . Thee apoarent hatred of this particular teaching seems to lead to a lack of charity.

I’ve not detected any hatred at all. However, debating the meaning of “unreasonable”, when this cannot be known, is not useful.

The debt is a positive obligation. Refusal is not a forbidden act.

 

[Rau]

…Of course you would never force your wife physically. Yet YOU do clearly believe in applying moral pressure when YOU believe you are “reasonable” and she isn’t on each and every occasion. The Church does not seem to teach that.

This is a relevant observation. In this area, it would be far more productive to discuss the relationship and how each is perceiving it than for one party to seek to make rulings on the reasonableness of another’s actions.

 

[tafan]

I’ve not detected any hatred at all. However, debating the meaning of “unreasonable”, when this cannot be known, is not useful.

The debt is a positive obligation. Refusal is not a forbidden act.

Well, I have been arguing in favor of the doctrine, and people have not acted charitably because of that. I admit attributing that to hatred of the doctrine may be a little strong. But I certainly attribute it to disagreement to the doctrine.

Not for sure if debating is useful or not. But an open discussion as to reasonableness certainly would be, assuming the underlying principle is accepted. I have seen several guideslines by moral theologians. . Any obligation needs to be understood. . Saying that there is no need for discussion is tantamount to saying the obligation does not exist. .

There are valid reasons for not attending Mass on a Sunday, it seems to me they can be roughly enumerated, keeping in mind that no list is likely all inclusive.

I would give the following list with respect to the marriage debt:

Infedility, spousal abuse, fatigue, illness, lack of privacy, menstruation, NFP required abstinence periods. . I think that is I fairly nclusive of just causes. If I missed one I would be glad to hear it.

 

[Rau]

…Infedility, spousal abuse, fatigue, illness, lack of privacy, menstruation, NFP required abstinence periods. . I think that is I fairly nclusive of just causes. If I missed one I would be glad to hear it.

One might add: “other calls on my time at the moment”, etc.

And one might ask - How important are those other ‘calls’ versus the need to have sex (now)? or: How much “fatigue” is required before that reason becomes reasonable? Who (possibly apart from the one considering a request) can know the answer to these questions?

I think it is most helpful to view the debt as a “positive” one. A rough analogy: We know we have a positive obligation to help the poor. It is wrong to ignore the poor - we are expected to help them. But how much help??

 

[PaulinVA]

Again, my consistent point is:, the unreasonable refusal of sex is morally wrong, grave matter. Each and every refusal.

That is the clear church teaching. You guys obviously cannot accept the Church’s teaching ( going all the way back to St Paul, btw), on this point. .

I find posts like this hard to handle. This is a religious forum, and to bully people into accepting your position because you are obviously the one speaking for the Church is not helping your point.

You cannot make a partner have sex with you because your argument is that you have the moral right. Seldom to never is the response, “Oh, yeah, you’re right. I suddenly feel like having sex. Have at it.”.

After a few years of marriage, I think we all know when it’s a “good” time or not. To purposely try to initiate sex when you think you will be rebuffed is cruel to your spouse to put him/her in the position of saying no.

 

[Xantippe]

I find posts like this hard to handle. This is a religious forum, and to bully people into accepting your position because you are obviously the one speaking for the Church is not helping your point.

You cannot make a partner have sex with you because your argument is that you have the moral right. Seldom to never is the response, “Oh, yeah, you’re right. I suddenly feel like having sex. Have at it.”.

After a few years of marriage, I think we all know when it’s a “good” time or not. To purposely try to initiate sex when you think you will be rebuffed is cruel to your spouse to put him/her in the position of saying no.

And a little bit of a heads up is nice, too.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Blue horizon, I most certainly do not believe in applying moral pressure to my wife to get sex. Heck, I have never needed to. . I have posted absolutely nothing that would even come close to implying that is ok.

If you have not personally been in that situation, then simply because you are married doesn’t make you an expert about it, doesn’t it?

Furthermore, let me be clear, the person who is refusing sex is making the moral decision, not the requester. So it is the refuse whose conscience must decide reasonableness.

So a requester has no obligation to determine if the request itself is unreasonable, before he or she makes it? The refuser always has the obligation to justify the refusal?

Some people actually get a thrill out of having sex in public places, if a spouse were to demand sex in an airplane bathroom and say “as long as we stuff toilet paper in our mouths and be quick about it no one will know” are they allowed to do so and it is all on the refuser to justify why refusing such a request is not unreasonable?

I can recall a CAF topic of yore about a husband actually demanding sex from his sick wife in the hospital, and the wife actually “consented” to having sex in a hospital bathroom, was the husband’s request therefore not unreasonable, just because the wife didn’t refuse it?

I’d also add sex in the post-partum period to your list of reasonable reasons for refusal. Not quite an illness, as pregnancy and recovery from it is not, but it is still a time when sex is not recommended.

And yet I can recall at least 2 CAF topics about husbands demanding sex in this period.

ETA: I am also concerned that you think a spouse should not even consider sex to be a “sacrifice”, ever. So not only are spouses obligated to have sex unless they can justify the refusal, they are also obligated to be always enjoy the sex every time?

This just reminds of the Duggars and their insistence that wives “joyously” have sex on demand. To the point that members of the family actually posted about men being driven to illicit sex due to spousal refusal on Social Media. Very shortly after the Josh Duggar cheating scandal broke. Yes, they blamed his poor wife , in public, for his sinful deeds.