"Marriage is Not Consent"

[EasterJoy]

I don’t believe anyone is denying this EJ.
However the unitive thing works both ways … regularly declining sex for significant periods of time for trivial reasons would also deny the unitive aspect I would think.

I do not think there is anyone out there who believes that there is nothing wrong with a married person refusing to have sex with their spouse for trivial reasons. The point was that no one should feel it is ever OK to use coercion to compel a spouse to fulfill the duties of marriage.

 

[twoangels]

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

Any spouse who approaches sex with a sense of “You’re morally obligated to have sex with me unless certain criteria are met” is making the request in an unreasonable and unloving manner. That approach is simply all wrong. If a spouse feels that rejected, there are probably far deeper issues going on than can be resolved with a citation of scripture and arguing about moral requirements.

I would say any spouse who tries to guilt their spouse into sex is using coercion to get sex, damaging their marriage, their sex life, and is partially the cause for the other spouse’s lack of interest. And while it doesn’t involve the same level of violence as physically forcing and restraining your spouse into it, it’s a rape in the sense of acknowledging that while a spouse may not hit a spouse, they may verbally abuse their spouse.

Overall, change your approach to sex and if the problem persists, seek therapy because there’s some greater need going on.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Also, tafan, as you mentioned having children, I’d hope you’d agree that parental obligations can be reasons to at least delay agreeing to a request for sex.

I recall earlier CAF topics about whether the prohibition on “withdrawal” is still in effect if a child suddenly walks into the bedroom, or if they are suffering from some illness, falls down the stairs, etc. and no one stated the married couple has an obligation to “finish” the act before attending to the needs of the child.

So if it is not sinful to interrupt the act for the sake of a child who needs care, I can’t see how it would be sinful to delay it, even if the delay may be indefinite.

 

[twoangels]

Also, tafan, as you mentioned having children, I’d hope you’d agree that parental obligations can be reasons to at least delay agreeing to a request for sex.

I recall earlier CAF topics about whether the prohibition on “withdrawal” is still in effect if a child suddenly walks into the bedroom, or if they are suffering from some illness, falls down the stairs, etc. and no one stated the married couple has an obligation to “finish” the act before attending to the needs of the child.

So if it is not sinful to interrupt the act for the sake of a child who needs care, I can’t see how it would be sinful to delay it, even if the delay may be indefinite.

The fact that people would ask these questions and think so legalistically about morality is really disturbing.

 

[EasterJoy]

I don’t believe anyone is denying this EJ.
However the unitive thing works both ways … regularly declining sex for significant periods of time for trivial reasons would also deny the unitive aspect I would think.

Just to clarify: I do not think there is anyone out there who believes that there is nothing wrong with a married person habitually refusing to have sex with their spouse for trivial reasons. Even secular people see the personal hurt and deep relational damage that can come from repeated sexual rejection by one’s spouse (as contrasted to differences on timing and so on). The point was that no one should feel it is ever OK to use coercion to compel a spouse to fulfill the duties of marriage.

That doesn’t mean spouses should never reiterate that there IS such a thing as marital duties (which go far beyond sexual cooperation) or that there is not a legitimate way to complain when marital duties are being shirked or fulfilled in an unloving manner. It is OK to complain to your spouse when he or she is being selfish, provided you do it in a constructive and unity-promoting way. I’d go so far as to say that spouses can hardly have unity if they don’t know how to complain to each other in an effective manner.

That doesn’t make it OK to step in and *force *cooperation from a recalcitrant spouse. That is the line that cannot be crossed. I really do not think anyone here disagrees with that, though.

If the original 21 year old author was saying coercion was not OK, not even emotional or psychological coercion, she is right. If she’s saying that sexual matters are the one area where complaining is never allowed, she is out in left field. That is not healthy, it is not realistic and trying to claim that one area is the one area where no complaints will ever be fielded is no way to run a relationship.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

The fact that people would ask these questions and think so legalistically about morality is really disturbing.

To be fair many such people are just engaging in theoretical exercises of the “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” variety and not actual having personal moral dilemmas about it. Even tafan admits to not actually being in a position of “educating” a refusing spouse about the “marital obligation”.

 

[Elena321]

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.

Yeah,apparently she was raped and I think that’s what “inspired” her post and provides the context surrounding it.
Without that background information,it’s easy to come to a different conclusion about what she was saying.
I think she grouped marriage in with boyfriend/girlfriend relationship together because she is probably not a Christian and doesn’t believe in sex only in marriage-that’s my guess.

By obligation in the negative sense,I mean if a wife or husband takes on the mindset that “sex is a chore” and something they are obligated to do.

smh.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity/abigail-breslin-explains-why-she-did-not-report-her-rape-20170425-gvrpdm.html

 

[Vico]

Yeah,apparently she was raped and I think that’s what “inspired” her post and provides the context surrounding it.
Without that background information,it’s easy to come to a different conclusion about what she was saying.
I think she grouped marriage in with boyfriend/girlfriend relationship together because she is probably not a Christian and doesn’t believe in sex only in marriage-that’s my guess.

By obligation in the negative sense,I mean if a wife or husband takes on the mindset that “sex is a chore” and something they are obligated to do.

smh.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity/abigail-breslin-explains-why-she-did-not-report-her-rape-20170425-gvrpdm.html

Thank you.

As opposed to the mindset that “sex is a gift” and something they are obligated to do?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

the unreasonable refusal of sex is morally wrong, grave matter. Each and every refusal.

This is what I meant by moral pressure.
You believe a woman is objectively sinning to regularly refuse what a fallible husband subjectively judges to be a reasonable request on his part.
Thus far I think your view is within Church Teaching though the applied matter of who defines “reasonable” is still problematic.

You further believe this to be true of any single “reasonable” refusal as well.
I think this is much harder to easily align with Church Teaching.
Can you provide me a Magisterial source for this view?

I think that anyone who holds this latter belief cannot but help acting it out in a relationship even if not at the time of refusal. It is indicative of an abiding disposition that its not difficult to see will exert passive if not active moral pressure in all sorts of unrelated ways in the relationship.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

I do not believe the 5th would be considered correct.
The Church does accept a married woman may “cooperate in evil”, if her non Catholic husband seeks condomised sex, without sinning. That likely holds for a lapsed Catholic husband as well.
Such is the seriousness with which the Church sees the gift of one’s body to one’s partner in the marriage vows.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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??

Indeed one has an obligation to provide for one’s children, a joyful one.
That doesn’t mean we have to give them what they ask for on each and every occasion under pain of sin which is what Tafan has stated re the marriage debt.

Of course if we regularly neglect this debt then we are indeed guilty of a sinful habit/attitude, a failure on our obligation, even if we cannot identify the sin with any particular time of refusal.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I do not think there is anyone out there who believes that there is nothing wrong with a married person refusing to have sex with their spouse for trivial reasons…

I think many would accept there is nothing at all wrong even with a spouse refusing a one-off time for trivial reasons.

Tafan does not agree with this by all accounts.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

.

You further believe this to be true of any single “reasonable” refusal as well.
I think this is much harder to easily align with Church Teaching.
Can you provide me a Magisterial source for this view?

Typo sorry.
Obviously meant "You further believe this to be true of any single “unreasonable” refusal as well.

 

[Elena321]

Thank you.

As opposed to the mindset that “sex is a gift” and something they are obligated to do?

I think it comes down to how each person internally perceives the term “obligation”.
That’s the limitations of the English language.
One person may perceive it one way and another person another way.

 

[pensmama87]

Here’s a pretty common scenario where both spouses could be perfectly reasonable but also seen as unreasonable by the other: The kids are finally in bed, and the husband requests sex. He has missed his wife all day and now they finally have some privacy and he wants to reconnect. The wife refuses, because she’s just put in a hard day giving all she can to her kids, and she was looking forward to having some space to breathe and feeling “touched out.”

Neither person is in the wrong, here. It’s just a situation to navigate with compassion and sensitivity on both parts.

 

[Wedge_Antilles]

Here’s a pretty common scenario where both spouses could be perfectly reasonable but also seen as unreasonable by the other: The kids are finally in bed, and the husband requests sex. He has missed his wife all day and now they finally have some privacy and he wants to reconnect. The wife refuses, because she’s just put in a hard day giving all she can to her kids, and she was looking forward to having some space to breathe and feeling “touched out.”

Neither person is in the wrong, here. It’s just a situation to navigate with compassion and sensitivity on both parts.

I agree, but as mentioned, it extends beyond sex in theory.

There are times in a marriage people when you simply don’t feel like a lot of things. Acting loving, having quality time with your spouse, being affectionate, putting your spouses needs before yours in every case, etc.

Having kids definitely can kill the motivation to jump right into bed at every free moment, but are there areas in marriage the right to refuse does not apply?

 

[tafan]

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.

If it appears I am trying to bully anyone, I apologize. I suppose its because people ignore much of what I write and accuse me of things I explicitly reject, and I get a little frustrated.

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.”.

Yes, and I have stated that multiple times. You understand my frustration now?

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

I would agree with this completely, I would word it a little. I would say its not a matter of knowing you will be rebuffed, but in a loving relationship, one should have a pretty good idea of what is a reasonable request or not. Please note: but as I have said, the requestor may not know for sure, he/she may be wrong, so the decision of the other must be respected.

 

[tafan]

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?
:

Ok, I will agree, I am not an expert, your point?

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?

My gosh. Blue Horizon was making the point that a request could seem reasonable but it wasnt’. I agreed. As to your exact question, its an act of love, so of course one should always look to have sex when its a good time for the other spouse.

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?

I will admit to finding this whole concept of “sacrificial sex” with a spouse rather bizarre. I think if a spouse is not enjoying sex, the other is doing something wrong and they need to work it out. Sex being a sacrifice? Its like saying: I don’t want to eat this candy bar, but since its lent I guess I will.

 

[tafan]

Also, tafan, as you mentioned having children, I’d hope you’d agree that parental obligations can be reasons to at least delay agreeing to a request for sex.
.

Sure, add that to the list I suggested in post 158.

 

[tafan]

This is what I meant by moral pressure.
You believe a woman is objectively sinning to regularly refuse what a fallible husband subjectively judges to be a reasonable request on his part.
Thus far I think your view is within Church Teaching though the applied matter of who defines “reasonable” is still problematic.

.

No, I do not believe that. I have said so several times, once directly in response to you. A husband may think his desire to have sex is reasonable. The ultimate decision though is not his, and he can certainly be wrong. That’s why the reasonableness is determined by the conscience of the woman (the person who is refusing).

You further believe this to be true of any single “reasonable” refusal as well.
I think this is much harder to easily align with Church Teaching.
Can you provide me a Magisterial source for this view?

I don’t believe it for a single or a regular refusal, this is now the third time I am telling you so.