"Marriage is Not Consent"

[ToeInTheWater]

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.

I think there is an underlying assumption among some redpillers that women actually don’t enjoy or want sex for its own sake, they just use as a tool to manipulate men, a variation on the “all women are whores” concept.

So from that POV, a wife who refuses sex must be acting merely out of spite, or out of some Hidden Agenda to coerce the husband into doing something he’s rather not do so he can obtain his “rights”, etc.

Because to them, a wife “lying back and thinking of England” actually is Standard Operating Procedure for the typical woman, to use sex as merely as a bargaining chip or tool to get what they really want. Whether that be improved relations between countries in the original context of that quote (an English princess who married a royal from another country in an arranged or at least quasi-arranged marriage) or because they hope the husband will change the baby’s diapers or buy them a new car.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

I think this issue is largely one of semantics … that is of defining what type of wrong is involved rather than saying there is no wrong.

It does seem in times past that the Church considered rape (unconsented sex) was not possible in marriage because consent was implicitly given in the marriage vows. However that does not mean that a husband forcing himself on particular occasions on a wholly unwilling wife was not wrong or immoral. Admittedly we may not have had a clear word to name that immorality. It is also true that was not directly regarded as a crime by the State either until quite recently.

Interestingly the same thing applies to abortion. Until only a few hundred years ago the voluntary loss of an unquickened embryo (before 40 days or so) was not considered abortion (ie the killing of a human life before birth). This is because it was generally regarded a human soul had not yet enlivened the embryo/foetus. It was of course still considered gravely immoral…but different.
Being different there were different appreciations and consequences. For example, one had to baptize a spontaneously aborted foetus under pain of mortal sin. But for an unquickened ejection not so.

Admittedly it seems that forced marital sex was not seen as grave as rape of a virgin. In an age where the psychological consequences were given little or no weight compared to social and material ones that may be true…however most of us hopefully have moved beyond such a medieval basic survival view of life and morality principles.

 

[illyxo]

Over thinking it.

Both should have sex when they both want to. Simple. If one party doesn’t for a long time, there’s usually a reason why.

 

[alphawoman]

The notion that “marriage is not consent” is reasonable, rational, and canonical.

 

[starshiptrooper]

What gives any of us the right to judge her?

If you want to make something public, I will form my opinion and comment as I see fit.

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.

Do whatever you want, do not expect freedom from other people’s opinions and their decisions to act accordingly.

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.

I was looking for the relevant posts from “starswarstrooper” and I cannot seem to find them. Perhaps you would point them out to me?

I think there is an underlying assumption among some redpillers that women actually don’t enjoy or want sex for its own sake, they just use as a tool to manipulate men, a variation on the “all women are whores” concept.

Wrong.

 

[Xantippe]

I think there is an underlying assumption among some redpillers that women actually don’t enjoy or want sex for its own sake, they just use as a tool to manipulate men, a variation on the “all women are whores” concept.

So from that POV, a wife who refuses sex must be acting merely out of spite, or out of some Hidden Agenda to coerce the husband into doing something he’s rather not do so he can obtain his “rights”, etc.

That’s an interesting point. I’d go with the following argument:

Let us say that it is normal for women to enjoy sex. If a woman is not interested in sex, that must mean that there is likely some sort of underlying problem–be it pain, nausea, illness, exhaustion, fear of pregnancy, etc.

(By analogy–let’s say that I love chocolate. If (as a chocolate lover) I refuse chocolate, it’s not going to be because I am doing so to spite my husband, because I normally LOVE chocolate. If I turn down chocolate, it’s because I’m currently incapable of enjoying it or feel that having it would be imprudent.)

So, a woman’s persistent refusal (just like a man’s persistent refusal) would be a sign that something is wrong and that the situation needs further investigation.

I’d point out that when the shoe is on the other foot, there’s no recourse at all for the woman. If her husband does not want to, he doesn’t want to–game over.

 

[I_trust]

Is marital rape a sin? Yes, of course. If one party denies the other, no one can be legitimately taken by force.
But can the denial of intimacy also be a sin?

Is denying your spouse marital relations without a serious reason a sin? Yes.

It is not OK to deny tour spouse just because you are not “in the mood” or just because you did not initiate the intimacy.

1 Corinthians 7: The husband should fulfill his duty toward his wife,and likewise the wife toward her husband. A wife does not have authority over her own body, but rather her husband, and similarly a husband does not have authority over his own body, but rather his wife. Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack
of self-control.

The Catechism :

1644 The love of the spouses requires, of its very nature, the unity and indissolubility of the spouses’ community of persons, which embraces their entire life: “so they are no longer two, but one flesh.” They “are called to grow continually in their communion through day-to-day fidelity to their marriage promise of total mutual self-giving.”

Familiaris Consortio:

Consequently, sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is by no means something purely biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and a woman commit themselves totally to one another until death. The total physical self-giving would be a lie if it were not the sign and fruit of a total personal self-giving, in which the whole person, including the temporal dimension, is present: if the person were to withhold something or reserve the possibility of deciding otherwise in the future, by this very fact he or she would not be giving totally.

Casti Connubii :

1. The second blessing of matrimony which We said was mentioned by St. Augustine, is the blessing of conjugal honor which consists in the mutual fidelity of the spouses in fulfilling the marriage contract, so that what belongs to one of the parties by reason of this contract sanctioned by divine law, may not be denied to him or permitted to any third person; nor may there be conceded to one of the parties anything which, being contrary to the rights and laws of God and entirely opposed to matrimonial faith, can never be conceded.
2. By this same love it is necessary that all the other rights and duties of the marriage state be regulated as the words of the Apostle: “Let the husband render the debt to the wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband,” express not only a law of justice but of charity

 

[Vico]

Over thinking it.

Both should have sex when they both want to. Simple. If one party doesn’t for a long time, there’s usually a reason why.

There is the simplicity of charity rather than selfishness and so helping the weaker spouse to avoid sin through conjugal relations. (See 1 Cor 7:5)

 

[ShrodingersCat]

There is the simplicity of charity rather than selfishness and so helping the weaker spouse to avoid sin through conjugal relations. (See 1 Cor 7:5)

There is a difference between refusal and asking for a postponement for a day IMO. Feeling obliged to have sex when you don’t want to is likely to make sex an unpleasant chore for someone if it happens a lot. I don’t think the church is referring to waiting til tomorrow if you are tired.

Your point is valid, but I also think that it is dangerous to rely on regular sex as a remedy for concupiscence. Every marriage will go through a period of abstinence (business trips, post partem, illnesses, etc) and both spouses should be able to stay chaste in those times.

 

[CroCatholic]

I haven’t read through all the posts so perhaps another woman with similar opinion already commented…
I am a very happily married (12 years) woman who made the decision to follow church teaching and not deny my husband unless I really had a serious reason. So basically even if I am tired or just plain old don’t feel like it, I will still be intimate when he asks. I will add that if I am ill or have another reason to deny him, there is no pouting, no guilt tripping, no begging and certainly no rape on his behalf.

This was not always the case. There were times in our marriage where being tired was a good enough excuse for me (we have 6 children and are expecting our 7th so I am ALWAYS tired) and I could see it taking a toll on him. Intimacy is one of the ways that he (and I’m sure a lot of men) feels loved. For me (and perhaps other women) I feel loved when he displays small acts or romance. For example, slow dancing with me in the living room when all the kids are asleep, picking a bouquet of flowers from our yard and offering them to me, etc. These are two very different “needs” that display our love for one another. To get back to my original point, my husband didn’t see the fact that I was tired, he felt like I was pushing him away. For him, the culmination of love (in marriage) is the giving over of ones self for the one you love. He felt like I didn’t love him or want him anymore. That, of course, was never my intention.

This revelation made me really think. For me, being intimate with him when I’m tired would be a minor inconvenience. For a while, I was selfish and thought “why should I be inconvenienced? He should just suck it up! I deal with the kids all day, I make him dinner, I take care of the house, I do the laundry. Isn’t that enough!?”

In marriage, the marital act is the giving of yourself to your spouse. I liken it to pregnancy in the fact that for nine months (and far beyond) I give my body over for my children. I am inconvenienced at those times too. I am tired, I am nauseous,my feet are swollen, my back aches and I’m always uncomfortably hot. I voluntarily inconvenience myself in this way, sacrifice my body because I am doing it out of love for the child growing in my womb. Do I not love my husband? Why, in this instance, do I allow a minor inconvenience to supersede my husband’s feelings? This for me was a light bulb moment and from that day forward I decided that I would be available to him whenever he asked.

Our marriage has blossomed since, the amount of arguing has decreased and our overall happiness is greater. That’s not because my male chauvinist husband gets “it” whenever he wants, it’s because I took the time to understand where he was coming from and decided that I could make a small sacrifice for him.

This of course, is just my humble opinion based on my own personal experiences.

 

[Wedge_Antilles]

That’s an interesting point. I’d go with the following argument:

Let us say that it is normal for women to enjoy sex. If a woman is not interested in sex, that must mean that there is likely some sort of underlying problem–be it pain, nausea, illness, exhaustion, fear of pregnancy, etc.

(By analogy–let’s say that I love chocolate. If (as a chocolate lover) I refuse chocolate, it’s not going to be because I am doing so to spite my husband, because I normally LOVE chocolate. If I turn down chocolate, it’s because I’m currently incapable of enjoying it or feel that having it would be imprudent.)

So, a woman’s persistent refusal (just like a man’s persistent refusal) would be a sign that something is wrong and that the situation needs further investigation.

I’d point out that when the shoe is on the other foot, there’s no recourse at all for the woman. If her husband does not want to, he doesn’t want to–game over.

I think the entire discussion only works if both parties willingly and faithfully execute their vows and commitments. I would never want to be with my wife if she was doing so grudgingly. Hopefully, the opposite is true. However, both parties need to take their commitment to one another seriously and ensure they are always acting in the best interest of their spouse first, and in almost every case, elevate the needs or healthy desires of of their spouse above theirs.

I think if we change the action from “have sex” to “have meaningful conversation” we might get different answers, but should we? Is a person required to have meaningful, loving conversations with their spouse any time their spouse requests it? What if they do not feel like it?

Most people would likely go out of their way to do it even if they did not feel like it simply because they love their spouse; at least that is what I try to do.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I believe the poster you quote was saying something subtle you may have misunderstood.
That is the marriage vows do represent a degree of ongoing consent. Namely, it is right for my husband to come on to me whenever he chooses (though I may at particular times freely choose to say no if I have good reason). Those vows also mean no other man has such permission to approach me in that way, nor will I ever consent to such.

Not sure what you are getting at if your marriage involves no vows? If that is truly so then your partner would seem free to vow himself to another as they have not given their body to you and in fact the essence of marriage (permanent consent to approach each other) does not seem to exist between you.

 

[steve93]

What I mean is, yes, marriage is presumed to provide consent. In other words, consent is the default.
On the other hand, if the wife declined, supposing they had had an argument or pregnancy or lent or something, no decent husband would for an instant entertain the idea of raping his wife.
Whether the refusal is justifiable or not has no bearing on this.

 

[pensmama87]

What I mean is, yes, marriage is presumed to provide consent. In other words, consent is the default.
On the other hand, if the wife declined, supposing they had had an argument or pregnancy or lent or something, no decent husband would for an instant entertain the idea of raping his wife.
Whether the refusal is justifiable or not has no bearing on this.

Not to mention, “But you have to have sex with me because I asked and that’s the rules” is not really what I’d call foreplay.

 

[Xantippe]

Not to mention, “But you have to have sex with me because I asked and that’s the rules” is not really what I’d call foreplay.

Yeah.

Also, put the shoe on the other foot. If it was the wife asking, would it necessarily always be welcome:

–right in the middle of a complicated woodworking project
–when he needs to leave for an appointment/has a conference call scheduled
–when he needs to reply to some work emails
–in the really exciting part of the big game
–at 3 AM when he has to get up at 6 AM
–when he’s recovering from illness
–when his back is out
–whatever

I understand that some husbands would be pleased some of the time, but I think many would eventually want to have a bit more control over their schedule and would feel that it wasn’t very thoughtful, especially if there was a pattern of inconvenient/inconsiderate timing.

There are a lot of times when it just isn’t very convenient, and a thoughtful spouse would put a little bit of effort into making sure that it didn’t need to be a “sacrifice” or an “inconvenience” as a previous poster stated.

 

[EasterJoy]

What I mean is, yes, marriage is presumed to provide consent. In other words, consent is the default.
On the other hand, if the wife declined, supposing they had had an argument or pregnancy or lent or something, no decent husband would for an instant entertain the idea of raping his wife.
Whether the refusal is justifiable or not has no bearing on this.

Yes. Marriage implies consent for what canon law calls “a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation.” That is a long shot from being on call for marital relations 24/7 in the absence of some kind of formal excuse.

In spite of the common misconception among criminally self-centered married people, entering into a marriage covenant does not make it impossible for one spouse to commit the grave crime of rape against the other. It is morally repugnant to suggest that the marriage covenant ends the moral standing either spouse has to refuse sex for legitimate reasons. Rape, like contraception, separates the marital act from one of the intrinsically necessary aspects of moral marital sex: namely, the unitive aspect.

So she’s right: Marriage vows do not remove the need for spouses to gain each other’s consent prior to engaging in every marital act. Of course she is…and rape within the home is obviously what she is talking about.

 

[EasterJoy]

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.

Well, yes, of course that is the common lie going around about sex outside of marriage. Having said that, those who make the pretense of living in a quasi-marital relationship are not bound to consent to sex, which is what she is saying. If she were to say, “Just because you’ve belonged to a criminal gang does not mean you’ve given consent to conspire to commit crimes for the rest of your life.” That statement would be correct and would not imply it is OK to commit crimes because you belong to a gang.

 

[Vico]

Yeah.

Also, put the shoe on the other foot. If it was the wife asking, would it necessarily always be welcome:

–right in the middle of a complicated woodworking project
–when he needs to leave for an appointment/has a conference call scheduled
–when he needs to reply to some work emails
–in the really exciting part of the big game
–at 3 AM when he has to get up at 6 AM
–when he’s recovering from illness
–when his back is out
–whatever

I understand that some husbands would be pleased some of the time, but I think many would eventually want to have a bit more control over their schedule and would feel that it wasn’t very thoughtful, especially if there was a pattern of inconvenient/inconsiderate timing.

There are a lot of times when it just isn’t very convenient, and a thoughtful spouse would put a little bit of effort into making sure that it didn’t need to be a “sacrifice” or an “inconvenience” as a previous poster stated.

I find this amusing, for many males have greater interest than the female, and would not miss an opportunity with opportunities being few and far between.

 

[Xantippe]

I find this amusing, for many males have greater interest than the female, and would not miss an opportunity with opportunities being few and far between.

Let’s say that this happened fairly frequently, rather than it being a once in a blue moon event.

Every time the big game comes on or he gets absorbed in a book or a project, she’s demanding her rights…

Wouldn’t that eventually get annoying?

 

[EasterJoy]

I find this amusing, for many males have greater interest than the female, and would not miss an opportunity with opportunities being few and far between.

Throw a little performance anxiety in, and I don’t think it is far-fetched at all.

Let’s also not forget the male whose wife’s body bears witness to the children she’s given him. Women need physical affection and affirmation that they are physically desirable with or without stretch marks, and yet sometimes the husband loses interest because she does not look as young as she once did, spends less time absorbed in catering to him–since the children take so much of her attention–and doesn’t have the time to devote to grooming or shopping or the rest. Maybe he is very busy, too, and yet tired out or needing alone time at different times than she is.