"Marriage is Not Consent"

[Vico]

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.

Certainly possible. Note that I wrote many not all.

 

[Vico]

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?

Certainly, and conversely too. Not something that I have ever experienced, so I am not the person to ask for testamony. I am mainly informed by psychology. With charitable temperance the annoyance shall be overcome.

 

[Elena321]

As mentioned,marriage should be based on respect and love.

Common sense states is it respectful and loving to force sex on your wife (or husband) and cause them to feel violated and traumatised?

Reason to yourself would a good man,especially one trying to be like Jesus want to do that?

 

[Vico]

As mentioned,marriage should be based on respect and love.

Common sense states is it respectful and loving to force sex on your wife (or husband) and cause them to feel violated and traumatised?

Reason to yourself would a good man,especially one trying to be like Jesus want to do that?

Jesus is the bridegroom that loves his spouse. May the bride not be cut off from Israel.

God offers the gift of grace freely and humbly accepts a refusal to receive it. The charity is both in the offering and in the willing cooperation with it.

A gift is given to the spouse with charity that sin may be avoided.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

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.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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?

It would suggest to me that I am not giving my wife enough quality time each week regardless of the big game.

 

[pensmama87]

It would suggest to me that I am not giving my wife enough quality time each week regardless of the big game.

That’s a great attitude to have.

But it’s not one you can stick onto the other spouse, either. I think it’s possible to speak generally about rights and responsibilities in marriage, but it’s also not likely to get far once you’re dealing with two people. If one spouse really is being selfish (ordinary selfishness, not abuse), whether it’s demanding too much or withdrawing, simply pointing it out probably will not do much, and may very well make it worse.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

That’s a great attitude to have.

But it’s not one you can stick onto the other spouse, either. I think it’s possible to speak generally about rights and responsibilities in marriage, but it’s also not likely to get far once you’re dealing with two people. If one spouse really is being selfish (ordinary selfishness, not abuse), whether it’s demanding too much or withdrawing, simply pointing it out probably will not do much, and may very well make it worse.

I think the observations being made on this thread about consent (at least from my perspective) is for self-formation in a deeper appreciation of Catholic ethical behaviour not to hit my spouse over the head with for self-serving purposes!

 

[Elena321]

Jesus is the bridegroom that loves his spouse. May the bride not be cut off from Israel.

God offers the gift of grace freely and humbly accepts a refusal to receive it. The charity is both in the offering and in the willing cooperation with it.

A gift is given to the spouse with charity that sin may be avoided.

This seems to me to be more regarding mismatched sex drives.
When I think of maritial sex without consent I think more of something like the below.
The examples aren’t always as extreme but I can’t imagine any decent man would want to do anything that would cause feelings of hurt or violation in the wife that he loves.

dailyo.in/voices/women-marital-rape-sexual-harassment-abuse-arranged-marriage-divorce/story/1/14390.html
hindustantimes.com/bollywood/women-must-speak-up-against-marital-rape-says-katrina-kaif/story-D1eaHRYqt7TjDweKvDPK1M.html

 

[Vico]

This seems to me to be more regarding mismatched sex drives.
When I think of maritial sex without consent I think more of something like the below.
The examples aren’t always as extreme but I can’t imagine any decent man would want to do anything that would cause feelings of hurt or violation in the wife that he loves.

dailyo.in/voices/women-marital-rape-sexual-harassment-abuse-arranged-marriage-divorce/story/1/14390.html
hindustantimes.com/bollywood/women-must-speak-up-against-marital-rape-says-katrina-kaif/story-D1eaHRYqt7TjDweKvDPK1M.html

Examples of rape, which the Church teaches is a grave sin.

 

[Yeoman]

Why would anyone in a loving marriage want to have intercourse with their spouse when their spouse said they didn’t want to at that time?

No does indeed mean no, and anything without consent would be rape under any modern definition and assault under any ancient one, so no always meant no.

Having said that, I’ve heard a couple of confessors interviewed recently in which they’ve noted that they’ve had to counsel spouses, and it seems to usually be implied its the female spouse, that prolonged and frequent “no” is a violation of their marital obligations and risks leading the other spouse into sin. I suspect the situation in which the male spouse wished to be more active than the female spouse, by a large margin, is fairly common and can become lead to occasions of sin for the male.

Again, I’m not saying that no doesn’t mean no. What I am saying is that St. Paul stated that it was better to marry than burn, but it’s not likely all that uncommon that some who are married burn that way anyhow, and perhaps even to a greater degree than they did when they were single, if they’re sleeping right next to somebody whose answer is usually no.

 

[Xantippe]

As mentioned,marriage should be based on respect and love.

Common sense states is it respectful and loving to force sex on your wife (or husband) and cause them to feel violated and traumatised?

Reason to yourself would a good man,especially one trying to be like Jesus want to do that?

Yeah.

I feel like there’s a tendency to treat marital sex as something completely outside the bonds of common sense and normal decency, whereas if anything, we ought to have better manners about marital sexuality than, say, eating stuff off of our spouse’s plate without asking, bringing “their” car home with the tank nearly empty, springing a last minute in-law visit on them when they were expecting a quiet evening, or volunteering them for a project.

I personally practically never turn my husband down (barring a late hour, illness, or something like that–it’s probably in the neighborhood of 90% yes plus me asking), but one of the things that makes me so agreeable is knowing that I can say no. I personally find the “inconvenience” and “sacrifice” talk really sad. How would we feel if date night with ourselves were described as a “minor inconvenience” or a “small sacrifice”? Marital sexuality is not supposed to be a form of mortification!

I realize some husbands feel so deprived that they don’t even notice this stuff, but I can’t help but notice a persistent relationship between a) entitled views about marital sexuality and b) having an unsatisfactory marital sex life. I realize that the casaulity probably goes both directions, but at least some of the time, a sense of entitlement helps produce a bad marital sex life.

 

[Yeoman]

"Posted by Dan Grelinger:

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

That is one of the most bizarre assertions that I have ever read.

FWIW, that statement, which I’ve heard before, I think stems from a misunderstanding of old English Common Law, not the law of the church.

At one time it was the case that it was not possible for a husband to be prosecuted for the rape of his wife under English Common Law. This had nothing to do with church law, but as the common erroneous belief is that marriages were always performed in churches (not correct) it must stem for the law of the Church (also not correct).

What’s missed in this is that, in older times, it probably wasn’t practically possible to prosecute a man for the rape of his wife, as evidence standards of the day being what they were, it boiled down to a he said, she said, debate without witnesses. That made it impossible to address. What was the case, however, is that a man could be prosecuted for the assault of his wife. As sexual assault can obviously be violent, and as the evidence is more plain and doesn’t require a witness. that was the available charge.

 

[Elena321]

Examples of rape, which the Church teaches is a grave sin.

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…

 

[Xantippe]

Having said that, I’ve heard a couple of confessors interviewed recently in which they’ve noted that they’ve had to counsel spouses, and it seems to usually be implied its the female spouse, that prolonged and frequent “no” is a violation of their marital obligations and risks leading the other spouse into sin. I suspect the situation in which the male spouse wished to be more active than the female spouse, by a large margin, is fairly common and can become lead to occasions of sin for the male.

Again, I’m not saying that no doesn’t mean no. What I am saying is that St. Paul stated that it was better to marry than burn, but it’s not likely all that uncommon that some who are married burn that way anyhow, and perhaps even to a greater degree than they did when they were single, if they’re sleeping right next to somebody whose answer is usually no.

There are certain expectations that just aren’t reasonable long term.

For example, an actress mentioned that her former lover (another famous actor) expected sex several times a day every day, and that it was simply exhausting.

(That was Joan Collins talking about Warren Beatty.)

So, I’d be careful about assuming that people who complain the most about deprivation have normal amounts of libido or are even (from a more normal person’s point of view) actually deprived. There’s the potential (as with the Collins/Beatty example) of a very high libido partner destroying the libido of the more normal partner by being too demanding.

 

[Yeoman]

There are certain expectations that just aren’t reasonable long term.

For example, an actress mentioned that her former lover (another famous actor) expected sex several times a day every day, and that it was simply exhausting.

(That was Joan Collins talking about Warren Beatty.)

So, I’d be careful about assuming that people who complain the most about deprivation have normal amounts of libido or are even (from a more normal person’s point of view) actually deprived. There’s the potential (as with the Collins/Beatty example) of a very high libido partner destroying the libido of the more normal partner by being too demanding.

Indeed, I’d be hesitant about making too many assumptions in this area at all of a general nature. A person would have to know the particulars.

Part of that is that sex is mental. Odd to say, but it is. That being the case, a person’s state of mind, and what they are struggling with, impacts this.

Being well past my youth, if not yet old, I’d amplify that to note that I strongly suspect that the reason the young are associated with high sex drives isn’t exclusively hormonal by any means. The older a person gets the more blows tehir psyches have taken, as a rule. That impacts things. Likewise, one of the tragic results of the Sexual Revolution, even for Catholics, is that a high percentage of the population takes Pre Marital sexual battering psychologically. That no doubt comes back as a hidden mental wound later on.

But I’m straying well of the topic.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I personally find the “inconvenience” and “sacrifice” talk really sad. How would we feel if date night with ourselves were described as a “minor inconvenience” or a “small sacrifice”? Marital sexuality is not supposed to be a form of mortification!

I realize some husbands feel so deprived that they don’t even notice this stuff, but I can’t help but notice a persistent relationship between a) entitled views about marital sexuality and b) having an unsatisfactory marital sex life. I realize that the casaulity probably goes both directions, but at least some of the time, a sense of entitlement helps produce a bad marital sex life.

I wonder, do these men really care about whether their wives actually enjoy sex or not? Yes, sex can be a “loving sacrifice” at times but that shouldn’t be the default setting, either. Some who expound on this topic really seem to assume “women don’t usually enjoy sex anyway and just do it to please the man”.

There’s also a difference between prolonged refusal and occasional refusal. The difference is that “refusing sex” may or may not be a sin depending on the circumstance. “Forcing sex” is always a sin of some sort (though it may not always be a moral one).

 

[CroCatholic]

I personally find the “inconvenience” and “sacrifice” talk really sad. How would we feel if date night with ourselves were described as a “minor inconvenience” or a “small sacrifice”? Marital sexuality is not supposed to be a form of mortification!

If I have given the impression that every time we engage in the marital act, I am inconvenienced or sacrificing, that would be incorrect. I am only referring to the times when I am tired or don’t feel like it. In those times, It is inconvenient to me, and a sacrifice. I love my husband and I am willing indulge him even though I am not in the mood.

Much like I watch hockey with him even though I don’t particularly care for it. Or like the way he wanders around nurseries and garden centers even though he gets bored out of his mind while I spend too much time over analyzing perennials. I know he doesn’t enjoy these dates. He knows that I know he doesn’t enjoy these dates and yet he still comes with me any time I ask. For him, those dates are an inconvenience and I’m sure there are a million other things he’d rather be doing but he still makes the sacrifice and comes with me.

The marital act certainly isn’t a sacrifice or inconvenient all of the time! If it were, we wouldn’t be expecting #7:wink:

To pretend that marriage (which includes the marital act)x is all rainbows and sunshine is a fallacy. It is certainly much more light and love, happiness and joy (in our case anyhow) but for it to be this way, it takes sacrifice. Lots of little ones and in some instances, big ones. Engaging in the marital act when I don’t feel like it is one of those little sacrifices. I hope that provides further context to my last post.

 

[tafan]

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 have a big problem with the often used words like “regularly”. A reasonable request for sex cannot be morally refused. Moral theology is about individual acts. It is a major sin against chastity ever to unreasonably refuse sex to a spouse. Now, there are certainly just reasons to do so, eg fatique, illness. And the requesting spouse may not even know his request is unreasonable until he is told.
But assuming the refusal is unreasonable, (IMO, simply not being in the mood certainly qualifies as unreasonable), it is a sin each and every time it occurs. How often it occurs does not matter, beyond the scope of the damage that will be done to the marriage.

I don’t see why people don’t get this and they so often say its only sinful if it occurs regularly. Is it only a sin if I rob a bank every once in a while? Is it only a sin if I only look at pornography every once in a while? Of course not, but for some reason people assume that refusing sex unreasonably is OK, as long as it is not a habit.

Having said all that, let me be clear, a husband never has the right to force himself on his wife, if he does so, he commits the much greater sin.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

If I have given the impression that every time we engage in the marital act, I am inconvenienced or sacrificing, that would be incorrect. I am only referring to the times when I am tired or don’t feel like it. In those times, It is inconvenient to me, and a sacrifice. I love my husband and I am willing indulge him even though I am not in the mood.

Thanks for the clarification; one issue I have with the “marriage debt” language is that it seems to focus on only whether sex happens or not, and focuses on the obligation a wife has to provide a husband sex, and appears to assume it doesn’t matter if a wife actually enjoys sex or not.

Also, not all men are fine with having sex with a partner who is only agreeing to the act as a sacrifice. Some men actually are willing to sacrifice their sexual gratification for the sake of not causing inconvenience to a wife. Some men find the idea of sex with a partner who’s not actively into sex an actual turn-off and would “feel as if they are raping their wives” even if she said yes, if all she does is lie there and “think of England”.

I have a big problem with the often used words like “regularly”. A reasonable request for sex cannot be morally refused. Moral theology is about individual acts. It is a major sin against chastity ever to unreasonably refuse sex to a spouse. Now, there are certainly just reasons to do so, eg fatique, illness. And the requesting spouse may not even know his request is unreasonable until he is told.
But assuming the refusal is unreasonable, (IMO, simply not being in the mood certainly qualifies as unreasonable), it is a sin each and every time it occurs. How often it occurs does not matter, beyond the scope of the damage that will be done to the marriage.

I am glad you added the IMO because some husbands would NOT want to have sex with a wife who wasn’t in the mood. I can also think of extenuating circumstances such as a history of child sexual abuse, that would make refusal a grave matter but not a mortal sin. (I also am aware some men would actually consider such a history to be a deal breaker because “someone with that baggage might never be able to have a healthy sex life”.)

Having said all that, let me be clear, a husband never has the right to force himself on his wife, if he does so, he commits the much greater sin.

I think we all have a consensus that a husband does not have the right to physically force his wife to have sex.

However, is it okay for a husband to say “If you don’t have sex with me you are sinning” as a way to guilt the wife into consenting? I think there is more room for different opinions about that.

ETA: Also, do the wives who consider sex a “sacrifice” at times usually “fake it” and pretend they are in the mood? Is this kind of deception okay?