"Marriage is Not Consent"

[tafan]

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.

I think the issue of the marriage debt not always being honored, especially past middle age, occurs both ways. Its not uncommon past a certain age for the man to be the one refusing for “not being in the mood”.

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”.

If a spouse is agreeing to sex as an act of sacrifice, there is something seriously wrong. Even if someone is “not in the mood”, thinking of it as a sacrifice is a strange thing indeed.

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.

Sometimes I wonder if real people from real marriages actually post on this forum. I strongly suspect it is not that uncommon for one spouse to not be in the mood, but goes ahead anyway, and both spouses end up enjoying themselves immensely. Heck, how many husbands don’t think it becomes somewhat of a challenge to “seduce” their wife in that situation: give her a glass of wine, be a little more playful than usual, flatter her, etc.

 

[tafan]

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.

(name removed by moderator):

My opinion about a man who uses a guilt trip like that to get his wife to have sex with him is that the word ‘man’ no longer applies to him.

I doubt the wisdom of playing the sin card in order to get a spouse to have sex at a particular point of time.
Having said that, one of the primary responsibilities of a spouse is to help the other get to heaven. If one knows that one’s spouse is doing something morally wrong, it becomes the responsibility to bring it to their attention. Timing might be key to be effect in this particular case so it is not misinterpreted. The purpose would not be to just “get his wife to have sex with him”, the purpose would be helping the spiritual life of the spouse. If its a man (as all of you assume), it is a very manly thing to do.

Ignoring immoral behavior of one’s spouse would be a very unmanly thing to do.

 

[Walking_Home]

---

Most certainly agree.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

If a spouse is agreeing to sex as an act of sacrifice, there is something seriously wrong. Even if someone is “not in the mood”, thinking of it as a sacrifice is a strange thing indeed.

But at least for women, having sex when not in the mood is not exactly a pleasant experience. It can even be extremely painful. Especially if the husband is all about demanding his rights and only cares about his own pleasure.

Sometimes I wonder if real people from real marriages actually post on this forum. I strongly suspect it is not that uncommon for one spouse to not be in the mood, but goes ahead anyway, and both spouses end up enjoying themselves immensely. Heck, how many husbands don’t think it becomes somewhat of a challenge to “seduce” their wife in that situation: give her a glass of wine, be a little more playful than usual, flatter her, etc.

I think this probably what happens in the best case scenario. However if the principle is that “a spouse is sinning if he/she refuses just because they are not in the mood” then it seems the other spouse has no obligation to get the other partner in the mood, that they are justified in simply asserting “marital rights” with no sin on their part. I think that is the assertion many people find disturbing.

ETA: Of course, with the disclaimer that no physical rape occurs. I also think most would find it rather pathetic for a husband to guilt his wife into sex. However, the question is whether that is a sin or not.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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 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”.)

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?

This thread, if it wasn’t already obvious, does make it clear that men and women have a wide variety of libido and levels of what makes for acceptable sex.
I think there are good arguments for accepting there are often times when sacrificial sex is called for just as there is in other areas of married life such as regularly going with wife to see mother in law, travelling overseas (I just hate the needless expense, waste of home project time, organising required and walking through old buildings that soon all start looking the same…and for 4 weeks). But it is the main thing my darling wife looks forward to every year or two. She knows I hate it. But it isnt bad for my health and I freely choose to do so because I love my wife and it makes her so happy even if it leaves me cold. So in that bigger game sense such trips do make me happy even though I dont enjoy them in themselves.

I don’t know why sex has to be some sort of segregated sacred cow in this regard.
Obviously my wife does not force these trips on me. She doesn’t accuse me of faking it when I try to make the best of a bad lot and don’t always succeed without a grimacing smile.
She loves me all the more for doing so. It does not concern me too much that she still engages on these trips even though she knows I don’t really like them. This is because it’s clearly an important need for her and I don’t begrudge her “using me” with my consent … we all have our compulsions and weaknesses. It isn’t as if she wants to go to Europe every 3 months.

At worst she would go with somebody else if I refused to indulge her and that would upset me…yet how could I blame her for that.

These are the things we take on by giving generic consent on the day of our vows.
If such sacrificial demands are so abhorrent we are no longer able to make them (which of course is always our right) then the answer is clearly separation as the marriage is effectively dormant if not without life.

If we get to the point where we cannot bear to make reasonable sexual or other sacrifices for our partner then a much bigger issue would seem to be in play.

 

[tafan]

But at least for women, having sex when not in the mood is not exactly a pleasant experience. It can even be extremely painful. Especially if the husband is all about demanding his rights and only cares about his own pleasure.
\quote]
I explictly rejected demanding his rights for his own pleasure in my first post. That would be very sinful on his part. So lets move on from that point.

I think this probably what happens in the best case scenario. However if the principle is that “a spouse is sinning if he/she refuses just because they are not in the mood” then it seems the other spouse has no obligation to get the other partner in the mood, that they are justified in simply asserting “marital rights” with no sin on their part. I think that is the assertion many people find disturbing.

 

[Xantippe]

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.

I don’t know. I would say that a 10% rate of refusal is “regular” refusal, but I don’t think there would be anything heinous about it.

I don’t think you realize what might be like as a woman to have somebody having sex with you when you’re grossed out or annoyed or angry with them. (Bear in mind that a woman is quite capable of thinking lots of negative thoughts while having sex–this is probably a big difference between the sexes.) It’s potentially a very rape-y experience, and there’s the possibility of doing a lot of long-term damage to the marital relationship. We’ve taken a really wrong turn if marital sex turns into a gross chore that one suffers through…

Something to bear in mind is that a large minority of women have some experience of either rape or sexual abuse, and not being allowed to say no is going to remind a lot of women of Bad Things.

I personally rarely say no (no more than probably 10% of the time and always with pretty good reasons and I ask fairly often myself), but it’s important to my human dignity that I don’t feel like some sort of home sex appliance for my husband.

 

[tafan]

Xantippe:

I don’t know. I would say that a 10% rate of refusal is “regular” refusal, but I don’t think there would be anything heinous about it.

Assuming you have no reasonable cause for refusal, it is a sin. You may not think it is heinous, but that is the teaching of the Church as I understand it:

From The Way of the Lord Jesus, by Germain Grisez (an excellent book on moral theology)

g) Unreasonable refusal of marital intercourse is a grave matter. As has been explained, each spouse’s right to intercourse has limits, and usually when either is reluctant to have intercourse, the other should not insist. Still, sometimes a spouse has no justifying reason for being unwilling to cooperate. Such unwillingness can be motivated by anger and hatred, an unreasonable desire to avoid offspring, the manipulative use of marital intercourse to compel compliance in other matters, excessive preoccupation with other activities, and so on. Sometimes, too, one spouse without good reason travels alone or stays away from home for some time, thus depriving the other of the opportunity for marital intimacy. In all such cases, when the spouse deprived of marital intimacy makes it clear, by saying so or in any other way, that he or she desires it, the other should cooperate lovingly, and refusal is a grave matter.

 

[pnewton]

If the goal is strictly gratification, I would agree. However, the Sacramental nature of marriage reflects the primary goal of marriage being the sanctification of the two parties, in other words, getting to Heaven. So, there are real spiritual reasons why sex should only be in marriage. Likewise, there are real pitfalls to a sexless marriage that contradict the purpose of marriage, especially when the two parties are not in agreement.

So while any selfishness (on either party) is bad, there must be some communication in marriage about how one is honestly feeling. If this results in guilt feelings, the cause is the situation, not the communication.

 

[tafan]

Ok everyone, This will be my last post, you all can have the last word. I am obviously in the minority here. I have to go prepare a meal for my kids when they get home from school. I certainly am not in the mood to do so. But I will anyway, and we will end up having a very nice family dinner because of it.

Sex is not the end-all, be-all of marriage, but it is the single thing that sets a marital relationship apart from any other relationship. It is a realty, really big deal. Now, perhaps “not in the mood” was not a good phrase for me to bring up, as it is rather imprecise. If by “not in the mood”, someone means that they have had an exceedingly hard day and are totally exhausted, I would agree that it is a reasobable cause for refusal. But that is why I specified things such as fatigue and illness in my first post. But if “not in the mood” means “I am watching my favorite movie or football game and it won’t be over till midnight, then we will both be too tired” or “I am annoyed with you right now”, then its not reasonable. Sex is simply too important in a marriage. Have some fun, let them know you don’t quite feel like it, so he/she needs to step it up a little bit. Do whatever. But don’t refuse.

 

[pnewton]

If one person wants sex and the other doesn’t then the expectation that sex will occur is unreasonable. Not sure why this nuance is needed here.

I think the nuance was needed because the time frame was unclear. What was said could be taken two different was. Blanket refusal is contrary to marriage. Marriage is by its nature a consent to intimacy. Specific refusal is what is meant though. I think that was clear. “No” at this time, means “no”.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

I had to reflect on this for a while but must say I still conclude it’s not quite right.
Individual acts like trees can form recognisable forests which also have moral qualities or not and give further ethical insight and context to each individual act of which that forest is composed.

A reasonable single request for sex may always be refused and it may well be moral to do so.

The reason is simple. “Reasonable” is in the eye of the beholder, it is a grey no man’s land that gets mutually defined better as we progress into a new marriage. Young men with strong libido often start out with sincere but very unreasonable demands.
While his wife can expect to make more sacrifices in this area than she would with a quiet accountant that doesn’t mean the red blooded husband doesn’t have to make efforts to kerb his own distorted views on what “reasonable” consists in if his wife does not have a matching libido.
One’s love for one’s partner must factor in the differing needs and constitution of the other when we start banging others over the head with “reasonable”. It might be objective in science but in marriage I suggest it is mutually defined and it may take years to discover things are never as we assume or initially expect. And, sorry gents, the goal posts move over time as well just to keep us guessing.

 

[Xantippe]

You think that refusing 10% of the time is a big deal?

Oh my goodness!

The problem I have here is that there is almost always a respectable reason to say no on any particular occasion–I have to get up early tomorrow, it’s gotten too late, the movie we just watched was disturbing, the baby is likely to wake up in the middle of the night, I’m feeling queasy, my yeast infection is acting up and sex makes me itchy, I need to answer this work email, I don’t think I can, I feel too tired, I don’t feel up to it, the doctor said not to get pregnant again too soon because of the c-section incision, I’m concerned about pregnancy because of the likelihood of a disabled child at my age, we’re sharing a hotel room with kids, we have a disabled child and I’m just barely keeping it together, I feel sad because my mom died, I can’t stop thinking of XYZ bad or stressful thing that happened today and I would keep thinking about it during sex, etc.

I can think of a million absolutely reasonable reasons for refusal–it’s not that hard. Also, just because a spouse hasn’t offered a reason beyond “I’m too tired” doesn’t mean that they don’t have a good reason.

Assuming you have no reasonable cause for refusal, it is a sin. You may not think it is heinous, but that is the teaching of the Church as I understand it:

From The Way of the Lord Jesus, by Germain Grisez (an excellent book on moral theology)

 

[steve93]

I would never want to do to make my (hopefully someday not hypothetical) wife feel uncomfortable, even to the point of living as brother and sister.
Literally raping the person you vowed to love and cherish is vomit inducingly evil to even think about. Whether her refusal is reasonable or not and whether or not you will suffer legally for your actions is irrelevant.
If someone is overdue to pay you loaned money, do you go down to their house and break their arms? Obviously being in the right as regards a debt does not provide a basis for blatantly evil acts.

 

[Wedge_Antilles]

While I am on the “I’d never want to be intimate with my wife if she was under duress or realllllly didn’t want to” train, I wonder if the same courtesy or allowances translate to all facets of marriage?

There are lots of things we may not feel like doing for various reasons in our marriage.

What is my wife says “I love you” and I do not feel like telling her the same in return. Is there a reasonable percentage of times I can be allowed to ignore it?

What if a Catholic husband desires to pray with his Catholic wife - is there a percentage of times she can deny him because she just isn’t in the mood to pray as a family.

What if a wife wants a hug and kiss from her husband - if there an allowance for him to refuse because he doesn’t want to?

This isn’t to equate the acts themselves, but to define what are expectations in marriage.

It seems this sort of conversation in what is supposed to be marriages where the needs of the spouse are always to be elevated above our own, always address one thing only (sex) but do not expand to cover other responsibilities or obligations.

Frankly, if I am always seeking to put my wife’s needs first, it would seem I would always try to satisfy her needs and desires in all ways except sinful ones, and likewise, she would for me, in every case.

 

[pensmama87]

You think that refusing 10% of the time is a big deal?

Oh my goodness!

The problem I have here is that there is almost always a respectable reason to say no on any particular occasion–I have to get up early tomorrow, it’s gotten too late, the movie we just watched was disturbing, the baby is likely to wake up in the middle of the night, I’m feeling queasy, my yeast infection is acting up and sex makes me itchy, I need to answer this work email, I don’t think I can, I feel too tired, I don’t feel up to it, the doctor said not to get pregnant again too soon because of the c-section incision, I’m concerned about pregnancy because of the likelihood of a disabled child at my age, we’re sharing a hotel room with kids, we have a disabled child and I’m just barely keeping it together, I feel sad because my mom died, I can’t stop thinking of XYZ bad or stressful thing that happened today and I would keep thinking about it during sex, etc.

I can think of a million absolutely reasonable reasons for refusal–it’s not that hard. Also, just because a spouse hasn’t offered a reason beyond “I’m too tired” doesn’t mean that they don’t have a good reason.

I think this is one reason why the “regular” refusal becomes a kind of standard for a problem - there are, in fact, a million very fair reasons to refuse, and a pattern has to emerge for another person to reasonably conclude that the answer is in fact, “No,” instead of “Not right this second.”

I’d say pretty much always when I “refuse,” I’m not actually saying “No,” but “How about later, instead?” Depending on the situation, “later” could mean “in ten minutes,” or “tomorrow,” or “two months from now when the doctor says OK.” Any of those could be perfectly acceptable.

 

[Xantippe]

I think this is one reason why the “regular” refusal becomes a kind of standard for a problem - there are, in fact, a million very fair reasons to refuse, and a pattern has to emerge for another person to reasonably conclude that the answer is in fact, “No,” instead of “Not right this second.”

I’d say pretty much always when I “refuse,” I’m not actually saying “No,” but “How about later, instead?”

Yes.

Usually the problem is, “Oh my goodness, how did it get to be past midnight already?”

 

[tafan]

You think that refusing 10% of the time is a big deal?

.

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.

 

[tafan]

I had to reflect on this for a while but must say I still conclude it’s not quite right.
Individual acts like trees can form recognisable forests which also have moral qualities or not and give further ethical insight and context to each individual act of which that forest is composed.

A reasonable single request for sex may always be refused and it may well be moral to do so.

The reason is simple. “Reasonable” is in the eye of the beholder, it is a grey no man’s land that gets mutually defined better as we progress into a new marriage. Young men with strong libido often start out with sincere but very unreasonable demands.
While his wife can expect to make more sacrifices in this area than she would with a quiet accountant that doesn’t mean the red blooded husband doesn’t have to make efforts to kerb his own distorted views on what “reasonable” consists in if his wife does not have a matching libido.
One’s love for one’s partner must factor in the differing needs and constitution of the other when we start banging others over the head with “reasonable”. It might be objective in science but in marriage I suggest it is mutually defined and it may take years to discover things are never as we assume or initially expect. And, sorry gents, the goal posts move over time as well just to keep us guessing.

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.

 

[Rau]

…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…

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.