NFP and Traditional Catholicism

[Julianna]

This is a theological discussion in the Traditional forum. Some of people are taking this too personally. Intera Catholic has accurately quoted Popes and Fathers of the Church. His/her responses have all been in response to errors stated by others and are factually based. Every criticism leveled at IC in the last couple of pages of this tread may as well be leveled at Pope Pius XXII, St Thomas Aquinus and others.

Grateful that IC is not the Pope. And the ones you have cited have been dead for decades/centuries and never married.

I get what IC is saying…I said that in an earlier post. I also stated it’s ridiculas. I am not going lie back and think of England nor am I going to look up at the ceiling and think to myself, “beige, I think I’ll paint the ceiling beige.”

Young chidren need the attention of the parents…not so daddy can get a quickie.

 

[white_sheep]

Grateful that IC is not the Pope. And the ones you have cited have been dead for decades/centuries and never married.

Entirely irrelevant.

 

[wanner47]

From Pope Pius XI’s Casti Conubii ca. 1930:

If you’ll read the excerpt linked above, you’ll see that Pope Pius XI in 1930 did not condem NFP, but rather anything that frustrates the ACT of procreation.

Some couples may be called to Providentialism, and that’s wonderful. But not all couples are called to this. The CCC makes it clear that periodic abstinence is acceptable, and the Catholic Church is the teaching authority that I follow, not self-proclaimed popes on a message board.

 

[white_sheep]

If you’ll read the excerpt linked above, you’ll see that Pope Pius XI in 1930 did not condem NFP, but rather anything that frustrates the ACT of procreation.

Some couples may be called to Providentialism, and that’s wonderful. But not all couples are called to this. The CCC makes it clear that periodic abstinence is acceptable, and the Catholic Church is the teaching authority that I follow, not self-proclaimed popes on a message board.

Casti Conubii clearly condemns ABC and condones NFP. Sections 53-56.

 

[ac_claire]

The red part shows the balance.

If there were truly valid reason to avoid relations, *the good Catholic *spouse would not demand.

and

If there were no truly valid reasons to avoid relations, *the good Catholic *spouse would not refuse.

How do you determine?
Prayerfully.

Ok, agreed. And what if both parties “prayerfully discern” that they still disagree with eachother?

(BTW, the term “Providentialism” needs to be removed from this discussion as it’s becoming ad hominem in my opinion. To a certain degree, the Catholic Church supports Providentialism. The way it’s being used in this discussion is, I’m afraid, alluding to an entire system of belief that falls to the extreme margins of Catholic teaching. Which nobody, from what I have read, has advocated. Just my opinion, take it as such. )

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

This is a theological discussion in the Traditional forum. Some of people are taking this too personally. Intera Catholic has accurately quoted Popes and Fathers of the Church. His/her responses have all been in response to errors stated by others and are factually based. Every criticism leveled at IC in the last couple of pages of this tread may as well be leveled at Pope Pius XXII, St Thomas Aquinus and others.

Untrue. Please observe:

Please notice that no one in this thread - at least not that I’ve seen - has disagreed with the principle that one’s body belongs to one’s spouse, and that a husband or wife has a duty to acquiesce to a request for marital relations unless serious reasons justify a refusal.

Yet for some reason, IntegraCatholic has emphasized that principle to other posters as if their concerns and explanations on the necessity of sensitivity between spouses have been in contradiction with that principle.

And that is troubling. Your claim that “every criticism leveled at IC in the last couple of pages of this tread may as well be leveled at Pope Pius XXII, St Thomas Aquinus and others” ignores the blindingly obvious fact that what people have been critical of in IntegraCatholic’s responses have not been his thorough, careful, and accurate articulation of this moral principle, but rather his assumption that all these concerns about sensitivity and selflessness are in contradiction to it.

Understand?

The fact is you can comb through the SSPX literature and dig up any quotes from the Pope all one pleases, but the reality of it is we do not live in a slavery culture, and we do not “roll over and play dead”, and the Church never told anyone to take sex as a form of abuse – EVER. And it’s sinful to teach others that they must take sex as a form of abuse.

Exactly. We shouldn’t forget what we can learn from Graham Greene through his portrayal of Rycker and his wife in his novel A Burnt-Out Case, as I said before.

Yes, a spouse has the right to “demand” sex, but if there is a point in a marriage where sex is “demanded” then there is a problem.

Exactly! IntegraCatholic and whm, don’t you see that the above sentence by Rence does not contradict your claim that a spouse has the right to request sex and have that request be met?

Why would the benefit of the doubt automatically be given to the party who wants to abstain? Mock it all you want, but there is such a thing as the “marriage debt” and it matters. The couple needs to be on the same page or you’re left with one spouse out in the cold.

No one here disagrees with you that the marriage debt exists and matters, and ought to be honored.

But why would one spouse want to abstain from sex? We’re not giving either hypothetical spouse the benefit of the doubt by default, but the fact remains that if for some reason one spouse doesn’t want to have sex, the other ought to care why, and though the other technically has a right to “demand” the marital embrace, to actually do so without caring why his or her spouse feels that way, would be selfish.

I don’t think you or IntegraCatholic would disagree with that. I don’t think we in this thread actually disagree as much as we seem to.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

What strikes me most about this thread is the ironic fact that IntegraCatholic’s language/terminology is so accurate, in spite of how troubling the downright Kantian attitude of obligation/duty with which he’s applying it is.

Would you care to elaborate on this?

I don’t think anyone is denying that there’s a marriage debt, and that each spouse has an obligation selflessly to “render it” under ordinary, reasonable circumstances.

Throughout this thread, many people have denied the practical application of this principle.

But IntegraCatholic, do you not see that your emphasis on that principle to the point where you feel that it’s being threatened by a concern for sensitivity between spouses, is quite undue?

After all, if one spouse is sad, troubled, etc. for some reason, I suppose objectively that probably wouldn’t count as a grave reason not to “render the debt.”

Precisely. It’s not. That spouse has an obligation to render the debt willingly.

But do you not see that for the other spouse to demand it nonetheless in that situation would in fact clearly be the worse sin?

No, it simply wouldn’t. Please refer back to what I said before about mortal sin, temptation, etc. In fact, it would not be a sin at all but rather doing what is necessary to avoid sin.

And furthermore, do you not acknowledge that if the spouse who wanted to have sex is led into sin by his or her spouse’s refusal, that the responsibility for that sin still lies with the former?

Sure, but it lies with the latter, as well, and perhaps even more so in the latter.

And that he or she should take the primary responsibility for it instead of blaming his or her spouse? And if you do acknowledge that, then why even blame the other spouse in an abstract example/discussion?

The principle is that the spouse who is asked has an obligation to render the debt. This obligation is excused only under very specific and grave circumstances and never at the whim of the spouse.

In response to your other comments, may I reiterate my previous response:

A Catholic husband NEVER demands sex, but revels in the fact that it is a gift freely given by a wife who loves him…his soul & his body & his mind."

While it may not be the best case scenario, nevertheless, if one party or the other “demands” the debt, it must be paid. It shouldn’t have to come to this. Each spouse should be looking out for the other, and he should willingly pay the debt when he realizes the other has need of it. He should assume that the other may be tempted to sin gravely and pay the debt generously in order to relieve the temptation of his spouse, which is the secondary purpose of the marital debt. If the couple is capable of conceiving, all the more reason to engage in the marital act, for then the two spouses are fulfilling their primary role as a married couple.

 

[Vico]

…
This obligation is excused only under very specific and grave circumstances and never at the whim of the spouse.
…
While it may not be the best case scenario, nevertheless, if one party or the other “demands” the debt, it must be paid. …

Putting the two ideas together, I see that you believe that if one party or the other demands the debt, that it must sometimes be paid, because there are grave circumstances that may occur. This agrees with what the Magisterium has taught, that there are specific conditions to granting of the natural act apt to the generation of children that are part of the marriage covenant.

(And there are such conditions in the canon law 1983 CIC 1135, 1136, 1151, 1152, 1153, and elsewhere Casti Canubi, Pope Pius XI (1930), item 54, Address to Midwives, Given by His Holiness Pope Pius XII, 29 October (1951), An Address of Pope Pius XII to the Seventh International Hematological Congress in Rome. (Friday September 12, 1958), and also the command to keep the commandments thus not harming the other.)

Address to Midwives, Given by His Holiness Pope Pius XII, 29 October 1951
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/doc/doc_32moralityeugenics.html
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/morality/family/natural.htm

 

[IntegraCatholic]

Yes, I believe I addressed this sufficiently ealier in the thread, though I never went into too much detail because I thought it was secondary to the purpose of the thread and was not something anyone was arguing about. The grave circumstances that excuse from the debt are agreed upon by everyone in the thread. The difference is that many people are trying to add to these grave circumstances those that do not excuse from the debt, essentially making the spouse who “doesn’t feel like it” the one who has the right, while the spouse who requests the debt just has to deal with it, which is precisely the opposite of the truth.

 

[whm]

Grateful that IC is not the Pope. And the ones you have cited have been dead for decades/centuries and never married.

Jesus died centuries ago too and was never married either, what is your point?

I get what IC is saying…I said that in an earlier post. I also stated it’s ridiculas. I am not going lie back and think of England nor am I going to look up at the ceiling and think to myself, “beige, I think I’ll paint the ceiling beige.”

A person in this (undefined situation) should be meeting with a priest. They then can deal with it morally under spiritual direction. Whatever this hypothetical situation is it doesn’t just end up this way overnight.

Young chidren need the attention of the parents…not so daddy can get a quickie.

I do not know what you are talking about.

Again I don’t think it serves much purpose to come up with extreme hypothetical examples and then try to apply it as the everyday norm.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

No, it simply wouldn’t. Please refer back to what I said before about mortal sin, temptation, etc. In fact, it would not be a sin at all but rather doing what is necessary to avoid sin.

I’m not sure we disagree as much as we seem to. Maybe we do, but let me clarify something so that we can see if we do, before we argue more.

My hypothetical example - one spouse is upset, troubled, etc. and doesn’t want to have sex, but the other does - needn’t end with no marital relations. What I and others find troubling is merely the possibility of that other spouse saying, “This is what I need right now; just forget about everything else; we’ll take care of that later.” That would be selfish.

But assuming that this hypothetical couple has a good relationship, I imagine that there’d be nothing stopping the one from comforting or helping the other, and I also imagine that that being the case, why on earth would the other not then be willing to render the debt.

(EDIT: If my example is too vague or poorly worded and you need a more specific example to know what the heck I’m talking about, I can provide a fictional example that perfectly illustrates the kind of situation I’m talking about above).

In other words, I’m not denying that in such a situation, ultimately, it would be wrong for the one spouse to refuse. But that is small beans next to the fact that if it were to get to the point where one spouse truly did have to demand it, then there’s a bigger problem which needs to be addressed, and first.

While it may not be the best case scenario, nevertheless, if one party or the other “demands” the debt, it must be paid. It shouldn’t have to come to this. Each spouse should be looking out for the other, and he should willingly pay the debt when he realizes the other has need of it. He should assume that the other may be tempted to sin gravely and pay the debt generously in order to relieve the temptation of his spouse, which is the secondary purpose of the marital debt. If the couple is capable of conceiving, all the more reason to engage in the marital act, for then the two spouses are fulfilling their primary role as a married couple.

See, sentences like the one you put in bold above are the reason I believe that we in this thread may not actually disagree as much as we seem to.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

Yes, we may agree more than it seems; nevertheless, I entirely disgaree that it is “small beans” whether one spouse must pay the debt or not. It is a matter of mortal sin, which is a very big bean. Even if the other spouse does act selfishly (e.g., in not taking into considerations the other’s needs or desires or even in using the marital debt with some lust–see the quote from St. Thomas above), it wouldn’t be a mortal sin. It would only be a venial sin unless there were grave circumstances that would change the nature of the act (e.g., the circumstances that permit the refusal of the debt). Many people here are declaiming against the latter, saying how evil it is, while they ignore the former or even approve it. The former is a mortal sin. The latter is a venial sin (or not even a sin at all) depending upon the circumstances, though it can become a mortal sin if there are serious conditions. The former is a mortal sin by nature but can become a venial sin (or not a sin at all) given rare circumstances. This is what I mean when I say that many people discussing this thread have it precisely backwards.

 

[whm]

My hypothetical example - one spouse is upset, troubled, etc. and doesn’t want to have sex, but the other does - needn’t end with no marital relations. What I and others find troubling is merely the possibility of that other spouse saying, “This is what I need right now; just forget about everything else; we’ll take care of that later.” That would be selfish.

Yes it could be selfish or it could be justified. We don’t know in the example how troubled the requesting spouse is. To be blunt, if he or she is battling a temptation to view porn or something then that changes the situation (being open and honest with each other may stem the temptation too). If the two have a healthy relationship and this is temporary issue, I don’t think the requesting spouse would be in danger of falling into sin and would gladly and lovingly yield.

Part of the resistance I have to these examples is the implication that because x or y that does not clearly meet grave reason, that the refusal is still okay. It should be known to be a big deal and that they should see their priest. At least one party in the marriage can be in danger of mortal sin. It is a big deal. Whether the “debt” s rendered in these examples or not they should speak we a priest. They are not two individuals, they are one flesh. The “debt” being refused, (or rendered under grudgingly), after discussion where the requester doesn’t yield means somebody is in grave error, warning flag, see a priest. They are a we, not two I’s and it doesn’t matter if one is right and the other is wrong, they both have an obligation to see a priest and get spiritual direction. Am I making any sense, I am resisting throwing out the warning flag and not dealing with the situation. There is a compassionate way of viewing/addressing these situations without trying ignore or throw out the 2000 year old, (timeless) unchangeable moral law and disregarding St. Paul’s words in 1 Corth 7.

But assuming that this hypothetical couple has a good relationship, I imagine that there’d be nothing stopping the one from comforting or helping the other, and I also imagine that that being the case, why on earth would the other not then be willing to render the debt.

In other words, I’m not denying that in such a situation, ultimately, it would be wrong for the one spouse to refuse. But that is small beans next to the fact that if it were to get to the point where one spouse truly did have to demand it, then there’s a bigger problem which needs to be addressed, and first.

Bingo!

Sorry to but in, I clearly don’t speak for IC.

 

[Rence]

Originally Posted by Julianna
Young chidren need the attention of the parents…not so daddy can get a quickie.

I do not know what you are talking about.

Again I don’t think it serves much purpose to come up with extreme hypothetical examples and then try to apply it as the everyday norm.

She’s talking about a man (a real live man, not an extreme hypothetical example) who demanded sex from his wife while his wife was actively busy taking care of children. She is talking about a man (a real live man, not an extreme hypothetical example) who expected his wife to “drop everything” while she was in the process of taking care of the kids, so that he could get a “quickie”. And I agree with Mary Gail, Cradlecath and Juliana: it would not be sinful by any means if she refused him in this case, because she was doing something else (that something else being taking care of the kids directly) at the time. He can wait until she is not otherwise indisposed - like when the kids are down for a nap, or for the night. If this “delay” is a great threat to him being faithful (and falling into sin) then he should see a therapist, not wait for her to roll over and be “useful” to him.

Here’s a hypothetical example: wife or hubby, either way, is on the floor cleaning up a mess, and the other spouse demands right then and there that they need sexual gratification right then and there. Sure, whatever about that mess could have just lit their fire, who knows. It’d be perfectly fine for them to pay and collect the “marital debt” right on that mess. But you know what? The spouse cleaning up the mess is just as right to say, “uhm, yeah, I’m cleaning up this mess right now, let me finish”. I’m sorry, truly, but I find the expectation that the one indiposed at the moment is to be required to drop everything and see to the sexual gratification of the other to be truly… gross…for lack of a better word.

What if one is brushing his/her teeth? Do they have to submit right then? What about if there’s food on the stove and one is cooking? Do they have to turn the burners off and see to the “demands” of the other? What ever happened to mutual respect? Why can’t the one spouse wait until the food is done cooking?

Now, seriously, with all respect, if some people are willing to be treated as sex slaves in their relationships, I am A-ok, with that. To each his/her own. I’m assuming that they’re consenting adults and if one has the need to be the master and one has the need to be the slave, and even if they switch positions, that’s perfectly fine with me, there are people out there who truly enjoy this lifestyle. But, again with respect, I am not a sex slave or a sex object. And I won’t drop what I’m doing, roll over and “give it up” at the “demands” of a spouse who would demean me in that fashion – unless it was a mutually consenting game which would negate any “demeaning” quality of the interaction. And I don’t expect very many people do to so…that’s not what the Church teaches and that’s not what the Church expects of us.

OF COURSE, a loving spouse would want to have relations with his/her loving spouse, isn’t that one of the perks of a healthy marriage?

and OF COURSE if one spouse notices that the other spouse “wants it” but for some reason isn’t asking for it, would be a loving spouse to have relations with that “shy” other who needs it – however extreme the hypothetical example may be.

Sex is not a weapon or a bargaining tool, but why on earth would one spouse demand sex of the other in the middle of heated arguement except to subject the other to mortification?

The Church does not teach that it is required of a spouse to be subjected to a sexually fixated person who would demand sex no matter what the other spouse is doing or feeling, or capable of delivering. I certainly would not leave my job to satiate a sexually fixated spouse, however I can see how a healthy married couple would enjoy such a sex adventure if appropriate. One would be doing a greater act of mercy by helping such a spouse find a sex therapist who can help him/her.

My priest told me that these teachings were meant to prevent one spouse from using sex as a weapon or bargaining tool, not to strip the other of dignity. They were meant to foster loving, unselfish, nurturing relations between a couple, not turn one into a slave and the other into master. That’s not the marriage I want, though I do totally get that that’s what some people find appealing and sensual. I just think it’s wrong for one person to tell another person that this is the ‘catholic way’, which it’s not – plain and simple.

 

[whm]

She’s talking about a man (a real live man, not an extreme hypothetical example) who demanded sex from his wife while his wife was actively busy taking care of children. She is talking about a man (a real live man, not an extreme hypothetical example) who expected his wife to “drop everything” while she was in the process of taking care of the kids, so that he could get a “quickie”. And I agree with Mary Gail, Cradlecath and Juliana: it would not be sinful by any means if she refused him in this case, because she was doing something else (that something else being taking care of the kids directly) at the time. He can wait until she is not otherwise indisposed - like when the kids are down for a nap, or for the night. If this “delay” is a great threat to him being faithful (and falling into sin) then he should see a therapist, not wait for her to roll over and be “useful” to him.

Here’s a hypothetical example: wife or hubby, either way, is on the floor cleaning up a mess, and the other spouse demands right then and there that they need sexual gratification right then and there. Sure, whatever about that mess could have just lit their fire, who knows. It’d be perfectly fine for them to pay and collect the “marital debt” right on that mess. But you know what? The spouse cleaning up the mess is just as right to say, “uhm, yeah, I’m cleaning up this mess right now, let me finish”. I’m sorry, truly, but I find the expectation that the one indiposed at the moment is to be required to drop everything and see to the sexual gratification of the other to be truly… gross…for lack of a better word.

What if one is brushing his/her teeth? Do they have to submit right then? What about if there’s food on the stove and one is cooking? Do they have to turn the burners off and see to the “demands” of the other? What ever happened to mutual respect? Why can’t the one spouse wait until the food is done cooking?

Now, seriously, with all respect, if some people are willing to be treated as sex slaves in their relationships, I am A-ok, with that. To each his/her own. I’m assuming that they’re consenting adults and if one has the need to be the master and one has the need to be the slave, and even if they switch positions, that’s perfectly fine with me, there are people out there who truly enjoy this lifestyle. But, again with respect, I am not a sex slave or a sex object. And I won’t drop what I’m doing, roll over and “give it up” at the “demands” of a spouse who would demean me in that fashion – unless it was a mutually consenting game which would negate any “demeaning” quality of the interaction. And I don’t expect very many people do to so…that’s not what the Church teaches and that’s not what the Church expects of us.

OF COURSE, a loving spouse would want to have relations with his/her loving spouse, isn’t that one of the perks of a healthy marriage?

and OF COURSE if one spouse notices that the other spouse “wants it” but for some reason isn’t asking for it, would be a loving spouse to have relations with that “shy” other who needs it – however extreme the hypothetical example may be.

Sex is not a weapon or a bargaining tool, but why on earth would one spouse demand sex of the other in the middle of heated arguement except to subject the other to mortification?

The Church does not teach that it is required of a spouse to be subjected to a sexually fixated person who would demand sex no matter what the other spouse is doing or feeling, or capable of delivering. I certainly would not leave my job to satiate a sexually fixated spouse, however I can see how a healthy married couple would enjoy such a sex adventure if appropriate. One would be doing a greater act of mercy by helping such a spouse find a sex therapist who can help him/her.

My priest told me that these teachings were meant to prevent one spouse from using sex as a weapon or bargaining tool, not to strip the other of dignity. They were meant to foster loving, unselfish, nurturing relations between a couple, not turn one into a slave and the other into master. That’s not the marriage I want, though I do totally get that that’s what some people find appealing and sensual. I just think it’s wrong for one person to tell another person that this is the ‘catholic way’, which it’s not – plain and simple.

Please do not put words in my mouth. Thank you.

 

[Vico]

Yes, I believe I addressed this sufficiently ealier in the thread, though I never went into too much detail because I thought it was secondary to the purpose of the thread and was not something anyone was arguing about. The grave circumstances that excuse from the debt are agreed upon by everyone in the thread. The difference is that many people are trying to add to these grave circumstances those that do not excuse from the debt, essentially making the spouse who “doesn’t feel like it” the one who has the right, while the spouse who requests the debt just has to deal with it, which is precisely the opposite of the truth.

That is a good summary. It was the opinion of St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica, supplemental question 64) that the welfare of the person must be considered, and from your prior remarks I see you agree with that. There could be a difference in opinion on what constitutes the “welfare of the person”, including physical, psychological, or spiritual, constituting “unjust exaction” in St. Thomas’ terms. Some of the more interesting comments are:

If the husband be rendered incapable of paying the debt through a cause consequent upon marriage, for instance through having already paid the debt and being unable to pay it, the wife has no right to ask again, and in doing so she behaves as a harlot rather than as a wife. But if he be rendered incapable through some other cause, then if this be a lawful cause, he is not bound, and she cannot ask, but if it be an unlawful cause, then he sins, and his wife’s sin, should she fall into fornication on this account, is somewhat imputable to him. Hence he should endeavor to do his best that his wife may remain continent.
…
The wife has no power over her husband’s body, except as is consistent with the welfare of his person, as stated above. Wherefore if she go beyond this in her demands, it is not a request for the debt, but an unjust exaction; and for this reason the husband is not bound to satisfy her.
…
For the husband having the more noble part in the marriage act, it is natural that he should be less ashamed than the wife to ask for the debt. Hence it is that the wife is not bound to pay the debt to her husband without being asked, whereas the husband is bound to pay it to the wife.
…
Although the marriage act is void of sin, nevertheless since it oppresses the reason on account of the carnal pleasure, it renders man unfit for spiritual things. Therefore, on those days when one ought especially to give one’s time to spiritual things, it is not lawful to ask for the debt.
…
Consequently a wife or husband does not sin mortally by asking for the debt on a feast day. It is however a more grievous sin to ask for the sake of mere pleasure, than through fear of the weakness of the flesh.
…
Since the wife has power of her husband’s body, and “vice versa,” with regard to the act of procreation, the one is bound to pay the debt to the other, at any season or hour, with due regard to the decorum required in such matters, for this must not be done at once openly.

 

[Rence]

Please do not put words in my mouth. Thank you.

I wouldn’t presume to do so, sorry if you took it as such

 

[CradleCath]

Yes, I believe I addressed this sufficiently ealier in the thread, though I never went into too much detail because I thought it was secondary to the purpose of the thread and was not something anyone was arguing about. The grave circumstances that excuse from the debt are agreed upon by everyone in the thread. The difference is that many people are trying to add to these grave circumstances those that do not excuse from the debt, essentially making the spouse who “doesn’t feel like it” the one who has the right, while the spouse who requests the debt just has to deal with it, which is precisely the opposite of the truth.

I disagree. No surpirse, huh?
Both spouses NEEDS are equal.

Should the one who makes the request, do so in an obnoxious way…or…do so too often, that spouse is at fault & should an argument insue…that spouse is in error & sinning against the Sacrament of Marriage.

Should the one who is denying the request, so so out of laziness or anger…or…deny the request too often, that spouse is at fault & should an agrument insue…the denying spouse is in error & sinning against the Sacrament on Marriage.

BTW. I’m very glad that you have dropped the use of the word “demand”…perhaps the word “debt” will be the next to go.
Maybe we could call it the “marriage responsiblity”??

 

[Julianna]

I disagree. No surpirse, huh?
Both spouses NEEDS are equal.

Should the one who makes the request, do so in an obnoxious way…or…do so too often, that spouse is at fault & should an argument insue…that spouse is in error & sinning against the Sacrament of Marriage.

Should the one who is denying the request, so so out of laziness or anger…or…deny the request too often, that spouse is at fault & should an agrument insue…the denying spouse is in error & sinning against the Sacrament on Marriage.

BTW. I’m very glad that you have dropped the use of the word “demand”…perhaps the word “debt” will be the next to go.
Maybe we could call it the “marriage responsiblity”??

Sounds good to me!

I think perhaps some men prefer a “Stepford wife” or some women don’t mind being a “Stepford wife”.

Me…sex is mutual not a “debt” to be paid out…like buying a car with the threat of going somewhere else. Sounds like a temper tantrum to me and some men just need to “grow up”.

 

[Vico]

…

Me…sex is mutual not a “debt” to be paid out…like buying a car with the threat of going somewhere else. Sounds like a temper tantrum to me and some men just need to “grow up”.

Julianna, I bet you agree with me that some women need to grow up too. Have you ever heard of a wife that had a fit when her husband said no? There are even comedy routines about it!