Question about a sexual intimacy problem

[fpt]

New to the forums here so hello.

I am going through a similar thing right now. Sex happens maybe once every couple of months. It’s been four since the last time when she started crying during because she decided it was immoral for her to be enjoying it. A little over a year ago she renewed her faith in the Catholic church and has since become extremely involved. Since that time our intimacy has suffered as she sees all aspects of it as immoral based on our sexual past. She used to love foreplay but it all stopped. I am barely allowed to touch her anymore even during. Even a big hug is met with disapproval these days. She says she wants it to be a special intimate coming together but anything that deviates from get naked, missionary, done, she considers immoral. Even that was apparently too much the last time. We have talked extensively about all of this but it has had no effect on her views of sex now. She came home elated the other day after meeting with the priest. He told her that since we were not married in the church 9 years ago that we must abstain until we are. The enthusiasm with which she told me that was strange. Like she was glad that she had an excuse to not have sex.

I’ve been very respectful of her new way of seeing this and aside from an occasional talk about my desires and feelings I leave the subject alone and do not push her. I’m unfortunately at the point now where I am preparing to continue my life being celibate. I have been rejecting my own thoughts of her in any sexual way to spare myself the inevitable rejection from her. As a result I am finding myself not attracted to her anymore. I haven’t seen her naked in four months, she won’t let me. I don’t enjoy being with her anymore because I’m never quite sure when I will do or say something she has deemed inappropriate. She’s a totally different woman than who I married.

Before, a potential catholic marriage:

You need to know the essential rules of catholic marriage and the fundamentals rules of the natural conjugality: a sexed and sexual contract and a sexed and sexual institution with all corollaries of the human nature (body and soul). The definition of marriage, the rights, the duties, the obligations of each member of couple: the mutual and reciprocal donation of bodies (the fact of making one flesh with sexual cooperation in the human fashion): the right of the body , the right on the body of the other, the right to the body of the other, her body is your body, your body is her body, the mutual and reciprocal submission of bodies in order to lead the marital act (the marital debt of the sex, the marital obligation of the sex, in the respect of the natural moral order). The fact of making one flesh, with sexual cooperation in the human fashion is a phenomenom. Thus, there are three moments, before, during and after the complete union of bodies. Each moment has its own natural moral order.

The same thing for her.

You have right to get information about that for giving your agreement in all conscience and in all liberty: (see the canon law and the catholic moral).

Does she know her sexual obligations toward her future catholic husband? Does she have a wrong acception of the catholic morality of the marital act concerning: the where, the how, the how often, the why, the what for, the how many times, the how far, the how long, the quality, the quantity, the foreplay, the sexual foreplay, the afterplay…etc???

Her new catholic morality does not have to force you to have a life of monk via her wrong acception of the catholic morality of marital act. Does she want to be a " marital nun " with you, within your future catholic couple? Does she want to convert you via her type of new mentality about the conjugal sex??? Does she have a wrong acception of the conjugal devotion?

 

[Frank1981]

If by personalism you imply that a spouse may refuse the marital embrace for anything less than a very serious reason, then yes, I suppose I am against personalism. As I understand it personalism is a relatively new view in the Church, and I will readily admit that I am not familiar with it.

I will also admit that I believe we are experiencing some degree of language translation issues and/or a matter that I believe to be at the heart of the issue - the ability to comprehend the obligations of marriage which for the vast majority of the Church’s history were presumed not to be beyond the comprehension of relatively young persons (teenagers).

*I am presenting a view that is admittedly out of time with the zeitgeist and have as much stipulated that. *

To the extent the expectations and obligations of marriage should be relatively easy to understand - that is, it should not require a canon lawyer’s level of intellect to undertake, I submit that the idea that the obligatory nature of the marital embrace should pervade is not at all problematic.

I go to a Protestant Church, but not a fundamentalist one, as I find fundamentalism distasteful. Reading through this thread, I cannot help to see an almost fundamentalist literalism in your mindset.

Protestant fundamentalists, as I am sure everyone here knows, are known for being opposed to interpretations of Scripture that vear from the most literal and obvious. They do not really have a mindset that allows for subtlety, for implied meaning. Your strict refusal to admit that romance is in any way necessary strikes me therefore as being very similar to a Protestant fundamentalist mindset.

I must agree with those who say romance is implied in the marriage vow. I know, as others have mentioned, there is great Catholic love poetry between saints and God, like that of San Juan de la Cruz. Romance, again as others have said, is nothing new.

 

[fpt]

New to the forums here so hello.

I am going through a similar thing right now. Sex happens maybe once every couple of months. It’s been four since the last time when she started crying during because she decided it was immoral for her to be enjoying it. A little over a year ago she renewed her faith in the Catholic church and has since become extremely involved. Since that time our intimacy has suffered as she sees all aspects of it as immoral based on our sexual past. She used to love foreplay but it all stopped. I am barely allowed to touch her anymore even during. Even a big hug is met with disapproval these days. She says she wants it to be a special intimate coming together but anything that deviates from get naked, missionary, done, she considers immoral. Even that was apparently too much the last time. We have talked extensively about all of this but it has had no effect on her views of sex now. She came home elated the other day after meeting with the priest. He told her that since we were not married in the church 9 years ago that we must abstain until we are. The enthusiasm with which she told me that was strange. Like she was glad that she had an excuse to not have sex.

I’ve been very respectful of her new way of seeing this and aside from an occasional talk about my desires and feelings I leave the subject alone and do not push her. I’m unfortunately at the point now where I am preparing to continue my life being celibate. I have been rejecting my own thoughts of her in any sexual way to spare myself the inevitable rejection from her. As a result I am finding myself not attracted to her anymore. I haven’t seen her naked in four months, she won’t let me. I don’t enjoy being with her anymore because I’m never quite sure when I will do or say something she has deemed inappropriate. She’s a totally different woman than who I married.

Information:

Before entering into a catholic marriage, you and your civil wife need to know, **in the details with all the subtleties, the catholic doctrine of the morality of the marital act. You (her and you) need to agree with the natural rules of marriage. Thus, you should be, morally speaking and intellectually speaking, I mean in doctrine, against: the theory of gender, the theory of homosexualism, the lesbianism, the sodomism, the feminism radical, the misandrism, the sexism from female, the misogynism, the sexism from male, the machism, the Manichaeism, the Catharism, the Jansenism, the neo-Jansenism, the Puritanism, the neo-Puritanism, the Victorianism, the neo-Victorianism, the quietism, the fideism, the theoretical providentialism, the quiverfull movements, the absolute procreationsim, the absolute physiologism, the primary anti-personalism, the primary anti-phenomenologism, the philosophical absurdism of the conjugal sexual morality, the theological absurdism of the conjugal sexual morality, the moralism, the rigorism. ** Only, the natural moral law that is explained by the Church is the rule, not more, not less. In fact, you should be agreed with, morally speaking and intellectually speaking, the fight against the heresies and ideologies going against the human nature. You and your future catholic bride should not be in favor of the direct and voluntary contraception and not be in favor of the direct and voluntary abortion.

Your future catholic bride should not be a scrupulous person in her spiritual life (in her personal moral life, in her conjugal moral life, in her own religious life, in her conjugal religious life, in her catholic devotions, about her personal sins, about the sins of her husband, about the sins of her children, about the sins of the others), in her mentalities about all topics, in her conjugal life, in her life of family, in her social life (her life of leisures, her life of travels…etc). **Thus, not be moralist and not be rigorist with herself, with her husband, and also with her children and her family, is the rule. ****The scrupulosity is a dangerous road. Each one of us has to struggle against. ****Each one has his own level of scrupulosity, but we need to avoid this terrible intellectual, mental and moral view. That is a catholic fight. **

She should be in favor of conjugal natural goodness and the conjugal charity, I mean the patience, the kindness, the understanding, the generosity, the forgiveness, the conjugal love in all dimensions toward her husband: the respect of the natural moral laws of the conjugality with all the subtleties that are given and explained by the teachings of Roman catholic church: faith and reason, reason and faith, not more and not less.

Those essential values and those fundamental principles of marriage have to be shared between the future spouses: the natural moral law of dual humanity, the natural moral law of marriage, the natural moral law of the couple, and the natural moral law of the family.

 

[Joy2day]

I have been married for 15 years.
We have six children.
My husband is the only lover I have ever had. (No, he was not a virgin when we married, though.)
Our sex life is phenomenal, absolutely amazing.
I have never refused my husband sex in my life. Not once. (We have had to refrain a few times, due to my having had surgery, but he knew about that and did not ask, as it would have been physically impossible.)
The idea of a marriage “debt” or “obligation” is perfectly accurate, and I am quite happy to be reminded that I OWE my husband my body and my physical affection. I can guarantee that if my husband said to me, “Honey, I want my marital rights,” or “Time to collect on the ol’ marriage debt” I would laugh and drag him off to our bed (or the bath-tub or, if the kids are asleep, the living room sofa or the dining room table).
Whenever my husband asserts his authority over my body (and, by the by, I can assert mine over his, too! I will initiate sex at least as often as he does), it turns me on. As mommamaree has written, sex is itself a romantic act. Why must I be wooed into it?
We are not currently particularly avoiding children, so we have sex whenever. And it is a lot. I am not just writing cheerful blather because neither my husband nor I particularly want to have sex. We do. A lot.
I am familiar with the five love languages, and curiously, physical touch is NOT my love language. In fact, I dislike being touched in general. I have to make an effort to show physical affection to our children. But with my husband, I absolutely love being physical. I love being in contact with him in any way possible. When we watch a movie at night, I curl up beside him on the sofa, and we are tangled together all the time. I love my husband, and HIS love language is touch. I learned that one to the point that it is now my primary one in relation to him. (But I still dislike it otherwise. )

I love your reply Sillara - and I think your answer relays the reasons your sex life works - your husband isn’t necessarily a new age namby pamby nice guy who doesn’t know how to assert himself - the feminists have sort of ruined male/female sexuality in that way. men don’t know how to be men, and so therefore they become BORING. And sex isn’t about being mr ‘nice’ guy. I think most wives want a pierce brosnan/daniel craig/james bond who is exciting - they want men to be men. Basically men have to make their wives want them, and realise that good communication isn’t verbal.

 

[fpt]

New to the forums here so hello.

I am going through a similar thing right now. Sex happens maybe once every couple of months. It’s been four since the last time when she started crying during because she decided it was immoral for her to be enjoying it. A little over a year ago she renewed her faith in the Catholic church and has since become extremely involved. Since that time our intimacy has suffered as she sees all aspects of it as immoral based on our sexual past. She used to love foreplay but it all stopped. I am barely allowed to touch her anymore even during. Even a big hug is met with disapproval these days. She says she wants it to be a special intimate coming together but anything that deviates from get naked, missionary, done, she considers immoral. Even that was apparently too much the last time. We have talked extensively about all of this but it has had no effect on her views of sex now. She came home elated the other day after meeting with the priest. He told her that since we were not married in the church 9 years ago that we must abstain until we are. The enthusiasm with which she told me that was strange. Like she was glad that she had an excuse to not have sex.

I’ve been very respectful of her new way of seeing this and aside from an occasional talk about my desires and feelings I leave the subject alone and do not push her. I’m unfortunately at the point now where I am preparing to continue my life being celibate. I have been rejecting my own thoughts of her in any sexual way to spare myself the inevitable rejection from her. As a result I am finding myself not attracted to her anymore. I haven’t seen her naked in four months, she won’t let me. I don’t enjoy being with her anymore because I’m never quite sure when I will do or say something she has deemed inappropriate. She’s a totally different woman than who I married.

During the preparation of your catholic future marriage, you need to have a talk with a focus on the morality of marital act, in the catholic way with all corollaries, in general:

Your own sexual needs, your own sexual desires, your own sexual hopes and your own sexual expectations; Her own sexual needs, her own sexual desires, her own sexual hopes and her own sexual expectations; Each one should explain to the other, everything concerning the sexual expectations of the marital act: a great discussion on the libido of each one, on the sexual harmony, on the preliminaries and on the sexual preliminaries (foreplay and sexual foreplay) in the catholic future marriage.

She should say to you her new moral beliefs about the physical activities in the context of marital act; She should say to you her new moral beliefs about the physical tenderness out of the context of marital act;

Is she become a moralist person, a rigorist person, a puritan person , a victorianist person, a scrupulous person, a jansenist person, a strict person, a uptight person about her own corporeity of female, about your corporeity of male, about the conjugal erotism of the marital act, about the physical tenderness without marital act…etc???

Does she want to be like a nun in her future marriage and to impose her choice to her husband? Does she want to impose to you to be like a monk in your future marriage? Does she refuse the sexual physical intimacy on you by her and on her by you in the context of marital act, after the wedding day??? Does she have false catholic understandings of marriage, of marital act with all corollaries? Does she want a Josephite marriage? Does she want an almost Josephite marriage? If yes, it is a problematic, it is a moral issue for her, for you, for your potential future catholic couple and for your conjugal sexual harmony.

You need to know before the catholic wedding all her moral views for avoiding to fall in a crazy catholic marriage, because of her false acception of the catholic morality of the marital act. Her catholicism is not a relevant reason for refusing the state of marriage, if she wants to get married with you in the catholic way.

 

[hurting]

So, hurting, it looks like we’ve found some common ground, based on WetCatechumen’s observation. In my case, my wife never totally refused to have sex. It was just a very, very, very long time until she understood my need for more frequent sexual relations, especially when I’m stressed. In fact, it has been only very recently that she “got it”. And that was because … well … I don’t want to say what finally made it click. But suffice it to say it was a very difficult and stressful time for me (and still is), and in her compassion, she finally understood that my reaction to stress and hers are very different. When I am stressed, my need for sex and other physical affection skyrockets. When she’s stressed, physical touch is the last thing she wants. For years, despite what I was saying, she was interpreting my needs based on how she would react in similar situations. It really caused a lot of hurt feelings over the years.

I just hope that things don’t revert to their old way. Like I said, I had to deal with the situation for decades before there was a breakthrough, and I really don’t want to go down that road again.

I hope for the best for you, too, and encourage you not to give up hope.

I am truly pleased to hear a positive outcome for you (and for all who have struggled with this). Thank you for your encouragement, but I am resigned to my fate.

 

[hurting]

I go to a Protestant Church, but not a fundamentalist one, as I find fundamentalism distasteful. Reading through this thread, I cannot help to see an almost fundamentalist literalism in your mindset.

Protestant fundamentalists, as I am sure everyone here knows, are known for being opposed to interpretations of Scripture that vear from the most literal and obvious. They do not really have a mindset that allows for subtlety, for implied meaning. **Your strict refusal to admit that romance is in any way necessary strikes me therefore as being very similar to a Protestant fundamentalist mindset. **

I must agree with those who say romance is implied in the marriage vow. I know, as others have mentioned, there is great Catholic love poetry between saints and God, like that of San Juan de la Cruz. Romance, again as others have said, is nothing new.

I understand subtlety and nuance just fine. The Roman Catholic Church’s teaching on the obligatory nature of sexual congress between married spouses, indeed, the absolute surrender of one’s body to one’s husband or wife is unequivocal. The Church’s teaching is well-informed by Scripture. This surrender is not conditional upon any measure of worldly romance and those who suggest otherwise or attempt to qualify, minimize or nullify the obligatory nature of the act are rendering a great disservice to marriage in general and especially to those in marriages suffering in this regard. If my position, which I believe to be well informed and prudential, compares similarly to some view that you have heard espoused by a fundamentalist Protestant, I can assure that it is purely coincidental; any such coincincidence does not, however, render my position incorrect vis-a-vis Church teaching.

 

[Sillara]

I love your reply Sillara - and I think your answer relays the reasons your sex life works - your husband isn’t necessarily a new age namby pamby nice guy who doesn’t know how to assert himself - the feminists have sort of ruined male/female sexuality in that way. men don’t know how to be men, and so therefore they become BORING. And sex isn’t about being mr ‘nice’ guy. I think most wives want a pierce brosnan/daniel craig/james bond who is exciting - they want men to be men. Basically men have to make their wives want them, and realise that good communication isn’t verbal.

Thank you! Yes, my husband is definitely a “manly” sort of man, and we have always retained that in our marriage. I enjoy being a feminine woman, and I greatly enjoy that my husband is a masculine man.

And it shows.

 

[thewanderer]

I understand subtlety and nuance just fine. The Roman Catholic Church’s teaching on the obligatory nature of sexual congress between married spouses, indeed, the absolute surrender of one’s body to one’s husband or wife is unequivocal. The Church’s teaching is well-informed by Scripture.** This surrender is not conditional upon any measure of worldly romance **and those who suggest otherwise or attempt to qualify, minimize or nullify the obligatory nature of the act are rendering a great disservice to marriage in general and especially to those in marriages suffering in this regard. If my position, which I believe to be well informed and prudential, compares similarly to some view that you have heard espoused by a fundamentalist Protestant, I can assure that it is purely coincidental; any such coincincidence does not, however, render my position incorrect vis-a-vis Church teaching.

This is not at all what Frank was saying though… I think the two of you are talking past each other. Frank said that romance is often an obligation, whether or not there is a lively sex life, just as sex is an obligation whether or not there is plenty of romance in the relationship. Both are marital obligations which exist as an obligation whether or not other obligations are being fulfilled. Frank did not say that romance is a condition for sex, he said that it is an obligation within marriage. Those are two very different claims.

 

[hurting]

This is not at all what Frank was saying though… I think the two of you are talking past each other. Frank said that romance is often an obligation, whether or not there is a lively sex life, just as sex is an obligation whether or not there is plenty of romance in the relationship. Both are marital obligations which exist as an obligation whether or not other obligations are being fulfilled. Frank did not say that romance is a condition for sex, he said that it is an obligation within marriage. Those are two very different claims.

I’m not sure Frank and I were talking past one another. I am, however, reasonably certain that romance (as this term is commonly used in the secular world) is not an obligation of Catholic marriage either with respect to sexual congress or on its own.

 

[thewanderer]

I’m not sure Frank and I were talking past one another. I am, however, reasonably certain that romance (as this term is commonly used in the secular world) is not an obligation of Catholic marriage either with respect to sexual congress or on its own.

And that is where you are wrong. It has not been as clearly defined by the Catholic Church, but we are called to love our spouse and give our entire selves to our spouse both for their current and future (eternal) happiness. I cannot think of one woman I know who could be happy in a marriage that lacked romance. It is an obligation to love your spouse selflessly, as Christ loved the Church, if you loved your spouse that way (which is an obligation) there would be romance in your marriage, period. It is an obligation because of the kind of love and self-giving spouses are called to. Just as actually communicating with each other, sharing yourself emotionally with the other, and caring more about your spouses happiness than your own are all obligations. There’s no getting around it, that is Catholic teaching.

 

[clem456]

This is the problem when we get into duties and obligations. Yes there are duties, but they are the starting point. Minimalist relationships are not love,just like minimalist Catholicism gives only lip service to God. We are called to the fullness of love, our duty is not just to give what is spelled out in the law, but to give everything we are able.

In our marriage, my wife takes great joy at being romanced. If I become a curmudgeon and withold the showing of appreciation and anticipation, I am not doing my duty. Sometimes the expectation of duties become nothing but weapons used to demand what we want.

 

[mommamaree]

What is romance, really?

I have a hard time imagining what that really looks like in a marriage. That is why I cannot agree that romance is an obligation.

A man is called to love and tenderly care for his wife. The way he does that is going to be unique to every single husband. There is no universal standard beyond that of basic respect.

Some men might do the whole Valentine’s Day all year round romance thing. (Not my cup of tea, personally)

Some men might quietly serve their wife and family by being a good provider and making sure that their needs are met and that the wife has everything she needs to fulfill her vocation.

Some men might be good at physical affection. Some might be good listeners.

There are as many ways to love one’s wife as there are husbands, and I feel pretty sure that most of those ways would not be acknowledged to be romantic by most people.

So I really can’t see that romance is a marital obligation at all. We all might view certain actions as romantic, but even if one’s husband is showing love to us in a way that is not “romantic” to us, that does not remove the need for gratitude for his lovingkindness to us. We can appreciate his self-sacrificing actions even if they are not packaged in a way that sweeps us off our feet. In fact, as far as I am aware, there is NO obligation for a woman to be swept off her feet by her husband at any time. But there IS an obligation for a husband and wife to give all of their selves to each other, including and especially our physical selves.

As an aside, this notion of romance in marital relationships is a relatively recent invention. If I remember correctly, it came from the notions of courtly love enshrined in post-Medieval literature. The angst, the passion, the being “in love”, in short, the modern descriptions of romance, all came from non-marital unrequited love idealized in literature. How that ever came to supplant the hope for a comfortable and quiet depth of love that grows over time in a marriage…I will never understand that.

 

[clem456]

People need to be cared for and nurtured in a genuine way. The word romance is charged with all kinds of connotations that are not necessarily part of that. So maybe it is a bad word choice.

If a relationship is not nurtured and cared for according to the needs of the two couples, it does not blossom, any more than just throwiing a rosebush in some sand and telling it to grow. It is supposed to grow, isn’t it? Why should I have to do anything extra?

Sexuality is the expression of a full spousal relationship, not just the performance of a duty.

 

[mommamaree]

People need to be cared for and nurtured in a genuine way. The word romance is charged with all kinds of connotations that are not necessarily part of that. So maybe it is a bad word choice.

If a relationship is not nurtured and cared for according to the needs of the two couples, it does not blossom, any more than just throwiing a rosebush in some sand and telling it to grow. It is supposed to grow, isn’t it? Why should I have to do anything extra?

Sexuality is the expression of a full spousal relationship, not just the performance of a duty.

I agree, Clem.
The full truth and beauty of the Christian marriage is truly a foretaste of heaven. However, as we humans are known for a tendency toward selfishness, I think the Church is correct in her emphasis of the minimum obligations that a husband and wife are required to fulfill in marriage. Also, people need to know the nature of the relationship they are entering, and they cannot be well-informed if the Church does not give a basic outline of the proper behavior of spouses towards each other and their children. But that is all a starting point, and with Christ, we are able to build something much more beautiful and satisfying.

 

[thewanderer]

What is romance, really?

I have a hard time imagining what that really looks like in a marriage. That is why I cannot agree that romance is an obligation.

A man is called to love and tenderly care for his wife. The way he does that is going to be unique to every single husband. There is no universal standard beyond that of basic respect.

Some men might do the whole Valentine’s Day all year round romance thing. (Not my cup of tea, personally)

Some men might quietly serve their wife and family by being a good provider and making sure that their needs are met and that the wife has everything she needs to fulfill her vocation.

Some men might be good at physical affection. Some might be good listeners.

There are as many ways to love one’s wife as there are husbands, and I feel pretty sure that most of those ways would not be acknowledged to be romantic by most people.

So I really can’t see that romance is a marital obligation at all. We all might view certain actions as romantic, but even if one’s husband is showing love to us in a way that is not “romantic” to us, that does not remove the need for gratitude for his lovingkindness to us. We can appreciate his self-sacrificing actions even if they are not packaged in a way that sweeps us off our feet. In fact, as far as I am aware, there is NO obligation for a woman to be swept off her feet by her husband at any time. But there IS an obligation for a husband and wife to give all of their selves to each other, including and especially our physical selves.

As an aside, this notion of romance in marital relationships is a relatively recent invention. If I remember correctly, it came from the notions of courtly love enshrined in post-Medieval literature. The angst, the passion, the being “in love”, in short, the modern descriptions of romance, all came from non-marital unrequited love idealized in literature. How that ever came to supplant the hope for a comfortable and quiet depth of love that grows over time in a marriage…I will never understand that.

Maybe romance is a bad choice of words then, because I certainly don’t mean that every husband has to do the whole valentine’s day thing year round. Although, having said that, if that is something that a particular wife craves and needs in order to feel loved then her husband in particular would have an obligation to provide that for her.

 

[Falco]

It’s time to revisit ‘The Five Languages of Love’. Quality Time, Touch, Acts of Service, Affirmation and Gifts. These are all ways of romancing your loved one, but you need to know which language she ‘speaks’ and understands.

If your wife’s love language is quality time, and she is sitting on the sofa waiting to have 30 minutes of one-on-one talk with you about her day, then no matter how much you show your love by acts of service, she’ll see your putting out the garbage, putting the kids to bed and doing the washing up as an attempt to delay her precious quality time.

Quality Time can be a long weekend away, or a two minute break in the middle of a hectic evening to focus on your beloved/

Touch can be everything from a 2 hour massage, to touching her hair whenever you pass her chair, or a pat on the rear as you join her at the kitchen sink to do an act of service by drying the dishes.

Acts of Service - from a mother’s day off, where she luxuriates and the family does the work, to doing what she asks without having to be nagged to do it (putting the bins out), to painting her toenails because you can do it better than she can.

Affirmation - everything from a public protestation of everlasting admiration, to a raised eyebrow and glance across a crowded room. An offhand ‘Thanks’ can so easily be expanded to ‘Thanks, that coffee smells great.’ and a smile into her eyes.

Gifts - I think is the most tricky one, but a gift does not have to mean expense. Bring her back a specially beautiful autumn leaf from your run, take a pic on your phone of something you especially want to share with her, cut an article from your morning paper for her to read at night when you get home. And a mink coat or a Ferrari never goes amiss!!!

Love languages can be ‘spoken’ in combination - mine are Touch and Quality Time, with Affirmation a close third. Gifts is my ‘least’ language, but by no means absent from my vocabulary.

So, ring the changes with the lesser languages, but find out her/his primary languages and concentrate on them. You can find tests online to do, so do them together. It will be a revelation.

 

[hurting]

Maybe romance is a bad choice of words then, because I certainly don’t mean that every husband has to do the whole valentine’s day thing year round. Although, having said that, if that is something that a particular wife craves and needs in order to feel loved then her husband in particular would have an obligation to provide that for her.

Your position is unsupported by church teaching, and as soon as someone calls you on it you admit that ‘romance’ is a bad choice of words. Interesting, because I fairly well defined it and you attempted to flame me.

 

[thewanderer]

Your position is unsupported by church teaching, and as soon as someone calls you on it you admit that ‘romance’ is a bad choice of words. Interesting, because I fairly well defined it and you attempted to flame me.

No, my postition is entirely supported by Church teaching. If your spouse requires romance to feel loved then you absolutely owe it to her to give her romance. Most women do require at least some level of romance to feel loved. Some of it comes in the typical form of flowers and chocolates etc etc, some of it is in other forms, such as telling her she looks pretty, touching her shoulder, holding her hand etc, making her a morning coffee, whatever it is that it takes to make her feel loved that is 100% your obligation and duty to do, and the same goes for her with respect to you. Yes, I was using romance in a wider sense than you apparantly were, but that does nothing to diminish my point, that is just one more way that people have been talking past each other in this conversation, so I clarified what I meant to help avoid anymore of this talking past each other. Every married person is called to live a life of sacrificial Christ-like love for their spouse. This means that if your spouse requires a particular action in order to feel loved then it is your duty to perform said action for your spouse. If they require frequent sex you owe them frequent sex, if they require physical contact without sex, you owe them that, if words of affirmation, then thats what you owe them, if romantic gestures such as giving flowers etc, then that is exactly what you owe them. Whether or not they are fulfilling your personal needs, you still owe it to them. And yes, that is Church teaching. How can one possibly claim to love their spouse with sacrifical Christ-like love while at the same time refusing to make their spouse feel loved? It is impossible. Since it is clearly taught by the Church that it is the duty of every married person to love their spouse with this kind of endless sacrificial love then it is clear that it is the duty of every married person to perform whatever actions make their particular spouse feel loved.

 

[hurting]

No, my postition is entirely supported by Church teaching. If your spouse requires romance to feel loved then you absolutely owe it to her to give her romance. Most women do require at least some level of romance to feel loved. Some of it comes in the typical form of flowers and chocolates etc etc, some of it is in other forms, such as telling her she looks pretty, touching her shoulder, holding her hand etc, making her a morning coffee, whatever it is that it takes to make her feel loved that is 100% your obligation and duty to do, and the same goes for her with respect to you. Yes, I was using romance in a wider sense than you apparantly were, but that does nothing to diminish my point, that is just one more way that people have been talking past each other in this conversation, so I clarified what I meant to help avoid anymore of this talking past each other. Every married person is called to live a life of sacrificial Christ-like love for their spouse. This means that if your spouse requires a particular action in order to feel loved then it is your duty to perform said action for your spouse. If they require frequent sex you owe them frequent sex, if they require physical contact without sex, you owe them that, if words of affirmation, then thats what you owe them, if romantic gestures such as giving flowers etc, then that is exactly what you owe them. Whether or not they are fulfilling your personal needs, you still owe it to them. And yes, that is Church teaching. How can one possibly claim to love their spouse with sacrifical Christ-like love while at the same time refusing to make their spouse feel loved? It is impossible. Since it is clearly taught by the Church that it is the duty of every married person to love their spouse with this kind of endless sacrificial love then it is clear that it is the duty of every married person to perform whatever actions make their particular spouse feel loved.

What you are describing is a quid pro quo and it does not conform to the Church’s teaching. If a spouse requires romance in order to exchange the marital embrace, that spouse is in the wrong in the first place. That’s why it’s called an obligation.