Question about a sexual intimacy problem

[hurting]

Above all, all Christians have the obligation to love one another. This is especially true of spouses, who take a solemn, public vow to do so. You may claim that this love does not necessarily include the obligation to keep “the spark” alive through romance, but talk about slippery slopes! You may be technically right, but grace builds on nature, and if you don’t think the desire for romance is in our nature (both men and women), then don’t be surprised at the results you get. I don’t mean to be cruel, but it seems like you’re living with the results, and yet you refuse to see.

*Ignore my situation. I offered it far back up the thread to provide an example of a husband who did fulfill his duties to his wife in nearly every way imaginable. Even if I was absolutely unromantic (which I was not, BTW), I, and more importantly, my children, did not deserve the outcome we received. Nor do the literally thousands of spouses suffering either in divorce or in shaky marriages because one or both of them holds a patently unbiblical view of marriage. Expecting perpetual courtship and/or withholding the marital embrace due to lack of romance violates in a very serious way the sacrament undertaken. *

If I am technically right - then I am right.

I sincerely hope you have no idea what I am living with - I would not wish it on my worst mortal enemy. That being said, please do not presume to diagnose my circumstances from afar.

I think the reason God uses marriage as the image for His relationship with the Church is precisely because this desire for romance is so universal. Even celibate priests and nuns speak of their marriage to the Lord. It is not a relationship devoid of passion. Quite the contrary.

You have the analogy precisely backward. God’s love for his Church is the model for spouses to adopt in marriage.

It is true that feelings come and go, and that by themselves they are not love. But I can’t imagine that a lover would not want his beloved to feel loved, at least some of the time.

Many saints and great theologians speak of the Christian spiritual life as a great romance. Romance is not an invention of 20th century Hollywood. It goes back pretty far in human history, and is part of the way God made us. It is not a result of Original Sin!

 

[hurting]

The natural conjugal love is the natural conjugal goodness between the wife and the husband what means the love coming from the soul with their natural own corollaries, and the love coming from the body with their natural own corolaries. The natural conjugal love is coming from the body and the soul: they are not negotiable, it is like that. Each one has to love the other, in acts and in thoughts;

In general, there are the conjugal spiritual love, the conjugal moral love, the conjugal mental love, the conjugal sentimental love, theconjugal effective love, the conjugal romantic love, the conjugal physical love, the tenderness of conjugal love.
And
In the context of marital act there are the conjugal sensual love, the conjugal erotic love, the conjugal sexual love, the conjugal orgasmic love.

**Are you against the personalism in the marriage? You seem to want to do a separation between the conjugal love and the conjugal passion, why??? **

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.

 

[hurting]

The Catholic marriage vows contain an implicit promise to surrender one’s body to one’s spouse, among other things. No one suggested that the marital debt was the only one.

Sorry, even a denying spouse is not guilty for the sins of the denied. This is an exceedingly slippery slope and provides cover for the offending spouse.

I am not totally okay with you, it is function of each case and if the refusal of marital request is morally licit or not. Indeed, if you read the canon law, each spouse is responsible of the other for avoiding the bad effect of concupiscence (sensual, erotic, sexual, affective, mental, emotional).

Can. 1152 §1 It is earnestly recommended that a spouse, motivated by christian charity and solicitous for the good of the family, should not refuse to pardon an adulterous partner and should not sunder the conjugal life. Nevertheless, if that spouse has not either expressly or tacitly condoned the other’s fault, he or she has the right to sever the common conjugal life, provided he or she has not consented to the adultery, nor been the cause of it, nor also committed adultery.

Here, the “innocent spouse” has to question himself for discerning the why of adultery and more about the other issues of conjugal sexual morality; and also on all the other conjugal issues: all conjugal topics have to be analysed by this “innocent spouse”.

In the marriage, each spouse has to try to fulfill the sensual needs, the sexual needs, the spiritual needs, the affective needs, the emotional needs, the roimantic needs, and the different needs of conjugal love. **Romantic love is one of part, but not the only, of course. **But, the fact of trying is important, it a conjugal charity or natural conjugal goodness. The obligation to love the other, to render him happy (catholic happiness in the respect of natural moral law) in the conjugal life by the conjugal love is the conjugal charity that is a moral duty to try, **an obligation of means. **

*Again, I think we are experiencing a bit of language translation, but I think we are more in agreement than not. I believe you misunderstood my analogy regarding adultery. I stated that refusal of the debt was not license to commit adultery on the part of the refused spouse or even a mitigating factor; you answered with a reference to a canon that offers a legitimate reason for the innocent spouse to refuse. *

 

[TechMan]

If I am technically right - then I am right.

I only meant that you may be technically right that there is no official promulgation by the Church that explicitly mentions the obligation for spouses to keep romance alive in their marriage. However, what I and many others believe is that such an obligation is both obvious to most people and implicit in your vow to love your spouse.

Expecting perpetual courtship and/or withholding the marital embrace due to lack of romance violates in a very serious way the sacrament undertaken.

I agree that withholding sex does violate the sacrament of matrimony in a serious way. But so does withholding romance, or as you call it, “perpetual courtship”. I say this because withholding romance will kill a marriage as surely as withholding sex. You keep referring to the “marital embrace” to refer to sexual intercourse. And rightly so, I think, because that phrase reflects the love and intimacy, physical, psychological, emotional, and spiritual, that sexual intercourse is meant to both reflect and foster.

When a couple marries, they take solemn vows to do what is necessary to foster a continually growing love for the specific individual they are marrying. And if that person needs romance, then you’re committing to romance them, whether it comes naturally to you or not, for the rest of your life, and whether or not they live up to their part of the bargain. Just as God lives up to His promise to love us in the way we both need and want, whether or not we love Him back.

That is every bit as much a marital obligation as having sexual intercourse is.

I sincerely hope you have no idea what I am living with - I would not wish it on my worst mortal enemy. That being said, please do not presume to diagnose my circumstances from afar.

Unfortunately I do have some understanding of what you are living with. I’ve been living with it for several decades. From our wedding night. Nevertheless, I’ve learned a great deal over the years. About myself, about my wife, about God, and about the way I often refuse to love Him the way He wants to be loved. And isn’t that what we’re talking about?.. Not being loved the way we want to be loved? Because if it’s not… If you’re simply talking about your right to have sex with a willing partner, then we really have no hope of understanding each other.

I’m not diagnosing your circumstances from afar. I’m simply discussing a matter that you brought up, and offering my perspective as a husband who has been dealing with essentially the same issue for a very long time, and come, through dealing with deep anger, frustration, hurt feelings, and tears, to a deeper understanding of all that genuine love between spouses is meant to be.

Here’s your first post in this thread where you mention your own pain, emphasis mine:

I truly feel for you. This was a huge problem in my marriage. I make the point from the view that few people would hesitate for a minute to chastise a spouse, particularly a man, for failing to live up to his end of the marital bargain in terms of say, earning a living to support his family. Yet the obligation between spouses regarding the marital embrace is much more explicit in the Church’s teaching and as others have pointed out, much more important in terms of the hazards it avoids.

I have heard every excuse under the sun, and frankly, they are usually offered on behalf of women who don’t want to honor their obligations. They are just that - excuses. While a man owes his wife respect and honor, he in fact does not owe her even one date night or any of the other feminist tripe offered up to earn something that his wife promised him on their wedding day. The Church uses the terms ‘debt’ and ‘obligation’ for a reason. The OP deserves the support of his pastor to counsel his wife that she is sinning is a bad way by withholding the marital embrace from him.

He can buy her all the flowers and rub her feet till the cows come home, but what it all boils down to is that his wife will either decide to honor her vows or not.

No. It also comes down to whether he will decide to honor his vows or not.

Given a husband’s solemn vow before Almighty God to “love you and honor you all the days of my life”, how can you possibly believe he owes her only respect and honor, but not love? Or do you think he owes her only the “tough love” of making sure she pays her marital debt?! Does he not also owe her the tender love of romance?

Does he not also owe her the kind of love she both needs and wants, in the way she both needs and wants it? After all, he promised that to her every bit as much as she promised to have sex with him. And being a matter of love, her refusal to give what she promised does not release him from the obligation to give what he promised.

 

[AnneTeresa]

Does anyone else sometimes read threads like this and wonder if one of the posters is really your own spouse?

Just kidding…

 

[fpt]

fpt;10170750:

*Again, I think we are experiencing a bit of language translation, but I think we are more in agreement than not. I believe you misunderstood my analogy regarding adultery. I stated that refusal of the debt was not license to commit adultery on the part of the refused spouse or even a mitigating factor; you answered with a reference to a canon that offers a legitimate reason for the innocent spouse to refuse. *

Only, a grave, serious or fair reason, can permit, unilaterally, to one spouse to refuse the marital embrace, if and only if this just reason is objective and realistic.
Here, I agree with you, but the issue is how to define a just, objective and realistic reason???
The personalism must be taken in consideration for indentify this fair, objective and realistic reason, otherwise it is a wrong intellectual approach. Personalism is not a new catholic concept, it is one part of catholicism, of catholic charity, of conjugal love…etc: we are human beings, a body and soul, inside the time of humans with the bad effects of original sin. Only, The Roman catholic church has the divine power to define the personalism with its own limits: the catholic personalism versus the bad personalism.

The “innocent spouse”, in apparence, has to question himself, always, for discerning the why of adultery of the other, and / or the why of the sexual sins of the other (refusal of marital act and the other issues of conjugal sexual morality; and also on all the other conjugal issues). All conjugal topics have to be analysed by this " innocent spouse" for understanding this situation.

My understanding.

In the marriage, the woman is or should be the " New Eve of her Man " and the " Saint Mary Magdalene of her husband ", I mean: the Female, the Fiancée, the Bride, the Sweetheart, the Love, the Mistress, the Lover, the Beloved, the Muse, the Friend, the Best-friend, the Girlfriend, the Helper, the Soul-Mate, the Companion, the Partner, the Associate, the Wife and the Potential Mother, the Educator, the Teacher, the Professor, the Thinker, the Philosopher, the Schoolgirl, the Pupil, the Student, the Follower, the Female Opposite Number, the Alterity, the Complementarity, the Princess, the Queen, the Doctress, the Nurse, the Guide of her Husband and** the Person who reveals in him, his part of feminity and helps his masculinity**. Female has to understand the normal sexuality of her male. Wife is the teacher of the sexuality of her husband, she is also the professor of the sexuality of her husband, and then she is the doctress and love’s master of the sexuality of her husband.

In the marriage, the man is or should be to be the " New Adam of his wife" and the " Holy Beloved of his wife" , I mean: the Male, the Fiancé, the Bridegroom, the Sweetheart, the Love, the Lover, the Beloved, the Companion, the Friend, the Best friend, the Boy-friend, the Helper, the Soul-Mate, the Companion, the Partner, the Associate, the Husband and the potential Father, the Educator, the Teacher, the Professor, the Thinker, the Philosopher, the Master, the Mentor, the Follower, the Schoolboy, the Pupil, the Student, the Male Opposite Number, the Alterity, the Complementarity, The Prince, The King, the Doctor, the Nurse, the Guide of his Wife, and The Person who reveals in her, her part of masculinity and helps her feminity. Husband is the teacher of the sexuality of his wife, he is also the professor of the sexuality of his wife, and then he is the doctor and love’s master of the sexuality of his wife.

In the canon law, the part concerning the moral rights, the moral obligations and the moral duties of the marriage and of the marital act is only an explanation of the natural moral law, not more not less. **Each person is normally capable to know that. ** because of his human nature. This speech is not for an elite.

 

[fpt]

I stated that refusal of the debt was not license to commit adultery on the part of the refused spouse or even a mitigating factor; you answered with a reference to a canon that offers a legitimate reason for the innocent spouse to refuse.

I agree with you, of course.

Nevertheless, if you read the canon law, each spouse is responsible to the other: to avoid the bad effects of concupiscence (sensual, erotic, sexual, affective, mental, emotional). In the marriage, each spouse has to try to fulfill the sensual needs, the sexual needs, the spiritual needs, the affective needs, the emotional needs, the romantic needs, and the different needs of conjugal love in the respect of the natural moral law.

Of course, the romantic love has to be defined in the catholic way. The romantic love is not an absolute, there are limits, of course. But, the romantic love is an obligation of means for helping the other, for building the bonding of love of couple (conjugal love). The obligation to love the other, to render him happy (catholic happiness in the respect of natural moral law) in the conjugal life by the conjugal love is the conjugal charity that is a moral duty to try, an obligation of means.

Can. 1152 §1 It is earnestly recommended that a spouse, motivated by christian charity and solicitous for the good of the family, should not refuse to pardon an adulterous partner and should not sunder the conjugal life. Nevertheless, if that spouse has not either expressly or tacitly condoned the other’s fault, he or she has the right to sever the common conjugal life, provided he or she has not consented to the adultery, nor been the cause of it, nor also committed adultery.

Provided he or she has not consented to the adultery, nor been the cause of it, nor also committed adultery.???, What is it???

 

[hurting]

I stated that refusal of the debt was not license to commit adultery on the part of the refused spouse or even a mitigating factor; you answered with a reference to a canon that offers a legitimate reason for the innocent spouse to refuse.

I agree with you, of course.

Nevertheless, if you read the canon law, each spouse is responsible to the other: to avoid the bad effects of concupiscence (sensual, erotic, sexual, affective, mental, emotional). In the marriage, each spouse has to try to fulfill the sensual needs, the sexual needs, the spiritual needs, the affective needs, the emotional needs, the romantic needs, and the different needs of conjugal love in the respect of the natural moral law.

Of course, the romantic love has to be defined in the catholic way. The romantic love is not an absolute, there are limits, of course. But, the romantic love is an obligation of means for helping the other, for building the bonding of love of couple (conjugal love). The obligation to love the other, to render him happy (catholic happiness in the respect of natural moral law) in the conjugal life by the conjugal love is the conjugal charity that is a moral duty to try, an obligation of means.

Can. 1152 §1 It is earnestly recommended that a spouse, motivated by christian charity and solicitous for the good of the family, should not refuse to pardon an adulterous partner and should not sunder the conjugal life. Nevertheless, if that spouse has not either expressly or tacitly condoned the other’s fault, he or she has the right to sever the common conjugal life, provided he or she has not consented to the adultery, nor been the cause of it, nor also committed adultery.

Provided he or she has not consented to the adultery, nor been the cause of it, nor also committed adultery.???, What is it???

fpt,

I think we are more in agreement than not, but in all charity, I do not understand your continued references to canon law regarding adultery. I gave the adultery example so as to connote the gravity to others of unjust refusal of the debt.

Put simply - and recall that the understanding of marriage is not to be so great so as to escape even young people - married spouses owe each other the debt unconditionally with rare exceptions.

 

[hurting]

hurting;10204077:

Only, a grave, serious or fair reason, can permit, unilaterally, to one spouse to refuse the marital embrace, if and only if this just reason is objective and realistic.
Here, I agree with you, but the issue is how to define a just, objective and realistic reason???

Here I think is the crux of the matter - the idea that the reason must be objective in nature. That is, the determination of the licitness of the refusal would have to be assessed an objective standard. As a practical matter, it may be difficult to ascertain, but that does not mean it should not be pursued. As a matter of practice, I believe the Church would default to a very high standard in this regard.

The personalism must be taken in consideration for indentify this fair, objective and realistic reason, otherwise it is a wrong intellectual approach. Personalism is not a new catholic concept, it is one part of catholicism, of catholic charity, of conjugal love…etc: we are human beings, a body and soul, inside the time of humans with the bad effects of original sin. Only, The Roman catholic church has the divine power to define the personalism with its own limits: the catholic personalism versus the bad personalism.

The “innocent spouse”, in apparence, has to question himself, always, for discerning the why of adultery of the other, and / or the why of the sexual sins of the other (refusal of marital act and the other issues of conjugal sexual morality; and also on all the other conjugal issues). All conjugal topics have to be analysed by this " innocent spouse" for understanding this situation.

My understanding.

In the marriage, the woman is or should be the " New Eve of her Man " and the " Saint Mary Magdalene of her husband ", I mean: the Female, the Fiancée, the Bride, the Sweetheart, the Love, the Mistress, the Lover, the Beloved, the Muse, the Friend, the Best-friend, the Girlfriend, the Helper, the Soul-Mate, the Companion, the Partner, the Associate, the Wife and the Potential Mother, the Educator, the Teacher, the Professor, the Thinker, the Philosopher, the Schoolgirl, the Pupil, the Student, the Follower, the Female Opposite Number, the Alterity, the Complementarity, the Princess, the Queen, the Doctress, the Nurse, the Guide of her Husband and** the Person who reveals in him, his part of feminity and helps his masculinity**. Female has to understand the normal sexuality of her male. Wife is the teacher of the sexuality of her husband, she is also the professor of the sexuality of her husband, and then she is the doctress and love’s master of the sexuality of her husband.

In the marriage, the man is or should be to be the " New Adam of his wife" and the " Holy Beloved of his wife" , I mean: the Male, the Fiancé, the Bridegroom, the Sweetheart, the Love, the Lover, the Beloved, the Companion, the Friend, the Best friend, the Boy-friend, the Helper, the Soul-Mate, the Companion, the Partner, the Associate, the Husband and the potential Father, the Educator, the Teacher, the Professor, the Thinker, the Philosopher, the Master, the Mentor, the Follower, the Schoolboy, the Pupil, the Student, the Male Opposite Number, the Alterity, the Complementarity, The Prince, The King, the Doctor, the Nurse, the Guide of his Wife, and The Person who reveals in her, her part of masculinity and helps her feminity. Husband is the teacher of the sexuality of his wife, he is also the professor of the sexuality of his wife, and then he is the doctor and love’s master of the sexuality of his wife.

In the canon law, the part concerning the moral rights, the moral obligations and the moral duties of the marriage and of the marital act is only an explanation of the natural moral law, not more not less. **Each person is normally capable to know that. **because of his human nature. This speech is not for an elite.

 

[WetCatechumen]

Don’t worry, not so explicit.

Here’s an age old problem: I (as husband) desire far more frequent sexual intimacy than my wife.

I’m not going to put a particular number on how often I would so desire, but suffice it to say that it would be plenty higher than my wife. We usually end up being sexually intimate 3 times a month, or so. I would like it if that were a lot higher.

HOWEVER, that is not really the problem. I can absolutely deal with the waiting, the lesser amount, etc.

The REAL problem that my wife and I have been discussing is related, but not the same.

Basically what’s happened is that I no longer try to “initiate” an encounter with her. This is because 9 times out of 10, I know she is going to turn it down. And when she turns it down, it stings me on a very deep level. Rationally, I know that she always loves me and she just has a lower sex drive than I do, but emotionally and on an instinctual level it just hurts. It hurts bad.

And so, I have not been initiating. I’ve been initiating less and less and now, finally, I am not initiating anymore. Since that has happened, here’s where I finally get to the heart of the problem: since that has happened, I have been having deep feelings of discontent.

I wish that I could better explain the emotions that I’ve been feeling, but I don’t know how. My wife and I have been talking about these feelings I’m having but it’s been tough to get down to the core of the matter. I think that it might be a kind of resentment. Like, she and only she gets to decide when we get the green light and I kinda feel like: “maybe if I’m a good boy, I’ll get a cookie tonight!”

Sorry, I’m just trying to write it down, hoping that it will help me get to the heart of the matter. I guess it’s just that I feel like we’re not equal partners in our sexual intimacy because she gets to dictate it 100% of the time.

We’ve been working on how to get around this - and we just can’t find a way. Help!

Some notes:

-I’m very aware of her needs within the relationship for romance and such, and being a born romantic, this is never a problem for me. I’m always doing little gestures - roses, surprise nights out on the town, little love notes and “I miss you!” texts and so on. We have both agreed that our relationship is not lacking in emotional intimacy, so to speak.

-The sex, according to her, is great. So it is not a matter of it being un-pleasurable. It doesn’t hurt and she says she feels satisfied “99.9%” of the time. So there’s no problem there, she just doesn’t feel up to it as often.

-She has tried making sacrifices as far as giving it a shot even when not in the mood. The problem is that, when she “fakes it” so to speak, she feels like she is being dishonest with me. Also, when she does this, it tends to be so transparent that I can tell, and that turns me off so I cannot keep going with it.

-To our knowledge, there are no medical issues with either of us.

Wooooooooh, sorry to post all of that. I know it was a drudge to read. Does anyone have any advice for us? She was the one that suggested making this post, by the way. Because we would like some outside perspective.

This is my take as an unmarried man with no sexual experience, but I’ve heard single clergy, married clergy, and married laity express this opinion as well:

We have lots of duties and obligations in our lives. Maybe you don’t always feel like going to Mass on Sunday. Maybe you don’t always feel like going to your kid’s basketball game. Maybe you don’t always feel like taking out the trash. Maybe you don’t always feel like going to work. Maybe you don’t always feel like watching the kids while your wife goes out with her friends.

Why don’t people apply this to sex as well? You may not always feel like having sex, but maybe you should try to anyway because your wife wants too. Likewise, a wife may not always feel like having sex, but she should at least try because it will probably be very hurtful to her husband to be rejected.

This goes for both genders.

Also, I do recognize that boundaries should be respected and that spouses shouldn’t feel pressured into sex. But seriously, both man and wife owe their spouse sex. It was part of the deal they signed up for. Refusing to honor than can and does destroy marriages. It destroyed my sister’s marriage and her husband was the one withholding intercourse.

 

[fpt]

fpt;10213585:
In my humble opinion, we are on the same line. We seem to share the same point of logic view about the natural moral conditions of the refusal of the request of the marital act coming from one of spouses.

The principle is to have conjugal sex;

The exception is, only, the moral permission of refusing, under some special conditions;
Or
The moral obligation and / or the moral duty to refuse, absolutely, of practicing the marital act, in very special cases;
Or
The moral obligation and / or the moral duty to refuse, absolutely, of asking to the other the marital act, in very special cases.

The obligations, the duties are: to do, not to do, to ask, not to ask, to refuse, not to refuse, let to do, not let to do, to offer, not to offer, to let to offer, not to let to offer, to receive, not to receive, to let to receive, not to let to receive, to be active, not to be active, to be passive, not to be passive, to give, not to give, to let to give, not to let to give.

 

[clem456]

This is my take as an unmarried man with no sexual experience, but I’ve heard single clergy, married clergy, and married laity express this opinion as well:

We have lots of duties and obligations in our lives. Maybe you don’t always feel like going to Mass on Sunday. Maybe you don’t always feel like going to your kid’s basketball game. Maybe you don’t always feel like taking out the trash. Maybe you don’t always feel like going to work. Maybe you don’t always feel like watching the kids while your wife goes out with her friends.

Why don’t people apply this to sex as well? You may not always feel like having sex, but maybe you should try to anyway because your wife wants too. Likewise, a wife may not always feel like having sex, but she should at least try because it will probably be very hurtful to her husband to be rejected.

This goes for both genders.

Also, I do recognize that boundaries should be respected and that spouses shouldn’t feel pressured into sex. But seriously, both man and wife owe their spouse sex. It was part of the deal they signed up for. Refusing to honor than can and does destroy marriages. It destroyed my sister’s marriage and her husband was the one withholding intercourse.

Yes, but this is not the kind of sexual relationship that one desires, at least I don’t. The desire for sex should come from the heart, not from a sense of obligation.
This is a huge issue in my marriage also, as described by VeritatisLux Mea.

I stopped initiating also, because the requests get refused, and it does hurt. I feel like I am bothering her. Or you get a yes that is a response of resignation to perform a duty. Not exactly enthusiasm. Sex should not be a duty, it should be an act of joyful love. And I realize love and duty go together to a certain extent. I do not understand why, if she loves me, she would not want to have sex with me more often. And she enjoys it when she allows herself to, so I really don’t get it! It has come to the point that the only time we have sex is when I become irritated, so to make it up to me, we will have it the next day when she builds up the momentum for it. So, anger has become part of the foundation our sex life is built on.

 

[WetCatechumen]

Yes, but this is not the kind of sexual relationship that one desires, at least I don’t. The desire for sex should come from the heart, not from a sense of obligation.
This is a huge issue in my marriage also, as described by VeritatisLux Mea.

I stopped initiating also, because the requests get refused, and it does hurt. I feel like I am bothering her. Or you get a yes that is a response of resignation to perform a duty. Not exactly enthusiasm. Sex should not be a duty, it should be an act of joyful love. And I realize love and duty go together to a certain extent. I do not understand why, if she loves me, she would not want to have sex with me more often. And she enjoys it when she allows herself to, so I really don’t get it! It has come to the point that the only time we have sex is when I become irritated, so to make it up to me, we will have it the next day when she builds up the momentum for it. So, anger has become part of the foundation our sex life is built on.

Unfortunately, you are correct. That isn’t the type of sexual relationship that satisfies - but I wonder if that could be a good bridge to a relationship that does satisfy.

 

[hurting]

Unfortunately, you are correct. That isn’t the type of sexual relationship that satisfies - but I wonder if that could be a good bridge to a relationship that does satisfy.

Thread winner!

Yes, it it would be fantastic if it were always spiritually, emotionally and physically fabulous for both (and good on every single other metric enumerated by fpt), but realistically it will not be. Wet has offered a very practical bit of advice here, akin to the ‘fake it till you make it’ that I’ve seen others proffer, although I’ve not seen that phrase used in this thread. For those of you who demand practical - this is it.

Most certainly, the debt, the obligatio nof mutual sharing in this way is far more important and far easier to assess from an objective standpoint than almost any other marital requirement. For example, spouses are to care for the material needs of one another - almost every household in this country, including Catholic ones, provides far in excess of the level to lead a safe, wellfed life. Nonetheless, whereas fulfilling this requirement may still be open to subjectivity, the marital debt is far less so.

 

[TechMan]

Thread winner!

Yes, it it would be fantastic if it were always spiritually, emotionally and physically fabulous for both (and good on every single other metric enumerated by fpt), but realistically it will not be. Wet has offered a very practical bit of advice here, akin to the ‘fake it till you make it’ that I’ve seen others proffer, although I’ve not seen that phrase used in this thread. For those of you who demand practical - this is it.

Most certainly, the debt, the obligatio nof mutual sharing in this way is far more important and far easier to assess from an objective standpoint than almost any other marital requirement. For example, spouses are to care for the material needs of one another - almost every household in this country, including Catholic ones, provides far in excess of the level to lead a safe, wellfed life. Nonetheless, whereas fulfilling this requirement may still be open to subjectivity, the marital debt is far less so.

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.

 

[maudite]

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.

 

[TechMan]

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.

I see you’re new to Catholic Answers Forums. Welcome! I hope you get the support and information you need to come closer to the Lord. This seems like a good topic for a new thread, rather than adding on to this one, but since you have, here are my thoughts.

Catholics are obliged to follow the Church’s laws regarding marriage. If they don’t, then their marriage is not considered sacramentally valid, even though it would be valid in the eyes of the civil law. Since sex is only allowed between married couples, the advice her priest gave her appears to be good and valid advice. I wonder if your wife has known this all this time, and now that she’s renewing her commitment to the Church, she wants to live according to its teachings. So her feelings that having sex is immoral may not be that it’s always immoral, but rather, that due to your circumstances she shouldn’t be having sex until you get married in the Church. And she would be right.

So I would recommend two things:

1. Abstain from sex until you get married in the Church.
2. Even before you get married in the Church, open a discussion with her about whether or not the reason she thinks it’s immoral is because you’re not married in the Church. If that’s the case, then discuss whether getting married would solve the problem.

The enthusiasm with which she told me that was strange. Like she was glad that she had an excuse to not have sex.

She may very well be glad to have that “excuse” because it might be a way to open up a discussion about getting married in the Church, which she probably desperately wants to do. Are you Catholic, too? Do you want to get married in the Church? Are you willing to?

She’s a totally different woman than who I married.

Since she’s come back to the Church, she’s definitely going to see things differently than she did when she married you outside the Church. I would encourage you to consider investigating her renewed faith to see if it is something you could share.

I do want to be absolutely clear, though. The Church’s teaching is that sex between validly married couples is holy. It is a path to growth in holiness. It is beautiful, and is meant to be thoroughly enjoyed by both the husband and the wife. There is nothing wrong in foreplay. There is nothing wrong in seeing each other naked. There is nothing wrong with wanting to make love and looking forward to it.

So first things first: Abstain from sex until you get married in the Church and find out if her attitude is due to the fact that you’re not currently married in the Church. Then, if she does have an erroneous understanding of the morality of having and enjoying sex as a married couple, study the teachings of the Church together, particularly the teachings of Pope John Paul II.

I wish you the best.

 

[maudite]

I am not Catholic but have been attending classes so that I can share it with her. I’ve been trying my hardest to understand and accept everything new that she is pulling out but it just goes on and on. There’s always something new that I’m not doing right and she chastises me for it. Last night she accused me of seeing her only as a sexual object and until I achieve perfection in my life spiritually and physically she can’t love me.

I was excited about learning about Catholicism and used to love attending mass and talking to her, sharing with her our thoughts about it. It’s different now though. We don’t share anymore, we don’t enjoy it together. She’s turned it from something of joy to a weight and burden, something I have to do in order to earn her love. I’m pissed off and angry.

Guess I should also mention that she has been committed to mental facilities twice in the past and has currently stopped taking her medications again. Whenever she stops the medications things go through the roof. She becomes hyper focused and begins to push her personal expectations onto everyone else. Hence, why I have to achieve perfection for her to love me. I just want to be a good husband and father and feel I have been that and continue to be that. I’m just tired of fighting a constant battle when she can just stop taking her medication and take us back to square one over and over again. When she can hurl insults veiled as good intentioned life advice. When she can justify everything away and turn blame for anything and everything onto me. It’s like whenever she stops taking the medications she becomes intent on doing as much damage to our marriage and the family as possible except she calls it personal growth.

It doesn’t help that with everyone but me she can put on the veil of good intentions and pull out her story and tell anyone whatever she wants them to hear. People believe her too. Tell her she doesn’t need her medication. They don’t know the damage she does at home though. Until, the next time she gets committed and once back on medication reveals all the destructive things she had been doing in secret. Then she stops again and puts that veil back on and convinces everyone that everything is wonderful.

This probably would have been better for a new thread. lol.

 

[Falco]

Remember that there is no turning back from a Catholic marriage - it is for life, and although it can be annulled in special circumstances, it will affect your chances of remarrying, should you and your wife split.

By the sound of your wife’s mental state, it is a power struggle, with her using everything she can to cause ructions. I’d say it is not a true Catholic morality situation that she is using against you, but her own agenda which she has dragged the Catholic morality into as more ammunition.

I would advise extreme caution before entering into a Catholic marriage with her, unless you have put this WHOLE situation before someone in the Church with a deep knowledge of the marriage laws. You already have a civilly recognised marriage, which you can get out of.

 

[TechMan]

Remember that there is no turning back from a Catholic marriage - it is for life, and although it can be annulled in special circumstances, it will affect your chances of remarrying, should you and your wife split.

By the sound of your wife’s mental state, it is a power struggle, with her using everything she can to cause ructions. I’d say it is not a true Catholic morality situation that she is using against you, but her own agenda which she has dragged the Catholic morality into as more ammunition.

I would advise extreme caution before entering into a Catholic marriage with her, unless you have put this WHOLE situation before someone in the Church with a deep knowledge of the marriage laws. You already have a civilly recognised marriage, which you can get out of.

In light of the additional information maudite provided, I pretty much agree. Though I’m kind of skittish about diagnosing and recommending from afar, without knowing maudite and his wife, and without knowing ALL the facts. My original advice was based on the information he originally posted. In my original response I should have said “***unless ***you get married in the Catholic Church” instead of “until.”