sex within marriage

[Bookcat]

I read it, doesn`t talk about family size

I understand the principle, I just always get the impression that smaller families are looked down upon

for example, I’ve heard many statements like “well we have 2 now, but we’re open to life so obviously we’re not stopping there”, as if people who only choose to have 2 for whatever reason are not open to life somehow

Should they just “choose 2” - no. That is a willie nillie choice.

If they have a serious reason to avoid - then yes it may be that they avoid via NFP after 2…or even 1…

Each married couple must judge these things before God (perhaps with counsel etc). They are yes to be open to life. But those who judge that they have a serious reason to avoid another conception are still open to life - for they are not using evil means - not contracepting.

 

[1ke]

I read it, doesn`t talk about family size

Because family size I up to YOU through discernment with your spouse.

I understand the principle, I just always get the impression that smaller families are looked down upon

You are going to have to get over that. It’s in your head. You apparently know a lot of judgmental people who gossip and poke their nose where it doesn’t belong. You have created a story in your head that this is what the Church thinks. But it doesn’t.

There have always been small and large families. Some people cannot have children and therefore have no children. They are no less Catholic and no les a full member of the Church. The Church does not “look down on” anyone. Now, people, that’s another story but they are sinning when the do that.

for example, I’ve heard many statements like “well we have 2 now, but we’re open to life so obviously we’re not stopping there”, as if people who only choose to have 2 for whatever reason are not open to life somehow

People are crazy. Ignore them.

and the number of times I’ve been told that I must be spoiled, being basically an only child, or that only children are naturally more selfish

Again, not church teaching, but rather people’s opinions. You are going to have to learn that people’s opinions are just that-- and they have no bearing on what you do or don’t do.

or maybe i just don’t know how to do proper discernment, everyone just says follow god’s will, which I usually don’t even know what that means, or what exactly he wills

You don’t have a spouse yet. So, you don’t discern this right now. When you are married, you and your spouse will talk about it and make a decision. It’s that simple.

 

[Bookcat]

or maybe i just don’t know how to do proper discernment, everyone just says follow god’s will, which I usually don’t even know what that means, or what exactly he wills

One has grace to discern - then not now. Your not married so this is not something one would discern now. When one is married one can then judge as life goes on and in the circumstances then. One would judge with ones spouse if one has a serious reason to make use of NFP not to have another child (and perhaps with counsel)…

• • then not now.

 

[mary_bobo]

A real husband looks always for the benefit of his wife. His love has to be unconditional and sacrificial if necessary for her wellbeing. His love is gentle, never forced. Her love is in understanding the rightful needs of her husband and herself, always open to the possibility of life which gives it sanctity and honour. Prudence, wisdom, discussion and compromise are the ways of love in marriage. We are all vulnerable to those we love the most. Timing and frequency of love making is the subject of wise and loving discussion, each more open to the other’s needs than their own. But marriage is not only the public declaration of a sexual relationship in a sociological framework; but a sacrament of mutual love and respect that makes such discussions so important and so valuable in expressing that love to your spouse in falling over each other to compromise towards each other’s needs at the time.

Well said.

 

[angell1]

Because family size I up to YOU through discernment with your spouse.

You are going to have to get over that. It’s in your head. You apparently know a lot of judgmental people who gossip and poke their nose where it doesn’t belong. You have created a story in your head that this is what the Church thinks. But it doesn’t.

There have always been small and large families. Some people cannot have children and therefore have no children. They are no less Catholic and no les a full member of the Church. The Church does not “look down on” anyone. Now, people, that’s another story but they are sinning when the do that.

People are crazy. Ignore them.

Again, not church teaching, but rather people’s opinions. You are going to have to learn that people’s opinions are just that-- and they have no bearing on what you do or don’t do.

You don’t have a spouse yet. So, you don’t discern this right now. When you are married, you and your spouse will talk about it and make a decision. It’s that simple.

yeah, I will get over it, I guess it’s just a case of getting what I feel is “second hand Catholicism”. until I found this site, I really didn’t know much about all these church documents and things like that, so I just accepted what others told me, thinking they were better informed, since that’s basically all I had to rely on. that’s what sometimes makes it difficult to separate opinions from facts, I think, eventually, I will get there

honestly, I feel like it’s nobody else’s business how many children a family has. there could be a myriad of reasons why, and I don’t think anyone needs to justify themselves to outsiders, if they are using moral methods, do they? not all families are the same so things won’t work out the same way.

I think the argument is, that generally speaking, most north American families don’t have that serious reasons to limit to a small number. that seems to be how it goes anyways. but I really don’t know, that could again just be people talking.

 

[Rau]

yeah, I will get over it, I guess it’s just a case of getting what I feel is “second hand Catholicism”. until I found this site, I really didn’t know much about all these church documents and things like that, so I just accepted what others told me.

This site has advantages and disadvantages. You can focus on the advantages by listening closely to those contributors who (IMHO) demonstrate sound knowledge. Posters such as: 1ke, Bookcat, Easterjoy come to mind. There are also many less well informed voices which may cause you confusion. It’s important to distinguish…

 

[Secant]

Speaking as one in the process of discerning how many children to have, this is not a once and done decision and has an effect on the OP’s question of refusing marital relations. I started my marriage with my husband wanting four kids and me wanting none, but we agreed to let God decide if we’d get one. We neither tried to have or avoid children for three years. Then we agreed that we’d like to try and tried for two years before God blessed us with our little girl. My husband’s not very good at self-control and I had to refuse his request in the eight weeks following giving birth, as the OB said we’d rip my stitches open. We then agreed that we needed to wait until she was a year before making a decision on any subsequent children. This meant that I had to refuse my husband’s serious requests for marital relations often due to confusing or clear fertility signs.

When she was a year, we said, “Ok God, what is your thought on another child for us?” His response was, “at least one more” as I became pregnant again almost immediately. Then I had to refuse my husband for another few months because any time he so much as held my hand (or the wind blew, or a cloud passed over the sun, etc) I had to go throw up. Refusing relations for serious reasons like physical health and even reasonable spacing of children (very few women are called to spend their whole fertile lives pregnant) is not sinful, and while it is possible that your spouse may be tempted to turn to porn, masturbation, or even adultery if you refuse, I struggle with the idea that it could be your fault when you have an honest, good reason. Each spouse is supposed to be respectful of the others physical/mental/emotional needs, and while one should pay attention to their spouses need to marital relations, that need doesn’t necessarily trump risking tearing out stitches.

For your headache example, are you talking about something that would go away with some Tylenol in 30 minutes? If so, have your spouse give you a massage for that half hour and consider gving them what they want after the massage. If it is a migraine and the only solutions are a drug that puts you to sleep or 72 hours of massive pain, probably they should come back later when the drug has worn off and you can see as far as their face again without all the swirlies and spots. Basically, we should expect marriage to be a loving relationship based on mutual self giving and respect for each other.

 

[Marcus1978]

I don’t think sex should be forced, even within a marriage. A case example would be…A woman who finds sex painful, unbearable, and unpleasant. Forcing her to do it would not be enjoyable for her, and, in my eyes, this would constitute rape. I think, as a man and as her husband, he should respect this of her, and maybe try to get her help. There is a physical condition which could make it unbearably painful. Why should a woman be forced to do something that is horrible for her?

Another factor to consider might be the husband’s duty to provide his wife with leadership, and hers to submit. She might find sex painful but he might hold the view that it would be beneficial for her to have it. For instance they might be trying for a child and it could be her fertile time, or he might believe that only by having sex could she overcome the feeling that it is painful for her. God calls on us to make sacrifices; for a woman, having sex in submission to her husband could be an example of this.

 

[pensmama87]

Another factor to consider might be the husband’s duty to provide his wife with leadership, and hers to submit. She might find sex painful but he might hold the view that it would be beneficial for her to have it. For instance they might be trying for a child and it could be her fertile time, or he might believe that only by having sex could she overcome the feeling that it is painful for her. God calls on us to make sacrifices; for a woman, having sex in submission to her husband could be an example of this.

It *could *be, but it would be the responsibility of the wife to make that decision.

I don’t think it’s good ideas for spouses to pretend to be doctors or psychologists (unless they are, and even then, I don’t know.) Knowing and being aware of situations that call for professionals, sure. Making diagnoses and treatment plans? Much more dicey.

No means no. Even if it’s clearly a situation where one spouse is withholding without good reason, proceeding after the “no” is just not acceptable.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Another factor to consider might be the husband’s duty to provide his wife with leadership, and hers to submit. She might find sex painful but he might hold the view that it would be beneficial for her to have it. For instance they might be trying for a child and it could be her fertile time, or he might believe that only by having sex could she overcome the feeling that it is painful for her. God calls on us to make sacrifices; for a woman, having sex in submission to her husband could be an example of this.

If sex is painful for her, she needs to go to the doctor, and she has a very serious moral responsibility to do whatever it takes to work with her healthcare provider to solve the problem. Absolutely.

But a husband has no place whatsoever forming his own treatment plan based on what he “believes” is the best way to solve a medical issue.

Does he have a right to insist she seek out medical care and follow all of her doctor’s instructions? Definitely. But much like parents don’t just get to make up diagnoses and treatments, neither do husbands. That’s irresponsible at best, abusive at worst, and not loving in any situation.

 

[Kelfa28]

Another factor to consider might be the husband’s duty to provide his wife with leadership, and hers to submit. She might find sex painful but he might hold the view that it would be beneficial for her to have it. For instance they might be trying for a child and it could be her fertile time, or he might believe that only by having sex could she overcome the feeling that it is painful for her. God calls on us to make sacrifices; for a woman, having sex in submission to her husband could be an example of this.

Seriously?

You’d put your wife in physical pain for your own gratification? For your own selfish desires for her to just overcome it.

It’s her sacrifice to be in pain instead of your sacrifice to just abstain from sex?

Fertile time or not…you’d want to purposely cause your wife physical pain? You’d actually use the term “submit” and straight from the bible in order to actually put her in physical pain and claim it’s so she can “get over it?”

What is wrong with you?

How about you submit to her when she says “no, it hurts”?

Or are husbands not called to submit to their wives?

I really, really hope you aren’t married…or are at least a troll.

 

[Marcus1978]

It *could *be, but it would be the responsibility of the wife to make that decision.

I don’t think it’s good ideas for spouses to pretend to be doctors or psychologists (unless they are, and even then, I don’t know.) Knowing and being aware of situations that call for professionals, sure. Making diagnoses and treatment plans? Much more dicey.

No means no. Even if it’s clearly a situation where one spouse is withholding without good reason, proceeding after the “no” is just not acceptable.

I agree that proceeding after a no is unacceptable. It’s rape, a serious crime. However I would argue that the ‘no’ is itself a sin, since it suggests a woman overriding her husband. Yes, of course husbands should consider medics and other advice when deciding how to guide their wives, but ultimately only they can decide.

 

[pensmama87]

I agree that proceeding after a no is unacceptable. It’s rape, a serious crime. However I would argue that the ‘no’ is itself a sin, since it suggests a woman overriding her husband. Yes, of course husbands should consider medics and other advice when deciding how to guide their wives, but ultimately only they can decide.

Saying “no” could be a sin whether or not it’s said by the husband or wife. There is a serious obligation here and it’s not to be taken lightly, that’s true.

But no, it is not ultimately the husband’s decision. It is a mutual one, made by each spouse concerning themselves with the good of the other.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Seriously?

You’d put your wife in physical pain for your own gratification? For your own selfish desires for her to just overcome it.

It’s her sacrifice to be in pain instead of your sacrifice to just abstain from sex?

Fertile time or not…you’d want to purposely cause your wife physical pain? You’d actually use the term “submit” and straight from the bible in order to actually put her in physical pain and claim it’s so she can “get over it?”

What is wrong with you?

How about you submit to her when she says “no, it hurts”?

Or are husbands not called to submit to physical pain?

I really, really hope you aren’t married…or are at least a troll.

It’s interesting, because all of the men I know IRL who have the respect of their families and are the unequivocal authority in their homes, my husband included, would be appalled at that course of action. They view themselves as protectors first and foremost, and they wouldn’t abuse that trusted role to physically harm their wives for an orgasm.

But they would insist on medical care. Care being the operative word.

 

[pensmama87]

It’s interesting, because all of the men I know IRL who have the respect of their families and are the unequivocal authority in their homes, my husband included, would be appalled at that course of action. They view themselves as protectors first and foremost, and they wouldn’t abuse that trusted role to physically harm their wives for an orgasm.

But they would insist on medical care. Care being the operative word.

 

[Kelfa28]

It’s interesting, because all of the men I know IRL who have the respect of their families and are the unequivocal authority in their homes, my husband included, would be appalled at that course of action. They view themselves as protectors first and foremost, and they wouldn’t abuse that trusted role to physically harm their wives for an orgasm.

But they would insist on medical care. Care being the operative word.

A vast majority of married men are good men who would strive to protect their wives because they love them far more then they love themselves.

They would never seek to cause her harm or pain. In fact, they would do anything to relieve the pain.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

A vast majority of married men are good men who would strive to protect their wives because they love them far more then they love themselves.

They would never seek to cause her harm or pain. In fact, they would do anything to relieve the pain.

I couldn’t imagine telling my husband that sex hurt and having him say “Oh well, better get over it because saying ‘no’ is a sin”. I also can’t imagine that any loving god would not view the man as sinning in that situation. The more authority someone has, the more responsibility that’s on their shoulders. If you claim authority over your wife, you’re responsible for her wellbeing. Sacrificing that for an orgasm is a deep betrayal.

But really, who has these sorts of problems and power struggles? Is this really a thing? Hubby and I trust that we both love each other and want what’s best for one another. Neither of us wants to cause the other physical or emotional pain or rejection. If sex were to hurt me, he would trust that I meant that it really hurt. He would also trust that I take my responsibly to him seriously enough to do everything I could to fix it. And I trust that he would patiently stand by my side and lovingly work with me to get things back to normal.

I don’t get how so many people end up so preoccupied by what is owed to them in marriage. Seriously, you’re married. You are one. There’s no winner or loser, you lose and win as a team. Hunker down, weather the storms, cling to each other, put the other one first, and always forgive and move forward.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

I couldn’t imagine telling my husband that sex hurt and having him say “Oh well, better get over it because saying ‘no’ is a sin”. I also can’t imagine that any loving god would not view the man as sinning in that situation. The more authority someone has, the more responsibility that’s on their shoulders. If you claim authority over your wife, you’re responsible for her wellbeing. Sacrificing that for an orgasm is a deep betrayal.

But really, who has these sorts of problems and power struggles? Is this really a thing? Hubby and I trust that we both love each other and want what’s best for one another. Neither of us wants to cause the other physical or emotional pain or rejection. If sex were to hurt me, he would trust that I meant that it really hurt. He would also trust that I take my responsibly to him seriously enough to do everything I could to fix it. And I trust that he would patiently stand by my side and lovingly work with me to get things back to normal.

I don’t get how so many people end up so preoccupied by what is owed to them in marriage. Seriously, you’re married. You are one. There’s no winner or loser, you lose and win as a team. Hunker down, weather the storms, cling to each other, put the other one first, and always forgive and move forward.

Very, very, very well put.

I have a question though, but it is wayyyy off topic though. Your religion is listed as atheist, and you write that “you’re married. You are one.”

How do you come to this conclusion as an atheist?

And I promise I’m not trolling you here. I am just looking for your perspective on how two people become one without God (or some other deity-type force).

 

[Xantippe]

Another factor to consider might be the husband’s duty to provide his wife with leadership, and hers to submit. She might find sex painful but he might hold the view that it would be beneficial for her to have it. For instance they might be trying for a child and it could be her fertile time, or he might believe that only by having sex could she overcome the feeling that it is painful for her. God calls on us to make sacrifices; for a woman, having sex in submission to her husband could be an example of this.

I think that this is not a judgment call that a husband should make without serious (name removed by moderator)ut from a well-informed priest and a medical and psychological specialist.

The approach you suggest might be devastating in long term effects.

 

[Xantippe]

Seriously?

You’d put your wife in physical pain for your own gratification? For your own selfish desires for her to just overcome it.

It’s her sacrifice to be in pain instead of your sacrifice to just abstain from sex?

And where is this “laying down his life” stuff that I keep hearing about, if she is to be made to suffer physically for his sexual gratification?

Ewwww.

When leaders’ motivations are transparently selfish, it destroys their credibility in the eyes of those that they are attempting to lead.