The Marital Debt

[Lea101]

I was told on this forum I was on the verge of committing sexual assault

I remember that conversation, and that isn’t true. I believe the person said that in reference to a spouse who would keep touching and making advances after the spouse said no. No as in, don’t convince me because I really don’t want to.

Moral theology is about individual acts.

Generally, yes. But this doesn’t apply to every sin. It’s not a sin if you indulge once in a while, but indulge too much and you’re committing the sin of gluttony.

Why in the world would it be ok to reject my spouse because I want to watch a football game?

Because it isn’t a rejection of the spouse, but rather a rejection of sex then. This doesn’t mean that the spouse should neglect the other that day, but maybe express intimacy differently.

Now, if I say “Honey, can we wait until halftime or until the end?” and she agrees that is fine.

I remember we were talking about what if she says no then,and you said something about you would have to give in? That was what I found weird. How can that experience be enjoyable for the wife knowing that she basically put the husband in such a situation where he must have sex with her or else sin? I’m still honestly trying to wrap my head around this. This wouldn’t be a problem for a person who doesn’t mind having sex but would rather do something else, but it would be for a person who is genuinely doesn’t want to.

As to the latter, what is mind boggling to me is why its okay to be an unwilling partner

I don’t think it’s okay to be unwilling in general. If a couple have differences in the frequency they would like to have sex, they really need to solve.

I almost feel sorry for people on this forum whose sex lives with their spouses is so boring. “Oh, he is watching a football game, guess I won’t put on my negligee and try to be a little but sexy to distract him, he would never like that”.

This is unnecessarily condescending. Nobody saying you can’t attempt to seduce, but rather it’s not a sin if he still refuses.

That being said, would you actually start to initiate something when you know your wife was really excited to get home and watch a series finale on TV/etc? And I’m talking about an intentional move here. When you know your wife would honestly prefer you to try later. Would you actually initiate and say no if she tried to ask you if it’s okay to wait till next morning? And would you honestly be satisfied having sex with your wife when you know she did it because you didn’t let her do what she wanted instead?

 

[Lea101]

. It gives no one the right to have sex with an unwilling spouse. I do not understand why the teaching is mis-represented so often.

Because you are basically saying that a spouse must have sex if they don’t have a good reason, and the verse that backs it up would be Paul saying that their bodies belongs to their spouses.

This means that the unwilling spouse have to have sex, and hence the other spouse have the right to have sex with the unwilling spouse.

Perhaps you’re talking about the spouse holding the threat of rape over the other’s head. That’s something we agree. Or the threat of sin. But in these scenarios we talked about, the spouse doesn’t have to do that since the Church would be doing it for him/her (by saying they must have sex or else they would be sinning)

I have no doubt that what is reasonable and unreasonable is different between marriages, and even varies at time over the course of a marriage

Would you expand on what you mean by this? With an example perhaps?

But do you accept the basis of the teaching or not

We are both asserting two different things.

I’m saying that rejecting your spouse over a period of time can be sinful + instances where the spouse says no to manipulate (eg when a wife says no sex until her husband does something she wants)

You’re saying an individual act of refusal is a sin.

And that’s where I can’t see it. I don’t understand how a ‘not tonight, can we cuddle instead’ is wrong

 

[tafan2]

I remember that conversation, and that isn’t true. I believe the person said that in reference to a spouse who would keep touching and making advances after the spouse said no. No as in, don’t convince me because I really don’t want to.

Was not the context at all.

It’s not a sin if you indulge once in a while, but indulge too much and you’re committing the sin of gluttony.

Not true. Gluttony us defined as immoderation with regards to an activity such as eating. It is a sin each and everytime you do it. Eating in moderation is not gluttony.

Because it isn’t a rejection of the spouse, but rather a rejection of sex then

Sorry, I don’t see it this way. Sex is too important for that. If my wife wants that level of intimacy, saying no us a rejection.

Not going to answer anymore of your questions about intimacy in my marraiage.

Simple question to you: do you agree with the Church’s teaching on the marital debt, albeit with a very broad definition of a reasonable refusal?

 

[tafan2]

And that’s where I can’t see it. I don’t understand how a ‘not tonight, can we cuddle instead’ is wrong

That is not a refusal, that is a request to wait. That happens lots of times, perfectly fine in most situations.

 

[Lea101]

Not true. Gluttony us defined as immoderation with regards to an activity such as eating

Some nuance here is needed, because one isn’t sinning if he overeats on Christmas while celebrating with friends and family, conscious thought about intake is usually absent. (basically not every instance of overeating is wrong).

Not going to answer anymore of your questions about intimacy in my marraiage.

Then replace those questions with a fake couple. You can address the points made, because I wouldn’t want to know intimate details about your sex life.

That is not a refusal, that is a request to wait. That happens lots of times, perfectly fine in most situations.

Again, what if say my (imaginary) spouse tells me he doesn’t want to cuddle but wants to have sex instead. Am I now obligated to have sex even if I don’t want to? I believe you said the spouse would have to have sex if the other rejects the request to postpone.

If you’re referring to the phrase ‘not tonight’, I’m using ‘no’ and ‘not tonight’ interchangeably. Because in a healthy marriage, both know that ‘no’ doesn’t mean ‘no sex forever’ but rather an offhand way of saying ‘not now’.

Simple question to you: do you agree with the Church’s teaching on the marital debt, albeit with a very broad definition of a reasonable refusal?

I feel like I already gave my answer in that post.

Edited to add: we both believe it’s wrong to unreasonably deny sex too. Except I think unreasonable= when you’re refusing to manipulate/control/hurt the other. And not trivial stuff like ‘oh I just took a shower/I am really into this show can we just do something else’

You think unreasonable=when spouse wants to do something else, plus my definition.

 

[Phemie]

Had a friend whose husband insisted on “acquitting the debt”, so to speak, a minimum of twice a day. If she didn’t follow through he got it elsewhere. Not the happiest marriage I’ve come across.

I remember stumbling across the book my parents were given when they prepared for marriage back in 1952. The marriage debt was discussed but it seemed a one-way street. Always on the wife to submit, never any indication in the book that the husband might be the one refusing. There was however a paragraph about the husband making sure the wife was satisfied so that sex was a pleasure for her too, making it less likely that she’d sin by refusing his requests in the future.

I remember laughing out loud when I read a note at the end of the book that if they didn’t know how to go about having sex there was another chapter they could request from their pastor. Then one day Mom let slip that on their wedding night they knew what they were supposed to do but they didn’t know how and took a while to figure it out. I found that hard to believe since Mom was 28 & Dad was 39 and had been raised on a farm. Guess they could have used that extra chapter.

 

[Lea101]

Always on the wife to submit, never any indication in the book that the husband might be the one refusing.

It’s no surprise tbh, since women on average tend to request sex less than men do.

I wonder though, how does this work with the whole ‘submitting to husbands’ thing? Would it be relevant in this situation?

Then one day Mom let slip that on their wedding night they knew what they were supposed to do but they didn’t know how and took a while to figure it out

My mom implied that she didn’t know what to do as well, which seems crazy. I remember when I first found out, the concept seemed so weird. Imagine finding this out right before

 

[tafan2]

Except I think unreasonable= when you’re refusing to manipulate/control/hurt the other.

You have absolutely no reason to imply I believe that, I have made statements over and over again to the effect that would be wrong. Why misrepresent other’s positions so blatantly and in such an insulting way? Why do others misrepresent the actual teaching? I suspect its all related

 

[Lea101]

I’m confused. I said that you would also agree with this.

plus my definition

Which was why I added this? Can you at least accuse me of something specific instead of vaguely implying some sort of sinister intention?

 

[LawyersGunsAndMoney]

That is not a refusal, that is a request to wait. That happens lots of times, perfectly fine in most situations.

Kind of a distinction without a difference. For most people, if their spouse says “no, not really in the mood tonight” they’re not going to interpret that as “we’ll never have sex again.” It’s going to be implicitly understood as deferring to another night, not closing the door forever.

 

[tafan2]

I’m confused. I said that you would also agree with this.

You stated :

we both believe it’s wrong to unreasonably deny sex too. Except I think unreasonable= when you’re refusing to manipulate/control/hurt the other.

Which explicitly says that I think it us reasonable to be manipulated/control/hurt.

Nothing confusing about it. Not an implication, a direct accusation.

 

[tafan2]

Most certainly is not, the Church prohibits an unreasonable refusal, not a request to delay. People are taking exception to the teaching, so the distinction is important.

 

[LawyersGunsAndMoney]

Most certainly is not, the Church prohibits an unreasonable refusal, not a request to delay.

My point is that most of the things that sound like “refusal” on their face are simply delays. Saying “no, not tonight, honey” implies a temporary rebuff, not a flat, unqualified “no, never.”

 

[Lea101]

You misinterpreted what I was saying then.

I said we agree except that I believe in definition A not B, while you believe in A and B.

That was all. I wasn’t saying that you thought withholding sex to manipulate was okay, which is a pretty ridiculous thing to accuse someone of.

You think unreasonable=when spouse wants to do something else, plus my definition.

You probably ignored this part.

If that sentence wasn’t clear, then I apologise for my phrasing. It does seem weird for you to immediately assume the worst, especially when it makes no sense (why would I say that you’re in favour of withholding sex as a form of control, when you said that you’re against withholding sex over something as small as watching TV?)

 

[tafan2]

Saying the word “except” was an accusation. At the end saying I accept your definition was a contradiction of that. Sorry I did make sense of the confusing post.

 

[Lea101]

The word except was used to show that we agree on something except that we hold differences (A not B, A & B). You must read the whole context instead of zeroing in on the word.

And in the case that it’s still not clear to you, since I tend to type quickly without double checking for clarity, I have already clarified 3x and apologised.

You can be snarky and avoid the points, or just accept the misunderstanding we had and move on.

 

[tafan2]

Not being snarley, you called me weird for the way I read your post, guess I was being defensive and thought I needed to explain why I was confused. Have a good day, I will give you the last word and allow you to call me a name one more time.

 

[phil19034]

It’s just that there are people who would find an individual incident of a refusal as unreasonable if the spouse doesn’t have a “good reason”.

It can be as something as trivial as ‘oh I just taken a shower and I don’t want to get messy’ or ‘I’m watching the game’, I genuinely can’t see the problem.

The main thing that’s boggling to me is that how can someone be okay with having sex with an unwilling party in the first place? Obviously there’s a difference in not feeling like it, but is willing to be convinced vs someone genuinely not in the mood, and I’m talking about the latter. Are Catholics really okay with having sex with someone who’s faking enthusiasm, or is lying there? How can an act be unitive if someone doesn’t want to sleep with you?

I think there is a fine line between faking and being spousal raped…

If the wife is faking out of love for her husband, then I think it’s ok (but not if she’s faking all the time). But if she’s really upset or ticked off that she’s having sex, then it’s not OK and should be obvious.

I really think the unreasonable husband is really very few and far between (esp in authentic Catholic circles).

I think this is a bigger issue in Islamic cultures and with criminals.

I don’t think there is a single man in this thread who would force his wife to have sex to the point where she felt she was being spousal raped. And I know for one, when my wife truly isn’t in the mood (and can’t be convinced), her body language shows that and it would not be unitive.

A woman should NEVER be afraid of her husband. And if she is, I pray that they seek counseling right away and that she leaves him right away if he ever abuses her. There should be zero tolerance for domestic abuse, period.

 

[tafan2]

Every marraiage has it’s own unique way of communicating such things, so yes “no, not Tonite” very likely implies a request for a delay. That’s why the Church’s teaching is so clear and concise:. " A spouse may not unreasonably refuse a request for sex". No one is trying to say anything more than that. The wording is precise, two words: unreasonable and refuse. If a couple’s common communications implies it’s not a refusal, or not unreasonable, there is no sin.

Related: Why do people think that the statement ever gives a spouse the right to demand sex from an unwilling wife? Who is advocating such a thing?

 

[LawyersGunsAndMoney]

Related: Why do people think that the statement ever gives a spouse the right to demand sex from an unwilling wife?

Frankly, because the language the Church uses to express it’s teaching is terribly chosen. Using language like “debt” and “request delay” creates the wrong impression.