The so-called marital obligation?

[Serap]

This thread is getting stupid. I’m out…I don’t want to read the immature posts anymore.

 

[SerraSemper]

Is repeated physical injury to the wife’s sexual organs due to too frequently being demanded to pay the marriage debt sufficient enough to be a reasonable reason to “reject her husband’s advances”?

Is the husband using his erection to punish his wife internally for a failure to perform in a sexy enough fashion a sufficient enough reason?

Absolutely! It’s called marital rape.

Mommamaree, thank you for opening this thread. Let me assure you that your suspicions are right. Some people do use the idea of the “marriage debt” to justify marital rape. A lot of people - typically women - believe that they have an absolute obligation to have sex WHENEVER asked.

Given your background, of course you would feel sensitive to the use of the words “debt” and “obligation”. The marital debt and obligation has to be understood correctly and in context. Abusers take things out of context and twist things to justify their actions. They will often guilt trip the victims by quoting things out of context. In the area of conjugal relations, and in the whole head of the family concept, a lot of abusive practices and understandings have arisen and thought to be correct but are not right if they are viewed holistically. Unfortunately, I feel that no matter which way you spelled out debt and obligation, it will be misused by abusers. I also feel that the words can have some positive connotations. Think of the many spouses who really want intercourse, but get consistently rejected for weeks, months, years. If the other spouse has any kind of conscience, the thought of obligation or debt might bring them to understand the harm they are doing to themselves and the marriage.

Lots of things come into play when you’re thinking of requesting/refusing/postponing sex.

By the marriage vows…

A spouse vows to work for the [objective] good of the other spouse. This means that to harm the other goes against the marriage vows. Marital rape is a form of harm. It hurts the victim. Rape is never reasonable and never justifiable. No one is obliged to get raped. As a matter of fact, the Church does NOT consider acts of marital rape to count in terms of consummation of the marriage. So, if a couple had sex 5 times after marriage but each time it was through marital rape, the marriage is considered unconsummated (and therefore able to be dissolved).

A spouse vows** responsible parenting**. It’s not just being open to procreation that is required of the spouses, but also the ability of being able to reasonably fulfill one’s natural and supernatural obligations towards potential offspring if conceived. Thus if you know that this is a fertile day and that you are struggling to keep on the electric and that you can’t seem to give adequate attention so desperately needed by the 5 other children born in 6 years… You most likely have a serious moral responsibility to postpone the act until a less fertile time… The education and formation of children and providing what is necessary for their spiritual and emotional wellbeing is part of the vows. Obviously this is going to affect conjugal activity if this grave responsibility is taken seriously.

So, while a spouse does surrender the right to acts proper to the generation of children to the other spouse, this right is restricted to “reasonable” and “serious” and it has to be “human” (free, not forced like rape, respectful not violent and harmful, fully conscious, etc.). Thus a spouse does not need to submit to being sodomized (this isn’t “proper to the generation of children”), raped, to participate in porn-ish activities, etc.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts on the term of marriage debt. If only the abusers would realize that there are other obligations like the ones I just outlined that temper and qualify what this obligation entails. Congratulations, though, on your conversions and better conjugal life!

 

[Bookcat]

You are right.

Inquisition is a better word.

I don’t want to hijack this thread. However, there is a predisposition among many people who call themselves Catholic do try and exert extreme control over people they perceive as vulnerable.

This thread is a good example of that.

Nope.

(and not getting into the frequent myths of such).

I did not see such in this thread from what I read (sure some may have misspoke etc -or did not realize the background of those whom they were responding too).

Usually just those simply giving what the Church Teaching and Catholic Moral theology is regarding the subject – and noting that other ideas are contrary to such (such as abuse etc). (though I did not read them all…)

 

[EasterJoy]

If “inquisition” is too strong, how about “group bullying” or “mob action”?

Yes, IMHO, to say that someone wants to use their advocacy for spousal rights into an overreaching “carte blanche for bullying” is a better way to put it than “inquisition wannabes”. After all, you’re talking about someone taking a legimate inch and illegitimately attempting to make it out to be a holier-than-thou mile. But that is just me, perhaps.

Inquisition is a particularly mis-used word, because the word also means a mere written record of an inquest. That’s a useful word, and one that is better freed from one particular event in religious and political history. Yet like the word “Puritan”, the word “Inquisition” now has connotations both would be better without. (I mean better in terms of having a language that is descriptive instead of merely charged by its habitual overuse in hyperboles.)

Not to hijack, the thread, but the direction of the discussion has unfortunately pointed out the necessity of being very careful with these inflamed words. One can’t use fighting words and then complain when one is rudely invited to have it out in the alley!

 

[dedo]

Yes, IMHO, to say that someone wants to use their advocacy for spousal rights into an overreaching “carte blanche for bullying” is a better way to put it than “inquisition wannabes”. After all, you’re talking about someone taking a legimate inch and illegitimately attempting to make it out to be a holier-than-thou mile. But that is just me, perhaps.

Inquisition is a particularly mis-used word, because the word also means a mere written record of an inquest. That’s a useful word, and one that is better freed from one particular event in religious and political history. Yet like the word “Puritan”, the word “Inquisition” now has connotations both would be better without. (I mean better in terms of having a language that is descriptive instead of merely charged by its habitual overuse in hyperboles.)

Not to hijack, the thread, but the direction of the discussion has unfortunately pointed out the necessity of being very careful with these inflamed words. One can’t use fighting words and then complain when one is rudely invited to have it out in the alley!

I am not complaining about anything said to me. However, I think it is reasonable to call bullying what it is.

This is probably not a good place to ask sensitive questions. Just because someone is Catholic does not mean they are particularly good about sorting out complex emotional situations. You can be mean and be Catholic. The mean person might otherwise be a fiend. We all have our skills. The one who is a clod at family advice might be great at something else.

It might be better to have a separate section for sensitive emotional issues where the only people who can respond are people nominated by peers as having a threshold level of empathy. Also, some questions may be best left to peers in the same sex.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

In an ideal marriage, the two partners should decide together whether both “feel” like having sex. The woman has not obligation to sleep with her husband EVERY time he is in the mood. However, a good husband would also never say “I want it now.” He might say “You think you might feel up to, you know.” Huge difference. One is much more respectful. Now if the woman conveniently never feels like it, she is abusing her husband. Relationships are about give and take.

 

[jud_cargile]

I am not complaining about anything said to me. However, I think it is reasonable to call bullying what it is.

This is probably not a good place to ask sensitive questions. Just because someone is Catholic does not mean they are particularly good about sorting out complex emotional situations. You can be mean and be Catholic. The mean person might otherwise be a fiend. We all have our skills. The one who is a clod at family advice might be great at something else.

It might be better to have a separate section for sensitive emotional issues where the only people who can respond are people nominated by peers as having a threshold level of empathy. Also, some questions may be best left to peers in the same sex.

You are kind of missing the point of having a public forum, don’t you think?

 

[fpt]

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 Princess, the Queen, 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 Person who reveals in him, his part of feminity and helps his masculinity, the Doctress, the Nurse, the Guide of her Husband.

Woman has to assume her feminity; she has to want to be a female; Husband has to receive the feminity of his wife; Husband has to give his whole masculinity to his wife;

The man is or should 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 Prince, the King, 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 Thinker, the Philosopher, the Schoolboy, the Pupil, the Student, the Male Opposite Number, the Alterity, the Complementarity, The Person who reveals in her, her part of masculinity and helps her feminity, the Doctor, the Nurse, the Guide of his Wife.

Man has to assume his virility (masculinity), he has to want to be a male; Woman has to receive the virility of her husband; Wife has to give her whole feminity to her husband.

 

[Bookcat]

Just as there are other obligations --like raising your kids, feeding them etc. Just because these are obligations (as is Sunday Mass and Holy Day Mass) does not make the obligation the focus.

It is a mutual obligation (debitum).

There are of course also limits to the various obligations --and even some exceptions.

And there can be mutually agreed upon postponements (aside from a near occasion of sin). One spouse may feel rather tired…

 

[EasterJoy]

You are kind of missing the point of having a public forum, don’t you think?

No, I think the post is meant to say that some problems are very personal, rather than theoretical, and so throwing them into a debate forum that can be expected to be heavy on impersonal theory might be overly hazardous to the feelings of the original poster.

I’d call it a caution more than a reason to forbid the hazard entirely, but it is a fair question.

 

[EasterJoy]

In an ideal marriage, the two partners should decide together whether both “feel” like having sex. The woman has not obligation to sleep with her husband EVERY time he is in the mood. However, a good husband would also never say “I want it now.” He might say “You think you might feel up to, you know.” Huge difference. One is much more respectful. Now if the woman conveniently never feels like it, she is abusing her husband. Relationships are about give and take.

This! Marriage is a single shared life in the context of sexual complementarity, but geared in Christian virtue towards the good of both parties.

 

[fpt]

In an ideal marriage, the two partners should decide together whether both “feel” like having sex. The woman has not obligation to sleep with her husband EVERY time he is in the mood. However, a good husband would also never say “I want it now.” He might say “You think you might feel up to, you know.” Huge difference. One is much more respectful. Now if the woman conveniently never feels like it, she is abusing her husband. Relationships are about give and take.

The state of marriage is sexed and sexual according to the catholic doctrine. In the canonical Code, the canon says " sexual cooperation " and the vows of marriage make focus on the mutual and reciprocal donation of bodies for making one flesh (marital act in the human fashion is also a duty, an obligation, a right, a debt, and is not absolute of course, without a forced execution).

But, a systematic refusal of the request or the lack of request, as a intellectual system of thinking from wife or from husband, is very wrong and is going against the vows. Morally speaking, if no good reason, making love is a right and an obligation, it is the principle, not to make love is the exception.

Sorry, but the type of formulation of your message seems to me very old fashion and probably is coming from books of XIX century ( a very weird period concerning the point of view on the sexual love in the marriage).

 

[fpt]

This! Marriage is a single shared life in the context of sexual complementarity, but geared in Christian virtue towards the good of both parties.

I could note that the catholic married persons are misinformed or in lack of information, or have wrong points of view (too simple, too simplistic, too moralist, too liberal, too prudish, too puritan, too spiritual, too human, too naive, too childish, too feminist, too masculinist, too shy, too against everything, too modernist, too progressist, too in favor of the past intellectual approaches…etc).

About the marital act and the marital debt.

Do you know a very good study on the good reasons for refusing the marital act with the medical approach, the psychological approach, the theological approach, the philosophical approach, the canonical approach?

In the marriage in order to understand the issues that each human person asks itself on the marital act, it is necessary to respond to these following questions:

What is the reciprocal and mutual donation of bodies? What are constitutive elements of this reciprocal and mutual donation of bodies?

What is the right on the body? What are constitutive elements of right on the body?

What is the moral natural order of the right on the body? What is the moral natural order of the reciprocal and mutual donation of bodies?

What is the moral natural regime of the reciprocal and mutual donation of bodies? What is the moral natural regime of the right on the body?

What are the sexual obligations, the sexual duties, the sexual rights of wife toward her husband? To do, not to do, to give, not to give?

What are the sexual obligations, the sexual duties, the sexual rights of husband toward his wife? To do, not to do, to give, not to give?

How to define and to identify an unnatural sexual act within marriage and in the context of marital act without:

1. these heresies: the manicheism, the catharism, the jansenism, the fideism, the victorianism, the puritanism, the theoretical providentialism;
   2.these wrong mentalities: the moralism, the rigorism, the dolorism, the prudism (the prudishness), the scrupulism;
2. these ideologies: the absolute rationalism, the anti-rationalism, the primary anti-personalism, the primary anti-phenomenologism, the absurdism (absurdity or absurdisness), gender theory, radical feminism…etc ?

 

[EasterJoy]

I could note that the catholic married persons are misinformed or in lack of information, or have wrong points of view (too simple, too simplistic, too moralist, too liberal, too prudish, too puritan, too spiritual, too human, too naive, too childish, too feminist, too masculinist, too shy, too against everything, too modernist, too progressist, too in favor of the past intellectual approaches…etc).

About the marital act and the marital debt.

Do you know a very good study on the good reasons for refusing the marital act with the medical approach, the psychological approach, the theological approach, the philosophical approach, the canonical approach?

In the marriage in order to understand the issues that each human person asks itself on the marital act, it is necessary to respond to these following questions:

What is the reciprocal and mutual donation of bodies? What are constitutive elements of this reciprocal and mutual donation of bodies?

What is the right on the body? What are constitutive elements of right on the body?

What is the moral natural order of the right on the body? What is the moral natural order of the reciprocal and mutual donation of bodies?

What is the moral natural regime of the reciprocal and mutual donation of bodies? What is the moral natural regime of the right on the body?

What are the sexual obligations, the sexual duties, the sexual rights of wife toward her husband? To do, not to do, to give, not to give?

What are the sexual obligations, the sexual duties, the sexual rights of husband toward his wife? To do, not to do, to give, not to give?

How to define and to identify an unnatural sexual act within marriage and in the context of marital act without:

1. these heresies: the manicheism, the catharism, the jansenism, the fideism, the victorianism, the puritanism, the theoretical providentialism;
   2.these wrong mentalities: the moralism, the rigorism, the dolorism, the prudism (the prudishness), the scrupulism;
2. these ideologies: the absolute rationalism, the anti-rationalism, the primary anti-personalism, the primary anti-phenomenologism, the absurdism (absurdity or absurdisness), gender theory, radical feminism…etc ?

There is a reason all of this isn’t in the vows (or in our baptismal promises, for that matter). You don’t learn how to identify real money by learning what every counterfeit looks like. You learn how to identify the real thing by knowing about the real thing. Let’s just say that, and leave it at that.

 

[fpt]

I don’t know about other women, but seeing lovemaking described as a debt or obligation that wives must give to their husbands, with the implication that their is never a valid reason to ask to postpone relations for a day or so, makes me feel even less likely to respond positively. No woman in her right mind wants to be reduced to a mere outlet for her husband’s sexual desires. It makes me feel dirty and used just thinking about it. The number of times in this forum that I have seen lovemaking described in such a demeaning fashion is unconscionable. What kind of message does that send to people considering marriage? Christian couples today must work very hard to rightly understand and use their sexual natures, in a loving and holy way. Throwing around words like debt and obligation, especially as it is almost always referring to a debt the woman must pay, verbally reduces the paying spouse to the level of an object to use…a dumpster even. Why do people keep using this term that is especially damaging to women, and doesn’t even adequately describe the power and the beauty of the marital act?

Today because it looks like old fashion, the one of ends of marriage, the avoiding the bad effects of concupiscence, is often forgotten. Why? Why? Because the modernism, the feminism…etc. But, it is a part of the doctrine.

Morally speaking in the marriage, making love (the fact of practicing the marital act) is the principle and not to make love is the exception, are you okay with this statement?

Do you know exactly under which conditions the reasons of refusal of the marital act are morally speaking licit and valid in the respect of the natural and catholic doctrine, not from the secular point of view ?

 

[dedo]

Today because it looks like old fashion, the one of ends of marriage, the avoiding the bad effects of concupiscence, is often forgotten. Why? Why? Because the modernism, the feminism…etc. But, it is a part of the doctrine.

Morally speaking in the marriage, making love (the fact of practicing the marital act) is the principle and not to make love is the exception, are you okay with this statement?

Do you know exactly under which conditions the reasons of refusal of the marital act are morally speaking licit and valid in the respect of the natural and catholic doctrine, not from the secular point of view ?

Are you o.k. with this statement?

The odds are at least 99% that any person who is not a either a female, a priest, or a trained professional in family dynamics does not have the slightest idea of what he is talking about regarding a female’s feelings on this issue.

Are you o.k. with this statement?

Attempts at trial lawyer types of interrogation are in fact a confirmation of statement #1, and a demonstration of a lack of empathy on the part of the person who does it.

Are you o.k. with this statement?

One definition of evil is to reduce a living being to the state of an inanimate object. Thus, those that try to interpret religious teaching so that they have the right to pressure another person into giving up the dignity of choosing when and where to engage in marital relations are in fact practicing evil.

Are you o.k. with this statement?

There are in fact people alive today that given the opportunity would engage in torture and murder in the name of religion ( or any other cause), and observing the tendency of individuals to either “gang up” or “oppose the gang” are reasonable indicators of a person’s potential behavior in such a hypothetical situation.

 

[EasterJoy]

Are you o.k. with this statement?

The odds are at least 99% that any person who is not a either a female, a priest, or a trained professional in family dynamics does not have the slightest idea of what he is talking about regarding a female’s feelings on this issue.

Are you o.k. with this statement?

“Any person who is not a either a female, a priest, or a trained professional in family dynamics” is a pretty fancy code for “some men, but not the woman’s actual husband”.

You are saying that the vast majority of husbands do not “have the slightest idea what he is talking about” when it comes to his own wife’s feelings.

I suppose women understand male sexuality in great detail and with profound empathy?

Explain why this very slanted “statement” isn’t bald-faced male-bashing.

Attempts at trial lawyer types of interrogation are in fact a confirmation of statement #1, and a demonstration of a lack of empathy on the part of the person who does it.

Are you o.k. with this statement?

You are not implying that “trial lawyer types of interrogation” are the sole province of men, let alone husbands, are you? You think only women get the third degree from their spouses?

One definition of evil is to reduce a living being to the state of an inanimate object. Thus, those that try to interpret religious teaching so that they have the right to pressure another person into giving up the dignity of choosing when and where to engage in marital relations are in fact practicing evil.

Are you o.k. with this statement?

Do you mean the wife is an inanimate object because the husband wants sex, or the husband is an inanimate object because he’s not supposed to want to do that kind of thing with his wife anymore?

There are in fact people alive today that given the opportunity would engage in torture and murder in the name of religion ( or any other cause), and observing the tendency of individuals to either “gang up” or “oppose the gang” are reasonable indicators of a person’s potential behavior in such a hypothetical situation.

Torture and murder?

The thread is about the situation where one spouse would like to have sex, while the other one refuses, right? Where did we get to torture and murder? If we were talking about stay-at-home moms who’d like some down time for themselves, would the conversation stray over to people like Diane Downs? I hope not. Nor would we give a “thumbs up” or a “thumbs down” or a carte blanche for her to get her time to herself any way she wants it or any time she wants it, regardless of the abilities and needs of the rest of the family.

 

[mommamaree]

The thread is about the situation where one spouse would like to have sex, while the other one refuses, right?

No, that is most certainly NOT what this thread is about. Many respondents appear to want to believe that is what this thread is about. I cannot believe how much respondents have actually ignored or overlooked my, the OP’s questions and discussion points and turned this into an opportunity to promote their own agenda, regardless of anything I have asked or said.
If you look back at MY questions and MY points, can you find anywhere that I mention trying to find wiggle room to reject my husband? I repeatedly stated that I have never been the one withholding anything, and still have no desire to do such a thing. I simply do not like the connotations of terms like “debt” and “obligation” used in reference to the marital act. A couple of helpful points were brought up that clarified things for me. But for the most part, the tone of the respondents, even you EasterJoy, lacked any notes of compassion or desire to help me understand so that I can begin to set aside the awful brainwashing I received growing up.

I have been observing the continuation of this thread while remaining out of it, but really, it has gone too far. The description of the family life forum mentioned “advice” for family and marriage issues. I mistakenly assumed that meant I could address my concerns about some of the forceful language I have read here implying that an wife who avoided intimacy with her husband because of past sexual trauma is in mortal sin for failing to pay the marriage debt. I remember one phrase used repeatedly “mental electroshock to a positive end” in reference to threatening divorce to this wife. Some of the attitudes of posters in that thread and a couple of other threads was very frightening to me. I can easily imagine how that must sound to other people who have sexual trauma in their past.
These are not faceless entities out in the ether. We who ask sensitive questions here are people who are hurting and want to find advice and learn how to think about sexual issues in a more Christlike fashion. And suggesting to threaten divorce or annulment, or claiming this is all pishposh nonsense is cruel. As is hijacking a thread and rewriting the issues to suit what YOU would prefer to talk about.
Thank you to the few kind souls who responded helpfully and supportively. Shame on the rest of you.

 

[dedo]

Actually Mommamaree:

Once you gave clear indication that replies in this thread were upsetting you, and you requested the thread be closed, then it is perfectly reasonable for others to try to take the thread in a different direction. I am surprised it did not get locked. However, that is not my call. Some of us know when we are out of our league and the most we could possibly do for you is to try and keep some people off your case after you expressed such a desire.
If that offends you also then I am sorry.

Several important areas of discussion could reasonably discussed in this thread as an alternative to your personal issues including:

1. Whether spouses do have some sort of “right” to the bodies of another. Personally, I find this idea repulsive.
2. The tendency in anonymous forums for people to “en mass” interrogate or otherwise reply to people with sensitive issues in a manner that implies that the vulnerable person is in a state of mortal sin. I have literally seen a moderator on another forum imply to a poster with different political beliefs that she was in a state of mortal sin for her beliefs. Later, the poster returned, and implied that she was contemplating suicide. The moderator was not a bad person, just insensitive and way out of his league.

There should be a place for people who are hurting to get supportive and informed advice. Unfortunately, it is not realistic to expect such advice to come from an open forum, with no vetting of the qualifications of the people who reply.

 

[EasterJoy]

No, that is most certainly NOT what this thread is about. Many respondents appear to want to believe that is what this thread is about. I cannot believe how much respondents have actually ignored or overlooked my, the OP’s questions and discussion points and turned this into an opportunity to promote their own agenda, regardless of anything I have asked or said.
If you look back at MY questions and MY points, can you find anywhere that I mention trying to find wiggle room to reject my husband? I repeatedly stated that I have never been the one withholding anything, and still have no desire to do such a thing. I simply do not like the connotations of terms like “debt” and “obligation” used in reference to the marital act. A couple of helpful points were brought up that clarified things for me. But for the most part, the tone of the respondents, even you EasterJoy, lacked any notes of compassion or desire to help me understand so that I can begin to set aside the awful brainwashing I received growing up.

I have been observing the continuation of this thread while remaining out of it, but really, it has gone too far. The description of the family life forum mentioned “advice” for family and marriage issues. I mistakenly assumed that meant I could address my concerns about some of the forceful language I have read here implying that an wife who avoided intimacy with her husband because of past sexual trauma is in mortal sin for failing to pay the marriage debt. I remember one phrase used repeatedly “mental electroshock to a positive end” in reference to threatening divorce to this wife. Some of the attitudes of posters in that thread and a couple of other threads was very frightening to me. I can easily imagine how that must sound to other people who have sexual trauma in their past.
These are not faceless entities out in the ether. We who ask sensitive questions here are people who are hurting and want to find advice and learn how to think about sexual issues in a more Christlike fashion. And suggesting to threaten divorce or annulment, or claiming this is all pishposh nonsense is cruel. As is hijacking a thread and rewriting the issues to suit what YOU would prefer to talk about.
Thank you to the few kind souls who responded helpfully and supportively. Shame on the rest of you.

I stand corrected, and I’m sorry.

The thread is not about refusing but about the problems with using words like “obligation” in the jargon when discussing the issues that arise when there are differences in how to navigate the give and take that is part and parcel of marriage. It is about how vocabulary can be damaging and about how the actual situation the vocabulary is meant to describe can sometimes be far better addressed by changing over the vocabulary. You have found it works far better for you to do that, and I think that is a very good strategy! You have not lost anything in the translation to new and more useful metaphors, that is the main thing.

I’m just saying that when this kind of misunderstanding exists between spouses, such that one might think that there is an obligation that exists such that one could feel the only choice is between shirking a duty and feeling demeaned by the very one with whom one has a single life, then using words like trial lawyer interrogation are probably counter-productive, too, not to even mention rhetoric like murder and torture. It doesn’t help to say that 99% of husbands don’t have the slightest idea about their wives’ feelings. It doesn’t help to imply that one gender has cornered the market on either thoughtlessness or hurt feelings or the practical use or misuse of veto power. None of that helps.

I hear much the same kinds of things in threads started by husbands who are either the sole wage-earner (and perhaps feeling pressure to “put out” more in that arena) or whose wives believes that his salary is “theirs” while her salary is “hers”. If the conversation starts throwing around concepts like the obligation to support the family and defending all the stay-at-home wife does and deserves, making the conversation into a battlefield, that kind of thread, too, can go south very fast.

That is not a terribly good analogy, because the two arenas are felt on a personal level for very different reasons and in very different ways, but just to say that your point about choosing one’s jargon carefully can apply in areas far outside and beyond the issues of the bedroom. For any given couple, changing the metaphors to something that actually reflects the truth between the couple is the most important thing. If the truth of what is discussed is not lost, the Church is willing to use metaphors in a pastoral setting other than the ones plucked unwashed, unpeeled, and raw from canon law. Sometimes the “raw” metaphors just upset the pastoral situation. They were meant for the legal setting, and it is OK to leave them there. Only the truth needs to be taken home to the hearth.

Again, I am sorry for my callousness in forgetting the genesis of the conversation. I hope you will forgive me.

Gotta go…hope the thread ends well.