This is sad on so many levels

[D3USVult]

This will be my last post on this thread primarily because at this point there isn’t much I can say that I haven’t already said. I would like to thank StFrancis, Xantippe, Kateri92, Ingeniero, LongingSoul, and Virga for their responses. I appreciate the fact that even though you may not have liked what I had to say you responded without anger and did not try to twist my words.

Most of the responses that I received leveled one or more accusations in my direction:
A) That I was trying to offer a moral justification for pornography - As I have said REPEATEDLY throughout this thread, at no point have I tried to say that the use of pornography is morally acceptable under any circumstances.
B) That I did not care about the heartache experienced by the wronged wife and that she should just “jump into bed” again with her husband right away - Once again I reiterated several times that this was not my position.
C) One of the more recent replies accused me of saying that men are incapable of controlling their sexual urges, while several others implied that because I was not advocating strict and automatic abstinence for the offending partner it must mean that I myself was addicted to pornography as well. This last one I will respond to before I sign off.

I am 27 years old, and have by the grace of God maintained my virginity despite having at least one golden opportunity to lose it. I am not pleasuring myself through pornography or masturbation, and I try to hold the impure thoughts at bay as best I can. I go to confession regularly (as in at least twice a month) and I try to cultivate a prayer life outside of Sunday mass.

So I actually do know something about self-control and I am in fact very much against the labeling of men as ‘uncontrollable lust fiends.’ Another thing that I am against is the misconception that just because a man doesn’t act upon his desires means that they are any less strong. Never before in the history of the world has sexual temptation been so ubiquitous, yet we offer very little help or practical advice to young men who struggle to remain pure.

Speaking from experience I know that even if you have the self-control, denying yourself any outlet grates on you over time. When I was younger I hoped that my urge to reproduce would lessen somewhat once my teen years were behind me. Far from decreasing, my libido has substantially increased through my twenties. Many young men look to marriage as a way to relieve some of that built up tension only to discover that marriage often means an exponential increase in responsibility, an exponential decrease in freedom, and once a month intercourse with a woman that isn’t even fully engaged in the act. How do I know this? Well, let’s just say that I wish I had a nickel for every time an older man shared some rather depressing details of his married life with me right before advising me never to get married. I believe it was Allegra who said that it’s not a woman’s job to be “good enough” in bed. If that’s an acceptable attitude for a wife to have then why should I bother getting married? If I’m going to end up abstaining most of the time anyway, it’s much more cost effective to do it as a single man.

A porn addicted husband is a tragedy which I have not, am not, and will not condone. Ultimately it is the wife’s decision as to whether or not she can still be intimate with him. Assuming he is weak and not malicious, why are we all so anxious to risk driving him to despair? This is the question I have been asking all along and I was all but marked for death for asking it. At this point there is nothing more I can say so with that I will sign off.

Pax vobiscum

 

[Jon_Mallory]

I believe it was Allegra who said that it’s not a woman’s job to be “good enough” in bed. If that’s an acceptable attitude for a wife to have then why should I bother getting married?Pax vobiscum

And you accuse us of twisting your words? Well these are your words.

 

[heidi_storage]

Ephesians Ch. 7 seems imply that a wife shouldn’t be denying her husband relations (and of course the husband shouldn’t be denying the wife):

1Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. (ESV)

 

[Sarcelle]

Many young men look to marriage as a way to relieve some of that built up tension only to discover that marriage often means an exponential increase in responsibility, an exponential decrease in freedom, and once a month intercourse with a woman that isn’t even fully engaged in the act. How do I know this? Well, let’s just say that I wish I had a nickel for every time an older man shared some rather depressing details of his married life with me right before advising me never to get married. I believe it was Allegra who said that it’s not a woman’s job to be “good enough” in bed. If that’s an acceptable attitude for a wife to have then why should I bother getting married? If I’m going to end up abstaining most of the time anyway, it’s much more cost effective to do it as a single man.

Pax vobiscum

I see that you’ve been raked over the coals. However when you’re in a hole it’s time to stop digging. Statements like the above just shows you keep digging yourself into a hole.

Wives are not sexual scratching posts for men or a release valve for men. It is the job of both husband and wife to build a satisfying sex life together over time and it involves both of them genuinely caring for each other. It takes time and patience. Obviously porn throws a large wrench into the whole thing.

Sex is not a masculine privilege and a feminine duty as I heard one man tell me. I am not attributing this view to you. However when you say that young men see marriage as a release for their sexual tension an image of wives as a scratching post comes to mind.

 

[heidi_storage]

Wives are not sexual scratching posts for men or a release valve for men. It is the job of both husband and wife to build a satisfying sex life together over time and it involves both of them genuinely caring for each other. It takes time and patience. Obviously porn throws a large wrench into the whole thing.

In Ephesians 7, Paul seems to state that marriage is, in fact, a “release valve” in that it is the lawful way in which to experience sex. 6 Now as a concession, not a command, I say this.[a] 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. “8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” And as I quoted above, he tells spouses not to deny each other.

 

[LongingSoul]

In Ephesians 7, Paul seems to state that marriage is, in fact, a “release valve” in that it is the lawful way in which to experience sex. 6 Now as a concession, not a command, I say this.[a] 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. “8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” And as I quoted above, he tells spouses not to deny each other.

Oooh no. ‘release valve’ seems like a very demeaning analogy for marriage. Marriage puts sexual desire to a good use and that is advancing the family and through that the Kingdom of God. Release valve reminded me of confining an energetic Blue Heeler to a locked room to cause controlled destruction … when marriage is more like putting him to work on a working farm to round up sheep and cattle for a productive days work. And when he is working for the good of the farm and the loyalty to his master… he is transformed into a better version of himself.

 

[Xantippe]

Many young men look to marriage as a way to relieve some of that built up tension only to discover that marriage often means an exponential increase in responsibility, an exponential decrease in freedom, and once a month intercourse with a woman that isn’t even fully engaged in the act. How do I know this? Well, let’s just say that I wish I had a nickel for every time an older man shared some rather depressing details of his married life with me right before advising me never to get married. I believe it was Allegra who said that it’s not a woman’s job to be “good enough” in bed. If that’s an acceptable attitude for a wife to have then why should I bother getting married? If I’m going to end up abstaining most of the time anyway, it’s much more cost effective to do it as a single man.

Happy people don’t go around blabbing about their marriages, especially not to unmarried young men, and especially not their marital sexual life. I’m generally very pleased with the quality of our intimate life, and I don’t go around blabbing about it to unmarried young women. That would be mean.

You mention as a possible bad outcome “once a month intercourse with a woman that isn’t even fully engaged in the act.” I would point out to you that your recipe for dealing with porn (wife has sex with husband even when that’s the last thing she wants to do) is also a recipe for that sort of disengaged box-checking marital sex. So, people that don’t like that shouldn’t also pressure women into having sex that they don’t want. Do you see the issue? Sex that a woman doesn’t want is going to be sex that she doesn’t want–hence the disengagement.

Given likely NFP issues, you are going to wind up abstaining most of the time (or at least half the time), even if your wife has an even higher drive than you do. That’s baked into the cake.

When Allegra said that it wasn’t a wife’s job to be “good enough in bed” to keep her husband out of porn, she was pointing in the direction of the fact that porn is inherently more varied and “exciting” than a wife is, and uses an endless stream of dumb, greedy, drug-addicted and abused late teenage girls. A wife can’t “win” that particular contest, and it’s not fair to ask her to, particularly since a lot of acts depicted in pornography are off-limits for Catholics. It’s exactly this pressure to out-porn the porn that causes women to give up and withdraw from marital intimacy.

 

[Xantippe]

Ephesians Ch. 7 seems imply that a wife shouldn’t be denying her husband relations (and of course the husband shouldn’t be denying the wife):

1Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. (ESV)

So, if the husband or wife had syphilis acquired from an affair, or was in the middle of conducting an affair, the innocent spouse has no right to refuse relations? Yuck.

I realize you’re not Catholic, but isn’t it clear that that that verse is not meant to be the last word on marital sexuality?

I’ve read in a couple places (including Ronald Knox’s Enthusiasm, which is an old book, so not likely to be “liberal” in the contemporary sense) that the situation that St. Paul was talking about was an environment in Corinth where many of the Corinthian Christians had turned against the idea of marital sex at all, but where at the same time engaging in extramarital sexual immorality, Corinth being noted for prostitution. The Temple of Aphrodite in Corinth was famous for its abundant slave prostitutes.

thesmartset.com/article11210701/

This odd combination (being anti-marital sex but tolerant of extramarital sexual immorality) pops up from time to time, as I believe Knox points out–it’s pretty much a hallmark of gnosticism.

If anybody wants the quotes from Enthusiasm, I can pull them out later.

 

[Sugabee43]

The scripture and Sacramental qualities of sex within marriage presupposes that the husband and the wife are living out their vocations to the best of their ability in a holy, loving, sacrificial way.

Porn usage shatters those ideals completely. A wife whose husband is not living under the auspices of Sacramental marriage cannot be expected to remain open to his advances. If she were withholding conjugal relations in normal, holy, grace-filled marriage - well, then the sin would be on HER.

As someone actually living this nightmare, and not someone who’s just hypothetically asking questions, I can tell you, anecdotally speaking, that what you’re asking isn’t a fair question.

In the course of marriage, childbirth, health issues, yes, there will be many instances of abstinence for periods of time…ALWAYS with the understanding that sex will resume once the spouse/problem is resolved. When we were first married and practiced NFP in order to NOT conceive, we had LOTS of sex- probably 5-6 times per week. And guess what? HE STILL WAS INDULGING IN HIS ADDICTION. Prior to children and some temporary health issues related to childbirth, I enjoyed sex. But once I found out about his addiction, I felt used. I felt inadequate - especially even though I was engaging him so often (before kids/health). So my having sex with him DIDN’T “help” him come out of his addiction.

Again, I think the OP needs to study Theology of the Body NOW; before he gets married (if or when that happens, as God’s will for his life). He needs to learn the Sacramental, Scriptural nature of man and woman’s bodies, and how God made them for HIS glory- not our temporal gratification.

 

[Xantippe]

OK, I’ve got out Ronald Knox’s Enthusiasm (1950) and will pull out some quotes from his chapter entitled “The Corinthians’ Letter to St. Paul.” Knox was responsible for a new translation from the Vulgate into English starting from the 1930s, so he was deeply steeped in the Bible. This chapter is devoted to trying to figure out what was the situation in the church in Corinth that led to St. Paul’s letter.

“With the loss of the Corinthians’ letter, we have lost the clue to St. Paul’s reply. I do not mean merely that some of the situations envisaged are defined in vague terms. I mean that the whole emphasis of the chapter varies, according as you understand it to be answering the question, Is marriage ever allowable? or the question, Is celibacy a Christian ideal at all? The commentators are mostly agreed, and on the whole the tone of the chapter justifies them in assuming, that the Corinthians had expressed the former of these doubts. As later at Ephesus, there were those who forbade marriage, or the use of marriage at any rate.”

I take it that “use of marriage” means exercising marital sexual rights.

“We need feel no surprise at finding traces of such a tendency in a Church prone to the [antinomian] errors we have just been considering; indeed, a reading of later history will make it appear quite possible that the libertines of chapter vi were actually the rigorists of chapter vii. The same ultrasupernaturalist point of view which looks upon bodily impurity as a mere imperfection among the elect, because it is only something carnal, will, in other moods, condemn the whole institution of marriage as a carnal institution.”

As you can see, Fr. Knox does not understand 1 Corinthians 7 as being primarily concerned with the question of whether a husband or wife can take a night or a month off, or whether there might not be good reasons for suspending marital relations–particularly as the existence of good reasons to do so is well established in Catholic teaching and practice. Fr. Knox (and it sounds like a lot of other commentors that he is drawing on) saw 1 Corinthians 7 as mainly concerned with the question of whether or not it is licit at all for Christians to marry and have marital sexual relations, and of course St. Paul comes down on the “yes” side.

 

[heidi_storage]

So, if the husband or wife had syphilis acquired from an affair, or was in the middle of conducting an affair, the innocent spouse has no right to refuse relations? Yuck.

I realize you’re not Catholic, but isn’t it clear that that that verse is not meant to be the last word on marital sexuality?.

Not really relevant. The “innocent spouse” has the right to divorce if the other spouse is having an affair.

I don’t make any claims about “the last word on marital sexuality,” but that chapter (not just verse) is one of the chief places where marital sexuality is discussed. Aside from the ceremonial cleanliness laws in Leviticus/Deuteronomy, there aren’t too many frank discussions of when a spouse should or should not have sex, and I am not aware of any passages in which a spouse’s misbehavior is grounds for staying married but withholding sex.

 

[UbiCaritas]

Not really relevant. The “innocent spouse” has the right to divorce if the other spouse is having an affair.

I don’t make any claims about “the last word on marital sexuality,” but that chapter (not just verse) is one of the chief places where marital sexuality is discussed. Aside from the ceremonial cleanliness laws in Leviticus/Deuteronomy, there aren’t too many frank discussions of when a spouse should or should not have sex, and I am not aware of any passages in which a spouse’s misbehavior is grounds for staying married but withholding sex.

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you. Are you saying that the two options for an innocent spouse are a) divorce or b) stay married, but don’t get any space or time to heal (or, for that matter, to avoid a very nasty disease), even when that time could help heal the marriage, or ensure the continuing life and health (until penicillin, syphilis usually led either to insanity or to death from either the disease or the treatments of the disease) of the innocent spouse?

If I am misunderstanding, I apologize–it’s not intentional. I want to make sure I am reading you correctly. I know we’re coming from different theological backgrounds on this.

 

[Sugabee43]

Not really relevant. The “innocent spouse” has the right to divorce if the other spouse is having an affair.

I don’t make any claims about “the last word on marital sexuality,” but that chapter (not just verse) is one of the chief places where marital sexuality is discussed. Aside from the ceremonial cleanliness laws in Leviticus/Deuteronomy, there aren’t too many frank discussions of when a spouse should or should not have sex, and I am not aware of any passages in which a spouse’s misbehavior is grounds for staying married but withholding sex.

The assumption you have is that “withholding sex” is deliberate. Maybe for other women in this situation it is, but for me, it was never my intention to “punish” my husband or deliberately withhold sex from him. But that’s what happened as a result of a combination of my feelings of hurt, betrayal, and anger - and him realizing that I was going through the motions for his sake but not enjoying it; and also I think because the instrument of his addiction anesthetized him to “normal” sex with a “normal” woman.

I stay married to him because I hope and pray that he will heal. I stay married to him because we have children who need their parents. I stay married to him because I’m keeping the promise I made TO GOD. If my husband chooses to leave and divorce me, that will be on him.

 

[Xantippe]

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you. Are you saying that the two options for an innocent spouse are a) divorce or b) stay married, but don’t get any space or time to heal (or, for that matter, to avoid a very nasty disease), even when that time could help heal the marriage, or ensure the continuing life and health (until penicillin, syphilis usually led either to insanity or to death from either the disease or the treatments of the disease) of the innocent spouse?

If I am misunderstanding, I apologize–it’s not intentional. I want to make sure I am reading you correctly. I know we’re coming from different theological backgrounds on this.

Right.

If divorce is licit, a fortiori a break in marital relations is licit. Divorce is a much stronger measure than a break in marital relations, and divorce includes a break in marital relations, so if divorce is licit under particular circumstances, taking a break from marital relations has got to be licit, too.

 

[heidi_storage]

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you. Are you saying that the two options for an innocent spouse are a) divorce or b) stay married, but don’t get any space or time to heal (or, for that matter, to avoid a very nasty disease), even when that time could help heal the marriage, or ensure the continuing life and health (until penicillin, syphilis usually led either to insanity or to death from either the disease or the treatments of the disease) of the innocent spouse?

If I am misunderstanding, I apologize–it’s not intentional. I want to make sure I am reading you correctly. I know we’re coming from different theological backgrounds on this.

Hi,

I’m just saying that this whole syphyilis-from-affair situation is irrelevant to the argument at hand. While pornography is definitely adultery of the heart, it is NOT the same thing as having an affair–just as hatred toward another is murder of the heart, but not the same thing as actually killing the person.

 

[Sugabee43]

Hi,

I’m just saying that this whole syphyilis-from-affair situation is irrelevant to the argument at hand. While pornography is definitely adultery of the heart, it is NOT the same thing as having an affair–just as hatred toward another is murder of the heart, but not the same thing as actually killing the person.

Sorry, but I completely disagree. Viewing porn, masturbating to it, and imagining being with other (usually multiple) women while doing so, is adultery. The husband can NEVER, even with forgiveness and reconciliation, get those images out of his head. He is sexually satisfying himself with the images/sounds/physical feelings of another woman (women). And it hurts no less.

 

[Xantippe]

Hi,

I’m just saying that this whole syphyilis-from-affair situation is irrelevant to the argument at hand. While pornography is definitely adultery of the heart, it is NOT the same thing as having an affair–just as hatred toward another is murder of the heart, but not the same thing as actually killing the person.

Oh, that’s a different argument.

But even so, how would you deal with the syphilis-from-affair situation using 1 Corinthians 7, if that’s the only verse we get to use with regard to denial of marital relations?

If it is acceptable to deny marital relations to a syphilitic spouse, that means that there exist other reasons than the exception given here: “Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer.”

Here’s what I think is going on in that chapter. I think that in 1 Corinthians 7 St. Paul is just discussing spiritual reasons for abstaining from marital relations (which is why he mentions temporary abstinence for prayer) because the Corinthian Christians had an over-spiritualized idea of a general duty to abstain from marital relations, rather than this chapter being intended as an exhaustive list of any and all situations where abstinence is called for or allowable.

Again, this would be an area of general philosophical difference between Protestants and Catholics. Catholics do not expect to find in the Bible an exhaustive treatment of all possible moral and practical issues.

 

[pensmama87]

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you. Are you saying that the two options for an innocent spouse are a) divorce or b) stay married, but don’t get any space or time to heal (or, for that matter, to avoid a very nasty disease), even when that time could help heal the marriage, or ensure the continuing life and health (until penicillin, syphilis usually led either to insanity or to death from either the disease or the treatments of the disease) of the innocent spouse?

If I am misunderstanding, I apologize–it’s not intentional. I want to make sure I am reading you correctly. I know we’re coming from different theological backgrounds on this.

Very very minor point, but some of those diseases are now mutating so much they are antibiotic resistant. A quick Google is only turning up stuff that’s old, but see this on a strain of gonorrhea that is very difficult to treat. I swear I recently read something about an incurable strain of syphilis as well, but the Google-fu is not strong with me today.

STDs matter. I realize they’re not the overall point of this thread, but I am pointing out that there are reasons to take self-preservation on the part of the innocent spouse very, very seriously.

The assumption you have is that “withholding sex” is deliberate. Maybe for other women in this situation it is, but for me, it was never my intention to “punish” my husband or deliberately withhold sex from him. But that’s what happened as a result of a combination of my feelings of hurt, betrayal, and anger - and him realizing that I was going through the motions for his sake but not enjoying it; and also I think because the instrument of his addiction anesthetized him to “normal” sex with a “normal” woman.

I stay married to him because I hope and pray that he will heal. I stay married to him because we have children who need their parents. I stay married to him because I’m keeping the promise I made TO GOD. If my husband chooses to leave and divorce me, that will be on him.

Exactly. This is the point I have been trying to make on the other thread, but apparently the only thing several posters are hearing is “punish your husband into submission.” No, that’s not what I’m talking about at all.

Sugabee, I am so sorry you are enduring this. Please know I am keeping you in my prayers, and for your husband’s healing as well.

 

[Sugabee43]

Exactly. This is the point I have been trying to make on the other thread, but apparently the only thing several posters are hearing is “punish your husband into submission.” No, that’s not what I’m talking about at all.

Sugabee, I am so sorry you are enduring this. Please know I am keeping you in my prayers, and for your husband’s healing as well.

Thank you so much, Pensmama. I covet your prayers!!

 

[Xantippe]

Very very minor point, but some of those diseases are now mutating so much they are antibiotic resistant. A quick Google is only turning up stuff that’s old, but see this on a strain of gonorrhea that is very difficult to treat. I swear I recently read something about an incurable strain of syphilis as well, but the Google-fu is not strong with me today.

STDs matter. I realize they’re not the overall point of this thread, but I am pointing out that there are reasons to take self-preservation on the part of the innocent spouse very, very seriously.

And they’re particularly an issue for women and babies.

Back in my Peace Corps days, one of the things they emphasized during training is that while the symptoms of male gonorrhea are blatant and unmistakable, the female symptoms are much less so.

"In women, the early symptoms are sometimes so mild that they are mistaken for a bladder infection or vaginal infection. "

webmd.com/sexual-conditions/tc/gonorrhea-symptoms

It would be very easy for a woman to have advanced gonorrhea and not realize there was a problem. Which is a big deal, because untreated gonorrhea in women can lead to the following: pelvic inflammatory disease, chronic pelvic pain, ectopic pregnancy, infertility, miscarriage, premature rupture of membranes in pregnancy, preterm delivery, not to mention meningitis in a newborn and other bad things for the newborn.

webmd.com/sexual-conditions/tc/gonorrhea-what-happens

Even “just” herpes can lead to eye and brain damage in babies.

nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001368.htm