Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Sexless marriages and very small families  (Read 62198 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
« Reply #45 on: January 23, 2019, 03:30:50 PM »
That's the technical term used by the Church. It's called the marriage debt. Either spouse can demand the debt at any time. It's part of the marriage contract.

Yeah, I know. I'm just thinking along the lines of what Ladislaus was talking about. It is a technical term, but it is kinda rough if it ever really gets to that point of rendering an obligation. Yes, you would be fulfilling your part of the marital duty, but ideally it wouldn't get so bad that the minimum is barely tolerated.

My fear is always a siamese twin-induced slow but fully cognisant death.

There's always nightmare scenarios out there where you really get stuck with someone you have grown to dislike for variously good or bad reasons. Even if the significant other doesn't have valid reasons, it's one of the more difficult and depressing things to have to go through I'm sure. I'd almost prefer a nightly demonic beat down than the hatred or even the indifference of a wife (or towards one).  

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
« Reply #46 on: January 23, 2019, 03:36:09 PM »
I'd almost prefer a nightly demonic beat down than the hatred or even the indifference of a wife (or towards one).  

Same here.

If a couple view marriage as MERELY a contract (and indeed it is a contract), it's just a couple steps away from sacramentalized prostitution; your obligation (part of the deal) is to provide for the family, and in return I render the debt.  :)  Exchange of services.


Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
« Reply #47 on: January 23, 2019, 03:41:43 PM »
Would it be fair to assume that if married couples really start thinking of sex as a "debt", things might already be a tad shaky?
I'd say so.
If you've ever forced a toddler to eat their breakfast and had 1/3 of it spat back in your face and dribbled down their bib, well, that would be a good approximation for how much pleasure you'd get out of it.
Once things go south you've got a serious problem.  Remember when you were really keen on a girl and she wasn't keen on you.  Well, now you are married to her for the rest of your life.
It's a terrible predicament to be in.  Hence the need to educate and lessen the risks.

Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
« Reply #48 on: January 23, 2019, 03:55:21 PM »
Same here.

If a couple view marriage as MERELY a contract (and indeed it is a contract), it's just a couple steps away from sacramentalized prostitution; your obligation (part of the deal) is to provide for the family, and in return I render the debt.  :)  Exchange of services.
This was true of Royal Marriages in the past, where the bride was chosen to give an heir or two and then pensioned off to a country house while the King carried on with various young whores.
Did the Church ever condemn the Royal Houses of Europe for this practice?
Pretty sure that marriage itself has morphed over the ages.  The idea of romantic love being the driver for it is only a couple of 100 years old.

Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
« Reply #49 on: January 23, 2019, 04:16:27 PM »
I once stayed with a Trad Catholic family in Montana, they had a 3000 acre ranch (lumber) near to Kalispell and a while I was there I read their family history which they had laboriously compiled from memories and old docuмents.  The great great grandfather had planted a flag in the ground and done a series of other things to get his first plot of land.

His first wife had dropped dead from disease and a month later he "sent east" to a brother in law to find him and send him a new wife.  As I recall they sent some 14 year old girl from a workhouse or orphanage type situation.  She hung around for a few years, then disappeared into the night and then he lived with a squaw.  It was very sordid stuff and I was surprised they showed me it.

I'm not so sure that the "good old days" were all that good.  I think people simply put up with their lot in life as women do in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia today.  They are often married to piggish lazy men and there ain't a whole lot they can do about it.  So they live "married" and die "married" for better or worse.



I had a work colleague in London, clever woman same age as me, who got to 29 and married an Egyptian man who was a waiter on a Nile Cruise.  Moved to Egypt and married him.  Had two children, really liked his mother and father who are very kind to her and the kids but he is a typical Islamic pig.  Lazy, sits around with friend all day smoking and playing cards.  She works as an English Teacher and owns a couple of homes in London which she rents out so they are wealthy by Cairo standards.

10 or so years ago she called me up for chat and admitted her marriage was miserable and asked me my advice.  Everyone else said had said "leave him", I said "stay put".  She asked why and I told her, "look you are no oil painting any longer", so, realistically, it is being a single mother back in Britain, (assuming you can escape with the kids which she probably could because she is clever) or stay in Egypt and have a reasonable life with your sister in law (who is like a best friend to her), mother and father in law, who are lovely people and very involved grandparents, I met them.  And your children don't get messed up as a result.  All things considered there is more upside than downside in staying and more downside than upside in returning back to Britain.

She's still in Egypt and occasionally when we speak over Skype she thanks me for my "cold blooded logic".