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).  

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.

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".

I don't want to get off the subject, I won't.  My sister married and for 10 years could not figure out why her husband did not like having time with her.  They had a son, then the 2nd son, my sister had a c-section.  She had herpes.  She thought nothing of it.  Her doctor told her herpes was common!  When I found out about this and said to her sister, herpes is a SID.  She screamed at me saying that I should think of such things against her or her husband.  She finally found out that her husband was ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.

Then she found out that the priest who married them had no sympathy and she found 4 other couples in the New Order church, in the same boat, only the women had nothing to say about the arrangement.

My sister got an annulment for her husband keeping a lie, "before" the marriage.  His parents testified that they knew he was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.

Very sad.

I don't want to get off the subject, I won't.  My sister married and for 10 years could not figure out why her husband did not like having time with her.  They had a son, then the 2nd son, my sister had a c-section.  She had herpes.  She thought nothing of it.  Her doctor told her herpes was common!  When I found out about this and said to her sister, herpes is a SID.  She screamed at me saying that I should think of such things against her or her husband.  She finally found out that her husband was ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.

Then she found out that the priest who married them had no sympathy and she found 4 other couples in the New Order church, in the same boat, only the women had nothing to say about the arrangement.

My sister got an annulment for her husband keeping a lie, "before" the marriage.  His parents testified that they knew he was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.

Very sad.

You must have met the man before her wedding, I guess, since she is your sister.  Did you have any indication he was a homo? 
Was there anyway your sister could have known or was she completely hoodwinked in your opinion.
To Pax Vobis I would ask this.  This marriage was consummated and produced two children.  Would it have been annulled in the past?  Since annulments were very rare I can only assume no.

Did it ever occur to anyone that a couple's intimate life is not another's business?   

Did it ever occur to anyone that a couple's intimate life is not another's business?  

The trouble is that it IS our business.
Our children have to work with, live next to, potentially marry and pay taxes to funded the welfare of such people.  Divorce has an ENORMOUS cost on society.  Into the trillions of dollars per year.
You could equally argue that the sɛҳuąƖ inclinations of a seminarian candidate are not anyone's business.  But history has shown otherwise.
We are not asking anyone to reveal identifying details or name anyone.  We are discussing what healthy, productive, normal and unhealthy look like in a marriage in order to, one, measure the problem and, two, try to give some understanding of how to reduce the risks for people considering marriage.

I don’t see how ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is grounds for annulment.  There were no social, physical or moral impediments to marry and they had children.  Another reason to avoid the new church - homos in hiding and lying priests.

There are homos in Tradland.  Every part of it.
If ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are unsuitable to be priests, then how are they suitable to be husbands and fathers of children?
I would imagine, if it is grounds, it would be based on hiding a material fact from the spouse which is critical to the primary purpose of marriage.  Much like a man who lied about being a baptised Catholic got married on that basis and then later admitted he was a fraud.
Let's imagine a man was a convicted paedophile got out of jail and hid that from his future wife.  Surely that would be ground for an annulment.  He hoodwinked her.  As I understand it you cannot hoodwink a person into marriage.