Replies

you wrote: a sense of sexual obligation is poisoning to a relationship rather than one where two people are mutually giving of their own accord, not by some arbitrary rule that says they "owe" the other spouse something.

As to your implication that sex is not owed to the spouse, I disagree, history disagrees, scripture disagrees, and(apparently) most people on this thread disagree.

One statement alone shows this: THERE IS NO MARRIAGE (I.E. IT CAN BE ANNULLED EVEN IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH) IF THE MARRIAGE IS NOT CONSUMMATED.

Another obvious example: in those states that recognize common law marriage, IT IS A REQUIREMENT THAT THE MAN AND WOMAN HAD SEX WITH EACH OTHER. Without that act there is no common law marriage.

History, tradition, religion, and common sense overwhelming show that each spouse does owe sexual relations to each other.

It is not the obligation that is destructive of marriage, it is a messed up relationship where one or the other withholds or desires to withhold sex from the other that is destruction. If both partners are willing, then the obligation is not problem.

Blessed is he he desires to do those things that he is obligated to do. Also blessed is she who desires to do those things that she is obligated to do.

The problem is not obligations. I am marriaged with four children. I have a boatload of obligations, responsiblilities, duties, etc. That does not destroy a family, relationships, marriage, etc. It would be harmful, however, if I decided that I didn't want to fulfill those obligations. In fact, society, history, religion, and virtually everyone on this thread would condemn me if I decided not to fulfill those obligations.

And I have a very strong sense of obligation to my family, and that is a very GOOD thing.

I would add, that while Lorianne might hold that marriage is not a business arrangement, it IS a contractual arrangement (anybody who doesn't think it is, can try walking out and saying "I will no longer support my wife and kids" and see how fast the cops and courts will convince him otherwise).

There are several implicit contractual parts to marriage, which have been accepted as part of the deal for millenia. They include:

Each spouse will satisfy the sexual needs of the other
Each spouse will satisfy the emotional and companionship needs of the other
Each spouse will do his or her fair share of the money-earning, kid-raising, and housework (the two may work out that one does all the money-earning while the other does all the housework, or might divide things up otherwise)

If one party is unwilling (as distinct from physically unable) to fulfill his or her part, then there is a material breach of the contract.

One spouse may not declare "I don't feel like working or housecleaning any more. I'll just sit in front of the TV, drink bear, and let you do it all" and expect the marriage to continue.

One spouse may not declare "I'm not interested in your company any more. I'm going to hang out with my friends from now on. I'll send you a check from time to time for house expenses", and expect the marriage to continue

And one spouse may not declare "You don't turn me on any more. I'm not interested satisfying your sexual needs any more" and expect the marriage to continue.

Each of the above three examples constitute material breaches of the marriage contract, which must either be remedied, or the marriage is over.

You and others keep lecturing me about obligation but not answering the question. Assume there is an "obligation" to have sex. I'm not argueing that point (though I don't agree with it). Let's just say that obligation exists.

Why would a person WANT to have sex with someone who is only doing it out of obligation? What is the point of that, what does the one calling in the marriage chips get out of it? Does it help the relationship? Does it make the marriage then valid? What is the long range view of such a relationship?

What I'm trying to figure out is what is the end game of this "obligation" thing? Obviously one cannot make someone love you or want to be with you or want to have sex with you ... or want any number of things. But with the obligation aspect, one coerce the other to pretend those things. But what is the point of being with someone who doesn't want to be there? What's the point?

It's not just sex.

What is the point of conversing with someone who doesn't want to converse with you, but you have somehow convinced them that they have an obligation to converse with you? Is it enjoyable? What is the long range plan with that person?

What is the point of going out to dinner with someone who doesn't want to go out to dinner with you , but you have somehow convinced them that they have an obligation to go out to dinner with you? Is is enjoyable eating with someone who you know wouldn't be there except out of a sense of obligation? What is the long range plan with that person?

You see, it's not a matter of IF the obligation exists, what I'm trying to ask if what is the point of one person cashing in on that obligation? What is the goal of that? Short term, yes you get sex, but long term what is the goal of such a sexual relationship?

The problem is not obligations. I am marriaged with four children. I have a boatload of obligations, responsiblilities, duties, etc. That does not destroy a family, relationships, marriage, etc. It would be harmful, however, if I decided that I didn't want to fulfill those obligations. In fact, society, history, religion, and virtually everyone on this thread would condemn me if I decided not to fulfill those obligations.

And I have a very strong sense of obligation to my family, and that is a very GOOD thing.

Interesting post, and good point. Really the gist of my response, but far better written. Lorianne has a point, that pushing one another's obligation hurts the relationship.

But, as you say, it's not the obligation itself that's poisoness, it's the rejection of obligation - which brings on the state Lorianne describes.