Collecting on the "Marital Debt"?

In a previous post I mentioned how the lectionary is imbalanced in how it presents the duties of men and women in marriage.  In short, the duties of men are always read.  The duties of women are either skipped over or made optional.  This, I believe, has contributed to a culture in which it is taboo to speak of a woman's roles or duties within marriage.  

Into that silence steps X (formerly Twitter user) Will Knowland, who posted the following assertion on October 20th 2025.

This post, and the reactions thereto, are what I wanted to discuss today....

Now, as you can imagine, the internet had some thoughts on this. Some rather extreme thoughts which lacked nuance.   So I wanted to start with my own thoughts first. Both what I think this fella gets right, and what he gets wrong.

Critique #1: The Main Weapon?

I've got two main critiques here. The first is his use of the word "main", when he says it is God's "main" weapon against pornography addiction. If you asked me what God's main ways of fighting addiction is, I'd say stuff like going to Church, receiving the sacraments, going to confession, accountability to other men, prayer, the virtues of chastity and prudence. And what's important is that all of these are available to men who are single. Because due to other societal problems these days, many young men have to spend a lengthy period of time being single if they are ever fortunate enough to marry at all.

So yeah, that's my first issue. In order to say the conjugal relationship with one's wife is the "main" weapon, you have to skip over all these other elements of the spiritual life and practice. That's not to say the conjugal union plays no role. I think it can play a role, even an important role. I'd just stop way short of saying it's the “main” role.

I want to explore a consequence of this problem for a moment. If I say the "main" way of preventing or solving problem X is Y, then whenever X occurs, the first place one would look for an issue is Y. And in this case - if you follow what this William fellow said - it would mean that if you have a husband who is addicted to porn, the first place you're looking for an issue isn't with the husband’s own spiritual life, but at his wife. In other words, I think his statement drawn to its logical conclusion would lead to immediately and unfairly blaming his wife and absolving the husband.

But again, to add nuance to this, does that mean the actions of a man's wife are a total non-factor? if a woman completely conjugally abandons her husband, leaving him feeling depressed, rejected, and unfulfilled... and he develops a porn habit… well, a reasonable person could see that his wife's abandonment of him was an important contributor to the problem.

Critique #2: Prevention or Cure?

Now for my second problem with the post in question. Everything I've said so far is talking about preventing an addiction from happening in the first place. But if we're talking about combating an addiction already in progress, then the fella's statement is all the more inaccurate. 

The corrupting influences of porn cannot be understated. I think it is far more likely that a husband's addiction ruins things with his wife, rather than things with his wife fixing his addiction. His habit is going to make his desires more and more unnatural and depraved in ways his wife cannot fix in the bedroom.  So the real solution is going involve a lot of work and repentance on the husband’s part. 

A Note on Duty:

In a previous post, I noted how the Catholic lectionary allows for the complete removal of all passages which relate to a woman's duties and roles in a marriage, but the lines written to men are mandatory... It's uncontroversial to say a man has roles and duties, but not so much for his wife. We can hardly speak about such a thing without getting wild overreactions.

A person might say, "A woman has a duty to respect her husband." And you would get reactions like: "Are you saying that's all I am? I'm not even a person? I'm just an emotional support animal?"

The answer there, of course, is that pointing out that a person has a duty does not dehumanize or reduce that person to a mere function. By analogy, Imagine saying to a man, "You have the duty to provide for your family." And he replies, "How dare you reduce me to a paycheck! I'm a person!" Well, that would obviously be ridiculous. But we can recognize that because we're used to talking about men having duties.

Another person will say, "What if I don't want to do my 'duty'. Do I just have to do it against my will?!"

To reprise my previous analogy: Imagine a guy saying, "What if I don't want to provide for my family? Do I just have to do it against my will?" And the answer is.... yeah, kinda. That's what duty means. It means you have an obligation before God that you are bound to fulfill regardless of your mood. There can be extenuating circumstances which make a duty unreasonable to fulfill, but "I don't wanna" isn't among them.

So What Does He Get Right?

The first thing he gets right is that husbands and wives have conjugal rights to one another.   It is a duty and a role that they have toward one another.  Now, the urgency in fulfilling this duty is more felt on the husbands' side due to the greater burden of our sex drive.  So that side of the equation gets talked about more.  

But again, pointing out that someone has a duty does not dehumanize him/her or reduce that person to a mere function.  So when we see reactions like this...

... that's not a rational response to what he proposed.  That reaction is more knee-jerk response due to women not being used to hearing about their duties in marriage.  While it would be reductive to think of sex (and the wife who provides it) as a mere mechanism for sating the husbands sex drive, it is nonetheless true that she will - (or should) - accomplish that end.     

Spouses are called upon to bear one another's burdens.  Imagine a man who hates fixing things for his wife, or lifting heavy things for her.  That man would be seen as immature and selfish.  He should be happy to help his wife.  And even if he would rather sit on the couch all day, he should still get up and lift the heavy things for her.  Similarly, wives should be happy to help their husbands and bear their burdens.  And sex is one of the ways they do this.  

The second thing he got right is that a healthy sex life with one's wife is spiritually beneficial for a man.  A man who gets rejected by his own wife will be miserable in his own house.  Someone could say that a man should be able to attain perfect holiness even when being conjugally abandoned by his wife....

... but that's just not how human nature works.  A man spurned by his own wife will be depressed and frustrated.  And yes, many will seek an outlet from that.  Every person is responsible for his/her own sins.  However, we can set up situations where we incline others to sin.  A wife can do that by spurning her husband.  Or she can lift him up by embracing him.  

So in the end, this guy (who I'd never heard of) got some things right and some things wrong.  It's wrong to think wives are the "main weapon" against pornography in men.  But it is true that a wife does have a conjugal duty to her husband, and this is both good and necessary.