When I was engaged to my wife 43 years ago, she told me she was very concerned that she was not going to be a very good partner as far as sex goes. We were both virgins up to the very minute we said "I do". I discounted her concern to youthful nervousness. I think the next year was spent by her verifying that she indeed did not like sex and found it rather useless. She has never denied me even to this day. But I've had enough and am very tired of all the enjoyment being a one way street. To me it seems selfish and prideful to keep putting her in the position of having to "perform". This morning I told her that from now on we are going to be celibate and I will keep my hands to myself. I think she's upset with my decision but I don't know why. I would think she would embrace it. I think in looking back she had desires of physical intimacy but found out that it really wasn't all that it was made up to be. She could go until the 2ND coming and never desire to have intercourse. It just doesn't matter to her. I told her she was asexual; she agreed. So it begs the question, is it a sin to be married and have no physical intimacy if you both agree to it? Since there is no one being denied, is it a sin? We are both strong believers and want to honor God first. Thanks in advance for any input.
Have you asked her how she feels about this decision? Was it made together? Even if she is asexual, it might bring her pleasure just knowing you are pleased. She might be concerned that if you do not want it anymore, maybe you are having an affair, who knows? All I can say is to talk frankly with her about how you feel, and seek her opinion on how to proceed.
Well God does say not to deprive each other of sex so I suppose it is a sin. The thing is that even if one does not' fee'l like sex there are ways of making that spouse feel they are wanted when you do have sex. I think there is something that has been causing your wife to be repressed in this area. Maybe she was bought up to think that sex is dirty, maybe other things happened to make her hate sex.Maybe she thinks that 'good Christian women' shouldnt enjoy sex. Physically we all have the ability to enjoy sex, and just to see the other spouse enjoying it should bring great pleasure. I doubt that she is asexual.
I would suggest some good marriage counselling, which may lead to some good sexual therapy counselling. Its a shame that you didnt seek help earlier, but its never too late.
Did you ever tell her how unhappy you are with the fact that she just' allows' it and makes no effort to enjoy it?Its awful for a man to know that his wife is just doing it to 'keep him quiet'.
I don't see your actions as selfish or prideful. It isn't your choice that she is asexual or anorgasmic or whatever. I assume that if she desired something sexual, you would comply, but she doesn't desire anything.
Even if someone is anorgasmic they can feel closeness/intimacy from sex. Sex is also a way that people feel needed/wanted/desired.
If you are around age 60, yes it is true that people do choose at some point in their lives to stop having interourse. Hopefully there could be some mutual understanding about this.
I guess an unspoken variable in my mind is frequency. I think it remains to be seen how this will effect you, to say that sex will suddenly suddenly stop. Will you be able to go back if desired.
Marriage counseling or sex therapy may be helpful.
The question remains, is it a sin? It's a simple yes or no question.
The question remains, is it a sin? It's a simple yes or no question.
The question remains, is it a sin? It's a simple yes or no question.
: 42yearsago Thu Jan 10, 2013 - 06:48:48
The question remains, is it a sin? It's a simple yes or no question.
Since the original language words translated "sin" in both the OT and NT are archery terms meaning to miss the target, do you think your decision to go without
hits the mark of God's will?
If not then it would be sin.
You would make a great politician.
Since you've expanded the intent and are looking at it from an oblique perspective, is it God's will that I've been put in this position?
You said in your original post a couple of different things.
Like you have been married for 43 years
and that you now want to stop having sex even though your wife doesn't claim to enjoy it.
But that once you told her she got angry about it.
and where you believe you have won the argument with her...by using logical points and reason...you still don't feel like you have won the war.
Sure, I can argue and use logic and win a lot of arguments. But that doesn't mean that I have actually changed the other person's mind.
and where you might have issues with your wife's reaction to your physical intimacy...that would be a place to start. Her words have wounded you and your ego. she has never apologized for them.
But also...if you have been married for that long. Her desires for physical intimacy will rise. (Most women's do as they age) and yours will decline as you age. All part of the natural order of things.
So....since she was gracious to you when you are young...you can be gracious to her when you both age. Not as an "even steven" type scenario...but a giving of yourself as she has given of herself.
Paul says for husbands and wives not to deny each other...and it is for more reasons than I can list here that physical intimacy should not ever stop between spouses.
So...yes...it is a sin. One that can cost you your marriage and others around you their marriage.
I don't think you paid attention to what I said. She has never been, or is she now, interested in sex. No one is denying anybody anything since no wants anything or is asking for anything. Just because I'd like to have it doesn't mean I have to ask for it or expect it. If I'm willing to sacrifice and give up my "rights" as a husband so she doesn't have to "perform" then I don't see the problem. 42 years of having sex with a wife that doesn't enjoy what God has designed seems absurd to me and quite selfish.
: 42yearsago Thu Jan 10, 2013 - 10:34:18
I don't think you paid attention to what I said. She has never been, or is she now, interested in sex. No one is denying anybody anything since no wants anything or is asking for anything. Just because I'd like to have it doesn't mean I have to ask for it or expect it. If I'm willing to sacrifice and give up my "rights" as a husband so she doesn't have to "perform" then I don't see the problem. 42 years of having sex with a wife that doesn't enjoy what God has designed seems absurd to me and quite selfish.
YES...I paid closer attention than you.
LOL
Look. women are made up of thousands of emotions that come and go like the wind. Sure at one point she didn't enjoy sex. Probably said in a fashion that hurt your ego as well. But you loved her with "putting up with it".
BUT
You also said this:
This morning I told her that from now on we are going to be celibate and I will keep my hands to myself. I think she's upset with my decision but I don't know why.
And that is due to your unilateral decision partly.
And partly because her hormones (that control drive for physical intimacy) have also changed.
So...actually she is being deprived. Sex is a touchy subject for a lot of women. According to all decency and propriety by public standards True Ladies are not supposed to ever enjoy and like sex. (when actually something other is actually true)
And that is why she is upset. She may not feel comfortable in admitting it. But there it is.
Also. A woman thrives on being attractive...especially to the husband that she loves. Both of your ages are getting up there these days. She ain't 20-something any longer. But she still wants to see the effects of your desire for her. Words ain't gonna cut the mustard.
I know you think you are doing right...but it just ain't so. You hurt her feelings this morning and you need to say your sorry. She did the same to you in the past...and that wasn't right either. soooo...overlook all of that and be the same good spiritual leader in your house that you have been.
Why do I bother. You guys just don't get it. I knew this was just a shot in the dark. Thanks for the input but you're way off base with what you think is happening with her. She has had NO desire since day one and still doesn't and she freely admits it. Why is that so hard to understand?
Can you explain why she got upset with your decision to stop "making her perform"? Have you talked with her about it?
I think that not having sex will damage your marriage and ruin the closeness and intimacy. Its not Gods will for us to not have sex with our spouse.
Thats why he says that we must not deny the other.
Someone said that sometimes a decision is made as we get older to stop sex, and I would ask, why?There is no reason, excepting very bad health, to stop sex at any age.
Why arent you willing to go to counselling and sort this out? I doubt that she is asexual at all.
No I haven't talked to her about it. It hasn't even been approached. It's as if it hasn't even been discussed. Unless I'm imagining things, it's as if a big burdon has been lifted. This has been an ongoing discussion for 41 years. I think she's glad I've finally put it to rest. I'm off from work for the next 3 days. Believe me, if she wants to talk this will be the weekend that it will happen. If Monday morning comes and there has been no discussion or adendum, then I'll know for sure all is fine.
: 42yearsago Thu Jan 10, 2013 - 15:22:44
No I haven't talked to her about it. It hasn't even been approached. It's as if it hasn't even been discussed. Unless I'm imagining things, it's as if a big burdon has been lifted. This has been an ongoing discussion for 41 years. I think she's glad I've finally put it to rest. I'm off from work for the next 3 days. Believe me, if she wants to talk this will be the weekend that it will happen. If Monday morning comes and there has been no discussion or adendum, then I'll know for sure all is fine.
This should had been settled long ago. Why be concern with it now? Did you get a good second wind? I am going on sixty five and slowing down my friend, what the secret? If you want to stop having sex, then stop, no sin. Yet, you are commanded to love your wife, so you cannot stop doing that, regardless sex or no sex. Is she a good woman, except in bed? Then, what the big deal? If you were between your twenties late forties, then I can see a concern. Once you get sixty and above, one should be slowing down a little. Why be over concerned now, is my point?
RB
I am getting mixed messages. On one hand you say "No I haven't talked to her about it. It hasn't even been approached. It's as if it hasn't even been discussed" then one sentence later, you say "This has been an ongoing discussion for 41 years."
Also, you have said it was your decision, but you thought at first she was not happy about it, and now you say you think she is relieved... Rather than speculate about how she is feeling about, why not ask her? Don't wait for her to bring it up, especially if she is a more passive type of person. There is nothing stopping you from bringing it up with her and seeking her input. If you ask her and bring it up, she will know that you care about her and how she feels about "your" decision - and you won't have to speculate about it.
If you are worried about whether it is sin, that is a decision you and your wife have to make together. It says in the Bible that you should not deprive each other (that also means she can't deprive you, and indeed has not deprived you all these years) except by mutual consent, and only for a time so you can devote yourselves to prayer. So rather than make the decision on your own, which you have done, you need to make the decision mutually. You might also want to agree on a time, say a month or two, to devote yourselves to prayer. Maybe after seriously praying about this, you will both come to see that you want to be together sexually.
As Chosenone said, I also wonder if sex is simply disappointing for her, or even traumatic for her, rather than just assume she is asexual. Asexual people are very, very rare. I'm willing to be there is something else going on with her. I must give her much credit, though, if she warned you before marrying you, and also satisfied you all those years. Still, God intended for sex to be mutually enjoyable in marriage, and it would make sense to me that even if she is unable to enjoy being a recipient, she might still enjoy pleasing you.
imo, you need to talk with her about your decision rather than simply tell her that this is the way it is and that is all there is to it.
I think "upset" is way to strong a word. More like shocked that I actually put my foot down and basically said enough is enough. No we haven't discussed it, but not because there hasn't been opportunity. I'm off from work the next 3 days. If by Monday morning a discussion hasn't taken place, then I'll assume that all is right with her and we'll go on from there. But like I said before, what's there not to like from her perspective? She gets to not have sex with me and doesn't have to feel like there is an impending time when she does. A win win for her. It's perfect.
Concerning other posted replies, people keep bringing up that it isn't right to deny your spouse. That's true and I absolutely agree. But in this case, if there isn't anything being asked for, how can it be denied?
I'm off from work the next 3 days. If by Monday morning a discussion hasn't taken place, then I'll assume that all is right with her and we'll go on from there. But like I said before, what's there not to like from her perspective? She gets to not have sex with me and doesn't have to feel like there is an impending time when she does. A win win for her. It's perfect.
I'm not sure, but it sounds like you might be expecting her to initiate discussion about her feelings regarding your decision. I am suggesting it should be you who initiates it, and if there is not opportunity in the next three days, imo, you should make opportunity. It is not necessarily win-win. It might be win for her (although it might not be, as we do not know how she feels). But it is certainly not a win for you, as you will be deprived of sexual intimacy with your wife. That is not win-win.
Concerning other posted replies, people keep bringing up that it isn't right to deny your spouse. That's true and I absolutely agree. But in this case, if there isn't anything being asked for, how can it be denied?
You are denying yourself, and you are denying her the opportunity to bring you pleasure, whether she enjoys it or not.
I think a much healthier approach to resolving the sexual issue in your marriage is to talk about where her "asexuality" comes from (trauma, abuse...?), and then create a therapeutic environment for her to learn to find pleasure in expressing her sexuality. Imo, it is never too late to work on healing the broken areas of our lives, and this sounds like a broken part of her life, and it has affected your marriage to the point where I might think you could be somewhat resentful of her lack of interest. Would she talk with a counsellor?
Anyway, I hope the two of you are able to work it out so that it truly is a win-win.
Sorry, I could not reply to your PM because it says your inbox is full. Here is my response:
I understand what you are saying, but you say "if nothing is said this weekend..." My question is if you are waiting for her to initiate the conversation, or if you are going to be proactive about making the discussion happen. My point is you might need to be the one to bring it up, and I think you should bring it up rather than speculate on her POV. Don't be passive in this. If you care about how she feels about it, then you be the one to initiate discussion.
However, it seems you are only trying to justify your decision and are looking for others to support that decision, which is why you are getting the responses you're getting.
: 42yearsago Wed Jan 09, 2013 - 20:49:36
... To me it seems selfish and prideful to keep putting her in the position of having to "perform". This morning I told her that from now on we are going to be celibate and I will keep my hands to myself. I think she's upset with my decision but I don't know why. I would think she would embrace it.
42,
I think your wife's response here is a
clear indication that things are not what they appear to be. What surprises me even more, however, is that your question to us is not, "why do you think she would react that way?" but simply, "is it a sin to be married and have no physical intimacy if you both agree to it?"
The fact is that sex is a very personal thing, related to a person's deepest, most hidden feelings. Your wife has never given you any indication that she ever enjoyed or desired sex, but that doesn't necessarily mean she got nothing out of it. As our brother, JohnDB pointed out:
: JohnDB Thu Jan 10, 2013 - 10:55:00
... actually she is being deprived. Sex is a touchy subject for a lot of women. According to all decency and propriety by public standards True Ladies are not supposed to ever enjoy and like sex. (when actually something other is actually true)
In other words, she may still be enjoying it on some level, even though she may feel a need to keep this an absolute secret--even from you. Therefore, she acts completely disinterested, and readily agrees with you when you tell her that she is "asexual," but that doesn't necessarily mean that these are her true feelings. Consider this carefully before you assume that this is a "mutual decision." ::pondering::
Another thing I found troublesome was your statement, "I will keep my hands to myself." Does this mean no more touching at all? No more hugs and kisses--nothing? It really sounds as if you are looking to punish her for all these years of being a cold fish in bed. If this is the case, then you really need to re-examine your own motives, as this would certainly be a sin. ::doh::
She probably does't enjoy sex and was upset when you stopped, because she liked pleasing you, but now she can't. But if she enjoys pleasing, then she must enjoy it somewhat.
Believe me, if she wants to talk this will be the weekend that it will happen. If Monday morning comes and there has been no discussion or adendum, then I'll know for sure all is fine.
This is a great example of avoiding an uncomfortable discussion by assuming the meaning of silence. We all do it at one time or another-- especially men. But all you may
know by Monday is that she is not saying anything about it. Assuming that we know the meaning of silence is generally unwise. Taking unilateral action and then assuming everything is fine because nobody objected out loud does not sound like wisdom. Sometimes we talk, but we don't really say what's on our minds. Sometimes we are silent for the same reason. This sounds like a classic matter for counseling by a professional. (Certainly more than advice we can offer here. ) Not for a counselor to "fix" either one of you, but to help you repair a communication and intimacy model that has been broken for some time. This could benefit much more than just your sex life.
: apostle Tue Feb 19, 2013 - 16:44:39
Believe me, if she wants to talk this will be the weekend that it will happen. If Monday morning comes and there has been no discussion or adendum, then I'll know for sure all is fine.
This is a great example of avoiding an uncomfortable discussion by assuming the meaning of silence. We all do it at one time or another-- especially men. But all you may know by Monday is that she is not saying anything about it. Assuming that we know the meaning of silence is generally unwise. Taking unilateral action and then assuming everything is fine because nobody objected out loud does not sound like wisdom. Sometimes we talk, but we don't really say what's on our minds. Sometimes we are silent for the same reason. This sounds like a classic matter for counseling by a professional. (Certainly more than advice we can offer here. ) Not for a counselor to "fix" either one of you, but to help you repair a communication and intimacy model that has been broken for some time. This could benefit much more than just your sex life.
I agree. Good communication is vital for a clear understanding of what is going on here. Also sex in marriage is so important, she really needs to understand this. I hope that with good Christian counsellors she can be shown this and will respond in obedience to God. At the monent she is in total disobedience.
Whatever we 'feel' like, we need to do things that are for our spouse and for the marriage. God will bless and honour that.
You must have more patience than me. I wouldn't have made it past a year or so.
Jarrod
I feel your pain. Definitely NOT a sin. Don't listen to this other drivel. NOT a sin.
What is not a sin?
: chosenone Tue May 28, 2013 - 17:29:25
What is not a sin?
I think he was answering this question.
: 42yearsago Wed Jan 09, 2013 - 20:49:36So it begs the question, is it a sin to be married and have no physical intimacy if you both agree to it? Since there is no one being denied, is it a sin? We are both strong believers and want to honor God first. Thanks in advance for any input.
: Bitter Sweet Tue May 28, 2013 - 17:46:12: chosenoneWhat is not a sin?
I think he was answering this question.
: 42yearsago Wed Jan 09, 2013 - 20:49:36So it begs the question, is it a sin to be married and have no physical intimacy if you both agree to it? Since there is no one being denied, is it a sin? We are both strong believers and want to honor God first. Thanks in advance for any input.
And the answer is the same: YES.
Regular sex is COMMANDED in both testaments. To ignore that for your personal preference is definitely sinful.
: DaveW Wed May 29, 2013 - 05:24:39
: Bitter Sweet Tue May 28, 2013 - 17:46:12: chosenoneWhat is not a sin?
I think he was answering this question.
: 42yearsago Wed Jan 09, 2013 - 20:49:36So it begs the question, is it a sin to be married and have no physical intimacy if you both agree to it? Since there is no one being denied, is it a sin? We are both strong believers and want to honor God first. Thanks in advance for any input.
And the answer is the same: YES.
Regular sex is COMMANDED in both testaments. To ignore that for your personal preference is definitely sinful.
As well as not being good for the marriage.
I think that usually if there is no sex or very little sex, its because one spouse is refusing, and the other spouse just puts up with it. I suspect that it is very very rare that both are perfectly content never to have sex.
: DaveW Wed May 29, 2013 - 05:24:39
Regular sex is COMMANDED in both testaments. To ignore that for your personal preference is definitely sinful.
BCV please. How often is regular? Not your personal preference either, bcv of how often it should be as commanded by God. Everyday? What if your spouse is traveling 6 days a week or away for months/years at a time (army)? Commandments are fairly serious, what's going to happen to those people that don't have "regular" sex, are they condemned?
What happens if 2 people that are physically disabled (paralyzed from the waist down), are married and physically unable to have sex? Should they have just avoid marriage all together? Lots of people marry for benefits, children and companionship too, not just for sex.
BCV please.
Exodus 21. 10-11
1 Cor 7.3
How often is regular?
1 Cor 7.5 Background on this verse: Paul was trained by Gamaliel who was grandson of Hillel. Hillel and Shammai both ruled on "how long" an abstinence for prayer could be agreed to. Hillel said one week and Shammai said 2 weeks.
One could say that they were both pharisees and therefore have no bearing on us. Here is what the Lord said about the teachings of the pharisees:
Matthew 23:2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses;
3 therefore
all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them."
So even if
both agree, 2 weeks is the MAX time you should go between times of intimacy.
: DaveW Wed May 29, 2013 - 07:41:21
BCV please.
Exodus 21. 10-11
1 Cor 7.3
How often is regular?
1 Cor 7.5 Background on this verse: Paul was trained by Gamaliel who was grandson of Hillel. Hillel and Shammai both ruled on "how long" an abstinence for prayer could be agreed to. Hillel said one week and Shammai said 2 weeks.
One could say that they were both pharisees and therefore have no bearing on us. Here is what the Lord said about the teachings of the pharisees:
Matthew 23:2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses;
3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them."
So even if both agree, 2 weeks is the MAX time you should go between times of intimacy.
I'm a little confused by exodus you refereed to, does the woman have to be sold to the man by the father first? My dad didn't sell me so am I exempt from that rule? Does that make me a Pharisee?
Also, in Corinthians, doesn't that only apply to people that were sexually immoral either prior or during marriage? What about virgins that aren't sexually immoral prior to marriage?
What if a married couple hasn't had any sexual immorality occur during their marriage? They would be exempt from that too since they aren't full of lust and cheating on each other? That's what that rule was made for, right, the sexually immoral?
Good questions Bitter.
Remember what Our Lord said about the Pharisees. (obey them for they sit in Moses' chair)
Yes the Exodus passage is about slave wives. The pharisees reasoned this way: if God is that concerned about a slave
woman having sexual satisfaction, how much more is he concerned for a free wife? There is a big section of the Talmud devoted to this.
And the 1 Cor 7 is for ALL married couples whether they were immoral before or not. In the first case (immoral) to put an end to that; and in the 2nd case (not immoral) to keep them from drifting that way. This is actually built on the pharisaic understanding of the Exodus passage and Paul expands it to include wives keeping the husbands satisfied as well.
To the virgins and widows, Paul wished they could be content to be single but he knows that it is only a few gifted ones who can do that. v7 To those without that charismatic** gift he says "it is better to marry than to burn." v9
** Paul used "charisma" for gift here - the same word he used to describe prophecy and healing and discerning of spirits 5 chapters later.
Sorry for the disjointed reply but it would only let me post 1 word at a time until I got to the break and the first one would not even allow that.
As Christians rather than Jews, I don't think we need to worry about what is 'allowed' in the OT, and what isn't. As long as both agree on how often suits them then that's the main thing. For some it may be every day, for others it may be twice a month, but remembering that we are to think of our spouse and their needs is what matters.
: chosenone Wed May 29, 2013 - 10:14:14
As Christians rather than Jews, I don't think we need to worry about what is 'allowed' in the OT, and what isn't. As long as both agree on how often suits them then that's the main thing. For some it may be every day, for others it may be twice a month, but remembering that we are to think of our spouse and their needs is what matters.
I understand what you are saying but remember Paul was writing to a majority
gentile christian audience in Corinth. That and the fact that what he writes is so similar to the Pharisaic teachings of the day speaks volumes.
I am not saying this is a "THOU SHALT ..... 4 times a week" kind of situation. What I am saying is that the underlying understanding tends toward more rather than less, and the "agreement" time is to be short.
From http://www.jewfaq.org/sex.htm (http://www.jewfaq.org/sex.htm)
The Talmud specifies both the quantity and quality of sex that a man must give his wife. It specifies the frequency of sexual obligation based on the husband's occupation, although this obligation can be modified in the ketubah (marriage contract). A man may not take a vow to abstain from sex for an extended period of time, and may not take a journey for an extended period of time, because that would deprive his wife of sexual relations. In addition, a husband's consistent refusal to engage in sexual relations is grounds for compelling a man to divorce his wife, even if the couple has already fulfilled the halakhic obligation to procreate.
From http://www.mesacc.edu/~thoqh49081/StudentPapers/JewishSexuality.html (http://www.mesacc.edu/~thoqh49081/StudentPapers/JewishSexuality.html)
The amount or frequency of sexual relations in marriage is directed in the Mishnah. This timetable is based on the man's profession so that he might be able to fulfill his obligation as a husband and still perform his duties at his job. For example, a man who drives camels is required to perform his obligation of onah once a month, while a sailor is only obligated once every six months (Biale 130). The best situation for onah from a woman's perspective, however, is that the man would not be bound by duties required at work and could perform the obligation of onah every day (Biale 131). .....
It has been debated whether the times for onah prescribed in the Talmud are the maximum or minimum times for frequency of relations, but it is generally accepted that the man's obligation of onah requires him to be available to perform his duties for his wife whenever she has the desire.
I am not saying this is a "THOU SHALT ..... 4 times a week" kind of situation. What I am saying is that the underlying understanding tends toward more rather than less, and the "agreement" time is to be short.
: DaveW Wed May 29, 2013 - 10:23:21
: chosenone Wed May 29, 2013 - 10:14:14
As Christians rather than Jews, I don't think we need to worry about what is 'allowed' in the OT, and what isn't. As long as both agree on how often suits them then that's the main thing. For some it may be every day, for others it may be twice a month, but remembering that we are to think of our spouse and their needs is what matters.
I understand what you are saying but remember Paul was writing to a majority gentile christian audience in Corinth. That and the fact that what he writes is so similar to the Pharisaic teachings of the day speaks volumes.
I am not saying this is a "THOU SHALT ..... 4 times a week" kind of situation. What I am saying is that the underlying understanding tends toward more rather than less, and the "agreement" time is to be short.
But doesn't it still go back to
if sexual immorality was an issue? I suppose if people did have sexual problems in their relationships then this would be valid and helpful but not for people going into a marriage with a clean slate like virgins or married couples that haven't been cheating on each other. Then anything basically goes between the couple that didn't experience sexual immorality and they don't have to adhere to those laws. That's what I am getting from it.
That 1-2 week break for prayer rule seems like it would be helpful to keep a couple from straying from each other
if cheating was a prior problem.
The idea is so that it will NEVER become a problem.
: DaveW Wed May 29, 2013 - 10:44:39
The idea is so that it will NEVER become a problem.
But the chapter starts off saying it is better to not have sex, 1 Corinthians 7 Now for the matters you wrote about: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman."
Some people don't have issues with sexual immorality in their marriage so I imagine it wouldn't be a problem for them. We had 1 poster mention marriage for 25 years and the past 15 sexless while he remained faithful. He doesn't believe a sexless marriage is sinful, the bible even says it is good to be without sex, and it didn't lead him into sexual immorality, "just because it was his preference". The only people sinning are the sexually immoral and that was written specifically for them. Nowhere in the bible does it say sex is good, unless I missed something.
Actually the chapter starts off "Now concerning the things about which you wrote..."
IOW the text that immediately follows was an answer to a question.
: DaveW Wed May 29, 2013 - 10:23:21
: chosenone Wed May 29, 2013 - 10:14:14
As Christians rather than Jews, I don't think we need to worry about what is 'allowed' in the OT, and what isn't. As long as both agree on how often suits them then that's the main thing. For some it may be every day, for others it may be twice a month, but remembering that we are to think of our spouse and their needs is what matters.
I understand what you are saying but remember Paul was writing to a majority gentile christian audience in Corinth. That and the fact that what he writes is so similar to the Pharisaic teachings of the day speaks volumes.
I am not saying this is a "THOU SHALT ..... 4 times a week" kind of situation. What I am saying is that the underlying understanding tends toward more rather than less, and the "agreement" time is to be short.
From http://www.jewfaq.org/sex.htm (http://www.jewfaq.org/sex.htm)
The Talmud specifies both the quantity and quality of sex that a man must give his wife. It specifies the frequency of sexual obligation based on the husband's occupation, although this obligation can be modified in the ketubah (marriage contract). A man may not take a vow to abstain from sex for an extended period of time, and may not take a journey for an extended period of time, because that would deprive his wife of sexual relations. In addition, a husband's consistent refusal to engage in sexual relations is grounds for compelling a man to divorce his wife, even if the couple has already fulfilled the halakhic obligation to procreate.
From http://www.mesacc.edu/~thoqh49081/StudentPapers/JewishSexuality.html (http://www.mesacc.edu/~thoqh49081/StudentPapers/JewishSexuality.html)
The amount or frequency of sexual relations in marriage is directed in the Mishnah. This timetable is based on the man's profession so that he might be able to fulfill his obligation as a husband and still perform his duties at his job. For example, a man who drives camels is required to perform his obligation of onah once a month, while a sailor is only obligated once every six months (Biale 130). The best situation for onah from a woman's perspective, however, is that the man would not be bound by duties required at work and could perform the obligation of onah every day (Biale 131). .....
It has been debated whether the times for onah prescribed in the Talmud are the maximum or minimum times for frequency of relations, but it is generally accepted that the man's obligation of onah requires him to be available to perform his duties for his wife whenever she has the desire.
I am not saying this is a "THOU SHALT ..... 4 times a week" kind of situation. What I am saying is that the underlying understanding tends toward more rather than less, and the "agreement" time is to be short.
Yes but he doesnt actually state any specific times when he say those things.
: Bitter Sweet Wed May 29, 2013 - 10:34:25
: DaveW Wed May 29, 2013 - 10:23:21
: chosenone Wed May 29, 2013 - 10:14:14
As Christians rather than Jews, I don't think we need to worry about what is 'allowed' in the OT, and what isn't. As long as both agree on how often suits them then that's the main thing. For some it may be every day, for others it may be twice a month, but remembering that we are to think of our spouse and their needs is what matters.
I understand what you are saying but remember Paul was writing to a majority gentile christian audience in Corinth. That and the fact that what he writes is so similar to the Pharisaic teachings of the day speaks volumes.
I am not saying this is a "THOU SHALT ..... 4 times a week" kind of situation. What I am saying is that the underlying understanding tends toward more rather than less, and the "agreement" time is to be short.
But doesn't it still go back to if sexual immorality was an issue? I suppose if people did have sexual problems in their relationships then this would be valid and helpful but not for people going into a marriage with a clean slate like virgins or married couples that haven't been cheating on each other. Then anything basically goes between the couple that didn't experience sexual immorality and they don't have to adhere to those laws. That's what I am getting from it.
That 1-2 week break for prayer rule seems like it would be helpful to keep a couple from straying from each other if cheating was a prior problem.
I think it is written to all married couples, and not to a specific group.
: Bitter Sweet Wed May 29, 2013 - 11:04:08
: DaveW Wed May 29, 2013 - 10:44:39
The idea is so that it will NEVER become a problem.
But the chapter starts off saying it is better to not have sex, 1 Corinthians 7 Now for the matters you wrote about: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman."
Some people don't have issues with sexual immorality in their marriage so I imagine it wouldn't be a problem for them. We had 1 poster mention marriage for 25 years and the past 15 sexless while he remained faithful. He doesn't believe a sexless marriage is sinful, the bible even says it is good to be without sex, and it didn't lead him into sexual immorality, "just because it was his preference". The only people sinning are the sexually immoral and that was written specifically for them. Nowhere in the bible does it say sex is good, unless I missed something.
A marriage with no sex isn't what God wants, and something is way out of line. Many good spouses will stay faithful if their husband/wife disobeys God and deprives them of sex, because they have high morals, but that doesnt mean they should have to.
Read Song of Songs if you think sex isn't meant to be good or godly. God invented sex, and a married couple are supposed to have regular sex. Its very important actually, not just physically but emotionally and spiritually also.
I find it absolutely amazing that people take the good advice in the Word of God and try to use that same Word to justify not following it.
I don't want to ...
WE don't want to ....
WE agree that we don't want to ....
Rebellion, plain and simple.
: DaveW Wed May 29, 2013 - 12:54:54
I find it absolutely amazing that people take the good advice in the Word of God and try to use that same Word to justify not following it.
I don't want to ...
WE don't want to ....
WE agree that we don't want to ....
Rebellion, plain and simple.
Well yes, and we need to remember that God says things for a VERY good reason, so if He says that a married couple should not withhold sex from each other, then that's what we need to do, and not complain when one or both ignores that and things go wrong in the marriage.
: chosenone Wed May 29, 2013 - 12:44:42
: Bitter Sweet Wed May 29, 2013 - 11:04:08
: DaveW Wed May 29, 2013 - 10:44:39
The idea is so that it will NEVER become a problem.
But the chapter starts off saying it is better to not have sex, 1 Corinthians 7 Now for the matters you wrote about: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman."
Some people don't have issues with sexual immorality in their marriage so I imagine it wouldn't be a problem for them. We had 1 poster mention marriage for 25 years and the past 15 sexless while he remained faithful. He doesn't believe a sexless marriage is sinful, the bible even says it is good to be without sex, and it didn't lead him into sexual immorality, "just because it was his preference". The only people sinning are the sexually immoral and that was written specifically for them. Nowhere in the bible does it say sex is good, unless I missed something.
A marriage with no sex isn't what God wants, and something is way out of line. Many good spouses will stay faithful if their husband/wife disobeys God and deprives them of sex, because they have high morals, but that doesnt mean they should have to.
Read Song of Songs if you think sex isn't meant to be good or godly. God invented sex, and a married couple are supposed to have regular sex. Its very important actually, not just physically but emotionally and spiritually also.
I've read it a few times already and I get the impression that the couple in the book isn't married but constantly searching and finding, leaving and coming back again without actually having sex. I see it more as God and Israel. In one book he calls her his bride but also his sister. We don't have sex with the church or our sisters. I think there is way too much going on there to leave at just sex between a couple when they don't actually have sex in the story, it's all fantasy they are having about each other. There is even implication of being despised by others and her wanting to pretend he is her brother so she could kiss him. What married couple wants to pretend to be brother and sister so they can kiss? My husband comes up with crazy ideas like that in bed too but, never brother and sister.
The bible shouldn't be used as a sex guide, that's all I am saying.
TO be up front with this, much of my own marriage has been lacking in this area. for about the first 20 years it drove me absolutely nuts. Most years were less than 5 times.
That was primarily due to DW being cruelly abused as a grade schooler. (a few thousand instances over 4-5 years) I found out about this several weeks after we were married.
Not to be too graphic but the way the abuse happened left her with a gooey mess which he never acknowledged (she had to clean up herself, clothing and bed) and got her aroused but never finished. So she shut down all sexual feelings in herself and anything to do with the male side of it nauseated her. It was almost like she split off a separate personality onto which all that sexual junk was dumped and then she never accessed it. Until we got married that is. Then it was almost impossible for her.
After many tries at counseling, (most were a waste of time) we finally got some help and it is better now but still a long way from what I would have liked. Of course at this point in our lives I do not see continued counseling as that beneficial. It would only make her do a lot of work and pain while benefiting me a little.
That was mostly to say that I am not umsympathetic to the OP's situation. I've been there.
: DaveW Wed May 29, 2013 - 12:54:54
I find it absolutely amazing that people take the good advice in the Word of God and try to use that same Word to justify not following it.
I don't want to ...
WE don't want to ....
WE agree that we don't want to ....
Rebellion, plain and simple.
What do you suggest, force everyone to do it?
It's not rebellion when there are 2 consenting married adults. I don't think we should condemn or tell a married couple they are bad because of the lifestyle they choose.
: Bitter Sweet Wed May 29, 2013 - 13:14:03
: chosenone Wed May 29, 2013 - 12:44:42
: Bitter Sweet Wed May 29, 2013 - 11:04:08
: DaveW Wed May 29, 2013 - 10:44:39
The idea is so that it will NEVER become a problem.
But the chapter starts off saying it is better to not have sex, 1 Corinthians 7 Now for the matters you wrote about: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman."
Some people don't have issues with sexual immorality in their marriage so I imagine it wouldn't be a problem for them. We had 1 poster mention marriage for 25 years and the past 15 sexless while he remained faithful. He doesn't believe a sexless marriage is sinful, the bible even says it is good to be without sex, and it didn't lead him into sexual immorality, "just because it was his preference". The only people sinning are the sexually immoral and that was written specifically for them. Nowhere in the bible does it say sex is good, unless I missed something.
A marriage with no sex isn't what God wants, and something is way out of line. Many good spouses will stay faithful if their husband/wife disobeys God and deprives them of sex, because they have high morals, but that doesnt mean they should have to.
Read Song of Songs if you think sex isn't meant to be good or godly. God invented sex, and a married couple are supposed to have regular sex. Its very important actually, not just physically but emotionally and spiritually also.
I've read it a few times already and I get the impression that the couple in the book isn't married but constantly searching and finding, leaving and coming back again without actually having sex. I see it more as God and Israel. In one book he calls her his bride but also his sister. We don't have sex with the church or our sisters. I think there is way too much going on there to leave at just sex between a couple when they don't actually have sex in the story, it's all fantasy they are having about each other. There is even implication of being despised by others and her wanting to pretend he is her brother so she could kiss him. What married couple wants to pretend to be brother and sister so they can kiss? My husband comes up with crazy ideas like that in bed too but, never brother and sister.
The bible shouldn't be used as a sex guide, that's all I am saying.
I am sure that Dave can tell you more about the background of this book that me, but it is very much about sexual erotic love between a man and a woman. Many of the passages in that book describe very erotic sexual acts. God is for sex and he made us to have and enjoy sex.
Many like to spiritualise that book, so that it doesn't offend some peoples 'sensitivities', but it is very erotic, and God knows all about sex, and He is all for it.
: Bitter Sweet Wed May 29, 2013 - 13:32:23
: DaveW Wed May 29, 2013 - 12:54:54
I find it absolutely amazing that people take the good advice in the Word of God and try to use that same Word to justify not following it.
I don't want to ...
WE don't want to ....
WE agree that we don't want to ....
Rebellion, plain and simple.
What do you suggest, force everyone to do it?
It's not rebellion when there are 2 consenting married adults. I don't think we should condemn or tell a married couple they are bad because of the lifestyle they choose.
Why should they need to be forced???
Sex is very beneficial for a married couple, and its their loss and their risk if they carry on disobeying God by refusing the do what He says. In most cases where sex is rare or non existent, it isn't because they are BOTH consenting to have no sex, it is because one of them is disobeying God by withholding sex from the other.
: DaveW Wed May 29, 2013 - 13:25:19
TO be up front with this, much of my own marriage has been lacking in this area. for about the first 20 years it drove me absolutely nuts. Most years were less than 5 times.
That was primarily due to DW being cruelly abused as a grade schooler. (a few thousand instances over 4-5 years) I found out about this several weeks after we were married.
Not to be too graphic but the way the abuse happened left her with a gooey mess which he never acknowledged (she had to clean up herself, clothing and bed) and got her aroused but never finished. So she shut down all sexual feelings in herself and anything to do with the male side of it nauseated her. It was almost like she split off a separate personality onto which all that sexual junk was dumped and then she never accessed it. Until we got married that is. Then it was almost impossible for her.
After many tries at counseling, (most were a waste of time) we finally got some help and it is better now but still a long way from what I would have liked. Of course at this point in our lives I do not see continued counseling as that beneficial. It would only make her do a lot of work and pain while benefiting me a little.
That was mostly to say that I am not umsympathetic to the OP's situation. I've been there.
In her case there was a reason why she was like that, but she should definitely have told you before marriage. A young man I know went out with a girl who had been abused, and she told him straight out that she never wanted sex and never wanted children. He ended it because he wanted children (and obviously sex) but at least she told him and didn't wait till they were married which would have been very cruel.
: chosenone Wed May 29, 2013 - 15:16:27
In her case there was a reason why she was like that, but she should definitely have told you before marriage. A young man I know went out with a girl who had been abused, and she told him straight out that she never wanted sex and never wanted children. He ended it because he wanted children (and obviously sex) but at least she told him and didn't wait till they were married which would have been very cruel.
Yeah there was definitely a reason and IMO a pretty good one at that. (does not make things easier though)
Yes it would have been better to know about it before hand but in the church we went to, just admitting to having a sex drive got some people kicked out of the church. It took months for me to convince the leadership to allow us to court. Any hint that we had discussed anything of a sexual nature would have had them break off the engagement (courtship lasted only 45 minutes).
And frankly, I think she had separated it so far from herself that she did not dream that it would have any impact at all. (and yes she did want kids - originally 6)
: chosenone Wed May 29, 2013 - 15:12:05
: Bitter Sweet Wed May 29, 2013 - 13:32:23
: DaveW Wed May 29, 2013 - 12:54:54
I find it absolutely amazing that people take the good advice in the Word of God and try to use that same Word to justify not following it.
I don't want to ...
WE don't want to ....
WE agree that we don't want to ....
Rebellion, plain and simple.
What do you suggest, force everyone to do it?
It's not rebellion when there are 2 consenting married adults. I don't think we should condemn or tell a married couple they are bad because of the lifestyle they choose.
Why should they need to be forced???
Sex is very beneficial for a married couple, and its their loss and their risk if they carry on disobeying God by refusing the do what He says. In most cases where sex is rare or non existent, it isn't because they are BOTH consenting to have no sex, it is because one of them is disobeying God by withholding sex from the other.
I was just making a point with the forced comment. IDK, I just don't think it's our business to judge what goes on in the bedroom between a man and woman. Everyone is different and so are everyone's needs. Some people don't need to have sex as often as others and others need to have it more often. I don't know why some people make a big deal out of it, it not the end all and be all to a marriage.
My husband was a virgin when we got married and after a couple years of being really excited about it like a teenage boy he just didn't feel like doing it 5-10 times a day anymore. I think our marriage improved significantly when we slowed down and we grew closer in a lot of other ways (and fatter). If he could no longer preform, it won't hurt our marriage and I wouldn't make any demands from him to please me, I don't think that's fair. We don't need to bring each other to orgasm to feel close. It ends with a fleeting moment, each and every time orgasms always end the same but our happy and close times together never do, they are always new and different and they just don't compare to an orgasm.
: Bitter Sweet Wed May 29, 2013 - 19:27:26
: chosenone Wed May 29, 2013 - 15:12:05
: Bitter Sweet Wed May 29, 2013 - 13:32:23
: DaveW Wed May 29, 2013 - 12:54:54
I find it absolutely amazing that people take the good advice in the Word of God and try to use that same Word to justify not following it.
I don't want to ...
WE don't want to ....
WE agree that we don't want to ....
Rebellion, plain and simple.
What do you suggest, force everyone to do it?
It's not rebellion when there are 2 consenting married adults. I don't think we should condemn or tell a married couple they are bad because of the lifestyle they choose.
Why should they need to be forced???
Sex is very beneficial for a married couple, and its their loss and their risk if they carry on disobeying God by refusing the do what He says. In most cases where sex is rare or non existent, it isn't because they are BOTH consenting to have no sex, it is because one of them is disobeying God by withholding sex from the other.
I was just making a point with the forced comment. IDK, I just don't think it's our business to judge what goes on in the bedroom between a man and woman. Everyone is different and so are everyone's needs. Some people don't need to have sex as often as others and others need to have it more often. I don't know why some people make a big deal out of it, it not the end all and be all to a marriage.
My husband was a virgin when we got married and after a couple years of being really excited about it like a teenage boy he just didn't feel like doing it 5-10 times a day anymore. I think our marriage improved significantly when we slowed down and we grew closer in a lot of other ways (and fatter). If he could no longer preform, it won't hurt our marriage and I wouldn't make any demands from him to please me, I don't think that's fair. We don't need to bring each other to orgasm to feel close. It ends with a fleeting moment, each and every time orgasms always end the same but our happy and close times together never do, they are always new and different and they just don't compare to an orgasm.
Well 5 times a day is something that no one can keep up for too long. ::eek::
Yes we are all different, and no one is saying we aren't, but the whole sexual experience is far far more than the orgasm. The whole touch, affection, intimacy and sexual aspect is very important to a marriage. If one spouse deliberately withholds sex and the other is very unhappy about it, then that is disobeying God pure and simple. That spouse who is withholding, is opening he door for the other normal healthy spouse to be tempted elsewhere (which is understandable). They are also risking their marriage, because the physical side brings that couple closer. Its meant to. Its not just about physical release, far form it, its about far far more than that.
Marriage is about many things, and one important element is the sex life.
Dave, we are not held under jewish law, so everything you have argued has no substance.
: BondServant Thu May 30, 2013 - 04:24:39
Dave, we are not held under jewish law, so everything you have argued has no substance.
Do you think that if God advised the Jews about sex in marriage that similar advise may be good for us also?
: BondServant Thu May 30, 2013 - 04:24:39Dave, we are not held under jewish law, so everything you have argued has no substance.
Who was saying anything about being "under Jewish law?" I was arguing from 1 Cor 7 and going into the foundations of what Paul wrote to a New Covenant Gentile congregation.
: chosenone Thu May 30, 2013 - 03:06:10
: Bitter Sweet Wed May 29, 2013 - 19:27:26
: chosenone Wed May 29, 2013 - 15:12:05
: Bitter Sweet Wed May 29, 2013 - 13:32:23
: DaveW Wed May 29, 2013 - 12:54:54
I find it absolutely amazing that people take the good advice in the Word of God and try to use that same Word to justify not following it.
I don't want to ...
WE don't want to ....
WE agree that we don't want to ....
Rebellion, plain and simple.
What do you suggest, force everyone to do it?
It's not rebellion when there are 2 consenting married adults. I don't think we should condemn or tell a married couple they are bad because of the lifestyle they choose.
Why should they need to be forced???
Sex is very beneficial for a married couple, and its their loss and their risk if they carry on disobeying God by refusing the do what He says. In most cases where sex is rare or non existent, it isn't because they are BOTH consenting to have no sex, it is because one of them is disobeying God by withholding sex from the other.
I was just making a point with the forced comment. IDK, I just don't think it's our business to judge what goes on in the bedroom between a man and woman. Everyone is different and so are everyone's needs. Some people don't need to have sex as often as others and others need to have it more often. I don't know why some people make a big deal out of it, it not the end all and be all to a marriage.
My husband was a virgin when we got married and after a couple years of being really excited about it like a teenage boy he just didn't feel like doing it 5-10 times a day anymore. I think our marriage improved significantly when we slowed down and we grew closer in a lot of other ways (and fatter). If he could no longer preform, it won't hurt our marriage and I wouldn't make any demands from him to please me, I don't think that's fair. We don't need to bring each other to orgasm to feel close. It ends with a fleeting moment, each and every time orgasms always end the same but our happy and close times together never do, they are always new and different and they just don't compare to an orgasm.
Well 5 times a day is something that no one can keep up for too long. ::eek::
Yes we are all different, and no one is saying we aren't, but the whole sexual experience is far far more than the orgasm. The whole touch, affection, intimacy and sexual aspect is very important to a marriage. If one spouse deliberately withholds sex and the other is very unhappy about it, then that is disobeying God pure and simple. That spouse who is withholding, is opening he door for the other normal healthy spouse to be tempted elsewhere (which is understandable). They are also risking their marriage, because the physical side brings that couple closer. Its meant to. Its not just about physical release, far form it, its about far far more than that.
Marriage is about many things, and one important element is the sex life.
I totally agree, I've seen a marriage end in divorce because 1 spouse wasn't doing his duty. I'm sure their problems went a lot deeper and it caused a lot of resentment and name calling and crazy leave holes in the wall fighting. They were young too, in their early 20's when they got married, she used to count the days she had sex too. One time she got into a huge fight with me because I asked her to babysit on Valentines Day and she totally stopped talking to me after that. I forgot that was one of the only times during the year she got sex from him. She ended up cheating on him during the marriage and her husband didn't even care because he didn't have to do it to her, but she ended up leaving him all together. Then her new guy ended up having a stroke and couldn't do it to her anymore either. Poor girl, just isn't getting any luck in the sex department.
Edit;
BUT, if a couple agrees that they don't want to have sex or can't and they want to go longer between prayer periods, it's none of our business to say they are living in sin or condemn them or tell them this isn't what God wants in your marriage. No man can come between what God has already bound together. I know one day I will be living in a totally sexless marriage and my husband sometimes reminds me of that when he wants to have sex, "it's gone rhrun out vone day, take advantage of it vhile you still can". He also doesn't think I should sleep as much as I do, he say's I'll get plenty of sleep when I die.
: DaveW Thu May 30, 2013 - 05:16:42
: BondServant Thu May 30, 2013 - 04:24:39Dave, we are not held under jewish law, so everything you have argued has no substance.
Who was saying anything about being "under Jewish law?" I was arguing from 1 Cor 7 and going into the foundations of what Paul wrote to a New Covenant Gentile congregation.
In your post number 38. 1 Cor 7 does not COMMAND couples to have sex regularly like you claimed. It even states that it is ok, to abstain by mutual consent. One partner purposefullly denying the other is a sin. Both partners agreeing to abstain "for a time" is a-ok. To tell someone they are sinning when both partners agree to abstain is to go directly against that the Bible says.
Chosenone, I am not saying it is bad...just that we cannot be commanded or told we are sinning for not following Jewish law.
Also, sometimes there are reasons that are beyond a couples control....reasons the MUST abstain for LONG periods of time. Are they sinning in those situations? DaveW appears to believe they are...but the most certianly are not.
: Bitter Sweet Thu May 30, 2013 - 05:38:47
: chosenone Thu May 30, 2013 - 03:06:10
: Bitter Sweet Wed May 29, 2013 - 19:27:26
: chosenone Wed May 29, 2013 - 15:12:05
: Bitter Sweet Wed May 29, 2013 - 13:32:23
: DaveW Wed May 29, 2013 - 12:54:54
I find it absolutely amazing that people take the good advice in the Word of God and try to use that same Word to justify not following it.
I don't want to ...
WE don't want to ....
WE agree that we don't want to ....
Rebellion, plain and simple.
What do you suggest, force everyone to do it?
It's not rebellion when there are 2 consenting married adults. I don't think we should condemn or tell a married couple they are bad because of the lifestyle they choose.
Why should they need to be forced???
Sex is very beneficial for a married couple, and its their loss and their risk if they carry on disobeying God by refusing the do what He says. In most cases where sex is rare or non existent, it isn't because they are BOTH consenting to have no sex, it is because one of them is disobeying God by withholding sex from the other.
I was just making a point with the forced comment. IDK, I just don't think it's our business to judge what goes on in the bedroom between a man and woman. Everyone is different and so are everyone's needs. Some people don't need to have sex as often as others and others need to have it more often. I don't know why some people make a big deal out of it, it not the end all and be all to a marriage.
My husband was a virgin when we got married and after a couple years of being really excited about it like a teenage boy he just didn't feel like doing it 5-10 times a day anymore. I think our marriage improved significantly when we slowed down and we grew closer in a lot of other ways (and fatter). If he could no longer preform, it won't hurt our marriage and I wouldn't make any demands from him to please me, I don't think that's fair. We don't need to bring each other to orgasm to feel close. It ends with a fleeting moment, each and every time orgasms always end the same but our happy and close times together never do, they are always new and different and they just don't compare to an orgasm.
Well 5 times a day is something that no one can keep up for too long. ::eek::
Yes we are all different, and no one is saying we aren't, but the whole sexual experience is far far more than the orgasm. The whole touch, affection, intimacy and sexual aspect is very important to a marriage. If one spouse deliberately withholds sex and the other is very unhappy about it, then that is disobeying God pure and simple. That spouse who is withholding, is opening he door for the other normal healthy spouse to be tempted elsewhere (which is understandable). They are also risking their marriage, because the physical side brings that couple closer. Its meant to. Its not just about physical release, far form it, its about far far more than that.
Marriage is about many things, and one important element is the sex life.
I totally agree, I've seen a marriage end in divorce because 1 spouse wasn't doing his duty. I'm sure their problems went a lot deeper and it caused a lot of resentment and name calling and crazy leave holes in the wall fighting. They were young too, in their early 20's when they got married, she used to count the days she had sex too. One time she got into a huge fight with me because I asked her to babysit on Valentines Day and she totally stopped talking to me after that. I forgot that was one of the only times during the year she got sex from him. She ended up cheating on him during the marriage and her husband didn't even care because he didn't have to do it to her, but she ended up leaving him all together. Then her new guy ended up having a stroke and couldn't do it to her anymore either. Poor girl, just isn't getting any luck in the sex department.
Edit;
BUT, if a couple agrees that they don't want to have sex or can't and they want to go longer between prayer periods, it's none of our business to say they are living in sin or condemn them or tell them this isn't what God wants in your marriage. No man can come between what God has already bound together. I know one day I will be living in a totally sexless marriage and my husband sometimes reminds me of that when he wants to have sex, "it's gone rhrun out vone day, take advantage of it vhile you still can". He also doesn't think I should sleep as much as I do, he say's I'll get plenty of sleep when I die.
Yes if both are totally happy with that, maybe because they are very old or they are ill or whatever, But its often not like that, and some spouses simply give up bothering to try any more after a lot of rejection. That doesn't men they are ok with it.
: BondServant Thu May 30, 2013 - 07:09:12
: DaveW Thu May 30, 2013 - 05:16:42
: BondServant Thu May 30, 2013 - 04:24:39Dave, we are not held under jewish law, so everything you have argued has no substance.
Who was saying anything about being "under Jewish law?" I was arguing from 1 Cor 7 and going into the foundations of what Paul wrote to a New Covenant Gentile congregation.
In your post number 38. 1 Cor 7 does not COMMAND couples to have sex regularly like you claimed. It even states that it is ok, to abstain by mutual consent. One partner purposefullly denying the other is a sin. Both partners agreeing to abstain "for a time" is a-ok. To tell someone they are sinning when both partners agree to abstain is to go directly against that the Bible says.
Chosenone, I am not saying it is bad...just that we cannot be commanded or told we are sinning for not following Jewish law.
Also, sometimes there are reasons that are beyond a couples control....reasons the MUST abstain for LONG periods of time. Are they sinning in those situations? DaveW appears to believe they are...but the most certianly are not.
Its its due to chronic ill health or long absenses, then of course that unavoidable.
: BondServant Thu May 30, 2013 - 07:09:12
In your post number 38. 1 Cor 7 does not COMMAND couples to have sex regularly like you claimed. It even states that it is ok, to abstain by mutual consent.
OK to abstain only for a short time and then it is a "concession" meaning that it is something the apostle will allow but not what he really wanted.
5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and
come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
6 But this I say by way of concession, not of command.
The highlighted text IS A COMMAND. What is
not a command is separating from the marriage bed by mutual agreement for a season of prayer; and that time is to be SHORT. Separating is the concession.
Also, sometimes there are reasons that are beyond a couples control....reasons the MUST abstain for LONG periods of time. Are they sinning in those situations?
Sin is anything that "misses the mark" or falls short of God's glory. It is much deeper than just willful disobedience.
So you tell me - do the situations you describe fit the pattern of what God intends for married couples?
Dave, you are grossly misapplying that scripture and trying to force people into spiritual bondage by levying commands that do not exist.
Chosenone, you understand what I mean....and I think we are in agreement.
Bondage? Really?
Telling a married couple to have sex is bondage?
That was a nice attempt at twisting my words. I will clarify and then I am done discussing this topic with you.
Tell married couples that abstain from sex is SINFUL and that they are COMMANDED to have sex on a regular basis is placing them in spiritual bondage.
Like I said, you are levying commands where there are none. You can have the last word and I would appreciate it if you would not twist mine.
: BondServant Thu May 30, 2013 - 09:01:35
Tell married couples that abstain from sex is SINFUL and that they are COMMANDED to have sex on a regular basis is placing them in spiritual bondage.
Not trying to twist anything. I apologize if it came off that way.
But explain to me - how can you read 1 Cor 7.5 and NOT see it as a command?
And if it
is a command; how violating it would not be sinful.
: chosenone Thu May 30, 2013 - 07:59:45
Yes if both are totally happy with that, maybe because they are very old or they are ill or whatever, But its often not like that, and some spouses simply give up bothering to try any more after a lot of rejection. That doesn't men they are ok with it.
People don't have to be ill or old to agree to this, there are other circumstances that could lead to it. However I do agree that more people lean towards the wanting and desiring sex in the marriage which does lead to problems when the other isn't willing, and sometimes it's the woman that wants it more than the man. Men aren't always physically capable of fulfilling that demand, I think women become more insecure in this area. Most of the time the problem is hormonal, that goes either way, desiring or not desiring. I think we can be healed from hormonal imbalance, I was with my menstrual cycle once I got off all the stupid medicines I had been taking. Turns out I didn't even need them, imagine that.
IDK if you have advertisements on TV for sexual dysfunctions, but we do in the states and they sicken me because they make it appear to be all fixed with their pills or lubricants. I don't think they should be called dysfunctions to begin with, sometimes people need to learn to deal with so called problems instead of trying to mask them. We are constantly bombarded that this is a problem in the marriage but maybe that's the problem, the messages being sent to us about sex and the constant need for it.
: Bitter Sweet Fri May 31, 2013 - 05:30:07
: chosenone Thu May 30, 2013 - 07:59:45
Yes if both are totally happy with that, maybe because they are very old or they are ill or whatever, But its often not like that, and some spouses simply give up bothering to try any more after a lot of rejection. That doesn't men they are ok with it.
People don't have to be ill or old to agree to this, there are other circumstances that could lead to it. However I do agree that more people lean towards the wanting and desiring sex in the marriage which does lead to problems when the other isn't willing, and sometimes it's the woman that wants it more than the man. Men aren't always physically capable of fulfilling that demand, I think women become more insecure in this area. Most of the time the problem is hormonal, that goes either way, desiring or not desiring. I think we can be healed from hormonal imbalance, I was with my menstrual cycle once I got off all the stupid medicines I had been taking. Turns out I didn't even need them, imagine that.
IDK if you have advertisements on TV for sexual dysfunctions, but we do in the states and they sicken me because they make it appear to be all fixed with their pills or lubricants. I don't think they should be called dysfunctions to begin with, sometimes people need to learn to deal with so called problems instead of trying to mask them. We are constantly bombarded that this is a problem in the marriage but maybe that's the problem, the messages being sent to us about sex and the constant need for it.
One mistake people make is that we must always 'desire' sex to have sex, or that we have to always 'feel' like sex to have sex. We can have sex no matter how we 'feel' because a)Gods says to, and b)because our spouse wants to, and c)because regular sex is so good for the marriage in so many ways. Those three things alone should be enough to encourage us to invest in our sex lives.
: chosenone Fri May 31, 2013 - 06:26:37
: Bitter Sweet Fri May 31, 2013 - 05:30:07
: chosenone Thu May 30, 2013 - 07:59:45
Yes if both are totally happy with that, maybe because they are very old or they are ill or whatever, But its often not like that, and some spouses simply give up bothering to try any more after a lot of rejection. That doesn't men they are ok with it.
People don't have to be ill or old to agree to this, there are other circumstances that could lead to it. However I do agree that more people lean towards the wanting and desiring sex in the marriage which does lead to problems when the other isn't willing, and sometimes it's the woman that wants it more than the man. Men aren't always physically capable of fulfilling that demand, I think women become more insecure in this area. Most of the time the problem is hormonal, that goes either way, desiring or not desiring. I think we can be healed from hormonal imbalance, I was with my menstrual cycle once I got off all the stupid medicines I had been taking. Turns out I didn't even need them, imagine that.
IDK if you have advertisements on TV for sexual dysfunctions, but we do in the states and they sicken me because they make it appear to be all fixed with their pills or lubricants. I don't think they should be called dysfunctions to begin with, sometimes people need to learn to deal with so called problems instead of trying to mask them. We are constantly bombarded that this is a problem in the marriage but maybe that's the problem, the messages being sent to us about sex and the constant need for it.
One mistake people make is that we must always 'desire' sex to have sex, or that we have to always 'feel' like sex to have sex. We can have sex no matter how we 'feel' because a)Gods says to, and b)because our spouse wants to, and c)because regular sex is so good for the marriage in so many ways. Those three things alone should be enough to encourage us to invest in our sex lives.
I totally agree with this! So what's the problem with the women that won't put out to their husbands? Are they wanting more than just sex like romance or what? Is that really necessary?
It's also possible for both to do it when neither are in the mood. I insisted my husband give me a credit card to pay for one of my guilty pleasures online yesterday, at first I said I will buy it later and he said that's a good idea because he was too tired to get up and get the card out of his backpack. But I got up and brought it to him instead of waiting. Then he made me pay him back, immediately after I hit send, and he has mild heat stroke. ::giggle::
I can rarely think of a time either of us was in the mood before proceeding.
: Bitter Sweet Fri May 31, 2013 - 06:43:13
: chosenone Fri May 31, 2013 - 06:26:37
: Bitter Sweet Fri May 31, 2013 - 05:30:07
: chosenone Thu May 30, 2013 - 07:59:45
Yes if both are totally happy with that, maybe because they are very old or they are ill or whatever, But its often not like that, and some spouses simply give up bothering to try any more after a lot of rejection. That doesn't men they are ok with it.
People don't have to be ill or old to agree to this, there are other circumstances that could lead to it. However I do agree that more people lean towards the wanting and desiring sex in the marriage which does lead to problems when the other isn't willing, and sometimes it's the woman that wants it more than the man. Men aren't always physically capable of fulfilling that demand, I think women become more insecure in this area. Most of the time the problem is hormonal, that goes either way, desiring or not desiring. I think we can be healed from hormonal imbalance, I was with my menstrual cycle once I got off all the stupid medicines I had been taking. Turns out I didn't even need them, imagine that.
IDK if you have advertisements on TV for sexual dysfunctions, but we do in the states and they sicken me because they make it appear to be all fixed with their pills or lubricants. I don't think they should be called dysfunctions to begin with, sometimes people need to learn to deal with so called problems instead of trying to mask them. We are constantly bombarded that this is a problem in the marriage but maybe that's the problem, the messages being sent to us about sex and the constant need for it.
One mistake people make is that we must always 'desire' sex to have sex, or that we have to always 'feel' like sex to have sex. We can have sex no matter how we 'feel' because a)Gods says to, and b)because our spouse wants to, and c)because regular sex is so good for the marriage in so many ways. Those three things alone should be enough to encourage us to invest in our sex lives.
I totally agree with this! So what's the problem with the women that won't put out to their husbands? Are they wanting more than just sex like romance or what? Is that really necessary?
I dont know what their problem is because they are being both disobedient to God, unfair to their husbands and undermining their marriage.
The more I think of Dave's responses to some of my questions, the more concerned I become. Not at all implying that Dave is guilty of this but maybe an angle he hasn't considered.
First of all, I see that maximum 2 week waiting period thing used to manipulate. After having a surgery some women can't do it for a while, I know after a baby it's 6 weeks to heal, certainly God wouldn't command hurting a spouse when they should be healing. And the whole Songs thing as erotica, that too can be used to coerce someone into doing something they don't feel comfortable doing. Even married couples draw the line with some things and I can see some of that being used in a manipulative manner.
The reasoning for 2 weeks as being preventative to cheating also sounds like blackmail too. This just sounds like something an abusive person would use as power over the other spouse. I don't think these kinds of teachings are healthy because they are open to way too much interpretation and control over another.
: Bitter Sweet Fri May 31, 2013 - 16:33:38
The more I think of Dave's responses to some of my questions, the more concerned I become. Not at all implying that Dave is guilty of this but maybe an angle he hasn't considered.
First of all, I see that maximum 2 week waiting period thing used to manipulate. After having a surgery some women can't do it for a while, I know after a baby it's 6 weeks to heal, certainly God wouldn't command hurting a spouse when they should be healing. And the whole Songs thing as erotica, that too can be used to coerce someone into doing something they don't feel comfortable doing. Even married couples draw the line with some things and I can see some of that being used in a manipulative manner.
The reasoning for 2 weeks as being preventative to cheating also sounds like blackmail too. This just sounds like something an abusive person would use as power over the other spouse. I don't think these kinds of teachings are healthy because they are open to way too much interpretation and control over another.
Well song of songs is all about sexual love, there is no doubt about that, and God did choose to have it in His word. Of course either spouse can use such things in the wrong way and in a controlling manner, but that's sinful and wrong. No spouse should ever manipulate or control the other in this way(or any way).
I think too much sex is a bad thing as it makes it familiar and cheap, a bit like driving to town in a ferrari everyday to pick up groceries, instead of it being a special drive to the resteraunt or golf course. No wonder this century couples get bored of it.
Chosenone, Bittersweet, your positions are not mutually exclusive. Sex between married people is a beautiful thing and does wonderful things for their marriage. That being said, there are times where couples will need to abstain. Sometimes for physical reasons, sometimes for spiritual reasons. So long as they are in agreement, it is ok. If one spouse is using it as weapon or to manipulate another spouse that is wrong. But if both spouses by mutual consent agree to abstain, that is ok.
: BondServant Sat Jun 01, 2013 - 02:03:06
Chosenone, Bittersweet, your positions are not mutually exclusive. Sex between married people is a beautiful thing and does wonderful things for their marriage. That being said, there are times where couples will need to abstain. Sometimes for physical reasons, sometimes for spiritual reasons. So long as they are in agreement, it is ok. If one spouse is using it as weapon or to manipulate another spouse that is wrong. But if both spouses by mutual consent agree to abstain, that is ok.
Yes I agree.
: FireSword Fri May 31, 2013 - 21:23:55
I think too much sex is a bad thing as it makes it familiar and cheap, a bit like driving to town in a ferrari everyday to pick up groceries, instead of it being a special drive to the resteraunt or golf course. No wonder this century couples get bored of it.
Well I suppose that too much for one isn't too much for another. Not all couples get bored with it.
: BondServant Sat Jun 01, 2013 - 02:03:06
Chosenone, Bittersweet, your positions are not mutually exclusive. Sex between married people is a beautiful thing and does wonderful things for their marriage. That being said, there are times where couples will need to abstain. Sometimes for physical reasons, sometimes for spiritual reasons. So long as they are in agreement, it is ok. If one spouse is using it as weapon or to manipulate another spouse that is wrong. But if both spouses by mutual consent agree to abstain, that is ok.
Thanks because sometimes I think people misunderstand my position on the matter. Just because my husband and I don't desire it doesn't mean we don't do it. It's just not something that would destroy our marriage if it didn't exist.
Another poster made a comment on another thread about not being 1 flesh and sex being a curse because of the dysfunction between a couple. Maybe people shouldn't put the blame on one or the other since they are 1 in the matter. Why does no sex separate them from being 1?
1 flesh
This is undoubtedly the most abused, used-out-of-context, statement in Christianity. These two words are amplified into entire doctrines, and have been the source of entire dissertations and novela-length books.
I am really looking forward to when I can hear the Lord Jesus Christ tell me, and countless others, just exactly what HE meant to say by these words.
And, I won't be surprised at all when HIS explanation requires a single sentence of less than 10 words.
Not all couples get bored with it.
I'm in my seventh decade and my wife is almost in hers. We're not bored. Although, it's not as frequent as it used to be, and diabetes has taken its full toll on me. Some of our "positions" are different than they used to be, too :)
: TJW Sat Jun 01, 2013 - 08:53:11
1 flesh
This is undoubtedly the most abused, used-out-of-context, statement in Christianity. These two words are amplified into entire doctrines, and have been the source of entire dissertations and novela-length books.
I am really looking forward to when I can hear the Lord Jesus Christ tell me, and countless others, just exactly what HE meant to say by these words.
And, I won't be surprised at all when HIS explanation requires a single sentence of less than 10 words.
The words actually are
לְבָשָׂר אֶחָֽד L'basar echad.
It comes from a lack of understanding the word "echad" (one). It is not an absolute singularity but more of a composite unity. Hence its use to describe husband and wife in Gen 2 and God Himself in Deut 6.4
"Up to the moment you said 'I do'?"
Wow that must have been one hard wedding ceremony to explain to your kids...
LOL
: JohnDB70X7 Tue Jul 23, 2013 - 23:58:49
"Up to the moment you said 'I do'?"
What post did this come from? I can't find it.