Christian Forums

   
WITHHOLDING SEX FROM YOUR LAWFULLY WEDDED SPOUSE IS SIN!  by mikejeshurun

Marriage without sex

LET'S GET REAL: WITHHOLDING SEX FROM YOUR LAWFULLY WEDDED SPOUSE IS SIN!
Paul Byerley, of 'The Generous Husband', wrote an important post back in December about how the church doesn't think of withholding sex as a sin - even though it is.

He writes:

Sometimes it's total refusal, sometimes it's sex once a month, or almost once a week... Sometimes the lack of sex is because of ongoing emotional, mental or physical issues, but the person with the problem won't get any help. THIS IS STILL REFUSAL, as it is refusing to do what would make it possible to have sex.

He goes on to show how churches treat the sins of adultery and pornography very seriously, and have great sympathy for the offended spouse, but that the church does virtually nothing for the spouse who is left in the lurch because their husband or wife has decided to check out of the relationship. He tells churches:

So here is the bottom line for Christian leaders: SEXUAL REFUSAL IS A COMMON AND GROWING ISSUE. Ignoring it does not mean it does not exist in your church, and BEING EMBARRASSED ABOUT IT DOES NOT GET YOU OFF THE HOOK WITH GOD. If you don't think it qualifies as SIN, I encourage you to do a detailed study of 1 Cor 7:3-7. Can you honestly say Paul did not see sexual refusal as sin?

It is relatively easy for a spouse to go to a pastor and say, "I need help because my husband (or wife) is having an affair." But what would most pastors say if a spouse went to them and said, "my husband (or wife) has refused to have sex with me for months on end." They likely would do virtually nothing, or else would encourage you to examine yourself and see how YOU can love your spouse more, as if they are PLACING THE BLAME AT YOUR FEET.

It is time that all of us–Christians, church leaders, spouses – RECOGNIZED SEXUAL REFUSAL AS A SIN. The Bible clearly speaks against withholding sex. Paul said that spouses have the responsibility to meet their spouse's needs–within reason. I certainly do not believe that if your husband wants sex twice a day you therefore have to make love twice a day. Marriage is compromise! Nor do I believe that if your spouse is demanding weird or kinky sex that you have to do that . But there is a certain level of reasonableness that should be met in a marriage. REFUSING SEX, OR ONLY MAKING LOVE EXTREMELY RARELY, IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM.

Now, if you have a medical reason for this, or if you're still recovering from psychological trauma or abuse, that's a different category. If you are working towards recovery, and you are hoping to resume a healthy sex life, then you are working towards a healthy marriage and that's good. But if you are refusing to work on your issues, even if those issues are one of sexual function, then you are not living up to God's design for marriage.

Agreed, that the primary goal of Christian married couples coming together sexually is procreation [see Malachi 2:15]. But the Apostle exhorts the unmarried and even the widows that if they cannot contain they should marry. And he gives the reason why – 'for it is BETTER TO MARRY than to BURN'! [1 Cor 7:8-9].

In another place he says, 'to AVOID fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband'. [1 Cor 7:2].

As a preacher, I have counseled many married men, and except for very FEW EXCEPTIONS the lament of most of them is; that after the initial zeal of the marriage wears off and especially after the couple has been blessed with two or more children, the spouse looses all interest in sex and if at all engages in it does so drudgingly.

It was not until I was a few years into my own marriage that I began to understand the Apostles admonition in Colossians 3:19. There he says, "Husbands love your wives, and BE NOT BITTER AGAINST THEM". It is indeed easy for a husband to become bitter against an unyielding wife or vice versa. And what is worse is, this opens a DOOR FOR THE DEVIL TO COME IN WITH ALL HIS WILES. [see 1 Cor 7]

The wise man in the Proverbs writes, "Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love. And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger?" [Prov 5:20].

What becomes of the (man or woman) who do not find fulfilment with their spouse is clearly implied in the above scripture!

Beloved this is a SERIOUS issue. I have spoken to many a true child of God who became a victim to sexual sin because of this. Yes it is good for a man not to touch a woman, but not all men have this GIFT [1 Cor 7:1 & 7].

Many a godly man has fallen into pornography, fornicated and in some cases has even suffered a divorce because of an unyielding wife!

So the subject at hand is indeed a serious one and not one that can be swept under the carpet or one that deserves an ostrich syndrome.

THE NEED FOR SEX IS A REAL ONE, and when one cannot find it within the marriage bond, they make themselves an easy prey for the wiles of the devil!

So in all our praying for our wives (or husbands, as the case may be [see 1 Cor 7:5) let us fervently pray that they will be faithful to the 'duty of sex' in marriage!

Michael Jeshurun

I agree that is a sin unless there is serious illness or similar. I feel for the spouse who feels frustrated yet who is supposed to be faithful. It must be very hard to remain that way when you have to go months or even years without being able to have sex with your spouse. Its very selfish on the part of the one who is refusing. 

RB - how well do you know Byerly?  Have you had any individual conversations with him or his wife Lori?

They are wonderful believers but at times their board seems to come down harshly on the side of pushing people toward more and more sex.  They had a "challenge" going a few years back where they had people pledge for intercourse a minimum of once a day for a year.  (2 or 3x a day was better)

At times it seems the legalism they combat is done so with legalism going the other way. 

I am still friendly with them and send people to their website. (GREAT eye opener for those with an anti-sex mentality) but the over-pushing is one of the reasons I do not go there much any more.

Quote from: chosenone on Mon Oct 20, 2014 - 06:41:02
I agree that is a sin unless there is serious illness or similar. I feel for the spouse who feels frustrated yet who is supposed to be faithful. It must be very hard to remain that way when you have to go months or even years without being able to have sex with your spouse. Its very selfish on the part of the one who is refusing.

Don't be so quick to judge.

Many times a man or a woman will have an affair and blame their spouse for not enough sex.  That's hogwash.

Sex should never be used as a weapon and should never be deliberately withheld, but there are plenty of reasons to have a "dry spell" that are valid and Biblical.

Quote from: BondServant on Tue Oct 28, 2014 - 17:12:02

Quote from: chosenone on Mon Oct 20, 2014 - 06:41:02
I agree that is a sin unless there is serious illness or similar. I feel for the spouse who feels frustrated yet who is supposed to be faithful. It must be very hard to remain that way when you have to go months or even years without being able to have sex with your spouse. Its very selfish on the part of the one who is refusing.

Don't be so quick to judge.

Many times a man or a woman will have an affair and blame their spouse for not enough sex.  That's hogwash.

Sex should never be used as a weapon and should never be deliberately withheld, but there are plenty of reasons to have a "dry spell" that are valid and Biblical.

Paul gives one reason I think, and that is when both have agreed for a time of prayer.
I agree about the affair thing to a point, but that's why Paul says not to withhold sex, to avoid temptation. He was very practical.  If one spouse refuses sex for very long periods, then they need to realize how very hard they are making it for their spouse.
I knew a lady who more so less stopped having sex with her husband after she had her two sons.She even made him sleep in another room from that time onwards. Many many years later they got divorced, and many more years after that, she complained that she thinks he had an affair during those years of enforced abstinence. I mean what did she expect

Quote from: DaveW on Tue Oct 21, 2014 - 10:54:43
RB - how well do you know Byerly? Have you had any individual conversations with him or his wife Lori?

Dave~I do not know him or his wife.  I am friend of Mike, who wrote this article.  Mike is a dear brother from India, whom I have known for about five years or so.

But will add: " Marriage without sex" is no marriage!" Unless, there are medical, or physical reasons, that can justify no sex.

Quote from: chosenone on Tue Oct 28, 2014 - 17:31:27

Quote from: BondServant on Tue Oct 28, 2014 - 17:12:02

Quote from: chosenone on Mon Oct 20, 2014 - 06:41:02
I agree that is a sin unless there is serious illness or similar. I feel for the spouse who feels frustrated yet who is supposed to be faithful. It must be very hard to remain that way when you have to go months or even years without being able to have sex with your spouse. Its very selfish on the part of the one who is refusing.

Don't be so quick to judge.

Many times a man or a woman will have an affair and blame their spouse for not enough sex.  That's hogwash.

Sex should never be used as a weapon and should never be deliberately withheld, but there are plenty of reasons to have a "dry spell" that are valid and Biblical.

Paul gives one reason I think, and that is when both have agreed for a time of prayer.

Right.  And that conversation had come up in Jewish religious circles in previous generations.  In an odd situation, Hillel and Shammai almost agreed on this one. Both said abstinance was acceptable if mutually agreed to - with the primary agreement coming from the wife. (based on the belief that sex is a wife's right and a husband's responsibility) They both agreed the time should be short - with one saying a one week maximum and the other a 2 week maximum.

QuoteI agree about the affair thing to a point, but that's why Paul says not to withhold sex, to avoid temptation. He was very practical.  If one spouse refuses sex for very long periods, then they need to realize how very hard they are making it for their spouse.

That is very true.  Usually they are completely unaware of how badly it hurts the relationship.

QuoteI knew a lady who more so less stopped having sex with her husband after she had her two sons.She even made him sleep in another room from that time onwards. Many many years later they got divorced, and many more years after that, she complained that she thinks he had an affair during those years of enforced abstinence. I mean what did she expect

A similar thing happened to my dad during his first marriage (I am from the 2nd)  After 3 kids his wife made him move out to another bedroom.  His kid brother was going to college in the city where they lived and Dad let him stay in the basement.  Then the wife came up pregnant. (about a year after they had stopped being intimate) She kicked him out but SHE had the affair (with the kid brother).   Dad and uncle Jim pretty much never spoke to each other ever again. I met him only once.  Their breakup cost Dad his pastorate.

Quote from: chosenone on Tue Oct 28, 2014 - 17:31:27
Paul gives one reason I think, and that is when both have agreed for a time of prayer.
I agree about the affair thing to a point, but that's why Paul says not to withhold sex, to avoid temptation. He was very practical. 

Perhaps I should have said "valid and/or Biblical."  The Bible does not cover medical issues or kids banging on the door as parents are trying to start being intimate or one spouse being away from the home for long stretches of time due to work or military deployments, etc, etc...

Quote from: chosenone on Tue Oct 28, 2014 - 17:31:27
If one spouse refuses sex for very long periods, then they need to realize how very hard they are making it for their spouse.
I knew a lady who more so less stopped having sex with her husband after she had her two sons.She even made him sleep in another room from that time onwards. Many many years later they got divorced, and many more years after that, she complained that she thinks he had an affair during those years of enforced abstinence. I mean what did she expect

I absolutely agree that sex should not be withheld deliberately.  However I stop short of saying it is an excuse for an affair.  Yes, the withholding spouse is wrong, but two wrongs do not make a right.  Yes, the withhold spouse is causing harm to the relationship and putting their spouse in a horrible position, but that does not permit the other spouse to go elsewhere to fulfill his or her needs.

Quote from: BondServant on Wed Oct 29, 2014 - 08:21:45

Quote from: chosenone on Tue Oct 28, 2014 - 17:31:27
Paul gives one reason I think, and that is when both have agreed for a time of prayer.
I agree about the affair thing to a point, but that's why Paul says not to withhold sex, to avoid temptation. He was very practical. 

Perhaps I should have said "valid and/or Biblical."  The Bible does not cover medical issues or kids banging on the door as parents are trying to start being intimate or one spouse being away from the home for long stretches of time due to work or military deployments, etc, etc...

Quote from: chosenone on Tue Oct 28, 2014 - 17:31:27
If one spouse refuses sex for very long periods, then they need to realize how very hard they are making it for their spouse.
I knew a lady who more so less stopped having sex with her husband after she had her two sons.She even made him sleep in another room from that time onwards. Many many years later they got divorced, and many more years after that, she complained that she thinks he had an affair during those years of enforced abstinence. I mean what did she expect

I absolutely agree that sex should not be withheld deliberately.  However I stop short of saying it is an excuse for an affair.  Yes, the withholding spouse is wrong, but two wrongs do not make a right.  Yes, the withhold spouse is causing harm to the relationship and putting their spouse in a horrible position, but that does not permit the other spouse to go elsewhere to fulfill his or her needs.

Yes in the case of illness or one spouse being away for example then its unavoidable.

I don't think it excuses an affair, but it makes it more likely and more understandable. Anyone who does control sex and withhold it it for long periods, is cutting their own throat as well, because sex strengthens the marital bond and brings only positive things to the marriage. I think that a spouse who does this probably needs to be challenged by a mature brother or sister in Christ, and reminded that its disobeying God.   

Quote from: chosenone on Wed Oct 29, 2014 - 08:44:56
Anyone who does control sex and withhold it it for long periods, is cutting their own throat as well, because sex strengthens the marital bond and brings only positive things to the marriage.

Chosen, I agree that is the way it is SUPPOSED to work (and does in most cases) but I must remind you that some people (both men and women) can get so traumatized from childhood sexual abuse that having sex is very destructive to them personally. They may still want/need a man or woman to love emotionally; and perhaps even to have and raise children.

I know some can and do receive healing from that kind of trauma; but not everyone.  And if they are abstinant following the abuse until marriage they may have no idea that they are so damaged.

One sentence....Sex does not equal love. It is a human god given right to decide if you want a platonic relationship or an emotional one.

Hi Kelly - welcome to the forums.

I have a question based on your post here. What does one do in the case where a couple gets married and then one decides shortly after the marriage that they want a "platonic" relationship instead of a sexual one?

They should have investigated the personality of their spouse before getting married ;)
If the persoanlity was not the case, it would be up to them anyway.

Quote from: Kelly Lawson on Mon Dec 08, 2014 - 05:51:00
They should have investigated the personality of their spouse before getting married ;)
If the persoanlity was not the case, it would be up to them anyway.

Not sure I understand what you are saying here.

In some cases that kind of "investigation" is prohibited.

I thought I was being pretty clear, what did you mean by prohibited?

Quote from: Kelly Lawson on Mon Dec 08, 2014 - 06:07:11
I thought I was being pretty clear, what did you mean by prohibited?

I am not sure what you mean by "investigating a personality."

But in the congregation I attended when I and my wife married; ANY discussion of a sexual nature by an engaged couple (even admiting to having a sex drive) was  forbidden with the elders canceling the engagement, the offender being kicked out of the congregation and the other one of the couple surrounded by other singles (or even married leaders) to enforce a complete seperation of the 2.

If you can't give your body to a spouse for them to gain sexual gratification at their whim (and not yours) then you should apologize to your spouse and seek to leave them so that they can find a spouse willing to.

Any person who can't give their body in such a fashion is unfit for marriage and manipulating another person to try and gain the many other benefits of marriage is behaving worse than a prostitute ever thought of as they are in reality stealing affection and emotions.

Quote from: Kelly Lawson on Mon Dec 08, 2014 - 05:21:52
One sentence....Sex does not equal love. It is a human god given right to decide if you want a platonic relationship or an emotional one.

If a person never wants sex, then they need to make sure that they dont get married. A sexual relationship is very important in marriage, and that is Biblical.  God says that we must not withhold sex from our spouse. Sex is an important way of showing love to our spouse.

Quote from: chosenone on Mon Dec 08, 2014 - 16:14:20
If a person never wants sex, then they need to make sure that they dont get married.

Isn't that kind of like those commercials for pharmacuticals that state "Do not take this medication if you are allergic to it?"

How do you know if you are allergic without taking it?  And how do you know if you do not want sex if you are a complete virgin coming to the wedding?

Quote from: JohnDBIf you can't give your body to a spouse for them to gain sexual gratification at their whim (and not yours) then you should apologize to your spouse and seek to leave them so that they can find a spouse willing to.

That really does not fit the biblical allowances for a divorce, John.

Quote from: DaveW on Tue Dec 09, 2014 - 05:33:51

Quote from: chosenone on Mon Dec 08, 2014 - 16:14:20
If a person never wants sex, then they need to make sure that they dont get married.

Isn't that kind of like those commercials for pharmacuticals that state "Do not take this medication if you are allergic to it?"

How do you know if you are allergic without taking it?  And how do you know if you do not want sex if you are a complete virgin coming to the wedding?

I thiNk you have a pretty good idea by then if you want sex or not, and to be honest, and how many people are virgins when they marry today anyway?
Slightly different thing but I know a couple right now who are struggling in their marriage because he wants children and she doesnt. They are in their mid 30's have been together for about 15 years married for about 6 years. They should have discussed all this way before marriage and she should have told him that she didn't want children. Same with sex.

Quote from: DaveW on Tue Dec 09, 2014 - 05:35:16

Quote from: JohnDBIf you can't give your body to a spouse for them to gain sexual gratification at their whim (and not yours) then you should apologize to your spouse and seek to leave them so that they can find a spouse willing to.

That really does not fit the biblical allowances for a divorce, John.

Ummmm. You sure that fraudulent misrepresentation isn't grounds for divorce?

A particular verse is coming to mind. 

Quote from: JohnDB on Wed Dec 10, 2014 - 05:35:33
Ummmm. You sure that fraudulent misrepresentation isn't grounds for divorce?

A particular verse is coming to mind.

Pretty sure.  I see only pornia (sexual misconduct) per Matthew 5:32; and abandonment per 1 Cor 7.15 as biblically alowed reasons for divorce.

What verse are you thinking of?

I see a covenant based on "fraudulent misrepresentation" as binding before God.  Read Joshua 9.  Then read 2 Sam 21. 

Im thinking of an Old Testament verse out of the Torah.

But even if you're looking at Solely the New Testament then Matthew works just fine for unChristian behavior.

Quote from: JohnDB on Wed Dec 10, 2014 - 06:00:24Im thinking of an Old Testament verse out of the Torah.

But even if you're looking at Solely the New Testament then Matthew works just fine for unChristian behavior.

Matthew works ONLY for sexual misconduct (adultery, etc) and NOT for false pretenses.  Of course, the Pharasaic school of Shammai taught the Deut 24.1 word Ervah; which we translate as "uncleanness" or "indecency;" meant ONLY if he found her to not be a virgin on their wedding night. (as opposed to Hillel who pretty much taught divorce for any reason)  BTW: Paul's discipler Gameliel was Hillel's grandson.

Quote from: DaveW on Wed Dec 10, 2014 - 06:13:35

Quote from: JohnDB on Wed Dec 10, 2014 - 06:00:24Im thinking of an Old Testament verse out of the Torah.

But even if you're looking at Solely the New Testament then Matthew works just fine for unChristian behavior.

Matthew works ONLY for sexual misconduct (adultery, etc) and NOT for false pretenses.  Of course, the Pharasaic school of Shammai taught the Deut 24.1 word Ervah; which we translate as "uncleanness" or "indecency;" meant ONLY if he found her to not be a virgin on their wedding night. (as opposed to Hillel who pretty much taught divorce for any reason)  BTW: Paul's discipler Gameliel was Hillel's grandson.

Not wanting this to be another divorce thread but I read that "pornea" as harlotry as in being unfaithful to God and not so much the spouse which would include such things as abuse that makes a marriage impossible.

You can look at pornia a couple of different ways. 

One is to go with the mainstream Greek usage of the word.  It is based on "pornas" which described a class of slaves (both male and female) that were used in the sex trade (prostitutes). So it has an enslaving connotation to it. It can apply to a wide field of illicit sexual activities. It definately includes premarital sex, adultery, and going to a prostitute.

The other way is more nuanced. It is how it was used in the Greek speaking Jewish diaspora communities.  There it seems to have been used to describe anything that violated Torah sexual commands.

Ok. What I'm saying is that I believe Jesus was speaking metaphorically and not literally in Matthew.

Quote from: JohnDB on Wed Dec 10, 2014 - 09:48:02
Ok. What I'm saying is that I believe Jesus was speaking metaphorically and not literally in Matthew.

OK that makes sense. I take it more literally.

For better or for worse in sickness and in health till death do you part. What God has joined together let no man put asunder.

Yes the Bible (1 Corinthians) mentions not denying sex so not to give the devil a foothold etc.

What about during menstruation / after giving birth?

Point is, denial of sex is not a free pass to commit adultery. Paul was making a point rather than a commandment. Most moral failures happen then but not all. And not all have moral failures.

What about impotence?

Handicap...

Things to think about.

Kelly Lawson wrote,

QuoteOne sentence....Sex does not equal love. It is a human god given right to decide if you want a platonic relationship or an emotional one.

If you want a Platonic one, don't get married.

JohnDB

QuoteNot wanting this to be another divorce thread but I read that "pornea" as harlotry as in being unfaithful to God and not so much the spouse which would include such things as abuse that makes a marriage impossible.

It's pretty clear that 'porneia' refers to literal fornication and literal 'whoring around' in a lot of contexts.  Sometimes references to prostitution in the Old Testament are used in metaphors to describe idolatry. 

Sinfully refusing sex isn't porneia, even though it is a sexual sin.  That's one of the problems with the vague translation 'sexual immorality.' 

Quote
I am not sure what you mean by "investigating a personality."

But in the congregation I attended when I and my wife married; ANY discussion of a sexual nature by an engaged couple (even admiting to having a sex drive) was  forbidden with the elders canceling the engagement, the offender being kicked out of the congregation and the other one of the couple surrounded by other singles (or even married leaders) to enforce a complete seperation of the 2.

That's really oppressive, IMO. When I was engaged, I tried not to talk too much about the topic so as not to lead to temptation, but my wife did know I expected to have sex with her after marriage.  And I think if I had it to do over again, I would have talked through the issue in just a bit more depth.  We were both virgins at the time. 

I don't see why elders of the church would say that any scripture is off limits, btw.  Could couples get around it by talking about having children and making babies?  How about passing messages through her dad.  "Could you tell your daughter that after marriage, I expect it X times a week?"  Would they allow that?  That would be interesting.  :)

Quote from: Link on Sat May 30, 2015 - 05:52:35
That's really oppressive, IMO. When I was engaged, I tried not to talk too much about the topic so as not to lead to temptation, but my wife did know I expected to have sex with her after marriage.  And I think if I had it to do over again, I would have talked through the issue in just a bit more depth.  We were both virgins at the time. 

I don't see why elders of the church would say that any scripture is off limits, btw.  Could couples get around it by talking about having children and making babies?  How about passing messages through her dad.  "Could you tell your daughter that after marriage, I expect it X times a week?"  Would they allow that?  That would be interesting.  :)

Yes, it was oppressive; and about 5 years or so after DW and I married they started to realize that.

But at the time they had very strict rules for their concept of "courtship" that in one sense were MORE restrictive than Bill Gothard's. Gothard at least allowed parental involvement in courtship.  In their case it was ALL on the congregational leadership. (and they frequently arranged for wives for the young guys they saw as the most faithful and hardworking - for the congregation that is)  "Fraternization" between the single men and women was strictly forbidden.