sexless marriage

[DaveW]

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.

[DaveW]

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.

[chosenone]

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. 

[DaveW]

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

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

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.

[Bitter Sweet]

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.

[DaveW]

The idea is so that it will NEVER become a problem.

[Bitter Sweet]

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.

[DaveW]

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.

[chosenone]

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

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

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.

[chosenone]

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.

[chosenone]

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.

[DaveW]

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.

[chosenone]

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.

[Bitter Sweet]

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.

[DaveW]

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.

[Bitter Sweet]

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.

[chosenone]

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.

[chosenone]

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.

[chosenone]

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.

[DaveW]

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)

[Bitter Sweet]

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.

[chosenone]

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.
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.   

[k-pappy]

Dave, we are not held under jewish law, so everything you have argued has no substance.

[chosenone]

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?

[DaveW]

Dave, 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.

[Bitter Sweet]

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.
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.

[k-pappy]

Dave, 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.

[chosenone]

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.
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.

[chosenone]

Dave, 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.

[DaveW]

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?

[k-pappy]

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.

[DaveW]

Bondage?  Really?

Telling a married couple to have sex is bondage?

[k-pappy]

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.

[DaveW]

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.

[Bitter Sweet]

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.