Brother I appreciate your heart to help marriages. Please carefully consider a tragic statistic which concerns the fact that the rate of pain during sex is highest in women in evangelical marriages, highly connected to feeling obligated/pressured. Please see research https://substack.com/@baremarriage?r=4ijym&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=profile
It’s essential that Scripture is never used as a tool to wield power. That will kill the intimacy right there, not because the woman is manipulative, but because God has designed her to be sensitive and need tenderness and understanding, especially from the man they are entrusting their heart to.
I think this was addressed in the author’s emphasis on communication and seeking to each give the other what they desire or what would be a blessing to them at that time.
Sadly the risk of scripture being misused is high and the implications of that are so severe, it is necessary and loving to always spell it out in detail and at length😔
And where does the responsibility begin in actually following scripture? When does accountability begin to take precedent? It sounds like a dead bedroom being rationalised in a lot of these cases, and that’s a real shame.
I think it depends on whether you want to use selected scriptures and/or the concept of accountability as law enforcement, or whether you want to pursue what scripture teaches and commands regarding us emulating God’s mercy, patience, gentleness and grace.
It's strange to me how you read St. Paul's clear words, "I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another," and conclude something that he doesn't say. He doesn't say the "gift of celibacy" is rare, at least not extremely. Paul simply expresses his desire for people to be celibate because it will allow them to be closer to God, but laments the fact that people generally lack of self-control.
In fact, Paul only prescribes frequent marital intimacy to those who lack self-control. So if the Christian life is about *gaining* self-control, becoming less reliant on sensual pleasure, detaching from "the things of the world," then that needs to be addressed as well. God designed us biologically to detach from sexual pleasure as we age, and a common cause of sorrow for people as they get older seems to be their inability to let go of that "youthful passion." This is something I rarely see Protestants address.
St Paul is speaking of the extremely rare gift of being able to be sexually continent without a wife (or husband). But he considers marriage so normative that in verse 2 he says 'Let every man..."
And the instructions to be sexually frequent with the wife that one has is given to every married man, all the time, all his life. Thus the word 'defraud'.
You might have a point if 1 Corinthians 7 just started with that line, "each man should have his own wife," but that's not how St. Paul begins. Let's take a look at the context:
1 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” 2 But because of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
1 Corinthians 7:1-2
Paul begins by addressing the Corinthians' belief that "It is good for a man not to touch a woman." Notice that the Apostle never says this is incorrect. Rather, he implicitly agrees with it in principle, but notes that it's only "because of sexual immorality," which we know was rampant among the Corinthians in particular, that "each man should have his own wife."
So the teaching is not, "it's always good at all times for every man to have a wife because marriage and sex are so heckin' good and awesome!," rather it's more like, "you people are so sexually degenerate and unable to control yourselves, it would be better for you all to be married than burn with passion." This is why Paul goes on to tell the Corinthians that marriage is a "concession" to the weakness of the flesh (1 Cor 7:6), and that he would much prefer they all be sexually continent, though he recognizes that different people have different callings (1 Cor 7:7)
So once again, the frequency of sexual intercourse is for those who can't control their lust, and would easily be tempted to sexual immorality if they didn't have recourse to a licit outlet. It's not describing the ideal. Instead, the ideal was described right in the first verse: "It is good for a man not to touch a woman" (1 Cor 7:1).
If you add in a bunch of cultural stuff, and ignore the rest of the Scripture, you might have a point.
But, then, you would also have to address the fact that we live in an age that might even be more sexually degenerate than the Corinthians. GK Chesterton certainly had some things to say about that.
Which would mean that Paul’s ‘Let ever man…’ comes back into play. In our age of sexual degeneracy we need to ‘let every man have his own wife’… and we would need (even given your false interpretation) for them to be having lots of sex.
Indeed for todays age, which has rejected anything resembling Godly sexual activity, we need them not only to be having lots of sex, but to be known has having lots of sex. Lots of examples of the Song of Solomon and Proverbs five.
So Paul does not say ‘Let each Corinthian man have his own wife…”, and even if he means “Let every man living in a sexually degenerate age have his own wife… and have frequent sex with her…” then it would apply double today.
You haven't shown how my interpretation is false, you've just asserted that to be the case. The points remain:
-St. Paul agrees with the Corinthians that, in an ideal world, men just wouldn't touch women.
-Nonetheless, the Corinthians are recent converts coming from a sexually degenerate age, and so they ought to marry rather than continue in sexual immorality.
-Marriage is a concession to the weakness of the flesh, marital relations ought to be engaged due to a lack of self-control.
-Celibacy and or continence are the ideal for Christians.
These are the teachings one gets from a plain reading of 1 Corinthians 7. Now, you're right that since we live in a sexually degenerate age, it's likely that most people should get married so they don't burn with passion. However, our goal as Christians isn't to perpetually live in a sexually degenerate culture, but rather to heal the culture of its addiction to lust. This means that we should ideally aim at building a world in which people don't have to get married just to keep their passions under control.
And for those who do get married, they should wean themselves off of their attachment to sensual pleasure as time goes on. God biologically designed us to do this anyways. There's a reason we get uglier and less able to have sex as we age—this world and its pleasures won't last forever. Sex is not the meaning of life, which is why Jesus Himself lived a celibate life to set an example for us.
Paul demonstrates your interpretation false, as does David.
What I was getting at was your application, even agreeing with your interpretation.
So now you add:
>>the Corinthians are recent converts coming from a sexually degenerate age, and so they ought to marry rather than continue in sexual immorality.
So not only do wish to limit what the Scripture says to 'sexually degenerate' but to 'recent converts'. Which makes a mockery of Proverbs 5, eh?
So, no, you don't get that from a plain reading of I Corinthians 7. You only get your reading by:
1) Adding a lot to the text and
2) Ignoring the rest of Scripture and
3) Ignoring our own culture.
So let me correct your points:
a) From the beginning of Scripture it was not good for the man to be alone.
b) Marriage, and sex in marriage, is a gift from God, and a good gift from God
c) As are the children that come from that sex
d) Especially in a degenerate age we should be encouraging all of our young people to marry, and marry young.
e) Especially in a degenerate age, we should be encouraging married people to have lots of sex. Literally to rejoice in their wives breasts at all times.
f) The teaching against those goes along with the spirit of the age... Sodomy, transgender, lack of fertility, pornography, etc.
g) The modern church has done a terrible job of teaching these things.
1Ti 5:14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
1Ti 5:15 For some are already turned aside after Satan.
Once again, none of this demonstrates that my reading of 1 Corinthians 7 is incorrect. I never denied the goodness of marriage, nor that children are a gift. I never denied that, in our age, most young people probably should get married. You're mostly attacking a straw man.
Having sex within marriage is a good and holy thing, however, since marriage is a sacrament, the concupiscence associated with indulging the flesh is supposed to diminish over time, not increase. Sure, married couples should have "lots of sex" when they're young and lack self-control, but why would we want to keep them stuck in that spiritual rut? Marriage was designed to be temporary, so we shouldn't exalt it as if its an end in itself.
How many supposedly Christian men treat their wives as an object whose sole function is the husband’s sexual release, rather than an heir together with them of the grace of life, worthy of respect and recognition of their equal dignity?
Probably fewer than you would think from reading internet comment boxes. But it’s still a lot.
Thank you for stressing mutuality and your desire to be both tender and thorough through scripture.
I think there is value in taking this up a level. The discipline of chastity—loving a chaste life—applies both to single and married. My organs and desires didn’t just appear when I got married, and ignoring or indulging them in singleness only sets one up for the same pattern in marriage. Theology of the Body with Christopher West has some incredible insights, even if you don’t subscribe to everything it teaches—at minimum still thought provoking!
in marriage, there are often times and seasons where that part of the relationship simply isn’t feasible. Extended bouts of depression, illness, exhaustion, caregiving, can sap that energy. Painful (emotionally or physically) need to be explored with curiosity as that isn’t the norm and empower either spouse to say “this hurts, I need to stop. Can we refocus on connecting a different way?” The solution could be counseling, education, medication, physical therapy, or a host of other options.
Lastly, I think it is important to spend time together in physical intimacy but that doesn’t only mean sexual. I encourage you to check out some of the recent work by Sheila in her book “the marriage you want”.
In cases where the pain is because of a previous (not current) trauma, your partner being a safe and secure attachment and a co-regulating presence through that experience can absolutely be healing and also allow you to connect deeply with your partner in that moment. That’s healthy intimacy.
Past trauma can revisit someone at anytime—even years after we think we are “okay”. Additionally, one’s partner may not have any connection to the trauma, regardless of it happening while married. (Non-sexual example: someone who has been harmed by road rage or a previous automobile accident may find riding in a car in the same location or around similar vehicle could make the current car ride emotionally difficult even potentially bringing on a panic attack despite being safe in that moment. If one’s spouse is in the car, they have no connection to the original incident, but can show up in supportive ways.)
There are times where one spouse has been harmed by the actions of the other, even if unintentional; trauma is more about the impact it has on you than the “severity” someone else assigns the occasion. If the spouse that has caused harm has gone through the therapy and extensive work to be a safe, secure attachment going forward and has proven (is proving) themselves to be trustworthy, the spouse harmed (after/during their own therapy and healing) may choose to remain with said partner. In that situation, there may still be occasional times when one’s nervous system is activated back to the harm done long ago. It could be a smell, a breeze, a song, something else random. If there is safety in that moment and current relationship, this could be a new layer of healing coming to the surface.
There is a lot of nuance here and entire books have been written about this, so a brief comment on Substack won’t cover all of them, despite my attempt to be sensitive to that.
I read this article with fascination coming from a Roman Catholic perspective, lots of similarities in our views on sexual morality but some real differences as well. In the Catholic faith men and women are called to celibacy (priests, brothers, nuns, consecrated virgins, etc) but it is normal for them to have a healthy sex drive. By no means is it expected that a man considering the priesthood for example, would not have a desire for sex, that desire is given up for something greater.
As I assume you know, the Catholic Church claims and authority greater than scripture. It claims to be able to add to what scripture says, and at points such as here to directly contradict it. So the issue isn’t whether it’s clear as far as whether the Catholic Church accept it or not.
That is also true. Not particularly relevant to the current discussion, but true.
In this particular case you can see that the argument for sex as a bad thing (yes, given all of the caveats) needs to bring in all sorts of things that aren’t in the text. Whereas the contrary case can merely quote the text.
After taking into account all the factors, there is a big difference between once weekly and once every 2 months, especially when one of the partners rightly desires far more frequency than the latter. Dead bedrooms are far too common.
The post I shared emphasizes the importance of seeing the whole person. Giving a mandatory or ideal frequency is reducing the marital act to a number. Loving one another goes far beyond the physical. If the husband and/or wife is unhappy with this part of their marriage, it should absolutely be a topic of discussion. What the “frequency” conversation often seems to miss is the idea that things outside of the bedroom often affect issues inside the bedroom. If you haven't, I encourage you to read the post I shared!
I don’t think anything discussed has an impact on my frequency comparison. I used the large gap between the two to clearly illustrate that one is normal, and one is maladaptive (if no other clear factors at play). If the wife is simply “not feeling it”, with no other tangible explanation, and that frequency repeats itself, then you’ve got a dead bedroom, and that is far too common today unfortunately. In today’s culture however, and your post is probably a defence against this - the onus is often placed on the husband to control himself (temperance, respect for his wife’s feelings) rather than the wife.
You bring up some good points! I'd point back to what I said in a previous comment about the necessity of communication to see if there is something going on in the relationship that's leading the wife to never desire closeness in that way. There's definitely trust needed, too. Praying together can also be very powerful in this area! The frequency discussion can sometimes seem like it's seeking a bandaid solution (just hit a certain number each week/month) to a much deeper issue, which, in the long run, will only do harm to a marriage. Also, there is truth to men needing to practice temperance. It's not good to tell men that they should expect a certain frequency or that they need to. Instead, they need to be told to love their wife, specifically. Since this conversation deals with human persons, it's never going to be one size fits all. That's really my main issue with these general conversations. However, again, I understand your concern. Women also must love their husbands. It goes both ways. Ultimately, open communication and vulnerability is necessary to make this a non-issue.
I think what I’m getting at, is that the touchy feely/ feminine-centric ideas around “don’t feel close” or “not feeling it” may be a symptom of a distant relationship… but often times, this can simply be an additional symptom of a failing marriage… that the wife simply isn’t/ doesn’t desire the husband, she isn’t “turned on” by him, and this appears to be the driving reason for such an extremely high divorce rate today in secular society. When the amazing institution of marriage is detached from Christianity, you are left with biological realism - and the result of that is in most relationships, you get a dead bedroom. This to me is a very sad reality, but we avoid the difficult truth and dress it up in flowery language, as opposed to the cold hard truth in which it originates from the female sex drive.
You’re spot on. What consistently is not addressed is that intimacy IS for a woman’s benefit just as much for a man. Women have been fed the lie that “sex is just for men”, and fail to realize how good it is for them as well.
Three times a week. Three times a month. Three times a year. When your partner no longer desires intimacy or sexual union, I've now lived without sex longer than a Vulcan does.
Any intimacy is desired, but I get none. I walk alone in a desert with no water in sight.
My husband and I have been married for over 40 years, we both hug each other frequently. Most couples I know, whether they have been married a short amount of time or long, show each other some form of affection. When outward affection slows down or stops, instead of getting upset over it, just like going to the doctor and finding out why you have a symptom, we need to find out, in our relationship with our spouses, what the root CAUSE of something is.
A simmering tea kettle only goes cold when it’s removed from the heat. WHAT causes a husband OR wife to go “cold“?
It’s ALWAYS SOMETHING, it is NEVER “nothing“.
If there is any communication left between a husband and a wife, and communication is one of the BIGGEST keys in ANY relationship, then ASK why affection has stopped.
Let’s not just COMPLAIN, or feel bad that hugging or other affection has stopped, but ASK WHY.
It seems pretty equal, the complaints from BOTH husbands and wives that their spouses have stopped showing affection, I hear it from both sides.
DO something about it, talking to strangers about it isn’t going to fix your relationship.
And I don’t mean that in a rude way at all, I’m not trying to cause harm, I’m trying to help. But I see this all too often. People have complaints about their spouses or other people in their lives, and they go on public forums to air those grievances, and they either don’t talk about these issues with the people in their lives that they are having problems with, OR they confront in ways that only cause MORE harm and MORE distance.
Many times people withdraw affection in a passive aggressive way, many other times, their withdrawal of affection has little to do with the other person, and has everything to do with their own spiritual, physical, mental, or emotional state. But no matter what the root cause, it must be dealt with with empathy, love, mercy, and compassion.
I hope that you and your wife will be able to work your way back to each other in a way that is beneficial to both of you individually, which will then strengthen your relationship with each other.
Your comment makes me feel very sad. I feel very sad for you, but I also feel very sad for your wife. If you are a Christian, and you go to a Bible preaching church, and your pastor is a man of God who can be trusted with such intimate information, make an appointment to speak with him on this issue.
I don’t want to ask you any personal information about yourself or about your wife, because a public forum is NOT the place for airing dirty laundry, so I’m asking you this question, that I don’t want you to answer on here.
Do you think your wife loves you? Does she ACT like she loves you, aside from not being sexually intimate with you? Did she EVER love you, did she SHOW love to you at any point in your marriage, INCLUDING being sexually intimate ?
If you can answer “yes“ to ANY of these questions, then that means that SOMETHING happened to cause your wife’s ability to be intimate with you to recede and to shrink.
This probably didn’t happen overnight, but over time, and there is ALWAYS a ROOT cause of a problem.
Are you able to communicate with your wife at all in any meaningful way? If so, then in a SAFE, LOVING, NURTURING environment, you need to calmly and compassionately talk to her about this issue, be humble, and ask her if there is something wrong, is there something that you’ve done that has made her retreat and draw back from you.
There is so much more that I could write, numerous questions that I would like to ask, a ton of advice that I would like to give, but this is not the place for that.
We already know too much intimate information about your wife, and I’m pretty sure that if she realized you told strangers about your sex life with her, it sure wouldn’t make her more receptive to you, but would only serve to make her…rightfully so…trust you even less with the vulnerability that intimacy brings, and it would only cause her to be even more distant from you, it could be devastating to her. And then, even more to your relationship with her.
But one way or another, this topic MUST be addressed and dealt with, because it is a cancer that will consume you, your wife, your marriage, and potentially, if you are Christians, your relationship with the Lord. Don’t let it fester any longer, please.
Most women and men, if they began in their relationships with their spouses with signs of love and affection, do NOT suddenly and inexplicably STOP, loving and being affectionate. SOMETHING is ALWAYS a catalyst for love and affection dwindling. Always. So the root cause must be found out and dealt with TONS of PATIENCE, LOVE, UNDERSTANDING, HUMILITY, MEEKNESS, COMPASSION, and MERCY.
If not dealt with in all of those ways, the results will be disastrous, and only MORE harm and distance will be the results.
I pray that each of you individually AND together will find it in your hearts to be committed to each other AND to your relationship, NOT so you can “have sex” again ONLY, or even MOSTLY, but because it’s what the Lord would want You to do.
Dead bedrooms are extremely common in marriage, and it’s almost always the woman’s side who limits the frequency, not the man’s. It seems almost biological and inevitable for a huge chunk of relationships, with 8% of marriages having zero* sex within the past year!
Menopause is likely a common reason yes, but most people don’t treat this and suggest the lack of sex drive towards the husband is normal/ healthy/ expected.
In regards to the at least once a month rule, I’ve always felt that advice was more for two insanely busy people constantly exhausted by a very busy life. Sort of, if you have 8 kids, once a month hire a babysitter and go out to dinner and get a room at a hotel for a night, and make it a priority because your relationship will suffer otherwise.
I made a podcast about the sexual manipulation deception this might explain a few things. Warp ladies minds and the men will follow. Added show notes so you can jump.
Sorry, won't be watching the podcast. I'm sure it's fantastic, though. However, in my experience, mens minds are usually warped first, as their sex drive in adolescence is strong, with testosterone flooding their bloodstream every 15 min. As a result, it's almost always on their minds and it proves a very difficult way to avoid porn which is now easily accessible and increasingly degenerate and degrading .Oh, I know, girls have their problems: a naivete about their bodies, undue focus on their appearance, a fascination w their power over young men sexually, and more. These are my impressions after more than a decade of college ministry.
Beautiful article. Brings home the point of the beauty and grace of a sacramental marriage and how mystically two become one. How things done in order and in accordance with the natural law and God's law bring forth great fruits and goods. A well done article, and helpful. God bless.
Brother I appreciate your heart to help marriages. Please carefully consider a tragic statistic which concerns the fact that the rate of pain during sex is highest in women in evangelical marriages, highly connected to feeling obligated/pressured. Please see research https://substack.com/@baremarriage?r=4ijym&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=profile
It’s essential that Scripture is never used as a tool to wield power. That will kill the intimacy right there, not because the woman is manipulative, but because God has designed her to be sensitive and need tenderness and understanding, especially from the man they are entrusting their heart to.
I think this was addressed in the author’s emphasis on communication and seeking to each give the other what they desire or what would be a blessing to them at that time.
Sadly the risk of scripture being misused is high and the implications of that are so severe, it is necessary and loving to always spell it out in detail and at length😔
That article could have been written about me
I’m sure you know the answer to that.
And where does the responsibility begin in actually following scripture? When does accountability begin to take precedent? It sounds like a dead bedroom being rationalised in a lot of these cases, and that’s a real shame.
I think it depends on whether you want to use selected scriptures and/or the concept of accountability as law enforcement, or whether you want to pursue what scripture teaches and commands regarding us emulating God’s mercy, patience, gentleness and grace.
Again… when does that apply to both* parties, not just one?
It's strange to me how you read St. Paul's clear words, "I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another," and conclude something that he doesn't say. He doesn't say the "gift of celibacy" is rare, at least not extremely. Paul simply expresses his desire for people to be celibate because it will allow them to be closer to God, but laments the fact that people generally lack of self-control.
In fact, Paul only prescribes frequent marital intimacy to those who lack self-control. So if the Christian life is about *gaining* self-control, becoming less reliant on sensual pleasure, detaching from "the things of the world," then that needs to be addressed as well. God designed us biologically to detach from sexual pleasure as we age, and a common cause of sorrow for people as they get older seems to be their inability to let go of that "youthful passion." This is something I rarely see Protestants address.
Well, no. In fact quite the contrary.
St Paul is speaking of the extremely rare gift of being able to be sexually continent without a wife (or husband). But he considers marriage so normative that in verse 2 he says 'Let every man..."
And the instructions to be sexually frequent with the wife that one has is given to every married man, all the time, all his life. Thus the word 'defraud'.
You might have a point if 1 Corinthians 7 just started with that line, "each man should have his own wife," but that's not how St. Paul begins. Let's take a look at the context:
1 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” 2 But because of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
1 Corinthians 7:1-2
Paul begins by addressing the Corinthians' belief that "It is good for a man not to touch a woman." Notice that the Apostle never says this is incorrect. Rather, he implicitly agrees with it in principle, but notes that it's only "because of sexual immorality," which we know was rampant among the Corinthians in particular, that "each man should have his own wife."
So the teaching is not, "it's always good at all times for every man to have a wife because marriage and sex are so heckin' good and awesome!," rather it's more like, "you people are so sexually degenerate and unable to control yourselves, it would be better for you all to be married than burn with passion." This is why Paul goes on to tell the Corinthians that marriage is a "concession" to the weakness of the flesh (1 Cor 7:6), and that he would much prefer they all be sexually continent, though he recognizes that different people have different callings (1 Cor 7:7)
So once again, the frequency of sexual intercourse is for those who can't control their lust, and would easily be tempted to sexual immorality if they didn't have recourse to a licit outlet. It's not describing the ideal. Instead, the ideal was described right in the first verse: "It is good for a man not to touch a woman" (1 Cor 7:1).
If you add in a bunch of cultural stuff, and ignore the rest of the Scripture, you might have a point.
But, then, you would also have to address the fact that we live in an age that might even be more sexually degenerate than the Corinthians. GK Chesterton certainly had some things to say about that.
Which would mean that Paul’s ‘Let ever man…’ comes back into play. In our age of sexual degeneracy we need to ‘let every man have his own wife’… and we would need (even given your false interpretation) for them to be having lots of sex.
Indeed for todays age, which has rejected anything resembling Godly sexual activity, we need them not only to be having lots of sex, but to be known has having lots of sex. Lots of examples of the Song of Solomon and Proverbs five.
So Paul does not say ‘Let each Corinthian man have his own wife…”, and even if he means “Let every man living in a sexually degenerate age have his own wife… and have frequent sex with her…” then it would apply double today.
You haven't shown how my interpretation is false, you've just asserted that to be the case. The points remain:
-St. Paul agrees with the Corinthians that, in an ideal world, men just wouldn't touch women.
-Nonetheless, the Corinthians are recent converts coming from a sexually degenerate age, and so they ought to marry rather than continue in sexual immorality.
-Marriage is a concession to the weakness of the flesh, marital relations ought to be engaged due to a lack of self-control.
-Celibacy and or continence are the ideal for Christians.
These are the teachings one gets from a plain reading of 1 Corinthians 7. Now, you're right that since we live in a sexually degenerate age, it's likely that most people should get married so they don't burn with passion. However, our goal as Christians isn't to perpetually live in a sexually degenerate culture, but rather to heal the culture of its addiction to lust. This means that we should ideally aim at building a world in which people don't have to get married just to keep their passions under control.
And for those who do get married, they should wean themselves off of their attachment to sensual pleasure as time goes on. God biologically designed us to do this anyways. There's a reason we get uglier and less able to have sex as we age—this world and its pleasures won't last forever. Sex is not the meaning of life, which is why Jesus Himself lived a celibate life to set an example for us.
Paul demonstrates your interpretation false, as does David.
What I was getting at was your application, even agreeing with your interpretation.
So now you add:
>>the Corinthians are recent converts coming from a sexually degenerate age, and so they ought to marry rather than continue in sexual immorality.
So not only do wish to limit what the Scripture says to 'sexually degenerate' but to 'recent converts'. Which makes a mockery of Proverbs 5, eh?
So, no, you don't get that from a plain reading of I Corinthians 7. You only get your reading by:
1) Adding a lot to the text and
2) Ignoring the rest of Scripture and
3) Ignoring our own culture.
So let me correct your points:
a) From the beginning of Scripture it was not good for the man to be alone.
b) Marriage, and sex in marriage, is a gift from God, and a good gift from God
c) As are the children that come from that sex
d) Especially in a degenerate age we should be encouraging all of our young people to marry, and marry young.
e) Especially in a degenerate age, we should be encouraging married people to have lots of sex. Literally to rejoice in their wives breasts at all times.
f) The teaching against those goes along with the spirit of the age... Sodomy, transgender, lack of fertility, pornography, etc.
g) The modern church has done a terrible job of teaching these things.
1Ti 5:14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
1Ti 5:15 For some are already turned aside after Satan.
Once again, none of this demonstrates that my reading of 1 Corinthians 7 is incorrect. I never denied the goodness of marriage, nor that children are a gift. I never denied that, in our age, most young people probably should get married. You're mostly attacking a straw man.
Having sex within marriage is a good and holy thing, however, since marriage is a sacrament, the concupiscence associated with indulging the flesh is supposed to diminish over time, not increase. Sure, married couples should have "lots of sex" when they're young and lack self-control, but why would we want to keep them stuck in that spiritual rut? Marriage was designed to be temporary, so we shouldn't exalt it as if its an end in itself.
This is such a good comment. And a much better paradigm for what Paul meant.
Yes, I think the word defraud is much better. It much more reflects the Greek and is dramatically more of an attack on modern culture.
How many supposedly Christian women withhold sex as a weapon to control their husbands?
How many supposedly Christian men treat their wives as an object whose sole function is the husband’s sexual release, rather than an heir together with them of the grace of life, worthy of respect and recognition of their equal dignity?
Probably fewer than you would think from reading internet comment boxes. But it’s still a lot.
Probably the same as men to women.
Maybe because there’s nothing in it for them. If it’s mutually pleasurable for both frequency isn’t a problem.
I have to disagree here. Hormones and fatigue can make it very difficult to get into it, even if it is ultimately an enjoyable experience.
Thank you for stressing mutuality and your desire to be both tender and thorough through scripture.
I think there is value in taking this up a level. The discipline of chastity—loving a chaste life—applies both to single and married. My organs and desires didn’t just appear when I got married, and ignoring or indulging them in singleness only sets one up for the same pattern in marriage. Theology of the Body with Christopher West has some incredible insights, even if you don’t subscribe to everything it teaches—at minimum still thought provoking!
in marriage, there are often times and seasons where that part of the relationship simply isn’t feasible. Extended bouts of depression, illness, exhaustion, caregiving, can sap that energy. Painful (emotionally or physically) need to be explored with curiosity as that isn’t the norm and empower either spouse to say “this hurts, I need to stop. Can we refocus on connecting a different way?” The solution could be counseling, education, medication, physical therapy, or a host of other options.
Lastly, I think it is important to spend time together in physical intimacy but that doesn’t only mean sexual. I encourage you to check out some of the recent work by Sheila in her book “the marriage you want”.
If having sex with your partner psychologically hurts, no amount of therapy or post ad hoc rationalisation will be helpful
In cases where the pain is because of a previous (not current) trauma, your partner being a safe and secure attachment and a co-regulating presence through that experience can absolutely be healing and also allow you to connect deeply with your partner in that moment. That’s healthy intimacy.
? So the trauma magically spawned during the marriage, and wasn’t present in the earlier stages?…
Past trauma can revisit someone at anytime—even years after we think we are “okay”. Additionally, one’s partner may not have any connection to the trauma, regardless of it happening while married. (Non-sexual example: someone who has been harmed by road rage or a previous automobile accident may find riding in a car in the same location or around similar vehicle could make the current car ride emotionally difficult even potentially bringing on a panic attack despite being safe in that moment. If one’s spouse is in the car, they have no connection to the original incident, but can show up in supportive ways.)
There are times where one spouse has been harmed by the actions of the other, even if unintentional; trauma is more about the impact it has on you than the “severity” someone else assigns the occasion. If the spouse that has caused harm has gone through the therapy and extensive work to be a safe, secure attachment going forward and has proven (is proving) themselves to be trustworthy, the spouse harmed (after/during their own therapy and healing) may choose to remain with said partner. In that situation, there may still be occasional times when one’s nervous system is activated back to the harm done long ago. It could be a smell, a breeze, a song, something else random. If there is safety in that moment and current relationship, this could be a new layer of healing coming to the surface.
There is a lot of nuance here and entire books have been written about this, so a brief comment on Substack won’t cover all of them, despite my attempt to be sensitive to that.
I read this article with fascination coming from a Roman Catholic perspective, lots of similarities in our views on sexual morality but some real differences as well. In the Catholic faith men and women are called to celibacy (priests, brothers, nuns, consecrated virgins, etc) but it is normal for them to have a healthy sex drive. By no means is it expected that a man considering the priesthood for example, would not have a desire for sex, that desire is given up for something greater.
Yes, and St Paul condemns this. Clearly.
Clearly?
The Catholic Church as some 1500+ years of a practice that might indicate some Christians don’t think this teaching is correct.
As I assume you know, the Catholic Church claims and authority greater than scripture. It claims to be able to add to what scripture says, and at points such as here to directly contradict it. So the issue isn’t whether it’s clear as far as whether the Catholic Church accept it or not.
The church has never and will never claim to be able to contradict scriptural authority
The church has never and will never claim to be able to contradict scriptural authority
The Church also claims to have been the authority that designated which texts were to be considered sacred and which texts were not.
That is also true. Not particularly relevant to the current discussion, but true.
In this particular case you can see that the argument for sex as a bad thing (yes, given all of the caveats) needs to bring in all sorts of things that aren’t in the text. Whereas the contrary case can merely quote the text.
I think I agree with you overall. The call to celibacy is acknowledging that sex is a good thing given up.
Anytime someone starts talking about "frequency", I'm a little wary, since life circumstances vary greatly, but I agree with your general notes. I wanted to add to this conversation by sharing a link to a recent post I wrote: https://thegentlenudge.substack.com/p/total-self-gift-a-necessity-in-married?r=2k266z
After taking into account all the factors, there is a big difference between once weekly and once every 2 months, especially when one of the partners rightly desires far more frequency than the latter. Dead bedrooms are far too common.
The post I shared emphasizes the importance of seeing the whole person. Giving a mandatory or ideal frequency is reducing the marital act to a number. Loving one another goes far beyond the physical. If the husband and/or wife is unhappy with this part of their marriage, it should absolutely be a topic of discussion. What the “frequency” conversation often seems to miss is the idea that things outside of the bedroom often affect issues inside the bedroom. If you haven't, I encourage you to read the post I shared!
I just read the post, thanks.
I don’t think anything discussed has an impact on my frequency comparison. I used the large gap between the two to clearly illustrate that one is normal, and one is maladaptive (if no other clear factors at play). If the wife is simply “not feeling it”, with no other tangible explanation, and that frequency repeats itself, then you’ve got a dead bedroom, and that is far too common today unfortunately. In today’s culture however, and your post is probably a defence against this - the onus is often placed on the husband to control himself (temperance, respect for his wife’s feelings) rather than the wife.
You bring up some good points! I'd point back to what I said in a previous comment about the necessity of communication to see if there is something going on in the relationship that's leading the wife to never desire closeness in that way. There's definitely trust needed, too. Praying together can also be very powerful in this area! The frequency discussion can sometimes seem like it's seeking a bandaid solution (just hit a certain number each week/month) to a much deeper issue, which, in the long run, will only do harm to a marriage. Also, there is truth to men needing to practice temperance. It's not good to tell men that they should expect a certain frequency or that they need to. Instead, they need to be told to love their wife, specifically. Since this conversation deals with human persons, it's never going to be one size fits all. That's really my main issue with these general conversations. However, again, I understand your concern. Women also must love their husbands. It goes both ways. Ultimately, open communication and vulnerability is necessary to make this a non-issue.
Thanks for reading my post!
No problem at all, thanks for your ideas.
I think what I’m getting at, is that the touchy feely/ feminine-centric ideas around “don’t feel close” or “not feeling it” may be a symptom of a distant relationship… but often times, this can simply be an additional symptom of a failing marriage… that the wife simply isn’t/ doesn’t desire the husband, she isn’t “turned on” by him, and this appears to be the driving reason for such an extremely high divorce rate today in secular society. When the amazing institution of marriage is detached from Christianity, you are left with biological realism - and the result of that is in most relationships, you get a dead bedroom. This to me is a very sad reality, but we avoid the difficult truth and dress it up in flowery language, as opposed to the cold hard truth in which it originates from the female sex drive.
This was concise, well stated, and revealed some true wisdom regarding this matter. Thank you.
You’re spot on. What consistently is not addressed is that intimacy IS for a woman’s benefit just as much for a man. Women have been fed the lie that “sex is just for men”, and fail to realize how good it is for them as well.
Three times a week. Three times a month. Three times a year. When your partner no longer desires intimacy or sexual union, I've now lived without sex longer than a Vulcan does.
Any intimacy is desired, but I get none. I walk alone in a desert with no water in sight.
Prostitutes would not have much of a market if all wives hugged their husbands at night whatever their respective ages.
My husband and I have been married for over 40 years, we both hug each other frequently. Most couples I know, whether they have been married a short amount of time or long, show each other some form of affection. When outward affection slows down or stops, instead of getting upset over it, just like going to the doctor and finding out why you have a symptom, we need to find out, in our relationship with our spouses, what the root CAUSE of something is.
A simmering tea kettle only goes cold when it’s removed from the heat. WHAT causes a husband OR wife to go “cold“?
It’s ALWAYS SOMETHING, it is NEVER “nothing“.
If there is any communication left between a husband and a wife, and communication is one of the BIGGEST keys in ANY relationship, then ASK why affection has stopped.
Let’s not just COMPLAIN, or feel bad that hugging or other affection has stopped, but ASK WHY.
It seems pretty equal, the complaints from BOTH husbands and wives that their spouses have stopped showing affection, I hear it from both sides.
DO something about it, talking to strangers about it isn’t going to fix your relationship.
And I don’t mean that in a rude way at all, I’m not trying to cause harm, I’m trying to help. But I see this all too often. People have complaints about their spouses or other people in their lives, and they go on public forums to air those grievances, and they either don’t talk about these issues with the people in their lives that they are having problems with, OR they confront in ways that only cause MORE harm and MORE distance.
Many times people withdraw affection in a passive aggressive way, many other times, their withdrawal of affection has little to do with the other person, and has everything to do with their own spiritual, physical, mental, or emotional state. But no matter what the root cause, it must be dealt with with empathy, love, mercy, and compassion.
I hope that you and your wife will be able to work your way back to each other in a way that is beneficial to both of you individually, which will then strengthen your relationship with each other.
Your comment makes me feel very sad. I feel very sad for you, but I also feel very sad for your wife. If you are a Christian, and you go to a Bible preaching church, and your pastor is a man of God who can be trusted with such intimate information, make an appointment to speak with him on this issue.
I don’t want to ask you any personal information about yourself or about your wife, because a public forum is NOT the place for airing dirty laundry, so I’m asking you this question, that I don’t want you to answer on here.
Do you think your wife loves you? Does she ACT like she loves you, aside from not being sexually intimate with you? Did she EVER love you, did she SHOW love to you at any point in your marriage, INCLUDING being sexually intimate ?
If you can answer “yes“ to ANY of these questions, then that means that SOMETHING happened to cause your wife’s ability to be intimate with you to recede and to shrink.
This probably didn’t happen overnight, but over time, and there is ALWAYS a ROOT cause of a problem.
Are you able to communicate with your wife at all in any meaningful way? If so, then in a SAFE, LOVING, NURTURING environment, you need to calmly and compassionately talk to her about this issue, be humble, and ask her if there is something wrong, is there something that you’ve done that has made her retreat and draw back from you.
There is so much more that I could write, numerous questions that I would like to ask, a ton of advice that I would like to give, but this is not the place for that.
We already know too much intimate information about your wife, and I’m pretty sure that if she realized you told strangers about your sex life with her, it sure wouldn’t make her more receptive to you, but would only serve to make her…rightfully so…trust you even less with the vulnerability that intimacy brings, and it would only cause her to be even more distant from you, it could be devastating to her. And then, even more to your relationship with her.
But one way or another, this topic MUST be addressed and dealt with, because it is a cancer that will consume you, your wife, your marriage, and potentially, if you are Christians, your relationship with the Lord. Don’t let it fester any longer, please.
Most women and men, if they began in their relationships with their spouses with signs of love and affection, do NOT suddenly and inexplicably STOP, loving and being affectionate. SOMETHING is ALWAYS a catalyst for love and affection dwindling. Always. So the root cause must be found out and dealt with TONS of PATIENCE, LOVE, UNDERSTANDING, HUMILITY, MEEKNESS, COMPASSION, and MERCY.
If not dealt with in all of those ways, the results will be disastrous, and only MORE harm and distance will be the results.
I pray that each of you individually AND together will find it in your hearts to be committed to each other AND to your relationship, NOT so you can “have sex” again ONLY, or even MOSTLY, but because it’s what the Lord would want You to do.
Dead bedrooms are extremely common in marriage, and it’s almost always the woman’s side who limits the frequency, not the man’s. It seems almost biological and inevitable for a huge chunk of relationships, with 8% of marriages having zero* sex within the past year!
It does seem to be biology ... menopause anyone?
Menopause is likely a common reason yes, but most people don’t treat this and suggest the lack of sex drive towards the husband is normal/ healthy/ expected.
Month is an outlier? How about years?
I’ve really liked this book on this topic.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6550416-when-two-become-one?ac=1&from_search=true&qid=3gEks5zCrF&rank=3
In regards to the at least once a month rule, I’ve always felt that advice was more for two insanely busy people constantly exhausted by a very busy life. Sort of, if you have 8 kids, once a month hire a babysitter and go out to dinner and get a room at a hotel for a night, and make it a priority because your relationship will suffer otherwise.
I don't mean to whine, but where was this article years ago. Well done, thank you!
I made a podcast about the sexual manipulation deception this might explain a few things. Warp ladies minds and the men will follow. Added show notes so you can jump.
https://open.substack.com/pub/soberchristiangentlemanpodcast/p/s2-ep-53-sexual-manipulation-deception?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=31s3eo
Warp ladies' minds? Not the reverse order due to porn? Hmm...
I explain in the podcast. Everyone gets warped.
Sorry, won't be watching the podcast. I'm sure it's fantastic, though. However, in my experience, mens minds are usually warped first, as their sex drive in adolescence is strong, with testosterone flooding their bloodstream every 15 min. As a result, it's almost always on their minds and it proves a very difficult way to avoid porn which is now easily accessible and increasingly degenerate and degrading .Oh, I know, girls have their problems: a naivete about their bodies, undue focus on their appearance, a fascination w their power over young men sexually, and more. These are my impressions after more than a decade of college ministry.
It is audio. Best wishes.
Well said. Thank you, Foster.
Beautiful article. Brings home the point of the beauty and grace of a sacramental marriage and how mystically two become one. How things done in order and in accordance with the natural law and God's law bring forth great fruits and goods. A well done article, and helpful. God bless.