The sin of refusing sex
- Thread starter presidente
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
I do not see anyone endorsing rape. A man is to love his wife as Christ loved the church, and if a woman raped her husband, that wouldn't be respectful either.
But if you are married and one's spouse wants sex, and on is saying, "It isn't going to happen because I don't want it to, and if you force me, that's rape!"...there is a problem there. A decision whether to have sex or not should consider the others needs and desires, not just one's own. Paul wrote that the wife does not have power over her own body, but the husband, and the husband does not have power over his own body, but the wife. The husband should have that attitude about meeting his wife's needs, and the wife should have that attitude about meeting her husband's needs. It's okay to have sex because your husband or wife wants to, for their sake, out of love for your partner. That's a healthy thing, and they can return the favor later. There are of course, legitimate reasons not to have sex, physical and medical reasons and such. Both the husband wife should be sensitive and caring when it comes to these issues, also. There is also a reason if the couple has agreed to fast for a time.
One of the problems I see in western society is universities and colleges pushing the idea of consent-- that if you don't feel comfortable, then say 'no.' There is an emphasis on individual rights and only doing what you want. That makes sense if fornicators think having sex with someone they meet at a bar is okay as long as it is consensual. But it is not good ethics for Christian married couples. A Christian should think I love my husband or wife, and should show 'due benevolence' when their is mutual desire or when one's partner house desire...within some reasonable parameters that take the whole of scripture into account. 'In honor preferring one another...' also makes sense in this context.
But if you are married and one's spouse wants sex, and on is saying, "It isn't going to happen because I don't want it to, and if you force me, that's rape!"...there is a problem there. A decision whether to have sex or not should consider the others needs and desires, not just one's own. Paul wrote that the wife does not have power over her own body, but the husband, and the husband does not have power over his own body, but the wife. The husband should have that attitude about meeting his wife's needs, and the wife should have that attitude about meeting her husband's needs. It's okay to have sex because your husband or wife wants to, for their sake, out of love for your partner. That's a healthy thing, and they can return the favor later. There are of course, legitimate reasons not to have sex, physical and medical reasons and such. Both the husband wife should be sensitive and caring when it comes to these issues, also. There is also a reason if the couple has agreed to fast for a time.
One of the problems I see in western society is universities and colleges pushing the idea of consent-- that if you don't feel comfortable, then say 'no.' There is an emphasis on individual rights and only doing what you want. That makes sense if fornicators think having sex with someone they meet at a bar is okay as long as it is consensual. But it is not good ethics for Christian married couples. A Christian should think I love my husband or wife, and should show 'due benevolence' when their is mutual desire or when one's partner house desire...within some reasonable parameters that take the whole of scripture into account. 'In honor preferring one another...' also makes sense in this context.
-
3
-
2
- Show all
That is true. In some traditional cultures the older women probably still teach young women that they have a duty to satisfy their husbands in marriage. There may be cultures that teach the men that about their wives. Judaism teaches that. There is a verse in the Old Testament about taking a second wife/concubine after the first concubine that the man has to provide her with food, clothing, and sex. Talmudic Judaism sees sex as the right of a wife, with men having the power to divorce. Paul extends it here to the right of a husband, and of course Christ;s teaching on divorce was contrary to the stance of the Hillel school's stance on the topic.
Young people are getting a lot of education that tells them if they aren't comfortable with something do not do it. Respect other people's rights. Ask permission to touch here. Ask permission to touch there. Most of this is not applicable to marriage, where sex is really supposed to be. My wife does not have to ask my permission to kiss me on the cheek or the lips or to give me a hug. If we are behind closed doors, neither of us is going to say, "May I put my hand on your buttocks?" I've overheard some university training on this, and it irritates me that they are trying to create a system of morality for fundamentally immoral sexual activity. The lesson a college student would learn is if they want do not want to engage in some sexual activity, then they have every right not to. But carrying 'rights focus' into marriage or even just life in general as a Christian can be harmful because in some cases it is contrary to our obligations as Christians.
The wife who thinks she doesn't have sex with her husband unless ___she___ wants to will likely end up depriving her husband unless she just wants more sex than he does. Men who express concern about this may be dismissed as selfish or unloving or whatever. Fortunately, some marriage counselors and some pastors do take it seriously. Generally, women get more compassion from other women if they express their concern that 'my husband won't touch me'.
I read somewhere that the first case of church discipline in the American colonies was in Boston where a church disciplined a man who refused to have sexual relations with his wife. Apparently, they recognized his lack of rendering due benevolence as sinful. Most modern evangelical churches, as far as I know, don't even expel fornicators or adulterers from their midsts.
I chose a topic that was a bit provocative, I suppose, looking back on it. I chose that because single Christians often think of having sex as a sin. But once they marry, not having sex can be a sin. I'm not saying turning down sex is always sinful, of course. There can be real reasons for it. But selfishness should not be one of them.
Being married involves a lot of doing something you would not otherwise want to do, if you weren't married and didn't love your spouse. There are a lot of times my wife wants to talk about things that I wouldn't want to sit around and talk about if I were single and didn't have a wife I loved. There are also events you may go to, or activities you do that you might not otherwise have done. Last night, my wife wanted to record a video. i was really wanting to stay upstairs and watch a movie, and I was planning on doing some ironing at the same time to kill two birds with one stone. But I felt I should go downstairs with her while she recorded just for emotional support. She didn't ask, but I thought it might be a good thing to do.
or anyone who is just flat out uncomfortable with the topic at hand need not click the link and scroll through, let alone make comments about it not needing to be here ( there are PLENTY of other threads on CC that really DO NOT need to be here..... go post that on them.....) need to just keep their thoughts in their own head and fingers still.......
IN OTHER WORDS: IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT HERE DON'T POST AND GO AWAY.
So far what I am reading throughout this thread is about sex only on the physical level (if I missed something stating otherwise, someone please KINDLY point it out).
Sex goes so much further and deeper than just the man entering the woman.
Some people think it is immoral and unethical to discuss sexual issues in public. That's a Victorian era social more, not Biblical ethics. But some people do not know that. The Bible speaks of 'coarse jesting' and there are some things one could say on the topic that are inappropriate, but Biblical teaching and exhortation should not be put in this category.
There are preachers who think the topic is off-limits. There are older women who speak to younger women in Christian communities who think it is off-limits. Certainly in American culture, some children feel gross talking about sexuality with their parents. So a lot of Christians go into marriage with no input on the topic, and if they never read or really meditated on this section in I Corinthians 7, they may have picked up selfish ideas when it comes to sex.
I suspect some people may be opposed to the topic also because it hits home. If someone refuses their spouse sex because they are only concerned about their own satisfaction or disinterest in sex and not their partner's needs, this topic might strike a nerve. In that case, it is a good thread for them to read.
Young people are getting a lot of education that tells them if they aren't comfortable with something do not do it. Respect other people's rights. Ask permission to touch here. Ask permission to touch there. Most of this is not applicable to marriage, where sex is really supposed to be. My wife does not have to ask my permission to kiss me on the cheek or the lips or to give me a hug. If we are behind closed doors, neither of us is going to say, "May I put my hand on your buttocks?" I've overheard some university training on this, and it irritates me that they are trying to create a system of morality for fundamentally immoral sexual activity. The lesson a college student would learn is if they want do not want to engage in some sexual activity, then they have every right not to. But carrying 'rights focus' into marriage or even just life in general as a Christian can be harmful because in some cases it is contrary to our obligations as Christians.
The wife who thinks she doesn't have sex with her husband unless ___she___ wants to will likely end up depriving her husband unless she just wants more sex than he does. Men who express concern about this may be dismissed as selfish or unloving or whatever. Fortunately, some marriage counselors and some pastors do take it seriously. Generally, women get more compassion from other women if they express their concern that 'my husband won't touch me'.
I read somewhere that the first case of church discipline in the American colonies was in Boston where a church disciplined a man who refused to have sexual relations with his wife. Apparently, they recognized his lack of rendering due benevolence as sinful. Most modern evangelical churches, as far as I know, don't even expel fornicators or adulterers from their midsts.
I chose a topic that was a bit provocative, I suppose, looking back on it. I chose that because single Christians often think of having sex as a sin. But once they marry, not having sex can be a sin. I'm not saying turning down sex is always sinful, of course. There can be real reasons for it. But selfishness should not be one of them.
Being married involves a lot of doing something you would not otherwise want to do, if you weren't married and didn't love your spouse. There are a lot of times my wife wants to talk about things that I wouldn't want to sit around and talk about if I were single and didn't have a wife I loved. There are also events you may go to, or activities you do that you might not otherwise have done. Last night, my wife wanted to record a video. i was really wanting to stay upstairs and watch a movie, and I was planning on doing some ironing at the same time to kill two birds with one stone. But I felt I should go downstairs with her while she recorded just for emotional support. She didn't ask, but I thought it might be a good thing to do.
or anyone who is just flat out uncomfortable with the topic at hand need not click the link and scroll through, let alone make comments about it not needing to be here ( there are PLENTY of other threads on CC that really DO NOT need to be here..... go post that on them.....) need to just keep their thoughts in their own head and fingers still.......
IN OTHER WORDS: IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT HERE DON'T POST AND GO AWAY.
So far what I am reading throughout this thread is about sex only on the physical level (if I missed something stating otherwise, someone please KINDLY point it out).
Sex goes so much further and deeper than just the man entering the woman.
why do people who claim to be Christians, who claim to be part of the church and body of Christ, want to sweep the topic under the rug and be hush hush about it like it is taboo?
Read Song of Solomon
(Biblical married ) Sex is something to be celebrated, and treasured.......
Read Song of Solomon
(Biblical married ) Sex is something to be celebrated, and treasured.......
There are preachers who think the topic is off-limits. There are older women who speak to younger women in Christian communities who think it is off-limits. Certainly in American culture, some children feel gross talking about sexuality with their parents. So a lot of Christians go into marriage with no input on the topic, and if they never read or really meditated on this section in I Corinthians 7, they may have picked up selfish ideas when it comes to sex.
I suspect some people may be opposed to the topic also because it hits home. If someone refuses their spouse sex because they are only concerned about their own satisfaction or disinterest in sex and not their partner's needs, this topic might strike a nerve. In that case, it is a good thread for them to read.
-
2
-
1
-
1
- Show all
It is probably a huge problem that few people talk about. Except now with the Internet, where people can talk about it anonymously, there are places online to discuss it.
Maybe that works for him in his marriage. But it wouldn't work for my wife if she were angry.
That can also be a very manipulative and controlling behavior to have in a marriage. It's also wrong because it involves holding grudges and not resolving conflict the way the Lord taught us.
-
2
-
1
- Show all
I saw a documentary about King James and the KJV that showed some Puritans objecting to a version of the Anglican wedding ceremony that said something like, "With my body thee I worship" or something along those lines. Many of us, even non-Anglicans. have heard a later version of the Book of Common Prayer wedding ceremony. The words we are familiar with come from that, as I understand it.
It would be good if the wedding ceremony went through all the scriptures on marital obligations, including rendering 'due benevolence' and things of that nature, so everyone who went to a wedding would have that idea ingrained in their minds through repeition.
Back when divorce had to have legal grounds, abstaining from sexual relations was considered grounds for divorce. I am not endorsing that, but that is part of the legal tradition. Practically, I suspect it is behind a reasonably large percent of divorces. The stereotype is women not having sex with their husbands. I heard a speaker on Christian radio who said in 80% of marriages, men wanted more sex than women, and in 20% of marriages it was the other way around, and the situation can actually reverse with age. It's good for that larger group women to 'sow' a certain attitude of selflessness early on and hopefully be able to 'reap' it later.
It would be good if the wedding ceremony went through all the scriptures on marital obligations, including rendering 'due benevolence' and things of that nature, so everyone who went to a wedding would have that idea ingrained in their minds through repeition.
Back when divorce had to have legal grounds, abstaining from sexual relations was considered grounds for divorce. I am not endorsing that, but that is part of the legal tradition. Practically, I suspect it is behind a reasonably large percent of divorces. The stereotype is women not having sex with their husbands. I heard a speaker on Christian radio who said in 80% of marriages, men wanted more sex than women, and in 20% of marriages it was the other way around, and the situation can actually reverse with age. It's good for that larger group women to 'sow' a certain attitude of selflessness early on and hopefully be able to 'reap' it later.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
K
Hubby and I do not discuss our intimate lives with other couples. But I've heard friends say things like "she's frigid" or "he can't get enough,he wants it all the time" I don't think that's funny. I don't think intimacy should be treated disrespectfully, I think you're disrespecting your partner. My parents had a friend years ago and she would always berate her husband because he wasn't the lover she wanted. She'd say " I could dance naked on the table and he wouldn't touch me". I was only young and didn't really know what she was talking about but I thought her husband looked so embarrassed and miserable. It was just so disrespectful to my mind, even as a young teenager.
-
2
-
1
-
1
- Show all
You didn't say it outright but did you mean marital expression as worship? I've thought that all my life and one time someone asked me point blank what I meant by that as if taken aback. I think it is, and there's been something of a contest a lot of my life on "who" I worship and serve in my marriage (not counting a wife)...
It's always been that to me and I thought it appropriate to put it in there that I have been open and not strong as a fortress or anything...just that the Lord basically just protected me and any worldly women that showed real interest were not interested in marriage so it was off the table. My own flesh has been quite committed to the confines of marriage before sex wordly or otherwise...
although as I have remained patient, I have next to zero desire for anything but the Lord. Part of what caused me to stray was the being patient as I have almost all my life wanted to be married (not just sex, I wanted to be a parent quite young). Also the allure of stuff even as a believer and some of the dreams I've had and some of the crossroads that I've been through that well...some of it is pretty dark and unless someone brings it up, I can't in good conscience volunteer it. Basically, choosing my will for my life and the eternal consequences vs following the Lord. Thankfully my Lord makes decisions that supercede my own will and I'm not alone.
but anyway, I didn't expect that to come out, It seems your views are well rounded on this issue and there isn't really anything I disagree directly. Reading all of your posts on this page I had a thought that it's not exactly "sinful" to be selfish if a person doesn't realize it or recognizes the error and is being sanctified/matured in that area.
Selfishness is immature for certain and when that is realized fully (which looks different for different people) it is against the Lord's will and therefore rebellion and rebellion is as the sin of?
I think there is a process from stubborness before you get to rebellion though...sin is sin though a different topic. I just have more patience for someone's flesh being present but their spirit being willing and walking through it.
and for some, you telling them that it is a sin will indeed hit the mark and I thank you for the posts.
I am a bit at an impasse here though. It seems on the last 2 pages (mentioning victorian mores themed posts) that you all don't feel a need to be private about these matters.
Maybe this needs to be a seperate thread as it applies to pastors talking to females and praying for them about matters not pertaining to this subject also...but it seems like wisdom to have a separation for non-married sexual discussions.
I don't consider that victorian at all...and I will and do talk about it, but co-ed limits things I am willing to say. I am further unwilling to drive my point home with very explicit information that would only apply to males based off anatomy. Yes, there are some discussions that I've had that were helpful to other males as I have a deep memory for very tiny details in that area as well as some science that is useful but is uncomfortable even for me to discuss but I am willing to go there when I am reasonably certain of my audience.
In my heart I do not feel that is "victorian" or "prudish" but rather prudent.
As to married discussions...I see no reason why that would not be co-ed and explicit discussions confined to counseling.
Then again, I do realize that discussions with unmarried people that have been sexually active at one time would be different than a room full of young people that haven't ever slept with anyone and how to battle daily. I can speak to the latter but not the former. So I'm in a quandary on that one.
Note: I do NOT believe they should not be discussed. Quite the contrary. This has been a burden on me for systematic integration in churches much like awanas but I'm just waiting for confirmation and ideally this would be incredibly easier after marriage it seems because YES that verse about the enemy tempting via abstaining means something very personal to me.
Insight anyone?
-
2
- Show all
I don't see that this instruction in marriage is tied to SIN. I don't see that Paul intended it to sound as though it's a sin to refuse sex in marriage. It sounds to me like he is recommending a particular style of conduct that's intended to allow as little power as possible to Satan. In that regard, Paul would be 100% correct.
Unless I'm mistaken, the instruction doesn't trump everything else that may be going on, for example, high tension in the relationship, or something.
Unless I'm mistaken, the instruction doesn't trump everything else that may be going on, for example, high tension in the relationship, or something.
-
1
- Show all
K
I'm not certain it's sin, but certainly it is for the benefit of the married couple, and the health of the marriage. I traveled 20 yrs in ministry and there were many times people would come with marriage problems. And as soon as there is an issue either one or both partners withhold sex. And it's one of the worse things a couple can do. It leaves them wide open to temptation. So many people are led astray in that manner. All someone needs to do is show them a little affection and they are out the door. It's a very important part of marriage and I think many people take it for granted.
-
2
- Show all
K
If this is a discussion you feel is out of your depth and you are trying to maintain purity, I understand. But if you are considering marriage, you need to settle these issues before you are married and not after. The problem is most pastors do not give any counsel in this area or just bad advice. You need to understand before you marry your body is not your own. That sex is sacred, and should never be used as a punishment. It's an act of love, it's important in your relationship and keeps you from the sin of adultery. People need to discuss details of their expectations in this area too, before they commit to each other for the rest of their lives. I won't go into detail and I hope I haven't gone too far in discussing this with you. But people need to be more aware of this before marriage because it could save a lot of heartache in the long run.
-
1
- Show all
You picked up correctly on the disrespect. I wonder though if the woman's sharing was really a cry for help. Because the church doesn't generally know how to handle this subject, Christians don't learn, and don't feel comfortable discussing the subject with anyone. Some don't even feel comfortable praying about it. Until people can express their thoughts and feelings in safe ways (and get real help), they will express them in unsafe ways.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
In order to completely understand the application of this passage, you have to consider the context and the false teaching that Paul is addressing here. In verse 1, he says "concerning the matters about which you wrote: 'It is good for a man to not have sexual relations with a woman.'" So he is talking about a strain of false teaching that all sexual activity is evil. Evidently there were some believers in Corinth who were taking this and running with it and trying to maintain a celibate lifestyle even though they were married, thinking it would increase their holiness. And Paul is saying, no, sex within marriage is good -- it is one of the purposes of marriage -- and, contrary to what they were teaching, abstaining from sex in marriage actually puts you in greater danger of falling into sin. So, under normal circumstances, only do it for short periods when both spouses agree on it for short periods of fasting and prayer. He is not addressing potential exceptions such as spousal abuse, etc., and he is certainly not giving spouses carte-blanche to demand sex whenever.
-
3
-
1
- Show all
- Status