# Step-by-step instructions for a Christian man in a sexless marriage



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

I found this post to a reader and thought it might just be the most concise direct approach I have ever read in how to handle this issue. I welcome any responses and discussion.

Tacomaster Desires Steadfast Love | Things that We have Heard and Known

_Yes, it’s been awhile. This is my return post, wherein I respond to a commenter at Dalrock’s, who asked for advice.

Tacomaster said: Another awesome post Dal and I liked your table.I’m posting before reading the comments so excuse me if this has been touched on. My wife and I are both believers, married almost three years. Initially she didn’t understand the importance of frequent married sex. I was in Hell the first year of marriage with the 1-2 sex episodes/month.

I went to the young couples pastor at church who was an Omega, married about 15 years or so (told me him and his wife didn’t have sex much either and it was ultimately her decision) and only saw him that one time for advice. I fought with the idea of divorce because I was tired of living a sinful life of having sex out of marriage and wanted this to work. My wife and I waited til we were married to have sex by the way. She had one previous partner.

She’s familiar with the verse you mentioned in your opening and the sex has increased but to be honest, it really sucks. She has a ton of stipulations and rules which destroys the passion and spontaneity of it. Plus the fact that she jumps out of bed immediately afterwards to “clean up” kills the mood—oh, and there’s the pressure to “hurry up and c*m” thing that I hate. I’ve never been a porn watcher in my life (never interested me) but these last few months have gotten into it. Is this what Christian marriage sex is? I can’t talk about this with my guy friends. The sex feels like a duty she’s fulfilling. Any input is appreciated.

Here’s my input: Tacomasters’s (TM from here on out) wife is not interested in loving him, or being married to him. They don’t have a sex problem, they have a love problem. Sex is beyond an obligation; it’s a good and necessary function of a marriage; a fulfilling and wholesome manifestation of desire for that person. It is the epitome and consummation of marriage. To say that sex is an obligation of marriage is like saying a mother has an obligation to feed her children. That is to say: A mother who can, but does not, is no mother at all. TM’s wife does not desire him. That’s to say: she does not desire to be desired by him. The first thing TM needs to do is accept this; which is an extraordinarily painful thing to do. This is where TM finds himself: Married to a harlot who is demanding better emotional payment for her services, but expecting a wife.

It must be understood that the sexes were designed for our benefit and understanding. Man was made first, and woman was made for man. Women were designed specifically to be desired by men, and by that desiring to bring completion and projection. That completion shows in the physical world as sex, when the man’s desire for a woman brings forth ecstasy and life. It’s easy to see orgasm as completion, and procreation as projection of life, but there is also a projection of ecstasy that makes the difficult times more easy to bear. Sexual delight is a marvelous grace; a physical symptom of the blessing that love can bring to the lover and the beloved, the man and the woman.

Yes, the woman is the beloved. I do not say that women don’t or can’t love, because they certainly can, and most often do so when men can’t or won’t. (Nursing homes, orphanages daycares, and hospitals are brimming with women.) Nevertheless, women thrive when they are the object of love. Little girls don’t dream of being possessed by the best man in the world. They dream of be the most desired woman in the world, and they dread being desirable to no one. Grown women fantasize about being swept off their feet by powerful men and forces beyond their control. Their bodies are formed in such a way that they receive pleasure in the most vulnerable of positions. They’re mind-bogglingly pliant, yielding, and literally impressionable. Yet, their physical pleasure centers are arranged in such as way as to be accessible to all but the most corporally aggrieved of men. Their emotions are likewise, and we see this in the breadth of men–and the diverse actions among those fellows–that they find attractive.

The desire to be loved is one of the reasons church is so appealing to women. Even if you made churches more male-oriented: as long as mankind is the object of God’s love, and church–that is, communion–is the most tangible expression of God’s love on Earth then women will be beside themselves to get in. The Israelites forbade women from entering the inner courts (you can’t get much more male-oriented than that), and my bottom dollar says ancient Jewesses were dying for access because they were sure those within were more loved by God than those without. No doubt pagans have the same problem. You can always pick out a hindu woman by her dress, but hardly a man. I don’t doubt that for every male worshipper of Zeus, he was but one pebble among the womanly sands of Hera. Among the Muslim extremists, it is the women who are the most extreme. It is women who hold each other’s daughters down for female genital mutilation. It is women who force the burka on each other. These deformities of culture aren’t hate, but perverted concern; that the subjects of such atrocities might be lovable.

Within Christian marriage sex is the sanctuary, the Holy of Holies, between a man and a woman; between the lover, and the beloved. No one, but the two consecrated by covenant with each other, are allowed to enter into that blessed union. Which brings us back to TM’s problem: his wife doesn’t want to be beloved anymore. They’ve read the passage from 1 Corinthians 7, so she dutifully doles out sexual welfare every so often to fulfill the obligation they believe is set forth in that scripture. The obligation is not to have sex, but to not deny each other of it, and that is the worst case scenario. It is a warning that sexual denial within marriage is a very serious matter threatening the very existence of the marriage, and therefore their relationship with God which is bound up in the Christian marriage.

For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice,
the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.
For husbands desire steadfast love and not duty, the knowledge of him rather than sexual welfare.* A husband wants to know his wife, wants her to want to be known by him, and wants no one else to else to know her; to keep her separate and secret for himself, which is holy and beautiful and erotic. That passage from 1 Corinthians 7 isn’t a rebuke of husbands and wives who don’t want to have sex with each other. It’s an exhortation to fulfill their good and holy desires with one another.

7 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
We modern Christians (and no doubt earlier ones as well) are putting the emPHAsis on the wrong sylLAble because we are not taking into consideration to what St. Paul is responding. The Corinthians had send him a letter mentioning that the church had decided that abstinence was the right thing for all Christians, married or not. St. Paul’s response is to say: “No! By all means: husbands and wives are supposed to have sex!” The Christian marriage covenant is such a powerful spiritual bond that it is to be that the husband controls the wife’s body, and the wife the husband’s. His words are meant to free them from heresies and misunderstandings that have led them into sin and sexual slavery. St. Paul is not obliging TM’s wife to have sex with him; he is removing the false narrative that good Christians don’t have great sex. They certainly do, and to deny one another is to deny not only the flesh, but God’s intent, as well. The implication then is that TM’s wife has, in fact, become a non-believer in their marriage. She is a like a priest who has rejected her religion, but still pays tithe out of superstition. It’s a sort of witchcraft meant to protect her from any allegations of wrongdoing.

Wrongness is not the bloody point! She. Is. Rejecting. Him. And she has no excuse because she has been given that marvelous ability to be lovable, and to be loved. It is not TM’s fault. This is a choice she has made. Even if her emotions are not into the idea of sex, she ought to be saying to TM, “Husband, I desire to be pleasing you, and to be pleased by you.”, which is absolutely true. If she did, she would find that–sooner or later (and the sooner the more she means it)–she would get what she really wants, which is to be loved by a man she considers worthy.

In the meantime, TM, do not ask that woman for sex. Stop lying to her and yourself. Stop trying to do what she wants so that she wants to have sex with you. Tell her the truth for a change; that you want to bang her silly, and that she should let you know when she’s ready. Then, stop talking to her except as necessary. When you do, be as polite and formal as you can. Do not hold hands with her. Do not hug her, or kiss her. If she says she loves you, say, “If you loved me, you’d kiss me.”, and be sincere about it. If she comes in for a kiss, then make it a big one, and escalate from there, groping and fondling and all the things a man wants to do his woman until you’re having sex. If she recoils, do not react. Just go back to the routine, and don’t give in.

Make your world what you want it to be, to the best of your ability. Do the chores YOU think need to be done around the house, and only those chores. Regardless of what the previous arrangements were: This is now your house, and you decide what is important. Don’t slack. Do make it a point to take care of the things you think need to be taken care of.

Get your finances in order, if they are not. Make a budget, and stick with it.

Christ informs us of how we should behave when fasting, and I think it should apply even when we are fasting from tasting the fruit of our spouses:

16 “And when you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces that their fasting may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 17 But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, 18 that your fasting may not be seen by others but by your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
In other words: Make yourself look good; take care of yourself. Groom yourself and dress well. If you don’t know how, start here. I haven’t gone through the new Style Guide, but I imagine it’s even better than their old style series. You will feel better.

If you don’t exercise, start. At least go walk every day. In fact, it would be a good idea to invite her to go walking with you, but do not ask. Say: “I’m going walking. Come with me.” and then go. Either way, it will be important and good for you to be active. Physical activity will help you think clearer, sleep better, and feel better.

Whatever you do, while you are doing all these things: Try to smile. If she tries to pick a fight with you, say: “I’m trying to love you, not fight with you.” Leave for a bit if you have to, but never for the night. Do not–under any circumstances!–sleep on the couch, or in another room. That is your house, your bedroom, and your bed. You are allowing her to use them because you have grace and compassion.

Trust God to bring you through this trial and her and work this out for your glorification, as He promises to those who love Him.

As a side-effect: she will wonder what the hell is going on. That is good. Intrigue is catnip to women. BUT UNDERSTAND THIS: That you are not doing these things to please her. You will do what is good, and she will choose to follow, and to be your helpmeet suitable…or not. This isn’t about winning her over, or manning-up for her. That boat has sailed, and she has committed to before God regardless if you’re a lady-killer or a loser. This is about you loving your enemy as your Father in heaven does, heaping coals on her head, and not giving way before the wicked.

If she tries to “earn points” or appear like the good wife by paying you compliments, or at least like she’s not so bad** then say something like, “Thanks. If you really liked it you’d kiss me.” Let her know what you want, and that you won’t be satisfied with head pats and compliments. So if she says, “Will you stop that!” You say, “No.” with a smirk, or a knowing smile. If she retorts with something passive-aggressive like, “Geez, I’m just trying to be nice!” then you say, “A kiss would be nicer.” Never lose your frame of reference that this about her accepting your good and blessed desire to love her wholly, and that means physically, and that means sex! This isn’t about her being right, or good, or nice, or anything other than her being fully accepting of her husband as wives ought to be.

All the while: be praying for her. It will do you both good. We have been given no occasion to mistreat our spouses, for we are called to love even our enemies…which sometimes our spouses are. Bear in ming that loving them does not mean doing what they want. It means doing what is best for them.

Finally, stop masturbating to porn. It is poison. It is so tempting because those dead soulless pictures of dead soulless women exist to please you, and that is what you most desire from your wife. Do not let them pervert your good and natural desire. It will corrupt you, and has negative effects mentally, physically, and spiritually.

*I encourage you, dear readers, please: By all means look beyond the verse I’ve quoted to the whole context of the book of Hosea. It’s about a man who marries a harlot who scorns him, and how that is a symbol for how God’s people have abandoned the love of their life; who has provided all for them, forsaken others for them, and Who–with long-suffering–desires for them to be reconciled to Him.

**And she will, because she will dread the thought of actually being “that bad”, and therefore unlovable–the one true horror of women._


----------



## Chris Taylor (Jul 22, 2010)

If you and your spouse are Christians, you might want to look at Focus on the Family. There's a write up I saw talking about why men need sex in marriages.

I hesitate to suggest it to anyone else because it really is religious-based and sometimes that, or Focus on the Family, can push people away.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Chris Taylor said:


> If you and your spouse are Christians, you might want to look at Focus on the Family. There's a write up I saw talking about why men need sex in marriages.
> 
> I hesitate to suggest it to anyone else because it really is religious-based and sometimes that, or Focus on the Family, can push people away.


I actually read Love Must Be Tough by James Dobson who founded Focus On The Family. I've been to the FOTF site and they're current "philosophy" seems to come up a little short IMO. Maybe that's why I was so intrigued by Cane Caldo's post. It seems to parallel Dobson's approach somewhat but is more concise and direct.


----------



## kjvonly (Jan 3, 2013)

Good post! Will have to file away for future use


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

I think it's wonderful advice.

I completely agree that the wife who no longer has satisfying sex with her husband has become a non-believer. I would have liked that post to go a little further and note that if a non-believer bails on the marriage, he is free to let her go and find someone else with a clear conscience.

One caveat though: the columnist/advice-giver admits that he does not have much sex with his wife. Further, it is her choice for the marriage to be that way. The way he phrased it makes it sound like he does not like that situation.

The Bible does say to accept a non-believing spouse who wants to remain with you. But, women will not tolerate that treament for long periods. We are all married for self-benefit. A woman who avoids sex yet remains married seeks a more selfish benefit like financial support, avoiding loneliness, etc. Those benefits would diminish, eliminating most advantage to the marriage.

So, it's extremely likely that the advice-giver proposes taking a strong stand, but has failed to follow his own advice and put his own house in order. I think that's a bad situation, because it can lead to situations where he gives bad advice (not the case here) or where he discusses action but not consequences (that's why I noted letting her go if necessary).

In my church, if this guy was open about having an unhappy marriage, neither he nor his wife would be welcomed to serve in an official position or invited to give advice, with good reason.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

DTO said:


> I think it's wonderful advice.
> 
> I completely agree that the wife who no longer has satisfying sex with her husband has become a non-believer. I would have liked that post to go a little further and note that if a non-believer bails on the marriage, he is free to let her go and find someone else with a clear conscience.
> 
> ...


Actually I didn't see where the author said he did not have sex with his wife. Can you please point it out. It's possible I missed that.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

DTO said:


> The Bible does say to accept a non-believing spouse who wants to remain with you. But, women will not tolerate that treament for long periods.


Curious about this sentence :scratchhead:


----------



## kjvonly (Jan 3, 2013)

ocotillo said:


> Curious about this sentence :scratchhead:


Ya, me too. Here's the text being referenced and notice this is Paul speaking, not the Lord:

*1 Corinthians 7:12* But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
*13* And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
*14* For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
*15* But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such _cases_: but God hath called us to peace.
*16* For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save _thy_ husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save _thy_ wife? 

I'm curious about the "wives won't tolerate" part


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

bfree said:


> Actually I didn't see where the author said he did not have sex with his wife. Can you please point it out. It's possible I missed that.


Hi there,

My apologies. I read it too quickly and missed that the church pastor was not the columnist, but the guy the advice-seeker spoke with before writing in to the advice line.

Nonetheless, having the youth pastor in that situation is a terrible circumstance. This guy is a church leader; it sends the message this behavior is covertly (if not overtly) approved.

You don't have much authority if you can't apply the prinicples to your own life.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

kjvonly said:


> Ya, me too. Here's the text being referenced and notice this is Paul speaking, not the Lord:
> 
> *1 Corinthians 7:12* But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
> *13* And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
> ...


Sorry I was unclear. My comment has nothing to do with the biblical principle.

I was simply noting that the advice-seeker's wife would not tolerate being on the receiving end of the "180" (the behavior that the advice-giver was recommending). By this I mean the lack of non-sexual affection, minimizing her impact on his life (doing the chores and setting the budget he wants), etc.

My experience, and what I've read online, has made me realize two things. First, a significant number of women resent being told they are bad in bed, and moreso being held accountable for it - even if it's true. That's partly why you get so many excuses of "well, I'm happy with it", "I don't want to do that", "sex is not important", and so on, rather than an effort to fix the problem.

Second, programs like the 180 are good at changing relationship dynamics. But, it's far from certain taking the advice from this columnist will start a journey towards the sex life the advice-seeker wants. His wife could resist his attempts and fight him on this (as my ex did). His wife might make some effort then realize that she would rather move on than have better sex (again, as my ex did). Or, she could just step off right away and leave him hanging.

I was willing to risk my relationship rather than exist in perpetual sexual dissatisfaction. But, not everyone is willing to make that risk. Having lived out the 180 and seen how it can go, I feel it's important that folks "count the cost" of that course of action. This lady won't tolerate being minimized forever, the guy needs to know that he could be ending his marriage by doing the 180.


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

In my personal experience the approach recommended by the author is a recipe to make sex a source of further struggles and enmity, not love and sharing.

Such successes as my wife and I have had sexually come from seeking to please each other in a broader context, not from going to war.

Such attempts as I made with strategies like those listed by the author led only to further struggles.

Being a Christian does not change the basic dynamics of sexual attraction, but it can create a whole lot of issues with guilt. Why exacerbate that?


----------



## Elk87 (Oct 8, 2012)

Wazza said:


> In my personal experience the approach recommended by the author is a recipe to make sex a source of further struggles and enmity, not love and sharing.
> 
> Such successes as my wife and I have had sexually come from seeking to please each other in a broader context, not from going to war.
> 
> ...


I don't think it's about "going to war," so much as it is honestly stating your needs & taking action based on that honesty. For some marriages, sex may not be a critical aspect for either partner, and that is fine. But if one partner has a major need that is EXPECTED to be a part of marriage & it's not being met, then it's only logical that the withholding spouse would face some natural consequences. For example, the husband that drinks too much, neglects fatherly duties (like leadership, parenting, financial responsibility, etc.) should probably expect some kickback from his wife. Only natural. If the person who is not meeting the need is apathetic to change then I would question their love & commitment to the marriage.


----------



## Elk87 (Oct 8, 2012)

In addition, in a Christian marriage, if a spouse brings up an area of the marriage that seems to be non-biblical then the other person should be open & willing to hear about it, discuss it & take appropriate action as needed. Inaction reveals lack of commitment to the marriage & God (IMO). 

I'm not saying I'm perfect either (far from it!), but if my wife brings something up to me about me not leading Christ-centered life then you can bet i'll want to address it!


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

She rejects him (no sex) so he rejects her (no physical contact). 

She seeks affection - a kiss - so he tries agressively to escalate it into sex. Each focused on their own needs. Each rejecting the ther when their needs are not met.

Been there, done that, monkeyboy. All it did was breed resentment.

Am I alone in that experience? Read the post directly above my last one, especially the end of it.


----------



## Elk87 (Oct 8, 2012)

Wazza said:


> She rejects him (no sex) so he rejects her (no physical contact).
> 
> She seeks affection - a kiss - so he tries agressively to escalate it into sex. Each focused on their own needs. Each rejecting the ther when their needs are not met.
> 
> ...


I should clarify my position as someone who doesn't agree 100% with the all the specifics of the original post, but do agree with the framework/mindset. Apologies for not being more clear. I would NOT reject my wife's advance of holding hands, hugging, etc. at an initial stage. I would take that as a symbol of her trying to remedy the problem. I also wouldn't pursue sex at that point either because it's highly possible that she'd just perform "duty sex" or sex out of resentment anyway. I would likely do that if separation/divorce was imminent & the love was lost, but I don't think that is what we are talking about. 

Like I indicated, I think it's absolutely ok to not accept "duty sex," and state your expectations within the marriage, particularly when they are biblical. Yes, one must be willing to cite it as SIGNIFICANTLY IMPORTANT, a deal-breaker & then follow through. 

I don't want to act like a child, stop living up to my expectations in the marriage & breed resentment, but I also won't sit idly by while my wife flushes our love & marriage down the toilet because of her lack of respect for my needs. I certainly wouldn't dismiss her needs...well, except her need to have boring or no sex, but that need is not from God.


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

Does duty sex satisfy Paul's stipulations in Corinthians? 

I cannot see the logic of demanding that my wife has to want sex because I want it, but if she doesn't want it and gives for my sake, isn't that duty sex?


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

DTO said:


> Hi there,
> 
> My apologies. I read it too quickly and missed that the church pastor was not the columnist, but the guy the advice-seeker spoke with before writing in to the advice line.
> 
> ...


Ok, I see what you meant now. I totally agree. That pastor should not be even attemting to give advice in matters of sex. But the author of the article was dead on IMO.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Wazza said:


> Does duty sex satisfy Paul's stipulations in Corinthians?
> 
> I cannot see the logic of demanding that my wife has to want sex because I want it, but if she doesn't want it and gives for my sake, isn't that duty sex?


That is why the author stated that the person he was responding to didn't have a sex problem he had a love problem.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Wazza said:


> In my personal experience the approach recommended by the author is a recipe to make sex a source of further struggles and enmity, not love and sharing.
> 
> Such successes as my wife and I have had sexually come from seeking to please each other in a broader context, not from going to war.
> 
> ...


So you disagree that the couple being advised have a love problem? Wouldn't the wife want to fulfill her husband's sexual needs if she loved him? And if you are going to tell me that she obviously just has a low sex drive then I ask you to explain those women (and there are many) who do not have sex with their husbands saying they just don't like sex but then have an affair where they have sex with their AP several times a day.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Wazza said:


> Does duty sex satisfy Paul's stipulations in Corinthians?
> 
> I cannot see the logic of demanding that my wife has to want sex because I want it, but if she doesn't want it and gives for my sake, isn't that duty sex?


According to the author:

St. Paul is not obliging TM’s wife to have sex with him; he is removing the false narrative that good Christians don’t have great sex. They certainly do, and to deny one another is to deny not only the flesh, but God’s intent, as well. The implication then is that TM’s wife has, in fact, become a non-believer in their marriage. She is a like a priest who has rejected her religion, but still pays tithe out of superstition.

And to speak to one of your earlier points, yes this approach could in fact lead to divorce. But in Biblical terms if you are married to an unbeliever and they wish to stay with you, keep them. But if an unbeliever walks away, let them go. If she is breaking God's covenant by refusing to have sex with her husband then she is an unbeliever and if she walks, she walks. At least that is how it should be determined from a Biblical perspective.


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

bfree said:


> So you disagree that the couple being advised have a love problem? Wouldn't the wife want to fulfill her husband's sexual needs if she loved him? And if you are going to tell me that she obviously just has a low sex drive then I ask you to explain those women (and there are many) who do not have sex with their husbands saying they just don't like sex but then have an affair where they have sex with their AP several times a day.


You are going to ask me to explain human sexuality and desire....I wish I could 

There is love, there is lust and there is infatuation and they all interrelate. Dunno that there is a single rule for the phenomenon you describe.


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

bfree said:


> According to the author:
> 
> St. Paul is not obliging TM’s wife to have sex with him; he is removing the false narrative that good Christians don’t have great sex. They certainly do, and to deny one another is to deny not only the flesh, but God’s intent, as well. The implication then is that TM’s wife has, in fact, become a non-believer in their marriage. She is a like a priest who has rejected her religion, but still pays tithe out of superstition.
> 
> And to speak to one of your earlier points, yes this approach could in fact lead to divorce. But in Biblical terms if you are married to an unbeliever and they wish to stay with you, keep them. But if an unbeliever walks away, let them go. If she is breaking God's covenant by refusing to have sex with her husband then she is an unbeliever and if she walks, she walks. At least that is how it should be determined from a Biblical perspective.


Huh? So not being horny is equivalent to rejecting God? Or duty sex can be great sex? Which is it?


----------



## CuddleBug (Nov 26, 2012)

I am a God fearing man "Christian" but don't consider myself worthy to be called a Christian.

I've always had a high sex drive, since my early teens (technically still a virgin).

Whether I believed or not, still high sex drive.

Hubby fulfills his marital duty to his wifee and vise versa. 

Hubby's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wifee and vise versa.

"Do not deprive each other (sexual) except by mutual consent."
Obviously, you don't force your other half to have sex but "mutual consent" is key here.


If a believer has a non believer wife, he must not divorce her and vise versa.

Unbelieving husband or wife have been sanctified through the believing husband or wife (with kids).


That's what I read some time ago.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Wazza said:


> Huh? So not being horny is equivalent to rejecting God? Or duty sex can be great sex? Which is it?


Being horny doesn't always correspond to having sex. There are times when my wife is not "horny" but we have sex anyway because she knows I desire her and she wants to please me. She also knows that sex can be comfortable and comforting so it doesn't always have to be hot and horny sex. And sometimes you can start out with duty sex but really get into it and the sex can end up great. That happens quite often for us and believe it or not there are times when I am extremely tired and would like to sleep but she "jumps my bones" and I end up enjoying the sex.

I think the problem you are having is accepting the biblical principle regarding sex that the author is trying to convey. I do not go to church but I do consider myself a Christian and consider myself conservative in many respects. I can understand what he is tring to communicate even though (thankfully) it doesn't necessarily apply in my marriage.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

CuddleBug said:


> I am a God fearing man "Christian" but don't consider myself worthy to be called a Christian.
> 
> I've always had a high sex drive, since my early teens (technically still a virgin).
> 
> ...


Yup.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

bfree said:


> Ok, I see what you meant now. I totally agree. That pastor should not be even attemting to give advice in matters of sex. But the author of the article was dead on IMO.


I definitely agree about the advice being dead on. I just think there should be a disclaimer that this a strong action that will drive change but with no guarantee of success.


----------



## Elk87 (Oct 8, 2012)

DTO said:


> I definitely agree about the advice being dead on. I just think there should be a disclaimer that this a strong action that will drive change but with no guarantee of success.


Absolutely! It will not guarantee that a spouse will change. Because, truly, if they are already apathetic about meeting your needs it may be because they are not committed to you & the marriage, so they may have already checked out. This truth will be brought to light though, one way or the other.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

CuddleBug said:


> If a believer has a non believer wife, he must not divorce her and vise versa.
> 
> Unbelieving husband or wife have been sanctified through the believing husband or wife (with kids).


If a believer has a non believer wife, he must not divorce her and vice versa, _but if the non-believer chooses to depart you should let him or her go and you are not under any obligation_.

The italicized part is key, for two reasons:

1) Given that sexual satisfaction is a responsibility, a refuser has already "departed" the marriage in a sense. I would contend that, Biblically, sexual refusal is on a par with adultery, yet no one would suggest that this guy continue to let his wife stay if she went out and screwed other guys then came home at night.

2) The actions recommended by the columnist are not making the refusing wife leave. The husband would just be refusing to live in an un-Christian marriage. His wife is being reminded of her responsibility but is not being forced to have sex with him.

Said differently, there is no vicious cycle here (as suggested elsewhere on this thread). The husband is willing to meet her needs if she will do the same (and she will be told exactly this). At that point, she can agree that is fair and set about getting herself to a place where she enjoys sex with him. Or, she can insist on being treated well while depriving him of sex, and continue to be 180'ed and reap the consequence of selfishness.

Now, she may choose to divorce him. But, again, if she does then he should just let her walk away and understand he is free to start over with someone who actually wants to be with him.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

Zanne said:


> I respectfully disagree with the advice that was given to TM because it sounds like the trouble is his wife's attitude toward sex. Who knows what her upbringing was like? Maybe she thinks sex is nasty. He doesn't say. But he did mention that they have NEVER had a fulfilling sex life and, "She has a ton of stipulations and rules." So in this case, I think the husband would be better off dealing with the wife's issues about sex.
> 
> Also? He can't leave his "unbelieving" wife. ("And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, *and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband*. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." 1 Corinthians 7:13-14)


First of all, he is not leaving his wife, nor is he forcing her to leave. No where did the advice say "move out", "check out completely", or anything of the sort. He is just having her make a decision: willingly stay and become a sexual wife, or willingly leave and let him go on to someone who actually wants him.

As long as he is not the cause of her dislike of sex (say through poor technique, poor hygenie, etc.) the reason is irrelevant. Because, no matter what the cause, the solution is entirely up to her. She is the one who needs to get over her hangups, get to the doctor, get counseling, etc. Up to now she has known the lack of sex hurts him deeply, but has chosen to ignore her issues because it was the easiest option available.

Now, she can continue to ignore her issues, but it will come at a cost. I agree that, from her perspective, she has to choose between two unpalatable alternatives. Sometimes there is no substitute for hard work. Also, both of her choices (get well or leave) are better than him remaining sexually unsatisfied.

Bottom line, there are only three options here: she fixes herself, she leaves and he can then find someone else, or things stay as they are now and he remains frustrated. This last option is the worst - by far.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

DTO said:


> I definitely agree about the advice being dead on. I just think there should be a disclaimer that this a strong action that will drive change but with no guarantee of success.


Well, there are never any guarantees in life are there?


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Zanne said:


> I realize the advice given to TM wasn't a suggestion for him to leave the marriage, or for her to leave. But someone else made a good point that the wife would most likely leave after she got tired of the 180 stance.
> 
> I'm not sure if I'm on board with the attitude that, "sexual refusal is on a par with adultery" and as such the wife is an unbeliever. I think that's a stretch.
> 
> Also I think it's unrealistic to think that the wife would realize that there is something wrong with her. She probably thinks the opposite and her lot in life is to please her husband. Again, depends on how she was raised and if they are really conservative. Ideally she would be able to talk to another Christian woman about marriage issues.


You're right, she should be seeking assistance from other Christians but if she is an unbeliever or if she refuses to seek help the husband doesn't have much recourse. The advice given was to the husband so that he can try to create a crisis point. Sometimes a crisis point is needed before an epiphany occurs. The advice given was designed to shake things up in order to bring attention to the problem and to show how serious it is. I'm not saying the advice is perfect or even correct in all circumstances but taking some action is better than living in limbo.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Zanne said:


> I respectfully disagree with the advice that was given to TM because it sounds like the trouble is his wife's attitude toward sex. Who knows what her upbringing was like? Maybe she thinks sex is nasty. He doesn't say. But he did mention that they have NEVER had a fulfilling sex life and, "She has a ton of stipulations and rules." So in this case, I think the husband would be better off dealing with the wife's issues about sex.


If the wife has sexual issues she should seek help so that she is upholding the covenant of the marriage and not disobeying God. If she refuses then she is disobeying God and therefore is an unbeliever.


----------



## Elk87 (Oct 8, 2012)

bfree said:


> You're right, she should be seeking assistance from other Christians but if she is an unbeliever or if she refuses to seek help the husband doesn't have much recourse. The advice given was to the husband so that he can try to create a crisis point. Sometimes a crisis point is needed before an epiphany occurs. The advice given was designed to shake things up in order to bring attention to the problem and to show how serious it is. I'm not saying the advice is perfect or even correct in all circumstances but taking some action is better than living in limbo.


Your words ring so much truth with me! Thank you.:thumbup:


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

My bottom line is that mismatched libidos are a common issue in long term relationships, and they don't mean the person with lesser libido is at fault.

I just think lots of people are extrapolating things form the Corinthian passage that are simply not there, however much they might wish otherwise.

From a strictly biblical standpoint, not enough sex is not an acceptable reason for divorce.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Wazza said:


> My bottom line is that mismatched libidos are a common issue in long term relationships, and they don't mean the person with lesser libido is at fault.
> 
> I just think lots of people are extrapolating things form the Corinthian passage that are simply not there, however much they might wish otherwise.
> 
> From a strictly biblical standpoint, not enough sex is not an acceptable reason for divorce.


You haven't been following the discussion? In the case that the author wrote about the wife did not want to have sex with the husband. Since she is denying her body from him then she is violating God's will correct? If she continues to violate God's will she is in fact a non believer. If she is a non believer than no he should not divorce her. But the author gives the husband a plan he can follow to try to bring the issue to a head. If she decides to leave the marriage then the husband should let her go since she is a non believer. I understand that following the Bible and God's word can be difficult but it is what it is.

Now I can understand how a low drive person would not want to continually keep up with a high drive person. But if both spouses love each other then a compromise can and should be reached. Too often this issue becomes a power play with each spouse trying to win and the low drive spouse refusing to compromise at all. However, if we are just discussing the Biblical views on marriage and sex the answer is pretty clear.


----------



## Elk87 (Oct 8, 2012)

I just posted an update to another thread I was utilizing and began a while back, but thought I'd put it here too, as it really really really relates:

So tonight, this happened:

I told my wife that I did not feel satisfied with our sex life. She responded with, "Well, what else is new!? I can never satisfy you!" I told her that was untrue, and that the first several years of our marriage, even after our first child, I was just fine and never complained. She said the fact that I bring this up makes her insecure and really not want to have sex with me because she's worried I'll be critiquing and scoring her, and that she's been "trying" lately with sex but now feels defeated by her efforts. I explained that I'm not telling her if she's "trying" or not (maybe she is on some level), only that I have unmet needs, and there's no reason why I shouldn't be able to honestly express my needs. She questioned if I just wanted more sex and thought that once per week was just fine. I clarified that it's really not about our quantity, but quality, and much of the time she's not even comfortable during sex - I can tell.

I told her we should be challenging ourselves at this point (8 years of marriage) to keep passion and intimacy alive. She said she didn't know what that looks like in my mind. I told her she does and I've already said it - that it's like our first few years of marriage (nothing weird, just excitement, comfort, oral sex, pleasuring one another, etc.). She said she didn't feel that way anymore and lots of women are like her, so she maybe she should just back to "faking." In actuality, my sexual needs or desires have not changed one bit since we've been together for the last 10 years. Hers have. That doesn't mean I'm unwilling to budge or compromise, but I also shouldn't have to just go with her zero sex drive either. 

I told her to not bother "faking" interest in an intimate & sexually active relationship with me, and instead maybe it would be better to just not have sex for a while until such time (if ever) we can feel passionate together again. She also said she feels like I'm just looking for reasons to divorce. I didn't respond to this. 

I'm typing a lot of stuff here, but truly I did not use a ton of words with her - I was careful not to do so. I also exhibited limited emotional reaction, even when she was breaking down in tears about how she is a failure in her job, vulnerable, etc. I showed absolutely no frustration or anger, that's for sure. At most, I only gave confusing looks when she'd bring up divorce, not knowing what I wanted, that I want sex every day, etc.

By the way, as a Christian man I did a TON of reading, praying and thinking about how to approach this issue in our marriage.


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

bfree said:


> You haven't been following the discussion?


Not agreeing is not the same as not following 



bfree said:


> In the case that the author wrote about the wife did not want to have sex with the husband. Since she is denying her body from him then she is violating God's will correct?


We had moved beyond that, I thought, with a discussion of passion vs duty sex. 



bfree said:


> If she continues to violate God's will she is in fact a non believer.


Not true. Disobedience/sin and unbelief are not the same thing. You want me to start citing verses? There are many, but the basic thesis of the Christian gospel is we are all disobedient/sinful. Start with the whole theme of Romans. Romans 3:23 is not awash with ambiguity on this point. So unless we are all unbelievers, your thesis cannot be correct.




bfree said:


> If she is a non believer than no he should not divorce her. But the author gives the husband a plan he can follow to try to bring the issue to a head.


And my starting point was to say that the plan was likely to do damage. 




bfree said:


> If she decides to leave the marriage then the husband should let her go since she is a non believer. I understand that following the Bible and God's word can be difficult but it is what it is.


Noting that I do not agree she is an unbeliever!!!!!!!! I also point out that her leaving the marriage is not the same as him kicking her out. Disobedience to Corinthians is NOT biblical permission for divorce.

My bottom line is to say that what you are saying is NOT what God's word says, since you based it all on "she is an unbeliever" which is not true.




bfree said:


> Now I can understand how a low drive person would not want to continually keep up with a high drive person. But if both spouses love each other then a compromise can and should be reached. Too often this issue becomes a power play with each spouse trying to win and the low drive spouse refusing to compromise at all. However, if we are just discussing the Biblical views on marriage and sex the answer is pretty clear.


What is the clear answer? That the LD person must enthusiastically participate to the level required by the HD person, else they are an unbeliever?

Bfree, let's boil it down.

The bible says don't deny my wife. If she wants sex every day for a year, and I participate once, have I been true to 1Corinthians? IF she wants sex every day and I participate 364 days and deny her once, have I keep the spirit? What is the magic number?

You were right, the issue is love. But beyond that, I just think it is more complex than you advise.

And I believe the original poster's suggestions are not about love, but about power.

I cannot see how it is constructive to associate being LD with being sinful.


----------



## Elk87 (Oct 8, 2012)

Zanne said:


> In Monkeyboy's case, he approached his wife, but I don't think she feels enlightened. To her, it felt like a personal attack. She even said, "I can never satisfy you!" So, I don't think the advice given to TM will work for Monkeyboy, at least not at this point. And it wouldn't work in my own marriage. IMHO, of course.


It's possible that she's just not enlightened _yet_, and then again it's possible she will never truly understand what I am saying. She has a bit of a sexual block, and I know this because she makes comments (more than once) that sometimes she thinks I should just go get a hooker. Clearly she's given little merit to what I've said in the past about the importance of intimacy, and what's more is that she's not done any reading or studying on the subject. She just thinks I'm physically horny all the time and should "fix it" somehow because it's _my_ problem. Even her statement of "I can never satisfy you" is completely false. I was satisfied for the first several years of marriage and never made one complaint in our sex lives. I am really only asking that she put forth some effort into improving our comfortability and closeness in the marriage bed, and that together we "challenge" this area of our marriage. 

Like you said though, she might not ever be enlightened - that is true. Her block may be too major. I know that I cannot survive the next 50 years of marriage in a non-sexual relationship. It's an important part of who I am and has always been. Either she makes it important to her too because she loves me, or she does not.


----------



## Elk87 (Oct 8, 2012)

Her excuse for not wanting to or not enjoying things like oral sex, having the lights on, wearing lingerie for me, really pleasuring each other is only that she doesn't "feel that way anymore." That things are "different since having kids." I'm challenging her to challenge those feelings and really focus on putting our marriage at the forefront of her heart & mind, as it should be. Not sure why she's having trouble even doing that - maybe she simply doesn't love me anymore but doesn't want to be the one to say it. 

Again, I'm not even saying I must have things the way they were in year 1 of our marriage, but that we put forth some effort into bringing back the sexual spark. She's just naysaying at this point though.

As for other problems, there really truly aren't any. We've always gotten along well, have been great friends, have a good time on date nights and things like that, etc. 

She complains of being miserable in her job, thinking she's a "bad mom," physically unattractive/fat (she's not!), and generally feeling like a failure in life. I do all I can do build her up in those ways like giving compliments, being supportive, being a good listener and all of that. Beyond that I feel like those are areas she has to figure out, and when she needs help and support from me I'm here for that too.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

MB,

I think you took the first step in trying to explain to your wife how serious you view this issue. If she has issues with sex it is her responsibility to seek answers. You can certainly help her with that but she needs to make the decision to take action. Now, since you cannot control her I would suggest that you follow up with actions of your own. I don;t have all the answers and every situation is of course different. What I would suggest is that you talk to others than are in or have been in your exact situation.

There is another forum that deals almost exclusively with these issues. Both men and women post there and both low drive and high drive individuals talk about how they worked out or are working out their differences. I think it would be a great resource for you. Incidentally, I have posted there on occasion. I'll post the link below.

Married Man Sex Life Forum

You should also know that a lot of Christians post there and can help you to make sure what you do is compatible with your beliefs.


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

monkeyboy said:


> Her excuse for not wanting to or not enjoying things like oral sex, having the lights on, wearing lingerie for me, really pleasuring each other is only that she doesn't "feel that way anymore." That things are "different since having kids."





monkeyboy said:


> thinking she's a "bad mom," physically unattractive/fat (she's not!), and generally feeling like a failure in life. I do all I can do build her up in those ways like giving compliments, being supportive, being a good listener and all of that.


Poor self image leading to shyness in the bedroom? And fights about sex reinforcing the poor self image?

How I dealt with that was just let myself watch my wife changing, take baths together, etc. situations where she could just realise I was admiring her without sexual pressure. She eventually got that I really do think she is beautiful.


----------



## Elk87 (Oct 8, 2012)

Wazza said:


> Poor self image leading to shyness in the bedroom? And fights about sex reinforcing the poor self image?
> 
> How I dealt with that was just let myself watch my wife changing, take baths together, etc. situations where she could just realise I was admiring her without sexual pressure. She eventually got that I really do think she is beautiful.


I can appreciate all that, particularly since I've done it all. Truly, I have. She sees me admiring her body, we do baths, and I've told her in the past that it's not just about sex but it's about sex with _her_! That I love her and love sex with her. For the most part, I think she just views me as a pervert that wants to get on her. FYI: I'm not the kind of guy either to just jump on, get my rocks off, then go about whatever I was doing. I love pleasuring her, licking her, tasting her, etc. I love taking time to do those things, and we've even done so within sensual massage and stuff like that. It's a mystery to me...:scratchhead:


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Zanne said:


> Monkeyboy, I don't know your back story, but are the issues in your bedroom the only problems in your marriage?
> 
> I agree with you when you say that you cannot survive the next 50 years of marriage in a non-sexual relationship. And back to TM's story - I don't think he should settle for that either.
> 
> ...


I think you already touched on it. She is entrenched in her position and refuses to compromise. She is going to continually make excuses in order to maintain her position. What will break the logjam? It may take a crisis in order to break down the walls that have been built up. If it turns out that MB's wife is willing to let her marriage die rather than make compromises for their relationship can it be argued that she really doesn't love him or that her love is conditional based on her needs and not his being filled? Wazza asks what is the right number. This is pretty simple. The right number is halfway between what she truly wants and what he truly wants. But in MB's case I don't think his main concern is the frequency so much as the intimacy. I also get the feeling, although he hasn't said so directly, but he is very concerned that he is going to lose his attraction toward his wife and that will seriously damage their marriage. Once a man no longer desires his wife both the woman and the man suffer and I think he is trying to avoid this end scenario at all costs. My hope is that she realizes this in time and decides to put forth some effort in discovering why she has lost her desire to please her husband.


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

bfree said:


> I think you already touched on it. She is entrenched in her position and refuses to compromise. She is going to continually make excuses in order to maintain her position. What will break the logjam? It may take a crisis in order to break down the walls that have been built up. If it turns out that MB's wife is willing to let her marriage die rather than make compromises for their relationship can it be argued that she really doesn't love him or that her love is conditional based on her needs and not his being filled? Wazza asks what is the right number. This is pretty simple. The right number is halfway between what she truly wants and what he truly wants. But in MB's case I don't think his main concern is the frequency so much as the intimacy. I also get the feeling, although he hasn't said so directly, but he is very concerned that he is going to lose his attraction toward his wife and that will seriously damage their marriage. Once a man no longer desires his wife both the woman and the man suffer and I think he is trying to avoid this end scenario at all costs. My hope is that she realizes this in time and decides to put forth some effort in discovering why she has lost her desire to please her husband.


My "right number" question was about intellectual theology, technical conformance to 1Cor. Not a technique to solve a real world problem.

You are right that intimacy is the issue.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Wazza said:


> My "right number" question was about intellectual theology, technical conformance to 1Cor. Not a technique to solve a real world problem.
> 
> You are right that intimacy is the issue.


Wazza, you and I tend to approach problems from opposite angles and we often debate strongly in various threads. But you do realize the we think alike more often than not right?


----------



## Anubis (Jul 12, 2011)

I grew up agnostic at best. 

When I was 18 and in college, I met a girl who was from the buckle of the bible belt and as Christian as I had ever met. One particularly candid conversation we had stuck in my mind all these years with this exact eyebrow-raising quote "The man rules the world and the woman rules the man." That is, to the world outside the family the man is in charge and the head of the household and all that, but at home the wife wears the pants no questions asked and by whatever means necessary. This was something she got from her mom growing up in a very active churchgoing family. Interestingly enough, it's almost identical to the attitudes most South Korean women (raised there) I've met have (seems to be a cultural thing).

If the OP's wife grew up in such an environment with views similar to that, then the OP is probably not ever going to be successful in getting his wife to be more loving because (the idea that both partners needs, including sex deserve similar importance) it's just too foreign to her entrenched and reinforced worldviews. And as Zanne said, 'she may find that missing intimacy unexpectedly one day' in someone else.

Living in the deep south for many years after college, (and briefly investigating the youth born again/church going thing for myself), I saw that certainly not all serious church going / Christian women had that view, but a non-trivial number did. (Their husbands usually were semi-silently suffering).


----------



## Elk87 (Oct 8, 2012)

Anubis said:


> I grew up agnostic at best.
> 
> When I was 18 and in college, I met a girl who was from the buckle of the bible belt and as Christian as I had ever met. One particularly candid conversation we had stuck in my mind all these years with this exact eyebrow-raising quote "The man rules the world and the woman rules the man." That is, to the world outside the family the man is in charge and the head of the household and all that, but at home the wife wears the pants no questions asked and by whatever means necessary. This was something she got from her mom growing up in a very active churchgoing family. Interestingly enough, it's almost identical to the attitudes most South Korean women (raised there) I've met have (seems to be a cultural thing).
> 
> ...


Thankfully, I don't think this is my wife's view. It would be news to me if it were. She has other roadblocks in her thinking though that are certainly getting in the way...


----------



## Elk87 (Oct 8, 2012)

bfree said:


> I think you already touched on it. She is entrenched in her position and refuses to compromise. She is going to continually make excuses in order to maintain her position. What will break the logjam? It may take a crisis in order to break down the walls that have been built up. If it turns out that MB's wife is willing to let her marriage die rather than make compromises for their relationship can it be argued that she really doesn't love him or that her love is conditional based on her needs and not his being filled? Wazza asks what is the right number. This is pretty simple. The right number is halfway between what she truly wants and what he truly wants. But in MB's case I don't think his main concern is the frequency so much as the intimacy. I also get the feeling, although he hasn't said so directly, but he is very concerned that he is going to lose his attraction toward his wife and that will seriously damage their marriage. Once a man no longer desires his wife both the woman and the man suffer and I think he is trying to avoid this end scenario at all costs. My hope is that she realizes this in time and decides to put forth some effort in discovering why she has lost her desire to please her husband.


Couldn't have said it better myself. She _is_ losing me. I'd love to fight that as much as I can, but it's not a solo project. She has to join me in saving our marriage.


----------



## Elk87 (Oct 8, 2012)

Zanne said:


> I think you could follow the advice that was given to TM, if that's what you are in fact doing. I'm not sure if you started it right? Also, why didn't you console her when she was upset about her job and feeling vulnerable? I'm not sure if that helped your cause.


Yes, I feel I've begun the process that TM described. When she cited being upset about her job and stuff I said to her, "I know and I know it's been hard. What can I do for you with all that?" She replied, "Nothing. I don't need anything from you." There was a bit of anger in that statement and also self-defeat. So I did try to recognize and console. At the same time, I didn't want us to get off track or into an area where I found myself apologizing for bringing this up because I know things are tough. I've done that before (my fault) and then she just thinks it's _my_ problem and it goes unresolved. Truth is, there would have never been a good time for me to bring this up. She'd be equally hurt if she was in a job she loved.


----------



## Elk87 (Oct 8, 2012)

Zanne said:


> I think she still feels that it is your problem, or she at least _wants_ to believe that. Maybe that's the reason for her anger. And maybe what you're saying is finally getting to her and she doesn't want to admit it.


Really, I can only guess, as she is barely talking to me still. I'm praying that she climbs out of her defeat shell, finds comfort in Christ-centered women to consult & starts to put it together as God intends. 

In the meantime, I am mentally preparing for the worst, but praying for divine intervention. I've said it before: Apathy regarding my needs is truly transparent & I won't continue in a marriage facade that isn't built on love. I won't do it for me & I won't subject my kids to that & have them believe it is the norm.

I want to restate something here: that I am not looking for a total turnaround & a sex/intimacy-crazed wife. I am looking for her to value my needs, desires & wants at such a level that she will initiate _some action._


----------



## kcjones (Jan 15, 2013)

I would be hesitant to provide the OP's story to someone involved in a sexless marriage. I also don't like the "Non-Believer" label being attached to the wife in the story. Refusing a spouse sex is sinful, but sin is sin, since the refused also struggles with different sins, but sin nonetheless. 

When a spouse is refusing sex, the other spouse has to clear the air and bring the subject up to the forefront imediately. Then the refused spouse has to evaluate the refuser's intentions of changing. If change looks unlikely, then the refused has to decide to stay/suffer or divorce. 

The christian angle comes from the idea that the refuser is under a biblical mandate to change. There may also be family and friends who can appeal to the refuser to help them see the error of their ways. Marriage counseling is only helpful when both spouses participate. Timing is crucial, if the refused waits too long to confront the refuser, bitterness will set in and the chances of reconciliation becomes nearly impossible. 

Being a christian couple is a huge advantage to those in sexless marriages, but if divorce isn't put on the table, the refuser will rarely be compelled to make the needed change.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Wazza,

I did want to respond to a few of your points here but just haven't had the chance until now.

You asked whether duty sex qualifies as living up to the Corinthians passage. My reply is it depends on what you consider duty sex.


First thing I will state is that I feel the Bible doesn't need interpretation. God does not speak in riddles. It means what it says and if one chooses to deny part of the Bible that person is not a Christian. Also, I NEVER ask for sex. Sex in my house is always a default yes. Obviously there are times when one of us is sick and sex is off the table but unless that has been clearly stated long before bedtime, sex happens. I will also state that I am definitely the more HD person in the relationship and even though my wife does enjoy sex a lot I would never turn down sex with her (yes I am that attracted to her still.) Sometimes my wife is tired after a long day at work or with the kids. She would prefer to just go to sleep. But she knows I want sex with her so even though she is tired she gives it whatever energy she can. This is what I would consider duty sex. Understand that I know she is tired and I also know she is having sex to fulfill my needs. That means she is having duty sex but it comes from a place of love. It is also not our normal sexual routine so although it may not be as satisfying as our normal activities it is still good sex because, again, it is coming from a place of love. Now if by duty sex you are referring to "let me just lie here and not move while you jam it in me a few times and hurry up and get off of me" sex then no that is not satisfying sex. It does not come from a place of love so it does not satisfy the Corinthians passage.

_1 Corinthians 7:4: The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife._

If her body is his and his body is hers than sex should always occur from a place of love. This is pretty basic.

Now before you ask the other strawman question so many bring up no that does not mean a husband should force himself on his wife. But you also must understand that the Bible does not recognize marital rape. So from a strictly Biblical perspective its not wrong. But in reality if a wife is providing terrible sex as I described or making her husband choose not to force himself on her she is sinning. He should not have to make those choices. You might ask why? That brings up the other part of Corinthians. The reason why neither party should deny sex to the other.

_1 Corinthians 7:5: Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinence._

So by denying sex we are actually tempting our loved one to sin. Before you ask, no I am not using this as an excuse for infidelity. Obviously there is no excuse. But if you are married there should never be temptation to stray. Period.

You also talked about sinners vs. unbelievers. Here is my opinion. You said we are all sinners. That is true. But you left out the most important part. Repentance. If you sin you must repent of your sin. If I repeatedly commit the same sin over and over I cannot be repentant. If I kill someone and then go to Church and say I am sorry but then go right out and kill again, have I repented? Am I a believer. Am I saved? No. Before you ask, yes I am comparing denial of sex to murder. Here's why. Since we have seen that denial of sex can lead to temptation if that temptation results in infidelity the marriage is in danger of ending. If someone denies their spouse sex that also threatens the marriage. We all know that when a marriage ends grieving takes place. It is very comparable to the death of a loved one. So if you do something to kill a marriage I feel that is on par with murder.

Sin is bad enough but when your sin directly affects someone else it is even more deplorable. You might say, God has an infinite ability to forgive sin. But we are not God. And I will also state that God does not have an unlimited amount of patience either. Recall the story of Hosea. I will copy what Machiavelli wrote in another thread as it sums it up rather nicely.

_....the Book of Hosea, was the story of the PROPHET Hosea. A prophet in Israel was a guy who YHWH (that would be God) spoke to directly. Hosea, being an adult Israelite man, already had a wife or two when he was commanded by YHWH to marry a particular wh0re named Gomer. Hosea was instructed to clean her up and try to make her behave. He went and got her out of wh0rehouses a couple of times, IIRC. Then YHWH had Hosea show that this was done to demonstrate God's relationship with Israel (the 10 northern tribes) who continual went after the false gods of her neighbors. Hosea's ordeal was commanded by God for a very specific purpose; to demonstrate God's love and offer of forgiveness to Israel. It was an object lesson to call Israel back to God.

Now that you know the purpose of the book, you might be asking yourself, "so how did that work out for God and Israel?"
Other books of the Bible tell us that Israel continued to "wh0re" after the false gods and never returned to YHWH. God had Israel destroyed and her people scattered and absorbed by those around them. Today we call them the Ten Lost Tribes. God said in Jeremiah 3:8, I have given a bill of divorcement to Israel._

So even God does not always forgive and even God divorces. My feeling is that if someone continually sins and commits the same sin repeatedly they are not a believer because they are not repenting of their sin. So if a spouse continually denies the other spouse sex they are repeatedly committing the same sin and therefore are not Christian.

So to sum up. If you deny sex to your spouse you are an unbeliever for all the reasons stated. You are engaged in continual sin and not repentant. You are hurting your spouse and slowly killing the marriage. My original post gives spouses in this situation a way for them to try to resolve the issue and at the very least bring it to a head. And I think its better to do that than live in a perpetual loveless marriage.


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

Bfree, there is a lot in your post and I shall mull it over after observing one area where I am very strong on what I believe.

As a Christian I keep sinning. Paul explores this in Romans ch 7. The whole chapter but especially v14 to the end. 

I don't see this fitting with your idea of someone who continues to sin being an unbeliever.

Beyond that, I need to think.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Wazza said:


> Bfree, there is a lot in your post and I shall mull it over after observing one area where I am very strong on what I believe.
> 
> As a Christian I keep sinning. Paul explores this in Romans ch 7. The whole chapter but especially v14 to the end.
> 
> ...


We all continue to sin. That is not in question. But where does repentance fit in?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

bfree said:


> We all continue to sin. That is not in question. But where does repentance fit in?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I need to think.

You know, for years I've read all the biblical allegory comparing our treatment of God to how a wh0re treats their spouse, and for years I have lived with the pain of my wife's affair. Today as a result of your post I joined those two up in my heart for the first time. He must love us so much to forgive us. 

My wife knows I reconciled once but will not do so again. Where would I be if God took that line with me?


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

But God does forgive and we are not God. He has the love and patience to continually forgive. Look how many times He forgave Israel for breaking His laws and commandments? I do not pretend to carry that much love and forgiveness in my heart. I don't dare compare myself with Him. I can only do my best and when I do fail I ask for forgiveness. I also make sure to do better next time thereby not repeating my failure.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

bfree said:


> But God does forgive and we are not God. He has the love and patience to continually forgive. Look how many times He forgave Israel for breaking His laws and commandments? I do not pretend to carry that much love and forgiveness in my heart. I don't dare compare myself with Him. I can only do my best and when I do fail I ask for forgiveness. I also make sure to do better next time thereby not repeating my failure.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


True, but there is a lot the to ponder. Well, for me at least.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Zanne said:


> Bfree, *I still don't think that a person is an unbeliever if they deny sex to their spouse*. But you do make some very good points.
> 
> I agree with you completely on the love angle, because, "Love never fails." When you don't keep love as your compass, you allow selfishness, resentment, etc. to creep into your relationship. When we don't love, we are disobeying God. You could maaaaybe stretch that to say one is an unbeliever, I guess.


You know, I can fully understand how you feel this way. Some parts of the Bible are very shocking and difficult to accept, especially in light of our modern day feminist dominated secular culture. I can take a lot of effort to get to a point where you aren't ashamed of what is being said simply because it offends some people. Sometimes it takes a lot of courage to stand by God and His word.


----------



## hope4family (Sep 5, 2012)

By unbeliever do we mean no longer a Christian? Or a person who doesn't believe in the Biblical definition of a marriage?


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

bfree said:


> You know, I can fully understand how you feel this way. Some parts of the Bible are very shocking and difficult to accept, especially in light of our modern day feminist dominated secular culture. I can take a lot of effort to get to a point where you aren't ashamed of what is being said simply because it offends some people. Sometimes it takes a lot of courage to stand by God and His word.


While I am digesting what you say, I have to point out that my disagreement with you on this point isn't that I find it shocking, but that I don't agree with your reasoning.

To me, the bible simply does not say what you are arguing it says. You have tied together two points I think are separate.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

hope4family said:


> By unbeliever do we mean no longer a Christian? Or a person who doesn't believe in the Biblical definition of a marriage?


Doesn't a Christian by definition have to accept the Bible and all that is in it? Isn't the Bible the word of God?


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Wazza said:


> While I am digesting what you say, I have to point out that my disagreement with you on this point isn't that I find it shocking, but that I don't agree with your reasoning.
> 
> To me, the bible simply does not say what you are arguing it says. You have tied together two points I think are separate.


Well, my response was directed to Zanne but if you do not accept Corinthians I guess it can apply to you as well. If both points are in the Bible how can they not be related? Isn't it all the word of God?


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

bfree said:


> Well, my response was directed to Zanne but if you do not accept Corinthians I guess it can apply to you as well. If both points are in the Bible how can they not be related? Isn't it all the word of God?


Accept Corinthians or accept your interpretation of it?


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Wazza said:


> Accept Corinthians or accept your interpretation of it?


No interpretation is necessary. It says what it says.


----------



## kcjones (Jan 15, 2013)

bfree said:


> Doesn't a Christian by definition have to accept the Bible and all that is in it? Isn't the Bible the word of God?


So all those that divorce their spouses are unbelievers according to that reasoning. FYI, the vast majority of evangelicals would never label divorcees as unbelievers solely based on that act, regardless of their interpretation of the biblical definition of marriage.


----------



## hope4family (Sep 5, 2012)

bfree said:


> Doesn't a Christian by definition have to accept the Bible and all that is in it? Isn't the Bible the word of God?


Christianity is based off of ones beliefs in Christ. Denying sex as grounds for loss of salvation is silly. A sin? Yes. Divorcible offense? Possibly. I think you are overthinking this. 

It is not a stretch to question someones faith if they live in sin.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

For all who have posted in this thread Cane Caldo has addressed many of your questions and concerns in his blog. Specifically he addresses how he in fact does indeed practice what he preaches and how the advice originally posted has worked in his marriage. He also addresses my misinterpretation of the use of the term unbeliever. Mr. Caldo in fact used the term non-believer but was referring to her non-belief in her marriage. I apologize if I mis characterized his meaning in any way. He also addresses how this negative attitude in her marriage could lead down a dangerous road. I again suggest folks go to his blog and read his follow up posts. Mr. Caldo, if you are still reading this thread I humbly request you continue to follow up on your original advice I reposted here. I feel sexless marriages are one of the major threats to Christian marriage and more time and thought needs to be devoted to this issue.

Things that We have Heard and Known | Uttering dark sayings from of old.


----------



## Elk87 (Oct 8, 2012)

I'm in the same situation. Not doing a 180, but working on changing me, thus the dynamic of the entire relationship. If W wakes up after that & joins me that is great. She is definitely invited to do so. If not, then truly there is just no love anyway.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

In his blog Cane Caldo talks about how he used the advice he gave to Tacomaster to heal his own marriage 10 years ago. If you read his blog you can see how much in love he and his wife are. So if he and his wife can bring their marriage back from the brink of divorce I think it's definitely possible for anyone to do it with God's love and a genuine commitment from both spouses.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Visexual (Nov 8, 2008)

Holy moly! OK, this is an old thread that I found through a google.

I have a very dear, and much younger, friend who is suffering with a sexless marriage. And, I might add, she's a very sexual person so I know it's really hurting her.

She is a Christian and one of the good ones. I sure know more bad ones than good ones. I'm not a Christian and she knows it and accepts me for what I am. We've been close friends for almost twenty years. She, and even my wife, refers to her as my girlfriend.

I think the only thing that keeps her from finding sex on the side is her Christianity. And it's causing even more anguish for her because her bible says it's her husbands obligation to satisfy her sexual needs. She's also told me that she would never refuse a husband sex for any reason.

This is just another case that seems, at least to me, that a religion is causing unneeded pain for someone.

And, like a lot of the posters on this thread have debated, the bible contradicts itself numerous times, especially between the old and new testaments. I've always felt that old testament bible thumpers are not Christians at all. And I loved how the acronym, WWJD, didn't last very long because those bible thumpers don't, and won't, do what he would have done.

OK, my wife isn't interested in sex any longer. And, like me, she's not a Christian but she would have sex with me if I asked because she wants to please me, not because some religion said it was her obligation and responsibility. But I don't like charity and that's what it would be. I would love to experience the wonderful pleasures of sex again but only with someone who wants to enjoy it too.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Wow, terrible advice in that article. I can totally see how a man following it would end up with a resentful wife.


----------



## foolscotton3 (Nov 13, 2014)

I am a believer (to me that means I believe Jesus is the sacrifice that cleanses me of my sins so that I can appear pure to God the father).

I also believe that marriage exist for many biblical reasons, and sex is one of those big reasons. I believe marriage gives us a sacred place for us to indulge in what would otherwise be considered sin. If someone is avoiding or withholding sex, why are you even married, divorce already.

A verse that comes to mind

_Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried,
as I do.*But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry,*for it is better to marry than to burn with passion._ - 1 Corinthians 7:8

Sent from my Z936L using Tapatalk


----------



## Mommywhatohnothing (May 30, 2016)

Is the wife obliged to continue to meet her husband's sexual needs even if he is continually and willfully refusing to meet her other needs?


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Mommywhatohnothing said:


> Is the wife obliged to continue to meet her husband's sexual needs even if he is continually and willfully refusing to meet her other needs?


Obliged or not, it is unlikely to happen if he is not meeting her needs.

The tactics in the article can work if the wife is scared to lose the husband. But if she has any self-respect, and is able to support herself, they are likely to fail, and possibly end up with the couple divorced. Thank goodness.


----------



## Phil Anders (Jun 24, 2015)

foolscotton3 said:


> I am a believer (to me that means I believe Jesus is the sacrifice that cleanses me of my sins so that I can appear pure to God the father).
> 
> I also believe that marriage exist for many biblical reasons, and sex is one of those big reasons. I believe marriage gives us a sacred place for us to indulge in what would otherwise be considered sin. If someone is avoiding or withholding sex, why are you even married, divorce already.
> 
> ...


Yep, that's the core of this rotten apple. I wonder how many personal outlooks and romantic unions are needlessly complicated by Saint Paul's screwed-up & very pathologically human attitude toward sex. "Better to marry than burn" is a profoundly sh1tty endorsement of marriage and sex alike. 

One defense is that Paul believed the second coming was close at hand, and that his correspondents needed to focus urgently on the spiritual rather than the earthly because of that imminence. If so, this vital context is rarely acknowledged. The epistles are presented as God's unchanging and unimpeachable view of human sexuality, now and forever, amen. It's a prescription for repression & toxic shame.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

Mommywhatohnothing said:


> Is the wife obliged to continue to meet her husband's sexual needs even if he is continually and willfully refusing to meet her other needs?


I haven't read the full thread since it's an older thread and I am on my first sips of coffee. So, if it{s been said, forgive me.

It's not just the wife who is expected to provide sex to her spouse. Men are also obligated in this way. I think part of the problem we have with the passages referring to sex is that they are often interpreted as applying to the woman when they actually apply equally to both genders.

I am Catholic. The Church teaches that marriage is a total giving of self, one to the other. This total giving does include the body. It seems very simple. If one does not want to surrender autonomy and control, they should simply refrain from getting married.

In my faith, a couple may decide together to abstain from sex for a time and it is not sinful. However, if one spouse desires sex and the other does not, denying sex can be a sin depending on the circumstances. Illness, exhaustion, painful intercourse and such like are valid reasons to deny sex and not sinful. "I don't wanna!" all by itself isn't a valid reason to shirk the duties of marriage and is considered sinful.


----------



## Hoosier (May 17, 2011)

Visexual said:


> Holy moly! OK, this is an old thread that I found through a google.......
> OK, my wife isn't interested in sex any longer. And, like me, she's not a Christian but she would have sex with me if I asked because she wants to please me, not because some religion said it was her obligation and responsibility. But I don't like charity and that's what it would be. I would love to experience the wonderful pleasures of sex again but only with someone who wants to enjoy it too.


Wow, today would of been my 35th anniversary. Thankfully, I forgot all about it until last night the date was given on the radio and I thought..."Crap!" I waited for the flow of emotions that have hit me this day, with decreasing intensity at least, and waited and nope! none at all! (Divorced 2011) anyway I digress (sp).

I had "duty sex" for 5 years and hated it! I remember her sleeping (downstairs on couch) after the act was over, and staring at the ceiling, hating it! There is so much better out there! I wont go into specifics, but believe it there is somewhere a woman who desires you and desires that you desire her. It may even be your wife. Just encouragement to not accept.


----------

