I’ve been engaged in an on going discussion about marriage, faith, sexuality, and the use of financial terminology when it comes to relationships. Some of that conversation is here in my thread called, “Earning Rights in Marriage.”
Night Wind helped to shed some more light on the issue in a post called, The Red Pills and Sexual Politics. Hat tip for the excellent photo too, Valentino, I believe. Quite charming.
First let me say, I do NOT subscribe to the red pill concepts of sexual market place and value and other assorted foolishness around assigning financial value, scoring, to people and relationships. In fact, I find that somewhat repulsive and superficial. I think it soon leads to assigning monetary worth and value to human beings, based on their cost effectiveness and productivity ratios. It is the complete opposite of what I perceive Christian values to be, which designate all humans beings as having been created in His image, and turning human hierarchies on their head, declaring the last shall go first, blessed be the meek, and what you do for the least of these you do for me.
It’s a shame that in the Western world we have been so inundated with prosperity ministers that the moment you use certain terminology to denote spiritual matters, people relate it to money. So “prosper, redeemed, ransomed, indebted,” these words are all quickly translated and reduced to literal financial terms. As far as I know when Jesus Christ ransomed me on the cross it was far more than a simple economic exchange. We aren’t speaking of simply writing a check here.
That’s kind of how I perceive relationships and marriage, too. Forget the financial aspects, “debts” are about commitment, “owing” someone is about having a responsibility towards them.
Many people remain unconvinced, in fact OkRickety still objects in a comment on my thread in which he says, “Christian men do not object to the idea of loving their wives, but strongly object to the notion of earning sex (or owing anything to their wife to get sex) as unscriptural.”
With all good humor, I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to just double down here. If “Christian men” do strongly object to notion of “earning sex (or owing anything to their wife to get sex) as unscriptural,” then Christian men be flat out wrong. There is not only natural law at play here, but there is also basic biology, and healthy human sexuality.
You flat out owe your wife a healthy, romantic, sex life that she desires and enjoys as much as you do. You owe her that.
Now, human relationships are complex, women can be emotionally damaged, sexuality can be a charged issue, there can be physical and psychological issues going on, all things that must be sorted out. I am not assigning blame here or saying that it is easy, just that the attitude must be right, that surely it must include the idea that you actually owe your wife a healthy, romantic, sex life.
So when Dr. Albert Mohler, President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, specifically says, “Consider the fact that a woman has every right to expect that her husband will earn access to the marriage bed.… Therefore, when I say that a husband must regularly “earn” privileged access to the marital bed, I mean that a husband owes his wife the confidence, affection and emotional support that would lead her to freely give herself to her husband in the act of sex,” and Christian men actually object to that idea, it’s enough to make me wail in despair.
In order to truly love your wife, you simply have to lead her to freely give herself to her husband in the act of sex. To believe that that is somehow not your responsibility, not your job, you don’t owe her that, is just unthinkable to me.
newenglandsun said:
I would say lead her to freely give herself period. There’s not really limits for either the man or the woman on the amount of love they are meant to give each other because it’s supposed to be infinite.
LikeLiked by 2 people
newenglandsun said:
Sometimes, executing a bishop will lead a woman to freely give herself to you.
https://www.chess.com/live/game/1678619979
LikeLiked by 2 people
insanitybytes22 said:
LOL! Executing a bishop, huh? Well, I rather like that concept.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Lorra B. said:
‘You flat out owe your wife a healthy, romantic, sex life that she desires and enjoys as much as you do. You owe her that.”
Ah, if it were only that easy my friend. Now, I am blessed to be married to a man who is all of that and more…THANK YOU LORD! My late husband, on the other hand (he was amazing in sooooo many ways and I was blessed to have had him in my life for as long as I did!!! Odored him!), was not much of the romantic and a bit clumsy in that arena at first. So, what about the men who truly are clueless in the lovemaking arena? Well, to me, they OWE it to their wives to study up on it (their are Godly ways to do this)…if they want a responsive wife then they should figure out how to make that happen. You men figure that out and you will be blessed, I’m sure of it! 🙂 As for the women, open up and speak to your husbands! You would probably be amazed at how receptive they can be if broached properly… A marriage ‘love life’ takes work form BOTH parties but the rewards of immeasurable closeness derived from that work are astronomical, IMHO. Great article! 🙂
LikeLiked by 4 people
insanitybytes22 said:
What a great comment! Lots of wisdom and sound advice there. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
OKRickety said:
I’m glad you are thankful for your late husband. But I’m not sure how to respond to you saying you “Odored him!” 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lorra B. said:
BAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Oooops! It may have been better just to adore him and not bring up any odor issue…. LOLOL!! Thanks for the laugh! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rebecca LuElla Miller said:
Didn’t the Apostle Paul say something about “your body Not your own” in 1 Cor.? Maybe chapter 7? Seems to me the principle there is that the husband concerns himself about his wife and she about her husband. Nothing in Scripture could lead a person to the idea that marriage is all about the individual and his needs. That’s out of someone’s imagination.
Becky
LikeLiked by 2 people
Paul said:
Perfect IB. I exactly get where you are coming from and have given it a great deal of thought over the years-in fact thousands of hours (and that is not an exaggeration). The concept of “owe” is one of a whole class of concepts that I have named the”Forgiveness Class”. This whole class is unique in that the first relationship they describe is the relationship between our souls (read God) and our spirits/intellect. This is so because of Grace – we find ourselves with so much provided by God as a base to start from. So,for instance, we are given the ability and skills to form relationships which greatly fulfill us and encourages love. This is a given by Grace. So to actualize this gift we must interact with a partner who has a similar gift from God. It is more like we are passing along the Grace and yet we call this “owe”. These gifts were not generated by us, we do not own them, we just control how they are used. And if we cannot use them in the spirit in which they were gifted to us,we may very well lose them. Much as forgiveness is provided to us by God through Grace,so too we have to provide it to others who wrong us. And it is a personal internal process whereby we gain the feeling of integration with the universe through our forgiveness. The other person really has nothing to do with it. Our actions towards that person are based on the fact that we no longer feel slighted by their actions or treatment.
So, to recap, some concepts hold no meaning unless we first recognize the Grace of God. I call the obvious members of this group the “Forgiveness Class”. That is approaching the subject from the most obvious end. If we think closely and carefully,we will recognize that all we really have is by Grace. And our purpose could be defined as passing that Grace along in the spirit in which it was given to us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
Ahh, that’s a great comment, Paul. The “forgiveness class,” very nice. I love that abundant grace and I am always reminding myself, God is a God of abundance, not scarcity. The world tends to operate more on scarcity, so if I “owe” something that means there’s going to be less for me. But that isn’t true at all, at least not when it comes to God’s kingdom. I like the idea of how we don’t actually “own” anything ourselves, so we’re more like a conduit for what God has freely given us. So we “owe” but in the process of allowing ourselves to be that conduit, we actually reap ourselves.
James 5:15 speaks of, “Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed.” So when we pray for one another, it can be our own selves that are healed in the process. It’s that reflective principle, the words we speak over others are going to be the words spoken over ourselves.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul said:
Bravo and Amen!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eric said:
That’s an interesting concept, the idea that the Gamers are using an economic model. When I was more active in the Manosphere, I think I remember Fidelbogen (who was anti-Game) saying that the men who originated the Game/PUA movement in the MRM were connected in some way to the marketing profession.
It’s easy to understand how these guys would jump from concepts like ‘Sexual Market Value’ to things like White Nationalism. Specifically,
“I think it leads to assigning monetary worth and value to human beings, based on their cost effectiveness and productivity ratios.”
Btw, that is Valentino in the picture.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
The marketing profession, that’s interesting. I often say social engineering because that’s basically what game is all about, manipulating human behavior. So put that in the context of computers and shaping public perception, subliminally selling them ideology, and you’ve got the stuff of sci/fi nightmares.
As much as I enjoy relationships between men and women, some of my interest actually lies in the way people are radicalized, into white nationalism yes, but also into Islam. This stuff is really nothing new, governments, advertisers, have been using propaganda, social engineering for years.
LikeLike
Eavan said:
I don’t understand how loving a wife doesn’t include taking care of her sexual needs. Men owe their wives love, women owe their husbands respect. It’s a real debt with real obligations that includes the wife’s sexual needs as much as the husband’s.
I also don’t understand how the disconnect is not clear with the following thinking: “I don’t owe my wife anything to get sex; I don’t understand why she’s not enthusiastic about sex.” I thought most men wanted to be good at lovemaking. (Wow, I just realized something – when I was growing up and young the term was “making love” and encompassed all the activities that a couple did to lead up to the main event, including romance. Now the term is “sex” and it appears to encompass nothing but the final act.)
Haven’t we all heard stories about the boorish way some wives get treated sexually? She should be available, but only an idiot expects a woman to respond positively when no care is taken for her female sexual nature.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eric said:
Eavan:
I was thinking lately about how our language has even changed about the sexual act. When we see King James’ English the terms carry the double meaning of something deep and mystical: knowledge, conception, penetration, etc. The commonly used terms today are all synonyms for getting cheated, robbed, deceived etc. It doesn’t sound like people today have much respect for the act in spite of all their obsessions with it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Fromscratchmom said:
You are exactly right, Eavan. It’s almost incomprehensible that there are any much less so many many men claiming the name of Christ but denying these basic, easy, and clear teachings that this is a mutual relationship where each cares for the others needs. All those claiming that men are owed and/or that women are not and inherently thereby creating an abusive view of marriage, are flat out opposing God and all his beautiful teaching and guiding and loving us all.
LikeLiked by 2 people
OKRickety said:
“All those claiming that men are owed and/or that women are not and inherently thereby creating an abusive view of marriage,….”
I have said that both spouses owe the other sex. I have said that men owe their wives love, and wives owe their husbands submission and respect. In other words, I have not said it only goes one way, but both.
Going back to Mohler’s statement, he said women are owed “confidence, affection and emotional support”. He made no corresponding statement about what men are owed, implying there is none. Although it’s the opposite of what you said, isn’t that also an abusive view of marriage?
LikeLike
Fromscratchmom said:
That depends. Is that all he’s ever said on the topic? I have zero familiarity with Mohler. When I’ve heard preachers speak on the topic throughout my life time I’ve never heard of one who never speaks only to that side of the issue. But if so, then yes, it certainly is just as abusive and just as much a hatchet job on God’s word only presenting the one side.
In my personal experience there have been many who only (or more commonly primarily) speak to women on their obligations. The preacher who occasionally speaks to men in addition to speaking to women (on marriage roles) is a bit more rare overall but much less so now in comparison to the years when I was growing up. It’s still relatively rare to hear any speak well and effectively to men about what feminine nature is and what loving your wife really is as opposed to keeping the whole thing so entirely vague as to be near to not speaking on it at all. It’s an odd problem that many are willing to speak frankly about how respect and submission are likely to be challenging but still necessary for women to hear about. But few ever mention how men would be equally challenged and equally still duty bound to fulfill their role well in real life ways. Living with a person “in an understanding manner” when you clearly don’t understand them at all would certainly be challenging would it not? Why the paucity of discussion and teaching on that? There’s a kind of hands off approach toward men, like they are due this respect that assumes they are good at policing themselves, or allowed not to, or maybe just prone to run away and refuse to be Christians if they have to listen to preaching that hits them personally with what they need to hear. But of course all of that speaks directly to my own experience. So perhaps you’ve heard preachers really speak to that and do a great job, maybe even do it regularly.
LikeLike
OKRickety said:
Fromscratchmom,
“It’s an odd problem that many are willing to speak frankly about how respect and submission are likely to be challenging but still necessary for women to hear about. But few ever mention how men would be equally challenged and equally still duty bound to fulfill their role well in real life ways.”
It’s interesting to contrast that with my perception of what the men at Dalrock’s blog would say. I believe they would say that all they ever hear is how men need to man up and be given a list of all the actions men need to do to love their wives correctly. And they would say that the women are only told how wonderful and spiritual they are, with no mention of submission or respect.
Maybe we just hear what we want to hear?
For myself, I seldom hear anything on marriage (or divorce or sex outside of marriage or sex in marriage) directed to either sex. From vague memory, my perception would lean towards the male perspective described above, but I am not certain about it.
LikeLike
OKRickety said:
“It’s a shame that in the Western world we have been so inundated with prosperity ministers that the moment you use certain terminology to denote spiritual matters, people relate it to money.”
I think there is a reason monetary or financial terms were used in the Bible. They were used because most people did and still do understand them. For me, I immediately understand them in the scriptural perspective. Maybe that is because I have heard them used this way longer than you’ve been alive. The falsehoods spread by prosperity gospel advocates have no impact on my understanding of these words.
In my opinion, you consider various words and phrases to be dehumanizing individuals more quickly than anyone I have ever experienced. Maybe most people do the same, but maybe it’s just you. Do you have the same complaint when the Apostle Paul writes “For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.” [1 Cor. 6:20 NASB]?
‘Many people remain unconvinced, in fact OkRickety still objects in a comment on my thread in which he says, “Christian men do not object to the idea of loving their wives, but strongly object to the notion of earning sex (or owing anything to their wife to get sex) as unscriptural.”
With all good humor, I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to just double down here. If “Christian men” do strongly object to notion of “earning sex (or owing anything to their wife to get sex) as unscriptural,” then Christian men be flat out wrong. There is not only natural law at play here, but there is also basic biology, and healthy human sexuality.’
The key here was unscriptural. You seem to ignore Scripture here and instead talk about “natural law” (whatever that is [sounds rather like Red Pill talk to me]), basic biology, and healthy human sexuality. Let’s go to the Bible instead. You have often stated that doing so is a wonderful idea. Depending on the translation, 1 Cor. 7:3 uses words like owe, due, rights, responsibility, and duty to describe how both spouses are to behave regarding sex. There is nothing that indicates men have to do anything to get sex. Nor does it say that for women. For me, the Bible trumps the reasons you provide.
“You flat out owe your wife a healthy, romantic, sex life that she desires and enjoys as much as you do. You owe her that.”
You just switched from Mohler’s “confidence, affection and emotional support” to “healthy, romantic, sex life”. These two phrases are greatly different. Which is it going to be? Or are you just going to move the goalposts whenever you want?
“In order to truly love your wife, you simply have to lead her to freely give herself to her husband in the act of sex. To believe that that is somehow not your responsibility, not your job, you don’t owe her that, is just unthinkable to me.”
There are a lot of concepts that seem to be unthinkable to you.
It’s really another topic altogether, but the assumption here is that the wife would follow the husband’s lead and give herself, when the reality is that actually leading anyone requires that they choose to follow. I wonder how many wives would choose to follow. I would say “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.” but then I’d likely be charged with saying a woman is a horse, or acts like a horse.
LikeLike
Fromscratchmom said:
I’m going to limit myself to just one thing out of that giant muddle of mess.
“You just switched from Mohler’s “confidence, affection and emotional support” to “healthy, romantic, sex life”. These two phrases are greatly different. Which is it going to be? Or are you just going to move the goalposts whenever you want?”
I respectfully suggest that there’s a giant clue there as to why you have the frustrations you have. Seeing those two phrases as mutually exclusive and to infer that some great switcheroo just got pulled because both phrases were employed is clear evidence of an inability (or unwillingness) to understand and allow for women to be women as God created them and constantly encouraged them to be. (Well, either that or some significant difficulty with language, communication and rules of rhetoric, but I’m assuming you are well-spoken enough despite certain contrary examples to ignore that possibility.) The natural laws that God put in place in our universe from physics to biology are not pagan nor are they exclusively the domain of the red pill sinners. God is the author of logic and the creator of the universe. He could also be legitimately viewed as an artists whose medium is DNA and RNA. There’s quite a preponderance of scripture that supports not only the concept of God authoring it all but also the concept of the feminine nature being as He meant it to be and commanded us women to not turn away from.
I try to have understanding and sympathy. I’m sure you’ve faced great pain. But in all due respect you can’t force anyone to follow or to drink. Inspiring one to follow is a completely different concept from forcing them to follow. It is equally legitimate and valid to say it is entirely different from stubbornly going your own way believing in your perfection as a leader only to someday look back and see a chasm between yourself and the woman who lost her way or chose to run in the opposite direction. You wonder if women would choose because you have confidence in your rightness as well as in your estimation of the one who never followed as being utterly wrong. It’s no better or different than myself or any woman having confidence in our own experiences to know what we’ve been through and then further confidence to extrapolate that men in general are obviously evil and unsafe. Therefore the more you exclaim that you led well, the more you fight against great groups of people for not following your leadership, the deeper the hole you dig yourself of appearing as one unsafe and unworthy to be followed. It’s easy to believe you may have been married to a sinful woman, even a woman of extreme evil. It’s nearly impossible to put that into play as a sole factor and trust that’s all there was to it, not because the first isn’t valid but because the second is a far larger and more dangerous leap. And yes, I know that works in reverse as well. I’m perfectly aware that I am nowhere near healthy enough to consider a future relationship. I don’t know whether I ever will be healthy enough to trust or to follow any man ever again.
LikeLiked by 2 people
OKRickety said:
Fromscratchmom,
It seems you think I want men to be able to force women to follow. I do not. But I do not believe that women will necessarily follow men even when the men lead in godly paths. I think that inspiring a wife to follow should not be necessary, because God has commanded submission. However, women have free will, and they may sin in rebellion against their husbands’ leadership. The same is true for men, who may sin in rebellion against Christ’s leadership.
I did not claim to be or have been a good, godly leader. Nor do I believe most Christian men are. However, I think God’s desire is for men to be growing in faith and becoming better men and leaders. I suspect this is more likely to happen if wives are submissive and respectful to their husbands.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
“I think that inspiring a wife to follow should not be necessary, because God has commanded submission.”
Well, not trying to be impolite here, but that just strikes me as downright lazy and self absorbed. Another word for that is entitled.
That would be like me trying to say I should be able to look, act, behave any way I want because hubby is mandated to love me. So I “owe” the man nothing and if he doesn’t just accept that, obviously he’s in rebellion.
LikeLike
Fromscratchmom said:
“I suspect this is more likely to happen if wives are submissive and respectful to their husbands.”
And there lies the justification for every person who continuously preaches the evils of women and the fabulousness of submission while downplaying or totally ignoring everything else that is part of the entire package of marriage. It’s often said but never by God. It has validity, but it also has limits! A man’s sins are his own, not his wife’s.
God never once even remotely implied that the man’s responsibility to lead could be removed from him and placed on the wife to be good enough at submission such as to make her husband become a good or godly leader. God tells us some men will come to know Him in that way, never that that is where great husbands and leaders come from. My own husband became a Christian after our marriage in that way, but was very hesitant to let God touch his heart and later let the thorns choke him out. There is nothing in Christ’s example in loving the church and leading the church to lead us to that concept either, quite the opposite. If we look to the Biblical archetypes we even see Hosea’s traumas to point us to understanding that the love and leadership of the head is in spite of, not because of, the merits of the one who must be loved and led.
I’ve asked it recently elsewhere and I’ll ask it again now. Why do so many women devote lifetimes trying to become Proverbs 31 women but you never hear of a single man trying to become a Job 31 man? Or any other passage used the same way?)
(job 31, by the way, isn’t even about being a husband or lover. It’s just an amazing and important compare and contrast between a good guy and a bad guy.) Where are the men devoting their entire lives to becoming better men in ways that show in how they care for and lead and honor others as the Job 31 good guy did rather than running around teaching the downfall of women as the responsibility for the downfall of men?
And if it’s that hard for men to submit to the perfect will of God in who they are supposed to be, why do they think it makes any sense to focus most energies on demanding that women must be better at submitting to the imperfect (and often downright contradictory) will of human men? Perhaps there’s a lot more room in their model for encouraging and forgiving and lifting up as Christ did so much of for the church, and in place of any emphasis on what they can get out of women serving them, and rather than any emphasis on placing all blame for failure of the model on women. I can promise you that even when it’s the men who leave they still blame the women for the failure.
But I’ll say nothing to defend the wrong choice of either sex leaving a marriage “without cause” so to speak. I think all the so-called churches who support that and support the later adulterous/illegitimate marriages are likely churches with no lamp stand.
LikeLiked by 1 person
OKRickety said:
IB,
The key word is inspiring, making someone feel that they want to do something and can do it. Leading does not require inspiring. It will be better leading if they do inspire. But it is important to realize that failure to inspire is not equivalent to failure to lead. Failure to inspire does not prevent others from following, although it does reduce the likelihood that they will. A leader may not try to inspire because he feels entitled. On the other hand, he may make great effort, but still fail to inspire others to follow. Failure to inspire is not equivalent to entitlement.
If a wife rebels against submitting to her husband, she is sinning. If her husband does not love her because of her rebellion, then he is sinning, rebelling against God, as he is not loving her like Christ did the church.
Similarly, if a husband rebels against God and does not love his wife, he is sinning. If his wife does not submit because of his rebellion, then she is sinning, rebelling against God, as she is not submitting to him as unto Christ.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
That’s all fine, OkRickety if we’re talking about individual situations, complex relationships, I’m not judging individual situations. But I have to tell you this part is still all wrong, “But it is important to realize that failure to inspire is not equivalent to failure to lead.” A huge part of leading is inspiring others. If you fail to inspire, you fail to lead. It’s that simple. We all fail to lead sometimes, we all have times we just can’t seem to inspire others, but that doesn’t mean we now get to redefine what it really means to lead.
You’re still acting as if leadership is someone’s God given role and therefore you have no obligation, no burden, no effort required on your part to actually be worthy of that role.
I don’t mean to sound harsh here, but I can tell you as a mom, if I didn’t inspire my kids to follow it would be an epic leadership fail, and it has been a few times.
Now, we are talking about sexuality here. You want healthy marital relations, you have to lead and inspire. You can’t simply say, “wives submit: and be done with it. That’s just not right.
LikeLike
OKRickety said:
Fromscratchmom,
I suspect that wives are more likely to submit to and respect their husbands if husbands love and lead their wives.
As to the statement that the opposite is true, what I find on this blog and similar ones is that women will make statements about how men are not loving their wives properly, but when a man mentions that a woman has the complementary command to submit, it is met with vehement dislike. What I seldom, if ever, see is a gentle acknowledgment that this is true. The fact that many women have experienced misuse of scripture as justification for husbands failing to love their wives and even abusing them does not change the truth of what scripture actually says about wives submitting to their husbands. What I effectively hear on this blog is that when men fail to lead, women are not just less likely to submit, but that they are highly unlikely to submit. In other words, men have got to do the right thing first. This is contrary to the Bible, where there is no condition of pre-existing behavior needed for husbands to love, or wives to submit.
I understand that the Bible does not say that great husbands and leaders will result from a wife’s submission to a non-believing husband (I don’t think the Bible makes any claim regarding the source for these men). Your implication is that it won’t happen that way. That seems to be restricting God. He has used all kinds of men for His kingdom.
I have no idea how the idea of a Proverbs 31 woman became so popular. As to a Job 31 (or Job 29) man, if it was really that amazing, wouldn’t you think that there would have been at least one truly godly man who would have recognized it as such and been an inspiring leader and promoted it to the same level? It could easily happen in our society. For example, the Prayer of Jabez was incredibly well-known in a short period of time (and relatively forgotten in just a few years).
As to men’s failures in following God and blaming women, that is a problem. I don’t think you or women in general can control that. But you can control your own behavior.
The same is true for women who are not submissive. I don’t think one man or men in general can control that. Each man can only control his own behavior.
Ultimately, following Christ is an individual choice, both for men and for women.
LikeLike
Fromscratchmom said:
There are definitely some differences in language definitions and connotations happening here between us all. If I understand correctly OK is referring to the fact that sometimes the person who could have been inspired is simply going their own way which is not the fault of the “leader”. Inspiration is, in some ways, dependent on the object to be inspired or not. Picture a great boss with many happy employees but sometimes a new hire comes along and hates him or simply doesn’t care at all about any job.) IB is referring to the sinful position of men with wives who have legitimate reason to struggle within the marriage emotionally and the men truly fail to do their part to inspire, which certainly happens quite a lot in some marriages, and probably in a lot of marriages from what we see around us, and in all marriages at some point because we are all sinners and all our husbands are sinners too…and then they default to saying that she has to submit anyway to get what they want without caring to face their own faults and without having compassion for her emotional state or her needs, without thinking for a moment about all of the things the Bible says about how we are to esteem our fellow heirs as better than ourselves and gently, meekly, carefully admonish and correct (maybe with prayers and tears for three years). I think men then look at this lording it over people role that they think God gave them as being responsible for the sins of everyone in the family which they are in a sense but they totally fail at seeing how real leadership works in the more common ways that Christ gently led. Good husbands and good elders/shepherds are rarely in a position to drive anyone away with a whip but daily, many times a day, in a position that looks nothing like leadership to men’s carnal eyes.
There are certain common occurrences in the world that we see daily and all around us that mightily contribute to the things here that OK is seeing as too one-sided in an opposite direction. It’s extremely common that men claim to be less emotional than women, make claims along the lines of emotions being bad and women being irrational, tie all emotion to sin rather than only recognizing and correctly calling out sinful actions that sometimes spring forth following emotions, which they should do for themselves too and not just for women, if they ever learn to do it even in the easier circumstance of calling out others. There are differences between the sexes but those which tend to tempt men to make the problems worse and thereby cause women to struggle more are of particular note because men have the headship. That headship gives them the responsibility to be cognizant of how easily their misuse of their position becomes oppression and abuse. Are we all hearing a particular line out of a super-hero movie hat just happens to reflect true wisdom?
God did not abuse me by giving my husband headship and teaching me to submit. My husband abused me by misusing his headship role and choosing to be abusive. God never made a mistake. Mankind makes mistakes perpetually. Standing by “truth” to demand compliance whilst also standing by or neglecting your own sins will 100% of the time hurt a wife. It isn’t God being wrong in giving her a different position in the hierarchy, it is the husband being wrong in refusing/failing to keep other rules, given to himself, in the forefront of his mind and fully integrated into his thinking and decisions. That is why every time men publicly speak in a format such as this one about the demand that women submit they get backlash even from many women who do submit. Where they think they are publicly standing for some neglected piece of God’s word (which in a sense they are truly doing) they are also publicly linking themselves to women’s emotional flashbacks of being abused by men (which they are truly doing). God gave us separate scriptures to tell men to care about and love their wives sexually. But men in facing sexual failures in themselves and/or sexual failures in their wives will fall back on “but she has too” for their sexual needs and desires rather than loving her first and foremost. They are often wrong in this. Whether she needs to be led to a less sinful position overall in how she sees her husband and her marriage or to a doctor to deal with pain in sex or hormonal imbalances or to greater sexual generosity through his awesome example or as is most commonly the case to feeling loved and secure and safe first, when he gives up on (or denies) everything else to claim she’s a big ol’ sinner and owes him sex as a submissive subservient person whose whole life and soul are his to Lord over her he is making a mistake that will hurt her further and will snowball into more and more marital dysfunction and sin.
I’d suggest in those cases where it’s nearly 100% a wife simply mistreating her husband and using sex as a weapon which men claim to think are common and many women think are rare…so I guess I’m saying when he believes that’s what is happening… It’s seems quite likely that he should utilize 1 Corinthians 7:5. And I mean, although he can and should only try to control himself in this matter, each should really pour his or her whole heart and soul into being prostrate with face on the floor praying about every aspect of your being, your relationship with God, your marriage relationship and your life…every. single. aspect. of. each. of. those. things….and begging begging begging for help and guidance for a couple of days at least, maybe for a quite lengthy fast.
LikeLiked by 2 people
OKRickety said:
Fromscratchmom,
“That is why every time men publicly speak in a format such as this one about the demand that women submit they get backlash even from many women who do submit. Where they think they are publicly standing for some neglected piece of God’s word (which in a sense they are truly doing) they are also publicly linking themselves to women’s emotional flashbacks of being abused by men (which they are truly doing).”
God commands that a wife is to submit to her husband, as unto Christ. God commands that a husband is to love his wife, like Christ loved the church.
Some men misuse this and demand that their wives submit to them. Some women have been abused by men like these. That does not change the truth of the scripture, excuse wives from submitting, or justify backlash against correct usage of the scripture.
Believe me, I understand it is difficult to be logical when there is great emotional pain associated with a scripture. It’s my perception that, on this blog, this backlash results not in doubling down on wives submitting, but turning to the failures of men and their responsibility to lead. The implication is that this is the root of the problem, and women will follow godly, Christian men if men will first live as God commands.
I believe that there is excessive focus on women’s responsibilities and failures on Dalrock’s blog, but this blog has excessive focus on men’s responsibilities and failures. For example, in this post on sexuality, the focus has been on what men owe their wives to get good sex. Has there been anything stated about what women owe their husbands to get good sex? Very little, if any. Isn’t that focused on men, rather than women?
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
“For example, in this post on sexuality, the focus has been on what men owe their wives to get good sex. Has there been anything stated about what women owe their husbands to get good sex?”
Quite true. That is because I assumed that men understood that they are the ones who will reap the benefits of a happy, sexually satisfied wife. I’m rather surprised there is any controversy about this. I assumed that all men wanted healthy, satisfying sex lives in marriage. So here, here is how you make that a happen…..
Imagine my surprise when I discover that there are men in the world who actually believe they owe their wives nothing, even when said men are the ones who will reap the benefits of having taken their partner’s needs into consideration.
So, Biblical Gender Roles, that guy, he says you just drape a napkin over your wife’s madusa face and have sex with her whether she is enthusiastic or not. Ironically, reading that didn’t cause me distress about women, it caused me anguish about men who would have such low expectations, such disrespect for their wives and themselves, such an almost blasphemous perception of the beauty to be found in sexuality the way God invented it.
Sad, because there can be no healthy sexuality when this joining together is perceived as a one sided sexual experience with a rebellious wife who is mandated to submit. Blech, that’s a tragedy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
fromscratchmom said:
OK, I appreciate you sticking with the conversation. For all the progress we have made there does still seem to be a sticking point where we are at cross purposes. You perpetually return to God’s command to submit which is a generality about marriage (valid but still generalized) and rarely address even in the smallest way the command that went to both husband and wife to give to the other sexually, which IS specific to BOTH HER responsibility toward him sexually AND HIS responsibility toward her sexually. It is difficult for me to see why that scripture that is specific to it seems to mean less to you, while the generality is such a focus.
There is the problem focused on, on the one side of when men turn sex into a command about submission, there is clear failure and a clear path to future bad sex, future hurt emotions, and a hopeless future where in the absence of good and godly and beautiful love and sex she still has to have sex with him. Granted, you are correct that she does and that she sins if she refuses forever. You have repeatedly asked that we say it. So I am saying it. Yes, she still has to care about his sexual experience no matter how bad a guy he is. No matter what he does or doesn’t do, she is obligated to care about him and try to be good for him. I’ve been there. I’ve done that, not perfectly, not every single time but a LOT of times and with great effort and even great momentary results claimed on is part …just not results the next day or the next week or month or year after it had been great but wasn’t seen that way the next time some crazy or angry came along when it suited his purposes to claim that I’d always been worthless and bad at everything. I’ve done all the requested sex acts for the cretin who reeked like a back-alley-wino and under numerous other unpleasant and emotionally excruciating circumstances of feeling unsafe and unloved and even learned to not hold it against him and to believe there was still hope for the future that we could both want future healing and eventually get it. There is a LOT of power in giving…at least for the giver. Nevertheless, I was accused repeatedly repeatedly repeatedly ad nauseum of many offenses of not respecting and not doing enough sexually, many times the next day after the sexual giving, presumably due to the alcoholic blackouts that he denied having and played mind games over with his appearance of high-tolerance and “functional” alcoholism that he could actually convince others (weirdly including myself) of his not being an alcoholic at all. And in the end he left in great resentment and delusionment convinced that I was bad at forgiveness, bad at submission, and bad at respect and love and sex …partly I *think* because what he really wanted was the benefit IB refers to of what happens when God’s teaching is really being followed on both sides, when women are loved. But he did not want to take on his whole responsibility for being a good husband and avoiding all the abusive, mean-spirited, and spiteful behaviors that made every aspect of married life a struggle. He did NOT want a submissive wife who would make an effort to be good sexually for him in spite of himself. He wanted a happy wife who truly responded to him being good in the marriage, but without him actually being good in the marriage. And he wasn’t bad at sex to start with. He was quite good at it in the early years in some respects…and somewhat challenged in a couple of important respects that were really the things he was challenged at in all the other non-sexual aspects of marriage. The parts he was good at, he improved at for several years which is kind of crazy given how good he was to begin with. The parts he was bad at and refusing to face in marriage in general he never faced and always doubled down on in the marriage bed as well. He was eventually very bad at love in those other aspects AND in the last several years in a tail-spin/downward-spiral of being much much much worse at sex than in early years presumably because of the hard-hearted attitudes he embraced and the excesses of alcohol that he indulged in.
So then there is the other aspects of the problem. What is the answer to men who are failing but blaming women? Or who are doing great but getting bad results even when the woman is putting in effort to be loving and to submit and respect sacrificially?
What is it that you think men need from women sexually? I know loads of women who discuss this and work towards it and some who get far better results than ever showed in my own story or the stories of some others, but since you seem to believe that women do not care about this (or not often), the question is what is your answer to that? What do you think women need to understand about men’s sexual needs and desires? What do you think should have been and/or could have been included in this blog post about what women owe men in order to get good sex for their feminine selves?
And I promise that last paragraph wasn’t a set up. I have a hard time understanding that there could be a great answer. It *seems* to me that men simply do not understand women’s sexuality at all to even be able to think that way. BUT I do honestly care to hear the answer and try to understand it. Maybe if there are men presented with lists of what they all must do, its possible that a lot of what is on those lists are just a giant manifestations of men not understanding women, so they try to convert feminine from what it is into concrete rules of mathematics. We are all different and it normally shouldn’t be a list of what every man must do in every marriage. It should be guidance towards a general state of caring to learn and grow and understand her and her needs individually, to find what works between the two individuals in the specific marriage in question. For all I know maybe IB feels over the moon emotional benefits from receiving flowers, me not so much, a little, maybe even a lot but I can certainly live without and get other stuff instead. Maybe there are 80,000 American women who get totally emotionally road-blocked by dishes by the sink, me not so much. Although doing the dishes together might really give me some significant warm fuzzies…hard to tell for sure since I don’t think anyone’s ever done that for me. Loving a wife is not a mathematical formula or a rote list. That is for sure.
(In my experience, when I felt *mostly* *generally* safe and loved the sex was very good for me …often out of bounds good, fabulous, how-much-could-I-find-a-way-in-human-terms-to express-how-great-he-was-in-bed-good-sex. maybe part of that is because I am a very verbal/oral person who happens to be somewhat blunt as well as somewhat prone to hyperbole and would sound different from a different woman, but you get the idea. I like sex. And I liked sex very much with my husband in our early marriage, even as he was bewilderingly sabotaging it and accusing me of not liking it. To this day I do not know what his past baggage was that made him as insecure as he was and as unwilling to have any communication as he behaved. But I do know that beyond a doubt he is greatly offended by not getting his every whim fulfilled and just as offended by any concern that there might be more going on that isn’t the direct fault of the woman he wants to blame. When I felt varying levels of emotional hesitation or pain the sex suffered to varying degrees. It did not go out the window in the lesser versions of that. It just wasn’t as awe inspiring as was sometimes more normal. And since no one is having their best sex ever in every single sexual encounter that doesn’t seem to me like much of a tragedy. (Well more to the point, in those earliest years it didn’t come up naturally to be seeking it as much when stuff felt emotionally unsafe and my openness to be able to overtly seek it when I did want it went out the door very quickly with some of the earliest emotional abuse which happened to mirror a lot of the emotional abuse I’d received as a kid.) There was whole spectrum that could be effected by stuff from outside of either of us and the relative safe and good sex when you are being effected by life and hormones can still be some of the great stuff in life. You still definitely want that and wouldn’t want to not ever get it. But there are certainly some really really bad effects when a man is mired in sin or is generally unloving or couldn’t care less to put the effort in on any of the more challenging stuff when he has made a mistake or has hurt his wife.)
And very important:
Do men’s sexual needs and the things women need to know in order to be good enough at sex for their husbands really totally exclude his responsibility to be a good husband? Is there anyway that it can? That she can feel unsafe and unloved in a perpetual state of marital issues unaddressed and forever unresolved, and yet be a perfect sex kitten pornstar straight out of his fantasies, best actress on the planet? Would God really not see her pain caused by the husband’s sins and have compassion while having compassion on the man as the victim of a terrible wife? Or is it fair to say its far more complicated than that? I know. You already admitted a few times that men do have responsibility. I’m just saying, the very different focus is difficult to comprehend.
LikeLiked by 2 people
OKRickety said:
fromscratchmom,
In 1 Cor. 7:3-5, both spouses are commanded to have sex. However, generally, a husband desires sex more than his wife (the opposite is true perhaps 20% of the time). The result is that husbands are far more likely to want sex, but, since wives desire sex less than men, it is not uncommon for wives to withhold sex, even if only temporarily. In other words, wives fail to obey this command much more often than men do. There’s a reason that there are so many jokes about wives not wanting sex. Consequently, I fear that focus on this passage would thus be perceived as pro-husband and resented by wives.
This fear is the first primary reason I often return to wives submitting (and husbands loving) as a general guide for marital behavior, and my understanding that sex is not the entirety of marriage, but an act that most embodies the one-flesh relationship of the marriage and reflects our spiritual relationship to God.
Going back to Mohler’s statement, he said husbands owe their wives “confidence, affection and emotional support” to get access to sex. This requirement is not found in 1 Cor. 7:3-5. As I understand it, this debt is considered part of a husband’s love for his wife. My reading of this philosophy from Mohler and others is that a husband must meet certain criteria in order to have sex. It seems that the exact criteria are determined by the wife and she has the arbitrary right to determine if the husband has met them or not. In other words, the wife gets the right to accept or reject sex according to her own standards and judgment of the husband’s performance. In effect, wives are responding to 1 Cor. 7:3-5 with a “Yes, but my husband isn’t doing what I think he has to do first.”. This is contrary to Paul’s command regarding sex, which is why I object to it.
The previous paragraph is the second major reason I go to the passages on husbands loving and wives submitting. As I understand it, women’s sexuality is much more complicated than that of men. Specifically, women consider almost everything her husband does to be related to her desire for sex. This seems to often be wrongly interpreted by wives to mean that it’s okay to refuse sex because he isn’t loving me like he should. Yes, husbands are commanded to love their wives, but the complementary command to wives is that they are to submit to their husbands. When it comes to sex, this is supplemented by the command to give yourself to your spouse. In short, going to this passage should result in women understanding that they are misinterpreting scripture, and point them back toward the commands to wives.
Husbands, however, have a different physiology and a different way of thinking. When a man wants sex, he is unlikely to consider whether or not his wife has been generally submissive and respectful recently. However, if his wife rejects sex, then he immediately understands that she is not being submissive at that time. His internal reaction is likely rejection, hurt, anger, etc. This may well be expressed externally. Now, if his wife regularly demonstrates submission and respect to him non-sexually, the husband’s reaction is probably more subdued, and, hopefully, he will be loving in his response. Also, if this sexual rejection is rare, I expect the husband will be more understanding. So, if a wife usually is submissive and respectful, both generally and sexually, the husband is less likely to sin by demanding submission sexually or otherwise, or sin by becoming bitter toward her. This is why the command to wives to submit is important. It does not, of course, guarantee that the husband will be more loving to her or will not demand submission regardless. For example, it seems you made great efforts to submit sexually, but it did not get the results you would have expected.
Conversely, if a husband loves his wife well, then she should have increased trust in him and should find it easier to be respectful and submit to him, generally and sexually. I emphasize should because many husbands have not experienced this response. In spite of long-repeated efforts to demonstrate his love, the wife continues to often or always refuse sex.
When exceptions occur (the spouse does not respond to correct behavior as expected), I don’t have confidence in how to resolve the problem. I think the first step is for the spouses to discuss the problem. Then seek good help. This is where I get stuck, because my experience is that pastors, church leaders, and Christian counselors are all oriented toward the idea that the husband is the problem, and the wife is just fine. I do not believe that this perception is correct, but that, almost always, both the husband and wife need to improve.
As an example of Christian counseling, I will relate my experience. My wife and I went to counseling after we had been married for ten years. During that period, my wife told me (probably at our therapist’s suggestion) that she was sexually promiscuous in college, had been raped on two occasions, became pregnant with one of the rapists, and had an abortion. But according to her and the therapist, she had no sexual issues resulting from those experiences. I find that extremely unlikely as we certainly had sexual issues, but, at that point, it’s now me against the two of them. If the expert is wrong and siding with your spouse, what likelihood is there that the spouse will consider change?
“What is it that you think men need from women sexually?”
Primarily, husbands need their wives to desire to be with them sexually. This is shown when the wife is willing to have sex, when she prepares herself for sex, when she fully participates physically and emotionally, when she demonstrates her desire to please him, when she expresses her pleasure from his actions, when she, ideally, reaches orgasm(s), and when she afterward expresses her pleasure for the whole of the experience. I doubt that most women will believe this, but men feel closest emotionally to their wives during (well, maybe immediately after) sex.
Note: It bothers me that you know many women who discuss their sex lives because I have been told that this should stay within your marriage, except in counseling, etc. Additionally, I have heard that this type of discussion has the tendency to result in a focus on the negatives, rather than the positives.
I expect that, just like women are different, men have different desires sexually. I would think a wife should just ask her husband what he does and does not like. If they can’t discuss sex, then there is certainly a problem in their relationship. Then respect him by remembering what he says and acting on it, because I fully expect he will remember and be hoping she does, too.
Also, a wife should ask what he thinks he would like but she doesn’t do now. Note: She had better be prepared to mask any immediate negative response, because there is a reasonable likelihood that he will ask for something she finds distasteful or even downright disgusting. I am not saying she should do what he thinks he would like, but it might be acceptable after she gets over the initial shock of the idea.
“What do you think should have been and/or could have been included in this blog post about what women owe men in order to get good sex for their feminine selves?”
At least part of the respect that men want is that their wives appreciate their efforts, poor as they may be, to be romantic, to be a father, to provide shelter and food, and, overall, to recognize their masculinity as an asset, not a liability. From what I have read, one of the primary reasons men have affairs is that the woman is attentive to him and makes him feel like he is the only man in the room. If a wife chooses this attitude rather than nagging or complaining, it will increase his desire to treat her as special. He’ll treat his wife great because she thinks he’s the greatest! When that attitude is extended to sex, he will do his very best to prove that she is right!
“It *seems* to me that men simply do not understand women’s sexuality at all to even be able to think that way.”
I have heard the idea expressed that a woman being mysterious is good. Not to a man, it’s not. If a woman does not know what she herself wants at a given moment, how do you expect a man to ever know how to please his wife? A man often likes a challenge, but it has to be attainable.
One of the common problems in marriage is that women expect the man to know what she wants based on some phrase she said, or even her body language. Women really need to understand that men don’t operate the same way. Even though she thinks she has put up a billboard saying what she wants, he sees it as fine print on a document. If the husband doesn’t do what you want him to do, the wife needs to explain it to him. Not because he’s stupid, but because he doesn’t understand the language. He may have every desire to show he cares, but he won’t do it if he doesn’t know what he needs to do.
“Do men’s sexual needs and the things women need to know in order to be good enough at sex for their husbands really totally exclude his responsibility to be a good husband?”
Of course not. This is another reason I go to the general marital behavior first. It is necessary to have the foundation in order that the sexual part of the relationship will work well. As to what a woman needs to know to be good enough at sex, I think she needs to know that she wants to be with him sexually, she wants to please him sexually, and she wants to learn how to please him better. Combined with communication, that ought to result in a sexually fulfilled husband. And the same principles applied to the husband’s sexual behavior ought to result in a sexually fulfilled wife.
However, regularly refusing sex will quickly result in most husbands losing interest in wanting to work at the marriage. That’s not what the man should do, but neither should the wife regularly refuse sex. The web article linked below seems to be especially relevant to Christian wives refusing sex. As already discussed, it is not hard to find articles telling Christian husbands they are failing when they don’t love their wives, but it is much more difficult to find articles telling Christian wives they should have sex with their husbands.
Six Things to Know About Sexual Refusal
I hope that I have provided some explanation of why I have focused more on the passages regarding general marital behavior rather than 1 Cor. 7:3-5 and its specifics on marital sexual behavior.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
Two things come to mind here, first the idea that, “generally, a husband desires sex more than his wife.” One of the best things my husband did early on was tell me that was a myth. He had spoken to older guys who had told him to always remember that women need and desire sex as much as, if not more than men. That flies in the face of pop culture and conventional wisdom, but it was smart. So many women are living up to a cultural expectation that tells us we don’t need or desire sex like men do. That can become a self fulfilling prophecy. Whether my husband’s words were statistically true or not, they were radical, revolutionary, because it had never occurred to me that sex might be important to women’s well being or that it would be normal and healthy to desire it.
As to, “It bothers me that you know many women who discuss their sex lives because I have been told that this should stay within your marriage, except in counseling, etc.”
I think we really do need to talk with one another about sex, men and women, and even men and women together. There’s a big difference between the intimacy of a group of friends speaking somewhat generically about sexual matters in general, and going on facebook to speak negatively and completely violate your spouse’s privacy. So IMO, always with respect, modesty, and privacy, but there needs to be information shared, education, support.
LikeLike
OKRickety said:
IB,
‘Two things come to mind here, first the idea that, “generally, a husband desires sex more than his wife.
One of the best things my husband did early on was tell me that was a myth. He had spoken to older guys who had told him to always remember that women need and desire sex as much as, if not more than men.”’
I’m inclined to think your husband and you were sold a bill of goods, but, I presume, it has worked out well for you, which is great. All I find (e.g. Psychology Today, WebMD, and empowher) is that men have a greater desire for sex and men desire sex more often. That is in agreement with my own personal experience and what I hear from others I know. That said, I strongly believe that sex is very important to the emotional well-being of a wife (and husband and marriage), and it is normal and healthy for a wife to desire sex. Unfortunately, many wives don’t know this or behave as if they don’t know it.
“So many women are living up to a cultural expectation that tells us we don’t need or desire sex like men do. That can become a self fulfilling prophecy.
[…]
I think we really do need to talk with one another about sex, men and women, and even men and women together.”
And many other women are living up to a cultural expectation that they should be having sex outside of marriage, which will impact any future marriage. They are hooking up with one-night stands, regular sex with boyfriends, etc. Indeed, whatever the behavior, it seems to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. As WebMD says, “Women are more influenced by the attitudes of their peer group in their decisions about sex.”
I agree that churches should have teaching and group discussion about sex. I am inclined to think most of it should involve both sexes together. Otherwise, I suspect that there is a tendency for each sex to focus on the negatives of the other sex, and even encourage the negativity through group-think. (Note: It’s my perception that women are likely to do this more often than men. After all, women have more social gatherings and do the most talking to each other.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
"A" dad said:
Ephesians 5
“28 And husbands should love their wives like that. They should love their wives as they love their own bodies. The man who loves his wife loves himself, 29 because no one ever hates his own body, but feeds and takes care of it. And that is what Christ does for the church 30 because we are parts of his body. 31 The Scriptures say, “That is why a man will leave his father and mother and join his wife, and the two people will become one.”[a] 32 That secret truth is very important—I am talking about Christ and the church.
33 But each one of you must love his wife as he loves himself. And a wife must respect her husband.”
Memi, speaking as a man and a husband, men typically do have a romantic nature, albeit a masculine romantic nature.
As the Word tells us above;
A husband MUST love his wife,
A wife MUST repsect her husband.
Perhaps the reason many men chafe at the term “owe”, attached to love, marriage and sexuality, is that many men think it is wrong to describe any of them in a “transactional” sense. If my wife and I are “one body”, the health of our body lies in the “all for one and one for all” idea. Speaking within the metaphor, the spleen and the liver should not be keeping acounts against one another, or “charging interest”, they have a function within the body that they should perform day in and day out.
For a guy “debts” and “oweing” are not romantic.
The Word says that a husband must love his wife. You could say a husband “owes” his wife love, but this is more correctly an obligation by the nature of a husbands marital commitment. There should be no “debt” between a husband and wife. There should be no “oweing” based on relationship transactions.
By the same token, a wife MUST respect her husband, again, by nature of her marital obligation.
After these two things, love and respect; everything else is a “should”, not a must, not a debt, not a transaction.
Everything a husband and wife “should” do, that is not done, is covered by forgiveness and repentance, in which ever order they may come.
After all “5 Love is not rude, it is not selfish, and it cannot be made angry easily.
Love does not remember wrongs done against it. (debts)
6 Love is never happy when others do wrong, but it is always happy with the truth. 1 Corinthians 13
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
“If my wife and I are “one body”, the health of our body lies in the “all for one and one for all” idea. Speaking within the metaphor, the spleen and the liver should not be keeping accounts against one another, or “charging interest”, they have a function within the body that they should perform day in and day out.”
I think you’re awesome A-dad, so no disrespect intended here, but reading those words I am struck by the sense of entitlement, the way “one flesh” is portrayed as if she is now just an extension of one’s own flesh. So, a liver has a “function” to perform which it better perform day in and day out?? Because that is just a liver’s function?
In effect what is being said here is that wives owe husbands sex because that is a wife’s “function” and she must owe this debt with no expectation of anything in return, including her own pleasure, in fact it rankles some to even suggest that she’ s offering anything of worth and value in the first place.
So, some people complain about sexual problems in marriage, wife is just disinterested or not really participating. This is a piece of that puzzle. As Eavan said above, “I don’t owe my wife anything to get sex; I don’t understand why she’s not enthusiastic about sex?” Precisely. What’s with that? The happier your wife is sexually,the more you will be too, or so it seems to me.
LikeLike
OKRickety said:
‘I think you’re awesome A-dad, so no disrespect intended here, but reading those words I am struck by the sense of entitlement, the way “one flesh” is portrayed as if she is now just an extension of one’s own flesh. So, a liver has a “function” to perform which it better perform day in and day out?? Because that is just a liver’s function?’
I believe that there are obligations in marriage (I think you agree). It seems to me that those obligations are the equivalent of functions as they are necessary for success. Fulfilling those obligations will contribute to the overall health of the marriage, the “one flesh”. If the two spouses do not fulfill the necessary functions in marriage, then it will weaken and probably die. In other words, both the liver and the spleen better do their functions, or the body will weaken and probably die.
“The happier your wife is sexually,the more you will be too, or so it seems to me.”
You’d think this would be true. I have my doubts.
LikeLike
"A" dad said:
1 Corinthians 12
21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the foot, “I don’t need you!” 22 No, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are actually very important. 23 And the parts that we think are not worth very much are the parts we give the most care to. And we give special care to the parts of the body that we don’t want to show. 24 The more beautiful parts don’t need this special care. But God put the body together and gave more honor to the parts that need it. 25 God did this so that our body would not be divided. God wanted the different parts to care the same for each other. 26 If one part of the body suffers, then all the other parts suffer with it. Or if one part is honored, then all the other parts share its honor.
27 All of you together are the body of Christ. Each one of you is a part of that body.
Ladies and men, I think we are all talking about two sides of the same coin. Neither the husband or wife want to “owe” the other in a negetive sense. In this thread we both seem to be saying this in the language of our own gender.
As always, God says things better than we do, especially as related to the Body of Christ, be it the church, or a marraige.
Memi, my own notion of “one flesh” is not “me”. My notion of “one flesh” or one body is “us”. Either my wife and I, or my fellow christians in the church. Not to mention that God says, “we are not our own, we where bought with a price, therefore Honor God with your bodies.” We are not even our own in some senses.
I am actually pretty passionate and altruistic about that “one body”, not entitled.
As to “functions”, at the end of the day, we all have to function to be healthy. I don’t think we disagree that there are better ways and not so great ways to function. We all want the better way, but don’t always know how to get “there”. Think about what we do for our kids. There are times that we don’t want to do all the parenting, but we just do “it” anyway, because we put our childrens needs ahead of our own. Couples have to do this with each other at times as well.
Memi, Scratchmom, and Rick, I think we are all saying that no one is “entitled” as part of a couple.
The unity that God calls us to be in, is where it sounds like we all want to be.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fromscratchmom said:
I appreciate what you are saying here “A”. I think there comes a great strife over point of view and language partly because of our personal experiences and partly because of our internet experiences where unfortunately there is a great preponderance of men assuming the best about the manly side (or never caring to think of it at all) and speaking to women owing both sex and submission whether using that exact terminology or not.
Of course I can only speak from my own experiences and not from everybody else’s but I do very often see a skewed and unfair viewpoint from men whereby they seem to believe that they are owed and regularly slighted and refuse to speak to the other side of the coin or speak of it only to include a rare bit of lip service to it, but then damning all efforts of women to explore where and why they are not allowed to feel loved and are allowed and expected to feel like one-sided demands are not only being made but with the claim that those are right and that any amount of them experiencing their own wants and needs or asking for communication and work is automatically sinful, the opposite of submissive, totally disrespectful. (I am not referring to you or your comments.) Many men come at it in hurt and anger and with demands rather than as leaders, lovers, forgivers, and most needed godly men, fellow heirs. Wherever men come demanding respect and calling out women as disrespectful every time they perceive a slight, men tend to become emotionally abusive. And where men are behaving in a way to lord their position over them, choosing to be emotionally abusive, they are inherently simultaneously sexually hurting their wives at the same time.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Eavan said:
A-Dad, it seems you are defining obligation and debt as different things. The marital debt is an ancient concept, a term that is still used by many churches, and it means marital obligation. If I love somebody, I simply owe them some things. In other words, I can’t claim to love my husband and then refuse to pay attention to his needs. I owe him my attention. Not paying attention is my failure to love, not a negation of what I owe. Moderns hate the concept of duty, but doing one’s duty can be done grudgingly, in which case it’s selfish, or out of love, in which case it gives life. The motivation is the issue, not the concept.
It’s interesting the order in which I Corinthians 7:3 puts sexual obligations.
http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/7-3.htm
LikeLiked by 2 people
OKRickety said:
Eavan,
“Marital debt” is used primarily in the Roman Catholic church, and it refers specifically to conjugal duties.
I agree that marriage involves many duties or obligations, and they should not be odious but instead done out of love.
It’s also interesting to see the order in which more general marital obligations are expressed.
Ephesians 5:22-25
Colossians 3:18-19
LikeLike
Eavan said:
“The key here was unscriptural. You seem to ignore Scripture here and instead talk about “natural law” (whatever that is [sounds rather like Red Pill talk to me]), basic biology, and healthy human sexuality. Let’s go to the Bible instead.”
Natural Law is the aspect of God’s nature expressed through his Creation. If you think “just Scripture” is enough for Christians to understand right and wrong, you have not been paying attention to the Protestant Wars.
Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”
Since the creation of the world, before Scripture, before the Law was written, men have known Natural Law because it is written in Creation. What a woman IS determines what she is FOR. When people decide they can interpret Scripture just fine with no education and no humility we get these ridiculous claims that obviously closely follow human desires rather than conforming to the intention of the Creator.
LikeLiked by 1 person
"A" dad said:
E’,
to your above comment, motivation is the issue indeed. In my mind honoring one’s obligations adds positive to positive.
Meeting one’s debts applies current positives to correct past negatives.
I prefer to be honoring and positive where I can be!
LikeLiked by 2 people
insanitybytes22 said:
I like this A-dad, I mean how can you go wrong laying a positive on a positive? Being positive and honoring is really what it’s all about. 🙂
Just the same, we speak of Christ in terms of debt. He paid a debt on our behalf, a debt paid to correct past negatives, one He did not even owe. So something is not quite right when we accept that gift and yet pull back from the idea that we too may have debts we need to pay on behalf of others. I know in marriage life is not always a bed of roses, so we really are called to pay debts, to pay for negatives, some of which don’t even belong to us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
OKRickety said:
I don’t know what you mean by the Protestant Wars. An internet search has provided no help, unless you mean actions like the 30 Years War and such.
As to Natural Law, Wikipedia says “In Western culture, the conception of natural law first appears in Ancient Greek philosophy.”, and gives St. Augustine as one of the first Christians to seek to “incorporate natural law into Christianity”. FreeDictionary defines it as “an ethical belief or system of beliefs supposed to be inherent in human nature and discoverable by reason rather than revelation”.
I read Romans 1:18-20 to mean that God’s attributes, power, and nature are clearly seen in what God created. This is not the same as saying that our natural desires are the desires God wants us to have. If our natural desires are good, then there would have been no need for the Law of Moses, nor for salvation through Jesus Christ.
Perhaps the best argument for the idea of Natural Law in Christianity is found in Romans 2:14-15. But even then Paul only accepts the Gentiles’ behavior when it agrees with the Mosaic Law. In other words, scripture trumps Natural Law. That is, the acceptability of the desires of a woman (or man) is based on God’s Word, not on Natural Law.
I really do not understand what your point is in saying “What a woman IS determines what she is FOR.”. Especially, what you mean by “IS”? Her inbuilt, human nature or something else?
LikeLike
Eavan said:
My use of the term Protestant Wars refers to the intellectual wars Protestants wage with one another over the meaning of Scripture.
Here’s an encapsulated explanation of natural moral law theory. It has nothing to do with desire. God’s written law codified and expanded upon natural law. Natural moral law proceeds from the nature of God and the reason the Ancient Greeks talked about it is because they could see it in nature.
http://taylormarshall.com/2014/06/thomas-aquinas-natural-law-5-points.html
We have to first know what something is before we can know what it’s for. What is a woman and what purpose did God have in creating her?
LikeLiked by 1 person
OKRickety said:
As far as I can see with a small amount of research, the concepts of Natural Law seem to be inconsistent with reality and with the Bible. I doubt that it would be considered to be of any importance to Christianity without the support of the Roman Catholic church for hundreds of years.
The primary precept of Natural Law: “Good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.”
In the world today, we often hear of crimes and sins against others. I cannot explain these awful behaviors without believing that because of their natural, fleshly nature, people have chosen to act evilly for themselves rather than for good.
The Natural Law seems to be at odds with what Paul wrote in Galatians 5 where he contrasts living by the Spirit with living according to the desires of the flesh. He provides a long list of sins that are the result of living for the flesh.
[Gal. 5:16-17 NASB] 16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. 17 For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.
God created Eve to be a helpmeet to Adam. A woman is a person, and her purpose is to be a suitable helper to a man (her husband), and a companion to him (so he will not be alone).
LikeLike
Eavan said:
Natural Law refers to the state of Creation before the Fall.
LikeLike
Fromscratchmom said:
IB, if you move the bar forward to 25 minutes in and just listen for a minute or so you’ll hear a description of the kind of controlling you’ve mentioned the red pills do and this guy’s take is all about the fact that those who get into such abusive relationships are unhealthy but can do their own work to improve and get healthier. It’s often our own past baggage that entangles us, but then we may be figure her abused and damaged by whoever is currently exerting power over us too. There’s so much in his videos for men and women alike if only people truly want to be owning ear own stuff and improving! Although I could wish he was approaching things from a Christian perspective, there’s often much to learn anyway. You just have to compare everything to the Word to see how it holds up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
This is great, scratchmom. That guy has it figured out for sure.
The other day I blogged about feelings, the importance of recognizing them and dealing with them, because repressed feelings are the things that narcs, sociopaths,abusers, use to hook you with, to control you with. This guy calls it jerking the reins. People aren’t always aware of it, but they have triggers, hot spots, vulnerabilities. The more we can deal with those and heal, the happier and the stronger we’ll be.
LikeLike
A dad said:
So good thing we are all having a decent, adult discussion here! While we might all be talking near the edges of other people’s emotional wounds, (and our own) seems like individual expressions of these issues are successfully expressed and heard. If nothing else, I trust we are gaining some emotional fortitude!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fromscratchmom said:
I agree, “A”!
LikeLike
Eavan said:
“R. Albert Mohler Jr. president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., said the amendment was based on a Southern Baptist belief in the literal interpretation of Scripture. The submission of wives to their husbands, Mr. Mohler said, is ”not a modern idea” but ”is clearly revealed in Scripture.”
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/06/10/us/southern-baptists-declare-wife-should-submit-to-her-husband.html
I suspect Mohler had a great deal to do with the language of the declaration and the refusal to water it down. In my experience, it’s a normal practice for pastors to address men’s issues when speaking to men instead of women’s issues when speaking to men.
Oh, but wait. Mohler is one of the despised complementarians – therefore, he must not believe the Bible or be Christian.
LikeLiked by 2 people
OKRickety said:
” In my experience, it’s a normal practice for pastors to address men’s issues when speaking to men instead of women’s issues when speaking to men.”
Are you referring to groups of all men, or groups with both men and women? In the latter case, is it normal practice to address women’s issues when speaking to the women, or is nothing said to the women? When there are groups of all women, who addresses them, and do they address men’s issues at that time?
“Oh, but wait. Mohler is one of the despised complementarians – therefore, he must not believe the Bible or be Christian.”
I think you may be misunderstanding the stance some are taking on complementarians. I believe the stance is that complementarians are misunderstanding the Bible, and thus wrong about the place of women in the church and in marriage. I don’t think the claim is that they don’t believe the Bible or that they are not Christians.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eavan said:
Separate groups and groups with both men and women. I’ve heard teaching on submission my whole life, although I’d have to agree with Scratchmom above – women get hammered with this message, maybe because women put pressure on each other. I grew up in a church that taught men had no responsibilities except to stay committed – no adultery allowed, although if a man did then we all were supposed to understand because, you know, it’s hard to be a man. It’s somewhat amusing that the RP men think they’ve discovered something new. I grew up knowing that women were inferior, more sinful, burdened with the stain of Eve, because that’s all I heard all the time. The churches I’ve been in since that one have roughly equal teaching to men and women. What is common is for the pastor to teach the men one week and the women the following or vice versa. I’ve never been in a church that had a man-up message without a woman-up message following.
I’m assuming, given that Mary Kassian and Mohler are both complementarians, that the comments that apply to Kassian also apply to Mohler.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Fromscratchmom said:
I’m not sure where y’all are exactly. Maybe my confusion stems from being a follower of neither the southern baptists nor the red pill or alt-right fiascos, but in groups I’ve been associated with women studying together and teaching each other to “love their husbands” are common place. They are the norm, week in and week out. And yes, of course, they tend to address women’s issues in such all women-in-the-room groups. They actually tend to do a pretty great job insisting that women come to understand and accept various aspects of men’s need to be respected, how and why to submit anyway when you have real knowledge/expertise and know he’s wrong about something or when you’re just feeling particularly strong-willed as some of us are obviously prone to, and similarly not-easy things to grapple with, according to my take on my experiences in such classes but also according to male reviewers of class materials and male reactions to women making changes based on what they learned in ladies class.
Once in a blue moon I hear of men doing all men’s groups where just men’s roles are addressed. Sadly the one time my soon-to-be-ex went to one of them, the supposed hard hitting admonishment was that you still have to love your wife after she’s had a baby and has changed in appearance. Needless to say this would seem to do little to help anyone get a clue about what love and understanding manners are and was thoroughly demoralizing to me when I learned the details years later to consider if the men of a particular group are so stuck in carnality that having to put up with a post-baby body is their big stumbling block in life. Oh my. Really does not seem like it takes a lot of thought and intelligence to conclude any such person who wanted to be married to an 18 year old or a porn star forever shouldn’t have ever gotten married in the first place and has a whole lot more repenting to do beyond what was addressed. Come to think of it, I can’t actually even mind all that much if that is difficult for some men. Everyone is different and we all have some faults that are probably ridiculous to lots of other people, not to mention temptations that would be if they were known. But I certainly do think it’s not kosher if that’s the bulk of the message that Christian men apparently need (or the bulk of what they receive) and they can’t get anywhere near the whys, hows and wherefores of helping a woman feel safe, secure, and loved, of becoming a godly leader, husband, and father.
LikeLiked by 2 people
OKRickety said:
Fromscratchmom,
What you were told about that men’s group seems much different from any I have ever encountered. I do not think it is typical, but I could be wrong. Perhaps you should ask your church leaders what topics they teach there, or, if they don’t have such groups, why they don’t do it.
Based on what I have read in your comments (and, I am hesitant to say, possible leading by the Spirit), I would like to suggest a book that might be helpful to you. It is Surprised by the Healer: Embracing Hope for Your Broken Story by Linda Dillow and Dr. Juli Slattery. (Full disclosure: I have not read this book, so I am not recommending, only suggesting.) I have read another book by Dillow and it was excellent. I have read some of Slattery’s articles on the internet and I am impressed with her, too. Amazon allows you to have a “look inside” (i.e. read some of the book before you decide to buy). You may know someone who has read it, or is familiar with the authors. I expect there are many reviews on the internet, too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fromscratchmom said:
Thanks, OK. I’ll try to check it out.
LikeLike
Elspeth said:
Way late to this party, but having spent the whole of my 45 year life in the church (Protestant), my experience has been that men usually get hammered in mixed company because as a general rule, men aren’t as likely to attend men’s meetings. Men don’t usually gather for the sake of it. They’ll go fishing, hunting, etc and talk theology alongside it, but just to gather> Not as much and so churches are forced to do the “man up” stuff in corporate gatherings.
Women on the other hand, are often given a pass but the duties of wives are most usually hit with laser like focus in women’s meetings because women are not averse to attending women’s meetings. We’re more social and more open to such things.
To the topic at hand, the OT paints a picture of marital intimacy which indicates that women are not only sexual beings, but that it is in fact the husband who has the duty to pull out all the stops to insure her satisfaction. In the OT a man is commanded to spend the entire first year of marriage “making his bride happy”:
“When a man takes a new wife, he shall not go out with the army nor be charged with any duty; he shall be free at home one year and shall give happiness to his wife whom he has taken. Deut. 24:5
That’s a tall order, and I have no doubt that the wife’s sexual needs are wrapped up in the command.
LikeLiked by 3 people
insanitybytes22 said:
Interesting, Elspeth. I’ve never really considered Duet 24. Kind of like a honeymoon, isn’t it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eavan said:
Scratchmom: This is for you. My heart hurts for you and I pray God’s peace and healing to rest on you.
LikeLike
Fromscratchmom said:
Thank-you, Eavan. That was very kind and touching. *hugs*
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fromscratchmom said:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Cultivating a Wife – Cracked Chains
Eavan said:
IB: I had some further thoughts about this post that are more appropriate for me to put on my space. I have no idea how to do a pingback, but I wanted you to know I mentioned your post on my blog.
https://haideemetea.wordpress.com/2016/08/10/cultivating-a-wife/
LikeLiked by 2 people
insanitybytes22 said:
Thank you. Your ping back went through just fine.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Eavan said:
It’s so fun when I make things happen with no idea how 😉
LikeLiked by 2 people
insanitybytes22 said:
You did well. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Stumbling Onto Natural Law – Cracked Chains
authorstephanieparkermckean said:
Excellent. Just 100% on target and excellent. Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jack Curtis said:
Indeed, hence the appropriate term: “sexual relations,” right? Licit sex is part of a relationship. Without one, it drops to the level of commerce.
It does not seem to me that a husband earns his sexual congress, that would indeed commercialize the relationship. It would make of the wife, a prostitute of sorts. (And of course, vice versa.)
Rather, it is indeed a debt, owed by each to the other jointly as part of the wider social agreement that is their relationship.
Perhaps the fundamental error we see now is the implicit separation of sex from reproduction. Once we have embedded that sexual d deconstruction into our behavioral ethic, we all become prostitutes … Or so it seems to me.
Which is not to ignore what seems a genetic predispositioj of men and women both, to seek or at least, be tempted by fleeting “outside” opportunities. There is likely biological value in that. Perhaps the species requires it. But if so, it remains ancillary to th primary, enduring and coequal sexual relationship….
LikeLiked by 2 people
chloroquine phosphate generic said:
cloraquinn https://chloroquineorigin.com/ chloroquine phosphate medicine
LikeLike
Office hunter said:
I was pretty pleased to uncover this site. I need to to thank you for your time for this particularly wonderful read!! I definitely appreciated every part of it and I have you saved to fav to see new information in your web site.
오피헌터
LikeLike
kavbet said:
güncel kavbet giriş bilgilerine hemen gir
LikeLike