angst ridden about sex

citizenthom · #31 17th March 2011, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by Laurentia

I guess I'd better tell the wrinklies in our church to get divorced then as they're not having burnin', monkey sex every day of the week.

Who said "every day of the week" was a requirement? No one: you're inventing that hyperbole to try to make a point everyone knows is invalid.

BTW, you'd probably be surprised how much sex old, happy married couples have--especially in the age of Viagra and artificial lubricants.

BUT - and it's a big but - if marriage is only for passion, what happens when one spouse becomes unable to have sex? Not unwilling, not, but unable. Like, a major disability, cancer, MS .. name your disability. Is that marriage no longer valid?

Invalid, no. But it becomes extremely painful, and like all serious illnesses and their consequences, it is not what God intended when He designed Adam and Eve.

dallasapple · #32 17th March 2011, 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by citizenthom

If that was the case, then 1.) sex would result in pregnancy 100% of the time or close to it (it doesn't); 2.) the command to Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply" would not have been separate, in both time and context, from the command to become one flesh; and 3.) Paul would have said "the husband shall knock up his wife" and not "the husband shall please his wife."

Maybe this is another source of female angst about sex that I hadn't considered before: the feeling that the possibility of pregnancy turns an active sex life into a form of potential slavery.

1 Corinthians 7:

7:3 A husband should give to his wife her sexual rights, 4 and likewise a wife to her husband. 7:4 It is not the wife who has the rights to her own body, but the husband. In the same way, it is not the husband who has the rights to his own body, but the wife. 7:5 Do not deprive each other, except by mutual agreement for a specified time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. 5 Then resume your relationship . . .

Not the greatest translation, but you can look it up in your own Bible.

And to pre-empt the typical response, if you think it's not a command from God just because Paul physically wrote it, then you have a more fundamental spiritual problem.

I didnt say 100% of the time..The PRIMARY reason for beign BORN with reproductive organs is to be able to REPRODUCE PERIOD..the fact that if feelsood is SECONDARY and in fact is a driver for us to engage in the act and have a better chance to reproduce..

So no not 100% of the time..but there is NO order by God NONE to inhibit/stop wipe out the chance of reproducing and only have sex for pleasure .God NEVER said to purposely block the sperm and the egg from meeting..Never.

What you quoted above does not change that..The quote above in fact unless you are claiming that our eggs and sperm are not a part of our body is the point.

The fact that we dont get pregnant 100% of the time means nothing.It certainly doesnt mean that we are supposed to BLOCK Gods purpose for SEX .

Show me where God commanded that we have sex..and to deliberately make it as close to 100% of the time you are preventing your flesh(egg and sperm) from becoming "one"?

Telling us to enjoy each others bodies ..and to not deny each other our bodies..I hardly see is the same hing as tellings to make sure when we do that ..it does NOT result in pregnancy..so we can have MORE sex without the "worry" of becoming gnant and havign a child which you can not DENY is how God desinged it..for it to be at LEAST a possiblilty..when we are fertile.

I can guarantee you ..I would have MANY more children than 3 and so would the MAJORITY of people if they did NOT use BC..Saying it wouldnt be 100% of the time we had sex that it resulted in pregnancy is a straw man.

The point is if you want to throw scripture out there about sex beign the primary reason for marraige..then INCLUDE the fact that sex is desinged to REPRODUCE..and you Im sure have ZERO problem interfering with that part of Gods plan for SEX.

Cake and eat it too I say..

Dallas

citizenthom · #33 17th March 2011, 05:43 PM

Please cite one Scriptural reference that says anything akin to, "sex is designed for reproduction."

For that matter, please cite a single New Testament passage that orders married couples to have children.

dallasapple · #34 17th March 2011, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by citizenthom

Please cite one Scriptural reference that says anything akin to, "sex is designed for reproduction."

For that matter, please cite a single New Testament passage that orders married couples to have children.

Oh my..are you seriously going to tell me that God did NOT design sex for us to have chidren?

So its a "man made" thing that if I have sex with my husband today..and we do NOTHING but have sex..no interference with our bodies..and I get pregnant that is NOT Gods design?

You are flat out going to look me in the keyboard and tell me that its not by Gods design that sex is for reproduction?

I wonder WHY He made the man able to insert part of his body into the womans body..and out of him during that process he deposits a LIVING cell....that travels inside of her body all the way to her awaiting livign cell and they meet.. and there it stays in her body and she feeds it and nurtures it until an ENTIRE NEW unique human beign is created then COINCIDENATALLY that new human beign travels through the exact canal that the man inserted his body to be born..

Wow..I thought that was Gods plan and design..FOR SEX..

You apparrently have figured out something else.

Dallas

dallasapple · #35 17th March 2011, 06:42 PM

Im just curious to other posters..Do other people question besides Citizenthorne that Gods design for sex was in part but a PRIMARY part is reproduction?And that running aroudn spouting that sex is the primary reason for marraige but leaving out the having babies part in fact interfering with conception is tamperign with Gods design so you can only get the pleasure part is a double standard..or havign your cake and eating it too attitude.

Isnt it kind of silly to say God desinged sex for pleasure ..that it doesnt say in scripture that sex is for reproduction..but the only reason we are even HERE to have sex for pleasure is that our parents had sex and reproduced .

That people wouldnt even be here to have pleasurabel sex if sex by DESIGN wasnt to have people in the first place?

Because I for one was born because my parents had sex..I didnt appear in a pumkin patch while my parents were in the house having enjoyable sex..

And by the way ..if reproduction ISNT the MAIN reason for havign sex then WHY do we even have to take measures to stop it?

Dallas

Created2Write · #36 17th March 2011, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by chaz345

I think that the problem that Cons speaks of is multi-faceted.

I do think that the contradiction between the whole "good girls don't" and the Biblical truth on sex plays a part.

But I think the bigger part is that we've made sex and marriage into something entirely different than what God invented them for. Here's where I'm sure I'm going to get into trouble with some, but from a strictly Biblical standpoint, the main purpose of getting married is to deal with one's sex drive. Paul very clearly says that it is better to remain unmarried but if one cannot control their sex drive, then get married. Seems pretty simple to me. If you don't have a strong desire for sex, don't get married. And I think it's pretty obvious that we've got lots of married people(men and women) who don't exactly have a strong sex drive. If you've got a "I can take or leave it" type of sex drive, then according to the Bible, it is better for you to not marry.

I think the problem comes in in that we've made marriage into something else completely. Many believe that marriage is about emotional fulfilliment or completeing yourself or something similar. Maybe I'm missing something but I truly do not find that anywhere in the Bible.

So in short I think a lot of the problem with the angst comes from making sex and marriage into something other than what it was intended to be.

This also doesn't mean that love and emotional fulfillment are wrong. Honestly, sex for many people is an aspect of emotional fulfillment, it is an aspect of love that they crave. The Bible's entire message is about love. Husbands are commanded to love their wives unconditionally, so it's not like love/emotional fulfillment are wrong. But, like you said, nowhere does it say to get married for emotional fulfillment, or love. It says to marry for sex. Period.

Thank you for saying this. I agree.

mkgal1 · #37 17th March 2011, 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by chaz345

I didn't say that a low sex drive person shouldn't be allowed to marry, but the BIBLE says that it is better to not marry and that only if one burns with passion should they marry. By bringing up frequency you are only needlessly complicating the point. What's there in the Bible is pretty straightforward, if you don't burn with passion(seems to indicate a fairly high drive to me) then don't get married. Simple.

But your question about not being allowed to marry sort of proves the another part of my point about us having made marriage into something other than what it's supposed to be. Why would someone with little to no interest in sex want/need to get married in the first place?

Originally Posted by chaz345

Where exactly does the Bible speak about marriage being about love and companionship?

I don't at all dispute the idea that that's what it's been made into, but my point is that I don't believe that to be Biblical.

Originally Posted by chaz345

No not really. In an ideal world, one where people were following what the Bible actually said, they'd not marry, because the Bible clearly says that not marrying is better.

This has got to be the most intriguing lines of thought I have come across in a long time.

Paul didn't come up with the idea of marriage, and what he had said was his suggestion for that specific time. It's my understanding that he believed Christ was coming back in a very short time.

It was God that came up with the idea of marriage. It seems to me that you are adding a lot of your spin to the text, yet will only consider that marriage is primarily about (not ONLY about, but mostly about) companionship and love if the Bible says...in red letters....Jesus said, "marriage is about love and companionship."

To use your logic, Chaz....why doesn't the Bible say, "It wasn't good that man didn't have a sexual partner.....so, He created Eve." if sex were the primary reason for marriage? And.....if it is better that people NOT marry....then why did God create Eve for Adam....or are you saying they weren't married?

Created2Write · #38 17th March 2011, 09:57 PM

Originally Posted by mkgal1

This has got to be the most intriguing lines of thought I have come across in a long time.

Paul didn't come up with the idea of marriage, and what he had said was his suggestion for that specific time. It's my understanding that he believed Christ was coming back in a very short time.

Chaz isn't saying that Paul was 100% correct, nor has he said that Paul came up with the idea. I don't even think chaz is saying he agrees with what Paul said. What chaz HAS said, is that, Biblically speaking, there is no support for what Christians say marriage is about today. Things like, friendship, love, companionship, financial security; those things are not listed in the Bible as reasons to marry. Chaz has NOT said those things shouldn't or can't be apart of marriage, what he's said is that they are not listed in the Bible as reasons to marry.

Don't read into his posts if you don't want yours read into.

Originally Posted by mkgal1

It was God that came up with the idea of marriage. It seems to me that you are adding a lot of your spin to the text, yet will only consider that marriage is primarily about (not ONLY about, but mostly about) companionship and love if the Bible says...in red letters....Jesus said, "marriage is about love and companionship."

I don't see that's what he's saying at all. He would be hypocrite if that were the case, as he probably adores his own wife. What he IS saying, is that the traditional Christian concept for marriage ISN'T supported in scripture. And, frankly, it's not.

What I don't understand is why there is all this controversy over things like submission, and how that's not really what was meant to be written, and how it should be okay for people to question that even though their words go against scripture, yet when chaz brings up a verse and says, "Maybe there's something to this verse?", suddenly he's viewed as some kind of pagan, trying to add meanings to scripture, when he's not going against scripture, he's going against tradition? It's hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by mkgal1

To use your logic, Chaz....why doesn't the Bible say, "It wasn't good that man didn't have a sexual partner.....so, He created Eve." if sex were the primary reason for marriage? And.....if it is better that people NOT marry....then why did God create Eve for Adam....or are you saying they weren't married?

You should be asking God this question, mk. Sometimes, God does things that don't make sense to us. And, since God was the one who inspired the Bible as it was written down, He would be the only person who could answer this question accurately. Yes, God made Eve to be a helper to Adam. Yet, in the NT, God clearly allowed Paul to write what he did about marriage. We're all totally fine with the "husbands love your wives" part, but when Paul mentions that it's better not to marry unless you burn with passion, suddenly there's an issue.

I'm not saying I believe it's better to not marry, but then again, I was one of those that burned with passion. And I am happy to be married, so I CAN burn with passion all I want, and express that to my husband at any time he or I desires. And, considering how often the differing sex drives effect marriages on this forum alone, and how often we all bicker back and forth about it, I'm inclined to believe that Paul was right. There is nothing that I have seen in the Bible, or in Christianity today to convince me that Paul was wrong. Nothing.

Whether it's a man or a woman who feels sexually neglected, the differing sex drives massively effect marriages on this forum. Men and woman alike are bitter. Sometimes it's the man, feeling rejected and trapped. Sometimes it's the woman, feeling as if it's because she's has kids and isn't as youthful as she used to be. Sometimes it's the man, feeling as though he isn't satisfying enough. Sometimes it's the woman, feeling as though she's expected to put out too much, etc etc etc. If differing sex drives WASN'T such a big deal, why does it have such an effect? Why would Paul have said that?

Moreover, if the Bible is inspired of God, wouldn't that mean that God intended for that verse to be there? Or was it just Paul ranting about whatever he wanted?

citizenthom · #39 17th March 2011, 11:35 PM

Originally Posted by dallasapple

Oh my..are you seriously going to tell me that God did NOT design sex for us to have chidren?

He designed a whole lot of ways for us to derive sexual pleasure without even risking pregnancy, and describes many of them at length in Song of Solomon. God clearly designed our sex organs for pleasure, and designed one specific sexual act with a specific ending for procreation.

mkgal1 · #40 18th March 2011, 12:01 AM

Originally Posted by Created2Write

Yet, in the NT, God clearly allowed Paul to write what he did about marriage. We're all totally fine with the "husbands love your wives" part, but when Paul mentions that it's better not to marry unless you burn with passion, suddenly there's an issue.

Yes, there IS an issue....because taking that one line and building an entire doctrine on it (ignoring much of the rest of the Bible ) is taking things out of context. In case you aren't familiar with the rest of that letter, or haven't read it in awhile....here is more--remember it all goes together--it is one letter from Paul to one audience--the Church of Corinth:

Originally Posted by 1st Corinthians 7

What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not; 30 those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31 those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away