Are you lazy in your marriage?

[cerette]

cerette,

Yes in many instances a man could do something romantic toward the woman he loves with no thought of sex at that particular moment(whether before marriage or after). I have done this many times for my wife both before and after marriage.

My wife has had many health problems since we were married 4 years ago. When I have helped her bath or helped her in the bathroom with other issues after surgery or other complications there was no thought of sex, only of love for her and caring for her.

There are many times when my wife is so sick I can't imagine her doing things around the house and I gladly take care of things out of love for her with no thought of her doing something in return for me.

But I would equally argue that sometimes a woman will have sex(after marriage) with her husband without having been previously romanced or even being in the mood herself. She might see her husband come home from work stressed and worried, and know that for her particular husband there is way she take his mind off that. So without previously be in the mood, or having been romanced by him - she gives herself to her husband.

I don't think it contradicts - I believe that how love is expressed before marriage is not always an accurate picture of how love is expressed after marriage. That's why I don't personally believe in long dating periods and engagement periods for Christians. I have talked to my teen sons about this many times.

There are different kinds of love, there is the love of a parent towards a child. There is the love of siblings toward each other. There is the love of friends towards one another. There is the general love of all mankind.

Then there is marital love, romantic love, the love between a man and woman in marriage. Marital love requires sex to be complete. Sex is not the only component of marital love, but it is a required component of marital love.

As a marriage counselor at a church I attended one time said, human beings individually will not die from not having sex. But marital love will eventually die without the couple coming together in loving sex.

Yes there are rare married couples that for medical reasons are not able to have sex and I would not say they don't love one another. This would be more common with elderly people who for medical reasons might not be able to have sex with their spouse. I would argue that if they both truly desire to be with one another physically, but simply cannot they still have marital love. But if they have no desire to be with one another physically anymore, then they have more of a friendship love, if love still exists between them.

I'm coming down with a cold so don't have much energy to get into all the points you make above, but I do want to comment on the thing about sex and marital love. I think Valleygal worded it very well in one of her posts above. I totally agree with her that sex is NOT necessary for marital love. Sure, it's usually a part of it, but I could not go as far as to say it's absolutely needed, and if it is lacking there is suddenly no marital love. I don't have enough insight into other peoples' marriages to be able to say that in order for them to have true marital love, there needs to be a certain amount of sex. That is between them, and them & God, and none of my business.

I'll try to reply more when I have the energy...

 

[musingsofacac]

Tropical Wilds,

My previous comment

yes we want more than sex, we want someone to share our life with, to have common goals with, but we want more than a companion and mother to our children, we want a lively, regular sexual relationship with someone who respects and tries to meet our sexual needs.

Your response

So it's like I said, what you're saying is that you can have everything in common in the world, but that's the bonus to the core want of sex. If you're with a woman who's sharing common life values with you, it doesn't matter if she's not putting out because "men" won't be happy. You are literally saying that the most important element is sex and that men are so simple and shallow that as long as they're getting that, the rest of the common beliefs, interests, and compatibilities are merely perks.

I never said "a woman who's sharing common life values with you" in marriage was a "bonus", again words you have put in my mouth. Other things are required as well.

Let me try yet again to clarify this for you, although I believe anyone who believes as I do that sex is a required part of marital love would understand EXACTLY what I am saying.

This is what I and millions of conservative, Bible believing Christian men look for in a wife:
1. A Christian woman who shares not only our faith, but our view of marriage and family, and shares a similar moral framework, a woman of good character. Someone who we could see as a companion and mother to our future children.
2. If AND ONLY IF she fulfills item 1, then do we share common life goals? (Even if people are Christians, their goals may be very different, so our goals need to be similar).
3. IF AND ONLY IF she fulfills items 2 and 3 - Is she attractive to us?(I did not say perfect, but is there some chemistry?)
4. If she fulfills item 1(for those millions of Christians who believe as I do) then most likely she will have the correct attitude toward sex and it won't be an issue.

So in marriage neither I, nor those Christian men all over the United States and the world that believe as I do, would NOT be happy just if our wife had sex with us. If she was not acting like a Christian, if she did not love us and our children, if she did not want to spend time with us, but was only willing to have sex with us WE WOULD NOT BE HAPPY.

But as I as have stated over and over(and you have twisted over and over) - if items 1 and 2 were there, but she refused to have sex with us, or made us feel shallow for placing a high value on sex in our marriage, WE WOULD NOT BE HAPPY EITHER. Many Christian men live with this, they deal with it and struggle with it as the Men's Personal Issues forum can attest to. They ask God each day to help them to be a good husband to their wife, in spite of her horrible attitude toward their sexual needs.

So its not an EITHER OR proposition as you have falsely put forth. Its not a choice between a good Christian woman of good character who is our companion through life and a sexual partner. IT IS BOTH - BOTH ARE REQUIRED.

I am not sure I could be clearer on this.

And contrary to your group survey, I have been in churches with thousands of people(both men and women), that would disagree your group survey. They teach exactly what I am saying, from a Biblical perspective, that sex is a required part of marital love.

For instance, I attended a church in Virgina when I temporarily worked there that had a high amount of military people attending it. One of the members(who was a military chaplain and marriage counselor) in my Sunday school class(a class of married people) clearly stated that while a individual will not die without sex, marital love will die. He has counseled with hundreds, if not thousands of couples - many of them in the military and he can attest to that fact.

He said it is a challenge for married military couples, because they may be separated from each other for 6 months to a year. He said even though they were not able to physically experience one another in the act of sex, they expressed their longing for one another and yes in a sexual way as well as others.

You put words in my mouth about "frequency" - it is not about "frequency" as these couples were separated for 6 months to a year at a time. It is about attitude!! It is about the desire to be with one one another. If you have little or no desire sexually toward one another, you may still love one another(in a friendship way) - but not with a marital love.

One other item - you touch on the fact that 95% of Christian couples have sex before marriage, I am not sure I agree with that but I will concede it is a high number(not that its right either, but we are all sinners).

However, just because a man is getting sex before marriage does not mean that he does not want to get married, nor would most Christian men assume they can just have sex with a professed Christian woman indefinitely.

In fact in my experience most Christian couples(both the man the woman) who have sex before marriage that I have known experience a great deal of guilt about it and have a great deal of relief when they are married that they are no longer violating God's law.

Even for non-Christian men they marry not only for sex, but also because they love their woman they are with and they want to share a committed life with her. But just because they marry for love, does not mean that sex was not a very important part of the equation.

It is truly sad to me that some women take such a petty views of their husbands sexuality.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I have new glasses and they are really tiring out my eyes. I can't read all.

But I did catch something about 95% of Christians having sex before marriage.

Not in my circles ... I know it happens SOMEtimes, but most couples are extremely committed to waiting for marriage. Including ones that have been previously married or unchaste. Probably a good 80% at minimum and that's allowing for some "not telling" - otherwise I'd have to say 95% or so are choosing to wait.

I'm not a man - and that was one of my reasons for wanting to marry. Not the main one, but it was certainly something to anticipate on the wedding night!

 

[musingsofacac]

Musing, I'm not sure if you realize that you are not supposed to have a link to your own site/blog in your signature. You are allowed to have it on your home page, but not as part of your signature.

Thanks for that info - I have removed it.

I'm sure there are many who disagree - including me. I absolutely love my husband as a man, as a husband, as a lover, as my best friend. But if he were (God forbid!) unable to perform sexually, it would not change the nature of my love for him; that is, my marital love.

Sexual desire and a willingness to give's one's self to the other is what God requires in marital love. Sometimes a couple may be separated(like military couples) and other times because of medical conditions a couple cannot have sex. I am not arguing that you could not still have a marital love(simply because you cannot act on your sexual desires for one another), if the desire to be with him sexually is still there and he still desires you sexually, then marital love still exists. So in the example you give I would agree there could still be marital love.

Your analogy does not hold water. A car depends on tires in order for it to operate from point a to point b. A marriage can be just as functional without sex as it can with sex. Marriage is not dependent on sex in order to operate as a marriage.

If you or your husband no longer desire to have sex with one another you don't have marital love anymore. Yes you still have a marriage, there are many marriages that don't have marital love, they have more of a friendship love, if love still exists at all (some married couples just live together and have little feelings towards each other).

Marital love is gifted with sex. Sex is God's wedding gift to a married couple. Marital love is what draws people together to marry, and whether they ever open that wedding gift or not is immaterial. They can still share marital love without sex.

This statement sums up what all the people here opposing sex as a requirement of marital love are saying. You have framed your position well and I could not disagree with you more.

I agree that sex is God's gift to marriage. However it not immaterial. It is a gift that is in fact - required to be opened.

I Corinthians 7

7 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

So basically Paul is saying this. He wishes all men(and women) were able to be like him(celibate). But he understands this is a special gift from God to be able to be celibate - Christ alluded to this in the Gospels. For everyone else(the vast majority of the population) he says it is better to marry than to burn with passion for someone.

He then goes on to tell us that once married, our body belongs to our spouse, and that except for a mutually agreed upon time of fasting and prayer, married couples should come together in sex as often as possible - and one of the reasons for this is to avoid sexual temptation.

Sex is not an optional gift that can be opened in marriage, once marriage has occurred it is required that this gift be opened and done as regularly as is possible.

I have a huge concern about this comment. What you are saying is that men who are unable to perform like a stud do not feel confident in who they are as a man? So...does that mean that a woman who is 50, 60, 70 and up should feel less of a woman just because she can't perform like she did when she was 30? It seems silly to me that sexual performance is "a defining attribute" of who men are as "men."

Actually a man's sexual performance does affect him psychologically. My father(a Godly Christian man) was deeply affected by this after his prostate cancer and surgery.

Do any of you read from marriage counselors(both Christian and non-Christian) online about this?

Yes my mother and father worked their way through it and accepted the changes. But it did not change their sexual desire for one another, they just had to accept the limitations(that could not be helped).

Again calling a man's sexuality(as integrated into who he is) silly is extremely condescending.

Sex is a "primary" way he receives love from his wife? So...why isn't that part of the "love languages" that you like so much? Imo, sex is not a "primary" love language, and I do not believe most men would consider it "the primary way." Imo, this is a struggle for a lot of men. God calls us to overcome the desires of the flesh, to nourish our soul and spirit. This is done not through sexuality. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that women are generally closer to the mark with this by desiring more of an emotional or mental connection than a sexual one.

Actually it is in the Love languages book - I will quote from that book along with some other popular marriage books when I get the quotes together in a week or so. It is not one the 5 languages, but he addresses it as underlying need for man to feel loved. In fact he goes into that many men mistakenly think their primary love language is touch, because most men need sex to feel loved by their wife. He acknowledges the fact that most men need this to feel loved, and then goes on to say that is not the same as touch. When he counsels with couples he will ask the man if he likes to cuddle, if he needs to hold his wife's hand, or if he needs some non-sexual touches IN ADDITION TO SEX. Many men don't need these other kinds of touch and their love language is something else.

You have stated something else here that actually sums up what you and many others have stated here. You believe that a woman's view of what marital love is, and how she receives and feels love is superior to a man's if in fact my statements are true. So in your view, the way a woman desires to be loved is Godly, and the way a typical man needs to be loved is "a desire of the flesh" - to be overcome. I knew there were people out there that believed like you folks here, but wow to hear it said so plainly and no Christian men here in this forum offer Biblical opposition to you is astounding.

You calling a man's sexual desire for his wife a "desire of the flesh" is NOT supported anywhere in the Scriptures. Never is sex in marriage described as a desire of the flesh. In fact the Bible calls sex in marriage "honorable" and "undefiled":

Hebrews 13:4

Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

I'm not saying women don't enjoy connecting sexually, but I doubt that many of us think of it as a "primary love language." And of the women I know, most would be quite offended by the idea that a husband finds so much of his identity in sexual performance and that sex is a primary love language. I, for one, am grateful that while we enjoy sex, that our marital love is not dependent on it for operation and that there are more important "primary" ways we feel loved than our base urges. I'm so grateful that our marriage has more substance to it than sex drive.

I am greatful that my marriage "has more substance to it than sex drive" as well. Not say we don't struggle with issues as all married couples do. I am glad I have a Christian companion in my wife. If my marriage did not have more than sex drive, we would not have marital love. But if it did not have sex drive, and sex did not occur, it would not be marital love. It would be something else, perhaps a friendship love, but not a marital love.

Check out Johnny Lingo's story. Imo, men need to focus on character first, personality second, other factors third, and beauty last. I simply think there is too much emphasis on appearance and sexuality and not enough on character. I don't think anyone will argue that attraction is important, but it is a low priority, especially in light of how we all change over the years. After all, if you are attracted to your wife before you marry, then she has a couple of kids, puts on 100 lbs, gets breast cancer and has a breast removed, gets in a car accident and is all scarred up as a result, are you still going to find her "attractive"? Will you divorce her because you no longer find her attractive? What will you do when you add wrinkles, a sagging behind, reading glasses and gray hair? Iow, there is nothing to sustain that "attraction".... unless your ideas of attraction change along with your wife's appearance.

No if my wife's appearance changed it would not affect my love for her. Now if she purposefully made her self look as ugly and filthy as she could I would ask her to please do her best to keep her appearance as good as she could. I feel I should do the same thing for her, out of mutual respect toward one another. But yes we age, and there are many things we cannot help. We still love one another because we grow to love how that person loves. The attraction we have at the beginning, to a woman we hardly know, and the attraction we have toward a woman we have been married to for years is different. We find her attractive because of how we feel about her.

Along that same line, what would happen if she is unable or unwilling to perform sexually. Will that also make you leave because it's your primary love language and it's not met?

I would first ask why she is unwilling to have sex and if there is something I have done wrong toward her that we need to resolve. If she says there is nothing wrong, but she just feels that sex in marriage is "immaterial" and "a desire of the flesh" , a "base urge" that does not need to occur then I would bring this before my Pastor and his wife.

He would then visit our home with his wife to confirm she truly has this attitude. He would plead with her from the scriptures (such as I Corinthians 7) that her view is contrary to God's law. If after much time of prayer for her by the church(perhaps a year or more) she was unwilling to to change her position to a Biblical position and perform her duty as a spouse(both men and women have this duty) then I would divorce her for "defrauding" me of my marital right.

Marital love absolutely lasts longer than the attractiveness of the spouses, or the sex. When you build your marriage on a solid spiritual foundation, it won't be shaken by things like decreased libido and the aging process. Not only that, but if men start paying more attention to finding their masculinity and manhood in other things than sex, then their identity won't be so shaken when they can't perform the same way they did in their 20s. Our foundation for personhood, masculine or feminine, should be in Christ. Our marital love foundation should be in Christ, not in sex. Our primary relationship with our spouse is brother and sister in Christ, and that relationship is eternal.

I would agree 100% that you must build your marriage on a spiritual foundation. And part of that foundation is found in I Corinthians 7, Song of Solomon, Proverbs 5:19 and other passages the uplift sexuality within marriage. If someone wants to build their marriage where they cut these passages out I would argue they have an incomplete foundation.

Just like would argue that certain when other forbidden subjects on this forum are crossed out of one's Bible that a person has a an incomplete foundation for their marriage.

 

[musingsofacac]

I have new glasses and they are really tiring out my eyes. I can't read all.

But I did catch something about 95% of Christians having sex before marriage.

Not in my circles ... I know it happens SOMEtimes, but most couples are extremely committed to waiting for marriage. Including ones that have been previously married or unchaste. Probably a good 80% at minimum and that's allowing for some "not telling" - otherwise I'd have to say 95% or so are choosing to wait.

I'm not a man - and that was one of my reasons for wanting to marry. Not the main one, but it was certainly something to anticipate on the wedding night!

I agree with you that in my background coming from conservative Baptist churches a lot of people do actually wait for marriage(as they should).

Can you believe they are saying sex is not a requirement for marital love to be complete Biblically? Obviously I agreed if a couple is separated(like military) or they are physically unable to for some medical reason they could still have marital love. But a couple has no sexual desire for one another and simply chooses not have sex anymore - that is no longer marital love.

 

[ValleyGal]

Sexual desire and a willingness to give's one's self to the other is what God requires in marital love.

There is absolutely no biblical basis for this. I'll conceded as far as "willingness" but sexual desire does not = marital love. So when you say it does, you are expressing an opinion that has no biblical basis.

If you or your husband no longer desire to have sex with one another you don't have marital love anymore. Yes you still have a marriage, there are many marriages that don't have marital love, they have more of a friendship love, if love still exists at all (some married couples just live together and have little feelings towards each other).

It is absolutely not up to you to tell anyone what the nature of their love is. If, when I become an old lady or through menopause, do not desire anyone sexually, that will not change the nature of my love for my husband. Fyi, I would absolutely not live with even my best friend the same way I live with my husband, even minus the sex. For you to be going on about it like this is nothing more than you asserting your own belief, but you are no authority in the field and you certainly can't speak for most men. In fact, I do not know of any man who would agree with you that marital love is only about sexual desire and that without it, there is no marital love.

Do any of you read from marriage counselors(both Christian and non-Christian) online about this?

My husband and I are marriage coaches and have extensively studied the biblical marriage model. My husband also coaches men in transition. Personally, I have read upward of 30 books on marriage - some (probably half) were little more than bunk, with no research to back them up. There were a few that were okay, but not anything I'd really place a lot of faith in. There were a handful that were backed up by either research and/or scripture. Those are the ones I respect, even if I disagree with some of the points (because I also have an opinion). I also have one course shy of an equivalent of an extended minor in psychology and I have a degree in social work (included courses like the sociology of families, etc). I have worked with families, and have even written a marriage preparation program. So yeah, in short, why would I read marriage counsellors online when I could probably write it myself? That isn't to say I don 't. I have, and most of that is little more than opinion as well, even when I do it.

So in your view, the way a woman desires to be loved is Godly, and the way a typical man needs to be loved is "a desire of the flesh" - to be overcome.

I never said this, and if you are going to start twisting words, I won't engage you. What I DID say is that an emotional/intellectual connection is closer to the spiritual than sex. I never said sex is a desire of the flesh to be overcome. I did say it was a desire of the flesh, because it is. But that does not need to be "overcome" when it is practiced in marriage.

No one ever said sex is wrong. But you have asserted that it is "men's" primary love language. And everyone here is telling you that this assertion is incorrect. We all have husbands here, and I'm sure I'm not the only one to discuss this thread with him. A man who does not have sex still produces testosterone. He is still a man. Period. Anything more than that is a social construction.

You calling a man's sexual desire for his wife a "desire of the flesh" is NOT supported anywhere in the Scriptures.

You're kidding, right? It does not take God to tell us that sex is a physical drive. It is flesh. It is not spiritual and never will be. There is a bonding time after, but sex itself is not a spiritual fulfillment. It is a physical matter. Will there be sex in heaven? No. Ergo, it is physical. That does not mean it's not honourable or undefiled when done within the marriage context. It's still flesh, though.

And finally, I will address this:

2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.

There is not one stitch of evidence that there needs to be "desire" in order for marital love. It states we have an obligation; duty. AND that it is mutual. Do you realize there have been (and still are) cultures where people marry out of necessity rather than desire/love? Do you know that even in Jesus' time, many, if not most, marriages were arranged by parents rather than chosen by the spouses because they wanted sex? So back to your original point - yes, they should be willing, but desire need not be part of it. In fact, in those cultures I'm sure there were arranged marriages where both the husband and wife likely needed to imagine being some place else during sex to escape their own lack of desire. I'm sure not everyone was sexually attracted to the one their parents chose. Yes, sex is part of marriage, but it does not constitute marital love.

I absolutely disagree with you on so many fundamental points of marriage. You are coming from a place that appears uninformed, maybe based on opinion or on your Baptist teachings - I don't know, and that's okay as long as it works for you and your wife. But when so many others disagree and have a basis for that disagreement, maybe you should rethink your opinion and challenge your beliefs. I honestly think you should consider all the different viewpoints expressed here.

 

[musingsofacac]

There is absolutely no biblical basis for this. I'll conceded as far as "willingness" but sexual desire does not = marital love. So when you say it does, you are expressing an opinion that has no biblical basis.

I believe it absolutely has Biblical support and sited Biblical passages that I believe back my position. I will let the readers of this forum(including the many who are not commenting either way) decide for themselves by examining the Scripture passages I sited as well as the whole of Scripture in God's design for marriage and men and women.

I never said this, and if you are going to start twisting words, I won't engage you. What I DID say is that an emotional/intellectual connection is closer to the spiritual than sex. I never said sex is a desire of the flesh to be overcome. I did say it was a desire of the flesh, because it is. But that does not need to be "overcome" when it is practiced in marriage.

Really? You and I do have a similar issue with people twisting our words, half the posts replying to mine twist the words I said or add words in. However I don't think I twisted your words:

Imo, this is a struggle for a lot of men. God calls us to overcome the desires of the flesh, to nourish our soul and spirit. This is done not through sexuality.

So if you believe sex in marriage is a desire of the flesh which you just reaffirmed that you believe it is - then you are saying we need to overcome the desires of the flesh to have sex with our wives in marriage. No twisting, that is what you said. Perhaps you might want to re-examine whether you think sexual desire for one's spouse is a "desire of the flesh" in the way the Bible is speaking.

We have many physical desires, like eating and many others. But our physical desires are not wrong, and not "fleshy" in the negative tone which the Scriptures use when speaking of "fleshly desires". Any physical desire can become a "fleshly desire", when it is abused or used in a way God did not intend for it. For example eating is not a sin(a physical desire), but gluttony is a sin(eating too much) and that would be a fleshly desire.

Biblically speaking, "desires of the flesh" in the Bible refers to desires that are outside of God's will.

A desire that is condoned and encouraged by God, is not a fleshly desire. God commanded man regarding his wife to "Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love." Proverbs 5:19.

You're kidding, right? It does not take God to tell us that sex is a physical drive. It is flesh. It is not spiritual and never will be. There is a bonding time after, but sex itself is not a spiritual fulfillment. It is a physical matter. Will there be sex in heaven? No. Ergo, it is physical. That does not mean it's not honourable or undefiled when done within the marriage context. It's still flesh, though.

Yes sex will no longer be in heaven, but then neither will marriage or many of the temporary constructs we have here on earth. My wife will no longer be my wife in heaven, neither will my children be my children. I will no longer need to work to provide for family, or lead a family. I will no longer be responsible to fulfill my responsibilities as husband to my wife, a she will not have responsibilities toward me.

The emotional/intellectual connection between a man and woman on earth is also temporary. The desire of my child to have my attention, or my wife to have my attention is temporary for this world.

When I listen to my wife share her feelings about her mom,sister or friends or her other worries about life with our kids(emotional connectedness) these are all about temporary things. The things she is talking about won't matter in eternity, but what will matter in eternity is that I took the time to hear her, and tried to connect with her to show her I cared.

When I care for my wife's physical disabilities after surgeries - those are all temporary things. We won't have physical problems in heaven. But the fact that I cared for her will mean something in eternity.

When my wife tries to take an interest in my job(even though she does not understand half of what I do) that will mean something in eternity. My job will mean nothing in eternity, but the fact that she tried to take an interest in it will. When my wife cares for me when I am sick, or comforts me when I am down from work stress, those things are all from temporary things, but her loving actions toward me will have value in eternity.

Sex will have no meaning in eternity, but the fact that I tried to please my wife in that area in this time and place, and she tried to please me will matter in eternity.

And finally, I will address this:

There is not one stitch of evidence that there needs to be "desire" in order for marital love. It states we have an obligation; duty. AND that it is mutual. Do you realize there have been (and still are) cultures where people marry out of necessity rather than desire/love? Do you know that even in Jesus' time, many, if not most, marriages were arranged by parents rather than chosen by the spouses because they wanted sex? So back to your original point - yes, they should be willing, but desire need not be part of it. In fact, in those cultures I'm sure there were arranged marriages where both the husband and wife likely needed to imagine being some place else during sex to escape their own lack of desire. I'm sure not everyone was sexually attracted to the one their parents chose. Yes, sex is part of marriage, but it does not constitute marital love.

Arranged marriages is an excellent point. While we in Western society like to think we have to love a person before we are married(in the mushy sense) that is completely untrue. You can choose to love someone. When you choose to love your spouse with marital love God commands, overtime you grow to be attracted to them. In the same way a man must cultivate an attraction to his wife in an arranged marriage and she toward him, she must also cultivate a sexual desire toward him, and he toward her. Mature love takes time. But if after years of marriage a person no longer has sexual attraction towards their spouse, they have moved backwards in my opinion.

I absolutely disagree with you on so many fundamental points of marriage. You are coming from a place that appears uninformed, maybe based on opinion or on your Baptist teachings - I don't know, and that's okay as long as it works for you and your wife. But when so many others disagree and have a basis for that disagreement, maybe you should rethink your opinion and challenge your beliefs. I honestly think you should consider all the different viewpoints expressed here.

Actually my position is not "uninformed" and is actually expressed by the many marriage books and marriage counselors that you have probably dismissed as "just opinions" that you don't like. I would also argue that I believe it is also expressed in the most important book of all, the Bible.

I am not saying there are not books out there that express your view of marriage, but I have rarely ever seen a marriage book, whether Christian or non Christian that supports your view that regular sex and a cultivated sexual desire are not important parts, integral parts of marital love.

 

[seeingeyes]

As important as it is to recognize that sex is not the entirety of marriage (for men or for women), it's also important not to downgrade sex into oblivion either, as though it were no more significant than playing tennis together.

Marriage is a sexual relationship, after all.

If my husband came up and said, "Hi darling! I've decided that I'm going to be celibate for the rest of my life. Love you!", there would be big, big trouble, even if all else remained equal.

 

[ValleyGal]

Really? You and I do have a similar issue with people twisting our words, half the posts replying to mine twist the words I said or add words in. However I don't think I twisted your words:

Originally Posted by ValleyGal

Imo, this is a struggle for a lot of men. God calls us to overcome the desires of the flesh, to nourish our soul and spirit. This is done not through sexuality.
​

So if you believe sex in marriage is a desire of the flesh which you just reaffirmed that you believe it is - then you are saying we need to overcome the desires of the flesh to have sex with our wives in marriage. No twisting, that is what you said. Perhaps you might want to re-examine whether you think sexual desire for one's spouse is a "desire of the flesh" in the way the Bible is speaking.

Sex, just as eating, caring for a physical wound, cleanliness, etc is all flesh. Eating is a fleshly desire (and need) although Jesus himself argued back that we do not live by bread alone. Sex is a fleshly desire (NOT a need) and done within the confines of marriage, there is nothing wrong with it, just as there is nothing wrong with eating bread. However, your argument is that it's men's primary love language. So I say that men need to overcome this because it has little, if any, eternal significance beyond submitting yourself to your spouse in obedience to God, and maybe any children that come from it.

No one ever said that sex is wrong or bad to desire within marriage. What I am saying is wrong is that you suggest it is men's primary way they feel loved. That is wrong. You (not married men) are placing too much emphasis on what you think makes married men feel loved. That is what I'm arguing against. IF that is what men really believe, then they need to stop focusing on fulfilling this fleshly thing because that is looking for love in the wrong place. Seriously. True love does not happen in the flesh, nor is sex the one requirement for marital love. Imo, YOU are placing too much on sex. All the other men that I know don't place this much on sex. Imo, you are idolizing it if you place that much on it - iow, that it is your primary way of experiencing marital love.

I believe it absolutely has Biblical support and sited Biblical passages that I believe back my position.

I have never in all my life heard anyone who believes that sex is THE requirement for marital love. Again, I find not biblical basis for this, and certainly no scientific basis for this. And your assertions really make me question your credibility, in all honesty.

Biblically speaking, "desires of the flesh" in the Bible refers to desires that are outside of God's will.

I disagree. Paul suggests marrying rather than burning with passion. Iow, marry in order to fulfill that desire of the flesh. Marriage allows that flesh desire to be filled.

I would also argue that I believe it is also expressed in the most important book of all, the Bible.

In your interpretation of it, which is just that...your interpretation. I've seen your blogs, and believe me, you have an interpretation that I was fed in a conservative church as a child, but as an adult, the pastor of that same church challenged me to re-examine my beliefs. That launched my biblical study of marriage, and it is contrary to what you believe. So you can sit there and say that your interpretation is what the Bible says, but I will also sit here and say I've challenged my beliefs and don't take them at face value anymore. I examine scripture and change my beliefs to match what scripture actually says. And yes, that is my interpretation and I can make the very same claim - that my beliefs are supported in scripture.

I am not saying there are not books out there that express your view of marriage, but I have rarely ever seen a marriage book, whether Christian or non Christian that supports your view that regular sex and a cultivated sexual desire are not important parts, integral parts of marital love.

Not one person on this thread or anywhere else has said sex is not an important part of marital love. What we are arguing is YOUR assertion that sex is the primary love language of men, and that sex equals marital love and marital love can't exist without sexual desire. These are absurd assertions, and numerous people here have explained their positions to you. That is their right, just as it is your right to have your own opinion....but I will tell you this. Do not try to tell me the nature of my mutual, shared, reciprocal marital love is not marital love when we no longer have the same base urges for each other.

 

[musingsofacac]

As important as it is to recognize that sex is not the entirety of marriage (for men or for women), it's also important not to downgrade sex into oblivion either, as though it were no more significant than playing tennis together.

Marriage is a sexual relationship, after all.

If my husband came up and said, "Hi darling! I've decided that I'm going to be celibate for the rest of my life. Love you!", there would be big, big trouble, even if all else remained equal.

Thank you, and that it makes it even better coming from a woman's point of view.

seeingeyes - I am not saying you agree with everything I have posted as rarely any two people will agree on everything.

You said there would be "big big trouble" if he tried to arbitrarily make that decision for you both, but you would also agree if you and your husband mutually agreed you did not need to have sex anymore, that you might still love one another, but it would not be a marital love as I have been asserting?

 

[musingsofacac]

Not one person on this thread or anywhere else has said sex is not an important part of marital love. What we are arguing is YOUR assertion that sex is the primary love language of men, and that sex equals marital love and marital love can't exist without sexual desire. These are absurd assertions, and numerous people here have explained their positions to you. That is their right, just as it is your right to have your own opinion....but I will tell you this. Do not try to tell me the nature of my mutual, shared, reciprocal marital love is not marital love when we no longer have the same base urges for each other.

How can sex be an important part of marital love, if it's not required? If its an optional component of marital love then it's not important.

So those thousands of people who attend conservative churches all over the world and believe that sex is a primary love language for a man are absurd? You admitted you learned things similar to what I am saying in conservative churches out there, so you know there are a lot people out there who believe as I do on this particular issue. Yet at the same time you try to isolate me as if I am the only Christian(whether man or woman) who believes this.

I agree with you that we both have the right to our opinion. You believe marital love can exist without sex or sexual desire - I don't, its that simple. I have said this before in other posts or forums here and I will say it again. I am not here to convince people that have strong beliefs about marriage to change what they believe.

I am here to help those people who are on the fence about these and many other issues - to represent the conservative traditional Christian position on issues like this. I am also here to help try and help men who feel trapped in bad marriages, not to divorce(because I don't believe in easy divorce), but to stand their ground. To love their wives, but at the same time no longer be doormat and just tell their wives what they want to hear for fear her shutting them out. I will have more detail on this in the men's personal issues forums, so don't worry you won't have to read that.

 

[ValleyGal]

How can sex be an important part of marital love, if it's not required? If its an optional component of marital love then it's not important.

Just because something is optional does not mean it's important. And not everyone will think of it as important - there are those who put sex low on the marital love priority scale. You seem to have very black and white thinking.

So those thousands of people who attend conservative churches all over the world and believe that sex is a primary love language for a man are absurd? You admitted you learned things similar to what I am saying in conservative churches out there, so you know there are a lot people out there who believe as I do on this particular issue. Yet at the same time you try to isolate me as if I am the only Christian(whether man or woman) who believes this.

You are not the only person who believes this. I think others who believe that way are wrong as well. But if it works for them, so be it as long as they don't try to push their values on me. And when I was talking about learning similar things when I was in a conservative church, that was 40+ years ago; they - even the "they" from that church - no longer hold to those views, as demonstrated by that pastor from the church of my childhood who challenged me on the beliefs I was raised with.

I agree with you that we both have the right to our opinion. You believe marital love can exist without sex or sexual desire - I don't, its that simple. I have said this before in other posts or forums here and I will say it again. I am not here to convince people that have strong beliefs about marriage to change what they believe.

I am here to help those people who are on the fence about these and many other issues - to represent the conservative traditional Christian position on issues like this. I am also here to help try and help men who feel trapped in bad marriages, not to divorce(because I don't believe in easy divorce), but to stand their ground. To love their wives, but at the same time no longer be doormat and just tell their wives what they want to hear for fear her shutting them out. I will have more detail on this in the men's personal issues forums, so don't worry you won't have to read that.

So...just to clarify, you are indeed here to get people to change their opinion - at least those whose opinions are not already formed. We all have an agenda.

As for the rest, I won't worry about it. My husband goes onto those boards, and I trust his discernment about when to debate and when not to. That will be up to him.

 

[Inkachu]

But for me and any of my guy friends from church or work, if you said a wife doing something "romantic" for us, we would translate that as "sexy". Like leaving a sexy note telling us about things she might want to do that night. Or surprising us with new lingerie, or flirting with us at a restaurant while we having dinner with other people. So we interpret "romance" from our wife as things that make us anticipate and look forward to something later happening in the bedroom.

Now maybe your husband is different and you know lots of men that look at it different, but that is my feeling and I have no guy friends who think differently about how a wife could "romance" her husband.

That, to me, is just plain sad, since the terms "romance" and "romantic" come from root meanings that have absolutely nothing to do with sex.

My husband is one of the rare gems who actually knows how to use his heart without confusing it with his penis and vice versa.

 

[Inkachu]

2. Even without sex, being romantic might a least get you a nice kiss or hug, or make out session.

So you manipulated her with deception, faking "romance" in the hopes that it would lead to something else entirely? Chivalrous.

So yes before marriage romance can be completely divorced from the physical act of sex, but in our world(my friends and I) our sex drive did fuel our romance drive(whether we consciously knew it or not).

Oh, I have NO DOUBT that you boys were perfectly conscious of your own hormonal motives.

Don't misunderstand me - Whenever I buy my wife flowers(and yes I do more than just on our anniversary or her birthday) or buy her a nice a card, or do something else I know she likes that cold be considered romantic, I don't expect sex in return. I am just showing her I love her, (filling her love bank as some call it).

The sincerity and unconditional nature of the bolded part is just so blatant. /sarcasm

"Showing her I love her" in order to "fill her love bank". What the HECK is that? WHY must there be a motive behind it? Do you not simply love her because it comes naturally, and that's what she inspires in you, and it's just what you do without thinking about it or analyzing it or (God forbid) contriving it like a schematic? "If I do a, b, and c... that pesky "love bank" of hers will be fuller... which will lead to more sex..."

UGH.

I'm SO thankful for my husband.

And I need to unsubscribe from this maddening thread!

 

[seeingeyes]

Can you believe they are saying sex is not a requirement for marital love to be complete Biblically? Obviously I agreed if a couple is separated(like military) or they are physically unable to for some medical reason they could still have marital love. But a couple has no sexual desire for one another and simply chooses not have sex anymore - that is no longer marital love.

I disagree. Sex within marriage is the 'default', the 'norm'. But I wouldn't call a sexless marriage inherently marital-love-less. If two people who are physically unable to have sex can still have marital love, then two people who are unwilling to have sex can still have marital love.

Mutuality is key, here, though.

 

[musingsofacac]

I disagree. Sex within marriage is the 'default', the 'norm'. But I wouldn't call a sexless marriage inherently marital-love-less. If two people who are physically unable to have sex can still have marital love, then two people who are unwilling to have sex can still have marital love.

Mutuality is key, here, though.

I agree if they are unable because of medical or other conditions that would not negate marital love. If they have no desire it would not be marital love in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, I still think they can love each other, but it is more a friendship love or emotional attachment love in my view.

 

[ValleyGal]

Again, having the hots for each other does not equal marital love.

 

[seeingeyes]

I agree if they are unable because of medical or other conditions that would not negate marital love. If they have no desire it would not be marital love in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, I still think they can love each other, but it is more a friendship love or emotional attachment love in my view.

So if a healthy couple in their nineties both decided to quit going at it a decade ago, because they just weren't interested anymore, has their love changed or lessened? I think not.

 

[mkgal1]

Semi blind posting (I haven't read the half page long postings).....but this stood out to me:

Sexual desire and a willingness to give's one's self to the other is what God requires in marital love

IMO.....one of the aspects of Christ-like love is that it's freely given (not a duty...not an obligation)....so to say that "God requires" something ---especially something as intrusive as marital sex---in order for it to be considered "His" seems so contradictory to His nature.

Thankfully our courts still see that as so (and have laws about it).

I hope I'm not misunderstood......I'm *not* saying that sexual desire isn't a part of marriage......I'm saying that it's the love, honor, respect, self-control, kindness, humility, patience, attentiveness, compassion and empathy that usually fuels that desire.

 

[mkgal1]

Again, having the hots for each other does not equal marital love.

Right.....that would be "lust" if it's on its own (void of genuine love)......or infatuation (on down the scale a bit).