Do you think that using inappropriate contentography is equal to cheating?

[Deidre32]

What do you think of the statement that if you have a deep desire for your wife (or husband) to do something sexually that they are not doing or may find offensive; you are actually desiring to have sex with a different person and are (according to Matt 5.28) committing adultery in the heart?

Um...hmm. I don’t know if that’s always true. Maybe you want to experiment with something new with your spouse, it doesn’t mean you want others. But those thoughts tend to come from somewhere. I’m on a marriage forum and many men post about how their ex gf’s did this or that and their wives won’t. Your question reminds me of that.

 

[DZoolander]

sexual immorality -IS SIN full stop.
your sinning against GOD .
as with ANY SIN God can and wills to set people free . and i testify in the name of Jesus he does so .
and then we go on to do it no more .

I agree, sexual immorality is sin, full stop.

But where I think we might start quibbling is over what exactly falls underneath the "sexual immorality" umbrella.

The problem is - people talk in such vague generalities - and often that leads to problems. For example, let's say I were to ask "Is masturbation sexual immorality?" I'd venture to say that a lot of people would say "yes". Heck, that's what I was taught as a kid.

But is it...really? In and of itself?

When I was a little kid and I discovered that bumping into a wall felt good, and went to town with that void of any association with sex, was that "sexual immorality"? A few weeks back my 7 year old clearly had figured out something similar and told me "This feels good". As uncomfortable as that might be for me and for me to tell them "I'm sure it does. But that's not something to do around other people" - are they being sexually immoral?

I think you'd have a hard time making that case - and if ya even tried - I would totally disagree with you.

So clearly, masturbation in and of itself isn't "sexual immorality" - so then what is? Is it the thoughts that make the difference?

Usually at this point people bring in Matthew 5:28. "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.". That seems like a reasonable way of granting the kid the innocence of not knowing what they're doing, but allowing you to condemn them once they get older for their impure thoughts and it becomes "sexual", right? lol

Ok, let's say we go with that. Well, back when I was a kid going through puberty, I never fantasized about actual people. I never looked at Susie across the classroom and fantasized about her later at night. To me, that always seemed kinda creepy and violating. After all, I might need to ask her a question the next day about homework or something, and the idea that I'd been fantasizing about her would just make that weird.

Rather, my fantasies were mostly just imagery that would be invented in my head. Faceless forms with body types that appealed to me, in scenarios that I liked. So yeah, there was a "sexual" component to it insofar as I was thinking about "sex"...but is that "looking on a woman to lust after her"? Is that a woman? If you think "yes", point her out to me. Where is she? What's her name? Is an invention of my mind created in the moment to achieve an end - and summarily forgotten about the instant after it's finished - a "woman" I can look upon with lust?

IMHO, no.

So, what are we left with then? I'd say, what Jesus said. "Looking upon a woman with lust". But the way I interpret that (clearly) is not the same way a lot of other people want to.

Now - as far as inappropriate content goes - yeah - it's sin. Nobody is arguing that. But going back to the original post - is it "cheating"? I think that answer is just as nuanced a the one I gave above. It depends on the situation and the expectations of your partner.

Something does not need to be "cheating" to be a sin.

 

[DZoolander]

I think that inappropriate content use is one of those things that can lead one to being curious about having sex with others. It might not lead to that at all but it could lead one to becoming bored or viewing married sex as boring. inappropriate content shows women doing things on command and that’s not real life lol Meanwhile they are getting paid. Sex shouldn’t be a series of commands and demands and if those demand aren’t met, then we think we are missing out. But inappropriate content has a way of making people think that they are missing out in a man or woman who will do anything and everything.

Yep, that's always a good possibility.

 

[RDKirk]

I think that inappropriate content use is one of those things that can lead one to being curious about having sex with others. It might not lead to that at all but it could lead one to becoming bored or viewing married sex as boring. inappropriate content shows women doing things on command and that’s not real life lol Meanwhile they are getting paid. Sex shouldn’t be a series of commands and demands and if those demand aren’t met, then we think we are missing out. But inappropriate content has a way of making people think that they are missing out in a man or woman who will do anything and everything.

I have definitely talked to adolescent males who think that what they've seen in inappropriate contentographic movies is how an adult date is supposed to turn out.

And adolescent girls are getting that idea, too.

I'm talking about church kids here.

 

[RDKirk]

What do you think of the statement that if you have a deep desire for your wife (or husband) to do something sexually that they are not doing or may find offensive; you are actually desiring to have sex with a different person and are (according to Matt 5.28) committing adultery in the heart?

Aren't they, then, with the expectation of a mate who would only do what they want to do, also doing the same thing?

 

[Deidre32]

I have definitely talked to adolescent males who think that what they've seen in inappropriate contentographic movies is how an adult date is supposed to turn out.

And adolescent girls are getting that idea, too.

I'm talking about church kids here.

Before I got married, I dated a few worldly guys who thought this and I was like uh no. And they act like it’s women’s fault. It’s scary to read that a lot of men (surveys) are looking forward to sex robots.

 

[Dave-W]

It’s scary to read that a lot of men (surveys) are looking forward to sex robots.

But that was the bill of goods we as young men were sold BY THE CHURCH:

If we don't have sex with anyone
If we don't look at Playboy (or similar mags that were the inappropriate content of the day)
If we don't touch
If we don't drool over our "sisters in the Lord"

Then when we got married we could have all the sex we wanted any time we wanted because our wives were going to submit to us in any and every way possible; including sex.

Well, that certainly did not work.

 

[Deidre32]

But that was the bill of goods we as young men were sold BY THE CHURCH:

If we don't have sex with anyone
If we don't look at Playboy (or similar mags that were the inappropriate content of the day)
If we don't touch
If we don't drool over our "sisters in the Lord"

Then when we got married we could have all the sex we wanted any time we wanted because our wives were going to submit to us in any and every way possible; including sex.

Well, that certainly did not work.

That’s not quite what Scripture says. Women are not to be thought of as sex slaves and women also want to enjoy sex, too. Marriage is a two way street, not a ticket to get sex anytime you wish. It shouldn’t be about “getting” sex, but rather sharing a sexual experience together. Thank God my husband cares about my desires as much as his own. Lol

 

[Dave-W]

That’s not quite what Scripture says.

I agree. But that was the way they interpreted it.

Women are not to be thought of as sex slaves

Found that out in a big hurry.

women also want to enjoy sex, too.

Not my experience; but I will have to take your word for it.


ETA:

There was a verse (supposedly) they kept quoting. My wife remembers reading it too. But now neither of us can find where this verse was. It supposedly backed up their "submission" teaching:

Wives adapt yourselves to your husbands.

We both know they used exclusively NASB 1972 edition. We both have copies of that bible. everyone did so they often just called out page numbers.

But we CANNOT find that verse. Anywhere.

 

[Deidre32]

I agree. But that was the way they interpreted it.

Found that out in a big hurry.

Not my experience; but I will have to take your word for it.


ETA:

There was a verse (supposedly) they kept quoting. My wife remembers reading it too. But now neither of us can find where this verse was. It supposedly backed up their "submission" teaching:

Wives adapt yourselves to your husbands.

We both know they used exclusively NASB 1972 edition. We both have copies of that bible. everyone did so they often just called out page numbers.

But we CANNOT find that verse. Anywhere.

But husbands are called to take care of their wives the way Christ does with the church. It’s a two way street. Jesus wasn’t a sexist but the early church fathers (some) seemed to be. It’s wrong for pastors etc to teach this passage as if women should be slaves to their husbands and men have no responsibility. Run from a pastor who tells you this.

 

[Dave-W]

Run from a pastor who tells you this.

Yes. I know that now. But 40+ years ago? Not so much.

 

[DZoolander]

Wives adapt yourselves to your husbands

Colossians 3:18

 

[Dave-W]

But husbands are called to take care of their wives the way Christ does with the church.

They actually DID teach this verse.
But they taught it that Christ COMMANDS this and COMMANDS that of all of us. And if you do not obey .....

 

[RDKirk]

But husbands are called to take care of their wives the way Christ does with the church. It’s a two way street. Jesus wasn’t a sexist but the early church fathers (some) seemed to be. It’s wrong for pastors etc to teach this passage as if women should be slaves to their husbands and men have no responsibility. Run from a pastor who tells you this.

Well, Paul's instruction was that the body of the wife belonged to the husband (no surprise to his audience there), and that the body of the husband belonged to the wife (that probably caused some jaws to drop). And he was teaching in the context of sexual pleasure.

Of course, my wife, when exercising her ownership of my body, is often more satisfied with owning my hands to give her a hot-oil foot massage.

 

[Dave-W]

Colossians 3:18

Close, but in NASB 72 it does NOT use "adapt." It says "subject."

 

[Deidre32]

Yes. I know that now. But 40+ years ago? Not so much.

Well, now you know

Better to learn late than never, eh?

 

[Dave-W]

l, Paul's instruction was that the body of the wife belonged to the husband (no surprise to his audience there), and that the body of the husband belonged to the wife (that probably caused some jaws to drop).

Not for the Jews. Actually it would have been the first part that would have been shocking to the Jews. In Judaism (as reflected in the Song of Solomon and the marriage contracts of the 2nd Temple period) sexual pleasure was the WIFE'S right and the husband's responsibility. In the contracts the frequency of sex (minimum amount) was written and enforceable by the courts. In professions or occupations where it was not that physically demanding, the frequency was daily.

That was the WIFE'S pleasure. It said nothing about the man's.

 

[RDKirk]

Not for the Jews. Actually it would have been the first part that would have been shocking to the Jews. In Judaism (as reflected in the Song of Solomon and the marriage contracts of the 2nd Temple period) sexual pleasure was the WIFE'S right and the husband's responsibility. In the contracts the frequency of sex (minimum amount) was written and enforceable by the courts. In professions or occupations where it was not that physically demanding, the frequency was daily.

That was the WIFE'S pleasure. It said nothing about the man's.

I pointed out "his audience"--the Corinthian congregation, as far as we know, was not Jewish.

 

[Dave-W]

I pointed out "his audience"--the Corinthian congregation, as far as we know, was not Jewish.

At least half of the Corinthian congregation was Jewish. The leader of the church was the former lay head of the synagogue. In fact, they met NEXT DOOR to the synagogue.

Acts 18

 

[DZoolander]

Close, but in NASB 72 it does NOT use "adapt." It says "subject."

Yeah, I can't account for the NASB version - but according to https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Colossians 3:18 - a couple of versions do have it as "adapt yourself"