Wife getting massages

[comana]

Good for you...you are an atheist. In marriage the two become one. The husband has authority over the wife. When he doesn't have authority the marriage and family breaks down. A woman should never be alone and almost naked with a man that is not her husband. 1 Corinthians 7:4

Good luck with that. Controlling marriages rarely result in happiness.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Good luck with that. Controlling marriages rarely result in happiness.

Having authority is not "controlling marriages".

 

[Larniavc]

And so being watched over by one's spouse for the sake of marital fidelity shouldn't be a deal breaker.

Yeah, it really is. If there is no trust it's a rubbish relationship.

 

[Larniavc]

Having authority is not "controlling marriages".

Yeah, it really is. My wife and I? Neither of us has authority over each other.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah, it really is. If there is no trust it's a rubbish relationship.

How dare you call my relationship with my wife a "rubbish relationship"!

Y'know, I've about had enough of your atheistically laced "academic" candor on this forum..........

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah, it really is. My wife and I? Neither of us has authority over each other.

And your lack of Christian perspective, and your willingness to barrage the Christian perspective, in this regard definitely shows.

 

[Larniavc]

How dare you call my relationship with my wife a "rubbish relationship"!

Y'know, I've about had enough of your atheistically laced "academic" candor on this forum..........

I know I can be a scallywag b'times but I honestly was not making a personal reference to you or your wife.

I'm genuinely sorry that I offended you; it was not my intent.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Yeah, it really is. My wife and I? Neither of us has authority over each other.

Another atheist...whatever

 

[Bradskii]

I just asked my wife if I could have authority over her. I've seen that look before. I think it means no.

 

[Paidiske]

Yeah, it really is. My wife and I? Neither of us has authority over each other.

There is a Christian perspective where both wife and husband have a claim on the body of the other (not in a hierarchical, controlling way); (St. Paul: "For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.") But that is aimed at a specific question, and not at things like whether or not someone can have a massage.

I note that people are dismissing your view because you're an atheist, but my view is pretty similar, and I'm a Christian.

 

[Larniavc]

I note that people are dismissing your view because you're an atheist

My people know that we have to bear the slings and arrows of persecution because of our non-beliefs. I only hope I can be an example to others.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There is a Christian perspective where both wife and husband have a claim on the body of the other (not in a hierarchical, controlling way); (St. Paul: "For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.") But that is aimed at a specific question, and not at things like whether or not someone can have a massage.

I note that people are dismissing your view because you're an atheist, but my view is pretty similar, and I'm a Christian.

Even though I know you were responding to Larniavc, I want to make it clear here that I'm not sure anyone is actually understanding "my" view. Nowhere have I said that a woman can't have a massage, even at the hands of a professional masseur. And nowhere have I stated that I apply some sort of authority over my wife. I don't, and I don't need to. She does hold me accountable, though, and I would agree with her that she probably needs to.

In a similar vein to your actual quote, I earlier insinuated a reference to 1 Corinthians 7:3-5. However, one does have to consider just how Paul might have thought about verse 1 of the same chapter in the context of the sexually involved Corinthian culture he was addressing, even if here we're talking in regard to massage for the purpose of alleviating personal pain in today's 21st Century English culture.

 

[Richard T]

Talk to your wife and tell her it bothers you. Can she maybe compromise and find a woman that can do this? Perhaps too you could invest in a nice home massage chair or something along those lines? I would think that massage places have high turnover. Was it really the same guy over the years? You are not controlling as some might think because a control freak would know about who gave the massage in a week or less. Some wives would be flattered that you care. So talk to her straight up share your concerns in love and listen to what she says too. Check your spiritual condition as well. Are you both praying and going to church? God bless, your marriage always.

 

[Paidiske]

I want to make it clear here that I'm not sure anyone is actually understanding "my" view. Nowhere have I said that a woman can't have a massage, even at the hands of a professional masseur.

I'm not quite sure what you think would change by having a spouse sitting outside, though. To me, it really does come across - and here I make no comment on you, simply on how I would feel if my husband wanted to do that - very creepy and controlling. "I have to babysit you while the professional gives you a medical treatment, in case..." Like, why, even?

However, one does have to consider just how Paul might have thought about verse 1 of the same chapter in the context of the sexually involved Corinthian culture he was addressing, even if here we're talking in regard to massage for the purpose of alleviating personal pain in today's 21st Century English culture.

Very tricky; is he quoting the Corinthians and then arguing with them, or is "It is well for a man not to touch a woman" actually his view? I lean toward the former view. And I really don't think he was addressing anything like this situation.

 

[public hermit]

My wife has been going for massages for many years. I always assumed it was a spa setting with multiple people in the room. Turns out she is alone with a man for 50 minutes, door closed and shades drawn, covered by a sheet except for the body part being massaged, wearing only her bikini briefs, massage oil, everything except her bikini area and breasts are fair game for his hands directly on her skin. He is a licensed "massage therapist" and I have been assured it is completely non-sexual, just for relaxation and, as needed, working out a stiff back or sore neck, that sort of thing. This has me upset. I feel like I should have been told years ago exactly what the circumstances were. Does this make anyone else uncomfortable? Am I just too insecure? I don't believe it will lead to any actual impropriety or infidelity, but I don't like the idea of another man running his hands all over her feet, legs, thighs, shoulders etc. in private using massage oils. Thoughts?

It sounds like you have every reason to let this go. My intuition based on what you've said is that it didn't even dawn on your wife that this would be an issue until it was discussed. In my opinion, the worse thing you could do is make a big deal about it. That will just create a situation where there is none. You trust your wife and there is no reason to stop now. I also think it can be normal to have feelings of insecurity (and that can happen in all kinds of situations), but that is an issue you can work on without creating more drama for yourself.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not quite sure what you think would change by having a spouse sitting outside, though. To me, it really does come across - and here I make no comment on you, simply on how I would feel if my husband wanted to do that - very creepy and controlling. "I have to babysit you while the professional gives you a medical treatment, in case..." Like, why, even?

In the specific situation of the OP and his wife, I'm merely suggesting that being that no Christian has complete authority over his or her own body to do just "whatever, however, whenever" he or she wants to do in all cases and at all times, and IF there is any possibility that she actually is cheating on him, he has the Christian right to expect some minimal level of accountability on her part since she is his wife. Of course, the same would apply to him if he was regularly making use of a masseuse.

I know very well that IF I were to utilize the services of a masseuse, my wife would probably show up at least a few times to see who and what was doing what for whom...........

Another consideration is, even as Paul was insinuating I think, that different people and different relationships may have to have variable levels of accountability in place to make the relationship work. ... some people really are tempted, rather easily, to dilly dally and philander.

Very tricky; is he quoting the Corinthians and then arguing with them, or is "It is well for a man not to touch a woman" actually his view? I lean toward the former view. And I really don't think he was addressing anything like this situation.

Our respective interpretations will obviously be conditioned by the Hermeneutical and Exegetical sources we have been trained by, Paidske. While I can very well understand your angle on verse 1, I don't think Paul began a separate passage, disconnected from all he had already addressed in chapter 6, especially from 6:9 and on. No, he just transitioned to a related topic. I think we both know the Corinthians had a certain amount of social dysfunction running rampant within their culture which, in turn, negatively affected the amount of solidarity they had among themselves at all social levels in their church.

 

[Paidiske]

IF there is any possibility that she actually is cheating on him, he has the Christian right to expect some minimal level of accountability on her part since she is his wife.

Yeesss... but even in the OP he says that he does not believe it involves, or will lead to, any impropriety or infidelity. If he genuinely thought she were actually, say, seeing a gigolo instead of a masseur, I'd agree he'd have the right to check that out. I'd recommend that he do so by making an appointment for himself, and thus seeing that the environment is indeed professional etc.

Once assured, though, that all is as he understands it to be, the idea that he'd still want to come along and sit outside is, to me, in another space entirely.

I think we both know the Corinthians had a certain amount of social dysfunction running rampant within their culture which, in turn, negatively affected the amount of solidarity they had among themselves at all social levels in their church.

Sure. What I'm getting at, though, is that I don't think you can take that passage, and turn it into, "it's reasonable and loving for me to try to limit or control or supervise my spouse's pain treatment."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeesss... but even in the OP he says that he does not believe it involves, or will lead to, any impropriety or infidelity. If he genuinely thought she were actually, say, seeing a gigolo instead of a masseur, I'd agree he'd have the right to check that out. I'd recommend that he do so by making an appointment for himself, and thus seeing that the environment is indeed professional etc.

Once assured, though, that all is as he understands it to be, the idea that he'd still want to come along and sit outside is, to me, in another space entirely.

Sure. What I'm getting at, though, is that I don't think you can take that passage, and turn it into, "it's reasonable and loving for me to try to limit or control or supervise my spouse's pain treatment."

That's understandable, and I'm not one of those who would aver for him to limit, control or supervise his wife's pain treatment.

 

[Paidiske]

That's understandable, and I'm not one of those who would aver for him to limit, control or supervise his wife's pain treatment.

You don't think sitting outside the appointment counts as supervising her pain treatment?

I'm sorry, Philo, I'm not trying to pick on you, but I really don't understand where you're coming from.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You don't think sitting outside the appointment counts as supervising her pain treatment?

No. I really don't think accompanying a spouse to "the doctor's office" counts as interfering with pain treatment in any direct way, unless of course.........................her husband is "the pain" she's trying to treat.

I'm sorry, Philo, I'm not trying to pick on you, but I really don't understand where you're coming from.

That's ok. If you grew up in my shoes, or those of my wife, you probably would.