Husbands feel "entitled" to wife's body

Oh... whoops I thought that was the OP.

Oh well, glad someone is making progress.

I feel like I hear this 'well I'm burning with passion so I should take a wife like Paul said' and that will solve everything argument get bandied about every so often. And I think that does satisfy mutually the natural desires for family, company, procreation and some.. ahem... recreation when the partnership is good. But there's maybe a tendency to mistake unnatural for natural when it comes to lust. Lust treats the partner as an object - it is not an expression of love, it ultimately becomes an expression of selfishness. Sometimes the marriage can be viewed as 'license to lust', when in fact that is the last place that lust should be placed as Captain. If it is, it will destroy intimacy, rather than build it.

Maria Billingsley said:

if he wants to touch a body part, he asks me first.

Click to expand...

Nice if that works for you. Never did here.

Petros2015 said:

I feel like I hear this 'well I'm burning with passion so I should take a wife like Paul said' and that will solve everything

Click to expand...

YEAHHHHH - that does not work.

You still burn with passion; only now it is even worse.

Petros2015 said:

Sometimes the marriage can be viewed as 'license to lust', when in fact that is the last place that lust should be placed as Captain. If it is, it will destroy intimacy, rather than build it.

Click to expand...

Continued refusal does not help intimacy either.

But a man is supposed to be able to take anything, including that.

Dave-W said:

Continued refusal does not help intimacy either.

Click to expand...

Agreed, that can be it's own kind of unfaithfulness. I guess the other side of that coin would be adultery.

Petros2015 said:

Agreed, that can be it's own kind of unfaithfulness.

Click to expand...

I am not sure a biblical case could be made for that statement.

Petros2015 said:

I guess the other side of that coin would be adultery.

Click to expand...

While Paul says in 1 Cor 7 that continued ongoing refusal can lead the frustrated spouse to adultery, I do not see them as related beyond cause and outcome.

And I certainly would not use that frustration as an excuse to sleep around either. Husband and wife reflect Christ and the Church; and here is what Paul had to say about that:

2 Timothy 2:13
If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.

Maria Billingsley said:

He has stopped now and if he wants to touch a body part, he asks me first. We made great strides!
Blessing

Click to expand...

So glad to hear that and glad you are posting so others can be helped. Never settle or allow relapse and never cover, excuse or make excuse for intolerable ungodly behavior of this nature. Again, I am so glad it is changing for the better.

Dave-W said:

I am not sure a biblical case could be made for that statement.

Click to expand...

if we say "lord, lord", but do not do as he commands, are we faithful? many will say to him on that day, didn't we say "lord, lord, and in your name do many miracles", but he will say, depart from me, you evildoers.

i also hold that is just as unfaithful to withhold from your spouse what you promised in your marriage vows, as it is to give to another what you promised in your marriage vows to reserve for your spouse.

Phil.Stein said:

i also hold that is just as unfaithful to withhold from your spouse what you promised in your marriage vows,

Click to expand...

Unlike the first century Jewish marriage contracts, I have never heard sexual satisfaction ever mentioned in any marriage vows. The closest it comes is:

"keep thee only unto him/her for as long as you both shall live."

So even absolute sexual refusal does not violate that.

Dave-W said:

Unlike the first century Jewish marriage contracts, I have never heard sexual satisfaction ever mentioned in any marriage vows. The closest it comes is:

"keep thee only unto him/her for as long as you both shall live."

So even absolute sexual refusal does not violate that.

Click to expand...

"Will you have this woman/man to be your wife/husband, to live together in holy marriage? Will you love her/him, comfort her/him, honor, and keep her/him in sickness and in health, and forsaking all others, be faithful to her/him as long as you both shall live?"

usually the priest describes marriage also, explaining it is for both parties - the husband's body for the wife, her body for the husband, to "provide escape from immorality" or ismilar. so one spouse denying the other sexualy would be unfaithfulness, even by the vows.

the terms "holy marriage", "forsaking all others", "be faithful" also imply each's ownership of the other. sure, one could argue that absolute sexual refusal is not violating such a covenant, but one could argue in the same way that if absolute sexual refusal could be described as "being faithful", one could display a similar (i.e. non-sexual) faithfulness by taking someone else as a sexual partner.

i think bible is pretty clear that taking an extra-marital partner, and denying one's spouse absolutely, are acts of unfaithfulness.

Phil.Stein said:

usually the priest describes marriage also, explaining it is for both parties - the husband's body for the wife, her body for the husband, to "provide escape from immorality" or similar. so one spouse denying the other sexualy would be unfaithfulness, even by the vows.

Click to expand...

I have never heard anything like that in any wedding I have attended.

Phil.Stein said:

but one could argue in the same way that if absolute sexual refusal could be described as "being faithful", one could display a similar (i.e. non-sexual) faithfulness by taking someone else as a sexual partner.

Click to expand...

Huh? You totally lost me on that one.

Phil.Stein said:

i think bible is pretty clear that taking an extra-marital partner, and denying one's spouse absolutely, are acts of unfaithfulness.

Click to expand...

Yes to the first, and no to the second.

While the 2nd may be a violation of 1 Cor 7, it does not rise to the covenantal failure required to validate a divorce. It is NOT adultery.

Dave-W said:

While the 2nd may be a violation of 1 Cor 7, it does not rise to the covenantal failure required to validate a divorce. It is NOT adultery.

Click to expand...

adultery no. unfaithfulness yes. same as israel was unfaithful by turning from the true God (even if they didn't worship other gods straight away). same as onan sinned by not making his brother's wife pregnant.

its all there in scripture and not hard to understand, but i accept if you dont seem to agree.

Disclaimer - I didn't read all 5 pages. What I find more alarming than the groping is him threatening to keep money from you for food, which is necessary for survival. That is extremely abusive. Is he going to starve you if you don't "submit" to his advances?

Those who believe a woman's body belongs to her husband, how far does that go? Is it okay to literally starve her of food? And what kind of intimacy is possible if he threatens to not allow her to buy food, and she is living in fear? That's not a marriage, that's prison.

Poppyseed78 said:

Disclaimer - I didn't read all 5 pages. What I find more alarming than the groping is him threatening to keep money from you for food, which is necessary for survival. That is extremely abusive. Is he going to starve you if you don't "submit" to his advances?

Those who believe a woman's body belongs to her husband, how far does that go? Is it okay to literally starve her of food? And what kind of intimacy is possible if he threatens to not allow her to buy food, and she is living in fear? That's not a marriage, that's prison.

Click to expand...

What I find most alarming is that since the day the OP was posted, the forum member who posted it hasn't logged on.

Nithavela said:

What I find most alarming is that since the day the OP was posted, the forum member who posted it hasn't logged on.

Click to expand...

I'm always concerned with these kind of posts about abusive spouses. We only get a tiny view of what may be happening at home. It's troubling, for sure.

Hearingheart said:

I'm always concerned with these kind of posts about abusive spouses. We only get a tiny view of what may be happening at home. It's troubling, for sure.

Click to expand...

Well, there isn't much we can do either way.

Nithavela said:

Well, there isn't much we can do either way.

Click to expand...

That's true. Give an opinion, get an opinion and hope for the best.

Dave-W said:

Unlike the first century Jewish marriage contracts, I have never heard sexual satisfaction ever mentioned in any marriage vows. The closest it comes is:

"keep thee only unto him/her for as long as you both shall live."

So even absolute sexual refusal does not violate that.

Click to expand...

The old Sarum marriage rite required the wife to promise to be "bonny and buxom in bed and at board." I think the buxom had a nuance of obedience as well as sexuality about it, at the time.

It seems to me that this sense of "entitlement" comes from the nature of marriage itself.

Marriage feels like a trade off. If one promises not to be sexually involved with others, it is natural to expect that one's partner will be sexually available. One loses something, and then gains something to compensate.

If one's partner isn't willing, that feels like one's partner is giving up on the terms of the marriage. The time to be an "individual" who can turn sex on and off like a spigot feels out of place in a marriage, and seems to belong more to the world of singles.

All that said, it's certainly okay to place reasonable boundaries in a marriage. Yeah, being spontaneously "groped" is perhaps something that can be agreed upon to be off limits. One could say that it should be reserved for sexy time, in which case it would be welcome. (Honestly, though, you should be happy that your husband is showing you such sexual interest. It's healthy, and it won't last.)


eudaimonia,

Mark