Do Wives Always Have to Say Yes to Sex?

[SARGAM NAGDA]

So the other day I was hanging out with my newly wed cousin sister and we were there surrounded by our common friends.

My cousin sister confessed that being new in wedlock was cool and fun and she was enjoying the wedding bliss.

She said that her husband was demanding her sex many times more when they holidays on weekends.

So the question is: Do Wives Always Have to Say Yes to Sex?

 

[Darkhorse]

No, but they should not make a habit of saying "no" - if they want to stay married to a faithful husband.

 

[keepwalking]

So its the wives fault if the husband cheats? I disagree.

 

[Darkhorse]

So its the wives fault if the husband cheats? I disagree.

Of course it's not her fault, but...if sex is scarce at home, he has a greater likelihood of seeking it elsewhere. I'm not saying he's right to do so; he isn't.

 

[patrick jane]

I'm afraid if I had taken a wife, she would pester me all the time for sex. She would be pestering me, not the other way around.

 

[keepwalking]

"Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church".
Does a loving, Christlike, husband make unreasonable and selfish demands on his wife? No. So as much as scripture exhorts women to submit to their husbands, it also tells husbands to love their wives with the love of Christ.

 

[Dave-W]

So the question is: Do Wives Always Have to Say Yes to Sex?

I suggest you add a couple of more options in your poll.

No a wife does not ALWAYS have to say yes to sex; but she should be able to say no for various reasons as long as it does not become too frequent.

But I find the question absolutely backwards. The underlying cultural understanding of the authors of the New Testament was this:

Sex is a Wife's right and a husband's responsibility.

In fact, the frequency the wife should expect was written into the marriage contract and was enforceable by the courts. It was also written into the Mishnah - in tractate Ketubot (marriage contracts). For those who were unemployed, independently wealthy or had jobs that were not physically strenuous and had no traveling, the expected frequency was daily.

And remember - this was not for the man's satisfaction but for the woman's.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Either party can say "no", but barring pain, medical issue, pregnancy concerns (nfp, missed pill, etc), or scheduling/privacy issues the default answer would hopefully be "yes".

Presumably, this is something that should be discussed before marriage.

 

[Dave-W]

Presumably, this is something that should be discussed before marriage.

LOL! In our congregation we were specifically told, in no uncertain terms, that we could NOT discuss anything to do with sex until AFTER we said our "I Dos."

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

LOL! In our congregation we were specifically told, in no uncertain terms, that we could NOT discuss anything to do with sex until AFTER we said our "I Dos."

Sounds like a recipe for disaster. Couples discuss children, money etc prior to marriage. Is there a good reason why not sex?

 

[Armoured]

Wives and husbands may both say "no" to sex.

 

[Armoured]

LOL! In our congregation we were specifically told, in no uncertain terms, that we could NOT discuss anything to do with sex until AFTER we said our "I Dos."

I'm imagining wedding nights involving all sorts of previously unmentioned fetishes.

 

[Dave-W]

Sounds like a recipe for disaster. Couples discuss children, money etc prior to marriage. Is there a good reason why not sex?

Probably from the reasoning that is they talk about sex before the wedding they may HAVE sex before the wedding.

They actually broke up more than one engaged couple for one of the partners admitting to having sexual desire for the other. Moved one of the people to another congregation and gave them warning that they were to have no further contact EVER.

As to the disaster part, about 5-10 years down the road there were a LOT of divorces.

 

[Armoured]

Probably from the reasoning that is they talk about sex before the wedding they may HAVE sex before the wedding.

They actually broke up more than one engaged couple for one of the partners admitting to having sexual desire for the other. Moved one of the people to another congregation and gave them warning that they were to have no further contact EVER.

As to the disaster part, about 5-10 years down the road there were a LOT of divorces.

If it's enough to break up an engagement, why wouldn't be enough to break up a marriage?

 

[Dave-W]

I'm imagining wedding nights involving all sorts of previously unmentioned fetishes.

I do not know about that but it was certainly possible. But the couple going into the wedding were presumed to have had no prior sexual feelings at all or any kind of experience.

There were a few single guys I knew that went thru their "program" to remove sexual desires. Confession of sins. Deliverance from demons of lust and perversion. Strict monitoring of lifestyle with regular confession sessions with an accountability partner.

 

[Armoured]

But the couple going into the wedding were presumed to have had no prior sexual feelings at all or any kind of experience.

...were they humans? Humans who had been teenagers at any point?

here were a few single guys I knew that went thru their "program" to remove sexual desires. Confession of sins. Deliverance from demons of lust and perversion. Strict monitoring of lifestyle with regular confession sessions with an accountability partner.

That sounds seriously unhealthy to me. Sexual repression doesn't help anyone in the long run. I don't get Christians who think the correct attitude to all matters sexual is to ignore and hope it goes away, or if it absolutely must be acknowledged, denounce it as evil. Just doesn't seem long term sustainable.

 

[Dave-W]

If it's enough to break up an engagement, why wouldn't be enough to break up a marriage?

Not sure I follow. Those are 2 very different break ups from different directions.

The breakup of the engaged couples came from the congregational leadership.
The divorces came as a result of the couples removing themselves from the same leaders who were insisting they stay together anyway.

 

[Armoured]

Not sure I follow. Those are 2 very different break ups from different directions.

The breakup of the engaged couples came from the congregational leadership.
The divorces came as a result of the couples removing themselves from the same leaders who were insisting they stay together anyway.

Oh. I didn't even contemplate that an engagement could be broken up by "congregational leaders". I assumed we were talking about the couples involved in both instances.

 

[Dave-W]

That sounds seriously unhealthy to me. Sexual repression doesn't help anyone in the long run.

There were guys that were lauded from the pulpit for not having wet dreams any more.

They had guys come around and question us regularly (at least us guys) about whether we had sexual feelings or had masturbated since the last meeting. If we answered yes to either we went thru that program. (Never helped me much)

 

[Dave-W]

I didn't even contemplate that an engagement could be broken up by "congregational leaders".

The leaders of a sister congregation in upstate New York at one point canceled EVERY current engagement in their congregation.