Do you think that using pornography is equal to cheating?

[PreviouslySeeking...]

Getting back to the original question. Neither I nor my husband view pornography as cheating. It isn't even in the same ballpark to us.

Sex is an important, but very small part of our relationship. Sometimes one of us needs release at the same time the other needs quiet/aloneness. Neither need has to be ignored because we understand and respect each other.

If one was using porn and ignoring a willing partner- that would be different and we would discuss that.

Side note: people can only discuss how their own sexuality works, but I don't watch porn and fantasize about being with those actors. It isn't necessary and isn't how my mind works.

 

[tall73]

You should read it in context (which shouldn't be too hard since you posted the entire chapter). It is warning you against being tempted by the adulterous woman. So this section that you highlight is telling you to appreciate your wife instead.

I did read it in context. I mentioned that it said to shun the prostitute, but desire your wife instead. That is the context. And that is why I posted the whole thing.

This is in love, not sex. It explicitly tells you to be "intoxicated with her love".

How did you say to read it in context and completely trim out the first part of the verse?

19 A loving doe, a graceful deer—
may her breasts satisfy you always,
may you ever be intoxicated with her love.

How is the portion about the wife's breasts satisfying her husband not about sex? And the context is clearly contrasting the temptation to engage in sex with an adulteress, with being satisfied sexually with your own spouse.

 

[tall73]

Yes, I don't deny that. Some husbands and wives have physical needs, and marriage can be used as a way to purge these needs. Have sexual intercourse with your spouse so that you do not burn with lust. It is intended to prevent lust, should you be prone to it, but as Paul says it is better for you never to need this remedy for your vile disease.

Paul appears to be writing this in response to correspondence of some in Corinth, regarding whether it is good to not touch a woman. He spells out two different callings:

1. It is good if you don't touch a woman--but he indicates this is not in fact the state God has called all to.

7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.


Paul said it is better not to marry, so you can dedicate yourself to the Lord, (similar to Jesus' comments in Matthew 19 about Eunuchs for the kingdom of God). But Even Paul acknowledges in the same chapter that each one has their own gift. And if your gift is not singleness for the kingdom of God then Paul lays out another course:


2. Each should have their own spouse, and meet each other's needs:

2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.

4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

If you cannot remain single, then you should marry. But within marriage it is expected that you meet each other's sexual needs. He indicates this is a means of preventing sexual immorality. He does not say anything about needs of spouses being bad, a "vile disease" or anything else of the sort. The spouses are both seen to have legitimate desires and an obligation to meet the needs of the other.

The union is a holy experience if done without lust for the creation of children, but like all holy acts can be perverted by sin.

It is not perversion to sexually desire your spouse.

No - sinful lust is a product of the fall. This is very clear in Genesis. It is only after eating the apple that Adam and Eve feel shame in their nakedness. And where does that shame come from? It comes from the shame of their new and sinful lust for each other, awoken by the apple.

This was your response to the notion that God made the sex organs capable of pleasure. Are you indicating that the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] for example was some kind of mistake, or result of the fall? They were naked and unashamed before, and there is no indication that they didn't enjoy sex before.

God invented sex. He made it feel good. And it does bond husband and wife.

 

[tall73]

Yes and yes (though I suppose it depends on what you mean by "pleasure" and "sexual thoughts").

The Scripture says let her breasts satisfy you always. Enjoying her breasts is about pleasure. And the process of enjoying breasts is clearly not the mechanism for procreation (though it often leads to it!)

So again, what does he mean by let her breasts satisfy you always?

 

[Jon Osterman]

19 A loving doe, a graceful deer—
may her breasts satisfy you always,
may you ever be intoxicated with her love.

How is the portion about the wife's breasts satisfying her husband not about sex? And the context is clearly contrasting the temptation to engage in sex with an adulteress, with being satisfied sexually with your own spouse.

I don't read that as sexual at all. You can't have sex with breasts. Certainly not in a godly way! The passage is contrasting sinful lust for a prostitute with godly love for one's wife.

Paul said it is better not to marry, so you can dedicate yourself to the Lord, (similar to Jesus' comments in Matthew 19 about Eunuchs for the kingdom of God). But Even Paul acknowledges in the same chapter that each one has their own gift.

What do you think "better" means in this context? It is someone who is not afflicted with lust for one's wife, right? So logically, being afflicted by lust for one's wife is a bad thing.

And if your gift is not singleness for the kingdom of God then Paul lays out another course:

2. Each should have their own spouse, and meet each other's needs:

2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Note that Paul says "to avoid fornication"? He is telling those of you who can't keep it in your pants to sate your physical needs with your wife so that you will not feel lust. It is a remedy for your vile curse. Have sex (without lust!) so that your corrupt desires will not manifest as lust.

This was your response to the notion that God made the sex organs capable of pleasure.

God made the sex organs capable of [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] because that is necessary for childbirth. It is the mechanism of creating a child. It is our wickedness through the fall that has corrupted God's pure design into something perverted.

 

[RDKirk]

I was using "lust" in a sexual sense, though I admit that the word often translated as lust in the bible can be interpreted as, as you put it, physical needs. But I suppose it is the same for all of them. If, for example, you eat when you are hungry in an "unlustful" way, it is not a sin, but if you eat for pleasure and not to satisfy your physical need for food, then you are sinning (gluttony).

You seem to have said, then, that sex in marriage is only permitted for the purpose of procreation, and that sex between husband and wife for pleasure is sinful? Is that your viewpoint?

 

[Jon Osterman]

You seem to have said, then, that sex in marriage is only permitted for the purpose of procreation, and that sex between husband and wife for pleasure is sinful? Is that your viewpoint?

Sex for pleasure is sinful. Sex for procreation is according to God's plan and joyous. Sex to satisfy one's urges is tolerated but discouraged, and becomes sinful if you do it in the thoes of lust.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Not necessarily. It could be just a physical desire that any reasonably attractive person of the appropriate gender could satisfy.

And if I went to or thought of or looked at anyone else, I'd agree 100% that its sin. What I don't agree with (and am having trouble understanding) though that if my wife does something that makes me desire her - not to procreate, but to enjoy sex with her, that is in the same category (because their not) or is somehow sin.

It can be, yes. There is nothing wrong with that and sex done in love (instead of lust) for procreation is fine. It is when you are doing it with lust in your heart that you are being sinful.

So to understand where you're coming from better, I'll describe it like this. You're having one of those days where everything is wonderful, and you can't help but notice and appreciate your wife and her body. A smile or a laugh reminds you of a sexual experience (and you think about it), a physical feature gets you thinking about how much you enjoy that physical feature when you have sex. Everything she does that day stirs up in you a desire for her. You want to make her feel (sexually) good, you want to experience that with her - that bond that you only have with her, in a way you don't have with anyone else. Not to have kids, but to have the experience with each other. Is that sin? Cause honestly, I don't see how.

Well, obviously I don't know your religious background, but it is fairly ubiquitous that Christians believe lust is a sin.

I am a life long Christian of an evangelical denomination. And I agree lust is a sin, I'm not arguing that. I'm trying to understand how having sexual desire and thoughts about your wife (or for the women in the thread, their husbands) would be considered lust or sin

Yes and yes (though I suppose it depends on what you mean by "pleasure" and "sexual thoughts").

See above

 

[Guy Incognito]

Sex for pleasure is sinful. Sex for procreation is according to God's plan and joyous. Sex to satisfy one's urges is tolerated but discouraged, and becomes sinful if you do it in the thoes of lust.

And this is where we seem to be having our point of disagreement.

 

[Jon Osterman]

So to understand where you're coming from better, I'll describe it like this. You're having one of those days where everything is wonderful, and you can't help but notice and appreciate your wife and her body. A smile or a laugh reminds you of a sexual experience (and you think about it), a physical feature gets you thinking about how much you enjoy that physical feature when you have sex. Everything she does that day stirs up in you a desire for her. You want to make her feel (sexually) good, you want to experience that with her - that bond that you only have with her, in a way you don't have with anyone else. Not to have kids, but to have the experience with each other. Is that sin? Cause honestly, I don't see how.

Yes, I think that is sinful. You are disrespecting your wife by treating her as a sexual object to be lusted after. Maybe you have simply been infected by our over-sexualised society into thinking that this is natural?

 

[RDKirk]

Sex for pleasure is sinful. Sex for procreation is according to God's plan and joyous. Sex to satisfy one's urges is tolerated but discouraged, and becomes sinful if you do it in the thoes of lust.

Well, okay, we'll disagree on that. Others have already pointed out to you the two or three witnesses of pertinent scriptures that explicitly declare otherwise.

But if you want to depend on your own judgment rather than multiple scriptural references, you go ahead with that.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Yes, I think that is sinful. You are disrespecting your wife by treating her as a sexual object to be lusted after. Maybe you have simply been infected by our over-sexualised society into thinking that this is natural?

In what way am I (or anyone else) doing either of those things though? By what evidence? Specifically, by what *scriptural* evidence? Please, show me the passage.


Again, I agree that lust is a sin, but I don't feel having sexual thoughts and desires for ones own spouse to be lust. Heck, that can be done wrong if done selfishly. But if it leads to a mutual enjoyable experience between a husband and wife, I don't see at all how it could possibly be lust or sinful.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Furthermore, pleasure being an aspect of sex is something Pastor John Piper has addressed. Just posting this for some food for thought.

https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/is-sexual-pleasure-essential-for-marriage

(taken from the above link)

Audio Transcript

Welcome to the Ask Pastor John podcast. We close out the week with two important questions we commonly receive on the topic of marital intimacy. They are of course intended for a mature audience.

The first question comes from Kyle in Kansas City. He has this follow-up: “Dear Pastor John, my question is a follow up to episode #475 — ‘Is Sexual Attraction Essential for Marriage?’ There you said no. So if sexual attraction is not ‘essential”’ to marriage, why does it seem so essential to the Song of Solomon? It sure wouldn’t be much of a ‘song’ if you took out everything in it that has to do with physical pleasure, now would it?”

Let’s clarify what I was answering. The question I was answering was not is sex essential for marriage, but is sexual attraction essential for marriage. I answered “no” for cultural reasons and physical reasons. Culturally and historically lots of true marriages have been put together by parents without the physical desire being there at the beginning for the couple, arranged marriages. And physically there are seasons of life as you grow older where those pleasures rise and fall, come and go. If you said that sexual attraction were the essence, then aging would be the gradual end of marriage which it isn’t. Some of the greatest glories, I think, happen in marriage in the absence of sexual desire.

So let’s clarify, then, what I am saying and what I am not saying when I say sexual pleasure is not part of the essence of marriage. What I am saying is that marriage really exists without it. The absence of pleasure in sexual relations does not make a marriage no longer a marriage. The Bible mandate for sexual relations is there, 1 Corinthians 7:3. But even lengthy interruptions do not turn marriage into something other than marriage, as when a husband or wife is in prison for 10, 20 years or when seafarers went on a two year whaling expedition. That is what I am saying. Marriage is still marriage when pleasures rise and fall, can be expressed, cannot be expressed or when they completely disappear which happens sometimes for purely physiological reasons. A real marriage, indeed a happy one, can exist when those pleasures are not part of the joy.

What I am not saying is that the Song of Solomon can be the Song of Solomon without sexual pleasure. The Song of Solomon, he said, wouldn’t be much of a song if you took out everything in it that has to do with sexual pleasure. That is absolutely right. It is an utterly sensual song. It is a lavish, celebration of God’s gift of sexual pleasure in marriage. I am glad it is in the Bible.

So what I am not saying is, “If something is not essential to marriage, it can’t be hugely important and spectacularly wonderful.” If something is not essential to marriage, it may still be hugely important and spectacularly wonderful. So Kyle is right. If you take away sexual pleasure from the Song of Solomon it is no longer a celebration of sexual pleasure. And I am not in any way commending pleasure absent sexual relations. I regard such experiences as a very sad reality that some must live with. The loss of sexual pleasure in marriage is not the ideal. It is not the goal.

In fact, let’s take it a little further. Since God designed marriage in this one flesh union to be a parable, a drama of his relationship to the Church and the Church to him, the absence of deeply loving pleasure in the act of one flesh union is less than the complete drama of the intensity, of the joy between Christ and his Church. I mean, it is amazing to me to think that God knew exactly what he was doing in creating sex as part of marriage and all of its exquisite pleasures and he had in mind Christ and the Church when he did back in the beginning. We know that from Ephesians 5:32 and so on.

So even though marriage can exist without this pleasure — yes it can — that is, it is not of the essence — nevertheless, the fullest and most complete portrayal of the ultimate meaning of marriage is not possible without that pleasure. You can have a real marriage that is an imperfect portrayal of Christ and his Church, but the Song of Solomon is right to celebrate sexual pleasure in marriage because one of the reasons that sexual pleasure in marriage is so wonderful and so important is because it completes the picture of how intense the pleasures of knowing Christ will be forever. So conclusion: No, it is not essential, but, yes, staggeringly important and wonderful.

 

[Dave-W]

What I don't agree with (and am having trouble understanding) though that if my wife does something that makes me desire her - not to procreate, but to enjoy sex with her, that is in the same category (because their not) or is somehow sin.

That is due to many believing any non-reproductive sex (like with birth control) to be inherently sinful. Some of the early church fathers taught that the only reason God allows for marital sex is to make virgins to serve the church. And that God finds married sex so abhorrent that He has to leave the premises when a couple are so engaged.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Further food for thought:

 

[BNR32FAN]

As a man my answer to the subject heading question is yes. Here is why.... Jesus said that it isn't just the physical act of adultery that is a sin, but once you have lusted in your heart for another, you've already committed adultery. So the sin begins in the heart... and in the case of porn (speaking about married men) they are lusting and usually gratifying themselves physically over a woman who is not his wife. While he might not physically do the deed with that woman, in his heart he has. That is a sin.

Well said brother!! Very nicely put.

 

[Jon Osterman]

In what way am I (or anyone else) doing either of those things though? By what evidence? Specifically, by what *scriptural* evidence? Please, show me the passage.

It is said repeatedly that a marriage should be like Christ's relationship with the church. Christ is the hudband, the church the wife. I see nothing sexual in that relationship.

 

[Ken Rank]

It is said repeatedly that a marriage should be like Christ's relationship with the church. Christ is the hudband, the church the wife. I see nothing sexual in that relationship.

Yes, but that is mainly because we don't literally marry Christ. It is metaphoric language used to depict the depth of the relationship that we have, but more to the point, will have, with him.

 

[Deidre32]

Yes, I think that is sinful. You are disrespecting your wife by treating her as a sexual object to be lusted after. Maybe you have simply been infected by our over-sexualised society into thinking that this is natural?

Wow.

 

[Guy Incognito]

It is said repeatedly that a marriage should be like Christ's relationship with the church. Christ is the hudband, the church the wife. I see nothing sexual in that relationship.

I really think that in this you're taking it very literally, when it was more of a figurative example.