How do you define "Lust"?

[dmp]

I don't think using the above Scripture IS showing a cause and effect. I don't believe either spouse should *punish* the other...that doesn't solve anything. It's not selfish to want what is best for the marriage...true intimacy. What I said in my earlier post is, if the marriage is void of true intimacy, but one spouse is EXPECTING sex, the loving thing to do for the other spouse (I am not going to use husband/wife-because I believe it can go either way) is to gently bring up the issues for the couple to work on. God had a plan in mind when He created marriage. Mankind's sin nature gets in the way most of the time.

Right - but even in the absence of a 'good marriage' - one should not withhold from the other, right?

Do you feel marriage is more about 'intimacy' or 'commitment'?

 

[mkgal1]

Welll....the goal is to have a mutually satisfying and God glorifying marriage...When one spouse is looking to only satisfy their own needs, at the risk of allowing resentment and even greater distance between the spouses..then yes, the choice should be made to not allow that type of sex to occur. Not to *punish* not to *teach a lesson* but to keep the resentment out of the marriage. Heaping on more issues just causes a downward spiral...it needs to stop at some point so it is manageable.

Hmmm....intimacy VS commitment? I say commitment. But commitment to the obedience of God's plan........not pleasing mankind. God's way is always a win/win for everyone.

 

[dmp]

Welll....the goal is to have a mutually satisfying and God glorifying marriage...When one spouse is looking to only satisfy their own needs, at the risk of allowing resentment and even greater distance between the spouses..then yes, the choice should be made to not allow that type of sex to occur. Not to *punish* not to *teach a lesson* but to keep the resentment out of the marriage. Heaping on more issues just causes a downward spiral...it needs to stop at some point so it is manageable.

Hmmm....intimacy VS commitment? I say commitment. But commitment to the obedience of God's plan........not pleasing mankind. God's way is always a win/win for everyone.

Whose goals? God's goals?

I think you are generally right-on. However, I'd submit my goal in marriage is not to have satisfaction, but to satisfy my wife. In all aspects. It's a 'her first' mentality I try to adopt. It's my duty to love my wife - I ask GOD to bring the return-love...that sorta thing.

Make any sense? Nice chatting w/ you in this thread, btw. Thanks!

 

[Romanseight2005]

That doesn't mean she shouldn't show skin. It mean she shouldn't let her adornments define her.

Here's the problem I see with that. It allows people with problems of lust and horniness to blame somebody other than themselves. Frankly, seeing a woman's breast no longer 'cause me to stumble' because of all the time I've spent in Europe. Breasts were everywhere. Therefore, a woman wearing a revealing dress or shirt doesn't phase me. It 'might' phase a more..hrm...conservative? guy. To me, it's old-hat, in a way. Therefore what simply looks nice, and plays to a woman's strengths in my mind may "Cause" (I use quotes because it really doesn't cause the guy) a guy to get all hot and bothered. It's unreasonable, in my mind, to dress in a way which could lead no single person to sin. That is to say, somebody will get turned on by ANYTHING. Make sense?




That's beside the point. That's a personal question about my preference, not addressing our scripture-based 'duties'.


Again, I think you're missing what I asked. What you're showing is a cause-and-effect between 'IF spouse A does this, I, spouse B will do that'. That's sort of a selfish type of Love, isn't it? It's curious to me why you went there - you know - here:

"Why should the man hold a scripture over his wife's head?". There are many many women I've met who use withholding sex as a tool to "Punish" their husbands. One could clearly ask, "Why should a WOMAN hold those scriptures over a man's head, in an effort to withhold her duty?"

No, what I am saying is that you are pitting one scripture against another, and saying one holds more prominence. The very scripture that you site for your case, is the same one that says there is a time for not coming together when there are pressing needs (prayer and fasting) and if the scenario you laid out was in place, then he would be violating scripture as well.

 

[heart of peace]

I don't hold women accountable for how they dress. Not much, anyway. For me, I hold the viewer accountable. That is to say a woman can NEVER tell what's going to get a man going. Some guys may like women in burlap sacks. Know what I mean?

Right, it's all in the intention the woman has for dressing a particular way. At the end of the day, if her intention is to appear seductive to men and a man gets sexually aroused, the woman was the cause (his arousal was just a reaction and one that is difficult, possibly impossible, to control).

As for wifely/husbandly duties, I completely believe that this exists and the only time a spouse should be denied sex is if the person is unwell (physically, emotionally, spiritually). If the person is not terribly sick, then that person should at least find some other way to satiate the spouse's needs. I have no qualms with viewing it as a duty to fulfill. However, I don't need to view it in such a manner as I am comfortable with honoring my spouse's needs even if I'm not 'in the mood'.

 

[dmp]

No, what I am saying is that you are pitting one scripture against another, and saying one holds more prominence. The very scripture that you site for your case, is the same one that says there is a time for not coming together when there are pressing needs (prayer and fasting) and if the scenario you laid out was in place, then he would be violating scripture as well.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm saying BECAUSE of the scripture I quoted, there is NO justification to withhold sex until a marriage is 'perfect' or even 'fantastic' or even 'mutually satisfying.' Your body is not yours; but your husbands. His body is Yours. The scripture I quoted goes on to say 'except by mutual agreement, for a prescribed time.

Right, it's all in the intention the woman has for dressing a particular way. At the end of the day, if her intention is to appear seductive to men and a man gets sexually aroused, the woman was the cause (his arousal was just a reaction and one that is difficult, possibly impossible, to control).

Righto.

As for wifely/husbandly duties, I completely believe that this exists and the only time a spouse should be denied sex is if the person is unwell (physically, emotionally, spiritually). If the person is not terribly sick, then that person should at least find some other way to satiate the spouse's needs. I have no qualms with viewing it as a duty to fulfill. However, I don't need to view it in such a manner as I am comfortable with honoring my spouse's needs even if I'm not 'in the mood'.

Well-said. When I promised to Love my wife - some of that means to give up how I happen to feel, to assist her.

Now...if she'd just need more 'assisting' than she does.. (Grumble!) - maybe if she needed assisting, what, 4 times a week? That'd be cool.

:-D

 

[mkgal1]

Whose goals? God's goals? Our goal as Christians...to follow His plan laid out in the Bible

I think you are generally right-on. However, I'd submit my goal in marriage is not to have satisfaction, but to satisfy my wife. In all aspects. It's a 'her first' mentality I try to adopt. It's my duty to love my wife - I ask GOD to bring the return-love...that sorta thing. I agree. Our goal should not be focusing on our satisfaction...happiness...fullfillment, but what is in God's will and being obedient to that. It's not about being happy, but holy...right? It gets cloudy when we begin to look only to meeting our spouses desires, however..they may not have the purest or healthiest desires. But yes, our true fullness of love comes from God.

Make any sense? Nice chatting w/ you in this thread, btw. Thanks!

Makes sense...thanks, nice chatting with you also. Ya made me think.

 

[fuzzymel]

Very interesting topic. I do very much agree with the op.

It appears that people have very different definitions of the word lust.

I sometimes say I lust after chocolate but its not really lust. We use the word lust when really desire would be the more appropriate word.