Is he committing adultery with his own wife?

mkgal1 · Jul 15, 2013

BlindDidymus said:
I would argue that St Paul says that it is better to marry than to burn so that fornication should be avoided. He is in no way approving the lustful passion which causes the burning. He is merely seeking to prevent the shame which would arise from fornication becoming known in the community.

I agree with you that Paul isn't approving of "lustful passion". But......there's lustful desire.....and there's desires that God has given us. Desire isn't necessarily lust. Marriage doesn't solve problems with lust. There's a difference between "desire" (that's God-given).....and "lust" (that doesn't come from God).

IMO.....what Paul was saying was that if one has the (God-given.....God-inspired....God-approved) desire to be married---to give their love to one person.....then---GET MARRIED. That letter was in response to a specific question about celibacy for disciples of Christ.....it opens with this, "Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” I think all Paul is saying is that celibacy isn't for everyone. Whether a person is celibate, single.....waiting to get married, or currently married----they *all* have to learn to see others as children of God. They *all* have to become pure and chaste (which doesn't mean the same thing as celibate).

mkgal1 · Jul 15, 2013

dayhiker said:
To me Paul is saying that we should get married rather than go to the idol temple prostitutes, for what connection does God's Spirit have with Satan.

I still think that's inferior to what God's desire is for marriage (to just choose one thing to avoid another). To me......that doesn't mirror His "marriage" to us.

After re-reading the Bible text though......it may have been what Paul was suggesting. He begins that whole letter with "because of sexual immorality......". But, that's the problem with basing everything on one passage----it's not complete.

mkgal1 · Jul 16, 2013

In men, inverted sexual desire tends to seek physical gratification at the expense of women.
When lust takes control of a man's heart, it seeks release in whatever outlet presents itself. This is
exactly what the porn industry capitalizes on.

Why does all of this pain women so much? Because women want to be loved and cherished for
who they are as persons, not for the sexual release they offer men. The opposite of love is not hatred.
The opposite of love is to use someone merely as a means to an end. This is what lust leads men to do
is use women rather than love them.

Women don't simply want their husbands to direct their lusts exclusively towards them, as if
this made a man faithful. As our late Pope John Paul II once pointed out, a husband can commit
"adultery in his heart" with his own wife if he treats her as nothing but an object for his selfish
pleasure.

Marriage does not justify lust; it is not a ticket to treat a spouse as a means of selfish pleasure. A woman who is the object of lust soon realizes,
"you don't love me; you don't need me. You're only interested in a means to your own gratification,
and you can get that anywhere."

http://www.sorrowspetawawa.com/documents/Why Do Men Look at Porn.pdf

landsurveyor · Jul 22, 2013

I thought the Song of Solomon encourages us to take delight in the bodies of our wives. Was that OT and no longer valid? Should men intentionally marry women they don't find attractive to avoid being sinful?

Franz Kafka was a Jew who suffered from his fear of "the sin of the marriage bed." If you have read any of his work you know he was quite neurotic.

mkgal1 · Jul 23, 2013

landsurveyor said:
I thought the Song of Solomon encourages us to take delight in the bodies of our wives. Was that OT and no longer valid? Should men intentionally marry women they don't find attractive to avoid being sinful?

Franz Kafka was a Jew who suffered from his fear of "the sin of the marriage bed." If you have read any of his work you know he was quite neurotic.

I'm not sure if you've read the other posts in this thread. Have you?

CounselorForChrist · Jul 23, 2013

Wow this thread grew long. Haven't read alot of the pages but sounds like its turning into a legalism thing now. Is lust a good reason to marry someone you are lusting over? No, love is more then just fulfilling a sexual desire. But being attracted them I think is a good reason to marry since after all its not east to become "Excited" in bed if you have no attraction to someone, therefor no desire really.

Now in marriage the word lust makes no sense to me. Being apart from my wife I lust every day for her. As she does me. Granted we are newlyweds who only had 2 weeks together. None the less I think lust is ok if its having to do with your wife. Just as long as it doesn't become a stumbling block. Like if your you want her so bad that you end up looking at porn during those times when you two aren't being intimate. Or if your lust for her is so bad that you would rather be intimate with her then go to church. Or in some cases if its ALL you think about. Like every 5 minutes you lust over her.

mkgal1 · Jul 23, 2013

xfreakazoidx said:
Now in marriage the word lust makes no sense to me. Being apart from my wife I lust every day for her. As she does me.

I hope that what you're talking about is that you desire your wife (and that she *also* desires you). That's expected in marriage.....it ought to be celebrated......and, it's not what I mean when I say, "lust".

When PJP II, Christopher West, and myself use the word, "lust".....it is meant as a specific definition (sexual desire with the absence of genuine love). Love isn't selfish...love doesn't objectify another........love *is* pure in heart.

http://www.piercedhearts.org/culture_love_life/christopher_west/purity_eyes.htm

LinkH · Jul 23, 2013

This thread is old and I might have asked this before. Let's suppose a man lusts for his wife, according to your (or West's) definition. Let's say you define that as adultery. Is the wife in the following conversation justified.

Wife: I want a divorce.
Husband: On what grounds?
Wife: Adultery?
Husband: What? I've never had sex with anyone but you.
Wife: But you just want my body. All you want is sex. And I read on CF that that is lust, and so its adultery.
Husband: That's crazy. That's not adultery. And it's not true that I just want your body. I love you. How is it wrong for me to desire my own wife?

mkgal1 · Jul 23, 2013

I would hope there'd be more than one attempt to resolve an issue like that.

Just keep in mind that the opposite of being "adulterous" is being "faithful". That is what we ought to be concerned with----being faithful to God through our expressions of love for others (especially our spouses).

ImaginaryDay · Jul 23, 2013

Women don't simply want their husbands to direct their lusts exclusively towards them, as if
this made a man faithful. As our late Pope John Paul II once pointed out, a husband can commit
"adultery in his heart" with his own wife if he treats her as nothing but an object for his selfish
pleasure.

Well, to consider this definition we would have to look at the Catholic understanding of the sexual relationship in marriage, which is (for lack of a better word right now) a bit restrictive. The way I understand it, sexual activity merely for pleasure is rather looked down upon in that tradition, hence words such as "selfish pleasure" and "a husband can commit adultery in his heart with his own wife". Outside the Catholic tradition this may not necessarily be seen the same way. Sex for the sake of pleasure is not always devoid of love as the Catholic understanding would have us believe.

mkgal1 · Jul 23, 2013

apostolic34 said:
Well, to consider this definition we would have to look at the Catholic understanding of the sexual relationship in marriage, which is (for lack of a better word right now) a bit restrictive. The way I understand it, sexual activity merely for pleasure is rather looked down upon in that tradition, hence words such as "selfish pleasure" and "a husband can commit adultery in his heart with his own wife". Outside the Catholic tradition this may not necessarily be seen the same way. Sex for the sake of pleasure is not always devoid of love as the Catholic understanding would have us believe.

I don't really think we'd have to take into consideration what the general Catholic understanding of the sexual relationship in marriage is in order to consider this definition. I don't claim Catholicism as my faith, but I see a lot of insight in PJPII's words. There seems to be so much tradition wrapped up in a lot of the main teachings of the Catholic church that I believe the truth has been veiled by tradition.

It's not faithful and genuine love to seek one's own selfish desires. To trample over another person's dignity---to use them/objectify them, instead of genuinely love and accept them is not the oneness that (IMO) marriage ought to portray. (And.......when I say "use"......I *don't* mean that consensual marital sex = "using"). I'm also not saying (nor do I believe that CW or PJPII were saying) that "sex for the sake of pleasure" is the same thing as the "absence of love". What is stealing from that love?

As part of the heritage of original sin, lust obscures in each of us God’s original, beautiful plan for the body and sexual love – but it hasn’t snuffed it out. John Paul II insisted that the heritage of our hearts is deeper than lust and the words of Christ reactivate that deeper heritage giving it real power in our lives (see TOB, Oct 29, 1980).

Imagine the human heart as a deep well. Starting from the top we have to pass through layers of muddy waters. But if we press through, at the bottom of the well we’ll find a spring that, when activated, can gradually fill the well to overflowing with pure, living water.

If we think a “lustful look” is the only way a person can look at the human body, then we subscribe to what John Paul II called “the interpretation of suspicion.” Those who live by suspicion remain so locked in their own lusts that they project the same bondage on to everyone else. They can’t imagine any way to think about the human body and the sexual relationship other than through the prism of lust.

When we hold the human heart in a state of irreversible suspicion because of lust, we condemn ourselves to a hopeless, loveless existence. As St. Paul warns us, we must avoid the trap of “holding the form of religion” while “denying the power of it” (2 Tim 3:5). “Redemption is a truth, a reality, in the name of which man must feel called, and called with efficacy” (TOB, Oct 29, 1980). In other words, the death and resurrection of Christ is effective. It can change our lives, our attitudes, our hearts. Yes – Christ’s death and resurrection can change the way we experience sexual desire, away from lust and toward the truth of divine love.

Much is at stake. As John Paul II stated, “The meaning of life is the antithesis of the interpretation ‘of suspicion.’ This interpretation is very different, it is radically different from what we discover in Christ’s words in the Sermon on the Mount.” Christ’s words about lust “reveal ...another vision of man’s possibilities” (Oct 29, 1980). Christ’s words reveal the possibility of loving as God loves – not despite our sexuality but in and through it.~Christopher West A Pure Way of Looking at Others

CounselorForChrist · Jul 23, 2013

I hope that what you're talking about is that you desire your wife (and that she *also* desires you). That's expected in marriage.....it ought to be celebrated......and, it's not what I mean when I say, "lust".

When PJP II, Christopher West, and myself use the word, "lust".....it is meant as a specific definition (sexual desire with the absence of genuine love). Love isn't selfish...love doesn't objectify another........love *is* pure in heart.

Oh in that case I mean desire.

mkgal1 · Jul 23, 2013

"Pure in heart" doesn't mean celibate. As Christians (no matter what our marital status is.....or geographical situation is.....or health issues are)....we *all* can rely on God's power in order to grow to be/remain pure in heart.

LinkH · Jul 23, 2013

mkgal1 said:
I would hope there'd be more than one attempt to resolve an issue like that.

But would you consider it adultery and therefore grounds for divorce if a man was lustfully having sex with his own wife? And do you think some women have a problem with thinking, "He just wants to use me for sex" when the husband's desire is actually legitimate and something she should embrace and reciprocate?

My example may be a bit extreme, but really it is carrying out this idea that sex with your own wife can be adultery to its logical end. If one accepts that adultery is grounds for divorce and that having sex with one's spouse with love is grounds for divorce, then isn't the logical conclusion that if you have sex with your spouse once out of lust rather than love, that your spouse is justified in divorcing you, and that God would be okay with that?

I am concerned because I know people look for excuses to justify themselves when they make tough decisions that are contrary to God's will. And it's easy to justify yourself by attributing wrong motives to another person, too. If a husband has a greater sex drive than his wife, his wife telling him he's a pervert or he just wants her for sex is not an common complaint for men in this situation. His desire may not be inappropriate at all if she has some kind of hangup about it. I suppose it works the opposite way in some marriages where the wife has greater desire.

I think it's wrong to have sex with one's spouse without love, but the sin is not having love, not adultery.

Just keep in mind that the opposite of being "adulterous" is being "faithful". That is what we ought to be concerned with----being faithful to God through our expressions of love for others (especially our spouses).[/quote]

I don't see 'adulterous' and 'faithful' as being exact opposites. There are a lot of ways to be unfaithful without committing adultery.

mandelduke · Jul 23, 2013

Is it a full moon or something! I would not have a wife that I could not lust after, what would be the point?
1 Corinthians 7:2
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
Hebrews 13:4
4 Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.

ImaginaryDay · Jul 23, 2013

I think we need clarification from the OP (Link). In what context do you mean 'Lust'. Are you speaking from the King James? Some other extra-biblical source? The original Greek? I think that would clear things up. For me lust is close to 'desire' as interpretations other than the KJV have it this way.

mkgal1 · Jul 23, 2013

LinkH said:
This thread is old and I might have asked this before. Let's suppose a man lusts for his wife, according to your (or West's) definition. Let's say you define that as adultery. Is the wife in the following conversation justified.

Wife: I want a divorce.
Husband: On what grounds?
Wife: Adultery?
Husband: What? I've never had sex with anyone but you.
Wife: But you just want my body. All you want is sex. And I read on CF that that is lust, and so its adultery.
Husband: That's crazy. That's not adultery. And it's not true that I just want your body. I love you. How is it wrong for me to desire my own wife?

LinkH said:
But would you consider it adultery and therefore grounds for divorce if a man was lustfully having sex with his own wife? And do you think some women have a problem with thinking, "He just wants to use me for sex" when the husband's desire is actually legitimate and something she should embrace and reciprocate?

My example may be a bit extreme, but really it is carrying out this idea that sex with your own wife can be adultery to its logical end. If one accepts that adultery is grounds for divorce and that having sex with one's spouse with love is grounds for divorce, then isn't the logical conclusion that if you have sex with your spouse once out of lust rather than love, that your spouse is justified in divorcing you, and that God would be okay with that?

I am concerned because I know people look for excuses to justify themselves when they make tough decisions that are contrary to God's will. And it's easy to justify yourself by attributing wrong motives to another person, too. If a husband has a greater sex drive than his wife, his wife telling him he's a pervert or he just wants her for sex is not an common complaint for men in this situation. His desire may not be inappropriate at all if she has some kind of hangup about it. I suppose it works the opposite way in some marriages where the wife has greater desire.

I think it's wrong to have sex with one's spouse without love, but the sin is not having love, not adultery.

I'm not going to get into whether or not it's "justified". That's between a person and God......but, the one thing I will say is.......it's about pattern---not one-time incidences (which I doubt would cause any sort of "alarm").

The thing is.......there is a whole lot to the phrase, "loving like Christ loves" (and calling a spouse's thoughts "crazy" doesn't really fall into that category.....IMO). That's typically called "being dismissive".

mkgal1 · Jul 23, 2013

apostolic34 said:
I think we need clarification from the OP (Link). In what context do you mean 'Lust'. Are you speaking from the King James? Some other extra-biblical source? The original Greek? I think that would clear things up. For me lust is close to 'desire' as interpretations other than the KJV have it this way.

But, I believe he (Link) was referring to something I had posted,

Recently Mkgal1 has posted a thread in which she argues that it is possible to lust after one's own spouse.

LinkH · Jul 23, 2013

mkgal1 said:
I'm not going to get into whether or not it's "justified". That's between a person and God.

And their children. And the church they go to. Divorce effects a lot of people. Sin in the camp is the business of the whole camp, and a root of bitterness springing up can defile many.

.....but, the one thing I will say is.......it's about pattern---not one-time incidences (which I doubt would cause any sort of "alarm").

So do you apply that across the board to adultery? Do you think it is permissible to divorce one's spouse based on one incident of physical adultery, or does it have to be a repeated offense?

The thing is.......there is a whole lot to the phrase, "loving like Christ loves" (and calling a spouse's thoughts "crazy" doesn't really fall into that category.....IMO). That's typically called "being dismissive".

Good point. My fictional character just apologized to his wife for calling her errant idea 'crazy.'

mkgal1 · Jul 23, 2013

Link said:
I think it's wrong to have sex with one's spouse without love, but the sin is not having love, not adultery.

And what is "not having love" called (in your opinion)? PJPII calls it lust (not adultery). Adultery is the result of the lust.

IOW......either you are loving like Christ or you are ____________ (what?).

Is he committing adultery with his own wife?

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

Newbie

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

Senior Veteran

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

Regular Member

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

We Live Here

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

Senior Veteran

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

Regular Member

Newbie

We Live Here

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

Regular Member

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency