Is he committing adultery with his own wife?

[Bethesda]

I think that what we have both said and I was thinking that the only exception is unnatural sexual desires with ones spouse. But I think a poster made a valid point even that isn't lusting after your spouse that is lusting after a particular unclean act it has nothing to do with the spouse the need to do something sexually deviant with a spouse isn't about the spouse at all.

I think we all agree that lust is a sin. I think we all agree that having a sexual desire for a spouse at an inappropriate time when one should be sensitive and kind isn't loving and is a sin equal to lusting however it is not lust.

I think the reason people are fighting so hard against the obvious is because it is about control links. In a society that is so individualized to give up that power and say "I'm married means I belong first to God then to my spouse" isn't popular even among Christians. When we look at western society we see certain aspects of the culture breed separation genders, classes and races. This is a perfect demonstration of that this idea is basically saying "if you don't want to have sex with your husband because your tired and he still wants to have sex he's lusting after you and that's a sin." But the fact is some of these women should thank God their husbands still want to have sex with them, when the could by all means go out and have sex with someone else maybe even more attractive. See that's why I am so strongly against this idea and those that spread this type of theology not only is it unbiblical but it also is damaging to marriages.

If I am beat and tired and my wife wants to have sex and I don't we have sex sometimes we don't. If she is beat and tired and I want to have sex but she doesn't sometimes we do sometimes we don't. If she is arguing with me and I'm mad at her does that mean I can't admire my wife's body, I can't look at her when she picks something up because we are mad at each other? That's not lust its selfish sometimes for the person that isn't tired but that's life. Sometimes you give a little sometimes you get a little.

But like I said you can't lust after your spouse, its yours that who God gave to you. A man is his wife's possession and woman is her husband's possession that is why they can not lust after each other. They can lust after others, they can lust after porn, they can lust after unclean sexual acts but you can't lust after what you already have.

There have been 0 scriptures stating a man can lust after his wife, there have been scriptures that prove that he can not. I have seen no biblical proof what so ever 0. All I have seen is man made articles, man made ideas and man made beliefs I am not a fan of religion I am a believer and follower of Christ not man made laws and man made ideas.

And to all the women that think their husbands lust after them don't complain if your husband starts lusting after someone or something else.

I think your line about the logic being used by some women is quite interesting. Overall most research would show that men and women do tend to differ biologically in terms of sex drive. Quite a lot of women would be quite happy with a few times a year - that most men wouldn't is pretty clear. Therefore in that sense the NT teaching about how men and women are to regard each other is immensely practical and sensible - otherwise one is saying that if the wife is a 4 times a year lady then tough on the husband and if he wants more he is lusting and therefore sinning. Personally I don't like washing the dishes but I do it every night to please my wife. I do feel that there are a number of Christians who are really a bit unhappy with the whole concept of sex, certainly the need to do it any more than to have children and therefore welcome (not implying that to any one here) any excuse to say (rather like a man going shopping) well had to do it and glad that's over. So the you're just using me doctrine thus becomes an convenient justification in the mind to say ' bit tired, maybe tomorrow' ad infinitum. Btw mention of Jewish practices does sometime make me think that a lot of Christians do seem to want to have written precise guidance for everything

 

[4Bear]

This is a perfect demonstration of that this idea is basically saying "if you don't want to have sex with your husband because your tired and he still wants to have sex he's lusting after you and that's a sin." But the fact is some of these women should thank God their husbands still want to have sex with them, when the could by all means go out and have sex with someone else maybe even more attractive. See that's why I am so strongly against this idea and those that spread this type of theology not only is it unbiblical but it also is damaging to marriages.

What was damaging to my marriage was the idea that if I ever dare to say "no" no matter how tired or sick... I am a terrible sinner, breaking scripture.

That's a lie. I have authority in the bedroom and I can say "no" without guilt and my husband needs to respect that. 1 Thes 4 speaks of "honor" and 1 Pet 3 also tells a husband to "honor" and to live with his wife in an understanding manner.

Threatening to go cheat is manipulative and selfish and the opposite of honor, love, cherish.... and no wonder if a spouse doesn't want to make love under such nasty ugly circumstances!

You might not want to label such an attitude "lust" but it is sure not "love".

There was a female poster recently who was resentful and having fantasies of cheating because her husband only provided sex three times a week instead of daily. The idea that women have a miniscule sex drive is false. Poisoned with disrespect, selfishness, entitlement, and threats of cheating her sex drive may dwindle, but it will flourish with consideration, nourishing, and honor.

 

[Avniel]

What was damaging to my marriage was the idea that if I ever dare to say "no" no matter how tired or sick... I am a terrible sinner, breaking scripture.

Maybe it wasn't the idea of how dare you say "no" maybe what damaged your marriage was the idea that your husbands personal desires overridden by your need to be in control an inability to compromise.

That's a lie. I have authority in the bedroom and I can say "no" without guilt and my husband needs to respect that. 1 Thes 4 speaks of "honor" and 1 Pet 3 also tells a husband to "honor" and to live with his wife in an understanding manner.

You have authority in your bedroom of course but your husband has none. You have the right to say no but your husband has no right to feel fulfillment sexual. That sounds a bit controlling.

Threatening to go cheat is manipulative and selfish and the opposite of honor, love, cherish.... and no wonder if a spouse doesn't want to make love under such nasty ugly circumstances!

I think I am speaking of reality. There are women in the world that will take your husband. If he is not happy with his sexual life and he is presented a opportunity it is easier to be tempted if he is bitter, feels no authority in the bedroom and views his spouse as selfish. Similarly a study done shows that women use 20000 words but men only use 7000. So who is more likely to find someone to have an emotional affair a woman that's husband uses 15,000 or a woman that's husband stays at 7000. I think the answer is obvious, the fact is people are weak and during moments of weakness that is when the devil uses others to tempt. If your husband is not feeling happy in a particular area in the marriage my suggestion would be to not look at it like your authority but more so, "I love this man and because I do I'm going to make a sacrifice and meet him half way. Even if he is the one that doesn't want to have sex.

The bible says you reap what you sow if you sow a seed of selfishness that seed may be reaped into a selfish act that hurts you.


You might not want to label such an attitude "lust" but it is sure not "love".

Both attitudes are unloving. If both parties are unable to compromise or meet each other half way it is not a loving situation. I am glad you do not call it lust.

There was a female poster recently who was resentful and having fantasies of cheating because her husband only provided sex three times a week instead of daily. The idea that women have a miniscule sex drive is false. Poisoned with disrespect, selfishness, entitlement, and threats of cheating her sex drive may dwindle, but it will flourish with consideration, nourishing, and honor.

I never said women don't have a high sex drive. What I said in a culture where the individual is promoted you have attitudes of entitlement selfishness and controlling people that think having their way is winning. This is on both sides and it damages a marriage and creates a cycle of one's needs being the most important in a marriage.

I am so glad that my wife doesn't share this attitude. If she did I might be one of those that had a feeling of entitlement. But the fact that it's 50/50 and as much authority she has in the bedroom is as much authority as I have. Not only shows my willingness to put my needs on the back burner for her to be comfortable but it also shows her respect for our marriage, not me as single person but US as a one.

 

[mkgal1]

I'd also like to ask you, how likely is it it John Paul II ever had sex?

So....are you trying to discredit him because of his celibacy? Our sexuality is supposed to have to do with God's genuine love. What the Pope is revealing in his writings is the mystery of Christ's marriage with the church. That has to do with each and every one of us. It was his (Pope JPII) life's work to study (and proclaim) that love to others.

I am not Catholic, BTW.......but, that doesn't mean I can't agree with much of the theology behind the TOB. There are things that I don't fully agree with (like what you've already pointed out). What I disagree with is what's called a "rib issue". On the "spine issues".......what the Good News Gospel is.........I agree. It's Christ's love and our belief in Him as our Savior that unites *all* Christians. That's really the core thesis of TOB.....just how God's love redeems......and restores.

There is a lot to unravel in this one small verse:
For we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.~Eph 5:30

And.....it's not basic or superficial......it's profound:
"This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church."~Ephesians 5:32

Why are you so enthusiastic about it?

Why am I so enthusiastic about it? Because I find God's love for us worthy of awe and reverence. We will never reach the point of understanding it fully......there will always be more for us to learn.

 

[LinkH]

So....are you trying to discredit him because of his celibacy?

Not really. If someone is celibate, and he gets a revelation from God about sex, that's fine. Paul did. (Whether Paul was always unmarried, we do not know). You are reading a work by a celibate man, built on the theological works written by other men who were celibate. The apostle Paul, who was celibate, instructed another apostle, who might have been unmarried also, to appoint as bishop 'the husband of one wife' with faithful children.

The real concern I have is that as you explain these ideas about marital sex being potentially lustful, you can't find scripture to support it. Did John Paul II support his ideas with scripture?

I also find it strange what views you support. The view you can't back up with scripture, you support. He was against homosexual acts, and there is scripture that shows that that is sinful, yet you reject that idea and accept the stuff you can't back up with scripture.

 

[Stealth001]

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

Is it possible if a man looks at his own wife that he is committing adultery with her in his own heart? If what he has is lust, isn't that the conclusion one would draw if they define 'lust' as desire without perfect genuine divine love.

Let's say there is a man who wants to be right with God in every area of his life, including his married and sex life. He abstains from sex before marriage and reads where Paul says that to prevent fornication, let every man have his own wife and every woman her own husband. So he concludes that marriage, and not life-long celibacy, is for him, and prayerfully finds a godly woman with Proverbs 31 characteristics.

He cares about his wife, but he realizes that he has a lot to work on. Sometimes he is not as understanding of his wife's needs as he wants to be. He also beats himself up a bit when he considers his own faults.

Then he reads about love in I Corinthians 13. He's moving in that direction, but he can't say he's got it all down yet.

He's a bit theologically gullible. He hears someone talk about loving his wife with genuine, divine love, and he can't say his love is that pure and complete yet. Then he goes to a seminar where someone defines 'lust' as sexual desire without this kind of genuine love.

Then he remembers this verse.

Matthew 5:28
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

He thinks, "Oh no, I've been committing adultery with my own wife." He feels really guilty. He tried to keep his thought life pure. He waited till marriage. But now, he hears that if he desires his wife without the right kind of love, it's lust, and he feels condemned.

Should he feel condemned? Is there any Biblical reason for someone to think that lust should be defined as sexual desire, even in marriage, without divine love? Or is lust related to coveting what is not yours, like Paul said when he wrote,

"for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." (Romans 7:7b)
?


Added later
Discussion of the value of this thread or the motives of the OP for posting it shall be considered off-topic for this thread.

"Lust" is the desire, with intention to take, that which you cannot lawfully have (a woman you're not married to). If a man desires his wife, he hasn't "lusted" because he may freely have her to fulfill his desires. Same goes for the wife, she may freely desire her husband. No lust. There is no such thing as lust and/or adultery among married couples.

 

[mkgal1]

The real concern I have is that as you explain these ideas about marital sex being potentially lustful, you can't find scripture to support it. Did John Paul II support his ideas with scripture?

Repeating over and over again "you can't find Scripture" as a support isn't going to change the fact that I've given you Scripture.

This entire conversation began with my mention of one thing ("I am of the belief that a man (or woman) can "lust" after their spouse (purely a physical/selfish desire---which isn't love). That's misusing the gift that God gave us.....distorting it....corrupting it."). I was surprised that was a controversial remark. As Christians......we are to "walk in love"....our lives as to be characterized by love (Eph 5:2). Love doesn't seek its own (1st Corn 13:5).

 

[mkgal1]

"Lust" is the desire, with intention to take, that which you cannot lawfully have (a woman you're not married to). If a man desires his wife, he hasn't "lusted" because he may freely have her to fulfill his desires. Same goes for the wife, she may freely desire her husband. No lust. There is no such thing as lust and/or adultery among married couples.

That seems to be the commonly held belief in many churches (maybe that's a reason for the divorce rate being so high in those denominations). I don't know how many posts you've read, Stealth......but, FTR.....I am not saying that *all* marital sex is "lust" (it is a beautiful gift that God gave married couples to enjoy. It's meant to be an expression of our wedding vows.).............I'm only saying that it's possible for one to lust--rather than love (as, apparently, many haven't considered it to be so).

However.....

Lust - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

(1) Epithumia is used most frequently, and means a longing for the unlawful, hence, concupiscence, desire, lust. The following references hold the idea, not only of sinful desire known as "fleshly," "worldly," as opposed to "spiritual" "heavenly," "the will of man" as opposed to "the will of God," but also the sensual desire connected with adultery, fornication; verb in Matthew 5:28; Mark 4:19; John 8:44; Romans 1:24; 1 Corinthians 10:6; Galatians 5:16,17,24; Titus 2:12; 1 Peter 1:14; 1 John 2:16; Jude 1:16,18; Revelation 18:14.

 

[Stealth001]

That seems to be the commonly held belief in many churches (maybe that's a reason for the divorce rate being so high in those denominations). I don't know how many posts you've read, Stealth......but, FTR.....I am not saying that *all* marital sex is "lust" (it is a beautiful gift that God gave married couples to enjoy. It's meant to be an expression of our wedding vows.).............I'm only saying that it's possible for one to lust--rather than love (as, apparently, many haven't considered it to be so).

However.....

Lust - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

(1) Epithumia is used most frequently, and means a longing for the unlawful, hence, concupiscence, desire, lust. The following references hold the idea, not only of sinful desire known as "fleshly," "worldly," as opposed to "spiritual" "heavenly," "the will of man" as opposed to "the will of God," but also the sensual desire connected with adultery, fornication; verb in Matthew 5:28; Mark 4:19; John 8:44; Romans 1:24; 1 Corinthians 10:6; Galatians 5:16,17,24; Titus 2:12; 1 Peter 1:14; 1 John 2:16; Jude 1:16,18; Revelation 18:14.

I think it's important to remember that the romanticized idea of marriage being about "love" wasn't common throughout history... or even in biblical times. Marriages were typically arranged by parents to consolidate family wealth. Few had the honor of picking their brides. Infidelity was very common in those days and even throughout the Christian centuries with arranged marriages. Kings and Queens often married through arrangement and aquired "lovers". Fulfilling sexual desire between the two, even though in some cases they had never met prior to the consumation, wasn't sinful.

Also, Levirite marriage. If a man died without a son to carry on his name, his brother was required by Mosaic law to sire children with his widow to ensure that a male was born to carry on his name and receive inheritance. I have little doubt that in most cases very little "love" was felt. And yet... this wasn't sin... it was a command from God.

Today we marry out of the idea of "love". This isn't a bad thing, in fact, I think it better symbolizes what God intends in marriage. Sex is spiritual, emotional, and physical. Sometimes sex fulfills a physical need and desire. Just because it is "animalistic" in this way at times, it doesn't mean that it is "lust".

Lust is the desire for that which is forbidden to appease the flesh. If one is forbidden to fulfill their spiritual, emotional, and physical desires with their mate... who are they supposed to fulfill those desires with?

I do not believe that the Bible views sexual desire between mates as unclean. Think of the Song of Solomon. For nearly three chapters who have two lovers fantasizing about one another very provocatively... and this is prior to their wedding.

Sexual desire is designed by God... and to be fulfilled in the confines of marriage with one's mate. When it comes to marital sex we should celebrate, play, and enjoy ourselves.

 

[LinkH]

Repeating over and over again "you can't find Scripture" as a support isn't going to change the fact that I've given you Scripture.

You've quoted scripture. You haven't shown the definition of 'lust' you are arguing for from scripture. You haven't shown that 'lust' is something someone can have for their own spouse. I've shown where Paul said, "For I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet" and that the commandment says not to covet your neighbor's wife. (not your own wife.)

This entire conversation began with my mention of one thing ("I am of the belief that a man (or woman) can "lust" after their spouse (purely a physical/selfish desire---which isn't love). That's misusing the gift that God gave us.....distorting it....corrupting it."). I was surprised that was a controversial remark. As Christians......we are to "walk in love"....our lives as to be characterized by love (Eph 5:2). Love doesn't seek its own (1st Corn 13:5).

There are different sins. You can sin in a lot of ways by being unloving without committing adultery in your heart. I think we all agree that we are supposed to walk in love.

One of the ideas that concerns me is the idea that if a couple are having sex for purposes other than the unitive or reproductive purposes, they are wrong. I suppose you could argue they are 'committing adultery' according to this definition of lust. That eliminates a lot of clean, mutually enjoyable married "I want you now" sex between couples. It would seem to condemn couples who are just engaging in recreational sex without thinking of all the spiritual aspects of it. I don't see any of these things as sin as they are rightly married.

 

[LinkH]

I don't know how many posts you've read, Stealth......but, FTR.....I am not saying that *all* marital sex is "lust" (it is a beautiful gift that God gave married couples to enjoy. It's meant to be an expression of our wedding vows.).

Something else I notice is that our 'wedding vows' are a Christianized version of a Roman pagan custom, not what makes a marriage according to scripture. There have been thousands of wedding customs throughout history. In the Old Testament, a man could marry by paying the father of the bride the bride price for virgins or by agreeing to take his late brother' widow as wife. Job redeemed some land and got a wife in the deal. He called some elders in as witnesses. There is no mention of wedding vows. Post-exilic Jews had marriage contracts, but this is not mentioned in the OLd Testament.

I don't have a problem with people physically expressing their vows. I just don't see that as the overarching spiritual purpose for weddings. If it were the case, wouldn't God have revealed that we needed wedding vows in the first place?

Lust - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

(1) Epithumia is used most frequently, and means a longing for the unlawful, hence, concupiscence, desire, lust. The following references hold the idea, not only of sinful desire known as "fleshly," "worldly," as opposed to "spiritual" "heavenly," "the will of man" as opposed to "the will of God," but also the sensual desire connected with adultery, fornication;

I'm inclined to read Hebrews 13 as saying "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled" since it makes sense in context which contrasts it to fornication and adultery.

God said, "Be fruitful and multiply."

So my question is this, do you believe that it is "the will of God" for married couples to have sex?

If it is, how can you condemn the desire to do so as 'lust.'

 

[Avniel]

Something else I notice is that our 'wedding vows' are a Christianized version of a Roman pagan custom, not what makes a marriage according to scripture. There have been thousands of wedding customs throughout history. In the Old Testament, a man could marry by paying the father of the bride the bride price for virgins or by agreeing to take his late brother' widow as wife. Job redeemed some land and got a wife in the deal. He called some elders in as witnesses. There is no mention of wedding vows. Post-exilic Jews had marriage contracts, but this is not mentioned in the OLd Testament.

I don't have a problem with people physically expressing their vows. I just don't see that as the overarching spiritual purpose for weddings. If it were the case, wouldn't God have revealed that we needed wedding vows in the first place?




I'm inclined to read Hebrews 13 as saying "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled" since it makes sense in context which contrasts it to fornication and adultery.

God said, "Be fruitful and multiply."

So my question is this, do you believe that it is "the will of God" for married couples to have sex?

If it is, how can you condemn the desire to do so as 'lust.'

15 Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well.
16 Let thy fountains be dispersed abroad, and rivers of waters in the streets.
17 Let them be only thine own, and not strangers' with thee.
18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.
19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.

Here he is saying look don't go outside enjoy your wife's breasts and ect. I think this scripture is saying the opposite of what MK is saying.

 

[LinkH]

Mkgal1,

What if we apply this reasoning to other things?

Let's say you cooked your husband some pancakes, but didn't cook them with enough love, would you be stealing the pancakes? Let's suppose he ate them with love. Would you steal be defiling his table by serving pancakes cooked without enough love?

If you cooked them with enough pure love, and he ate them without enough love, would he be stealing the pancakes? If he did that, would he be defiling the marriage table and making you join in his sin?

 

[mkgal1]

I do not believe that the Bible views sexual desire between mates as unclean. Think of the Song of Solomon. For nearly three chapters who have two lovers fantasizing about one another very provocatively... and this is prior to their wedding.

Sexual desire is designed by God... and to be fulfilled in the confines of marriage with one's mate. When it comes to marital sex we should celebrate, play, and enjoy ourselves.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I think SOS is a description of God's intention for marital sex----I don't believe that sexual desire (on its own) is "unclean". God created that in us (as you said.....designed it). But......there is a possibility for distortion.....corruption.....selfish desire ABOVE love. It's something to be mutually enjoyable. Eph 5:29 says, "For no man ever hated his own body, but he nourishes and cares for his own, just as The Messiah does also for his church."

 

[cactusrose]

Mkgal1,

What if we apply this reasoning to other things?

Let's say you cooked your husband some pancakes, but didn't cook them with enough love, would you be stealing the pancakes? Let's suppose he ate them with love. Would you steal be defiling his table by serving pancakes cooked without enough love?

If you cooked them with enough pure love, and he ate them without enough love, would he be stealing the pancakes? If he did that, would he be defiling the marriage table and making you join in his sin?

Eating or at least when I eat only involves me.My husband receives no calories or nourishment nor can he be sustained by me when I eat for his nourishment when I eat .He can be starving and I can be getting fat.

Sex is not an "object" like a piece of food is.Sex is an activity which indeed can be done violently and absent of love which is injurious to another.A pan cake isn't a human being its flour and water.Its probably not worried if you love it or are just using it to eat.

You can not compare the intimacy of two human beings having sex with one human being making a pan cake and serving it to another..I'm not "one with a pan cake".I'm not married to a pan cake I don't have to live or talk to a pan cake.I don't give birth to my pan cake's kids.

 

[JohnDB]

OH OH OH my...


Lets say that I love to drink milk...I love sweet milk so much that buying just the milk is expensive but also disapointing to me at times. Sometimes it isn't as sweet as I would like for it to be...

So after doing some research I find the best cow that gives milk that I love so much...

I find a cow to purchase and feed it and take care of it and do all that is needed for this cow to have a good life on my farm. Sure enough the cow seems to know me and is always ready to be milked in my barn two times a day. This ol cow of mine is rather timid around strangers and knows my voice after dealing with me for years.

The MILK IS MINE. It isn't Bob's down the road. He has no right to even think of milking my cow. I ain't in the least bit worried about offending God by taking my Cow's Calf's milk in the least. MY COW gives more milk than the calf could ever drink.

Sometimes I lay awake at night thinking about drinking milk straight from MY COW. I tell some guys I work with about my fantasies...They think me a tad odd but no one thinks of me as a sinner. THE COW IS MINE.

Truly I don't want any milk from any other cow as I believe I have the best cow...I may like milk but I remember the days of just buying milk and not owning my own cow. Sure...I like milk a lot...I don't understand why being desirous of racing home to get a glass of milk that my own cow has given is such a problem. Some people may see this as kinda square...but who cares?

My wife's body is mine...she gave it to me as part of the wedding vows. And vice versa. There are times that she wants and I am not so much into it and times that I want her and she isn't so much into it...but my body is not my own...I gave it away. And marriage is all about giving. So lust cannot be in existence in a marriage for your spouse. My wife takes care of me way beyond the bedroom and I take care of her way beyond the bedroom. I care for all of her needs the best that I can and vice versa. I have committed myself to that task and she has committed herself as well.

Lust is wanting without taking on the responsibility of having. And that is the real issue with lust. Wanting the sex without wanting the person...and that is where the real issue lies. Intimacy causes sex and sex does not cause intimacy. Sin has warped people's ideas way around the wrong way.

Real intimacy doesn't happen physically...it happens in your heart. If you have enough intimacy then sex is kinda a given...why not share your bodies if you share the same heart?

 

[mkgal1]

I find a cow to purchase and feed it and take care of it and do all that is needed for this cow to have a good life on my farm.

The MILK IS MINE. It isn't Bob's down the road. He has no right to even think of milking my cow. I ain't in the least bit worried about offending God by taking my Cow's Calf's milk in the least. MY COW gives more milk than the calf could ever drink.

THE COW IS MINE.

My wife's body is mine...she gave it to me as part of the wedding vows. And vice versa. So lust cannot be in existence in a marriage for your spouse.

Lust is wanting without taking on the responsibility of having. And that is the real issue with lust. Wanting the sex without wanting the person...and that is where the real issue lies. Intimacy causes sex and sex does not cause intimacy. Sin has warped people's ideas way around the wrong way.

Real intimacy doesn't happen physically...it happens in your heart. If you have enough intimacy then sex is kinda a given...why not share your bodies if you share the same heart?

The beginning of your post---I wasn't agreeing with you. It isn't *just* the reciting of marriage vows that makes the marriage----it's the care & commitment (which you clarified in the end). I just get uncomfortable with the references to "mine" and "purchased" (because it's not a one-time event -----it's the continual nurturing that causes oneness). Even though married-----I *still* believe sex ought to be perceived as a gift----otherwise, there can be a lack of gratitude (and I'm not talking about manipulation). The care and nurturing is a continual thing (and I like how you expressed the bold). Maybe that's what I have against the "mine" part......because it seems as if that's saying that once the wedding happens, the care isn't as necessary.......but, this is true: "real intimacy doesn't happen physically......it happens in your heart. If you have enough intimacy---then sex is kinda a given...." Also.....another clarification that I agree with: "lust is wanting without taking the responsibility of having."

 

[ChristianGolfer]

Real intimacy doesn't happen physically...it happens in your heart. If you have enough intimacy then sex is kinda a given...why not share your bodies if you share the same heart?

Very true.

And while I get your point and think you are right on about intimacy....

Your wife isn't a cow. Women aren't cows. Analogies that put women in the place of farm animals should really be avoided, IMHO.

It's insulting. Whether you mean it to be or not.

 

[cactusrose]

OH OH OH my...


Lets say that I love to drink milk...I love sweet milk so much that buying just the milk is expensive but also disapointing to me at times. Sometimes it isn't as sweet as I would like for it to be...

So after doing some research I find the best cow that gives milk that I love so much...

I find a cow to purchase and feed it and take care of it and do all that is needed for this cow to have a good life on my farm. Sure enough the cow seems to know me and is always ready to be milked in my barn two times a day. This ol cow of mine is rather timid around strangers and knows my voice after dealing with me for years.



The MILK IS MINE. It isn't Bob's down the road. He has no right to even think of milking my cow. I ain't in the least bit worried about offending God by taking my Cow's Calf's milk in the least. MY COW gives more milk than the calf could ever drink.

Sometimes I lay awake at night thinking about drinking milk straight from MY COW. I tell some guys I work with about my fantasies...They think me a tad odd but no one thinks of me as a sinner. THE COW IS MINE.

Truly I don't want any milk from any other cow as I believe I have the best cow...I may like milk but I remember the days of just buying milk and not owning my own cow. Sure...I like milk a lot...I don't understand why being desirous of racing home to get a glass of milk that my own cow has given is such a problem. Some people may see this as kinda square...but who cares?

My wife's body is mine...she gave it to me as part of the wedding vows. And vice versa. There are times that she wants and I am not so much into it and times that I want her and she isn't so much into it...but my body is not my own...I gave it away. And marriage is all about giving. So lust cannot be in existence in a marriage for your spouse. My wife takes care of me way beyond the bedroom and I take care of her way beyond the bedroom. I care for all of her needs the best that I can and vice versa. I have committed myself to that task and she has committed herself as well.

Lust is wanting without taking on the responsibility of having. And that is the real issue with lust. Wanting the sex without wanting the person...and that is where the real issue lies. Intimacy causes sex and sex does not cause intimacy. Sin has warped people's ideas way around the wrong way.

Real intimacy doesn't happen physically...it happens in your heart. If you have enough intimacy then sex is kinda a given...why not share your bodies if you share the same heart?

Lets say I love lap dogs.Its very unfulfilling picking up mangy strays.And its expensive with all the flea treatments I have to invest in to fumigate my house once I'm done.So I shop around and purchase the perfect lap dog.I OWN him ..He's mine.He allows me because he is used to me taking care of him to put a leash and collar on him whenever I feel like it.I carry him around in my purse and he sits and stays.He is timid with my neighbors he wont go to them when they say 'come here boy" only me.Even when he's exhausted and sleeping peacefully by the fireplace I can pick him up because I own him he's MY LAP DOG!I will not feel guilty or apologize to God that I picked up my own dog that I bought for ME to have in my lap whenever I feel like.I give him a good life so he is mine to carry around and walk on a leash and pick up whenever I feel like ..I can also get him to do some pretty neat tricks for my entertainment by teasing him with treats.

 

[4Bear]

OH OH OH my...


Lets say that I love to drink milk...I love sweet milk so much that buying just the milk is expensive but also disapointing to me at times. Sometimes it isn't as sweet as I would like for it to be...

So after doing some research I find the best cow that gives milk that I love so much...

I find a cow to purchase and feed it and take care of it and do all that is needed for this cow to have a good life on my farm. Sure enough the cow seems to know me and is always ready to be milked in my barn two times a day. This ol cow of mine is rather timid around strangers and knows my voice after dealing with me for years.

The MILK IS MINE. It isn't Bob's down the road. He has no right to even think of milking my cow. I ain't in the least bit worried about offending God by taking my Cow's Calf's milk in the least. MY COW gives more milk than the calf could ever drink.

Sometimes I lay awake at night thinking about drinking milk straight from MY COW. I tell some guys I work with about my fantasies...They think me a tad odd but no one thinks of me as a sinner. THE COW IS MINE.

Truly I don't want any milk from any other cow as I believe I have the best cow...I may like milk but I remember the days of just buying milk and not owning my own cow. Sure...I like milk a lot...I don't understand why being desirous of racing home to get a glass of milk that my own cow has given is such a problem. Some people may see this as kinda square...but who cares?

My wife's body is mine...she gave it to me as part of the wedding vows. And vice versa. There are times that she wants and I am not so much into it and times that I want her and she isn't so much into it...but my body is not my own...I gave it away. And marriage is all about giving. So lust cannot be in existence in a marriage for your spouse. My wife takes care of me way beyond the bedroom and I take care of her way beyond the bedroom. I care for all of her needs the best that I can and vice versa. I have committed myself to that task and she has committed herself as well.

Lust is wanting without taking on the responsibility of having. And that is the real issue with lust. Wanting the sex without wanting the person...and that is where the real issue lies. Intimacy causes sex and sex does not cause intimacy. Sin has warped people's ideas way around the wrong way.

Real intimacy doesn't happen physically...it happens in your heart. If you have enough intimacy then sex is kinda a given...why not share your bodies if you share the same heart?

Oh, oh my. You posted like a bull in a china shop

I take it your cow would not give the milk for free? Otherwise, why buy her?

You sound like a kind owner, but the Bible says you are responsible to nourish (feed) and cherish (warm) her.

Suppose you starve her and keep her in the freezing cold and her milk dries up?

So you take out your Bible and thump her over the head with it because the Bible says she isn't supposed to "deprive" you.

Meanwhile a young heifer at work is offering you her milk for free. Lots of bulls in the Bible drank from multiple cows. Solomon had 1000 of them. So you drink.

The cow you own decides that its miserable being YOUR cow and she wants a cow divorce. "Go ahead with one of those heifers and good riddance! She has NO IDEA what she is getting herself into! Oh, and I have a Buffalo Lawyer who says I'll get the barn and custody of the 6 calves"