Is he committing adultery with his own wife?

[JohnDB]

OK...after I stopped laughing so hard that I couldn't see the keyboard at ya'all's responses to my cow analogy...

You guys are sooooo internet...deciding to read into what I have said with every conceivable ill intent in the world.
My wife, who was laughing along with me over your responses, says that I am her cow as well. My body and milk are hers...and woe to the woman who even thinks she can have some of it.

Kinda along the lines of I can spank my child...but woe woe woe to the fool who thinks he/she can touch my child in such a fashion. (and no...I don't spank my wife nor do I wish to be spanked or any other such nonsense)

 

[cactusrose]

OK...after I stopped laughing so hard that I couldn't see the keyboard at ya'all's responses to my cow analogy...

You guys are sooooo internet...deciding to read into what I have said with every conceivable ill intent in the world.
My wife, who was laughing along with me over your responses, says that I am her cow as well. My body and milk are hers...and woe to the woman who even thinks she can have some of it.

Kinda along the lines of I can spank my child...but woe woe woe to the fool who thinks he/she can touch my child in such a fashion. (and no...I don't spank my wife nor do I wish to be spanked or any other such nonsense)

RUFF RUFF!!! MOOOOOO!!!

Alls good that ends well you and your wife consider each other bought property that can be compared to cattle..Good for you if that works..

 

[ChristianGolfer]

OK...after I stopped laughing so hard that I couldn't see the keyboard at ya'all's responses to my cow analogy...

You guys are sooooo internet...deciding to read into what I have said with every conceivable ill intent in the world.

Don't be so defensive, dude. Most of us started out by saying you were right.

And I still find it insulting that in your analogy you were a human and your wife was an animal.

Doesn't matter if your wife was insulted.

Doesn't matter if you meant to be insulting.

It's still insulting that you think of women as cows while men are still men.

 

[mkgal1]

As to spouses claiming ownership over one another.......ultimately---we "belong" to Christ. Our bodies are His temple----to be used for His purpose (which *does* happen to include marital sex---within His boundaries).

I'm just going to copy and paste this from the other thread.....because it expresses my thoughts in a much more coherent way:

Greek Orthodox belief:

As long as the union remains within the reality of this world, it will be subject to sin, pain, and death. But, through the Sacred Mystery, the union enters at the same time into a new reality: that of God's Kingdom. In Christ, marriage is restored to its initial perfection and in the sacrament, this union is made open to the possibility of what God intended marriage to be from the beginning: an eternal life of joy in union with Him.

If marriage is brought into the Kingdom of God, death, as a separation, is powerless over it. Christ has destroyed death by His Cross and Resurrection; therefore, the union of man and woman in Christ is eternal.~Marriage in the Eastern Orthodox Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you not know that you are the Temple of God, and that The Spirit of God dwells within you?~1st Corinthians 3:16

1 Corinthians 3:16 Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you?

 

[LinkH]

Mkgal1

Good point. The Bible says 'ye are not your own.' I Corinthians 7 speaks about spouses having authority, not ownership, over one another's bodies.

 

[mkgal1]

God still has final authority.....and only with Him will there be peace and harmony (like described in Isaiah 11)

And in Him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.~Ephesians 2:22

 

[LinkH]

This is one area where I might agree with you on the 'mutual authority' issue.

I saw you edited your post. I got rid of your quote. I think you were within the forum rules, but what do I know?

 

[mkgal1]

This is one area where I might agree with you on the 'mutual authority' issue.

I saw you edited your post. I got rid of your quote. I think you were within the forum rules, but what do I know?

I didn't really change it due to forum guidelines. It was more an effort to be more direct about my thoughts.

 

[LinkH]

I didn't really change it due to forum guidelines. It was more an effort to be more direct about my thoughts.

Sorry, bad assumption on my part.

 

[LinkH]

...

 

[cactusrose]

Cactusrose,

I see what you are saying.

Well that's good. A start anyway..

 

[LinkH]

Btw, Cactusrose,

I know you don't want me to address you, but I owe you an apology. I got you confused with another poster and said you'd accused me of something. I deleted that out of the thread and I sincerely apologize about that.

 

[cactusrose]

Btw, Cactusrose,

I know you don't want me to address you, but I owe you an apology. I got you confused with another poster and said you'd accused me of something. I deleted that out of the thread and I sincerely apologize about that.

I really have no idea what you are talking about.But appreciate your wllingness to be humble to whomever you owed that apology to.And I'm sure they do to if they are reading...

You don't owe me an apology .I just quite frankly don't agree with you.No apologies necessary for that..

Just do not "direct me" If you try to I will call you out.Thank you ..

God bless..

 

[Avniel]

Don't be so defensive, dude. Most of us started out by saying you were right.

And I still find it insulting that in your analogy you were a human and your wife was an animal.

Doesn't matter if your wife was insulted.

Doesn't matter if you meant to be insulting.

It's still insulting that you think of women as cows while men are still men.

I am assuming you have never heard the term you shouldn't give the milk if they haven't bought the cow. Or "if he can get the milk for free why buy the cow" in regards to teaching young women not to have sex without commitment. To become upset or insulted with that is just ridiculous especially when it is such a wide spread quote.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

That is enough. This is closed.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread has had a small clean up. As a reminder, the site rules include:

Flaming and Harassment
● Do not insult, belittle, mock, goad, personally attack, threaten, harass, or use derogatory nicknames in reference to other members or groups of members. Address the context of the post, not the poster.
● If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button. Do not report another member out of spite.


​

Reopening....please keep it civil.

 

[vincenticus]

I am assuming you have never heard the term you shouldn't give the milk if they haven't bought the cow. Or "if he can get the milk for free why buy the cow" in regards to teaching young women not to have sex without commitment. To become upset or insulted with that is just ridiculous especially when it is such a wide spread quote.

So simply because a phrase is in "wide spread" use, it can't be insulting.

Makes perfect sense.

 

[Created2Write]

I haven't read the entire thread, just a few of the first pages and I'd like to give my opinion. (Hi to everyone, btw. )

Do I think a man can lust after his wife? Yes. This lust can be intense sexual desire(a powerful, God-given attraction on more than one level...a truly beautiful thing..."burning with passion" so to speak.), or it can be sexual greed in which the only desire is his own gratification with no regard to his wife and her needs or feelings.

Do I think that means he's committing adultery with her? No. Adultery with your own spouse is impossible, whether it's physical or mental or emotional. Lust, however, doesn't necessarily equate to adultery.

Now, this is, of course, my own opinion.

 

[mkgal1]

Adultery with your own spouse is impossible, whether it's physical or mental or emotional.

What confuses things is the modifier "with".....but, I think what the Pope was saying (not Link) was that a man *can be* betraying his wife (and really, himself as well)..........he *can be* unfaithful.....even if he's having sex with his own wife on a regular basis because his heart and mind isn't pure.......isn't truly on her, but on others. He would be connecting with the sex act------not specifically his wife.....so, that is the lack of faithfulness.


Are you saying that as long as you and your husband had sex the typical 2-3 times a week....then, anything going on in his head is still keeping your union as pure--because you are his wife?

IOW.....if there were a few former girlfriends that kept coming to your husband's mind....and he was playing through all the "what if" scenarios (wondering where things went wrong.........what marriage and sex would be like with them) while still having sex with you.......all is good? That's marital sex as God intends and you have no right to be hurt? There's nothing unfaithful about that?

 

[Created2Write]

What confuses things is the modifier "with".....but, I think what the Pope was saying (not Link) was that a man *can be* betraying his wife (and really, himself as well)..........he *can be* unfaithful.....even if he's having sex with his own wife on a regular basis because his heart and mind isn't pure.......isn't truly on her, but on others. He would be connecting with the sex act------not specifically his wife.....so, that is the lack of faithfulness.

I agree. Entertaining fantasies with any other person other than your spouse, whether they exist in reality or not, is adultery in the heart of the person who is fantasizing. No argument.

Are you saying that as long as you and your husband had sex the typical 2-3 times a week....then, anything going on in his head is still keeping your union as pure--because you are his wife?

Nope...not sure where you got that from. A girl can physically be a virgin, but if her mind is raunchy she can hardly be called "pure". What goes on in our head is just as important as what we do with our bodies.

My point was that a man can't have emotional adultery with his wife. He can commit emotional, mental or physical adultery with other women, but with his wife, it's impossible.

IOW.....if there were a few former girlfriends that kept coming to your husband's mind....and he was playing through all the "what if" scenarios (wondering where things went wrong.........what marriage and sex would be like with them) while still having sex with you.......all is good? That's marital sex as God intends and you have no right to be hurt? There's nothing unfaithful about that?

I seriously don't understand where you got that from my post. I said nothing about other women, I was referring to the man's wife. Obviously all of the things you mentioned would be wrong and yes, would me mental/emotional adultery. But is it possible for a man to commit adultery with his wife by desiring her sexually? No.

I believe that a man's sexual desires can become greedy and self-focused, and that even if he isn't lusting after other women or sleeping with other women, he's desiring his wife in a selfish way. Also not okay. Love isn't meant to be self-seeking, and that would definitely be self-seeking.