• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Reasoned discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

Susan

退屈させた1 つ (bored one)
Feb 16, 2002
9,292
124
41
El Cajon, California, USA
Visit site
✟15,012.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I would like to begin a discusssion on my viewpoint on a certain issue, but too many threads of that nature have been hijacked or turned into sick comedies.

Is there ANY way I could begin a reasoned discussion on the issue of whether hypersexuality/lust in marriage is sinful? (I believe it to be sinful.) and I would also like to discuss the perversion seeping into modern evangelical circles and ways we can stop it.  

I know not only myself, but some other posters would like to discuss this in a reasoned and rational manner without graphic posts, sick "humor," or a thread crashed by people who disagree, when we would like to have a civil discussion with all sides equally and honestly represented.

I am not married yet, nevertheless this is an issue I have seen come up in several places.

MODERATORS: Please remind EVERYONE of Rules 1 and 4.

Let the discussion begin. . .
 

Reformationist

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
Mar 7, 2002
14,273
465
52
✟44,595.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Originally posted by Susan
MODERATORS: Please remind EVERYONE of Rules 1 and 4.

The Forum rules are available for all to see here:

Forum Rules

I am reminding everyone to be aware of all seven rules.

Susan, you just go ahead and post and leave the moderating to the mods.

Have a good discussion, and remember to set the example you wish others to follow.

God bless
 
Upvote 0

Gabriel

I Once Was Lost, But Now Am Found
Oct 10, 2002
2,923
107
55
FL
Visit site
✟26,559.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Originally posted by Susan
I would like to begin a discusssion on my viewpoint on a certain issue, but too many threads of that nature have been hijacked or turned into sick comedies.

Is there ANY way I could begin a reasoned discussion on the issue of whether hypersexuality/lust in marriage is sinful? (I believe it to be sinful.) and I would also like to discuss the perversion seeping into modern evangelical circles and ways we can stop it.  

I know not only myself, but some other posters would like to discuss this in a reasoned and rational manner without graphic posts, sick "humor," or a thread crashed by people who disagree, when we would like to have a civil discussion with all sides equally and honestly represented.

I am not married yet, nevertheless this is an issue I have seen come up in several places.

MODERATORS: Please remind EVERYONE of Rules 1 and 4.

Let the discussion begin. . .

If you are talking about a married couple having alot of sex I would say that it depends.  It doesn't really address this in scripture other than to say "it is better to marry than to burn".  If the sex although frequent and/or wacky is not manipulative, non consentual, or sinful in method, I would say no.  However, if all you do is have sex, inhibiting your emotional and spiritual growth as a couple and individually as Christians, OR you are shurking responsibilities such as children, work, etc.  Then I would say yes, it is sinful.

This is my opinion only.&nbsp; I cannot back it up with scripture.&nbsp; My understanding is that sex is a gift for married people, there are no guidelines on method or frequency.&nbsp; We all know that newlyweds probably have ALOT of sex, but if it takes the place of emotional and spiritual intimacy, when the sex is no longer such a priority, the person isn't either.<B>

&nbsp;</B>
 
Upvote 0
Gabriel had an excellent post, although, not all newlyweds have lots of sex, especially if the woman has been chaste. It's just not that easy.

All the same, the issue of "perversion" in the church irks me as well. Modesty is a scriptural mandate which seems to have lost its existence, most obviously for women, but I think for men too. Our culture glorifies sex in the way it dresses, and it is a travesty to our saved state the way we parade around before, after and even during worship.

BUt...for discussion...can you define "hypersexuality."

Peace,
 
Upvote 0

Susan

退屈させた1 つ (bored one)
Feb 16, 2002
9,292
124
41
El Cajon, California, USA
Visit site
✟15,012.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I will make my post now.

I believe that sex is for procreation only. That does NOT mean that I oppose pleasure (so long as it is not acquired through perverted means-no octopi for example) simply that I believe pleasure to be a far SECONDARY goal and not the primary one. The primary goal is to bring a new life into the world.

The reasons I believe sex should be so limited are because, first of all, it will "sanctify" it rather than making it simply a biological act of lust or power as if humans are mere animals.

Secondly, such a worldview counters the world's view of marriage, which is the "What can I get for me?" worldview that is centered on looks and sex rather than on anything else, anything that would last.

(I would much rather build a marriage on things such as trust and caring, because those are still there when you're no longer young or you are ill or injured to the point of being unable to provide sexuality.)

Thirdly, I believe that engaging in something of any sort too much opens the door for being bored with it as it normally is. For instance, if you eat plain chocolate cake every week, you will soon become tired of it and look for ways to change it. It is most probably the same with sex, the difference though is a huge one, because variations on chocolate cake are not sinful or bad (unless you make a rum icing strong enough to get all the eaters drunk for example) however most if not all "variations" on sex are bad, sinful, and absolutely disgusting.

A sampler of such "variations" (I am trying not to be graphic) would be things like insisting that the wife dress or look a certain way, bringing objects into something that is to be between a man and wife, watching or reading pornography for "ideas," and at the bottom of the barrel, things such as S&M, heterosexual adultery, and bisexuality.

Variations are not good in everything.

Fourth and last, the procreation-only worldview of sex counters the exploitation of either spouse using sex as a "bargaining chip."

And before the ad hominems start, I will say that I am single, 18, and a virgin. So no one else has to accuse me or slander me for my unmarried status, age, or lack of "experience." :) Such attacks are in violation of rule 1.
 
Upvote 0

I can eat 50 eggs

what we have here is a failure to communicate
Oct 3, 2002
1,127
17
49
Hampstead, Maryland
Visit site
✟24,132.00
Faith
Christian
Wow, intersting, I will have to think about it.&nbsp;
Susan, you sure you're not Catholic?

Off the top of my head, though

Originally posted by Susan
I will make my post now.

I believe that sex is for procreation only.

well, I don't know if I buy that.&nbsp; I mean, look at the Song of Solomon, it's pretty obvious that they were doing SOMETHING for more than just procreation.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;
Originally posted by Susan
That does NOT mean that I oppose pleasure (so long as it is not acquired through perverted means-no octopi for example) .

uhmm, maybe I'm just naive, but isn't octopi the plural for octopus?&nbsp; yeah, I would say if you bring an octopus (much less multiple ones) into the bedroom, you have some sever problems.

Originally posted by Susan
simply that I believe pleasure to be a far SECONDARY goal and not the primary one. The primary goal is to bring a new life into the world. .

Hmm, I would say that the pleasure is supposed to bring husband and wife together, and strengthen there bond.&nbsp; I believe that the intimacy is just as important as procreation.&nbsp; If you understand the symolism in SOS , it's pretty graphic what they are talking about, and a lot of it has nothing to do with procreation.


Originally posted by Susan

The reasons I believe sex should be so limited are because, first of all, it will "sanctify" it rather than making it simply a biological act of lust or power as if humans are mere animals. .

I think the intimacy that it brings seperates us from animals.&nbsp; Very few animals have sex just for the pleasure and the bonding that it brings..&nbsp; If we only do it for procreation, THEN we are being like the animals.


Originally posted by Susan

(I would much rather build a marriage on things such as trust and caring, because those are still there when you're no longer young or you are ill or injured to the point of being unable to provide sexuality.) .

That's true, you can't build a LASTING marriage on sex.&nbsp; But, who's to say you can't have a marriage based on trust and caring, and still have a great sex life?&nbsp;

Originally posted by Susan

Thirdly, I believe that engaging in something of any sort too much opens the door for being bored with it as it normally is. For instance, if you eat plain chocolate cake every week, you will soon become tired of it and look for ways to change it. It is most probably the same with sex,.

Gosh, I don't know where to begin here.&nbsp; Well, first off, I have to disagree.&nbsp; WHat about praying?&nbsp; can you pray to much and get bored with it, so it loses it's meaning?&nbsp; Bible study?&nbsp; God gifted us with our sexuality, it's a blessing from him, so, can you have to many blessings?&nbsp; As far as getting bored, not if it's done right!

&nbsp;
Originally posted by Susan

A sampler of such "variations" (I am trying not to be graphic) would be things like insisting that the wife dress or look a certain way, bringing objects into something that is to be between a man and wife, watching or reading pornography for "ideas," and at the bottom of the barrel, things such as S&amp;M, heterosexual adultery, and bisexuality.

wow, your right, THAT type of&nbsp;variation is NOT good.&nbsp; HOwever, there are TONS of much more, uhmm, MINOR ways of spicing things up (no one else involved, etc etc) that can keep things interesting for a devoted couple.&nbsp; I don't really see much wrong with those.


Originally posted by Susan


Fourth and last, the procreation-only worldview of sex counters the exploitation of either spouse using sex as a "bargaining chip."

&nbsp;

yes, but you see, this should never happen in a healthy Christian relationship anyway, regardless.&nbsp; It's pretty clear that our bodies aren't our own, so this shouldn't be an issue.
 
Upvote 0

I can eat 50 eggs

what we have here is a failure to communicate
Oct 3, 2002
1,127
17
49
Hampstead, Maryland
Visit site
✟24,132.00
Faith
Christian
Originally posted by Susan
Hypersexuality IMHO is people engaging in sexual activity whenever they "feel like it." It is fleshly lust. :sick::sick::sick::sick:

&nbsp;

I don't really get this, so, are you only allowed to have sex, what, half the time you feel like it?&nbsp;

What if my wife and I only feel like 1 time a month?&nbsp; by your definition, if we went off and had sex that 1 time a month, we are "hypersexual".

&nbsp;

I think that (through no fault of your own) you can't really understand the marriage dynamic.&nbsp;

Right now, the way my wife and I handle sex is REALLY uplifting to our relationship.&nbsp; She's 9 month's pregnant, and just doesn't EVER really feel like it.&nbsp; Me, on the other hand, feel like it, well, let's just say alot.&nbsp; She know's that I submit my drive to her and her feelings very often.&nbsp; This makes her feel loved.&nbsp; I REALLY appreciate her effort when we do get to.&nbsp; It's another way for us to make sacrifices to each other.&nbsp;
 
Upvote 0

Susan

退屈させた1 つ (bored one)
Feb 16, 2002
9,292
124
41
El Cajon, California, USA
Visit site
✟15,012.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Originally posted by I can eat 50 eggs
uhmm, maybe I'm just naive, but isn't octopi the plural for octopus?&nbsp; yeah, I would say if you bring an octopus (much less multiple ones) into the bedroom, you have some sever problems.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Yeah, I am talking about an octopus&nbsp;^vomiting^ :sick: :sick: . I would direct you to the person who said that (he gives all men in&nbsp;the subculture a REALLY bad name grrrrr :mad: we are not all sick perverts in general, and the men aren't all sick either. . .) but I would be breaking a rule to do so.

EDIT to remove grammatical ambiguity that&nbsp;could have&nbsp;me&nbsp;sound&nbsp;like a man speaking :o
 
Upvote 0

Reformationist

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
Mar 7, 2002
14,273
465
52
✟44,595.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Originally posted by Gabriel
How do you split quotes

insert brackets []&nbsp;around the switches: quote, i, /i, b, /b, /quote)

Remember, for every qoute you must have /quote (plus the brackets), for every b you must have /b, for every i you must have a /i.

Also, the order is important.&nbsp; If you start with a quote you must end with a /quote.&nbsp; Normally it will go quote, b, any special formatting like i, or u, then after the words you want to italicize or underline you put /i, /u and then would come /b (to close the bolding), then /quote to end the quoted section.

If you're still wondering, just click on the edit button at the bottom of this post and see how the following is entered:

Originally posted by Gabriel
How do you split quotes

God bless :)
 
Upvote 0

Susan

退屈させた1 つ (bored one)
Feb 16, 2002
9,292
124
41
El Cajon, California, USA
Visit site
✟15,012.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Originally posted by I can eat 50 eggs
Wow, intersting, I will have to think about it.&nbsp;
Susan, you sure you're not Catholic?

100%&nbsp;sure. I was raised Baptist, and I'm currently nondenominational.



Originally posted by I can eat 50 eggs
well, I don't know if I buy that.&nbsp;I mean, look at the Song of Solomon, it's pretty obvious that they were doing SOMETHING for more than just procreation.
&nbsp;

I never said pleasure was wrong, I just&nbsp;said that it was secondary and not to be from perversion.&nbsp;:) And who says that the SoS is not either completely allegorical? If it is literal, could it not be depicting the conception of Rehoboam?&nbsp;

Originally posted by I can eat 50 eggs &nbsp;
uhmm, maybe I'm just naive, but isn't octopi the plural for octopus?&nbsp; yeah, I would say if you bring an octopus (much less multiple ones) into the bedroom, you have some sever problems.
&nbsp;

I answered this earlier. To elaborate a bit, maybe we have more&nbsp;crazies (or simply different KINDS of crazies) in the otaku subculture than in general American society. Nevertheless there was actually one&nbsp;individual at a board&nbsp;I go to&nbsp;who thought this and more was a fine idea. :eek: :sick: If you want to see for yourself, PM me and I will get that link to you. I always try to document my sources.

Needles to say,&nbsp;this man is a complete hen, and he does NOT represent many men in the subculture.




Originally posted by I can eat 50 eggs &nbsp;
Hmm, I would say that the pleasure is supposed to bring husband and wife together, and strengthen there bond.&nbsp; I believe that the intimacy is just as important as procreation.&nbsp; If you understand the symolism in SOS , it's pretty graphic what they are talking about, and a lot of it has nothing to do with procreation.
&nbsp;&nbsp;


Such intimacy is not precluded by the procreation-only worldview, it is simply sanctified and limited.

Also, as has been pointed out before, the SoS is open to interpretation. Some believe it to be completely allegorical and spiritual rather than literal, some literalists believe that not all references refer to actual sex, and even if all did, like I said, the SoS could be referring to the conception of Rehoboam or it could be a general reference to the traditional Jewish weddding night.


Originally posted by I can eat 50 eggs
I think the intimacy that it brings seperates us from animals.&nbsp; Very few animals have sex just for the pleasure and the bonding that it brings..&nbsp; If we only do it for procreation, THEN we are being like the animals.
&nbsp;

LOL! I own 6 cats, 2 of them females in heat and 1 who has had 2 litters of kittens,&nbsp;so I can tell you this hypothesis is somewhat invalid. Female cats in heat will try to make "advances" to even inanimate objects. My&nbsp;cats&nbsp;may be strange, but&nbsp;one will even engage in a mating-like behavior with the other female cat&nbsp;:sick:. Cats also seem to derive enjoyment and they also repeatedly mate (as evidenced by the first litter of 6 from the mama that contained 2 tabbies, 2 calicos, and a Siamese) which would be unnecessary to simply propagate the cat species.

I mentioned this to state that your theory here is flawed. Animals DO engage in sexual activity for pleasure, although not pleasure as humans would normally define it.



Originally posted by I can eat 50 eggs
That's true, you can't build a LASTING marriage on sex.&nbsp; But, who's to say you can't have a marriage based on trust and caring, and still have a great sex life?
&nbsp;&nbsp;


That may be the case, but sadly too often is not. As evidenced by the letters to any advice column, website, whatever, many times marriages simply do not last beyond illness, injury, or even old age and less appeal/interest from one side. Our culture is devoted to sexuality in marriage rather than fidelity and loyalty, and we have reaped the whirlwind.&nbsp;

(As a test, have you EVER seen a magazine article outside of a Christian magazine focusing on&nbsp;a nonsexual aspect of love or marriage?&nbsp;If you have, how many times have you seen that type of article on the front of a grocery-aisle magazine, compared to the times you have seen&nbsp;those with&nbsp;article titles too graphic for this MB?)


Originally posted by I can eat 50 eggs Gosh, I don't know where to begin here.&nbsp; Well, first off, I have to&nbsp;disagree.&nbsp; WHat about praying?&nbsp; can you pray to much and get bored with it, so it loses it's meaning?&nbsp; Bible study?&nbsp; God gifted us with our sexuality, it's a blessing from him, so, can you have to many blessings?&nbsp; As far as getting bored, not if it's done right!
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;


Like&nbsp;I said, variations on prayer by Christians are good for the most part. When we get bored with prayer, we DO NOT&nbsp;vary it by praying to Satan or by chanting mantras. Instead we&nbsp;read about prayer, we&nbsp;search for reasons why we do not want to pray, we pray that God&nbsp;will bless and hear our prayers, and we sometimes at worst pray less until we feel like praying more again. We do not take our advice on prayer from the world or from perverse ideas of prayer.

Bible study is the same way: if you are bored, you read a differnt place or you read a little less for a while. You don't&nbsp;forget the Bible and read the Qu'ran or the Satanic Bible as a variation. &nbsp;

However sex is not like either of those. While prayer and Bible reading provide few if little opportunities for&nbsp;carnal pleasures, sex provides exactly such an opening&nbsp;for evil, and when someone&nbsp;gets bored,&nbsp;he or she is&nbsp;not so likely there to look for something that is not-sinful/worldly or to simply&nbsp;abstain&nbsp;for a while until the boredom goes away.

Rather the person is more likely to seek the advice of other more "experienced" people, who in turn have learned from the ways of the world, or to directly seek the world's advice on "excitement" and "novelty."

&nbsp;
Originally posted by I can eat 50 eggs
wow, your right, THAT type of&nbsp;variation is NOT good.&nbsp; HOwever, there are TONS of much more, uhmm, MINOR ways of spicing things up (no one else involved, etc etc) that can keep things interesting for a devoted couple.&nbsp; I don't really see much wrong with those.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;


The point is, are you devoting your sexuality to God, or are you just using your body and your spouse's body for carnal pleasure? And secondly,&nbsp;if you are using anything outside yourselves for "spicing things up," as you put it, then you are sinning.&nbsp;

Originally posted by I can eat 50 eggs
yes, but you see, this should never happen in a healthy Christian relationship anyway, regardless.&nbsp; It's pretty clear that our bodies aren't our own, so this shouldn't be an issue.
&nbsp;&nbsp;

It shouldn't be an issue, it too often IS.

&nbsp;

EDIT to remove wink that was unintentionally placed here
 
Upvote 0

Andrew

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2002
4,974
24
✟21,360.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Susan,

I really think you should read the book

The Act of Marriage -- by Tim Lahaye, Beverly LaHaye

before you marry. It's a great Christian book.

"The point is, are you devoting your sexuality to God, or are you just using your body and your spouse's body for carnal pleasure? And secondly,Êif you are using anything outside yourselves for "spicing things up," as you put it, then you are sinning."

No offence but you are really naive. As long as sex is consensual between a married couple (ie one is not forcing the other to do something he/she doesnt like/want to), whether for procreation or fun, THE MARRIAGE BED IS UNDEFILED!

Heb 13:4
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
 
Upvote 0

Susan

退屈させた1 つ (bored one)
Feb 16, 2002
9,292
124
41
El Cajon, California, USA
Visit site
✟15,012.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Tim LaHaye is normally one of my favorite authors, but that book is a shame to his reputation and formerly somewhat good name (almost as much of a shame, if not more, than the conspiracy-screed "Battle For The Mind" and "Mind Siege")

:sick: :sick: :sick: :sick: :sick:
 
Upvote 0

Susan

退屈させた1 つ (bored one)
Feb 16, 2002
9,292
124
41
El Cajon, California, USA
Visit site
✟15,012.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Originally posted by Andrew
Susan,

No offence but you are really naive. As long as sex is consensual between a married couple (ie one is not forcing the other to do something he/she doesnt like/want to), whether for procreation or fun, THE MARRIAGE BED IS UNDEFILED!&nbsp;

Nice attack form. "No offence" and then an ad hominem insult. If this were&nbsp;a swordfight,&nbsp;I would give you 100 points for&nbsp;a&nbsp;a successfully executed dodge and&nbsp;parry. However this is not a swordfight, and the only points such attacks&nbsp;will earn here are warning points. :)

And on the "consensual" argument, let's say someone like our octopi-crazed fiend married someone who was too mushy-headed and weak to say "no." If she agreed to be raped and murdered, therefore making it "consensual," would that make such an action "undefiled?" I should hope NOT!

&nbsp;:sick: :sick: :sick: :sick:
 
Upvote 0

Andrew

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2002
4,974
24
✟21,360.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Susan,

Just read the book. If you don't want to, at least warn your husband-to-be that you believe that sex is for procreation only and nothing more, and that things like lingerie, condoms, candle lights (to spice things up as you say) are sinful.

I'm sure you'd at least agree that husband and wife are to be in agreement. ;)
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.