Sexuality a basic need?

[JohnDB]

Abraham Maslow had a hierarchy of needs.

Love was one of them right after friends.

Somewhere in the Bible it says "It is not good for man to be alone". (Genesis)
Now sexual drives are natural too...some have a higher drive than others...God did it..no one else. God made each one of us special...and to have hearts.

When a couple has sex it is always much more emotionally gratifying and intimate for the woman than it is for a guy. It is supposed to be so much so that a man and a woman have a heart for each other.

Sin hardens hearts though...and people get divorced. To have sex and no love is the sign of an extremely hardened heart. It is self-centered and not other or God centered at all. Not only are you hardening your own heart more it is also hardening her heart as well. (since I am a guy I am speaking from a male perspective here and preaching to myself at the same time)

An occasional indiscretion here or there isn't the end of all life as we know it...otherwise the world would have come to an end a long time ago. But these indiscretions do make love a lot more difficult when it is available to be had.

Some have hardened their own hearts (by engaging in sex with many partners) so much that they never will find love...only a self-centered loneliness with a trail of hardened hearts behind them to show as fruit of their labors.

This is the reason for the prohibition in the bible about not sleeping around...single parented children and social diseases not withstanding.

In many of the eastern countries in the past and still today there is a practice called putting away a wife. What that entailed was not divorcing a woman but simply kicking her out of the house. Since there aren't many means available to women in these countries by which they can support themselves many of them would look to remarry in another city. (they also didn't have access to the courts either)
That is the adulterous situation that these women often found themselves in. (and the one that they wanted Jesus to stone in John 8 and the Samaritan woman by the well)

When properly translated out and all metaphors truly understood Jesus was telling in both the Malachi passage and in the New Testament passages that the woman's adultery was on the man's head who "put them away" instead of divorcing them. (as well as not to marry a "put away" wife to start with) This practice was so common Joseph was actually going to do this to Mary when she became pregnant and he knew he wasn't the father. (he wasn't going to make a public spectacle of her though like some did)

So...

I really will never ever tell anyone that it is OK to have sex outside of marriage. I will not tell anyone that it is OK to date a woman still technically married. It just isn't.
Granted we all have a libido of some sort. But one doesn't excuse the other.

 

[memoriesbymichelle]

nice post!

 

[dayhiker]

Hi Jen,
I don't think scripture is quite as simple as virgin, prostitutes, married/widows would seem to indicate.

Married - a good place to be. Widow - Respected place to be, but I've read of widows that had to fight to keep their place in society and to keep their inheritence. But there is a subgroup in the married group that is the very bad. The adultrier. The only woman that I think the bible would say is worse would be the woman who is a prostitute for an idol.

Virgin, seems straight forward. In Bible times the father was concern about his daughter being a virgin as it effected the bride price. There was also the concern about the lineage of the children, especially if one was inn the messianic line. Today its just what is the interest of the individuals. Do they want to be a virgin when they marry and do they want to marry a virgin. I don't see any command in the Bible to be a virgin or to marry a virgin when one marries.

Now prostitute is complicated in my mind. In the middle east, thru the whole time of the Bible was being written, prostitution is often associated with the worship of idols. This would make the sex a denial of God just as strong as offering a sacrifice to an idol.
I also think harlot is sometimes an insult in the Bible to a woman who is outside the patriarchal system in place in Bible times. Its a tough place to be, no means of making a living but to use ones body sexially to make a living. I don't just say her body as I think we all make out living with our body, even our mind is part of out body. I wish I had the modivation to read the Bible and see how many of the uses of harlot I think is an insult. Maybe someday I'll get to that. Bottom line for me, I'd not think God would hold it a sin and I'd not hold it against a women who had to hook to get food. Seems to me its better than stealing and begging to get food.

Now is a single woman falling into these three groups? Well, does the Bible say there is only three groups? I personally think since the woman in the west today isn't in the patriarchal system and so she had just has to be comfortable with herself and her relationship with God. OK, and if her man will be comfortable with her past. I don't think with our non-patriarchal system of reltionships today that we have a Biblical system to follow. Nor do I think God commands we live in a patriarchal system. That leaves us with a new system and having to apply the two great laws to figure out how to live. Love God and Love People.

dayhiker

I understand the desire for sex is strong but not uncontrollable. Ever noticed that there are only three kinds of women in the Bible and they are all described according to their sexual status: virgins, prostitutes, married/widows.

So, which of those three categories, Scripturally, does a woman (or person) fall under if they are having sex outside of marriage?

Rom 6:1-4 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?

It seems to me, Scripturally, that a woman who is having sex and is not married is making a harlot of herself...while a man who chases a woman to have sex with them is making a harlot out of the woman because he refuses to marry her.

I am not trying to condemn anyone but am seeking clarification. Is this not what the Scriptures teach?

 

[HisdaughterJen]

Hi Jen,
I don't think scripture is quite as simple as virgin, prostitutes, married/widows would seem to indicate.

Married - a good place to be. Widow - Respected place to be, but I've read of widows that had to fight to keep their place in society and to keep their inheritence. But there is a subgroup in the married group that is the very bad. The adultrier. The only woman that I think the bible would say is worse would be the woman who is a prostitute for an idol.

Virgin, seems straight forward. In Bible times the father was concern about his daughter being a virgin as it effected the bride price. There was also the concern about the lineage of the children, especially if one was inn the messianic line. Today its just what is the interest of the individuals. Do they want to be a virgin when they marry and do they want to marry a virgin. I don't see any command in the Bible to be a virgin or to marry a virgin when one marries.

Now prostitute is complicated in my mind. In the middle east, thru the whole time of the Bible was being written, prostitution is often associated with the worship of idols. This would make the sex a denial of God just as strong as offering a sacrifice to an idol.
I also think harlot is sometimes an insult in the Bible to a woman who is outside the patriarchal system in place in Bible times. Its a tough place to be, no means of making a living but to use ones body sexially to make a living. I don't just say her body as I think we all make out living with our body, even our mind is part of out body. I wish I had the modivation to read the Bible and see how many of the uses of harlot I think is an insult. Maybe someday I'll get to that. Bottom line for me, I'd not think God would hold it a sin and I'd not hold it against a women who had to hook to get food. Seems to me its better than stealing and begging to get food.

Now is a single woman falling into these three groups? Well, does the Bible say there is only three groups? I personally think since the woman in the west today isn't in the patriarchal system and so she had just has to be comfortable with herself and her relationship with God. OK, and if her man will be comfortable with her past. I don't think with our non-patriarchal system of reltionships today that we have a Biblical system to follow. Nor do I think God commands we live in a patriarchal system. That leaves us with a new system and having to apply the two great laws to figure out how to live. Love God and Love People.

dayhiker

Well, those are good points. But, wouldn't you also agree that up until the 1950's, women fell into one of those three catagories even in Western society?

 

[cowboysfan1970]

How do you get to that point? I don't want to do anything that might be against God's will/law or displease Him. Therefore, "walking the line" and striving to "be perfect" is the daily walk.

But, if a Christian throws it all up in the air and just does as they please, thinking "I'm saved no matter what I do", how are they any different than someone in the world, who acts the same way and doesn't know Christ?

A person gets sucked into legalism without really being aware of it. It's just something that's more or less always been there and they don't really have any other influences to counter it. I thought it was just the normal thing. I thought that's how things were. Instead of hearing about the sacrifice of Christ for us I heard about how we had to be strictly obediant to rules and laws if we were to get into Heaven. If you ask a legalist what is required for salvation they give a very long winded answer with a lot of "and...and...and..." The ands are endless too. They just keep going on and on.

As far as sex is concerned the legalist will use scriptures that mention dicipline and self control to justify a very restrictive doctrine. If someone was to mention 1 Cor. 7 they would just come back with that person didn't understand how to read or interpret scriptures and to quit looking for loop holes to justify sinful behavior.

People that make the Law the final judge really make an idol out of it and have no real concept of the love of God or why Christ was even here. The post-modernists who think that the Law has no meaning, that's it's just something that's out of date or has no meaning to the modern world have no real concept of why we were given the commandments in the first place.

 

[HisdaughterJen]

A person gets sucked into legalism without really being aware of it. It's just something that's more or less always been there and they don't really have any other influences to counter it. I thought it was just the normal thing. I thought that's how things were. Instead of hearing about the sacrifice of Christ for us I heard about how we had to be strictly obediant to rules and laws if we were to get into Heaven. If you ask a legalist what is required for salvation they give a very long winded answer with a lot of "and...and...and..." The ands are endless too. They just keep going on and on.

As far as sex is concerned the legalist will use scriptures that mention dicipline and self control to justify a very restrictive doctrine. If someone was to mention 1 Cor. 7 they would just come back with that person didn't understand how to read or interpret scriptures and to quit looking for loop holes to justify sinful behavior.

People that make the Law the final judge really make an idol out of it and have no real concept of the love of God or why Christ was even here. The post-modernists who think that the Law has no meaning, that's it's just something that's out of date or has no meaning to the modern world have no real concept of why we were given the commandments in the first place.

A person without Christ will be judged by the Law. But we can't use Christ's sacrifice as an excuse to do things we know are sinful.

So, I realize that modern society has made it "the norm" to practice sex outside of marriage but is that really how Christians should behave?

Having said that, I know that some Christians go to extremes - I've lived it - covering up women's features, no dating, or dating with a chaperone, etc. to the point that it really can mess with a person's head and they can't see freedom in Christ, only legalism and guilt and shame for not being able to follow everything to the letter.

Where is the balance? Sex, in my opinion, at certain times of a person's life, seems to be a "need", an inner drive that people of child-bearing years have and we are created that way.

 

[Johnnz]

Having said that, I know that some Christians go to extremes - I've lived it - covering up women's features, no dating, or dating with a chaperone, etc. to the point that it really can mess with a person's head and they can't see freedom in Christ, only legalism and guilt and shame for not being able to follow everything to the letter.

Where is the balance? Sex, in my opinion, at certain times of a person's life, seems to be a "need", an inner drive that people of child-bearing years have and we are created that way.

It's not a matter of balance as much as it healthy integration.

Unhealthy sexuality is when a woman is seen largely as a source of temptation for any man. Or, when modesty is used where it would be more accurate to use words such as shame or embarrassment, or when adjectives such as 'dirty, unclean, carnal, fleshly lusts' most frequently are used to refer to sexual issues. And when, as a consequence of this outlook, women's bodies become highly eroticised. There is a strong emphasis on 'control mechanisms' - bounced eyes, filters, avoiding sexual images wherever, no cross gender friendships and so on. Sex is private to the point of not being discussed in 'good company'

Healthy sexuality accepts the normality of our sexual drive and takes responsibility for it within biblical guidelines. Negative words are replaced by positive ones - good, pleasurable, normal, intimate. The human body and its sexual organs are accepted without shame or embarrassment. For some people nudity is an acceptable practice which, apart from any other reason, greatly reduces the dominant erotic factor of the naked body. Sexual issues are discussed freely yet with respect and dignity. Sexual morality is not so much taking various 'control measures' as it is having a moral basis that sets limits based on reasonable, healthy values that allow ones sexuality to be included into one's life rather than 'suppressed'. Such people can enjoy an attractive person without fear or lust, rather gratitude and appreciation and have good mixed gender relationships Within marriage and family sexual issues are discussed openly and unselfconsciously.

That's my two pennies worth.

John
NZ

 

[HisdaughterJen]

It's not a matter of balance as much as it healthy integration.

Unhealthy sexuality is when a woman is seen largely as a source of temptation for any man. Or, when modesty is used where it would be more accurate to use words such as shame or embarrassment, or when adjectives such as 'dirty, unclean, carnal, fleshly lusts' most frequently are used to refer to sexual issues. And when, as a consequence of this outlook, women's bodies become highly eroticised. There is a strong emphasis on 'control mechanisms' - bounced eyes, filters, avoiding sexual images wherever, no cross gender friendships and so on. Sex is private to the point of not being discussed in 'good company'

Healthy sexuality accepts the normality of our sexual drive and takes responsibility for it within biblical guidelines. Negative words are replaced by positive ones - good, pleasurable, normal, intimate. The human body and its sexual organs are accepted without shame or embarrassment. For some people nudity is an acceptable practice which, apart from any other reason, greatly reduces the dominant erotic factor of the naked body. Sexual issues are discussed freely yet with respect and dignity. Sexual morality is not so much taking various 'control measures' as it is having a moral basis that sets limits based on reasonable, healthy values that allow ones sexuality to be included into one's life rather than 'suppressed'. Such people can enjoy an attractive person without fear or lust, rather gratitude and appreciation and have good mixed gender relationships Within marriage and family sexual issues are discussed openly and unselfconsciously.

That's my two pennies worth.

John
NZ

I think this is an excellent analysis of healthy and unhealthy viewpoints.

Since sexuality is a big part of being human, it is unwise to try to hide it or be ashamed because of it.

Within those healthy/unhealthy contexts, it's also possible to frame proper sexual behavior as adults, isn't it?

For example, it's not healthy to have multiple partners (promiscuity), children out of wedlock, etc. I mean, there is a long-established "standard" for how we are supposed to use our sexuality, right?

Another facet is boundaries. How far is too far?

 

[Johnnz]

Within those healthy/unhealthy contexts, it's also possible to frame proper sexual behavior as adults, isn't it?

For example, it's not healthy to have multiple partners (promiscuity), children out of wedlock, etc. I mean, there is a long-established "standard" for how we are supposed to use our sexuality, right?

Another facet is boundaries. How far is too far?

Yes, there are principles that have long been upheld by Christians, such as your examples.

I'm not sure what areas you are asking regarding boundaries - inside or outside of marriage.

John
NZ

 

[HisdaughterJen]

Yes, there are principles that have long been upheld by Christians, such as your examples.

I'm not sure what areas you are asking regarding boundaries - inside or outside of marriage.

John
NZ

Well, both but mainly outside of marriage since this is a singles section.

Some think that "making out" is too far, as an example.

 

[Johnnz]

OK. I won't give a 'this is in' this is out' response. People vary too much for that.

We need to get to the real meaning of THAT verse in Matthew about looking and lusting. That is one of the most misunderstood verses in the Scriptures and reduces many to sexual turmoil

There is an intense and natural curiosity about sex in general and what the opposite sex looks like unclothed. That can lead to wrong behaviours. We need to naturalise much more the sight of the human body and de-eroticise it somewhat. The family and some natural social settings would be the most appropriate. However, many will see this as not far short of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Much of the 'exploration' that goes on when dating arises from unsatisfied curiosity. Relieve that and considerable pressure for more can be lessened.

Masturbation is a hot issue. Get that verse sorted out and one major objection is dealt with. Masturbation is not a simple issue, but it is unduly demonised by too many. Many single Christians can testify to masturbating and remaining moral in their thinking.

The petting issue. Much that does happen shouldn't. It is part of a non permanent relationship and is unduly physical. But there are powerful forces behind doing it. These need open discussion. Within a deeply committed relationship some couples will manage their activities without sexual intercourse, but not all will. But then, not all manage their relationships well anyway, and many singles are ignoring traditional standards and engaging in premarital sex. This is a complex area and requires freedom to be discussed without condemnation - a tall order in many circles, which will keep too much consigned to the underground, hidden from or merely tolerated by church leaders

Porn is a huge issue, involving large numbers of both sexes. I see this as related to some extent to the preceding comments.

i expect much of what I have spelled out here to be unacceptable to many. But the alternative will be the status quo (not very satisfactory anyway) and single people often going their own way, and having to live as Christians with considerable conflict within themselves.

John
NZ

 

[cowboysfan1970]

A person without Christ will be judged by the Law. But we can't use Christ's sacrifice as an excuse to do things we know are sinful.

That's right.

So, I realize that modern society has made it "the norm" to practice sex outside of marriage but is that really how Christians should behave?

Of course not.

Having said that, I know that some Christians go to extremes - I've lived it - covering up women's features, no dating, or dating with a chaperone, etc. to the point that it really can mess with a person's head and they can't see freedom in Christ, only legalism and guilt and shame for not being able to follow everything to the letter.

And the part of legalism where it pertains to our sex lives is when people argue that sex is only for procreation, anything else is abomination and think that the Bible backs them up.

Where is the balance? Sex, in my opinion, at certain times of a person's life, seems to be a "need", an inner drive that people of child-bearing years have and we are created that way.

I now think that both the ones that feel that we have to maintain a life of extreme self-denial and self-control even within marriage, and the post-modernist view that anything goes and that rules and laws are arbitrary, outdated and archaic really don't have anything to stand on. Both ideas are very flawed and rely on throwing out the baby with the bath water. When you really get to the core of it both groups that think that way have a radical agenda that they are trying to push. But getting back to the original point there are those that think that sex isn't and can't be a legitimate "need" and that indulging in it even in marriage is only to be done in rare and limited circumstances and that the Bible backs them up.

 

[dayhiker]

Hi Jen,
Ya, the 50's and the relationship of men/women in marriage is an interesting time.
Sephanie Coontz in her book, Marriage, A History covers that change in relationships
that lead to the 50's and to out view of marriage today. Marriage for love started as an idea about 1850's. Marriage for love came into its own after WW2. Great book.
Women have finally got to realize the respect they deserve in the work and political world as a result of sufferage and feminism. Also I've give men respect for not seriously fighting this like they could have. Tho there has been resistance.
This has brought a change in a woman's sexual status as well. Rape is now the main violation of a woman and adultery is seconadary. In history adultery was the great sin because adultery was a sin against the husband more than the woman. But that is a big topic.
So I think your right that before the 50's your 3 catagories covers how people looked at woman.

dayhiker

Well, those are good points. But, wouldn't you also agree that up until the 1950's, women fell into one of those three catagories even in Western society?

 

[dayhiker]

Johnnz,
Good stuff about teens and sexuality. A very big issue for sure.

But this is a mature singles. I find very little written about our dealing with our sexuality.
Few of us are virgins now. So being a virgin for some future person we mght meet is not part of the equation. Some can be really bothered by how many partners one has had. Tho personally even that isn't a issue for me.
We have STD or STI issues like young people would have. But my personal observation and experience is that STDs aren't as big a deal as some make them out to be.
We have emotionial issues around sex and relationships. This I think has to be understood on an individual bases.

We do have some great advatages over teens. We know ourselves and can express that to a partner much better than a teen can. This should help a couple love each other better. Both in sexual and none sexual ways.

thoughts?
dayhiker

 

[memoriesbymichelle]

great points both of you (John and dayhiker)

 

[dayhiker]

I was driving to the Mall and I relized I missed one of the main reasons people are age can look at sex differently.

Its dawned on me that other than the youngest in this group most of us don't have to worry about the woman getting pregnant. Metapause and men having vasectamies takes that issue away also.

dayhiker

 

[Johnnz]

Sexual experience, especially when married or in a long term relationship, changes ones outlook. Post virginity, sex loses its unknown factor and therefore much of its mystique. That makes for some interesting issues.

a) Once activated our sex drive wants further gratification. There is no 'off switch'. For younger singles with any sexual experience, especially masturbation but also for intercourse, the 'again' factor is very potent.
b) I have seen this in the sometimes surprising rapidity with which a recently separated/divorced Christian will have intercourse with someone, or courting ex marrieds begin intercourse.
c) The natural desires we have for companionship, affection and care can place heavy burdens on many. Physical and emotional closeness are both associated with our sexuality and can easily merge outside of another marriage.
d) I can't get away from what I understand the biblical perspective to be, that uncommitted relationship and sex is not OK. But I don't hold too rigidly that a public ceremony is the only evidence for a committed relationship. I suspect God sees genuine commitment for what it is, as well as the travesty of 'proper marriages' that are empty shells.
e) Fear of sex keeps many singles away from closer relationships with the opposite sex, thereby denying much of their basic humanity. Some live with their singleness productively and well, but others experience loneliness and lack of affection as highly unsatisfactory states.
f) For those who accept masturbation they have a physical release that can be helpful. But that still leaves other physical and emotional areas untouched. Sex was never meant to be a solitary act and hence masturbation gives only limited satisfaction.
g) Paul gave such sensible advice, made possible by the customs of his day - if you want sex and are single get married. How wonderfully realistic. No sublimation through prayer, bible study, service etc. Good one Paul
h) Translating that today could involve several factors as each individual accepts for themselves. These could be:

i) masturbation
ii) Good heterosexual relationships
iii) In those relationships genuine expression of friendship, support that does not exclude either emotional or non-physical components - real empathy, hugging etc
iv) Most controversially some social nudity with each other and with like minded people can greatly diffuse sexual tensions and also involves inner issues such as body image, general gender based curiosity, and a degree of body exposure with its benefits that is generally confined only to a marriage relationship.

Your thoughts on this? or maybe !!!!!!!!!!

John
NZ

 

[HisdaughterJen]

Sexual experience, especially when married or in a long term relationship, changes ones outlook. Post virginity, sex loses its unknown factor and therefore much of its mystique. That makes for some interesting issues.

a) Once activated our sex drive wants further gratification. There is no 'off switch'. For younger singles with any sexual experience, especially masturbation but also for intercourse, the 'again' factor is very potent.
b) I have seen this in the sometimes surprising rapidity with which a recently separated/divorced Christian will have intercourse with someone, or courting ex marrieds begin intercourse.
c) The natural desires we have for companionship, affection and care can place heavy burdens on many. Physical and emotional closeness are both associated with our sexuality and can easily merge outside of another marriage.
d) I can't get away from what I understand the biblical perspective to be, that uncommitted relationship and sex is not OK. But I don't hold too rigidly that a public ceremony is the only evidence for a committed relationship. I suspect God sees genuine commitment for what it is, as well as the travesty of 'proper marriages' that are empty shells.
e) Fear of sex keeps many singles away from closer relationships with the opposite sex, thereby denying much of their basic humanity. Some live with their singleness productively and well, but others experience loneliness and lack of affection as highly unsatisfactory states.
f) For those who accept masturbation they have a physical release that can be helpful. But that still leaves other physical and emotional areas untouched. Sex was never meant to be a solitary act and hence masturbation gives only limited satisfaction.
g) Paul gave such sensible advice, made possible by the customs of his day - if you want sex and are single get married. How wonderfully realistic. No sublimation through prayer, bible study, service etc. Good one Paul
h) Translating that today could involve several factors as each individual accepts for themselves. These could be:

i) masturbation
ii) Good heterosexual relationships
iii) In those relationships genuine expression of friendship, support that does not exclude either emotional or non-physical components - real empathy, hugging etc
iv) Most controversially some social nudity with each other and with like minded people can greatly diffuse sexual tensions and also involves inner issues such as body image, general gender based curiosity, and a degree of body exposure with its benefits that is generally confined only to a marriage relationship.

Your thoughts on this? or maybe !!!!!!!!!!

John
NZ

Wow, that summed it all up! LOL

So many truths...

 

[Johnnz]

Wow, that summed it all up! LOL

So many truths...

Bless you for not firing salvoes.

John
NZ

 

[cowboysfan1970]

e) Fear of sex keeps many singles away from closer relationships with the opposite sex, thereby denying much of their basic humanity. Some live with their singleness productively and well, but others experience loneliness and lack of affection as highly unsatisfactory states.

I do wonder what the ratio of single people say over 30 that are single by choice versus single by circumstance? I also wonder how that ratio would change as age increases?