Sexual needs

I want to build off BGR’s post 6 ways a wife can understand her husband’s sexual needs.

First, in Jewish culture and in the OT, sex is a wife’s right the husband must give her.

Exodus 21:10 If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her [j]food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. 11 If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

Generally speaking, the main points are backward from the culture that the Bible describes. I’ve posted this several times before, but I’ll bring it up again since I haven’t talked about it within the past year.

In Jewish law, sex is not considered shameful, sinful or obscene. Sex is not thought of as a necessary evil for the sole purpose of procreation. Although sexual desire comes from the yetzer ra (the evil impulse), it is no more evil than hunger or thirst, which also come from the yetzer ra. Like hunger, thirst or other basic instincts, sexual desire must be controlled and channeled, satisfied at the proper time, place and manner. But when sexual desire is satisfied between a husband and wife at the proper time, out of mutual love and desire, sex is a mitzvah.

Sex is permissible only within the context of a marriage. In Judaism, sex is not merely a way of experiencing physical pleasure. It is an act of immense significance, which requires commitment and responsibility. The requirement of marriage before sex ensures that sense of commitment and responsibility. Jewish law also forbids sexual contact short of intercourse outside of the context of marriage, recognizing that such contact will inevitably lead to intercourse.

[…]

Sex should only be experienced in a time of joy. Sex for selfish personal satisfaction, without regard for the partner’s pleasure, is wrong and evil. A man may never force his wife to have sex. A couple may not have sexual relations while drunk or quarreling. Sex may never be used as a weapon against a spouse, either by depriving the spouse of sex or by compelling it. It is a serious offense to use sex (or lack thereof) to punish or manipulate a spouse.

Sex is the woman’s right, not the man’s. A man has a duty to give his wife sex regularly and to ensure that sex is pleasurable for her. He is also obligated to watch for signs that his wife wants sex, and to offer it to her without her asking for it. The woman’s right to sexual intercourse is referred to as onah, and it is one of a wife’s three basic rights (the others are food and clothing), which a husband may not reduce. The Talmud specifies both the quantity and quality of sex that a man must give his wife. It specifies the frequency of sexual obligation based on the husband’s occupation, although this obligation can be modified in the ketubah (marriage contract). A man may not take a vow to abstain from sex for an extended period of time, and may not take a journey for an extended period of time, because that would deprive his wife of sexual relations. In addition, a husband’s consistent refusal to engage in sexual relations is grounds for compelling a man to divorce his wife, even if the couple has already fulfilled the halakhic obligation to procreate.

Although sex is the woman’s right, she does not have absolute discretion to withhold it from her husband. A woman may not withhold sex from her husband as a form of punishment, and if she does, the husband may divorce her without paying the substantial divorce settlement provided for in the ketubah.

As you can see, Paul adheres to similar concepts 1 Corinthians 7, even with the Messiah having already come.

This brings up the question: so how did we get to where we are today where wives are withholding sex from their husbands?

One of the big ones is the devaluing of children. Now, virtually every Christian agrees that abortion is bad. However, I believe the Catholic Church takes the right stance of birth control. Why do we need to “limit” or “plan” for children if children are good? I’ve heard lots of excuses from Christians on this, but I don’t buy them. Sex in marriage is inextricably linked to children, and changing that by human means leads to devaluing what is good.

Another is the removal or cutting down of husband authority. Obviously, a wife looks up to a husband as the authority. When men are viewed as chumps in culture and told they have no authority, their wives don’t desire sex from them.

A rebellious heart, attitude, and a lack of submission is another. Somewhat building off the demonization of masculinity, but another different point altogether. And as always, in rich societies there is lots of selfishness. I’m sure there’s more, but I can’t think of them at the moment.

Reasoning rarely works with women. Arguing definitely does not work with women. There are some sparse examples of women who heed the correction of the Scriptures and do not withhold sex. They end up becoming closer and more receptive to their husbands because sex brings them closer together. It makes the husband much more readily honor and consider her in everything.

For husbands, this sets the right mind frame. Sex is something that you give your wife for her pleasure, children, and mutual enjoyment. It’s not something you beg for. It’s not something you whine about. Often times, attitude makes all of the difference, as confidence is an aphrodisiac to women.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle, Masculinity and women and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Sexual needs

  1. SnapperTrx says:

    “Sex for selfish personal satisfaction, without regard for the partner’s pleasure, is wrong and evil.”

    Interesting. This may be where my aunt, whom I have recently spoken about on my own blog, got the idea that sex without regard for your partners pleasure is fornication. Her insistence was that fornication could be both an act as well as a thought (which I disagree with). If this is Jewish text you are quoting from (or referring to) it explains much, as she has gone through biblical schooling, human sexuality schooling and psychology.

  2. Old Codger says:

    Now , just convince all of those who were raised as “Roman Catholic” of this. The RC doctrine on sex , as practically taught by priests with absolutely minimal experience with women, is the opposite of what you expound upon. Many once-divorced women recognize this and often explicitly portray themselves as “recovering” or “reformed” Catholics. Too funny!

  3. @ SnapperTrx

    Yeah, it does explain some things doesn’t it.

    It’s interesting Jewish culture is/was that way (as it’s not something explicitly Biblical per se), but it is a guideline that seems to be a good thing. Not sure if I would call it ‘wrong’ or ‘evil’ if you didn’t.

    And yeah, fornication is never referenced as a thought.

  4. Zhou says:

    Thanks for another post!

    Anyways, since I’m readily able to admit I’m new to manosphere concepts, TRP, etc…, when you say ‘Reasoning rarely works with women.’ Could you elaborate on that? Do you mean in some cases? Or their cognitive abilities aren’t on par with men’s?

  5. donalgraeme says:

    @ Old Codger

    Now , just convince all of those who were raised as “Roman Catholic” of this.

    Easier said than done. They may call themselves Catholics, but their practices indicate otherwise. “In Name Only” applies to a lot of different groups.

  6. @ Zhou

    Men are generally smarter on average (maybe 5 IQ points), but also half of the male population is a bit dumber. So it goes both ways.

    It’s more that women put a lot of trust in their feelings rather than thinking which can lead them astray a lot more.

    It’s one thing to present a rational argument and for a woman to agree with you THEN do what you say (which needs a lot of trust between you). Arguing with a woman almost just never works period because feelings.

  7. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    In a time long long ago, women were vulnerable and required the protection and provision of a man either her husband or at least her committed lover to her as his mistress. A sexual connection for women not only gave a safe haven to pass on her genes and raise her offspring, but represented the connection to a man who was her preservation and survival. Sex endeared her to him and opened the gates to his affection. A prostitute traded immediate riches for long term protection and threatened a wife’s connection to his husband which in turn threatened her survival.

    Circumstances have changed! Men are no longer viewed as a means of survival and children out of wedlock are not considered shameful. Sex is not about oneness but recreation and power for the women of this new age. Women today are not as concerned with reproduction as with approval, recreation and power. The tingle and the security have been separated as the new husband on the block, your own uncle Sam.

    Men are seen as often as an obstacle to be overcome as much as a benefit to security. As the emphasis is placed more the individual woman, the importance of the household vision is diminished. The body is cursed for the sake of one of its parts and what connected that part to its head is now a tool for power and coercion.

    When the feminists chanted “Our bodies – our selves” they were advocating infant genocide and sexual license for power and pleasure. They harmed not only their offspring, but the family and sexuality. Fat, tattooed, loud narcissistic sluts are celebrated and not shamed, because they are not vulnerable for they already are whoring around with their Uncle Sam. Old Sam is a pervert who is more than happy take your wife, property and children from you and delights to destroy your family. But all that is OK in her eyes, because after all its her body, her choice, her empowerment, her potential, her self-expression, her independence, her dignity, her equality, her not being a doormat, her being all she can be … come to think about, it is all about her.

  8. OKRickety says:

    “… how did we get to where we are today where wives are withholding sex from their husbands?”

    This agrees with my perception, but are there any studies showing this? How often? Or should that be, how seldom?

    Do Christian wives do this more or less than wives in general?

    Any information on reasons why wives would do this? Do Christian wives give different reasons?

  9. @ OKRickety

    This agrees with my perception, but are there any studies showing this? How often? Or should that be, how seldom?

    I can’t remember the exact statistics on sex drive. It’s somewhere around 2/3-3/4 of husbands want more sex and 1/4-1/3 of wives want more sex.

    Similar to the divorce statistics where it’s a major problem for one sex, but there is some bad stuff on the other side of the coin too.

    Do Christian wives do this more or less than wives in general?

    I would suspect it depends on the particular ‘community’ and ‘family’ upbringing.

    Communities that encourage husbands and wives to have more sex and more children are probably less likely to have significant withholders. Also, communities that expect men to be masculine and women to be feminine. Etc.

    Any information on reasons why wives would do this? Do Christian wives give different reasons?

    From what I have seen in the Christian ‘sphere there is more hamsterbatics required to disobey 1 Cor 7 based on feelings.

    “If he loved me he would respect my body/will/decision/me only when I feel like it”

  10. feeriker says:

    Old Sam is a pervert who is more than happy take your wife, property and children from you and delights to destroy your family. But all that is OK in her eyes, because after all its her body, her choice, her empowerment, her potential, her self-expression, her independence, her dignity, her equality, her not being a doormat, her being all she can be … come to think about, it is all about her.

    Old Uncle Sam isn’t long for this world, loath as anyone is to admit it. Unlike other gold diggers who latched themselves onto human male hosts, today’s women who are Uncle’s mistresses are not going to reap a fat inheritance when he finally croaks. Rather, they will find themselves penniless, homeless, and without prospects or protection. Attitudes will make a 180-degree turn, but it’s highly unlikely after so much contempt and ill will shown to the spurned suitors that many human male hosts will want to take what was once Uncle’s place, even if they were capable of doing so (which most won’t be). Much wailing and gnashing of teeth to be heard in the future.

  11. OKRickety says:

    DS,

    Thanks. I was hoping for more specific info such as link(s) to relevant information. I may have some links somewhere, but I don’t know offhand.

  12. @ OKRickety

    I do have a post on a few statistics in the works though.

  13. Chris says:

    “However, I believe the Catholic Church takes the right stance of birth control.”

    I strongly disagree. That stance, along with a predictable blanket condemnation of masturbation and mandatory vows of celibacy for its leaders, are just a few of the reasons why the Catholic church is one of the most apostate denominations. In fact, the more he talks, the more I’m convinced that the current Pope is the False Prophet of Revelation.

  14. @ Chris

    There is a reasonable argument against birth control as I outlined above. If you value family and children, why the need for birth control? All of the arguments for it boil down to circumstantial hardships and convenience, which are not good arguments.

    I agree that there is nothing in the Scriptures about masturbation or celibacy of the priesthood. I can see the argument of how those came into being, even if they are potentially misguided.

    However, none of this is even close to “false prophet” exaggerations.

  15. donalgraeme says:

    Celibacy of church leadership (Bishops) took place over centuries and centuries of pastoral care and development. It is not doctrinal, it is pastrol. By that I mean it was something found best for how to lead the flock- it is not something commanded by God.

    As for masturbation- seems pretty clear to me that is sexually immoral. Set aside the Onan bit, it is disordered sexuality. Unless you seriously mean to argue that Jesus would be perfectly ok with it. If so, have fun with that… and judgment day.

  16. Just Some Guy says:

    donalgraeme says:
    August 4, 2016 at 8:35 pm
    “As for masturbation- seems pretty clear to me that is sexually immoral. Set aside the Onan bit, it is disordered sexuality. Unless you seriously mean to argue that Jesus would be perfectly OK with it. If so, have fun with that… and judgment day.”

    OK, 2 things

    1) Since we’ve “set aside the Onan bit”, where do you find it written that it is wrong? No pretzel-logic, either. Where there is no law, there is no transgression (Romans 4:15, 5:13). You don’t want to rub one off, that’s fine, but to say that no-one else can is in violation of Proverbs 30:5-6, 2Tim 3:16, Deut 4:12 and all of Romans 14.

    2) Logically, psychologically, socially, spiritually and any-other-ally, I see no problem “taking care of myself”, thinking about my wife while she is unable or unavailable. Now, if in that context, one would say that it is OK, then the issue is not the act but the imagery and that could be sinful in nature. Or, if that is still considered wrong, then the only other option is to get a second wife. *rimshot*

  17. Jacob says:

    There’s no Scripture that explicitly condemns masturbation, although emission of semen is considered spiritually unclean, which puts masturbation in the same category as any other carnal activity. There are clear indications in the OT that a man’s emissions can be either with or without a woman present and that both emissions render a man unclean (Leviticus 15:16-18). A man’s “nocturnal emissions” are similarly considered (Deuteronomy 23:10).

    “The Onan bit” doesn’t look like a warning about masturbation. Onan’s “error” (which led to his being put to death by Judah his father) was to disobey Judah’s instruction to sleep with his dead brother’s wife (Judah had killed his brother Er previously because Er was evil), which was the Jewish custom at the time. Christians know this to be God’s way of keeping the remnant of Judah moving forward to Jesus, which obviously succeeded by a different route than Onan.

    The only remaining question in my mind in relation to this post is this: what marital strategy honors God when sexual intercourse can’t occur either through injury or dysfunction (e.g. stress, diabetes, vascular disease, neurological issues, dopamine pathway disruption etc) – i.e. can a Christian man and woman still marry without being able to have PIV intercourse?

  18. @ Jacob

    There’s no Scripture that explicitly condemns masturbation, although emission of semen is considered spiritually unclean, which puts masturbation in the same category as any other carnal activity. There are clear indications in the OT that a man’s emissions can be either with or without a woman present and that both emissions render a man unclean (Leviticus 15:16-18). A man’s “nocturnal emissions” are similarly considered (Deuteronomy 23:10).

    Biblical ‘uncleanness’ mainly seems to be aimed at particular hygienic issues. One of the reasons why Jewish culture was particularly healthy and free of disease compared to other cultures was because of the advanced hygiene from the Law of Moses. For example, a woman’s period is considered unclean but we wouldn’t consider that a sin or spiritual unclean. Likewise, any of the ceremonial washing is similar.

    Most of the verses of the NT concerning a believers freedom, even in regard to sexual immorality, in 1 Cor 6 and 1 Cor 10 seem to be aimed in regard to involvement with others. 1 Cor 6 in regard to sexual immorality specifically with temple prostitutes and 1 Cor 10 in doing good to others (seems to follow Jesus’ ‘love your neighbor as yourself).

    There is something to be said for ‘purity’ though, in whatever context that is taken. However, you would think given that this is something that almost all humans struggle with that Jesus would comment on it specifically. But He did not.

    Is it a sin? The Scriptures don’t tell us. It seems questionable to call it a sin as it’s making up rules like the Pharisees. That’s one of the things that Jesus condemned multiple times explicitly.

    Unwise? Given how things can easily snowball to other explicit immorality, probably.

  19. Jacob says:

    Biblical ‘uncleanness’ mainly seems to be aimed at particular hygienic issues.

    Sorry, I meant to write ‘ritually unclean’. That was a brain typo, if you get my drift.

  20. Remington says:

    “Often times, attitude makes all of the difference, as confidence is an aphrodisiac to women.”

    I liked the idea of the blog, but wasn’t 100% sold until I read this. Keep it up.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s