Sexual authority is only for sex and not against sex

I’ve seen this often from complementarians and egalitarians but was just reminded of it from Full Metal Patriarch’s post on Doug Wilson’s quaduple-speak.

He quotes from Doug’s book:

Yes, she must have sex whenever you want it. And you must refrain whenever she wants to refrain. You have authority over her body, but never forget that she also has authority over your body.”

Fidelity, pp. 109-110

Let’s actually read the passage, shall we?

1 Corinthians 7:3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

The intent of the passage starts in verse 3 where each spouse to fulfill their marital duty to the other. Thus, verse 4 speaks that each spouse should rightfully give their spouse sex when they desire it. Verse 5 continues along this theme of not depriving each other except for a special situation where both agree to it for spiritual purposes.

It’s an absolutely contradictory reading of the passage to suggest that husbandly authority over the wife’s body and the wifely authority over the husband’s body means that that she should have sex with you but her authority over your body means she can stop you from that. The whole passage including each verse is about fulfilling the marital duty not refraining from it, and refraining from it is only by mutual consent and prayer. The authority is indicated to have sex, but there is no authority to not have sex.

It’s no better than the egalitarian cherry pickers saying that Eph 5:21 “and [church members should] submit to one another in Christ” also applies to the marriage verses. It’s just bad exegesis of the text.

This entry was posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to Sexual authority is only for sex and not against sex

  1. Great catch. Hard to believe that he reads the passage that way. On his take, Paul should have just said, “Only have sex when you both really want to.”

    “It’s no better than the egalitarian cherry pickers . . .”

    Be an egalitarian! Because Ephesians 5 says Jesus and the church are mutually submissive or something . . .

  2. princeasbel says:

    On the point of sexual authority, Wilson is as off kilter as Sheila Wray Gregoire, and she’s a raging feminist. Wilson says:

    Yes, she must have sex whenever you want it. And you must refrain whenever she wants to refrain. You have authority over her body, but never forget that she also has authority over your body.”

    And Sheila likewise says:

    If her husband’s body belongs to her, then she has the ability to also say, “I do not want you using your body sexually right now with me.”

    When it comes to letting wives deprive their husbands, both a raging feminist and a (supposedly) Christian patriarch are in full agreement that this is appropriate and backed by Scripture, yet they are both 100% wrong. This is why Wilson shut down his comments section. Stuff like this is too easy to call him out on.

  3. jorgen says:

    If only Paul had learned to write this wouldn’t be a problem. Canonizing a horrendous writer as infallible is a mistake. Even when he is right he’s still misleading, because he sucks as a writer and 99.9% of people will misinterpret him upwards of 90% of the time. Anyone who won’t admit that is basically aiding wokeism.

  4. @ jorgen

    If only Paul had learned to write this wouldn’t be a problem. Canonizing a horrendous writer as infallible is a mistake. Even when he is right he’s still misleading, because he sucks as a writer and 99.9% of people will misinterpret him upwards of 90% of the time. Anyone who won’t admit that is basically aiding wokeism.

    Nah. What he wrote is pretty clear.

    It’s people trying to warp what he wrote that are off.

    2 Peter 3: 15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

  5. @ princeasbel

    When it comes to letting wives deprive their husbands, both a raging feminist and a (supposedly) Christian patriarch are in full agreement that this is appropriate and backed by Scripture, yet they are both 100% wrong. This is why Wilson shut down his comments section. Stuff like this is too easy to call him out on.

    Yeah, I see Shiela’s stuff brought up a decent amount by Christians here and there and I’m always like… are they reading the Bible and reading what she’s writing?

    It’s sounds good to itching ears like most of feminism, but it’s definitely not Biblical.

  6. I love that passage from 2 Peter. I also point out to Paul-haters that they are tipping their hands when they ignore that the writings were from Paul AND the Holy Spirit. Not sure of Jorgen’s views, but when I come across “Christian” Leftists they’ll freely quote Paul when it suits them yet pretend the Holy Spirit wasn’t involved in the verses they don’t like.

  7. cameron232 says:

    One wonders if he’s writing this because he assumes that if he doesn’t, Christian “patriarchs” (what he’s presumably trying to create) will start “raping*” their wives. And he’ll be blamed or something.

    * Yes, I realize a few generations ago it wasn’t possible to commit forcible rape against your wife.

  8. cameron232 says:

    Jorgen’s coming at it from the other end. Paul’s too woke/lefty, not insufficiently woke.

    Paul wrote most of the NT. Kinda hard to imagine throwing him out – it seems even stranger than throwing out James like some proposed.

  9. Lexet Blog says:

    This is the result of a biblical hermeneutic that spiritualizes all passages, and makes 0 attempt to read them in a consistent, coherent manner.

  10. thedeti says:

    Yes, I realize a few generations ago it wasn’t possible to commit forcible rape against your wife.

    I am sure this is putting too fine a point on it but I’ll make it anyway. Yes, you could have nonconsensual sex with your wife, but it wasn’t “rape”. Rape is a legal term and it has a specific meaning. Before “marital rape”, the legal converged with Christian viewpoints on marriage You couldn’t rape your wife because married women were considered to have given “standing consent” to their husbands for sex (consistent with St. Paul’s admonitions).

    Second, at law, married women were considered “joined to” their husbands – take two individual humans and unite them as one, per consent. You couldn’t rape your wife because that would be raping yourself, which is a legal impossibility. You couldn’t conspire with your wife to commit crimes, because conspiracy requires at least two actors. You and your wife comprise one entity. You cannot conspire with yourself. Regardless of whatever sex a man was having with his wife, it could never be rape.

    The only vestige of the “two become one” theory of marriage in law is the marital privilege, but not really because you can’t communicate with yourself. The marital privilege says statements husbands and wives make to each other are legally privileged against discovery in civil or criminal trials. Spouses cannot be compelled to testify against each other. One spouse may assert the privilege and prohibit the spouse from testifying to communications during the marriage. The rationale is that we as a society want to encourage marriage. We want to encourage people to get married, so they can have a quiet place for repose, solace, and trust. So we privilege marital communication to promote full, frank, candid, and explicit communications between spouses without fear that those communications later might be used against them. We as a society want to promote marriage and the marital relationship; and allowing spouses to snitch would injure those relationships.

    Too bad that there’s not much of a quiet place for repose, solace, and trust anymore.

  11. cameron232 says:

    Deti, yes consent to marriage was considered consent to sex. The phrase “marital rape” if spoken would have been met with confusion. Women now use it to mean a husband who pesters her into sex not just one who physically forces her.

  12. Oscar says:

    @ Cameron

    One wonders if he’s writing this because he assumes that if he doesn’t, Christian “patriarchs” (what he’s presumably trying to create) will start “raping*” their wives.

    It was a response to accusations of supporting marital rape.

    DS is misinterpreting what Pastor Doug wrote. He’s saying that, yes, the Bible requires wives to have sex with their husbands (and vice versa), even when they don’t want to, but no, the Bible doesn’t authorize husbands to physically force wives to have sex.

    Here’s another way to put it. A wife that withholds sex from her husband is sinning. A husband that physically forces his sinning wife to have sex with him is also sinning.

    I mean, does anyone think the Bible authorizes husbands to physically force their wives to have sex?

    Pastor Doug is not saying that wives have the authority to withhold sex from their husbands.

  13. cameron232 says:

    Yeah I dont know much about the celebrity pastors Oscar. Thanks for the background.

    I wouldn’t enjoy having sex with a woman if I had to force her so I’d take a raincheck on that one.

  14. Anonymous Southern Churl says:

    A husband forcing his wife to sex is not committing a sin. He has full authority to force his wife to do anything. His wife is supposed to be in full submission to him. And she is supposed to have a quiet spirit, not rebellious. If he is sinning in another manner, her quiet spirit is supposed to win him over; the lack of her speaking is supposed to have victory over him in Christ. Not talkback, not rebellion, not help from strangers (such as cowardly feminist preachers).

    Oscar is mistaken. I have seen your line of thought many places. Husband’s have full authority given to them by God to lead and command their wives, regardless of their wives’ feeling. Forcing your wife to do something is not sinning. A loving husband is not going to hurt his wife, even in the act of forceful pleasure. A married man is no stranger to what needs to be done before the act of penetration, and for the unknowledgeable I am referring to proper lubrication, to be blunt. Women, even in bad moods, can be made to produce lubrication on demand, and this being a “redpill”-tier blog, a woman will probably become such a way simply in the act of being forced. The husband is no stranger to her, she is just in rebellion to him.

  15. thedeti says:

    Anon South Churl

    What do you mean by “forceful pleasure”? What do you mean by forcing your wife to have sex? What exactly is an acceptable level of force to be applied?

    I look at it this way. God could force us to submit to Him. He could make us do whatever he wanted. But He will never ever do that. He wants us to give Him our hearts. He wants us to submit willingly to Him because we love Him.

    If we will not do that, he will not force us. He will do all kinds of other things, like

    –allow natural consequences to occur

    –require us to bear those natural consequences in our bodies, minds, and memories

    –withdraw His provision and protection

    –absent Himself from us, withdraw from us

    –go silent, refuse to respond to us

    –take away freedoms, liberties, rights, and privileges

    — give us over to ourselves, other people, or Satan

    –allow our hearts to become hardened and our consciences to become seared such that we can no longer respond to Him

    –eventually He will separate Himself from us permanently

    All of these, though, are not a result of His compulsion. They’re a result of our choices.

    So it is with men and Red Pill advice. What do you do with a recalcitrant, stiff necked wife?

    –leave her to her own devices

    –withdraw provisioning and protection (tighten control over finances, put her on a budget, separate out finances to allow her to spend only what you permit and no more)

    –withdraw time, attention, labor, and affection

    –spend time away from her

    –refuse to respond to her requests, demands, temper tantrums, and sh t tests

    –impose consequences (no vacation, no spending, no going to the In Laws for the weekend)

    –eventually, permanent separation in the form of the end of the relationship/marriage

    That’s how you compel a wife to get back in line. Eventually if she won’t, then no more marriage.

  16. Oscar says:

    Anonymous Southern Churl is wrong, and Deti is right. In fact, ASC contradicts himself. First he writes…

    A husband forcing his wife to sex is not committing a sin. He has full authority to force his wife to do anything.

    Then he writes….

    A loving husband is not going to hurt his wife

    If you’re not hurting the other person, or at least threatening them with hurt, then you’re not forcing them to do anything. In fact, you can hurt some people a whole lot, and still not force them to do anything.

    So, ASC, answer Deti’s question. Just how much physical force are you authorized to use against your wife, if she doesn’t want sex? Why that level of physical force, and not more?

    @ Cameron

    I wouldn’t enjoy having sex with a woman if I had to force her so I’d take a raincheck on that one.

    That’s because you’re a decent man.

  17. @ Oscar

    DS is misinterpreting what Pastor Doug wrote. He’s saying that, yes, the Bible requires wives to have sex with their husbands (and vice versa), even when they don’t want to, but no, the Bible doesn’t authorize husbands to physically force wives to have sex.

    Not sure I can see that from the context of the quoted passages.

    I agree that it’s likely sinful to force your wife and vice versa though.

  18. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    There is confusion due to a lack of consensus on the meaning of “force”. It plays into the feminst’s frame of “abuse”, “doormat” and victimhood. Is persuade, compel, or insistence force? Is it the evil patriarchy at work when a refusal to acknowledge the withdrawal of consent as anything but covenant breaking sin? Why does the knee-jerk reaction bring up rape and not defrauding?

  19. Jack says:

    “Why does the knee-jerk reaction bring up rape and not defrauding?”

    Because rape is the rebellious wife’s point of view. Defrauding is the suffering husband’s point of view. In bizarro world, women are encouraged to be outspoken and men are supposed to remain silent. No one is permitted to point this out without being branded a misogynist. DS and I wrote about this last year.
    https://sigmaframe.wordpress.com/2020/06/10/explaining-the-double-standards-around-sex/

  20. info says:

    Its for this reason “Marital Rape” is an oxymoron. What’s the point of marriage if you have to keep signing a consent form?

  21. Oscar says:

    @ Jonadab-the-Rechabite

    There is confusion due to a lack of consensus on the meaning of “force”. It plays into the feminst’s frame of “abuse”, “doormat” and victimhood.

    Then be clear about it. Don’t use the word “force” to describe “persuade, compel, or insistence”. Use it to describe physical force, and the threat thereof. Otherwise, you’re playing into the feminists hands.

    @ DS

    I agree that it’s likely sinful to force your wife and vice versa though.

    “Likely”? Under what circumstances would using physical force to make your spouse have sex with you not be a violation of the commandment to love one another?

  22. locustsplease says:

    Yes she can order him to work 70hrs a week as a married incel. While simultaneously sitting at home eating bon bons and any of his grievances are unbiblical. Thats mutual authority gods plan for marriage. Its disgusting to read adult men writing articles because their wives want them to.

    Wilson is one thing. The vast majority of american women believing this kind of stuff is the real problem.

  23. @ Oscar

    “Likely”? Under what circumstances would using physical force to make your spouse have sex with you not be a violation of the commandment to love one another?

    She likes for no but wants you to push through her resistance anyway? There’s a rather decent sized minority of women like this.

    I’m also not God so I’m not going to claim what is and what isn’t a sin. But off the top of my head I don’t think there are many (any?) circumstances where it probably isn’t sinful if a wife actually means no, at least given the motivations of a husband heart (or wife if it’s the other way around).

  24. Oscar says:

    @ DS

    I’m also not God so I’m not going to claim what is and what isn’t a sin.

    You’ve literally claimed “what is and what isn’t a sin” in innumerable posts. And, if you claim that you’re only reporting what God claims is a sin; guess what? It’s effectively the same thing. God commands you to “love your neighbor as yourself”, and “love one another”. To violate those commandments is sin. You have to figure out which actions violate those commandments, because God never gave you an exhaustive list of every single action that could possibly violate those commandments.

    She likes for no but wants you to push through her resistance anyway?

    You’re playing into feminists’ hands. If she wants you to have sex with her, then you’re not forcing her.

    Face it, brother. If you’re using physical force to make your wife have sex with you when she doesn’t want to, then you’re violating God’s commandment to love your wife as Christ loves the church. The same would be true if a wife forced her husband (love one another, love your neighbor as yourself). I don’t understand why it’s so difficult for you to admit that obvious truth.

  25. @ Oscar

    You’ve literally claimed “what is and what isn’t a sin” in innumerable posts. And, if you claim that you’re only reporting what God claims is a sin; guess what? It’s effectively the same thing. God commands you to “love your neighbor as yourself”, and “love one another”. To violate those commandments is sin. You have to figure out which actions violate those commandments, because God never gave you an exhaustive list of every single action that could possibly violate those commandments.

    If you got that impression then that might be my mistake for things that are not explicitly called sin in the Bible then.

    For instance, in my post on divorce I combed the Scriptures as thoroughly as possible and came to conclusions I think best represents the intentions of God/Jesus/Scripture with ancillary evidence from Church fathers. Others think otherwise. I encourage people to read the Bible and seek wise counsel and come to their own conclusions or default to whatever your Church’s authority teaches for RCC or Orthodox.

    I’m obviously going to point out and argue why I think something is a sin or not based on my understanding and the various Biblical arguments for it.

    Face it, brother. If you’re using physical force to make your wife have sex with you when she doesn’t want to, then you’re violating God’s commandment to love your wife as Christ loves the church. The same would be true if a wife forced her husband (love one another, love your neighbor as yourself). I don’t understand why it’s so difficult for you to admit that obvious truth.

    So basically you’re getting hung up on the fact that you want me to say *all*? lol.

    It wasn’t God’s intention to ever have divorce in the Law of Moses per Jesus, yet God divorces Israel in Jeremiah. Why is God going against his intention then? It’s also the case where people say all lying is bad, but there are certain cases like in Exodus 1 where lying to save babies is permitted.

    I already said I don’t think there are many (or any) circumstances where it’s not a sin given the motivations of people’s hearts. To make it clearer for you: for all intents and purposes, I think *all* is a good term here.

    I personally would never recommend forcing your wife or husband to have sex as it’s going to have negative effects in improving a marriage.

  26. cameron232 says:

    I’ll just say that I’m glad that I have an aversion to the idea of forcing a woman to have sex with me so that I don’t have to deal with whether or not it’s a sin. For practical purposes, if something has zero temptation for you it doesn’t really matter if it’s a sin or not. I understand the need for hypothetical discussions but I’m glad it’s purely hypothetical to me.

    I have seen a few movies with rape scenes (e.g. the original “Death Wish”) and even though they’re fake they DEEPLY disturbed me – honestly more than anything else I’ve ever seen in a movie and I’ve seen some pretty bad stuff.

  27. info says:

    If a wife consistently refuses sex with her husband as a dead bedroom. The marriage is practically over. Because its a form of sexual immorality as much as adultery.

  28. Jack says:

    “It’s an absolutely contradictory reading of the passage to suggest that husbandly authority over the wife’s body and the wifely authority over the husband’s body means that that she should have sex with you but her authority over your body means she can stop you from that.”

    This concept of sexual authority is based on a military command style of authority in which the wife is considered an equal in command. Of note, a military command style of authority appears prominently in Power vs. Fear ethical systems, and women gravitate towards Power vs. Fear systems.

    I also used to have this concept of authority, but from studying 1 Corinthians 7:3-5, I’ve revised my concept of sexual authority. True authority is defined by the power that one has over others. This power does not lie in making one do as another says, as by force of will, but rather, it is a power that lies in the spirit of the person (e.g. charisma), such that one naturally wants to comply. Thus, sexual authority is the visceral power one has over others to be desired in a sexual manner. As such, sexual authority corresponds roughly to the SMV scale, but it is amplified in marriage (e.g. wife goggles). Thus, a husband who won’t work and won’t lift, and a wife who lets herself go is losing/abusing their sexual authority. If you read 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 with this understanding of sexual authority, then it is apparent that St. Paul is describing a situation in which the husband and wife can’t control their sexual urges for one another, and he’s saying they shouldn’t try to either.

    I wrote about this concept of sexual authority earlier.

    Sexual Authority

  29. princeasbel says:

    The authority spoken of in 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 is not defined as the, “…visceral power one has over others to be desired in a sexual manner.” That’s a complete misreading of that passage as it is written. It says husbands and wives should give each other their marital “rights”, and informs them that one reason why is because they lack authority over their own bodies. Rights, authority, these are not even touching whether one or either spouse happens to be sexually desirable.

  30. Jack says:

    PrinceAsbel,

    “…one reason why is because they lack authority over their own bodies.”

    You disagreed with me, but then you used the word “authority” in the same way I described, i.e. a visceral influence, implying a lack of self-control. If they can’t control themselves, then the spouse is (or should be) the reason why, especially in a God glorifying Christian marriage.

    “Rights, authority, these are not even touching whether one or either spouse happens to be sexually desirable.”

    Sexual attraction and desirability has been amply explained here and elsewhere around the Manosphere, but for many Christians, it extends to include sanctification, especially as the couple grows older. You probably won’t hear this anywhere else, but it is impossible to discuss sanctification without also discussing sex and the stewardship of sexuality. (See 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8.) Sanctification, for many married people, requires that spouses have the right to the “ownership” of each other’s bodies, and this naturally includes sexual and reproductive access. How one dresses and being sexually desirable to each other in general is part of that. (Verse 4 says, “each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor”.) Attraction can be nurtured and developed or else it can be abused through sin or by failing to nurture it. It is the Christian married persons right and responsibility to control all this. (Again, see verse 4, and verse 6 says, “no one should take advantage of and defraud his brother in this matter”.) Failing to make yourself as desirable to your spouse as you can may be taken by the spouse as a form of marital fraud.

    I wrote about this recently.
    https://sigmaframe.wordpress.com/2022/01/21/rights-and-responsibilities-within-marriage/
    https://sigmaframe.wordpress.com/2022/01/24/infidelity-is-anything-short-of-fidelity/

  31. princeasbel says:

    You disagreed with me, but then you used the word “authority” in the same way I described, i.e. a visceral influence, implying a lack of self-control.

    I quoted you in full. You did not simply say a visceral influence. Specifically, you said, “visceral power one has over others to be desired in a sexual manner.” That’s not what authority means, it’s certainly not how I used it, and even if I did, I would just be twisting the word to mean something completely different from how it’s used in the actual text. As far as 1 Cor. 7:3-5 is concerned, “sexual authority” is one that entitles each spouse to the other’s body for sex simply by virtue of their being married to each other. You’re trying to argue that this authority is of such a nature that it can be lost (if they don’t keep themselves up). That’s completely and utterly foreign to the text.

    Mind you, I agree completely that husbands and wives ought to keep themselves up. No question about it, but that has nothing to do with 1 Corinthians 7:3-5.

  32. Jack says:

    PrinceAsbel,
    There’s a big difference between structures of authority in theory, and implementing that authority in practice. Sure, we could say that sexual authority over one’s spouse is a right, or an “entitlement” (your word choice) that married couples should have, just because 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 says so, and that would be correct. But then we are faced with the task of making that into a reality. The passage “…work out your own salvation…” (Philippians 2:12) means to make the theory into a reality. This is very important, because reality does not match theory. In reality, a lot of unmarried people yield to the sexual authority of those they’re not married to (that’s called fornication), and a lot of married people neglect that authority (by “letting themselves go”) or abuse it (by withholding sex, for example). These are all examples of disobedience, failing to conform to the theory outlined in the Bible. Getting married is not an automatic cure-all for establishing one’s sexual authority just because the Bible says that’s how it should be. Most wives will do everything in their power to undermine the husband’s authority. That’s why I wouldn’t say that sexual authority is an “entitlement”. The believer has to work through these challenges in order to consolidate his domain — a domain that God intends for us to have if we are obedient. Furthermore, God calls us to be obedient, not only out of will or mere mental assent, but also from the heart (Luke 10:27). To me, that means it must be visceral.

  33. princeasbel says:

    Sure, we could say that sexual authority over one’s spouse is a right, or an “entitlement” (your word choice) that married couples should have, just because 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 says so, and that would be correct.

    Of course it’s correct. Therefore, for you to proceed from there to say that this authority is of such a nature that it can be lost is impossible.

    In reality, a lot of unmarried people yield to the sexual authority of those they’re not married to (that’s called fornication),

    No, they’re not. Fornication is premarital sex. Neither person has “sexual authority” over the other in committing that sinful act because they are not married at all, let alone to each other.

    Getting married is not an automatic cure-all for establishing one’s sexual authority just because the Bible says that’s how it should be.

    If a man is unmarried, then he does not have sexual authority at all. You keep using a definition of the term that’s divorced from how you know it is defined in 1 Cor. 7:3-5. If one wants to have any kind of sexual authority, he must marry, hence, marriage IS an automatic cure-all for that very issue. And it’s not that way because the Bible says that’s how it “should” be. It’s because the Bible says that is the way it IS. If you’re single, you don’t have that authority. The solution? Marriage. It’s as simple as that.

  34. Jack says:

    PrinceAsbel,

    My overall point is to state that I have a more nuanced concept of sexual authority that is different from yours and most others. I guess I should write another post about this, because apparently I haven’t stated my position very clearly.

    I take it that you’re not married. If so, then according to your viewpoint, you have no sexual authority. In my view, having this belief undercuts your masculine potential.

    When you get married, you’ll quickly learn the limits of your “newfound” sexual authority, and you’ll have to figure out how that works. At that time, you might see the wisdom of my argument.

  35. princeasbel says:

    My overall point is to state that I have a more nuanced concept of sexual authority that is different from yours and most others. I guess I should write another post about this, because apparently I haven’t stated my position very clearly.

    On the contrary, I think you’ve stated your position clearly. It’s simply not biblical. For example, you began by saying:

    If you read 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 with this understanding of sexual authority, then it is apparent that St. Paul is describing a situation in which the husband and wife can’t control their sexual urges for one another, and he’s saying they shouldn’t try to either.

    If you were simply defining sexual authority in some general context that had nothing to do with the Bible, then that’s different. But, you specifically went to the Scriptures, and even a specific passage. That’s where we have a problem, because you’re not reading your definition of sexual authority out of 1 Cor. 7:3-5. You’re taking a definition that contradicts what’s in there and proposing that we impose that definition into the text when we read it. In short, what you’re proposing is that we perform literal eisegesis.

  36. Jack says:

    Prince Asbel,

    If you believe you understand my position and you still disagree, then I challenge you to a debate on the matter to be held on my blog and yours. We have encroached on Deep Strength’s space long enough. I will write up a fuller examination of my position and post it on Sigma Frame sometime in the near future, and you can begin putting your thoughts together in a post at Full Metal Patriarchy.

    Thanks to DS for hosting our discussion here.

  37. princeasbel says:

    Debate what? That you’re advocating eisegesis? That’s been established. Write whatever you want, but I don’t see a debate here.

  38. Paul says:

    “The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. ” and “Do not deprive each other” show that it’s a sin to not yield your body to your spouse, but also that you can’t “overrule” such denial by force, else the command to not deprive would not have been necessary.

  39. Oscar says:

    @ DS

    I personally would never recommend forcing your wife or husband to have sex as it’s going to have negative effects in improving a marriage.

    Why would it “have negative effects in improving a marriage”?

    Because it’s an unloving act.

    In fact, it’s the opposite of love. It therefore violates God’s commandments to love your wife as Christ loves the church, to love your neighbor as yourself, and to love one another, and is therefore sin.

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 )

Connecting to %s