Meat Sexual Duties & Children

[Maverick]

My wife is on some other forums for women and so many of the women on there talk openly among themselves about depriving their husbands of sex and using it for manipulation. That’s not even in question, so I’m not sure why the reaction here to talking in generalities.

(Warning, the above post may be triggering. Please note that it is probably not written about you or anyone you know or even anyone on BF)

The purposeful deprivation of sex... Hmm... That makes sense. And your trigger warning... Loving it!

 

[steve]

On your deathbed you will not be wishing you made just one more run. More likely you will wish she spent a few more nights at home.

May I go into eternity with the assurance that I have attempted to be a profitable servant.
That I have provided shelter, food, intimacy and safety (physical and emotional) for those that the Almighty has placed in my care. Maybe just not in the amounts that they would dream of.

 

[rockfox]

I have to say it makes me wonder. I know you’re just sticking up for guys everywhere, but it kinda reminds me of the guy who’s just “asking for a friend”.

Which makes you the second person to accuse me of being an incel for bringing up the subject. At least the woman had the guts to not do it passive aggressively. This is completely uncalled for and beneath you. It adds nothing the conversation of ideas.

The other issue that I see is that 1 Cor 7:6 states that the conversation preceding it is to be understood as by permission/consent not commandment/coercion. Western Christianity has always interpreted this from a mono only perspective as if Paul was instructing by permission, not giving a commandment. After understanding the culture of that era, I am rather convinced that Paul was reminding them that due benevolence was to be given from a willing heart, from consent, not from a position of slavery or paid for prostitution.

No, that interpretation completely nullifies v5, handing wives the authority to deny their husbands sex whenever they want and control them via sex. That is untenable. "Do not deprive" is clearly command. 1 Cor 7:6 refers to v7. It's a concession in that Paul is conceding the necessity of fulfilling each others sexual needs even though he'd rather all men were celibate as he. But he realizes not all men have that gift.

What you're saying is no different than the usual churchian 'its wrong to expect her to have sex if she doesn't feel like it'. We tell men they sin if they have sex outside of marriage and then when they get married we tell it's wrong for them to expect to get sex there too. This is despicable. It's a bait and switch that enslaves men and has tarnished Christian marriage and the church in the minds of men everywhere.

We could both create a straw man as the example given of the once a month wife.

That's ridiculous. The once a month wife isn't a strawman, its very common and ordinary real life example.

I have yet to see a good case presented for libido as the standard.

Paul states the standard clearly: whenever he/she wants it. The only time sex stops is by mutual consent for prayer and fasting. Mutual consent to stop means sex happens unless both decide otherwise.

There is no withholding of sex. "Do not deprive" "does not have authority over own body" "render affection due" Paul could not be any more clear.

Does not have authority over his/her own body means it's not their body to withhold, the other has sex with them when they want. More than mere command, "Does not have authority over own body" establishes a general operating principle.

A woman was unclean for the roughly 7 days of her menses. However there was another statute that marked a period of uncleanness from the date of the last blood, weeping sore, runny nose etc. If you were leaking, you were unclean. When you stopped leaking, you had a seven day window to make sure it was over,

From my reading of Lev 15, uncleanness for menstration was just for 7 days. The second one you mention with 7 days unclean after bleeding stops is for bleeding other than menstruation. So 7 days, not 14.

It sounds to me like you may be caught up in a perspective that is based on an unintended consequence of monogamy only thinking, which insists that the only answer for a horny man is to have more sex with his only wife, instead of saving up his shekels and adding a wife or two.

I'm operating from the perspective that husbands and wives should be selfless and loving and eagerly work to fulfill the sexual needs of their spouse instead of denying them. I reject the idea that it is ok for either spouse to deny the other just because they don't feel like it. They explicitly do not have that authority (v4).

 

[rockfox]

Here's one for ya...
It's not just women who deny their man....but men do the same thing. Rare it might be..., it does happen.
So what do you do in that situation, when the woman is willing, desperate even, but gets denied....or passed over in preference for the SW in a plural marriage.
Just saying.

Probably not as rare as most people think. As I've said before multiple times, 1 Cor 7 applies both ways. His body belongs to her.

Just as I pointed out men should do things to improve themselves to fix this situation so should women. She should examine herself and how she might be contributing to his denial. Specifically with respect to how pregnancy and childbearing play into this...

Has she let herself become unattractive? A good majority of women let themselves go after having kids. Are you in shape? Are you the same weight you were when you got married/first met? Are you still doing the things you did before to attract him and be attractive or have you settled into frumpy mom clothes, messy hair and no makeup? This also plays into the dynamic when men are denied. A woman when pregnant / after birth often doesn't feel attractive, and this messes with her desire. Helping her stay in shape, helping her understand you still desire her / find her attractive can help the situation.

Are you treating him like one of the children? Are you allowing the children to rule your life, or use them as an excuse to rule his, or do you place him first in your life?

Are you allowing the children to distract you from sex? Are you doing the soccer mom thing and not leaving time for your man? For young parents, are you allowing a baby who sleeps in bed / in the room to come between you?

When does he most want sex? Weeknights? Weekends? Mornings? Figure that out and rearrange kids activities to free you up / keep them quiet during those times.

Some men have a sexual hangups around the madonna/whore dichotomy and he may have a hard time feeling attracted to or wanting to do certain sexual things with the mother of his children. I'm not entirely certain how to handle this situation other than watching your interaction with him and how you project yourself to him. Do you still interact with him as his lover or have you settled into a Mom persona? Role playing might help. Or being intentional about romancing him.

Is your fertility waning? As women's fertility wanes and they head through menopause their desire for sex goes down. Usually this plays into the dynamic where a man desires sex more than them. But it goes both ways. The hormone profile of a fertile woman is sexually enticing in and of itself. As you age, that affect wanes and further erodes his desire; requiring you to up your game to stay as attractive. One thing you can do: jump him when you're ovulating, you'll be most attractive to him then. Also avoid hormone based contraceptives as these mess with your hormone profile and his appreciation of your beauty. If there is a sisterwife, and she is younger, that fertility boost may cause him to more often become desirous of her simply because she's hormonally more enticing (i.e. it's not personal).

Now, I answered that in a limited fashion as it intersects with child bearing to stay on topic. There is a ton more that could be said but would take us off topic. If you'd like a fuller answer let me know and I'll start a new thread on that subject.

 

[RainyLondonFog]

Probably not as rare as most people think. As I've said before multiple times, 1 Cor 7 applies both ways. His body belongs to her.

Just as I pointed out men should do things to improve themselves to fix this situation so should women. She should examine herself and how she might be contributing to his denial. Specifically with respect to how pregnancy and childbearing play into this...

Has she let herself become unattractive? A good majority of women let themselves go after having kids. Are you in shape? Are you the same weight you were when you got married/first met? Are you still doing the things you did before to attract him and be attractive or have you settled into frumpy mom clothes, messy hair and no makeup? This also plays into the dynamic when men are denied. A woman when pregnant / after birth often doesn't feel attractive, and this messes with her desire. Helping her stay in shape, helping her understand you still desire her / find her attractive can help the situation.

Are you treating him like one of the children? Are you allowing the children to rule your life, or use them as an excuse to rule his, or do you place him first in your life?

Are you allowing the children to distract you from sex? Are you doing the soccer mom thing and not leaving time for your man? For young parents, are you allowing a baby who sleeps in bed / in the room to come between you?

When does he most want sex? Weeknights? Weekends? Mornings? Figure that out and rearrange kids activities to free you up / keep them quiet during those times.

Some men have a sexual hangups around the madonna/whore dichotomy and he may have a hard time feeling attracted to or wanting to do certain sexual things with the mother of his children. I'm not entirely certain how to handle this situation other than watching your interaction with him and how you project yourself to him. Do you still interact with him as his lover or have you settled into a Mom persona? Role playing might help. Or being intentional about romancing him.

Is your fertility waning? As women's fertility wanes and they head through menopause their desire for sex goes down. Usually this plays into the dynamic where a man desires sex more than them. But it goes both ways. The hormone profile of a fertile woman is sexually enticing in and of itself. As you age, that affect wanes and further erodes his desire; requiring you to up your game to stay as attractive. One thing you can do: jump him when you're ovulating, you'll be most attractive to him then. Also avoid hormone based contraceptives as these mess with your hormone profile and his appreciation of your beauty. If there is a sisterwife, and she is younger, that fertility boost may cause him to more often become desirous of her simply because she's hormonally more enticing (i.e. it's not personal).

Now, I answered that in a limited fashion as it intersects with child bearing to stay on topic. There is a ton more that could be said but would take us off topic. If you'd like a fuller answer let me know and I'll start a new thread on that subject.

Personally I find your advice on why a husband loses interest in his wife to be degrading and worldly. I've known more women who crave the desire of their man and have done everything they know how to do to please them including wearing lingerie while making dinner when their husband gets home from work only for their man to not want to show up in the bedroom because he's let himself get entangled in sin. I know no women at all who are a "once a month woman" and only jump their man when they feel like it. Your argument that we just need to try harder to not be unattractive is ridiculous and not Biblical. Not only is a man suppose to love his wife but he is also supposed to be satisfied with her too. And it doesn't say anything about if she let herself go...

Let your fountain be blessed,
And rejoice with the wife of your youth.
As a loving deer and a graceful doe,
Let her breasts satisfy you at all times;
And always be enraptured with her love.

Proverbs 5:18,19

Edited to clarify that when Rainy says 'we' she means women in general, not that Rainy feels that she is in a group of women whose men aren't satisfied. Slumber definitely shows up and does his task of being loving and satisfied. So more of a Lorax kind of thing..

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Which makes you the second person to accuse me of being an incel for bringing up the subject. At least the woman had the guts to not do it passive aggressively. This is completely uncalled for and beneath you. It adds nothing the conversation of ideas.

Since my attempt at niceness isn’t appreciated then let me be blunt. Your attitude and approach to women sucks. I have never met anyone IRL or online with your vitriolic perspective towards women that wasn’t projecting because of a personal issue with them or reacting to the degree I’ve seen in you unless there was a vested interest. I do not understand these continued attacks. Perhaps thats because my perspective comes from being taken very good care of. I am an incredibly blessed and spoiled husband. I’ll admit it to anyone. I empathize with a guy thats getting the cold shoulder, but it doesnt affect me to the point that I wanna start a Big Rascals He Man Woman Hatin Club. In the interest of not being passive aggressive, thats how you come across.


I am assuming that your intent is somehow supposed to help the group, but your continual tactic of using the (admittedly) devious nature of some women to attack/portray all women is tiresome at best and offensive at worst.

You may even be right in a lot of your points, but it definitely gets lost in the smoke after you’ve nuked the whole gender.

No, that interpretation completely nullifies v5, handing wives the authority to deny their husbands sex whenever they want and control them via sex. That is untenable. "Do not deprive" is clearly command. 1 Cor 7:6 refers to v7. It's a concession in that Paul is conceding the necessity of fulfilling each others sexual needs even though he'd rather all men were celibate as he. But he realizes not all men have that gift.

What you're saying is no different than the usual churchian 'its wrong to expect her to have sex if she doesn't feel like it'. We tell men they sin if they have sex outside of marriage and then when they get married we tell it's wrong for them to expect to get sex there too. This is despicable. It's a bait and switch that enslaves men and has tarnished Christian marriage and the church in the minds of men everywhere.

I will say once again that your perspective is grossly colored by a monogamy only perspective. This is the response of a man who only sees his needs being able to be met by one woman. A plural minded man has other options available . . . If he hasn’t poisoned the well already. Come to think of it, a monogamous man has other options available too. His wife didn’t get like that overnight. IF he’ll take the time to husband her, she’ll probably stop treating him like a John.

I’m definitely seeing a penchant for using extremes and hyperbole to create a straw man to attack. I Corinthians 7 does not exist in a Biblical vacuum. Just like Leviticus 15 there are other passages (like Exodus 19:15) that apply and are germane to the topic. Trying to build a case solely from a biased interpretation of one selected passage is cherry picking.

Also what I am saying is not “its wrong to expect her to have sex if she doesnt feel like it”. You are again mischaracterizing what I said. The point of the whole passage is DUE benevolence. From BOTH parties. Which is why we are to dwell with them according to knowledge. In verse 5, Fasting and prayers are listed as a legitimate reason to abstain from sex for a time. Even that could be abused to deprive a spouse of rendering/receiving DUE benevolence, from both parties.

That's ridiculous. The once a month wife isn't a strawman, its very common and ordinary real life example.

Its hyperbole. Why not go ahead and use once a year wife? Or once a decade wife? If once a month is bad, surely once a year or once a decade would be infinitely worse and help your argument even more. The problem is that with hyperbole on either side, the discussion becomes unprofitable. I could just as easily cite the man that “needs” sex once a day. Why stop there? How about 3 times a day? 10 times a day? ONE MILLION times a day? That would be incredible! Let’s just make that the standard for DUE benevolence.

Paul states the standard clearly: whenever he/she wants it. The only time sex stops is by mutual consent for prayer and fasting. Mutual consent to stop means sex happens unless both decide otherwise.

There is no withholding of sex. "Do not deprive" "does not have authority over own body" "render affection due" Paul could not be any more clear.

Does not have authority over his/her own body means it's not their body to withhold, the other has sex with them when they want. More than mere command, "Does not have authority over own body" establishes a general operating principle.

All of that is to be viewed thru the lense of DUE benevolence. That is the standard clearly. The following verses simply enlarge on that general operating principle.

From my reading of Lev 15, uncleanness for menstration was just for 7 days. The second one you mention with 7 days unclean after bleeding stops is for bleeding other than menstruation. So 7 days, not 14.

You didn’t read far enough. Verse 28 says, “but if she be cleansed of her issue, (menses, continued from the previous verses 19 - 27), THEN shall she number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. 29. And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest . . . .

So . . . 14 days. Actually sometime on the 15th day after she sees the priest.

I'm operating from the perspective that husbands and wives should be selfless and loving and eagerly work to fulfill the sexual needs of their spouse instead of denying them. I reject the idea that it is ok for either spouse to deny the other just because they don't feel like it. They explicitly do not have that authority (v4).

I’m operating from the perspective that husbands and wives should be selfless and loving and eagerly work to fulfill the sexual needs of their spouse . . . . To the best of their ability. In a fantasy world, yes it would be great to have sex on demand. In the real world bad things can happen while you’re getting your quickie. Life happens! Arguing about a theoretical fantasy of sex on demand and establishing that as some sort of standard for wives everywhere is just as ludicrous as wives using sex for manipulation and expecting their marriage to last. Neither are practical or profitable for finding solutions or defining DUE benevolence.

 

[RainyLondonFog]

Since my attempt at niceness isn’t appreciated then let me be blunt. Your attitude and approach to women sucks. I have never met anyone IRL or online with your vitriolic perspective towards women that wasn’t projecting because of a personal issue with them or reacting to the degree I’ve seen in you unless there was a vested interest. I do not understand these continued attacks. Perhaps thats because my perspective comes from being taken very good care of. I am an incredibly blessed and spoiled husband. I’ll admit it to anyone. I empathize with a guy thats getting the cold shoulder, but it doesnt affect me to the point that I wanna start a Big Rascals He Man Woman Hatin Club. In the interest of not being passive aggressive, thats how you come across.


I am assuming that your intent is somehow supposed to help the group, but your continual tactic of using the (admittedly) devious nature of some women to attack/portray all women is tiresome at best and offensive at worst.

You may even be right in a lot of your points, but it definitely gets lost in the smoke after you’ve nuked the whole gender.




I will say once again that your perspective is grossly colored by a monogamy only perspective. This is the response of a man who only sees his needs being able to be met by one woman. A plural minded man has other options available . . . If he hasn’t poisoned the well already. Come to think of it, a monogamous man has other options available too. His wife didn’t get like that overnight. IF he’ll take the time to husband her, she’ll probably stop treating him like a John.

I’m definitely seeing a penchant for using extremes and hyperbole to create a straw man to attack. I Corinthians 7 does not exist in a Biblical vacuum. Just like Leviticus 15 there are other passages (like Exodus 19:15) that apply and are germane to the topic. Trying to build a case solely from a biased interpretation of one selected passage is cherry picking.

Also what I am saying is not “its wrong to expect her to have sex if she doesnt feel like it”. You are again mischaracterizing what I said. The point of the whole passage is DUE benevolence. From BOTH parties. Which is why we are to dwell with them according to knowledge. In verse 5, Fasting and prayers are listed as a legitimate reason to abstain from sex for a time. Even that could be abused to deprive a spouse of rendering/receiving DUE benevolence, from both parties.




Its hyperbole. Why not go ahead and use once a year wife? Or once a decade wife? If once a month is bad, surely once a year or once a decade would be infinitely worse and help your argument even more. The problem is that with hyperbole on either side, the discussion becomes unprofitable. I could just as easily cite the man that “needs” sex once a day. Why stop there? How about 3 times a day? 10 times a day? ONE MILLION times a day? That would be incredible! Let’s just make that the standard for DUE benevolence.




All of that is to be viewed thru the lense of DUE benevolence. That is the standard clearly. The following verses simply enlarge on that general operating principle.





You didn’t read far enough. Verse 28 says, “but if she be cleansed of her issue, (menses, continued from the previous verses 19 - 27), THEN shall she number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. 29. And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest . . . .

So . . . 14 days. Actually sometime on the 15th day after she sees the priest.




I’m operating from the perspective that husbands and wives should be selfless and loving and eagerly work to fulfill the sexual needs of their spouse . . . . To the best of their ability. In a fantasy world, yes it would be great to have sex on demand. In the real world bad things can happen while you’re getting your quickie. Life happens! Arguing about a theoretical fantasy of sex on demand and establishing that as some sort of standard for wives everywhere is just as ludicrous as wives using sex for manipulation and expecting their marriage to last. Neither are practical or profitable for finding solutions or defining DUE benevolence.

I really like the "due benevolence." That's such a good way to put it.

 

[rockfox]

only for their man to not want to show up in the bedroom because he's let himself get entangled in sin

That can certainly be a problem, especially if the man has gotten addicted to pornography. But I didn't go there because I'm trying to keep this on topic to how children affect things.

I know no women at all who are a "once a month woman" and only jump their man when they feel like it.

They do exist. If you don't believe me, look at the link I posted above from a marriage councilor in my state who sees many of them. It is a real problem. I'm happy to hear it's not a problem in your social circle.

Personally I find your advice on why a husband loses interest in his wife to be degrading and worldly. Your argument that we just need to try harder to not be unattractive is ridiculous and not Biblical.

I'm sorry but God made men to be aroused by certain physical characteristics and obesity isn't one of them. The same goes for women btw. If a man can't get his wife interested in sex with him and he's out of shape he should work on exercising and loosing weight. Pretty sure I implied as much previously (e.g. beer gut). I'm interested in real solutions to problems. You can't wish someone to become attracted to you if they're not. But you can do things to make yourself more attractive (if that is the problem). That's not worldly, its reality.

It may not be nice to suggest fat women loose weight in order to get hubby more interested. But it is actionable advice that works and more loving than telling them pretty lies that accomplish nothing. It's better for their health too.

 

[rockfox]

Its hyperbole.

It's not hyperbole at all. It's a very real life situation for many men...

I was horrified to learn that sex once a month was common and sex once every six months was not uncommon in problem marriages.

That from a marriage councilor pastor in my state. Your refusal to believe this happens has no bearing on the reality of it or that those marriage need help. And they won't be helped by people who refuse to believe there is a problem.

I am assuming that your intent is somehow supposed to help the group, but your continual tactic of using the (admittedly) devious nature of some women to attack/portray all women is tiresome at best and offensive at worst.

It is not my intention to attack all women nor do I believe I have done so. But it is common for people to perceive any negative thing said about any women as an attack on all women. But that is a mistaken impression.

This thread doesn't even apply to all women as it's only about those marriages that are struggling sexually which hit the rocks when kids showed up. And in that context I've covered many different scenarios which may not always apply; some of which places the blame squarely on men.

But no one cares if I criticism men. No one ever complains about that. The real problem here is I dare to criticism women at all.

Sorry, but women aren't innocent angels, they sin too. And it doesn't help them any when white knight enablers come charging to the rescue anytime anyone dares say something the least bit negative. Such people only enable their sin.

You didn’t read far enough. Verse 28 says, “but if she be cleansed of her issue, (menses, continued from the previous verses 19 - 27), THEN shall she number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. 29. And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest . . . .

So . . . 14 days. Actually sometime on the 15th day after she sees the priest.

I did read that. I understood v28 to be in the context of v25-27, which is not about a regular menses but other discharges (or a menses that goes long). Maybe that understanding is wrong, but I'm not sure it is.

Neither are practical or profitable for finding solutions or defining DUE benevolence.

I defined due benevolence based on the text itself. Do you have an alternate definition you can substantiate from scripture? Let's have it.

Arguing about a theoretical fantasy of sex on demand and establishing that as some sort of standard for wives everywhere is just as ludicrous as wives using sex for manipulation and expecting their marriage to last. Neither are practical

My wife and I give each other sex whenever the other wants it in fulfillment of 1 Cor 7; hot, loving, frequent sex. It goes both ways and it works very well for us as it has for others who've tried it. Much better than the usual way. It's neither fantasy nor ludicrous. In fact it can heal damaged marriages as those who've taken the 30 day sex challenge have found out.

Nor is wives using sex for manipulation ludicrous as @Asforme&myhouse pointed out. You simply refuse to believe bad things about women.

 

[rockfox]

Does anyone have anything constructive to add besides 'defend women at all costs'? Cause that doesn't help struggling marriages. If you do, I'd love to hear them. In the mean time back to the actual topic...


Bad Parenting

One of the things that has shocked me watching other parents is the extreme extent to which they allow little children to manipulate and control them. It's quite frankly ridiculous how much of a pushover many parents are.

What does this have to do with sex?

Quite simply, there is nothing masculine (i.e. arousing) about a grown man who can't keep a 2 year toddler old from dominating them. If you can't manage to handle a toddler, how will you manage to handle your wife much less protect your family from hostile outside forces?

Be the man in the family, the one who is in charge. Raise, train and keep your children under control. Don't let them rule the roost. Don't be a pushover. Don't let them manipulate you.

Where does this specifically go wrong?

When parents care more about their kids feelbads than providing proper structure and discipline.
When parents want to 'be their friends' instead of their parents.
When a father is the lenient one in the family. If you whimp out on providing discipline while your wife stands firm, you'll look weak in her eyes. You can't be the man of the house if she's tougher than you.
When a father is unwilling to tell his kids 'no'. If your kids know Dad is the pushover in the family who will let them get what they want your wife won't respect you either.
When a child has more willpower to endure punishment than parents have to give it.
When a father allows himself to be wrapped around the finger of his daughter. Too many fathers are ok with the boys but when a girl comes along goes all soft and easily manipulated.
When a father allows himself to be emotionally manipulated by children.
When a father fails to establish firm rules in the household.
When a father allows or rewards nagging.
When a father is more concerned about being nice than instilling order.
When his children aren't afraid of consequences for disobedience.

All of these things immaculate fathers and cost you dearly in terms of your attractiveness to her, and her sexual desire for you. Not to mention out of control children are just plain exhausting; leaving one more tired and less in the mood for sex.

Women desire leaders and one of the best opportunities for you to demonstrate that is to be a good leader of your children. Be the father who has well disciplined family that makes your wife want to bear more of your children (sexy). Don't be the pushover nice dad who allows his children to rule the roost and makes her want to castrate you so she won't be beset with more of the little terrors (not sexy).

 

[FollowingHim]

That brings my thinking back to Mark Gungor's "men's brains women's brains" presentation. For women, everything is connected - the kids are connected to intimacy.

When a father is unwilling to tell his kids 'no'. If your kids know Dad is the pushover in the family who will let them get what they want your wife won't respect you either.

This is true. I am very narrowly focused, and can sit staring at a computer or book completely engrossed in what I am doing (work or recreation), with the children running riot all around me, and I simply don't notice. Sarah can come back in and sees a child getting into something they shouldn't, or making an enormous mess, or crying quietly in the corner over some squabble that's happened, and I simply haven't noticed at all.

That is when she finds me least sexy. Under my supposed supervision the house has turned to chaos, that she then has to sort out. So from her perspective I dropped the ball and don't look like a leader at all. And that is not sexy.

Now I obviously considered myself the leader the entire time, sitting in my chair, and if I had noticed there was anything happening I should do something about I'd have done so... I've got many concerns in life other than children, and I was probably busy working on one of them on my computer. That's my perspective. But what it looks like from the outside, from her perspective, is not attractive.

On the other hand, if I do something practical that actually impacts her life in a visible way, that's when I appear most attractive to her. Being a leader to the children is a good example, as @rockfox has pointed out. But being proactive in any way, on any matter, and thus demonstrating leadership in that area, is profoundly sexy...

How you act has far more impact than your physical body shape. It can very quickly make a wife see you as unattractive or highly attractive, it goes both ways, and in a matter of minutes rather than the months it takes to get fit.

 

[Foxlily]

Wow.. I disappear because of life and things blow up lol how crazy is all of that?

I really don't have time to spend on here just happened to sit down to take a break wondering how you all are doing and I find this gem of a thread. Lol I love you @rockfox .

I find I need to defend my own honor however, not from that of my husband but rather those who are accusing me of denying him by calling him an incel.. I'm afraid I have to take offense. Kids do indeed cause distraction but that's what door locks are for and if your children respect your authority they won't bother you. If you have a young baby.. nap time. Or if you're lucky enough to have older kids.. live in baby sitter. I'm certainly not a saint, and any woman who hasn't pouted after a massive argument and used it to deny sex is a better woman than me. Yes, if he apologized and you don't actually forgive him because we women do tend hold grudges and dwell on hurts.. even days later and then use it as justification to ourselves. Bam. Husband denied. Do I do that now? No. Only hurts our marriage and ultimately my relationship with God.

I, unfortunately, have a co-worker who let a child get between him and his wife. Sadly, he's also the butt of jokes among the men as 'not wearing the pants.' One toddler daughter, she basically moved into their room and their bed because she supposedly couldn't sleep on her own. He came to me for parenting advice because his daughter was so mean to him. Everything boiled down to his relationship with his wife and her lack of respect for him created a physical manifestation of disrespectful behavior from his daughter. I never said it but I knew it and in our conversation he came to the painful conclusion himself. I don't know how the bedroom is exactly but his desperation on getting his daughter out of his room spoke volumes. I pray it has improved for him and his wife.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

It's not hyperbole at all. It's a very real life situation for many men...

Hyperbole is using the minority to describe the majority or the all. I do not doubt that there are men that have relationships like that, I just reject that this is the average frequency for sex in marriage.

That from a marriage councilor pastor in my state. Your refusal to believe this happens has no bearing on the reality of it or that those marriage need help. And they won't be helped by people who refuse to believe there is a problem.

Again, I don’t refuse to believe it happens. Just that it requires an address to all women.

It is not my intention to attack all women nor do I believe I have done so. But it is common for people to perceive any negative thing said about any women as an attack on all women. But that is a mistaken impression.

This thread doesn't even apply to all women as it's only about those marriages that are struggling sexually which hit the rocks when kids showed up. And in that context I've covered many different scenarios which may not always apply; some of which places the blame squarely on men.

But no one cares if I criticism men. No one ever complains about that. The real problem here is I dare to criticism women at all.

Sorry, but women aren't innocent angels, they sin too. And it doesn't help them any when white knight enablers come charging to the rescue anytime anyone dares say something the least bit negative. Such people only enable their sin.

I’d say its pretty obvious from the pushback you’ve gotten just in this thread, that you are not communicating this well.

I did read that. I understood v28 to be in the context of v25-27, which is not about a regular menses but other discharges (or a menses that goes long). Maybe that understanding is wrong, but I'm not sure it is.

Its wrong

I defined due benevolence based on the text itself. Do you have an alternate definition you can substantiate from scripture? Let's have it.

I’ll have to get back to this due to time restraints ATM

My wife and I give each other sex whenever the other wants it in fulfillment of 1 Cor 7; hot, loving, frequent sex. It goes both ways and it works very well for us as it has for others who've tried it. Much better than the usual way. It's neither fantasy nor ludicrous. In fact it can heal damaged marriages as those who've taken the 30 day sex challenge have found out.

Thats great! Truly happy for you. My issue is that it is a subjective standard that is ripe for abuse and tends to be shouted from the rooftops by those it would appear to benefit the most. Typically from a monogamist man. I’d think most poly guys would be the ones ducking for cover if the shoe was on the other foot. From what I’ve seen, the wives are usually the ones showing grace instead of demanding sex as often as they want it and complaining loudly to any and all when they aren’t satisfied. So its ok for men to dishonor their wives when they’re not getting enough sex, but put that shoe on the other foot in a plural family. Its a false standard for due benevolence that will be used against a plural family.

Nor is wives using sex for manipulation ludicrous as @Asforme&myhouse pointed out. You simply refuse to believe bad things about women.

You quoted me wrong yet again. Makes me wonder if its intentional or you’re not actually reading what I wrote.

just as ludicrous as wives using sex for manipulation and expecting their marriage to last.

This doesn't say that it does not happen. It affirms that it does, but they shouldn’t be surprised when the marriage doesn’t last.

I just refuse to accept a bad premise when you don’t qualify it with “some” women. You expect people to assume you are only talking about some women, but fail to qualify your statements that way.

With men, it seems more like you are addressing men “if you’re like this, then . . . .” In comparison, topics about women are addressed like, “women are like this”. Big difference.

 

[RainyLondonFog]

They do exist. If you don't believe me, look at the link I posted above from a marriage councilor in my state who sees many of them. It is a real problem. I'm happy to hear it's not a problem in your social circle.

I didn't say that I didn't think they exist. I do believe they exist ... somewhere ... but what I meant was from my perspective the big problem I've been having to minister to other women about is completely different. Sorry to get off topic.

I'm sorry but God made men to be aroused by certain physical characteristics and obesity isn't one of them. The same goes for women btw. If a man can't get his wife interested in sex with him and he's out of shape he should work on exercising and loosing weight. Pretty sure I implied as much previously (e.g. beer gut). I'm interested in real solutions to problems. You can't wish someone to become attracted to you if they're not. But you can do things to make yourself more attractive (if that is the problem). That's not worldly, its reality.

It may not be nice to suggest fat women loose weight in order to get hubby more interested. But it is actionable advice that works and more loving than telling them pretty lies that accomplish nothing. It's better for their health too.

But is this really true? Or is it the current choice of attractive our society has selected? Tastes have changed quite widely about women's bodies throughout history so to pigeonhole on today's ideal seem like an excuse. It's strange that what I see in the Bible about beauty is telling women to work on their inward worth, and not to adorn themselves to stand out. I believe that we can be kind to each other and do things to make things easier on our spouses (such as be clean, or if you know they like this or that - do it!) but to say that it's necessary in order for men to follow the scripture God has written must not be true. If He says it, we need to do it. To say that women (or men!) need to stand up to a certain standard, especially one that is worldly (because it is not in the Bible!) seems foolish. The real problem between sex lives and children is miscommunication or unmet expectations. And what did Paul say, to be content in all things. Having the mindset of " Well I'm not built that way and I have preferences about what is ideal for me so I can't obey this scripture." is the exact same attitude as " Yes I will listen to my husband and submit - when he says exactly what I want."

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I knew a guy in Oregon that wouldnt look twice at a gal unless she was at least 300 lb. Just sayin. Attraction comes in all sizes and shapes.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

36 24 36? Yeah, only if she's 5'3"

Prophet Mixalot

 

[Cap]

I have seen a lot of beautiful women who the world may not consider so, and it all comes from the heart.

It is a shame that the new body shaming fad doesn't realize this. They spend a great deal of time trying to make the outside acceptable, no matter what shape or form, without changing the inside.

 

[RainyLondonFog]

Oh I forgot, I wanted to add something else. I wanted to state the the reason why I believe there should be no standard held to a women for her husband to be satisfied. And this is off topic, and sorry but I think it's important. Because we all (men and women) need know and feel that on some level we are accepted for who we are, not for how we look, but for who we are. That we have a place. That way we will see the people around us as comrades and friends, people for us to help and contribute to. But having the attitude that we need to be held to a certain standard makes those around us a threat. It tells us anyone who is better will take my place. It ensnares the one to feel like their only worth comes from being praised (and if that praise is only based on appearance then it is a losing game, time comes for all) and therefore anyone else who gets praised is the enemy because they might take my place. We are now competing in a race to be on the top position and other people are now our enemy. So why would we want to purposely build into women that they need to be threatened by the 'ideal'? Isn't the goal to build healthy Godly marriages? And the kind of attitude that puts down such standards is only going to make any first wife see another sister wife as an enemy not a comrade.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Something else that just crossed my mind: A woman who’s being taken care of sexually, and the bedroom is fun times for her, doesnt have to be manipulated into having sex. She will become an opportunist even if she wasn’t one initially. She’s not gonna cut her own nose off to spite her face, just for an opportunity to be able to manipulate her husband.

OTOH, a woman who’s not receiving due (reciprocal) benevolence, but is constantly on the giving due benevolence end, is gonna be more apt to make up excuses to put it off.

Men, if you act like a John, don’t complain when she makes you pay for it.

 

[Cap]

Oh I forgot, I wanted to add something else. I wanted to state the the reason why I believe there should be no standard held to a women for her husband to be satisfied. And this is off topic, and sorry but I think it's important. Because we all (men and women) need know and feel that on some level we are accepted for who we are, not for how we look, but for who we are. That we have a place. That way we will see the people around us as comrades and friends, people for us to help and contribute to. But having the attitude that we need to be held to a certain standard makes those around us a threat. It tells us anyone who is better will take my place. It ensnares the one to feel like their only worth comes from being praised (and if that praise is only based on appearance then it is a losing game, time comes for all) and therefore anyone else who gets praised is the enemy because they might take my place. We are now competing in a race to be on the top position and other people are now our enemy. So why would we want to purposely build into women that they need to be threatened by the 'ideal'? Isn't the goal to build healthy Godly marriages? And the kind of attitude that puts down such standards is only going to make any first wife see another sister wife as an enemy not a comrade.

I think this is an important part of the core negative feelings of wives going thought the process of accepting another wife. I know for a fact that outward appearance, and the fear of being left behind is the hardest thing to overcome when the subject of a real prospect comes into play. Focusing on outward items during a monogamist relationship would make it impossible to overcome when polygamy becomes real and a husband has to convince a wife it doesn't matter when another women becomes a possiblity.