Frequency of intimacy in marriage

[farouk]

I wholeheartedly agree with deadprivatekevin.

I'd like to make a few comments, actually.

In my marriage, there have been quite a few issues. My husband and I are still considered newlyweds(in August we'll have been married for three years), but there wasn't a newlywed phase. We have had very difficult financial troubles, as well as selfishness issues with both of us. Recently we rededicated ourselves to each other, and to meeting the other person's needs.

As a woman, I can attest to how important love is in the relationship. Emotionally speaking, it usually is "easier"(for lack of a better word) to make love with my husband when we've had a good day, and I feel connected to him emotionally. However, I think it's incredibly naive to base ones actions on what one feels. I can have a bad day that is completely unrelated to my husband, he can come home and shower me with affection, and I'll still not "feel" like having sex. This is where women should step outside of themselves, in my opinion. And yes, I mean doing it even if you don't want to. This isn't wrong, or sick; it's selflessness.

And, actually, it has been proven that having sex when you're not in the mood increases your sex drive. When I'm not in the mood, but I go ahead and make love with him anyway, it doesn't take long for the sexual senses to wake up and come alive.

In my marriage, my husband and I have learned that sex is vitally important to both of us. Unfortunately, we don't have sex more than once or twice a week at this point. It kills me inside, but I'm working on it. Like another poster here, I know the frequency is on my shoulders, but the difference is that I'm not happy with where our frequency is at. Sex is one of my number one emotional needs, among other things like cuddling and verbal affirmation. When my husband and I don't have sex, I don't feel loved.

Unfortunately for my husband, I'm a VERY emotional girl. I'm not difficult to please, but I am not difficult to upset either. I've been working on not allowing the little things to effect me so much, but sometimes they do. He is so patient and caring, and he listens to everything I say. He is also emotional though, and when we don't have sex(especially if it's a time when we were planning on having fun and then we don't), he is emotionally effected. And so am I.

So, I understand what others are saying about women needing affection, but I agree with deadprivatekevin. Let me explain it this way:

I've told my husband that, even though he works hard and has long days sometimes, I still expect him to come home and hold me. His schedule is fixed, it won't change, but I can't only have cuddle time once a week. I will DIE emotionally, and our relationship will struggle. So, if I expect him to meet MY needs on a daily basis, it would be selfish of me not to hold myself to the same standard.

It all revolves around mutual affection, and isn't limited merely to the frequency aspect.

I strongly believe this.

 

[Created2Write]

@ Created2Write

So, if I expect him to meet MY needs on a daily basis, it would be selfish of me not to hold myself to the same standard.

Thank you, and well said. It's nice to know that there are other people in the world that understand what 'love is not self-seeking' actually applies to both sexes. And I don't think that being emotional is a weakness, it's a great strength if you use it right. people without emotion are the weak ones. If you're husband knows what he is doing he will be the rock that anchors your emotions, but it takes men time to learn how to do that right. 23 years in I'm still learning.

Hang in there, it takes a lifetime to learn how to love another person fully. You're definitely on the right track. Think of it as him giving his sexuality into your keeping at marriage. If you are caring for it properly, he'll be happy and satisfied. He should be doing the same for yours. There's a beautiful symmetry there that only God could have designed, but it takes a huge amount of trust, and that only comes with years of practice. And you know what? sometimes life is just plain hard and there's only so much energy to go around. Don't let it get you down, things have a way of working out if you're truly living for each other.

Thanks so much for the encouragement. We are youngsters still(I think so, anyway...lol) and sometimes life makes working in a relationship really crazy and hectic. We seem to have to relearn lessons over and over still, but the good thing is that we improve in how we handle certain situations. And luckily my husband is more than willing and, in fact, loves to meet my emotional needs. So I've been working on putting the same amount of effort on his.

 

[Created2Write]

It all revolves around mutual affection, and isn't limited merely to the frequency aspect.

I strongly believe this.

True. That is something we learned as well.

 

[farouk]

True. That is something we learned as well.

Created2Write:

And between husband and wife, not to be in a hurry. Affection rules. (I also think the locker rooms are suitable for more detailed discussion.)

 

[mariamaria]

I don't know how to say this lovingly, but Maria you need help. You clearly have some very serious issues around sex, and a very twisted view of marriage. Ignoring the Biblical commands to wives in marriage, and acting as if only your sexual needs matter in your relationship is not something that should be applauded by anyone. No I don't question if your husband loves you, if he stays in that situation he must. I question if you love him more than yourself. I kind of see that you have fallen into the trap of thinking that sex is dirty and sinful even within marriage. That's a lie straight from the enemy. I urge you to deal with your issues because you and your husband are missing out on the one of greatest gifts God has given you in your marriage.

Myself and my husband have talked about it, he's fine with it and he is not comfortable we me forcing myself as if the shoe was on the other foot I wouldn't feel right knowing my hubby feels forced.. I don't think it's dirty or sinful and we don't miss out I just don't get the urge very often, I have low sex drive, yes it's as simple as that.. I never said we never have sex, I said it doesn't happen very often. If we are both ok with this then where is the problem?
I'm sick and of people always trying to find fault, we love each other, we are both ok with the sex situation, why put it under microscope if we are both happy? You are trying to find a problem where there isn't one! You'd rather believe there is a problem then take my word for it..
I do not have a twisted version of marriage. Please don't assume that you know the situation because you don't. If things were that bad then how have stayed together so long?
My husband has been reading these posts with me and really can't get his head round why such a big deal is being made about our relationship..Quote "I'm happy with the way things are so why are they questioning us so much?"
How do I cancel my membership for this forum? I don't do being round negative people in real life or on the net!

 

[Jethro Bodine]

This thread illustrates the wisdom gleaned through my experience that you better not get married just so you can have sex. You need to have something better than that to base a marriage upon. If you're ready to walk because you're not getting sex...you got married for the wrong reason.

Maybe if we put childbearing and sex back together the way it was before our great minds (sarcasm) figured out how to have our cake and eat it too through the invention of 99% birth control (even 100%) we'd have less problem with men who are sure they have to have sex with their wives no matter what.

Making sex solely recreational is ruinous to a marriage. If more men had to man up to the responsibility that God assigned to having sex (having children) perhaps there'd be less whining about how little we get.

Birth control is the worst thing that happened to healthy, virile males...and marriage. We were sure it would open up the doors to endless, on demand, ecstatic sex. What it did was remove the very thing that helps us bring it under control and prevent us from being mindlessly ruled by it.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

...Same goes for any woman who got married for money and/or her husband's popularity or status. Those are things that can be gone overnight (just as sex can). You need something better than that to base a marriage on.


...commitment, faithfulness, a true and sincere desire to care for the other...that's what will get you through. And which, I suspect, will make all the other things possible. That's why I call those other things, like sex, the icing on the cake, not the cake itself.

 

[Dreadpiratkevin]

This thread illustrates the wisdom gleaned through my experience that you better not get married just so you can have sex. You need to have something better than that to base a marriage upon. If you're ready to walk because you're not getting sex...you got married for the wrong reason.

Maybe if we put childbearing and sex back together the way it was before our great minds (sarcasm) figured out how to have our cake and eat it too through the invention of 99% birth control (even 100%) we'd have less problem with men who are sure they have to have sex with their wives no matter what.

Making sex solely recreational is ruinous to a marriage. If more men had to man up to the responsibility that God assigned to having sex (having children) perhaps there'd be less whining about how little we get.

Birth control is the worst thing that happened to healthy, virile males...and marriage. We were sure it would open up the doors to endless, on demand, ecstatic sex. What it did was remove the very thing that helps us bring it under control and prevent us from being mindlessly ruled by it.

That's a very interesting view Jethro. I'm wondering what you base it on? Can you give me some scriptural support for it? I've studied the Biblical teachings on marriage a fair amount, and can find nothing that limits sex to procreation, and much that suggests that it has a far broader and deeper purpose.

Since my wife and I are no longer having children (we have 5) do you intend to say that we should not be having sex? That would severely damage our marriage, and I don't see much advantage to it.

God ordained sex within marriage to be the ultimate expression of love and commitment between two people, and an ongoing reminder that you are now one flesh. If it has ceased within a marriage, or is unilaterally limited there are serious issues within that relationship well above and beyond the physical aspects.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I've studied the Biblical teachings on marriage a fair amount, and can find nothing that limits sex to procreation...

Neither can I. So that's hardly what I'm arguing for.

What I realized was how distorted my modern view of sex was because of how we have successfully removed the child bearing element from sexual activity. We are well into a couple of generations now who grew up thinking sex is something that has the option of using it to have children, not knowing that removing that built in restraint on sexual desire was opening up the door to the bondage of unbridled passion and the unreasonable and unloving demands it places on spouses.

...and much that suggests that it has a far broader and deeper purpose.

Sex is a deeply emotionally satisfying experience. But we men tend to see it more in terms of a mechanical procedure to relieve the unbridled and out of control demands of our bodies (see above). Hardly what God intended, but which exists as the painful consequence of deciding we want to remove the consequences and responsibilities that God built into having sex.

Since my wife and I are no longer having children (we have 5) do you intend to say that we should not be having sex?

Hardly.

I have four children. I wanted five, but decided to bail out at four by getting a vasectomy. That's when the real trouble started.

God ordained sex within marriage to be the ultimate expression of love and commitment between two people, and an ongoing reminder that you are now one flesh. If it has ceased within a marriage, or is unilaterally limited there are serious issues within that relationship well above and beyond the physical aspects.

But this hardly means we can ignore the godly virtues of self control and concern (godly love) for our mates. There's nothing wrong with the unilateral limitations that God himself built into marriage. We get in trouble when we decide our sexual appetites should not be restrained by those limitations.


What really woke me up about all this was the fact that Paul's counsel to spouses to not withhold due benevolence, except by mutual consent, was "because of your lack of self-control" (1 Corinthians 7:5 NIV1984).

I can certainly see the loving grace of God in that, but maturing spiritual men (and women as it applies) should face the music that it was given because of a lack of the godly trait of self control, not as a way to make your spouse have sex with you because that's the way it's supposed to be. There's a right and godly way to nurture mutual sexual attraction and desire in a marriage. Paul's instruction is a concession for people who don't have self control and insist they 'just gotta have it'.

 

[reba]

Personally Jethro's (#66) post sounds level headed and fairly describes what the advent of 'THE PILL' has done to society.

50 years ago a 'date' did not imply sex. A long term steady boyfriend might have. White wedding dresses had respect. It was not that 'we ' were so good. The fear of all that went with unmarried pregnancy at the time help us to say and mean NO.

 

[Dreadpiratkevin]

I appreciate your thoughtful post here, but I disagree with you on this point: To say that mature men and women will limit their sexuality implies that it must be limited because it is somehow bad, but God doesn't call it bad. Sex within marriage is not sin, and is not limited by God. He created marriage so that we can fully enjoy sex, and He created sex so that we can fully enjoy marriage.

Neither can I. So that's hardly what I'm arguing for.

What I realized was how distorted my modern view of sex was because of how we have successfully removed the child bearing element from sexual activity. We are well into a couple of generations now who grew up thinking sex is something that has the option of using it to have children, not knowing that removing that built in restraint on sexual desire was opening up the door to the bondage of unbridled passion and the unreasonable and unloving demands it places on spouses.


Sex is a deeply emotionally satisfying experience. But we men tend to see it more in terms of a mechanical procedure to relieve the unbridled and out of control demands of our bodies (see above). Hardly what God intended, but which exists as the painful consequence of deciding we want to remove the consequences and responsibilities that God built into having sex.

I have to disagree with this description. The idea that men are some kind of sex crazed animals while women are innately pure comes from feminism, not the Bible. In fact in the Bible there are more women who fall into sexual sin than men. I also don't see anywhere in the Bible that God limits sex within marriage. By unilateral I was referring to one partner deciding based solely on their own desires, or lack there of what the couples sex life will be like.

Hardly.

I have four children. I wanted five, but decided to bail out at four by getting a vasectomy. That's when the real trouble started.



But this hardly means we can ignore the godly virtues of self control and concern (godly love) for our mates. There's nothing wrong with the unilateral limitations that God himself built into marriage. We get in trouble when we decide our sexual appetites should not be restrained by those limitations.


What really woke me up about all this was the fact that Paul's counsel to spouses to not withhold due benevolence, except by mutual consent, was "because of your lack of self-control" (1 Corinthians 7:5 NIV1984).

I disagree with you're interpretation here. The actual verse reads

[Do not deprive each other except 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 phrase 'because or your lack of self control modifies 'so that Satan will not tempt you'. The admonition is to NOT refrain within marriage so that you won't be tempted outside of marriage where it is not just sin, but highly destructive to the family and society. There is no implication here that sex should be limited because it is bad, but that it needs to be kept within the bounds of marriage as God intended.

I can certainly see the loving grace of God in that, but maturing spiritual men (and women as it applies) should face the music that it was given because of a lack of the godly trait of self control, not as a way to make your spouse have sex with you because that's the way it's supposed to be. There's a right and godly way to nurture mutual sexual attraction and desire in a marriage. Paul's instruction is a concession for people who don't have self control and insist they 'just gotta have it'.

Paul's instruction is based on a realistic understanding that a healthy sex life within marriage is the best defense against sexual temptation. Sexual sin is outside of marriage, not within it.


I respect those who disagree with me, but as long as we cannot agree that sex is a good thing to be celebrated, and not a dirty sinful thing to be limited even within marriage, we won't have common ground to discuss the details of it.

Would it surprise any of you to learn that in a sexless, or low sex marriage I blame the husband, not the wife? Oh I don't buy the convoluted excuses women give for ignoring their husbands needs or desires for one minute, but that's excuses not reasons.

The reason any of this is an issue is simply this: Women often stop being attracted to their husbands. They may still like them, even love them, but they are not attracted to them. They can't help it, it's chemical. Men have been told that the way to be a 'good' husband is to be the beta Christian nice guy. Which is absolutely to opposite of what women find sexually attractive. The Church, in trying to weed out all aspects of strong masculinity has ruined more marriages than can be counted. If a woman remains strongly attracted to her mate, there are no sexual issues, at least none that can't be overcome. After all, no one here is arguing that when a woman wants to have sex she is being sinful or inconsiderate, that only applies to men.

 

[chaz345]

One thing DPKevin that you do need to take into consideration is that "duty" sex can be the single most soul sucking, gosh awful thing a person ever does... if there isn't enough communication and effort on both husband's and wife's on how to handle it.

It CAN be if it becomes the norm. However if it's an occasional thing, it's called being selfless.

Also going without sex on a long term basis, or going with far less than one desires is every bit as soul sucking, isn't it?

 

[chaz345]

Birth control is the worst thing that happened to healthy, virile males...and marriage. We were sure it would open up the doors to endless, on demand, ecstatic sex. What it did was remove the very thing that helps us bring it under control and prevent us from being mindlessly ruled by it.

I disagree completely with the premise that this thought is built upon which is that the male sex drive is something that inherently needs to be be controlled. Well I suppose it does, but then again doesn't any human desire, say the desire for food, or the desire for constant empathy?

 

[tannic]

It CAN be if it becomes the norm. However if it's an occasional thing, it's called being selfless.

Also going without sex on a long term basis, or going with far less than one desires is every bit as soul sucking, isn't it?

I have to totally agree with sex on a long term basis. It really does when one desires to have sex with their spouse and their spouse constantly denies them. This duty sex is thing depends on the couple IMO.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I disagree completely with the premise that this thought is built upon which is that the male sex drive is something that inherently needs to be be controlled. Well I suppose it does, but then again doesn't any human desire, say the desire for food, or the desire for constant empathy?

Every human fleshly desire has to be controlled, for sin is the thoughtless, selfish pursuit of the fulfillment of the flesh. By nature we humans are very good at pressing the agenda of the flesh onto other people in not so polite ways. But we are also very good at resisting the fleshly agenda of other people imposed on us in not so polite ways, too.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

This duty sex is thing depends on the couple IMO.

Yes, and whether or not the duty sex is offered, or if it is demanded.

Godly love offers duty sex. Ungodly love demands it.

 

[chaz345]

Every human fleshly desire has to be controlled, for sin is the thoughtless, selfish pursuit of the fulfillment of the flesh. By nature we humans are very good at pressing the agenda of the flesh onto other people in not so polite ways. But we are also very good at resisting the fleshly agenda of other people imposed on us in not so polite ways, too.

Of course this is true and I agree. However, it seems to me that much time and effort is spent talking about the need for men to control their sexual desires and little to none spent talking about the need for women to control some of their desires. The end result is that there's an underlying tone that a man's God given desire for sex is bad or is at least somehow below or beneath a woman's God given desire for other things, like deep emotional connnection. This is often illustrated in statements that say that sex is the "icing on the cake" or similar.

 

[chaz345]

Yes, and whether or not the duty sex is offered, or if it is demanded.

Godly love offers duty sex. Ungodly love demands it.

Yes this is also true. It's also largely irrelevant to the discussion since as far as I can see, no one has said anything even close to the idea that one should demand any form of sex.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Of course this is true and I agree. However, it seems to me that much time and effort is spent talking about the need for men to control their sexual desires and little to none spent talking about the need for women to control some of their desires. The end result is that there's an underlying tone that a man's God given desire for sex is bad or is at least somehow below or beneath a woman's God given desire for other things, like deep emotional connnection. This is often illustrated in statements that say that sex is the "icing on the cake" or similar.

I'd like to contribute much more than I have that would straighten out the perception of how things are in this thread. I simply don't have a lot of time.

Of course, most men are going to insist that sex is the foundation of a marital relationship, not the dressing on the outside, (I was one of them) but this simply is not true. You have to do your homework building a good foundation under the relationship (which is NOT sex) before you can have a mutually edifying sexual relationship on top of that foundation. This is true for both men and women.

Sex is not bad. Sex is not shameful. That is, until it moves out of the boundaries of comfort for one of the partners. For example, an overwhelming desire for sex can be bad in one relationship (the other spouse doesn't want it that way), but that same desire be entirely satisfying and wonderful in another relationship (the other spouse is all for it). See how relative it is? It's all relative to what the other spouse is willing to cooperate with. But, in and of itself, sexual activity is not bad or shameful. Our duty as Christians is to consider the needs and desires of the other person, not insist the relationship conform to our own needs and desires (no matter how politely you think you're doing that). When two people do this, you're on your way to a mutually satisfying relationship.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Yes this is also true. It's also largely irrelevant to the discussion since as far as I can see, no one has said anything even close to the idea that one should demand any form of sex.

But they have...just not in a direct way.