Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Need help coping with a sexless marriage

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$1,048.00
Goal
$1,038.00
handy,

As I mentioned, Paul is saying his thoughts not God's will or commandment. He even goes ahead to suggest to remain as unmarried in 1Cor 7:8.

Just to remind you God did not create Adam alone. He also created Eve because it was God who said, it is NOT god for man to be alone - which contradicts Paul's suggestion.

What Paul is suggesting "to remain unmarried" is exactly described as "doctrine of demons" by himself in his first letter to Timothy. 1Tim 4:1-3.

His suggestion also contradicts many other verses like Prov 18:22 which speaks about favor from God for finding a wife.

Hence, his thoughts on this chapter are his own not God's as the verse itself clearly says in 1Cor 7:6 and Paul is not asking them to do but suggesting based on his knowledge.
 
The NKJV is wrongly translated using the word 'touch' Felix. First of all, it makes NO sense in light of verse 2 and even it it was a proper connotation, v2 would give it the proper meaning. BTW, verses 1-7 deal with married couples ONLY.

1 Corinthians 7

Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament (MOUNCE)

7 Now concerning the matters you wrote about. Yes, “It is good for a man not to have sexual contact with a woman.†<sup class="versenum">2 </sup>But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. <sup class="versenum">3 </sup>The husband should fulfill his marital responsibility to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. <sup class="versenum">4 </sup>For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. <sup class="versenum">5 </sup>Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a set time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer; then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. <sup class="versenum">6 </sup>This I say by way of concession, not of command. <sup class="versenum">7 </sup>I wish that all men were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.


The woman in that verse is not referring to wife of the man touching her but some other woman not married to him. Paul is just referring the below:

(Prov 6:29) So [is] he who goes in to his neighbor's wife; Whoever touches her shall not be innocent.

Even touching another man's wife is sin.
 
Wow, Felix...now you're accusing Paul of promoting a doctrine of demons... when he simply gave his stated opinion, making sure that we all knew, even 2000 years later that it was his stated opinion, suggesting (not forbidding) that it would be better not to marry during the then present time of distress (vs26)?

Any other lengths you're going to go to, to get around the fact that a husband is not free to marry another if his wife, who has authority over his body (that part isn't Paul's opinion, that's truth) doesn't want him to?
 
Wow, Felix...now you're accusing Paul of promoting a doctrine of demons... when he simply gave his stated opinion, making sure that we all knew, even 2000 years later that it was his stated opinion, suggesting (not forbidding) that it would be better not to marry during the then present time of distress (vs26)?

A stated opinion does not add more weight-age over the laws and commandments given by God. If it is a law or a commandment "from" God through His prophets or apostles (like even Paul himself), then it is a different matter.

While I honor his opinions, neither marrying to one virgin nor having multiple wives is a sin.

Holy Spirit specifically put the verse 1Cor 7:6 for us to clearly know and understand that it is Paul's opinion not God's commandment.
 
The woman in that verse is not referring to wife of the man touching her but some other woman not married to him. Paul is just referring the below:

(Prov 6:29) So [is] he who goes in to his neighbor's wife; Whoever touches her shall not be innocent.

Even touching another man's wife is sin.

Of course it is felix. Why would Paul teach something that was ALREADY a known fact. Sex outside of marriage was and is wrong and a sin before God. Within the context of these verses Paul was talking about a married couple. Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin, and to be so he had to be a Rabbi, have been married and have at least on child. He was an expert in the Torah and Mosaic Laws.
He not referring to Prov 6:29, because he says it is his opinion, which obviously means he is NOT using Proverbs 6:29 to support the view you say he is teaching. It was unique to the time and place and was to married couples. Context, Context, Context.
 
Of course it is felix. Why would Paul teach something that was ALREADY a known fact. Sex outside of marriage was and is wrong and a sin before God. Within the context of these verses Paul was talking about a married couple. Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin, and to be so he had to be a Rabbi, have been married and have at least on child. He was an expert in the Torah and Mosaic Laws.
He not referring to Prov 6:29, because he says it is his opinion, which obviously means he is NOT using Proverbs 6:29 to support the view you say he is teaching. It was unique to the time and place and was to married couples. Context, Context, Context.

It is not a "known" fact in some communities who don't live as husband and wife but as a group where men will have any women. Also, in those days, neither Corinth nor any of the gentile churches had any Torah or the Scriptures. Only these kinds of letters gave them instructions to follow.

It is ironic for Paul to say to any man not to touch his wife.
 
It is not a "known" fact in some communities who don't live as husband and wife but as a group where men will have any women. Also, in those days, neither Corinth nor any of the gentile churches had any Torah or the Scriptures. Only these kinds of letters gave them instructions to follow.

It is ironic for Paul to say to any man not to touch his wife.

Paul wasn't addressing "some communities", he was addressing the church. It is obvious to ANY believer that commal sex is wrong and against God's Law. You assume the Torah was not there and you assume none of those believers were Jewish converts. You would be wrong. These kind of letters brought the written Laws into NC perspective. That was Paul's mission.


It was a know fact to Paul and the believers he was writing to. Note, that in verse 1 he writes, Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” <sup class="crossreference" value='(A)'></sup> The matters are between the quotation marks. That is the letter he received from them that he is addressing. I'll repeat myself for the 3rd time, it was his opinion, not a command. He had a perspective they didn't and obviously he had the letter they wrote him that we don't. He dealt with what he perceived the issue to be in their preceding letter. He wasn't trying to superced any Laws of God.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Paul was addressing "some communities", he was addressing the church. It is obvious to ANY believer that commal sex is wrong and against God's Law. You assume the Torah was not there and you assume none of those believers were Jewish converts. You would be wrong. These kind of letters brought the written Laws into NC perspective. That was Paul's mission.


It was a know fact to Paul and the believers he was writing to. Note, that in verse 1 he writes, Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.†<sup class="crossreference" value='(A)'></sup> The matters are between the quotation marks. That is the letter he received from them that he is addressing. I'll repeat myself for the 3rd time, it was his opinion, not a command. He had a perspective they didn't and obviously he had the letter they wrote him that we don't. He dealt with what he perceived the issue to be in their preceding letter. He wasn't trying to superced any Laws of God.

Come on!!! Isn't silly for Paul to say not to have sex with his wife in the first verse and in the next verse to have his own wife?
 
Correct...he is not to seize his legitimate right of way, just a motorist would not do that at a four way stop, unless he was prepared to deal with the potential consequences. The greater principle of godly love dictates that a man consider his wife's emotional and physical well being above his own selfish desires. That means cautiously seeing if right of way is first going to be given to you, before you seize it in the surety of your right to do so.




I'm not surprised at all at your spiritless, legalistic application of the passage. Not surprised at all.

Solomon's blessing is that you always find delight in your wife's breasts and not become dissatisfied with her someday, not that you would have unlimited, unhindered access to your wife's breast. How ridiculous.

He neednt seize anything, its afforded in scripture. You are coming from what is already a flawed model where the mans advances can look like seizing. No. Like was stated, getting your frequency sorted is necessary, bit NEVER is it necessary to seize sex in marriage, nor earn it, nor set up something thats perfect enough that its time to ice it. These follow the evangelical feminist model of emphasizing benevolence over the rest of the scripture, this exegesis is pure churchian feminism
 
Come on!!! Isn't silly for Paul to say not to have sex with his wife in the first verse and in the next verse to have his own wife?



That's the whole point, Paul is NOT saying DON'T have sex. He says, even in the NKJV; "It is good for a man not to touch a woman."
Again this was NOT his command or suggestion, it was the title of the letter he received from that church previously. Basically it was the title of HEIR letter to him, NOT the title of his letter to them. I don't know how else to help you see this.
You are NOT getting the proper meaning and context of this scripture.
 
Too bad this thread got de-railed into a silly exegetical argument. How about some practical advice?

To the OP if you're still around: Here's he harsh truth- your wife doesn't find you sexually attractive any more. Everything else is most likely justification and window dressing for that fact. It's not her fault, attraction is chemical, but at root that's the problem. You can't change her, but you can change you. I could list lots of ways to do that, but others can do much better than I. Check out <a href=http://marriedmansexlife.com/>Athol Kay's</a> blog and read his book, it's spot on for dealing with your situation. His advice is simple. Stop trying to change her, and change yourself into the best man you can be. Understand what gets a woman going sexually and make a plan to be that. Best case scenario you start pulling attention of other women and it shakes up the status quo in your marriage. Once your wife starts seeing that you have other options, she will very likely be miraculously healed from her 'emotional problems' and at least try and hold on to her meal ticket, if not start being truly attracted to you once again. It's worked very well for many men, check out the new forums for their stories.

I like a good theological debate as much as anyone, but sometimes you just have to get real and practical when people are hurting.
 
Being a newbie to this forum I came across this topic. A sexless marriage opens the door for satan to enter your marriage. God gives us a manual what to due with our bodies. A sexless marriage imo can lead to sexual sins that are different from other sins that can put strongholes on christians.
 
I hope this will help you: In my own marriage, there were times when my husband and I didn't have sex for months, because I was not interested. It had nothing to do with him. I love my husband very much, but the root cause of my lack of interest was pregnancy and birth control. When my hormones are not in balance, I lose all sexual desire. I know this is not true for all women, but it is true for many of them. Doctors can do a blood test to check your wife's hormone levels. If it is a hormonal issue, it's an easy fix. It is worth checking out =) . I will keep you in my prayers. Best Wishes!
 
When husband and wife get married they make a commitment in front of God. No man or woman should reject their spouse sexual. Sexual intercourse isn't the only method of pleasure. We must have these frank conversations with our spouses. Don't let the devil enter your marriage.
 
Dear Frustr8ed

There are a lot of ways to handle this. You'll need to pray and get peace about whatever choice you choose.

Someone recommended Ahtol Kay's book. Be careful with that stuff. Part of his strategy is exercising, dressing smart and looking attractive. Another part of it is getting attention from other women and letting your wife know you will leave her if she doesn't live up to her end of the marriage bargain. There may be some good things to try. One good strategy I've seen at the site-- not unique to there-- but good nonetheless is if your wife goes ballistic, yells at you, or talks to you with disrespect is to just to disengage. Tell her she can't talk to you unless she talks to you respectfully. No yelling, etc. That's the one good thing I can think of from that philosophy. There may be some other useful things. There are some interesting thoughts there, but you definitely don't want to accept the whole philosophy.

One thing that whole philosophy stresses is that women like men who lead them and kind of give them boundaries on their behavior. They push a little, maybe scolding, nagging, yelling, or asking you to do stuff for them that they think they want you to do. But when you coddle them, they respect you less and are less attracted to you. So if you won't tolerate yelling, nagging, and won't engage or reward the behavior, that's more attractive to them. If you won't go to the store to buy some stuff for them when you are busy and they can do it themselves, they are supposed to be more attractive to you. Kind of like the idea that women don't really want what they say they want. Or they think they want it, but they want a man to lead them. The guy who capitulates to his wife is called 'beta' and the strong leader type is called ''alpha''-- though there is good beta in being a good provider and family man, too. That's the general idea of that philosophy. Be careful with it because the author is an atheist and is not anti-divorce. He recommends using divorce as a kind of threat and motivator to make women shape up and do their part in marriage.

There are different ways to recommend this:

1. Spiritual angle.

- Study the Bible and pray with your wife. Study I Corinthians 7 on fulfilling marital duties to one another. Ask her how she's doing. She might resist discussing it if it's just you, so you can bring in some kind of outside expertise.

There is a survey in the back of His Needs, Her Needs-- secular, but it's got some good stuff in it. The book tells readers that they are to meet each other's sexual needs. You could have her read Dr. Laura's book on the proper care and feeding of husbands to hear the same thing from someone with Dr. in her name who is not a psychologist. I haven't read all of either book, btw, so I can't take responsibility for it.

There is a book The Excellent Wife I thumbed through, which encourages wives to have sex with their husbands whenever they want it. I disagree with the period sex being okay. That's specifically mentioned in scripture, a sin for the Gentiles in the Old Testament-- perhaps included in 'porneia' in Acts 15 in my opinion. But she is down on other sex acts the Bible doesn't condemn, which she describes as homosexual or gay.

The good thing is it does tell wives to have sex. I haven't read the whole book either.

You can read through books on marriage with her taking the angle that you both need to work on your marriage.

Pray with your wife every night. Take devotions seriously. Pray about her fears and the sex issue whenever you pray. Keep it as a topic on the table for discussion all the time.

2. The serious talk.

I wish my wife would give me more sex, but we probably meet the national average these days. We've got little ones.

I think it was after the first child, I gave her a break, of course, to heal up-- but we went with little or no sex for waaaaayyy too long. Six months later we were rarely having sex. I was pursuing. We went from a very active sex life the first year or two to that.

One day, I was talking to her, and I told her the no sex thing had to change. It wasn't right, and I wasn't pleased with it.

3. Hard ball.

If one of your kids isn't doing their responsibility as a child, what do you do? You are head of the house. You probably get firm with the child.

Your wife isn't a child, but she isn't doing her responsibility as a wife. You could take away priviledges.

"If you don't have time to have sex, you don't have time to watch TV/use the computer/IPad, so I sold the TV/computer/IPad while you are out. If you show you can manage your time well enough to meet your obligations as a wife, we can talk about getting the TV/computer/IPad back."

Insist she move back into the bed with you, sell the other bed. Then tell her to sleep on the couch if she won't sleep with you.

The thing is, you don't want to imbitter your wife or tempt her to sin. So keep your thumb on the pulse of her emotions and don't push her so hard that you'll tempt her into some kind of sin if you 'discipline' her in this way. Since it's psychological in her case, some of this stuff might be way too extreme. But here is one last one.

Church discipline. She's embarrassed about her church knowing. Study church discipline in the Bible-- Matthew 18, I Corinthians 5, and various other passages. She's sinning by defrauding you. So tell her if she doesn't shape up, your going to get two or three other witnesses to confront her about her sin. Schedule a meeting with a pastor from your church and his wife. While he's about to coming to the room, tell her you are going to go through the Matthew 18 process and they will be another witness to it. Then have a counseling session. Be sure to mention how you expect them to take obeying Christ's command to 'bring it before the church' seriously if your wife does not repent.

That may seem extreme, but these are the 'hardball' suggestions after all. Maybe these thoughts will get your ideas going. You may have to take more drastic measures than you are now, but use the least amount of pressure necessary to get satisfactory results.

It's possible your wife is kind of depressed. You could look up supplements to help for that, and get her to exercise. Go jogging or swimming with her. That might help with depression or other emotional problems.

If you can find some research that shows that sex is good for the heart, you may be able to get her to have sex for medical reasons, too.

What she is doing is wrong. She is wronging you. She's opening you up for more temptation. She's hurting your marriage by depriving both of you of the physical intimacy that comes from sex together. It's not good for you. It's not good for her whether she realizes it or not. Sinning against the Lord is not good for you either.
 
I'd say a wife who doesn't like sex is guilty of abuse. But, I have no idea how to fix such a situation. I see there was a suggestion of something romantic. A woman who doesn't like sex probably doesn't like romance, either. And, instead of helping, the failed attempt at romance would just breed anger and frustration.

I like the idea of hardball. But, before going that route, I'd weigh the risk of destroying the marriage. I'd prefer to stay married in a sexless relationship, living as house mates, than to be divorced. (At least on an a theological level.)

The use of force, even something like getting rid of the extra bed, likely won't work any more than attempting romance. This calls for craftiness. Get a dog and get it to pee on her bed at bed time. That way she won't hold it against you that she doesn't have another bed to sleep in. Hide the clean sheets.

Dump some gross bugs into her bed. The psychological effect will make her afraid of the bed, even when the bugs are removed and the sheets cleaned. If not, repeat.

Ply her with liquor. But, let me guess, she won't drink. Talk to a psychologist about a prescription of something that help.

Maybe feign interest in another woman. Fear of losing you might cause her to be more possessive.

I'm clueless.
 
If you think a sexless marriage is bad - try sexless singleness.

At least you aren't going thru life alone.




Or, maybe you are - in which case, sex is not the problem.
 
If you think a sexless marriage is bad - try sexless singleness.

Nope, I think sexless marriage is worse.

The person who is suppose to want to have sex with you doesn't want to. That's worse than a person who's not suppose to have sex with you not wanting having sex with you. One makes you angry, the other doesn't.

The single person has hope of getting married and having sex. A man married to a woman who doesn't like sex has no hope (I hope I'm wrong).

There is that point of a married man not being alone. Small consolation. And, that's what friends are for.
 
I'll admit that I haven't read all the posts in this thread, but I get the jist of it.
Here's an editied version of what I posted on a similar thread:

It pains me to say this, but you are not by any means alone. Indeed, it is my perception that you describe a very common situation. It seems to me that at some point many women find that they really have no use for a man in their life. They have no interest in sex, and for them it becomes an obligation for which they resent the man. Making dinner is a tiresome job which they would rather not do and feel it is unfair that they should have to do it, (while not appreciating the fact that the man goes to work every single day to provide a nice life for them). This adds to the resentment. I realize I am making assumptions about your particular relationship, but this is my personal experience and that of people I know.

You
should NOT move out of the house if you decide to separate or divorce. In many states the person who moves out is declared the “abandoner” and loses many rights. When my cousin divorced he stayed in the house until the divorce was final, IIRC, for this reason. It would be interesting to see what your wife has to say if you tell her you think you have a sham marriage and you will be filing for formal separation.

It sounds to me that this woman is just taking advantage of you. She has some mental health issues and is using those to escape doing anything she doesn't want to do.
I disagree with the notion that it is your fault for somehow becoming unattractive. If that were true she should have told you so and what you need to do about it.

Tell her that you'll be doing progressively less around the house. That way she will be able to do them herself after the divorce is final and you have moved out.
If for nothing more than the support and help you provide her she might change her tune.

I know this sounds harsh, but it really sounds like she is behaving like a spoiled, manipulative child and needs some tough love.
 
Back
Top