SWM 061 – September 2020 Questions – High Drive Wives, Being Too Wet, Polyamory and more

Jay Dee

SWM 061 – September 2020 Questions – High Drive Wives, Being Too Wet, Polyamory and more

Oct 27, 2020

Topics include:
Husbands who refuse sex
Being too wet
Pegging
Dreams
Needing different kinds of foreplay
Polyamory
Cuckolding

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Podcast Episode 61
Anonymous Questions From September 2020
Topics include:
Husbands who refuse sex
Being too wet
Pegging
Dreams
Needing different kinds of foreplay
Polyamory
Cuckolding

October has nearly come and gone, so it’s time to get September’s questions answered and published so we can make room for October’s.

Before we get to that though, take a minute and check out our latest survey if you haven’t filled it out yet.  We’re hoping to hit over 2,000 responses again, but need some help as we have a shorter time frame this time around.

As well, Christmas is coming up, and that means our Intimacy Advent Calendar will be opening up for purchase again.  So, here’s what we’re going to do.  If you become a supporter of our blog during the month of November of $5/month or more, you’ll get it free as our thanks.  For those who are already supporters in that tier, don’t worry, you’ll get it free as well.

With that out of the way, let’s get started on the questions.

Question 1 & 2

There are actually two similar questions here, so I’m going to read them both as I think the same answer applies to both of them.

Hi, my question involves having a spouse that has continuously refused sex. I know it is uncommon but it is my husband refusing sex. We did not have sex before marriage and his lack of interest started from day one. We had sex more regularly while trying to conceive but after my daughter was born six years ago we likely have had sex less than six times. Currently it has been two years since any intimacy. Honestly it has broken me – my self esteem, my desire to serve him as I should as a wife and homemaker, I don’t sleep well at night and my health has suffered. He has been sleeping in another room for over a year. Being in the same bed is too painful for me. He is fine with this arrangement. There is sexual abuse in his past. I have tried to get counseling but he always says he doesn’t want to go because they will just say everything is his fault. Is this grounds for divorce? I am 47 years old and this is my first marriage, his second. We have been married for seven years. We are literally roommates. Yet he says he loves me and can’t imagine life without me. There is no emotional intimacy for us whatsoever. Is this considered abandoning our marriage? Thank you


Hi. My dilemma seems to be scarcely discussed. Any time someone looks for advice regarding a sexless marriage, it’s always a woman saying “no” and the Christian community attacks her with the fury of a thousand suns. They quote scripture and shred her to pieces for not doing her God-given duty of putting out when and where her husband demands it.

My situation is a little different. See, I’m a woman. And my husband has decided that sex is off the table. Period. End of Conversation. Full Stop. I can quote scripture all day long. We can see therapists, pastors, and the occasional “friend who’s been there” – also always a man- and come to no resolution. For some bizarre reason when a woman chooses to become celibate within her marriage, the wrath of God is conjured. If a man does, then it’s probably a medical reason, or the wife isn’t attractive anymore….etc, etc, etc.

I’m lonely. I want a physical relationship. I WANT TO HAVE SEX! What am I supposed to do? Live a life as a proverbial nun? Leave him and find someone else? What do I do?

It’s not as uncommon as you’d think.  My best guess is that in about 1 out of 10 marriages, the husband is actively refusing to have sex.  That doesn’t help a whole lot, except to say that you aren’t alone.

Now, you say you’ve tried to get counseling, but he refused – what about getting counseling for yourself?  Whatever his decisions, you need support for you.  I’d start there.  Book the appointment for you, and tell him you’d love for him to join you, but either way, you’re going to counseling.

If you are at the breaking point where you simply can’t take it anymore, then I’d probably let him know that.  If it were me, I’d probably say something like “Dear, I love you, but I can’t continue like this.  I want to have a relationship with you, but I can’t keep suffering like this.  I either need you to get some help, or I need to leave.  I’ve booked an appointment with a counselor for us.  I’d love for our discussion to be about how we can move forward.  Otherwise, my discussion with them will be how I can move on with my life.  Will you come with me?”

That’s a clear message about where you are.  It’s not an ultimatum of “do this, or I walk”.  It’s “this is what I need in order to stay healthy – if you can’t do it, then I need to make a difficult decision for my health”.  

As for whether or not it is grounds for divorce – I feel like I say this every month now, but that’s up to you and God.  You vowed to God to love him unconditionally – now you’re breaking that vow.  Be sure the cost of breaking that vow is worth it.  Because getting divorced will damage you, him, and your daughter. And not in a “this is going to hurt” esoteric way.  All the studies we know about divorce tells us that it has a lasting, measurable, negative impact, particularly on children.  It will likely affect her relationships, her education, and her income.  It increases her risk of divorce as well – and it increases your chance of divorce in any subsequent marriage.

So, is it grounds for divorce?  You’ll have to decide that on your own – just be sure you know what the cost is.  I don’t think people often think about that.

If you want to know more about my thoughts on divorce, you can check out this post.

Question 3

My husband and I have been married for just over a year and have only had sex once (a few months after marriage). We have done love-style tests and I am a physical touch kind of person whereas he’s an acts of service kind of guy. But he won’t do more than hold my hand outside of the bedroom, and that’s always only if I initiate it. The topic of intimacy, that doesn’t necessarily mean intercourse, keeps coming up but we keep getting stuck. We are in a long distance marriage so we spend extended periods of time apart so initially I thought he was scared of getting me pregnant and the complications of a child while we were still long distance.

But today he told me that when it comes to sex/intercourse, for him that is limited to the purpose of having kids. He says he can be physical in the bedroom but shuts off when it gets to sex. However, even that has been maybe 4-5 times where he hugs me, kisses me, touches me, dry humps and then rolls over and says good night.

I’m stuck and am having major self-esteem issues because I feel like something is wrong with me and that’s why he isn’t turned on or attracted enough by me to feel that way.

TL: DR : Married just over a year. Long distance.  I crave touch and he thinks intimacy is only for procreation.  Causing conflict and self-esteem issues for me. Is there a way to save our marriage?

Is there a way to save your marriage?  Yeah, absolutely.  But you both have to want to.  Does he know how big of an impact this has on you?  I mean, not just that you’re annoyed or unhappy.  Does he know you’re considering leaving him?  Similar to the above, I’d recommend a clear and unambiguous discussion about how you feel and what is at stake.  Chances are he doesn’t know how serious this is.  

I’d also ask him why he believes that sex is only for procreation.  His answers would probably determine what I’d try next.  If it’s for religious reasons – I’d ask if he’s willing to do a Bible study like Intimacy Ignited.  If it’s because of past abuse – I’d ask him to see a therapist.  If it’s because of a lack of desire – I’d ask him to see a doctor and get his hormones checked.

Is there hope for your marriage?  Yeah, definitely, but you have to both want it and talk about what that marriage will look like and then how to get there.

Question 4

Embarrassing amount of wetness. Whenever we have sex or any kind of intimacy I get really wet to point where it is embarrassing especially if spending night at friends. Even hotel sheets need to be changed. I don’t squirt or anything like that. Any suggestions?

As a matter of fact I do.  This question comes up from time to time and it turns out that Married Dance actually carries a blanket to help with this exact thing.  The description for it reads “creates a soft playscape that protects your bedding or furniture from your wettest erotic adventures”.  It has an inner moisture barrier to help prevent leaks through it, so your friend’s beds won’t get wet.  So, I’d say get one of those, toss it on the bed before sex, then take it off again to sleep.

Question 5

My wife came to me with the idea of pegging. It makes her horny. Is this something new for women that want to feel manly?

I don’t know.  Why don’t you ask her why she want’s to do it?  It could be that she wants to feel “manly”, or it could be that she simply thinks you’ll enjoy it due to the prostate stimulation.  

Question 6

I have had a few dreams that included my wife. When I woke up I was really angry with her for what she did in my dream. I know, intellectually, that it did not really happen, but that does not take away the feelings of anger and separation.  Can you give me some advice for dealing with this?

For me, I think the first thing to distinguish is that it wasn’t your wife in the dream.  It was something that looked like your wife in a dream.  It’s sort of like if your wife was a twin, and the other twin did something awful, would that cause you to be upset at your wife?  Likely not.  You’d be used to the separation.  So, maybe think of the “dream wife” as a twin, not actually your wife, rather than it being your wife that didn’t actually do the thing you dreamt of.  I’m not sure if that distinction will help or not, but it’s worth a try.

Other than that, the best way I know to create feelings of love for someone is to act as if you love them.  Our brains are sort of funny in that  it doesn’t care a whole lot about the order of cause and effect.  For example, if you smile, you’ll become happier.  In fact, even holding your mouth in a smile position without actually smiling will make you happier.  Our brains don’t care if you were happy first or smiled first.  It just knows “Oh, I’m smiling, I must be happy.  Oh, I’m happy, I should smile”.

And there have been times when I was quite upset with my wife.  So, I did the dishes for her.  By the time I was done with the dishes, I wasn’t upset anymore.  However, the trick is, you have to do them out of love – not out of anger.  You can be angry while doing it, but the motivation has to be love.

So, act as if you love her, with your motivation being love, and I think you may find that those negative feelings might dissipate.

One of our supporters in the forum shared what she does, and I thought it was so good, I’m just going to cut and paste it here:

When this happens, I will tell hubby about the dream, expressing I know its silly. I understand my need to work through those feelings. Talking about the dream helps in a few ways:

  1. I’m communicating, which helps bridge separation.
  2. It helps him know the reason behind any weird attitudes or actions on my part.
  3. Talking it out actually helps me work through a large part of the issue itself (I am an auditory learner, so hearing myself say it out loud helps me process).

To touch on the above, talking about it could also open up a conversation if there is an issue that has been avoided.

And just to piggyback on what she said, with point #3, our minds have this part that we call the critical faculty.  It’s the part of our mind that decides what is true and what isn’t, based on our beliefs due to past experiences, learnings, etc..  Now, your critical faculty is struggling, because it experienced something in a dream and doesn’t know how to reconcile that.  Now, when this part of our mind thinks it knows something, it’s hard to convince it otherwise.  We will tend to ignore facts, arguments, etc. that go against our belief.  This results in a critical bias.

However, one of the ways to shortcut reprogramming our critical faculty is to say things out loud, because our brains tend to believe what we say.  After all, it’s us talking, and we take ourselves very seriously.  This is why negative self-talk is so bad.  It literally reprograms your brain so that you can’t see positive things about yourself.  But, by contrast, it’s also why personal affirmations actually work.  It’s not new age spiritualism, it’s just how our brains are wired.

So, telling your spouse how you’ve been feeling, and how you are choosing to think about them can actually change how you feel.  It might not be instantaneous or immediate, but it can help.

Anyways, there are some practical things to try.

Question 7

My husband introduced me to your podcast and it has been extremely helpful and enlightening. I first off would like to thank you for being willing to speak openly about sex and all things sexually related and answering all of our questions. A little background on myself, I am from a very abusive family when I was a child. I was sexually, mentally, physically abused by family members repeatedly growing up. It didn’t stop until I met my now husband. I thank the Lord every day for him removing me from such a toxic atmosphere and influence. We now have two children together and I have seen my sex drive plummet over the years since we’ve been married. It’s so confusing for me because at times certain ways my husband touches me it will turn me on and others it will bring up a painful memory and I will completely shut down and won’t be able to climax and suddenly lose all interest in any kind of sexual activity. I feel horrible because I know it is hard on my husband because I want to please him and not to withhold anything from him sexually. My husband has always been 100% respectful to me and will never do anything I’m not comfortable with. I feel as though the same kind of foreplay every time is not productive for me, and I have a really difficult time reaching any kind of climax. I guess my question is could my past have a hindrance on not reaching climax? Or could it be needing alternate forms of foreplay?

Alright, so the good news is that you need different kinds of foreplay each time is not unusual, and it’s likely not because of your history of abuse.  Women who have not dealt with abuse still have the same struggle.  It’s a topic of constant frustration for both wives and husbands (about their wives).  Because generally men think logically – if A produced B, then A should produce B every time.  However, women’s sex drives aren’t logical – or at least, they’re so complex than we can’t understand them logically.  And I don’t mean we men, I mean we humans.

Many times, my wife and I will cycle through a few different foreplay attempts before we find something that works.  Sometimes we can’t find one that works and we just try again the next night.  It happens, it’s normal, you’re not broken.

Now, there are some things you can try.  If you want something physical, massages tend to work for a lot of women.  If your husband doesn’t know how to give a good massage, I suggest checking out Melt – I can’t tell you how many people have emailed me saying it changed their marriage.

Now, that said, mental foreplay has a tendency to work for women more reliably than physical foreplay.  That’s one of the reasons I made a bunch of foreplay games.  The guys tend to really like the activities, but for women, it’s more about the context – there’s mystery, because you don’t know what’s going to happen, and there’s a loss of control, but in a good way, because the game is making the choices, and that sense of adventure without responsibility, for many women, is really arousing.

So, that’s my best guess at what’s going on with some ideas to try.

Question 8

Podcast Episode 61
Anonymous Questions From September 2020
Topics include:
Husbands who refuse sex
Being too wet
Pegging
Dreams
Needing different kinds of foreplay
Polyamory
Cuckolding

How widespread is “polyamory” ? Our oldest married son is in this sort of relationship .

John

So, for those who don’t know, polyamory is the philosophy that you can be romantically involved with multiple people at the same time.  How widespread is it?  Under 5% of the population in the US engage in this sort of lifestyle as far as I can tell – and by far the majority are those who also profess to be pan-sexual or bisexual or “other”, as often these individuals don’t like to be labelled.  Unsurprising, the majority (85%) of people in polyamourous relationships are agnostic, atheist, or part of some fringe religion.  In short, this is a lifestyle that isn’t compatible with the Bible’s teachings.  Some may disagree with me on that (there are some “Christians” who engage in polyamory), but to them I say that you have grossly misinterpreted the Bible, either intentionally or not.  It also tends to be younger people who engage in this behaviour, though many grow out of it – sometimes when the relationship ends and they’re disillusioned by reality.

So, ultimately, I fear it will end poorly for your son I’m sorry to say.  As far as I can tell, the vast majority of those types of couples implode with everyone involved hurt.  Often it’s a marriage adding a third person, and when the relationship devolves, the marriage does as well.  And sadly about a quarter of those relationships involve young children in the mix, which damages them as well.

That’s a difficult place to be in as a father.  I don’t envy having to watch that from the sidelines.

Question 9

I am trying to talk to my wife about cuckolding. Is that uncommon?

It’s a little unclear what you’re asking.  Are you talking about cuckolding as in her having a child with another man despite being with you?  If so, the statistics are about 1% of children are the result of cuckoldry.

Or do you simply mean the behaviour of women sleeping with men other than their husband – in short, a specific form of adultery.  That tends to occur about 13% of the time, according to self-reported statistics.  

And then there’s the question of what do you mean by trying to talk to your wife about it?  Are you trying to talk to her about the occurrence statistics from an intellectual perspective or a commentary on society?  Are you trying to convince her to do it? That’s not something I’d recommend.  Or are you concerned your children might not be yours?

To answer them all in rapid succession:

  1. Yes, it happens, and it’s deplorable
  2. No, you should not engage in or encourage this behaviour
  3. Chances are your children are yours, but you could always get a DNA test to prove it – though even asking might damage your relationship with your wife.

That’s it for September’s questions.  But October is wrapping up, so I’ll be starting next month;’s questions soon.  If you have a question of your own, you can email me at jay@uncoveringintimacy.com, or submit it anonymously on our Have A Question page.

Don’t forget to the check out the survey, our Intimacy Advent Calendar, and stay tuned for an announcement about an upcoming webinar, just for wives.

And as always, I want to thank my awesome supporters, without whom, this ministry wouldn’t be possible.  If you’d like to see the questions as they come in, participate in the discussion and possibly have your thoughts contributed to the posts, check out our supporters page for more info.

37 Questions for spouses to ask each other about sex

Subscribe to get the 2 page PDF full of questions to help you and your spouse start to talk about your sex life.

We won't send you spam. Unsubscribe at any time.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

25 thoughts on “SWM 061 – September 2020 Questions – High Drive Wives, Being Too Wet, Polyamory and more”

  1. Laura Fox says:

    If he is refusing to have sex with his wife, most likely he is releasing his sex drive in another way-either with porn or someone else, which is a form of abandonment and vow breaking ON HIS PART, NOT HERS. If she simply puts a name on his actions by labeling it as divorce, to spare herself from his cruelty (malachi 2:10…) then you need to put the blame where it belongs- ON THE ONE WHO IS COMMITTING THE ACT OF DESTRUCTION- NOT THE VICTIM. Please don’t victim blame. His lack of intimacy is a profoundly painful form of emotional, sexual, and spiritual ABUSE to her. If she leaves, GOD will protect, provide, and care for her.

    1. Jay Dee says:

      Hi Laura,

      Careful, you’re said something is “most likely” and then basically assumed it to be true and ascertained that he’s abandoned the marriage and she should leave. What if it’s not true? I’ve spoken to many low-drive husbands who simply have no interest in sex – they’re not watching porn or masturbating. They just don’t have enough of a drive to do either. Some are, but certainly not all. But even if is true, she would have the RIGHT to leave, but that doesn’t mean she should leave. Those are two very different things.

      As well, I absolutely refuse to play into the mentality that the victim is never responsible for anything. It’s extremely rare to find an instance where one person is completely free from any responsibility for issues in a marriage. It’s entirely possible for both people to have responsibilities. That doesn’t mean it’s both of their fault equally. And frankly, I don’t care whose fault something is. I care about responsibility. The husband is not asking what he can do. The wife is, so I’m going to talk about her responsibility, not his, because talking about his is fruitless in this case. We can talk about it all day and it will be a waste of time, because he’s not listening to the conversation. So, I don’t bother talking about the responsibility of the person who isn’t in the conversation. It doesn’t mean I don’t think they have responsibilities.

      Now, if she leaves, will God protect, provide and care for her? Yes, of course, He does that regardless of what we do. So, that’s not an argument to go do whatever we want. That’s basically the point of Romans 6:1-2.

      Rather, we should do what is right. But, even if you think divorce is moral in this case, is it in her best interest? Statistically, if she leaves, there’s only a 50% chance that she’ll be happy in 5 years time according to studies. But, if she stays, there’s a near 80% chance the marriage will improve in that same timeframe. In fact, if I recall, there’s only a 5% chance that she will remain as unhappy as she is now over the next 10 years. Will it be hard in the interim? Absolutely. No doubt about it. But just because something is hard, doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing.

      So, I stand by what I said. I think morally and statistically, she is better off if she sticks with it, so long as it’s not causing harm she cannot recover from – and I can’t say when that limit has been reached – that’s individual. I’m not interested in what’s easy or in avoiding pain. I think simply avoiding difficult situations and pain is a horrible way to live your life. Some of the best things in a life come out of painful experiences.

      I hope that help explain my stance better.

  2. Raphael Tisserand says:

    What do you make of statistics that show that couples involved in the swinging lifestyle and people with fantasies involving their partner sleeping with another person are disproportionately likely to have conservative political views? A lot of those same people are no doubt attending church every Sunday.

    1. Jay Dee says:

      That doesn’t surprise me in the least. I mean, we know Utah, for example, is the porn capital of the US in terms of usage. I’m not exactly sure what causes conservatives in particular to rebel in that manner.
      But also, just because someone says they’re a Christian, or attend church regularly, doesn’t mean they’re perfect. I mean, Germany was 90% Christian when Hitler rose to power. Slavery was at it’s height while the US was a mostly Christian country. Christians make un-Christian-like choices quite often.

      I also think most people who call themselves Christian aren’t actually followers of Christ. As far as I can tell from the Bible, Jesus seemed to think the same thing would happen. So, what do I make of it? Not surprised in the least. Saddened I guess, but not surprised.

      1. Raphael Tisserand says:

        My guess that it has something to do with extramarital sex being a taboo in a conservative worldview. The thrill of the forbidden and all that. Similarly, it has been observed that people with dominance/submission fantasies are disproportionately liberal.

        On a side note, I tend to find most biblical cases against extramarital-sex-with-permission (threesomes, swinging, etc.) to be very lacking. Usually the reasoning consists of:

        -The Bible forbids adultery
        -What is adultery?
        -Well, according to this definition in a modern English dictionary…

        See the problems with assuming the dictionary definition is the same as the biblical definition? It’s easy enough to make a case that it’s a bad idea to engage in it, but if people want to make a case for it being a sin then they’ll have to do better than relying on the dictionary.

        1. Jay Dee says:

          I think one has be intentionally misinterpreting the Bible in order to justify their own lustful desires to believe that swinging is okay. God is quite clear in the Bible – one man, one woman. That formula comes up over and over again. Every time it is broken, even when both spouses agree, it causes massive problems. I could only find on study done on open marriages and divorce, but their findings were pretty damning. 92% of open marriages end in divorce. That’s not something I’d risk my marriage on just for some fun. I think anyone who does is thinking with their genitals.

          Anyways, I have a whole post on it here that goes beyond a “modern English definition” if you’re interested.

          1. Raphael Tisserand says:

            In Jewish law as well as ancient culture in general, a married man sleeping with an unmarried woman wasn’t considered adultery. Adultery had to involve a married woman somehow. Married man+ married (to someone else) woman=adultery.
            Unmarried man+ married woman= adultery. Married man + unmarried woman= not adultery. Instead that would be fornication, with the man having to marry the woman. In a polygamous society that’s easily done. The marital status of the male made no difference. Right there that’s a difference between the biblical definition of adultery and a modern one.

            1. Jay Dee says:

              Whether sexual immortality, fornication (a specific form of sexual immorality) or adultery (a specific form of fornication), it all amounts to the same thing – it’s sin and clearly not what God intended.
              But whether or not we agree with the modern specific word for sin, or the ancient word for sin – it’s all sin. You don’t get off on a technicality when it comes to following God.

              1. Raphael Tisserand says:

                Fornication was prohibited in the Mosaic Law because it was seen as a property crime against the woman’s father. Hence why the man involved had to marry the woman. “You break it you buy it” to put it crudely.

                Likewise adultery was seen as a form of theft against the woman’s husband.

                Do you or do you not admit that the standard for adultery was not the same for men or women? What are the implications for your views?

                What is sin? What constitutes it? What is your view of ethics? Deontogical, teleological, something else? Is sin just breaking an arbitrary law? Or do the consequences matter? Is an act sin even if there are no negative consequences from it, or even good consequences?

                Do you recognize the distinction between an act that is immoral and an act that is simply an unwide choice?

                1. Jay Dee says:

                  “You break it you buy it” shows how to pay for a wrongdoing. It does not make the wrong a right. Jesus died for our sins – that doesn’t make sin okay.
                  Sin isn’t breaking an arbitrary law, it’s breaking God’s law. The consequences are irrelevant to the discussion, because I don’t believe we are wise enough to know the full consequences of our actions. God is, that’s why He gets to make the law. So, yes, a sin is a sin, even if we can’t perceive the negative consequences.

                  Is there a distinction between an immoral act that is done knowingly or one that is done in ignorance? They’re both sin, so not in that regard. You’re responsible for both. Is it your fault if you act in ignorance? No. The Bible is clear on that. However, you are still responsible for the action, and once you realize what is wrong, you are responsible for repairing what you can, and you are responsible for not doing it again.

                  1. Raphael Tisserand says:

                    I don’t think you understand what I mean by an unwise choice.

                    Most people would say that crossing a busy street without looking is a bad idea, but it’s not inherently immoral. If you do that then you might be lucky and cross the street safely but then again you might not. Either way you probably shouldn’t do it, moral or not.

                    Do you or do you not admit that the biblic standard for adultery/fornication (men weren’t expected to be virgins before marriage like women were) was different for men and women? Is the Bible’s view on sexual ethics primarily a matter of property rights or is it not?

                    What is the nature of God’s Law? Is it unchanging? If it’s unchanging then doesn’t that imply that God’s Law is part of God? Were men created for the law or was the law created for men?

                    1. Jay Dee says:

                      Most people would say that crossing a busy street without looking is a bad idea, but it’s not inherently immoral.

                      I’m not sure about that. If there was a 92% chance that you’d end up being hit by a car and it causing a fatality, then yeah, I think that would be pretty immoral to put yourself and someone else in almost certain danger. And that’s exactly the stat for open marriages – 92% chance that the marriage will die. How can anyone be willing to take on that kind of risk and think it’s not evil for simple physical pleasure?

                      As for the rest, I do not think God’s standard for men and women is different. I think God created laws that were different because of how society was at the time. But I think it’s equally immoral for either side to engage in fornication. However, when you have an inequality in society, acting as if it doesn’t exist doesn’t help anyone. If women lose their value in society because they had sex, then the man who took their perceived value away should be responsible for them. But no, I don’t think the view on sexual ethics is primarily a matter of property rights.

                      So, yes, God’s law is unchanging. How it looks in society, how it’s applied, may change depending on the circumstances.

                      But the fundamental law I’d say pre-exists men – Lucifer’s fall being a prime example. It’s the codified application for mankind that doesn’t pre-exist men.

                    2. Raphael Tisserand says:

                      “I think God created laws that were different because of how society was at the time”.

                      So why not create different laws now?

                      This whole thing illustrates why I find it impossible to get anywhere when talking to people in the Church about sexuality. There a difference in core premises that ensures we end up taking past each other.

                      Here’s how I see moral law:

                      God created moral law. It came into existence at one point; it is not eternal. It is not unchanging, because it went through a pretty big change when went from nonexistent to existent. God is above the law. The law was created for humans with the purpose of fostering peace, order, and good government. God is sovereign over the law. God decides on tbe exception. God can suspend or abrogate the law. God rarely intervenes on Earth. Instead God delegates his Sovereignty through earthly authorities like Church and government. Church and government can suspend or abrogate the law in response to crises and emergent circumstances. The state of the Sexual Market today is just such a “present distress”.

                    3. Jay Dee says:

                      So why not create different laws now?

                      Well, fine, but the different law would be “Thou shalt not swing”, because that would be in keeping with the fundamental truths. But you are asking God to create a law that is, at it’s core, unloving, and He cannot do that.

                      My core premise is that God knows what He’s doing. And I disagree with your premise – The moral law is eternal – love. Does it go through “changes”, not really. I mean, when others were created, it became “Love God and love others”, but that’s not a change, just the core law applied to the new circumstance. The moral law was not created for humans with the purpose of fostering peace. The judicial law was. We know exactly why the moral law was created. It was created so that we could know what sin what. Paul is very clear on that in Romans 7. It has no purpose, but to show us our sin, and by extension, that we are sinful and need a savior.

                      So, God cannot change that. And I disagree that God is sovereign over the moral law – He is constrained by who He is. God is love, ergo, God cannot do anything that is unloving. The moral law is love, so God cannot go against it, because it would be going against Himself. That’s not making God not all-powerful, it’s just showing a logical consistency. You cannot make a square a circle and still have it be a square. You cannot have God violate the law of love and still be a loving God.

                      Swinging violates that law of love. The evidence is clear – 92% of the time, it causes direct destruction of the relationship! I mean, how do you get around that? That’s pretty damning. If there was a law saying “Don’t eat pineapples” because 92% of the time you eat a pineapple, it would kill you, who in their right mind would ask for that law to be changed? How could a government, whose job it is to protect it’s citizens, abrogate that law in good conscience? In what possible crisis or emergency would it be wise to?

                      And the only way you think that it’s still a good idea is that you believe you are smarter than 92% of the population. That’s quite the prideful statement. And that just means your marriage won’t neccessarily end in divorce. That doesn’t mean it won’t be damaged still. We don’t have a stat on that, but I’d guess it’s near 100%, even for self-reporting people who may not realize to what extent their marriage was damaged.

                      As for the the current state of the sexual market – it is in that state because people aren’t following God’s laws. Abrogating those laws isn’t going to help. It’s just going to push the state even further away from what God intended, causing more problems. You can’t get a car to stop by hitting the gas pedal harder. If you’re country’s crime rate is on the rise, you don’t remove the laws calling things a crime to lower it – that’s the wrong approach!

                      So, no, I’m not going to help you justify a life of sin that will almost certainly harm you, and anyone else involved. That wouldn’t be loving, and I cannot do that and claim to follow a loving God. The two don’t seem to be compatible as far as I can tell.

  3. Raphael Tisserand says:

    I’m not sure where you get the 92% figure from. Studies show that the divorce rate is either the same as the average or only slightly above average.

    Anyway, it’s clear that we have different philosophical views that we aren’t going to convince each other of. Funny how a series of disputes on sexuality turns out to be rooted in our views on the nature and purpose of morality in general.

    “It has no purpose, but to show us our sin, and by extension, that we are sinful and need a savior”.

    I think you’re confusing the Mosiac Law with moral law in general. If moral law has no purpose beyond showing us what sin is then why continue to follow it? Sin is breaking the law. If the law’s only purpose is to show us what sin is then it’s a law that was literally made to be broken. How is that a law at all?

    If there’s an increase in the crime rate then you examine why people increasingly feel the need to commit crimes. And no, it isn’t because they’re just bad people.

    You know why I continue to comment here despite not even being married? Because resources for singles are worse than useless. They’re prudish, aimed at teenagers, and offer only individual solutions to systemic problems.

    “Just don’t do it. Read the Bible, pray, but don’t question why you have to live like this”.

    1. Jay Dee says:

      Studies show that the divorce rate is either the same as the average or only slightly above average.

      For same-sex couples, yes. Not for heterosexual ones. The only figure I can find for hetero couples is 92%. Though I’ll admit, the body of work is lacking.

      “It has no purpose, but to show us our sin, and by extension, that we are sinful and need a savior”.
      I think you’re confusing the Mosiac Law with moral law in general.

      No, I’m not. The mosaic law, or rather, the the subset that is the ceremonial law, was put in place in order to show us what Christ would do. That’s why it’s no longer needed – because that portion was fulfilled.
      The judicial part of mosaic law was there in order to promote a healthy society. We have different judicial systems now, so we don’t follow this subset of the mosaic law.

      But the moral law has no expiration date.

      Sin is breaking the law. If the law’s only purpose is to show us what sin is then it’s a law that was literally made to be broken. How is that a law at all?

      Jesus managed to keep the law, and yet, He paid the price for us, who cannot. That is the point. But that doesn’t mean you can go on breaking the law. I think Romans 6 addresses that directly.

  4. Raphael Tisserand says:

    “the moral law has no expiration date”

    Moral law is not coeternal with God. It is not an inherent attribute of God. Morality was created for the benefit of people. People change. Circumstances change. Different groups of people need different laws. One law for the lion and ox is oppression.

    Romans 6 isn’t relevant here. That’s about the question of whether people should willingly sin in order to receive more grace. But what is sin?

    My position all along has been that a strict standard of “deprivation for unmarried people/strict monogamy for married people” was a cultural standard that need not be followed today. As I’ve pointed out, according to mosaic law and the culture of the time a married man was free to have sex with a prostitute, concubine, slave, or even an unmarried virgin (provided he married her afterward). Similarly an unmarried male was not expected to be a virgin at the time of his wedding the same way a woman was. Notice that mosaic law only seems to care whether a woman is a virgin or not. I don’t see any churches preaching that standard nowadays. People change. Conditions change. Even if extramarital sex is a sin then the church and/or government had the authority to suspend that moral standard in light of current conditions.

    Do you believe that the Bible is coeternal with God? Is there an original Bible in heaven that is a part of God?

    “it is in that state because people aren’t following God’s laws”. And why aren’t they? No, “because they’re sinners” isn’t an answer. Sex and the desire to engage in it is not inherently a wrong desire. So why isn’t the Church’s model working?

    Its obvious that neither of us is going to convince the other to change their core philosophical assumptions. People rarely change theme due to rational argument. It’s almost always an intuitive decision. So one of us will have to accept the other’s premises for the sake of argument.

    1. Jay Dee says:

      Moral law is not coeternal with God.

      You believe we will be able to worship other gods in heaven? Or maybe use God’s name vain? Do you believe we will be allowed to murder? To steal? Now, some laws may not be applicable anymore, but that doesn’t mean the law is no longer true.

      The moral law is moral because it is right vs wrong – good vs evil – God vs not God (sin). That will never change.

      Different groups of people need different laws.

      Now you’re jumping to group identity politics it sounds like. Ox and lions aren’t sentient – morality doesn’t apply to them. But when it comes to humans, humans can be part of multiple groups at the same time, and an infinite number of groups. Eventually what group politics leads to is that you’d need a law for each individual. Which means, there is no law. This is a call for relative morality, which also implies relative truth. It’s the rejection of anything absolutely, and ultimately the argument from that side is that there is no God.

      No, that argument only leads to atheism. You cannot play the group politics game and maintain that you’re a Christian.

      “it is in that state because people aren’t following God’s laws”. And why aren’t they? No, “because they’re sinners” isn’t an answer. Sex and the desire to engage in it is not inherently a wrong desire. So why isn’t the Church’s model working?

      “Because they’re sinners” is the answer! That’s the entire point of this life! To show we are sinners, to prove sin is destructive. You cannot change the purpose of the experiment halfway through just because you don’t like the results. Now, you are well within your rights to choose sin if you want. But you cannot then say you are a Christian at the same time. It’s not “the Church’s model”. It’s God’s law.

      As I’ve pointed out, according to mosaic law and the culture of the time a married man was free to have sex with a prostitute

      I’d like to see that verse.

      1. Raphael Tisserand says:

        I have explained to you multiple times that in ancient culture adultery was defined strictly as someone sleeping with another man’s wife. The marital status of the man involved did not matter. Prostitution wasn’t considered an honourable profession but was never illegal, even in Ancient Israel. Proverbs 6:26 even gives it grudging acceptance (make sure its the right translation). You can look this stuff up yourself.

        Did God break His own law when he told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac? Would Abraham have sinned by sacrificing Isaac if God had not stopped him? God is sovereign! God created morality. God is above the law. God created the law for the benefit of people. Did the law exist before any other created thing? Who was it made for if so?

        All politics is identity politics. I really don’t like having to go here but you brought it up. People are different. People are not equal. “Humanity” is an abstraction. A law for all people is a law for none.

        “That’s the entire point of this life! To show we are sinners to, to prove sin is destructive”.
        No it isn’t. And it’s disturbing that you’d think that. As if God made the human species as some kind of science experiment to prove a point to…Himself I guess.

        Why do 90% of people have sex outside of marriage currently? Why is marriage declining? What went wrong? What changed? Why did the Sexual Revolution eat the Church’s lunch?

        1. Jay Dee says:

          Just realized you’re “Eric” from the other post. Thought the arguments sounded familiar.

          I checked 29 versions of Proverbs 6:26. In none of them does it give anything resembling acceptance of prostitutes. An acknowledgment that they exist? Yes. But that’s not the same thing. If I say “murders exist”, that’s not a grudging acceptance that it’s okay to murder.

          God stopped Abraham before going through with it – not a good example.

          Yeah, people are different. Everyone is different and unique. That was my point – identity politics are useless because once you fractionate down smaller and smaller groups, eventually what you’re left with is an individual.

          The point of life, so far as I can see it, is to prove to us humans that sin is bad. Not to God, He knows. But we’re a bit more stubborn. I have a post about that coming out later, so I won’t belabour the point.

          Why do 90% of people have sex outside of marriage currently? Why is marriage declining? What went wrong? What changed? Why did the Sexual Revolution eat the Church’s lunch?

          The answer to all these is that people decided they know better than God. And it’s not a sudden change. It’s been happening for a long time. First you say God didn’t know what He was talking about when He created Sabbath, so we move it to Sunday. That takes out God as Creator, because well, if God created us, then He probably knows what He’s doing. Can’t have that. Then you focus on Jesus as savior, rather than Lord and teach that the moral law is no longer needed. Well, that gets rid of accountability. And we stopped preaching Revelation, the book that was supposed to warn us that all this would happen. This process has been long in the making. Satan knows what he’s doing. He’s infiltrated the church, starting with the largest one, long ago. There are very few Christians left who follow God.

          It just hit some sort of critical mass during the 60s. I’d say technological improvements were the reason – whenever we appear to get smarter, we tend to take another leap forward in thinking we’re smarter than God. Since the pill was invented, it’s been accelerating. I think it’s because it further “freed” people from responsibility. But, priviledges without responsibility is a dangerous thing.

          I think the world is showing the results of this. Why is it collapsing – because people think they’re God. And they’re not good enough to be, and they’re no longer bound by the restrictions that were designed to protect them. But, again, Revelation is clear that this all would happen. That those who follow God would be a remnant of a remnant. And it’s because people think like you do – that you’re smarter than God. He clearly didn’t know what He was doing, and so you are looking to correct Him. If you haven’t already, you will eventually turn God into some sort of genie – granting you whatever you want. And that will be terrible for you. Because humans do not know what is good for them. That’s why we need the law.

          So, here we are, in the midst of an experiment. Most people don’t agree that God is good. And they’re destroying their lives, the lives of people around them, and our planet in the process. In the name of what is “kind” and “tolerant” and “fair”, they undo every one of God’s commands, destroying themselves in the process.

          1. Raphael Tisserand says:

            I thought you already knew who I was. You told me you read (most of) that Michel Houellebecq book so I thought you’d have recognized the name.

            Here’s the situation: a large number of people are either shut out of sexual access completely or they resort to risky/destructive means of getting it. What caused this? The Pill has something to do with it, sure. But I don’t the lack of birth control would have changed much. People would still have sex. The Pill just helped mitigate some of the risks from it. And what can be done to correct the market?

            No, “because of sin” is not the answer for why. Blaming sin is a cop out. Sin is an abstract concept. You may as well blame “badness” for everything wrong in the world. It’s true, I guess, but it doesn’t mean much. The solution also isn’t “everyone should stop sinning”, for the same reason. If someone finds it too difficult to find a spouse is “just stop sinning” actually going to solve that?

            I’m not going to comment on the Sunday thing.

            And sorry, but the notion that “the point of life is to prove to us humans that sin is bad” sounds insane. That’s putting the cart before the horse. If God hadn’t created humans then He wouldn’t need to show us that in the first place. So why make us at all? I can think of a lot of other objections to that idea, but this is the most obvious one that comes to mind.

            “A prostitute can be had for a loaf of bread…” The meaning of Proverbs 6:26 is “better to visit a prostitute than to commit adultery”. In other words, maybe not a good idea but it’s better than the alternative. What do you make of the fact that prostitution was not illegal in ancient Israel?

            1. Jay Dee says:

              No one owes you sex. Sex is not a right. But I guess that’s the fundamental difference. You believe it is.
              I just realized have the incel ideology.

              incel – a member of an online community of young men who consider themselves unable to attract women sexually, typically associated with views that are hostile toward women and men who are sexually active.

              As for the prostitute argument, it’s not a one is better than the other. It’s a one is bad, the other is even worse. Neither is good.

              But I can see why you want to justify prostitutes. The last conversation ended when you said you thought the church should provide prostitutes for men, or at least force it’s single females to have sex with it’s single men. That’s where this argument leads, as with the last one – with raping women because you think sex is owed to you.

              1. Raphael Tisserand says:

                Of course no-one is owed access to sex. Nobody is owed anything in life. But neither should people have to face unnecessary obstacles toward it.

                I didn’t say that the Church should provide prostitutes nor force anyone to have sex with anyone. Don’t put words in my mouth. I said that the Church needs to allow some kind of sexual activity for unmarried people. Not provide. Allow. Draw up some conditions where it can be permissible, even if you aren’t married. Telling unmarried people that sexual activity of any kind is a sin presents just such an unnecessary obstacle. I don’t know what those conditions may end up looking like or what, if any, solution can be found. But it’s a conversation the Church needs to start having.

                Sorry, I don’t fit that definition you posted. It really doesn’t surprise me that frustrated people out there have created communities. I don’t think hostility will get them anywhere though (assuming that definition is accurate).

                Anyway, I think at this point you’ve admitted that you don’t have any answers. Game, set, and match.

                I guess resources for married people are just as useless as ones for single people. I don’t know why I expected any better.

                1. Jay Dee says:

                  Prostitution wouldn’t be ideal but its an honest transaction, unlike Tinder hookups. If you’re going to make sex a commodity you may as well formalize it.
                  Theologians like Augustine and Aquinas argued in favour of legal prostitution (albeit while still mainitng premarital sex was a sin), reasoning that without a sewer then the filth will flow into the streets.

                  That seems like a push for the church to provide or at least allow for prostitutes.

                  It’s not an unnecessary obstacle. The obstacle is “in order to have sex, you have to be someone that someone else would want to spend their life with”. Given the powerful nature of sex, I’d say that’s a necessary one. Society is showing what happens when that obstacle is taken away.

                  Ant the church does allow a solution for unmarried people – the solution is to get married. That’s it. If you don’t like the answer, that doesn’t mean you won the argument. Frankly, your argument isn’t with me. It’s with God. What does it matter what I think.

                  If you believe God is okay with you having sex outside of marriage, then do it. Why would you stop on my account? I’m a nobody. I mean, it’s going to harm you, that’s for sure, but, hey, follow your convictions. If you believe God is at odds with the church, then why bother waiting for the church go come around? It has no authority on it’s own.

                  I am doing my best to help people, the answer is “get married, or don’t have sex”. That’s it. There are no other options that I can provide and still claim to follow God because that’s what He told us the options were. The only other option is to stop following God – make sex the god of your life. I don’t think it’s good choice, but that’s really the only other one.

  5. Raphael Tisserand says:

    Both Greco-Roman legal codes and the mosaic law exclude sex between a married man and unmarried woman from its definition of adultery. Will you admit that this is a fact? If so why not? What kind of scholarship have you read or done yourself?

    I think this is the one loose end left from this discussion.

Share your thoughts

X
Hi there! Looking for a discount ?

Login/Signup and win a chance to spin the wheel

Close Now