Meat Sexual Duties & Children

[rockfox]

Some feminist non-Christian women, yes, I've heard that from them, but I'd expect nothing less from their mouths. But the type of women I speak with, no.
Maybe I'm just sheltered.

The lack of empathy here for the men's perspective and men's needs isn't helping your case any.

In America, for all practical purposes, there is little difference between feminist and non-feminists, Christian and non-Christian women. If anything, the Christian women are worse because they attribute their feelings to God and have a church undermining their husbands at every turn. Even the very best of women out of homeschooling subcultures will still struggle with these things because feminism is the cultural air we breathe church culture is feminist even when it purports to be against it. There are Christian councilors openly advocating women to engage in outright abusive behavior in order to control their husbands and the advice to men who are struggling with dead bedrooms plays directly into women controlling them through sex.

Christian women are also more likely to cloak it not in terms of righteousness instead of control. It's not loving to expect me to have sex when I'm tired. It's sinful for me to do sex that way. I shouldn't reward a sinful husband with sex. It's wrong for me to have sex with my husband until he quits porn. Sex is dirty. Sex except for procreation is wrong. I'm not feeling like sex because he's not loving me right or he's not righteous enough. It's wrong to expect me to have sex when I'm not feeling it, he's unloving if he doesn't help out more so I feel like it. But it's still all really about control.

Has your wife gotten 3 hours of sleep in the last 24 cause the baby won't sleep? Ya, its best not to keep her up for sex. But that's his judgement call. And that's not what leads to deadbedrooms, that's not how this plays out in real life, that's not the situation when most men hear "I'm too tired". It's insulting to men to suggest that it is.

When people suggest it's wrong for men to ask their tired wives for sex, that such men are selfish, you're handing the keys to the castle over to women, contradicting 1 Cor 7 and making men mere figureheads in marriage. When you give wives justification to put men off 'because tired' they'll run with that in all manner of situations out of keeping with actual fatigue. The sob stories about situations when she really is too tired are mere veneer on handing control of sex over to women.

knowing that this is only a stage of a life and not a permanent situation in their marriage.

"This stage" like what, while you nurse the kid for 12 months? Depriving a husband of sex for a 'stage in life' sets a pattern for the rest of marriage. Furthermore, it will never end. First it's the nursing baby, then its the sick kid, then it's the next baby, then its the PTA meeting, then its being a soccer mom, then its 'well we just grew apart I don't know what happened'. Either you value your husband enough to keep him sexually satisfied (even when you're tired) or you don't. Either you trust your husband to make that judgement call or he's not your head.

No Christian will excuse men for not fulfilling their responsibilities because they "don't feel like it" or "they're too tired". But with women it's different? Hello pedestal!

 

[rockfox]

I'm not sure such a problem really exists.

There is so much tongue in your cheek in your post I can't tell if your serious or not. But I'll drop this here anyway as it's something I wanted to talk about...

When I was a young minister doing pre-marital counseling with couples, I did not speak about sexual matters except to remind them of marital fidelity – that adultery is sin and is punishable under God’s law with the death penalty.

As I grew older, however, I began to realize I needed to say more.

Over the next twenty years, I counseled hundreds of couples with troubled marriages. I was surprised to learn that for about 25% of them their marriage problems were primarily due to sexual matters.

I also learned, that for most marriages, how the couple was doing together sexually was a barometer of sorts as to the health of the marriage in its entirety. In other words, how their marriage is doing is directly tied to how they are doing with each other sexually. Generally speaking, a problem marriage means less sex. A good marriage means more sex.

I was horrified to learn that sex once a month was common and sex once every six months was not uncommon in problem marriages. I began to realize how much I could learn about the state of the marriage just by asking how they were doing intimately. It tends to act as an incredible gauge as to the direness of the situation.

That's from a minister in my state. These are Christian marriages. So ya, it's a real problem. Even with Christian marriages. And why wouldn't it be, it's not like Christian marriages are any different than worldly ones given their identical divorce rates.

If a couple is only having sex once a month that means it's only when she allows it because she's really horny (i.e. ovulation). In other words, complete denial of his desires.

And these are just the marriages that sought out help. I can say from talking with men in my area that most men do not have a healthy active sex life with their wives. But they're so frustrated they've settled into resigned acceptance that "that's just the way it is" and never seek out help. It has become the norm. They are actually surprised that long married couples could have frequent, hot sex.

The rest of that article has good advice pertinent to this subject; namely lots of men are bad in bed...

Too many men do not satisfy their wives. Too many men only have an interest in their wives when they want to satisfy themselves. This causes a huge break in the God-intended relationship.

Men tend not to like to do what they are not good at and too many men are not good at sex. If a man does not learn how to please his wife sexually, he will put his time and energy elsewhere such as a hobby, some sport, overworking, or a host of other preferences. Bad priorities.

I tell men who have not learned how to please their wives physically to lock the bedroom door with the commitment not to come out until he has successfully pleased her. No matter how many hours it takes.

I encourage them to simply spend time with one another. This is the best way to learn what each other likes and plumb the depths of intimacy. You must talk with one another to discover what pleases.

Once they accomplish this – wow, what a transformation for them and for the woman. This is hugely important because it bonds the woman to the man. Scientific studies point to this fact. Things that were mountains of trouble in the marriage before – now become molehills. The couple finds it easier to overlook each other’s shortcomings.

While there is no excuse for women to deny men sex or even to fail to put a priority on keeping him sexually well pleased, that doesn't mean it's all on her. The better you are in bed the more likely she'll want to have sex with you, the more bonded she'll be to you, the easier it is to grease the skids to sex.

What does this have to do with children? There are a lot of things around child bearing that conspire to reduce the desire of women for sex. So the lower her desire for sex with you at the start, the lower her net desire becomes later. So too also is a women who has hot regular sex with her man more willing to embrace sex when it's not so excellent, when she's not feeling it, to embrace pleasing her man just for him.

Now sex isn't always mind blowing. It varies. Sometimes its just blah. But you should at least be capable of regularly taking her to a state of sexual ecstasy. If your sexual skills are mediocre, things will go downhill fast as kids, stress, and everything else piles up. Work on your sexual skills, become more attractive, be the best version of yourself possible. In today's day and age where there are few virtuous virgins, it behooves you to be the best lover she's ever had.

There is one caution here to his advice, in that it can lead you down wrong paths where it become only about pleasing the woman; feeding into the 'only sex if she feels like it' dynamic. The scriptural understanding of marriage is, 'whenever either party wants it'. But Christian advice like this often goes along the lines of excusing women for denying him and putting the blame on him for not getting her interested. And unfortunately we live in a world where many women were never really all that hot for him in the first place; they just settled for Mr. Good Enough, Mr. Available, or Mr. Steady Job.

Most women are wired different than men sexually and need time for things to build. They associate the whole act more emotionally. Hand-holding, attentive eye-contact, and saying nice things well before the time of intimacy goes a long way for a woman.

This is the same old tired 'more foreplay!' and 'do date nights!' advice and it doesn't work if you're in a dead bedroom or your heading into life changes like a new baby that conspire to add distraction and fatigue. When you're both busy all day or she's manipulating you there is never a chance. Between kids and work many husbands and wives don't get much time together until the end of the day. And then you try to turn on the love and foreplay and you get the cold shoulder or the 'I'm tired'.

But there is a better way: always be flirting. If your default state of interaction with her is flirting, like two randy teenagers, you're always in a state of warming her up (as opposed to mere roommates and then you trying to warm her up at the end of a long day). And also flirting is just simply fun conversation with sexual overtones, so it's just more enjoyable to begin with. It is also part of the bonding process. So if you flirt every single day all day it builds desire and suspense through the week; making her much more ready those days you do choose to have sex or if you pull her aside for a quickie during the day. Combine that with hot sex (which is more likely if you're acting like this) and an expectation that each will always fulfill the others needs and the frequency and level of enjoyment for both parties can skyrocket.

Oh and don't forget: be attractive. Mr. Nice Guy beer gut is always going to have a harder time getting her engines revving; no matter how good your flirting skills or how well you know her 'love language'.

 

[Cap]

The lack of empathy here for the men's perspective and men's needs isn't helping your case any.

In America, for all practical purposes, there is little difference between feminist and non-feminists, Christian and non-Christian women. If anything, the Christian women are worse because they attribute their feelings to God and have a church undermining their husbands at every turn. Even the very best of women out of homeschooling subcultures will still struggle with these things because feminism is the cultural air we breathe church culture is feminist even when it purports to be against it. There are Christian councilors openly advocating women to engage in outright abusive behavior in order to control their husbands and the advice to men who are struggling with dead bedrooms plays directly into women controlling them through sex.

Christian women are also more likely to cloak it not in terms of righteousness instead of control. It's not loving to expect me to have sex when I'm tired. It's sinful for me to do sex that way. I shouldn't reward a sinful husband with sex. It's wrong for me to have sex with my husband until he quits porn. Sex is dirty. Sex except for procreation is wrong. I'm not feeling like sex because he's not loving me right or he's not righteous enough. It's wrong to expect me to have sex when I'm not feeling it, he's unloving if he doesn't help out more so I feel like it. But it's still all really about control.

Has your wife gotten 3 hours of sleep in the last 24 cause the baby won't sleep? Ya, its best not to keep her up for sex. But that's his judgement call. And that's not what leads to deadbedrooms, that's not how this plays out in real life, that's not the situation when most men hear "I'm too tired". It's insulting to men to suggest that it is.

When people suggest it's wrong for men to ask their tired wives for sex, that such men are selfish, you're handing the keys to the castle over to women, contradicting 1 Cor 7 and making men mere figureheads in marriage. When you give wives justification to put men off 'because tired' they'll run with that in all manner of situations out of keeping with actual fatigue. The sob stories about situations when she really is too tired are mere veneer on handing control of sex over to women.



"This stage" like what, while you nurse the kid for 12 months? Depriving a husband of sex for a 'stage in life' sets a pattern for the rest of marriage. Furthermore, it will never end. First it's the nursing baby, then its the sick kid, then it's the next baby, then its the PTA meeting, then its being a soccer mom, then its 'well we just grew apart I don't know what happened'. Either you value your husband enough to keep him sexually satisfied (even when you're tired) or you don't. Either you trust your husband to make that judgement call or he's not your head.

No Christian will excuse men for not fulfilling their responsibilities because they "don't feel like it" or "they're too tired". But with women it's different? Hello pedestal!

One of the things that comes to mind is the idea of the curse in child birth to the woman. Maybe there is a reason God made it difficult for the woman and all these things are natural and something she has to strive against in a relationship.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

There is so much tongue in your cheek in your post I can't tell if your serious or not. But I'll drop this here anyway as it's something I wanted to talk about...



That's from a minister in my state. These are Christian marriages. So ya, it's a real problem. Even with Christian marriages. And why wouldn't it be, it's not like Christian marriages are any different than worldly ones given their identical divorce rates.

If a couple is only having sex once a month that means it's only when she allows it because she's really horny (i.e. ovulation). In other words, complete denial of his desires.

And these are just the marriages that sought out help. I can say from talking with men in my area that most men do not have a healthy active sex life with their wives. But they're so frustrated they've settled into resigned acceptance that "that's just the way it is" and never seek out help. It has become the norm. They are actually surprised that long married couples could have frequent, hot sex.

The rest of that article has good advice pertinent to this subject; namely lots of men are bad in bed...



While there is no excuse for women to deny men sex or even to fail to put a priority on keeping him sexually well pleased, that doesn't mean it's all on her. The better you are in bed the more likely she'll want to have sex with you, the more bonded she'll be to you, the easier it is to grease the skids to sex.

What does this have to do with children? There are a lot of things around child bearing that conspire to reduce the desire of women for sex. So the lower her desire for sex with you at the start, the lower her net desire becomes later. So too also is a women who has hot regular sex with her man more willing to embrace sex when it's not so excellent, when she's not feeling it, to embrace pleasing her man just for him.

Now sex isn't always mind blowing. It varies. Sometimes its just blah. But you should at least be capable of regularly taking her to a state of sexual ecstasy. If your sexual skills are mediocre, things will go downhill fast as kids, stress, and everything else piles up. Work on your sexual skills, become more attractive, be the best version of yourself possible. In today's day and age where there are few virtuous virgins, it behooves you to be the best lover she's ever had.

There is one caution here to his advice, in that it can lead you down wrong paths where it become only about pleasing the woman; feeding into the 'only sex if she feels like it' dynamic. The scriptural understanding of marriage is, 'whenever either party wants it'. But Christian advice like this often goes along the lines of excusing women for denying him and putting the blame on him for not getting her interested. And unfortunately we live in a world where many women were never really all that hot for him in the first place; they just settled for Mr. Good Enough, Mr. Available, or Mr. Steady Job.



This is the same old tired 'more foreplay!' and 'do date nights!' advice and it doesn't work if you're in a dead bedroom or your heading into life changes like a new baby that conspire to add distraction and fatigue. When you're both busy all day or she's manipulating you there is never a chance. Between kids and work many husbands and wives don't get much time together until the end of the day. And then you try to turn on the love and foreplay and you get the cold shoulder or the 'I'm tired'.

But there is a better way: always be flirting. If your default state of interaction with her is flirting, like two randy teenagers, you're always in a state of warming her up (as opposed to mere roommates and then you trying to warm her up at the end of a long day). And also flirting is just simply fun conversation with sexual overtones, so it's just more enjoyable to begin with. It is also part of the bonding process. So if you flirt every single day all day it builds desire and suspense through the week; making her much more ready those days you do choose to have sex or if you pull her aside for a quickie during the day. Combine that with hot sex (which is more likely if you're acting like this) and an expectation that each will always fulfill the others needs and the frequency and level of enjoyment for both parties can skyrocket.

Oh and don't forget: be attractive. Mr. Nice Guy beer gut is always going to have a harder time getting her engines revving; no matter how good your flirting skills or how well you know her 'love language'.

I’m not sure what position you are taking on this or trying to express exactly. It sounds like you are saying no reason for withholding sex ever. That a man (or woman)’s libido is the litmus test for determining an acceptable rate of frequency?

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

There may also be a cultural conditioning at work here that in the absence of a Torah culture, overlooks the principle that a woman was unavailable for sex for about two weeks out of the month. From what I’ve seen in my reading, an unusual preoccupation with sex was considered about the same as drunkenness or gluttony.

You’re not wrong in stating that women use sex as manipulation or control, but like any blanket statement, it is bound to incorrectly brush many undeserving women with that brush. Another one is where you said “women marry up”. I’ll agree in general, but I know of quite a few men who married up. Sometimes the woman knew it when she married and sometimes not.

Like many things, the factors that contribute to frequency and quality of a couple’s sex life are quite complex. Making the solution predominately about “just do it regardless of what you feel like” doesnt really fix the issues and will ultimately build a wedge that could destroy the whole marriage, just as withholding can do on the opposite side of the spectrum.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

It seems to me (i could be wrong) that what @rockfox is getting at is that women aren’t really given the option of opting out, nor are husbands. He’s talking about the woman’s roll, but not at the exclusion of he husband’s roll.

We as christian husbands are to dwell with our wives with understanding and we have the law written on our hearts which is the law of love. I can often times sense, as a husband, when my wife is genuinely too tired, and i choose, out of love not to take what scripture says I’m entitled to. She, as a wonderful wife, won’t withhold if I want it, and knowing that makes it so much easier to give her a break when she needs it. We are only to abstain by mutual agreement for a brief time and then we are to come back together. As christians there shouldn’t be a struggle between husband and wife. The wife should submit in all things and the husband should love her in all things.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

So being as this is a pro plural site, I think the conversation should include something about how a man reconciles having multiple wives and being obligated to perform for them according to the dictates of their libido. Just because he’s tired and completely seminally drained and worn out is not a good reason why he shouldn’t continue performing until all parties he’s responsible for are sated.

This is why IMO the standard of “as much and as often as he wants” is a false standard. It works in his favor only in a monogamy only paradigm. In a plural relationship, he becomes the overworked and under rested and is totally responsible if he cant perform to the same standard we assume is normal in a mono only paradigm. Unlike his wife(s), he cant just lay there and satisfy her.

 

[Pacman]

This whole problem is solved with one passage. Ephesians 5:22-33 do that and the problem is solved mono or poly. 1 Corinthians 7 doesn’t void Ephesians 5

 

[steve]

I have been home overnight one night in the last 4 months.
Equal opportunity sufferage.

 

[rockfox]

Another one is where you said “women marry up”. I’ll agree in general, but I know of quite a few men who married up. Sometimes the woman knew it when she married and sometimes not.

Ok, to be more pedantic about it: women [biologically] prefer to marry up. Obviously they don't always. But when they don't has great potential for problems.

I’m not sure what position you are taking on this or trying to express exactly. It sounds like you are saying no reason for withholding sex ever. That a man (or woman)’s libido is the litmus test for determining an acceptable rate of frequency?

Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.​

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

Wife to husband..."If you want sex more than once a month you'd better get another job so you can afford a second wife cause I ain't doing it".

Um, no, I'm not on board with that.

And we can see all around us how realistic a second wife as solution to mismatched libidos is. "saving up his shekels and paying a prostitute" is more realistic advice.

Besides, if your wife is denying you sex, I don't foresee your chances of success at holding down two women as being very good. It's not really a good motivation for poly.

There may also be a cultural conditioning at work here that in the absence of a Torah culture, overlooks the principle that a woman was unavailable for sex for about two weeks out of the month. From what I’ve seen in my reading, an unusual preoccupation with sex was considered about the same as drunkenness or gluttony.

We'll I've not seen that in my reading of the scriptures. As to Torah culture, I'm not a Hebrew. If that's your cross, have fun with it. And I think your math is off anyway.

Like many things, the factors that contribute to frequency and quality of a couple’s sex life are quite complex. Making the solution predominately about “just do it regardless of what you feel like” doesnt really fix the issues and will ultimately build a wedge that could destroy the whole marriage, just as withholding can do on the opposite side of the spectrum.

Complex, agreed. But we have to start somewhere. If we can't agree on 1 Cor 7 the rest is pointless. But if a husband and wife can agree to fulfill each others needs without reservation it takes the fight out of the matter and puts her in proper submission, allowing them to work through those other issues together.

And no, it won't "ultimately build a wedge". As the many couples seeing fruit from 30 day sex challenges have found, it does the very opposite.

 

[rockfox]

She, as a wonderful wife, won’t withhold if I want it, and knowing that makes it so much easier to give her a break when she needs it.

Exactly!

So being as this is a pro plural site, I think the conversation should include something about how a man reconciles having multiple wives and being obligated to perform for them according to the dictates of their libido. Just because he’s tired and completely seminally drained and worn out is not a good reason why he shouldn’t continue performing until all parties he’s responsible for are sated.

This is why IMO the standard of “as much and as often as he wants” is a false standard. It works in his favor only in a monogamy only paradigm. In a plural relationship, he becomes the overworked and under rested and is totally responsible if he cant perform to the same standard we assume is normal in a mono only paradigm. Unlike his wife(s), he cant just lay there and satisfy her.

Which is why a man should be careful to not marry more women than he can keep satisfied. Thankfully God designed us such that having multiple women shortens our refractory period.

 

[rockfox]

But you should at least be capable of regularly taking her to a state of sexual ecstasy.

Now since this is mixed company I should add a caveat to this. My point isn't to shame or brag to husbands who don't pull this off. My intention is to point out potential problems and give you a goal to strive for to make your situation better. And wives, if your husband isn't doing this for you you shouldn't hold this against him. There are a number of reasons for a lack of ecstatic sex that have nothing to do with him.

And chief among them is women sleeping around and then settling for "Mr. Right" who she's not all that terribly attracted to (in comparison). To use a turn of phrase literally, "You made your bed now lie in it." Which leads me to believe that phrase was the common advice in these situations in generations past. My how things have changed. But a man can still help these situations if he works on making himself more attractive. And a woman can improve these situations: work on sexual eagerness and respecting and reverencing him.

But there are other causes on her part...

• religious hangups around sex
• health problems
• past sexual abuse / rape

I'm sure I'm missing some. But for the most part, these can all be worked through successfully; especially if you as husband have taken up your mantel as her spiritual leader.

Now health problems ties us back to the subject of this thread. Because many of the health problems with affect sex are those which affect her hormones. Which is what the problem in pregnancy is (pre and post term). She's quite simply on a roller coaster of hormones that just have her out of sorts. And that is something the man needs to be cognizant of and understanding about. It can be like being married to an entirely different woman. If you're lucky, it all goes back to normal within a few weeks of giving birth. If you're not lucky, the hormones may not settle back to normal and her body may need some help (preferably using natural/alternative means). But this is one of the things which commonly occurs around pregnancy to upset what was previously a healthy sexual dynamic.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Ok, to be more pedantic about it: women [biologically] prefer to marry up. Obviously they don't always. But when they don't has great potential for problems.

Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.​

Wife to husband..."If you want sex more than once a month you'd better get another job so you can afford a second wife cause I ain't doing it".

Um, no, I'm not on board with that.

And we can see all around us how realistic a second wife as solution to mismatched libidos is. "saving up his shekels and paying a prostitute" is more realistic advice.

Besides, if your wife is denying you sex, I don't foresee your chances of success at holding down two women as being very good. It's not really a good motivation for poly.



We'll I've not seen that in my reading of the scriptures. As to Torah culture, I'm not a Hebrew. If that's your cross, have fun with it. And I think your math is off anyway.



Complex, agreed. But we have to start somewhere. If we can't agree on 1 Cor 7 the rest is pointless. But if a husband and wife can agree to fulfill each others needs without reservation it takes the fight out of the matter and puts her in proper submission, allowing them to work through those other issues together.

And no, it won't "ultimately build a wedge". As the many couples seeing fruit from 30 day sex challenges have found, it does the very opposite.

I’d agree that most people are predisposed to marry up. Not just women. What they do and why are usually unrelated to status in my observations.

I agree that there is a standard of due benevolence. I have yet to see a good case presented for libido as the standard. We could both create a straw man as the example given of the once a month wife. The opposing straw man would be the sex addict who has trouble doing anything productive with his day because his mental focus is solely on sex. Both positions are extremes that are counterproductive to a discussion. The man who uses an overactive libido to define due benevolence is as guilty as a woman who uses an under active libido.

Just for the record, my wife denying me sex is a problem I’ve never had to experience. But then I’m not the one coming down harshly on the women who aren’t ready to rock and roll regardless of how life’s going. I have to say it makes me wonder. I know you’re just sticking up for guys everywhere, but it kinda reminds me of the guy who’s just “asking for a friend”.

As to the Hebrew culture or being Messianic, I am not. But I am very familiar with Torah. A woman was unclean for the roughly 7 days of her menses. However there was another statute that marked a period of uncleanness from the date of the last blood, weeping sore, runny nose etc. If you were leaking, you were unclean. When you stopped leaking, you had a seven day window to make sure it was over, and then you’d bathe and present yourself to the priest on the eighth day and then begin life in the community again. The exception to this that I’m aware of is a nocturnal emission or intercourse/ejaculation. Also if you came into contact with someone else who was leaking or bloody. Then you were unclean until evening after you bathed.

This is why Bathsheba became expectant after one night with David. When he sent for her, her response was that she’d just been cleansed from her impurities. If this was the day following her menses, she’d most likely not gotten pregnant. However, 8 days after her menses made it virtually impossible for a fertile woman not to catch a child. Seems to me it was planned that way to encourage the whole multiply and replenish thing.

As to the sex following post partum, Leviticus 12 regulates that a woman was unclean for 40 days following the birth of a male child and 80 days following a female child.

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

Also keep in mind that sex between spouses is always due benevolence, but due benevolence is so much more than sex. Benevolence, (eunoia) is defined as good will or kindness. It is only euphemistically used at times for sex.

Commanding the euphemistic without supplying the primary is a recipe for catastrophe!

 

[Pacman]

As to the sex following post partum, Leviticus 12 regulates that a woman was unclean for 40 days following the birth of a male child and 80 days following a female child.

Bro the command about sex is only during her discharge it's not the entire 40 or 80 days. Her being unclean doesn't mean her man cannot have sex with her. It simply makes him ceremonialy unclean it's not sinful unless she is still bleeding or it hasn't been 7 days since she started...

The verses pertaining to this would be:

Leviticus 18:19 NASB
'Also you shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness during her menstrual impurity.

Leviticus 15:25 NASBS
'Now if a woman has a discharge of her blood many days, not at the period of her menstrual impurity, or if she has a discharge beyond that period, all the days of her impure discharge she shall continue as though in her menstrual impurity; she is unclean.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Bro the command about sex is only during her discharge it's not the entire 40 or 80 days. Her being unclean doesn't mean her man cannot have sex with her. It simply makes him ceremonialy unclean it's not sinful unless she is still bleeding or it hasn't been 7 days since she started...

The verses pertaining to this would be:

Leviticus 18:19 NASB
'Also you shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness during her menstrual impurity.

Leviticus 15:25 NASBS
'Now if a woman has a discharge of her blood many days, not at the period of her menstrual impurity, or if she has a discharge beyond that period, all the days of her impure discharge she shall continue as though in her menstrual impurity; she is unclean.

You might wanna read Leviticus 12 again regarding the 40 and 80 days of childbirth.

And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.
But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.

And read a bit further in Leviticus 15. Verse 28 &29 (the whole chapter is pertinent but . . .)

But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

31,32 & 33

Thus shall ye separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness; that they die not in their uncleanness, when they defile my tabernacle that is among them.
This is the law of him that hath an issue, and of him whose seed† goeth from him, and is defiled therewith;
And of her that is sick of her flowers, and of him that hath an issue, of the man, and of the woman, and of him that lieth with her that is unclean.

The woman was not considered clean until the offering of a sin and burnt offering which could not be offered before the end of the additional 7 days (or 40 or 80 days)

So the man that has sex with his wife before her additional 7 days (or 40 or 80 days) are finished and then goes to the tabernacle the same day, even if he bathed after, has defiled the tabernacle and could justifiably die by Gods hand.

According to Torah. . . .

 

[Pacman]

You might wanna read Leviticus 12 again regarding the 40 and 80 days of childbirth.

And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.
But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.

And read a bit further in Leviticus 15. Verse 28 &29 (the whole chapter is pertinent but . . .)

But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

31,32 & 33

Thus shall ye separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness; that they die not in their uncleanness, when they defile my tabernacle that is among them.
This is the law of him that hath an issue, and of him whose seed† goeth from him, and is defiled therewith;
And of her that is sick of her flowers, and of him that hath an issue, of the man, and of the woman, and of him that lieth with her that is unclean.

The woman was not considered clean until the offering of a sin and burnt offering which could not be offered before the end of the additional 7 days (or 40 or 80 days)

So the man that has sex with his wife before her additional 7 days (or 40 or 80 days) are finished and then goes to the tabernacle the same day, even if he bathed after, has defiled the tabernacle and could justifiably die by Gods hand.

According to Torah. . . .

I agree the man couldn’t go to the tabernacle while unclean. But sex makes a man unclean until evening no matter what. My point was the prohibition on sex is not for the entire length of her uncleanliness its only while she is actually bleeding. If a man needs to go to the tabernacle he must be clean but a man doesn’t have to go to the tabernacle every day...

 

[OhMyStars]

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

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I agree the man couldn’t go to the tabernacle while unclean. But sex makes a man unclean until evening no matter what. My point was the prohibition on sex is not for the entire length of her uncleanliness its only while she is actually bleeding. If a man needs to go to the tabernacle he must be clean but a man doesn’t have to go to the tabernacle every day...

So, I get what you’re saying and why. I totally understand the logic and reasoning behind it. I’d even empathize with that except for the post partum sex because it says that she will continue in the blood of her purifying X number of days with no caveat for how long she actually bleeds. The bleeding has no bearing on the length of days after childbirth, only menses.

Just for sake of conversation, lets say that your scenario happens re: menses. Is it a husbands deliberate choice to have his wife, thinking it will be ok, cause he’ll just bathe and hang out til evening if he has to go to the tabernacle?

The problem with that approach is Leviticus 5. Its all about touching the unclean thing unknowingly. A man who touches it unknowingly, is guilty of sin and must bring a trespass offering of a female lamb or kid, confess his sin, and have the priest offer his sacrifice and make atonement for him.

Likewise in Leviticus 15:24 you have a scenario where a man lies with a woman and gets her menses on him. He’s to be unclean 7 days etc. In Leviticus 20:18 there is a similar scenario but in this one, both man and woman are cut off from Israel. I do not believe these two instances to be a contradiction. Rather that the scenario in Leviticus 15 is an event where they are trying to squeeze in one more time before she starts. It’s totally kosher at the beginning, but she starts her flow sometime before they finish and he has inadvertently become unclean. This is an understandable scenario, but is a trespass and requires atonement.

OTOH, the couple in Leviticus 20 are punished far more severely than the couple in Leviticus 15. It would seem from the reading of chapter 20 that all those “sins” are intentional in scope. IOW, he deliberately chooses to ignore Torah and have sex with his unclean wife. Both instances are during her flow so there must be a distinguishing factor between the two.

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that this falls under the verse that says that if we sin willfully, after that we have received knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin.

Something else of note that I’ve been pondering as I looked over these verses, is that in all these cases, childbirth and menses, she is considered unclean until the priest has made a sacrifice and atonement for her, and only then is she clean. Same for the man who unknowingly touches the unclean thing except he’s required to confess that it was sin and then bring his trespass sacrifice. The count of days does nothing for her uncleanness except to let her know when she is supposed to bring her offering. The priest and offering are critical factors to her cleanness.

 

[cnystrom]

I have been home overnight one night in the last 4 months.
Equal opportunity sufferage.

You need to take it a little easier brother!

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

Spoken from someone who does not have a real good idea how the trucking industry works, so take with a grain of salt.

 

[cnystrom]

Spoken like a true politician!
I had retreat flashbacks when I read that. Lol

We politicians never stop running for office!

Too bad outsiders can't fix marital issues for others.

I can fix it: When in doubt have more sex. See? Fixed.

Edited to add that I have a different take on the aforementioned issue. I'm not sure such a problem really exists. I think we should select a committee to look into it all to determine the real nature and scope of the problem. Then if it is determined that a problem exists we can have another group do an impact study to be certain their recommendations for correcting problem would not endanger the psychotherapist population.

An excellent idea. A new service that BF can provide!

 

[Maverick]

I'm sorry he did that to you.

"Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "Speak to the sons of Israel, saying: 'When a woman gives birth and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean for seven days, as in the days of her menstruation she shall be unclean. 'On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. Then she shall remain in the blood of her purification for thirty-three days; she shall not touch any consecrated thing, nor enter the sanctuary until the days of her purification are completed. But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean for two weeks, as in her menstruation; and she shall remain in the blood of her purification for sixty-six days." (Lev 12:1-5 NASB)

So it appears that the correct waiting period is 40 days for a boy and 80 days for girl. And if she's literally not healed, then waiting longer is undoubtedly implied (Eph 5:29)

(rhetorical question; ) Do they teach this part of The Whole Counsel of God in the churches?

Nice! Preach... Mathew 4:4