10 Hard Truths that Christian wives must accept about their husband’s and porn

“Is divorce ever an option? Sure it is. Adultery always makes divorce an option, and if your husband will not repent and refuses to turn from an ongoing, regular porn habit, he is an adulterer.” This is a quote from an article on charismanews.com entitled “4 Ways to Respond to Your Husband’s Porn Addiction”.

Brenda Stoeker is the author of this article and she was a co-author with her husband Fred Stoeker and Stephen Arterburn along with Mike Yorkey of the book “Every Heart Restored”. Fred Stoeker and Stephen Arterburn are famous for their book entitled “Every Man’s Battle”.

I chose Brenda’s article on this because her views on how Christian wives should respond to their husband’s porn habits have become very popular in churches across America.  You as a Christian wife may have heard teachings like this in your ladies Bible studies.

To be fair to Brenda’s views – she is not telling women that they must divorce their husbands for their porn use but rather she presents it as an option if the husband remains unrepentant about his porn habit. She does state that she believes there can be damage to a wife and her children in either case – whether they opt for divorce or opt to stay in the marriage.

The goal of this article is to help compare Brenda’s (as well as many churches) teachings to Christian wives on how to respond to their husband’s porn habits and contrast that with what I believe the Word of God actually teaches Christian women their response should be in these kinds of situations.

Are women called to take an active role in spiritually confronting their husband’s sin?

Brenda writes:

“As wives, God has given us two roles to play in marriage. One role relates to submission, and the other involves our responsibility to be our husband’s helpmate. The trouble is that we too often play the wrong role in the face of sexual sin, submitting quietly in the messy tide of events, alternating between wringing our hands in worry and folding our hands to pray while we wait for our husbands to turn.

This is time to play the other role…. confront your husband, telling him what a Christian wife expects of a mature, Christian husband in marriage and holding him accountable to become that very man.”

Later she writes:

“Refuse to be muzzled verbally. Your husband needs your complete honesty so that he can feel the full extent of the damage he is causing.

Insist that he bring his “church image” in line with the truth—that his sin is damaging his ministry in the spiritual realm. If he is on the church board, then he must step down. If he is on the worship team or missions board, then he must step down.

Clearly define what trustworthy means to you. If you need him to read a book and he won’t, that will set back your trust.”

Brenda tells Christian women that part of their role as their husbands help meet is to “confront your husband, telling him what a Christian wife expects of a mature, Christian husband” and that they should “Refuse to be muzzled verbally”.  This entire statement by Brenda may make some Christian women feel empowered but it is in DIRECT contradiction to the Word of God:

“1 In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, 2 as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior.” – I Peter 3:1-2 (NASB)

God does not tell Christian wives to confront their husband’s disobedient behaviors.  Rather God call’s women to win their husbands “without a word” by their pure and respectful behavior.

Let me clarify here what I am saying.  I am not saying a wife can never bring her grievances to her husband but rather she can do this based on the Job 31:13-15 principle that those in authority should hear the grievances of those under their authority.  A husband should hear his wife’s grievances whether it be about porn use or any other subject. However how he responds to that grievance is up to him. He must weigh what she has said by the Word of God and act as he believes God would have him act.

But Christian wives must face the truth that sometimes their husbands may not see where they are wrong or a sin they are committing. A wife after sharing her respectful grievance must leave her husband’s spiritual walk in God’s hands.  It is not her job to continuing nagging him into what she believes would be obedience to God’s Word.

In a previous post we had a discussion in the comments section where I talked about the I Samuel 25 exemption to I Peter 3:1-2.  In that story we see that God does allow for a woman (Abigail) to disobey and not enable a husband (Nabal) whose wishes would place her family in physical jeopardy as his actions were about to do.

I talked about how if a wife is being physically abused or her children are being physically abused or put in a dangerous situation she can separate herself from that situation and ultimately if her husband does not repent she may divorce him. I based my belief in this area of physical abuse or physical harm on the principle that God commanded that slaves be freed from their masters for physical abuse (Exodus 21:26-27) and wives had more rights than slaves did.

This same principle would apply to a husband whose addiction to alcohol or other drugs was creating an unsafe environment for the children then the mother would not be expected to let the husband drive her or her children while impaired and if he had violent outbursts or failed to provide because of his addiction she could divorce him on those grounds. Also in the example of an alcoholic husband a wife would not be expected by God to go and purchase her husband’s alcohol.

Is it unsafe for a Christian wife to remain married to a husband who uses porn?

Brenda made this statement to Christian wives regarding a husband who has a porn habit:

“Staying married surely isn’t safe. His sexual sin poses huge spiritual danger to the whole family, and compromises his spiritual protection over you. I was chased regularly in nightmares by Satan until Fred turned from his sexual sin. I haven’t had such a nightmare since.”

So here is the real question.  Was Brenda having these nightmares about being chased by Satan because of her husband’s sexual sin or because of her own self-imposed belief that her family was in spiritual danger because of his viewing porn and it was her job to reform him to save her family? I think Biblically speaking the answer is the latter.

Is there any instance where a husband’s porn habit would cause direct damage to his family? Yes. If a man leaves out nude magazines or leaves movies laying around where young children would be exposed to them this would not be a healthy environment mentally speaking for children to be in. But if a Christian woman’s husband engaged in his porn habit with discretion away from the presence of his children then there is no danger to his children.

Again let’s say this was not a porn habit – if a man were what is known as a “functional alcoholic” where he never drives drunk and he keeps his drinking private and he still works and provides for his family then while this is still a problem it is not something that rises to the level of creating an unsafe environment either spiritually or physically for his family.

The fact is we are all sinners.  Some of us are bigger sinners than others. We all have bad habits. Some habits have more shame attached to them than others.  Some habits do actually pose a risk to the health and safety of a family – but a husband’s porn habit in and of itself does not pose such a risk.

Now we will discuss the biggest question raised by Brenda’s post regarding a wife divorcing her husband for his porn use.

Does the Bible permit women to Divorce their husband’s for their porn use?

Here again is Brenda’s statement on divorce in regards to porn use:

“Is divorce ever an option? Sure it is. Adultery always makes divorce an option, and if your husband will not repent and refuses to turn from an ongoing, regular porn habit, he is an adulterer.”

Again like her previous statement on women confronting their husbands about what they expect of their husbands this statement may feel very empowering to a woman whose husband uses porn. She may feel hurt and she may feel trapped in a relationship with a man has what she and many others would consider to be a shameful and disgusting habit.

But God does not allow wives to divorce their husbands for their bad habits including porn habits no matter how disgusting they may be to a wife. 

The only reasons God allowed women to divorce their husbands (be freed from them) are for failure to provide food, clothing, sex (Exodus 21:10-11) or if he physically abusing them (Exodus 21:26-27) or if he abandons them (I Corinthians 7:15).

If a woman’s husband denies her sex as a result of his porn habit or for any other reason than that is cause for divorce.  But if he regularly has sex with her but he also has a porn habit a Christian wife biblically speaking does not have cause for separation or divorce.

Brenda is absolutely WRONG when she states “Adultery always makes divorce an option”. This is most likely the passage that she would point to saying that women could divorce their husbands for adultery:

“And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” – Matthew 19:9 (KJV)

We cannot take gender neutral approaches to Scripture where it is not gender neutral.  For instance the Exodus 21:10-11 allowances for divorce are for woman only while I Corinthians 7:15’s abandonment exemption is equally applied to both men and women. But here in Matthew 19:9 it clearly speaks of how a husband could “put way HIS WIFE” – it is not speaking as to how a wife can put away her husband. So like Exodus 21:10-11 is specifically speaking to women in regard to reasons they may divorce their husbands Matthew 19:9 is specifically speaking to men as to reasons they may divorce their wives.

Also Brenda fails to recognize that physical adultery ALWAYS consisted of a married woman having sex with man other than her husband. The most literal definition adultery in the Bible is actually found in Ezekiel:

“And I will judge thee, as women that break wedlock and shed blood are judged; and I will give thee blood in fury and jealousy.” – Ezekiel 16:38 (KJV)

“Women that break wedlock” is the most literal definition of the Hebrew (“naaph”) and the Greek (“Moichao”).   So a woman is adulteress when she has sex with a man other than her husband and a man is an adulterer when he has sex with another man’s wife.  This flies in the face of our modern gender neutral definition of adultery that would say a man is an adulterer if he has sex with a woman other than his wife.  But this is not what the Bible says.

To be sure it is still a sin when a man has sex with a woman he is not married to but this is the sin of whoremongering – not adultery.  Hebrews shows us this distinction:

“Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” – Hebrews 13:4 (KJV)

The Bible never presents a man having sex with a woman other than his wife as an act of adultery against his wife. Rather it is an act of whoremongering against God himself.

Now Christ does give us a new form of spiritual adultery in Matthew 19:9 and this has to do with a man wrongly divorcing his wife. See my post “Is there such a thing as an adulterous marriage” for more on this kind of adultery.

But then we have Christ’s comparison of lust to adultery which is also found in the Gospel of Matthew:

“27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” – Matthew 5:27-28 (KJV)

Remember again that physical adultery (as opposed to spiritual adultery) always has at its center a married woman having sex with a man other than her husband.  She is an adulteress and the man who sleeps with her (whether he is married or not) is an adulterer. But now Christ is taking the 10th commandment’s prohibition against coveting a man’s wife and classifying it as a spiritual form of adultery.  The word Greek word which is translated as lust here is actually the same word that is translated as “covet” in many other passages.

To covet or lust is to desire to unlawfully possess or use something that does not belong to you. A man finding a woman desirable or even imaging a woman naked or what it would be like to have sex with her is NOT lust.

Let me give you one simple example and then I will refer you to an entire article I wrote on this subject of lust.  A man asks a beautiful woman out on a date.  Over several months of dating he falls madly in love with her and imagines what she looks like naked and then what it would be like to have sex with her but he has absolutely no intent or desire to have unlawful sex with her – sex before marriage.   Most Christians would say this is ok and not lust. But many Christians believe if a man has this same type of sexual thoughts about a woman whom he does not have a close relationship with and a possibility of marrying that somehow these same thoughts become lust.  There is no Biblical support for such a distinction.  Neither scenario is lust.

See my post “What is Lust?” for more on this often misunderstood subject.

The point of all this is a man looking at pornography is NOT him lusting and therefore he is not committing spiritual adultery in doing so.

Now it may be wrong for a man to look at certain types of pornography when they depict sex that is outside of God’s design for sex like homosexual acts, group sex and bestiality but even then that is not adultery but rather the sin of taking pleasure in something God considers to be evil.

Even if looking at pornography was lust and therefore spiritual adultery no passage of Scripture gives a woman the right to divorce her husband for adultery. Matthew 19:9 is very specific – a MAN had the right to divorce his WIFE for fornication (sexual immorality which includes sins like adultery and sexual defraudment) but a wife is never given the right to divorce her husband for adultery or whoremongering.

I know this is a hard teaching and most men and women today would reject it.  Women would reject it for obvious reasons that they believe God would not have them to have to remain married to a whoremonger. Men would reject it because they would not want to think of their daughters having to stay with a whoremongering husband.  I know for me it would be VERY difficult to tell my daughter she cannot divorce her whoremongering husband.  But the Bible does not allow divorce in this case.

The difference between a porn habit and a porn addiction

One of my regular commenters to this site Alex (who incidentally is a Christian woman) gave a great summary distinction between what a porn habit and a porn addiction looks like:

“I’d also like to clarify that when I talk about porn addiction, I’m not talking about just looking at porn or even frequently looking at porn. There’s some scientific debate now as to whether or not porn addiction even exists because there’s not sufficient evidence to demonstrate neurological dependence. But there are definitely men and women who develop enough of a dependence on porn that it interferes with their lives, relationships, and obligations. By that, I don’t mean their spouses getting jealous. I’m talking about getting to the point where they use porn so frequently that they begin regularly denying their spouse sex or start neglecting their other duties because of it.”

The key phrase she uses is that porn viewing because dangerous when “that it interferes with their lives, relationships, and obligations.” I have said similar statements elsewhere on this blog. And Alex is absolutely right that the whole “porn rewires your brain” fad is not supported by solid scientific evidence.

Consider these statements from psychologytoday.com in an article entitled “Porn is not the problem you are”:

“Porn is not addictive. Sex is not addictive. The ideas of porn and sex addiction are pop psychology concepts that seem to make sense, but have no legitimate scientific basis. For decades, these concepts have flourished in America, but have consistently been rejected by medicine and mental health. The media and American society have accepted that sex and porn are addictive, because it seems intuitively true – we all feel like sometimes, we might do something stupid or self-destructive, when sex is involved. But, this false belief is dangerous, and ultimately not helpful. Because when people buy into the belief that porn is addictive, it changes the argument, and all of a sudden, it seems like it is porn and sex that are the problems. Porn addiction becomes a label, and seems to be an explanation, when in fact, it is just meaningless words and platitudes that distract from the real issue. But sex and porn aren’t the problems. You are.

Why is this? Because one part of this issue is an attack on aspects of male sexuality, including masturbation and use of pornography, behaviors which society fears and doesn’t understand…

It is getting increasingly difficult to find men in our society, who’ve never viewed pornography. But, if porn were the problem – if porn were addictive, then the problems of porn would be far, far greater than they are. In fact, in recent studies, fewer than 1% of people report that they have had problems in their life due to difficulties controlling their sexual behaviors, including watching porn. Now – higher numbers, around 10%, report “feeling” that their sexual desires are hard to control, but it is very different to feel something, versus ACTUALLY being out of control…

But, if you are a man who likes sex, and likes porn, is that something you’ve ever really owned? I’m sad to say that our society has not taught men how to identify and negotiate their sexual desires or needs.

We treat sex like a dirty secret. Then, when men get caught, they feed into that dirty secret mentality, and treat sex like it’s the problem.

Those other men, who like sex, watch porn, and don’t get in trouble – How do they do that? One thing is that they understand themselves, and their desires. Sometimes, they sit down with their wives and girlfriends and have a real, open discussion about their use of porn, their interest in it, and what it means, and doesn’t mean, about their attraction to and interest in their partner. That’s a hard, scary discussion (and not one for the first date, please), because it requires a man to stand up for himself and his sexual desires, to be willing to negotiate for those needs, to be willing to compromise, but stay true to himself, while asking for the same in return.”

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/women-who-stray/201305/porn-is-not-the-problem-you-are

Also for more on the debate about the supposed “neurological dependence” and “Rewiring of the brain” that porn does see this article:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/women-who-stray/201603/we-must-rely-good-science-in-porn-debate

Your husband’s porn habit is NOT about you

Brenda talks about feelings and thoughts many women have when the first discover their husband’s porn habit:

“Your husband’s addiction to pornography has just been discovered. The aftermath of this betrayal leaves every precious memory grimy and tainted. You muse back on your wedding night. Was he thinking of some porn star as he touched you? When you were working to conceive a baby together by night, what had he been conceiving with his computer monitor by day?

Your dreams are shattered. You despise him for how his sexual addiction makes you see him, and you’re panicked by how it makes you see yourself…

When a sexually addicted husband is unrepentant, a wife begins to heal by learning the sexual differences between men and women. The real root of his sexual sin lies elsewhere. Once you understand that his problem is not about you, your beauty or sexiness, you can quickly recover your sense of worth and focus on restoration.”

There is one phrase here that Brenda uses that I completely agree with and women need to accept.

Ladies your husband’s porn use “is not about you”

Now it may or may not be a problem depending on what a man is viewing and if it is interfering with other areas of his life whether it be his job or his desire to have sex with his wife or if he is leaving sexual materials around that children might find.  But in either case it truly “is not about you” as his wife.

If he is denying you sex then that aspect of his behavior is about you and that is an area you can rightly address with him.

But what thoughts he has running through his mind is NOT your business.  There is a reason that God did not give us as human beings the ability to read each other’s minds and know each other’s thoughts feelings.  It is because we would literally go insane if we could hear all of each other’s thoughts and feelings. God even says about someone who utters every thought and feeling they have:

“A fool uttereth all his mind: but a wise man keepeth it in till afterwards.” – Proverbs 29:11 (KJV)

God is the ONLY one who can hold a person accountable for their thoughts and feelings.  We as human beings can only hold each other responsible for our actions.

Most men actually understand this concept far better than most women.  There is a time when should share our feelings and thoughts and there are some feelings and thoughts that should not be shared. We don’t want to know every thought that goes through our wives minds and we certainly don’t want share every thought and feeling that goes through our minds nor should we.

I had a woman email me a while back asking if she was accountable to her husband for her thoughts and feelings and I said “absolutely NOT!”  She is only accountable to God for her thoughts and feelings while she is accountable to BOTH God and her husband for her actions.  Now do people sometimes share their thoughts and feelings in wrong ways or in wrong places? Yes.  But it is the action based on the feeling that one can be held accountable for, not the thought or feeling itself – that is God’s territory and God’s alone.

You as a wife may say “But his viewing porn on a computer is an action not just a thought!”  I will concede that this is an action and not just a thought or feeling. However your husband is not accountable to you for his actions but rather he is accountable to God. You are not his spiritual authority – he is yours.

Why women often react poorly to their husband’s porn use

Most women react very poorly to finding out that their husband views porn because of one of the following reasons:

  1. They were never taught growing up the difference in sexual natures between men and women that women tend to be more emotionally and relationally oriented in their sex natures and men tend to be more visually and physically oriented in their sexual natures.
  2. They may have been taught and accept the visual and physical sexual nature of men but they were never taught the polygynous nature of men.
  3. They may have been taught some differences between men and women in regard to sex but they were taught to view the male sexual nature as a perversion of God’s original design for sex.

Many women go into relationships with their blinders on.  They think things like “I know some men look at other women and are more physical and visual but those men who do are just pigs. This guy I am dating is not like that.”

What they fail to recognize is that all men are drawn to the beauty of women around them but some men are just far better at hiding it than others. So then a few years into the marriage when this same woman discovers her husband’s porn use her romantic bubble is shattered!

Other women have a much more realistic view of the men and they realize that all men do in fact look but they believe it is their job to keep their man in line. These women believe (and perhaps even their husbands believe this as well) that God meant a man’s sexual nature to be more like that of a typical woman.  They believe a woman’s emotional and relational view of sex is what God also meant men to have and that just got corrupted when sin entered the world.

Still some women will even go as far as allowing for the fact that God made men with more visual and physical sexual natures but they reject the polygynous nature of men as a sinful corruption of their sex drive. So in essence these women believe God meant for a man to only be physically and visually attracted to one woman.  If he is visually attracted to more than one woman this is only as a result the sin corrupting his nature.

This brings us to some hard truths that Christian wives must embrace if they to truly accept how God has created men.

10 Hard Truths that Christian wives must learn to accept about their husband’s and porn

Some truths in life are hard to hear and even harder to accept. For women when it comes to understanding and accepting their husband’s sexual nature as well as how men love differently than women this can be an especially daunting task.  This is why I call these “hard truths”.

Hard Truth 1

God created man’s sexual nature to be more visually and physically based than woman’s more emotionally and relationally based sexual nature. This means a man does not need to talk to have sex and he does not need to feel close with a woman first to have sex her. In fact if a man is going to emotionally connect with a woman it is more likely to occur AFTER sex than before sex.

Hard Truth 2

God designed men with the physical and emotional capacity for polygyny while he designed women to be strictly monogamous both physically and emotionally.   What this means practically speaking is your husband can be attracted to other women and still be attracted to you at the same time. He can even think sexual thoughts about other women and still completely love you and sexually desire you. Technically speaking your husband has the God given capacity not only to be attracted to more than one woman but he also has the capacity to love more than one woman but he has chosen though to love you.  See my articles on polygamy for more on what the Bible actually says about polygamy.

Hard Truth 3

Your husband using porn does not mean he will want to have sex with you less. In fact while the majority of men view porn in some shape or fashion most do not see their desire for their wives lessoned by it.

Hard Truth 4

You and your response to your husband’s porn use as well as how you treat him in general actually have a much greater chance of decreasing his sexual desire for you than his porn use does.

Hard Truth 5

While most married men view porn this does not mean they do not still find their wives attractive. In fact most wives are harder on their physical appearance that their husbands are. Most men accept the natural aging process that women go through and all that entails.

Hard Truth 6

While most married men view porn you may directly contribute to your husband viewing it more by neglecting your physical appearance. If you gain an excessive amount of weight or fail to properly groom yourself or wear nice clothes your husband may look more to porn than he normally would for the feminine beauty that he is naturally designed to crave.

Hard Truth 7

Even if you take great care about your physical appearance if you are harsh, critical, disrespectful or less than fully receptive to your husband’s sexual advances he may view more porn than he would have otherwise. Most women fail to realize that men do not view porn only because of the bodies of these women or the sex acts themselves. Many men also view porn because of the enthusiasm these women show toward sexually pleasing the man they are with.

Hard Truth 8

Even if you as a Christian wife take great care of your appearance and you willingly and enthusiastically have great sex with your husband he may still look at porn. I refer you back to hard truth number 2 about men and their sexuality – men are designed by God with a capacity for polygyny.  So this means even if your husband is thrilled with you in all these areas he will still be drawn to enjoy the view of a variety of women’s bodies.

Hard Truth 9

Even if you deny most or all of the hard truths I have just stated the Bible nowhere gives you the right to deny you husband sex because is he doing something sinful. Remember that the same Bible which you believe says men viewing any kind of porn or thinking sexual thoughts of other women is wrong also says very clearly that a woman may not deny her husband sexually.

Hard Truth 10

Even if you deny most or all of the hard truths I have just stated your husband is NOT accountable to you for his thought life or his actions.  Even if you feel he is being disobedient to God in his porn use you are not his spiritual authority and you have no authority to confront him in this spiritual matter.

Brenda’s full article can be found here:

4 Ways to Respond to Your Husband’s Porn Addiction

Advertisements

140 thoughts on “10 Hard Truths that Christian wives must accept about their husband’s and porn

  1. Alex

    YOUR STATEMENT
    You’ve raised a lot of points, but I’d like to focus specifically on the Proverbs verses about women dressed as “harlots.” The first point that I’d like to make is that the passage talks about far more than just how that woman is dressed. It talks about how she speaks and acts. It doesn’t just come to her dress. It comes to the fact that she is deliberately speaking and acting in a way to incite lust in a man that is not her husband. She isn’t merely displaying her looks; she’s actively trying to get a man to have sex with her.

    Sure, I agree this isn’t just about the way the harlot is dressed, but my point was the identity. We know the woman is a harlot because of the way she is dressed as well as everything else. In our times, we know how prostitutes dress, obviously I have never seen a prostitute in the street wearing a business suit or all covered up. For the most part you can tell what she is by the way she is dressed without hearing her speak or watching her move.
    Women nowadays not only like dressing like prostitutes of our time, but they also behave like them in many instances as well. That’s besides the fact that when men see a half naked women they desire sex, and then you have women calling men pigs for wanting sex with them? How ridiculous! Worst is women want to dress “slutty” and not be called one.
    This is why I said, if you are not one, then why look like one?
    Again it was about the identity. When we see half naked women, both men and women will form an opinion of her, and typical the opinion will be 1. She’s looking for attention or sex.
    2. She’s putting herself out there to find a mate
    3. She wants to be noticed for her beauty (again typically in order to find a sexual partner or mate)
    There’s literally no other logical reason why women would do this.
    Those that claim they do it for “themselves” are lying to themselves.
    Either this womans self worth is tied to what others think of her ( do they find her pretty enough, hot enough, to pursue or notice) and so she feeds off the ego boost she gets when others notice her, thus believing shes doing it for “herself”
    Or shes lying and really desires that men notice her, (again in a sexual way, shes hoping men have no doubt that she’s sexually available) but doesn’t want to come across as desperate or too eager so she lies about her intentions.
    Wearing sexy clothes serves no other purpose.

    YOUR STATEMENT
    The other important point deals with what that passage means when it refers to a woman dressing like a harlot. It doesn’t simply mean that she’s dr sing in a sexually enticing way. It means that she is wearing certain clothes, colors, or patterns that indicate to people that she is a prostitute. Historically, even in ancient times, prostitutes were required by law to dress in a way that clearly indicated their job. We see this in Genesis when Tamar veils her face to take on the guise of a prostitute. She wasn’t just doing that to hide her identity. She was doing it to mark herself to Judah as a prostitute. And even today, when prostitution is illegal and therefore unregulated, prostitutes who advertise on street corners still make it clear to potential customers that they’re literally selling sex in the way that they act and talk and where they’re presenting themselves.

    Yes, and if a woman does not wish to be approached in this day and age with the topic of sex, she should not be dressed as someone who is advertising it.
    When you see a young lady dressed modestly, you might think she’s sexy or beautiful right? But in no way will you believe she is advertising herself or her body for you to approach her in such a disrespectful way.
    However when you see a woman wearing a middrift with no bra and her cleavage and nipples are showing and wearing booty shorts with high heels, shes wearing make up and walking around, you are not gonna get the impression that this lady is trying to just get by her day without getting noticed by anyone.
    This kind of dress is loud and boisterous. It is sexually arousing with a purpose. She would be lying or incredibly naive to believe that dressing like this has no sexual innuendo behind it.
    So my example of women dressed as harlots is that in the bible it is not praised by God but looked down upon, and attributed to a sexually immoral woman. God calls women to not only work on their outer beauty but inner beauty and women of God are to be discreet and modest, not only in dress but in behavior.
    It is not possible to be the woman of God He calls us to be while simultaneously dressing like a harlot while you walk the streets.
    Men also get tempted by the mere sight of a woman and men can lust after a woman without having talked to her or gotten to know her, so there’s that
    In short, women SHOULD think about what their clothes says about them.

  2. @Random Girl,

    My point was actually that a woman who dresses in a sexy or revealing manner nowadays when that type of dress is common is not advertising herself as available for sex to any man who will pay for it. Think about it. If you’re a beach where many of the women are wearing bikinis and pretty much none of them are wearing early 20th century bathing costumes, are you really setting yourself apart or dressing inappropriately for the occasion if you wear a bikini or a nice one-piece? If you’re at a nice restaurant with your husband and you were a cocktail dress that’s a little bit sexier and more revealing than something that you’d wear to church or work, is that really setting yourself apart or dressing inappropriately for that occasion? If you wear shorts while going about your day in the summer while lots of other women are doing the same thing, is that really inappropriate dress?

    Additionally, the example that you provided of your husband’s experiences with women whose homes he does repairs in struck me as pretty different than women just going about their business in whatever style of dress fits in with the activity that they’re doing. In that case, they should have covered up more. That’s because they were dressed in a manner that was only appropriate for being inside the home and around their husbands. They probably wouldn’t have gone out in public dressed like that, and if they had, it would have been frowned upon. (People still disapprove of those who don’t bother to get changed out of their pajamas before they go out in public.) Thus, they shouldn’t have been dressed like that around your husband or really any guest or worker they’d invited into their home. It was not appropriate for the occasion.

  3. Alex

    YOUR STATEMENT
    My point was actually that a woman who dresses in a sexy or revealing manner nowadays when that type of dress is common is not advertising herself as available for sex to any man who will pay for it. Think about it.

    You know I hear what you’re saying, but this is common dress attire not because it should be acceptable, but because we live in a very loose sexual nation now. The point is it can cause men to stumble and the fact is it does. It provokes many single men or even married men to want to pursue some of these women because of the way they present themselves in public. And another fact is most of these women are looking for hook ups and sexual encounters. They don’t dress this way for no reason, and you gotta accept the real reason behind their motive to dress sexy. I’m not saying they ARE prostitutes, I’m saying the normal “look” for women is a prostitute look. It is no longer about decency and modesty and looking beautiful like it was in the past for generations, now it is about looking as sexually appealing as you possibly can.

    YOUR STATEMENT
    If you’re a beach where many of the women are wearing bikinis and pretty much none of them are wearing early 20th century bathing costumes, are you really setting yourself apart or dressing inappropriately for the occasion if you wear a bikini or a nice one-piece?

    I doubt you are not aware that there is a lot of bikini outfits that don’t need to reveal your breasts or bottom. This isn’t about condemning bikinis in general, this is about the type and the function for it. There are things you can put over your bikini that cover your body more and still looks cute. Certain dresses or skirts can be worn at the beach and can get wet and they cover you up until you have to get in the water.
    Bikini can mean many things but you can’t deny that some bikini are no different than a womans undergarments. If you were to see a woman in her undergarments on the beach it would be no different. And women dont just wear their bikini in the water or in the sand, they wear it walking around the nearby stores and piers and streets as well. So again I ask at this point what is different from a woman walking around in her bra and panties and a woman walking in a bikini? Visually bikinis resemble intimate wear in order to arouse a man even further. The point is bikinis nowadays are designed to be as revealing and sexually arousing as possible when this wasn’t the case back then. What function does a little strip of bikini covering your nipples while your breasts spill out on all other sides and a thong do for you to get in the water as opposed to a one piece? None. Now I get some might be tanning. Ok but even then I disagree that your ability to tan should be in the middle of everyone else around you. Back then bikinis looked like something useful to wear in water and really theres no need to wear two pieces or thongs or anything that resembles intimate wear that should be reserved for the home with the spouse. So again I ask what is the point of becoming something that is meant to sexually arouse and entice a man if you’re not looking for something sexual to happen? It is Satan’s biggest lie and feminist biggest lie that it is a RIGHT for women to dress as sexy as possible or be downright naked and have a man “control” himself and understand shes exercising “independence or free will” and you shouldn’t be bothered or affected by it.
    I get men dont care and love the open sexuality that women are displaying nowadays but you really gotta ask yourself if it really is as harmless you want to say it is.

    YOUR STATEMENT
    If you’re at a nice restaurant with your husband and you were a cocktail dress that’s a little bit sexier and more revealing than something that you’d wear to church or work, is that really setting yourself apart or dressing inappropriately for that occasion?

    Again is the point of wearing revealing clothing something that should be considered wise or a RIGHT nowadays? Is it not possible to wear a dress that doesn’t stop underneath your bottom or reveals your thigh stopping short of your pelvic region or wearing low cut blouses in order to still look sexy or desirable?
    The dress can be classy, even tight around your waist and bosom but still cover up to your neck or collar bone and show some leg but nothing that one wrong move will reveal your crotch or bottom. One thing a woman can’t hide is when they have a tight figure, unless she wears loose clothing all the time, and I’m not saying she should, I’m saying that showing off sexual parts of your body are not needed in order to look sexually appealing.

    YOUR STATEMENT
    If you wear shorts while going about your day in the summer while lots of other women are doing the same thing, is that really inappropriate dress?
    That depends on the type of shorts and I doubt you would disagree with me. I use to be the kind of lady that liked wearing shorts that would reveal my bottom as I walked around the streets. It wasn’t until I realized how tacky and not classy that really looks that I stopped but I would still love wearing low cut shirts and wearing very short shorts. The truth is a woman does not look like a decent woman when she wears things like this. There are shorts that have a cute cut that conforms to your figure but still covers you up. I’ve seen women wear shorts were you can see their crotch plain as day and again their bottom spills out. I can’t fathom how anyone might think this makes a woman look valuable and classy and worth something. All it does is showcase herself as someone who only wants to be noticed sexually. Again why would a man object to this? If your thinking carnally of course you will encourage this in women, but if you’re to get real, most men dont approach these women to marry them, they approach them to bed them and then move on. THIS encourages the carnal desires of the world, this increases likely chances of sexual immorality. It is not serving a noble purpose for men and women. It definitely doesn’t encourage abstinence among single people but it encourages people to becoming stumbling blocks for others.

    YOUR STATEMENT
    Additionally, the example that you provided of your husband’s experiences with women whose homes he does repairs in struck me as pretty different than women just going about their business in whatever style of dress fits in with the activity that they’re doing. In that case, they should have covered up more. That’s because they were dressed in a manner that was only appropriate for being inside the home and around their husbands. They probably wouldn’t have gone out in public dressed like that, and if they had, it would have been frowned upon. (People still disapprove of those who don’t bother to get changed out of their pajamas before they go out in public.) Thus, they shouldn’t have been dressed like that around your husband or really any guest or worker they’d invited into their home. It was not appropriate for the occasion.

    Well they do. These women are for the most single, not ALL are young but the ones that dress this way around my husband are typically single. Based on your acceptance of women being able to dress however they want, what difference is there for them to dress revealing in the home versus outside? It makes no difference. At least at home the public isnt looking at them, just those that enter their home, like my husband. Back then it wasn’t accepted women walk out without a bra, now it is. Do these women care that my husband is married? Do they respect? No they dont, therefore they dont care what he thinks when he walks in their home and they certainly don’t care what anyone else thinks when they walk outside dressed the same way.
    That’s the point. Women dont care anymore.
    They make it a mans problem and do you agree it should rest on a man 100 percent if he lusts after her? Would this man have lusted after her had he not seen her body so clearly?
    It is true we are not responsible for anyone else’s sins but the bible does caution us the regard others as to not tempt or provoke them to sin.
    As a woman if you understand men are visual creatures and you don’t want to cause a man to struggle with temptation because of you, you should take this alot more seriously. But again why are women dressing this way nowadays?
    Is it because all these women want to please random strange men with their figures? Or is it because feminism has told women that they should have a right to wear whatever they want and men need to shove their “visual design” up theirs and not make it her problem?
    Are you aware you agree with feminists in this case? Honestly is it because it’s biblical or is it because it appeals to your sexual apetite?

  4. RandomGirl,

    I was working on a boundaries article as I said before to you but as I watch the comments go back and forth from you and Alex I think I am just going to pause the work on boundaries and come back to that later. I have a family event to go to right now(my nephew just had a baby boy and my wife and I are going to the hospital to meet the newest member of our family). But later tonight and this weekend I will be sending your series of responses as well as questions to based on your disagreements with my position on human sexuality, lust and porn as it relates to the Bible.

    But I want this to be a fruitful discussion and not something where you and I are hurling huge comments at each other with 20 points in in each comment. I know I can be guilty of having huge comments so I am not trying to attack you on that point. But I am going to limit myself and ask you to limit yourself in responses. I think the limit should be 200 words or less and it will only be on one question or one statement at a time.

    So you have fired off a lot of stuff – now you get to sit in the interview seat and answer my questions assertions back to you based on what you have said and you need to stay on topic as to each statement or question I make to you. Do you agree to these terms?

  5. @Random Girl,

    I want to address two points here: how we decide what modesty means (and why it’s subjective to culture and not objective) and what constitutes tempting men to sin.

    It may seem strange to say that modesty is not objective, but even your replies indicate that it is. Yi don’t object to a woman doing things to enhance her beauty (like wearing makeup, I’m guessing) or to women wearing form-fitting clothing, yet both were once considered highly immodest (at least in much of antiquity and the erarly and high Middle Ages for the latter one). You also don’t seem to consider ankle-length skirts to be mandatory for modesty, yet it was once considered immodest to expose ankles, let alone calves. In contrast, certain things that we would consider taboo were non-issues before the modern era. Now we have very high standards of privacy (and believe me, I’m not complaining). But before we had bigger houses wth more rooms readily available to most people and things like widespread indoor plumbing and running water, it wasn’t uncommon for people to go to the bathroom, bathe, and even have sex in semi-public places.These occurrences were commonplace and unavoidable and only caused annoyance when things got too smelly. Now, we’d all consider their behaviors to be shocking exhibitionism. On another note, Georgian and Victorian upper class women, who had to have their legs covered by wide skirts from hip to ankle or even heel, at the same time wore evening gowns that were low cut to the point where partial nipple exposure wasn’t uncommon. So, standards of modesty do change as values change. And there aren’t clear biblical instructions on what exactly has to be covered (apart from the genitalia) either.

    As for sexual temptation…is a woman who’s dressed in a way that some might consider sexy and going about her business encouraging (intentionally or not) a man to do anything more severe than fantasize about sex and maybe masturbate later? I agree wholeheartedly with BGR that these things are not sin. What would be sin would be for the man to attempt to seduce the woman. And unless she starts trying to seduce him outside of marriage, I don’t think that it’s too much to ask him not to do the same. I also believe that a Christian man’s sexual urges might actually be productive because they encourage him to get his life together enough that he can be a proper provider for his future wife and family.

  6. RandomGirl,

    One more clarification on our rules for this discussion – the 200 word limit I am referring to is our response to a question or statement of the other. So if you quote me that won’t count against your 200 word limit – it only replies to your response. But let’s try not to quote too big of statements from each other so we can keep this manageable. Thanks

  7. RandomGirl,

    TOPIC #1 What Lust is NOT from a Biblical Perspective

    Your Statement:

    “So your definition of lust is to want to possess something. Not just simply desiring.”

    No, my understanding of the Biblical definition of lust is not just wanting to possess something. The Biblical definition of lust is the desire to UNLAWFULLY possess or make use of something. Romans 7:7 says “…for I had not known LUST, except the law had said, Thou shalt not COVET.”
    So here we see that lust is covetousness and directly connected to the 10th commandment. And what is the context of covetousness?

    “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.”
    Exodus 20:17 (KJV)

    Your Statement:

    “But when you go from finding a woman desirable to imagining having sex with her you have now lusted after that woman.”

    Based on what you said previously you would not think a person finding another man’s house desirable is lust. But if he were to imagine what it would be like to live in that person’s house would he be lusting after it? The answer again is NO. His desire for his neighbor’s house turns to evil desire (covetousness and lust) when he desires to unlawfully seize his neighbor’s house. In the same way if a man goes from finding a woman desirable to imagining what it would be like to be inside her(have sex with her) is NOT lusting after her.

  8. TOPIC #2 What Lust is IS from a Biblical Perspective

    Your Statement:

    “If you’re definition of lust is to possess, then wanting to possess a woman means?
    Wanting to have her naked in bed with you, basically to have her (sexually). It obviously does not mean to want her as a wife or in ANY other way besides to posess sexually. Lust is not the action behind the desire, it IS the desire. So when you desire a woman so much that you begin to harbor and contemplate sexual fantasies of her, you are fantasizing of possessing her sexually and what that would look like.”

    If I find my neighbor’s car desirable and imagine driving it am I lusting? No. But if I desire to sneak a drive in my neighbor’s car when he is out of town and then park it in the drive way before he gets home so he never knew I drove it – that IS lust. That is a desire to unlawfully use/possess his car. In the same way if I find my neighbor’s wife desirable and imagine what it would be like to “drive” her (have sex with her) that is not lust. However, if I have a desire to unlawfully possess her by sneaking over to have sex with her when her husband is out of town then that desire IS lust.

    In fact, this is exactly what David did with Bathsheba. But where did David’s sin begin? Was it when he first was sexually aroused by the sight of Bathsheba bathing? No. Was it when he asked about who she was? No. Was it when he fantasized about her sexually? No. David lusted after Bathsheba when he allowed his sexual fantasy to turn to a UNLAWFUL desire to secretly sexually use/possess her.

  9. @BGR,

    “In fact, this is exactly what David did with Bathsheba. But where did David’s sin begin? Was it when he first was sexually aroused by the sight of Bathsheba bathing? No. Was it when he asked about who she was? No. Was it when he fantasized about her sexually? No. David lusted after Bathsheba when he allowed his sexual fantasy to turn to a UNLAWFUL desire to secretly sexually use/possess her.”

    I think that this really hits the nail on the head for me. Many men might end up having a sexual thought here and there about an attractive wife of a friend or acquaintance. They might even occasionally fantasize in more detail about her. But most of them would immediately recoil at the thought of actually ruining that woman’s marriage and betraying her husband.

  10. TOPIC #3 What is adultery in the heart?

    Your Statement:

    “According to Jesus, this is no different from actually having seduced her and done the act. You try to limit lust to certain thoughts, as in if you think of what it would be like to seduce her or how you can go about seducing her outside of marriage, but that is wrong. Lust starts with you wanting them as a sexual partner. Again finding someone hot is not the same as wanting to actual have sex with them.”

    As I have already shown in the first two topics on lust – lust is the desire to unlawfully possess/use something or someone. Adultery of the heart (which is a form lust/covetousness) is exactly that – the desire to commit adultery with someone in your heart before you ever do it! It is sin to desire to fornicate with a woman (entice a single woman to have sex with you outside marriage) and it is a sin to desire to commit adultery with a woman (entice a woman married to another man to have sex with you). Christ was not condemning sexual desire toward a woman who is married or single – he was condemning the desire to fornicate with them or have adultery with them.

    You are absolutely right that just having the desire to commit adultery with a woman is sinful – it is lust – even if it is never acted upon. So, David would still have sinned just by contemplating adultery with Bathsheba even if he never acted on hist lustful(adulterous) desires. But he could have confessed these evil desires and not acted on them.
    You are confusing sexual desire(not a sinful desire) with the desire to commit fornication or adultery(which are sinful desires).

    These three topics are enough to get the conversation started and are pivotal before we can proceed into any other topics. Please respond to each of these three topics and please try and keep the response to around 200 words. Thanks.

  11. Alex,

    It absolutely true that most men fantasize about sex with various women(whether they are single or married). But most men do not fantasize about committing adultery with other men’s wives. Fantasizing about sex and fantasizing about adultery are two different things. One is fantasizing about something that is good and pure – a man and woman having sex. The other is fantasizing about a man enticing a woman to sexually sin against her husband(commit adultery).

    However as I have warned many times on this site – even the purest of men can have their sexual fantasy(which is pure) quickly to turn to lustful thoughts of adultery or fornication IF they make an occasion to fulfill the desires of the flesh.

    Men should protect themselves from being alone with women who are not their wives and creating easy opportunities to commit adultery or fornication. For instance a man might think his neighbor’s wife is hot and fantasize about her at times. In fact, the sight of her might get his motor going and he might then go have sex with his wife while thinking of his neighbor’s wife. But if he finds himself beginning to flirt with his neighbor’s wife and talking to her alone in her house when he husband is not present that is a problem – he is now beginning to make room for his sinful nature to conceive thoughts of adultery. That is why men need to catch themselves at the very beginning and not allow themselves to spend time alone with women who are not their wife.

  12. Alex

    YOUR STATEMENT
    I want to address two points here: how we decide what modesty means (and why it’s subjective to culture and not objective) and what constitutes tempting men to sin.

    It may seem strange to say that modesty is not objective, but even your replies indicate that it is. Yi don’t object to a woman doing things to enhance her beauty (like wearing makeup, I’m guessing) or to women wearing form-fitting clothing, yet both were once considered highly immodest (at least in much of antiquity and the erarly and high Middle Ages for the latter one). You also don’t seem to consider ankle-length skirts to be mandatory for modesty, yet it was once considered immodest to expose ankles, let alone calves. In contrast, certain things that we would consider taboo were non-issues before the modern era. Now we have very high standards of privacy (and believe me, I’m not complaining). But before we had bigger houses wth more rooms readily available to most people and things like widespread indoor plumbing and running water, it wasn’t uncommon for people to go to the bathroom, bathe, and even have sex in semi-public places.These occurrences were commonplace and unavoidable and only caused annoyance when things got too smelly. Now, we’d all consider their behaviors to be shocking exhibitionism. On another note, Georgian and Victorian upper class women, who had to have their legs covered by wide skirts from hip to ankle or even heel, at the same time wore evening gowns that were low cut to the point where partial nipple exposure wasn’t uncommon. So, standards of modesty do change as values change. And there aren’t clear biblical instructions on what exactly has to be covered (apart from the genitalia) either.

    The problem with social standards is that they are not grounded on absolute truths or morality in many instances. I disagree that these past practices were ok within bible context just because it was the norm like dressing as skimpy as possible is a standard today.

    YOUR STATEMENT
    As for sexual temptation…is a woman who’s dressed in a way that some might consider sexy and going about her business encouraging (intentionally or not) a man to do anything more severe than fantasize about sex and maybe masturbate later? I agree wholeheartedly with BGR that these things are not sin. What would be sin would be for the man to attempt to seduce the woman. And unless she starts trying to seduce him outside of marriage, I don’t think that it’s too much to ask him not to do the same. I also believe that a Christian man’s sexual urges might actually be productive because they encourage him to get his life together enough that he can be a proper provider for his future wife and family

    Again I don’t believe the bible advocates nudity or sexual freedom of this kind. The bible condemns sensuality and according to many interpretations of this, it is the indulgence of anything that pleases our senses that is condemn .
    Just because a man has a natural tendency to be stimulated sexually by vision does not mean he has the right to access any womans body for this “indulgence”
    Any that is abused is considered wrong in the bible. We indulge in food and enjoy it and that’s good but enjoy it too much, have too much of it and it becomes wrong. having sex within a marriage and indulging it in within marriage is undefiled but the same cannot be said outside of it.
    Having the vast majority of women walking around way too revealing is allowing the vast majority of men to indulge in sexual pleasures. I just don’t see how the bible backs up hypersexuality in a community as ok.
    Pls refer to me to where this is common practice within the bible and not condemned.
    Because as I showed BGR I found many instances where over indulgence of sensual things is not morally correct.
    It does not mean engaging in too many sexual sins as sensuality, it does not mean just fixating on your other senses. It IS tied to sex and the pleasures we derive from it that are not undefiled in the Lords eyes, which would be anything outside a marriage.
    Having half naked women everywhere is making hypersexuality a normal thing, and in my opinion, if sensuality wasnt condemned in the bible, I would agree with you that the Lord is ok with this. However I think this is abuse of our sensuality.

  13. BGR

    TOPIC #2 What Lust is IS from a Biblical Perspective

    Your Statement:

    “If you’re definition of lust is to possess, then wanting to possess a woman means?
    Wanting to have her naked in bed with you, basically to have her (sexually). It obviously does not mean to want her as a wife or in ANY other way besides to posess sexually. Lust is not the action behind the desire, it IS the desire. So when you desire a woman so much that you begin to harbor and contemplate sexual fantasies of her, you are fantasizing of possessing her sexually and what that would look like.”

    If I find my neighbor’s car desirable and imagine driving it am I lusting? No. But if I desire to sneak a drive in my neighbor’s car when he is out of town and then park it in the drive way before he gets home so he never knew I drove it – that IS lust. That is a desire to unlawfully use/possess his car. In the same way if I find my neighbor’s wife desirable and imagine what it would be like to “drive” her (have sex with her) that is not lust. However, if I have a desire to unlawfully possess her by sneaking over to have sex with her when her husband is out of town then that desire IS lust.

    In fact, this is exactly what David did with Bathsheba. But where did David’s sin begin? Was it when he first was sexually aroused by the sight of Bathsheba bathing? No. Was it when he asked about who she was? No. Was it when he fantasized about her sexually? No. David lusted after Bathsheba when he allowed his sexual fantasy to turn to a UNLAWFUL desire to secretly sexually use/possess her.

    So your putting lust in the same place as theft? If you wish to steal from your neighbor this desire to steal is lust?
    I get what youre saying and it makes sense.
    This desire to have something that should be forbidden has a name. But then again I feel this enters the realm of theft. You can desire to have something that doesn’t belong to you and you can imagine stealing it and what that would be like. But to me there is a difference between stealing materials and stealing something in a sexual context. THIS is where coveting and lusting are different.
    It makes sense that fantasizing sexually is a normal response to being sexually aroused.
    I have fantasized of what being with a friends husband or boyfriend might be like. What theyre like in bed, what they’re capable of, how “big” they are. If I find them cute I’m usually inclined to fantasize this way. I get that this can be considered innocent, but I still stand by that this is dangerous thinking and “sensual thinking”.

  14. RandomGirl,

    Regarding your response to my “TOPIC #2 What Lust is IS from a Biblical Perspective”:

    “So your putting lust in the same place as theft?”

    No, I am saying lust is covetousness (per Romans 7:7 connecting it to the 10th commandment) and lust/covetousness is the desire to commit theft of some kind. When a man entices a woman whom he has not made a covenant of marriage with or one who has made a covenant of marriage with another man to have sex with him that is a form of theft. It is taking something that does not belong to him.

  15. Regarding your response to my “TOPIC #2 What Lust is IS from a Biblical Perspective”:

    “If you wish to steal from your neighbor this desire to steal is lust?”

    Did you read my “TOPIC #1 What Lust is NOT from a Biblical Perspective”? I showed you conclusive proof from Romans 7:7 that lust is covetousness. There is no difference and there is no argument that can be made against this fact. Paul points directly to the 10th commandment. Do you realize that English words “lust” and “covet” were simply just two different ways the English translators chose to interpret the Greek words for “desire”?
    There are two Greek words for desire that are used interchangeably in the New Testament. These words are seen in Romans 7:7:

    “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust[Epithumia], except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet[Epithumeo].”

    The Greek words Epithumia and Epithumeo are synonomns for “desire”. In fact while Epithumeo is translated as “covet” here in Romans 7:7 the same Greek word Epithumeo is translated as “lust” in Matthew 5:28 – “That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after[Epithumeo] her”

    But if you look at these same words in Philippians 1:22-24 and Luke 17:22 these words are translated as “desire” because the desire being expressed is considered good.

  16. Regarding your response to my “TOPIC #2 What Lust is IS from a Biblical Perspective”:

    “But to me there is a difference between stealing materials and stealing something in a sexual context. THIS is where coveting and lusting are different.”

    I agree that “there is a difference between stealing materials and stealing something in a sexual context”. Do you know what the difference is? The consequences. In the Scriptures if you stole food or other materials the consequences were far less severe than if you stole sexually. If you committed adultery (stealing sex from a man’s wife) you were killed. If you enticed a virgin to have sex (stole her virginity) you had to pay her father the bride price (a half years wages) and you could be forced by him to marry her if so chose.

    But just because the punishment for committing different kinds of theft(whether sexual or non-sexual) was different does not change the fact that to think of theft whether sexual or not is to lust after that thing and lust is synonymous with covetousness per Romans 7:7 and the Greek words I showed you previously.

    If you continue to hold to your distinction between lust and covetousness you do so in direct contradiction of the Scriptures. You will be allowing your feelings to dictate your beliefs rather than the Word of God. And feelings based thinking is the foundation for egalitarianism, feminism, liberalism and socialism and every other system which exalts itself against the knowledge of God.

  17. TOPIC # 4 What is “Sensuality” from a Biblical perspective?

    Your Statement:

    “The bible condemns sensuality and according to many interpretations of this, it is the indulgence of anything that pleases our senses that is condemn.”

    “Sensuality” is a modern translation of the old English word “lasciviousness” and lasciviousness was used to translate the Greek word “Aselgeia”. Aselgeia is the overindulgence of the physical pleasure we receive from our senses and again it is not exclusive to sexual pleasure. See these two articles I wrote on the subject:
    https://biblicalgenderroles.com/what-is-lasciviousness/
    https://biblicalgenderroles.com/is-god-against-us-enjoying-physical-pleasure/

    Aselgeia could refer to a person eating too much(gluttony), drinking too much(alcoholism),desiring sex too much or any other overindulgence in physical pleasure of some kind.

    But what you will find when you read the articles above is – your definition of sensuality (as well as many in church history) is flawed. It is based on a false doctrine called “asceticism” which came from Gnosticism and it taught that to enjoy any physical pleasures from the body (sexual or otherwise) was sin. Paul fought against this false teaching that already found its way into the church in Colossians 2:20-23.

    It is not wrong to indulge our senses – whether it be sitting by a creek watching the water flow by, listening to a wonderful symphony, eating a delicious meal or yes even enjoying the form of a beautiful woman who crosses our path. All the pleasures we receive from these things are from the hand of God. What is wrong is not the indulgences of our God given human senses but instead the overindulgence of our senses. When we make pleasure the central focus of our lives to neglect of our duties to God, our family and our work that must be done then and ONLY then are we engaging in the sin of sensuality.

  18. I recently read an article on the dangers of porn. I was fascinated with this one paragraph:

    “The vast majority of porn—violent or not—portrays men as powerful and in charge; while women are submissive and obedient. Watching scene after scene of dehumanizing submission and makes it start to seem normal. It sets the stage for lopsided power dynamics.”

    So, basically what that means is that producers of porn understand basic human psychology. God made men dominant and women subservient. My own personal experience with my wife confirms what is depicted in porn. She loves it when I’m aggressive and take charge.

    I’ve always held that porn gives men what feminism continues taking away. Our God given sense of being the alpha. The hunter. The provider. The protector.

    Notice the language of that paragraph. Male aggression and dominance are described as “dehumanizing”. I find that very insulting.

  19. BGR
    I still don’t see how desiring to have sex with a woman in your mind(fantasizing, yearning) is not the same as desiring to go do it in person.
    The point is you are desiring to have sex with someone outside the context of marriage.
    I feel it is cherry picking the translation of coveting (posessing) into only when you desire to have your fantasy come true and steal her away. What this comes down to is property. If she’s not your property(married) you have no business engaging in anything sexual with the woman, but fantasizing of having her (possessing) is ok as long as you don’t actually want this to come true?
    What man can honestly say they dont really want it to come true?
    Bottomline is the flesh is weak, and the majority of men would stumble if they had the opportunity. Isnt fantasizing of the woman giving in to the temptation of her? Let’s say if you were to “hold your thoughts captive” as my husband would say or “supress” as you would say, you are leaving no room to even wonder or dwell on this possibility.
    So it is ok to enjoy or indulge in her body without needing to actually have her? Isnt this what most men desire? Except the world is given unto the flesh and they take it one step further, fornicate. So really this is like your running to the very edge of the line, where one more step and you stumbled unto the grounds of sin.
    This is boundary pushing. And people for the most part cannot control themselves enough to not stumble. I honestly really doubt you have never lusted, and you probably had to ask the Lord for forgiveness for having those thoughts, because again you are drawing the line to the very edge, this is why most people won’t preach this way even if you are allowed as you claim, it is setting people up to fail. Just because God forgives does not mean we are free to abuse this mercy.
    How many times does God have to forgive you on the subject of lust whenever you find a woman too irresistable?
    I believe that coveting is NOT just limited to what someone else already has, but to what simply isn’t yours.
    There has to be a level of respect of the fact that her body is not yours to enjoy however you please. Or no?
    I agree with you that your desires need to be channeled, and if your single then I agree it gets channeled to masturbation but if your married I disagree that you should masturbate, in that case you should take it to your wife, that’s honestly what she’s there for.
    This brings me to the second topic, imagining your wife is the neighbors wife or the stranger on the street or even an ex partner if you had past sexual partners.
    The bible says out of the hearts of men proceed evil thoughts-what is being referenced here?
    Because in that passage, thoughts are seperate from coveting or sensuality.
    I don’t believe that having thoughts of others during the act of sex is condemned but is it something you should engage In?
    Just because it is not condemned it means you are free to do It, not so fast.
    I don’t think it’s a wise thing because again it is letting in your heart the idea that your partner is not enough fester into discontent which can lead to covetous desires and it breaks intimacy, which again is one of the solid foundations of a marriage. This is only wisdom on the part of keeping a marriage as good and healthy as it can be, not because thats what it’s suppose to be, or else, but because it is wise, for your own sake and your spouse if you will, to have a good marriage.
    Pretty soon the act of sex stops being about each other and turns to using your spouse as a form of sex toy in order to get yourself off.
    Look again I get our spouses body is meant to pleasure us whenever we want, but at the same time that is a person with needs as well! They are not just your sex toy.
    But whatever, if you are able to control your thoughts that well, then more power to you. But honestly I highly doubt you are.
    Even my husbands approach of holding your thoughts captive is bound to fail and I know he has, as he has admitted he is a wretched sinner lol.
    But his line is far more behind than yours. So it will take him a few more mental steps to sin than you.
    You know, children love knowing where the line is drawn as well, just so they can run up to it. That’s simply how people operate. We are boundary pushers and boundary crushers.
    It is wise to know this reality of ourselves and keep ourselves from temptation and sin, not abuse Gods grace on us at every turn.

  20. Nick@marriedheat

    YOUR STATEMENT
    I recently read an article on the dangers of porn. I was fascinated with this one paragraph:

    “The vast majority of porn—violent or not—portrays men as powerful and in charge; while women are submissive and obedient. Watching scene after scene of dehumanizing submission and makes it start to seem normal. It sets the stage for lopsided power dynamics.”

    Notice the language of that paragraph. Male aggression and dominance are described as “dehumanizing”. I find that very insulting.

    They’re calling submission dehumanizing in that paragraph, not males.
    That is a feminist tactic to shame submissive women and yes attack the idea of an alpha male.
    Take comfort in knowing that these feminist are wrong and their opinion is irrelevant in the eyes of the Lord.

  21. RandomGirl,

    Your Statement:

    “I still don’t see how desiring to have sex with a woman in your mind(fantasizing, yearning) is not the same as desiring to go do it in person.
    The point is you are desiring to have sex with someone outside the context of marriage.”

    Let me take your statement and substitute some words in there:

    “I still don’t see how desiring to [drive your neighbor’s car] in your mind (fantasizing, yearning) is not the same as desiring to go [steal it and drive it] in person.
    The point is you are desiring to [drive a car] outside the context of [owning that car].”

    You see I could substitute in a dozen different objects that people find desirable and just the imagination of using these objects is pleasurable to them and you would not see any sin in such thoughts. But when we put a woman in there all of sudden the rules change for you.

    I don’t disagree with you that women are not just “sex toys” for men’s pleasure as you stated because they are living and human objects – not inanimate objects. But the key word in my last statement is “just”. One attribute of women by the design of God himself is that a woman’s body was in fact made in part as a “sex toy” for men. But women are toys that we must own before we can use. And even when own them, we must also consider their humanity before each use.

    Also, just a friendly reminder – you were 850 words on this one response. I know I might have gone to 250 words on some responses but let’s try and keep it closer to 200 so we can keep the conversation on track. We are talking about what lust is right now and let’s try to keep there as that is foundational for all other parts of the discussion.

  22. RandomGirl,

    On the 200 word rule thing – If you notice sometimes you have said many things I am trying to respond to so I might respond to three different statements you made in three different comments trying to keep each response to around 200 words. That is fine for you as well. I just want to keep each comment manageable and also keep us on topic.

  23. RandomGirl,

    Your Statement:

    “I feel it is cherry picking the translation of coveting (posessing) into only when you desire to have your fantasy come true and steal her away. What this comes down to is property. If she’s not your property(married) you have no business engaging in anything sexual with the woman, but fantasizing of having her (possessing) is ok as long as you don’t actually want this to come true?
    What man can honestly say they dont really want it to come true?”

    Of course when we fantasize about things we would love for them to come to true – but that does not mean we want them to come true in wicked or sinful way. For instance if I fantasize about driving my neighbor’s car would I love it if one day he just came over to me and said – “Here ya go BGR- the car is yours”. And if he gave me his car there would be no sin me taking his car and using it because it is now mine.

    Let me tell a story that has actually played out in real life many times. A man is attracted to his friend or neighbor’s wife. For decades, they see each other all the time at parties and different gatherings. He recognizes his strong sexual desire for her and because of this sets boundaries for himself never to be alone with her and never to talk to intimately with her about any subject.

    Sometimes he allows himself to fantasize about her – sometimes he even imagines having sex with her while he is having sex with his wife. Would he love to have sex with her? Would he be thrilled if it happened? You bet he would be. But he would never want that to happen under the wrong circumstances. He would not want to hurt his wife and hurt his neighbor (the woman’s husband). He would not want to sin against his neighbor and God by committing adultery with his wife.

    Then after 30 years his wife passes away and then his neighbor’s husband passes away. He can now pursue this woman he has sexually desired for 30 years and he then marries her and then has sex with her under the right circumstances.

  24. RandomGirl,

    TOPIC #5 Personal Boundaries for Sexual Purity

    Your Statement:

    “Bottomline is the flesh is weak, and the majority of men would stumble if they had the opportunity. Isn’t fantasizing of the woman giving in to the temptation of her? Let’s say if you were to “hold your thoughts captive” as my husband would say or “suppress” as you would say, you are leaving no room to even wonder or dwell on this possibility…
    This is boundary pushing. And people for the most part cannot control themselves enough to not stumble. I honestly really doubt you have never lusted, and you probably had to ask the Lord for forgiveness for having those thoughts, because again you are drawing the line to the very edge, this is why most people won’t preach this way even if you are allowed as you claim, it is setting people up to fail. Just because God forgives does not mean we are free to abuse this mercy.
    How many times does God have to forgive you on the subject of lust whenever you find a woman too irresistible?”

    I agree that “the flesh is weak” (Matthew 26:41). I also agree that we should “make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof” (Romans 13:14) which means would should not set up circumstances that would make it easy for us to fall into sin.

    I also agree that we each should have personal boundaries that we draw to help keep ourselves from falling into sexual sin. Where we draw those boundaries may be different for each person. Your husband is drawing them at sexual thoughts or fantasies – I and many other Christian men draw them at “occasion”. What I mean by that is we do not ever allow ourselves to be a situation with a woman where sex could occur. We guard ourselves from talking to women at our jobs about intimate and personal matters. We don’t allow ourselves to work late with women or be alone with them in any way. We don’t go to lunch with women who are not our blood family members.

    I am not saying there are never times where men should guard their thoughts and fantasies. If a man works in an occupation like your husband where he is constantly alone with strange women and sometimes they may come on to him then he certainly has to guard his thoughts. In fact, I know of Christian men who have given up working in occupations like your husband’s where they are constantly alone with strange women because they believe it is in fact making provision or an occasion for the flesh [sin nature] to fulfill its desires. Obviously, every man is different and if your husband feels he is not strongly tempted by this then for him it is ok to continue in this occupation.

  25. RandomGirl,

    TOPIC #6 What is really setting people up to fall into sexual sin?

    Your Statement:

    “I honestly really doubt you have never lusted, and you probably had to ask the Lord for forgiveness for having those thoughts, because again you are drawing the line to the very edge, this is why most people won’t preach this way even if you are allowed as you claim, it is setting people up to fail.”

    I came back to this portion of your statement because I want to tackle it from another angle. Do you know when lust is born? It is when we decide to allow ourselves to be in a position where lust could be born. We typically do not desire to steal that which we have little to no possibility of stealing. It is only when we conceive of setting up the occasion where we could steal a thing that lust can be born and grow.

    You have railed against women wearing sexually enticing clothing (and I don’t totally disagree with all your points while disagreeing with some) and I will come back to clothing in a later topic. But do you know what I rail against on this site? The fact that our society allows women that are not blood relatives be alone with men not their husbands. It is men working alongside women in their jobs in situations where they are alone together. It is men being in jobs where they have to fix things for women in their homes without a man from that woman’s family present. It is men feeling comfortable having dinner with women not their wives or driving women alone in cars that are not their wives. This is setting people up to fail.

    So, to answer your question – have I sexually lusted? Of course I have as most people probably have. And like most people I had to ask God to forgive me. But it was not because allow myself to enjoy the view of beautiful women or sexually fantasize about various women. It was because I allowed myself to be in a situation where there was a realistic possibility of me having sex with a woman. It was when I caught myself speaking too intimately (not sexually, but of other things) with a woman. It was when I when I allowed myself to be alone with a woman in a situation where there was possibility of a sexual relationship.

    But I can honestly say that those times when that has occurred it reminds me that I need to renew my boundaries not against my natural God given desire for sex or the pleasure I receive from sexual thoughts about women – but instead I need to renew my boundaries about how I talk with women and not allowing myself to be alone with women where truly lustful thoughts could be born.

    Sorry I know I went over our agreed limit on this one but I needed to complete this thought.

  26. BGR

    Sorry I haven’t replied yet. Been a busy weekend but I dont want you to think im ignoring.
    Still writing out my answers and will get back to you soon.

  27. BGR

    YOUR STATEMENT
    You see I could substitute in a dozen different objects that people find desirable and just the imagination of using these objects is pleasurable to them and you would not see any sin in such thoughts. But when we put a woman in there all of sudden the rules change for you.

    I don’t disagree with you that women are not just “sex toys” for men’s pleasure as you stated because they are living and human objects – not inanimate objects. But the key word in my last statement is “just”. One attribute of women by the design of God himself is that a woman’s body was in fact made in part as a “sex toy” for men. But women are toys that we must own before we can use. And even when own them, we must also consider their humanity before each use.

    I feel like your twisting the meaning of intimacy and sex within the bible to suit your own desires. You say that women have equality within marriage when it comes to sex and that she cannot be denied sex from her husband, but you have a problem with women using men for sexual pleasure, yet say men can use women strictly for sexual pleasure aka a human sex toy? How does that work? According to you women cannot be denied so if I’m in the mood and want sex and my husband doesn’t he still needs to please me and satisfy me too and that is a form of using him as my sex toy because im not desiring him at the moment I’m simply desiring sex and there’s no rule that says he or she needs to be in the mood for it, however that lies in complete consideration of your spouse. It goes without saying that if your
    spouse is not in the mood but you are that you will end up using your spouse as a sex toy for the night as it it is not about the two of you but about yourself. However my point is your blatant favoritism is showing towards the man than the woman. You contradict yourself saying theres equality in sex within marriage but then say something that suggests otherwise.

    You also didn’t really answer my questions with this response. what I did say is what kind of thoughts are considered “evil deeds” in the bible? I specifically pointed out how the bible separates evil thoughts from coveting and lust, and asked if you could explain what the bible is referring to in that instance.
    The other thing I asked is whether it is something you (should) engage in?

    Here’s the problem, you made no reference to the fact that in many cases, sexual fantasies of various kinds can lead to the breakdown of intimacy within a marriage, and lead to discontent and/or dissatisfaction.
    How did you come to the point of believing that her body is not about enjoying her, but using her to enjoy your fantasy of others?

    Here’s what I analyze your beliefs are.
    1. You believe one woman is not enough. You already believe and allow yourself to believe that she is simply not enough, therefore you have a right to use her in order to fullfill your “polygamous desire”

    But I asked you that even if you did practice polygamy, your other wives would also cease being “enough” as your quest for variety wont be fulfilled through only a few women.
    The point is your quest for different will never be fulfilled, what is wrong with instead channeling your desires towards finding maximum pleasure sexually with the spouse you have?
    I believe having sexual fantasies of how you can seduce your wife next time, or how you can try something completely different in bed, you can play around with different sex toys with them, have sex in a completely new place etc are the real kind of sexual fantasies one must have. Because these actually lead to real possibilities and this leads you to actual desire sex with the one person you CAN have sex with.

    Can you at least consider that sexual fantasy CAN be detrimental to your sexual fulfillment in marriage? Can you at least also consider people have a natural (or should I say sinful) desire for the forbidden? So is having this natural urge to be satisfied by others that are not your spouse be treated as natural or sinful?
    2. You believe polygamy is what God truly intended in marriage and not monogamy, that monogamy is a “womans thing” and that men have unfairly been shoved into monogamous marriages outside of Gods intended design.

    Pls explain how the word of God explains how one woman or your wife is not enough for one man?
    When you reference polygamy, you make excellent note of its existence and its practice in old times, but you fail to make note of WHY it happened.
    For the most part it happened for practical reasons, not for sexual reasons, and for those that it was for sexual reasons it just so happened that God frowned upon it.
    Calling them hoarders.
    If it truly was in a mans design to need multiple women to be sexually satisfied, then God would have designed marriage from the beginning to be this way. As no man could ever get by life without having access to many bodies. Just like we cannot go without 3 meals a day.
    But a truth you keep wanting to hide from all this is that one woman CAN be enough for one man. But the question is do you want to channel your sexuality towards her or not? Again is it possible that you could channel your sexuality towards one woman?
    I believe it is completely possible for a man to enjoy sex with one woman for the extent of their married life. It is a lie that the bible teaches or even hints that men (NEED) more women to be sexually satisfied. The fact that men can be turned on by a womanly figure that is not their wife doesn’t mean that this confirms anything. All it confirms is that he’s a heterosexual man.

    3. You believe porn is ordained by God for men all over the world in order for them to not fall into sinful activities.
    What the bible DOES say is that a man should get married if not having a sexual partner will cause him to stumble. Again God created sex for the purpose of procreation, he made it pleasurable and made it an act that should happen within a marriage. He also made sex a form of bonding between a man and woman. Porn is nothing but pleasure and sensuality.
    Again you did not debunk how porn is NOT a form of sensuality.
    Porn only has ONE purpose, and that is to PLEASE a sinful urge in you to have others outside the context of marriage even if it is only limited to your mind. Pls explain how porn is more than that and how it is actually holy and ordained by God.

    I know I went over the limit. But I had to get all my thoughts out without breaking it down too much. Theres still a lot more that needs to be said.

  28. BGR

    YOUR STATEMENT
    You have railed against women wearing sexually enticing clothing (and I don’t totally disagree with all your points while disagreeing with some) and I will come back to clothing in a later topic. But do you know what I rail against on this site? The fact that our society allows women that are not blood relatives be alone with men not their husbands. It is men working alongside women in their jobs in situations where they are alone together. It is men being in jobs where they have to fix things for women in their homes without a man from that woman’s family present. It is men feeling comfortable having dinner with women not their wives or driving women alone in cars that are not their wives. This is setting people up to fail.

    This I absolutely agree 100 percent. Even my husband believes women shouldnt work alongside men as it causes too much temptation and lust from the close proximity of being with other women who are not relatives or your wife. I see the wisdom behind such thinking.

    YOUR STATEMENT
    So, to answer your question – have I sexually lusted? Of course I have as most people probably have. And like most people I had to ask God to forgive me. But it was not because allow myself to enjoy the view of beautiful women or sexually fantasize about various women. It was because I allowed myself to be in a situation where there was a realistic possibility of me having sex with a woman. It was when I caught myself speaking too intimately (not sexually, but of other things) with a woman. It was when I when I allowed myself to be alone with a woman in a situation where there was possibility of a sexual relationship.

    But I can honestly say that those times when that has occurred it reminds me that I need to renew my boundaries not against my natural God given desire for sex or the pleasure I receive from sexual thoughts about women – but instead I need to renew my boundaries about how I talk with women and not allowing myself to be alone with women where truly lustful thoughts could be born.

    Again I disagree that having the fantasy of having tryst happen is ok while actually having it happen isnt. Porn touches upon our fantasy of sinful situations. Porn is no different from our mind. It is a fantasy that pleasures our sinful desires, it is not possible for the holy spirit to dwell in a body that satisfies itself with sinful urges.
    You did not answer my question about allowing your daughter to become a stripper. Strip clubs are a form of fantasy as well. It allows men to see naked women in front of them in different sexual positions for their viewing pleasure without actually being allowed to do anything about their sexual urges. You are ok with sexual pictures. Stripping is a form of having this sexual picture suddenly come to life.
    Would you be ok with your daughter or wife posting naked pictures online? Do you and your wife engage in posting nude photos of you guys having sex online?
    If no then why not? Wouldnt you be contributing to the well being of those who do not wish to stumble in fornication or adultery? Wouldnt it be a good thing if you did do it? Or is that a good you prefer others do instead of you? Heres my question, where in the bible can I find this practice and how can you justify this practice using scripture? Or is it possible that you have come to this conclusion away from using scripture?

  29. RandomGirl,

    Before I get into this topic I want to say this. I will posting responses tonight all at once to everything you have said. Some have asked me why I am even “wasting my time” with you on this as you don’t really seem to want to learn – but rather you have become more entrenched in your feelings based theology.

    The reason I have invested the time in answering you is not to change your mind but instead to help those who will later come to these articles to see how the other side thinks. Your theology is a good example of the feelings based theology that is so prevalent in the church today including Focus on the Family. So I think it worthwhile for me to correct your assertions and questions not with my feelings – but with the Word of God itself.

    Topic #7 – Can spouses use each other for their own sexual pleasure?

    Your Statement:

    “You say that women have equality within marriage when it comes to sex and that she cannot be denied sex from her husband, but you have a problem with women using men for sexual pleasure, yet say men can use women strictly for sexual pleasure aka a human sex toy? How does that work?

    According to you women cannot be denied so if I’m in the mood and want sex and my husband doesn’t he still needs to please me and satisfy me too and that is a form of using him as my sex toy because I’m not desiring him at the moment I’m simply desiring sex and there’s no rule that says he or she needs to be in the mood for it, however that lies in complete consideration of your spouse. It goes without saying that if your spouse is not in the mood but you are that you will end up using your spouse as a sex toy for the night as it is not about the two of you but about yourself.”

    To answer your questions we must start with the following 8 Biblical principles as the foundation for the answers you seek:

    Biblical Principle #1 – Man was created to image God. When he exercises his God given masculine human nature in all its attributes he glorifies God by imaging God (I Corinthians 11:7) and he cannot fully image God without becoming a husband and father(Ephesians 5:22-33)

    Biblical Principle #2 – One attribute of God’s image is that he experiences pleasure and as his image bearer he wants man to experience pleasure as well(Job 36:11, Psalm 16:11, Psalm 36:8, Ecclesiastes 3:13,Revelation 4:11)

    Biblical Principle #3 – Woman was created for man, not man for woman. (I Corinthians 11:9)

    Biblical Principle #4 – One of the reasons God created woman for man was to give him pleasure through sex and God calls sex “the natural use of the woman” (Romans 1:27) and tells men regarding their wives to satisfy themselves – literally to “drink their fill” of their wife’s body and for them to “ravished” or literally intoxicated by her sexual love toward them (Proverbs 5:19).

    Biblical Principle #5 – God allows a man to marry and therefore experience sexual pleasure in multiple women(Exodus 21:10-11, Deuteronomy 21:15-17,Deuteronomy 25:5-7, II Samuel 12:8, II Chronicles 24:2-3) and even pictures himself in prophecy as a polygamous husband(Ezekiel 23:1-5).

    Biblical Principle #6 – The husband is the head of the wife and she is to submit to him in “everything”. (Ephesians 5:22-24)

    Biblical Principle #7 – Just as Christ owns his church “which he purchased with his blood” (Acts 20:28), so too husbands are not just their wives’ authorities, but they are also their owners.

    Biblical Principle #8 – Neither the husband nor the wife can sexually deny the other (I Corinthians 7:3-5) and if a man takes multiple wives he must make himself available to each of them for sexual relations(Exodus 21:10-11).

    Now let’s apply these 8 Biblical Principles to your questions and assertions

    So let’s review what you said particularly at the end of your statement:

    “It goes without saying that if your spouse is not in the mood but you are that you will end up USING your spouse as a sex toy for the night as it is not about the two of you but about yourself.”

    I am emphasized the word “using” in your statement. Like many Christians you have fallen prey the Romanizing of sexual relations. The truth is sometimes sex is about “the two of you” and other times when only one is in the mood then it is about one of you.

    And guess what – that is perfectly ok with God.

    In fact did you realize God tells men to use their wives to for sex? Shocking to 20th century feminism I know. But God literally says sex is “the natural use of the woman” in Romans 1:27. Earlier in Proverbs 5:18-19 God tells men again to use their wives for sex and their own pleasure and satisfy themselves (drink their fill) of their wife’s body and be ravished (intoxicated) with her sexual love for them.
    So there is absolutely no sin in a man coming home from work asking his wife to meet him in their bedroom where he disrobes her and satisfies himself sexually with her body. Our world feminist world and the false “body autonomy” teachers call this inhumane but God calls sexual pleasure in marriage “honorable” and “undefiled”( Hebrews 13:4) and it is part of God’s gift of woman to man.

    Now does that mean a husband should not take into consideration when his wife his sick, has had surgery, suffered the death of a loved one or just had a child that he gives her time? Of course he should consider these things. But if we are just talking about “just not in the mood” that is not a reason for a wife to turn down her husband. If she is not in the mood can she not get the children up for school? If she is not in the mood can she refuse to do the laundry? Can she refuse to cook when she is not in the mood? “Not in the mood” by itself is a weak and invalid reason for a woman to refuse sex.

    Does this mean a husband should not try and spend some time with his wife and do things that he knows helps her to relax and enjoy sex better? Of course he should. That is part of him dwelling with his wife “according to knowledge” (I Peter 3:7). But every sexual encounter is not dependent on a husband putting his wife in the mood first.

    What about a wife using her husband for sexual pleasure? If a wife requests sexual relations with her husband it does not have to be because she is having all kinds of feelings of affection towards him. Feelings of affection toward the person of the spouse are NOT a Biblical requirement for sexual relations between a husband and wife. That is part of the false “romanticism” that we have been taught over the last century or so. In fact our world teaches us that feelings of affection are the only true foundation for sex and that is why they have sex outside of marriage if the feelings are there and then deny each other sex inside marriage because the feelings are not always there. But this is Biblically false.

    Biblically speaking sex is based on duty in marriage. I challenge you to find one passage in all the Scriptures that makes feelings a prerequisite for sexual relations between a man and woman. I can save you some time – there are not any. Now is it nice when we can have the feelings? Of course it is and we should all strive for that. But the moment we make feelings a prerequisite for sex we have left the Biblical model of sex.

    So in conclusion on this very important part of using your spouse for your own sexual pleasure – yes it is absolutely Biblical to do so. There is however a difference between the husband and wife on this. Because the husband is the head of his wife and her owner she cannot demand he immediately have sex with her where he can do that with her. She can request it and he should do his best to fulfill that request as soon as he can. But if he had other wives like God allows men to have – she might have to wait her turn.

    Also while I believe God absolutely wants women to experience sexual pleasure through both them and their husbands trying to better understand how their bodies works – a woman must realize at the end of the day she was created for her husband and even the fact that she is capable of experiencing pleasure from sex was given her to please her husband.

  30. RandomGirl,

    Topic #8 – Does God want one woman to be enough for a man?

    Your Statement:

    “1. You believe one woman is not enough. You already believe and allow yourself to believe that she is simply not enough, therefore you have a right to use her in order to fullfill your “polygamous desire”
    But I asked you that even if you did practice polygamy, your other wives would also cease being “enough” as your quest for variety won’t be fulfilled through only a few women.
    The point is your quest for different will never be fulfilled, what is wrong with instead channeling your desires towards finding maximum pleasure sexually with the spouse you have?”

    Is one child ever enough for most women? The answer is no. Most women who are truly in touch with their feminine nature as God designed want multiple children. Every time they hear a baby cry or see a newborn they want another baby. It is a natural yearning and desire God has given to women and having children and caring for them nurturing them especially when they are infants is one of the greatest pleasures God has given women to experience.

    I could argue that a woman’s quest for many children is never really over. But it often because of age and other factors that a woman’s quest for the pleasures of having infant in her arms must eventually come to end. So in the real world she must be content with the children she has. Now does that mean she is sinning because she imagines holding someone else’s infant in her arms? Of course not.

    In the same way, I could argue exactly the same thing about men when it comes to women. Men have differing levels of polygynous desire. As a woman experiences pleasure at the sight of a newborn baby so too a man experiences pleasure when he sees the form a beautiful woman in front of him. Now in the real world for a variety of reasons he may have to be content with only having one wife – but that does not stop him from fantasizing and imagining have that woman or multiple wives. It is his design.

    Now the man finding “maximum pleasure sexually” with his wife is not contradicted by the fact that he takes pleasure in the sight of and thoughts of other women. In fact, fantasy when used properly is a way for a man to enhance his sexual pleasure from his wife.

  31. RandomGirl,

    Topic #9 – Can fantasy lead to sin or be detrimental to a marriage?

    Your Statement:

    “Can you at least consider that sexual fantasy CAN be detrimental to your sexual fulfillment in marriage?”

    Absolutely I can acknowledge the possibility that sexual fantasy can be detrimental to one’s sexual fulfillment in marriage. I would also acknowledge the possibility that if I drink alcohol I might become an alcoholic. I would also acknowledge the possibility that if I bought a gun I might kill someone with it when I am angry. I would also knowledge that the possibility that if I eat I might engage in gluttony.
    You get my point. Anything can be abused. Are there men that fantasize to the point of neglecting their jobs, their wives and their children? Yes there are. And these men have taken a blessing God has given to man and turned it into a curse.

    But just because something can be abused like many other things in life – does not mean it will be abused. We must live a life of balance. This is where sensuality comes into play. You still are failing to acknowledge that I have shown you what sensuality is – I wrote two articles on it that I gave you. It is not a sin to experience the pleasure our senses, but instead it is a sin when physical pleasure becomes the center of our life to the neglect of our duties to God, our families and our jobs that engaging in physical pleasure or seeking physical pleasure becomes the sin of sensuality.

  32. RandomGirl,

    Topic #10 – How do we know if our desires are sinful or not?

    Your Statement:

    “Can you at least also consider people have a natural (or should I say sinful) desire for the forbidden? So is having this natural urge to be satisfied by others that are not your spouse be treated as natural or sinful?”

    Absolutely I can acknowledge that the flesh (our sinful nature) desires what is forbidden.

    “For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.”
    Galatians 5:17 (KJV)

    Our Spirit and our flesh (sinful corrupted nature) are in constant battle for control of our decisions.

    So what we must do is study the Scriptures to know how God designed our nature as men and women. Whatever God allows or says is good for man or images God in man a man may do and often should do. Whatever God allows or says is good for woman and helps her to image the Church’s service to Christ as a help meet to her husband she should do.

    You said “So is having this natural urge to be satisfied by others that are not your spouse be treated as natural or sinful?” It is absolutely 100% natural to have an urge to be sexually satisfied by one who is not your spouse. In fact I would argue that the vast majority of men and women has this urge about the person that would later become their spouse. This natural desire, the ability to desire someone we are not yet married to is one of the driving forces of marriage. It is beautiful and by the design of God.

    But what is a corruption of our God given natural desire for sex – is when we desire sex outside of marriage. That is the corruption of sin. When a man or woman entertain thoughts of enticing another to engage in fornication or adultery that is sin. Simply finding someone sexually desirable or imagining what it would be like to have sex with them is not the same as desiring to entice them into fornication or adultery.

  33. RandomGirl,

    Topic #11 – Was polygamy a necessary evil God allowed for economic reasons or by his design for man’s pleasure?

    Your Statement:

    “Pls explain how the word of God explains how one woman or your wife is not enough for one man?”
    When you reference polygamy, you make excellent note of its existence and its practice in old times, but you fail to make note of WHY it happened.
    For the most part it happened for practical reasons, not for sexual reasons, and for those that it was for sexual reasons it just so happened that God frowned upon it.
    Calling them hoarders.”

    The Bible does not always explain why things are – it sometimes just shows HOW things are and WHAT God allows. But sometimes we can see the reason for God’s design play out in real life situations. You said in your comment that polygamy happened for “For the most part it happened for practical reasons, not for sexual reasons” but the truth is the polygamy happened for practical reasons AND sexual reasons.

    You see God knew that there would be many times in history that for various reasons there would be a shortage of men with far more women than men. So his design of polygynous desire would easily allow for men to come in and sweep up the widows of men who had died and these women had no one to take care of them. If a man did not have a strong desire for a variety of women – if he had a more monogamous nature as women typically do this would not have worked. Men would not have a driving force to marry other women once they had one wife.

    But the Biblical fact is – polygamy did not always happen for practical reasons (like men marrying widows to take care of them) but did in fact occur simply for sexual reasons. Concubines – which were slaves converted to wives are solid proof of polygamy simply for the sake of sexual pleasure and sexual variety. Many people know about Sarah giving Hagar to Abraham and anti-polygamists try and use that as some false example of why God does not like polygamy. But what they ignore is that after Sarah’s death Abraham took on multiple concubines (Genesis 25:6). Also the Scriptures reveal to us these famous men of God having multiple wives (free wives) and concubines (slave wives):

    “And David took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he was come from Hebron: and there were yet sons and daughters born to David.”
    2 Samuel 5:13 (KJV)

    “30 And Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten: for he had many wives. 31 And his concubine that was in Shechem, she also bare him a son, whose name he called Abimelech.”
    Judges 8:30-31 (KJV)

    And guess what? While you and the vast majority of women may “frown” upon it you won’t find one passage of the Scriptures where God frowned on men taking concubines. Not one. What God was concerned with was men hoarding wives like Solomon did and also men committing adultery with other men’s wives.

    According to I Samuel 18:20-21, I Samuel 25:42-43, II Samuel 3:2-5 we know for sure that David had 8 free wives before he sinned with Bathsheba. We also know according to 2 Samuel 5:13 that after taking his first 8 wives that “David took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem” and this occurs before he sinned with Bathsheba. Jewish tradition says David had a total of 18 wives and concubines over his life time.

    But when God scolds him for committing adultery with Bathsheba does he scold him for hording wives (he probably had at least 12 at the time)? No, he does not. Does he “frown upon” his polygynous desires and point to his polygynous desire as the reason he sinned with Bathsheba? Again, no he does not.

    Now you and others who despise the polygynous nature of men might say “Well the absence of an explicit condemnation does not mean approval” and I would agree with you on that point. But then God says the following statement to David through his Prophet after he confronted him about Bathsheba:

    “And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
    II Samuel 12:8 (KJV)

    God tells David that he gave him the wives he had and he would have given him more wives if he so desired. He did not need to steal another man’s wife. Now if your theory were true that God frowned upon men entering polygamy for sexual reasons this would have been the perfect opportunity for God to say so. But he did not – he said he would have given David more wives which pretty much blows your entire premise about what you think God thinks of polygamy out of the water.

    You cannot find one passage in all the Bible which forbids men from entering into marriage with either one woman, or multiple women on the basis of sexual pleasure. In fact, that is driving force for most men in marriage whether they marry one woman or 10. It certainly should not be the only factor as men can get into a bad marriage or marry a heathen wife. Character and other traits should be taken into account as well. But God never put some artificial constraints on polygamy only being practiced based on economic and practical necessities.

    Sometimes it happened because of necessity (such as Levirate marriage where a man had to take his dead brother’s wife to raise up an heir for him). But other times it happened just because a man desired it.

  34. RandomGirl,

    Topic #12 – Doesn’t Adam and Eve prove God meant for marriage to monogamous?

    Your Statement:

    “If it truly was in a man’s design to need multiple women to be sexually satisfied, then God would have designed marriage from the beginning to be this way.”

    If God making only one wife for Adam meant he always intended for men to have only one wife does that also mean he always intended for brothers and sisters to marry? Do you realize based on God’s original design of just one man and one woman that the second generation of human beings had to marry their sibling?

    The fact is to know God’s complete design for marriage we must take the WHOLE scriptures into account. Looking at Adam and Eve and saying “well God only made one wife for Adam” and then condemning polygamy as a corruption of God’s design ignores the rest of Biblical revelation that follows the Genesis account. It is like reading the beginning of a story and thinking you know the whole thing. But if we take the whole Scriptures into account we find that a man having only one wife and brothers and sisters marrying were both temporary. God would later disallow brother sister marriage and he would bless (Genesis 30:18), allow (Exodus 21:10-11), regulate (Deuteronomy 21:15-17, Deuteronomy 25:5-7) and provide for (II Samuel 12:8) polygamy.

    Your Statement:

    “As no man could ever get by life without having access to many bodies. Just like we cannot go without 3 meals a day.”

    Are you kidding? So if a man does not die from not having multiple wives that means God did not give the desire for multiple wives? Does that mean if a woman does not die because she could only have one child that her desire for having multiple children is any less given to her by God? We don’t always get to live out our desires in real life but having those desires if they are God given is not a sin.

    Your Statement:

    “But a truth you keep wanting to hide from all this is that one woman CAN be enough for one man. But the question is do you want to channel your sexuality towards her or not? Again is it possible that you could channel your sexuality towards one woman?”

    There is no truth I am hiding here – in fact I would argue you that it is you who are putting your head in the sand in the face of overwhelming Biblical evidence I have given for my positions. Of course some men can be completely content and possibly never think of another woman in the same way some women might only want one child. Is it rare? Sure but it happens with some men. In fact some men have an extremely low sex drive and can barely keep up with pleasing one wife sexually let alone multiple wives.

    Anything is possible – but I would not tell a woman she is sinning because she has only one child but desires more children any more than I would condemn a man because he would love to have multiple wives. Even if one can happen more realistically than the other – does not change the truth that neither desire is wrong.

    Your Statement:

    “I believe it is completely possible for a man to enjoy sex with one woman for the extent of their married life. It is a lie that the bible teaches or even hints that men (NEED) more women to be sexually satisfied. The fact that men can be turned on by a womanly figure that is not their wife doesn’t mean that this confirms anything. All it confirms is that he’s a heterosexual man.”

    Not a hint in the Bible that men need more than one woman to be sexually satisfied? Really? So in II Samuel 12:8 God says he gave David his wives(which were 10 or more at the time) and would have given him more if that were not enough but men don’t need more than one woman ah? Jehoiada the high priests gets two wives for the young King Josiah but that was overkill right? He really only needed one right?

    Again this is not about men dying from not having more than one wife any more than a woman would die from not having more than one child. But a man’s desire for a variety of women is not different than a woman’s desire for multiple children. It is a built in desire by the hand of God.

    You want to know what the real lie is? The real lie is the fairy tale most women tell themselves about their husbands. It is the fairy tale that if we were living back in Bible times when women could not divorce their husbands easily and men routinely took other wives or concubines that their husband would not do that in a heartbeat! The fact is men are EXACTLY as they were in Biblical times and the only difference in our modern feminist romantic “one woman” society is that most men have had it ingrained since they were young teens that their masculine desire for multiple women is sinful and disgusting.

    So they learn to hide it – and some men simply hide it far better than others. Some men really do pull the wool of their wife’s eyes convincing them that even if they lived in a culture that did not condemn polygamy she is the only woman for him.
    So it is kind of funny that women condemn men for even thinking or fantasizing about other women when their entire concept of their husband’s sexuality and what he would do in a very different culture is a FANTASY. But I guess that fantasy is ok.

    In summary do you know what this whole “one woman should be enough” ideology is based on? Female pride. Women since Eve have one wanted to be the center of their husband’s universe laboring under the false delusion that their husband was created to please them when the Scriptures say that woman was created for man, not man for woman.

  35. RandomGirl,

    Topic #13 – Porn as a way of escape from true sexual temptation

    Your Statement:

    “You believe porn is ordained by God for men all over the world in order for them to not fall into sinful activities.”

    Amen – I believe what the Scriptures say about temptation:

    “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.”
    1 Corinthians 10:13 (KJV)

    I also see one way of escape God made for sexual temptation referenced here in the book of Leviticus:

    “16 ‘Now if a man has a seminal emission, he shall bathe all his body in water and be unclean until evening. 17 As for any garment or any leather on which there is seminal emission, it shall be washed with water and be unclean until evening.
    18 If a man lies with a woman so that there is a seminal emission, they shall both bathe in water and be unclean until evening.
    19 ‘When a woman has a discharge, if her discharge in her body is blood, she shall continue in her menstrual impurity for seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening.”
    Leviticus 15:16-19 (NASB)

    So what do we have here? We have a man having an emission of semen on his own, a man having an emission of semen while having sex with his wife and a woman having a period. While these things made them ceremonially unclean there was no sacrifice required for them as they were considered normal bodily functions. So how does a man have an emission of semen? There are only two ways. Either he has a sexual dream while he sleeps rubbing himself against his bed while sleeping and has an emission based on that sexual dream or he fantasizes about a woman while awake and masturbates having an emission of semen. And no unlike Deuteronomy 23:9-11, Leviticus 15:16 is not limited to just nocturnal emissions but would include any emission of semen by a man by himself whether awake or asleep.

    So there you have it – masturbation accounted for in Scripture and it is considered a normal bodily function just as sexual relations between a man and woman is and just as a woman having her period is. It was not considered sin.

    Sexual dreams – whether we are awake or whether we are asleep and our ability to masturbate and release sexual tension is not a curse or a sin – but rather it is a gift from God and a way of escape he has given us from temptation to commit TRUE sexual sin(like pre-marital sex and adultery). It is also a way to better understand our body (especially for women who often struggle with understanding how their body works sexually).

    And if those sexual dreams (fantasies) are helped by the use of the porn or erotica (within certain limits I discuss) then yes that too is a gift from God.

    Your Statement:

    “What the bible DOES say is that a man should get married if not having a sexual partner will cause him to stumble.”

    I agree that I Corinthians 7:2 tells us to marry “to avoid fornication”. Amen and Amen. But it does not say it is the ONLY way to avoid fornication. I think it is the ultimate answer and all should strive for marriage and I believe marriage is God’s rule (“be fruitful and multiply”) and celibacy is God’s exception to that rule for those who have the gift or are providentially hindered from marriage(such as slaves who were forbidden to marry).

    However do you see any prohibition in that passage against engaging in masturbation and fantasy while waiting for marriage? Or even after marriage? I don’t see it there. God had ample chances to condemn masturbation and sexual fantasy. He could have said it back in Leviticus but instead he simply regulated masturbation just as he did sexual relations between a man and woman and women having their period.

    But then you also have to consider as I have seen in tons of emails I have received from men to this site that because we live in a sin cursed world sexual denial in marriage is a reality. If you have a wife that is only in the mood twice a month for sex if you are normal red blooded man with healthy sex drive that is going to cause massive temptation for you unless you find some other way to release your sexual tension.

    Now as I have discussed on this site I believe men should and can confront their wives for sexual denial but in the end not all women repent even after discipline measures are taken by their husband.
    So yes when spouses freely give themselves to one another sexually marriage is the answer to fornication, but when spouses do not fulfill their duty marriage is no longer the answer to fornication but one must then rely on another way of escape from sexual temptation that God has given us and that is masturbation and sexual fantasy.

    However even in the case where a wife gives herself freely to husband sexually – he may have a very strong sexual drive and desire for variety but since most men cannot act on their polygynous desires fantasy in conjunction with sexual relations with their wives can help to exercise their natural polygynous desires.

  36. RandomGirl,

    Topic #14 – Was the primary purpose God made sex for procreation and emotional bonding of a man and woman?

    Your Statement:

    “Again God created sex for the purpose of procreation, he made it pleasurable and made it an act that should happen within a marriage. He also made sex a form of bonding between a man and woman. Porn is nothing but pleasure and sensuality.”

    I suggest you read my article “7 Reasons Why God Made Sex” that I published a couple years ago. It is one of the most popular articles on my site.

    https://biblicalgenderroles.com/2015/02/10/the-7-reasons-why-god-made-sex/

    In that article I concede that there is no verse in Scripture where God says “This is why I made sex…”. He talks about why he made man (to image him) and why he made woman (to be man’s helper) and even why he created marriage (to picture the relationship between God and his people). But God never says “I created sex for procreation and emotional bonding between a husband and wife with pleasure as nice by product.” That sounds nice and romantic and it definitely fits the typical feminine centric view of sex (which you very much are illustrating here).

    But for the most part when it comes to sex instead of looking for statement from God like “these are the reasons I made sex” we have to look sex as it is seen in the Bible in all its facets and also we can gain clues by looking at our own biology. As long as what we find in our male and female physiology and psychology does not conflict with God’s Word and his will for us then we can understand that as part of our design.

    What I concluded from looking at what we see of sex in the Bible and looking at the male and female physiology and psychology is God made sex for these reasons:

    1. For Procreation
    2. For Unity (to bring a couple close together, but this unity may not always come before sex, but may come later as a result of sex).
    3. For visual pleasure
    4. For physical pleasure
    5. For relief of physical and emotional stress, to comfort one another
    6. Sacrifice & Submission – husbands are called to sacrifice themselves by giving their bodies to their wives when they need it, and wives are command to submit their bodies to their husbands as they need it.
    7. To bring us out of our comfort zone, to be able to love our spouse not as we would desire to be loved, but as they would desire to be loved (e.g. sexual preferences).

    So while I don’t disagree with you that God made sex for procreation and bonding (unity as I called it) he also made it for a many other reasons. One those reasons as I have previously pointed out was for pleasure. Just reference Proverbs 5:18-19, Song of Solomon, Romans 1:27 and the fact that God allowed men to multiple wives and concubines for their own sexual pleasure and never once condemned the practice.

  37. RandomGirl,

    Topic #15 – Is watching porn engaging in the sin of sensuality?

    Your Statement:

    “Again you did not debunk how porn is NOT a form of sensuality.
    Porn only has ONE purpose, and that is to PLEASE a sinful urge in you to have others outside the context of marriage even if it is only limited to your mind. Pls explain how porn is more than that and how it is actually holy and ordained by God.”

    As I have pointed out in previous comments to you doing something that pleases our senses is not automatically engaging in the sin of sensuality. We engage in sensuality when we live for pleasure and over indulge in the pleasures of the senses. Whether it be someone eating too much good, drinking too much alcohol, having sex or a variety of other sense pleasing activities.

    If I enjoy sitting down with some chips and dip to watch my favorite super hero movie I am engaging both my taste senses, visual senses and imagination all at once. It is a pleasurable experience. And there is no sin in this as long as I don’t spend every hour of my day watching super hero movies and eating chips to the neglect of my job, my family or other things God has called me to do.

    My wife loves to watch cooking shows and so do I. These shows both inform us as to how to cook and also they make us hungry. They are fun and pleasurable to watch – and to watch them in moderation even though they pleasing to our eyes and make us hungry does not make them sinful nor is it engaging in the sin of sensuality to watch these shows because they pleases our senses and our pleasurable to us.

    In the same way if a person watches porn and it pleases their senses just as that cooking show does and it sexually arouses them just as the food show makes a person hungry there is no sin in this. It is only when they overindulge in watching porn that they engage in the sin of sexuality. Now they might sin in another way with porn if they are taking in porn that is showing homosexuality and orgies and bestiality the only type of sex God created was heterosexual sex between a man and a woman.

    The world uses porn for the purpose you mention – to fantasize about having sex outside of marriage. But just like many other things in this world porn can be redeemed for noble purposes. I

    Instead of it being used to fantasize about sex outside of marriage like the world uses it – it can be used by men to fantasize about polygamy. One night you could be with your red head wife skinny wife, the next night with your larger brunette wife and so on. I realize to your feminine and romantic view of sex that is repugnant but to masculine view of sex this makes perfect sense.

    Porn can also be used by young single people (both women and men) to exercise their sexuality in a healthy way and help reduce the temptation to premarital sex by giving them this outlet.

    So no – watching porn is not a form of sensuality in and of itself any more than watching a cooking show or super hero movie is. All of these things are pleasing to our senses and porn has the added benefit of giving us sexual relief both mentally and physically when used in moderation and when watching normal heterosexual porn.

    Watching porn is holy and ordained by God in the same way that watching a cooking a show is holy and ordained by God. If we are exercising the senses we have (whether taste senses or sexual senses or our imagination) and do it in a right way that conforms to God’s design then what we are doing is holy and right.

  38. RandomGirl,

    Topic #16 – Is going to a strip club the same as watching porn?

    Your Statements:

    “I would argue that a painting, a drawing, a sculpture or any of the sort is NOT in the same league as a real woman stripping and having sex with real men for the viewing pleasure of others.
    I am aware that there is animated Porn, and that artists like sculpting perfect human bodies as a form of art.
    I would argue that there is no real sin in this as these are not real people and they are only a representation of reality.
    I get porn is a form of fantasy, but the difference is that it is real people and lusting after a real woman is obviously a sin while lusting after a “cartoon” or “statue” so to speak would not, actually the accurate thing to say is a cartoon or statue would NOT cause you to lust at all. However porn of the same caliber that exists now did NOT exist back in the day
    ….
    You did not answer my question about allowing your daughter to become a stripper. Strip clubs are a form of fantasy as well. It allows men to see naked women in front of them in different sexual positions for their viewing pleasure without actually being allowed to do anything about their sexual urges. You are ok with sexual pictures. Stripping is a form of having this sexual picture suddenly come to life.
    Would you be ok with your daughter or wife posting naked pictures online? Do you and your wife engage in posting nude photos of you guys having sex online?
    If no then why not? Wouldnt you be contributing to the well being of those who do not wish to stumble in fornication or adultery? Wouldnt it be a good thing if you did do it? Or is that a good you prefer others do instead of you? Heres my question, where in the bible can I find this practice and how can you justify this practice using scripture? Or is it possible that you have come to this conclusion away from using scripture?”

    You are absolutely logically and factually incorrect in distinguishing between a painting of a nude woman (or sexual situation), a drawing, sculpture, photo or movie of a woman doing these same things.

    A painting is a collection of paints on surface that form the image of a woman or couple in a sexual situation.
    A drawing is a series of lines on paper that form the image of a woman or couple in a sexual situation.
    A sculpture is a series stone of some sort carved in the image of a woman or couple in a sexual situation.

    All of these things existed through the Biblical eras as Erotic art can be found going back thousands of years – and yet the Bible never once condemns erotic art. Not once.

    What is a photo or movie? It is simply an image put to film or pixels on a screen. It is only a different medium for someone to record imagery. It is in essence an instant painting.

    True the technology makes this art far more lifelike – but that does not change the fact that a photo or movie is simply a collection of pixels that form the image of a woman or couple engaging in sex.

    But I maintain that your distinction between previous mediums which were used to hold images and modern photography is not logical and it not consistent and the Bible does not condemn us enjoying erotic imagery.

    Now as to would I allow my daughter to be a stripper or would advocate that it is ok for men to go to strip clubs because I say it is ok to view porn? Absolutely NOT!

    Why? Because a stripper is not a collection of ink on canvas, lines on a page, carvings in stone or pixels on a screen (in the form of a photo or a movie). All those things I just described are inanimate objects and you can’t have sexual relations with an inanimate object. Sexual relations require at least two living beings relating to one another sexually.

    A stripper is an actual person as opposed to an image that is a collection of pixels. So both the stripper is sinning and the man who pays her to strip for him is sinning. They are engaging in the sin of fornication. Even if they do not engage in actual physical intercourse or touch in any way they are still as two living beings sexually relating to one another and all forms of sexual relations between persons are restricted to a man and woman in the covenant in marriage.

    This is why engaging in cybersex using web cams or instant messaging or phones is also a form of fornication because again these are a form of sexual relations between living beings that are not a man and woman in the covenant of marriage.

    You CAN relate to living being through a web cam, a phone or by watching a stripper dance on a table in front of you. You CANNOT have sexual relations with a painting, a sculpture or a collection of pixels in the form of a photo or movie.

    Do I agree the “source inspiration” for all types of porn? Absolutely not. Probably only about 5% of porn online is produced using amateur married couples. I wish it were more – I would encourage married couples who are not shy to do this. But just because I disagree with the artist’s source for his work (using unmarried couples having sex) does not mean that it is any less beautiful to see a man and woman engaged in the act of heterosexual sex in all its beauty as God designed it.

    So no I would never want my daughter to be a stripper or engage in sex outside of marriage to make a porn movie.

    But to answer your final question:

    “Wouldnt you be contributing to the well being of those who do not wish to stumble in fornication or adultery? Wouldnt it be a good thing if you did do it?”

    However if as an adult my daughter decided to pose nude for amateur sites I would see no sin in that. If when she married her husband decided to allow her to make some amateur porn with him and display it online on an amateur site there would be no sin in that. In both cases – yes she would be blessing men and helping them not to stumble into fornication or adultery (real sexual sin). It would be a good thing for her to do if she were brave enough to do it. But as I have said before most people are too shy to make porn even if they enjoy it and that is ok. You don’t have to be able to get up on stage and act to enjoy a good play and neither do you have to be brave enough to do make amateur porn to enjoy the imagery that others have made.

  39. RandomGirl,

    Topic #17 – Are wives only to win their unsaved husbands without a word but they can rebuke and discipline their Christian husbands are disobedient to the Word?

    Your Statement:

    “The one where Peter tells wives to win their husbands over without a word is talking about winning her husband to Christ.
    Basically bringing her husband to Christ is to be done in this manner.
    When you love and serve others and show the love of Christ they will be “won over” by your reverent and loving behavior as Christ does for us. He says it has nothing to do with a wife putting up with her husband’s sin or that she’s not allowed to confront or place boundaries on his sinful behavior. It isnt forbidding that at all nor even referencing that at all.”

    So when I Peter 3:7 tells husbands to dwell with their wives according to knowledge giving honor unto them as the weaker vessel this only applies to husbands who have unsaved wives? I think not. The language of the entire part of I Peter 3 would apply equally to how a wife should react her husband who is a Christian and being disobedient to the word. There is no distinction between the respect and behavior of a wife toward her husband whether he is a Christian or non-Christian. To say so is completely unbiblical.

    Your Statement:

    “He says that the when a wife is called to suffer unfair treatment of her husband is when she has done good and gets mistreated for it. For example if she stands up to her husband sinful behavior he will most likely retaliate by mistreating her or abusing her verbally or emotionally and that THIS is when she will suffer wrongly for doing the right thing.
    The right thing would be to confront his sinful behavior because this would be in the best interest for not only her husband but the family. It is NEVER ok to allow sin to flourish.
    So she will endure grief and suffering for standing up to sin and she cannot retaliate with sinful behavior of her own to defend herself for this honors God.
    This again does NOT mean we are to witness sin as wives or children and do nothing and say nothing because we have no right. We as the family are not called to submit or tolerate sinful behavior from our headship, we are to expect Christlike behavior from them and we are to confront the sin in their lives.
    If we as believers are called to confront the sin in others how is confronting our husbands or fathers excluded from this?”

    There are rare situations where the Bible allows us to confront sin and wrong in our authorities. We see the example of the Apostles confronting the Jewish leaders and telling them they had to listen to obey God rather than them (Acts 4:17-19) and (Acts 5:25-29).
    There are also times when we are allowed to practice civil disobedience with our government like when the midwives hid the Jewish babies boys from being slaughtered and lied about it(Exodus 1:20-21). Rahab disobeyed her government in Jericho by hiding the spies (Joshua 2).

    There is even an example of a wife named Abigail who rescued her home from being slaughtered because of her husband’s evil actions and she went contrary to his commands to save him and her entire household from dying (I Samuel 25).

    But you know what you won’t find in advocated in the Scriptures? Wives rebuking and correcting their husbands and children rebuking and correcting their parents.

    In fact the Bible says this of how we are to be toward our elders (and this is not church elders but just generally older people than us:

    Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;2 The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.”
    1 Timothy 5:1-2 (KJV)

    When it comes to family – whether it is your father, mother, uncle, grandfather you do not have a Biblical right to rebuke them. No mam. And most of all you do not have the right to rebuke your husband who is to be your most respected authority. No mam – you are to reverence him as the Scriptures state in Ephesians 5:33.

    Let me give you an example of woman who did as you recommend and stood up to what she perceived was sinful behavior on the part of her husband:
    “20 Then David returned to bless his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, How glorious was the king of Israel to day, who uncovered himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself!
    21 And David said unto Michal, It was before the Lord, which chose me before thy father, and before all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the Lord, over Israel: therefore will I play before the Lord. 22 And I will yet be more vile than thus, and will be base in mine own sight: and of the maidservants which thou hast spoken of, of them shall I be had in honour.
    23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.”
    What was God’s response to her rebuking her husband? He made her barren. This should serve as strong warning to women who think they can assert authority over their husbands by rebuking their sin, correcting them and telling them what they think is right before the Lord.

    RandomGirl – there is not one passage in all the Bible that calls wives or children to rebuke the sinful behavior of their husbands or fathers. There may be times where they must practice civil disobedience in order to not engage in sin themselves – but that is far cry from a wife or child rebuking their husband or father. This is very displeasing to God.

    You as a wife are not the spiritual authority of your home. You are responsible for yourself and your children to the extent your husband allows you to be.

    You will not find one scripture and mean one –that backs up your ideology wives and children can EXPECT their father or husband to behave in Christ like manner and if he does not they can rebuke him and correct him. This is the height of heresy!
    Everything you have just mentioned is completely based on your feelings and not the Scriptures.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s