Why God Wants You to Seduce Your Husband

Most Christian wives today are taught that their husbands must earn sex with them by romancing them. What if the Bible taught the opposite? What if wives were required to seduce their husbands?

I know it sounds crazy. The Bible couldn’t possibly tell women they need to seduce their husbands, right?

Well if you give me a few minutes of your time the answer might surprise you.

In my article “How the Church Made Sex Dirty” I explain how Church fathers like Clement of Alexandria made sexual desire, even in marriage, to be dirty and sinful. This false doctrine infected the churches like a disease shortly after the Apostles death.  I show in that article that the Bible in fact has a very positive view of sex and in no way, does the Bible support the false teaching that sex is only for procreative purposes.  This false teaching is still alive and well in Christian churches all across the world today.

The negative view of sex was even worse when it came to women than to men. Women were taught to view sex as dirty and women who expressed any pleasurable thoughts about sex were condemned as whorish.

This brings us to how women view sex today in our modern era.

Six Modern Feminine Views of Sex

Below are six views of sexuality that women have today. I know some people hate to be boxed into categories.  But if you are a woman reading this, and you are honest with yourself or asked your husband to be honest with you, you would find that you will come closer to one of these categories than the others.

The Frigid Wife

This Frigid wife views sex as a dirty activity that is a necessary evil for conceiving children.  She has no desire to be touched in a sexual way or to touch her husband in a sexual way. If her husband presses her for sexual relations outside the context of trying to conceive a child she may reluctantly and grudgingly agree to do this “dirty” act with him.  But she will have a nasty look on her face and be lifeless as he has sex with her.

The Submissive Wife

The Submissive wife has regular sexual relations with her husband whenever he desires it because she believes God tells her to and she believes this will help keep him from sexual temptation. But she views sex from the female perspective as more of a “receptive” position.  She does not take any proactive steps to sexually arouse her husband or seduce her husband. She may actually enjoy sex sometimes with her husband but never enough to want to initiate it with him – she always waits for him to initiate sex.

The Romantic Wife

The Romantic wife loves sex but only views sex from a relational, romantic and feelings oriented position. She would reject the view of the Frigid wife that sex is only for procreation and she would also reject the view of the Submissive wife that a woman should just be in a submissive position to have sex with her husband whenever he desires it.

The Romantic wife believes her husband must earn each sexual encounter with her by romancing her.  If for any reason, she does not feel like having sex then sex will not occur. Like the Submissive wife though, she rarely if ever initiates sex with her husband because she believes sex in a marriage should always center on a husband romancing his wife.

The Nympho Wife

The Nympho wife is a woman that has a sexual nature that is more similar to that of a man than a woman in that her sex drive is more physically oriented than relationally oriented. This type of woman could easily be having sex with multiple men in the same period in her unending quest for sexual pleasure.

The Nympho wife’s primary goal in sex is not procreation nor is it to please her husband but rather to meet her own sexual desires. She really has no desire to take the time or energy to seduce her husband or to truly concentrate on giving her body to him for his pleasure.  She just wants the clothes off and to have him pleasure her and fulfill her sexual desires – him getting his sexual needs met is of little to no concern to her.

The Evil Seductress Wife

The Evil Seductress wife uses her body and her sexual charms to get what she wants.  She uses sex to lure her husband into marrying her and then afterwards uses her sexual charms to control him and manipulate him for the remainder of their marriage.  The Evil Seductress wife sees sex primarily as a tool for power and only secondarily as an activity for procreation or pleasure. Her goals in seduction may be just to have control of the man and his money or it may also include her desire for him to be a sperm donor to give her children.

The Good Seductress Wife

The Good Seductress wife is one who views sex primarily through the lenses of pleasing her husband sexually, not just submitting herself to her husband sexually. She goes much further than the Submissive wife in that she takes an active role in trying to please her husband sexually rather than just taking a passive role and waiting for him to initiate sexual relations.

The Good Seductress wife makes herself a student of her husband’s sexual preferences.  She learns what turns her husband on and what turns her husband off sexually. She not only learns all these things about her husband – but she acts on this knowledge. The Good Seductress wife realizes that she cannot fully please her husband sexually unless she finds a way to truly enjoy sex herself so she becomes a student of her own body as well helping herself to work in concert sexually with her husband to bring him the maximum sexual pleasure that she can.

Which of these views of sexuality are most common among women?

I would say based on what I have read and observed through real life interactions and emails that the majority of women in American come closest to the Romantic wife position on sex.  There are also probably a good number of women who come somewhere between the Submissive wife position and the Romantic wife position in that they will sometimes give into their husband’s request for sex even though they feel he has not really earned it.

The Nympho wife’s are a rarity but sadly there are more Frigid wives and Evil Seductress wives than people generally realize.

In the realm of Christianity Romantic wives are extremely common but in more conservative circles there are more Submissive wives.  The Good Seductress wife is the rare jewel alluded to in Proverbs 31:10.

Now that we have presented these common feminine views of sex we now to need to measure these views against the Scriptures as we should all our beliefs about life.

Sex is both a Responsibility and Right in Marriage

First we need to establish the fact that under God’s law sexual access to one’s spouse is both a responsibility and a right within marriage for both the husband and wife.

The Scriptures teach both the responsibility to give sex and right to have sex in marriage:

“3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.”

I Corinthians 7:3-5 (KJV)

I once heard a Pastor say to the young women of the church “If you don’t want to have sex three to four times a week for the better part of your life then don’t get married.”  Unlike many Pastors today – he had a Biblical view of sexuality in marriage. A person who wants to get married and not have much sex is like a person who joins a baseball team but does not really want to play baseball.

It is absolutely amazing to me how many Pastors and Christian teachers today question this very clear Scriptural command. They look for all kinds of ways to give spouses (primarily women) excuses for denying their spouse sex in marriage.

Sex is not just a right a responsibility in marriage – it is like water for men

I think it is very telling that God chose to use water to describe a man’s desire for sex.  God could have chosen to compare a man desiring to have sex with his desiring meat but humans can survive on just fruits and vegetables.  God chose something that is necessary for all life on earth and something that we cannot live without to describe a man’s sex drive.  In this one verse God makes it clear to both men and women – sex is a need for men, not just a want.

From a larger societal point of view while men on an individual level will not die from not having sex, the human race would die out if men don’t have sex with women. Even on a relational level, if a couple stops having sex the relationship often dies.

But here in Proverbs 5 we see that God is showing us that sex is a need on a very personal level for a man in comparing it to water.

But there is another principle God is teaching us about the masculine sex drive.  Water is not just necessary for life but it is also beautiful in its natural state.  Just imagine a beautiful lake, a mountain stream or an ocean view – water is one of God’s most beautiful creations. A man’s sex drive which is often thought of as “dirty” is actually said by God to be a pure as water.

As human beings, we don’t just need to take in water to survive, but we are mostly water – human beings are 60% water! In the same way that human beings are mostly water men are mostly sexual beings.  It is a very important and defining aspect of who men are.

This brings up an important distinction between men and women.  While both men and women desire sex – a core defining attribute of men is their sexual nature.  For women, the core defining attribute of who they are is their relational nature. A man’s sex drive fuels all aspects of his life and gives him energy for him to go out and build, explore and conquer his world.

A man’s desire to touch, taste and experience a woman’s body on a sexual level is as pure and beautiful as water and like water is a defining part of who we are as human beings so too a man’s sexual nature is a defining aspect of his person.

So some women might be reading this and saying “Ok you proved your point that my husband has a right to have sex with me and I need to give myself to him for sex.  But that is a far cry from me having to seduce him! Where is that in the Bible?”

We are almost to that answer, but first we have to talk about a special type of command in the Bible.

Some Biblical commands require a team effort to be fulfilled

There are commands in the Bible that we as individuals can fulfill without help from anyone else.  For instance the Bible tells us not to steal, not to covet and not to murder. It tells us to be kind and caring to others. We each are responsible on our own for fulfilling these commands. A wife is told to submit to her husband and she can do this regardless of his behavior toward her unless he tells her to sin.  A husband is to provide for and protect his wife and he can do this regardless of her lack of submission or other sins she may commit toward him.

However there are certain commands in Scripture which require two or more people to act in concert with one another. God’s very first command to mankind requires that husbands and wives work together.

“27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”

Genesis 1:27-28 (KJV)

So what must happen for men and women to fulfill God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply”?

  1. A man and a woman must agree to a covenant of marriage.
  2. A man and a woman must willingly come together in sexual union to create offspring.

If men and women do not marry and do not have sex this first command of God cannot be fulfilled.  A man cannot fulfill this on his own and neither can a woman but only in working together can man and woman fulfill this command of God.

Sex in marriage is not just for procreation or to avoid sexual temptation

Most Christian married couples do not know is that God gave another command that can only be fulfilled by husbands and wives working together:

“15 Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well. 16 Let thy fountains be dispersed abroad, and rivers of waters in the streets.17 Let them be only thine own, and not strangers’ with thee.

18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. 19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.

Proverbs 5:15 & 18-19(KJV)

Proverbs 5 shows the third principle of sex that is often ignored in Christian circles.  Most Christians will agree that God’s command in Genesis 1:28 to” Be fruitful, and multiply” tells us that one of the reasons God wants us to have sex is for procreation.  Most Christians would also agree that I Corinthians 7:2 tells us that we should have sex in marriage “to avoid fornication”.

But what most Christians do not realize is that God wants men to satisfy themselves – to drink their fill of their wives’ body for their pleasure. This principle of God wanting us to seek sex for its pleasure is routinely denied by Christian writers today.  Sue Bohlin, writing for Probe.org, displays the typical attitude of Christian writers who down play pleasure as a major motivating factor in sex:

“If the purpose and goal of sex is primarily pleasure, then other people are just objects to be used for sensual gratification. Since people are infinitely valuable because God made us in His image, that is a slap in the face whether we realize it or not. The Christian perspective is that the purpose of sex is relational, with pleasure as the by-product.

https://www.probe.org/what-god-says-about-sex/

The truth is that men primarily seek sex from the physical (or pleasurable aspect of it) and women primarily seek sex from the emotional (or relational aspect of it).  Christianity and Feminism both falsely teach that the female perspective of sex “that the purpose of sex is relational, with pleasure as the by-product” is the right perspective and that men have it all wrong and need to become more like women in their sexual natures.

These same people who deny that God intended for men to freely seek sexual pleasure in their wife’s body try and reinterpret the command in Proverbs 5:19 for men to be satisfied by their wife’s breasts as it teaching that men should be content with whatever their wives do.

They actually reverse the true meaning of this passage and use this passage to excuse laziness and lack of effort on the part of a wife to please her husband sexually. If she gained excessive amounts of weight, dressed in frumpy clothes and failed to have basic hygiene that husbands were to make themselves satisfied with her and ravished by her.  If she only liked to have sex in one position and only once a week with the lights turned off, again men were required to be satisfied by whatever their wife did or did not do.  Rachel Pietka, writing for relevantmagazine.com, shows a common Christian attitude that God does not care about Christians making a good effort to have great sex:

“Although sex is indeed God’s gift to us, Christians are not directly commanded by God to have great sex. Couples may find themselves incompatible in the bedroom, and they should not be bombarded with pressure from the Christian community to start having good sex and lots of it.”

http://archives.relevantmagazine.com/life/relationships/christians-are-not-called-have-amazing-sex

But I will demonstrate to you that this modern interpretation and application of this passage is false.

 “Let her breasts SATISFY thee at all times”

The English word “satisfy” is a translation of the Hebrew word “Ravah” which literally means “to be satiated or saturated, have or drink one’s fill or to drench, water abundantly, saturate”.

So when we understand that “breasts” are symbolic of her whole body this is what God is saying to men regarding their wives:

“Drink your fill of your wife’s body whenever you are sexually thirsty and drink until you are satisfied”

So as we have shown here – the teaching that men are just to be content with whatever their wives do or don’t do in the sexual arena goes in direct contradiction to what this phrase actually teaches.  Men are to drink their fill and drench themselves sexually in their wife’s body.

This flies in the face of modern teachings about sex in marriage that men should just be content with however much their wives want to have sex.  It also contradicts the idea that husbands should be content with whatever their wives want to do sexually. “You should only have your wife do what she feels comfortable doing sexually” – is that not what we are told today? If a man desires anything more from his wife than what she is comfortable with then he is told that he is going too far and is being selfish.

But this passage tells us husbands are to drink their fill of their wife’s body!  Am I saying there are absolutely no limits? Of course not.  I have written about these limits in my previous articles. In my article “Does a Christian wife have to submit to a sinful request from her husband?” I stated that a wife does not have to submit to her husband wanting her to participate in orgies or sex with other men. In my post “Do Christian wives have to submit to requests for anal sex by their husbands?” I showed why I believe that Christians should not engage in anal sex because the anus is not designed for sexual penetration and wives do not have to submit to these requests from their husbands.

But let’s be honest – these are extreme cases but some wives try and use these types of extremes to justify any limitations they want to put on their sex lives. For instance I have heard of cases on the other extreme where wives do not feel “comfortable” touching their husband’s penis.  They literally have never placed their hands on their husband’s penis.  These types of “uncomfortableness” have no Biblical backing and women with these types of issues should be challenged by their husbands to change their behavior and thinking.

“and be thou ravished always with her love”

The English word “ravished” is a translation of the Hebrew word ‘Shagah’ which has to do with drunkenness or intoxication.  Literally husbands are called to be intoxicated with their wife’s sexual love.

We associate drunkenness with wrong doing and most of the time it is.  But the Bible tells us certain types of intoxication are not wrong.  Listen to what Paul says about the Holy Spirit:

“And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;”

Ephesians 5:18 (KJV)

Paul is telling us not to be drunk with wine – but be drunk with the Spirit of God!  In the same way men are not to be intoxicated by whores but instead they are to be intoxicated by their wife’s sexual love.

It is critically important to point out that God tells husbands and wives that sex is not just for procreation as so many Christians have been wrongly taught in churches for centuries. Sex was also designed for pleasure and enjoyment. In this passage from Proverbs, God tells a man that he is to be satisfied by his wife’s breasts (symbolic of her entire body) and that he is to be ravished(intoxicated) by her love which is clearly erotic love based on the context of the passage.

Great sex in marriage is a team effort

The modern formula for sexual relations is that a man seduces a woman into having sex by romancing her.

The Biblical formula for sex is a woman makes herself affectionate as the loving hind” and beautiful as the “pleasant roe” and available “at all times” and she ties her affection, her beauty and availability together to make herself sexually intoxicating to her husband.  In other words – in the Biblical model of marriage a woman seduces or sexually entices her husband to come to his well and drink of the waters of her body and by doing this she intoxicates him, or ravishes him with her sexual love.

Now the team effort is that the husband must respond – to her affection, her beauty and availability.  He must choose to “drink his fill” of his wife so that he may be intoxicated by her sexual love.

So as we can see, these commands require a husband and wife to work together in the same way they must work together to follow God’s command to be fruitful and multiply.

Solomon tells us here in Proverbs that the answer to a man not running after strange women (whores) is for him to find satisfaction in his wife’s body and be ravished with her sexual love.

But how can a man be intoxicated with sexual love for his wife if she makes no attempt to be affectionate toward him and she does not make herself beautiful and she does not show him that her body is always available to him?

The answer to that question is the same answer to this question – how can a man be fruitful and multiply if he can’t have sex with his wife? It is impossible.  In the same way, for a man to be sexually ravished by his wife and sexually satisfied by her body she has to give him something to be ravished and satisfied by.

And this is not the only passage in the Bible speaking of erotic love between a man and woman.  The entire book of the Song of Solomon is dedicated to this type of erotic, physical and sexual love that God commands there to be between a husband and wife in Proverbs.

“7 This thy stature is like to a palm tree, and thy breasts to clusters of grapes. 8 I said, I will go up to the palm tree, I will take hold of the boughs thereof: now also thy breasts shall be as clusters of the vine, and the smell of thy nose like apples; 9 And the roof of thy mouth like the best wine for my beloved, that goeth down sweetly, causing the lips of those that are asleep to speak.”

Song of Solomon 7:7-9 (KJV)

I also want to bring up one passage that does not speak specifically of sexual love in marriage but would still apply to how a woman shows her husband sexual love in marriage:

“She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.”

Proverbs 31:12 (KJV)

This passage above from Proverbs speaks of the virtuous wife.

If a wife denies her husband sexually is she doing him good or evil?

She is doing him evil.

If a wife has sex with her husband, but does so in a grudging manner is she doing him good or evil?

She is doing him evil.

If a wife has sex with her husband but does so in a frigid manner is she doing him good or evil?

She is doing him evil.

If a wife refuses to make a good faith attempt to cause her husband to be satisfied with her body and be ravished with her sexual love by getting to know his sexual preferences and acting on those things is she doing him good or evil?

I would argue that a woman who fails to make a good faith attempt to know her husband’s sexual desires and satisfy them to the best of her ability in order to cause him to be ravished by her sexual love is in clear violation of the Word of God.

But why does God want women to seduce their husbands?

We have shown from Proverbs 5:19 that God wants wives to seduce their husbands to help fulfill the command that their husbands be ravished by them. But why did God setup such a paradigm wherein women must seduce their husbands to cause them to be ravished in their wives?

To answer that question, we have to ask another question first.  Why does the Bible say God created the world?

“Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.”

Revelation 4:11 (KJV)

God created the world and his most precious creation mankind, to bring him glory and honor and for him to exercise his power.  Not only does God have power over our lives – but he is worthy to receive that power by his very position as creator.  But God did not just make his creation to receive glory, honor and power – but he also created it for his own pleasure.

Like an artist or engineer that receives pleasure from their own creations God himself receives pleasure from his creations.

In this same way, God created woman to give man honor and glory and to allow him to exercise his power.

 “7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.”

I Corinthians 11:7-10 (KJV)

“A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband: but she that maketh ashamed is as rottenness in his bones.”

Proverbs 12:4 (KJV)

And God has also created woman to be a source of comfort, blessing and pleasure for man:

“And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.”

Genesis 24:67 (KJV)

“25 Even by the God of thy father, who shall help thee; and by the Almighty, who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts, and of the womb:”

Genesis 49:25 (KJV)

“18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. 19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.

Proverbs 5:18-19 (KJV)

Conclusion

God has created woman to be a source of comfort, blessing and pleasure for man and this is why he commands that husbands are to find sexual satisfaction in their wife’s bodies and be ravished by their wife’s sexual love.

But a husband cannot fulfill this command on his own any more than he can fulfill God’s command to be fruitful and multiply on his own.  For a husband to find satisfaction in his wife’s body and for him to be ravished by his wife’s sexual love requires active participation rather than just passive participation on his wife’s part to accomplish these goals.

In order to do this a wife must make her husband to believe and feel that her body is available to satisfy his sexual desires whenever he wishes.  She must seduce him with her body and her sexual love for him.

A woman who simply spreads her legs and gives sex in a frigid manner is not cooperating with her husband to fulfill the command of God which requires BOTH their participation to fulfill. Wives must not just submit to sexual relations with their husbands but they must also give their husbands something to be ravished by!

In this article, we simply showed the command of God found in Proverbs 5:19 that women should sexually satisfy their husbands with their bodies and seduce their husbands with their sexual love. But we did not talk about how a woman could act out this command and set about to seduce her husband.

Many times, in the Scriptures God not only give us commands but he also give us examples to help us understand ways in which we can act out those commands.  For instance, in 1 Timothy 5:14 God tells women to “guide the house” and then if we look back to Proverbs 31 he gives a detailed example of how a woman can fulfill her duty to “guide the house”.

In the same way in the area of a wife seducing her husband God has not left women without an example.  In fact, God has given us not only a chapter like Proverbs 31, but an entire book in the Song of Solomon! In our next post, we will assemble a series of examples and principles found in the Song of Solomon that can act as sort of “A Biblical Guide to Seducing Your Husband”.

Advertisements

How the Church Made Sex “Dirty”

For centuries, many Church leaders and scholars have seen sex as dirty and a necessary evil.  When it was encouraged it was encouraged only for its procreative value and not for the purposes of pleasure.  Once a man’s wife was pregnant there would be no procreative value to sex so the couple should not engage in sex simply for pleasure.  Also, once a woman passed her child bearing years there would be no need for sexual relations to continue because again it had no procreative value.

When it came to women the Church and society at large discouraged women’s enjoyment of sex even more so than men until the rise of modern feminism. If a woman enjoyed sex, she would have to keep that to herself otherwise she may be considered whorish – even by her own husband sometimes.

Anyone who reads this site will know I have no love for feminism.  I believe it has done far more harm to society than good. The free sex movement was also born out of feminism and again that movement did far more harm to society than good.

However, in history sometimes good does come out of evil events. The holocaust was one of the most wicked events in human history yet this created the catalyst to finally bring Israel back as a nation.  Like some other wicked events – the wicked feminist and then free sex movements did cause Christians to have to question their generally negative views of sexuality that had been held for so many centuries.

This lead to the rediscovery of the fact that the Bible has an entire book, the Song of Solomon, dedicated to celebration of erotic love in marriage.

“7 This thy stature is like to a palm tree, and thy breasts to clusters of grapes. 8 I said, I will go up to the palm tree, I will take hold of the boughs thereof: now also thy breasts shall be as clusters of the vine, and the smell of thy nose like apples; 9 And the roof of thy mouth like the best wine for my beloved, that goeth down sweetly, causing the lips of those that are asleep to speak.”

Song of Solomon 7:7-9 (KJV)

The previous passage from the Song of Solomon literally alludes to a man wanting to take hold of his wife’s breasts as he mounts her for sex and at the same time french kisses her while they are having sex.

The Song of Solomon even alludes to the desire for and the pleasure from oral sex within marriage:

Here the wife alludes to her desire to perform oral sex(fellatio) on her husband:

“As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.

Song of Solomon 2:3 (KJV)

The apple tree was a symbol of a man’s genitals in ancient times and her sitting in his shadow displays the idea of her kneeling before him performing oral sex on him.  It even shows that his fruit (his semen) was sweet to her taste.

In the following passage, the husband describes his desire to perform oral sex(cunnilingus) on his wife:

“Until the day break, and the shadows flee away, I will get me to the mountain of myrrh, and to the hill of frankincense.”

Song of Solomon 4:6 (KJV)

The “the mountain of myrrh, and to the hill of frankincense” is symbolic of a woman’s pubic mound.  So literally the husband was saying to his wife – “I want to go down on you all night long”.

Later in the same chapter the wife expresses her desire for her husband to perform oral sex(cunnilingus) on her:

Awake, O north wind; and come, thou south; blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits.”

Song of Solomon 4:16 (KJV)

The “north wind” is speaking of the man’s head and specifically him using his mouth.  She implores him to go “south” to her “garden” referring to her genital area. She asks him to “blow upon my garden” – meaning to perform oral sex so that “the spices thereof may flow out” referring to him causing her natural vaginal lubricants to flow. When she encourages him to “eat his pleasant fruits” this is directly equivalent to another phrase we use today to describe when a man performs oral sex on his wife.

There are many other sexual allusions in the Song of Solomon but you get my point.

The rediscovery of the Bible’s positive view of erotic love in marriage helped to spawn many Christian books encouraging Christian couples to no longer look at sex as a necessary evil only for procreation – but rather as gift from God to be enjoyed for its many other benefits.

In the last several decades scientific research has confirmed that regular sexual relations often bond couples together closer on a chemical level. They also found that regular sexual relations had a very positive effect on mental health and chemical balances in the body.

How sex became “dirty”

About 50 years after the last Apostle(John) died, a man who would later be regarded as an early father of the Church known as Clement of Alexandria stated this about sex:

“Our general argument concerning marriage, food, and other matters, may proceed to show that we should do nothing ‘- from desire. Our will is to be directed only towards that which is necessary. For we are children not of desire but of will.  A man who marries for the sake of begetting children must practice continence so that it is not desire he feels for his wife, whom he ought to love, and that he may beget children with a chaste and controlled will. For we have learnt not to “have thought for the flesh to fulfil its desires.” We are to “walk honourably as in the way”, that is in Christ and in the enlightened conduct of the Lord’s way, “not in revelling and drunkenness, not in debauchery and lasciviousness, not in strife and envy.”

Clement of Alexandria, “On Marriage”, Chapter VII

So Clement is saying when a married couple come together as an act of the will for the sake of having a child and not because of their sexual desire for one another their is no sin.  But sex, even in marriage, simply for the sake of pleasure is a fleshly indulgence in Clement’s view.

Justin Martyr writing around 150 AD stated the same belief as Clement:

“But whether we marry, it is only that we may bring up children”

Justin Martyr, The First Apology of Justin (150-160 A.D), CHAPTER XXIX — CONTINENCE OF CHRISTIANS

Augustine of Hippo wrote this in his treatise “On the Good of Marriage” around 400 AD:

“Further, in the very case of the more immoderate requirement of the due of the flesh, which the Apostle enjoins not on them by way of command, but allows to them by way of leave, that they have intercourse also beside the cause of begetting children; although evil habits impel them to such intercourse, yet marriage guards them from adultery or fornication. For neither is that committed because of marriage, but is pardoned because of marriage…

For intercourse of marriage for the sake of begetting has not fault; but for the satisfying of lust, but yet with husband or wife, by reason of the faith of the bed, it has venial fault: but adultery or fornication has deadly fault, and, through this, continence from all intercourse is indeed better even than the intercourse of marriage itself, which takes place for the sake of begetting.”

Augustine of Hippo, Of the Good of Marriage(401 AD), Section 6

Augustine saw the desire for sex outside of “begetting children” as a venial sin that was better than the mortal sins of adultery and fornication. In his other writings he acknowledged that God made them “male and female” and intended on sexual reproduction but like Clement of Alexandria he believed it would have been an act of the will and not an act of passion or pleasure in God’s original design.

The 8th Century theologian John of Damascus wrote:

“Carnal men abuse virginity, and the pleasure-loving bring forward the following verse in proof, cursed be every one that raiseth not up seed in Israel. But we, made confident by God the Word that was made flesh of the Virgin, answer that virginity was implanted in man’s nature from above and in the beginning. For man was formed of virgin soil.  From Adam alone was Eve created. In Paradise virginity held sway. Indeed, Divine Scripture tells that both Adam and Eve were naked and were not ashamed. But after their transgression they knew that they were naked, and in their shame they sewed aprons for themselves. And when, after the transgression, Adam heard, dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return, when death entered into the world by reason of the transgression, then Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bare seed. So that to prevent the wearing out and destruction of the race by death, marriage was devised that the race of men may be preserved through the procreation of children.

But they will perhaps ask, what then is the meaning of “male and female,” and “Be fruitful and multiply?” In answer we shall say that “Be fruitful and multiply” does not altogether refer to the multiplying by the marriage connection. For God had power to multiply the race also in different ways, if they kept the precept unbroken to the end.  But God, Who knoweth all things before they have existence, knowing in His foreknowledge that they would fall into transgression in the future and be condemned to death, anticipated this and made “male and female,” and bade them “be fruitful and multiply.” Let us, then, proceed on our way and see the glories of virginity: and this also includes chastity.”

John of Damascus (8th century) Chapter XXIV.–Concerning Virginity

John of Damascus went further than Augustine believing that God’s design of “male and female” was not his perfect will but instead a concession based on his foreknowledge that Adam and Eve would eventually sin and need to create children through marriage and sex. In other words sex was never part of God’s perfect design but rather a concession he made because he knew sin would occur.

This just demonstrates the crazy lengths that Church theologians would go to in an effort to explain away the fact that God made them “male and female” from the very beginning.

What the Church fathers and their later followers taught regarding the condemnation of all earthly desires for anything that is pleasurable was part of a false ideology we now call Christian Asceticism.

The Apostle Paul confronted asceticism in the Church

The Apostle Paul saw asceticism on the rise within the churches and fought against it as is seen in this passage of the Scriptures:

“20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? 23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.

Colossians 2:20-23 (NASB)

But almost immediately after the Apostles died the Apostles war against asceticism was lost and it spread through the church like a disease. While we would agree with the Church fathers that things like homosexuality, bestiality and orgies are “dirty” or fleshly forms of sex the church fathers went further in even calling normal heterosexual desires dirty and saw sex in marriage only as a necessary evil for reproduction.  They also strongly encouraged celibacy even in marriage and called on husbands and wives to suppress their “fleshly” desires for sexual pleasure with one another.

So, in summary – if you condemn yourself as “dirty”, or other men and women as “dirty” for having pleasurable thoughts about sex or for thinking of sex as more that a procreative exercise you can thank many of the early church fathers for that false belief – but not the Apostles who opposed such thinking.

In stark contrast to the negative view of sex of the Church fathers the New Testament book of Hebrews tells us this:

“Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”

Hebrews 13:4 (KJV)

The Apostle tells us that “the bed” is “undefiled”.  Literally sex which happens in marriage is both honorable and pure in God’s eyes.  Neither Christ nor his Apostles ever restricted sex in marriage to be for procreative purposes only.

If we look in the Old Testament we find that a man is actually encouraged to be satisfied by his wife’s body and ravished with her sexual love:

“18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. 19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.

Proverbs 5:18-19 (KJV)

Proverbs chapter five makes it abundantly clear that sex in marriage is not simply for procreation. It was also given to mankind for pleasure.

Clement of Alexandria’s writings on this subject of sex in marriage puts on full display the fatal flaw of the church fathers who falsely attributed the Bible’s warnings against “fulfilling the desires of the flesh” (Ephesians 1:3) as the Bible condemning the enjoyment of any earthly pleasures.  They completely missed the spiritual application of the word “flesh” which applied to the sin nature in man and the fact that neither Christ nor his Apostles ever unilaterally condemned all human desires nor did they want Christians to live lives devoid of any pleasure.

Christ and his Apostles taught two important points. We as Christians should not live for earthly pleasure where the pursuit of earthly pleasure is the center of our life to the neglect of our service to God and our families. We also should not follow the desires of our sinful and corrupted nature (which is spiritually referred to as our “flesh”).  But it is not a “fleshly desire” for one to desire certain foods and take pleasure from eating them.  It is also not a “fleshly desire” for a man or woman to take pleasure from sexual thoughts or fantasies or to desire sexual relations with their spouse.  These human desires are pure and part of our original nature as given to mankind in the Garden of Eden by God himself.

Conclusion

The church fathers were not perfect men. They were not inspired by God in the way the Apostles were who wrote the Bible. They were imperfect men writing imperfect commentaries on the perfect Word of God.  But some of their misinterpretations and theological errors still plague the Church and Christians to this day.

I hope that if you view sex as “dirty” or even sexual desire and sexual fantasy as dirty you will reevaluate those kinds of thoughts.  Our human sexual natures, especially our distinct male and female sexual natures, are a gift from God.  They were given to mankind in the Garden of Eden as part of mankind’s original design.  We as Christians should never feel any shame for these desires or for exercising our sexual nature within the bounds of Gods law.

Why Christian men should NOT be ashamed of “locker-room talk”

Both Christian and non-Christian men need to stop apologizing for their masculine nature and specifically their masculine sexuality.  Men need to stop bowing down to Church leaders and feminists who have joined in an un-holy alliance against masculinity as God designed it.

Before I get into what the Scriptures say and don’t say about this subject of “locker-room talk” by men let’s first look at a couple of incidents that made national headlines in the last few months.

Donald Trump’s “locker-room talk”

The phrase “locker-room talk” made national headlines when a tape of Donald Trump was leaked where he engaged in sexual talk about women.  Donald Trump spoke of married women who he had sex with and grabbing women by their genitals. Later he made it clear he was just joking about these things.

Should Christians defend Donald Trump’s locker room talk? No way!

By Biblical standards it would be absolutely wrong for a Christian to engage in adulterous behavior with married women or randomly grab women by their genitals.

“So he that goeth in to his neighbour’s wife; whosoever toucheth her shall not be innocent.”

Proverbs 6:29 (KJV)

Christian men should neither joke nor brag about such things or engage in such behaviors.

Should we as Christians take a stand against and discourage our sons from ever speaking even jokingly of sexually assaulting women? Of course, we should.

Should we as Christians take a stand against and discourage our sons from ever joking about trying to convince a woman to have sex with them outside of marriage (whether she is married or not)?  Of course, we should.

Clearly Donald’s Trump’s “locker-room talk” included joking about adultery and sexual assault.

But as many men could tell you there are plenty of types “locker-room talk” between men that do not include joking about committing fornication, adultery or sexual assault.

Another type of “locker-room talk”

Contrary to the assertions of raving feminists and others who see most men as potential rapists there are a lot of men that engage in types of locker-room talk that never includes talk about getting women to commit adultery against their husbands or groping women.

Below I have put together a sample of how some men might actually talk when they are away from women.

Just an additional warning for those reading this – I am going to be very real here in showing how men actually talk when they are away from parents, women and the general public.

These are examples of “locker-room talk” that do not include statements about fornication, adultery or sexual assault:

Teenage Boy #1 “What do you think about Mary and Jane?”

Teenage Boy #2 “Well I would rate Mary as 8 with 10 being best.  Jane is a probably a 6.”

Teenage Boy #1 “Why do you rate Mary higher than Jane?”

Teenage Boy #2 “I like bigger boobs.  Mary’s boobs are just bigger.”

Teenage Boy #1 “I think Mary’s butt is too big though.  I just can’t get past that. Jane has a smaller, yet still full butt.”

Teenage Boy #2 “So how would rate them Mary and Jane?”

Teenage Boy #1 “I would give Mary a 5.  She is just too big for me. I would give Jane a 7.  She has a really nice butt but her breasts are still a little too small to give her a higher rating.”

Teenage Boy #2 “What about Sarah? She has some sexy legs, doesn’t she? If I were rating her on legs alone I will give her a 10! But unfortunately, she has flat chest and a flat butt so I have to give her a 4”.

Teenage Boy #1 “I agree with your rating of a 4 for Sarah – fantastic legs but not much else going for her.”

Teenage Boy #2 “Now Andrea – you have to admit she has the perfect body.  She has boobs – not too big and not too small.  She has a perfectly sculpted butt and legs to die for. The problem is the face.  Her nose is huge and her eyes just don’t look right. She is the very definition of a “butterface”.  I guess I would have to rate her as a 7 although I could never see marrying her because for me a woman has to have a pretty face”.

Teenage Boy #1 “I would give Andrea a 10! I could overlook the face for that perfect of a body! And you did not even talk about her hair.  Come on from the back she has the most beautiful long hair you would ever see. Speaking of Andrea.  Yesterday she had the perfect blouse on. She came over near me in class to talk to one of her girlfriends and as she bent down on the desk to talk to her I got a glimpse of her cleavage. Holy cow did that make my day!”

Conversations like the one I have just described have occurred in various forms using different language among men both young and old, single and married all over the world since the beginning of creation.

So really, we have two types of locker-room talk that men engage in. One is limited to rating women’s sexual attractiveness by rating their various physical features.  The other goes beyond simply rating women’s sexual attractiveness and goes into joking about getting women to engage in sex outside of marriage or sexual assault.

The Harvard Soccer Team Scouting Report Scandal

“In what appears to have been a yearly team tradition, a member of Harvard’s 2012 men’s soccer team produced a document that, in sexually explicit terms, individually assessed and evaluated freshmen recruits from the 2012 women’s soccer team based on their perceived physical attractiveness and sexual appeal.

The author and his teammates referred to the nine-page document as a “scouting report,” and the author circulated the document over the group’s email list on July 31, 2012.

In lewd terms, the author of the report individually evaluated each female recruit, assigning them numerical scores and writing paragraph-long assessments of the women. The document also included photographs of each woman, most of which, the author wrote, were culled from Facebook or the Internet.

The author of the “report” often included sexually explicit descriptions of the women. He wrote of one woman that “she looks like the kind of girl who both likes to dominate, and likes to be dominated…

The document and the entire email list the team used that season were, until recently, publicly available and searchable through Google Groups, an email list-serv service offered through Google.”

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/10/25/harvard-mens-soccer-2012-report/

Harvard’s response was quick and strong:

“The men’s soccer team had performed impressively this season. Harvard was ranked first in the Ivy League, and fifteenth nationwide, within striking distance of both the league tournament and the national N.C.A.A. tournament. There was a strong sense on campus that they had winning left to do. However, after learning that the scouting report was not a unique artifact but part of a tradition that has continued for years, and that members of the team had been less than transparent in their initial interviews, the university decided to cancel the rest of the men’s soccer season.”

This was part of the reaction of the women’s soccer team at Harvard:

“In all, we do not pity ourselves, nor do we ache most because of the personal nature of this attack. More than anything, we are frustrated that this is a reality that all women have faced in the past and will continue to face throughout their lives. We feel hopeless because men who are supposed to be our brothers degrade us like this. We are appalled that female athletes who are told to feel empowered and proud of their abilities are so regularly reduced to a physical appearance. We are distraught that mothers having daughters almost a half century after getting equal rights have to worry about men’s entitlement to bodies that aren’t theirs…”

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/10/29/oped-soccer-report/

Here are some more other reactions to the scandal:

“Yet the soccer-team revelations are a sobering reminder that sexist behavior can’t easily be stamped out through rules, regulations, and imposed consequences alone. The problem with “locker-room talk,” whether it takes the form of Trump boasting about groping women or college students ranking the appeal of their peers, is that sexist speech normalizes sexist behavior. In the case of Harvard’s soccer team, what’s extraordinary is that the talk can’t be dismissed as casual or made in passing: it was co-authored, edited, and preserved as an official group record. While we might be resigned to encountering objectifying speech or behavior at a bar or a beer-soaked spring-break party, it’s sobering to see it codified in the form of a shared Google document. In effect, the scouting report became a set of instructions used, year after year, to dehumanize women.”

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-dehumanizing-sexism-of-the-harvard-mens-soccer-teams-scouting-report

“The nine-page report full of numeric ratings, photos, and evaluations is shocking in its mix of explicitness, thoroughness, and matter-of-factness. But it’s not surprising. The objectification of women combined with a male sense of entitlement is the kind of thinking that, taken a step further, leads to so many sexual assaults on so many college campuses…”

https://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2016/11/15/starts-with-locker-room-talk-and-then-gets-worse/H05PWvytDLaGmrP3kXr8mN/story.html

So, in summary the men’s soccer team at Harvard kept a list of how the men’s team ranked various members of the women’s soccer team. This was a tradition dating back several years.  The women’s bodies were ranked in detail according to their various physical attributes, assigned code names and what would be their best potential sexual positions.

Harvard’s response was quick and merciless. They suspended the entire team and canceled the remainder of their season.

Was the Harvard Scouting Report Scandal an attack on women or an attack on men?

Let me first say that I agree that at the very least the Harvard men’s soccer team acted stupidly by placing such a document on a such a public venue as Google groups.  But even though they acted stupidly in this regard – no evidence has been presented that shows these team members ever meant for the collection of their sexual thoughts about these women to become public.

But let’s say they had not put the document on Google groups where it could easily be found. What if they had kept the document a closely guarded secret of the team? Would that have made any difference? I believe the answer is YES.

I am by no means saying that every word in this document made by the team was right by Biblical standards.

But the concept of young men ranking women by their sexual attractiveness is NOT an immoral practice or a violation of Biblical principles.

It is also not a crime or an immoral act for young men to privately discuss amongst themselves various physical attributes they like about women whether they know them personally or do not know them personally.

Here is the real truth about this situation that happened at Harvard.  Make no mistake the outrage here was not about a soccer team sexually ranking their female counterparts on the women’s soccer team.  This incident was simply used as a vehicle with which to allow women to vent their hatred for male sexuality.

Examining key words from the detractors of Harvard Men’s Soccer Team

“reality”

Both women and men know this is the reality of how male nature operates.  While some men may not vocalize their thoughts and many even condemn themselves for having such thoughts both sides acknowledge this as a reality.

“frustrated”

It is not uncommon for detractors of the male nature to be frustrated by the fact that they cannot change man’s design.

“entitlement”

This word was used in the context of men feeling they were entitled to these women’s bodies. Now as I have shown countless times on the blog from a Biblical perspective a husband is in fact “entitled” to his wife’s body.  But that is not what we are discussing here. We are referring to young men who are not married to these women feeling entitled to these women’s bodies.

The problem with this “entitlement” attack against these young men is that there is no language that has been revealed so far that indicates such a thing. Rather this word would apply more to the detractors of men for ranking women by their sexual attractiveness.  You see there are many in our culture today that feel they have a right to control the thoughts and feelings of others.  The truth is they do not.  And only when men willingly give up power over their own thoughts as so many have for the past century can others take power over the thoughts of men.

“sexist”

Webster’s online dictionary defines “sexism” as:

“1   :  prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially :  discrimination against women

2    :  behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex”

The fact is that it is no more “sexist” for men to privately discuss amongst themselves the physical attributes of women around them and rank their sexual appeal than it is for women to privately talk amongst themselves about their feelings on any given subject.  In other words, telling men not to talk sexually is the equivalent of telling women not to talk emotionally with one another.  Yet our culture fully condemns the former while uplifting the latter.

 “dehumanize”

When people refer to men “dehumanizing women” or “objectifying women” they are saying the same thing. They are implying that when a man finds a woman sexually attractive and speaks of her body and its various parts that he has reduced her to an inanimate object to be used and discarded as we would any other inanimate object.

But what these attackers of masculinity miss is that it does not dehumanize a person to view them for their “function” rather than their “person”. We do this all the time in many areas of life without realizing it.

When both men and women get together to assemble their fantasy football teams they are not looking at these football players for their personhood, but rather for their sports function.  What are each player’s strengths and weaknesses as it pertains to football?  That is all that matters in this scenario.

When a military commander puts together a special operations team he is not looking at the personhood of these men but rather their military function.  Each man has unique abilities and functions that when put together serves their intended overall function.

There are countless other examples where we look at people all the time for the potential functional ability in any given scenario yet we do not look down at these other types of objectification.

So, it is ok to make a fantasy list of real football players and rank them based on their potential football ability yet it is seen as morally repugnant for men to make a list of women at their school and rank their bodies based on their sexual appeal and fantasize about their sexual ability?  Do we not see the inconsistency here?

The fact is it does NOT dehumanize a person to see them for their function – whether it be their potential athletic ability, singing ability, fighting ability (as in military members) or women for their sexual appeal and potential ability to bring sexual pleasure to a man.

Yes men naturally see women as objects to be enjoyed for their sexual pleasure. However it is precisely because the vast majority of men ALSO see women as persons that they do not  just grab women and try to have sex with them. Rapists only see women as objects of sexual pleasure and not also as persons and this is the huge difference.

“assault”

The last word I want to discuss from the detractors of male sexuality is the word “assault”.  The implication is that if men feel free to sexually rank women that this would lead men to sexually assault women.

Nothing could be further from the truth.  The same logic is used by those who attack men for looking at and enjoying pornography.  One of the attacks against porn use by men has been something like this “men who sexually assaulted women all report looking at some type of porn first”.  We are then lead to believe that one lead to the other.

But this is akin to saying “all rapists and molesters ate food.  Therefore, eating food causing people to become rapists”.  The point is this line of logic is utterly ridiculous.

If a man sexually assaults or rapes a woman it was because it was always in his heart to do this . It was only a matter of the right opportunity arising and him getting up the nerve to act on his evil desires.   Watching porn did not cause him to do it and neither did sexually ranking women cause him to do it.  It was there all the time.

The reality is that the vast majority of men who watch porn or sexually rank women never assault a woman and don’t even entertain fantasies of assaulting women.  They entertain fantasies of consensual sex – not rape.

What if the Harvard women’s soccer team had done something like this?

Imagine if the women’s soccer team had assigned each one of its members to research the personalities and various characteristics of each of the male soccer players and they made a similar list from a female perspective?

I am sure it would be have been far less sexual and more personality oriented.  This because of the difference of how women operate from men.  Women for the most part are relational and men are physical. I don’t doubt that on some level even if it was never documented that some of the women’s soccer team members did talk about various men on the men’s soccer team as to which ones they found attractive and why.

But I doubt even if the women had ranked the men’s team even in a more feminine(so more personality and less sexual way) nothing would have happened.  If the list was made public everyone would have had a good laugh and nothing would have happened.

The Christian response to “locker-room talk”

Karen Prior writing for Christianity today wrote the following comment in her article entitled “Call Out Locker Room Talk for the Sin That It Is”:

“Now the current debate over “locker room talk,” I’m happy to report, highlights our decreasing acceptance of the old, broken morality that “boys will be boys.” …

Not long ago, my husband, a public high school teacher and coach, was in a car with two of his students. One spotted a female jogger up ahead and made a couple of lascivious comments. To the boy’s surprise, my husband responded by pulling up alongside the jogger, lowering the passenger side window where the student was sitting, and saying to him, “I’d like you to meet my wife.”

It’s a funny story. But it’s funny only because of how it ended. That “locker room talk” turned into a teachable moment for a man-in-the-making: make that two men-in the making, because after driving away, the second boy, seated wide-eyed in the back seat the entire time, asked my husband if he was going to “beat up” the other boy for what he said. Instead, my husband sternly but lovingly lectured both students, first about respecting women and then about resolving conflicts peacefully. What my husband did in that moment is what all good men must rise up and do when locker room talk enters the conversation.”

http://www.christianitytoday.com/women/2016/october/call-out-locker-room-talk-for-sin-it-is.html

The opinion of this Christian writer would probably be very common amongst most Christians.  “Locker-room talk” in all its forms whether it be comments like Donald Trump’s or even seemingly less comments about a woman’s behind are equally sinful their opinion.

She mentions that the young man made some “lascivious comments” about the jogger (which he did not realize was the coach’s wife). I am going to take a guess at what the young man may have said.

“Look at the body on that woman. Her butt is amazing”.

Now is this a “lascivious comment” by Biblical standards?

Lasciviousness” is the old English word for what we now call “sensuality”.  It was a translation of the Greek word “Aselgeia” which literally means “out of control” or “over indulgence”.  What it was referring to was someone who had an addiction or overindulged in some type of physical pleasure and it was not restricted to sexually related pleasure.  A drunkard would be guilty of engaging in “Aselgeia”. While thinking about sex or even enjoying the view of beautiful women whether in person or in print or on a screen is not sinful it can become sinful if it becomes obsessive and the central focus of our life.  When our pursuit of any earthly pleasure causes us to neglect our relationship with God, our spouse, our children or our other responsibilities then something that was not sinful at first can become sinful.

But make no mistake – a man enjoying the physical pleasure of a plate of food at his favorite restaurant as well as that boy enjoying the sight of that beautiful jogger is not lascivious, lustful or sinful.

There is a common belief amongst Christians that if a man is sexually aroused by, has thoughts about or speaks words reflecting his arousal and thoughts about a woman he is not married to that this is sinful behavior.  Some may not call it lascivious as this writer did.  They may instead call it lustful. But the problem with such thinking is there is absolutely no Scriptural backing for such a position.  It is based on culture, opinion and peer pressure alone.

The fact is that God designed male sexuality and no he did not originally design some magical switch in men that they would only be aroused by a woman once they were married.  Some people actually believe this ridiculous theory because they cannot accept the male visual and physical arousal mechanisms as God given. It is a sin, in their view, for a person to experience or exercise any part of their sexuality before being married. This is why they preach so hard against masturbation and sexual fantasy.

Now lest someone get the wrong idea.  I teach on this blog what the Bible teaches.  The only sexual relations God honors are between a man and woman in the holy covenant of marriage as the book of Hebrews states:

Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”

Hebrews 13:4 (KJV)

But young people experiencing and exercising their sexuality, rather than sexual relations, before marriage is NOT forbidden.  There is no sin in a young man or young woman experiencing sexual pleasure from a sexual dream or sexual thought about a person of the opposite sex.  It is what we do with those thoughts that become sinful.  It is when we allow our sexual arousal to turn in sexual covetousness which is what lust is. It is when we start thinking about how we can convince someone to have sex outside of marriage.

But aren’t men engaging in impure speech when they talk about sexually related things?

The most common phrase that is assigned by Christian leaders to men talking together about women in a sexual manner is the word “impure”.  These thoughts about women’s body parts or about sexual fantasies about women are said to be “impure”.

There are many articles on Christian websites that exhort men to not engage in any sexual thoughts(fantasies) or sexually explicit speech with other men so that they may remain pure.  Here are some common verses that are used to support this position.

“Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. “

Philippians 4:8 (KJV)

But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.”

Ephesians 5:3-5 (KJV)

So here is what happens in the typical church men’s youth group or young college men’s class.

They are told that sexual talk between men that compare’s women’s bodies or talks about women’s body parts or any talk of sexual fantasies is by definition “impure”, “filthy” or “dirty” talk.  Then the speaker will ask men “Can you honestly say when you are talking about those women’s bodies that are speaking in a pure way? Is that a lovely way to speak about women? Or is it dirty and disrespectful? We all know the answer that is impure speech based on impure thoughts”.

If you have been raised in most Christian churches you will recognize this speech or a variation of it.

If you as a Christian man ever hear this speech about Christian men engaging in impure speech in connection with men talking sexually about women here are some questions you should ask the teacher or speaker when they open the room for questions or discussion.

“How do you know that talking about women’s body parts is impure speech? Where does the Bible call such speech by men impure?”

If the teacher responds with Matthew 5:28 that “Well Jesus said that if a man looks with lust on woman then he is committing adultery in his heart”.  Then you can respond with these questions for your teacher about lust.

“But what is lust? Doesn’t the Bible tell us in Romans 7:7 that lust is covetousness? And isn’t covetousness the desire to unlawfully possess something that does not belong to us? Where does the Bible teach that sexual arousal, sexual fantasy or talking about women’s bodies or body parts is lust?”

At this point your teacher’s head will be spinning because unfortunately most Christian teachers simply parrot what they have been taught in their church, college or seminary.   I understand that many of these preachers and teachers are good men with good intentions.  They only want to please God with their lives. But because of how they been indoctrinated both by their church as well as our culture they cannot see sexual talk between men as anything less than dirty or impure.

They might for good measure throw one more verse at you to try and support their faulty belief that men sexually ranking women’s bodies is dirty and impure.

“I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid?”

Job 31:1

There is actually a website called CovenantEyes.com that bases it’s mission on this verse. They and other Christians claim that Job was saying in this verse that he made a covenant with eyes never to think sexually about a woman he was not married to.

The problem is the Scripture don’t say that. We agree that men can have wrong thoughts about women.  But we disagree on what those wrong thoughts are. So here is how you answer you teacher if he brings up Job’s covenant with his eyes not to think upon a maid:

“Sir should we not be careful of adding to God’s Word? We know that Job was saying he would not think about something about a woman.  What does the Bible tell us we should not think about regarding women? It tells us not to think about seducing virgin women to have sex with us outside of marriage right? It tells us not to engage in prostitution right? So we should not think about seeing prostitutes right? It tells us not to think about seducing our neighbor’s wife right? So how can we add something to wrong thoughts that God never adds? Are you not adding a condemnation of men  talking about women’s bodies to God’s Word?”

I have actually had this conversation with several pastors both in email and some of my friends on the phone.  They never have clear answers to these questions because they have never questioned the Christian culture they have been raised in.

But isn’t it wrong to compare women’s beauty or say one woman is not as attractive as another?

There are some people – both Christian and non-Christian who believe it is morally wrong to ever directly compare two women and say one is more attractive than the other.  But the Bible shows us this is not the case:

“Leah was tender eyed; but Rachel was beautiful and well favoured.”

Genesis 29:17 (KJV)

We don’t know exactly what “tender eyed” meant but we know whatever it meant – it is was the opposite of “beautiful and well favoured” which is what Rachel was.

God literally told us in his word that Rachel was hot and Leah was not.

But in this area of rating beauty we as men need to practice discretion. God was not saying we should walk up to two women and say to one “You know she is so much better looking than you!”.  That is not the right time and place for a man to express such a thought.

Now if you were with your guy friends alone and you wanted to express the fact that you thought one sister was hot and the other was not there would be no sin in that. Again, so many things in the Christian life come down to time and place.

“To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven”

Ecclesiastes 3:1 (KJV)

What was the lesson those boys could have learned?

If that coach had understood what the true meaning of lust and lascivious are in the Bible he could have had a very different conversation with those boys.  Instead of scolding that boy for his God given male sexuality he could have helped him to understand it and channel it.

The right way to handle that scenario could have gone as follows.

After the comments the boy made about how sexy the jogger was the coach still could have pulled over and introduced the woman as his wife.  Of course, the boy would blush and feel embarrassed as he did in the actual story.

Then when the other boy asked him if he was going to “beat him up” for what he said he could have said “Why would I beat him up for having the same thoughts about my wife that I did when I first met her?” He could have been honest about his male sexuality instead of hiding and condemning himself and every other man for having the same nature.  Contrary to popular belief today – the masculine sexual nature is not equivalent to the sin nature. Has man’s masculine nature been corrupted by sin just as woman’s feminine nature has been corrupted by sin? Yes.  But in its original design the masculine nature is a beautiful nature.

The coach could have then helped the boy who made the comments about his wife’s body with these words:

“It is normal for you to have these thoughts about women.  God gave you these desires.  God is the one who designed your brain to give you pleasure signals when you see a beautiful woman like my wife.  But you need to channel that God given gift and don’t misuse it. It is one thing for you to privately say to me and other guys what you find attractive in various women’s bodies.  But it would have been very different if you had yelled out the window to that jogger – “He babe you got a nice ass!” as you go barreling by in your car. That would be disrespectful behavior toward women.

Also, I want to address the whole “do I want to beat him up” question you asked. It is one thing If you know that a woman is married or in a relationship with the man you are with then you need to be careful of your words with him about her.  He may be sensitive about men complimenting his wife’s beauty.  Now if he seems to invite you to tell him what you find attractive about his wife then it may be ok but still be careful.

But there is a lesson for you if you are the man whose woman that is. How can you be angry at another man for having the EXACT same thoughts you know you had about your girlfriend or wife? It is extremely hypocritical and illogical for you to do so.  Now if that man is flirting with your girlfriend or wife or acting like he wants to seduce them that is a whole other story.  You have a right to be angry then.  But even then, we don’t settle these kinds of differences with violence.  We use our words – not our fists.

I also want you to realize that while it is ok for you to exercise your God given male sexuality by enjoying the sight of and thoughts about beautiful women and even masturbation – it is not ok to have sex outside of marriage.  You need to guard your thoughts from being just sexually pleasurable to being sexually lustful.  You need to keep yourself from being in sexually tempting positions with girls that you date where you will be tempted to have sex outside of marriage.”

Now what I have just described would have been a healthy and Biblically based conversation about male sexuality.  Instead those two boys walked away feeling condemned for being aroused by that beautiful jogger.

Conclusion

Male sexuality has been assaulted in many ways since shortly after the birth of Christian asceticism during the life of the Apostles. While Christianity today has shook off many parts of Christian asceticism remnants of it remain in our Christian culture.  Not only that but our secular cultural which has been poisoned by feminism attacks male sexuality as well.  So, in way men are getting double teamed by Church leaders as well as secular feminist leaders.

I can’t tell you how encouraging it has been to me to receive emails from Pastors, teachers and Christian men and women from all over the world whose are eyes are finally being opened to false attacks on male sexuality.

Young men are actually joining in small groups to discuss my writings on this subject of male sexuality from a Biblical perspective.

As I said earlier in this article –  I do not agree with Donald Trump’s “locker-room talk” comments.  He was joking about trying to get women to commit adultery and sexual assault and neither of these topics should be joked about by men.

But this does not make all “locker-room talk” by men sinful.  Men certainly need to practice discretion with how they engage in this talk.  The men’s soccer team at Harvard did not practice discretion when the put their “Scouting Report” on a publicly available server where someone might find it.

But if men practice the Biblical principle of “time and place”(Ecclesiastes 3:1) and speak about women’s bodies amongest themselves in way that does not joke about sinful behavior(as Donald Trump did) then there is no sin in this.  No man should ever be ashamed of such speech when it is done in the right place and right time.

And for my Christian friends who will say “whatever you say in private you should be able to say in public” there is no Biblical principle or command that backs up such a statement. In fact it is wise and godly to hold our tongue on a host of issues and speak to people privately about certain things.  And from a marriage front I would bet each and every one of these people would not want their private sexually related speech with their spouses made public.  So this argument that just because you need to reserve certain speech for controlled settings that it is wrong has no Scriptural basis whatsoever.

I do believe though that these events with Donald Trump and the “Scouting Report” incident at Harvard provide us with a great opportunity to call out the misuse of the male sexual nature but at the same time make a strong defense of the male sexual nature as God intended it to be.

 

Christian blogger says porn use is good for Christians

A Christian blogger is using the Bible as well as statistics and studies to challenge church leadership and secular leaders who oppose the production of or use of porn.  How could anyone in their right mind come up with such a crazy idea? Is it even worth it to read his so-called “evidence” from the Bible and other sources that porn use is not bad?

So who is this Christian blogger making these claims? Well that Christian blogger is me.

Since I started my blog about two and half years ago I have tackled many gender based subjects from a Biblical basis.  During that time while teaching on lust I have stated that I did not believe the Bible condemns the use of all forms of pornography and that some porn use is both Biblically acceptable and good to use.

But my statements on porn have opened up a lot of questions from my readers. I have tried referring my readers to other Christian sites that are completely dedicated to a positive Christian view of porn but I realized over this last year that I need to answer some of these difficult questions directly.

This is a huge topic and I did not want to release it in pieces but instead I wanted to release several articles all at once to answer what I think are the most common questions about porn from a Biblical perspective. This post will serve as the launching pad to several articles on porn that all connect together.

79 percent of men between the age of 18 and 30 look at porn

The fact I just cited is from a 2014 Barna Group survey reported by the Washington Times.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/24/more-than-half-of-christian-men-admit-to-watching-/

The number of men looking at porn drops as men age so when you take middle age men (40s and 50s) and elderly men (60 and older) together the percentage of men of all ages looking at porn on a monthly basis is 64%. But still that is a pretty high number.  So basically three quarters of young men (18 to 30) look at porn on a monthly basis and two thirds of all men across all ages look at porn on a monthly basis.

And if you are wondering about if there is any difference between Christian men – these numbers were from Christian men. The numbers are basically the same between Christians and non-Christians on this issue.

I mention this fact before moving on to talking about the morality of porn use for two very important reasons:

  1. If you are a man and you look at porn you are not in a minority. You are not some weird pervert.  The vast majority of men are doing pretty much the same thing you are doing.
  2. If you are a wife there is a very high probability that your husband is looking at some type of porn on a monthly basis no matter what he tells you and no matter what you want to believe about him.

Just because most people do something does not make it right!

If you believe porn use is wicked and immoral you probably were just shouting the above statement after reading the stats I just showed and you know what? I agree with you.

Just because the vast majority of people do something does not make it right. In fact the vast majority of people could be engaging in a wrong type of behavior. I talk about this all the time on this blog.

But then we have to ask ourselves a question.  How do we know if an activity is wrong? Well for us as Christians there is one answer to this and that is we must measure our every thought, word and deed by the Bible.  The Bible is literally the Canon, the measure by which we must judge our lives. The word “sin” in the Bible literally means “to miss the mark”. So when we don’t do the good God calls us to do we miss the mark and when we do things God tells us not to do we miss the mark as well.

With this being said as an introduction to this highly controversial topic I would ask that you read each of the related articles below in the order they appear as each one builds on principles established in previous articles.

One other thing I want to mention – these articles are primarily written to men in regard to their porn use but I do believe that Christian women can learn a lot from these articles.

10 common arguments against porn

Societies that allow porn experience a large reduction in sex crimes

Porn use is “a way to escape” the temptation of extra-marital sex

The production of amateur porn can actually be a ministry and be honoring to God

How to talk to your teens about porn

Should you tell your girlfriend or wife you look at porn?

Do Christian wives have to submit to Bondage and Sadomasochism requests from their husbands?

“My husband has begun to practice your “7 Ways to Discipline Your Wife” plan on me because I will not participate in the BDSM activities that he desires. I want to have sex with him! Just not with BDSM.” – This is part of an email I received from a Christian wife who calls herself Olivia.

So is refusal to participate in BDSM activities as a form of sexual foreplay the same as sexually denying one’s spouse?

What is BDSM?

This is the definition of BDSM according to Wikipedia:

“The term BDSM is first recorded in a Usenet posting from 1991, and is interpreted as a combination of the abbreviations B/D (Bondage and Discipline), D/s (Dominance and submission), and S/M (Sadism and Masochism).”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BDSM

This is another definition of Bondage from Wikipedia:

“Bondage is the practice of consentually tying, binding, or restraining a partner for erotic, aesthetic, and/or somatosensory stimulation. Rope, cuffs, bondage tape, self-adhering bandage, or other restraints may be used for this purpose.

Bondage itself does not necessarily imply sadomasochism. Bondage may be used as an end into itself, as in the case of rope bondage and breast bondage. It may also be used as a part of sex or in conjunction with other BDSM activities. The letter “B” in the acronym “BDSM” comes from the word “bondage”. Sexuality and erotica are an important aspect in bondage, but are often not the end in itself. Aesthetics also plays an important role in bondage.

A common reason for the active partner to tie up their partner is so both may gain pleasure from the restrained partner’s submission and the feeling of the temporary transfer of control and power. For sadomasochistic people, bondage is often used as a means to an end, where the restrained partner is more accessible to other sadomasochistic behaviour. However, bondage can also be used for its own sake. The restrained partner can derive tactile pleasure from the feeling of helplessness and immobility, and the active partner can derive visual pleasure and satisfaction from seeing their partner tied up.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bondage_(BDSM)

So in summary BDSM is when one person consensually allows themselves to be tied up and possibly punished by another person and may even endure physical pain either for their own pleasure or for someone else’s pleasure. BDSM may or may not be used as foreplay for sex.

Before I give my response to Olivia’s dilemma here is her full statement to me.

Olivia’s Story

“BGR,

My husband has begun to practice your “7 Ways to Discipline Your Wife” plan on me because I will not participate in the BDSM activities that he desires. I want to have sex with him! Just not with BDSM. He says my unwillingness to submit to BDSM practices is a form of sexual denial and I’m not fulfilling my Christian duty if I don’t do this for him. We have been married for 18 years. I have followed his desires and tried to even initiate sex for all our 18 years of marriage. I even tried the BDSM stuff a few times to see if I could do it. I hate it! Every possible scenario. Sex doesn’t happen until he has finished “the game”. I’m done!

I want a normal (whatever that is) sex life. No more “games”. Just us in the bedroom with nothing but skin. Mad passionate sex! Yank each other’s clothes off, can’t wait to touch you, sex – which has never happened. I’m going through menopause, he says I don’t have any sexual desires right now. I do, it’s just not what he wants. I have prayed, cried out to God for wisdom, we went to marriage counseling, nothing has changed. And now he sends me links to your site and gives me the ultimatum.

He says his “needs” aren’t being met and I’m sexually unavailable for him. I’ve already gone through the steps you have given on what to do. Talked with our pastor (with him), counseling, confront him, pray. I’m not an outspoken kind of person, just someone who is trying to save” her marriage. He is a good man, he has some control issues, but most of his actions are from a Godly heart. Any help would be great.”

My Response to Olivia and the issue of BDSM as it relates to Christians

Requests for BDSM come not only from some husbands as is the case in Olivia’s story, but sometimes they actually come from Christian wives too.  I know of a Christian man whose wife left if him for another man because he refused to practice BDSM as sexual foreplay.  She wanted to be tied up and gagged with a ball in her mouth and she wanted to act out rape fantasies with him. She wanted him to be rough with her and choke her during sex.  He thought this was disgusting and refused to act out these fantasies with her.  So she found another man who would and eventually left her husband for that man.

So how should a Christian husband or wife respond to requests for BDSM from their spouse? I believe the answers are clear when we understand the Biblical associations of bondage and pain.

Christians should not seek pleasure through bondage and pain

The Bible associates bondage and pain with this world that has been corrupted with sin.

“Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.”

Romans 8:21 (KJV)

“But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?”

Galatians 4:9 (KJV)

“To the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you will bring forth children; yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

Genesis 3:16 (NASB)

No Christian ought to take pleasure from being bound or binding someone else. No Christian out to take pleasure from causing themselves pain or causing pain to others.

Christians should embrace liberty and healing

Rather than seeking enjoyment through bondage and pain, Christians should seek freedom and healing both for themselves and those around them.

“18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 19 to preach the acceptable year of the Lord.”

Luke 4:18-19 (KJV)

 “And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.”

Revelation 21:4 (KJV)

“Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.”

Galatians 5:21 (KJV)

What about fluffy handcuffs and silk ties?

When I talk about Christians not submitting themselves to bondage for sexual pleasure I am not talking about a wife playfully taking some clothes and tying her own hands around the bedpost or using fluffy handcuffs that she can easily get out of it.  These are playful things.  Just check out those links above and you will see the disgusting types of bondage activities I am talking about (warning some images on Wikipedia regarding BDSM are graphic).

What if my spouse refuses to have sex with me without BDSM?

I am not sure but I believe this may be the case with Olivia. If your spouse refuses to have sex unless you engage in BDSM foreplay then it is they who are in fact sexually denying you.  If this is the case and you are a husband I suggest you follow the steps outlined in my article “8 Steps to confront your wife’s sexual refusal”.  If you are a wife and this is the case then I suggest you follow the steps outlined in my article “4 Steps to confronting your husband’s sexual refusal”.

Get counseling for people who have BDSM fetishes

If your spouse is willing to –encourage them to seek out a good Biblical Christian counselor who can help them overcome these sinful desires.  In many ways people who have BDSM desires are really no different than those who have homosexual or bisexual desires.  These desires are all sinful corruptions of the natures that God gave us.

“If you don’t think wife’s can refuse sex to their husbands you must be into BDSM!”

I can’t tell you how many times I have been accused in emails of being a person who enjoys BDSM with my wife because of my view that a wife cannot sexually refuse her husband. Let me be perfectly clear.  I have never nor will I ever engage in BDSM practices with my wife.

People write me on almost a daily basis with statements like “Why would any man want to have sex with a woman who does not want to have sex with him?” My answer to them is simple – no normal man wants his wife to be refusing him for sex.  No normal man enjoys sex with his wife when she does it grudgingly in the way he enjoys it when she gives herself freely to him. But he realizes that sex must occur in marriage for many reasons even when his wife may not be in the mood.  This is not the optimal situation and this is not what a loving husband wants.

But let me be clear that a husband accepting his wife’s grudging and reluctant consent to sex and then engaging in sex with her under those conditions is not the same as a man who takes pleasure in forcing BDSM activities on his wife. 

In the first case – the husband gets no pleasure from acting against his wife’s will, in the second case the majority of the husband’s pleasure actually comes from acting against his wife’s will.

And just for all the rape accusers out there.  When I say a husband “acting against his wife’s will” I am talking about her mood and desire for sex.  I have said it repeatedly on this site that while I do not believe that Biblically speaking there is such a thing as “marital rape” I do believe that a husband who physically forces himself sexually on his wife is engaging in physical abuse and he is abusing the authority God have given him over his wife.  When I say a husband is “acting against his wife’s will” in the first case – it is where she reluctantly or grudgingly gives CONSENT to sexual relations, but make no mistake consent is given.

And sorry rape accusers – consent does not have to be “enthusiastic consent” or its rape as you like to say.   Grownups realize that whether it is comes to sex, or going to our jobs or doing many other things in life – sometimes we consent do doing things unenthusiastically because we know we should even though we don’t feel like it.

Conclusion

If your spouse tries to do what Oliva’s husband has done and attempts to say you are sexually denying them because you refuse to participate in BDSM activities as foreplay to sex you need to let them know your conviction that these acts violate your conscious and you feel that God would not want you as a Christian participating in them. Be sure to be loving when you do this.  Especially if you are a wife you need to really do this with a great deal of respect and reference for your husband.

What Olivia so longs for with her husband – “Just us in the bedroom with nothing but skin. Mad passionate sex! Yank each other’s clothes off, can’t wait to touch you, sex” is a desire that has been given to her by God and she should feel no shame in that. Her husband on the other hand, needs to realize that his desires for BDSM foreplay with his wife are not desires that God gave him.  They are a corruption of the original nature God gave him and he needs to recognize them as such and repent.  He most likely needs to seek out a Biblical Christian counselor to help him to deal with these sinful desires to cultivate a natural sexual desire for his wife as she has natural sexual desire for him.

If her husband refuses to have sex with her until she agrees to BDSM as foreplay to sex then she practice the steps outlined in my article “4 Steps to confronting your husband’s sexual refusal”.

And just a closing note to husbands like Olivia’s. Never on this site have I ever told men they can divorce their wives for sexual performance issues – only sexual denial.  Those are completely different things.  I have men all the time writing me asking me things like “If my wife won’t perform oral sex on me can I divorce her for sexual refusal” and I always answer them with a resounding NO!

Many men and women may lack in the sexual performance area but just because your spouse won’t perform sexual acts (outside of intercourse) does not mean you can leave them.  You need to first examine if what you are asking for is Biblically acceptable sexual behavior. If it is then speak with them gently about it.  If they refuse then pray for them.

In other words as Christian husbands we should NOT punish our wives because they won’t do certain things like wear lingerie, act in sexy ways toward us or perform oral sex on us.  

However I do believe that we can use positive reinforcement to encourage our wives to act outside their comfort zones in the area of sexual performance.  Basically you let your wife see by your actions (not your words) that when she “steps it up” in the bedroom by doing things outside her comfort zone that in response you “step it up” outside the bedroom by doing extra nice things for her.

6 Ways a Wife Can Understand Her Husband’s Sexual Needs

It is all too common today for women to see their desires as deep and meaningful “needs” while their husband’s desires are selfish “wants”.   The truth is that God designed men and women to come together as “one flesh” and in it’s most literal sense “one flesh” refers to sex.

“For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.”

Ephesians 5:31 (KJV)

While both men and women have a desire for physical and emotional intimacy men typically have the strongest desire for physical intimacy and women typically have the strongest desire for emotional intimacy.

A woman must respect her husband’s stronger desire for sexual intimacy as much as she wants her husband to respect her stronger desire for emotional intimacy.

All of us as men and women better understand one another when we can relate our different needs to one another.  For instance one thing I mentioned in the list above is that a man desires to know his wife’s body in the same way a woman desires to know her husband’s heart.

If wives were to really think about that they might better relate to their husband’s desire in this way.  Ladies your husband wants to explore(and re-explore) every part of  your body in the same way that you want to explore(and re-explore) every part of his heart.  Often times when women hold back parts of their body or refuse to let their husbands see them naked they will find that he will in turn hold back parts of his heart from them.

In the list above I have tried to tastefully, yet symbolically show several distinct areas of sexuality that are important to most men.  If you need a translation for each one then let me know – but I think you all should get the point.

The main point to take away from this is, if you as a wife want to have a successful marriage you must view your husband’s sexual needs as outlined above as just as important, deep and meaningful as your desires which I compared them too.

Also don’t fall into the trap of – “well he does not do all those things(or any of those things), so when he does all those things then I might do some of those things”.  This should not be the attitude of a godly Christian wife. I encourage you to view these things as not only an act of love, but also as an act of submission to your husband.

Wives- God commands that your husband be ravished(intoxicated) by your body and your sexual love toward him.  But he cannot be intoxicated by that which is held back or not freely given to him.

“Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.”

Proverbs 5:19 (KJV)

 

Do Christian wives have to submit to requests for anal sex by their husbands?

In Ephesians 5:24 the Bible commands that wives are to submit to their husbands in “everything”.  Does “everything” include anal sex? Or does this fall under the exception clause to all earthly submission that “We ought to obey God rather than men.”(Acts 5:29)?

Beyond submission – what if the woman wants anal sex? Is it ok for a Christian couple to engage in anal sex?

Some Christians would give a quick response of “No way – anal sex is sodomy and sodomy is condemned in the Bible!”

However the word “sodomy” never occurs in the Bible.  That is a word made up in the English language.  Most people today when they hear the word sodomy think of one of two things – homosexual acts especially between two or more men or anal sex.  But the definition of sodomy in English is broader than this and includes oral sex or anal sex even between a man and woman.

This is the definition of “sodomy”:

“anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex;”

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sodomy

The Roots of “Sodomy”

Now while “Sodomy” is never used in the Bible the roots for this English word can be seen in the story of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis chapter 19. Previously Abraham’s nephew Lot had moved with his family to the city of Sodom and Abraham had received angels from God that told him God would destroy Sodom for its wickedness.  Abraham asked for God to spare Lot and his family so the angels went there to get them.

The men of Sodom surrounded Lot’s house and demanded that he would send out the two angels so they could have sex with them.

So Biblically speaking what would “Sodomy” be? If we look at Genesis 19 it is when one man forcibly has anal sex with another man.

What about the word “sodomite”?

The word “sodomite” is used in these passages of the King James translation of the Bible:

“There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.”

Deuteronomy 23:17(KJV)

“And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the Lord cast out before the children of Israel.”

1 Kings 14:24 (KJV)

“And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.”

1 Kings 15:12 (KJV)

“And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land.”

1 Kings 22:46 (KJV)

“And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the Lord, where the women wove hangings for the grove.”

2 Kings 23:7 (KJV)

I love the KJV and I quote from it regularly as it is often has the most literal English renderings of phrases from the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. However from time to time even the KJV translators would take liberties with certain phrases and this unfortunately is one of those cases.  The word that they are translating as “sodomite” is a translation of the Hebrew word “Qadesh” which literally means “male temple prostitute” and it has absolutely no connection to the Hebrew word for Sodom which is “Sedom”.  The original meaning of “Sedom” is unknown but eventually it came to mean “burning” in reference to God’s fiery judgment on the city of Sodom.

A “Qadesh” was man who sold himself for sex and the money used to pay him would go to the pagan temple with which he was associated. Often these were not just prostitutes but they were in fact male sex slaves. Would it be true that often times these men did engage in homosexual sex acts with other men? Absolutely. But they could also engage in sex acts with wealthy women as well so in the truest sense their activities were bisexual in nature.

The point about the word “Qadesh” (which was wrongly translated as “sodomite” in the KJV) is that it does not refer specifically to anal sex, but instead it refers to male temple prostitutes.

Now the argument I have just made is one that many advocates of homosexuality make to discount Biblical prohibitions against homosexuality.  But just because the Hebrew words behind Sodom and Sodomite do not specifically refer to homosexual acts this does not mean the Bible does not clearly condemn homosexual acts.  Make no mistake that it does.

God condemns homosexual acts between men in the book of Leviticus:

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

Leviticus 18:22 (KJV)

God condemns homosexual acts between men and women in Paul’s letter to the Romans:

“26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

Romans 1:26-27 (KJV)

But here is my point about the words Sodomy, Sodom and Sodomite.

Sodomy is never found in the Bible and even if the roots of this English word refers to the wickedness of Sodom it does not refer simply to anal sex. Instead it would refer to men forcibly having anal sex with other men – in other words one man raping another man. In a broader sense Sodomy might refer to all types of wickedness that were practice in Sodom including homosexuality, whoremongering, prostitution and rape.

The word Sodom refers to the name of a Biblical city and has nothing specifically to do with sexual sins.

The word Sodomite is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word for male temple prostitute and while these prostitutes may have engaged in anal sex they also engaged in many other sex acts including normal sexual intercourse.

So if someone wants to say anal sex is condemned because the Bible condemns sodomites they would be incorrect in that connection. The Bible in these cases is condemning the rape of men and men being prostitutes.

So is anal sex ok for Christian married couples to engage in?

Up to this point you might think I am arguing that anal sex is ok because I have just shown that the Bible’s condemnation of sodomites is not a specific prohibition against anal sex but rather a prohibition against raping men and men being prostitutes.

But this is not the case.  I believe there is a Biblical case to be made against Christian couples engaging in anal sex whether it is because the woman wants to, the man wants to or they both want to. But we cannot build that case on the Bible’s condemnation of the acts of Sodom or the use of the word “sodomites” in the KJV.

Also I just want to say that anyone who knows me and has read my writings knows that I try to be very careful not to add to the law of God. We should not add rules for things as many Christians do just because we find these things to be “icky”.

For instance I am one of the few Bible believing Christian bloggers online that takes the position that the use of porn is not always sinful and can in fact be helpful to Christian men and women in many ways if used correctly. Even though there is no specific passage of Scripture that condemns the production of nude images or the use of porn (contrary to those who try and use Matthew 5:28 to condemn it) many Christians see “Thou shalt not use porn” as the 11th commandment.

So I am sensitive to the fact that when I say I believe anal sex is wrong I could be accused of doing exactly the same thing that I say Christian opponents of porn are doing.

So with all that being said as an introduction to the topic of anal sex let me now show you why I believe the Scripture condemn anal sex as a practice even between a husband and wife within the bounds of marriage.

Where does the Bible condemn anal sex?

If you want to find a passage that says “thou shalt not have anal sex” there is no such passage.

But you won’t find Scripture passages for some of these things either:

You won’t find a Bible verse that says “thou shalt not punch thy wife and beat her to a bloody pulp whenever you get angry with her”.

You won’t find a Bible verse that says “thou shalt not punch thy children and beat them to a bloody pulp whenever you get angry with them.”

You won’t find a Bible verse that says “thou shalt not break the speed limit while driving.”

I could go on but you get my point.  There are many things where we do not have a passage of Scripture that speaks to that specific activity yet we know that God did not just “forget” about it.  Some of these wicked activities are condemned by broader condemnations and by broader Biblical principles.

We know we should not break the speed limit not because of some specific Bible command against it but because of the broader teaching of passages like this one from I Peter 2:

“13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; 14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.”

I Peter 2:13-14 (KJV)

So we need to follow the speed limit as it is an ordinance of man and speed limits do not step outside the authority that God has given local government nor does a speed limit require us to go against the laws of God.

The Bible does give the right and responsibility for parents to use corporal punishment on their children:

“Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.”

Proverbs 13:24 (KJV)

But it does not allow the abuse of children – our discipline is to be not supposed to be some sort of revenge but it is for our child’s good.  We discipline our children out of love for them and looking out for their wellbeing:

“6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. 7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? 8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.”

Hebrews 12:6-8 (KJV)

When it comes to wives and discipline God shows that he disciplined his wife Israel and later disobedient churches in Revelation:

“And I also have given you cleanness of teeth in all your cities, and want of bread in all your places: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the Lord.”

Amos 4:6 (KJV)

“As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.”

Revelation 3:19 (KJV)

But while husbands are called to discipline their wives – they are also called to love their wives as their own bodies by protecting them and caring for their needs:

“28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church”

Ephesians 5:28-29 (KJV)

When a man beats his wife as abusive husbands do this is by definition an act of hatred against his wife and it is clearly condemn by the principles set forth in Ephesians 5:28-29 (KJV)

In other posts I have argued that if a man physically abuses his wife she is allowed to be freed from him just as a slave was to be freed from their master if they were physically abused by their master as seen here in Exodus:

“26 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake. 27 And if he smite out his manservant’s tooth, or his maidservant’s tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake.”

Exodus 21:26-27 (KJV)

The right not to be physically abused by those in authority over us is a basic human right that God gives to all human beings from the lowest social casts to highest social casts. No child, no wife, no human being is called by God to endure physical abuse simply because the person is in authority.

Some say a wife should just take physical abuse based on passages like this:

“But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

Matthew 5:39 (KJV)

But this is talking about persecution for the sake of the Gospel. This is not talking about a wife enduring bloody beatings from her husband because he comes home angry and wants a punching bag. It also does not forbid Christians from fleeing persecution even for the Gospel when they can:

“Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.”

John 8:59 (KJV)

“32 In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king kept the city of the damascenes with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me: 33 And through a window in a basket was I let down by the wall, and escaped his hands.”

II Corinthians 11:32-33 (KJV)

My point in all this is that just because the Bible does not specifically talk about things like physically abusing your wife or children or breaking the speed limit does not mean it does not condemn these activities. In the same way I believe that while the Bible does not specifically mention anal sex there are Biblical principles that would in fact condemn anal sex.

What Biblical principles condemn anal sex?

Some Christians make an argument against anal sex based on the health risks it presents.  Some of these health risks are laid out in this article from WebMD:

“The anus lacks the natural lubrication the vagina has. Penetration can tear the tissue inside the anus, allowing bacteria and viruses to enter the bloodstream. This can result in the spread of sexually transmitted infections including HIV. Studies have suggested that anal exposure to HIV poses 30 times more risk for the receptive partner than vaginal exposure. Exposure to the human papillomavirus (HPV) may also lead to the development of anal warts and anal cancer. Using lubricants can help some, but doesn’t completely prevent tearing.

The tissue inside the anus is not as well protected as the skin outside the anus. Our external tissue has layers of dead cells that serve as a protective barrier against infection. The tissue inside the anus does not have this natural protection, which leaves it vulnerable to tearing and the spread of infection.

The anus was designed to hold in feces. The anus is surrounded with a ring-like muscle, called the anal sphincter, which tightens after we defecate. When the muscle is tight, anal penetration can be painful and difficult. Repetitive anal sex may lead to weakening of the anal sphincter, making it difficult to hold in feces until you can get to the toilet. However, Kegel exercises to strengthen the sphincter may help prevent this problem or correct it.

The anus is full of bacteria. Even if both partners do not have a sexually-transmitted infection or disease, bacteria normally in the anus can potentially infect the giving partner. Practicing vaginal sex after anal sex can also lead to vaginal and urinary tract infections.”

http://www.webmd.com/sex/anal-sex-health-concerns

So the argument of some Christians is that because of these health risks Christians should not engage in this activity as our bodies are called the temple of God and we are to care for them and not abuse them.

The Bible speaks of our bodies belonging to God:

“19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.”

I Corinthians 6:19-20 (KJV)

Some might respond to the health risks of anal sex like a recent commenter on my blog who goes by the name of Jonadab-the-Rechabite:

“Your argument that anal sex is dangerous I think is also overstated. It is an activity less dangerous than motorcycle riding, and like motorcycle riding there are prudent measures that can mitigate the risks and make the activity safer and enjoyable. Is it a sin for a husband to want his wife to ride on the back of his motorcycle? The other ditch is to ignore those risks altogether, refusing prudent measures, this is loveless concern on the part of the husband. The same risks could be said about consuming pork. Pork could be dangerous if not properly cooked, it makes many people uncomfortable to eat an unclean animal and has been associated with health risks like heart disease.”

So should we not do things only because they are risky? Of course not.  If a husband asks his wife to do something and she does not want to do it simply because it has any kind of risk is she ok refusing? No – I don’t think risk alone gives a wife the right to refuse.

In fact I don’t think risk alone should stop a couple from doing something together like anal sex simply because of the risk.  What if a couple wants to go skydiving? That certainly is risky? So I agree with Jonadab that simply because something is risky that does not make that activity wrong.

The argument I make against anal sex goes beyond the risk factor – it goes to the heart of the issue which is design.

Anal sex violates God’s design of the body

I talk about design on this blog all the time. I marvel at the beautiful and distinctive ways in which God made men and women for their distinctive roles in his creation.

Design is why most women could never be a fire fighter and why few women could ever pass the vigorous tests of being a Navy seal. It is why men typically excel over women at heavy labor jobs and why men are less prone to physical injury than women.

Design is why most women can so naturally care for the needs of an infant and intuitively know what that child needs where most men would struggle in this area.

Design is why most women need to feel beautiful and why most men could care less about their outward appearance.

Design is why most men love vigorous competitions of all kinds while most women simplify love to talk and share their feelings with their friends.

So this then begs the question – “Is anal sex a natural use of the anus?”

“26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:  27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

Romans 1:26-27 (KJV)

God is very much concerned that we use our bodies in the way he designed them to be used.  He did not design the male body for sex with another male body and he did not design the female body for sex with another female body.  When men have sex with men they are going against the natural design of their bodies and when women have sex with women they are going against the natural design of their bodies. But when a man has sex with a woman – he and this woman are now using their bodies in ways that God designed them to be used.

But even when a man has sexual relations with a woman I do not believe that anyone can make an argument from a medical and biological perspective that God designed the anus for penetration during sexual relations.  Everything about the anus shows us that it is designed as an “exit only” orifice of the body. Unlike the much tougher linings of the mouth and the vagina the anus has a very thin lining that is easily torn and can bleed and become infected.

Over long lengths of time regular anal sex can stretch the anal sphincter and lead to an inability to hold one’s feces.

The pain of anal sex

Anal sex is naturally painful – even with lubrication because the anus was NOT meant for penetration.

Now just because something is painful does not mean it is necessarily a bad thing to do that thing.

When a person lifts weights or does any type of strenuous exercise (or hard labor) often their muscles ache because the muscles are torn and stretched by that exercise. When the muscles heal from this tearing they become stronger.

When a mother gives birth it is certainly painful.

“Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

Genesis 3:16 (KJV)

Notice the key word in Genesis 3:16 which is “multiply”. Even before sin God did not design child birth to a painless process any more than he designed people exercising (and thus tearing and stretching their muscles) to be a painless exercise.

No one would argue that the pain from exercise, hard labor or child birth means these activities are wrong to do.

But then there is another type of pain.  This type of pain is a pain that acts as warning to us.

Many of us when we were children experienced one type of this “warning pain” when our parents spanked us:

“Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.”

Hebrews 12:11 (KJV)

The pain of our parents spanking us warned us that what we were doing was wrong and that we needed to not do that thing we were doing anymore.

Besides our parents spanking us though – we have another natural type of “warning pain” that God gives us.  As small children we may have touched something that was hot only to have it burn our fingers.  This served to warn us that our skin is not made for touching things with high temperatures.

In same way people often experience internal pains which tells them something is wrong. Often times a person’s life can be saved when they are sensitive to pain and report it to a doctor so they can help them.

It is this warning type of pain that a person experiences when they allow their anus to be penetrated. The pain we experience as human beings when our anus is penetrated cannot be compared to the pain a person experiences when they exercise, do hard labor, when a woman loses her virginity or when a woman has a baby.  These types of pains are not meant as warnings but they serve as part of God’s natural design.

But when we touch a hot stove with our hand or when a woman feels pain when her anus is penetrated these are warning pains that God gave us to tell us that our skin was not designed for extreme heat and that our anus was not designed for penetration.

The argument for anal sex from existence of dual purpose body parts

Now that we have addressed the issue of the design of the anus not be fitting for penetration for intercourse both from a functional perspective as well as from a pain perspective we will lastly address the argument that anal sex is ok because it may serve a dual purpose as other body parts do.

Jonadab-the-Rechabite said this about God’s design of our bodies:

“God has designed many parts of the body with a primary function and many secondary as well. For instance, the mouth is used for many functions such as eating speaking, breathing etc. If I said that the mouth was designed for eating so you should not kiss with it, you would probably disagree. It is fallacious to say the anus was designed to eliminate waste so it can serve no other function. The very same argument of teleology or design was used by fundamentalists against oral sex just a couple of decades ago. We are not free to add to the law or assume the exhaustive purposes of God when He has not revealed such.”

Yes some body parts have duel purposes – agreed. We can use our mouth to eat, to breathe, to kiss and to give sexual pleasure to our spouses. We can use our hands to hold things, to work, to paint, to play sports and to give our partners sexual pleasure.

A man’s penis used both to urinate and to give himself and his wife sexual pleasure.  A woman’s vagina is used both to give her husband and herself sexual pleasure as well as bear children.

I might agree with Jonadab that the anus could have been designed with a dual purpose as a secondary way of giving a husband sexual pleasure from his wife as her mouth does IF these things were true of anal sex:

  1. The lining of the anus was as thick and tough as the skin in the mouth or the vagina.
  2. The anus had a natural expansion mechanism for things to enter it as the vagina and mouth do.
  3. The anus did not give off warning pains when it is penetrated each time.
  4. The practice of regular anal sex over many months or years did not have a strong possibility of causing issues with feces not be able to be held and other health injuries.

But the fact is none the things I just mentioned are true of anal sex and therefore there is no way that we can conclude that the anus is a dual purpose body part on a woman that is meant for sexual pleasure in the same way her mouth and hands can be.

Some have tried to argue(and still do today) as Jonadab has pointed out that oral sex or hand jobs or any sex outside of vaginal intercourse is sinful and wrong.  They argue that God designed sex between a man and woman to only consist of vaginal intercourse.

But there is a huge difference between these other types of sex and anal sex. A woman’s hand does not burn and hurt simply because she rubs her husband’s penis with it.  A woman’s mouth does not hurt just from the fact that her husband places his penis in it. Now could a woman’s hand or mouth begin to get sore from prolonged sexual relations? Sure.  But so could her vagina.

But my point is that the intial contact with these areas of the body and moderate use of them during sex does not normally or naturally cause pain in the way that anal sex will cause pain whether from prolonged use or moderate use.

There is no warning pain from any of these other types of sex besides anal sex. In fact we can find allusions to these other types of sexual activity in the Song of Solomon. So trying to compare anal sex to oral sex or other types of manual sex is a comparison of apples to oranges.

A woman may experience pain during vaginal sex for reasons other than prolonged sexual intercourse.  But God did not design vaginal sex to be painful. If a woman were to go to the doctor and explain that she is having painful vaginal intercourse the doctor will tell her that is not normal and they need to look into reasons why that is happening. But if that same woman were to tell the doctor she has painful anal intercourse the doctor is going to say – “well that is because the anus is not designed for sex”.  Now yes you can find ways to reduce that pain but the fact is it is completely normal for anal sex to be painful because it is warning from your body that you are not supposed to be doing that!

Conclusion

The fact is that regular and prolonged penetration of the vagina, oral sex or other manual types of sex when practiced in a committed marriage relationship present absolutely no health problems and do not cause warning pains because these practices are using our bodies in ways in which God designed them to be used.

However regular penetration of the anus will over time cause stretching and damage to the anus and the ability for one to hold in their feces. It also causes warning pains to the woman telling her that God did not design her anus to be used for sexual penetration by her husband.

It is for these reasons that Christian couples should reject anal sex as part of their sex life – God did not design the anus as a dual purpose body part for sexual pleasure. Instead this body part was designed for one purpose and one purpose alone – the release of gas from the body and the release of waste from the body.  That is it.

And as to the question that is the title of this article “Do Christian wives have to submit to requests for anal sex by their husbands?”

While it is true that a woman’s body belongs to her husband it is equally true that he does not have a right to sinfully abuse her body that God has given him. So it is for this reason I believe the answer is NO a wife does not have to submit to this type of sinful request based on the Biblical principle that “We ought to obey God rather than men.”(Acts 5:29).