Singlehood and Chastity

Yes, there can be such issues, but wouldn't that be brought up in pre- marriage counseling? I was over 40 when I married but we still sat and spoke with our pastor before the wedding day. I would think it would be unfair to marry and then refuse to be intimate with your spouse.






Sex isn't the main reason, but it is a large part of being married. Again I would think that would be something talked about before the wedding day. If both agree and understand, then there's no issue. But I would be truthful with my partner if that were the case, before the wedding night.

Apparently, the peeps were getting it on.

First, what you say is true.

But...

Second, you would be surprised and aghast at how much some people take some things as a given and don't talk about them until it is too late to back out of a situation.

Third, the way Gary phrased that last paragraph made it look like he was saying, "if there is no sex, there is no reason for anybody to get married and you should find somebody else to marry with whom you can have sex."

It will be interesting to see what Gary says when he returns to correct my interpretation of that last paragraph. I can't imagine he really meant it the way it looks to me, but I also can't imagine what else those particular words he used could mean.

That was not the issue Paul was addressing.

Yeah, I find Barry White and Marvin Gaye a bit boring too. But a Titanic load of kids have been created while their music was playin' in the background.

And how many were aborted?

Marriage can be very frightening but what you say frightens me more. imagine getting to scroll chatting online texting married friends and people who don't have time for you just because you have no personal ally. imagine spending all your life. I believe in our Christ my hope remains to the end

Apparently, the peeps were getting it on.

Actually no, it was the opposite in some cases

I could ask "What if one of them is physically incapable...?" But no. seoulsearch has mentioned that and you always ignore it.

I could bring up "Sometimes somebody has been abused in the past and sex is traumatic for..." But seoulsearch has brought that up before and you blithely ignore it.

I do have one question though.

If I know a lady and I want to marry her, but she is - for some reason, physical, mental or otherwise - incapable of intercourse, does that mean I have to leave her? Is sex the main reason people marry? Without sex is there no other reason to marry her?

If so, that is infinitely sad. It makes marriage a very utilitarian construct, with no room at all for love.

As far as I know, I have not 'ignored' anything.

What part of 'willing' do you not understand?

How about reading everything I say and not just the few words that "trigger" you.

And, it would be most helpful if you would stop making things up based on what I did not say.

I never said that every marriage must follow a cookie-cutter pattern that is exact-and-particular and the identical same for every marriage. God is probably okay with whatever is agreeable between husband and wife - within reason, based on His wisdom and intent for every marriage. However, I also believe that the principle being put forth in this passage is in fact a reflection of His wisdom and intent for every marriage.

The focus and point of my posts on this are these:

1) The passage is putting forth a biblical principle. We should not dismiss it out-of-hand. It was written for a reason.

2) Husband and wife should both be willing to 'render unto the other due benevolence' - whatever that is for each of them - within reason.

3) The 'due benevolence' between husband and wife should be an act of love between them - it should come from love.

Even though the passage is written in a way that points directly to sexual activity between a husband and wife, I believe the principle can be carried over to other things. And, it may be more 'physical' for the husband and more 'emotional' for the wife.

What is 'due benevolence' in the context of this passage?

What might benevolent/benevolence mean in this context?

To be kind and generous toward one-another - in all things - not just sex; albeit, the essential thing the passage is directing us to is with regard to sexual activity.

So - it must be something important for us to consider and think about until we understand what God is trying to tell us.

The opposite - the absence of fornication - is the correct-and-proper way that God intends. And, I am quite sure that God has no problem with that...

Is sex the main reason people marry? Without sex is there no other reason to marry her?

I usually stay out of these discussions because I have never been married, so my "working knowledge" is somewhat limited.

However..... I have been around the pea patch long enough to know that the husband's rendering of non-sexual "due benevolence" is CRUCIAL to the wife's desire to please him physically. By "due benevolence" I am referring to his care for her emotionally, mentally, physically, spiritually, etc.

It seems that for most men, a physically healthy marriage promotes a mentally and emotionally healthy marriage.

Women are usually the opposite. An emotionally/mentally/spiritually healthy marriage leads to a physically healthy one.

Both sides need to keep this in mind so situations do not feed off of themselves in an endlessly worsening spiral.

So, guys, if your lady doesn't seem to want you physically, quoting 1 Corinthians 7 probably won't long-term fix the actual problem, which is almost surely rooted in something mental/emotional.

And ladies, if your guy isn't looking after you emotionally then consider how important 1 Cor. 7 is to men, and don't withhold affection like it's a bargaining chip.

Disclaimer: I am using the broad term "affection" because physically affectionate things like kissing and hand-holding could apply to any romantic relationship (depending on what you feel God has permitted in your situation). Obviously, sex is reserved only for marriage relationships, but the connection between the physical and emotional world usually comes into play regardless of marital status. 🤓

Third, the way Gary phrased that last paragraph made it look like he was saying, "if there is no sex, there is no reason for anybody to get married and you should find somebody else to marry with whom you can have sex."

It will be interesting to see what Gary says when he returns to correct my interpretation of that last paragraph. I can't imagine he really meant it the way it looks to me, but I also can't imagine what else those particular words he used could mean.

That was not the issue Paul was addressing.

Once again Paul was not addressing fornication.

I personally believe there should be a lot more than sex as the basis for marriage - 'love' being chief among them.

Ummm I don't to start a riot in here, and I know this is a singles forum so I want to be careful of what I say. I'm not even really directing this question to you but to" the room". Where is sex and love separate? Isn't that where two become one? Unless sex is being misused, where do Christians get the idea that sex and love don't go and and glove? Can someone tell me?

Ummm I don't to start a riot in here, and I know this is a singles forum so I want to be careful of what I say. I'm not even really directing this question to you but to" the room". Where is sex and love separate? Isn't that where two become one? Unless sex is being misused, where do Christians get the idea that sex and love don't go and and glove? Can someone tell me?

Ask a prostitute if she loves all her clients.