Pleasure or breeding?

[emmmma]

I've heard from some people that sex should never be for lustful or romantic purposes and should always JUST be for reproducing. I'm really hoping this isn't true, when I get married, I want to be able to make love to my husband, not just procreate. :/

 

[Adrianv125]

hahahaha did a dog tell you that by the way??? yeah, they are definitely wrong there. Sex between a CHRISTIAN wife and husband should be the biggest sign of respect, trust, love, selflessness, intimacy, and romance. When a couple has developed their relationship enough to understand this their love life should be something extremely special, more than just pleasure, more than just an act, it builds a relationship much and much stronger and should work to make both the man and the woman fall more and more in love with each other, even as time passes by. It is impossible to keep a fulfilling love life without keeping a fulfilling relationship with God mutually and individualy between the husband and the wife though

 

[babarainbowsheep]

Lovemaking is a wonderful way of expressing love in holy union.
Affection, love, passion, playfulness......
Its all good.
Whether its to make children or not.

What would become of me I cant make children through this body
Would I never have sex with my husband then.......(darn)

Its when lovemaking is not there and feeling passion, desire etc in sex but when it becomes destruktive or addiction as in hurts someone then its no good.Like molesting someone, rape, sadistic sm against someones will (no concented) (and extreme and with hate)
Lust can become or be mxed with hate and power and control and addiction and be a really destruktive thing then.

In a holyunion and marriage lovemaking is wonderful, joyous (hopefully)
Theres nothing wrong with sexin everyday and night as much as you want (just for fun) in your lovelife
But thats the word lovelife b4 lustlife......
and that its not missused to hurt someone innocent who wants no part of it.

Best wishes for you annd future husband sexin it lovin it and joyously and with Gods blessing and holy spirit and ........

 

[VikkiKate89]

hahahaha did a dog tell you that by the way???

...yes because dogs clearly only mate to reproduce and not because they're just horny... just ask all the legs they jump.

To answer the question, when you're married what happens in the bedroom is no one's business but yours and your husband's, so go nuts. Just always be prepared for any unexpected surprises.

 

[jimmydiggs]

I've heard from some people that sex should never be for lustful or romantic purposes and should always JUST be for reproducing. I'm really hoping this isn't true, when I get married, I want to be able to make love to my husband, not just procreate. :/

Always go to the bible for questions.

1 Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. 3 The husband must [a]fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and [b]come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 But this I say by way of concession, not of command. 7 [c]Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.

Also.
What is the purpose of marriage? <--- click


I emplore you to be careful in these forums. There is a lot of false teaching going on. Always go back to the bible on every issue. Just because someone posts something, doesn't mean they tell the truth on the issue. In fact, I ask that you test everything I say as well. For if I a in the wrong, I'd really like it to be pointed out to me so I can attempt to fix that. Be careful about who you accept as being true. Especially from those who are unbelievers. I have repeatedly seen people get duped on Christian forums because they thought someone posting was a Christian. This comes from all angles.

 

[Kooper]

Just always be prepared for any unexpected surprises.

That made me smirk. And I agree with Adrianv125.

 

[zeroturbulence]

I've heard from some people that sex should never be for lustful or romantic purposes and should always JUST be for reproducing. I'm really hoping this isn't true, when I get married, I want to be able to make love to my husband, not just procreate. :/

If thats true, we might as well just make test tube babies from now on.

 

[abcdefg]

to many people i know it will sound shocking and won't agree , but i see it this way:
love->sex->reproduction , that romance and pleasure are designed to unite the couple and lead to conception ,not the other way round = get engaged in something for the pleasure and prevent the very purpose of what that was designed for. that pleasure is not an end in itself . please, i'm not speaking for God or making it a rule , it's my conclusion

 

[SantoSubito]

The short answer is that sex is not solely for either romance or procreation, but both. Catholics, for example, believe that both the romantic and the procreative aspects need to be present, hence no birth control. If you remove one you reduce sex to either a purely lustful act or a act devoid of the sacramental and spiritual bond.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

This is the Catholic perspective on birth control: Birth Control

Protestant views differ; however, a typical Protestant response today would be that the Bible does not condemn birth control as a sin provided it is not abortive and that the motives to do so are wise and Biblical. A typical perspective for many Protestants might look like CRI's article 'Should Christians Use Birth Control' which you'll need to Google.

 

[maddy]

It is for both purposes.

 

[triplet347]

This is the Catholic perspective on birth control: Birth Control

Protestant views differ; however, a typical Protestant response today would be that the Bible does not condemn birth control as a sin provided it is not abortive and that the motives to do so are wise and Biblical. A typical perspective for many Protestants might look like CRI's article 'Should Christians Use Birth Control' which you'll need to Google.

This is interesting. Prior to the 1930's every Christian church on the planet denounced contraception as a sin and argued it on biblical reasons. It wasn't until the Anglican Church buckled under societal pressures and allowed contraception that the domino effect began. Today, there is only one church who still holds to contraception as a sin regardless of what the culture of the times may say -- the Catholic Church. There is a good book, written by a Protestant. I don't know if it is still in print, but you can look it up. The title is "God and The Marriage Covenant".

 

[triplet347]

If you understand the meaning of covenant from a Hebrew perspective, then you will see it as a familial bond. Many Protestants mistakenly understand covenant as a contract and in strictly legalistic terms. Covenant is as different from a contract as marriage is from prostitution or a slave is from a son. In a contract you exchange property. In a contract you say, "this is yours and that is mine." In a covenant you are saying, "you are mine and I am yours." In the marriage covenant the sex act between to virgins is meant to consummate the marriage and make it a covenant. Every time you have sex with you spouse thereafter is renewing the covenant you made on your wedding day! It's like saying your vows all over again! So one way of looking at the sex act within marriage is that it is for "babies" and "bonding" (covenant renewal). I hope this helps.

God bless,

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

That's the Catholic position. They state that no church accepted birth control until 1930 when the Church of England accepted contraception with many Protestant churches following (though there are still some Protestant churches that reject all forms of unnatural birth control).

They acknowledge that natural birth control existed long before 1930; however, and do not dispute that artifical birth control methods existed before 1930 (Example: Consider that women were being taught in urban centers to use the diaphram properly here in America in the 1910's).

The current article on Christian contraception in Wikipedia asserts the Catholic view.

Some critics (both Protestant and secular) argue differently, however. Read this article 'Birth Control in Antiquity' from The University of Illinois: 13_2 Birth Control in Antiquity

This is interesting. Prior to the 1930's every Christian church on the planet denounced contraception as a sin and argued it on biblical reasons. It wasn't until the Anglican Church buckled under societal pressures and allowed contraception that the domino effect began. Today, there is only one church who still holds to contraception as a sin regardless of what the culture of the times may say -- the Catholic Church. There is a good book, written by a Protestant. I don't know if it is still in print, but you can look it up. The title is "God and The Marriage Covenant".

 

[SantoSubito]

This is the Catholic perspective on birth control: Birth Control

Protestant views differ; however, a typical Protestant response today would be that the Bible does not condemn birth control as a sin provided it is not abortive and that the motives to do so are wise and Biblical. A typical perspective for many Protestants might look like CRI's article 'Should Christians Use Birth Control' which you'll need to Google.

I should add that there is one form of "birth control" that is allowed which is Natural Family Planning, but even it is not supposed to be used for the sole purpose of avoiding children. The only reason NFP is allowed is because unlike other methods it does not artificially prevent conception, instead it utilizes the natural fertile and non-fertile periods a woman has each month, But even then those can change drastically between months

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Acknowledged SantoSubito. Thank you for the clarification.

 

[triplet347]

That's the Catholic position. They state that no church accepted birth control until 1930 when the Church of England accepted contraception with many Protestant churches following (though there are still some Protestant churches that reject all forms of unnatural birth control).

They acknowledge that natural birth control existed long before 1930; however, and do not dispute that artifical birth control methods existed before 1930 (Example: Consider that women were being taught in urban centers to use the diaphram properly here in America in the 1910's).

The current article on Christian contraception in Wikipedia asserts the Catholic view.

Some critics (both Protestant and secular) argue differently, however. Read this article 'Birth Control in Antiquity' from The University of Illinois: 13_2 Birth Control in Antiquity

Age,

I was referring to the teachings of Christian churches along with the teachings of the Catholic Church, not what people have been doing in and of themselves. Sure, people have been contracepting long before the Anglican Church announced it's change in 1930, but the teachings of all Christian denominations and the Catholic church on the matter of contraception were that it was a sin. They all argued it on biblical grounds and used scripture to bolster the argument. The fact that people were contracepting before that doesn't speak to the teaching. Unfortunately, most Catholics are contracepting today in spite of their church's teaching, that doesn't take away from the fact that the Catholic church is still teaching the same thing about contraception: It is a sin and should be avoided. It continue to stand on biblical grounds although society rails against the Catholic Church.

The Catholic position? No. It is the historical position. You can easily verify these facts by reading non-Catholic and Catholic sources on the history of contraception.

 

[Ugly]

Wow, you guys were nice enough to stop arguing in the Bible Forums long enough to derail this thread. Awesome. Perhaps you guys should start your own thread so the OP can actually get answers related to her question, instead of you guys dragging some offhand topic into her thread that has no help nor relevance to what she's asking.

Now to the OP... the answer is 'both'. But some people like extreme views. While yes, there is proof that part of sex is procreation (go forth and multiply), there's also biblical evidence that its also a feel good, romantic issue as well. I don't know the exact locations off hand, perhaps someone who does can list them. But for one Paul talks about getting married if you can't control your lusts. He doesn't say anything about the need or desire to have babies. His focus on sex at that point was more about the pleasure aspect.

Also, in the bible it says that a married couple should have sex consistently to keep them close and to keep a devil from getting a foothold in their marriage. Once again, this has nothing to do with having babies, it has to do with the pleasure and romance of sex. It has to do with closeness not procreation.

Lastly many 'procreation' types think that the amount of pleasure from sex is 'proof' that God intended it for baby making. They say God wants us to make babies, that's why He made sex feel so good. I think that's a totally empty defense. To me it proves nothing about procreation, and if anything serves to prove the opposite when combined with scripture.

 

[triplet347]

Wow, you guys were nice enough to stop arguing in the Bible Forums long enough to derail this thread. Awesome. Perhaps you guys should start your own thread so the OP can actually get answers related to her question, instead of you guys dragging some offhand topic into her thread that has no help nor relevance to what she's asking.

Ugly,

Could you please not insert your own feelings or project into someone elses post. The thread was not derailed. The dialogue I am having with Age is an issue which speaks directly to the question. You may not see it that way and that is something you need to explicate if you wish to do so. If not, then just ignore the posts and let the OP make up their mind about what is relevant to them.

Thanks,

 

[Tobby17]

Sorry, but i don't know, is it possible to have SEX without Pleasure, Romance or *Feel good factor* ..

Well coz the couple of times i had it, all these were present

PS: I'm not here to boast about my past foolishness, but..lol.. Was there any need to start this thread?.. Can these things actually be missing in sex?