| Author | Post |
|---|
tropicalstorm
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 16th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 66 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Tue May 1st, 2007 03:32 am |
|
Forgive me if this is redundant.
I have to ask.
Is the spouse EVER to blame?
I am so deathly tired of hearing how it's MY fault (as if) and if I wasn't "the way" I am then he would not do the things he does.
What is the best response to this?
and
yes
in case you are wondering.
I am losing my mind 
|
truthseeker
Super Moderator
| Joined: | Tue May 16th, 2006 |
| Location: | New Jersey USA |
| Posts: | 796 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |   |
|
Posted: Tue May 1st, 2007 03:52 am |
|
Hi tropicalstorm,
I was chatting with a young lady yesterday who was upset at what she perceives as favoritism in her family. What I told her applies here. You are not responsible for what happens to you, only how you conduct yourself. In short, NO! You are not responsible for his addiction/behavior. There is no place in Scripture that negates our responsibility for our sin based on another's behavior toward us. I do not care whether or not you are the woman of his dreams. He took the vows to love and honor you above all others, to be faithful to you. I'm sure that the vows did not set any conditions on his fidelity. I do not care if he ever gets any, gets it how he likes, or how often he likes, he is responsible for his vow to God.
That is not to say that once he forsakes his sin that the marriage doesn't have any issues, or that any of those issues might not be yours, but the two are NOT related. One does not retaliate for anything by sinning.
TruthSeeker
|
tallmike00
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 24 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue May 1st, 2007 03:16 pm |
|
| You are not to blame for his behavior. His blaming you is just convenient excuse making. He needs to own up to his irresponsible behavior and go after a change in his own heart. I have seen articles in Christian publications with pictures of a husband/wife where the husband has a porn problem and yet, his wife is a knock out beautiful woman. The immediate question is, "She is gorgeous; why does he need to look at porn?" The answer is because he has sin in his life, plain and simple. One beautiful woman is never enough. There would always be one more, another, and another, on and on ad infinitum. Time for him to submit to God's will, not his own, and get the idolatry out of his life. This sex sin problem is a form of idolatry, a disorder of worship. We men with the problem worship ourselves and our sinful desires, not God. Thanks to Jesus Christ Who has freed me from this idolatry, I now live cleanly. There is NO excuse for sin, not one.
|
TimM
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue May 1st, 2007 03:36 pm |
|
tropicalstorm,
"Ever" is a big word, and the mathematical scientist in me shies away from using it if there might be a counterexample out there somewhere, but the short answer is no, the spouse is never to blame.
I don't know (and you may not know) the story of your husband's addiction, but in my case, it's pretty simple. I was pretty solidly set on my path in my teen years, long before I met my wife. Behavior I was already engaging in when she and I met is not her fault. End of story. I don't know that this is your husband's situation, and even he may not know the answer to that question. We sometimes need some sobriety and counseling to understand ourselves well enough to begin to discern where the origins of our addictive behavior lie. Nearly every addict I know, though, finds on reflection that their addictive behavior started pretty early.
We're really good at blaming others for our actions, though. In part, that protects our addiction. If I'm angry at my wife and not being supported adequately by her, then I'm justified in seeking comfort elsewhere, and can justly act out in my addiction. This is how I thought over many years, and it led me to generate arguments and anger and verbal abuse in order to build the emotional distance I needed to justify acting out. I didn't do this consciously, and it took me months of counseling and conversation with my wife to discover that I did it at all, but it was a very solid and important part of my addictive pattern.
We also blame others because we are terrified of looking inside ourselves - terrified of changing, and terrified of facing who we are and who we have become. If my actions are my wife's fault, then I don't have to face me. Again, this doesn't have to be conscious. As an active addict, I certainly didn't know I was afraid and that this was leading me to shift blame, but that's what was going on.
Finally, of course, we're deluded. We think life should be what we see in porn, and we think that if it were, then we would be content. Obviously that's not true. What we see in porn isn't real life and real love. Also, spouses I have met who have been persuaded by their husbands to act out the husband's fantasies don't seem to find that this leads to contentment, communion, intimacy, and an end to addictive behaviors. Instead, it's usually a boost to the addiction that just produces escalation and desires for even more extreme behavior.
So no, I don't think it's your fault, and I think that if your husband is able to sit down with a thoughtful counselor or another addict and to begin seriously trying to understand himself, he will find that out in a hurry.
You're OK. Addiction isn't about you. It's about our inability to face others and ourselves in healthy and functional ways.
Tim M.
|
justme
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 8th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 41 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue May 1st, 2007 08:23 pm |
|
Hi Tropicalstorm,
Everybody has given some great answers to your question, but there's another part of the whole thing that hasn't been mentioned. My husband also gave me a lot of "reasons" for his infidelity when I first found out and it made me wonder, too, if it was my fault.
This may sound weird, but in a way it would have been a relief for me if it had been my fault. In other words if there was something wrong with me that I could change--if I was too skinny, too fat, too mean, too whatever, then I could change some of those things and then he wouldn't be seeking out porn or other women. If there was something about myself I could change to keep him from cheating, that meant I could stop his acting out by changing myself. Well, I soon realized I had no control over his addiction--I didn't cause it and I couldn't stop it. In a way that made me feel better--his addiction doesn't mean I'm "not woman enough to keep him", "not keeping him happy at home" or any of those cliches people throw around so unthinkingly. On the other hand it was scary to realize that I didn't have control over the addiction. I could be "perfect" in every way and he could still be drawn to the porn, women, etc. That's a tough reality to face, but it's true.
My husband didn't tell me this at the time, but later he talked about the shame that goes along with this sort of thing. It seems like, in the beginning, especially, the shame is so intense that the addict almost desperately looks for someone else to carry it for them. I didn't understand this, either and I remember getting so angry at my husband when he seemed to be looking for things I had been doing wrong so he could point to me and say, "What you did is just as bad as what I've done."
Don't give up. This is a tough road, but it can get better if your husband is willing to get the help he needs. I'm praying for both of you.
Just Me
Last edited on Wed May 2nd, 2007 04:45 pm by justme
|
clean2day
Member
|
Posted: Thu May 3rd, 2007 08:09 am |
|
Tropicalstorm
You have the only real answer there is. The only thing is if you are to blame for anything is for trying to be/change yourself to be someone or something that you are not. Trying to change him or to protect him from whatever harm might befall him because of what your mind is telling you he is doing. The "what if's" of co-dependentship. That where the SO becomes as sick as the addict. You can not change him, that must come from himself and Jesus. And through the Holy Spirit as he is convicted that he can except the real joy that can be his.
Sorry for preaching but one of the best ways you can help him is by praying and I know you are doing that as we pray with you.
C2d
____________________
"When you need a victory, Jesus gives it.
When you need a friend, Jesus will be there.
When you need to talk, Jesus will listen.
And if you need to cry, Jesus will hold you close.
Rev E. O. Hilt 1908 - 1988
|
Steve
Super Moderator
| Joined: | Tue May 3rd, 2005 |
| Location: | Colorado USA |
| Posts: | 550 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu May 3rd, 2007 07:35 pm |
|
Nope. The spouse is never to blame!
____________________
"Isolation is bad for any man, but for the sexual addict it is fatal." -Russell Willingham
|
love&hate
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 58 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Jul 7th, 2007 11:35 pm |
|
| I personally don't think a spouse is the one to blame for the addiction however i think the spouse can help or hurt the addiction.
|
Ed Neal
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 73 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Jul 13th, 2007 10:14 pm |
|
As a man, I know that it is my job to love my wife as Christ loved the church.
The church is imperfect... horribly so. Yet, would that ever be reason enough for Jesus to sin? Of course not.
Therefore, there is no man who can claim that before God, it is his wife's fault if he sins or has some sort of addiction. Period. His model and motivation for his behavior is Jesus... not his wife.
That's the theological answer.
On a more down-to-earth level, it is simply idiocy to ever suggest that my choices to sin are caused by someone else.... ever.
Of course, this goes for anyone (male or female) in any relationship. You are never made to sin by someone else. Our sin is always voluntary.
So, no, you are not to blame.
But you also should be cautioned not to focus so much on your spouse's sin that you fail to keep a close watch on your own heart. You still need to forgive. Please do not hear that as discompassionate or as some sort of excuse for your husband... holding on to the bitterness in your heart is the MOST damaging thing you can do to yourself. It is far more damaging than what your husband has done to you. Pointing you to forgiveness is the most caring thing I can do. It's not at all easy... just necessary.
I'll pray for you.
Pastor Ed
|
tropicalstorm
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 16th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 66 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Aug 31st, 2007 03:10 am |
|
After several relapses this year and an unwillingness to admit so little as temptation I have been praying about it, but keeping my knowledge to myself. I'm over it - I can't change him nor do I want to.
Three more years will make a marriage of twenty years. If nothing has changed, I'm leaving. Twenty years is long enough, or at least for me.
Porn has eroded the very core of our marriage for me and it is salt in the wound when you consider that I abide by his wishes in what he feels it is appropriate for a woman to do, act, etc.
I'm not bitter anymore, I'm not even angry.
I'm resigned.
|
hopefulwife07
Member
| Joined: | Mon Aug 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 13 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Aug 31st, 2007 06:43 pm |
|
I have to comment on this topic for sure!! I have heard this so many times, and he led me to believe it was the truth. I didn't understand why I didn't have a drive for sex like my husband and why I couldn't just give it to him as he needed it as a good wife. I asked God for help to love my husband and be there for him sexually so he got his needs met. The only thing that happened was that he only wanted more and more. It was never enough, and then I got to hear that I "starved" him for so long, so waht did I expect? I think too much emphasis is put on acting out being porn, masturbation, affairs, prostitutes, and not enough put on sex with a spouse as being part of that addiction. It is still an unhealthy, unrelational, unintimate form of addiction and release for the addict. Just because your spouse doesn't act out with the other forms, does not mean that he's not using sex with you to act out. He feels it's right, legitimate, and if he does not get enough, then it's your fault he has to resort to other means. NOT TRUE!! We spouses have things to work through on our own, but our husband's addiction is not, and cannot be one of them. I've found that prayer, reading God's word daily, and journaling has really helped to soften my heart in so many areas and allow me to be supportive and compassionate to my husband even if he is still completely wrapped up in himself. I look to Jesus to fill those gaps and try to realize I'm not responsible for my husband's actions or attitudes. Blessings to you as you go through this awful situation. I understand and know where you're coming from completely, and in this pain I pray you find the ultimate comfort, happiness, and fulfillment in Jesus. 
|
FOH
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Sep 28th, 2007 05:19 pm |
|
I'd like to make a couple of observations that really jump out from the posts on this forum, and seem to crystallize here on this thread; I suspect that this post is going to be a bit different in tone from what I've seen here before. I also believe that Christians can talk about these things openly in good spirit, so I am going to be brave and risk the flameouts.
When you have a new hammer, everything needs to be pounded. When you are a chiropractor, you take X-rays and you immediately determine that everyone needs to be adjusted three times a week for the rest of her or his life. If you are an obstetrician, everyone needs a C-section, while if you are a midwife, every baby can safely be delivered normally. If you are a therapist, everyone needs therapy. And here, if you are a male of relatively normal sex drive and ever looked at an erotic picture- from (literally, I saw this described by one person) the Sears catalog underwear ads to porn, or masturbated, you are a sex addict. And your wife is a victim.
I think that we need to be careful not to 1) cheapen the terminology, and the very real syndrome, of addiction by characterizing absolutely every impulse surrendered to, every habit, or pattern of behavior, as being "addiction"; and, 2) we are called by God to look at ourselves honestly- I wonder if some of the wounded-spouse-as-victim talk doesn't risk becoming either almost narcissistic self-absorption or self-exoneration. No marriage has ever been populated by one totally guilty party paired with one total innocent.
Now, at the outset, let me say that bad behavior is bad behavior, and sin is sin. If a spouse forsakes his or her partner in favor of affairs, chronic masturbation, and effectively forsakes the marriage in favor of porn, that is wrong, and should be condemned. The person who does that is wrong, period, and makes his or her (let's face it, it is most often the "he" even though there certainly are a few women who struggle with compulsive masturbation; the numbers are overwhelmingly skewed toward males) own decision to sin, usually repeatedly.
There is no question that sexual addiction exists, and so does pornography addiction. But we need to make distinctions between the extremes; I see a lot of equating the mundane with the outrageous. No matter how many times we write things that misapply Matthew 5:28 (where Jesus was, brick by brick, tearing down the legalistic self-righteousness of the Pharisees by illustration, not conducting a seminar on the definition of adultery) and equate the visual appreciation of someone walking by wearing form-fitting blue jeans with physical coitus, the two are not the same- and none of us really believe that they are. I bet that every one of the wives of porn-viewing men who stay married but vent here would throw the bum out if he actually had sex with another woman.
So the question is, where in the Bible does it say that if your husband has a lustful thought, you should be "devastated" and cut him off from sex? How does that help make him focus on his wife instead of the very real outside temptations? I don't see any place where Paul says that married people should embrace chastity as punishment for sin; in fact, he actually says that he wishes everyone had a low sex drive like his, but he understands that they don't. So, he counsels us to get married and have sex like crazy to work off the lust. You can't get much more blunt and clear than 1st Corinthians 7. Verse 5 doesn't say that sex should be rationed in proportion to his good behavior, it says that we should not deprive each other or our wrong passions will take us over. What it most emphatically says is that we are not supposed to think about ourselves, we are supposed to meet the needs of the other- and that doesn't mean keeping score or deciding for ourselves how much is enough or too much for someone else. You can't determine what your spouse's sex drive should be any more than he can determine what you should want to eat.
There is no question in my mind that Jesus dealt with sexual temptation and had sexual thoughts, because He was tempted in every way that man is, allowing Him to fully understand what we deal with as humans; He was ultimately masculine, not an ascetic metrosexual. Thoughts of temptation, like He suffered are not sin.
Testosterone is non-discriminating; boys want to look at girls' bodies before they even have a clue why or are capable of doing anything about it. We are just made that way. People (of course, sometimes women; but far fewer) will be sexually driven, as Paul recognizes, we will "burn". That's why God provided the gift of marriage as the means to deal with that; there will be a sexual compulsion, we are to channel that into our marriages, to make our spouses the focus of it. If we are told by our spouses that they don't want to be that focus, whether by words, or sexual refusal, or by those subtle "stay away" signals, we get the hint, and that focus shifts elsewhere where it shouldn't go. But biochemistry guarantees that there will still be a sexual focus as long as it isn't burned off regularly, unless we do one of two things: a) sublimate it completely in the sort of quasi-celibacy cloaked in spirituality that some describe here, or b) use estrogen therapy to neutralize all the testosterone.
People who are unwilling to satisfy their spouses sexually are sinning. Period. Failure to live up to the vows on the other side and give your body as a gift to your spouse is equally sin, as much as any porn habit, though it is never discussed as such. Does it excuse the other spouse's acts? No- but we are not supposed to be keeping score or thinking about "fairness". Paul doesn't say anything remotely like that sort of bargaining. I wonder if anyone has ever really dealt with a spouse's lust or porn habits the way Paul instructs- by basically wearing him/her out with the good stuff so that he/she is drained of other desire. I suspect that a contributing factor in almost every non-pathological case of the porn habit (which I suspect is most of them) is the fact that there is not much going on at home. Again, it doesn't excuse the other's sin, but refusal, whatever the excuse is, is just as sinful as other-directed lust.
That's why I wonder why one poster here (above) says: "I asked God for help to love my husband and be there for him sexually so he got his needs met. The only thing that happened was that he only wanted more and more. It was never enough…" Who gets to decide what it means for his needs to be met? If you say that he just wanted more and more, well, how does that contradict the Song of Solomon? And how on earth does it hurt to do it more and more, whatever that means? How long does it really take, how unpleasant is it, how much horrible work is it to just make love several times a week? I suspect that the problem here is that we have a wife who simply is indifferent to sex, or perhaps even doesn't like it much, so it doesn't happen much. If your wife tells you to take you sexual focus off of her, it doesn't go away, it just gets redirected to the next object. We may not like it, it isn't the Christian ideal, but it is reality. And Paul clearly understood that.
I once heard a call on a radio show to the sainted Christian marriage counselor, Dr. Willard Harley ("His Needs, Her Needs", etc.) by a woman where she said, "Why should I have to have sex if I don't feel like it?", basically suggesting that her mood should be the arbiter of the marriage bed. He replied, "Because you're married. That is the core of being married."
For a man, the testosterone cycle is on average 36 to 48 hours. That means that if you make love in some way (coitus, oral, manual, whatever; the spouse with lesser desire should be the one to decide how to do it, what position, etc.) 3 or 4 times a week, the rest of the time most will be in a cycle trough and usually not all buzzed up. I just don't understand why 15 minutes every other day is an investment too demanding for the health of a marriage. No one is that tired- they seem able to find energy when the activity required is something else.
And I don't believe that refusal excuses someone else's failures, but it is still just as much sin to refuse as it is for the other to look elsewhere for satisfaction. Denying a spouse is just as self-absorbed as is porn plus masturbation, and that refusal is not only selfish, it is controlling.
And we need to be careful with the terminology of characterizing married sex as a sort of sacrament; was designed to be fun. It's not worship, to be done once a month like taking communion. Sometimes it is magical in the context of living marriage, but those very golden moments are relatively few and far between. The rest of the time, it is a bit messy, but essential unless neither husband nor wife cares about it. If either one wants love, Paul tells us to do it. In the long run, among loving adults this negotiates out to something fulfilling and sustainable.
I think that a lot of "sex addicts" are relatively normal people who followed Paul's dictate to get married, and found out afterward that it takes two to make that part work. Are there real sex addicts? Of course. Are there also immature people who actually prefer fantasy to the reality of human flesh? Sure. Is actual adultery a violent assault on the marriage relationship and deeply wounding to a partner? Very much so. Is there a popular culture of promoting porneia? Yep. That's why God in His infinite grace and wisdom gave us spouses, as Tim LaHaye wrote in his very good Christian sex manual, The Act of Marriage.
|
tropicalstorm
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 16th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 66 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Sep 29th, 2007 01:19 pm |
|
There can certainly be issues on both sides of the fence - that's a given (and trust me when I tell you I've done more then my fair share of work on my own issues). If it were as simple as me fixing my issues in the marriage, my marriage would have been restored a long time ago. It has not.
My spouse came to this marriage with big huge red waving flags I didn't see because I trusted him. I didn't cause them and I can't cure them.
Now in a perfect world, or in a perfect walk (which I do not profess to have) I would walk above his sins and failures. Me? I'm not that big of a person - to date during the seventeen years we have been married - I have been raped, sexually abused, verbally abused, cheated on, lied to and gaslighted. That hardly fans the flames of desire.
In fact, I can guarantee if he sees a sexy commercial or watches a movie with sexual innenudo he'll want to have sex that night. That again is hardly a turn on.
I think that just as you said painting all men with a broad brush is wrong, so is painting every marriage with the opposite brush is wrong.
The sad fact is that this is an utterly insane merry go round cycle where no one wins. He doesn't get his sexual needs met and she doesn't get her emotional needs met and it just goes on and on and on.
If you must know, I have utterly purposed for six months or longer to meet his every need. EVERY time he wanted to ML I complied and you know what? It had no effect whatsoever - nothing changed.
|
alpha
Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 28th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 43 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Sep 29th, 2007 04:44 pm |
|
Wish I had more time to comment on this. This is a very interesting post. Perhaps a mutual understanding that just as men's sexual needs are insatiable and it is a man's moral responsibility to control his insatiable desires, so too it seems that women's emotional needs are insatiable and she has a responsibility to live a life not controlled by those needs. In neither instance, does this allow for either spouse to disrespect and dishonor the other. But we shouldn't deny that we both have insatiable desires - a vacuum in our spirit/soul - that our natural inclination is to fill with another person (sexually or emotionally) when God asked us to tackle life authentically wanting and wait for him to show us how the vulnerable life is the one where we are truly alive.
|
alpha
Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 28th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 43 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Sep 29th, 2007 04:44 pm |
|
Last edited on Sat Sep 29th, 2007 04:45 pm by alpha
|
FOH
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Sep 29th, 2007 09:48 pm |
|
Exactly, Alpha. None of us is exonerated from our own guilt or the consequences of, or responsibility for, our own behavior. And no one outside of the decisionmaker himself/herself is responsible for the choices made.
But God gives both sides roles and responsibilities in addressing issues in marriage- and we need to look at both sides here. I see a lot of cases where well-placed empathy needs to be followed up with good spiritual advice as well, to "look not at the mote in thy brother's eye, but first at the beam in thine own eye." You can't fix others, you can only fix yourself; by that Christlike witness, as opposed to accusations and recriminations, you win them back.
A wife is not to "blame", per se, for her husband's behavior, to use the most common example, but in the law there is a concept called "avoidable consequences" that requires a person to act in a way that mitigates the situation to the maximum extent possible before the court will provide an award of damages. That is exactly what Paul instructs as the first solution- if (s)he's randy, you know how to fix that, and it's not by pouring cold water on him/her.
And the first question that needs to be asked of someone who has a spouse who is off in porn and masturbation (not actual physical affairs- that is a completely different issue, both in degree and consequence) is "what has gone on in the marriage regarding the acceptable, in fact commanded, ways to handle sexuality?" And you just don't take the word of the self-interested party who is here complaining about the other spouse, you get both sides of the story, and deal with the derelictions of duty on both sides. Anything different is virtual therapeutic malpractice, sometimes little more than indulgence of a pity party.
I don't believe that Paul, based on what he wrote, would have handled things that way.
|
truthseeker
Super Moderator
| Joined: | Tue May 16th, 2006 |
| Location: | New Jersey USA |
| Posts: | 796 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Sep 30th, 2007 03:21 am |
|
Hi FOH,
Welcome to BG. I hope, in time, you will feel comfortable enough to share some of your experiences which drew you to this site, without fear that you will be unfairly treated. In my situation, his wake-up call was mine as well, and God has blessed us with great joy in being mutually obedient to 1 Cor. 7. This, however, is not representative of the majority of experiences I have observed here. I have read the full range between him seeking sobriety with all his heart, reaching out in love in all the ways that would speak to most women, yet still met with physical detachment, to experiences such as Tropical Storm's, who has given till it hurts, never to be anything more than an object, a means of scratching an itch.
If you believe that fifteen minutes every other day is sufficient for the fullness of intimacy in marriage, then I'm not sure that you fully understand the reciprocity you are so keen to broadly urge upon the women here, without taking individual circumstances in to account. For most women, maintaining a tender heart toward lovemaking is an ongoing process of tender, not sexual, communication, lots of kisses and hugs, not necessarily including sexual overtones, and enough unhurried time to gently and lovingly prime physical interest, a much slower process, generally, for a woman than for a man. There is no faster way to find a mannequin beside you in bed than for the woman to perceive, whether accurate or not, that her body is of greater interest to you than her whole person, body, mind, and spirit.
TruthSeeker
|
FOH
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Sep 30th, 2007 05:30 am |
|
Hi, Truthseeker. I found this forum from a link to an article by Mike G. at another site that was linked to another blog… well, you get the picture. My first reaction was to Mike's single-minded perspective; he has certainly been through some things personally that allow us to understand his vehemence on the subject. I still don’t think that every guy who has masturbated to some form of porn is a sex addict, but that is a topic for another thread, unless it is not acceptable to debate the local conventional wisdom. I am convinced that the evangelical churches butcher and ignore this subject, and thus neglect an important element of ministry, along with arguably the most basic core element of marriage.
I well understand that the majority of experiences you have observed here have followed a different course. I also agree with most of what you say about the true measures of intimacy in a relationship. My mention of the time (15 minutes) was both a quote from perhaps the foremost (incidentally, Christian, though he doesn't practice explicitly with Christian counseling) marriage counselor in the country (http://www.marriagebuilders.com), and also an illustration of the very small price one actually has to pay to address the basic of the issue. Of course, it is far better to be slow and tender all the time; I love to cuddle my lovely bride for hours, sex or no sex; I just love the feel of her silky skin as we go to sleep (and have for years and years and years). I repeat- if sex isn't thrilling to you, at certain times and situations where your spouse is hot to go, you have choices of what to do and how that do not invade your autonomy. If that is too great a price to pay, you don't belong in a marriage. At some point this is more about control, rationalization of self-centeredness, or revenge than it is about the actual burden.
It is also unrealistic to make long slow and tender buildup to gourmet loving the sole or even primary mechanism of physical love; sometimes you eat peanut butter sandwiches and sometimes you have a long candlelit dinner with steak and chicken cordon bleu, cleansing the palate in between with sorbet. Either way, you get the meal that is necessary to keep the organism alive, and there isn't always opportunity for the big deal; you may need to eat a snack in between banquets. My point is that if, given the testosterone cycle for most males (and a few females), the other half makes a unilateral decision that only the fancy dinner will suffice and only at the times and under the circumstances where such things are convenient, the starving person will be drawn to other food. My point posting this here where the question involved "blame" was to pull that little unspeakable truth out from under the rug where evangelicals always like to shove it. If Christians actually dealt with these issues the way we are instructed to, we wouldn't have highly visible sex scandals all the time in the ministry (Bakker, Swaggart, Eagan, Haggard, etc. etc.).
And that is precisely what Paul was talking about. He said nothing whatever about the nature of the relationship nor the ideal environment- he said if you are burning, marry and thereby put out the fire. The corollary to that is that this command is not a matter of mood, feelings, or "fairness". He doesn't say, "If he brings you flowers often enough, or talks to you, or gives up football games to walk in the flower garden…." People are smart if they do those things; but our obligation of obedience to the clearest instructions about married sexuality in the Word is not conditioned on anything. It is instruction, period.
Now, I don't know much about Tropical Storm, I was reacting to the comment by Hopeful Wife about her husband always wanting more, more (and I really want to know exactly what constitutes "more"). And there are, of course, many cases where no matter what a wife (or husband) does, the spouse is thoughtless, selfish, demanding, and utterly indifferent to the feelings of the other. And who can blame, for example, Tropical Storm, if she throws in the towel and gets out of that situation? If she doesn't divorce and remarry, there isn't even a controversy over the spiritual rectitude of physical separation- see 1 Corinthians 7:10-15.
But the overall tone I have seen here surfing various threads has been, as I said, the appearance of a lot of self-absorption. Perhaps that is an artifact of the self-selection nature of such a topic, when one comes here it is because there is an issue already. But we are supposed to be like Jesus; and He didn't ask if the things He dealt with were "fair". And of course, Truthseeker, as you say, " For most women, maintaining a tender heart toward lovemaking is an ongoing process of tender, not sexual, communication, lots of kisses and hugs..no faster way to find a mannequin beside you in bed than for the woman to perceive, whether accurate or not, that her body is of greater interest to you than her whole person, body, mind, and spirit." This is undeniably true- it is also true that there are a lot of low libido spouses who don't want to be bothered, who use this as a convenient excuse to avoid sex- that mannequin trick is quite convenient if one is so disposed. And then they are shocked if he turns to some other alternative because HE is made- by God- a certain (opposite) way, as well.
I see counselors and preachers all over reminding men about this side of a woman- I have never heard any of them telling the women to "put out" because the surest way to have a man have no interest in warmth, conversation, communication, and lots of hugs and kisses is for him to find that she turns into a dead mackerel when he does that, because she thinks that he might be hoping for something physical to develop. The problem is that, like it or not, testosterone is indiscriminate. Faithfulness and the tender, platonic feeling is a fight against the male nature; as soon as you hug, you get the notion, unbidden, and biochemistry may rear its head. We need help to pull that benign affection stuff off if that is the price of marital peace. All of this proves that actual mutually happy marriage is almost impossible for a carnal human being not controlled by the Spirit, because the basic unselfishness required in light of the differences between the sexes is not natural for humans. There are a lot of "successful" marriages (friendly, affectionate, faithful, long-lasting) that are still not happy the way they could be.
So Tropical Storm, you may be a saint, and have put up with everything as you say. But we can't be certain because yours is the only perspective we have on the events in your household; there is another side to the story, and his may be as indefensible as you say. Or he may have some valid points as well. From what you describe, I think I would be as upset as you are, and just as tempted to throw in the towel; as I said above, you are probably not under bondage if that is the way you choose to go. And it is your decision to stay in your marriage or go- you are the only one who can tell.
My purpose is to react to some specific statements and some general flavors I read and try to bring up another side.
|
truthseeker
Super Moderator
| Joined: | Tue May 16th, 2006 |
| Location: | New Jersey USA |
| Posts: | 796 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Sep 30th, 2007 09:04 am |
|
Hi FOH,
I don't, of course, know which threads you have read thus far, but if you haven't read this rather lengthy one, I highly recommend it.
http://www.blazinggrace.org/forums/forum8/804.html
While it centers around the variable that pregnancy throws in to the mix, it will also demonstrate that the concept of couples being obedient to Scripture is not absent from this site.
There is certainly some latitude of discussion here, but I would refer you to Mike's "Terms of Service" for full information.
It is not that we would not welcome input from those who have not dealt with this issue in their marriages, but since those here are at varying stages in the journey, it is wise to approach each with tender and prayerful discernment, to meet them where they are, rather than to try to fast-forward everyone through the very necessary steps to maturity in purity and faith. Without discounting God's omnipotence, it would be much easier for two people to become one with one another if they both started from a position of wholeness. Unfortunately, with our increasingly disfunctional society, in combination with the media's utterly warped portrayal of sexuality, that rarely occurs. If people have not followed God's plan, having had sex prior to marriage, they may know, on some levels, to what they are committing by agreeing not to deny one another, (presuming, as you said, that this point is raised in pre-marital counselling,) but if they have waited, neither quite understands what this means, or how to deal with the shattering of the myth that once they marry, and the forbidden fruit is no longer forbidden, that it will take care of itself without further refinement.
Just to keep things in balance, let us not pass by God's admonition in Eph. 5 for husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it. While two wrongs never make a right, please note that it is only the infidelity, not neglect, for which divorce is permitted in Scripture. If this, (Eph. 5,) is not practiced first, then exhorting compliance with 1 Cor. 7 is going to seem selfish and demanding. As you said, God's ideal is only truly possible when both partners are living in full submission to God.
Just for the record, our pastor and his wife have discussed these matters with couples, and she has discussed them in a study for wives as well.
No, even multiple acts of the same sin may not constitute an addiction, but the path to sanctification is to seek to rid our lives of as much sin as possible, whitch is what is being supported here at BG. If you asked half a dozen "experts" where the dividing line is between repetitious incidents of sin, and addiction, you could get a dozen replies. I believe that people generally end up here when they reach a point of determining that their willpower has failed to serve the purpose.
My point was not to suggest that gourmet mealls should be the only diet, but that if a wife's experience is that snacks and PBJ are the norm, that it is, first of all, not healthy, and secondly, quite understandable that she would reject, perhaps even become nauseous, at the prospect of one more PBJ.
TruthSeeker
|
clean2day
Member
|
Posted: Mon Oct 1st, 2007 08:43 am |
|
FOH
I will agree with you in the fact that I do not believe in "Addiction" as it is suggested in places like SA or AA or NA. Even though I work in a "recovery treetment center" for alcoholics and drug addicts.
To me the differents between a sin, like "gee did you see her!" and an addiction is the chain that one wares around their neck. By that I mean the "addict" is a slave to his sin. The other mearly loses himself into the temptation of his lust. Both is sin, but as sin progresses one becomes a slave to it. He must have/get from God and others to become free. Freedom to me is the ability to make "sound choices".
Reading Exidox you find the slaves becoming "free" baptized at the Red sea to become "a nation of priests". 11 tribes lost their priesthood by bowing to the golden calf. Some of them might have done "thinking that is the way to go" and falling into sin. I thought "everybody looks at porn" it's only natual, besides I enjoy it so....." I became a slave to porn/sin. It wasn't until I was able to come to the cross have I been able to have those chains broken.
Yes, Jesus was tempted in everyway we are tempted. With needs, wants and greed. He does understand what we go through. He also has promished us that there is no temptation that he will not help us pass by. BUT we must chose which road we want to follow, the wide or the nerrow.
If an addiction is a sickness that sickness is sin.
Remembering
It's Jesus!
C2d
____________________
"When you need a victory, Jesus gives it.
When you need a friend, Jesus will be there.
When you need to talk, Jesus will listen.
And if you need to cry, Jesus will hold you close.
Rev E. O. Hilt 1908 - 1988
|
Current time is 03:03 am | Page: 1 2 3   |
|
|
|
RSS