Casual Sex a Con

[Dilloduck]

You are claiming that these symbols are "attached." I am claiming that they are intrinsic.


Of course it isn't a magic wand. All people have emotional issues that complicate sex and sexuality. Emotional needs CAN be met outside a sexual/romantic relationship. People CAN be content, healthy, well-rounded without involvement in a sexual relationship. However, if one chooses to enter such a relationship, it is wise to consider the nature of the relationship.

We do disagree on the intrinsic vs attached (innate-learned) nature of emotional expectations regarding the sexual experience. No doubt one will be more satisfied with the sexual experience if the partner shares the same expectations and is aware of ALL that is expected as a result of the womens' submission.

[Nienna]

We do disagree on the intrinsic vs attached (innate-learned) nature of emotional expectations regarding the sexual experience. No doubt one will be more satisfied with the sexual experience if the partner shares the same expectations and is aware of ALL that is expected as a result of the womens' submission.

Ah HA! Just as I suspected. You buy into the sexual revolution lie. It's a lie told by men to women, and by women to themselves. The lie says two things:
1) We can decide our morality for ourselves. There is no objective meaning outside and beyond our own will.
2) Women are being "kept down" by being in a "submitted" relationship to a spouse.

Number 1
Suppose I walk up to you and slap you in the face. Will not an emotional reaction follow? Will you not feel hurt or angry? Is this not an intrinsic reaction? Does it not occur naturally? You do not decide through conditioning that a slap is hurtful. It just is. Through repetition and training (or numbing), one CAN make oneself believe that a slap does not cause hurt or anger, or even that a slap is pleasurable. But, one must first overcome the connate meaning of the action.

If there is innate meaning in a slap, why would there not be innate meaning when a man enters a woman?

In order to make people desire to overcome the natural emotional reaction, they must come to believe that there is reason and value in denying it, and sometimes there is value in overcoming natural tendencies. However, the sexual revolution did not overcome; it simply swung the pendulum to the other side.


More after I get my kids off to school...

[darin]

Ah HA! Just as I suspected. You buy into the sexual revolution lie. It's a lie told by men to women, and by women to themselves. The lie says two things:
1) We can decide our morality for ourselves. There is no objective meaning outside and beyond our own will.
2) Women are being "kept down" by being in a "submitted" relationship to a spouse.

Number 1
Suppose I walk up to you and slap you in the face. Will not an emotional reaction follow? Will you not feel hurt or angry? Is this not an intrinsic reaction? Does it not occur naturally? You do not decide through conditioning that a slap is hurtful. It just is. Through repetition and training (or numbing), one CAN make oneself believe that a slap does not cause hurt or anger, or even that a slap is pleasurable. But, one must first overcome the connate meaning of the action.

If there is innate meaning in a slap, why would there not be innate meaning when a man enters a woman?

In order to make people desire to overcome the natural emotional reaction, they must come to believe that there is reason and value in denying it, and sometimes there is value in overcoming natural tendencies. However, the sexual revolution did not overcome; it simply swung the pendulum to the other side.


More after I get my kids off to school...

(Dillo is the kitty)

[Nienna]

Number 2
No doubt there was a need for reform in the way women were treated, historically. Why should women not be allowed to vote, own land, compete for jobs, etc? Whether one accepts the Bible's authority or not, one cannot deny its influence on traditional Western culture. The Bible bids women to "submit" to their husbands, but it does not place ALL women under the authority of ALL men. Also, the Bible says to "submit," not to obey unconditionally. There is a chain of authority, and if a husband removes himself from under the authority of God, the wife is no longer bound to submit in that specific circumstance (while the husband is out of God's will... she should still submit to him in other areas that do not oppose God's will). She is still responsible to God's higher authority.

In the old culture, men took their authority too far, placing all women under all men, and restricting even wives' activities further than was natural. So rebellion began.

But the rebellion has gone too far. Now, instead of opposing the authority of unjust husbands, women oppose the authority of God in denying their very nature. Instead of RESTORING the natural order, women seek to trample the needs of men, to kill the very thing that would fulfill them in a sexual relationship.

This "submission" is not one-sided. Husbands are also told to submit to their wives in the Bible. Husbands are told to give themselves for their wives' protection. Husbands are told to treat their wives with EXTRA consideration, respect, honor, and modesty, more than they would ask for themselves. I tell you, if a man's goal is to treat me like that, I don't have much problem "submitting" to him!

Two people can certainly attempt to engage in a cerebral, "genderless" partnership, but this will not be fulfilling for the vast majority of people in a sexual relationship. The very nature of the relationship, the fact that men and women have different needs, causes people to desire something different in a sexual relationship than in any other partnership.

[darin]

if a husband removes himself from under the authority of God, the wife is no longer bound to submit in that specific circumstance.

Absolutely untrue. As long as the husband doesn't ask/require the wife to do something CONTRARY to God and her Faith, she should STILL submit. Said another way, The only circumstance to which she should NOT submit is a circumstance where a husband asks her or requires her to do something Contrary or in violation of God's Word. The circumstance of her husband not being a believer, or not having placed himself under God's Authority - is NOT a cause for the wife to not-submit.

[Nienna]

Absolutely untrue. As long as the husband doesn't ask/require the wife to do something CONTRARY to God and her Faith, she should STILL submit. Said another way, The only circumstance to which she should NOT submit is a circumstance where a husband asks her or requires her to do something Contrary or in violation of God's Word. The circumstance of her husband not being a believer, or not having placed himself under God's Authority - is NOT a cause for the wife to not-submit.

I edited. And you are missing the main point of what I was trying to say.

[darin]

I edited. And you are missing the main point of what I was trying to say.

I want you to be clear in what you mean. What you wrote wasn't clear. Your Edit makes it more clear, however. That's what I'm saying. Your initial comments suggest "as long as man is outside God's authority - in THAT circumstance (the circumstance that a husband is outside of God's authority) a wife should NOT be submissive.

[eighballsidepocket]

I want you to be clear in what you mean. What you wrote wasn't clear. Your Edit makes it more clear, however. That's what I'm saying. Your initial comments suggest "as long as man is outside God's authority - in THAT circumstance (the circumstance that a husband is outside of God's authority) a wife should NOT be submissive.

I think that this is a matter of how each individual is looking at or understanding what they mean as "God's Authority".

1. One may see living under/by God's authority only in the context of that husband being a Christian. Therefore, being a Christian, means sexual union is mandatory and expected under any and all situations.............Not!
2. Another may see it as involving a Christian husband, but a Christian husband who is currently living according to God's direction ala the scripture.
3. Another may interpret this as any husband, Christian or not, who is following Godly principle of life as a husband towards his wife.

The last two scripturally are not deserving of being denied sexual union with their spouse. The first example is another "animal" altogether. When a Christian abuses their relationship with God in a selfish, self-centered manner, there is not an uglier creature around. They even make most unconverted human being look godly in comparison.
****
Scripture does not tell a Christian women to refrain from sex because her husband is not a Christian,...........but, scripture does tell the Christian husband to love his wife as Christ loved the church. We all should know how Jesus expressed His love to the church. He died for us, and rose up for us, and we now live not for ourselves but in trust and surrender to Him who did all of this on our be-half.

So the right man should be living an Agape-love type of relationship with his wife.......or a in english terms, a committed-to-the-end type of relationship with his wife. Agape love is the greatest expression of love.......Total Committment, total surrender. It's not eroticism, or delight; although those two terms are used in scripture and are not taboo.......as they are also part of the wife-husband relationship..........that God placed in our humanity......Phileo, and Eros........Delight for another, and sexual attraction/interest.

Should a woman cut off her husband's sexual relations with her? I think we need to place, "Jesus" into the scenario in this way. What would Jesus say? This can only be answered by those that know or have read the N.T. and have an abiding relationship with God as Christians.

Jesus would not ask a woman to allow herself to be "used" as a convenience for a man's sexual conquest. That's akin to rape in a sense. Yet, sexual intercourse between husband and wife can be a time of release........as the husband may find solace in the arms of his wife after a very stressful day at work or facing that nasty old working world out there. It mutually goes the other way to, as the wife also finds solace and relief in the sexual union with her husband after a day of caring for the home, and raising the couples progeny and all that entails.

There are many reasons that this union can happen in marriage, but ultimately, it's intended to be a time of total personal, one-on-one intimacy, a time away from everything else, and time to enjoy one another, and in some ways a medicinal balm.

Now, one spouse or the other may not "feel" like being the solace for the other's release or problems via sexual union, and I think this is the area where we might have to bring back that greatest aspect of love, called, "Agape" again. Sometimes we just plain don't want to have sex. We are tired, upset, annoyed, or even angered at our spouse, yet, are we saying "no" to them scripturally, or are we weaponizing our, "no" to them?

The feminist mantra has been that men our singularly minded when it comes to sexual union. This is not true. Though men and women are hard-wired differently, they both find intimacy through the sexual union, and do need it in a marriage setting.

Even the wife may be the one that desires the union and it's the husband who is tired, annoyed, or something, and doesn't want to comply.

Often once the start of the union happens, much of the reasons for not wanting to, fade away.

Sex is often used like a weapon. In the marriage setting, it can be withheld to punish. Both husbands and wives can be the culprits. Is it right? I think not.
****
Through marriage, men do learn more about how the sexual union is interpretted by their wives. It also helps them to be more sensitive and also helps them to enjoy the union-time themselves.

Within, man, there is a sort of biological "conquest" push that goes with their biological desire to have sexual union. It may be part of God's way to encourage the florishing of the human race, yet it still is to be exercised under the rules of a monogomous, marriage union. There is a mutual submission during the sexual union, that man does struggle with more than the woman in my opinion. This may be a result of cultural, conditioning.

Agreed, the woman is the receiver and the man is the initiator or one that enters. Yet the woman holds much power and sway as her biological make up exudes and causes the sexual interest in the male. She trully wields a power to make or break a moment in time in a marriage via her approach to what the sexual union is intended to be. Is it just for making babies? Hardly! Is it a casual thing? No! Is it a "thing" to be withheld to get something, or to punish?

"Casual" is the mantra word for those who don't see or respect the sexual union of man and women under the umbrella of marriage. They see it all as biological, and as an individual fullfilling of a "need" and nothing more. To casually say that she doesn't care if I don't form a relationship with her after intercourse is an absolute, "cop-out", and an indication of moral vacuum, and shallow substance as a human being/man. Women may have a more lasting effect of intercourse outside of marriage than most men, but never the less, they have also ignored the the whole premise of what the sexual union is for.

As long as people ignore or avoid facing accountability with their Creator, they will self-define every act they do in society......both with what they do by themselves and what they do intimately with others. With no God, all things can be redefined to the convenience of #1, or oneself.

Yes, God wants us to give to each other in marriage. Even on the marriage bed. With that comes the responsibility of each partner to understand and exercise sensitivity and also at times, refrain from sexual union when its going to be done with the wrong motives. Sexual union does involve receiving something for ourselves, but it also involves giving something of ourselves too. It's not a singular, act of selfishness. It supposed to be a time of mutual gratification.........sharing receiving/giving.

Sometimes we will "feel" used, but there maybe a role being missed here, as the giving part of the act may have to take precedent over the desire/hope/expectation to receive, as our "other half" is in great need of intimacy, and release from stress. That's the Agape love, part of the marriage relationship when defined during times of sexual union.

[Dilloduck]

Ah HA! Just as I suspected. You buy into the sexual revolution lie. It's a lie told by men to women, and by women to themselves. The lie says two things:
1) We can decide our morality for ourselves. There is no objective meaning outside and beyond our own will.
2) Women are being "kept down" by being in a "submitted" relationship to a spouse.

Number 1
Suppose I walk up to you and slap you in the face. Will not an emotional reaction follow? Will you not feel hurt or angry? Is this not an intrinsic reaction? Does it not occur naturally? You do not decide through conditioning that a slap is hurtful. It just is. Through repetition and training (or numbing), one CAN make oneself believe that a slap does not cause hurt or anger, or even that a slap is pleasurable. But, one must first overcome the connate meaning of the action.

If there is innate meaning in a slap, why would there not be innate meaning when a man enters a woman?

In order to make people desire to overcome the natural emotional reaction, they must come to believe that there is reason and value in denying it, and sometimes there is value in overcoming natural tendencies. However, the sexual revolution did not overcome; it simply swung the pendulum to the other side.


More after I get my kids off to school...

? I'm not buying into anything. Males are still the primary sexual aggressors and society had deemed that women MUST consent (submit) or we're talking about rape here.

[Dilloduck]

I think women feel hurt more often by casual sex because men have at least part of their needs/deeper desires fulfilled when they are accepted in the act of sex. The women's fulfillment doesn't begin until afterward. Casual sex denies women the chance for that.

I guess you're going to have to define casual.

[Nienna]

I guess you're going to have to define casual.

Casual... not within the context of a long-term commitment, preferably marriage.

[Nienna]

? I'm not buying into anything. Males are still the primary sexual aggressors and society had deemed that women MUST consent (submit) or we're talking about rape here.

Rape? I wasn't talking about rape. I was talking about consentual sex. I'm not following....