Denying sex to one’s spouse is porneia.

Fidelity must include regular sexual intercourse, as willingly promised.

Readership: All
Theme: The Integrity and Fidelity of Marriage
Authorship: This post is based on an email exchange between Red Pill Apostle and Jack. The content is organized and compiled by Jack.
Length: 2,500 words
Reading Time: 8.5 minutes

Definitions and Semantics

Over the past few months, I’ve made many comments to the effect that refusing or denying sex to one’s spouse constitutes marital infidelity. The dictionary gives us this definition of fidelity.

Fidelity (noun)

  1. Strict observance of promises, duties, etc.: a servant’s fidelity.
  2. Loyalty: fidelity to one’s country.
  3. Conjugal faithfulness.
  4. Adherence to fact or detail.
  5. Accuracy; exactness.

As we can see, marital fidelity involves all five of these definitions of fidelity, specifically the adherence to the covenant of marriage as God intended it. Jack went further in pointing out that infidelity is not limited to the worst case scenario of adultery, but that infidelity includes anything short of fidelity. Furthermore, the standard for fidelity should be based on how well we are fulfilling the purposes and conditions for Biblical Covenantal marriage by exercising our rights and responsibilities therein.

I did some digging into the original Greek Bible, and there isn’t an original wording that is equivalent to our English word infidelity. But there is a very good connection with porneia which goes with our word fornication which we use to describe every type of Biblically illicit sexual sin aside from the specific sin of adultery.

Moicheia (noun)

  1. Adultery

Porneia (noun)

  1. Fornication
  2. Whoredom
  3. (generally) Adultery, Incest, Harlotry;
  4. (metaphorically) Idolatry

Porneuó (verb)

  1. To fornicate.
  2. (metaphorically) To practice idolatry.
  3. (figuratively) To be unfaithful to Christ, while posing as His true follower.

In common parlance, fornication is specifically defined as any sexual liaison that is outside of marriage proper. A common biblical use of this word is when a person either prostitutes themselves in a sexual manner or receives the services of a prostitute. Here it is noted that porneia is not used to describe concubinage, so the Biblical idea of fornication is any sexual liaison that is outside of a Covenant arrangement. Furthermore, the Biblical usage of porneia goes beyond fornication to include idolatry, a breaking of the covenant in the pursuit of other gods.

As we know from RP lore, female fornication comes in two varieties.

  1. A s1ut is a woman who commits fornication either for the sheer thrill of defilement or as an attempt to fill the emptiness in her own heart. The classic example is the CC Rider.
  2. A wh0re is a woman who has sex for money or some other personal gain. This gain is typically material in nature, but it can also take the form of certain allowances, favors, or benefits. A prominent example of this is when a woman sleeps with her boss to secure a promotion.

Rollo has made a distinction between Validational Sex and Transactional Sex (2018-03-07), which most regular readers are likely already familiar with. The difference here is marked by the woman’s opinion of the man, her motives, and relative enthusiasm for having sex with him. Validational Sex and Transactional Sex corresponds respectively with the definitions of s1ut and wh0re given above. But if we consider this from a psychological viewpoint, the woman is getting a payoff in one form or another from both kinds of sex. In the first case, Validational Sex, she has sex with a man because she feels attraction and because it’s an inherently enjoyable experience. In the second case, Transactional Sex, she has sex with a man because she can get something for herself out of it (other than sex itself). Both kinds of sex offer some benefit or incentive to the woman in some way, and in both instances, the woman is only interested in sex when she can receive a payoff of some kind. So in a broader sense, the woman has a transactional concept of sex in both situations. In fact, Briffault’s Law states as much [emphasis mine].

“The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.

Robert Briffault (1874–1948)

We can safely assume that Briffault’s Law extends to include the benefits from associating with a man sexually.

A Lamborghini with benefits — 100% guaranteed she’s shagging the owner.

Validational Sex in Marriage

When we consider the first type of female porneia, Validational Sex, we note that validation is sort of a done deal, something implicit in the status of being married. Many women do not receive further validation through continual intercourse with the husband, partly because the internet and the lopsided loose morals surrounding our sex-centric culture proffer convenient opportunities for her to receive as much attention as she wants, and to even have sex on demand with other men. Also, a woman cannot really enjoy the thrill of defilement with her husband, because the covenant of marriage transforms any defilement (within marriage) into sanctification. Another reason is because the thrill naturally wears off after a few years. All these reasons push women to turn to the second type — Transactional Sex — after marriage. So in the next section, I’ll concentrate on the aspect of Transactional Sex as a type of porneia, specifically within the context of marriage.

Transactional Sex in Marriage = Withholding Sex

Transactional Sex in marriage invariably takes the form of Withholding Sex.

How is withholding transactional?

To answer this question, let’s think about the usual reasons for chronic withholding and rejection.

Examining what withholding sex within marriage looks like from an insider’s point of view sheds light on the idea of why withholding is a sin on the level of porneia. Withholding sex in marriage is always a power play centered around using sex for personal gain of some kind. This concept is readily evident in the transactional nature of choreplay, but it also appears in other situations where the wife is subtly using sex as a medium of exchange.

Similar dynamics hold true when the husband is withholding, but I’m focusing on the wife because this is what happens 95+% of the time.

When she wants him to “do more around the house”… (AKA Choreplay)

Women’s ideal husband (or so they say) — the 1950s multi-tasking househusband.

Granted, maintaining a home is an endless and often thankless task, but it is not uncommon for wives to be dissatisfied with the important and influential task of being largely responsible for the home environment. But when resentment kicks in, the wife increases her own labor by establishing endless requirements for order and cleanliness in the home, and she goes to excessive efforts to reach the pinnacle of persnickety in an effort to force the family’s compliance. The husband is then singled out as the chief offender to the health and civilization of the family.

If he has not done what she wants him to do, or has not performed it up to her standard, then she “doesn’t feel like it tonight.”

From the husband’s perspective, it soon becomes clear that sexual intimacy only happens when he behaves a certain way according to her wishes. He must comply or else be condemned to an ignominious existence characterized by blue balls, an aggravated temptation to lust, porn, and jerking off, and the daily shame of being belittled and rejected by his own wife in his own home.

From the wife’s perspective, she doles out sex on her own terms to elicit certain behaviors from him, and he complies by performing the behavior the way she wants him to. It’s a simple “carrot on a stick” with an occasional nibble to keep him in tow.

As you can see, she’s using sex for gain or control.

When she’s mad at him…

This is one that is entirely too common.

If she’s mad at him for doing something she disapproves of, then coitus is canned for a few days.

Running underneath her anger and moodiness is the simple reality that she doesn’t see him as good enough or worthy enough, and so sex with him becomes an annoyance to endure.  After repeated “offenses” by him, sex then becomes something she resents doing, and finally an act she is repulsed by and which she avoids as much as possible. This has longitudinal effects that can form a downward spiral in the marriage.

So then he apologizes or promises to change his ways or fix the issue.  He changes himself for the better, and she starts to see him in a different light. After a time, she lets him know he is back in her good graces by reinstating access to sex. Then sex becomes something she does with her “new and improved” husband again.

Some might view this back and forth as a wife exerting a positive influence on the husband, especially if he has some horrendous behaviors that truly need improvement. But most wives are not that self-aware. Instead of concentrating on encouraging the man to genuinely improve himself, most of the conditioning is done only in favor of her feeelz or to the convenience of her own personal habits and preferences, and not for the general welfare of the family. For instance, wives will get angry and withhold because he left his dirty socks on the floor, but they’ll never get angry and withhold because he missed Bible story time with the children. There’s a clue as to their solipsistic priorities.

At the base of it, withholding sex because she is mad at him is gaining control for herself, just like in doling out sex as a carrot reward for good behavior, but this time in stick form to change him. It does not matter that her defrauded husband hasn’t been able to give her whatever it is she wants from him before she’s willing to act like his wife. Even if she is completely honest about it, she is still using sex for gain or control. 

When she’s “not in the mood”

Readers might be wondering about the situation in which the wife isn’t really thinking in terms of getting something from the husband or controlling his behavior, but she’s just “not in the mood”, or “too tired”, etc. If she were more honest, the real reason is that she’s “feeling no attraction”, and is therefore unmotivated to connect in a way that would be meaningful to hubby. This is basically selfishness and spiritual disobedience, and of course, it’s still marital fraud, but at its root, the “not in the mood” excuse is a passive-aggressive form of apathy, which is, in all cases, an absence of steadfast love, or in some cases even spiritual rebellion. Moreover, it reinforces her power to decline.

To draw a fitting analogy, if a little child knows they are supposed to obey his parents and refuses to obey for any reason, that child is exercising control, typically through behavior that wears down the parents into acquiescing to the child’s wishes.

Now with a wife, there is a vast difference in the following two “not in the mood” sentiments.

The first is an appropriate request of the husband for him to consider in understanding of his wife.  The sentiment is something along these lines, “I’m not really in the mood because I had a tough day and I am mentally exhausted, but if you really want to, I’m yours.”  It’s up to the husband at this point to decide what to do because she has submitted.

The next “not in the mood” excuse, and the one women give 99% of the time, is expressed similarly to this, “I’ve had a hard day so I’m not really in the mood. All I want to do is curl up on the couch and vegetate in front of the TV.  It’s not happening tonight.” Here, the wife is essentially stonewalling the husband. Displaying this kind of arrogance is how she assumes power from (not) doling out natural affection.  If she adds anything else about what he can do to help her be “in the mood” so she’ll be more willing (and this is almost always the case with a woman because of solipsism), then it becomes all that much easier to see the level of control she gets from this.

Moody, sad, troubled woman expressing despair and rejecting her husband.

Withholding Sex = Porneia

What we see in these all too common scenarios is that the motivation for sex is NOT from obedience to the Covenant entered into before witnesses and God.

Instead, what we have here gentlemen is a sin where a wife is effectively using sex as a medium of exchange to garner power or control in one way or another, and to get something she wants. Women’s sexuality has always been a primary source of their power, but in our feminist culture this has been taken to the extreme and amplified by churchian doctrines.

She knows he wants it.  She knows she is his only licit sexual option, and she uses that situation for her gain. If he objects, then he’s made out to be bad, controlling, misogynistic, perverted, and so on.

So you see, when a wife uses sex for personal gain in the relationship, whether by the means of reward or punishment, she’s relegated the marriage act God purposed for creating oneness, into a quid pro quo transaction. The payoff for him is sex, and the payoff for her is power and control. It’s a wife being a one customer wh0re for a non-cash payment instead of being honest about it and taking the money.

If that seems an awful lot like porneia, that is because changing the names from “John” and “prostitute” to “husband” and “wife” respectively, in no way changes how sex is bartered and misused for selfish gain.  She only has one customer in this case, and he wildly overpays, but the core of what constitutes biblical fornication is right there. It makes no difference whether a wife has sex under certain conditions she sets forth, or if she withholds sex altogether until she is “motivated” to do so, it is transactional by nature, and thus, it is porneia.

Furthermore, as you can see, the person doing the withholding holds all the power. Anytime you stop someone from having what is rightfully theirs you are gaining or exercising power over them. Withholding sex from your spouse is about wresting control for yourself (the gain) and using sex to do it.

Comprehensively, this essentially boils down to a standoff over the fundamental structure of the marriage. Will it be Headship according to God’s Covenantal archetype, or will it be Shivalry according to her self-centered whims and fleshly feeelz?

Σ Maxim 30: A refusal to renew the covenant of marriage by withholding from the sacrament of sex is a transgression against that covenant. If continued, it is sin.

This entry was posted in Adultery and Fornication, Agency, Attraction, Authenticity, Boundaries, Conserving Power, Courtship and Marriage, Discernment, Wisdom, Enduring Suffering, Female Power, Fundamental Frame, Handling Rejection, Headship and Patriarchy, Holding Frame, Models of Failure, Moral Agency, Persuasion, Power, Psychological Disorders, Psychology, Relationships, Sexual Authority, Solipsism, Sphere of Influence. Bookmark the permalink.

54 Responses to Denying sex to one’s spouse is porneia.

  1. cameron232 says:

    This idea seems to have started in the manosphere as a retort to wives claiming that men viewing p0rn are committing adultery. (They’re not.)

    Historically, these words have real meanings. Fornication and adultery both describe a carnal connection, i.e. a physical sex act.

    Denying your spouse is sinful, probably gravely sinful, but we should stick to traditional definitions and not make up new ones.

    If we need a word to describe sex denial I’d choose “defraud.” RPA’s wife defrauded him.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Jack says:

      “If we need a word to describe sex denial I’d choose “defraud.” RPA’s wife defrauded him.”

      Of course it is marital fraud. I’d think that we would all take this much for granted.

      The value of this post is that it digs into the female psyche to determine a woman’s motivations for denying sex to her husband. RPA’s argument about how withholding sex is like a transaction, and how transactional sex is porneia makes a lot of sense to me. I think this is exactly what a lot of women are doing by withholding sex (asserting power and exerting their will). They’re trying to get something back out of it, or at least something that would motivate them to have sex. He’s right that it’s an incomplicit power play based on how the wife views sex in general. She doesn’t see it as a sacrament of marriage, or a vehicle of bonding or intimacy, but a tool to extract desired behaviors, etc.

      I told RPA that “how women view sex” wouldn’t matter to readers, even though this is central to understanding the crux of the problem of withholding. I expect readers will attempt to simplify everything and assign blame somewhere, which gets us no where.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Cameron,
      If you distill the essence of a wife withholding sex, and withholding is having the ability but refusing to, you have a wife with a powerful part of the marriage under her control and she uses it for her own gain outside of how God has prescribed she is to use that power. It does not matter that money does not directly change hands, it only matters that she gains something from using sex outside of God’s rules. And to be clear “Adultery” is only one way to misuse sex that justifies divorce. Jesus is clear in Matthew 5:32 that “porneia”, which is the word commonly used for prostitution, is a reason as well.

      Whether a wife dribbles out sex to change his behavior, completely withholds to maintain her power, or gives freely for a time to get something she wants, she is using sex for gain and that is prostitution or if you prefer Jesus’ word, porneia. Mrs. Apostle has exhibited some clear behaviors of the one man prostitute. In the middle of a couple month stretch of no sex, I suggested we have a go and she told me I was not behaving the right way to deserve sex. I either did what she wanted or no sex for me. with the implication that if I did what she wanted then I’d get sex.

      In an even clearer example, I told Mrs. A that because we weren’t having sex I had no desire to go on a tropical anniversary trip with her for our 15th. She actually said, “Let’s get you some sex then”, and proceeded to do her best to be available twice a week for 3 months. While we were on the trip she splurged for three times. One of those times she told me, “You’re probably expecting sex so let’s get it over with before dinner.” Within two months after we returned, she was back at refusing and we were in the once every 3 month frequency again.

      “Denying your spouse is sinful, probably gravely sinful, but we should stick to traditional definitions and not make up new ones.

      If we need a word to describe sex denial I’d choose “defraud.” RPA’s wife defrauded him.”

      It’s very clear that we are not making up new definitions. What we are doing is shining a light on some aspects of too many wives’ behavior in regards to sex and applying the millennia old definition of using sex outside of God’s rules for personal gain.

      Liked by 2 people

      • @ RPA,

        ‘It’s very clear that we are not making up new definitions. What we are doing is shining a light on some aspects of too many wives’ behavior in regards to sex and applying the millennia old definition of using sex outside of God’s rules for personal gain.”

        I agree with Cameron here.

        I could get behind the statement that denying sex and then appropriating it with a transactional mindset is like certain forms of porneia, but I wouldn’t say it is porneia.

        Secondly, not all of porneia (or specifically fornication / unmarried sex) is transactional sex. There’s certainly many people out there fornicating just because it feels good and want to be with an attractive man or woman. There are also certainly many men and women (though typically more women) using sex, attention, sex appeal, etc. to get what they want (usually monetary gain).

        Most marital fraud with the drip method is likely transactional though.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        DS,
        If I may attempt to summarize your viewpoint…

        — Fornication is porneia.
        — Transactional sex outside of marriage is fornication/porneia.
        — Validational sex outside marriage is fornication/porneia.
        — Transactional sex (i.e. withholding sex) inside marriage is a transgression or sin, but not porneia.
        — So porneia cannot exist between spouses in marriage, because marriage.

        Correct me if I’m mistaken.

        Like

      • @ Jack,

        — Fornication is porneia.
        — Transactional sex outside of marriage is fornication/porneia.
        — Validational sex outside marriage is fornication/porneia.
        — Transactional sex (i.e. withholding sex) inside marriage is a transgression or sin, but not porneia.
        — So porneia cannot exist between spouses in marriage, because marriage.

        Yeah, that’s correct.

        Transactional sex inside of marriage is marital fraud, but it’s the reasoning and methods that can be similar to or the same as transactional sex outside of marriage, which is porneia.

        I also agree with RPA that wives withholding to gain something (e.g. transactional) from the sex is basically prostituting herself.

        Wives can withhold without being transactional, but that’s usually when they are very unattracted to their husbands.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        “I could get behind the statement that denying sex and then appropriating it with a transactional mindset is like certain forms of porniea, but I wouldn’t say it is porneia.”

        I’ll specify the subset of porneia into which withholding fits then so we don’t get into splitting hairs in an unproductive manner. Withholding in marriage is a power play and as such the woman gains something from the unbiblical use of sex. In withholding a wife utilizes sex for her own gain and does so counter to God’s instructions, this making herself guilty of being a one customer prostitute. This is how withholding is part of porneia, but yet not all of what porneia can mean in the Greek.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        @DS, strictly speaking not true. You can commit porneia within a marriage by buggering your wife or I suppose even being buggered by your wife in extreme cases. This would not even have been worth mentioning until a generation or two ago with the rise of p0rn. Even the pagan Greeks (well, some of them) understood this.

        Like

    • redpillboomer says:

      “Historically, these words have real meanings. Fornication and adultery both describe a carnal connection, i.e. a physical sex act.”

      I think you make a very valid point here. A practice I’ve slowly begun doing is ‘translating’ in my mind various modern sexual euphemisms back into Biblical terms and traditional historical usage. As far as I can tell from Scriptures, and traditional historical contexts, fornication and adultery are physical acts.

      So for example, our infamous modern day/modern euphemism CC riders are being PROMISCUOUS and FORNICATING, if they are single, and so are the players and other men doing it with them. Now if either party is married and doing it with someone not their spouse, it is more proper to refer to them as adulterers and adulteresses, the Biblical and historical terms, and not ‘cheaters,’ or some other modern day euphemism.

      So, all this PHYSICAL sex outside marriage is either fornication or adultery. The non-physical sex I believe would fall under the Biblical term, ‘impure thoughts,’ which could lead to the physical act of fornication or adultery… or other things as well, ‘dead bedrooms’ for instance.

      I know Jesus said if you look on a woman with impure thoughts you’ve already committed adultery with her in your heart, so maybe one then would be an adulterer/adulteress in a spiritual sense, but not in the physical sense — yet and maybe never. Still, both are sin, but there seems to be a difference in the consequences. Both have consequences, but seem to occupy different, yet similar realms, in that they both involve illicit sex; however, the out workings (consequences) are different.

      Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        I come at this from a Catholic perspective so there doesn’t have to be a quotable Bible verse. The sin of dwelling in your heart and mind on things you shouldn’t is the sin of lust. Fornication and adultery involve fleshly acts you give consent of the will to e.g. not a woman being raped, of course. I assume Orthodoxy would have a similar view.

        My guess “cheating” replaced “adultery” to cover the situation of unmarried, fornicating men and women (“boyfriends” and “girlfriends”) fornicating with other people.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Sharkly says:

      For me the correct English term for the behavior of frigid defrauding wives who don’t want to respect their own husband’s sexually nor honor their own vows is: “Sexual Immorality”. FWIW, the NASB translates the Greek word πορνεία (porneía) as “sexual immorality”.

      Matthew 5:32 (NASB)
      …but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

      The woman’s refusal to serve her created purpose for her mate and to defraud him of what was vowed to be his “to have”, is clearly immoral sexual behavior. Martin Luther wrote that frigid wives should be executed along with those who committed adultery and those who practiced witchcraft.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. cameron232 says:

    I think “s1ut” refers to a slovenly woman. “Wh0re/harlot” refers to a promiscuous woman. The Bible refers to “playing the harlot.”

    I wonder if the distinction between “harlot” and “playing the harlot” is that the former involves some sort of material gain.

    Like

    • locustsplease says:

      Went a whoring

      Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Yeah but I wonder why the Bible doesn’t just refer to her as a harlot? Is it the difference between e.g. a professional prostitute and what men now call a “slut”?

        Like

    • jvangeld says:

      Ezekiel 16 uses that term through the chapter. He makes the point you are thinking of in these verses.

      Ezekiel 16:28-34
      28 “You played the whore also with the Assyrians, because you were not satisfied; yes, you played the whore with them, and still you were not satisfied. 29 You multiplied your whoring also with the trading land of Chaldea, and even with this you were not satisfied.
      30 “How sick is your heart, declares the Lord God, because you did all these things, the deeds of a brazen prostitute, 31 building your vaulted chamber at the head of every street, and making your lofty place in every square. Yet you were not like a prostitute, because you scorned payment. 32 Adulterous wife, who receives strangers instead of her husband! 33 Men give gifts to all prostitutes, but you gave your gifts to all your lovers, bribing them to come to you from every side with your whorings. 34 So you were different from other women in your whorings. No one solicited you to play the whore, and you gave payment, while no payment was given to you; therefore you were different.”

      Liked by 1 person

  3. whiteguy1 says:

    That’s how my ex was. She viewed sex with me as transactional… until she didn’t. Which, looking back, was the moment she decided that she HAD to divorce me. When I finally re-established my frame, and was back to be the man I was supposed to be, the tables flipped and sex became validational for her and she lost ALL her power over me.

    I don’t think she could stand this. When she denied me sex, it drove HER crazy, and then it was the constant accusations of infidelity because she couldn’t imagine having validational sex with her husband.

    The blue pill wage mule had transformed back into the red pill stallion.

    999 days gents! That’s how long it took from the day she filed to the day that the judge signed the final decree. As one of my friends says, 1 more day and I would have gotten the coffee mug and my life back!

    Having it finalized has been a weird sensation, not gonna lie. Relief but sadness. Bittersweet. Now I’ve got to free up all these clock cycles that have been spent trying to untangle from Crazy.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Whiteguy1,

      “When I finally re-established my frame, and was back to be the man I was supposed to be, the tables flipped and sex became validational for her and she lost ALL her power over me.”

      Can you expound on sex becoming validational for your ex? What did sex becoming a source of validation look like for her and why do you think she reacted to this the way she did? I have a feeling there might be good information about the signs men should look for in their wives so they aren’t blindsided by her reaction to how he’s improving himself.

      Liked by 2 people

      • whiteguy1 says:

        Lemme see if I can flesh this out. Heh.

        To set this up, my ex is BPD… so extreme version of a girl, everything is all or nothing with this crazy chick so your mileage may vary.

        So about 18 months into me pulling my head out of my butt and re-establishing my frame, this was the situation on a Saturday afternoon.

        I was working out in the garage on the kids motorcycle, and since it required me to use a razor blade to scrape crap off the handle bars, I needed to stay really focused or I was going to make a trip the ER. She came out to ‘talk’ (yell, annoy, etc) to me about whatever nonsense she was spouting at the time and wanted my full attention. (She did this quite often, and yes, I had tried all the active listening things we are supposed to do as husbands. It made no difference.) This time I was having none of it, she would get up in my business while I was scraping and try to distract me, and I quite literally moved my stool, so as to give her my back (after telling her I needed to focus). After about 10 minutes of the ring-around-the-rosy she finally got the hint and left me to work. This went on all the rest of the evening, me staying focused on task and her trying to distract me. Finally we went to bed and she comes in late (of course, it’s about control). She showers and comes to bed naked. She normally slept in some sort of PJ. I of course initiate and she shoots me down, but not before I had noticed that she was more than just ‘wet’ from the shower, the woman was dripping wet, yet still denied me. So I said “fine”, and rolled over and went to sleep. Oh, I got all sorts of nonsense “why” she didn’t want to have sex with me, but she started to realize it wasn’t her that ‘had the power’ anymore, it was me. She later initiated, and then would get mad at me for having sex with her. And it terrified her, I believe, because she didn’t trust her own feelings. She doesn’t trust anyone much less herself. (At this point I was pretty darn fit, and was owning all my responsibilities.)

        In the end, it was the last lever she had with me, and I took that away from her, well her ‘feelz’ did, she was emotionally invested in my attention and she couldn’t stand it, because I think she couldn’t live with her own jealousy, because she just ‘knew’ that if she didn’t provide sex than someone else would. And one key bit of info here, this woman is extremely LAZY, one of the laziest people I have ever known. Even the ‘herd’ thought she was extra lazy.

        But the final straw I would say for her was when she had a visceral reaction to my dominance in the bedroom, no more negotiating, no more Mr. Nice Guy, it was Whiteguy taking what he wanted from his wife. I’m going to brag a little bit here and say that I ROCKED this crazy woman’s world so hard one night that I believe it ended the marriage. She had the best sex of her life and she ‘DEER’ed’ for the next week telling me how bad it was, and not a month later she filed.

        The more I think about it, the more I believe she had such a messed up view of sex that when she actually started enjoying it, she thought she was sinning/doing something wrong. Who knows? Maybe it was the childhood sexual abuse, or stripping, or porn that I suspect she might have done… I don’t know. She was really messed up. I’m glad I’m not having to deal with it anymore.

        Like

      • whiteguy1 says:

        One more detail, before I unplugged, we were at 1-2x a month sex, for at least 10 years. After the wedding she gained 40 lbs., after the first kid, 20 more, and after the second kid, another 20 lbs. So yeah 80 lbs. overweight. I wasn’t doing much better, I put on about 50 lbs. myself during this time.

        Liked by 1 person

      • locustsplease says:

        Whiteguy1,
        About my ex: One night I was irritated with her behavior. After she was in bed for 30 minutes, I went in, grabbed her by the hips, and enjoyed myself. She was about half asleep when I started, and she melted in my arms, just like in a romance movie. Her toes were curling 2 min into it. I’m sure it was one of the top 5 times for her, and I used almost no effort. All the next day I felt pretty proud, thinking, “Hey! I found something and our marriage is gonna get better!” At dinner she said she hated it and she told me not to touch her again. Now, 7 years after our divorce, she looks at me with longing. Even my parents have commented on it. It’s hard to explain to people when they can’t be pleased, reasoned, or negotiated with.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Jack says:

      “[My ex] viewed sex with me as transactional… until she didn’t. Which, looking back, was the moment she decided that she HAD to divorce me. When I finally re-established my frame, and was back to be the man I was supposed to be, the tables flipped and sex became validational for her and she lost ALL her power over me.

      I don’t think she could stand this. When she denied me sex, it drove HER crazy, and then it was the constant accusations of infidelity because she couldn’t imagine having validational sex with her husband.”

      This is absolutely astounding! Incredible! Phenomenal!

      We already know women would rather divorce than submit, but they’ll still do so even when they’re feeling natural attraction for the man! It just goes to show how much women are addicted to power and control in marriage.

      I’ve noticed something that is much more prevalent in east Asia than it is in the West, and that is how some women intentionally choose betaboys for marriage. I’ve seen some utterly gorgeous women with many suitors, and they’ll willingly choose to marry a wimpy, disheveled, overweight guy in ketchup stained bahama shorts and flip flops! I could never understand this until I realized that they’re doing it for control. They only feel secure when they have the upper hand. They choose the betaboy because a higher SMV man would cause them to lose control, not only of him, but also of her own feelings. This seems to compare to Whiteguy1’s ex-wife.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        I have evidence of this in my own marriage. During an argument last year, Mrs. A became angry and frustrated that I was holding my ground and she told me she should have married a man that would do what she told him to. What she didn’t say is the telling part. She could have said that she should have married a man that would consider her wants, needs and desires. But instead, in that moment of frustration, what came out of her was the sentiment that she knows best — she should be in control, God’s established order isn’t good and that being married to a man who obeys her would solve at least some of her problems.

        For any women reading this, understand that if you think like my wife does, then you are your husband/fiancé/boyfriend’s competition and if he has any spine at all, he is going to treat you like his competition. Expect him to focus on the task of winning; it’s what we strive to do in competitions, and in doing so, he’ll focus more on winning than your feelings, needs, or wants. This is the part of the curse on Eve where women desire to control their men but “he will rule over you.”

        Liked by 1 person

    • @ whiteguy1,

      “But the final straw I would say for her was when she had a visceral reaction to my dominance in the bedroom, no more negotiating, no more Mr. Nice Guy, it was Whiteguy taking what he wanted from his wife. I’m going to brag a little bit here and say that I ROCKED this crazy woman’s world so hard one night that I believe it ended the marriage. She had the best sex of her life and she ‘DEER’ed’ for the next week telling me how bad it was, and not a month later she filed.

      The more I think about it, the more I believe she had such a messed up view of sex that when she actually started enjoying it, she thought she was sinning/doing something wrong. Who knows? Maybe it was the childhood sexual abuse, or stripping, or porn that I suspect she might have done… I don’t know. She was really messed up. I’m glad I’m not having to deal with it anymore.”

      When some people are stuck in patterns and habits of inverted relationships/marriage so long, then that becomes their normal. Normal is comfortable. She can manipulate you and has control over you and everything is good.

      If you flip the script and start leading the relationship/marriage, then this is simply too much for some women. They are scared out of their minds not being in control because (surprise surprise) BPD and other types of women like that have trust issues, usually from broken homes, sexual abuse, or whatever else in their history. Most normal women who grew up in a healthy home will be uncomfortable at first but when you’re actually leading well they’ll start to fall in line.

      This is pretty much what cognitive dissonance is. BPD women and women with trust issues can’t handle NOT being in control. They’ll do anything to get out of it, even if it’s in a better situation. They’d rather go back to the control and dysfunction. Similar to battered women syndrome and Stockholm syndrome.

      This is also why we say, usually when you start leading, women will fall in line. Most women that actually are interested in serving God and have a reasonably healthy background will. But there are relationships where women are too dysfunctional to change and instead of starting to follow you, they’ll likely try to rebel more or just nope out. Just let them go per 1 Corinthians 7. Their choices are on their head as long as you are striving to uphold God’s commands.

      Liked by 3 people

  4. lastholdout says:

    1 Corinthians 7:3-5 [KJV]
    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.

    The point of NOT making sex transactional is captured in 1 Corinthians 7:3-6. It is also about maintaining your role (in goodwill and out of love) to help your spouse keep from seeking water from an unclean well — “…that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.” Also note the phrase “Defraud ye not…” A married woman’s power play of using sex to negotiate (explicitly or implicitely) is consistent with her predisposition so clearly called out by God Himself in Genesis 3:16“…and thy desire shall be to thy husband.”

    Liked by 3 people

  5. Random Angeleno says:

    Defraud is a useful word, but there is a much stronger word that can apply: abandonment. As in when no sex happens for a long enough period of time, that constitutes marital abandonment on the part of the refusing spouse. Or to phrase that more bluntly, the refusing spouse has abandoned the marriage. At that point, one can start parsing the various words like defraud, porneia, adultery, pornography, lust, etc., but that doesn’t remove the central point: the sex ain’t happening and absent medical reasons, that is never a good thing for the marriage. For we’re in the downside territory of Briffault’s Law when it happens, and it may be that the only option left is to make the abandonment official. RPA, deti, et al. managed to come back from that, but others did not, myself included.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      “Defraud is a useful word, but there is a much stronger word that can apply: abandonment.”

      Yes, people have the notion that abandonment is limited to the physical disappearance of a spouse. But withholding sex for an extended time is an emotional and sexual abandonment of a marriage, even if their body is still lurking in the house somewhere.

      It seems like we have to use strong words, hyperboles, metaphors, parables, and so on to incite critical thought and get the point across. (Withholding Sex = Porneia is a good example.) I think the point is that no matter how we look at it, or what we prefer to call it, such things fail to match God’s ordinances. We can hash through the definitions and nuances all year, but there is no argument that can change the reality of this. The benefit of hashing it out is to help us get a better grasp in our understanding of things.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. OKRickety says:

    I disagree strongly with the main claim of this post. Denying sex to one’s spouse is NOT porneia. However, I would agree that transactional sex in marriage with its associated withholding of sex does qualify as porneia.

    I think the problem with the title claim results from two incorrect premises: (1) The definition(s) provided for porneia in the post are poor, and (2) the conflation of marital infidelity with porneia.

    Per the Greek-English Lexicon of Arndt, et al., porneia is defined as…

    “…the general term for all illicit or immoral sexual intercourse. The specific form may sometimes be indicated by the context. If payment of wages is involved, it is prostitution. If it involves close relatives, it is incest. If it involves persons of the same sex, it is homosexuality. If it involves an unmarried couple, it is unchastity. If it involves a married person outside of marriage, it is adultery.”

    As can be seen, porneia could be more easily defined as all sex other than sex between a married man and woman. More importantly, note that porneia ALWAYS includes sexual activity.

    It should be clear that withholding sex, whether temporarily or permanently, is not sex and therefore cannot itself be porneia.

    Is porneia marital infidelity? Yes, but not all infidelity is porneia. Porneia is a subset of behaviors that fit into the category of marital infidelity. In other words, they are not synonymous.

    I consider there to be a distinction between denial of sex (no sex ever) and withholding of sex (no sex unless her conditions are met).

    Both denial and withholding of sex are certainly marital infidelity, a sin. Marital fidelity does include regular sex as Paul clearly states in 1 Corinthians 7.

    In conclusion, regular and frequent denial of sex is not porneia, but it is a sin of marital infidelity, a failure to follow the covenant.

    However, transactional sex is a form of the sin porneia. When this exists in marriage, withholding sex is almost certainly involved. In that context, I would say withholding sex is sin, but not on its own.

    Would either denial or withholding of sex qualify as a biblical reason for divorce? I think only if the sin continued regularly after being addressed through the process of Christian discipline described in Matthew 18:15-17.

    Liked by 2 people

    • cameron232 says:

      I agree with almost everything you said except this part:

      “I would agree that transactional sex in marriage with its associated withholding of sex does qualify as porneia.”

      Porneia involves illicit copulation which includes coitus with a woman as well as unnatural sex acts with either sex. If my wife says, “Buy me a new car and I’ll have sex with you”, that’s immoral, but I don’t think the resulting sex is illicit.

      That said, I appreciate the argument that Jack and RPA are making here on how it is like porneia and/or adultery.

      I just wanna be clear on language because the progressives rape the language in order to suit their purposes and we don’t want to think and act like them. That’s all.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      “In conclusion, regular and frequent denial of sex is not porneia but it is a sin of marital infidelity, a failure to follow the covenant.

      However, transactional sex is a form of the sin porneia.”

      Within marriage, withholding sex is ALWAYS transactional. She wants or does not want something and sex is the leverage, either in withholding or giving, to get what she wants. If your objection is to the technical application of the Greek word porneia, then we can use an English term for using sex to get goods/services/behavior — prostituting herself.

      What I don’t draw a distinction between is when the circumstance becomes prostitution. Is the application of the concept when she decides to withhold to change his behavior or when he changes his behavior as his payment to her and she then has sex with him. The intent of the heart is to put a price on sex from the moment withholding starts. The rest is merely the negotiation over what that price will be. Since she’s engaging sex in a transactional nature in her withholding, the act’s very nature makes it porneia and a divorce justifying offense.

      “Would either denial or withholding of sex qualify as a biblical reason for divorce? I think only if the sin continued regularly after being addressed through the process of Christian discipline described in Matthew 18:15-17.”

      Flip this around and call it adultery. Does adultery qualify as a biblical reason for divorce if it is done only once? Does adultery have to be an ongoing sin that continues regularly? Can adultery only justify divorce after going through the process of church discipline in Matthew 18? There is no wiggle room with adultery and there is no wiggle room with withholding.

      The only question is if the innocent spouse should divorce or not. My take would be that God’s pouring out of grace to us goes far beyond our ability to comprehend it, and I think it pleases him that we do the same with the spouse He gave us. That is one of the reasons I’m still married to Mrs. Apostle even after 17 years of her garbage behavior. I’d add that there is a huge cost for doing this, some of the cost is on the offending spouse but most of it will fall on the innocent spouse.

      Like

      • cameron232 says:

        “Within marriage, withholding sex is ALWAYS transactional.”

        I don’t know that this is true. I’m not a woman but common reasons seem to be:

        — Physically unattracted to/repelled by her husband and/or sex with her husband.
        — Being emotionally damaged by previous promiscuity.
        — Mental health issues (e.g. BPD, Sharkly’s wife’s “intimacy anorexia”).
        — Being physically repelled by herself (e.g. “I don’t feel sexy.”, etc.)

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Divorce in our language means the marriage is over – it no longer exists – you are both free to remarry. The early church, which was much closer to the source material and culture, didn’t allow this for adultery (or anything for that matter). It allowed what we now call “separation” in severe cases like adultery. Something like 25 of 26 (I don’t remember the exact number) of Church Fathers who addressed this, said “no remarriage” with the only dissenter not dissenting on principle but merely taking the Eastern Orthodox position that it’s better to tolerate remarriage than to deal with the alternative.

        The origins of the teaching that a man can divorce his wife and remarry another for withholding sex dates to the 2000s (if not the 2010s). It is an internet RP Christian thing and is a retort to Churchian women claiming they can divorce and remarry their husbands for viewing p0rn.

        Your situation is horrible and you’re a better man and better Christian than I am. If I had to go through what you’ve been through, I’d probably have either walked or turned into such a monster that she would have walked.

        Like

      • OKRickety says:

        RPA,

        Yes, I do want to use “the technical application” of porneia. Words have meaning(s) and using them otherwise is similar to cameron232’s description of “progressives raping the language to suit their purposes”.

        It seems we have different definitions of “withholding sex”. To improve communication, I propose that wives respond negatively to sexual initiation in three ways:
        1. Deny (regularly) — Reason: Too painful; Mentally traumatic; etc.
        2. Decline (occasionally) — Reason: Too tired; Ill; etc.
        3. Withhold — Reason: Desire for selfish gain, whether material or abstract

        I think I have been considering withholding too broadly, including declining as a form of it. I apologize for the resulting confusion in my comments.

        In the case of withholding, most, if not all, sex with the withholder would be a form of prostitution, the most original meaning of porneia. I don’t believe the other two responses are forms of porneia, but, depending on the details and frequency, might qualify as another sin, for example, defrauding the spouse.

        “Flip this around and call it adultery.”

        I don’t think that’s reasonable because prostitution outside of the marriage is vastly different from withholding sex. Yes, all sins are equal in one sense, but they commonly are different in effect. For example, physical adultery is significantly different to the adultery of the heart described in Matthew 5:28. But they are both technically porneia, at least on the face of it. Do the “Churchian women”, as Cameron calls them, have a valid claim that lusting, for example, while using porn, is a Biblical reason for divorce?

        Note: One argument I consider relevant is that Jesus, in Matthew 5, was using metaphors to teach that what we think “in our heart” is extremely important. For example, He compares calling someone “Fool” to murder and deserving going to the fiery hell. In the same vein, the punishment for lusting as adultery is to tear out one eye. Know anyone who has done that, or even seriously suggested it as a punishment?

        In the end, using the definitions above, I will agree that “Withholding Sex = Porneia” but I still disagree that “Denying sex to one’s spouse is porneia”, because I think withholding and denying are different situations.

        As to the question of divorcing for porneia, and in view of God’s grace to us, I think it’s important to recognize that porneia is provided as a valid reason to divorce, but it’s not a commandment to divorce if it does occur.

        Like

      • OKRickety says:

        cameron232,

        “The origins of the teaching that a man can divorce his wife and remarry another for withholding sex dates to the 2000s (if not the 2010s). It is an internet RP Christian thing and is a retort to Churchian women claiming they can divorce and remarry their husbands for p0rn viewing.”

        Considering withholding sex to be a reason for divorce is hardly new. Martin Luther wrote:

        “The third case for divorce is that in which one of the parties deprives and avoids the other, refusing to fulfill the conjugal duty or to live with the other person.”

        The so-called innocent party marrying another after divorce for valid biblical reason should be considered separately. It goes back as far as the Westminster Confession of Faith which states:

        “In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce: and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.”

        While these concepts may be popular among “internet RP Christians”, it is clear they have existed in Protestant belief for hundreds of years.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        @okrickety,
        Yes, I mean, you can find the manosphere’s “coitus creates marriage” idea among at least one historical Christian.

        I know Luther is a Protestant heavyweight but he wrote A LOT and he wrote some crazy things. I suppose I meant that RPA’s position isn’t historical. It’s definitely not Catholic, probably not EO, and not common among Protestants either.

        It does seem to have been popularized by the Christian manosphere as a response to Churchian women BS.

        How would one discern his wife’s motives? She might be explicit, but more often I suspect you’d be playing a guessing game as to whether she’s denying sex due to emotional and mental health issues, lack of attraction, physical issues, or trying to get something from you (“prostitution”).

        Like

      • OKRickety says:

        Cameron

        Although Luther had some “crazy” views, I think it’s reasonable to argue that his beliefs have significantly influenced Protestant theology.

        Before I forget, I think much “Churchian women BS” is not solely from women but also strongly supported by men in church leadership.

        As to wives’ reasons for “no sex tonight”, it may well be difficult to ascertain. However, I think my categories are still useful in determining what the theoretical response should be. You are certainly correct that they might not disclose their motives, even if asked directly.

        I realize only too well that women may well hide the truth. For example, my ex-wife waited ten years into our marriage before telling me she had aborted a child, and also been raped on two occasions. Even more egregious was her blindsiding me and requesting a divorce. [On top of that, two of our church ministers and one elder knew of her plans and did not talk to me.]

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Okrickety, yes I agree about men. I would say a lot of men both “conservative” and progressive men are very much slaves to female emotion in general. This is a great deal of the origin of male feminism, both church and secular.

        One concern with our inability to discern others motives is that men could, in mass, use this to divorce wives, theoretically for one refusal of sex. My wife refused me once and I didn’t find out until much later that it was because she had severe diarreah and the accompanying rawness. I acted like a total prick about it which didn’t help.

        Like

  7. Eric Francis Silk says:

    Unmarried? Not allowed to engage in sex.
    Married? Not allowed to stop.

    “Everything not forbidden is compulsory.”

    Sorry, but this is a nonsensical concept.

    Like

    • Joe2 says:

      Unmarried? Not allowed to engage in sex.
      Married? Not allowed to stop.

      There may also be somewhat different definitions of sex as it is applied to the unmarried and married.

      Unmarried – the definition of sex is all encompassing and can include intercourse, oral stimulation, a HJ, the back door, etc. All of which are not allowed.

      Married – the definition of sex is focused on intercourse. The other activities mentioned above can occur in marriage, but they don’t pass muster in satisfying the marital obligation to your spouse. Intercourse is what is important.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. Pingback: A Distrusting Woman is a Divorcing Woman | Σ Frame

  9. Jack says:

    I found some more information about porneia that supports the idea that Withholding Sex = Porneia. This is a commentary about Matthew 19:9 from BibleHub. Scroll down to the discussion of porneia under “Pulpit Commentary”.

    “These who affirm that the sin of married persons is never expressed by the word porneia, hold that it here signifies ante-nuptial unchastity, which would make the marriage void ab initio; post-nuptial transgression would be punished by death, not by divorce. In this view, our Lord would say that no divorce is allowable except where the wife is proved to have been unchaste before marriage. In such a case, the union being void from the first, the man is free to marry again. But there are difficulties in this interpretation. Why, at the end of the verse, is it called adultery to marry the divorced woman, if she was never really and lawfully married? Again, it is not correct to say that porneia denotes solely the sin of unmarried people. All illicit connection is described by this term, and it cannot be limited to one particular kind of transgression.”

    This argument asserts that porneia can occur within marriage and without adultery, but it does not specify what that looks like, or whether withholding sex is porneia.

    FWIW, in Matthew 19:9, porneia is translated many different ways, including “fornication”, “immorality”, “sex sins”, “sexual immorality”, “unchastity”, “unfaithfulness”, “sexual unfaithfulness”, “fornication”, “the problem of sexual sin”, “adultery”, “whoredom”, and even “unlawful marriage”. Withholding sex fits into some of these translations, but not for others.

    I can think of one possible explanation of why Jesus would name porneia as an exception for the cause of divorce. In the specific case of adultery, the law specifies the death penalty, but a husband could “go easy” on her and divorce her instead. But then why did Jesus use the general word “porneia”, and not the more specific term “adultery”?

    Liked by 2 people

    • cameron232 says:

      God created us in such a way that sex is tied to reproduction in form, even if some sexual encounters of licit, God-designed form don’t result in reproduction. Therefore, a man can be guilty of porneia with a woman he is married to.

      E.g. Martin Luther considered contraceptive sex to be a sodomitic sin. Presumably, Luther would place non-coital forms of copulation under this category as well.

      Like

      • Jack says:

        Cameron,
        If we are to assume that birth control and pegging her bum are included under the umbrella of porneia, then Matthew 19:9 could be interpreted to mean that a man can divorce his wife for using a condom or an IUD. It would also mean that he could drill her in the back door and then be justified in divorcing her. I think this argument won’t fly.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        The early Church taught that a man could only separate (without remarriage) in the case of an adulterous wife. I don’t know why the verse uses “porneia” instead of “moicheia” (sp?). Deep Strength, in his studies, has come to the same conclusion and I trust him as an honest and intellectually rigorous Christian man. There seems to have been a debate about whether a man was REQUIRED to divorce a cheating wife.

        I don’t think a man would have a claim to being the wronged party if he withdrew before ejaculation, used a condom, or buggered her, so I don’t think Matthew 19:9 would apply.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        Cameron,

        “I don’t think a man would have a claim to being the wronged party if…”

        I’m not talking about legal matters. I’m referring to the possibility of using a moralized justification for immoral motives. For those who have faith, the law is intended to be something that would lead us to know God and understand the workings of the spiritual world. For those who don’t have faith, the law is a crutch to support their own cognitive understanding of right and wrong.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        I’m sorry Jack but I’m not smart enough to follow. You’re saying contraception and wife buggery likely aren’t the porneia referred to in Matthew 19:9 because a moralizing justification could then be used for the immoral intent of divorce? The same thing could be used by the traditional Protestant* teaching on adultery and divorce. If y’all want a divorce just get the wife or husband to have sex with someone. Yes that would violate the spirit by “following” the law.

        My guess is Matthew 19:9 porneia refers to the wife’s illicit sex acts — I suppose to include lying with women?

        There does appear to be a limited biblical times Levantine use of porniea to refer to bigamy, but the meaning still seems to involve illicit sex acts.

        Sorry if I’m misunderstanding.

        I realize not all Protestants have the same teaching on causes for divorce.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Should read “illicit” sex acts not elicit.

        Like

      • OKRickety says:

        Cameron

        “I don’t know why the verse uses “porneia” instead of “moicheia” (sp?).”

        In short, I’d say it’s because the two words have different meanings. As I stated previously, moicheia is a subset of porneia.

        It’s important to understand that the Jewish definition of adultery is not the modern definition. Per jewishencyclopedia.com, adultery is “Sexual intercourse of a MARRIED WOMAN with any man other than her husband.” Note that the man may or may not be married.

        The Jewish definition of fornication (see Jewish Encyclopedia) involves sexual intercourse with an UNMARRIED WOMAN. Again, the man may or may not be married. Note: In spite of the common mistranslation of porneia as fornication (“illicit sex” would be better), fornication is not a synonym for porneia, but a subset of it.

        Clearly, adultery and fornication are completely different, as a woman is either married or unmarried. Contrary to our modern thinking, a married man can commit fornication, but not adultery, with a woman who is unmarried.

        In addition to moicheia and the “fornication” defined above, porneia also includes other forms of illicit sex such as prostitution, homosexual sex, incest, even bestiality. I will suppose you would agree that these other types of porneia would also constitute just cause for divorce.

        It would seem Jesus intended to include all illicit sex, not just adultery or fornication, as an acceptable reason for divorce.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        OKRickety,
        Thank you for the clear description. At this point, it seems that the only question remaining is whether porneia only includes “real sex” or if it also includes noncoital sexual immorality, like lust and withholding.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        I agree, OKRickety. In the belief system I follow, neither can remarry as long as the other lives.

        Like

    • jvangeld says:

      “Why, at the end of the verse, is it called adultery to marry the divorced woman, if she was never really and lawfully married?”

      My understanding of Jesus’ words is that he was prohibiting marriage to any divorced woman. Precisely because unjustified divorce was the norm then and remains the norm now. How many women do you know whose marriages were annulled because of prior fornication? I know zero. I know a whole bunch of divorced women, and it would be wrong for me to marry any of them. If the subject comes up, our job is to point them back to their rightful master.

      Liked by 1 person

      • redpillboomer says:

        “My understanding of Jesus’ words is that he was prohibiting marriage to any divorced woman. Precisely because unjustified divorce was the norm then and remains the norm now.”

        Not only that, but divorce, as I understand it, is only a divorce in a LEGAL sense, not in the spiritual sense. The laws of the land say they are no longer a couple, but in God’s eyes they still are, and He says to stay away from the divorced women (men too I guess), i.e. don’t marry them BECAUSE (the implication) they are still attached in some way to their Ex, i.e. bonded to the original spouse.

        Practically speaking, I’ve known a couple of divorced men and women that I’ve been somewhat close to, i.e. they’ve confided in me to some degree. What they confided is that even though LEGALLY divorced, they still have something going on spiritually with the Ex in the background. I’ve talked with a couple of divorced men, who were divorced and re-married into successful second marriages, and they still had something going on in their hearts with the ex-wife. Amazing in some sense. One man had been divorced and successfully re-married for 25 years (!) and he still had something unresolved going on in his heart and head with his first wife.

        I’ve never been divorced, so I’d welcome any men who have this experience to weigh-in on what I’ve stated above and correct me if I’m off on any of it. I’m just relaying my thoughts from a couple of personal experiences I’ve had with divorced men and women when they ‘let their guard down’ and confided in me what was really going on in their heart and mind with and toward their Ex.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        RedPillBoomer wrote,

        “…divorce, as I understand it, is only a divorce in a LEGAL sense, not in the spiritual sense. The laws of the land say they are no longer a couple, but in God’s eyes they still are, and He says to stay away from the divorced women (men too I guess), i.e. don’t marry them BECAUSE (the implication) they are still attached in some way to their Ex, i.e. bonded to the original spouse.”

        Yes. Whenever I see commenters arguing about whether divorce is (or should be) “allowed” in such and such a case, an exasperated smile comes across my face, because it’s obvious that they’re only considering marriage in a formal, LEGAL sense, and they don’t have any concept of the SPIRITUAL identity of a covenant marriage. They don’t seem to understand that, from a SPIRITUAL perspective, divorce is ontologically impossible short of death. In the real sense, it is as Jesus said about Moses’ concession of divorce in Matthew 19:8 — when a couple faces the fact that they’ve made a very bad choice of a partner, and are too immature to deal with the consequences, then divorce becomes an out. So asking whether divorce is “allowed” is an ignorant question. The question is whether divorce will “allow” them to get away from each other so that they can avoid the spiritual warfare that would otherwise harden their hearts and turn them further away from God. Of course, there are many bad consequences of divorce, but I won’t go into that here. Moses’ point was that people are utterly lost if their hearts are hardened, and a legal divorce is sometimes the best way to remedy this.

        “Practically speaking, I’ve known a couple of divorced men and women that I’ve been somewhat close to, i.e. they’ve confided in me to some degree. What they confided is that even though LEGALLY divorced, they still have something going on spiritually with the Ex in the background. I’ve talked with a couple of divorced men, who were divorced and re-married into successful second marriages, and they still had something going on in their hearts with the ex-wife. Amazing in some sense. One man had been divorced and successfully re-married for 25 years (!) and he still had something unresolved going on in his heart and head with his first wife.”

        The interesting thing is that people don’t even need to be legally married for this spiritual bonding to set in. Sex alone will do this. Furthermore, this basic observation of the immutable spiritual permanency of sex is the foundation of the ontological argument that Sex = Marriage. In some sense, divorced women are spiritually equivalent to fornicators/CC Riders. Both types have made bad decisions (probably a series of bad decisions), and are unwilling or too immature to accept the consequences. Both types have a history with a man (or men) that have created emotional baggage and spiritual ties that can never be erased.

        Like

  10. Pingback: What Changes after Marriage? | Σ Frame

  11. Pingback: The Decadent Christian (Antinomianism) | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s