I think the thing that is even more harmful is that self gratification has a root in the mind. Something is going on up there in the mind and unless those thoughts that lead to a desire for self gratification concern the wife, something is quite wrong with that picture.
I agree. As a husband, I believe the focus of my sexual interest should be my wife, and the expression of this desire should be a joint expression with my wife.
We are individual beings with individual needs. Sadly I think that when couples marry they fall under the illusion that they don’t have individual needs any longer. This often leads to neglect. One problem many marriages face is that as years pass… one of their needs isn’t being met be it physical, emotional, psychological, or spiritual. Often people feel “absorbed” by their spouse and discover after years of marriage they’ve never developed into who they were supposed to be. Marriage is a little complicated because you have two people with individual needs in a relationship that also demands a shared experience. The individual needs don’t vanish just because of marriage.
LOL Hmmm... how old are you, young man? If your pic is recent, you look about the age of one of my sons. And you've been married for how long? And you've counseled with married couples for how long?
I've been married for 27 years. And having spent the last several years in pastoral ministry counseling married couples, would you be interested in knowing what I've gleaned as the #1 problem facing marriage? That would be "individual needs" being asserted over "couple needs". It always boils down to that- always.
There's a reason Scripture says that "two become one". Once two individuals become married, the two should grow together, not separately. Yes, individuals in marriage change over time, but the two should change together, and with the same focus in mind. This is especially true in Christian marriage. Marriage is a ministry. "How may I best serve my partner?", not "how can s/he best meet MY needs?", and if the needs aren't met to my satisfaction, then I have the RIGHT to see that they're met some other way, including meeting them myself.
Quote:
The subject here is primarily physical needs. I’ve known couples who due to schedule, sickness, work, military deployment, or just lack of shared degree of interest who couldn’t meet each others needs all the time. Marriage is also about “respect”, “trust”, “acceptance”, and “openness”. Let’s assume that for whatever reason, I can’t meet all my wife’s needs. I don’t want her to go without that need being met. I certainly don’t want her living with an unmet need that opens the door to temptation from another. I would almost encourage her to take care of her needs on occasion. My only request is that she thinks about us on those occasions. I believe that the mutual respect, trust, acceptance, and openness do more to strengthen the marriage than an expectation that we be all things to each other all the time.
I think the unstated premise in your statements above is that individuals in a marriage have a right to sexual gratification. I don't believe Scripture teaches this. It does, however, outline some very specific parameters wherein sexual desire can be addressed, and that is within the marriage bond. Again, the focus is on the word marriage, which is a mutually shared experience.
Absence from a spouse does not give the other the right to seek self gratification. And...if one is not able to meet the others needs, then some form of counseling is in order, not self gratification, because there's a lot more going on besides one partner being left unsatisfied in sexual intimacy. If one partner is no longer attracted to the other, then why? This must be explored rather than masking over the root cause.
Quote:
But I do see your point. There has to be balance. Both cannot strictly focus on their own individual needs all the time. I believe that a couple should “focus” on needs being met in a way that is shared. I’m just saying that I do accept that there were be occasions and circumstances when their individual needs may need to be met individually.
I agree that couples should focus on meeting needs in a shared way. If this cannot be done, and one partner is feeling overwhelmed by their impulses, then a time of prayer and fasting is needed. If we heed Paul's admonishment that we are not to be brought under the power of anything (except the Lord), then why are we yielding to the temptation of the flesh? This is not only unnecessary, but prohibitive to living and walking in the Spirit.
Quote:
Single people have needs and should be expected to responsibly tend to those needs until marriage. In today’s world our society expects a person to marry after college. That means they are in their mid twenties on average. In biblical times, it wasn’t uncommon to be married at 15 or 16 years of age. While the demands of our society have increased in such a way as to warrant waiting…human biology and the normal human needs that develop remain the same. I don’t expect a single person to wait until they are in their mid twenties before having their needs met. I expect, and would even encourage that they meet those needs themselves and assure them that they are perfectly normal and loved by God.
Hmmm... I'm trying to think of a euphemism for "HOGWASH!". My friend, what you've written reflects the expectation of society, but not of Scripture. Again, the unstated premise here is that individuals have a right to sexual gratification. Simply because they have the capacity for it does not mean God grants them the right to it. There is only one area in which God sanctions this: within the marriage bond as a shared experience. Outside of the marriage bond, God calls for chastity.
Quote:
Paul said something interesting. Paul wrote…
I Corinthians 7:8
{7:8} I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is
good for them if they abide even as I. {7:9} But if they
cannot contain, let them marry:
Notice Paul is addressing the unmarried and widows. Here Paul states that it is good if they remain celibate as he is. However, Paul then says, “But if they cannot contain…”. What does that mean? Certainly Paul isn’t talking about fornication. That would bring swift condemnation from the Apostle and a demand for repentance. Obviously these unmarried and widowed individuals were unable to “contain” in a manner that was simply in regards to their physical needs. Paul doesn’t condemn them, demand repentance, tell them they’ve sinned, warn that they’ll go blind, admonish that they pray when they feel that they can’t contain, or that they listen to Christian music when they feel they can’t contain, nor does he tell them to write their needs on a balloon and pop it. Nope. Paul offers no condemnation. In fact, his language is such that one walks away realizing that Paul understands that they have needs that can’t be contained. Paul’s advice is that they marry. When a single person has needs that they can’t contain it’s essentially a sign that they are meant for marriage. They should begin praying and looking for a spouse.
I'm not sure how you concluded there was no condemnation in this passage. Paul is specifically contrasting himself (an individual with self control- one who has not given himself over to "burning with passion"- with those who have given themselves over to this. For the latter, it is better for them to marry. But why? Because it is within marriage one finds the proper expression of sexual desire. What Paul did NOT say was that it was okay for those who "burned with passion" to find expression through self gratification. He deliberately points them to the marriage bond.
Quote:
Maybe I’m too liberal on this one. I just think that some things are a natural part of being a human being
Oh, I agree that it is a "natural" part of human nature to want to satisfy our own lusts. But, then again, human nature is fallen and sinful. When we become born again, and acquire a new, spiritual nature, then our desire should be how we may please the Lord, not ourselves. And if an individual is married, then their desire is also toward their spouse, but not themselves.
Quote:
and we do well not to attach unwarranted guilt and shame to such things.
My friend, I did not intend for my responses to come across as polemical, but I'm taken aback by statements like this. If this line of thinking is being taught in the churches, then it's small wonder why there is no power anymore.
True holiness is when a man's heart has been conquered by the Holy Ghost, when his passions and lusts are laid low, and he is completely yielded to the moving of God's Spirit in his life. This is the type of revival we should be seeking God for- a revival of holiness of the heart. When that takes place, then we will see the power return.
This thread is about addiction to pornography. This type of addiction is an outward symptom of an inward problem- indulging the lusts of self. But we do have hope. Paul points us to the cure for this:
"This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh." (Gal 5:16)
Bro. Dave, you have some great points. I’ll share my thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveC519
LOL Hmmm... how old are you, young man? If your pic is recent, you look about the age of one of my sons. And you've been married for how long? And you've counseled with married couples for how long?
I’m 34 and I was married 12 years. We attended an ultra-conservative church for 10 years that completely devastated us. We should have left earlier but didn’t out of a sense of loyalty to the elder and a terrorizing fear of being considered “rebellious” or “backslidden”. It’s a long and painful story. I would have never made it had I not had Jesus carrying me through.
Quote:
I've been married for 27 years. And having spent the last several years in pastoral ministry counseling married couples, would you be interested in knowing what I've gleaned as the #1 problem facing marriage? That would be "individual needs" being asserted over "couple needs". It always boils down to that- always.
I don’t disagree, but I do see it a bit differently. Yes, the #1 problem facing marriage today is “individual needs” being asserted over “couples needs”. But why is this? Why does one partner suddenly begin asserting their needs over “couples needs”? I believe that when an individual’s needs (spiritual, emotional, physical) aren’t being met they can only go on so long before something breaks. Sadly, too many couples discover the unmet needs after they’ve festered and evolved into terrible conditions and/or circumstances. I don’t believe that in marriage we suddenly deny our individuality and become clones of one another. I also don’t believe that our individual needs suddenly become sinful and all must be sacrificed for the couple’s needs. In fact, I believe that there must be a balance. Neither one’s individual needs nor the needs of the couple should be neglected at the expense of the other. To neglect individual needs for the needs of the couple or to neglect the couple’s needs for the needs of the individual is a recipe for disaster.
When I was in the Army I was a Medic. I remember one of my first assignments with an Armored Cavalry unit. The tankers and scouts were hard at work out in the field sweating their guts out training. It was my ambulance’s job to supervise the training and responds to any medical emergency. While supervising training we sat in one of the ambulances. This ambulance had a radio, air-conditioning, plenty of water, plenty of food, litters to rest on if we became tired, a couple decks of cards, etc. Yes, we had a quite a few luxuries. I’d monitor those training and I felt kind of guilty. I turned to my sergeant and said, “I feel a little guilty sitting here in the air-conditioning while those soldiers are sweating their guts out.” The sergeant looked at me and said, “Specialist, let’s say you’re one of those guys and you get seriously hurt in training. Do you want a fresh, crisp, cool, calm, and collected medic responding to you….or do you want a tired and sweaty medic responding to you? By taking care of yourself…you’re taking care of them.”
I see where elements of this rings true for marriage. Individuals can’t always neglect their individual needs for the sake of the couple’s needs. I believe this applies to more than physical needs; it can be expanded into one’s spiritual and emotional needs too. Sometimes the individual needs of a person are neglected to the point that they start to spiritually, emotionally, or even physically hurt. It is at this point that they are weak and susceptible to temptations to sin. Take a spouse whose individual emotional needs have been neglected. They meet someone at work who seems to care. They will be more susceptible to falling into an emotional affair, or even a physical affair because their personal emotional needs were neglected. Neglect someone’s spiritual needs and watch as they become spiritually lethargic and backslide.
Yes, the unit (the coupling) has needs. But the coupling is comprised of individuals. I’ve seen couples wherein individual needs are denied. All too often it’s not at the expense of the “couple’s needs”, but meeting the entirety of the dominant parties personal needs. We’ve seen this in marriages where mom stayed married to dad through thick and then, abuse and betrayal…and though she’s miserable, strung out on anti-depressants, and life is void of any joy she remains by his side. Almost like a trapped animal. Meanwhile he’s still yelling at her to fetch him another beer while he eats cheese puffs in front of the television. If the individual’s needs are not met…the couple’s needs are not met. It’s like riding a bicycle with one or both tires flat. Imagine a car if you will, it has four tiers. Can you deny the needs of each individual tire and only work on the needs of the engine? No. You need to tend to BOTH the engine and the needs of the individual tires. You need to tend to both their needs as a couple and their needs as individuals.
Quote:
There's a reason Scripture says that "two become one". Once two individuals become married, the two should grow together, not separately. Yes, individuals in marriage change over time, but the two should change together, and with the same focus in mind. This is especially true in Christian marriage. Marriage is a ministry. "How may I best serve my partner?", not "how can s/he best meet MY needs?", and if the needs aren't met to my satisfaction, then I have the RIGHT to see that they're met some other way, including meeting them myself.
That’s too simplistic to me. I agree as far as couples needing to grow together. But what often causes them to grow apart is neglect. When a spouse neglects their partner’s needs that partner will naturally grow towards where those needs can be met. That’s a given. We can argue if it’s right or if it’s wrong…but my point is that it will happen. You said that marriage is a ministry wherein we need to ask “How may I best serve my partner?” While I get your sentiment, I think the wording here illustrates an underlying issue. A spouse shouldn’t have to guess what their partner’s needs are. Both should be in such intimate communication that they voice their needs to one another openly, and each accepts the other unconditionally and seeks to meet the needs revealed. So where you present platitudes, I present a conversation. Both need to ask, “What are your needs and how can I meet them?” And both need to answer, “These are my needs and here’s how you can meet them.” Guessing games rarely work.
Quote:
I think the unstated premise in your statements above is that individuals in a marriage have a right to sexual gratification. I don't believe Scripture teaches this. It does, however, outline some very specific parameters wherein sexual desire can be addressed, and that is within the marriage bond. Again, the focus is on the word marriage, which is a mutually shared experience.
I don’t separate one’s physical needs in this area from the person. I don’t see these needs or impulses as something to be denied, something filthy, or something unholy that needs to be reined in with marriage providing the only pressure release valve. I see this as one aspect of our nature. It is governed largely by hormones. For example, young adults seem to have a very hard time controlling these urges. A pastor in his 50’s or 60’s will demand they have more “willpower”. If he can overcome these urges…certainly they can. Right? PRAY PRAY PRAY. FAST FAST FAST. Ahhh…but the hormone levels are crazy in these young adults. The 60 year old pastor’s body isn’t going through anything like what they are. Where he thinks he’s achieved some sort of victory, the truth is, his body isn’t putting up much of a fight compared to the 22 year old college kid’s. Interestingly enough, I’ve talked with many elders who are two and three times my age. Many have the strict opinion you present here. But when I probed…they felt differently when they were younger. When they faced the raging hormones, changes, interest in girls (or boys if it’s a young lady), and had romance burning alive before them…they were no different than anyone else. They had the same behaviors. They weren’t so “spiritual”. Lol Many regularly took care of their own needs in their younger years. Now they don’t have such a strong urge too. Biology is taking a different course for them now. And so they think differently about it. They see the world through the lenses of their here and now. But if you could make them younger again, even with what they know now, they’d be no different. These human needs and behaviors are universal.
I see this aspect of our nature as part of a greater whole. I don’t know if you’ve read much about Dr. James Dobson’s position on this. But Dr. Dobson’s position and my position are nearly the same.
Absence from a spouse does not give the other the right to seek self gratification. And...if one is not able to meet the others needs, then some form of counseling is in order, not self gratification, because there's a lot more going on besides one partner being left unsatisfied in sexual intimacy. If one partner is no longer attracted to the other, then why? This must be explored rather than masking over the root cause.
Again too simplistic for me. I agree with you as far as finding out why this is happening, especially if this is leading to one partner defrauding the other of intimacy. But just because one or both partners occasionally meet personal needs, it doesn’t mean they automatically defraud the other. Some of the most loving and passionate couples have these behaviors in their marriages.
As far as one having the, “right”, to seek fulfillment… I don’t see it as a right. I simply see it as a human need. This need should not be met with any other individual accept their spouse. But this doesn’t preclude their own private activities or behaviors.
Quote:
I agree that couples should focus on meeting needs in a shared way. If this cannot be done, and one partner is feeling overwhelmed by their impulses, then a time of prayer and fasting is needed. If we heed Paul's admonishment that we are not to be brought under the power of anything (except the Lord), then why are we yielding to the temptation of the flesh? This is not only unnecessary, but prohibitive to living and walking in the Spirit.
This “impulses” are not sinful or wrong. Why pray and fast to suppress them? Why not embrace these healthy desires and rejoice, thanking God for this part of our nature? Scripture holds nothing back in condemning immoral behavior from adultery to bestiality. However, no where does Scripture condemn what we are talking about. I find that interesting seeing how universal it is among adolescents and single adults out of all cultures and even religions. Self discovery for adolescents and self gratification for the single is healthy. It isn’t dirty or unclean. It’s perfectly normal.
Quote:
Hmmm... I'm trying to think of a euphemism for "HOGWASH!". My friend, what you've written reflects the expectation of society, but not of Scripture. Again, the unstated premise here is that individuals have a right to sexual gratification. Simply because they have the capacity for it does not mean God grants them the right to it. There is only one area in which God sanctions this: within the marriage bond as a shared experience. Outside of the marriage bond, God calls for chastity.
God created people with this as part of our nature. It’s part of who and what we are. It’s not unclean, unhealthy, unchaste, or sinful. It’s a beautiful part of being a human being. Rather alone or with one’s spouse, this is a blessing. This is far more than a right; this is a gift and a blessing. It’s not strictly for procreation nor is it strictly for marriage. However, any act with another individual is strictly confined to marriage.
Quote:
I'm not sure how you concluded there was no condemnation in this passage. Paul is specifically contrasting himself (an individual with self control- one who has not given himself over to "burning with passion"- with those who have given themselves over to this.
According to this logic it would be God’s perfect will that we all be celibates and non-sexual beings. I think this is a distortion of what is being taught here. Paul admonished singles and widows to be celibate as he was. However, Paul himself acknowledged that not every person has the gift he had. Remember, Paul is sharing his own thoughts here. We don’t have a “Thus saith the LORD” on this matter from Paul. Paul continues by simply saying that if one cannot contain, let them marry for it is better to marry than to burn with the passions of unfulfilled needs. Paul doesn’t condemn them as sinners or unclean people. If they are sinful unclean people…why admonish they marry??? In this case it would only be proper to command repentance. But Paul is rather pragmatic. If one cannot contain due to unmet needs they should look to marry. Paul didn’t condemn in any way. Paul just admonished that they do well to look to marry because it’s better than burning with unmet needs. And I believe any single or widow who has these unmet needs that they cannot contain will agree.
Quote:
For the latter, it is better for them to marry. But why? Because it is within marriage one finds the proper expression of sexual desire. What Paul did NOT say was that it was okay for those who "burned with passion" to find expression through self gratification. He deliberately points them to the marriage bond.
Paul never issued any condemnation. Paul just told them that it was better to marry than to continue with unmet needs that one cannot contain. Paul never once rebukes the single or the widow who can’t contain. He simply advises that they look to marry.
Quote:
Oh, I agree that it is a "natural" part of human nature to want to satisfy our own lusts. But, then again, human nature is fallen and sinful. When we become born again, and acquire a new, spiritual nature, then our desire should be how we may please the Lord, not ourselves. And if an individual is married, then their desire is also toward their spouse, but not themselves.
I think we have to properly define “lusts”. Typically this word is used in relation to sinful desires. But not every desire is sinful. Consider the Song of Solomon. For several chapters we see two lovers thinking intimately about each other. Do we condemn them? No! We celebrate this. Whatever the result of their thinking intimately about each other we do well to celebrate their love and interest in one another. Their desire, though outside of the marriage bond, wasn’t considered sinful. It’s perfectly healthy. And if what we’re talking about is so sinful, don’t you think we should rethink the Song of Solomon? Are not these two “playing with fire” by thinking this way about each other when alone? As I said, I believe this to be normal and healthy and what becomes of it while they are individually alone is normal and healthy. However, this blessing should only be shared with another in the bonds of marriage.
Quote:
My friend, I did not intend for my responses to come across as polemical, but I'm taken aback by statements like this. If this line of thinking is being taught in the churches, then it's small wonder why there is no power anymore.
The lack of power originates from our departure from truly knowing Jesus. We worship ourselves in most Apostolic churches. We preach OUR standards, OUR organizational identy, OUR traditions, OUR elders teachings, OUR opinions. We worship being Apostolic Pentecostal….we seldom worship Jesus. I’ve seen congregations sit when preaching the cross but shout about hair and dress length. Religion is the reason why our churches have no power. We’ve become the Pharisees and Sadducees of the hour.
Quote:
True holiness is when a man's heart has been conquered by the Holy Ghost, when his passions and lusts are laid low, and he is completely yielded to the moving of God's Spirit in his life.
True holiness isn’t about ascetism, celibacy, and abstinence. Holiness is about being separated unto the service of the LORD and living life as God intended. God didn’t intend us to be non-sexual creatures. God created us with healthy, normal impulses, that are blessings. And these blessings should only be shared within the bonds of marriage.
Quote:
This is the type of revival we should be seeking God for- a revival of holiness of the heart. When that takes place, then we will see the power return.
Amen, a biblical holiness of heart. Not a revival of misguided religious notions and traditions of a bygone generation. Holiness must be achieved for our generation in the here and now. We cannot live according to the holiness achieved by previous generations.
Quote:
This thread is about addiction to pornography. This type of addiction is an outward symptom of an inward problem- indulging the lusts of self. But we do have hope. Paul points us to the cure for this:
"This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh." (Gal 5:16)
I agree, addiction to pornography is indeed an inward problem focused on self indulgence. But this doesn’t mean that all expressions of this part of our nature is sinful unless eye to eye with our spouse in the dark.
Again too simplistic for me. I agree with you as far as finding out why this is happening, especially if this is leading to one partner defrauding the other of intimacy. But just because one or both partners occasionally meet personal needs, it doesn’t mean they automatically defraud the other. Some of the most loving and passionate couples have these behaviors in their marriages.
As far as one having the, “right”, to seek fulfillment… I don’t see it as a right. I simply see it as a human need. This need should not be met with any other individual accept their spouse. But this doesn’t preclude their own private activities or behaviors.
I don't agree with you here, but since my post, which was relevant to the conversation, was deleted, I can't tell you why.
Linear Mode
