Do you believe the innocent party in a situation

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

It's just my opinion, PO. I can't say for a fact they were honest (I'm only thinking of two women that I know personally), but it's based on the idea that they weren't prudes in their marriage BEFORE they found out their husband was cheating on them. Capiche? They talked about sex in warm, friendly tones. LOL! IOW, they didn't even know it was an issue.

They didn't know it was an issue - most people that take advantage of each other don't normally see an issue before it hits them broadside. I've talked or rather listened to complaining women not even seeing what they are doing to NOT help the situation. That is very frustrating. You have to be careful to listen and allow the conversation to unfold where they indict themselves and see it. Some don't ever see it.

But you can't leave all the possibilities alone, because you made a sweeping statement. You said, "It looks like both parties would be guilty - the one depriving and the one seeking elsewhere and committing adultery."

That statement assumes that where there is adultery, there is deprivation as a direct cause. That isn't what the scripture says.

I'm not sure I agree with you here. It speaks to the "depriver", IMO. Or rather, it addressed the "depriving" party first. The buck stops here, so to speak. It's like - which comes first the chicken or the egg? lol

Marital problems usually have contributing factors from both sides, but when a person actually commits a sin, or is immoral, it is unfair to blame the other party for their choice. Scripture places a possibility for one party to be blamed for a temptation. That's not the same as blaming them for the other person's sinful choice.

The scripture is pointing to the "depriver" to be careful they don't lead the other or open the other up to temptation. I know that I could open my husband up to severe temptation if I deprived him. Is he an honest man, yes! Is he a good man, Yes! Is he a man? Yes, in every way! I would have to put some of that blame on myself.

That scripture does not illustrate that there are no innocent parties.

I have no idea what this is about. I never said any party was innocent.

You're being bossy. I'll focus on whatever I like, TYVM!

The very next verse lends some context:

I Corinthians 7:6 "But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment."

To me, Paul was saying, "Here's some wisdom--but it's my personal advice, not a commandment."

Meaning that--it's not a SIN for a woman to not have sex with her husband and vice versa. Is it wise? NO!!!!! But a sin? I don't think so.

Well, I certainly want to stay away from emotional drivel and opinion on this issue and I wanted to stay focused on I Cor 7:5, as THAT is my point in the whole conversation. Some of the opinions were not focusing on what I was asking. Since I'm in the conversation, I get to point out what I want to focus on, Sistah!!! LOL!

Thank you for pointing out verse 6 : I cor 7:6 "But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment."

Does he say that he is not making it a commandment because in his circumstance he has no right as a single man? I Cor 7:7 "For I would that all men were even as I myself..."

Does that mean that you can discount what he is saying, even though the directive would be important in a marriage? Why would he say it, if he didn't think the hearers should obey? Is he not saying, in effect, "I can't exactly instruct you as I am single, but this is how, with permission, I tell you it should be." He sounds like he got instruction from someone with experience in the matter and conveyed that to the married hearers. That's how I take it.

No, it doesn't say they WILL be tempted. It just shows there's a possibility. Some women are cold fish, plain and simple. Right? They don't like sex--they just tolerate it. There could be reasons for it, but all the compassionate apologetics aside, they don't like sex. So, if their husbands "deny" them sex, are they definitely going to be tempted to cheat? No. LOL!!! They'll be relieved for the reprieve.

If it is possible, it can happen. The wording, IMO, appears to bear out the very real possibility.

They could certainly be tempted to cheat with someone that fulfilled an emotional or other need their husband apparently is not giving them. If a women doesn't like sex she is either with the wrong man or a freak. LOL! If she's with the wrong man, then she sought a relationship out for herself and did not rely on God - what God joined together, let no man put asunder. I feel very strongly that God has the spouse he wants us to spend our lives with. If we choose one on our own - we don't really know, in our hearts, what we really need for the long haul - God will always know.

Regardless, I am the first to advocate this scripture be followed within a marriage. I know women who use sex as a weapon, and that should never happen in a Christian relationship. HOWEVER, sex is supposed to be something done willingly--not forcibly. So I don't think even God will command it to happen. If He did, husbands could force their Christian wives to comply. (by telling them they have to obey God and give them whatever they want) I'm sure everyone here has enough common sense to know that "defraud not" doesn't mean men and women can be inconsiderate of each other just to have their sexual needs met.

Sure, we all have good common sense. My question was - does the "defrauding" go further, in marital issues, than just not feeling like having it today?

I understand what you're saying. Really. BUT, I don't think overwhelming data supports your conclusions (as to the causes of adultery), AND I don't think the scripture you're pointing to says that if someone commits adultery, it was because his/her spouse defrauded them. It basically says that defrauding one another can cause temptation.

Exactly - "defrauding one another CAN CAUSE temptation" - therefore - the admonition is to the "defrauder", IMO.

On a sidenote: Today's men wouldn't know how to deal with OT sex. They only got it about 2 weeks out of the month ANYway.

They did? Solomon certainly didn't and I'm very sure Abraham didn't. lol

I understand what you're saying. Really. BUT, I don't think overwhelming data supports your conclusions (as to the causes of adultery), AND I don't think the scripture you're pointing to says that if someone commits adultery, it was because his/her spouse defrauded them. It basically says that defrauding one another can cause temptation.

The "defrauding" is not going to cover all cases and causes for adultery. I never said that it would!! I was simply wondering, again, if the defrauding is going further into our responsibilities in humility and submission in ALL things - ALL problems - ALL circumstances - ALL! Not just, "I have a headache", but cheating, dishonesty, lying, pornography, and adultery.

Okay, really have to run! LOL!

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

They did? Solomon certainly didn't and I'm very sure Abraham didn't. lol

You're right. I didn't take those into account who had multiple wives, but that wasn't the custom for everyone. For husbands of one wife, they missed 12-14 days per month of sex, while their wife was niddah, and for 7 days afterward.

Look, I don't know if you've noticed, but no one is really saying that women and men shouldn't grant each other "due benevolence." I just don't believe if a person sins they have the right to blame any other party than themselves.

The question here is not in the details of the matter, but in the matter of a broken covenant, in this case the marriage contract. Tell me, PO, is the marriage covenant broken in God's eyes if a woman (or a man) denies their spouse sex?

If not, then I think we can assume that some matters are more important than others. And that while no one may escape blame for some contribution to marital turmoil, there can be one party that sins and breaks the covenant, and one who does not.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

You're right. I didn't take those into account who had multiple wives, but that wasn't the custom for everyone. For husbands of one wife, they missed 12-14 days per month of sex, while their wife was niddah, and for 7 days afterward.

Look, I don't know if you've noticed, but no one is really saying that women and men shouldn't grant each other "due benevolence." I just don't believe if a person sins they have the right to blame any other party than themselves.

The question here is not in the details of the matter, but in the matter of a broken covenant, in this case the marriage contract. Tell me, PO, is the marriage covenant broken in God's eyes if a woman (or a man) denies their spouse sex?

If not, then I think we can assume that some matters are more important than others. And that while no one may escape blame for some contribution to marital turmoil, there can be one party that sins and breaks the covenant, and one who does not.

Well, would Romans 14:13 apply here? - "Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way."

If I defrauded my husband, I can honestly say that I would have to take a portion of the blame if Satan tempted him and he fell into adultery.

I think, somehow, we keep centering ourselves on the violated and neglected women we know and the bad boy that committed adultery. I'm just focusing on "defraud" and the implications.

But, I did read something very interesting on this subject and the history behind the questions put to Paul.

The Corinthian Church had sent Paul a letter in which they had requested his opinion on a number of matter. Chapter 7 is a reply to some such question as, "Should believers marry in view of the imminence of the end of the age?"

Paul's answer is a classical example of what has been termed an "interim" ethic - an ethic for the interim between the end of one age and the advent of another and conditioned by such historical presuppositions. Marriage is a desirable state only to those who cannot sublimate the sex instinct. It has no value in itself, and since the end of this age is at hand, it is not even necessary as a means of procreation. In principle marriage is religiously and ethically indifferent, but in practice it can easily interfere with an individual's dedication of himself to God.

Although Paul believed in celibacy as the ethical ideal, he disagreed with some in Corinth who apparently held that married people ought to practice rigorous continence. Continence in the married relationship was impossible except by mutual consent and for limited periods, and then only for cultic ends.

By appealing to a command of the Lord (possibly the tradition preserved in Mark 10:2-9), the apostle repudiated divorce but acknowledged that, in extending the prohibition to include the divorce of an unbelieving partner, he spoke on his own authority. His advice to unmarried persons to remain as they were was given likewise on his own initiative and "in view of the impending distress."

The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, page 690.

And my point here is that, IMO, after further research, I Cor 7:6 is not speaking of verse 5 being a permissive suggestion as opposed to a command, but rather, is focusing on the whole of chapter 7 on the issue of - marriage vs. remaining single as he was.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Well, would Romans 14:13 apply here? - "Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way."

If I defrauded my husband, I can honestly say that I would have to take a portion of the blame if Satan tempted him and he fell into adultery.

I totally agree with your philosophy on that. I just don't think I'm contradicting myself to say when adultery occurs, the spouse is the injured or innocent party. LOL!!!!!

I think, somehow, we keep centering ourselves on the violated and neglected women we know and the bad boy that committed adultery. I'm just focusing on "defraud" and the implications.

Sometimes it's a bad girl, you know. To me the "innocent party" in a marriage refers to the one who didn't break the contract. The one who chooses to stay, and remain faithful, and keep trying in spite of disagreements and turmoil.

I've had days when I was so angry with Jeff, I couldn't bear to speak to him--let alone be physically intimate. At that point, it isn't a matter of "depriving" him purposefully, but intimacy is as much a state of mind as a physical union--especially for women. Of course, I do recognize the need to resolve differences as quickly as possible....

My point is, IF he went to work on a day when we were disagreeing with one another, and cheated on me because he was angry with me, or even hurt because of something I had said or done, HE would still be in the wrong, and HE would still be the one who had broken the contract, even if I had made the situation worse for whatever reason. And the same scenario applies to me. If I'm angry with him, and call up an old Friend to make me feel loved again--well, ultimately that isn't my husband's fault, is it?

The point of the passage is to point out the importance of meeting each other's needs--not to play a blame game. The issue here is going outside of the marriage covenant to solve a problem that should be resolved between the two in the contract. There can be problems in the marriage, and they can be solved--within the marriage. The existence of problems doesn't validate one party stepping outside the covenant to alleviate those issues.

But, I did read something very interesting on this subject and the history behind the questions put to Paul.

That was an interesting snippet! I really hadn't considered that Paul encouraged singleness because of impending tribulation.

And my point here is that, IMO, after further research, I Cor 7:6 is not speaking of verse 5 being a permissive suggestion as opposed to a command, but rather, is focusing on the whole of chapter 7 on the issue of - marriage vs. remaining single as he was.

I agree that it's addressing the whole chapter. Which would include verse 5.

I cannot imagine Paul introducing to the church the new idea that women were sinning if they said, "Not tonight, dear." He gave wise advice, absolutely! But a sin for saying they're too tired? I really think that is stretching it too far.

I really hate to even discuss this, because I do agree with you (and Paul) that defrauding your spouse is wrong (as well as stupid.) However, the marital relationship is more complex than just "give me what I need when I need it." It's a marriage of minds, too, and there are emotional needs that come into play. Inconsiderate behavior on the part of either party will harm the relationship overall, including in the bedroom. A man can't be a jerk all day, demand his "due benevolence", cheat on his wife when he doesn't get what he needs, and blame her for it. And of course, there's a reverse statement that applies to the woman. I just don't feel like writing it.

As for your stumbling block scripture--I'm not in disagreement with it. I'm sure if my husband cheated on me, I would blame myself, and ask myself all sorts of questions relating to my own culpability. However, in the midst of my hurt, if I sat down to discuss it with someone else, I would hope they wouldn't try to blame me for his sin. None of us are required to bear the burden of another person's sins. At least, not as far as I know.

Romans 14:12 "So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God."

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

And the same scenario applies to me. If I'm angry with him, and call up an old Friend to make me feel loved again--well, ultimately that isn't my husband's fault, is it?

No, it's not his fault. Not even if he forgot Valentine's Day, spoke rudely to you, left his dirty socks on the floor, accused you of PMS-ing because you were hurt over Valentine's Day, left for work without giving you a kiss, and flirted with the neighbor on his way out the door. And continued that pattern for several years.

You'd STILL be wrong for calling up that old friend.

Adultery's a sin, it's a bad choice, it's wrong. There's no provocation that justifies it.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

No, it's not his fault. Not even if he forgot Valentine's Day, spoke rudely to you, left his dirty socks on the floor, accused you of PMS-ing because you were hurt over Valentine's Day, left for work without giving you a kiss, and flirted with the neighbor on his way out the door. And continued that pattern for several years.

You'd STILL be wrong for calling up that old friend.

Adultery's a sin, it's a bad choice, it's wrong. There's no provocation that justifies it.

This is like the "Burning Bed" scenario. A guy who beats and abuses his wife for so long that eventually she snaps and kills him. Is she just as guilty of murder as someone who would have killed him for his wallet? Is she guilty at all?

At what point, if any, does emotional distancing become so extreme that it is almost impossible for a normal person to resist some form of temptation that crosses their paths?

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

This is like the "Burning Bed" scenario. A guy who beats and abuses his wife for so long that eventually she snaps and kills him. Is she just as guilty of murder as someone who would have killed him for his wallet? Is she guilty at all?

At what point, if any, does emotional distancing become so extreme that it is almost impossible for a normal person to resist some form of temptation that crosses their paths?

Your point is very valid, but still... a Christian who is trying to be right with God should use the proper channels to deal with this. Emotional distress can become so intense that you don't think clearly. I think the best case scenario is to just STOP and deal with the situation before it gets so bad that you can't trust your thoughts any longer.

If counseling or other methods don't work, then you'll need to make some decisions. Separate, accept things as they are? You'll need to make a choice, but it needs to be an honorable choice.

While the woman in the Burning Bed certainly gains our sympathy, ultimately what she did was wrong.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I totally agree with your philosophy on that. I just don't think I'm contradicting myself to say when adultery occurs, the spouse is the injured or innocent party. LOL!!!!!

I think it could be a contradiction of sorts, especially if the spouse you are calling "innocent" has been party to "defrauding". Here we go........ lol

Sometimes it's a bad girl, you know. To me the "innocent party" in a marriage refers to the one who didn't break the contract. The one who chooses to stay, and remain faithful, and keep trying in spite of disagreements and turmoil.

If staying in context with the passage of scripture we are discussing, we must conclude that the "defrauder" is NOT an innocent party, IMO.

I've had days when I was so angry with Jeff, I couldn't bear to speak to him--let alone be physically intimate. At that point, it isn't a matter of "depriving" him purposefully, but intimacy is as much a state of mind as a physical union--especially for women. Of course, I do recognize the need to resolve differences as quickly as possible....

I believe that if you are angry, you are defrauding/depriving - on purpose. I don't want to present myself as an innocent party as I have been a "defrauder" at various times and actually made him pay me for my services just because he was annoying me. It was all in fun, but I did keep the money. That possibly could be classified as a sin. I'm not sure if I ever repented over that or not.

My point is, IF he went to work on a day when we were disagreeing with one another, and cheated on me because he was angry with me, or even hurt because of something I had said or done, HE would still be in the wrong, and HE would still be the one who had broken the contract, even if I had made the situation worse for whatever reason. And the same scenario applies to me. If I'm angry with him, and call up an old Friend to make me feel loved again--well, ultimately that isn't my husband's fault, is it?

Yes, IMO, part of the blame would be to your husband. Notice I said, "part of the blame". BUT, I don't think an isolated incident is a good example. I believe the scripture is speaking more on the lines of a pattern in the marriage as I don't think Paul would have focused on that if he didn't hear or see a continuous problem he was trying to get the hearers to avoid. He does speak of a virgin getting married who will certainly have "trouble in the flesh".

I did speak about this to my husband and referenced something you said in an earlier post - "some women just do not like sex." He agreed, but I'm laughing inside because I was thinking, "How would you know?" LOL! I won't elaborate on that point, but really! LOL!

The point of the passage is to point out the importance of meeting each other's needs--not to play a blame game. The issue here is going outside of the marriage covenant to solve a problem that should be resolved between the two in the contract. There can be problems in the marriage, and they can be solved--within the marriage. The existence of problems doesn't validate one party stepping outside the covenant to alleviate those issues.

Never did I say any party could validate or make excuses for their personal behaviour. What I am saying is that the admonition, instruction, or advice given - still - is focusing on the "defrauder". Some of the responsibility and blame lies there. I can't take that any other way - "Defraud ye not one the other...."

That was an interesting snippet! I really hadn't considered that Paul encouraged singleness because of impending tribulation.

It was interesting as I noticed verse 29 seems to support the idea.

I agree that it's addressing the whole chapter. Which would include verse 5.

LOL!

Of course, but I will point out, again, that in the course of this discussion the point was made that in verse 6, Paul's words were being conveyed as referencing verse 5 and saying that he is speaking by permission and not commandment pointing to the defrauder as merely a warning and not exactly a command or instruction. So, I want to point out, again, that after studying this passage, it appears to me that Paul's words in verse 6 are focusing on the idea of his opinion on marriage, overall, versus remaining single and is not contradicting the admonition in verse 5 to NOT defraud one another. Just wanted to point that out, again, as I felt a little relieved that I found some sense in the dialogue as the other view seemed a bit confusing to reconcile.

I cannot imagine Paul introducing to the church the new idea that women were sinning if they said, "Not tonight, dear." He gave wise advice, absolutely! But a sin for saying they're too tired? I really think that is stretching it too far.

As I stated above, I don't believe Paul would have addressed an "isolated" incident, but rather a pattern of defrauding. That would be a grievous sin, IMO. That is much like setting a cookie jar on the counter, with the lid off, and telling a child who is really hungry - DO NOT even think about touching it!

I really hate to even discuss this, because I do agree with you (and Paul) that defrauding your spouse is wrong (as well as stupid.) However, the marital relationship is more complex than just "give me what I need when I need it." It's a marriage of minds, too, and there are emotional needs that come into play. Inconsiderate behavior on the part of either party will harm the relationship overall, including in the bedroom. A man can't be a jerk all day, demand his "due benevolence", cheat on his wife when he doesn't get what he needs, and blame her for it. And of course, there's a reverse statement that applies to the woman. I just don't feel like writing it.

I agree with you - the marital relationship is, at best, a bit complicated. That is the reason I am focusing on the "defrauding/depriving". My question still remains - Is there a deeper admonition or meaning here to focus on, such as, true submission and humility? True and deeper love and forgiveness in all things? True forgiving 7 x 70? Do you see where I am going with this? I am seeing a disconnect in the Christian world, for the most part, and I wonder if it could be in not reaching back to the subject of "defraud you not one another".

As Cindy stated earlier - does it cover more than intimacy? Can it include conversation, etc. ? Sometimes my mind is somewhere else and my husband says, "You are not even listening to me!" It is so important to him that I pay attention to him in every way! I am so different from him as being alone is very important to me. That caused a lot of problems for us when we first started out. I think it took him 10 years to realize it didn't mean that I didn't love him. I just need to go inside myself and be alone. It's just my way. So, yes, I think that "defrauding" entails more than just physical intimacy.

As for your stumbling block scripture--I'm not in disagreement with it. I'm sure if my husband cheated on me, I would blame myself, and ask myself all sorts of questions relating to my own culpability. However, in the midst of my hurt, if I sat down to discuss it with someone else, I would hope they wouldn't try to blame me for his sin. None of us are required to bear the burden of another person's sins. At least, not as far as I know.

Romans 14:12 "So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God."

I agree with your scripture, but will also point out that the "defrauder" will also give account of himself/herself.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I believe that if you are angry, you are defrauding/depriving - on purpose. I don't want to present myself as an innocent party as I have been a "defrauder" at various times and actually made him pay me for my services just because he was annoying me. It was all in fun, but I did keep the money. That possibly could be classified as a sin. I'm not sure if I ever repented over that or not.

Really? We've had disagreements that were so severe, neither of us wanted to be in the vicinity of the other. LOL!!! We are complete opposites, and when we butt heads, it's a serious thunderstorm. In the interim, while we both calm down, it would be inconceivably violating (to me) for him to suddenly demand sex before I've had a chance to calm myself.

I really have to disagree with you on this point. When the relationship is upset by hurt or anger, sex takes a sideline until the emotional intimacy is restored. Not purposefully on anyone's part, as a means to force an apology or resolution!!!! But simply because how can you have sex when you're mad at each other? I really don't understand that.

What man would want to force himself on his wife when she's upset anyway? How selfish. He should be trying to resolve the differences first, so they can both enjoy the experience.

Yes, IMO, part of the blame would be to your husband. Notice I said, "part of the blame". BUT, I don't think an isolated incident is a good example. I believe the scripture is speaking more on the lines of a pattern in the marriage as I don't think Paul would have focused on that if he didn't hear or see a continuous problem he was trying to get the hearers to avoid. He does speak of a virgin getting married who will certainly have "trouble in the flesh".

I did speak about this to my husband and referenced something you said in an earlier post - "some women just do not like sex." He agreed, but I'm laughing inside because I was thinking, "How would you know?" LOL! I won't elaborate on that point, but really! LOL!

Oh, now that is a silly question, PO. I have numerous specific examples, (which I refuse to share) and I've been in the company of women since I was a child--some who talked about sex in a positive way, and some who didn't. Some who shared details that let me know they KNOW what fun sex can be, and some who shared other details that showed their inhibitions and/or ignorance.

As I said earlier, there are numerous possible REASONS for women not liking sex, including an inadequate partner, abuse, ignorance, a perception of it being dirty, etc.

If you're trying to ask about the state of my bedroom, I can tell you that it's very, very good, so I am NOT speaking from personal experience. In fact, shortly after we were married, I embarrassed myself (and my father), because he was teasing me about the bedroom. I can't remember what he said exactly, but it really irritated me, and I turned to him and shouted [something along the lines of], "I'll have you to know, I enjoy sex--a LOT--and it's none of your business!" Followed by me turning beet red, he laughed, and I stalked out of the room trying to retain my dignity.

Thinking back, he was probably trying to check on my well being, and I'm sure I gave him the answer he needed.

That's never been an issue for me, and I can honestly say I have NEVER defrauded my husband. However, there have been times when neither of us were interested, because there was something between us that needed to be resolved. Should that be given attention immediately? Of course. It's wrong to hold a grudge, and wrong to deliberately remain unreachable in the face of a possible resolution. I view anger as an emotion, though--not a deliberate state. Once it's passed, it's passed. You don't really control your feelings, but you can control whether you punish your husband for causing those negative feelings. To me, that involves appearing angry and remaining cold after the emotion has passed, in an effort to teach him a lesson or something. I do think that's wrong, and that's where you enter into the defrauding arena.

...As I stated above, I don't believe Paul would have addressed an "isolated" incident, but rather a pattern of defrauding. That would be a grievous sin, IMO. That is much like setting a cookie jar on the counter, with the lid off, and telling a child who is really hungry - DO NOT even think about touching it!

I agree with you - the marital relationship is, at best, a bit complicated. That is the reason I am focusing on the "defrauding/depriving". My question still remains - Is there a deeper admonition or meaning here to focus on, such as, true submission and humility? True and deeper love and forgiveness in all things? True forgiving 7 x 70? Do you see where I am going with this? I am seeing a disconnect in the Christian world, for the most part, and I wonder if it could be in not reaching back to the subject of "defraud you not one another".

As Cindy stated earlier - does it cover more than intimacy? Can it include conversation, etc. ? Sometimes my mind is somewhere else and my husband says, "You are not even listening to me!" It is so important to him that I pay attention to him in every way! I am so different from him as being alone is very important to me. That caused a lot of problems for us when we first started out. I think it took him 10 years to realize it didn't mean that I didn't love him. I just need to go inside myself and be alone. It's just my way. So, yes, I think that "defrauding" entails more than just physical intimacy.

It could, since the primary meaning of "benevolence" is kindness, followed by the meaning conjugal duty.

I agree with your scripture, but will also point out that the "defrauder" will also give account of himself/herself.

True.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Really? We've had disagreements that were so severe, neither of us wanted to be in the vicinity of the other. LOL!!! We are complete opposites, and when we butt heads, it's a serious thunderstorm. In the interim, while we both calm down, it would be inconceivably violating (to me) for him to suddenly demand sex before I've had a chance to calm myself.

I really have to disagree with you on this point. When the relationship is upset by hurt or anger, sex takes a sideline until the emotional intimacy is restored. Not purposefully on anyone's part, as a means to force an apology or resolution!!!! But simply because how can you have sex when you're mad at each other? I really don't understand that.

What man would want to force himself on his wife when she's upset anyway? How selfish. He should be trying to resolve the differences first, so they can both enjoy the experience.

Abigail - focus - we are talking about a continual pattern here. Not a few instances that happen to crop up in our marriages. Hello!

Oh, now that is a stupid question, PO. I have numerous specific examples, (which I refuse to share) and I've been in the company of women since I was a child--some who talked about sex in a positive way, and some who didn't. Some who shared details that let me know they KNOW what fun sex can be, and some who shared other details that showed their inhibitions and/or ignorance.

Not a stupid question. He doesn't have experience with women. So, your statement is stupid for saying I am asking a stupid question.

As I said earlier, there are numerous possible REASONS for women not liking sex, including an inadequate partner, abuse, ignorance, a perception of it being dirty, etc.

And poor diet.

If you're trying to ask about the state of my bedroom, I can tell you that it's very, very good, so I am NOT speaking from personal experience. In fact, shortly after we were married, I embarrassed myself (and my father), because he was teasing me about the bedroom. I can't remember what he said exactly, but it really irritated me, and I turned to him and shouted [something along the lines of], "I'll have you to know, I enjoy sex--a LOT--and it's none of your business!" Followed by me turning beet red, he laughed, and I stalked out of the room trying to retain my dignity.

Thinking back, he was probably trying to check on my well being, and I'm sure I gave him the answer he needed.

Uh, no, I don't particularly care about your private intimacy, TYVM

That's never been an issue for me, and I can honestly say I have NEVER defrauded my husband. However, there have been times when neither of us were interested, because there was something between us that needed to be resolved. Should that be given attention immediately? Of course. It's wrong to hold a grudge, and wrong to deliberately remain angry in the face of a possible resolution.

If you were mad and didn't want to be with him, you have defrauded him and are delusional. LOL! Not sure if 100% agreement to abstain, across the board, every time something was between you would stack or stand up. I can stay mad a whole lot longer than my husband ever could, if I wanted to. I find that women tend to take longer to get over things, as a general rule. That's why they keep rehashing things and the husband is ready to move on. LOL!

True.

Awww, some agreement! Cool!