To what extent is a wife allowed to withhold sex and affection if she doesn't feel supported emotionally?

Deep_Strength · 2022-09-09T18:01:42+00:00

Every Bible reading Christian knows the answer:

1 Corinthians 7:3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Each spouse is supposed to be UNSELFISH and please their other spouse in regard to sex. The only exception is agreement. One sided refusal is clearly against the Bible. This should be taken with some wisdom. If a husband or wife supposedly wants to have sex like 5+ hours a day or something then it's probably a good idea that they should be more gracious to their spouse.

Yes, multiple other "Christian" subs have a double standard out there. Women are constantly excused for not obeying the Bible, and men are constantly excoriated if they don't. It's not hard to guess which ones. But they are not teaching what the Bible says either.

Red-Curious · 2022-09-10T04:09:56+00:00

Our mod /u/RedPillWonder already wrote an entire post on this subject, so I'm going to defer to him for most of my thoughts on the main angle of this: https://www.reddit.com/r/RPChristians/comments/hd1v5a/worthy_of_love_earned_respect_and_other_biblical/

In short: "God's commands are not conditional." That sums up the main point. God didn't say, "Thou shalt not murder ... unless you have a good reason, then it's okay." God didn't say, "Do not steal ... unless your neighbor is a bad person, then he's got it coming." God didn't say, "Do not deprive one another ... unless they're being mean to you, then it's okay."

But to address the side-angle of your post, I agree with Deep here too. The Bible is fairly clear and (as RPW notes) "God's commands are not conditional" ... but in modern society, it's rare to find people who are willing to hold women accountable for sinful behavior unless it's a "major" sin issue. Even if they have a technically true/accurate theology on the matter, most congregation leaders will make any number of excuses to avoid rebuking women. Examples include:

That's really her husband's job, not mine as her pastor/elder/friend/small group leader/etc.
She's not my wife, so I shouldn't be alone with her and I can't rebuke her in public because she's not a leader.
They haven't escalated to me in the Matthew 18 process and until they do I'd rather stay uninvolved.
The sin wasn't bad enough to warrant my involvement.
That's really a family issue and not a spiritual one. Even though it involved sin, the family dynamic is what really needs addressed, not the spiritual one.
Counseling would be more helpful than a rebuke, so we'll skip the rebuke and just hope she finds help. Maybe I'll encourage counseling and stay out.

The list goes on. But perhaps the most degrading is in a previous congregation I attended a woman was caught cheating on her husband. Multiple times. With several different men. This went on for years. The leadership knew about it, but allowed the woman to remain involved as a volunteer in multiple ministries and lead a small group, and instead said it was the husband's fault that she cheated because he didn't show her enough affection. So, the ultimate "slap in the face" excuse I've heard is: "I don't need to rebuke the wife when she sins because I'm sure it's really her husband's fault and he should get the rebuke instead of her." The reality is, biblically, EVEN IF they're both in sin they should both be confronted about it.

Of course, it's worth noting that "rebuke" doesn't always mean a harsh word. It can (Titus 1:13, "Rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith" as one example), but the preferred starting path is: "If anyone [including women] is caught in any trespass [not just serious ones], you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of GENTLENESS," or 2 Timothy 4:2, "reprove, rebuke, exhort, WITH GREAT PATIENCE and instruction." The problem is when people start with this gentle approach and it doesn't work and then they say, "Welp, I already did the rebuke thing, so my job is done," without ever escalating to a sharp rebuke for those who are unrepentant and continuing in their sin.

Another complication is that many people will be "repentant" verbally and correct themselves long enough to make it seem like the problem is solved on the surface, but very quickly go back to what they were doing before. This, then, "excuses" (at least in their mind) the leader from escalating to a "sharp rebuke" because the person is viewed as "repentant - trying, but failing" instead of being willfully defiant. This is exacerbated by the fact that when someone is confronted about their sin by an authority, extremely few people will be defiant about it - virtually everyone will play along, even if the lesson never truly sinks in (i.e. no internalization of the repentance), and even if they themselves believe their own repentance, despite it not sinking in. So, the response to the confrontation usually seems genuine (in the absence of a personality disorder), and without the ability to discern whether it's internalized or not, the "spiritual leader" who is engaged in the confrontation will usually give the benefit of the doubt and presume internalization, which is NOT the same thing as good-faith intention.

One more thought ...

Failing to provide for someone materially is more serious than failing to provide for them sexually (at least in the short term), but I still think its a relevant point: the husband and wife often bring different provisions to the table

The husband does have a biblical expectation to provide, but the obligation for sex is mutual. It's expected, biblically, that the wife should also desire her husband enough that Paul had to command husband not to deprive her the same way he commanded her not to deprive him.

While this may seem trite, I've known several people who were jaded by their wife's denial and when she did finally initiate sex, HE would then deny HER as a "stick it to you" and "I don't want your pity-sex" type response.

Psychologically, this is counter-intuitive on a number of levels, but most obviously that you should want to encourage your wife to initiate, not discourage it. This type of reaction conditions her to associate her initiation with the husband's rejection, which is a frustrating experience that she will be less likely to repeat. More significantly: on a biblical level, this is also the husband rejecting her inappropriately. It's not a one-sided responsibility, and trying to play stubborn mind-games with your spouse only digs you into a deeper pit, both psychologically and biblically.

RedPillWonder · 2022-09-10T06:47:39+00:00

u/Red-Curious and u/Deep_Strength already made excellent points, so I'll simply highlight and essentially say what they did, albeit in a different way, as sometimes things "hit home" when presented differently, and perhaps add a new angle or two.

When God's word is clear, don't confuse it or make it complex.

It's clear what God (through Paul) meant concerning sex. Each spouse owes the other sex.

But human nature being what it is, we like to "add" things and make it less simple. What if "this" isn't there? What about "that" thing there? Well, he or she isn't fulfilling other commands, so this command here doesn't apply and so on.

u/Red-Curious quoted me on "God's commands are not conditional."

Said differently, "Situations don't determine your service or submission to God."

I don't care what the situation is. You owe your spouse sex. As RC noted, the husband has to provide. Both have to love. The wife is to submit, and so on.

Among a plethora of replies, you'll often hear: "That's so mean!" and "You're a [fill in the blank with some negative response]"

Take it up with God.

He said it, we stand on it, and besides, it's literally the best thing for you and your spouse. God knows what He is doing. If we stop for a moment and consider His commands, they are for our benefit. Whether physical, emotional, mental or spiritual, they help us and honor Him.

The next thing you often hear is some version of a wild take (true or not) about an extreme circumstance.

Outliers don't erase God's commands.

As soon as you take a stand on an issue, you'll find some extreme example and people demanding "Oh yeah, what about this or that" and throw some crazy situation at you.

As if doing so means we should excise that command from the Bible.

No.

I'm not saying this to you personally, but read the Bible.

Use common sense.

Understand both the spirit and the letter of the law.

Jesus got onto the Pharisees for technically obeying the law, but violating the spirit of it when they "devoured widow's houses."

David "violated" the law when he took the showbread for he and his men, even though only priests could lawfully eat it.

Jesus brought this story up when the Pharisees accused Jesus's disciples of breaking the Sabbath.

Speaking of, Jesus said that "man was not made for the Sabbath, but Sabbath for the man."

God's laws serve us. They benefit us.

And yes, we are to obey them, but sometimes, if there are situations where the letter of the law conflicts with the spirit of the law, you follow the latter.

Doing so will almost always lead you to keeping the former.

This next point is nitpicking, but you wrote or quoted:

you don't get to withhold affection, romance, and sex from your husband because he's not "supportive" enough.

They indeed can withhold affection (depending on how you define it) and romance. God doesn't require that.

Now, personally, I'm all in favor of both. I love physical affection. I like romance.

But be careful about adding things that aren't there.

Do I think it's good and healthy if a husband playfully slaps his wife's behind as he walks by? Sure! What if he walks up behind her, wraps his arms around her and holds her tight and breathes her in as they slightly sway together? Beautiful.

Takes her by the hand as they stroll down a cobblestone street? Holds a door and puts his hand on the small of her back and leads her through an entrance? All good.

But none of this is commanded. A wife doesn't owe her husband any romance or affection (except sex) nor does he, her.

Now, it's very related and I'm not trying to be too technical here, I mean, who wants sex every time without kissing (before, during or after), or sitting on a couch and not draping an arm around your woman at times, or her resting her hand on your leg, and all kinds of things.

It's not like the only time you can touch her is when it's on like donkey kong, but you get the idea.

I'd just be careful about saying or adding certain things that aren't there. Because once you do so, it's easy for someone else to add things in their argument, and next thing you know, you two are arguing about things not even mentioned in the Bible, or at least not commanded.

Although one of my favorite little vignettes is Isaac "sporting" (KJV wording) with his wife Rebekah, and Pharoah sees it and knows they must be husband and wife.

I don't know what all "sporting" includes, but I like to think he was being pretty affectionate and playful with her, and she was reciprocating and they were having fun with each other in little ways.

RC has written a post about all kinds of things like this, how to have fun and flirt with your wife, and tease her and more, as you're playful and fun and lighthearted, even as you maintain your authority, headship and rule.

Be that man.

Title	To what extent is a wife allowed to withhold sex and affection if she doesn't feel supported emotionally?
Author	AncestorsMusketBall
Upvotes	13
Comments	16
Date	September 8, 2022 3:27 PM UTC (3 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/RPChristians
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/RPChristians/comments/x93er9/to_what_extent_is_a_wife_allowed_to_withhold_sex/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/RPChristians/to-what-extent-is-a-wife-allowed-to-withhold-sex.1131749 https://theredarchive.com/post/1131749

Comments