Where is everybody when it comes to 1 Corinthians 7:3-5?

[IanHulett]

So, I was watching CultOfDusty, so, naturally my humor is harsh at the moment, plus it's past my pill time, I was watching the video titled "Why would any woman be a christian?" and I realized, I might be one of few, or perhaps the only one(?) who discusses 1 Corinthians 7:3-5

(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.

It's like I dreamt up the verse in a fake bible and posted an imaginary verse online. I mean it shows that the bible is also sexist against men too. This bible verse is basically saying a woman owes a man intimacy, and a man owes his woman intimacy, and neither can say no. It's offensive. It's like it's saying the following:

Man / Woman / Result
1 yes + 1 no = yes;
1 no + 1 yes = yes;
1 yes + 1 yes = yes;
1 no + 1 no = no;

The only time it's okay to say no is if both say no. Otherwise, even if you don't want it, you have to consent. Reminds me of a 4-letter word that starts with an 'r...' hmm... what is it... ... ...

Sarcasm aside, is there a reason this verse isn't discussed as much as the other verses?

I think this verse is just as important as the others. It's another one that needs to be talked about. But I don't see it as often as the others.

Paul says the reason for this is so that we are not tempted by others. Meaning we keep it in the marriage, rather than seeking sexual gratification outside the marriage.

I'm for what Paul says here as we are supposed to live and serve the needs of our spouse first, rather than our own.

I have strong romantic feelings for my girlfriend, but if she wants intimacy, and I don't, then if I submit, because I have to "live and serve my spouse," before my own, that's rape. This verse was a huge problem back when I was a sex repulsed catholic, also when I thought I was asexual. I didn't want to have to consent to sexual encounters because it grossed me out. I can't even begin to imagine what it would be like if my girlfriend and I were in a catholic marriage and I had to submit to her while I was repulsed. To this day, I'm still repulsed by certain activities.

That's the problem with that passage. It doesn't take into consideration certain circumstances. If just 2 things were different, (1) my gf being a conservative catholic(she's a united methodist), and (2) us being married, then I would have no say in the matter regarding sex. If she wanted it, I'd have to provide it for her and likewise, if I wanted it. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if she says "yes" because an ancient book obligated her to.

The point of the criticism of this passage is nobody needs to "serve" the needs of their spouse regarding sex. If you don't want it, you don't have to have it. If you want it, but your spouse doesn't, you can always take care of it yourself. It's that simple.