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

[Nope]

2. The 72-hour rule. We try to never go more than 72 hours without sex except by mutual consent as Paul suggested.

One other point: It isn't necessary to cook up a three-course meal when a quick snack is all that is necessary. If one spouse wants a quickie, let her have it. Or vice-versa.

Well, of course, if both of you don't agree to sex then it is rape.

I know that I already responded to this but while I was in the shower I was thinking how glad I am that my husband and I don't have a 72 hour rule. After I gave birth to my last child, I went through an odd few months were I felt as if I was touched out. All day long, it seemed like I was nursing or caring for children and I was too exhausted to want sex. The situation corrected itself once I stopped nursing but my husband never complained. Later, when he started school while working full time, sex became sporadic. I didn't complain either. Both times, our sex live eventually returned to normal. I think that we both would have felt resentful and used if we had a rule that we had to have sex. If one person doesn't want sex, then we don't have sex. As far as him giving me a quickie, I really don't want obligatory or pity sex from my husband. If I need release that badly I can take care of myself.

Randy, I read somewhere that Catholics believe masturbation is a sin. Is that true?

[Randy Carson]

Well, of course, if both of you don't agree to sex then it is rape.

I know that I already responded to this but while I was in the shower I was thinking how glad I am that my husband and I don't have a 72 hour rule. After I gave birth to my last child, I went through an odd few months were I felt as if I was touched out. All day long, it seemed like I was nursing or caring for children and I was too exhausted to want sex. The situation corrected itself once I stopped nursing but my husband never complained. Later, when he started school while working full time, sex became sporadic. I didn't complain either. Both times, our sex live eventually returned to normal. I think that we both would have felt resentful and used if we had a rule that we had to have sex. If one person doesn't want sex, then we don't have sex. As far as him giving me a quickie, I really don't want obligatory or pity sex from my husband. If I need release that badly I can take care of myself.

If you wish to make what I wrote sound like a bad thing without exceptions, then you can certainly do so.

Randy, I read somewhere that Catholics believe masturbation is a sin. Is that true?

The knowledgeable and faithful ones do.

2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.

[IanHulett]

Well, of course, if both of you don't agree to sex then it is rape.

I know that I already responded to this but while I was in the shower I was thinking how glad I am that my husband and I don't have a 72 hour rule. After I gave birth to my last child, I went through an odd few months were I felt as if I was touched out. All day long, it seemed like I was nursing or caring for children and I was too exhausted to want sex. The situation corrected itself once I stopped nursing but my husband never complained. Later, when he started school while working full time, sex became sporadic. I didn't complain either. Both times, our sex live eventually returned to normal. I think that we both would have felt resentful and used if we had a rule that we had to have sex. If one person doesn't want sex, then we don't have sex. As far as him giving me a quickie, I really don't want obligatory or pity sex from my husband. If I need release that badly I can take care of myself.

Randy, I read somewhere that Catholics believe masturbation is a sin. Is that true?

Even though I'm not randy, I have been a catholic before converting (or attempting) to united methodism, but before finalizing my conversion, I deconverted. So, I can say, as, technically, a recovering catholic, yes. In fact, when I would go to confession, there was a booklet listing "sins" that I would have to confess if I'm guilty of any of them, and masturbation is listed on there. It's considered "Spilling seed" for men, not sure what it is considered for women though.

[Ravenshire]

Nailed it, then.  But my goal of making her happy has bugger all to do with any 'holy book'.   I strive to make her happy because it is an honour and a privilege to be allowed to try.

Boru

All teachings in ancient text will make you happy from doing them even if you didn't learn them from said texts. As is my case.

So, the teachings that I should kill my disrespectful, disobedient children will make me happy? No! Just, no!

[Ravenshire]

Randy, I read somewhere that Catholics believe masturbation is a sin. Is that true?

Just one more thing the cathy-licks (though they aren't alone) have back asswards. Rubbing them out when the real thing isn't available can absolutely be a marriage saver.

[Spooky]

Could it be the bible was written by violent misogynistic homophobes and not a loving god? Who would have thought.

If both my wife and I happen to want sex at the same time, sex happens. If not, well, we have internet. (Shitty internet)

[Drich]

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.

[popsthebuilder]

All teachings in ancient text will make you happy from doing them even if you didn't learn them from said texts. As is my case.

So, the teachings that I should kill my disrespectful, disobedient children will make me happy? No! Just, no!

Show he one case when the Lord made someone kill there child for not listening to them.

[Spooky]

So, the teachings that I should kill my disrespectful, disobedient children will make me happy? No! Just, no!

Show he one case when the Lord made someone kill there child for not listening to them.

We can show you one case where god makes somebody sacrifice their child just because.  But it's ok, cause god said "LOL/JK" at the last second.

---

---

[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.