/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>699664

Sex is fine, masturbating especially combined with watching porn is not.

>>699665

so sex for fun is ok for christians as long as is inside a monogamous relationship?

>>699668

Is there any diference between male promiscuity and female promiscuity?

I remember people on the bible having several wifes.

>>699668

actually, isnt fun and pleasure is the side effect of the sex, after procreation and not vice versa?

I struggled with porn and masturbation a lot too, went to confession last week and it helped a lot. God gives us strength when we are weak, always remember that.

>>699677

Pretty sure there'd enjoyment and THEN procreation about nine months later.

>>699667

>>699677

It has both reproductive and unitive purpose i.e. bringing the husband and wife closer.

Protestants, even serious Protestants, are cool with condoms and "kinky" positions as long as there is faithfulness.

Catholics and Orthodox are finicky about sex, even within marriage, which is a bummer. They have the best architecture and liturgy, but even famous "Natural Family Planning" proponents will secretly admit to having frustrating sex lives because of all the fiddly sexual rules.

>>699664

You should bone your wife as often as possible in order to make soldiers for God.

If you don't mind having 10 kids do it as much as you want.

>>699928

Having a traditional wife and 10 kids is literally the dream tbh

>>699752

>They have the best architecture and liturgy

What is more important is the theology.

>frustrating sex lives because of all the fiddly sexual rules

Your life should never revolve around sex; talking about having a "sex life" is godless and marriage isn't about having plenty of sex without being afraid of going to Hell since it’s not fornication. Don’t use your wife as a sex toy and remember that chastity is a virtue that you should aspire to.

>>699906

>bone your wife as often as possible

#ThingsChristWouldNeverSay

>>702360

1 Corinthians 7: 3-5:

3 Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

There's nothing like NoFap for convincing yourself that Satan exists. I go through the same thing every time. The urges get stronger and stronger and I try to fend them off but eventually I start rationalizing and thinking things like "What if God doesn't actually exist? I'm denying myself for nothing". And then when you give in all the shame comes back and you realize that you sinned greatly and fell for Satans evil rhetoric once again.

We must be strong brothers and have faith because the moment we let our guard down the devil will take his opportunity.

>>702532

For me the problem is the other way around. I’ll have no problem having sex just for the purpose of having children. However, what if my wife has “needs” tgat she wants me to fulfill? Do I act then? And don’t say find another woman, because if I’m with someone I already love them enough to be with them without leaving.

>>702563

Thanks for the advice man.

>>702564

You welcome, brother.

>>702384

>Only when you're both willing

That might be prudent to keep one another happy, but you can't frame that as the Christian imperative. Both partners have the obligation to, when in the proper circumstances and barring anything like illness making them physically incapable, engage in intercourse when asked. And as far as being incapable, not being "in the mood" and convenient "headaches" don't cut it.

>>702532

>How would you react if your wife said she only wanted to have sex once per pregnancy?

GTFO with this crypto-feminist trash. Both partners in a marriage have the responsibility to provide for the other when they ask. If you're in this situation then you're either an anemic skeleton of a "man" who can only muster a hard on every nine months, or you've relinquished the headship in your marriage to the object of your beta pussy worship. If any woman said that then you should say that you want to have sex more often then that and to ask you to ignore your needs to such an extent is unreasonable.

>>702532

You: Blah, blah, blah wall of text + Pharisaical self-righteousness and legalism + arm-chair psychoanalysis = desiring sex with your wife outside of procreation is godless evil lust.

Compare to:

Bible/Word of God himself as per 1 Corinithians 7:5: ==Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

==

Do not deprive one another

come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Not enough? Okay.

Proverbs 5:18-19:

18Let your fountain be blessed,

And rejoice with the wife of your youth.

19 As a loving deer and a graceful doe,

Let her breasts satisfy you at all times;

And always be enraptured with her love.

And don't get me started on Song of Solomon 4.

>B-b-but muh allegory!!!!

Yes it is partially an allegory of the union of God and the Church, but if you think that there is no literal erotic dimension to it, you are delusional..

The Word of God himself literally encourages erotic love between husband and wife, and to to not deprive each other when the other is in need. That is literally part of the point of marriage:

From 1 Corinthians chapter 7 again, this time with more context and emphasis:

2 Nevertheless, ==because of sexual immorality==, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.

To prevent "sexual immorality"? Doesn't sound like sex is only for menstrual cycles to me.

6 But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment. 7 For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that. 8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; ==9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.==

"Marry, rather than burn with passion." = if you can't cut it as a monk/nun, i.e. perpetual chastity (and most people can't), get married. "Do not deprive each other." Not "only when your wife is ovulating."

Marriage is not just about procreation, but as the Word of God literally says, it is designed to constrain sex as an outlet between men and women who are not cut out for the monastic life. It's literally straight from the horses mouth…or more accurately: God's Mouth - the Word of God - Jesus.

>If you were to lick your lips and snicker while looking at the menstrual calendar, spending energy doing the calculations (to take advantage of it as the other anon correctly phrased it) all to make your pee-pee happy, know that you will not have changed much from the last time you unzipped your pants to masturbate.

I.e." If you actually look forward to sex with your wife, whom you love, as the Bible tells you to, you are an evil lusty sodomite just trying to satisfy your pee pee." Wew lad, would you like some more straw for that straw man?

>Tell me, if a lovely Christian girl adequate for your taste and in love with you asked you if you would like to marry her but said that she only wants to engage in sex once per pregnancy, how would you react? Do you believe a negative reaction on your part would be godly and her demand ungodly or would rather the opposite be true? Would your lust win over the love?

The Word of God himself literally shows that the woman in this scenario is acting contrary to what the Word of God commands for married couples. I remember one particular couple married and refrained from sex their entire lives. But they were Saints. Extraordinary exceptions. For everyone else, God literally says that sex is to be something regular and enjoyed by your average joe six pack laity married couple. Not lusting or masturbating? Yes of course. If you and your wife want to be on a whole other level of chastity from the norm, more power to you and God Bless you.

But telling everyone else who was not gifted with your level of God-given self-control (I'm assuming) that sex outside of procreation cannot be an expression of love, and not permitted to married couples is contrary to the Word of God, and thus Satanic.

>>702574

>>702563

>Remember that females are sexually timid by nature

>easily corrupted by men who act as predators and turn them into preys;

>females are not as "sex hungry" as males

Okay, I'm seriously struggling to be charitable here. I almost typed out contemptuous laughter but stopped myself. The above lines show that you have no idea what you are talking about regarding female sexuality, and thus have no business giving out advice in this area to anyone. Woman are a lot more lock and key with their sexuality due to obvious social pressures and risks, but thinking they are pure madonnas who are merely corrupted by evil predatory males is, in the nicest way I can put it, incredibly naive, and is a classic symptom of the appropriately named "Maddona-Whore Complex" that most guys who are inexperienced with women have. The y are flawed sinful human beings who put their pants on one leg at a time, just like men.

>>702551

Read the aforementioned Bible verses in this post. Be thankful that God has provided you with a passionate woman, and enjoy the fruits of the wife of your youth and ignore and pray for this misguided soul: >>702532 >>702563

>>702575

I’m not married or with anyone yet.

>>702582

I know; I'm saying if you are theoretically provided with such a woman by God.

>>699664

What kind of Christians are you guys ?, Give it god !

>>702584

I will provide, though how do I put up with her if she wants to do something that’s a bit much?

>>702586

Either:

a) Be a man and lay down the law: that you will do no such thing, period.

or

b)If you are picking up early signs before marriage, that she has such proclivities, do not marry her. Such things are usually a sign of even worse things under the surface.

>>702591

I pray it doesn’t come to either of these two, but I will if I have to.

>>702575

>They are flawed sinful human beings

I never denied this; you completely misunderstood what I've written thus your entire reply is a failure.

>>702598

>A spousal "need" could be emotional support, not your wife begrudgingly opening her legs for you.

Do not deprive one another

come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

The verses that this is in the context of is painfully obviously about sexual relations. You are deliberately twisting the Word of God to the point where I now think you are a troll arguing in bad faith. Your uncharitable insults and use of filthy ungodly language (i.e. your graphic descriptions of sexual acts) further reinforce this perception.

Everything else is you similarly dodging and twisting Biblical verses and putting forth your own heretical interpretations.

>Please answer my last question:

I already did.

>>702604

>>702610

I’m confused. What do I do, love my wife in bed or by other means?

>>702611

Love her, eventually responsibly procreate with her, aspire to both willfully remain chaste and preferably detach lust completely from love. If she really wants to get more physically intimate: let her but don't be insisting yourself as she, being a female, is weaker than you, a male, and could end up feeling "used".

>>702610

The verse never calls those marrying due to lack of self-control sinful, it literally exhorts them to marry to avoid sin caused by lack of self-control in the first place! Having non-procreative sex within marriage is not "venial sin".

>You're the one who made baseless inane accusations against my character, "Mr. Charitable".

I called you out on acting like a Pharisee, performing arm-chair psychoanalysis, and promoting heretical and Satanic doctrine. Your actions, not you. Show me where I called you a brainlet. I'll wait.

>I enjoy being blunt about vulgar things when I criticise them; same goes for sodomites: I find it amusing to describe them as "two men shoving each other's cocks up their sh*tholes"; it may be ungodly to speak this way but when the subject matter is vulgar and ungodly itself, I'd rather not tame my speech as much as the one trying to polish a turd would like me to. It sounds bad? Because it is bad!

If you enjoy these things, then you are rebelling against the Word of God. Repent:

James 3: 5-12:

5 See how great a forest a little fire kindles! 6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity. The tongue is so set among our members that it defiles the whole body, and sets on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire by hell. 7 For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and creature of the sea, is tamed and has been tamed by mankind. 8 But no man can tame the tongue. It is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. 9 With it we bless our God and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the similitude of God. 10 Out of the same mouth proceed blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be so.

11 Does a spring send forth fresh water and bitter from the same opening?

12 Can a fig tree, my brethren, bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Thus no spring yields both salt water and fresh.

Ephesians 5: 3-4:

3 But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints;

4 neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting,

which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.

Ephesians 4:29

Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.

Colossians 3:8

But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander,

and obscene talk from your mouth.

Matthew 15:11

It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.

Matthew 12:36

I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak,

> I never said that engaging in non-procreative marital sex is mortally sinful and should be prohibited.

If that was your intention, your characterization of those who engage in marital non-procreative sex as crypto-sodomites didn't help much. Also: venial sin…. but not prohibitied….

Show me in the verses that I posted, that married non-procreative sex is a "venial sin."

But apparently according to you, commiting a "venial sin" for the sake of a marriage is okay:

>Do I act then?

>Unfortunately yes and do not do so begrudgingly otherwise it could fracture the marriage

>>702611

If you have the strength, be chaste. If not, enjoy sex with her in moderation (i.e. don't make it the center of your existence), don't be kinky, and ultimately be procreative. Monk/Nunhood is not for everyone.

>>702532

>It’s not a meme and that’s what sex should actually be reserved for.

First off, give me 1 (one) verse from the Bible that confirms this.

Secondly, I didn't read your whole post, but I noticed

>f*cking like godless dogs

this is more akin to what you are suggesting. Sex is obviously pleasurable, and God never commanded us not to enjoy it (just look at the verses brought up by >>702574 ). Who are you to make up new commandments not based in Scripture? By limiting sex to procreation-purpose only, you are bringing it to the level of animals who mate only with the purpose to pass on their genes.

>2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

Procreative and unitive. Not procreative only.

>1643 "Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter - appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility. In a word it is a question of the normal characteristics of all natural conjugal love, but with a new significance which not only purifies and strengthens them, but raises them to the extent of making them the expression of specifically Christian values."

>open to fertility

Every sexual act can be unitive, but not all of them can be procreative in the way that it would result in pregnancy. However all of them still need to be open to procreation, which means no unnatural contraception. This is what is commanded and this is what makes an act procreative, not that you put in effort so that every time you have sex it's as likely to produce a child as possible and you only do it for that purpose alone.

>2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality

>2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

>2363 The spouses' union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple's spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

>>702624

>Procreative and unitive. Not procreative only.

My issue has only ever been with "boning your wife as often as possible" and "your wife is obligated to open her legs at the snap of your fingers", though I also argue that coitus only for procreative reasons is preferable due to the clear detachment of lust from love.

>2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable

"Boning your wife as often as possible while pretending to have been truly victorious with your pre-marital struggle with lust causing you to masturbate" is in no way noble or honourable; it's hypocritical.

>>702636

>My issue has only ever been with "boning your wife as often as possible" and "your wife is obligated to open her legs at the snap of your fingers",

Yet that is what 1 Corinthians 7:5 says. You even imply in a Pharisaical fashion that a "Real True Christian" would gladly take up the offer presented in the final paragraph of >>702532 (along with your final sentence in >>702583 )

while 1 Corinthians 7:5 offers mercy from St. Paul himself to those not strong enough, speaking the Word of God. You're making it very easy to misinterpret your position.

>>702633

>You are however describing me as a disciple of Satan, how much harsher is this?

I described what you are pushing as Satanic, not you. Even Peter was rebuked by God as Satan when he, with what he thought were good intentions, tried to dissuade our Savior from performing his mission; and this was shortly after God proclaimed Peter as a Rock for his profession of Christ.

>I enjoy being blunt about vulgar things when I criticise them; same goes for sodomites: I find it amusing to describe them as "two men shoving each other's cocks up their sh*tholes"; it may be ungodly to speak this way but when the subject matter is vulgar and ungodly itself, I'd rather not tame my speech as much as the one trying to polish a turd would like me to. It sounds bad? Because it is bad!

>It is venially sinful, I know; I also use curse words out loud when angry and by myself. I am not immaculate.

First you admit you enjoy and revel in it, and even act braggartly and boastful of it; now you're penitent, "venially sinful" and "not immaculate." Which is it? You can't have it both ways. Either struggle or don't. Cursing in the heat of the moment IRL is one thing. Taking the time to type it out is another.

You're also further reinforcing my distaste with the concept of dividing sin into "venial" and "mortal." You seem to have a more lax attitude towards the "venial". All sin is sin before God.

>>702646

>Should a "Real True Christian" choose lust over love?

So non pro-creative marital sex is not a venial or mortal sin, but it is lust over love? What's the difference? Just like a Pharisee, you care more about the letter of the law than mercy.

>He does not condone their lack of self-control though and it should not be expressed in their marriage.

1 Corinthians 7:28

28 But even if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned.

>TIL: the Church Fathers were pushing Satanic ideas

Saying that those who are not strong enough to go with sex only 2 times in their life or be lifelong chaste, aren't True Christians, and are evil slaves to lust is Satanic. (and don't bother with the "don't put words in my mouth" claptrap. You said it yourself that not taking the offer you presented is choosing lust over love.)

>I didn't; I explained that I like to shock people with the harsh reality of that which they promote.

You're lying. You know what you wrote. You said you enjoyed and liked using filthy shocking language and that it amused you. And you wave it off because "it's just venial." All while posting pics of the Virgin Mary and Female Saints.

If you're trolling, mission accomplished. Well played. Slow clap, and all that. I'm done. Good night and God have mercy on your soul.

>>702610

>Self-control is seen favourably and that's my point; "boning your wife as often as possible" is a venial sin, that's my other point.

No it isn't. You should have sex with your wife as often as possible and as hard as possible to keep her happy and free of temptation.

>>702691

>as often as possible and as hard as possible

t. Satan

>>702636

>My issue has only ever been with "boning your wife as often as possible" and "your wife is obligated to open her legs at the snap of your fingers", though I also argue that coitus only for procreative reasons is preferable due to the clear detachment of lust from love.

Well that's good then. Personally I am against sex only for procreative reasons as imo it's needlessly giving up a pleasure that God created for us and potentially weakening your marriage union, as well as reducing something that can be beautiful, building and mutually pleasing to something with only a practical purpose. If you're really against this so much then you're better of becoming a monk.

>and "your wife is obligated to open her legs at the snap of your fingers"

I'm also against this, it's basically muslim marital rape tier.

I don't know of anything in the Bible or Church teaching that condemns my opinion and I guess the same could be said for you, so at least OP can read about both opinions and make up his own mind.

Now y'all should stop autistically bickering and calling each other satan.

>>702730

>If you're really against this so much then you're better of becoming a monk.

I want a family, am too curious about the world and hate manual labour; monastic life really isn’t for me. Chastity is also for the laity.

>>702691

>fueling a savage libido calms it down

That's not how it works

>>702491

>>702358

Based

>>702302

I've gotta disagree with this outlook. Sex within a marriage is a beautiful act of unity and intimacy that should be celebrated, to say nothing of the reproductive aspect of it. This is why natural planning and sex between infertile/old couples is allowed and encouraged.

Treating sex as a "necessary evil" is heretical as it suggests the only means of procreation (a commandment from God) has some destructive aspect to it. Nothing of God is, or even can be, destructive.

It's the abuse of the faculties that leads to destruction.

>>709963

Cathodox, though beware of poor-quality modern Catholic masses. There will likely be multiple Catholic churches in your area, I'd recommend checking them all out as it can be hit or miss compared to something more strictly formal like SB.

>without weird rituals

Hash out what you actually believe, and look into the basic doctrines of different denominations. Picking a church that you "just like" is a bad idea, and is how some very iffy organizations pick up new members.

>>699667

And if you're married, just to be clear