[Guest]

Every Christian or Cathlic Read from some translation of the Holy Bible this is from the King James version.

"The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife?s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband?s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except 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" (1 Corinthians 7:3-6).

It is a give and take relationship. This one's for you Houswife, is not only part of your culture. "Corinthians" is filled with does and donts of sex.

Alright. I can accept that.

But what about the people who don't believe in a word the Bible says?

[Little]

Just like for any "issue" that is solved for some people by religious texts, nonreligious people or people of alternate religions have to make their own choices.

[inlovagin]

Alright. I can accept that.

But what about the people who don't believe in a word the Bible says?

Those people should just use a passage like this as a tool. I have heard many times that the best things to say have probably already been said before. It should not matter if this passage came from the Bible, a magazine or a therapist. It would not make it any more right or wrong. But what should be taken in to account is that this was over 2000 yrs ago. History has always had a tendancy to repeat itself.

It all boils down to a give and take relationship. The bedroom is not the only place that a man should be "fulfilling his husbandly duties." It starts far outside of the bedroom and if he is not fulfilling his duties how can a woman be expected to fulfill "her wifely duties." Give and take. "You reap what you sow."

So I would say that if a man is not pleasing his wife as she should be please then the wife has no obligations to her husband. and visa versa. which inturn leads to "lack of self-control." or tending to other guardans.

[kaylar]

It should not matter if this passage came from the Bible, a magazine or a therapist. It would not make it any more right or wrong.....
...bedroom is not the only place that a man should be "fulfilling his husbandly duties." It starts far outside of the bedroom and if he is not fulfilling his duties how can a woman be expected to fulfill "her wifely duties." Give and take. "You reap what you sow."

So I would say that if a man is not pleasing his wife as she should be please then the wife has no obligations to her husband. and visa versa.

Very well put.

To dismiss wisdom because
"Oh I'm an Atheist! I don't believe anything in the Bible",
confirms the ignorance of the speaker, as the fact, as inlovagin
indicated; this is something written thousands of years ago, which
has survived and remains vibrant.

When a man is living off a woman, when he's nothing but a burden,
then why should a woman even want to lie in the same bed?

Further, the law which originally saw a marriage certificate
as a 'receipt', has readjusted.

Marriage is not carte blanche, no longer does saying 'I Do' at
the altar become a permanent response to sex at any point
in the future.

Women as property no longer is accepted.

Although American women think they are 'liberated'
and 'free', the fact that they feel they MUST satisfy
all their husband's desires immediately, proves that
they have not come as far as they think.

[housewife]

Although American women think they are 'liberated'
and 'free', the fact that they feel they MUST satisfy
all their husband's desires immediately, proves that
they have not come as far as they think.

I am not American, but feel that when I satisfy him , he does the same to me. it 's been almost 7 years. works well for us.

[inlovagin]

If a man is doing everything that he can and should to fulfill his husbandly duties, I would say that NO a woman should not deprive him of sex just because she doesnt feel like it right then. To say that the wife can say no at any time does not seem right. Of course there are personnal and/or moral situations that have to be taken in to consideration. Reguardless to popular belief, rationing is not good. Work production triples if the benafits are worth it.

[Guest]

Very well put.

To dismiss wisdom because
"Oh I'm an Atheist! I don't believe anything in the Bible",
confirms the ignorance of the speaker, as the fact, as inlovagin
indicated; this is something written thousands of years ago, which
has survived and remains vibrant.

Kay. What if the woman isn't an Atheist, but still doesn't believe in the Bible?

[housewife]

If a man is doing everything that he can and should to fulfill his husbandly duties, I would say that NO a woman should not deprive him of sex just because she doesnt feel like it right then. To say that the wife can say no at any time does not seem right. Of course there are personnal and/or moral situations that have to be taken in to consideration. Reguardless to popular belief, rationing is not good. Work production triples if the benafits are worth it.

can't agree more.

[inlovagin]

Kay. What if the woman isn't an Atheist, but still doesn't believe in the Bible?

I would ask that woman does she still do the same things for her husband that she did before getting married or in the first year. If not, why? In marriage change is good but only if the change is for the better. The most commonly quoted male phrase "is we used to have sex all the time until we got married". Isn't that false pretense?

[kaylar]

Kay. What if the woman isn't an Atheist, but still doesn't believe in the Bible?

Saying you don't believe in the Bible is like saying
you don't believe in a history or geology text.

Yes, you may want to discard certain 'editoralising'
or 'censorship', i.e. that Richard the Lion Hearted
was Homosexual is usually left out of texts, but that
he did go on the Crusades, that he was captured, that
his younger brother took the throne, that there was
a problem paying the ransom, can be verified by other
than your history text.

The same with Scripture.

There was a flood. At least ten feet of water covered
many parts of the Middle East at a certain point
in time.

Whether it rained, as if has been doing recently
in South East Asia, (and in Jamaica), whether there
was a tsunami, a meteor hit the ocean, a volcano
erupted, there was an earthquake, whatever your
geological research proves, there WAS a flood....

(When one does an archeological dig, as one goes
down there is a point where there is evidence of
human habitation, then ten feet of clay, then
evidence of human habitation)

...many of the people mentioned in the Bible
actually existed and are mentioned elsewhere.

In fact, today, on the Internet, there are vast
repositories of historical documents compiled
at the same time from different societies which
mention the very same incidents that are covered.

Another point that needs to be mentioned is the
terminology used in Scripture. There are many
terms which were used in those days which, like
terms today, are generation specific.

For example, the use of the word 'bad' today
to mean 'good'. In my own country, we used
to refer to bullets as 'corn', so saying, 'he picked
up corn' did not mean he was a farmer, it meant
he was shot.

I often reference Scripture, including the apocrypha
in Court because of the usefulness of the parables.

For example, in the story of Susannah, when Daniel
was a judge, two men claimed they had seen her
commit adultery.

As no one could be put to death save on the eye
witness testimony of two different people, Daniel
took them aside separately and asked where in
the yard they had seen her.

One had her under the yew tree, another under
the alder tree, said trees separated by many
yards; hence the 'eye witnesses' concocted
their story.