Is physical intimacy a mandate of marriage?

**Tobias Reiper** · January 25th 2008, 06:05 AM

I know I'm pushing the envelope here, and it wouldn't surprise me if I was moderated for starting this, but let's keep this discussion civilized.

I have been told that the Song of Solomon (admittedly I have never read it, spending most of my time in Proverbs, Matthew, and Revelation) extols the virtues of sex between a husband and wife.

However, is a couple sinning if they enter a marriage without the desire for sexual intimacy? I'm not talking about cases where a couple gets married, the wife withholds sex, and the husband goes out and has an affair to make up for it (or vice versa), but where they both enter in agreeing not to engage in sexual intercourse.

I'm not talking about a simple matter of not finding each other attractive, either. Let's say, for example, that physiological or psychological problems (such as molestation in the past) makes intercourse painful for one or both partners, and the unaffected partner willingly agrees to live a celibate life. Is that making a mockery of the institute of marriage?

Obviously it could be a problem as far as starting a family is concerned, but what about when the wife is unable to bear children and the only alternative is to adopt?

**Faramir** · January 25th 2008, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by Tobias Reiper

I know I'm pushing the envelope here, and it wouldn't surprise me if I was moderated for starting this, but let's keep this discussion civilized.

I have been told that the Song of Solomon (admittedly I have never read it, spending most of my time in Proverbs, Matthew, and Revelation) extols the virtues of sex between a husband and wife.

However, is a couple sinning if they enter a marriage without the desire for sexual intimacy? I'm not talking about cases where a couple gets married, the wife withholds sex, and the husband goes out and has an affair to make up for it (or vice versa), but where they both enter in agreeing not to engage in sexual intercourse.

I'm not talking about a simple matter of not finding each other attractive, either. Let's say, for example, that physiological or psychological problems (such as molestation in the past) makes intercourse painful for one or both partners, and the unaffected partner willingly agrees to live a celibate life. Is that making a mockery of the institute of marriage?

Obviously it could be a problem as far as starting a family is concerned, but what about when the wife is unable to bear children and the only alternative is to adopt?

I would think that if there is a legitimate reason not to engage in sexual activity then it would not be making a mockery of marriage. Sex is not the end all be all of a marriage, but it is important and should not be neglected without a good reason. But there are some good reasons for a sexless marriage.

**Red Wine** · January 25th 2008, 10:38 AM

Tobias, nothing here IMU denotes mockery or sinfulness at all. A non-sexing marriage does not impinge upon biblical teaching, or God's nature in any way. Of course infidelity is never allowed, but that's not what you asked. I believe you could spend 50 years together with husband or wife and see Heaven, regardless of sex. Sex is a good thing, but if something (among the all too many tragic prohibitors in this life) precludes that relationship, that isn't a sin. 'Say yah prayers, pop inta bed with a good book, and don't worry bout it son!'

:)

**Conductor42** · January 25th 2008, 10:46 AM

I'd say so. In the Torah, a woman can divorce a man on the spot if he fails to... erm... satisfy her. The act of sex was what made a marriage back then - it was regarded as an 'engagement' until then.

**Philosophickle** · January 25th 2008, 11:17 AM

However, is a couple sinning if they enter a marriage without the desire for sexual intimacy? I'm not talking about cases where a couple gets married, the wife withholds sex, and the husband goes out and has an affair to make up for it (or vice versa), but where they both enter in agreeing not to engage in sexual intercourse.

I know of no sex quota a couple has to fill. Obviously of the man wants to have sex and the wife doesn't there are going to be no such problems, but if they are both in agreement then good for them. I can't imagine a dude ever signing up for that, but more power to him.

**Amazing Rando** · January 25th 2008, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by Agent Yoshi

I'd say so. In the Torah, a woman can divorce a man on the spot if he fails to... erm... satisfy her. The act of sex was what made a marriage back then - it was regarded as an 'engagement' until then.

Which Torah provision is that?

**YoungOne** · January 25th 2008, 07:29 PM

Wow, I was just having this discussion at lunch tonight. A female didn't wasn't paying attention and all sudden shes like ''what people get married and don't have sex. What's the point?'

**Tobias Reiper** · January 25th 2008, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by YoungOne

Wow, I was just having this discussion at lunch tonight. A female didn't wasn't paying attention and all sudden shes like ''what people get married and don't have sex. What's the point?'

There's a lot more to marriage than sex. Knowing that a woman loves you enough to want to spend the rest of her life with you, feeling her breath on you as you fall asleep, knowing that she will be with you in the morning, etc.

People look at marriage in one of two ways. 1) guilt free sex 2) tax benefits. Few people ever think of the small things that make a marriage special.

**Conductor42** · January 25th 2008, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by Amazing Rando

Which Torah provision is that?

Exodus 21:10

**Tobias Reiper** · January 27th 2008, 05:29 AM

Originally posted by Agent Yoshi

Exodus 21:10

Context is important. Here is the verse in full context (even though I prefer KJV, this is from the NIV because KJV takes concentration that, at the moment, I'm too lazy to devote).

Exodus 21:7 - 11

7 If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do.
8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her.
9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter.
10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.
11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

I'll admit that I don't quite understand this passage, because in both the NIV and KJV it refers to servants and maidservants respectively, but there are some aspects implying that this is an arranged marriage situation. In the context of strict servitude, if a man takes a wife he cannot take from the servant to provide for his wife and he can't forbid the servant to marry. It's basically saying that if you can't afford a wife and a maidservant you'll have to do without the wife.

In the context of arranged marriage, if, in an act of polygamy, the man takes another wife, he can't take food or clothing from his first wife to give to the new one, and he can't give her the cold shoulder, so to speak.

However, that's with the implication that she wants sex and he's unwilling to provide it. The scope of this thread is if both partners agree that there will be no sex following the wedding.

**historic salve** · January 27th 2008, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by Tobias Reiper

However, is a couple sinning if they enter a marriage without the desire for sexual intimacy? I'm not talking about cases where a couple gets married, the wife withholds sex, and the husband goes out and has an affair to make up for it (or vice versa), but where they both enter in agreeing not to engage in sexual intercourse.

Frankly, I don't think anyone would enter marriage without a desire for sexual intimacy. Paul says that men and women can agree to stop having sex for a period of time in order to pray, but that's about as close as we get to not having sex at all.

**Jnthn** · January 27th 2008, 05:17 PM

I can't really see a compelling reason to get married as a Christian, unless you want to have sex or want to have kids. There's nothing in orthodox Christianity that would prohibit a man and woman having an intimate asexual relationship as very close friends. Sex and procreation are the marital distinctives.

Now, a cynic might say that marriages of convenience, such as for immigration or inheritance can and do take place, but it doesn't harm the central thesis.

J

**Tobias Reiper** · January 27th 2008, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by Jnthstl

I can't really see a compelling reason to get married as a Christian, unless you want to have sex or want to have kids. There's nothing in orthodox Christianity that would prohibit a man and woman having an intimate asexual relationship as very close friends. Sex and procreation are the marital distinctives.

Now, a cynic might say that marriages of convenience, such as for immigration or inheritance can and do take place, but it doesn't harm the central thesis.

J

What about if you want to live together but you don't want to give the appearance of shacking up? I wouldn't be able to have a close, intimate female friend share my bed, or even my house, with me in an asexual manner without giving the appearance that we're fornicating.

Of course, I don't really see this being an issue. It was just a conversation with a friend that I found interesting and I decided to bring it here.

**Jnthn** · January 27th 2008, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by Tobias Reiper

What about if you want to live together but you don't want to give the appearance of shacking up? I wouldn't be able to have a close, intimate female friend share my bed, or even my house, with me in an asexual manner without giving the appearance that we're fornicating.

Of course, I don't really see this being an issue. It was just a conversation with a friend that I found interesting and I decided to bring it here.

What benefits would cohabiting bring to the friendship? To be blunt, I don't see how sexual temptation could be avoided if an unmarried couple shared a bed, speaking specifically as a bloke!

J

**Paintbucket** · January 27th 2008, 09:08 PM

I think that most people would have sex in marriage, and that it is seen as a common base for the marriage alliance. However, that doesn't mean that it's an absolute requirement, although most folks would like something similar.