things on my mind today…
For those who haven’t read it, here is what this verse says:
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. (1 Cor. 7:4)
When you read the whole verse, you can see something jump right out at you off the page. It is NOT saying that it is the woman’s duty to have sex on demand whenever the husband desires it. According to the text, her right to say “no”, or “yes” for that matter, is as absolute as the husband’s.
It does not say that the husband has a sex drive and the wife does not. It does not say that the wife has to put up with the lust of her husband and satisfy it or she is to blame if he turns to porn.
So, that being said, take all of your “Christian” sex books and throw them away.
What this verse means is this: God designed sex to be mutual, exclusive, egalitarian – the joining of two into one flesh. Two bodies, male and female, exploring, joining, touching, giving pleasure, receiving pleasure. Neither is “in charge” in the bedroom, for both have “authority” over the body of the other. They truly become “one flesh”.
Both the husband and the wife have equal authority when it comes to sexuality. This means one flesh, not dominance. This frees the body and the soul to explore, to love, to truly unite, to be free.
Explore this. Think about it. Learn how your wife ticks, what she feels, how she loves. Learn what her triggers are, learn what she fears, what she loves. Wives, explore your husband, learn what his fears are, what his triggers are, what he fears. What causes him shame. What causes her shame. How can you make the other safe in the midst of the greatest vulnerability there is.
When she is safe with you and when you are safe with her, then you can truly know what it means to be naked and not ashamed, as you were created to be.
For this reason, most of what passes for marriage counseling misses the mark completely. It is so frequently taught that sex is just for the man, and it is the wife’s duty to perform.
But, men, if the only reason your wife is having sex with you is because you are making her, that is not Biblical sexual morality. That is called “rape”.
If you are using this verse (the first part of it) to manipulate or coerce your wife into having sex with you, that is also called “rape” and it is the worst kind – cruelty under the name of “Biblical womanhood”.
True sexuality is not coerced, not manipulated, not used as reward for good behavior. True sexuality is not “for the man”. It is not something that the wife has to endure. It is mutual, joyful, fulfilling, intoxicating, loving.
But first, you have to pursue it diligently. You have to put aside all ideas as to “Who’s in charge, here” and simply learn to love her. Find out what makes her rejoice.
Women, if you have never enjoyed sex before, there is help available. If there is pain, if there is trauma, if there is anything getting in the way between you and your husband, this is not how God intended you to live. There is help available.
If you have never had a mutual, fulfilling sex life, there is help available.
Start with Sheila Wray Gregoire’s book “The Great Sex Rescue”.
By the way, men. Learning how to please your wife isn’t a suggestion. It is a command from God. When you obey this command, implied in the seventh commandment, you will be surprised at how much more responsive your wife will be.
A word to the wise is enough.
(Deu 24:5) “When a man has taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war or be charged with any business; he shall be free at home one year, and bring happiness to his wife whom he has taken.
My Only Comfort 
ow. Wish I was taught that 35 years ago when I said “I do”. He always said you do, you do…….. Now I’m working the “I don’t”, mostly because rape is caused by the heartless, even if they say they love you.
That you for speaking out, it is so healing to hear this truth acknowledged by a man.
This is the kind of sex ed. every Church and school needs.
I know this is a late reply, but wanted to thank you for those words: ” mostly because rape is caused by the heartless, even if they say they love you”
That was extremely well put and incredibly insightful. And true, most of all!
I’m in my mid 40’s to give you an idea of the era I grew up in. I honestly can’t pinpoint exact sources, but I got the impression that even if your boyfriend says I love you, and claims to be committed to you, but uses that to pressure you into “choosing” to have sex with him: that is wrong. The attitude of: if you love me, you’ll “choose” to have sex with me is a strong warning sign that this person does NOT truly love you. If HE loved you, he would respect you, because those two words are both intertwined and interchangeable. No one owns your body, and no one owns your choices on who to give your body to. And if his commitment to you hinges on you giving sex to him as “proof” of your commitment to him, that is not a compromise, that is coercion.
My recollection is that it wasn’t about it being “immoral” to have sex outside of marriage because I didn’t pick up on this via religious sources. But I’d like to think of this kind of thinking as good old fashioned common sense, whether you are a professing Christian or not.
How or why do such standards allowed to drop so drastically, once you are married? Aren’t the stakes so much higher, the commitment that much stronger?
If you have ever made big purchases like a home or a vehicle, you know how serious that is. Signing the papers to make it official is sobering, even scary. The responsibilities skyrocket; the needs are that much more intense. We don’t seem to have a problem telling people to “grow up” and “own up” when they take such big steps.
I don’t understand why it’s normal to be expected to take good care of high priced merchandise; but it’s not as normal to be expected to take good care of something you can’t even put a price tag on: your spouse. When you sign that marriage certificate, shouldn’t it be WAY more sobering, because it’s not about ownership, it’s about oneness.