The Bible on Sex, Love, and Marriage

Spun off from Does God Have Free Will? to avoid topic drift. No offense, but these plans of God to which you refer are pretty much the sort of unhealthy attitude I'm talking about. Leaving aside the topics of sex and love for the moment (but only for the moment), your writings seem to connote an inherent trait in women to seek dominance over men, and a God-given mandate for men to attain dominance over women.The implication of this, of course, is that any given woman is, by her very nature, going against the will of God.The further implication is that marriage, by its very nature, is a battlefield. Sure, you lay out a plan for marriage to work despite its being a battlefield, but that plan is simply that one side has to surrender. This, of course, does not change the husband and wife being forced into the role of adversaries, it only proclaims one the victor.It may be my own craziness, but I don't see this as a particularly healthy view, conducive to a lifelong partnership.Lastly, I don't know if you're aware of the inherent mysoginy of your writing. True, you state that God created man and woman equal, but within the same paragraph you clearly denote man as "serving the function of headship", and woman as "functioning as a submissive helper", which pretty much blasts out any ideas of equality.Don't know about you, guy, but I like to meet girls who are capable of being more than my submissive helper. They're generally smarter and more interesting. And if they're capable of being more, then why on Earth would I want them to act at anything less than their full potential?Still waiting for the Bible's helpful advice on love and sex.

---

"If I had to write ten jokes about potholders, I don't think I could do it. But I could write ten jokes about Catholicism in the next twenty minutes. I guess I'm drawn to religion because I can be provocative without harming something people really care about, like their cars."
-George Meyer, Simpsons writer

Well, if you look at the link I was responding to, they are necessarily adversaries. At least according to the logic contained therein. But let's look at your thoughts too. In a football team, there are specific rules of the game, and roles that are established simply by virtue of those rules. It's not that an effective team can't function without everyone fulfilling those roles... it's simply that if they don't, you're not playing football.Marriage comes with no such rules. Any given marriage is what you make of it. (The vast number of successful non-Christian marriages should be proof enough of this.) The analogy doesn't hold up.

---

"If I had to write ten jokes about potholders, I don't think I could do it. But I could write ten jokes about Catholicism in the next twenty minutes. I guess I'm drawn to religion because I can be provocative without harming something people really care about, like their cars."
-George Meyer, Simpsons writer

Link didn't work.

Well, that's not strictly true. You did say, ironically enough, in the Intellectual Dishonesty thread, that not following God's plan would doom a marriage to failure from the start.If you've changed your mind on this, that's cool. But if you could clarify, I'd appreciate it. If it's what both people want, I have no problem with two consenting adults finding happiness through the Bible's marriage-outline.I also have no problem with two consenting adults finding happiness through a marriage based around 24/7 BDSM. I can't say I think it'd be the healthiest way to go through one's whole life, but hey... whatever works for them.We've heard quite a bit on marriage... I'm not looking to abandon it, but can anyone point us to the Bible's good advice on sex and love? We haven't heard from asciikerr yet... any word on that?

---

"If I had to write ten jokes about potholders, I don't think I could do it. But I could write ten jokes about Catholicism in the next twenty minutes. I guess I'm drawn to religion because I can be provocative without harming something people really care about, like their cars."
-George Meyer, Simpsons writer

I told you, I just think things are moving too fast.

Wait... so a healthy attitude toward marriage is to treat the husband as teacher and the wife as student?I just want to make sure this is what you're saying.

---

"If I had to write ten jokes about potholders, I don't think I could do it. But I could write ten jokes about Catholicism in the next twenty minutes. I guess I'm drawn to religion because I can be provocative without harming something people really care about, like their cars."
-George Meyer, Simpsons writer

General question:Even if we assume that a marriage needs a leader to avoid chaos, that there must be a specific pecking order or the marriage will fall into unholy chaos, what automatically makes the husband fit for this role?Are you guys actually saying that you've never seen a couple where the wife was smarter than the husband?

I already read this, and responded to it in the first post. What's more is, I didn't ask when it started, I asked why it's automatically deserved.

---

"If I had to write ten jokes about potholders, I don't think I could do it. But I could write ten jokes about Catholicism in the next twenty minutes. I guess I'm drawn to religion because I can be provocative without harming something people really care about, like their cars."
-George Meyer, Simpsons writer

I'm still wondering what specially qualifies the man for this leadership role. Again... not how it started, but what qualifies every single man, and disqualifies every single woman. Asking again... have you honestly never seen a marriage where the wife is simply smarter than the husband?And I'm also still wondering what excellent advice the Bible has on sex and love. There sure are situations like this. There are also situations where a woman chafes in a situation where the man calls all the shots, or thrives in a situation where she is expected to do so, and situations where no one calls the shots; it's a group effort, and situations where there is no woman or no man because it's a same-sex marriage, and my goodness, every last kind of marriage conceivable is out there if you look for it.Some of any given type succeed, while others of the same type fail. What's your point?This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 10-20-2004 02:40 PM

---

"If I had to write ten jokes about potholders, I don't think I could do it. But I could write ten jokes about Catholicism in the next twenty minutes. I guess I'm drawn to religion because I can be provocative without harming something people really care about, like their cars."
-George Meyer, Simpsons writer

Asciikerr. Seriously now. I'm not asking for how it started, or who said it should be the case. I'm asking what about men qualifies them for the role. What inherent quality is there in men that is lacking in women that makes us especially qualified for leadership. So why on Earth should any person submit to someone who isn't as smart as they are? And this is good advice how, exactly?I can't conceive of a more piss-poor attitude toward sex. "All those impulses you got going on? They are bad. Wicked. Naughty. Sinful. So stamp them down, quick."

---

"If I had to write ten jokes about potholders, I don't think I could do it. But I could write ten jokes about Catholicism in the next twenty minutes. I guess I'm drawn to religion because I can be provocative without harming something people really care about, like their cars."
-George Meyer, Simpsons writer

Gee, I figured we were so obsessed with sex was because it's one of the two driving impulses behind life, alongside survival.But hey, let's fix that with nigh-on masochistic levels of repression. Fabulous idea. While we're at it, let's carefully monitor our thoughts to avoid any desire for shelter or food. If you find yourself getting chilly or hungry, just remind yourself that you are a horrible person for thinking these things, and those desires will melt away in no time.

---

"If I had to write ten jokes about potholders, I don't think I could do it. But I could write ten jokes about Catholicism in the next twenty minutes. I guess I'm drawn to religion because I can be provocative without harming something people really care about, like their cars."
-George Meyer, Simpsons writer

1) What are you basing this on? Have you seen footage of Woodstock?2) So? People are less repressed. Good for them. No, you're advocating the elimination of all but one of our sexual desires. Why's that? Even if we assume that you should only have sex with your spouse, (which I think is crap) why shouldn't you want to have sex with someone else?Moreover, how exactly is someone supposed to prevent themselves from wanting something without resorting to the previously mentioned masochistic repression?

---

"If I had to write ten jokes about potholders, I don't think I could do it. But I could write ten jokes about Catholicism in the next twenty minutes. I guess I'm drawn to religion because I can be provocative without harming something people really care about, like their cars."
-George Meyer, Simpsons writer

And you are basing this statement on...?Seriously, guy. What, specifically, about each gender equips them for these roles? Well that would certainly vary from person to person, wouldn't it? I have no reason to doubt that she would. And your wife's desires are representative of the three billion-odd women on the planet because...? And now imagine a military that followed an utterly inept bumbler of a commander-in-chief. Oh wait, you don't have to... just check out the paper. I believe the words "catastrophic" and "quagmire" are being thrown around a lot.It's good to see that you consider marriage akin to a military dynamic, though. Personally, I have no desire to make women drop and gimme thirty.

---

"If I had to write ten jokes about potholders, I don't think I could do it. But I could write ten jokes about Catholicism in the next twenty minutes. I guess I'm drawn to religion because I can be provocative without harming something people really care about, like their cars."
-George Meyer, Simpsons writer

Animals no, same sex sure, prostitution sure, and adultery is fine in an open marriage, as long as you're not betraying your partner's trust.So almost across the board, sure I can see benefit in them. If it makes the person happy without hurting anyone, there's a benefit. Animals don't fly simply because animals are too stupid to give consent. Hang on, I can't possibly be reading this right. It seems like you're saying, "Nobody is saying you should repress these, as long as they're not these." Oh, is that what I'm doing? It's a good thing you're here to tell me.This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 10-21-2004 03:04 PM

---

"If I had to write ten jokes about potholders, I don't think I could do it. But I could write ten jokes about Catholicism in the next twenty minutes. I guess I'm drawn to religion because I can be provocative without harming something people really care about, like their cars."
-George Meyer, Simpsons writer

My views are summed up pretty easily: don't be a dick.Treat anyone else with the basic level of respect you'd like for yourself. As long as you're not bringing harm to another person, do what you gotta to make yourself happy.Radical idea, I know.

---

"If I had to write ten jokes about potholders, I don't think I could do it. But I could write ten jokes about Catholicism in the next twenty minutes. I guess I'm drawn to religion because I can be provocative without harming something people really care about, like their cars."
-George Meyer, Simpsons writer