Skip to main content

How Often Should Married Couples Have Sex?

In my last post I commented on 1 Corinthians 7:1-16. In the first half of the passage Paul answers a query as to whether or not married couples should completely abstain from sex. In Roman culture, sex within marriage was not primarily about pleasure, it was about procreation. For men pleasure was pursued outside of marriage. However, for Paul, marriage was the only appropriate context for sex. Paul goes on to argue that, except for brief periods of prayer, couples should not abstain from sex, and to each spouse he grants sexual rights to the other's body.

Paul never gets specific, though. How often should married couples have sex? Part of me doesn't even want to attempt to discuss the question. I'm a man, and while I know how often I'd like to have sex, I don't know what the sexual experience of women is like. It seems likely to me that it's a much more deeply personal and vulnerable activity, having another person inside of you. Also, I think we need to appreciate that Paul's answer, that both the husband and the wife have ownership was a deeply counter-cultural statement that empowered women. Women were the sexual property of their husbands, and now he made their husbands their property.

Obviously, too, there is no one size fits all answer to this question. Drive varies by age, time of year, how long you've been married, time of day, stress levels, and a myriad of other factors. However, it is usually the case that one spouse has more drive than the other. How do you navigate that?

First, owning the other's body means that you have power over them, that you have rights. How did Jesus use his rights? He laid them down to serve the other. Ethics are all about how you use the power in your relationships for the good of the other. In this case, I believe that the individual with more drive should bear the brunt of the sacrifice and lay down their right to have sex with their spouse. Of course the person with less drive should, in love, make every effort to be accommodating, and like Paul, I would suggest that long stretches without sex are not advisable. However, I still believe the onus is on the person with the greater drive to lay down their rights for the sake of their spouse and in that way follow the example of Jesus who gave up all for our sake.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Commentary Series Overview

When I write commentary reviews, one of my main goals is to assess how well the commentator hit the intended audience of the commentary and utilized the format of the commentary. This often necessitates cluttering up the post discussing issues of format. To eliminate that, I thought that I would make some general remarks about the format and audience of each of the series that appear in my reviews. Terms like liberal, conservative, etc. are not used pejoratively but simply as descriptors. Many of you are familiar with Jeremy Pierce's commentary series overview. If you don't see a particular series covered here, check out his post to see if it's reviewed there. I am making no attempt at covering every series, just the series that I use. Additionally, new series (such as the NCCS) have been started in the five years since he wrote his very helpful guide, so I thought that it might not be completely out of order to have another person tackle commentary series overviews. This…

Paul's Argument in Galatians 3:15-29

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! Fo…

Doctor Who: Rose Tyler - Traitor?

The end of season four was very, very controversial. When I first saw it, I felt cheated. I was angry. The more I think about it, the more I think I see what Russell Davies was doing. He is too good of a writer and the show is too carefully crafted for him to screw up Rose's character and the end of a four season storyline. So while the ending isn't strictly part of our series, it is tangentially related, and I've agonized over that scene in Bad Wolf Bay so much that I have to write about it. :)

To briefly set things up, near the end of the final episode of season four, there is a meta-crisis, that results in a part human. part Time Lord Doctor being generated. He has all of the Doctor's memories, and thinks and acts like the Doctor. However, importantly, he only has one heart and cannot regenerate. He only has one life to live. The meta-crisis Doctor brought full resolution to the battle fought against the Daleks, and in the process, wiped them out. Thus, the real Doc…