Skip to content

Miniblog #322: There Are Consequences to Sexually Rejecting Your Spouse

by Carson T. Clark on March 2, 2014

A lot of people may assume that a blog post about the consequences of sexually rejecting your spouse may be directed, whether implicitly or explicitly, primarily at women. Those people would be wrong.11.And need to spend more time at Musings of a Hardlining Moderate. Not a whole lot of people talk about it because there’s this idiotic societal assumption that men are sexually hot and women are sexually cold, but this problem definitely goes in both directions. That being said, of course a husband or wife has the right to say, “No.” Of course. No spouse should ever be pressured or forced into have sex without his or her full consent.22.Trust me. As one who was repeatedly raped as a child, I as much as anyone am opposed to a culture of marital rape. At the same time (not “But”), we have to be honest and realistic. All of our behaviors in this world have consequences and one’s marriage certainly is no exception. If anything the consequences of one’s behavior are magnified within marriage.3.Behavioral choices have real relational consequences. So it should be unsurprising that there are consequences for a person in sexually rejecting his or her spouse all or most of the time. They may appear small at first but will snowball with time.4.Frankly, I think that’s exactly what St. Paul taught. “But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. This I say by way of concession, not of command.” – 1 Corinthians 7:2-6 Having sex is the primary act that distinguishes roommates from spouses. To remove the sexual union, especially when it’s not by mutual consent and/or extenuating circumstances, is to seriously harm the relationship. Acknowledging that is not coercion nor is it a threat. It’s a plain acknowledgment of fact.3 It’s like saying if you rarely go to work it will have an impact on your employment. For a christian couple, sex is the primary and distinguishing act that renews a couple’s marital covenant. It provides unity of body, heart, mind, and spirit. Like a garden without water, a marriage without the replenishment of sex begins to wither. Trust is destroyed, love grows cold, and, though we’re always responsible for our actions, it creates a certain vulnerability.4 Dry spells happen. That’s life. But over time a dry spell turns into a drought and a drought turns into a desert.55.And, just to point out the obvious, it takes a helluva lot of consistent water to reverse the process of desertification. Where am I going with all this? It seems to me a lot of evangelical men and women who reject their spouses all or most of the time don’t understand the depth of the consequences of their decision. In the moment each small decision doesn’t seem like a big deal, but over time they add up and undermine the marriage’s health.

  • PercyDovetonsils

    This is absolutely spot-on. We are so invested in our freedom, our free will and our “rights”, we forget that we are not free from the consequences of our free will.

%d bloggers like this: