What I Believe

July 17, 2013

in ~ list info

Every so often, I get comments or emails showing me I’m not accurately communicating what I mean to some of my readers. Addressing this by email is effective, but inefficient. Addressing it in the comments usually ends up in arguments. A couple of times I have resorted to making a clarifying post. A post is a better option, but then the same thing comes up again a few months later.

Suddenly it was clear to me; I need a “What I Believe” page. I will add to it as needed, and point to it when questions arise. This is a far better way to deal with this, and it should avoid claims I’m changing what I am saying. The post below will be my starting place. Feel free to ask questions or ask what I think about something in the comments; this will help me find other things I need to add. I may add some references, but that will take time. I also reserve the right to change my mind as I continue to grow and learn. If I make significant changes, I will cross out what was there, and add my new thinking. I won’t do this for simple clarifications that are not changes of what I believe.

In all things charity

First a couple of thoughts on reasons for confusion:

We all see through our own filters – what we value, our past, our theology, and so on. If I’m wearing a blue shirt and you are wearing yellow tinted glasses, you’ll perceive me to be wearing a green shirt. Nothing I say will change what you perceive, and as long as you are unaware of your tinted glasses, you will wonder what’s wrong with me for saying I am wearing a blue shirt. Of course, I have filters too, so maybe I think my blue shirt is green, and again you wonder what’s wrong with me.

We all use words differently. Dictionary definitions are all well and good, but they may not match how an individual uses a word. My father used “a couple” to mean “two or three”. He did this because it was common in his family growing up. I understood that when he said, “a couple”, he meant two or three, but when my mother said “a couple” she always meant two. I used to use couple as he did, but I realised it was confusing to most folks so I worked to change. My bride tells me it’s now very rare I do this. I’m aware I have “unconventional” meanings for other words, and I try to avoid using those words here to mean anything other than what most would understand. This is particularly tricky since people around the world read this blog, and for some English is a second or third language.

Language is fluid, and where one grows up, where one lives, and how old we are all changes the meanings we have for words. Before I moved to Washington, I would have been confused if someone asked, “Where is your rig” because no one used that term for a vehicle in Austin. Here it’s common, and I have adjusted – first to understanding what it means, and eventually even using it myself. Another example would be “thongs”: when I was a kid that was a common and acceptable word for flip-flops. Then there’s an eighty something British friend I have who still refers to cats by a word we associate with the female genitals. It’s rather funny to hear her call out loudly in her lovely accent “Where is the pussy?”

What I Believe

Basic Theology

  • We are all sinners. On our own merit, we would all end in hell, but Jesus died for our sins and rose again, defeating death. By accepting His sacrifice and confessing Him as Lord, we gain have eternal life.
  • Why someone does something never frees them from guilt, consequences, or the need to repent; however, understanding why someone does something can show ways to help them change.
  • We are always to look at ourselves first – to remove the log from our eye before we attempt to remove the speck from the eye of another.
  • We are to prefer others – especially our spouse.
  • God’s forgiveness and grace to us can be limited by our unwillingness to offer the same to other people.

Men & Women

  • God made men and women co-heirs, equal in worth and value.
  • God gave men and women different abilities, strengths, and weaknesses. These vary some from person to person, but many things fall along gender lines to a greater or lesser extent.
  • Neither men nor women are inherently better or worse.
  • Neither men nor women are inherently godlier. I do believe women are more open to spiritual things (see “Nones” on the Rise), both those of God and counterfeits. This means women as a whole are more likely to be spiritually involved and connected to something. [NOTE: Some recent studies bring this into question, more study needed.]
  • Women, as a whole, have more of their brain devoted to communication than men do. Women also have more of their brain devoted to empathy. This makes relationship more important to women as a whole. This doesn’t make them better at relationship, especially cross gender relationship.
  • Women are more likely to bring up relationship problems, and more likely to press for the problems to be resolved. (Need to add a reference from Gottman here.)


  • God created us with a need to have a spouse. Some have the “gift of celibacy” and don’t need a spouse, but they are the minority.
  • Marriage is a covenant, not a contract. Most in the West have no idea what covenant really is, and this cripples our ability to understand marriage as God intended it.
  • God places great importance on marriage. Many in the church today neither understand nor live this.
  • God’s plan for marriage is one man and one woman, married for life.
  • While God hates divorce, there are a few allowances for it. Sexual sin allows divorce and remarriage. Abandonment allows for divorce, and depending on how you read it may or may not allow for remarriage.
  • In the Old Testament God made allowances due to the hardness of men’s hearts. This is why divorce for any cause and multiples wives were allowed.
  • God made husbands servant leaders, with Jesus as our example. Men lead for the benefit of their wives, not for their own benefit.
  • Leadership always carries a heavier responsibility and price than following.


  • God didn’t create women with significantly less sexual interest than men.
  • Men and women’s sexuality are different. Women have a greater sexual capacity than men do, but they are much more easily distracted or put off sex. Most men can separate sex and emotion, while most women cannot.
  • Life begins when egg and sperm join. This means it’s acceptable to prevent egg and sperm from joining, while preventing a fertilised egg from implanting is murder. [NOTE: I base this on what I see as the only logical point for life to start from a scientific standpoint – I can’t back it with scripture. While I don’t agree with those who believe life begins when a fertilise egg implants, I can’t make an iron clad scriptural case they are wrong. Once implanted, aborting the foetus is murder – period.]
  • I think masturbation in marriage should be limited, and only done if the spouse is unavailable, unable, or unwilling. However, I can’t find any way to make masturbation sin without doing harm to the integrity of God’s Word, and if it’s not sin I’m not qualified to say it is wrong.
  • I see all porn use to be a violation of the marriage covenant.
  • I find nothing in the Bible preventing a couple from engaging in manual or oral sex.
  • I have health concerns about anal sex, but can’t find a prohibition in the Bible.
  • Sexual refusal, meaning often refusing to have sex without a compelling reason (pain, illness, total exhaustion), is contrary to scripture and thus sin.


  • Church as we practice it has very little similarity to what was practised in the first century. This doesn’t make what we do evil or wrong, but it does make it tricky to apply what the Bible says about church to what most Westerners think when they hear the word “church”.
  • Our family is our first “mission field”. If we don’t have our marriage in good shape, we are prohibited from any form of ministry.
  • The church is supposed to be “in each other’s business”. Accountability and discipling are not optional according to the Bible.

The Past

  • I have lived long enough to see things I lived through become “history” and I know much of what is said is skewed, while some is flat-out wrong (by accident or intentional lies). Because of this, I assume much of what I’m told about “how things use to be” is less than accurate. When people talk about how things use to be, or “The good old days” they are usually describing an idealised version that may not have much to do with reality.
  • In the past, Christians used the Bible to defend slavery and the crusades. “Good Christians” in the past were convinced the world was flat, or that the sun revolved around the earth, and they managed to twist scriptures to “prove” such things. The fact something was commonly accepted by Christians in the past does not mean it was or is correct.

Links may be monetised
Image Credit: © Ke77kz | Dreamstime.com

Shop AmazonShop to give links page
We are donation supported – thanks for your help!

Romance Man @ CrackingTheRomanceCode.com
Romance Man @ CrackingTheRomanceCode.com


Thank you for being willing to put yourself on the line about your basic beliefs.  It is refreshing to see a person who is working to help marriages as you are. I have followed your emails and blogging for several years.   

TheGenerousHusband moderator

@Romance Man Thanks for the kind words. 

After 16 years I do pretty well standing my ground. The biggest concern for me is getting to the place where I don't hear something I need to in an argument. I've found some good truth in angry rebuttals, but it is difficult to do that because of the emotions. I know I don't have all truth, and I don't ever want to fall into that trap!

TheGenerousHusband moderator

@THusband Nice - I understand our difference - and I don't think is it that great.

I would not disagree with how you stated it, and I may modify what said to incorporate that.

My ultimate goal is to lead my life, and my marriage, according to God's will. 

You say women won't feel loved until they submit. I have no personal experience with that since Lori has always submitted to me. What I see in the Bible is that Jesus loved us first, and that resulted in us following Him. I assume our wives are the same way - our love causes them to want to follow us. 

That said, rebellion is certainly going to prevent one from feeling loved, so I can see validity in your point. However, I think a lot of rebellion by wives is fear based, and if the fear can be addressed I suspect the rebellion is greatly reduced.

The "easy" answer it that a man is unwise to marry a woman who is rebellious, or unable to feel love. But that is not much help for those married and dealing with the situation. 

I think many of these situations are, in part, made worse by a man who does not lead and love as he should from the start. Resentment builds, and by the time he is really aware it has gotten ugly. At that point does he try to fix things by focusing on loving or leading? Again, I see God's example being to love, to draw us close. Additionally, I have seen this work - men start to love their wives, and she responded (as God made her to). She softens, she loves back, and she starts to follow. No, it does not always work, and other things may work, but from what I've seen it is the most likely path to a better, more godly marriage - submission and all.

TheGenerousHusband moderator


You are probably referring to the fact that Lori said no to sex in the past. However, it is not that simple. My wife had been sexually abused, raped, and hurt in many other ways sexually. I KNEW THAT going into marriage, and I commited to working through it. She said no the first few times I asked her to marry me, her reason being "I don't want to hurt you." When I assured her we could make it work I was agreeing to be loving and patient. I set off some of my "rights" because of my love for her.

I don't know what would have happened if I had ever demanded sex. Given her past, doing that would have been the equivalent of rape, so I would not have done it. I can say that when I let her know my need was significant she made an extreme effort to do something for me sexually, and within a couple of years I knew that "I need it bad" would get me something ASAP. I did not abuse that, but I was honest with her. respected her injuries, and she respected my needs.

I understood why my wife said no, and I understood the harm it would have done to her, our marriage, and our future sex life is she did not. I also watched her fight with all she had to resolve her past so she could say yes more and more often. What she did was one of the bravest things I have ever seen.

I choose to give her the right to say no when she felt she needed to. To put it bluntly, my wife has always been more important to me than my penis. Yes, I was deeply frustrated at times, but I had committed to the journey. I did not want her to ever say yes when it was going to cost her too much, and she knew that.

If you want to call her saying no disobedient you may, but I do not, and I do not think God sees it that way. I think it would have been wrong for her to say yes when doing so was going to hurt her very badly. I didn't want her to EVER do that, no matter how much I wanted sex. She honoured me in that, she was obedient in that. Probably the most "disobedient" thing she ever did was saying yes when I would have had her say no if I understood what it cost her. Basically she was willing to hurt more than I was willing for her to hurt (that's love both ways!). As I got better at knowing her I didn't ask when it would have been very bad for her, and it became a none issue.

I agree with you that God is a God of order, power, judgement, and so on, HOWEVER we are told "GOD IS LOVE" not God is any of those other things. I think there is a profound truth in that. We are also told that the greatest commandments are to love God and love others - again, love is the number one thing. Our love must be foremost, or all the rest become horrible things. I am not accusing YOU of lacking love or doing horrible things, but I fear the balance you promote will lead others to a place where they are out of God's will.

Paul is clear, without love, we are nothing, Without love, nothing else matters. We should put more focus on love than anything else, and more work on loving that anything else. When we learn to love as God commands, the rest falls into place. When we fail to love as God commands, other things get out of balance.

TheGenerousHusband moderator

@THusband - I'm going to reply to these in chunks, starting with the sexual issues (and I look forward to the debate!):

Sexual Refusal: Yes, it is very different than bait and switch. That said, I suspect bait and switch is less common than mismatched and uncommunicative expectations. If she expects that in a year or two sex will occur once or twice a week, and she remains willing to do that, then she has done what she thought she was promising. I would argue her unspoken promise did not line up with the Bible, but it was not an intentional lie. The solution is not to accuse her of a lie when she knows she did not lie, that just causes needless hard feelings. The truth without assumptions about why the other does what they do is always a better option.

BTW: This could be resolved by better premarital counselling. Sex needs to be discussed before marriage, and expectations (his, hers and GOD'S need to be clarified.

Sexual desire: I did not say sex drive, I said sexual interest. We tend to think of "drive" as the physical desire/need for sex/release, but there is far than just the physical that drives people to sex. In women the primary drives are more about thought and feeling, and as such they are more easily disturbed by stress, tiredness,  marital frustration, lack of relationship, and so on.

When I was engaged an older friend of mine told me "If you treat a woman right, you will be unable to keep up with her sexually." I have found he is right. A woman who feels good about herself and her marriage is almost always ready, and often such a woman will want more than her husband wantws - or can do! I realise this is a rare thing in our day and age, but I've seen it often enough to believe it is not simply an anomaly.

TheGenerousHusband moderator

@THusband "I'm not saying God is a God of order, judgement, etc in exclusion to love"

No argument from me at all. Much of what is called love today is not. Refusing to tell someone they are in sin because you don't want to hurt their feelings is not love. Supporting a friend no matter what they do is not love. Silently putting up with garbage from your spouse is not love. The truth in love is both truth and love. Minus either, it is not what God called us to do.

However, I don't think there is anything to be gained from telling someone they are in sin over, and over, and over. It is the job of the Holy Spirit to bring conviction, and I fear some of us (I was guilty of it in the past) have a habit of getting in God's way. If we keep nagging someone about their sin, they get angry, and that is just a distraction. Tell them they are in sin, tell them why, then let God work on them. I have never seen Mt 18 as something you knock out in a few hours - there needs to be time to reflect, time to hear God.

I use to think I was suppose to make people change. I occasionally signed emails with "Paul - God's blunt instrument". I eventually realised I was not doing God will, I was making myself look and feel important at the expense of others. I will not go so far as to assume I was once as you are now, but please understand I was more that way than I am now, and I moved because God showed me I was doing it wrong. Perhaps you did the same, but from the other side. Maybe we are moving to the same point from different directions. The direction of moment is not what is important, rather where we are going.

TheGenerousHusband moderator

@THusband "Your believing nice is the ultimate goal or way to show love in all situations or most situations (I saw your post today)"

Niceness: I am close to hating what that has come to mean. It's right up there with "fairness" as distortions of the Word of God that are castrating the Truth. I wonder if we should rewrite the verse in Revelation to "but because you are nice I will spew you out of My mouth!"

As you say, nice often has nothing to do with love. It is greasy grace, fear of offending, and being more interested in having friends (or a lot of church members) than speaking the truth of God.

As to my post today, the nice version is to never try to fix. I said, I disagree with that. However, trying to fix without first doing what will allow your wife to hear you is a waste of time at best, and hardly wise.

I suppose trying to understand someone so you can better minster to them is "nice" but I see it more as a matter of wisdom and good stewardship of my time. While I am not driven entirely by results, results are certainly important, and they are a great way to measure our technique. If I can learn a way to reach the lost that results in more getting saved, I think that is a very good thing. The "nice" version of the salvation message is the whole seeker sensitive approach, which I don't see as resulting in many getting saved. On the other side, the whole fire and brimstone approach also have a rather poor success rate today. It may once have been the best way (I don't know) but is not now. Using either of those methods will likely get some saved, but it will fail with many who would respond to a different message. 

I see Paul considering his audience and changing his approach accordingly. I think we should do the same in all areas, including marriage.

Much of what you see as niceness in what I say about marriage is about learning to understand our wives so we can better lead, protect, and encourage them. To some degree this will vary from couple to couple, and there are always those who have a great marriage doing things that would drive other couples to divorce or murder!

TheGenerousHusband moderator

@THusband "Your assumption that women are more relational are concerned more, and are more intrested in spiritual things."

I will explain what I mean and why. Do with it what you will.

More relational: Women put more time and effort into relationship that man do. Men usually have more friends than women, but women's friendship are deeper quantity and quality if you will. I see that are more relational, but I suppose it could be seen as just different.

More concerned: That women have more brain devoted to relations is a biologic fact. That more brain means more about that thing seems like a logical conclusion to me.

Women are far more likely to bring up relational problems than men are (Gottman says this based on years of lab work, I need to find the reference.) To me this means relationship problem are of greater concern to women. Men bring up sex more often because that. is a greater concern to them, women bring up relationship issues more often because that is a greater concern to them. Q.E.D.

Spiritual: You will see I made a note on that indicating I need to study it more in light of some things I have read recently. I have always thought women were more open to spiritual things, be they God or otherwise. I may have been wrong about that. Regardless I do not think women are more holy or godly than men.

TheGenerousHusband moderator

@THusband "Church: We've feminized it. <snip> You make your assumptions on women being more spiritual/church attendance but don't take into account any of the backstory."

There are more women because men have left. You say men have left because the church has become feminised, but that would mean the feminisation started when men were still there. For most of history men have had all the power and control in church, and even today that is the case for most, even when there are more women.

I think the church has become more feminine because men have left, not vice versa. I suspect both have happened some, and I don't know that either of us can prove that one is greater than the other.

All that aside, why have men left? If they were "driven out" they were not so manly, were they? The bottom line is we have abdicated, and we are paying the price. Blaming women for what happened when we left is seems to me like blaming the horse for running off when we leave the barn door open. It might make us feel better, but it's not going to change anything.

If a man does not like the way a church is running he can work to change it, move to another church, or just drop out of church. I don't see the third as an option for a man after God's heart. Those men who have left church have shown something about themselves.

TheGenerousHusband moderator

@THusband Hold on! The "treat them right" was not my words. What I said was "A woman who feels good about herself and her marriage." While there is some overlap, the two are very different things, and much of what I said has NOTHING to do with the husband.

Most women have a very negative body image and a negative view of sex. They come into marriage with this, so their husband is in no way to blame. I find that most men are pretty clueless about this and make matters worse out of ignorance, but that is not causing the problem. Unfortunately the small bit they add becomes the focus, and the wife is likely to believe (wrongly) that most of all of it is his fault.

I do believe a man can do a great deal to help move his wife to a place where she can change this, but it is her choice. Her fears, her sins, and her pride will all need to be dealt with before she will change.

Additionally, just do it often works. If a woman can have sex more often without feeling deeply wronged, it usually results in a growing appreciation of, and then enjoyment of and desire for sex.

Lori and I have talked to many women who want more sex than their husband. Some of those are married to men who have problems (ED, premature ejaculation, low testosterone, would rather masturbate to porn), but plenty of them are having sex three to five times a week and say they would do it twice a day if time and hubby allowed. I do NOT think this is an impossible goal.

Aside from those women, there are plenty of others who are up for as much sex as their husband. I don't just mean willing to do it, I mean excited to do it.

I do not think God set us up for sexual frustration in marriage. I think he gave us different but complimentary sex drives. The problems come when one or both spouses get their sexuality messed up.

Support for the above? 1 Cor 7 does not just say women cannot refuse, it says men cannot refuse. Unless God was padding for length, I think that means something significant. Then there is the bit to Timothy where Paul assumes widows under 60 will be so desirous of sex they will renege on a pledge of chastity to server the Lord. Paul clearly thought women had very healthy sex drives.

As to Lori and I, there are times she wants to that I would not have asked. Because neither of us says no, we have more sex than either of us would seek - and we are fine with that.

TheGenerousHusband moderator

@THusband "It's like your women work far, far harder comment."

Okay, about that - I finally made time to do some searching. What I said was "Numerous studies have found that the average "house wife" does far more work than her husband." While that is technically correct, it does not seem to be current. Men are doing more and more housework, and women are doing less, and that is brining the total hours worked closer. (see http://read.bi/195NJjX) I've seen claims that SAHM moms do more work than their husbands, and the reverse, but none of these has good sources to back what they say. (BTW, the study I mentioned above put total hours worked per week for SHM at 97!)

You have not confirmed the source of the study you mentioned, but I found one that matched it - when both spouses work outside the home the husband is doing 2% more total work than the wife. I'd put that within the margin of error, but clearly the women are not doing more.

So yes, my data was out of date and wrong. I apology for that, and I'm sorry it took me so long to research it.


@AnYa494 @TheGenerousHusband @THusband I do see a difference between drive and desire--but regardless of whiich word works better, my husband has informed me that he can't keep up with me. At this point in our marriage, my husband would be content with two or three times a week, while I would prefer two or three times a day.


I intentionally spoke specifically of myself and the current situation within our marriage. I never implied that my experience is the norm--for the very reasons you indicate.

However, my experience does provide another point of view in response to your statement, "To say that a female would EVER have a greater drive than a man is a flat out lie. " There are marriages in which the wife is the higher-drive spouse and is refused by her husband. Blanket statements can be as damaging to those women and their husbands as if I had presented my situation as normal.


My desire for my husband was low for many years due to some other relationship problems--but my drive for sexual release has been fairly high for most of my life. I don't know what my husband's drive was early in our marriage because my gate-keeping and refusing began relatively early and I don't know that he was ever sated enough to know what his natural drive was. For that matter, it is possible that I don't know what my natural drive for release was, either, although even during our times of greater frequency, there was usually solo activity on my part because our shared frequency wasn't enough.

I'm seeing Paul's message a bit differently than you--certainly through the lenses of my own experience. What I'm seeing him say is that when husbands treat their wives well (based on the individual woman's needs, not on society's views of what that mean), he creates a space in which she can feel free to stretch into her natural drive. He makes the case that women can be higher drive than men and shows that at times in history, this has been the perception. I wasn't reading it as that higher sex drive has anything to do with feminism or superiority--but as I said, I'm reading through my own set of lenses (bifocals, to be specific--I'm past childbearing).

TheGenerousHusband moderator

@THusband @TheGenerousHusband If you don;'t care much about something, you are happy to live with it being broken. If you care, you are more likely to fight, and to move on. Think of the American revolution, think of the people leaving churches, this is how people act.

I'm not justifying women leaving marriage without cause, which is the case most of the time. But because relationship is so important to them, they are less willing to continue in a broken relationship.

TheGenerousHusband moderator

@THusband @TheGenerousHusband I agreed with his general point, then refined it. Do what you want with that, I don't care to defend how I communicate.

No, it is not most women, not in our society. There are societies where it is true, which suggests that it could be here.

TheGenerousHusband moderator

@THusband @TheGenerousHusband So it is dangerous and unscriptural to suggest women might have been created with a strong sexuality? I'd like to hear why you feel that way, but I respect your need to end our discussion.

Go in peace.

TheGenerousHusband moderator

@AnYa494 @TheGenerousHusband @THusband I wonder if you are really reading what I am writing?

I never said women had a stronger PHYSICAL drive, but sexual desire is far more than physical. This is not a "cop-out" it is a fact.

As to the rest, you were right down "The sexual drive is fueled by testosterone." Sex drive is not dose correlated to T levels!

In men once you get to the minimum needed for normal sexual function, adding more does nothing to increase a man's drive. 

In women the situation is even more complex. Giving women T over the minimum needed does not increase their amount of sex with a partner, but it does result in more masturbation. I've seen some pretty good evidence to support the theory that female physical drive is based on the ratio of T to progesterone. This model explains the changes in drive over a woman's cycle, including the stronger drive many women have just before menstruation. It also explains the increased drive in the 40's, and why some women have a strong drive after menopause.

And again, sexual desire is far more than just the physical drive. The physical is a vital part of the whole, especially for men, but it is just a part.

A study done of men who lost their testicles in WWII (before we could supplement T) found that most who were married prior to the war continued to have sex after they returned home. Men who were not married prior to losing their testicles almost all became sexless. The married men were having sex based on something other than a physical drive, something related to their relationship with their wife.

I am not trying to confuse the differences between the sexes - I say a great deal about those differences here (see the gender-diffs tag). Yes, we are different, yes God gave us different functions, purposes, strengthens and weaknesses. I am ALL about that truth. But I am all about truth in general, and when the fact show that my understanding is flawed, I follow the facts so I can find the truth.

TheGenerousHusband moderator

@AnYa494 @ForgivenWife @TheGenerousHusband @THusband "But I believe there is danger in trying to identify your especially high drive/desire as the "normal" because it's simply not"

You state that as a fact, but you offer no evidence (other than the women you know).

I would agree it is not the norm in the USofA today, but that does not make it truth. Beliefs shape reality, and we can only find truth by being willing to examine our beliefs. False beliefs can do horrible things: many Jews at the time of Christ missed the Messiah because they wrongly believed that Messiah would come to overthrow the Romans.

Is there a danger of making women feel like less because they do not have a strong sexual desire (or maybe do that have repressed it)? Yes, there is. We need to understand that and deal with that, not tell hide the truth. Please let's not use the least common denominator thinking that is so common in our schools here!

TheGenerousHusband moderator

@AnYa494 @ForgivenWife "Paul is teaching that if we treat women properly, they should have a higher drive."

What Paul is saying is that women who feel good about their sexuality and their marriages generally have much greater sexual desire than women who do not. Her husband being loving is certainly a part of her feeling that way, but there is far more to it - as I have clarified a couple of times now.

I have not said emotions are the only thing that fuels sex. Sex is fueled by a complex set of things. In men the physical drive is usually the strongest, but it is not the only thing. In women the physical drive is it rarely the primary thing, but it is a part.

My guess is that God gave us different drives that compliment each other. We can each learn from the other, and gain from the strengths of the other. The end result is a beautiful thing.

TheGenerousHusband moderator

@AnYa494 @ForgivenWife "The teaching that women should have a higher drive than men is just buying into the modern feminism movement that women are again, superior to men."

I don't see how some women having a stronger sex drive would make them superior, but if you think that is so, then I understand why you must strongly oppose any suggestion that women can have a strong sex drive. In my mind your premise is wrong, and the rest flows from that. 

In the middle ages when it was common to think women had a greater drive, they were criticised as having less control and being more ruled by their bodies than their minds. A stronger drive made them worse, not better.

A Heart to Know
A Heart to Know

Fantastic idea - you're a wise man!  Thanks for sharing.

Other possible topics...  Law vs. grace and the purpose of the law?  Beliefs about submission?  God's purpose for marriage?  Men's vs. women's roles in marriage?

On a side note (in it's own post), it would be great to hear your beliefs about what good spiritual leadership and headship look like.

Previous post:

Next post: