Debunking the Myth that “Marital Sex Is Not A Solution For Lust”

Bnonn & Foster sent out their latest newsletter yesterday titled, “Notes on manhood 2021 week #25″. In it they revealed that they’re still just as stunted in their views of biblical sexuality as your standard Christian feminist:

Let us leave behind magic numbers, and move onto wise principles for knowing whether a couple is ready for marriage. Here are five: (…) 5. Focus on training your sons and daughters to harness their sexual energy towards productive ends. So much of the young marriage stuff is motivated by parents who think their children can’t overcome lust and stay chaste into their early 20s. But marrying young is not a solution for this. Sex does not cure lust; it merely channels sexual energy licitly. A man who has not learned to control his eyes before marriage, for instance, is not going to do any better after marriage, and is frankly not marriage material.

This kind of attitude towards marital sex can be found everywhere. At Blazing Grace, Mike Genung wrote a scathing piece on this subject, but it can be summed up with this paragraph:

Let’s address one of the most commonly used blame-darts husbands and others throw at the wife: “I act out because you’re not giving me enough sex.” You could be the most beautiful woman in the world who gave him all the sex he wanted, but that wouldn’t resolve his lust problem. Lust always leaves a man wanting more; he’s just using the emptiness of his soul to demand that you attempt to try to fill that void with marital sex, which, it never will. Marital sex is intimate union between a man and a woman; not a sin-fix.

https://www.blazinggrace.org/its-not-your-fault/

Covenant Eyes has said this exact same thing on multiple occasions. For instance:

As I talk to more men and women who’ve gone through similar struggles, I would find men with these full-blown addictions who were working through it, and maybe even recovering, who had the most drop-dead gorgeous wives. And you know, you’d hear people say, ‘Well, if she was taking care of him in the bedroom, then he wouldn’t be out there looking.’ That is the biggest crock I’ve every heard. Because I was available to my husband, and I’ve talked to more women who say they were available to their husband, and they still do it.” (Listen to the interview here)

https://www.covenanteyes.com/2010/06/08/am-i-to-blame-for-my-husbands-porn-problem/

And for another:

Often men have the tendency to blame-shift, claiming that if you were prettier or thinner or more open to sex or less of a nag, that they wouldn’t need to turn to the fantasy that pornography provides. Even if men don’t say these things, their wives will often wonder such things about themselves. Often wives will tie their own self-worth to their husbands’ opinions of them. (…) If your husband is telling you such things, he is trying to rationalize and justify his desire for porn by shifting the blame to you. By blaming you, he protects himself from shame and avoids any suggestion he is not adequate. (…) You could be the most beautiful, supportive woman in the world and he’d still turn to porn. Remember, even Tiger Woods cheated on his supermodel wife.

https://www.covenanteyes.com/2014/01/31/common-questions-wives-porn-addicts/

This same viewpoint was expressed by Vicki Tiedi on the Theology Gals podcast at 26:49 (see here):

Coleen Sharp: “Can you just talk to the women out there who are feeling like, maybe I wasn’t having sex enough with my husband and that’s why he did it, or, they’re blaming themselves in some way.”

Vicki Tiedi: “I think that is the number one feeling that a woman has when she finds out, is that, I must not have been enough, I must not have been appealing enough, I’m not thin enough, I’m not attractive enough, I’m not performing well enough in the bedroom, or often enough, or whatever. I’m just not enough, and I can’t say strongly enough that this is not your fault. This is absolutely not your fault. In the end we are all responsible for ourselves and how we walk in obedience to God’s Word, or we don’t. And we can’t control anyone else’s choices but our own. We certainly can’t control our husband’s choices, and this has nothing to do with the size of her jeans, or her bra size, or how often she’s being intimate.”

That quote from Theology Gals was one of the reasons I sought to debate this very subject on a different podcast that was on that same network. Tiede did not participate, but Sharp did join in along with a group of men, nearly all of whom agreed with Tiede’s perspective on this subject. It’s a long debate, but if you’re up for watching it, here you are:

Heath Lambert espoused this same view in this book Finally Free:

Tom made a critical error when he confessed to his wife. After he fessed up, Tom said something foolish before either of us in the room could stop him. He commented that perhaps if she had a more active sexual relationship with him, he would not have been tempted. His wife did not take that very well. Her response was understandable because Tom’s suggestion was selfish and wrong. This kind of statement transfers the responsibility for your sin onto another person. When you sin, you are the one responsible (Mark 7:21–23). Other people can sin against you, make your life difficult, and entice you to sin, but they can never make you sin. When you sin, it is always your fault, and you should never say or do anything to make it sound like the fault lies elsewhere.

Lambert, Heath. Finally Free: Fighting for Purity with the Power of Grace (pp. 85-86). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

This belief that marital sex is not a “sin-fix” is quite common. But as you can see, it’s an emotional viewpoint. This is not a position most Christians hold because they’ve done some thorough exegesis of the relevant Scriptures on the topic. It’s because they, in their feminist zeal, want to “rescue” poor besotted women from their evil, blame-shifting husbands. Now, Bnonn & Foster aren’t being emotionally irrational in this newsletter, but they’re still just as wrong as Genung, Lambert, Sharp, Tiedi, Covenant Eyes, etc. Proverbs 6 is one of those two explicit texts that debunks this idea that marital sex is not a “sin-fix”:

Proverbs 5:3 For the lips of a forbidden woman drip honey, and her speech is smoother than oil, 4 but in the end she is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword. 5 Her feet go down to death; her steps follow the path to Sheol; 6 she does not ponder the path of life; her ways wander, and she does not know it. 7 And now, O sons, listen to me, and do not depart from the words of my mouth. 8 Keep your way far from her, and do not go near the door of her house, (…) 15 Drink water from your own cistern, flowing water from your own well. 16 Should your springs be scattered abroad, streams of water in the streets? 17 Let them be for yourself alone, and not for strangers with you. 18 Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, 19 a lovely deer, a graceful doe. Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love. 20 Why should you be intoxicated, my son, with a forbidden woman and embrace the bosom of an adulteress?

If King Solomon were discussing this subject with Christians today, many of them would sharply disagree with his “blame-shifting” rhetoric. He points to marital sex as an avenue of escape from temptation to have sex with a forbidden/adulteress woman. He even says something most of us would avoid saying in polite company- basically, he asks why would you be intoxicated with another woman’s boobs when you already have a wife with boobs of her own? Such a rhetorical question would drive us crazy because, according to us, the man’s lust problem isn’t his wife’s responsibility. According to us, a Christian man could be married to the most sexually ravenous supermodel on the planet, but it wouldn’t cure his lust problem.

The one kernel of truth in all of this is that it’s technically true that sinful lust is a trait that Christians will simply have to struggle with all their lives. We cannot eliminate this sinful desire anymore than we can eliminate our desire to hate, to lie, to steal, etc. However, the Scriptures are clear that there is a basic, physical means of weakening our desire to sin, and in this regard, the solution is marital sex.

I Corinthians 7 is the other explicitly clear text that address this particular subject:

I Cor. 7:2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 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. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

This entire passage is enlightening, but rather than bold the whole thing, I only bolded that last part of verse five. There Paul goes so far as to say that married Christian couples should keep having sex so that they may even escape temptation altogether! And that’s even if the Devil himself brings it.

Now let’s circle back to what Bnonn & Foster wrote:

So much of the young marriage stuff is motivated by parents who think their children can’t overcome lust and stay chaste into their early 20s. But marrying young is not a solution for this. Sex does not cure lust; it merely channels sexual energy licitly.

Hopefully you’re beginning to see how biblically bankrupt this perspective is. Marital sex does not cure lust- true, but that’s irrelevant. Neither Proverbs 5 or 1 Corinthians 7 say marital sex is a lust-“cure”, but they do recommend it as a means of resisting (and even escaping) the temptation to lust even in the most dire of circumstances. Bnonn & Foster simply can’t accept this, and at least one reason is because they think a man who can’t cure his lust problem prior to marriage isn’t even qualified to be married.

A man who has not learned to control his eyes before marriage, for instance, is not going to do any better after marriage, and is frankly not marriage material.

Thankfully, 1 Corinthians 7 is a gold-mine of anti-feminist rebuttals. Later on, Paul wrote this:

1 Corinthians 7:36 If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin.

Notice especially the beginning part of this verse. Paul addresses a hypothetical man who is specifically struggling with sexual sin. He knew that some Christians would insist that such a man get his struggles under control as a prerequisite to marriage. That’s what a lot of Christians think today; it’s exactly what Bnonn & Foster think, but what does Paul say? Let him do what he wants. If he wants to get married, let him. You might think it’s sinful to do so, but it’s not.

Honestly, I’m surprised Bnonn & Foster aren’t more Scripturally enlightened in this area. I thought I’ve seen them talk about this subject in the past with a perspective closer to mine, and yet here they are in June of 2021 repeating this tired feminist mantra that only encourages Christians to continue to delay getting married. It’s a bad idea, and hopefully you, the reader, are able to see why.

UPDATE (August 11th, 2021): Foster tweeted out this little gem a few days ago:

Foster is rightly criticizing Christian today for doing exactly what he’s doing right now. Unduly delaying marriage for people without the gift of celibacy. There’s a reason you gotta watch it with these guys, because as the Bible says, if the blind lead the blind, they both shall fall into the ditch.

5 thoughts on “Debunking the Myth that “Marital Sex Is Not A Solution For Lust”

  1. surfdumb

    Your post creates an interesting implication – why would Bnonn and others have blind eyes and stuffed ears to the point that they essentially are acting as if the Christian argument they hear and see is akin to, “Get married young and by an act of works, cure the sin of lust.”
    So, what is this tremendous pull on them to copy what everyone else says and to join the mob in slaying this straw-man?

    One other thing, since marriage can’t cure lust, can I say to them, their blog posts don’t cure masculine self-deception ( the deceptionof not seeingmy immaturityin wanting a submissivewife and how damaging that desire is to her self-esteem)?

    Like

    Reply
    1. Lexet Blog

      They have to appease women in the church, since the church is mostly women, and henpecked men.

      If they speak honestly on this matter, they will upset women and lose credibility in their congregations.

      They also get the ability to put down other men to peacock as the alpha before their audience and local congregation.

      Like

      Reply
    2. princeasbel Post author

      why would Bnonn and others have blind eyes and stuffed ears to the point that they essentially are acting as if the Christian argument they hear and see is akin to, “Get married young and by an act of works, cure the sin of lust.”

      Because they have no choice. Even if someone modifies the statement to say, “By an act of works, mitigate the sin of lust,” that’s still a problem for them because most Christian husbands have frigid wives. It’s difficult to teach people to attack their lust problem by getting married and having sex when a standard Christian marriage is an all but sex-less arrangement. The next logical step would be to address that issue and to call out wives who deprive their husbands, and as Bnonn & Foster told us early on, they just don’t have the “energy” to do that.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
  2. Lexet Blog

    1 Corinthians 7:9 destroys their entire thesis.

    These clowns are biblically illiterate. In a sane world I would be shocked that the PCA ordained one of the fools, but seeing where that whole world is, I am not.

    While they are fools, they are still acting out of malice. Notice what they are doing: setting up an additional qualification for marriage. These guys are married. They are saying that they meet this new standard, and they look down on those who don’t.

    They are the new alpha in their church, and they are now redefining masculinity for the flock.

    It just so happens that their new stance is 100% approved by whiny women. Coincidentally a large % of their audience is now women, which explains why they abandoned the RP.

    These clowns have to redefine masculinity because they aren’t masculine themselves. They are insecure and can only feel good about themselves by tearing down real men. They lie about their own biblical qualifications in order to do so, and even perform the sin of deliberate misinterpretation of scripture.

    Like

    Reply
  3. Red Pill Apostle

    I lived 1 Cor 7 the past 2 weeks. Week one, Mrs. A was at the beach with our kids for a moms and kids gathering with some of my extended family members. I stayed home to work. It was a looong week. They got back this past weekend and we’ve been making up for lost time since then. It’s been a much more relaxed week for me. This stuff is not rocket science. You don’t need an advanced theological degree or to be fluent in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic to understand what Paul wrote is as evident as the sun coming up.

    If you want to see a prime example why the church universal goes full ostrich on the subject, look at the pastors at this church. Go to the “new here” tab and look at the staff titles.

    https://graystonechurch.com/

    Like

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s