A case for extra-marital sex?

[Slopeshoulder]

This is a thought experiment. I'm not advocating for extra-martial sex and don't do it myself.

Imagine a couple that is very very happy together. One of them develops a permanent health condition that prevents them from having or wanting sex. The other person loves them and has no intention to ever get divorced.

Question: would it be morally acceptable for the well person to seek sex elsewhere?

It seems there are two basic schools of theought available religiously, and I'd like to use this topic to explore the two schools of thought.

1. NO
Reasoning: Extra-marital sex is always wrong. The bible and the church say so. Instead, this celibacy is one's cross to bear. There is no reason you should not suffer together. When you suffer, you are one with Christ's suffering and he is there with you. You will be loved and taken to a higher form of intimacy with each other and the Lord. You will also be rewarded in heaven. Also, BTW, don't ever masturbate or look at others with desire. Those are also sin. Just pray that your sex drive goes away and your prayer will be answered, or if not just be disciplined as He was disciplined and accepted His Gethsemene. Your cross is redemptive, as his was. Suffer with Him.

2. YES
Sexual desire is a god-given part of human nature, and this has been taken from you through no fault of your own. God wants you to be happy, enjoy his gifts, and fulfill your nature. And given your abiding love, mere sex is small potatoes, somethign of this world only. God is ever expanding and creative, so you can expand your perspective and develop creative solutions. You can reach a higher intimacy when the sin of jealousy is put aside. God and love know no boundaries. He is merciful, he feels your suffering, he is compassionate. And in his abiding loving and creating grace, he will be present to your sexual activity, bringing forth new possibilities for redemtion and good, even as you abide in love with your beloved. He gathers all things to him, so abide in the presence of his grace and bring this to all things. Make the most with what you have. God redeems all. Go get laid.

Obviously, NO is the usual and expected answer. But I wonder if YES isn't more pastorally sound and more true to the spirit of Christianity.

This then raises the issue of other circumstances, like if one person decides to retire from sex or if everything is good except the sex, or one person travels for long periods of time, or if one person can truly satisfy all the desires of a person for decades, etc. And who the outside sex would be with, and other "laws' that might be violated with them like fornication and adultuery or harlotry. But let's start with this particular circumstance.
Just thinking like we thinkers tend to do...

What say you?

[dusk]

Biblically and in the old days it was always wrong for a simple reason. There was no reliable contraception and producing bastards all over the map isn't a good idea. Nobody cared for bastards and children should be raised by married couples. Seems absolutely logical.
Today we have contraception that works perfectly unless one is too stupid or drunk to use it.
Whatever the bible said has little meaning in this changed world, much like some of the food "laws" had a reason that just is meaningless today. Considering all this the general spirit of Christianity should be the guide not the written down laws.

[DiscipleOfTruth]

I believe that there should be a middle ground. That a good woman would want to please her husband even if it means some sacrifice on her part. That she would be willing to allow him to have sex her with her a little more than she want it at all, and that he would not get it a little more than he would want.

If that isn't possible or isn't good enough then according to my biblical interpretation he should pray to his god and hope she will eventually be willing because such a situation doesn't make rape acceptable. According to Genesis the purpose of Eve for Adam was that it wasn't good for the man to be alone and that she was to be a companion that would help him. As harsh as this might sound it wasn't shown the other way around. A woman is physically always ready for sex except for that time of the month. If the man is the one desiring it then it isn't physically impossible, so she would be in the wrong for denying him. The nature of doing so would be going against one of the reasons to why she was made.

Something else very important. If a woman loves her husband, and a christian woman is supposed to, then she should want to please her husband because she wants him to be happy. For a christian woman to not be willing to fulfill the sexual needs of her husband is to question if she still loves him or not. This could be a sign that there might be some deep rooted problems in the marriage that the couple need to work out before things ultimately end in a divorce. If there are such problems, after they are resolved then the marriage can continue to progress in a positive direction that brings back a sex life.

A woman can have sexual desires like anyone else, but the difference is that she can be extremely modest in showing it. For a woman to deny not only her husband but herself is a sign that there's probably something wrong way below the surface of the relationship.

[dusk]

A woman can have sexual desires like anyone else, but the difference is that she can be extremely modest in showing it.

That is really such a cultural thing. Some women are just as horny as guy. Some more depending on the individuals. They just don't let themselves go because they are called sluts. Horny guys are accepted as normal, but women are somehow not normal so they hold back. Difference is you don't see anything with women and thus they can offer any act they want. Also if you try to be a little more asexual it works, it is not such a strong force that it really cannot be controlled. I think its stupid to not enjoy the nice things in life. Sluts are more fun.