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?

[connermt]

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?

It depends on the individuals involved, as there is no universal morality. If the couple decides it's OK/moral, then for them, it's moral. It's not for anyone else to decide on for them.

[bluethread]

It is not a matter of one solution creating suffering and the other just offending sensibilities. Everything we do has consequences. If a couple decides to have an open marrage because of a "health condition", that may just trade the problems related to divorce for the problems related to fornication. Who is to determine what constitutes an acceptable "health condition"? What if she says, "He is driving me crazy." Is this a mental heath condition that counts? If it is matter of retaining health benefits for the person with the health condition, is it moral to increase the costs to ones insurer related to ignoring the the presumption of fidelity in marrage? If one changes the definition of marrage that changes the risks associated with those changes. It is all interrelated.

[Quath]

I am into polyamory, so my general answer is "yes" for all cases in which there is communication with consent from all parties involved.

I sometimes post an a polyamory forum and my sense of the breakdown of people is that there is about a third atheists (or nonreligious), a third pagan and a third Christian. Most of the Christians tend to justify polyamory with more of a focus on the love stuff from the New Testament with a sprinkling of Old Testament polygamy.

[TD101]

A friend of mine's wife was paralyzed six years ago during a tornado. I will try to find the right time to broach this subject with him and see what he says.

[His Name Is John]

Did the people getting married not mean it when they said:

"For better, or worst"

Presumably their commitments only meant 'I will stay married to you, but we can have sex with other people if you are unable'.

If this becomes the case, presumably, you have situations where you are away for a weekend. Your wife isn't with you, and a pretty young girl is flirting with you. Your reasons for saying yes in your OP all still apply here. Is it ok?

I guess if you were a non-believer you could have reason for allowing an open-marriage, but Christian's have no excuse.

[Quath]

A lot of it comes down to figuring out what is special in a marriage or relationship. For example, if you hug other people, does it make hugging your spouse any less special? If you have another child, does that mean you love your first child any less?

Sex is as special as we make it. Love is not a finite resource. And your spouse doesn't have to to fulfill your every need.

As an example, my wife likes to see chick flicks at times. But I hate them (mostly). So she has a friend she goes to see such movies. That doesn't make the movies we do watch together any less special. Something shared is not something lost.

It is our culture that pushes that view.

I find monogamy can cause more harm than good. In a game theory view, your goal is to get the best possible partner and try to lock them into a contract with you. So if we are with someone, we have to ask, "Can I do better or do I assume this is the best person for me?" The other person is asking the same question. We romanticize this, but this is the ultimate game we are playing.

The issue that arises is when someone "better" comes along. You have to decide whether to settle with your current partner or break the agreement. In either case, someone loses.

In non-monogamy, you are with a person for as long as you are good together. There is not really a need to think of a person as "better" because you don't have to rank potential partners.

As a disclaimer, people are people and no system is perfect. Monogamy works very well for many people and the game theory doesn't play too deep into their thinking. Many people may not feel like they are settling for a partner because they are not looking for anything more.

But if we look at monogamy and divorce and break-ups, it is natural to wonder if there are other relationship models that do not have these disadvantages.

[Slopeshoulder]

Did the people getting married not mean it when they said:

"For better, or worst"

Perhaps this is a matter of degree and other things factor in. If one abides in love and stays married, but the person can't/won't/doesn't want to have sex, the question remains why the 2nd party should suffer. I would think sticking around would satisfy the "for worse" aspect. Absolutism is never pretty.

Presumably their commitments only meant 'I will stay married to you, but we can have sex with other people if you are unable'.

Well that's the question before us.

If this becomes the case, presumably, you have situations where you are away for a weekend. Your wife isn't with you, and a pretty young girl is flirting with you. Your reasons for saying yes in your OP all still apply here. Is it ok?

No. This is a slippery slope argument and specifically not the circumstance I referred to. It does not apply, as one condition is permanent.

I guess if you were a non-believer you could have reason for allowing an open-marriage, but Christian's have no excuse.

again, that is the question before us.
And why wouldn't reson, compassion, and conscience apply the same to all? Is Christian moral agency reduced to reading a rulebook and agreeing to abide by it?

Could you go read the two reasonings and answer if and how the second POV is or is not more in the spirit of Christianity?
I'd imagine that someon ewith a traditional mindset who was in this situation would:
- long for sex and hate themselves for it
- masturbate and hate themselves for it.
- have sex and hate themselves for it
- possibly take extraordinary measures to reduce thier drive, like drugs and alcohol
...and unneccesarily so.
They might also say that no God would condemn them for "cracking" ocassionally. Or they might become angry at God and grow hateful.

If I were a priest, and a person came to me in this situation, I would day:
- It is between you and your conscience; God judges you, not me or others; follow your heart
- You are good to abide in love with your spouse
- God is merciful and compassionate
- Perhaps this intimate agreement and being past jealousy is a gift
- Try to be wise in all you do, and be moderate in all you do, keep your focus on your spouse as best you can
Sometimes it's about real life and compassion, and not about rules. As someone named Jesus pointed out.

[Slopeshoulder]

A lot of it comes down to figuring out what is special in a marriage or relationship. For example, if you hug other people, does it make hugging your spouse any less special? If you have another child, does that mean you love your first child any less?

Sex is as special as we make it. Love is not a finite resource. And your spouse doesn't have to to fulfill your every need.

As an example, my wife likes to see chick flicks at times. But I hate them (mostly). So she has a friend she goes to see such movies. That doesn't make the movies we do watch together any less special. Something shared is not something lost.

It is our culture that pushes that view.

I find monogamy can cause more harm than good. In a game theory view, your goal is to get the best possible partner and try to lock them into a contract with you. So if we are with someone, we have to ask, "Can I do better or do I assume this is the best person for me?" The other person is asking the same question. We romanticize this, but this is the ultimate game we are playing.

The issue that arises is when someone "better" comes along. You have to decide whether to settle with your current partner or break the agreement. In either case, someone loses.

In non-monogamy, you are with a person for as long as you are good together. There is not really a need to think of a person as "better" because you don't have to rank potential partners.

As a disclaimer, people are people and no system is perfect. Monogamy works very well for many people and the game theory doesn't play too deep into their thinking. Many people may not feel like they are settling for a partner because they are not looking for anything more.

But if we look at monogamy and divorce and break-ups, it is natural to wonder if there are other relationship models that do not have these disadvantages.

None of that has to do with religion or philosophy per se, or specifically the OP, but as a group of commonsenical thoughts and observations, it makes eminent sense and seems quite reasonable and mature. I agree. I tend to think of monogamy in one of two ways: either as a pracitcal strategy that takes into account human jealousy and possessiveness, or 2. a natural outcome of a union of soul mates (e.g. can't be better) - I'm in the second camp fortunately, but most aren't. Also, abiding in monogamy makes a third thing, an "us", which become one's identity and can be self sustaining to a great degree if the relationship is basically healthy. That "us' becomes indivisible and un-dilutable.
And then of course, given our long lives and choices, there's serial monogamy, which does appear to be the most poplular option.
But maybe there's wisdom in not having it all. There's stuff my first girlfriend provided that my wife doesn't. But so what? A tradeoff is OK if the choice was right and it keeps us deepening the "Us" and all that comes with it. The search for perfection causes many to crash.
Lastly, it's a question of how we define love, at what level. I met my 2nd wife at 38 and she is THE ONE. She nearly died a few years ago, and that experience caused me to think that if she had or does die, I'm 95% sure that anything after her would be casual, uncommitted, friends with benefits, or if commited, defined down to be buds, hangin' out, the person in my life, etc., but not THE ONE. I could even MAYBE use the "love" word again, but not like I do now - it would be defined down, for pragmatic reasons. Having said that, when I left my first marriage it was because I wanted to define love up, to a demand for a closer/deeper/broader connection.
In the end, we're all just trying to work it out and get throgh life happy and with a degree of grace. I'm an advocate for compassion, forgiveness, justice, consent, etc etc vs. control and rules and weakness/neuroses that manifest in absolutes. Except the immature and mindless - they can stick to the rules, they're why we have 'em. Otherwise, we should all do what we think best, drawing upon whatever worldview we find amenable.

[Angel]

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?

Using biblical ethics, I would say extra-marital sex for any reason is wrong unless the partner engaging in such behavior also intends to marry that 2nd woman (polygamy). And of course, I wouldn't recommend for any partner to engage in any extra-marital sex or polygamy unless ALL adults involved are okay with the matter otherwise it's not consensual.