Rob Banks
Pelican
Sure, if we are talking about regular clothes.
But if we are talking about "sexy outfits," where else could he have seen them if not on another woman?
On a man?
Yes or No. In average - wives dictate the success of a marriage/husband-wife relationship.
- Thread starter messaggera
- Start date
But if we are talking about "sexy outfits," where else could he have seen them if not on another woman?
On a man?
Usually it is because he indulged in/received sexual gratification from some other woman wearing said outfit. Whether via "adult entertainment" or actual fornication.
It is more than "he saw this on someone else before."
It is the recollection of the memory as associated with intensity of arousal and orgasm - artificially amplified, in a highly degenerate context.
The device works specifically because it calls upon pre-existing imagery and associations. If most women could see the imagery that is involuntarily/subconsciously recalled to the man's mind when they wear such outfits, it would be impossible to argue that it benefits the marriage.
The illusion of benefit is maintained only because the husband can indulge in the association without the wife knowing.
Perhaps akin to the wife requesting that the husband do or say some specific thing during lovemaking that he has never done or said before. Why does she like that and want that? How does she know? What will pop into her head, and/or what past experiences is she subconsciously drawing on in that moment to augment her arousal?
I agree, and this is why I promote sexual innocence/ignorance as a parent. Comparison is the thief of joy. The more sexual experience you have with other people, and the more knowledge you have of evil, the harder it is to be content and satisfied with one spouse.
This is the part I'm not sure about. I think a husband could be completely removed from all cultural, sexual influence and still find ways to dress up his wife in sexy ways. I think there's an element of nature to it.
I do not think it's fair to say all men are hyper-sexualized and can't be attracted to our wives in sexy clothing without comparison.
Let's say a husband had previously been attracted to, and committed sins with, naked women. Is it bad for his wife to be naked because it dredges up images of his past?
That's a good example. Do you think this is a sin in itself, or because of where it came from? If she made up the phrase herself, is it then permissible?
PS If she got the phrase from Pepe le peu, is it ok then? Because that guy is a sweet talker.
Last edited:
"Where it came from" is the primary problem. Because "where" or "what" a particular device "came from" is what is being brought into the marriage, when it is employed within the marriage. If a man watched porn or had a pattern of fornication prior to marriage, and requests that his wife look or act in ways that appease the preferences he learned from those activities... he is bringing his prior porn use and fornication into the marriage.
(EDIT: or even if the preference was established simply from having his lust aroused by seeing/hearing women dress/behave/speak in immodest and overtly-sexualized ways in public without ultimately obtaining gratification from them... there is still that whole "lusting after in his heart" thing - it's still an issue. He is bringing prior lust into the marriage.)
That being said...
I think that the things married couples will naturally invent on their own between themselves in a healthy and God-ordered context, will always and necessarily appear and sound QUITE DIFFERENT from the aesthetics popularized by Satan's minions for the commodification and degradation of sex.
The former will be the accentuation and appreciation of what is already there; of what they have naturally between them.
The latter is the imposition of an artificial aesthetic outside of the natural order.
For example:
In the former context, a woman might fashion and make for herself a very simple gown that only bares her shoulders and knees -- and the allure of it will simply be that it fits her form very precisely. It accentuates her body.
In the latter context, a woman might go out and buy an outfit that fits her so-so or even poorly, but has a lot of pre-packaged allure because of specific design elements that the man is pre-habituated to associate with arousal based on past exposure to and indulgence in degenerate imagery and situations featuring those elements. Classically conditioned response.
In the former context, a woman might ask her husband to say something during lovemaking that is already consistent with his vernacular. Something that naturally builds on her feelings of love and warmth, conveys his desire/love for her, etc.
In the latter context, a woman might ask her husband to say a pre-packaged phrase that she has learned to associate with sex and arousal via exposure to degenerate media, or from prior "encounters" with other men that she found particularly exciting (common "dirty" talk, etc).
In the former context, a woman might ask her husband to do a particular thing during lovemaking that is an extension of or re-combination of their natural interactions that make her feel particularly good. This could be as simple as the warmth/pressure of touch applied to a typically non-sexual part of the body during lovemaking, which combines known "warm fuzzy" feelings with the enjoyment of marital union.
In the latter context, a woman might ask her husband to "pull my hair!" or some other such reference to popularized acts meant to cause hyper-arousal by association with existing notions of "excitement" built on exposure to degeneracy. Or because some other man (who excited her more than her husband does) did this and established the association between that behavior and amplified arousal/excitement.
Last edited:
Ok, I think I agree with you. You are sensitive to outside sexual influence making its way into marriage, which I understand. I also appreciate the "natural" things that happen in faithful matrimony over the years. I've been married over 20 years and I can attest to the beauty of this. That's why I speak rather idealistically, but I know that many marriages struggle with these issues due to past sins. Also, several caveats:
- The clothing itself is never the sin
- Wives should not assume certain clothing is "good/bad for him" merely because it's "sexy" but should just ask!
- There is a big difference between *knowing* something exists and being *tempted* by it. For instance, if I know that bikinis exist, and have seen immodest women wearing them on the beach, and also like them on my wife (I do), that doesn't mean I'm therefore comparing my wife to other women in bikinis when SHE wears one. Sure, the idea came from outside, but that doesn't mean I am tempted to compare.
To a degree.
But I would also say that it is the dynamic of dependency on contrived aesthetics that clued me in to the fact that what happened in my first marriage was wrong and detrimental to the human psyche/soul.
I do not like to admit that I'd have gone along with "non-monogamy" a lot longer than I did, if it hadn't been for the realization that just about every single person steeped in that culture/lifestyle was RELIANT UPON aesthetics and behaviors that, to me, have always come across as "fake and gay."
Before I understood it in terms of "outside sexual influence making its way into marriage is wrong" (I was "okay" with this for a time), I perceived it in a similar light as drug use.
"Plain old naked sex" is undesirable sobriety to those who depend on the "high" of overt or specific forms of hyper-stimulation.
Being placed in that position when I was relatively innocent (practiced chastity in my youth, my ex-husband was my first, etc.) provided quite the juxtaposition. Eventually I could not overlook the nagging thought of "WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE, that they think plain old sex is inferior to this... FAGGOTRY???"
I cannot say where exactly the line is to be drawn for any married couple, but I can state with certainty that acclimation to hyper-stimulation is a dangerous game in any context.
Well, as a lover of "black and white" I like to figure these things out. Doesn't mean there's a definitive right and wrong answer, but gosh you can learn a lot along the way.
Like the question, "How short is too short for a skirt?" You can't really ever answer the question, but you can learn a lot about human motivation and the reasons behind *choosing* a short skirt, and how others respond... etc etc etc. Very fun, at least for me.
Yet another dynamic you've hit on is that depending on our past we can make a lot of assumptions about others and why they do things, which may or may not be true. I'm coming at this topic from a bit of a different perspective, but it sounds like both of us have seen the best and worst of the opposite gender!
I mean that kinda makes sense based on your experiences. But maybe this is also true: What is wrong with you that you can't enjoy what other married, Christian women do all the time? And why the need to be judgmental of the freedom of others?
Are your stances perhaps rooted (at least partly) in a fear that those bad, outside influences of your first marriages will make their way into your current one? If so, are those fears rational?
I'm not accusing you of anything, just posing questions.
I think the whole reason this thread went off the rails was because the word “slutty” was used to describe what a husband wants his wife to look like to turn him on. That is the part that is wrong. Unless there are multiple definitions for that word that’s where the problem started. For a Christian wife that is ungodly and offensive. Maybe another word should have been used. Some comments have been right and others wrong coming from a biblical perspective. That’s pretty much it.
I already admitted I use words for shock value, to start conversations and to force definitions. And so it has.
The word "slut" means a promiscuous woman with multiple partners. Of course it's sinful, and my wife is not a slut, or a prostitute or whore or any of that. But I used the word for a purpose. My wife blesses me by acting in a promiscuous way, for my eyes only of course, in both dress and manner as she feels appropriate and useful.
In other words, my wife shares this one thing in common with a slut. It doesn't mean she IS a slut, it means she acts in a promiscuous fashion with me in private. I could have used a different word, but for now I think it was the right choice.
This is not nearly as dramatic as it sounds. It's more like intentionally preserving the excitement of the honeymoon. Very few people would think it wrong for a young bride to dress in a skimpy, sexy outfit to be sexually attractive to her husband. My wife even got some of these types of outfits given to her by older married women on our wedding day! Made her blush a lot
This isn't wrong. I just want to see that attitude preserved, and even grow with the years.
Maybe have your wife read what you just wrote and let her give a response…I already admitted I use words for shock value, to start conversations and to force definitions. And so it has.
The word "slut" means a promiscuous woman with multiple partners. Of course it's sinful, and my wife is not a slut, or a prostitute or whore or any of that. But I used the word for a purpose. My wife blesses me by acting in a promiscuous way, for my eyes only of course, in both dress and manner as she feels appropriate and useful.
In other words, my wife shares this one thing in common with a slut. It doesn't mean she IS a slut, it means she acts in a promiscuous fashion with me in private. I could have used a different word, but for now I think it was the right choice.
This is not nearly as dramatic as it sounds. It's more like intentionally preserving the excitement of the honeymoon. Very few people would think it wrong for a young bride to dress in a skimpy, sexy outfit to be sexually attractive to her husband. My wife even got some of these types of outfits given to her by older married women on our wedding day! Made her blush a lot
Slut. Arrange the letters around and the word becomes lust.
So perhaps the title of the following thread should have been: Is there a difference between sex as lust and sex as intimacy?
Is there a difference between sex and intimacy?
Argument: A marriage can be healthy and successful without sex, but not without intimacy. Sub argument: The purpose of copulation is 1) to procreate 2) to share a form of intimacy between a husband and wife. Is sexual gratification (pure purpose of pleasure copulation) a form of intimacy or...
Is lust okay if it is between a husband and wife even if the act is serving the flesh?
What does the Bible teach about sex as lust?
She has not only read most of what I've written in this thread, but it's also led to a lot of great, deep conversations between us over the past few days. She prefers to let me post as she is not much of a writer.
She does mentor a few women in the art of wifery, so if you really care what she thinks I'll hook you up
A mentor like Sheila Wray Gregoire? Sounds similar, perhaps.
My 2 cents (again).
Also, I'll just apologize/give a warning in advance if anything discussed here brings images to anyone's mind...
I do agree that the use of the word "slutty" was where it went horribly wrong. Perhaps this issue could have been discussed without the "shock value"? We can state that a woman should wear something that her husband finds attractive (in private) - or not, no one is required to agree - without having to use words that bring to mind filth, sin, sleaze, disease, crime, adultery... I could go on. I don't think any woman would want to be referred to as a "slut", but I don't mind my husband calling me "sexy" or "hot", not just beautiful.
That said, I am troubled by the assertion that a man enjoying any aesthetic other than plain nudity is automatically equated with either pornography or reliving past sexual experience. Not to mention that a wife might want out of her own to wear some lingerie (or a homemade sexy outfit) for her husband in private, would this be acceptable? And if so, why? Because it's her choice, not his? That strikes me a bit feministic...
(And I don't have a personal stake in this matter, as I've mentioned before my husband is not into that stuff. But I would not have a problem with if he did, so long as it was in private.)
Edit: I just saw the part about the wife acting in a promiscuous way (it won't let me quote the post in an edit). Maybe it's just me, but I don't equate wearing a particular outfit in private as "acting" or "behaving" like anything. It could just be my issues, but I would have a huge problem with being asked to behave a certain way, or engage in certain acts, while I don't have that reaction to wearing clothing in private. I'm so thankful that my husband and I have very similar convictions regarding acts and behavior, because if we didn't this would be a problem.
As to the singleing out of "outfits" as the problem because they're "unnatural" or influenced by pornographic filth, all I have to say is plenty of things are unnatural and socially constructed. What if a man would like his wife to wear makeup for him in the bedroom? Would there be the same negative response if a man asked his wife to groom herself a certain way that up until relatively recent was only found in pornography? I mean, the "natural" thing would be to let the hair grow as to differentiate a grown woman from a prepubecent child. In fact, some have claimed that women removing all hair makes them appear childlike. Would it make a difference if it was the wife's idea, and if so, once again, why? How is this preference for grooming not being blamed on a pornification of cultural tastes?
Is it always a problem when a man has a preference of how his wife presents herself privately, or is it a matter of what his preferences are? Does it matter if the wife's preferences align with the husband's, and if so why?
(My take on all this is that it is up to each monogamous married couple to prayerfully decide for themselves what is acceptable (using guidance from their church tradition, if that applies), and we as outsiders have no place to judge. We all have our different pasts, and what is a stumbling block in one relationship is not to another.)
Also, I'll just apologize/give a warning in advance if anything discussed here brings images to anyone's mind...
I do agree that the use of the word "slutty" was where it went horribly wrong. Perhaps this issue could have been discussed without the "shock value"? We can state that a woman should wear something that her husband finds attractive (in private) - or not, no one is required to agree - without having to use words that bring to mind filth, sin, sleaze, disease, crime, adultery... I could go on. I don't think any woman would want to be referred to as a "slut", but I don't mind my husband calling me "sexy" or "hot", not just beautiful.
That said, I am troubled by the assertion that a man enjoying any aesthetic other than plain nudity is automatically equated with either pornography or reliving past sexual experience. Not to mention that a wife might want out of her own to wear some lingerie (or a homemade sexy outfit) for her husband in private, would this be acceptable? And if so, why? Because it's her choice, not his? That strikes me a bit feministic...
(And I don't have a personal stake in this matter, as I've mentioned before my husband is not into that stuff. But I would not have a problem with if he did, so long as it was in private.)
Edit: I just saw the part about the wife acting in a promiscuous way (it won't let me quote the post in an edit). Maybe it's just me, but I don't equate wearing a particular outfit in private as "acting" or "behaving" like anything. It could just be my issues, but I would have a huge problem with being asked to behave a certain way, or engage in certain acts, while I don't have that reaction to wearing clothing in private. I'm so thankful that my husband and I have very similar convictions regarding acts and behavior, because if we didn't this would be a problem.
As to the singleing out of "outfits" as the problem because they're "unnatural" or influenced by pornographic filth, all I have to say is plenty of things are unnatural and socially constructed. What if a man would like his wife to wear makeup for him in the bedroom? Would there be the same negative response if a man asked his wife to groom herself a certain way that up until relatively recent was only found in pornography? I mean, the "natural" thing would be to let the hair grow as to differentiate a grown woman from a prepubecent child. In fact, some have claimed that women removing all hair makes them appear childlike. Would it make a difference if it was the wife's idea, and if so, once again, why? How is this preference for grooming not being blamed on a pornification of cultural tastes?
Is it always a problem when a man has a preference of how his wife presents herself privately, or is it a matter of what his preferences are? Does it matter if the wife's preferences align with the husband's, and if so why?
(My take on all this is that it is up to each monogamous married couple to prayerfully decide for themselves what is acceptable (using guidance from their church tradition, if that applies), and we as outsiders have no place to judge. We all have our different pasts, and what is a stumbling block in one relationship is not to another.)
Last edited:
"[16] Then the angel Raphael said to him: Hear me, and I will shew thee who they are, over whom the devil can prevail. [17] For they who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from themselves, and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the devil hath power." Tobias 6:16-17.I already admitted I use words for shock value, to start conversations and to force definitions. And so it has.
The word "slut" means a promiscuous woman with multiple partners. Of course it's sinful, and my wife is not a slut, or a prostitute or whore or any of that. But I used the word for a purpose. My wife blesses me by acting in a promiscuous way, for my eyes only of course, in both dress and manner as she feels appropriate and useful.
In other words, my wife shares this one thing in common with a slut. It doesn't mean she IS a slut, it means she acts in a promiscuous fashion with me in private. I could have used a different word, but for now I think it was the right choice.
This is not nearly as dramatic as it sounds. It's more like intentionally preserving the excitement of the honeymoon. Very few people would think it wrong for a young bride to dress in a skimpy, sexy outfit to be sexually attractive to her husband. My wife even got some of these types of outfits given to her by older married women on our wedding day! Made her blush a lot
Nothing wrong at all with a husband enjoying an aesthetic. The problem here is the aesthetic. The slut aesthetic. No one can use a word like that and then need to use 500 more words to say they didn’t mean that word in the way we are thinking.
Um yes removing all hair screams you got issues to me. If that’s offensive so be it. Grown men and women need not remove all their hair. That is childlike and I would want to see someone’s browser history. Seriously. Look maintenance is fine. Humans are control freaks. But why do so many people not like the way God made us? I mean if the apocalypse did happen and no makeup or razors were left would anyone get together? And no, I’m not advocating for being a slob. I’m pretty sure Adam and Eve did none of that and I’m guessing they were the most handsome/beautiful humans to exist. Then came the fall.
Last edited:
Side note also when I see people that are waxed to the extreme and all shiny I don’t think anything positive about the way they look. That’s me. We’re all different and I’m fine with thinking that. I also know there are very good reasons for having hair where we have it. God knew what HE was doing.
If a grown man shaves his beard, does it suddenly become difficult to tell that he is not a prepubescent child?
If a woman shaves her armpits, does it become difficult to tell that she is not a prepubescent child?
I understand the "hair growth is natural/there for a reason" argument. But I will never understand the implication that removing said hair makes an adult appear prepubescent. No it does not. Not in any way. Most adults could trip and fall fully into an industrial vat of Nair... and they are still going to have a 100% post-pubescent-looking body.
Yes, NotaBene specifically mentioned the word "slut" (for "shock value", which was unnecessary in my opinion) implying that he prefers a "slutty" aesthetic for the bedroom, but then the thread turned into the statement that men (in general) are deviants for their preference of anything other than nudity in the bedroom, and prescribing motivations and rationales for their preferences.
As none of us can know what's in someone else's heart ot mind, we just have no place doing that.
Not everyone sees lingerie as degenerate, not everyone turns into a degenerate from the occasional use of lingerie, and a woman is not a degenerate if she would be ok with ocasionally wearing such things for her husband.
(Notice the emphasis on the word "occasional" - if a man were to require a specific visual in order to have relations with his wife then there's some issues there. But is there anything wrong with the occasional use of an "outfit"?)
See, I don't necessarily think someone is a predator for preferring a hairless aesthetic, but I do have to acknowledge that the hairless aesthetic is something that has been promoted to society or popularized by pornography. Simply put, it is "unnatural" for a grown woman to present that way. To some men it will remind them of harlotry, even if it doesn't make them think of children.
In your opinion (and mine too, actually, for what it's worth) it does not make most adults appear prepubecent. But the post I quoted immediately before this shows that to some women it does make them think that. And I have heard from other women that it would make them uncomfortable/question their husband's inclinations.
Which is my point - we all have different things that we consider to be "pornographically influenced" or wrong. Some women may be ok with wearing a sexy outfit and not see a problem with it, some may be ok with removing hair "everything from the face down" while others would be horrified if their husband preferred that. (And again, does it make a difference if it's the wife's idea, as I asked in my previous post?)
I generally shave, wax, or pluck everything from the face down. It's not REALLY "for my husband" (but my husband appreciates it, so I count it) - it's long-standing personal practice because coarse hair and hyper-sensitive skin is not a fun combination... unless you let everything go and get long and soft at the ends. Then it's not poky and prickly. But, um, NO.
My point is, it's hypocritical to admonish someone repeatedly for their preference when one has a preference that others may find equally "unnatural", "pornified" , "culturally constructed", etc. It is not our place to judge the preferences in other monogamous married couples bedrooms, nor assume we know their motivations, or what's in their heart.
(I do think this thread illustrates perfectly why "shock value" may not be the best way to go to have a productive conversation without anyone getting defensive or jumping to conclusions. Hopefully we at least take that from it.)