BigK,
Regarding the use of 'SF' instead of 'sex' on the MB forums, you said:


I agree that someone who's understood the basic concepts will usually be able to accurately guess what is meant. A newbie might struggle.

Here's an example though to show why I think it's a bad idea to mix the two terms up.

Someone writes on the forums "My H had SF with a prostitute last night."
The writer used 'SF' used, but meant 'sex'.

A woman who is new to MB reads the above. She has the idea that SF is a synonym for sex.

She also believes that all she has to do to meet her husband's need for SF/sex (she doesn't know the difference) is to have sex.

She's not interested in sex but puts out unenthusiastically three times a week.

Her marriage is falling apart because her H finds sex with her sexually unfulfilling.

She sees experienced posters use SF as a synonym for sex (as above and in fact all over the forums).

It reinforces her misunderstanding.

Agreed.

SF comes from sharing and giving in a loving relationship.

Sex is "self-focused."

Sex IN marriage is the design.

Sex OUT of marriage is the abuse.

"Fulfillment" in the "act of marriage" is an emotional reaction that encompasses more than just one's physical "competency" in bed. That is one of the reasons why so much emphasis in the "secular world" has been placed on the "act" itself, the many ways of performing the act (including much emphasis on gymanstics, S/M, etc.) in an attempt to deny that SF is much more than "just the physical."

It denies the purpose of marriage as fulfilling and completing ONE person, our spouse, as the sole (and soul) object of how we express and how we meet their needs and get our needs met. It is "thee" focused and not "me" focused.



EN's are inherent in all people, but the SF need is intended to be fulfilled ONLY within a marriage and is, like the other needs, "met" by giving, not in getting. We "get" AFTER our spouse has given out of love to meet our need and we reciprocate out of love too.

God bless.

Your description of the SF EN seems to be at odds with Harley's - see link below

http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi3310_sex.html

A quote: " [color:"blue"] A sexual need usually pre-dates your relationship with each other, and is somewhat independent of your relationship (my emphasis). While you may have discovered a deep desire to make love to your spouse since you've been in love, it isn't quite the same thing as a sexual need. Wanting to make love when you are in love is sometimes merely a reflection of wanting to be emotionally and physically close.[/color]"

Your version also doesn't seem to match the very common situations of men turning to OWs to meet their needs for SF. I suspect that many of those situations cannot be described as "sharing and giving in a loving relationship", yet they happen for the very reason that the WH's need for SF is being met.

ManInMotion - Perhaps you didn't understand clearly what I was saying. We all have Emotional Needs that "predate" our marriages, that's how we are made. It is in HOW one gets those needs "fulfilled" that is the difference.

From the standpoint of the Scriptures, I agree with Paul's comments on this "need fulfillment" issue if you want to drop a SF EN down to just the physical need (sort of like needing food to survive and not being "picky" about what sort of food you eat or where or how you get it).


"Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore, honor God with your body.

Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong her alone but belongs also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." (1 Corinthians 6:18 - 7:5 NIV)


Men turning to OW's to meet their need for sex is a "rationalization" and "justification" to sin. It is NOT what the Scripture supports nor is it what Harley supports.

The same applies to Women turning to OM's to meet their needs.

It is outside of marriage, whereas sex and sexual fulfillment is supposed to be, exclusively, within marriage.

We are not talking about the FACT that people choose to sin, we are talking about where "getting needs met" is not a sin.

Take it out of the realm of sex for a minute. "Financial Security" is an EN. Would it be "okay" or "accepted" that the FS need be fulfilled through stealing what belonged to someone else? Not likely. It's no different with sex and fulfilling a sex EN. There is a proper place and a proper way to get that need satisfied.

God bless.

FH, I'm not referring to the right or wrong way to obtain SF, but to what it actually *is*.

Your first comment in your previous post was "SF comes from sharing and giving in a loving relationship." However I'm pretty sure that many a WH got their need for SF met outside of any such relationship.

I'm pretty sure SF and every other EN can be fulfilled outside of wedlock. Sex within marriage only is a religious concept. Everybody has ENs whether they are religious or not. But SF/sex is one of the few that are unacceptable to fulfill with someone if you are married to someone else, regardless of your religious beliefs. For example, you can have needs for recreational companionship and/or conversation fulfilled with friends and have no negative impact on your M.

Tabby, can it? While it may be "possible," how many remain with one person their whole lives to get their perceived "SF need" fulfilled and how many "keep searching for fulfillment" in many partners. Always searching, but never finding? A momentary "high" but leaves a "hole" remaining because it's transitory and not truly fulfilling and satisfying?





It may be, but that doesn't make it wrong or incorrect.





You don't think so? Try doing none of those things with your spouse and see how "positive" an impact it will have.

I'm sure SF is found outside of marriage all the time. Again like the other ENs, it's a continual need. Just because you find it one day doesn't mean it is satisfied for good.

As for the RC/conversation examples, these ENs aren't an all or nothing type of EN like SF is. That is, you aren't expected to terminate all conversation with every other human except your spouse when you get married. A couple with one partner who has conversation fairly high up on the list and the other who has it at the bottom can easily accomodate both persons needs. Not so with SF.

I'm not saying SF/sex outside of marriage is right or wrong. That all depends on your own personal views and believes. For you, it goes against your beliefs so it is definitely wrong. For me, I don't have a problem with it provided it is between 2 consenting adults, neither of which is married or in a relationship. But that doesn't make it right either. Ask another person and you'll get a completely different answer. The thing we do ALL agree on is SF/sex with someone when you are married to someone else (and SF/sex with a person who is married to someone else) is DEFINITELY WRONG and this view cross both religious and cultural borders.