Sexual immorality abounds

[Bravus]

In the kind of situation you describe, Paula (and thanks for the courage to raise these issues, which are important), I think there are three factors that bear examination:

1. The problem here is coercion and pressure, rather than sex per se. There are several of the practices the husband is suggesting that are morally wrong in themselves: taking the secual relationship outside the marriage. Many of the others would, IMO, be OK for a couple who both enjoyed them and where no coercion was involved. Force and pressure is the antithesis of the intimacy that a married sexual relationship is meant to foster.

2. It sounds to me (armchair psychoanalyst) as though this husband has some issues with misogyny: he wants to find ways to humble and degrade his wife, which is a symptom of dislike for women. It's part of the same issue as number 1 above: how much power can he gain over her? What can he force her to do?

3. Is religion (not God acting in the world, the human structures of religion) helpful or actively harmful in this instance? Isn't it helping support the cycles of guilt and power? And creating a narrative of disgrace and redemption that both are buying into?

A case such as this is very important to discuss and understand, because it does show how married sex has been perverted by the evil one. And the perversion is about selfishness rather than sharing, at its core.

[Paula]

Hey Bravus,

I can't give to much info on the situation, since I am sure that there are a few people from my local congragation here, and I would not like to betray this lady's confidence. I know it was very difficult for her to open up with me, and I certainly wouldn't want her situation to get picked up by other members. Especially since her husband is involved in the ministry.

I wanted to go over some of your points. The first one is exactly what I thought when she told me what was going on. However she told me that this is not the case. He does not force her into anything. The problem I think is more of an addict and an enabler. She wants to please him, and he wants to be pleased (he IS spoiled, and selfish, in that he wants his needs met regardless of how immoral they may be). She told me that he often complains that she is not as interested in sex as he would like her to be, that she is not as adventurous as he would like her to be, etc.. etc... This makes her feel unatractive, and unappealing, and then she in turn indulges him because she wants to please him. Then she feels bad because she is getting something in return (the feeling that she can fulfill him). It really is a very distructive cycle, and I (in my own armchair psychoanalysis) think it is just a very distructive combination of a woman who needs to feel that she pleases her husband and a husband who needs to be pleased more and more erotically as the years go by. It really is a classic addict and his enabler. She tells me that this has all been a progression, and she is scared to think of where it will lead to.

I've asked her if she thinks he does it to humiliate her, and to make himself THE MAN. And she said absolutely not. That it is all about the thrill, the eroticism. That when they are engaged it is all about her, etc... That he doesn't degrade her. The problem (I think), is that he is to sick to realize that the very things he wants to do (regardless of how nicely he may do them with her) are in and of themselves degrading.

At my local church we have had 3 marriages end because the husband chose the online "friend" over his wife. We've had 5 affairs between members (where one member slept with another member of the church). I know all this because many of the women feel free to confide in me. Some have worked with me in various church ministries, others are friends, etc.. Perhaps because I am the same age as they are, they feel that they can open up with me and share their lives story. I have 8 women who have come to complaning about their husbands addiction to porn, their chatting on the web with other people about racy topics, and wanting to go swinging etc. My husband has one friend who confided in him that he was going to a swingers club (this is NOT the same man as the husband of the lady I mentioned above). Another told my husband that he had been unfaithful, but no one found out. And to show that this of course is not just a male problem, we currently have a member who's husband left her last year. She was super active in the church. A youth leader, etc. She is now living with another man and has told me that she will never again get married without first having sex. She did this with her husband and they only did the basics (missionary style,and kissing on the lips and cheeks, nothing more), and now that she has found out what she was missing, she couldn't bear to have another marriage with such a "bland sexlife". We have another (this one is single) who just published her website with her porn video!

Sometimes I wonder if this is the big untold secret of my generation. Is this my generations "closet". All the people involved are in their mid-twenties to mid-thirties. This is a super active church, with high attendence of youth and young adults. We have couples seminars, singles seminars, 3, 4 times a year, we have prayer week 4 times a year, an active ministry, lots of active church members (in fact most of the people involved are very involved in church life).

This is why I feel that the church needs to address this, and to do so from a biblical perspective. I have had women ask me if I think oral sex is wrong. I've had (the lady with the REALLY problematic husband)ask me if I think the anal sex is wrong. The reality is, I can't answer 100% one way or the other. I don't think oral sex is wrong. But why? Just because my generation generally accepts it? I DO think anal sex is wrong. But again, why? Because its taboo? The bible only talks about men and men, not men and women. So maybe it isn't wrong.... the fact is that the bible really doesn't go into what is right and wrong within a marriage. So any answer I give may be colored with my own opinions on the subject.

Then there is the case of making pictures (with digital cameras) and videos. Many of the women my age do this to spice things up. Is this wrong?

Well, I don't know. My first reaction is that, no it isn't, since it is between a husband and wife. But on the other hand, there is always the chance of it getting uploaded to the internet (especially if you have a husband like that one lady). I had one friend tell me that her parents were at her house one Christmas and they accidently put the wrong tape in the VCR!!!! Then there is the fact that, is this really the purpose of sex? To exibit oneself and to make it erotic and fun? Or is it to share intimacy and love and tenderness, etc.. If you make it erotic and fun with videos and pictures, are you taking something away from it? Are you embarking on a slippery slope? These are all things that I don't think previous generations have really had to grapple with. Some things are obviously wrong (swingers, threesomes, etc...) Because they bring another person into the marriage bed. But others are not so clear. Personally I do believe that there is alot of freedom in the marriage bed, but not as much as some seem to think there is. And sticking my head in the sand just because I don't personally have to deal with the more extreme of these situations(in my own sex life) won't make it go away. I don't know if the church is simply unaware of this (because it seems to be affecting the younger generations), or if it is simply ignoring it because everybody is to embarresed to talk about it. But we do need to talk about it. I have a daughter, and when I think of how far down this road we may be by the time she gets married, I want to just keep her little forever. And if this keeps on being the norm, she may well find herself in the same position as my friend someday. And that is unnacceptable. So we as a church really do need to address this.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

If you make it erotic and fun with videos and pictures, are you taking something away from it? Are you embarking on a slippery slope? These are all things that I don't think previous generations have really had to grapple with.

---

There are some very fundamental aspects of the physiology and psychology of sex that should be taught to everyone, and aren't.

Physiology. There are two basic nerve-systems in mammals - parasympathetic/cholinergic/"feed and breed" and sympathetic/adrenal/"fight or flight".

Curiously enough they are BOTH involved in sex! Attraction and foreplay are parasympathetic - leading to the dilation of the peripheral blood vessels - causing the skin reddening that makeup mimics and causing genital response such as erection and lubrication. Then the actual orgasm / ejeculation are sympathetic - an adrenalin based response.

Pyschology. Basically almost nothing you get to see or do as an infant are sexy. There is a slight aberration with breasts and men - but that is more part of the parasympathetic response stimulated further by women in some societies keeping their breasts covered. As children gender is not important to us. Then are prepubescent / pubescent we go through a period where the genders separate from each other socially, creating an air of mystery, then we get back together and do things that we did NOT see as children. This is summarized by the phrase "the exotic becomes erotic".

I have wondered what the wide-spread early exposure to various sights and sounds of my generations "exotic" will do to the next generation. It is a basic fashion driver - it is why covering and uncovering different parts of the body over a period of about five years works.

So - USE these facts to your advantage. Find things that your mate finds both exotic and mutually acceptable and have fun.

It is the coercion and the health issues, that should be the bounds on acceptable married behavior - not a specific grocery list of does and don'ts.

Remember - it is the exoticness of the act that makes it sexy. Doing whatever in public rapidly ruins the effect.

Lastly remember - sex is a tool to use as part of your pair-bonding. Don't bring in some 3rd party because it will damage the strength of the bond you have with your mate.

/Bevin

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Hi Gregory,

You got it, right on.

Norman

[Paula]

Bevin,

I both agree and understand what you are saying. But what I am saying is that things are happening in the church that must be addressed. People are in need of guidance, and I do not feel like I can tell them what is right and wrong. While I am luck enough to have a healthy, compatible relationship, many in our church are not. And something does need to be done in terms of educating people in this area.

[Robert]

Thank you Paula....

Gregory and Bevin need to get out more often! Maybe they live in some sort of Pollyanna world, but the reality is that this world is preoccupied with sex. Perhaps that's why Paul always lists sexual sins first when writing about the deeds of the flesh.

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Hi Robert,

The point I have been trying to make in this thread is that I don't believe in "orientation." (It's based on evolution and agenda and this base was used to come to the definitions/categories we have today and as Fran noted none of which are concrete) So I was stating that if orientation is a reality, then gay people have to abstain in order to be saved. If you think it through to its logical conclusion, you should see this.

"The animal species Homo Sapiens further complicates this definition in that there are several determinants that may or may not be important for categorization:

Chromosonal indicators (XX, XY or unusual variations)

Internal reproductive anatomy (immature, mature or "different")

Any of the several hormonal indicators

External anatomy (commonly breasts & external genitals, but not always)

Projected assumptions of sexuality at birth

Projected assumptions of sexuality after birth

Individually chosen assumptions after birth

Assumptions from external appearances and clothing

Assumptions from external behaviours (excluding visual appearances)

Assumptions from reputation(s)

Situational judgements; changing depending on environments, such as companions, clubs, etc."

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosexual

Norman

[Robert]

Quote:

---

bevin said:

This "woe is me, everything I do and am is disgusting" attitude is not Biblical.

---

Actually MY focus is on Jesus Christ and His selfless love for me as sinful as I am...but then again we don't need to be blind to the fact that we are, as Paul states, wretched!

You see I have two choices given your opinion on this matter:

1] Believe you, which I do not...or

2] Believe the Bible, which I do!

Verses? Okay:

• Luke 11:11 “Now suppose one of you fathers [Christ is talking to His disciples] is asked by his son for a fish; he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he? 12 “Or if he is asked for an egg, he will not give him a scorpion, will he? 13 “If you then, [:"red"]being evil[/], know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?”

  Romans 3:10 "There is none righteous, not even one"

  Rev 3:17 "You do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked"

Okay...back to the subject!

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Hi Robert,

Since you brought up Romans 7 I have to respond to that and I know this will end up in another direction. I will share in simple terms what it means.

First, Paul is definitely converted when he is writing this. Second he is not describing his current condition. (Keep an open mind as you read this.)

Here's why. Romans 7:14- 24 describes a wretched life or a life of failure. Paul makes a disclaimer in verse 18 "For I know that in me" now here it is "( that is, in my flesh )" He is stating that this condition exists in his flesh. Then in verse 25 he gives the answer to the problem, (another personal disclaimer) and how he personally lives.

V25 "I thank God through Jesus Christ my Lord, so then with the mind I myself serve the law of God ; but with the flesh the law of sin.

He is saying that he personally (I myself) serve the law of God with his mind, but with the flesh the law of sin. Meaning there are two ways of living, one way is life and the other is death. He is definitely not saying that he is serving the law of sin because that is death and he is thankful to God that he is living by the Spirit. If you read through ch 6 you see that.

Why do I say that and how do I come to this conclusion? Because verses 15 to 24 he is describing a wretched man living in the flesh being led of the flesh who will die.

Now look at verses 8:5 "For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 6 for to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you."

Was Paul spiritually minded with life and peace or was he carnally minded in death?

In verses 8:7, 8 he is describing Rom 7:15-24. In verse 8:9 Paul is telling them that they are not living in the Romans 7:15-24 which means they are in the Spirit and have life.

One of the main problems with interpreting Romans 7 is that the chapters before it and after it are often left out in the interpretation. Also, people look at their personal experience and conclude that because they are living their lives the way it is in Rom 7 they think that it has to be that Rom 7:15-24 is talking about a converted person, which leaves them feeling not so bad. Unfortunately this is the Laodicean condition.

Also, my personal experience has taught me that Paul is not talking about his current state. Really quickly; I was a lost little boy looking for the acceptance and love my mother neglected to give me when she drank herself drunk. She was happier then than with me. I grew up trying to find acceptance and love which took me through a host of painful journeys. Then one day I found out about the Lord and all the joy that I desired was in Him and my Father. My life changed and I was not doing the evil I didn't want to do but I was doing the good I wanted to do consistently. I loved God with all my heart, mind, soul and strength. I longed to wake up in the mornings and talk to my Father. I thirsted for my God and He was answering my prayers like I had His personal attention. (Which I did) I was truly living after the Spirit and not after the flesh. I clearly knew the difference.

This experience and the study of the Bible led me to understand exactly what Paul what referring to in Romans 7.

From that day on I knew that we, as God's people set our goals and sights way to low. We don't believe God at His word. If we did we'd have more joy, victory and we'd be praising Him a whole lot more than we now do.

The question I have to ask myself is, am I now converted and if not why not? If I believe that I am, what fruit do I have that can be compared to God's word so that I know I am not deceived?

This is now my quest because the conversion that I once experienced, I fell away from. Today and for a while now I have been fasting weekly and worshiping God with love and a hunger that is not mine but Spirit led. I am awaked in the morning and crave God and His knowledge. I go to bed at night and read, craving His love. This is not "Norman," that's not me in the flesh, but me led by the Spirit.

And as I found before, this comes about only through belief in God's promises, (His word) and doing what He asks me to do because I love Him.

Norman

[bevin]

Robert, you are highlighting the wrong part of that text...

Quote:

---

“If you then, being evil, [:"red"]know how to give good gifts to your children[/], how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?”

---

The whole point of this text shows you are wrong to treat everything humans do as bad.

/Bevin

[bevin]

Quote:

---

something does need to be done in terms of educating people in this area.

---

Exactly - and people like Robert are NOT the people to do it. You want someone who can stand up in front of a group of strangers and talk about how to make this gift of God a delight, not someone who treats it as a curse.

Simply put - there are two mistakes I commonly see Christian's making about sex.

Robert's "it is a trap of the devil, don't do it at all" and the other "it is God given, but I am too shy to talk about it in a practical manner".

The later is actually an outgrowth of the fact that most christian's are unable to discuss ANYTHING with theological overtones in the practical manner.

Which is an outgrowth of the organised christian churches inability to deal with science and reason.

Once you start rejecting the conclusions of the scientific method, in no time flat you find yourself kow-towing to Robert's emotional nonsense.

/Bevin

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Because verses 15 to 24 he is describing a wretched man living in the flesh being led of the flesh who will die.

---

This is a little off, but still...it is valid.

Actually I disagree....Here is why:

Romans 7:12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good.

Do the unconverted...i.e., the flesh-minded say, "The commandment is Holy...it is good"? I say no!

Verse 13 Did that which is good [the law], then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, working death in me through what is good, [why?]

in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment sin might become sinful beyond measure.

Then Paul states:

14 We [i.e., we Christians in Roman] know that the law is spiritual [i.e., it is more than just the mere letter]; but I am carnal, sold under sin.

You see Paul the Pharisee limited sin to just outward actions. It was after his conversion that Paul learned that the law is much more than just ten brief do's and don'ts...it was spiritual.

That's because the law also demands perfect motive; perfect thoughts and holy flesh. It was through his spiritual understanding of the 10th commandment that Paul could make his remarks in Romans 7:14-24. Does that mean Paul was just like the carnally minded? No!

Here's EGW to back up what I have stated:

• Paul says that as "touching the righteousness which is in the law"--as far as outward acts were concerned --he was "blameless" (Philippians 3:6); but when the spiritual character of the law was discerned, he saw himself a sinner. Judged by the letter of the law as men apply it to the outward life, he had abstained from sin; but when he looked into the depths of its holy precepts, and saw himself as God saw him, he bowed in humiliation and confessed his guilt. He says, "I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." Romans 7:9. When he saw the spiritual nature of the law, sin appeared in its true hideousness, and his self-esteem [pride] was gone. [sC 29]

Got to go...Maybe I can talk later...

Rob

[Robert]

To God we aren't good...we are selfish....We love our own...we love those who love us! But that's not love at all...God's love is unconditional. He loves His enemies more than Himself. Hence, in God's eyes we are wicked.

Quote:

---

Luke 6:27 “But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29 If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you. 32 “

If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ love those who love them.

33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ lend to ‘sinners,’ expecting to be repaid in full. 35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

---

[Paula]

Hey Bevin,

About this:

"it is God given, but I am too shy to talk about it in a practical manner".

I agree with you to a point. The problem is that the church DOES talk about it (at least mine does). BUT, they don't talk about what they need to talk about. They talk about romance, and "men are like microwaves, women are like crockpots"... they don't dig deep enough, nor do they touch the really tough questions. So it gives one (I think) the feeling that, "I shouldn't feel this way, or that way, because the church gives guidance, so why do I still have all these doubts and questions"... but the fact of the matter is that the church doesn't talk about it... not the important stuff anyways...

[Amelia]

Norman and Gregory,

OK, WHEW!!! I really wasn't sure how it was going but thanks for letting me know you weren't at odds. Please resume the regularly scheduled dynamic debate.

P.S. You can still go read my boring blog <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/peace.gif" alt="" />

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Hi Robert

Something else came to mind.

Quote:

---

So by nature my sex drive is perverted. God never intended me to lust after any woman....His intent was for me to love one woman for life. So you could say by nature I am a "[censored]" Does that mean I have to be controlled by those lusts and desires? No!

---

If you did follow that nature you'd be a whoremonger, fornicator, idolater or adulterer. But if you stopped following your nature, which means you realized that what you were doing is wrong. Do those titles still apply to you after you stopped this? Ephesians 5:5 - For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

These are the titles are Biblical and are certainly convicting and will drive the conscientious person to Christ. If a mans nature is lusting after men and having sex with them, then all those titles still apply and you can add abomination.

But now we have someone who comes along and says that's not very nice, let’s call these men, homosexuals. Then they think for a while and say what shall we call a man who has sex with a woman, oh heterosexuals that's good. Then they come up with a theory that says you are born a heterosexual or a homosexual along with 3 other categories. From my studies I have found that this is not an exact "science"

1 Tim 1:9 "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"

There is no Biblical basis for this theory and it's dangerous. If you understand the Biblical terms you can see that it falls under the convicting power of the Holy Spirit through the law. Then one will be motivated to search for Christ for hope. But if you think, oh well I was born that way, you can't see the love of Christ in taking your sin because you will not feel your hopelessness and condition.

Look at where we are today as a result of this theory. That's where I'm coming from. I just recently found this information, but in my heart did not believe in the orientation theory.

Norman

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Hi Amelia,

I did go to your blog and it was good.

I have asked Stan for a free weblog myself, but am not too sure exactly how to get to it.

Please help.

Norman

[Gregory Matthews]

Paula:

Your friend clearly needs to seek some counseling.

Her life is not going to get better if she does not.

She should not asume that counseling would lead to anything specific. But, it will help her to clairfy the situation in her mind, make decisions about her life, and discover he she can achieve what she wants.

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Hi Robert,

I agree with the statement you posted by EGW.

Quote:

---

Paul says that as "touching the righteousness which is in the law"--as far as outward acts were concerned --he was "blameless" (Philippians 3:6); but when the spiritual character of the law was discerned, he saw himself a sinner. Judged by the letter of the law as men apply it to the outward life, he had abstained from sin; but when he looked into the depths of its holy precepts, and saw himself as God saw him, he bowed in humiliation and confessed his guilt. He says, "I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." Romans 7:9. When he saw the spiritual nature of the law, sin appeared in its true hideousness, and his self-esteem [pride] was gone. [sC 29]

---

But I cannot agree that this statement is telling us that Paul always viewed himself in that light otherwise he'd be stating that he was living after the flesh. That statement is telling us that this was the beginning of his spiritual life; when he saw himself as he truly was and that's what I experienced.(by applying Rev 3 to me) Then I changed because the had such freedom in knowing that it was not my works that saved me. Freedom! praise God, I was free from condemnation. Then I was motivated by a love for God that I had not known and I was doing the things that I wanted to do and I was not doing the things I hated. This is attainable for all of us now, do we want it? is the question.

Norman

[Paula]

Gregory,

I have told her that they need marital counseling. Her husband is unwilling to go. However you are right. It may be good for her to go to counsling alone. I had not thought of that!!

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Hi Paula,

I just read the post about your friend and her husband who's in the ministry.

It's a sad state that they're in. This is the result of the self pitying, selfish and selfdefeating culture we live in.

From what you have written this man is weak and he is a pig. He has slept around on his wife, this is apparent by what I have read. She should never believe an addict. Ask yourself, what would cause him to desire so badly to have anal sex with his wife if he hadn't already tried it. Since you've told us that he never did this with any of his many girlfriends then he has done it with someone else recently.

Since she realizes more than he, she must take action. She has to give him an ultimatum to get help or get out. It will be risky because he might just leave, but if she does nothing this type of man will take his own life eventually. He will go further and further in this debauchery untill he has sex with another man in the "3some or 4somes" that he will eventually be involved in. Knowing what he does (being in the minsitry) this and other acts will drive him to take his own life. Please tell me I'm wrong.

It's a sad thing to see this, it really is, because you know that Satan is the cause of this and he can't even see it for what it is. I have prayed for them and will continue to.

Norman

[cricket]

Norman,

You have made a lot of liberal assumptions. Let us not presuppose anything that this man may or may not have "already" done.

You are wrong to assume that he has had sex outside of his marriage. It is a case of what your previous experiences and exposures have led you to conclusions that may or may not be true.

Never accuse someone of doing something they've not admitted to, or if there is a lack of evidence.

Chrys

[Paula]

Hey Norman,

Thanks for the prayers! They really do need it. As I am not in the relationship, I have no way of knowing if he has or has not been unfaithful. She tells me that she doesn't believe he has. But it is entirely possible. As for the whole suicide bit... that is also possible. He has a need to seem perfect. Like he is the perfect Christian, man, etc... His wife told me that she got him to go to a counselor once. He begged her not to mention his sexual addiction and problems. She said that if the counselor went there on that visit she would. The counselor did not. He had promised her he would go back for more sessions, he never went. She said that the whole time they were there he acted very humbly, but like he was just an average joe with a great marriage. He is incredibly ashamed of his actions, but not enough to change. She says that when these "cycles" as she calls them, pass, he cries and laments his weakness, and begs her not to endulge him, and tells her that he is like a drug addict, and that she shouldn't give in to his desires. But when he is in it, and she does deny him, he treats her like she is worthless, and rejects her. Then to maker herself feel better she indulges him, and the cycle continues. So I can certainly see the kind of tragic end you have described. I too pray that the Lord will work a mighty miracle in their lives so that they will have much to testify about, and so that htey will be able to help others. But they are in a very dark place, and it makes me incredibly sad to see two people who obviously love each other and who are good people, going through something so terrible. They could use all of your prayers!

Christine, I agree with you... She tells me that he is very honest with her and tells her everything, no matter how embarrissing, so I chose to believe that she is correct, and that he has not been unfaithful.. but as I said before, I really can't put it past him, though the fear of what others would think if they found out may actually keep him from straying....

[Bravus]

Norman - I was thinking he may be getting his ideas from porn...

[Gregory Matthews]

Paula:

Yes, I was speaking to her, that she should to to deal with her issues. I consider her health to be at risk and think that she needs to deal with such.