Charis

Natural Use
does NOT necessarily mean sexual. The only “evidence” for that is Strong’s concordance (with only ONE witness BTW- in this Romans passage ONLY). I think the writers of Strong’s were male, and that is where their focus was (SEX as a woman’s “natural use”)

If you look in the lexicon at Tufts at the greek words translated “natural use” you will not find sex even mentioned-
“natural use” is a pretty accurate reflection of the Greek, and I think Genesis 1 shows that the Natural Use GOD intended is not restricted to SEX (I think that was imposed on this text by tradition, and I think its an insulting view that the “Natural Use” of women is all about sex- I can’t believe that’s what GOD means, because I know GOD and HIS character better than that)

chresis= use http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3D%2335956

physikos= natural

But I dislike debating with you. You appear to make up your mind and you don’t seem willing to look objectively at the evidence. I don’t expect to be heard on this. I expect you to line right up with the traditional interpretation and assume that its my “issues” rather than assuming that my “issues” give me insight on some scriptures which you can’t see because you lack the experience of having been treated as if your “natural use” is all and only about sex.