Lin

“Are you claiming that “one flesh union”= sex?
and that humans are in a different category because humans do it even when there is no possibility of conception?”

Charis, I certainly do not think that at all about ‘one flesh union’. I agree it went much deeper than that…and even intellectually deeper as a partnership than it is considered today.

“And though I agree that a woman’s desire for her husband is much more than physical, just think how it would be if she never ever had any sexual desire except during fertility (like animals). I think it would take away a lot of the sexualization of media, the exploitation of women, and it would make women much less dependent upon male opinion. And I think men would adjust. ”

Personally, I think the word ‘desire’ in Gen 3:16 is a horrible translation. It gets us off on the wrong track completely. I do not think it maps to the consequence of sin for women at all. But that is my opinion. I believe that the best translation is’ turning’…as in turning toward her husband and away from God. I think that matches the consequences of being dominated by her husband. She would turn to him to fulfill all her needs instead of also having an intimate relationship with God. If only we were teaching women to turn to God instead of their husbands for all their needs, especially their spiritual needs. I think we would see a huge change in the evangelical divorce rate.