According to Judaism illicit relations are forbidden. I always thought that the way one can control his lustful desires is by marrying.

In the *Garden of Peace*, Rabbi Shalom Arush says that a man cannot be a giver if he has lust towards his wife. That is, he should nullify all his lust towards his wife and only focus on giving to her.

Is this opinion unique to the Breslov way of thought or are there other opinions that support this idea?
['https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/66117', 'https://judaism.stackexchange.com', 'https://judaism.stackexchange.com/users/3006/']
Ezra and his generation of Anshei Keneses haGdolah tried to put in place legislation requiring a man to go to the miqvah the morning after relations, "so that he should not copulate like a rooster". I don't know if this was an estimate of the right level of annoyance the next morning, or so that the man who did overdue it would pay a social penalty because someone would eventually notice how often he goes. This legislation was never accepted by the masses, and therefore did not become binding. (Shulchan Arukh, OC 88:1)

But the motive behind the attempt tells you something.

Similarly, Nachmanides on "qedoshim tihyu, qi Qadosh Ani -- be holy, for I Am Holy" (Vayiqra 19:2) says that the mitzvah is to avoid being a "naval bireshus haTorah -- a knave with [what would otherwise be] the permission of the Torah". Or, as Nachmanides is explained by Rav Shimon Shkop (introduction, Shaarei Yosher), to avoid those distractions from one's commitment to holiness.

What is knavely behavior? "The person who is driven by appetite (ba’al ta’avah) will find room to indulge in lustful behavior with his wife or his numerous u wives, and to be among those that swill wine and guzzle meat (per Prov 23:20), and will speak freely using all those vulgarities that are not explicitly prohibited by the Torah. ... Therefore this verse comes, after [the Torah] has enumerated those things that are completely prohibited, commanding in a general way to separate ourselves from excessive material indulgence and to restrict ourselves in sexual intercourse, as the Rabbis say, “Sages ought not to be found with their wives like roosters” [Berakhos 22a], but only engage in sexual relations according to that which is needed to fulfill the mitzvot connected therewith."

Those mitzvos being the connecting with another person "and he shall be attached to his wife and become another person" (Bereishis 2:24) and procreation (Bereishis 1:28).

Similar to Rav Shimon Shkop's take on the Ramban, that overdoing it is defined by distractions to holiness, we find Rav Moshe Chaim Luzzatto writing in Mesilas Yesharim (ch. 14) writes (bracketed insertion and emphasis mine):

> 
> Separation in relation to pleasures, which we spoke of in the previous chapter [where it is given as one of three types of "separation"], consists in one’s taking from the world only what is essential to him. This type of Separation encompasses anything which provides pleasure to any one of the senses, whether the pleasure be gained through food, **cohabitation**, clothing, strolls, conversation or similar means, exceptions obtaining only at such times when deriving pleasure through these means is a mitzvah.
> 
> 
> 

So there is a call to refrain from overdoing sex, but the definition of "overdoing" is when it gets to the point that you lose sight of bonding to one's spouse, a very contextual and subjective frequency.
There are some *very, very* different views on the subject in different sources. [More is discussed here.](https://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/33902/21)

Satmar thought has similar language, by the way. And many other groups feel that's unworkable.

The Shulchan Aruch in Or HaChaim uses very strong language about "only for her", but in Even HaEzer that does not appear. Most notably, the Aruch HaShulchan modifies the Shulchan Aruch's language from "only for her" to "also about her."

That's an approach that I've heard from many contemporary marital educators: in a healthy relationship, it can't be *entirely* about only one person.