Sex is sex, right?
Not quite.
There’s sex, and then there’s sex.
“What?”
Okay, there’s biological sex, and there’s spiritual sex. From the outside they look pretty much the same. But on the inside, they’re completely different.
That’s because they come from two different kinds of love.
The human mammal
We humans are mammals. We have everything other mammals have, including two sexes and a strong biological drive to reproduce through sexual intercourse.
That’s a good thing. It ensures the continuation of our species. No matter how we feel about each other, no matter how we treat each other, we’re going to have sex, and we’re going to have babies. It will be the same for the next generation of people, and the next, and the next, as long as Earth can support human life. If we migrate to other planets and solar systems, it can continue even after Earth becomes uninhabitable in another half billion years or so.
That’s how strong our biological sex drive is. The only drive that rivals it is our will to live. And our sex drive sometimes trumps even our will to live.
Clearly, God wanted us to have babies. In fact, the very first commandment God gives to humans in the Bible is, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it” (Genesis 1:28).
That’s something we’ve done very effectively by now! We are a spectacularly successful species. We’re not the biggest or the strongest or the most numerous. But we are the dominant species on this planet, and we have largely bent the other species to our will. Except mosquitoes.
Biological sex
As mammals, we have a strong drive to mate with the opposite sex. Though we can choose not to, for most people the desire to mate is built in, and not optional.
The most desirable and best way to satisfy that desire is to have sexual intercourse with a human partner. Absent that, we have come up with all sorts of other ways to satisfy our sex drive—some of them neither healthful nor moral. But one way or another, people who have a normal sex drive will find some way to satisfy it.
Sexual intercourse driven by our biological sex drive is what I’m calling “biological sex.” As with other mammals, its purpose is reproduction and the continuation of the species. Perhaps even more than for other mammals, for humans it is also intensely pleasurable physically. And unlike most other mammals, humans do not have a mating season. Women do have a monthly cycle up to menopause, causing more or less desire for sex at different times of the month. But we humans can and do mate year-round.
If our recently developed effective methods of contraception are not used, this will result in the conception and birth of new human beings. This, once again, is why we have such a strong sex drive.
So . . . sex is sex, right? It’s all about biological drives and reproduction.
Not necessarily.
Sex for closeness
Unlike other mammals, we humans don’t have sex only or even primarily for reproduction. Yes, we have the usual biological sex drive. But we have sex even when we specifically don’t want children. Women have sex even after menopause, when pregnancy and birth is no longer possible.
Why?
Because sex is not only for reproduction. It is also an expression of closeness and connection between two people. Or at least, it can be. Yes, there’s casual sex for fun and pleasure. But for two people in an ongoing relationship, engaging in sexual intimacy is sharing themselves with one another. It is an expression of the human need for closeness to another human being.
Whether or not there is greater depth in the relationship, sexual intimacy builds a healthy sense of companionship between the two people in the relationship. And this physical and emotional closeness has many health benefits, both mental and physical.
It also approaches what I am calling “spiritual sex.”
Spiritual sex vs. biological sex
Spiritual sex is still sex. Outwardly it looks exactly the same as biological sex. Skeptics and cynics would say that there’s no difference at all.
But inwardly, spiritual sex is completely different from biological sex.
Biological sex is for reproduction.
Spiritual sex is for expressing an inner relationship.
Biological sex flows from a physical drive to mate.
Spiritual sex flows from a oneness of minds and hearts between two people.
Biological sex is all about satisfying the biological sex drive, whose purpose is to propagate the species.
Spiritual sex is all about expressing love for one’s partner on all levels, right down to the physical.
Biological sex can happen between any two people who are physically capable of sexual intercourse.
Spiritual sex happens only between two people who are spiritually married—meaning they are in a long-term, monogamous, faithful, mutually loving relationship.
In short, biological sex flows from what might be called “physical love,” whereas spiritual sex flows from spiritual love.
Two kinds of love
Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772) talks about these two different kinds of love using two Latin expressions that are tricky to translate into English: amor sexus and amor unius e sexu—literally, “love of the sex” and “love of one of the sex,” which is how they have traditionally been translated.
In Latin, sexus can refer to a person’s sex, male or female. But it can also refer to the opposite sex as an object of desire, similar to the old expression, “the fair sex.” That’s how it is being used in these expressions.
Amor sexus refers to a generalized love and attraction for the opposite sex. Amor unius e sexu refers to a specific love for one person of the opposite sex. Swedenborg, of course, was writing in the context of heterosexual relationships. Perhaps the closest we can come to conveying his meaning in contemporary English language and culture is “sexual love” and “love for one partner.” Not perfect translations, but they’ll do for now.
To connect these with my earlier terms, sexual love is associated with biological sex, while love for one partner is associated with spiritual sex. The first one we have in common with all other animals that reproduce sexually, even if our version is more conscious and highly developed. The second one is unique to humans. It goes far beyond anything any animal can experience. That’s because it’s not animal. It’s spiritual.
When we first start out in teenage and adult life, we mostly have sexual love—though girls and young women lean more toward love for one partner than boys and young men. But for the most part, there’s a generalized interest in good-looking and desirable females or males. That’s biological. Whether we like it or not, health and beauty are correlated with reproductive success. Don’t get mad at men or women who want a physically attractive partner. It’s just the way we’re built biologically
If we were mere animals, this would be enough. We would have sex with suitable mates, reproduce the species, and life would go on.
But we humans have an entire spiritual level that lower animals don’t have. We are capable of outgoing, unselfish love. And we are capable of connecting romantically with another person based on love for them rather than based on self-interest and our natural biological sex drive. This means that we can have a higher level of relationship that’s about love for our partner, not about reproduction or about mere physical pleasure and satisfaction.
This higher type of love is what Swedenborg calls “marriage love.” He uses the Latin word conjugialis, which is a poetic form of conjugalis, the usual Latin adjective for “marriage.” It conveys a sense that this is something more than mere earthly marriage. It is not focused on reproducing the species. It is not a legal or social contract. It is an inner oneness of minds and hearts between two people. This is the deeper meaning of the Bible’s words about a husband and wife becoming “one flesh.”
Two kinds of sex
Physically, sex is sex. I don’t have to describe it for you.
But for us humans, it can be so much more! It has a whole emotional and even spiritual level to it that doesn’t reduce to mere biology and the reproductive drive.
Is biological sex evil? Of course not! It is a key part of the Creation that God made and declared “very good” (Genesis 1:31). There is nothing wrong or dirty about two people mating. It may not be the highest thing we humans are capable of, but it is an integral part of what God created us to do. Every new birth is a potential new angel for heaven. And that is very good. That’s why God gave us such a strong sex drive in the first place.
Of course, when it is corrupted sex can become very bad. But that’s true of every good thing. And that’s not our focus here. For now, the point is that healthy human sexual intercourse is a good thing.
But if that’s all it is, it’s not much more than an animal drive and act. It’s not evil. It’s just low-level.
Biological sex satisfies our sex drive, which is a good thing. It also gives us a sense of human closeness and companionship with another person, which is also a good thing.
But we humans are capable of a far greater type of relationship, also given to us by God. When two people have an inner connection of mind and heart, beliefs and values, perspectives and goals that makes them truly one, everything in their relationship, including their sexual intimacy, is elevated. When two people who are spiritually married make love, the closeness, intimacy, and sharing of sex is a physical expression of their inner oneness.
Yes, there is the same physical pleasure as with biological sex. But with spiritual sex, there is a far deeper sense of connection and oneness. Sexual intercourse is the closest two people can get to each other physically. It beautifully expresses how close two spiritually married partners are to each other inwardly. That’s why spiritual sex has far greater depth and human connection, not to mention satisfaction and bliss, than biological sex. It brings together every part of the two people making love: soul, mind, and body.
Of course, this level of profound inner and outer oneness between two people is not easy to achieve. It requires not only having spiritual marriage as a goal, but also continual self-correction and spiritual growth in each partner. But for couples who make this commitment and do the required personal, interpersonal, and spiritual work, there is no closer relationship, and no greater happiness and fruitfulness, than there is in spiritual love that expresses itself in spiritual sex.
For further reading:
- How does Marriage Fit In with a Spiritual Life? Is There Marriage in Heaven?
- Didn’t Jesus Say There’s No Marriage in Heaven?
- How to Attract the Opposite Sex—and Keep ’Em
- Is Sex Before Marriage Forbidden in the Bible?
- What Do Women Really Want?
- Is There Sex in Heaven?
Share this:
Lee Woofenden is an ordained minister, writer, editor, translator, and teacher. He enjoys taking spiritual insights from the Bible and the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg and putting them into plain English as guides for everyday life.
Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life 
Dear Sir Woofenden. thank you for your permanent commitment. Regarding to my personal situation (that you know), I have been alerted for long by Chapter 1 of the 1st book of Samuel. At v.8, it is written ; “Hannah, why are you crying?” her husband Elkanah asked. “Why won’t you eat? Why is your heart so grieved? Am I not better to you than ten sons ?” By this last statement (Am I not better than…), I can personally read : “I want you for myself alone…”
Then at v.19, we have : “The next morning they got up early to bow in worship before the LORD, and then they returned home to Ramah.
And Elkanah had relations with his wife Hannah, and the LORD remembered her.
???
2nd remark : It is nowhere said he had relations with Hannah before… What did he do with her then so far ? Only staring at her ?
We can then observe this duality/dichotomy/ambivalence/oppositiveness which had led me to separation…
I trust that there was sexuality before the Fall, but it was so pure, so beautified and so “celestial”, that it is not even mentioned… If I am not mistaken, Sir Swedenborg uses a very rare term to denote how it will be in the Heavens (the sooner, the better for me). This term is “Consociation” (from the latin verb consociare, from con- ‘together’ + sociare ‘to associate’) This kind of Love is not of this world… The only thing I can think of in the Scripture are the 2 kerubim facing each other staring at the Kapporet, nothing else…
So, Sir Woofenden, of what “kind” of “love” was elkanah affected with ?
Hi Emile,
Good to hear from you again, my friend. Yes, I know your personal situation, and I hope you are holding up okay these days.
About the story of Hannah and Elkanah in 1 Samuel 1:
Hannah’s childlessness was not due to Elkanah not sleeping with her. For one thing, in that culture the primary reason for a man to take a wife or wives was so that they could bear children, especially sons, for him. There was none of today’s culture of being married but childless. This would be considered a great curse and shame in that culture.
Further, we know from verse 6, and from Elkanah’s good and caring treatment of her as seen in the entire story, that Elkanah greatly loved Hannah. It is inconceivable that he would not sleep with her and seek to give her children. In that culture bearing children, especially sons, was a woman’s greatest source of honor and respect.
But we don’t have to speculate about the reason for her childlessness. In verses 5 and 6 it says that “the Lord had closed her womb.” In today’s secular society we would say that she was infertile. We also know that it was Hannah, not Elkanah, who was infertile because of what it says in verse 2:
Obviously, if Elkanah could impregnate his other wife Peninnah, he himself was fertile. So in biblical language, Hannah had no children because “the Lord had closed her womb.”
Then, later in the story, after Hannah had prayed fervently to the Lord at the temple in Shiloh, and received a blessing from Eli the priest, it says:
For the reasons given above, this was not the first time Elkanah “knew” his wife Hannah. But this time “the Lord remembered her,” meaning the Lord “opened her womb,” and she conceived. In the next chapter, we learn that after Hannah had dedicated the resulting firstborn son Samuel to the Lord and left him at the temple with the priests, her story had a happy ending:
I hope this clears up your questions about Hannah and her childlessness. It was not because Elkanah had not slept with her. She was his favorite wife. It was because Hannah was infertile.
On your final question, “what kind of love was Elkanah affected with,” I can say confidently that it was not the type of spiritual love discussed in the above article, not only because this kind of love was unknown in that time and culture, but also because Elkanah had more than one wife, and spiritual love is possible only in a monogamous relationship. However, once again, from the details of the story, and Elkanah’s tender treatment of Hannah as seen in verses 5, 8, and 23 of 1 Samuel 1, we know that he had real affection and respect for her. Though his love for her was an earthly one and not a spiritual one, it was real and warm. Even people who are not in a spiritual relationship with their wife or husband can have a good, loving, and healthy relationship if there is mutual love and respect, and the people themselves are honorable.
On your other point, I do think that sexual relations before the Fall were pure and beautiful, and yes, spiritual. Since it was before the Fall, humans were still living in close and loving relationship both with God and with one another. The Bible covers what was probably a very long time (perhaps many thousands of years) in early human pre-history in only a few verses. Those verses do not include any specific mention of the people of those times engaging in sexual intimacy. For one thing, that entire culture and era was represented symbolically in the figure of Adam, or “humankind,” which Genesis 5:1–2 informs us consisted of both men and women.
However, the common “Christian” idea that there was no sex before the Fall has no merit. Indeed, as stated in the above article, this was the very first commandment God gave to the humans he had created:
Obviously, it is not possible to “be fruitful and multiply” without having sex. Clearly, sex was a part of created humans’ lives right from the beginning, before the Fall, or they would have been in direct violation of God’s very first commandment.
I hope this covers your questions sufficiently. If I’ve missed something or you have further thoughts and questions, please feel free to continue the conversation. But please note that I will be away for a few days and will have minimal Internet access. If I don’t respond immediately, I will do so when we return home.
Meanwhile, may God give you blessings and strength for each day’s challenges.
At the risk of sounding obscene here, is sex in New Church Heaven limited to just one position?
And are certain sex acts (foreplay, oral, etc) forbidden, like they seemingly are in more traditional and conservative Christianity?
Of course the motive behind sex differs like Swedenborg and you point out.
Hi K,
Swedenborg does not give any specific information about this. There is one statement in his unpublished draft on marriage that suggests that angels sleep “in embrace,” so to speak (the Latin uses a similar word), but that’s about as explicit as he gets. It’s not that he was incapable of being explicit. In his earlier unpublished draft on the reproductive organs in his anatomical works, written during his scientific period, there is an explicit description of the act of sexual intercourse. But there is nothing like that in his theological works, published or unpublished.
However, in general, angels act from internal motivation and conscience, not based on externally imposed rules. There might be some such rules in the lowest heaven, where angels who are focused and behavior and obedience live. If so, these rules would be seen as good and necessary, and not something the angels there would chafe against, but would follow happily and willingly. In the two higher heavens, and especially in the highest heaven, people act from internal motivation and understanding. Rules aren’t necessary. Only teaching and understanding that guide behavior. In the highest heaven, angels act directly from the heart.
What does this mean for sex? Angels do whatever flows from love and understanding. It’s not about what’s allowed and what’s not allowed. It’s about what’s good and loving, and corresponds to mutual love and understanding.
Finally, angels are not some different species than the people who live on earth. They are the very same people, with the very same personality, character, and habits, who have moved on to heaven. Yes, there is some instruction in the third stage in the spiritual world before people move on to heaven, but this seems to be mostly about spiritual things such as the nature of God. I doubt there’s a sex education component. My inclination, then, is to believe that people continue to make love in the same way they did on earth, using the same positions, etc. Perhaps some types of sex practiced here on earth correspond to things that aren’t good, and would be left behind. I don’t know. But it’s the same people, and if there’s something they enjoy and want to do, nobody is standing over them in their bedroom telling them they can’t do it.
Bottom line: angels are free to do whatever they want to and whatever is good and honorable, which is all they want to do anyway. This applies to sex just as much as it does to anything else.
I know this isn’t an “explicit” answer, but it’s about as much as can be said with any confidence. And anyway, it’s not my job to go through various sex positions and types to rank and evaluate them. These are personal decisions, and angels are free to live their lives as they want to live them. One angel doesn’t make decisions about what other angels will do.
In traditional Christianity, it is said that the only acceptable sex is “missionary position for the purpose of procreation”, but good to know angels are not necessarily so limited.
Hi K,
Traditional Christianity has a generally negative, narrow, and unspiritual view of sex. Based on their view of it, you’d think that God sort of held his nose and said, “Well, it’s messy and dirty, but this is how they’re going to make babies.” But that’s not how it’s presented in Genesis.
Well said
Hi Jess,
Thanks for stopping by. Glad you enjoyed the article! Godspeed on your spiritual journey.
Beautifully written, such an important distinction. Thank you for clarifying this topic!
Hi Niels,
Thanks for stopping by, and for your kind words. Glad you enjoyed the article! Godspeed on your spiritual journey.
I guess a “rated PG” way to understand this article is that there is kissing from love, and kissing from mere passion, with kissing working like sex?
Hi K,
Yes, that’s another way to put it.
Dear Reverend Lee,
hello! I hope you are doing well. I have a question that might seem strange and I apologize if it seems that way. I just consider myself an “old soul” in the metaphorical sense and I feel like I have nothing in common with others in their 20’s. I was going to ask: I like women in their 50’s. Always have liked women older than me than my age. I just feel like I am so different from my peers. I like 1940’s and 50’s fashion, I like old movies, I’m philosophical, etc. Is it possible if my soulmate can be that age in Heaven? I ask because I remember Swedenborg talking about eternal youth and I’m wondering if what’s in heaven would conflict with my desire.
also, I’ve considered myself transgender for a long time. I realize that I only really have social dysphoria over not being able to dress like a woman (from like the 1940’s and 1950’s) rather than having a female body. I’m perfectly fine with having a male body. Is crossdressing a sin according to God?
Hi Luke,
Thanks for stopping by, and for your questions. Yes, somewhat unusual, but as they say, variety is the spice of life.
To take the last question first, the traditional Christian strictures against cross-dressing come from this verse in Deuteronomy:
This is the only place in the Bible where this rule is given. It is part of a speech Moses gave to the Israelites just before they were going to enter the Holy Land and begin conquering it. More liberal Christians tend to view many of these rules as culture- and context-specific, and not applicable today, whereas conservative and fundamentalist Christians commonly select out particular ones of these rules, such as the ones against cross-dressing and the one against men having sex with men, and make them into universal laws of God for all time.
As background on this, you might want to take the time to read my main article on homosexuality, here:
Homosexuality, the Bible, and Christianity
Along the way, this article delves into the cultural context of the two prohibitions against men having sex with men embedded in a similar series of rules given in Leviticus. In particular, the Hebrew word translated “abhorrent” in this verse is one that has the sense of the behavior it’s applied to being a cultural taboo, though it can also be used for moral wrongs.
I view the prohibition of women taking on what pertains to men (in a somewhat more literal version of Deuteronomy 22:5), and of men wearing the garments of women, as being similarly embedded in the culture and context of their time. As covered in the homosexuality article, at that time, women were viewed as being naturally of lower status than men. Therefore, a man wearing the garments of a woman would lower him to the status of a woman (as seen in that time and culture), thus disgracing him, whereas a woman taking on what pertains to a man would be arrogating to herself a status she does not possess (again, in that time and culture), thus making her guilty of pride and arrogance.
Today, it is still similar in some traditional cultures around the world. But in Western culture at least, women are now commonly viewed as being of equal status to men. Of course, there is backlash against this from the traditionalists, but that is the direction the culture is going, as reflected both in laws now being mostly written to give men and women equal rights, and as reflected in people today, especially young people who grew up in the current environment, commonly seeing men and women as equals.
If my theory about this is correct, then the main reason that law prohibiting cross-dressing was given at the time no longer applies. Today, it is not legally or culturally disgraceful for a man to be seen as having the status of a woman, nor is it considered prideful for a woman to be seen as having the status of a man, because the two are increasingly considered to be of equal status. A man may be considered a bit weird for putting on a dress, but the main body of the population won’t view him as having disgraced himself. Just as being . . . a little weird.
Looking a little deeper, the meta-meaning of Deuteronomy 22:5 could be read as: Don’t represent yourself as being something you’re not. Don’t demean yourself by acting as if you’re worse than you are, and don’t puff yourself up by acting as if you’re greater than you are. And in general, don’t misrepresent yourself as being something you’re not.
Our clothing is an expression of our character, personality, rank, and yes, gender. Mousy people don’t wear flamboyant clothing, and flamboyant people don’t wear mousy clothing, because that wouldn’t express who they are. When we look at people’s clothing, we can get a sense of what kind of person they are. But if they “cross-dress” by wearing clothes that are inappropriate to their actual character, they’re sending wrong and confusing signals.
And why are they doing that? Is it from an intent to deceive? Is it from being uncomfortable with who they are, and trying to be someone they’re not? From a Swedenborgian perspective, you always have to think about the motives behind the things people do.
Along these lines, if a man has feelings of femininity within himself, as a small percentage of men do, is it misrepresenting himself to put on women’s clothing? In this case, no. It is expressing something about himself. Perhaps some people think that’s messed up, but what it’s not is deception. And deception is the main thing prohibited by Deuteronomy 22:5: presenting an outward appearance that doesn’t match the inward reality.
Of course, some amount of concealment is necessary in human society, where there is a mix of good and evil. That’s why we don’t all walk around naked all the time. It’s not wrong to hide sensitive parts of ourselves. What’s wrong is to pretend we’re someone we’re not, especially if it’s intended to gain us benefits or advantages that aren’t rightfully ours.
Correspondentially, “garments” are the true ideas (“truths,” in traditional Swedenborgese) that we clothe our spirit with. These are the ideas we use to present ourselves, shield ourselves, and so on—all the psychological or spiritual equivalents of why we wear clothing, and why we wear the particular clothing we do.
As for your own situation, that’s not something I can judge, because I can’t see into your heart and mind. Personally, I grew up in an earlier time when there wasn’t all the widespread gender dysphoria there is today. And I lament the gender confusion that has cropped up in this time of transition between the old hierarchical gender relations and the new gender relations based on equality. There’s bound to be some chaos in the transition. I look forward to the day when the transition will be complete, and there won’t be so much gender confusion among young people.
But for now, we’re living in the time of transition, and gender confusion is common among young people—though not as common as is often presented in the media. Most people still just think of themselves simply as a boy/man or a woman/girl. But for that small percentage of the population for which that’s not the case, my view is that people should be allowed to express themselves and dress as they wish, whatever old folks like me might think about it. No one is being damaged by a man dressing as a woman. It’s not as though someone’s getting killed or stolen from or slandered.
By the same token, people who choose to dress in a way that doesn’t match their gender within the current culture will just have to accept that this is going to affect their relations with other people, not to mention their job prospects. Just as I believe people should be free to dress as they wish, so I believe people should be free to associate with whom they wish, or to not associate with those whom they don’t wish to associate. In a business environment, it’s going to be a hard sell to show up for a job interview wearing a dress when you’re obviously a man. To this day, that continues to make many people uncomfortable. Pragmatically speaking, it’s going to hurt their business if they hire you. And I don’t think they should be forced to hire you any more than I think you should be forced not to wear a dress.
In short, I think people should be free to live and dress as they wish, as long as they’re not hurting anyone, but I also think people who for whatever reason choose to live and dress in a way that falls far outside of current cultural norms should not expect the whole society to conform to their wishes, but should be realistic about the effects of their character and choices.
Much of the thrust of these types of rules in the Bible is about being respectful of the culture in which you live. Men who wear men’s clothing, and prefer to see other men wearing men’s clothing too, and women who wear women’s clothing, and prefer to see other women wearing women’s clothing too, are not evil. That’s just how the vast bulk of humans are made. Most men feel completely male, and most women feel completely female. That’s just the reality of the situation. So while I think the vast bulk of society that are straight men and straight women, without all sorts of gender dysphoria, should make accommodation in their minds for the much smaller contingent of people who aren’t that way, I also think that people who aren’t that way should have respect for the main body of straight people who have a clear male or female identity, and should not attempt to force them into situations or relationships that they’re not comfortable with.
I’m aware that this puts me outside the pale within certain circles, both on the conservative end and on the liberal end of the political and religious spectrum. But along with my Swedenborgian value on human freedom, there is also a pragmatism about the realities of human culture, gender, and so on. Attempting to make the world into a fantasy world that doesn’t really exist is not going to work. The sooner the people on both ends of the political and cultural spectrum recognize and accept this, the sooner we can get past our currently highly polarized and embattled culture and world.
Well, that sort of turned into a rant, didn’t it! 😀 But there you are. I hope you find this helpful. And of course, you’ll have to make up your own mind about these things.
I realize I haven’t answered all your questions, but I’ll end this reply here, and respond to the others separately.
Hi Luke,
On your first set of questions:
These are complicated issues because of the time- and culture-bound nature of this world. It’s not that unusual for people to feel out of step with the culture and times in which they were born. I suspect there are a few other “old souls” of the female persuasion in their 20s out there, whether or not you personally have met them. I think about some of the popular jazz bands these days that recreate the roaring 20s or some adjacent era in their music and dress, even though they’re living a century later. Here’s an example of one that I have a slight personal connection with because the pianist attended the same Swedenborgian family summer camp I did for several years when we were kids:
In the spiritual world, people apparently continue to live in the same sort of culture they did when they were on earth. Swedenborg mentions visiting the heaven of people from the earliest religious era (“Most Ancient Church” in traditional Swedenborgese), and they were still living in tents, just as they had on earth. Meanwhile, in the parts of heaven he most commonly visited, which were form his own European time and culture, people lived pretty much like well-off Europeans of the day. (Swedenborg, of course, moved in the upper echelons of society, not among the common folk.)
This suggests to me that in the spiritual world, you can live in whatever era and culture you feel most comfortable with. Personally, I wouldn’t want to live in the 1940s or 1950s. But if that’s your gig, there’s nothing stopping you from living that way in the spiritual world.
As for marrying an older woman, that would depend upon the reasons and psychology behind it. If you’re looking for a mother rather than a wife, then you might be able to get that, but it’s not going to be exactly a marital relationship. And in the spiritual world, everyone is living in a young body in the prime of life, so there’s not going to be the age differentiation that there is here.
If, on the other hand, you’re just looking for someone who has the look and feel of the 1940s or 1950s, and the age difference isn’t the issue, then that’s a whole different story. But realistically, women in their fifties grew up in the 1970s and 1980s, not in the 1940s and 1950s, for which they’d have to be in their seventies or eighties now, if not in their nineties. So you have to question whether you’re really looking for a 1940s and 1950s vibe if you’re interested in women who came from two or three decades later.
But all of that is for you to sort out in you own mind and heart. There’s nothing inherently wrong with getting married to someone of a different age. In the spiritual world, it won’t matter, because you’ll both be of a similar “age” physically. The question is why you’re looking for someone of a different age. And whether, if you found someone of the same age, but who has similar cultural preferences, that would also work for you.
Just a few thoughts. I can’t see into your heart or mind, so take what works, and leave the rest.