Is Sexual Enhancement a sin?

[Matt M]

What is the biblical view on sexual enhancement (i.e., genital enlargements or tweaks in men and women)?

[James Peter]

Umm, I really don't think there is one, or that it is reasonable to expect there to be. Now, there might be a general principle which can be extrapolated to encompass this issue but realistically there are probably several. I can understand the position that 'God made you like that, are you saying he got it wrong?' but the same argument can be used against, say, heart transplants or in fact almost any medical treatment. I mean even the argument 'I want to satisfy my wife and so I need a bigger...' has some merit. Is it a sensible use of money? Probably not. But then again neither is buying a BMW or, in fact, the vast majority of modern 'status' symbols (including a top of the range PC). I think the motives of the individual are they key and that there is no universal answer.

[Ryokan]

Its probably a case by case thing, based on who you are, where you are, and why you want to, uh, do it.

[Tladatsi]

What is the biblical view on sexual enhancement (i.e., genital enlargements or tweaks in men and women)?

It is forbiden. "You shall not make gashes in your flesh for the dead, or incise any marks on yourselves: I am the Lord" (Leviticus 19:28). Also see Mishnah Makkot 3:6. Likewise Deuteronomy 25:3. "Forty shall he strike him, he shall not add; lest he strike him an additional blow beyond these, and your brother will be degraded in your eyes." which has traditionally been interpreted by the Rabbis as opposing all un-necessary wounds.

You cannot make "enlargements" without "marking" oneself. Tattoos and the like rank right up there with homosexuality and eating shrimp.

[DesertBerean]

It is forbiden. "You shall not make gashes in your flesh for the dead, or incise any marks on yourselves: I am the Lord" (Leviticus 19:28). Also see Mishnah Makkot 3:6. Likewise Deuteronomy 25:3. "Forty shall he strike him, he shall not add; lest he strike him an additional blow beyond these, and your brother will be degraded in your eyes." which has traditionally been interpreted by the Rabbis as opposing all un-necessary wounds.

You cannot make "enlargements" without "marking" oneself. Tattoos and the like rank right up there with homosexuality and eating shrimp.
:twitch:
Making gashes for the dead or incising marks on oneself were ancient pagan customs for grieving. No relation at all to the OP's question. The forty strikes...that was a penalty for breaking the law. Are you sure you're understaning the Rabbis correctly????

[Timothy Leary]

It is forbiden. "You shall not make gashes in your flesh for the dead, or incise any marks on yourselves: I am the Lord" (Leviticus 19:28). Also see Mishnah Makkot 3:6. Likewise Deuteronomy 25:3. "Forty shall he strike him, he shall not add; lest he strike him an additional blow beyond these, and your brother will be degraded in your eyes." which has traditionally been interpreted by the Rabbis as opposing all un-necessary wounds.

You cannot make "enlargements" without "marking" oneself. Tattoos and the like rank right up there with homosexuality and eating shrimp.

There's a huge difference between the old mourning customs of the cana'anites and surgery dude

not that i think either is kosher, but the comparison is invalid

[stabalizer]

It is forbiden. "You shall not make gashes in your flesh for the dead, or incise any marks on yourselves: I am the Lord" (Leviticus 19:28). Also see Mishnah Makkot 3:6. Likewise Deuteronomy 25:3. "Forty shall he strike him, he shall not add; lest he strike him an additional blow beyond these, and your brother will be degraded in your eyes." which has traditionally been interpreted by the Rabbis as opposing all un-necessary wounds.

You cannot make "enlargements" without "marking" oneself. Tattoos and the like rank right up there with homosexuality and eating shrimp.

I thought shrimp have a fin and scales? Sorry I'm ignorant on this one!

(gentile in origin)

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Folks, this has been non disruptive up to this point, so nothing has been deleted, but from this point on, please bear in mind the rules for this forum, as stated in the forum guidelines:

Posting eligibility follows the same guidelines as Christianity 201 in that only those persons holding to historical church orthodoxy (as defined by the Apostles Creed, and/or the Theology Web Statement of Faith, for example) will be permitted to post. Persons not eligible to participate in this forum due to the “in house” nature of the discussion here are welcome to open up threads for discussion in the appropriate nonrestrictive forums.

[Tladatsi]

I thought shrimp have a fin and scales? Sorry I'm ignorant on this one!

(gentile in origin)

Nope, they don't.

[stabalizer]

Nope, they don't.

thanks for your response

Isn't the tail a fin?

When I peel a shrimp, it looks like a scale to me.?

I'm not a biologist I do carpentry, but I have fished a bit.

Last post here I don,t want to go off topic out of respect.

thanks

[DesertBerean]

Regarding the original question, I say it depends. Who you are and why you want it.

Can't help but think of that woman who had herself all fixed up to try and keep her unfaithful husband, and she ended up running him over.

Like I said...it depends. :eek:

[Tladatsi]

There's a huge difference between the old mourning customs of the cana'anites and surgery dude

not that i think either is kosher, but the comparison is invalid

The moderator has indicated further discussion to be "out of bounds" in this forum. So be it. If you want more on the position I outlined just google "Jewish Law and Cosmetic surgery".

[HerodionRomulus]

The moderator has indicated further discussion to be "out of bounds" in this forum. So be it. If you want more on the position I outlined just google "Jewish Law and Cosmetic surgery".
Really? I thought the mod was saying make sure you are qualified to post in this area.

Anyway, the whole point is foolish. We need to get over this sick obsession with sex and get on with the real work of Christ: feed the hungry, clothe the naked, support the helpless, hopeless and hapless.
End of Rant :eek:

[themuzicman]

It is forbiden. "You shall not make gashes in your flesh for the dead, or incise any marks on yourselves: I am the Lord" (Leviticus 19:28). Also see Mishnah Makkot 3:6. Likewise Deuteronomy 25:3. "Forty shall he strike him, he shall not add; lest he strike him an additional blow beyond these, and your brother will be degraded in your eyes." which has traditionally been interpreted by the Rabbis as opposing all un-necessary wounds.

You cannot make "enlargements" without "marking" oneself. Tattoos and the like rank right up there with homosexuality and eating shrimp.
Actually, there are (supposedly) natural male enhancements that are accomplished through some kind of herbal treatment that includes taking a pill once a day, so there are no wounds....

Same for women...

(Not sure if the WORK or not but...)
Michael

[Ryokan]

Actually, there are (supposedly) natural male enhancements that are accomplished through some kind of herbal treatment that includes taking a pill once a day, so there are no wounds....

Same for women...

(Not sure if the WORK or not but...)
Michael
I've heard they do, a little, but they can make you bleed out your orifice if you are allergic. ouch.

[HerodionRomulus]

Actually, there are (supposedly) natural male enhancements that are accomplished through some kind of herbal treatment that includes taking a pill once a day, so there are no wounds....

Same for women...

(Not sure if the WORK or not but...)
Michael

You probably mean that inane "Bob" commercial for Enzyte which is one of the stupidest commercials in a long time.

[A-Man]

What a thread.

[Dark Knight]

What about reductions? Is that okay? :shy:

[wizduels]

ok time for a serious answer. right or wrong depends on the purpose. sexual 'enhancements' are done for the purpose of lust. lust is not wrong if the object of your lust is a legitmate one. it is wrong for a married man to lust after a woman he is not married to but it is perfectly ok to lust all he wants after his own wife. if the married man or woman obtained sexual enhancments for the purpose of giving or receiving higher degrees of sexual ectasy and union to or from their spouse then in the context of a biblical marriage there is nothing wrong with it.

[Jezz]

ok time for a serious answer. right or wrong depends on the purpose. sexual 'enhancements' are done for the purpose of lust. lust is not wrong if the object of your lust is a legitmate one. it is wrong for a married man to lust after a woman he is not married to but it is perfectly ok to lust all he wants after his own wife. if the married man or woman obtained sexual enhancments for the purpose of giving or receiving higher degrees of sexual ectasy and union to or from their spouse then in the context of a biblical marriage there is nothing wrong with it.
Gotta disagree. Lust is always wrong, even if the object of lust is your wife. I mean, it is ok to eat and enjoy food, but this doesn't mean that it's ok to be a glutton - ie, eating is ok, but only when done appropriately.

I don't know if I can say outright that sexual enhancements are all wrong, always - but I think you would certainly be on shaky ground. I suspect that you would be focusing too much on sex instead of God.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I'm with Jezz. Lust is an improper attitude, especially towards someone that you're supposed to honour and cherish.

[Grover]

I'm with Jezz. Lust is an improper attitude, especially towards someone that you're supposed to honour and cherish.I think wizduels used the wrong terminology to make a valid point. The word "lust" always refers to a sinful attitude. So lust is always wrong. However, sexual longing after one's own wife is appropriate and right. Yes, it's still possible to sinfully lust after one's own spouse, but a healthy sexual attraction is part of a biblical marriage.

So in wizduels's post, I just assumed that when he talked about lust not being a sin against one's own spouse, he was using lust to mean sexual attraction. He makes a good point that I agree with: the morality of sexual enhancements depends on the reasons behind them.

[James Peter]

Yep, saying lust is ok is like saying murder is alright. Lust, by definition, is wrong sexual attraction, just as murder is wrong killing. There are times when it can be 'right' to kill but in those situations it isn't murder. Similarly sexual desire can be good, but in those situations it isn't lust.

Anyway, I'd suggest that there is a fine line between, say, wearing makeup and doing other things that enhance your sexual attractiveness and having a boob job. The intent is generally the same in both cases, one is just more extreme than the other...

[wizduels]

grover clarified my answer. i meant what he said. poor choice of terminology for what i thought was a valid point. you guys get the idea.

[lightninboy]

Not necessarily a sin. Patricia Heaton did it. But is it a good use of money in your case? It's Not the Size of the Dog in the Fight; It's the Size of the Fight in the Dog. Sexual enhancement could also refer to Viagra, etc. I suppose that could make you happy, but is it really good for your health?

[Nazaroo]

Why not just agree to use the more neutral term, "desire", to avoid the connotations in English (i.e. for "Lust") that don't exist in the original Hebrew or Greek of the Holy Scriptures.

"desire" covers everything you want to talk about without the prejorative implication of "lust", a developed concept not found in original NT Greek language.

Peace
Nazaroo

[Tlalynet]

There is a lot of talk about size enhancement to enhance plesesure but I belive this is a bit of a miss. First of I dont know of any prohibiton against trying. But its not really a good route to take wether its right or wrong. The height of a womans pleasure is usually not attained only by stroking with the penis. Furthermore the vagina is flexible and in most cases even very short man should be able to get to the G spot if the womans body is used to him. While there are certinly advantages to size I think men overestimate them, size is usually more of a psycological thing than a physical in this respect. Size enhancement is a poor substitute to learning your wifes unique sensitive places and what arouses her psyce. If push comes to shove both can orgasm very well even with a poor copulation if carefull attention is paid and good effort is given.
In sum, getting an enhancemnet to improve plesure is usually the wrong way of going about it unless someone has a severe psycological complex about size.
As for the question of impotence that is another matter. I think for that some kind of enhancment would be a practical option.

[joel]

Does circumcision fall in this category? Why/why not?

[Chocobear]

It is forbiden. "You shall not make gashes in your flesh for the dead, or incise any marks on yourselves: I am the Lord" (Leviticus 19:28). Also see Mishnah Makkot 3:6. Likewise Deuteronomy 25:3. "Forty shall he strike him, he shall not add; lest he strike him an additional blow beyond these, and your brother will be degraded in your eyes." which has traditionally been interpreted by the Rabbis as opposing all un-necessary wounds.

You cannot make "enlargements" without "marking" oneself. Tattoos and the like rank right up there with homosexuality and eating shrimp.

So I guess life-saving surgery is out of the question, given the fact that it leaves marks?

And as someone already pointed out: The Scriptures forbid making gashes for the dead or incising marks on yourself, because they were ancient pagan customs.

To answer Jesus Believes Me's question: I think it's very safe to say that there was no such custom in Biblical times. So I can't answer your question.

[Tlalynet]

Wow things change slowly here, Ive been offline for 6 months, and the same topic is sitting there.

[Tladatsi]

So I guess life-saving surgery is out of the question, given the fact that it leaves marks?

I think that goes to the "un-necessary" part. If it necessary than it is OK, if not, then no.

Observant Jews and Muslims both oppose even tattoos.

[joel]

I think that goes to the "un-necessary" part. If it necessary than it is OK, if not, then no.

Observant Jews and Muslims both oppose even tattoos.
I ask again: what about circumcision? Many (probably most) people have their child circumcised for "un-necessary" reasons (e.g., cosmetic, hygienic). Is that permissible or sinful?

[Shadow Phoenix]

I would say that first off, I don't think the verses given by Tladatsi apply. I had scoleosis surgery for instance. It was not necessary. I could have lived without it. I would just have been the hunchback of Notre-Dame today. I also had a muscle biopsy done. (That involves a scar barely visible on my left shoulder to this day.)

Now as to the question, I think we are in an odd area. For instance, let's suppose I wanted to enhance my body to build up some strength and be more attractive to a female so I go to the gym and start working out. (Which I don't really do much of for various reasons. With scoleosis and other problems, I walk a fine line.) Is that a sin? Is it wrong to make oneself want to look better for a mate? If so, then we'd better condemn the advice Naomi gave Ruth!

Thus, I don't think the idea of changing the body is going to work.

Tlaynet I think gave an excellent answer. This is more a psychological thing than a physical thing. I do speak as a virgin of course (And I have no desire to remain one!), but I do have the book "The Gift of Sex" and this kind of thing is indeed covered where there is that male infatuation and the stance of the authors is that it really doesn't matter.

As for lust, no. One should not lust even after one's own wife. Again though, I think we are still walking a fine line. I define lust as inordinate sexual desire. If I have a wife and look at her as only a means to fulfilling my sexual pleasure, then I believe I am sinning and treating her as an object.

Now as a single guy, this is the danger that I see when we talk about lust. If I see a girl, there is sexual desire. My mind is automatically attracted to the human female form. Is that wrong? No. That's the way God made me. Is it wrong to desire sex as a virgin? No. It's a gift of God and I should desire it. In fact, if I'm dating a girl and I am not desiring sex, then I would think that would be a sign of a greater problem. The issue really is "Am I desiring just sex itself" or "Am I desiring a female?"

I think there is all the difference in the world. Gabby posted an article in the Sorority about how women can have possibly 9 times the sexual pleasure men have during intercourse. As a guy, I should not view that as a bad thing. I should think "Wow. I can bring that much pleasure to a lady someday. As much pleasure as she brings me, I can bring her more." If you focus on the pleasure of the other above yourself (Not at the expense of yourself as I think it's perfectly right to seek your own happiness also), then I think you will be treating the other person properly.