Mature Thread - Christian Sexuality - Must be 18 to post

[technomage]

But he is extrapolating anal sex to being forbidden to married couples.

No, that was Eudyptes--Ghar pointed out that forbidding homosexual relationships does not mean those acts are forbidden within a heterosexual marriage.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Thank you, Dee Dee, for your trust on this issue. Especially on this issue, which is delicate, at best.

Beyond noting that Paul commands the heterosexual monogamy that you note, and also that he acknowledges that there will be times when married couples will refrain from sexual activity (and even that with the consent of the partner, see 1 Cor 7:1-5), there are no instructions regarding any specific practices that should not be indulged in. But note something in the passage cited:

1 Cor 7:4
The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.

Paul does not say that the body of the partner belongs to the spouse--it belongs to the person, and also to the spouse.

In Christian marriage, sexuality is not a blank submission to the husband's (or wife's) needs, but a sharing between the partners. Those acts that both partners enjoy are certainly permitted, but there should be no such thing as "Lie back and think of England"--if one partner does not wish to participate in a sexual act, he or she is not required to.

ETA: Beyond that, I'm not sure it is profitable to delve too much into specifics, especially in public. I could almost imagine Paul (according to tradition and the Bible, never married) blushing at the thought. These are decisions that are between the couple, and are not subject to the approbation of the crowd--more importantly, even if Christians have the license to enjoy their spouse's body within the marriage, they should not allow their liberty to cause a stumbling block for other Christian couples, or especially for Christians who are not married.

The reason why I think it might be profitable with EXTREME discretion is that there is a lot of (I think needless) judgmentalism within Christianity on this issue. I have been guilty of it myself.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Well, I'll start with a first specific: anal intercourse. It's forbidden between males, so I will suggest that it is forbidden between men and women too.


>

See above Techomage... it was ghar that made this argument.

[Dee Dee Warren]

No, that was Eudyptes--Ghar pointed out that forbidding homosexual relationships does not mean those acts are forbidden within a heterosexual marriage.

See my post 33. I think you have the two reversed.

[technomage]

The reason why I think it might be profitable with EXTREME discretion is that there is a lot of (I think needless) judgmentalism within Christianity on this issue. I have been guilty of it myself.

In that sense, I can understand--though I still imagine Paul would be blushing furiously.

[technomage]

Sorry, Dee Dee--you are correct. I was looking at post 21, where it looked like the analysis I gave. It's what I get for posting before coffee.

[gharfish]

then by your previous line of thought, oral sex should be forbidden in marriage

You are going really fast, dizzle! I said that, AFIKnew, oral sex was not discussed specifically in the Bible. Not discussed, but with a possible mention in the Song of Solomon. If so, then the Bible gives it's consent for oral sex between man and wife.

You are starting to get pushy; I don't know why. No, no; my previous line of thought did not take us to oral sex being forbidden in marriage!


>

[apostoli]

How can a spouse have or want authority over the other's body if they don't lust after it?

Little thing called love. Thats what Ephesians 5:28 is all about.

And I think you have a very simplistic view of marital lust if you think it is selfish. I think many women would tell you that the greatest gift to her that a husband can give is to actually lust after her.

Every woman I've ever known would prefer to be loved and made love to than be mauled.

Sex that is not self-gratifying is not sex, let's get real.

Half truth. I get the most self-satisfaction from the act of seducing my partner, and if I'm doing a good job at it, it is generally reciprocated.

What does it mean "like the heathen"?

Watch Sex in the City and you'll get the idea.

Do you think the Song of Solomon is sinful?

Depends on whose commentary you read. One commentator I read interprets it in terms of Christ and the Church. Another thought it an allegorical representation of the relationship of God and Israel. I've encountered young Mormons, Muslims and the occasional niave Christian that found it pornagraphic.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I am asking you to be consistent in your logic. If something is forbidden between men and women because it is forbidden between men, then that would include oral sex. Why not?

I do not think anal sex is mentioned specifically in the Bible -- any sexual contact between men is subsumed in the descriptions of homosexuality. So following your logic any sexual contact a man could have with a man would be forbidden with a woman.

I think you are confusing the act with the object. The Bible doesn't seem to forbid the act in isolation but the act+object combination.

Your logic seems arbitrary.

If you are going to get all critical of my method of communication, please don't participate.

[gharfish]

No. Why would you think that?

By your question to me I took it that you don't think the Bible forbids homosexual sex. That's why I asked. And you asked me in just the same fashion, so it seemed sporty.


>

[Dee Dee Warren]

Little thing called love. Thats what Ephesians 5:28 is all about.

You are assuming that it is mutually exclusive.

Every woman I've ever known would prefer to be loved and made love to than be mauled.

Who said anything about mauling? (and methinks that many women aren't being honest with you)

Half truth. I get the most self-satisfaction from the act of seducing my partner, and if I'm doing a good job at it, it is generally reciprocated.

Didn't you just say that self-satisfaction was a no-no?

Watch Sex in the City and you'll get the idea.

That doesn't answer the question.

Depends on whose commentary you read. One commentator I read interprets it in terms of Christ and the Church. Another thought it an allegorical representation of the relationship of God and Israel. I've encountered young Mormons, Muslims and the occasional niave Christian that found it pornagraphic.

I asked you.

[Dee Dee Warren]

By your question to me I took it that you don't think the Bible forbids homosexual sex. That's why I asked. And you asked me in just the same fashion, so it seemed sporty.


>

You think homosexual sex is automatically anal sex? And "sport" has no place in this serious discussion.

[apostoli]

Where is anal sex specifically mentioned?

You asked a couple of people this question and I didn't notice an answer.

As far as I can tell scripture leaves it to the imagination...

How would you interpret Lev 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" or Romans 1:27 "and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error".

In the context of your thread Rom 1:26 "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural".

So it seems A.Paul at least would prohibit any act that is unnatural. A female accepting a male penis into any orifice other than her vagina wouldn't be viewed as natural uses of those orifices by A.Paul.

[apostoli]

You are assuming that it is mutually exclusive.

Nope.

Who said anything about mauling? (and methinks that many women aren't being honest with you)

I have had some very stunning partners in my life, and none of them liked being lusted after by men - they had queues of men to draw from if they did.

Didn't you just say that self-satisfaction was a no-no?

Nope! I said selfishness was a no-no.

That doesn't answer the question.

Guess you haven't watched Sex in the City.

I asked you.

With a modern mindset it could be read as erotica but as the Rabbi's preserved it in the OT canon better to read it from the perspective of Jewish poetry, in which case it seems pretty mundane to me.

[themuzicman]

Apostoli posts the correct verses, but the wrong exegesis. Romans 1:26 is particularly useful, in that it identifies these distinction by "passions."

The fundamental difference between homosexual and heterosexual sex is the unnatural attraction and passion towards someone of the same sex, not the acts themselves.

And Leviticus supports this from another perspective, as (more or less) the acts of the heterosexual relationship may not be emulated in a homosexual fashion. Again, the difference highlighted isn't the practice, but the participants.

Thus we should conclude that any heterosexual acts that falls within the bounds of loving acts freely given and received are permitted.

Michael