Mature Thread - Christian Sexuality - Must be 18 to post

[technomage]

In anycase you can have a natural partner (eg: a prostitute) and still be considered depraved by A.Paul.

This is, perhaps, the best counterargument to the "Anal sex is prohibited" argument, as more interactions with prostitutes are vaginal than anal (oral sex happens to be the highest category of "sex for hire" according to the NIH). If it is the act that is prohibited, rather than the partner, then all forms of sexual expression would be forbidden, as all forms of sexual expression can, and have, been done with forbidden partners.

[FlimFlamboyant]

In every context that I'm aware of, as musicman said, whether or not the relationship is natural or unnatural depends on the pairing, and that's where the distinction ends.

The "heathen" that Paul frequently referred to are those who worshipped pagan gods such as Diana (being a popular one in Ephesus at the time). Prostitution at their temples was rampant, being encouraged by their religion, as was homosexuality in many cases. I don't see any reason to think that Paul was referring to anything else.

I don't see any indication that anything should be forbidden between two loving and consenting Christian partners within the confines of marriage.

[apostoli]

You seem to have misconstrued what I said. This is what Leviticus 18 says "'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion".

Also it is worth noting Lev 18 has a heap of prohibitions concerning who and when you can have intercourse. Of interest one's daughter is not included in the prohibitions, but the rabbi's say it is not specified as it is obvious.

What part of "thou shalt not commit adultery" was unclear?

Didn't you know that at the time the Jewish males were polygamists ;-)

And the bible does not declare any act as depraved in and of itself.

See Leviticus

The depravity comes from "who" not "how."

Thats true. Though more particularly it is the who (the depraved) and the what (the depravity) as opposed to the how.

A thought: is someone with a foot fetish or a couple that gets aroused cross dressing depraved?

[themuzicman]

Didn't you know that at the time the Jewish males were polygamists ;-)

They were still married.

See Leviticus

No specific sexual acts are prohibited in Leviticus.

Thats true. Though more particularly it is the who (the depraved) and the what (the depravity) as opposed to the how.

The 'how' is irrelevant in every case. The fact that sexual activity is happening between two individuals who ought not be engaging in any sexual activity together is the issue.

A thought: is someone with a foot fetish or a couple that gets aroused cross dressing depraved?

<corrected by techno>

Michael

[technomage]

is someone with a foot fetish or a couple that gets aroused cross dressing depraved?

Foot fetish--no. Cross-dressing, yes--Deut 22:5.

[themuzicman]

Oh yeah, forgot about that verse....

[jo7241974]

A thought: is someone with a foot fetish or a couple that gets aroused cross dressing depraved?

It's not my personal cup of tea. However, if I were married to someone who enjoyed these things (and we might as well include other things as well), then we fall back on the concept that it is about love. The second greatest commandment comes to mind. Certainly each of us wants and needs to be loved; if spouses feel safe, nothing should prevent them from being able to reveal all of their thoughts, fears, desires, etc., to each other. This includes sexual desires - but also surpasses it. A marriage union is a unique opportunity to not only totally give yourself in all ways to another, but also to experience another giving all of themself to you. It doesn't happen overnight, but a perfect union can be achieved where we truly can be one with the other in thought, understanding, desire, etc. It creates a new life, so to speak, which is capable of much more than what was possible as a single individual. When serving God is made the priority, a marriage union where this type of love and trust exists seems to be the best way to enjoy heaven while still on earth.

God bless,

jo

[FlimFlamboyant]

Foot fetish--no. Cross-dressing, yes--Deut 22:5.

Right; but I think he might have meant a couple getting sexually aroused by doing so in private, within the confines of their relationship, as opposed to publicly, which I'm guessing is the point of Deut 22:5.

This brings up the only issue that I think stands in the way of a purely "anything goes" mentality. Now, I generally support the idea that a man and wife should be allowed to do whatever they want within that relationship, but there is a gray area where over-indulgence can lead to problems. For example, food is not inherently bad, but over-eating is. I believe the same goes for any sexual activity (even "natural" ones) between a man and his wife.

In that case, it's a judgment call that only we can make for ourselves, really.

[technomage]

Right; but I think he might have meant a couple getting sexually aroused by doing so in private, within the confines of their relationship, as opposed to publicly, which I'm guessing is the point of Deut 22:5.

I don't think one can differentiate in this particular case--though I can see where some may make a distinction.

[qote]This brings up the only issue that I think stands in the way of a purely "anything goes" mentality. Now, I generally support the idea that a man and wife should be allowed to do whatever they want within that relationship, but there is a gray area where over-indulgence can lead to problems. For example, food is not inherently bad, but over-eating is. I believe the same goes for any sexual activity (even "natural" ones) between a man and his wife.

In that case, it's a judgment call that only we can make for ourselves, really.[/quote]

Very good points.

[jo7241974]

Foot fetish--no. Cross-dressing, yes--Deut 22:5.

We would need a little more detailed clarification than is revealed here. For instance, there was a time it was unacceptable for a woman to wear pants. Obviously not only do women wear pants today, they wear them in public.

God bless,

jo

[Sparko]

We would need a little more detailed clarification than is revealed here. For instance, there was a time it was unacceptable for a woman to wear pants. Obviously not only do women wear pants today, they wear them in public.

God bless,

jo

yeah and back then even the men wore dresses.

[technomage]

We would need a little more detailed clarification than is revealed here. For instance, there was a time it was unacceptable for a woman to wear pants. Obviously not only do women wear pants today, they wear them in public.

As with many issues, it's not so much the specifics (pants vs. skirt), but what the culture dictates as "men's clothes" and "women's clothes"--and cultures change. If a woman wears women's trousers, or where a man wears a Scottish kilt (structurally similar to a skirt, but culturally designated as men's clothing), no one thinks anything about it--nor would Paul, were he alive today.

But in cross-dressing, the purpose is to dress in the clothes of the opposite sex--however the clothing is defined, the purpose is the point.

[Carrikature]

Foot fetish--no. Cross-dressing, yes--Deut 22:5.

I love the selectiveness of quoting OT pro/prescriptions. It's ok to quote the OT if it's something we agree with (e.g. no cross-dressing, anal sex, etc), but "we're not under the law" if it's something we don't agree with (e.g. stoning homosexuals).

[technomage]

I love the selectiveness of quoting OT pro/prescriptions. It's ok to quote the OT if it's something we agree with (e.g. no cross-dressing, anal sex, etc), but "we're not under the law" if it's something we don't agree with (e.g. stoning homosexuals).

I'm having to look at things from a Christian point of view for this thread, and yes, the Christian point-of-view is selective, sometimes illogically so, sometimes necessarily so. I selected that particular passage not because crossdressing is forbidden, but because the passage says "it is detestable." (Unless one assumes that what was once detestable is now permissible, that seems to be the only logical way to do things.)

For me looking at things from my own point of view, I would give far different answers--bt that is a topic for another thread.

[Carrikature]

I'm having to look at things from a Christian point of view for this thread, and yes, the Christian point-of-view is selective, sometimes illogically so, sometimes necessarily so. I selected that particular passage not because crossdressing is forbidden, but because the passage says "it is detestable." (Unless one assumes that what was once detestable is now permissible, that seems to be the only logical way to do things.)

For me looking at things from my own point of view, I would give far different answers--bt that is a topic for another thread.

I know. It was a general comment.