Mature Thread - Christian Sexuality - Must be 18 to post

[eudyptes]

It strikes me that there seems to be a bit of a theme in this discussion along the lines of:

'If it's pleasurable (for both parties) then it's OK (unless it's specifically proscribed in the Bible)'

IOW, assuming marriage etc, then 'anything goes' as long as both parties agree to it and enjoy it.

It seems to me that this kind of approach doesn't square very well with the kinds of attitudes we are told to have elsewhere in the Bible: to avoid all appearance of evil, to be pure, above reproach etc.

It's easy to get sidetracked into discussion of what is actually prohibited, what OT verses meant, how (or if) they apply to us today etc etc, but aren't we then looking at it legalistically, with a 'What can I get away with before I cross the line?' attitude rather than looking at it with the attitude of 'What is honouring and pleasing to God, and what is a pure expression of my love for my wife (or husband)?'

I don't think as Christians that we should adopt the same 'If it makes me feel good, and it's not specifically proscribed, then it's OK' attitude to areas like food, spending habits and many other 'lifestyle' choices, - and I assume most will agree - so why do we think that it's OK to take that approach within marriage?

{Clarification: I am not advocating a return to the 'missionary position, vaginal sex, only for reproduction ' line of thought.}

Questions that I think we should be asking ourselves is 'Why is this sexual act or activity pleasurable to me?'. There are some acts that may be pleasurable because we feel (or know) that they are forbidden or taboo - the pleasure comes not from participating in a loving and holy act that God has endorsed, but from breaking 'the rules'. Some other acts may be 'pleasurable' because they degrade us (and we feel that we should be degraded because we're 'bad') or others; or because they involve exerting power and control over others beyond (or nearly beyond) what they allow. Are all these things truly pure, good and holy?

Perhaps we forget that although we have been redeemed, we are still fallen creatures - and all of our desires are not automatically holy and good.

(emphasis mine)
I understand you point....and agree to a degree....but at the same time, the question is what is forbidden or taboo....if it's not forbidden then there really isn't that issue.....one could make a case for just about anything as "breaking the rules" based on what rules you want to impose. I think....as it's been mentioned before...most of our "rules" are societal and personal.

One could argue anything outside of missionary position is "taboo"....oral sex, other positions....

I do agree motive has to be looked at...and I think that's been, at least, assumed when...consensual, non-harming, within marriage...were set as the boundries.

Also, some common sense has to come into play. No matter what you do, it can go to far....for example...even if you only engaged in missionary position, with eyes closed, with just enough nakedness to engage in sex....but skipped work for a couple of days "of fun"...you've gone to far. (Absurd example on purpose).

So that brings me back to.....if it's non-harming and consensual....and will add proper motive (though I had assumed such)....then it's okay.

[themuzicman]

_{blah blah blah} I endorse what Michael has said_{blah blah blah}

Sig line material.

[Carrikature]

I never said a thing about condemning others (though I think you are absolutely wrong on that point, the Bible contains more examples than you can shake a stick at with the appropriate condemning of others), I said condemning "things."

I agree that there is appropriate condemning of others, I didn't really say there wasn't. However, appropriate condemning doesn't really seem to apply here. If it does, it's on rather shaky ground at best. I get the difference in theory between condemning "others" and "things", but I've never seen that work in practice.

And yes it matters. More mature Christians are supposed to be able to counsel those less mature. A younger Christian female may one day ask me for advice. I need to be prepared to give Biblical advice. Further, I am about to be divorced from a marriage of over two decades. I hope to remarry. I need to examine my positions on things that may come to be issues in the tastes and desires of a future mate. It is best to be prepared ahead of time.

The best advice you can give a younger Christian female is that it is a very complicated and fuzzy issue. It is something her and her spouse need to discuss in detail (what they like, what they are comfortable with, what's absolutely off limits). There needs to be a great deal of prayer, honesty, and openness in such a discussion. It goes without saying that it's a sensitive subject. From the discussion so far, it doesn't seem that anyone can say that a practice is absolutely wrong.

As to your potential future spouse, I would guess that you already have some idea of things you are or aren't comfortable with. I'm sure you aware of most of what is practiced, at least in general, so you can already look at yourself and see what you would be open to trying should a future spouse so desire. There doesn't seem to be any practice that is clearly wrong (as long as it's just the two of you), but I will stick to my claim that any sexual practice should still maintain a respect for the other's body. I don't consider hitting/hurting to be respect.

[MaxVel]

Who's rules? The "rules" at one time said you shouldn't desire a person of another race.

Broken that rule well and truly. I'm married to someone of a different race.

My point is that as Christians we are 'under Grace, not Law', or, IOW, we are to operate on principles, not a list of rules. We could discuss for a thousand more posts exactly what God allows or prohibits within marriage, but I think we would be missing the point: we are to yield all of our lives to Jesus as Lord, and to live in every part according to the principles that we find in the Bible.

And it may be that some of the things we find sexually pleasurable are pleasurable to us because we feel they are 'wrong', or 'dirty' (for example). That's why I think we need to ask ourselves questions like 'Why do I find this particular thing pleasurable?' , and 'What is my motivation in wanting to do this particular thing?' - so that we can allow God some input into this part of ourselves too. It's precisely because we don't live by a set of rules that we must (IMHO) look at our motivations and the forces driving our desires to see if they are pleasing to God. I don't think it's enough to say "God hasn't specifically prohibited it, so therefore it's all systems go". I don't think that that would be a Christ-like attitude in other areas of life, so why do we see it as OK within marriage?

I am traveling out of my ken here, but from what I understand about domination/submission fetishes, the submissive person doesn't feel they are bad... it is something that is outside of rationality. Perhaps others can comment (tastefully please) if they wish. I am very cautious in deciding the motives and desires of people involved in things that I am not. Why do some people like the back end? Beats me. I know that I would rather eat my own foot out of a bear trap. But are we going to say that a man who does is actually playing out some latent homosexual fantasy or something? I don't think we can know.

Agreed. But that is not what I am saying. As Paul (IIRC) pointed out (using dietary tastes as an example), what some Christians may find perfectly acceptable to do, may cause other Christians to stumble. Surely within our marriage we should want to be doubly sure that our freedom does not cause our partner to stumble.

Personally I think God has given us license in this area.

I think that God has given us freedom to apply the principles of love, purity, putting others before oneself and so forth in this area (as in all others).

Even if some of the activities are results of the fall, I think He understands that these are strong urges, and says, "here is where they can be practiced." Paul says the marriage bed is undefiled.

Hmmm.....

Not so sure about this, it's a little unclear what you're saying here. If an activity (or more importantly, the motivation that pushes us to do the activity) is a result of the fall, then surely all the more reason to seek not to do it?

***Explicit Material Follows***
Say for example that a man really enjoys anal sex, in fact that he finds it difficult to orgasm with his wife any other way. Say that the reason he enjoys this is because he feels it is 'kinky' and 'wrong', and because he likes the sense of power and total submission of his wife to his desire that he gets from it, and that the adrenaline buzz of 'sinning' and of 'forcing' his wife is a large part of what makes anal sex pleasurable to him. (I'm not saying that this is the case, or that anal sex is wrong, just that as an example, we can imagine situations where the 'pleasure' is derived from similar feelings.). Say his wife doesn't particularly enjoy it, but she has no objection to it either, and that he satisfies her in other ways. Do you think that the husband is free to carry on doing this every time he has sex with his wife?

I think that the problem in this example is not the activity per se but that the motivation behind the activity is 'impure' - it's pleasing because he feels that it is on the edge of sinfulness, because it makes him feel dominant over his wife and so forth. Rather than doing it and enjoying it because it's an expression of the self-sacrificing love for his wife that Christian husbands are called to (Ephesians 5), he is doing it and enjoying it because it is 'wrong'. I strongly feel that as Christians we are called to seek the former, not the latter. Your comment above appears to me to be endorsing an 'anything goes, for whatever motivation' approach, which I feel is not a Christian one.

I hope that I have misunderstood you.

***Safe to read Again***


I assume that you're referring to Hebrews 13:4 (??), I think that the precise meaning of that verse is not immediately clear, and I would like to see an argument for it meaning 'We can do whatever we like if we are married.' if that is what you are taking it to mean. For example the ASV translates it as "..let the bed be undefiled.."

[MaxVel]

(emphasis mine)
I understand you point....and agree to a degree....but at the same time, the question is what is forbidden or taboo....if it's not forbidden then there really isn't that issue.....one could make a case for just about anything as "breaking the rules" based on what rules you want to impose. I think....as it's been mentioned before...most of our "rules" are societal and personal.

Yes, and that's why I think we are better served discussing the principles behind Christian behavior rather than the 'rules' on what is forbidden and what is not. Some activity that for one couple may be a very mutually enjoyable and pure expression of their love for each other may, for another couple, be 'dirty' and 'wrong'.

One could argue anything outside of missionary position is "taboo"....oral sex, other positions....

I do agree motive has to be looked at...and I think that's been, at least, assumed when...consensual, non-harming, within marriage...were set as the boundries.

Also, some common sense has to come into play. No matter what you do, it can go to far....for example...even if you only engaged in missionary position, with eyes closed, with just enough nakedness to engage in sex....but skipped work for a couple of days "of fun"...you've gone to far. (Absurd example on purpose).

So that brings me back to.....if it's non-harming and consensual....and will add proper motive (though I had assumed such)....then it's okay.

{emphasis added}

Agreed to the underlined part above, adding only: between husband and wife.

[eudyptes]

Yes, and that's why I think we are better served discussing the principles behind Christian behavior rather than the 'rules' on what is forbidden and what is not. Some activity that for one couple may be a very mutually enjoyable and pure expression of their love for each other may, for another couple, be 'dirty' and 'wrong'.





{emphasis added}

Agreed to the underlined part above, adding only: between husband and wife.

With your answers to diz...and to my...posts....I think, at least for me...we agree, just were saying it differently. I think most that were posting...if I may be so bold as to say what others might have been thinking.....were making the same assumption....that consensual meant, the proper motives in regards to your spouse.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

And yes it matters. More mature Christians are supposed to be able to counsel those less mature. A younger Christian female may one day ask me for advice. I need to be prepared to give Biblical advice.

The essential advice to give is the one of context, and that means to give the context of living a life in obedience to Christ.

Paul wrote: "It is good for a man not to touch a woman..." And this he never later qualified, but instead spoke of human incontinence, and the need, in the face of such weakness, to marry, but even in marriage, when one can, to live as if not married...

A spiritual life in Christ is not a life born of the desires for pleasure of the flesh, for in these there is no salvation, but only in Christ...

Keeping the marriage bed undefiled is in part keeping it monogamous, but as well, it is keeping it undefiled... And that means keeping it from the porneira of the flesh... To turn the marriage bed into a bed of iniquity in the service of the passions of the desires of the pleasures of the flesh is to defile the marriage bed... The idea of the wife being a "lady" in public and a "whore" in private with her husband [and vice versa] is nowhere to be found in Holy Writ, and indeed is a call to be whore-like...

Sexual issues are tough, and especially in this culture that is devolving into secularity and sensuality, and women are being encouraged to dress like hookers, and men to be soft and sensually available [if I am seeing it aright]... Obedience to Christ is not obedience to one's sensual desires, and the marriage bed is for the sake of avoiding porneira... [all manner of fornications outside marriage] - But this is not permission to then seek all manner of fornications WITHIN marriage... Marriage is a self-sacrificial means of repentance from the lustings of the flesh, and not their increase...

And blessed are the children...

Anal intercourse is outlawed in the very word for male homosexuality:

Arsenokoites

It transliterates as rectum [arse] in [en] intercourse [koites = coitus]

Further, I am about to be divorced from a marriage of over two decades.

Marriage is hard...

I hope to remarry.

I will keep praying for you...

I need to examine my positions on things that may come to beAnd late issues in the tastes and desires of a future mate. It is best to be prepared ahead of time.

Marriage for the sake of sexual lusts is a monster mistake, and is almost never admitted, and yet is so often the hidden motivater in romances... And wreaks such havoc... And the other thing, in late marriages, and especially in re-marriages from marriages gone wrong, is the damaged-ness of the souls still seeking "marriage-fulfillment" in late life following failures in early life... So very few succeed... The paradigm for success seems more to be widows and widowers of successfrul marriges, for they know how to make marriage work...

In later life, it is in the living of a life that is dedicated to God that is important to attain, and in this regard, sexual issues should naturally just fall away... For in our old age, we are approaching the time when we will be entering the door of death, and we need preparation in prayer and in the turning away from the needs/desires of the flesh... We do not enter death with a spouse, but alone, and hopefully surrounded and carried with the prayers of the Church and those who love us...

And then all sensuality of the flesh is over...

And God help us if we are not prepared...

I hope this is helpful for you...

God bless you in your quest for understanding...

Arsenios

[Dee Dee Warren]

Are you suggesting that I didn't know how to make marriage work?

I did not divorce because "marriage is hard.". I divorced because I was abused, he was addicted to alcohol, and eventually arrested for domestic violence (with prior incidents that I never reported)

and very likely committed legal adultery during our separation

[Dee Dee Warren]

and no, I do not agree with the villifying of sex in your post and the abhorrence of the physical.... way too close to Gnosticism for me

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Are you suggesting that I didn't know how to make marriage work?

Marriage is hard...

And especially an abusive marriage...

Who knows how to make such a "marriage" work...??

I sure don't...

I did not divorce because "marriage is hard.". I divorced because I was abused, he was addicted to alcohol, and eventually arrested for domestic violence (with prior incidents that I never reported)

That sounds VERY hard, to me...

And there were other issues, if I recall aright...
That "grossed you out"...
I don't know what they were...
Lord have Mercy!...

I am sorry you got mired in such a relationship...
I pray you can recover from it...
I know such abuse...
I had no cure for the relationship [10 years]...
Leaving her helper her recover...
I recovered IN the abuse upon baptism...

Arsenios

[Dee Dee Warren]

Marriage is hard...

And especially an abusive marriage...

Who knows how to make such a "marriage" work...??

I sure don't...

I think perhaps we are talking past each other a bit. Your post seemed to take the position that widows and widowers have the best chance at remarriage since they know how to make marriage work. That was a hurtful thing to say. In many failed Christian marriages, there is definitely an "at fault" party, and you have slammed the many innocent parties in your statement suggesting that if they only knew how to make marriage work....

I don't find marriage particularly hard. I was able to tolerate an abusive relationship for so long because the good parts were SO good and SO easy that it was able to sustain me through the bad times. Marriage is not hard if both parties are even just basically decent to each other.

I am not sure what other issues you mean.... I think you are confusing this with something else. You and I haven't spoken in a very long time, and this is a recent event. I was silent about the abuse in my marriage except to a very few, very close friends, prior to my filing for divorce. It was an absolute shock to family and friends when they picked up the paper and saw his arrest report, because I was silent.

So no.... no other issues. Prior to his confession that he was involved with someone else, I was still hoping and praying for reconcilation with him repenting and taking the appropriate steps for healing. Now that he has in all likelihood consummated his covenant-breaking, I no longer wish reconciliation, though God could show me otherwise by working a miracle of change in him. It would take a miracle. But now it would take two. The miracle of change in him, and the miracle of me being able to forgive consummation with another female.

[Hamster]

Anal intercourse is outlawed in the very word for male homosexuality:

Arsenokoites

It transliterates as rectum [arse] in [en] intercourse [koites = coitus]

My understanding is that "arsen" means "male," so the word means "Man-Sexer"

Isn't it the same root as "Arsenios"?

[Carrikature]

The essential advice to give is the one of context, and that means to give the context of living a life in obedience to Christ.

Paul wrote: "It is good for a man not to touch a woman..." And this he never later qualified, but instead spoke of human incontinence, and the need, in the face of such weakness, to marry, but even in marriage, when one can, to live as if not married...

You've greatly misunderstood something somewhere.

[technomage]

My understanding is that "arsen" means "male," so the word means "Man-Sexer"

You are correct.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

My understanding is that "arsen" means "male," so the word means "Man-Sexer"

I hope you are right...

Because...

Isn't it the same root as "Arsenios"?

Yes...

I always wondered about it...

Your way, my name would mean something like "manly-man", yes?

Arsenios