Paul's appalling views of human sexuality

[Magdalenbrother]

I don't remember the exact scriptural reference, sorry. I write for people who are conversant with the NT writings. You, educated reader, must know the famous passage where Paul tells his audience that a man's body belongs to his wife and vice-versa and that the two should not abstain from sex for too long.

How many times have I read that this is a celebration of human sexuality, that Paul was speaking like a modern sex therapist, that this passage proves beyond doubt that Christianity is not hostile to sex, and so on and on...!!!

Good heavens, I happened to think of this passage recently and I was struck by the ugliness and even madness of it all ! Nothing could be farther from a "celebration of human sexuality".

First of all, what is this notion of bodies belonging to someone? Is the body a mere object, a merchandise, something to be handled and manipulated? The mere idea fills me with horror and disgust.

When I started reflecting on Paul's remarks on sex in Corinthians (?), I was surprised that Paul, who is so adamant on the chapter of male superiority (remember the passage on man being the glory of his wife and the whole veil affair?), made man somehow subservient to his wife when it comes to having sex. But when I checked the text, I found that what belongs to the wife is not her man as such but his body, and his body only. I can't help thinking that what we have here is a display of dualism: body vs soul. "She can have the body, as long as I don't give up my soul too, my superiority as a male remains intact."

This brings us to another major objection that I have against Paul's views: what about the feelings of the other partner in all this? If in my soul I don't feel like having sex (for some reason and the reason may be a good one), why should I let my partner use my body (as if it were something different from me, a plaything)? I wonder just how satisfying such intercourse can be! I wonder how healthy it is to think in terms of "my (dead) body there which I blindly prostitute for the good cause" and "my soul here who is filled with lassitude or disgust or anger". For me Paul is advocating joyless sex, which is worse than bestial sex, for animals must have great pleasure in sex.

And then we have to ask: why is it so important that I should surrender my body like a vulgar object to the other? The answer is: because if I resist, the other may burn and commit the most abominable of all sins: fornication! Let us remember what Paul said elsewhere: "it is better to marry than to burn". In Romans, Paul speaks of the "natural use (Greek: chresin) of the female". The "natural use" is to free man from his overwhelming sexual desires.

Now when you compare this crude view of the role of sex in man's life with what the Hindus and the Chinese and the Japanese have made of sex, you realize that there is no way Paul's Christianity could be portrayed as a "celebration of human sexuality". Obviously, for Paul sex is a highly undesirable passion that has to be gotten rid of at all costs lest one commit sin. There is no idea of transforming sex into something divine. There is not even the idea of using sex as a means to strengthen love since the goal is to get rid of the "burning" and avoid "sin".

I wonder what the West would be if instead of Paul and Corinthians we had had the Kama Sutra or the Jing Ping Mei as our sex guides.

[furay]

I wonder what the West would be if instead of Paul and Corinthians we had had the Kama Sutra or the Jing Ping Mei as our sex guides.

A seething petri dish for venereal diseases? Oh wait, it already is... my bad.

[anthrogirl]

I know you're trying to be funny, here--but have you ever read the Kama Sutra or the Jing Ping Mei?


ag


p.s. Magdalenebro: Ni shenti hao ma?!

[spiritmech]

"Obviously, for Paul sex is a highly undesirable passion that has to be gotten rid of at all costs lest one commit sin."

Welcome to gnosticism 101.
Steve

[Bib Lit Major]

The passage you are referring to is 1 Cor 7.

Of course, this is written to a church were there was incest (1 Cor 5), and there were also those who believed that sex with prostitutes was ok (1 Cor 6), to which certain members of the church tried advocating celibacy as a means of correcting (1 Cor 7:1, "Concerning the things which you wrote to me about"). In light of this highly contextualized situation, one has to wonder if Paul would say the same thing to a church not so torn up over sexuality as this.

To me it represents practical wisdom in such situations. One does not become more holy by abstaining from sex, nor is open sexuality with anyone and everyone OK.

P.S. Concerning dualism, the whole point of the preceding chapter (1 Cor 6) is that sexual acts cannot help but affect one's spiritual life, because by engaging in sex with prostitutes, one makes Christ have sex with a prostitute (1 Cor 6:15-20). Thus, you're whole spill on dualism is incorrect.

[Richbee]

I don't remember the exact scriptural reference, sorry. I write for people who are conversant with the NT writings. You, educated reader, must know the famous passage where Paul tells his audience that a man's body belongs to his wife and vice-versa and that the two should not abstain from sex for too long.

How many times have I read that this is a celebration of human sexuality, that Paul was speaking like a modern sex therapist, that this passage proves beyond doubt that Christianity is not hostile to sex, and so on and on...!

You have to consider the context of 50 - 55 A.D. and the Corinthians or former pagans and where women had no rights.

To the Ephesians Paul tells Men, you must love your wives, etc, etc.

In truth, after centuries of pagans treating women little better than cattle and having sexual compeition from Men or boys, I would say, the Women must have been better treated and dancing in the streets, as they were to be the 100% sole focus of a Men's sexual attention.

Hmmmmm!

Not bad!

Like, pass by that sheep in the field and look to your wife!

How, Jesus and Paul were really the first Activists for Womens rights!!!

:love:

Yeah, where is the real Love? Paganism or Christianity?

[Magdalenbrother]

I admit that on one point Paul's teachings meant a betterment of the feminine condition: in exalting virginity, he liberated many women of the burden of child-rearing and of man's sexual needs. The institution of virginity, which later became the monastic life for men and women, was a great progress and we have to thank the Catholic church for maintaining this institution in the face of Judaizing Protestant theologians and greedy land-grabbers.

Having said that, what can one say in defence of Paul's doctrine on sex?

Nothing. It is dominated by one factor: FEAR. Fear of Satan, of temptation, of fornication. How can a sexual life dominated by the fear of sin be satisfying?

In fact, there is no way Paul could have a positive view of human sexuality. For this, he would need a positive view of the human body. But since for him the body is a "body of death" which should be mortified, there is simply no way he could present sex in a positive light. Anyone who wants to put forward the view that Paul is progressive must first prove that he had a positive view of the "flesh".

Let us not be deluded by the reciprocity of bodily "ownership" in 1 Corinthians 7. In a world and in a religion, Paul's religion, where males are dominant, to say that a woman has authority over her husband's body is just so much empty talk. This could have meant something real if Paul had not been an archconservative in sexual matters and had preached the strict equality of man and woman. In fact, the dispossession of the male body is only an argument against love affairs: if my wife is the owner of my body, I obviously can't fornicate right and left! But Paul certainly never seriously contemplated a situation in which a woman would tell her husband: "Come, I want my multiple orgasm tonight, stimulate me!" This doesn't work simply because women were inferior in every aspect to men in ancient society and in Christian communities. A male body belongs to a man. And a man is a master period.

Let us notice that in this disgusting transaction the real loser is the woman: the poor thing has been completely deprived of her body, she must submit it unreservedly to her husband's sexual appetite, no matter what she feels. She is in effect her husband's sex slave. The opposite is not true. Being a sex slave without any power over her body makes a woman even more of an inferior beings in all other areas of life. Obviously.

How different things would have been if Paul had said: "Each spouse is master over their body. Don't have sex unless the two of you feel like it."

That would have given wives tremendous power over their husbands since males are reputed to be more sexually active than females. She would have become a real subject. But that is not possible. Besides, listening to one's feelings is dangerous: who knows where they might lead one? What if I feel like having sex with that handsome slave from Dalmatia, huh? So feelings must be put aside, and sex has to be made a purely mechanical affair in which one gets rid of the genital pressure.

Sex is a burning compulsion that must be eliminated by the crash of ejaculation. That is Paul's crude view of sex. He knew nothing of multiple non-ejaculatory orgasms (for females and males) and he knew nothing of the happiness and spiritual joy of sex, when practiced as an art.

As one reader pointed out above, Paul's dualistic/manichean views are quite similar to those of some gnostic sects. Some gnostics recommended mechanical group sex in order to get rid of the sexual passion altogether. This kind of dull, beastly sex is exactly what he recommends in the bedroom of the Christian household.

IOW, Paul is the total and ultimate non expert on sex. If God spoke through him, his lack of expertise should recoil on the Creator. But anyone who has observed the tremendous sexual exuberance and variety of the natural world, knows that God is the lover par excellence.

PS: I have read numerous extracts from the Kama Sutra and the Jing Ping Mei. While many of the erotic tricks and techniques they describe are culture-bound, what is valuable here is the fact that these works see sex as something absolutely positive that has be cultivated as an art. In the Christian West, sex is a shameful affair tolerated by God for the sake of making children.

[Bib Lit Major]

You did not respond to any of the posts after yours. His view of sexuality is not "dominated by . . . fear." As I said, in the situation in the Corinthian church, he is dealing not with normal sexual issues but with a group of people, some of whom are actively engaged in extra-marital sex and incest. Thus, the advice not to be celibate when there is a proven track record of sexual vice and excess is not based on a universal "fear" of fornication and sin but rather an antidote to a very present temptation.

You read in all your views about the woman being the sex slave of the man. It would have been counter-productive to his purpose and the situation he was dealing with for Paul to have said: "Each spouse is master over their body. Don't have sex unless the two of you feel like it." The reason being is that certain members of the church were probably creating familial strife by withdrawing from their spouse and depriving them of their sexual union in the view that it made them more holy. As a counteractant, which shouldn't be so over read, Paul tells them each spouse has rights over the others body as a way of preserving the union of the marriage.

[Pilgrim]

I don't remember the exact scriptural reference, sorry. I write for people who are conversant with the NT writings. You, educated reader, must know the famous passage where Paul tells his audience that a man's body belongs to his wife and vice-versa and that the two should not abstain from sex for too long.

How many times have I read that this is a celebration of human sexuality, that Paul was speaking like a modern sex therapist, that this passage proves beyond doubt that Christianity is not hostile to sex, and so on and on...!!!

Good heavens, I happened to think of this passage recently and I was struck by the ugliness and even madness of it all ! Nothing could be farther from a "celebration of human sexuality".

First of all, what is this notion of bodies belonging to someone? Is the body a mere object, a merchandise, something to be handled and manipulated? The mere idea fills me with horror and disgust.

When I started reflecting on Paul's remarks on sex in Corinthians (?), I was surprised that Paul, who is so adamant on the chapter of male superiority (remember the passage on man being the glory of his wife and the whole veil affair?), made man somehow subservient to his wife when it comes to having sex. But when I checked the text, I found that what belongs to the wife is not her man as such but his body, and his body only. I can't help thinking that what we have here is a display of dualism: body vs soul. "She can have the body, as long as I don't give up my soul too, my superiority as a male remains intact."

This brings us to another major objection that I have against Paul's views: what about the feelings of the other partner in all this? If in my soul I don't feel like having sex (for some reason and the reason may be a good one), why should I let my partner use my body (as if it were something different from me, a plaything)? I wonder just how satisfying such intercourse can be! I wonder how healthy it is to think in terms of "my (dead) body there which I blindly prostitute for the good cause" and "my soul here who is filled with lassitude or disgust or anger". For me Paul is advocating joyless sex, which is worse than bestial sex, for animals must have great pleasure in sex.

And then we have to ask: why is it so important that I should surrender my body like a vulgar object to the other? The answer is: because if I resist, the other may burn and commit the most abominable of all sins: fornication! Let us remember what Paul said elsewhere: "it is better to marry than to burn". In Romans, Paul speaks of the "natural use (Greek: chresin) of the female". The "natural use" is to free man from his overwhelming sexual desires.

Now when you compare this crude view of the role of sex in man's life with what the Hindus and the Chinese and the Japanese have made of sex, you realize that there is no way Paul's Christianity could be portrayed as a "celebration of human sexuality". Obviously, for Paul sex is a highly undesirable passion that has to be gotten rid of at all costs lest one commit sin. There is no idea of transforming sex into something divine. There is not even the idea of using sex as a means to strengthen love since the goal is to get rid of the "burning" and avoid "sin".

I wonder what the West would be if instead of Paul and Corinthians we had had the Kama Sutra or the Jing Ping Mei as our sex guides.
Find the exact scriptural quatation so that you can also understand the context of the statement. Until you do that the rest of what you have said is pretty meaningless because it is really only personal opinion based on a scripture that you have not recalled correctly in the first place. That's a bad place to start.

[Magdalenbrother]

To claim that Paul considered celibacy to be better than normal sexuality only in the context of the dissolute Corinthian church is absurd. There is enough flesh-bashing in the other epistles (plus his flaunting of his own celibacy-not Jesus') to prove that he considered the avoidance of sex the better life. Almost all great religious men since the 5th century BC (BCE for those who prefer it) have advocated celibacy. Confucius is an exception. Buddha is very close to Paul in his rejection of sex. Buddhists also have nuns and monks.

It is fascinating to see that Christianity proposed a dual model of sexuality:

-renunciation of all sexual intercourse for the sake of the imminent kingdom
-mechanical sexual life to get rid of carnal passions in frequent ejaculation (no enjoyment, please!)

The first solution is very interesting:

A woman who is not a mother and doesn't have sex, what is she?

She is a man!

Virginity à la Paul of Tarsus contained the embryo of our present unisex society in which men and women wear the same clothes, do the same jobs and behave the same way. Behind this is the idea that male and female are fundamentally the same, which means that humanity is ultimately androgynous. Gregory of Nyssa and other distinguished Church fathers taught (on the basis of a controversial passage in Galatians among other scriptural references) that differentiation into gender is not essential to human beings at all.

In our society, the unisex way of life is not based on a doctrine of androgyny but on the radical negation of womanhood, a product of the Reformation with its detestation of everything feminine.

[Magdalenbrother]

To claim that Paul considered celibacy to be better than normal sexuality only in the context of the dissolute Corinthian church is absurd. There is enough flesh-bashing in the other epistles (plus his flaunting of his own celibacy-not Jesus') to prove that he considered the avoidance of sex the better life. Almost all great religious men since the 5th century BC (BCE for those who prefer it) have advocated celibacy. Confucius is an exception. Buddha is very close to Paul in his rejection of sex. Buddhists also have nuns and monks.

It is fascinating to see that Christianity proposed a dual model of sexuality:

-renunciation of all sexual intercourse for the sake of the imminent kingdom
-mechanical sexual life to get rid of carnal passions in frequent ejaculation (no enjoyment, please!)

The first solution is very interesting:

A woman who is not a mother and doesn't have sex, what is she?

She is a man!

Virginity à la Paul of Tarsus contained the embryo of our present unisex society in which men and women wear the same clothes, do the same jobs and behave the same way. Behind this is the idea that male and female are fundamentally the same, which means that humanity is ultimately androgynous. Gregory of Nyssa and other distinguished Church fathers taught (on the basis of a controversial passage in Galatians among other scriptural references) that differentiation into gender (and sex) is not essential to human beings at all.

In our society, the unisex way of life is not based on a doctrine of androgyny but on the radical negation of womanhood, a product of the Reformation with its detestation of everything feminine. But even here it is possible to find traces of Pauline doctrine.

You can't advocate celibacy without dealing a blow to womanhood. And everything related to it, such as art and love of nature.