Religion and Sex

[Ocean56]

Well, it has its practical, logical advantages, I have to say. If you and your spouse observe a Biblical marriage, you have no concerns about STDs, paternity, alienation of affection, insecurity, hurt feelings . . .

And your "guarantee" of having "no concerns" about those negatives is....what, exactly? Especially the intangibles like alienation of affection, insecurity and hurt feelings? I see NO benefits to a biblical marriage, but thankfully it is up to EACH person to decide.

Life doesn't come with guarantees, sweetie. This isn't like buying a major appliance, where you get a warranty and a replacement if it breaks down. The best you can do is improve the odds, and the fact that you don't know that Biblical marriage does that just tells me that you don't know anyone who's doing it right. That's not conclusive evidence of anything but your need to choose better acquaintances.

YOU were the one who said "If you and your spouse observe a Biblical marriage, you have no concerns" about STDs, paternity, etc. which is more belief than fact. Since I find conservative/evangelical christianity to be both repressive and oppressive where sex is concerned, I wouldn't want any part of your idea of "biblical marriage" in a romantic relationship or marriage.

As for my "need to choose better acquaintances," you just illustrated why I don't hang out with christian fundamentalists. From what I have seen, their minds are too closed for me. Have a nice evening.

 

[Ocean56]

Being religious gives you a better chance of a good marriage? Someone should have told Ted Haggard and Jim Bakker.

Very good points! Although I think you might have meant Jimmy Swaggart, rather than Jim Bakker, who strayed in the financial area. I believe Bakker was actually convicted on multiple FRAUD charges about twenty years ago.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And your "guarantee" of having "no concerns" about those negatives is....what, exactly? Especially the intangibles like alienation of affection, insecurity and hurt feelings? I see NO benefits to a biblical marriage, but thankfully it is up to EACH person to decide.

Life doesn't come with guarantees, sweetie. This isn't like buying a major appliance, where you get a warranty and a replacement if it breaks down. The best you can do is improve the odds, and the fact that you don't know that Biblical marriage does that just tells me that you don't know anyone who's doing it right. That's not conclusive evidence of anything but your need to choose better acquaintances.

YOU were the one who said "If you and your spouse observe a Biblical marriage, you have no concerns" about STDs, paternity, etc. which is more belief than fact. Since I find conservative/evangelical christianity to be both repressive and oppressive where sex is concerned, I wouldn't want any part of your idea of "biblical marriage" in a romantic relationship or marriage.

As for my "need to choose better acquaintances," you just illustrated why I don't hang out with christian fundamentalists. From what I have seen, their minds are too closed for me. Have a nice evening.

Sorry, but YOU brought up wanting a guarantee about your feelings, so don't think you can NOW jump back to STDs and paternity as though that was what you were talking about all along. The fact is, if you and your spouse observe a Biblical marriage, you DON'T have concerns about STDs and paternity. I don't give a damn if you like it or not. Any doctor will tell you the same. I also don't give a fat rat's ass if you think Christianity is repressive or not, nor do I give a damn if you cheat on your spouse with half the city. Just don't blame ME when you're Patient Zero for the next big sex-related epidemic.

And actually, you don't hang out with Christian fundamentalists because they all think you're too stupid and ill-mannered to be tolerated. PLEASE don't flatter yourself that your company is in such high demand. Have exactly the evening you deserve, troll. Dismissed.

 

[dilloduck]

Sorry, but YOU brought up wanting a guarantee about your feelings, so don't think you can NOW jump back to STDs and paternity as though that was what you were talking about all along. The fact is, if you and your spouse observe a Biblical marriage, you DON'T have concerns about STDs and paternity. I don't give a damn if you like it or not. Any doctor will tell you the same. I also don't give a fat rat's ass if you think Christianity is repressive or not, nor do I give a damn if you cheat on your spouse with half the city. Just don't blame ME when you're Patient Zero for the next big sex-related epidemic.

And actually, you don't hang out with Christian fundamentalists because they all think you're too stupid and ill-mannered to be tolerated. PLEASE don't flatter yourself that your company is in such high demand. Have exactly the evening you deserve, troll. Dismissed.

"If you and your spouse observe a Biblical marriage

biggest "if" in the world

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sorry, but YOU brought up wanting a guarantee about your feelings, so don't think you can NOW jump back to STDs and paternity as though that was what you were talking about all along. The fact is, if you and your spouse observe a Biblical marriage, you DON'T have concerns about STDs and paternity. I don't give a damn if you like it or not. Any doctor will tell you the same. I also don't give a fat rat's ass if you think Christianity is repressive or not, nor do I give a damn if you cheat on your spouse with half the city. Just don't blame ME when you're Patient Zero for the next big sex-related epidemic.

And actually, you don't hang out with Christian fundamentalists because they all think you're too stupid and ill-mannered to be tolerated. PLEASE don't flatter yourself that your company is in such high demand. Have exactly the evening you deserve, troll. Dismissed.

"If you and your spouse observe a Biblical marriage

biggest "if" in the world

No bigger than saying, "IF you and your spouse are both committed to making your marriage work", which is really the same thing. It's not rocket magic, you know. Marriage is like anything else in life: you have to work at it.

 

[dilloduck]

Sorry, but YOU brought up wanting a guarantee about your feelings, so don't think you can NOW jump back to STDs and paternity as though that was what you were talking about all along. The fact is, if you and your spouse observe a Biblical marriage, you DON'T have concerns about STDs and paternity. I don't give a damn if you like it or not. Any doctor will tell you the same. I also don't give a fat rat's ass if you think Christianity is repressive or not, nor do I give a damn if you cheat on your spouse with half the city. Just don't blame ME when you're Patient Zero for the next big sex-related epidemic.

And actually, you don't hang out with Christian fundamentalists because they all think you're too stupid and ill-mannered to be tolerated. PLEASE don't flatter yourself that your company is in such high demand. Have exactly the evening you deserve, troll. Dismissed.

"If you and your spouse observe a Biblical marriage

biggest "if" in the world

No bigger than saying, "IF you and your spouse are both committed to making your marriage work", which is really the same thing. It's not rocket magic, you know. Marriage is like anything else in life: you have to work at it.

yes --a biblical one or not. I'm still not seeing how a biblical marriage reduces risk.

 

[Cecilie1200]

biggest "if" in the world

No bigger than saying, "IF you and your spouse are both committed to making your marriage work", which is really the same thing. It's not rocket magic, you know. Marriage is like anything else in life: you have to work at it.

yes --a biblical one or not. I'm still not seeing how a biblical marriage reduces risk.

Then you should go read all the instructions the Bible gives for how to conduct a marriage. And some sort of study guide on the topic might not go amiss.

 

[Red Dawn]

biblical marriage?

i thought the bible condoned polygamy? most of those dudes in the OT had multiple wives, I thought.

 

[dilloduck]

No bigger than saying, "IF you and your spouse are both committed to making your marriage work", which is really the same thing. It's not rocket magic, you know. Marriage is like anything else in life: you have to work at it.

yes --a biblical one or not. I'm still not seeing how a biblical marriage reduces risk.

Then you should go read all the instructions the Bible gives for how to conduct a marriage. And some sort of study guide on the topic might not go amiss.

great--what chapter are these instructions in ?

 

[Ocean56]

Life doesn't come with guarantees, sweetie. This isn't like buying a major appliance, where you get a warranty and a replacement if it breaks down. The best you can do is improve the odds, and the fact that you don't know that Biblical marriage does that just tells me that you don't know anyone who's doing it right. That's not conclusive evidence of anything but your need to choose better acquaintances.

YOU were the one who said "If you and your spouse observe a Biblical marriage, you have no concerns" about STDs, paternity, etc. which is more belief than fact. Since I find conservative/evangelical christianity to be both repressive and oppressive where sex is concerned, I wouldn't want any part of your idea of "biblical marriage" in a romantic relationship or marriage.

As for my "need to choose better acquaintances," you just illustrated why I don't hang out with christian fundamentalists. From what I have seen, their minds are too closed for me. Have a nice evening.

Sorry, but YOU brought up wanting a guarantee about your feelings, so don't think you can NOW jump back to STDs and paternity as though that was what you were talking about all along. The fact is, if you and your spouse observe a Biblical marriage, you DON'T have concerns about STDs and paternity. I don't give a damn if you like it or not. Any doctor will tell you the same. I also don't give a fat rat's ass if you think Christianity is repressive or not, nor do I give a damn if you cheat on your spouse with half the city. Just don't blame ME when you're Patient Zero for the next big sex-related epidemic.

And actually, you don't hang out with Christian fundamentalists because they all think you're too stupid and ill-mannered to be tolerated. PLEASE don't flatter yourself that your company is in such high demand. Have exactly the evening you deserve, troll. Dismissed.

NO, what I specifically asked was how does a biblical marriage offer a guarantee that there are none of the negatives you had previously stated within such a marriage, and they were not limited to just STD's and paternity. Your answer is hardly convincing that biblical marriage is in any way a desirable option, and when I clearly stated I wanted no part of what I felt was an oppressive and repressive relationship or marriage, you went (verbally) ballistic.

It wasn't just me either. In reply to other posters besides myself, you keep insisting that biblical marriage is somehow a perfect solution, with NO hard evidence or proof that such is the case. If you want to observe a biblical marriage, fine and good luck with that. For me, no thanks, I shudder at the very idea. Not everyone wants a christian biblical marriage, and I am thankful that such a form of sexual slavery will never be forced on me or anyone else. See how well CHOICE works?

 

[Ocean56]

Life doesn't come with guarantees, sweetie. This isn't like buying a major appliance, where you get a warranty and a replacement if it breaks down. The best you can do is improve the odds, and the fact that you don't know that Biblical marriage does that just tells me that you don't know anyone who's doing it right. That's not conclusive evidence of anything but your need to choose better acquaintances.

Marriage reduces the odds of hurt feelings and insecurity?

BIBLICAL marriage does.

And it allegedly does that...how, exactly? Can you explain that yourself without "instructions" from the bible as a crutch?

 

[Agnapostate]

So I take it the polygamous marriages practiced by "God's people" won't be mentioned here?

 

[p kirkes]

My lovely wife, of forty five years, and I have been members of several different Christian denominations over time. Catholic from birth till late thirties, Pentecostal for a few years and Baptist till present. I am seventy and my wife is sixty six.

The Catholic Church provided guidance regarding sex within the state of marriage in response to our questions. No birth control devices, condoms or practices, otherwise participate in sex as often as you desire. Medical/health reasons were usually favorably considered in allowing birth control as recommended by competent medical authority.

The adage goes like this, what do you call Catholics that practice the rhythm method? Answer, parents. Our third child was conceived under this method. We were over forty and because there was a ten year span between the first children we decided to have the forth so the third would have a companion. It worked out wonderfully.

The protestant denominations provided the same guidance, from the pulpit or informal venues, as the Catholics.

To sum it up, we were taught; No sex before marriage, no fooling around after marriage, marriage consists of one man and one woman. No divorce, there are exceptions, civil marriage may be performed but must be re-administered ASAP by the church before consummation. Civil divorce does not release one from marriage vows, it's merely a legal device. Marriage lasts till the death of one or the other spouse, one may then remarry.

In reality, divorce rate in America, nearly 50% across the denominational spectrum has ripped up the traditional moral code. Couple this with remarriage, new families (children) and the church as been presented with a "faite accompli".

The code is still in effect and the denominations are tackling this problem at the front end. Mandatory premarital course, on going counseling and community support groups. Plus pastors are using the pulpit more to instruct, admonish, and encourage the congregation in their marriage experience.

As far as couples that have broken up, remarried and/or started new families, they are no longer shunned as before. Reconstitution is probably denomination specific.

The divorce rate, the headlong rush into marriage, the acceptance of sexual activity by young people has, IMHO, adversely changed our society. It has affected my family as well. I feel that any turn around will be implemented by specific groups, religious affiliation or small ethnic communities.

Regards,

 

[Agnapostate]

The divorce rate, the headlong rush into marriage, the acceptance of sexual activity by young people has, IMHO, adversely changed our society.

I don't know where you get the idea that those trends parallel each other. The divorce rate has risen alongside the average marriage age.

Whilst this obviously does not imply a causative link between the two, it does imply that there is not a causative link between youth relationships and marital instability, or at least one not so powerful as to make an especially noticeable impact.

 

[strollingbones]

Is Christianity sex-positive or sex-negative? Which religion has the best take on the topic?

They are all equal IMO. Maybe Hinduism is the least repressive considering Kundalini yoga, but I don't know enough to have a real opinion. I think the attitude towards sex stems more from the culture than the religion in which a person was raised but when one religion becomes too powerful and repressive in a society, then you see more interest in underground kinky sex.

True, however I say Wiccan are far more sexually-positive (blech I don't like that term but meh) because many of their older rituals (which few currently follow) call for actual sex.

lets be aware that many of their older rituals are less than a 100 yrs old..hardly a drop in the bucket on the timeline


*is my anti wiccan bias showing?*

 

[Agnapostate]

As long as the participants in said rituals aren't.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

The problem is that religion is inflexible and assumes that rules that (might) make sense in the past will be applicable forever. Before birth control, fornication was an act that almost invariably led to the harm of another person, namely the bastard produced. However, people today can still fornicate and be called responsible, e.g. if they use both condoms and the pill concurrently. Therefore, we can say that fornication is less of a “sin” today, even though religion treats it as a major sin forever.

Is Christianity sex-positive or sex-negative? Which religion has the best take on the topic?

Christianity is sex-positive inside marriage. Outside marriage is a no-no. Inside marriage, anything goes.

LOL. There's few consistent messages in the Bible, for obvious reasons. Not so sure if the following could be called "sex positive."

1 Corinthians 7:7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

Obvious implication: Sex is bad, but if you can't control yourself getting married is better than hell. Of course this is coming from Paul, who was a fucking idiot to the googolplex degree.

Leviticus 20:18 And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.

Having sex with a menstruating woman is bad, regardless of marital status.

Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Rape is okay as long as you buy the damaged property. I suppose rapists might find that sex positive.

Revelation 14:3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.
14:4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

Sex is bad, mmm’kay? John was on drugs I swear.

In a Christian church, the covering of the head is a sign of respect to God, and a way to limit distraction.

Regarding the rigid codes for sexual relations within a marriage, that's not a Christian thing and thus is irrelevant to this thread.

Men and women worshipping separately is not typically a Christian thing. YOu may have men on one side and women on the other, but that's not to denigrate one side over the other. It's to limit distractions, as well. If you're sitting amongst a bunch of people of the same sex, you're more likely to actually listen to what's being said, and concentrate on your prayer.

With regards to clergy, if we're talking Christianity, the bible sets forth very specifically who may be members of the clergy, and gives good reasons why that is so. Nowhere in the bible does it propose that women aren't worthy enough to take up men's roles. It simply establishes the common sense between maintaining separate roles, and respecting them.

Have you read your Bible?

1 Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

1 Cornithians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

By the way, can you give me a Biblical reference where it says only 1 man/1 woman? I bet you can't.

1 Timothy 3:2

Precisely:

2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Um yeah, but that's specifically a bishop. What about laypersons? The Bible is full of examples of polygamy that isn't criticized. The patriarchs were polygamists. Somebody reading the Bible cover to cover would not, with reading comprehension, conclude that polygamy is bad in all circumstances.

 

[Ocean56]

My lovely wife, of forty five years, and I have been members of several different Christian denominations over time. Catholic from birth till late thirties, Pentecostal for a few years and Baptist till present. I am seventy and my wife is sixty six.

The Catholic Church provided guidance regarding sex within the state of marriage in response to our questions. No birth control devices, condoms or practices, otherwise participate in sex as often as you desire. Medical/health reasons were usually favorably considered in allowing birth control as recommended by competent medical authority.

The adage goes like this, what do you call Catholics that practice the rhythm method? Answer, parents. Our third child was conceived under this method. We were over forty and because there was a ten year span between the first children we decided to have the forth so the third would have a companion. It worked out wonderfully.

The protestant denominations provided the same guidance, from the pulpit or informal venues, as the Catholics.

To sum it up, we were taught; No sex before marriage, no fooling around after marriage, marriage consists of one man and one woman. No divorce, there are exceptions, civil marriage may be performed but must be re-administered ASAP by the church before consummation. Civil divorce does not release one from marriage vows, it's merely a legal device. Marriage lasts till the death of one or the other spouse, one may then remarry.

In reality, divorce rate in America, nearly 50% across the denominational spectrum has ripped up the traditional moral code. Couple this with remarriage, new families (children) and the church as been presented with a "faite accompli".

The code is still in effect and the denominations are tackling this problem at the front end. Mandatory premarital course, on going counseling and community support groups. Plus pastors are using the pulpit more to instruct, admonish, and encourage the congregation in their marriage experience.

As far as couples that have broken up, remarried and/or started new families, they are no longer shunned as before. Reconstitution is probably denomination specific.

The divorce rate, the headlong rush into marriage, the acceptance of sexual activity by young people has, IMHO, adversely changed our society. It has affected my family as well. I feel that any turn around will be implemented by specific groups, religious affiliation or small ethnic communities.

Regards,

In other words, the attitude of most conservative "christian" churches is, to quote the term of the original thread author, is sex negative. Little birth control, if any, is allowed because the choice NOT to have children is counterproductive to the church's agenda, which is to keep the religion and church continuing. And, of course, the money the churches are counting on in future to keep the churches maintained. With some "christian" sects, birth control is forbidden entirely. Like that loony-tune "quiverfull" sect, for example.

The poison doctrines of fear and guilt, I'm glad I REJECTED them a long time ago. Many others have done the same of their own accord, which I am glad to see.