- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
I pose these wonderings with all due respect and without any intent to make people uncomfortable.
Some of the consensual adult practices we have recently discussed on this forum are called "unnatural" sexual practices, with moral implications.
First, I wonder why an an act being "unnatural' carries with it negative moral connotations. It seems to me that hang gliding is decidedly unnatural for a human to do, it carries risks, etc. But hardly anyone would consider hang gliding to be immoral. Stupid, maybe, scary, possibly harmful, but not immoral.
Second, Without being too specific, why are these practices called sexual, and does an act being sexual, set it aside in a moral category of some sort? If I do something and find that it is completely blah in terms of sexual gratification, am I doing a sex act? And what difference does it make if it is a sex act? So what?
I can see a very strict reading of the Bible in some people's minds would reserve sex for the procreative act, and that any sexual gratification had during it would be incidental to the completion of impregnation. Unprotected intercourse leading to a male orgasm [edit: ejaculation] in the vagina of a fertile woman who is his wife, would be the only morally acceptable sex act. But this would, for example, make female satisfaction unnecessary and make satisfaction in general, morally inappropriate as an objective. Intercourse any other way, and for that matter, intercourse more than once a year or so, would be immoral. I believe there have been religious sects that have taken this position.
So, where do we draw the line between natural/moral and unnatural/immoral, between what is a sex act and what isn't a sex act (and what difference that makes) and what the Bible tells us to do and not do, when it comes to sex?
I believe one line of answering could be that the marital bond between a man and woman is strengthened by sex between them, and so is appropriate in frequency and variety, to the degree that it accomplishes this for them. But this leaves open, most of the above questions.
Originally posted by JS357I think you almost hit on it near the end of your post.
I pose these wonderings with all due respect and without any intent to make people uncomfortable.
Some of the consensual adult practices we have recently discussed on this forum are called "unnatural" sexual practices, with moral implications.
First, I wonder why an an act being "unnatural' carries with it negative moral connotations. It seems to me tha ...[text shortened]... ree that it accomplishes this for them. But this leaves open, most of the above questions.
Sex in humans creates bonds. Sexual intimacy fosters the creation (or maintenance) of feelings towards that person. Countless times down through the ages, people have mistaken these feelings for "love". It's this kind of indiscreet, inappropriate bonding that causes most of the drama in relationships today. I would guess this is why Lust was listed as one of the Seven Deadly Sins. It causes ripples across the entire spectrum of human interaction. Within the boundaries of normal relationships, this is a good thing. Outside of those boundaries, it's a recipe for disaster.
Originally posted by JS357I would like to hear a strict interpretation of the Song of Solomon, for its fairly explicit that sex is for enjoyment.
I pose these wonderings with all due respect and without any intent to make people uncomfortable.
Some of the consensual adult practices we have recently discussed on this forum are called "unnatural" sexual practices, with moral implications.
First, I wonder why an an act being "unnatural' carries with it negative moral connotations. It seems to me tha ...[text shortened]... ree that it accomplishes this for them. But this leaves open, most of the above questions.
Originally posted by SuzianneOutside of those boundaries, it's a recipe for disaster.
ISex in humans creates bonds. Within the boundaries of normal relationships, this is a good thing. Outside of those boundaries, it's a recipe for disaster.
That's not my experience. Do you have any evidence for this?
Originally posted by wolfgang59Ok, let's think on this a minute.
[b]Outside of those boundaries, it's a recipe for disaster.
That's not my experience. Do you have any evidence for this?[/b]
A Recipe for Disaster
Would you having sex with your sister qualify? Imagine the ramifications for your entire family. Drama!
How about you having sex with your neighbor's wife? Some people have done this and had to move away, and that was the easiest solution. Drama!
How about you taking a shine to that cashier you saw at Wal-Mart, and banging her all night, only to be confronted in the morning by her husband who just got released from prison. Drama!
Random hook-up at a bar. The girl gets obsessed with you and constantly calls and visits you at work. You get fired. Drama!
You succumb to the efforts of your woman boss to seduce you. She makes your life a living hell, either because you come to your senses, or she realizes she owns you. Drama!
(I could do this all day...)
Can you possibly see where I'm going with this?
"Outside of those boundaries [of a normal relationship], it's a recipe for disaster."
You still disagree? How many times have you had sex outside of a normal relationship? If more than zero times, I'm guessing you've witnessed the "Drama!" I'm talking about.
And I did say it is a "recipe" for disaster, i.e. the possibility (probability) is there, even if nothing untoward happens (this time).
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDoes a strict interpretation of the Song of Solomon speak approvingly of polygamy, concubinage and oral sex? Is there any Biblical ban on these practices?
I would like to hear a strict interpretation of the Song of Solomon, for its fairly explicit that sex is for enjoyment.
I am pursuing the theme I laid out, trying to stick to what the Bible allows, while trying to avoid being indelicate.
Originally posted by SuzianneI assumed - perhaps unfairly - that you were talking about sex outside of marriage and condemning promiscuity. If that is not the case then I aplogise.
And I did say it is a "recipe" for disaster, i.e. the possibility (probability) is there, even if nothing untoward happens (this time).
Originally posted by wolfgang59Well, sort of.
I assumed - perhaps unfairly - that you were talking about sex outside of marriage and condemning promiscuity. If that is not the case then I aplogise.
I said "a normal relationship".
I'm not going so far as to say those who have sex with their girlfriends are going to hell. But even promiscuity could be a recipe for disaster of itself, since that is outside "a normal relationship" also.
You have sex with "Mary" one night, "Jane" the next night, and "Molly" the third night. What you don't know is they all work together and like to talk about their new "boyfriends". They all get peeved when they make the connection and decide to punish you for your indiscretions with them by introducing your privates to a pair of scissors. "Mary" is a nurse and makes sure you survive the incident and don't bleed out, but "Jane" and "Molly" feed your privates to the dog. Drama!
Compared to this possibility, sex with your wife or girlfriend (a "normal" relationship) would seem pretty drama-free, no? 🙂
My point is that even promiscuity has its dangers and is not risk-free. I'd say 99% of the dangerous "drama" you might encounter is "outside of a normal relationship". "Normal" being the key here.
Originally posted by SuzianneI think Wolfgang is referring to paying prostitutes for sex. Did you cover that?
Well, sort of.
I said "a normal relationship".
I'm not going so far as to say those who have sex with their girlfriends are going to hell. But even promiscuity could be a recipe for disaster of itself, since that is outside "a normal relationship" also.
You have sex with "Mary" one night, "Jane" the next night, and "Molly" the third night. What y ...[text shortened]... "outside of a normal relationship". "Normal" being the key here.
Originally posted by SuzianneThe "problem" in your little drama is not the promiscuity but the deceit.
You have sex with "Mary" one night, "Jane" the next night, and "Molly" the third night. What you don't know is they all work together and like to talk about their new "boyfriends". They all get peeved when they make the connection and decide to punish you for your indiscretions with them by introducing your privates to a pair of scissors. "Mary" is a nur ...[text shortened]... t and don't bleed out, but "Jane" and "Molly" feed your privates to the dog.
There is nothing wrong with promiscuity!
Originally posted by JS357One thing to consider is how we are now as opposed to the first two humans. They were living under circumstances completely different then we do now. First they were only "two" and this of course was designed by God. It's all that was needed to start the human family. So this is a very clear clue as to what God saw as natural. Second if any other situation would have been natural and good for mankinds future, even if just to experiance pleasure, he could have made those situations too. Of course I'm speaking of homosexuality. But he didn't as it would have served no purpose at all. And in fact it is an action that he clearly condemns many times in the Bible.
I pose these wonderings with all due respect and without any intent to make people uncomfortable.
Some of the consensual adult practices we have recently discussed on this forum are called "unnatural" sexual practices, with moral implications.
First, I wonder why an an act being "unnatural' carries with it negative moral connotations. It seems to me tha ...[text shortened]... ree that it accomplishes this for them. But this leaves open, most of the above questions.
Originally posted by wolfgang59According to God there is a big problem with being promiscuous. It's called fornication.
The "problem" in your little drama is not the promiscuity but the deceit.
There is nothing wrong with promiscuity!
He created us much higher then animals on many levels and one of those is with having morals and respecting others.