Opera Nut

Why give this high level animal the same sex drive as lower animals? Because humans ARE mammals. We have all the same organs, bones and muscles that other land mammals do. Yes we have bigger brains but we are very much like other mammals.
If we didn't have a sex drive, the species would die out. Simple.
But those damned Xtians think you gotta have that state-sanctioned adn therefore gawd-sanctioned screwing license before you screw. Assholes.

Joel

ROTFLMAO!!! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Skeptical

Since there is no "official" christian church, only a bunch of denominations, there is no "official position". However, as far as the Catholic church is concerned, any sex act that "spills seed" that cannot result in pregnancy is immoral. At least, this is what it was when I took my college social ethics class over a decade ago. Obviously, oral and non-vaginal (including anal) sex would be subsumed under this head-ing. (sorry, couldn't resist)

I don't know what their reasoning is about lesbians, other than that they're against it.

Male=bad, since it spills seed, female=? They're probably against it as well, who knows why.

Uh oh, I think I've got a lot more wives than I thought!

ansarthemystic

skeptical,
that's nothing! I didn't even know I had a wife until I read the relevant scriptures.

P.S. do you think I should tell her?

peace and blessings

Novowels

Every time an xtian tells me that "God made [hetero] sex feel good" for whatever reason, I am urged to ask why He made the prostate gland work like it does.

diana

Hi, ansar.

The Xn position on sex. Intriguing question.

The ideas I've gotten from the Bible regarding sex* is that sex is a natural drive that is to be harnessed and controlled and every sex act I recall being mentioned that didn't result in procreation was wrong--unless the couple was trying to produce children the proper way but the man was sowing his seeds in a barren field (ever notice that the fault of the lack of pregnancy is invariably the woman's? It was assumed, like in The Handmaiden's Tale, come to think of it, that the man's seed was always good. If the woman didn't bear children, it HAD to be because she had physical problems. Or...oh yeah...The Lord had made her barren.)

* and I mean verses that specifically discuss sex, not vague "make your spouse happy" verses that could be construed--let's face it--to mean anything. "I robbed a bank because my hubby bade me to and it is written that the wife is to be subservient to her husband" is just as valid of an application of scripture as "subservience to my husband involves the obligatory circadian BJ."

Anyhow. The bible doesn't say anything about condoning sex for pleasure, to my knowledge. It looks the other way while men frig it up with temple prostitutes, but that's about as close as it comes. So to speak.

Paul looks at it as a natural drive that must be suppressed, ignored, or if absolutely necessary, relieved within the bonds of marriage.

So from the implications of the examples we are given in the Bible combined with the few dictates we have, it would appear that any act that involves "spilling seed" is an act of sin for the man.

It appears that they didn't seem to recognize that women were sexual creatures at all. They weren't worried about controlling women's pleasure or women's drives other than ensuring their hymens remained intact until marriage. I suspect most were unaware that women were even capable of orgasm. Women were clearly seen as sperm recepticles, period.

A comment on the Onan story, since you brought it up. I heard that story as a condemnation of masturbation when I was growing up. I read it for myself a couple of years ago and I think he was condemned for refusing to produce children for his brother. It wasn't the act of spilling his seed that was so bad--it was the selfish motivation behind it and the fact that he was failing to comply with law. (If he produced children "for his brother," they would be first in line for the father's inheritance; if he didn't, his children would be.) The story leads me to believe that any other reason for masturbation would be just fine, in the eyes of the Lord (although it would make a man unclean for a period--speaking of which, he may as well just fuck a menstruating woman, since she was unclean as well).

The bible says nothing about anal sex, which I find intriguing. There is that bit in Romans about "doing that which is against nature," which is another huge vagueness that could mean anything from letting the woman be on top (and very well could have meant that, as this would be a way of asserting her authority over the man) to fucking chickens.

In light of that passage, it could be argued that ass-fucking is perfectly natural. As Novowels pointed out, why else would God have put the prostate gland where he did?

Masturbation is not condemned in scripture (unless you argue Onan or "against nature"), although it's tough to do it without lusting in your heart after somebody.

In the bible it is clearly apparent that the definition of extramarital affair refers to having sex with someone's wife. Therefore you can have sex with anyone who is not a prostitute or married to someone else?

Well...yeah. So it would seem.

And the prohibition on prostitutes was more likely because it was a form of worship/contribution to pagan gods. Why else would this be considered a bad thing?

If the bible is the word of the all-knowing god why does it not contain any passages denouncing having sex with children?

Because having sex with children was acceptable behavior to them.

Why does the bible repeatedly say stuff like " and he went in unto her,and he knew her, and THEN she became his wife.."?

I don't think the "then" part is in there. The way I understand it, sex was considered the "marriage ceremony." It was all simultaneous. As soon as he'd possessed her, she "became his wife"--automatically.

d

Edited to add "n't."

[ August 18, 2002: Message edited by: diana ]</p>