Christianity and oral sex...

[Pegg]

If they don't mention it, how is this "clear"?
Ohhhh... I think I understand: you've decided that oral sex is "perverted", and since you don't think God would allow perverted things, you feel safe interpreting the Bible to say that God disapproves of oral sex even though the Bible doesn't really mention it. Hmm.

it boils down to what the term 'pornia' applies to because the greek scriptures use the term 'pornia' as something that christians must avoid.

As would have been sexual intercourse, which you say is A-OK within a marriage.

sexual intercourse within the marriage arrangement is perfectly acceptable as it is in harmony with Gods arrangement for sexual activity. As soon as any form of sexual activity occurs outside of that arrangement, in any form, then the scriptures show that it is not acceptable from Gods standpoint because it is out of harmony with his purpose.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

C. Like you, whenever it's come up in convo (which hasn't been often), the women I know seem to really enjoy it giving oral sex. AND, there are lots of studies which disprove the myth that women want less sex than men. I can't figure out why churches rail about it. That's actually my biggest issue - everyone I talk to, and most studies I find don't match what's being preached. It just stumps me. I've never once heard a message that said men should reciprocate sexual service with their wives.

FWIW, they did bring this up in my (Catholic) marriage preparation classes, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church does speak to sex being a matter of mutual giving between spouses, rather than just a matter where the woman is supposed to submit to the man:

2364 The married couple forms "the intimate partnership of life and love established by the Creator and governed by his laws; it is rooted in the conjugal covenant, that is, in their irrevocable personal consent."147 Both give themselves definitively and totally to one another. They are no longer two; from now on they form one flesh. The covenant they freely contracted imposes on the spouses the obligation to preserve it as unique and indissoluble.148 "What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."149

Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 3 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 2 ARTICLE 6

 

[bain-druie]

Haha, it's not the interpretation of the verses that annoys me, which very well could be an allusion to oral sex. It's:

A. Mark Driscoll speaks as if his interpretation is the infallible word of God and implies that not obeying his sermons is sinning - aka, spiritual manipulation. He uses shock tactics in his sermons, which is fine, but he always comes across as though he's absolutely right. He'd totally be banned on RF. He has some good stuff too, but the bad has been so annoying I end up not being able to take the good and leave the rest.
B. I think church should leave sexuality alone, for the most part. Condemning a lifestyle from the pulpit with the implied authority of God and the associations that come with it is very serious business.
C. Like you, whenever it's come up in convo (which hasn't been often), the women I know seem to really enjoy it giving oral sex. AND, there are lots of studies which disprove the myth that women want less sex than men. I can't figure out why churches rail about it. That's actually my biggest issue - everyone I talk to, and most studies I find don't match what's being preached. It just stumps me. I've never once heard a message that said men should reciprocate sexual service with their wives.

I see. :yes: I'm not surprised that your response is the one that makes sense to me, LOL.

I agree completely, arrogant leaders are repulsive; and too many of them are arrogant. This guy comes off as being positively bursting with unmitigated arrogance. Blargh!

As for the rest, all my church experience was similar, when I look back on it that way. Even when I was going to church, though, I was completely unaware of any stance on oral sex whatsoever. I thought it was an all-too-rare area of privacy left untouched by the dogma. Silly me.

 

[bain-druie]

it boils down to what the term 'pornia' applies to because the greek scriptures use the term 'pornia' as something that christians must avoid.

sexual intercourse within the marriage arrangement is perfectly acceptable as it is in harmony with Gods arrangement for sexual activity. As soon as any form of sexual activity occurs outside of that arrangement, in any form, then the scriptures show that it is not acceptable from Gods standpoint because it is out of harmony with his purpose.

All right, let's check out what 'porneia' means then: according to Strong's Concordance -

4202. porneia por-ni'-ah from 4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively, idolatry:--fornication.

So the definition is dependent on the definitions of the English terms used to describe the Greek term.

Harlotry means prostitution, which is engaging in sexual intercourse for money. Adultery is when a married person engages in sexual activity outside the marriage. Incest is having sex with a close family member. Fornication is when two unmarried people have sex with each other. All these definitions can be checked against Dictionary.com.

Fine and good: so what we end up with is the conclusion that according to the Bible, sexual activity is only approved by God when kept to the marriage bed, which is sacred.

What we do *NOT* find is specific prohibitions on oral sex (or anything else that may occur behind the closed bedroom door of a married Christian couple). So you are citing arbitrary rules created by prudish, controlling church leadership; does that not disturb you?

No offense to anyone, but I gotta say this is another of those many occasions when I am moved to profound gratitude NOT to be a Christian, or anyone else ruled by offensive, invasive dogma. I thank my gods I'm a robustly sensual, tree-hugging pagan!

 

[Desert Snake]

It's just a matter of taking scripture that's metaphorical and turning it into whatever meaning the person want's it to have.

 

[Pegg]

All right, let's check out what 'porneia' means then: according to Strong's Concordance -
4202. porneia por-ni'-ah from 4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively, idolatry:--fornication.
So the definition is dependent on the definitions of the English terms used to describe the Greek term.

pornia goes a bit further then this. Bestiality is a form of porneia. Pornography is a form of porneia (the word porn is actually derived from the greek word porneia)
So porneia has a far wider application then simply sexual intercourse.

So you are citing arbitrary rules created by prudish, controlling church leadership; does that not disturb you?

you might be surprised to know that the WT do not have any church laws specifically about oral sex nor do our elders get involved in the decision making of what married couples do in the bedroom.

Our decisions are based on our own conscience and what goes on in the bedroom is between ourselves and Jehovah. The WT provide us the information we need to make an informed decision in such matters.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

it boils down to what the term 'pornia' applies to because the greek scriptures use the term 'pornia' as something that christians must avoid.


sexual intercourse within the marriage arrangement is perfectly acceptable as it is in harmony with Gods arrangement for sexual activity. As soon as any form of sexual activity occurs outside of that arrangement, in any form, then the scriptures show that it is not acceptable from Gods standpoint because it is out of harmony with his purpose.

If you had left it at, "the Bible never specifically mentions oral sex, so I believe that it's wrong", and not sashayed this opinion about like it was the word of god, you would have been better off. As bain has pointed out, nowhere does the Greek imply oral sex is off-limits. And even still, sometimes the ancient Greek has no real equivalent in the English language, especially some of the Greek as found in the Bible. Case in point: I've studied ancient Greek, both New Testament Koine and pre-NT. The Greek word used in the Gospel of John which is normally translated as "only-begotten" in reference to Jesus being the only-begotten son of god, "monogenes", was used by Homer in the Illiad to refer to Athena, calling her the "monogenes" of Zeus. However, we know that Zeus had many children, so the definition cannot possibly mean "only-begotten", even though that might be a literal translation of the term. However, it could also mean "first born". Mono can mean either only or first, while genes usually translates as 'beginning'. So saying since, in your opinion, the Greek 'porneia' means such and such, doesn't really mean that's the only way to translate it.

Edit: As a side note, there are many students of NT Greek that find the doctrine of Universalism, and even some of the early church fathers accepted this doctrine. However, it has been lost in translation to English.

 

[Quiddity]

Ohhhh... I think I understand: you've decided that oral sex is "perverted", and since you don't think God would allow perverted things, you feel safe interpreting the Bible to say that God disapproves of oral sex even though the Bible doesn't really mention it. Hmm.

This right here......is a major difference between how non-catholic christians (mostly of the protestant flavor) and the more high-church faiths interpret scripture. If it's not clear, it's allowable, for us......but for them, it's deemed as wrong.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

This right here......is a major difference between how non-catholic christians (mostly of the protestant flavor) and the more high-church faiths interpret scripture. If it's not clear, it's allowable, for us......but for them, it's deemed as wrong.

The "if it's not specifically outlawed by scripture, then it's ok" idea, as far as Protestantism is concerned, is found in Lutheranism and churches descending from Anglicanism, such as the Methodists. Calvinists, and their descendants, such as the Presbyterians and Baptists, on the other hand, are of the opinion that "if it's not specifically mentioned by scripture, then it's best to avoid it" idea.

 

[Me Myself]

FWIW, they did bring this up in my (Catholic) marriage preparation classes, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church does speak to sex being a matter of mutual giving between spouses, rather than just a matter where the woman is supposed to submit to the man:

I feel that it is important to re-emphasize this post.

For what I have heard of the catholic tradition, the man is indeed lead to take great care of giving the woman pleasure. The apologetic I heard about it was that God gave the woman a clitoris so that she too can feel plasure, and even if her pleasure is not the direct trigger of making the baby (like the man due to ejaculation, though not always is perfectly ehm.. bah too specific) it is meant to exist because the man should be generous while making love. He must be a generous lover because it is supposed to be an act of love and union.

Actually, what I´ve heard of catholicism and sex with couples seems pointing more towards the direction of: it is generaly better to have sex than to not have sex . I ´ve never heard of a "woman should submit to man" lecture, more of a both should submit to each other´s sex drives generously

But well, that´s what I´ve heard.

 

[Pegg]

The "if it's not specifically outlawed by scripture, then it's ok" idea, as far as Protestantism is concerned, is found in Lutheranism and churches descending from Anglicanism, such as the Methodists. Calvinists, and their descendants, such as the Presbyterians and Baptists, on the other hand, are of the opinion that "if it's not specifically mentioned by scripture, then it's best to avoid it" idea.

we dont take that view

our view is that if its not specifically mentioned in scripture, its a conscience matter and each are free to do as their own personal conscience dictates.

 

[not nom]

For what I have heard of the catholic tradition, the man is indeed lead to take great care of giving the woman pleasure. The apologetic I heard about it was that God gave the woman a clitoris so that she too can feel plasure, and even if her pleasure is not the direct trigger of making the baby (like the man due to ejaculation, though not always is perfectly ehm.. bah too specific) it is meant to exist because the man should be generous while making love. He must be a generous lover because it is supposed to be an act of love and union.

also, it's fun.. the female orgasm is so much more interesting (and sexy) than the male one :yes:

 

[Me Myself]

also, it's fun.. the female orgasm is so much more interesting (and sexy) than the male one :yes:

Automatic frubalization

edit: and you enjoy seeing people happy! what can be more christian than that?!

 

[blackout]

Automatic frubalization

edit: and you enjoy seeing people happy! what can be more christian than that?!

Do unto others....

 

[Songbird]

I am honestly confused by this whole thread. There are so many levels of confusion, I am not sure where to start.

First: do Christians have rules about oral sex? Seriously? If so, why?

2. The gigantic presumption of the preacher does not surprise me. I agree that he is offensive, but I don't see that he is any more offensive than most other preachers I have heard. While I grant that he is taking a very sketchy possible sexual allusion for granted as if it were plain for anyone to see in the text, why do some of the posters seem to be so offended by it? It IS a possibly valid metaphor. And does it matter so much? Metaphor is supposed to be layered with meaning; that makes it rich. If it doesn't work for you, shrug it off and appreciate the meanings that DO work for you. Right?

3. Why is it that it seems to be assumed that fellatio is only pleasurable for men? Most straight women I've talked about sex with enjoy giving it, though not necessarily every day.

4. And as has been pointed out, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you grant the fellatio metaphor, you can find at least 2 more in Song of Solomon for cunnilingus. I really don't see how that's a problem; is it?

*bafflement* :areyoucra

Totally off-topic, but man, your picture is gorgeous.

 

[Renji]

Finally, Christians can reconsider joining the Eros room!

 

[Gaura Priya]

[youtube]xbO9EU3rwZg[/youtube]
Jewish porn) - YouTube