quote:

---

Song of Solomon, 4:16

Awake, O north wind,

And come, O south!

Blow upon my garden,

That its spices may flow out.

Let my beloved come to his garden

And eat its pleasant fruits

---

Okay, okay, you can see the Song of Songs as all allegory if you like. Whatever flips your Twinkie.

Or, if you do see it as applying to the real-life Solomon and Shulamite, as much or more than to Christ and the Church, perhaps you still have a need to filter all those lovely sensual tidbits through a protective matrix favoring already-married, missionary-position sex, just 'cause that's more holy, y'see.

I reference all that to give a base for us to jump from.

What about oral sex?

[ 08. January 2006, 21:57: Message edited by: Erin ]
 

---

Posted by that Wikkid Person (# 4446) on :
 
Ya, what about it. I have several times refused it in situations where sex was inappropriate, so would love to know if I did right in that regard, or was I just wasting perfectly good blowjobs?
 

---

Posted by Jeff Featherstone (# 4811) on :
 
It seems to me that biblically just about any sexual activity within marriage is fine provided it just involves that man and woman. The Bible has plenty to say about the importance of keeping sex within marriage but has virtually nothing to say about what sexual activity should take place within it except to view sex as a god-given positive and wonderful gift.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
What Jeff said.

The Bible says very little about sex itself, except in the Song of Songs and that is wholly positive and lusciously frank, (don't allegorise). It's just assumed .... as unexceptional in ordinary human terms as breathing or eating. However, many (but not all) Christian traditions never cease to go on and on about sex, revealing perhaps an underlying Manichaean tendency or control freakery on behalf of the theological snoopers.

For God's sake (literally!) haven't we got enough to deal with in this broken and violent world than what adult people do with their genitalia?!
 

---

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :
 
Thank God for Fr. Gregory and common sense, plain speaking and a fun-loving take on life!



Nic
 

---

Posted by TheGreenT (# 3571) on :
 
to answer the thread title ...

its great
 

---

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
Friend said we Christians are sooo cute when we talk about sex, like kittens chaste even in our cavorting.

Sorry to give the topic merely a lick and a promise... off to work early today. Will come back to y'all this evening. Thanks for letting me dip into the topic with you. I hope I haven't bitten off more than I can chew.
 

---

Posted by Magnum Mysterium (# 3418) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Janine:
What about oral sex?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeff Featherstone:
It seems to me that biblically just about any sexual activity within marriage is fine provided it just involves that man and woman.

---

quote:

---

The Bible has plenty to say about the importance of keeping sex within marriage

---

I disagree.

[Edited for UBB in quote.]

[ 26. December 2003, 23:52: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear MM

I took the sentence to mean "no unfaithfulness." That's why I could agree with it. Whether the poster intended that is another matter. What the Bible means by sex, marriage and orientation has been done-to-death elsewhere.
 

---

Posted by Pheonix (# 2782) on :
 
Don't see anything wrong with it

In fact rather nice...
 

---

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
I noticed in the little How to Make Your Confession pamphlet our priest recently put out that oral sex was listed as OK for married couples, but only as part of foreplay.

Procreate! Procreate! Procreate!
(to the tune of Vatican Rag)

One of the many things about which I don't agree with the official teaching of the RC Church.

On the other hand, I find it a bit odd and perhaps even disturbing that kids are buying into this idea that only a penis ejaculating inside a vagina counts as "real sex". Although I suppose it's nothing new; there were plenty of proudly "technical" virgins around back in the '50s and '60s, too.
 

---

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by jlg:
I noticed in the little How to Make Your Confession pamphlet our priest recently put out that oral sex was listed as OK for married couples, but only as part of foreplay.

---

Uh Oh!
 

---

Posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon (# 4544) on :
 
Sine, for a priest who would put out pamphlets such as those, unless you are already a RC you probably have a bigger problem to worry about.
 

---

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
jlg--I looked at your post and saw '...my priest is putting out'
 

---

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
I couldn't possibly be a Roman Catholic. The nearest church to me has pinky-beige wall-to-wall carpeting inside and a tacky grotto outside.

Their priest is kind of hot though. But he already has a lover.
 

---

Posted by TheGreenT (# 3571) on :
 
oh sine!
 

---

Posted by Katie L (# 1996) on :
 
Well, I am too ignorant of Biblical anything to have an informed opinion about what it says about sex (I'm not proud of this, but it's the truth) but I do think that oral sex is sex, and if kids think it doesn't count they are fooling themselves. It was silly when Bill Clinton tried to claim it doesn't count, and it's silly now.

On the other hand, you cannot get pregnant that way, and it's not the most efficient way to transmit STDs, so if they are doing that rather than flat-out intercourse, it might not be the worst thing in the world.

Of course, they could still suffer unfortunate emotional, spiritual, and social consequences from this "not-sex," if they are not ready, or are too indiscriminate in who they choose as their partners.

Katie
 

---

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheGreenT:
oh sine!

---

quote:

---

this idea that only a penis ejaculating inside a vagina counts as "real sex"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheGreenT:
oh sine!

---

Yes, that wall-to-wall carpeting is kind of shocking.

---

lol
 

---

Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
I'm shocked, too. Who could do such a terrible thing to the acoustics of a room, and then claim to have authority to pronounce other acts to be defiling?

[ 26. December 2003, 18:24: Message edited by: Zeke ]
 

---

Posted by Pheonix (# 2782) on :
 
I have heard of sermons in some churches where oral sex is classed as a sin and people have been called to repent of it. I really cannot see how the bible can be used to justify that. Personally that strikes me very much as a cult where they try to control your sex life...

What is wrong with what couples do behind closed doors? As long as it doesn't break laws of the land then surely its purely up to them and no-one else? I can't imagine God giving out a list of sex acts between between consenting married couples (in this example) of what is and isn't allowed... It's almost a case of Stop dear, I have to check its allowed in the bible before we try it... Really!

[tangent]
I have had heard it said of cults that once they control your money and your sex life they control all of you.. Not quite sure how true that is...
[/tangent]

[ 26. December 2003, 19:19: Message edited by: Pheonix ]
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pheonix:
I have heard of sermons in some churches where oral sex is classed as a sin and people have been called to repent of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pheonix:
I have heard of sermons in some churches where oral sex is classed as a sin and people have been called to repent of it.

---

Only when it's done very, very badly. With teeth.

---

Ouch, that thought just makes me want to wince..
 

---

Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :
 
Three adolescent girls go to confession together.

The first girl tells the priest that she peeked through a window and looked at a naked man's penis. The priest tells her to go to the back of the church and wash her eyes with water from the holy water stoup.

The second girl tells the priest "I touched my boyfriend's penis." The priest tells her to go the back of the church and wash her hands with the holy water.

The third girl enters the confessional and after a few minutes sulks to the back of the church and whispers, "Move over girls. I have to gargle."

[ 26. December 2003, 20:47: Message edited by: CorgiGreta ]
 

---

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
jlg--I looked at your post and saw '...my priest is putting out'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
Three adolescent girls go to confession together.

The first girl tells the priest that she peeked through a window and looked at a naked man's penis. The priest tells her to go to the back of the church and wash her eyes with water from the holy water stoup.

The second girl tells the priest "I touched my boyfriend's penis." The priest tells her to go the back of the church and wash her hands with the holy water.

The third girl enters the confessional and after a few minutes sulks to the back of the church and whispers, "Move over girls. I have to gargle."

---

I've heard a similar joke. But the punchline was "I'm not gargling with that after she's put her ass in it!"
 

---

Posted by MadKaren (# 1033) on :
 
(...my mum finally worked out why the littlegreenalien has a tongue piercing.... )

MadKaren
 

---

Posted by barrea (# 3211) on :
 
I believe that all forms of sex including oral sex are wrong outside of marriage so,why make jokes of things that are offensive to God.Do you not think that that is wrong.

That Wikid person I think that you did right in refusing, stick with it.
 

---

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by barrea:
why make jokes of things that are offensive to God.Do you not think that that is wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by barrea:
why make jokes of things that are offensive to God.Do you not think that that is wrong.

---

No. He gave (some of) us a sense of humor, which is one of the things that sets us apart from the animals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:
Not licking our bottoms after a particularly tasty meal?

---

I believe that is specifically prohibited in Leviticus. Or if it's not, it should be.
 

---

Posted by caz667 (# 3026) on :
 
Why??? It keeps me flexible.....

You're so judgemental...
 

---

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
Pity this thread isn't in Hell. This could be an interesting tangent.
 

---

Posted by caz667 (# 3026) on :
 
ooops, is it not? Apologies....

THIS is why I don't often post in purgatory... I always drag things down

So.... Leviticus. Erm.....
 

---

Posted by caz667 (# 3026) on :
 
Apologies for double post, but I felt churlish for not posting a "proper" reply...

My opinion is that between 2 consenting, loving, committed adults (my jury's still out as to whether that requires a marriage licence), all forms of sexual activity are permissable provided both parties consent and no-one else is affected by it.

I know of a couple who quite openly disagree with oral sex; saying that because it cannot lead to pregnancy it cannot be "of God". I would disagree with this opinion; God evidently put a lot of thought into the creation of our bodies and the fact that he concentrated so many nerve endings in our *ahem* more southerly regions makes me think that he intended sex to be a pleasureable as well as functional activity. Therefore if you enjoy it, I say go for it! And if you don't.... feel under no pressure to do so.

Barrea; with respect; I don't see the problem with making jokes about sex. Sex can at times be a most sacred and precious activity and it can, at times, be hilarious. The ability to laugh at yourself in these times AND the ability to speak freely and frankly without feeling embarrassed for doing so will, in my limited experience, only serve to make you a better partner!

I would so much rather we were able to talk about these things, even at the risk of a little vulgarity, rather than hide everything behind a cloak of religious censorship and leave people with no forum in which to ask their questions, post their fears, etc.

If it offends you, of course, you're perfectly within your rights not to join in....

[ 27. December 2003, 22:01: Message edited by: caz667 ]
 

---

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
Now THIS was the discussion I was hoping to have when I posted the same basic questions in an OP on my GCM boards-

I mean, I moderate the "Marriage Relationships, Love and Sexuality" Forum, fer goodness' sake! I think the folks there are shocked I might ever bring up a sex-related subject...

*Sigh*

We'll see how it plays out.

I guess the topic was just a little too hard for them to swallow.

"On The Tip Of Your Tongue"

Meanwhile, I am glad I have you guys around for the comic relief I crave. Thank you.
 

---

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by barrea:
I believe that all forms of sex including oral sex are wrong outside of marriage so,why make jokes of things that are offensive to God. Do you not think that that is wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by caz667:
I know of a couple who quite openly disagree with oral sex

---

Oh my!

They sound far more interesting than most of my dinner guests.
 

---

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
Remind me, S., if I am ever blessed to dine in your company, to avoid the deadly sin of Being Boring. I'll up this subject all you want.
 

---

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
What does it tell us that two of the wildest women on these boards are Churcha Christ?
 

---

Posted by Grits (# 4169) on :
 

quote:

---

barrea, He also gave us brains and a conscience, which I take a sign that He expects us to ponder and consider how we live our lives, not just blindly follow rules put forth by some individuals claiming to be The Church or whatever.

---

The OP seemed to want serious answers, and few have been given, so maybe that's a point of contention here. Is the question about whether oral sex is OK or whether it is sex? I think the answer to both is yes. If the question is whether it is OK for unmarried kids to be doing it, my answer would have to be no. I think barrea is just saying that's the end of the discussion for him, which should be fine with everyone else, since this is Purgatory.

I understand and appreciate what you're saying here, Jennifer. I just find it interesting that this is always used as a "weapon" against those of us who follow nothing but the Bible. There is no individual or church hierarchy that is giving me the "rules" I follow -- it's just the stuff in the Bible. So when you make a comment like the one above, it comes across to me that you associate someone with conservative views being ensconced in some kind of legalistic, formalized religion, and that's just not true for some of us.

I guess I think God gave us brains and a conscience AND the Bible, to be used in conjunction with one another. So I choose to use my brains and conscience to try and follow those teachings in the Bible. Heaven forbid I have to worry about more rules from men or church!
 

---

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
Yeah, I wanted good honest opinion- backed with Bible if anyone was making a case for me to believe and practice as they do -

Re: oral sex and the Christian.

After shocked offense, the board owner over at GCM just deleted the thread over there.

How sad, that Christians can't discuss this stuff whenever/wherever they need to.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:
I think barrea is just saying that's the end of the discussion for him, which should be fine with everyone else, since this is Purgatory.

---

quote:

---

part of a post by Grits:
I understand and appreciate what you're saying here, Jennifer. I just find it interesting that this is always used as a "weapon" against those of us who follow nothing but the Bible. There is no individual or church hierarchy that is giving me the "rules" I follow -- it's just the stuff in the Bible. So when you make a comment like the one above, it comes across to me that you associate someone with conservative views being ensconced in some kind of legalistic, formalized religion, and that's just not true for some of us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Yes and no. If you're not going to actually discuss something, what IS the point of jumping into a DISCUSSION thread on a DISCUSSION board to say that you are NOT going to discuss something?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jlg:
No you don't understand and appreciate what I'm saying.

---

quote:

---

I wasn't born and bred Christian and I'm a very reluctant convert, and so I find myself continuously challenged by what is preached and taught.

---

and I admire you because of this, and I find I always learn when I can see things through someone else's view. Appreciation doesn't have to mean agreement, either.

quote:

---

I only object to what I see as unthinking acceptance of a particular point of view. And I also object to the idea that there is a single way to interpret the Bible (and that to me is the same as accepting some sort of Church or Teaching).

---

quote:

---

But when barrea comes in and pronounces that "the Bible says..." I refuse to accept his view, because he has indicated that he will not ever even consider my view.

---

quote:

---

I know, I know -- that's what drives everyone crazy, that I can accept it so "unthinkingly". I do accept it, but believe me, I think about it plenty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Janine:
Now THIS was the discussion I was hoping to have when I posted the same basic questions in an OP on my GCM boards...
I guess the topic was just a little too hard for them to swallow.

"On The Tip Of Your Tongue"

---

Thanks, Tortuf, for pointing out that the link doesn't work. 'Course it doesn't, since the board owner (who originally asked me to crank up the conversation) felt it necessary to delete the thread, to avoid hurting shocked and offended people.

Yes, I have run across people who actually feel there are particular sexual practices/positions/frequencies/locations that a "good Christian" ought to avoid-- yes, even in that most narrow "restricted" grouping, male-and-female marriage. Maybe even especially there. Many of those same people feel there's something inherently (sexually?) wrong with breastfeeding. (Don't ask how I come up with these twisted acquaintances, I don't know how it happens that way.)

I remember when a woman, a member of one of our churches of Christ here, decided she was going to live "in sin" with a fellow, and the elders of her congregation tried to work with her on it -- I mean, why be part of a religious group that condemns unmarried cohabitation and sex and so on, if that's what you want to do? --

Anyway, she was all offended that anyone would dare say she was living sinfully, and she sued the church -- yet another offense, that, Christians are not supposed to take Christians to secular courts, see here --

The church people appeared on Donahue. When ol' Donahue or an audience member asked why they held the positions they did, why they believed that a Christian community working together did have an obligation to try to help each other live holy lives, they would give their reasons along with a Biblical precedent. They'd cite a passage, a chapter, a verse - some reason backed by Bible why they do what they do.

And the audience hissed. They moaned and growled. Sounded like "Legion", for goodness' sake!

I don't understand why it would be a bad thing to make it one's Christian practice to see what the earliest Christians did. Yes, there are consideratons of context and history and accuracy of old manuscripts -- and over the whole mess ought to glide the absolute love of the Christ, in our dealings one with another.

But the idea of building up your whole religious life out of your own head, based on what feels good at the moment - or the idea that what your church leaders thought was OK 50 years ago is more important than what they thought 2,000 years ago - That is an alien thing to me. To take a religious stance without at least one foot firmly planted on the Rock as loved in the Word... how groundless, how baseless, how wild. IMO.

I'm not saying people can't think deep thoughts and come painfully to conclusions in life without ever even touching the Bible - they can, they do. I am saying that although I respect their investment of time and thought and pain, I do not respect their conclusions as complete, if they pooh-pooh the Bible as a source of great truth.

And so I was looking for opinion - even just personal opinion coming from only tastes and preferences - but I wanted Scripture backing up any claims that I ought to believe some particular thing about it all.

Instead what I got "over there" was several people saying "let's not talk about it" (not talk about it in a sexuality-focused forum?). I did get one or two who thought it was a great topic, if only because non-Christians or strugglers might be amazed that churchy people actually discussed such things.

What I hoped for was reasoned discussion. There are all sorts of people, settled Christians too, who wrestle with the idea of oral sex and a lot more, the whole free-access-to-the-mate thing.

Eh, thanks for letting me blow off steam, folks. I'll spare you more of my blathering for now, because my Bible-based marriage will suffer if my Bible-wielding husband doen't get his hair clipped Scripturally short this morning before the Bible-following church service...
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
But Janine .... what do you do if the Bible has NOTHING to say on a particular topic? Surely, silence doesn't mean it's either OK or not OK. You have to use some other yardstick in that case.

As it stands I think that the Song of Songs gives ample scriptural justification for oral sex ... should any be needed ... which I doubt.
 

---

Posted by caz667 (# 3026) on :
 
Fr. Gregory... that's a huge question. It impacts all sorts of areas in our lives and I think about it frequently.

Do you have any yardsticks in mind for when the Bible is silent? Or should that be another thread entirely?
 

---

Posted by barrea (# 3211) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:
I think barrea is just saying that's the end of the discussion for him, which should be fine with everyone else, since this is Purgatory.

---

Yes and no. If you're not going to actually discuss something, what IS the point of jumping into a DISCUSSION thread on a DISCUSSION board to say that you are NOT going to discuss something?

[Hint: the only point is to piss off the people on the thread who WOULD like to discuss it, in which case they have every right to retaliate in kind.]

---

I never said that I did not want to discuss anything, and no I am not offended by talking about sexual subjects. This thread seens to be getting like the game of Chinees Whispers were at the end everything one says gets distorted.
The point that I was making is that what is permited within marraige is not allowed outside of marraige,not if one is following the bible teachings.
As Grits says if you get your teachings from God's word you don't need churches to make the rules, however you do need Godly men and women
to guide young people in the way that they should go.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear caz667

Don't we all? Er, oh, yes ... another thread perhaps.
 

---

Posted by fatprophet (# 3636) on :
 
Can I weigh in with a new thought?
I have noted that some school and medical sex-educators-of the young have begun to teach that teenagers particularly be encouraged to try alternative 'activities' to vaginal intercourse yet still obtain some sexual 'release'. That petting to orgasm/fellatio and various other manipulation of each other's bits using other bits, can be an alternative to full intercourse as well as a mere preliminary; it has been known for millennia (variously called foreplay without the afters, the real sin of Onan etc), but seems to have been discounted by many couples over the last few decades in the rush for rapid penetration.
However for some who do not want to go the whole hog until they are married, or want to avoid most of the risk of pregnancy without the awkward trappings of contraception, it seems lingering around second and third base for a while seems to be a viable substitute way of discovering each other's bodies, deepening intimacy and avoiding the boy's trousers exploding.
Now I am happy to hear that some say that 'sex' need not involve vaginal penetration. Certainly that lowers the age that I can claim I lost my virginity at considerably!
[Aside Shall I tell you about the young Methodist couple who suggested to me that they had sex, 'but with their clothes on'? Physically impossible surely, but they were indicating to me (during a truth and dare game!) that they were not prudish virgins, yet taking things slowly - presumably they acheived a mtually shared and intimate orgasm (and chafing blisters?) And the fact they were Methodists is probably not relevant at all ]

Anyway, sometimes I go into a restaurant and order a 'starter' without any intention of having main course. It satisfies me. If oral sex is on your starter menu, thats fine by me.
One further thing, lets make clear that discussion of oral sex should not persuade our younger audience that this is something you must do and that you are some kind of dork if you don't like it. No you don't have to go for oral sex at all. Its not required. Very many (most?) people don't do oral sex regularly or at all but still have very satisfying sex lives.
 

---

Posted by Grits (# 4169) on :
 
This, too, for the "other thread", perhaps. (We're taking advantage of the Purg hosts' holidays.) I'm glad berrea jumped back in, and I do apologize for appearing to speak for him. (He does a much better job of it!)

This passage from II Peter 1 is so perfect for addressing the "how do find all your answers in the Bible" tangent on which we've temporarily jumped.

"... His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust..."

To me, this is a promise that, if we continue to grow as a Christian (as portrayed in the verses that follow this passage) we will always have a basis for knowing what we should do. He says He has given us all the things we need to make those decisions.

Why do I believe this, or anything from the Bible? As Saint Peter continues, "For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty... And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."

That last part speaks volumes to me. Prophecy never came by the will of man, but by these holy men who were eyewitnesses of Christ and who wrote these Spirit-breathed words. I just can't imagine not believing.
 

---

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:
....I just can't imagine not believing.

---

And I find that the possibility of not believing is my constant companion, and often argues a pretty good case. Which is why I objected to your use of the phrase "understand and appreciate". While I believe that both of us want very much (out of the goodness of our hearts) to truly understand and appreciate, and that we try very hard to do so, it's really a rather major hurdle.

But all that is definitely another thread and I accept your peace offering.

Sincere apologies to Janine for all this cross-chatter.

[ 28. December 2003, 19:40: Message edited by: jlg ]
 

---

Posted by Grits (# 4169) on :
 
Agreed, and thanks, jlg.
 

---

Posted by that Wikkid Person (# 4446) on :
 
I think the attitude young people have toward oral sex has changed from "You better love him/her a whole lot to do THAT for him/her!" to "I'm a good girl, a virgin still, but I do suck a lot of guys off."

A guy who was my room-mate told me "Melanie next door came over and we fooled around."
"You had sex?" I asked.
"No, but I let her suck my dick" he proudly replied.

I told him that, as he wouldn't have sex with her because she wasn't worth it (being a thorough skank deficient in both intellect and honour), that he would find that oral sex would have the same embarassing tying of him to her as vaginal sex would have. A few days later he told me "Dammit, you were right! I should never have let her do that! Now it's all awkward!"

The movie "Clerks" has a long and learned diatribe on this topic.
 

---

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
The cross-chatter supports the viewpoints, Jennifer, no problem.
 

---

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
I wonder how far the claim that oral sex is not sex derives from the incident in the White House where Clinton made the point. Anyone know if legally it would count as adultery or not?! (For the purpose of a divorce, at least in the old days when divorces were only achievable on the basis of adultery). I'm sure it counts as indecent assault....

More seriously, the point about it having the same impact on the relationship as 'real' sex is very striking!

Also - from a biological perspective - is it healthy for the mouth to get exposed to what is 'down there'. At least until recently, when washing became easily possible, isn't it the case that there is a lot of bacteria etc are resident down there. We carefully wash our food....
 

---

Posted by caz667 (# 3026) on :
 
Janine,

It's so funny how different the worlds we live in are.

Do you know it just never occurred to me that anyone would ever object to married couples having oral sex.... until I met these staunch acquaintances of mine that I mentioned earlier. I had no idea that in some circles theirs was the majority view and the negative reaction you got on the other boards really surprised me.

It makes me reflect that actually my community of faith is a much more open one than I often think. I must count my blessings a little more often, methinks...

But well done you for being brave enough to raise it and not shy away for fear of being thought badly of. (I hope that doesn't sound patronising, it's sincerely meant).


 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Also - from a biological perspective - is it healthy for the mouth to get exposed to what is 'down there'. At least until recently, when washing became easily possible, isn't it the case that there is a lot of bacteria etc are resident down there. We carefully wash our food....

---

AFAIK, there's no more risk of infections from 'down there' than there is from eating with your fingers or kissing the dog (not a euphemism! ).

For the record, I don't think oral sex is wrong within a commited relationship. It doesn't do anything for me personally (I'm one of that extremely rare breed - a man who prefers to give than recieve), but if you kids want to try it who am I to tell you it's wrong?
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
Sorry about the DP.

[Childish Giggle]

My reply was post number 69

[/Childish Giggle]
 

---

Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Janine:
I remember when a woman, a member of one of our churches of Christ here, decided she was going to live "in sin" with a fellow, and the elders of her congregation tried to work with her on it -- I mean, why be part of a religious group that condemns unmarried cohabitation and sex and so on, if that's what you want to do? --

Anyway, she was all offended that anyone would dare say she was living sinfully, and she sued the church -- yet another offense, that, Christians are not supposed to take Christians to secular courts, see here -- ...

---

quote:

---

According to one of the Elders, Parishioner was publicly branded a fornicator when the scriptures she had violated were recited to the Collinsville Church of Christ congregation on October 4. As part of the disciplinary process the same information about Parishioner's transgressions was sent to four other area Church of Christ congregations to be read aloud during services.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
My church routinely "reads people out" for fornication...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I wonder how far the claim that oral sex is not sex derives from the incident in the White House where Clinton made the point. Anyone know if legally it would count as adultery or not?! (For the purpose of a divorce, at least in the old days when divorces were only achievable on the basis of adultery). I'm sure it counts as indecent assault....

More seriously, the point about it having the same impact on the relationship as 'real' sex is very striking!

Also - from a biological perspective - is it healthy for the mouth to get exposed to what is 'down there'. At least until recently, when washing became easily possible, isn't it the case that there is a lot of bacteria etc are resident down there. We carefully wash our food....

---

Nope, trust me. people have been trying to talk stupid young virgins into oral sex with this reasoning since time immemorial.

Re: mouth-genitals

Homeostasis.

There are some bacteria that hang out in the genital area that may make for some rocky first weeks or so (understand I am talking the normal stuff,exclusive of STD.This is simply due to the genital's proximity to the anus (urine is sterile, and poses no health problems.) But if one is monogamous one adapts to the biology of one's partner.

I encourage correction; I read this info in the Straight Dope many moons ago and think I have the gist, but the details are sketchy.
 

---

Posted by fatprophet (# 3636) on :
 
Rather as I would not want my old mum and dad to hear me discussing oral sex (let alone doing it)I feel the similar kind of embarassment in front of our Christian Missionary friend Brojees. Not sure why though, but I suspect Brojees is a very spiritual evangelical brother who presumably would find it shocking that we are even discussing the topic.
But it must be discussed. Perhaps with less joking and far more studied rational consideration. Humour is a good way to hide our embarrassment however.

So whats the case against Oral Sex?

ORAL SEX - THE CHRISTIAN MORALITY ARGUMENT

No one has taken me up on the issue of whether non-vaginal sex is a viable 'alternative' means of sexual release for those who want to leave full sexual intercourse to marriage. Some obviously think that if you have oral sex then you have committed vaginal sex in your heart, or that infact there is no moral difference betwen the two. I reject this argument.
This kind of muddled thinking is the fault of Jesus who unhelpfully suggested that desire was everything, the actus reus apparently irrelevant.

ORAL SEX - THE EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE ARGUMENT
Anyway, someone said their room mate felt damn awkward with a poor girl who had 'sucked him off'. He would surely have felt somewhat awkward whatever degree of intimacy was involved.
Granted intimacy without real relationship is the huge problem today. Ah, if only sex was just another recreational sport.
However I have seen this christian argument before: that sexual activity must induce some kind of long term guilt and pyschological problems in the otherwise happy shaggers.
As a young christian any significant degree of intimacy with a woman led be to feel guilty if I didn't intend to marry her (at the time in any event) however this guilt is seemingly the result not of innate conscience but indoctrination that sex outside wedlock is bad. It took some convincing me, but I now realise most people don't get emotional feelings of guilt or broken hearted merely from shagging around. Its just not true for Christians to say that sleeping with/sucking off lots of people will inevitably lead to some kind of long term emotional scars. It was all the chaste people who had the emotional disturbance at my college while the sexually prolific seemed to be thoroughly confident, balanced, mature and enjoying themselves. The only evidence I saw that sexual activity leads to negative psychological changes is an odd unproven correlation between promiscuity and heavy smoking and drinking plus a subsequent difficulty of friends to commit to a long term relationship when they have been used to regularly changing partners before.
However perhaps it is just the chaste Christians' wishful thinking that the sexual active are not truly enjoying themselves. Bit like hoping the rich aren't really happier than the poor.

ORAL SEX - HYGEINE ISSUES
As for the oral hygeine issue, I am not medically trained, but our natural inhibition not to lick the toilet seat does not seem to stop people sticking their mouths around other's genitals. In fact it is generally accepted that one is quite probably ingesting not insignificant traces of stale urine when one is grazing below the navel. On the basis of medial opinion of two nurses in my family I can confidently assert that oral sex is a great vector for transferring herpes at least because some STD's love the moist conditions of foreskins and mouths in possibly similar measure. Obviously there are some, the most nasty STDs like Aids and Hepatitus that can't be contracted easily by swallowing vaginal or seminal fluid unless you have bleeding oral sores. So good idea to check for mouth ulcers, don't bite and have a nice mouth rinse after oral sex.
Oral sex does present a hygeine hazard but is probably less risky to females on a strict mortality basis than actually getting pregnant.
One of course dare not get into the hygeine issue of anal intercourse (gay or straight) but that too does I understand present medical risks not associated with vaginal intercourse, as a gay biology science student once pointed out to me.

So accept it. Most things you enjoy are medically hazardous. Don't say mother didn't warn you.
 

---

Posted by fatprophet (# 3636) on :
 
Erratum.
It has now been suggested to me that oral herpes i.e. cold sores and genital herpes are caused by quite different viruses. However I simply ignore such arguments on the basis that proper scientific research before posting is far too time consuming.
 

---

Posted by fatprophet (# 3636) on :
 
Oh yes. Legally (in English Law) oral sex is not adultery (nor for other purposes, rape). If forced it would be indecent/sexual assault, if done in public it would be an act of gross indecency. Most sexual offences law is undergoing a shake up with legislation before the UK Parliament but it is unlikely that the legal position will change drastically.

I imagine someone will tell me there is a state in the U.S where oral sex is punishable by 20 years in prison.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Apparently the Sheffield Commissar for Public Morals thinks that a chaste peck on the cheek (the mouth-cheek that is) is a most hideous form of underage sex which sould be punishable by the maximum penalty of law.

I disagree about humour. Mock seriousness is the province of medical text books and embarrased teachers who are required to avoid inappropriate language. Humour brings a sense of proportion and acceptance. Many things that humans do are funny .... it's just that we don't realise it until we think about it.

Take clapping for example .... what a hoot .... to show appreciation by smacking our palms together. Whoever invented that?!

Remember Bob Newhart ... smoking .... putting leaves inside a piece of paper ... sticking them inside our mouths and setting fire to them. Humour? We don't have enough of it.
 

---

Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:
(We're taking advantage of the Purg hosts' holidays.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fatprophet:
Legally (in English Law) oral sex is not adultery

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
What holidays? I'd like to dispel this misconception. We Have No Lives.

---

Already so cynical after so short a tenure... how sad.
 

---

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
What do you mean we have no lives. I have a . . . No.

Wait a minute.

OK, I don't have a life.

So shoot me.
 

---

Posted by Grits (# 4169) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
How about in American law? A friend of mine wants to know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
In Holland it seems to work well.

---

Several years ago Nottingham University (or Nottingham Trent Uni, I can't actually remember which) published a study that had looked at Sex Education in Holland and compared it with the UK. They found a number of very interesting things:
1. In nearly four fifths of Dutch schools it started later than in the UK. The programmes in these schools promoted pre-marital abstinence as the first choice, not as the "... or you could..." counsel of despair promoted by the sex educators in UK.;

2. The post-programme sexual activity, pregnancy, abortion and disease figures for such schools were considerably lower than our own results; and

3. In those schools where it started at the same time or earlier, the post-programme reports of sexual activity and disease were similar to the UK.

In other words, the reason that it works in Holland is that they don't do what we do. Unfortunately, the results of this survey are profoundly inconvenient for the UK Sex Industry (sex educators, contraceptive manufacturers and abortionists) and so merited little coverage in the UK press.


 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
Trisagion:

quote:

---

In other words, the reason that it works in Holland is that they don't do what we do.

---

mmm, wondering what we do , more oral sex here? less legal prostitution?

BTW, got a link to that study? It sounds interesting.

Long before sex education was taught in my school, there was loads of all kinds of sex going on between children and teenagers. Then only richer people could pay for abortions and the rest of the girls had their babies taken away for adoption or their families adopted them. However, it wasn't about what God was saying or about being sensible; it was about shame.
 

---

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
Trying to find a link now. I have a hard copy (!) in the Parish Office. It may have a link on it. I'll look on Friday, when I'm back.
 

---

Posted by Pheonix (# 2782) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
Oral sex on this thread seems to have been mainly women doing it to men, or men to each other. Is this about men's reluctance to service women? Or about ways of preventing a woman/girl getting pregnant? Or technically losing her virginity?

---

Nope, no problem with that way round here
 

---

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
...this is not the proper venue for discussing internal politics of other forums.
Thanks,
Erin
Community Editor

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fatprophet:
Shall I tell you about the young Methodist couple who suggested to me that they had sex, 'but with their clothes on'? Physically impossible surely, but they were indicating to me (during a truth and dare game!) that they were not prudish virgins, yet taking things slowly - presumably they acheived a mtually shared and intimate orgasm (and chafing blisters?) And the fact they were Methodists is probably not relevant at all

---

quote:

---

Do we take it that sexual activity of all kinds is biblically promoted by canticles because it's sung about there?

---

quote:

---

The canon of Scripture included the book without demur.

---

Actually, the Rabbis had big reservations about whether SoS 'defiled the hands' (was canonical) or not - just as they did with perhaps its polar opposite in the canon (unless that title goes to Leviticus!!) Ecclesiasticus. It seems almost certain that they included it because of their perception that the canon 'needed it'. And of course they were right. By the way, when I did SoS as a text in second year (I was an arts student - it was forbidden to divinity students as being too racy - they had to do Lamentations instead ) one of the comentaries we looked at was that of Yigael Yadin. A former soldier. Suffice it to say that I've always had difficulty with allegorical interpretations since then....
 

---

Posted by psyduck (# 2270) on :
 

quote:

---

Ecclesiasticus.

---

EcclesiastES
...ES
...ES
...ES
...ES
...ES
...ES
...ES
...ES
...ES

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.sorry......
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Which surpises me since I thought that the Jews had a much better attitude to sex than we do. Maybe they thought that it was unseemly to sing about "it" in public. But there again, I'm English ... but not typically, .
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Daisymay

quote:

---

Do we take it that sexual activity of all kinds is biblically promoted by canticles because it's sung about there?

---

I don't see how you can come to that conclusion from the Song of Solomon. There is no hint of censure by way of commentary or gloss. The canon of Scripture included the book without demur. The fact that Christian apologists (usually monks) have sought to allegorise the uncomfortable bits in no way depreciates the original context.

What about David? Hardly the sexually pure hero. Yet, we sing his psalms and take there reference points as edifying. What about the murderer Moses? Do we disparage the Decalogue because the hands that held the tablets of the Law were bloodstained?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Newman's Own:
perhaps a theological term such as mutual masturbation would be preferable to such crudeness as "dry fucking."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
BTW, got a link to that study? It sounds interesting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by caz667:
I know of a couple who quite openly disagree with oral sex; saying that because it cannot lead to pregnancy it cannot be "of God". I would disagree with this opinion

---

From reading what is on this discussion, this is the only instance I have found where there is an opinion that says Oral sex is wrong no matter where it happens. (I included the last sentnece because I did not want it to come across that caz agreed with the opinion). Does this couple also refrain from kissing as that is also intimate and feels nice, but doesn't lead to pregnancy?

Is there anyone on these boards who sincerely thinks oral sex is inherently bad? Have we found something we all agree on?

The rest of the discussion seems merely to be about whether it counts as sex. I think it does count as sex, if only because I would defy anyone to be in that situation and not want it to go further. As a result the discussion then heads into the realm of 'is sex outside of marriage OK?' and there is a good dead horse there already for that.
 

---

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
Are you suggesting sex with a dead horse outside of marriage?
 

---

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Janine:
Anyone who wants to explain "dry fucking" to the uninitiated can p.m. me... if that's not too Hellish a statement for Purgatory.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irish & Proud:

quote:

---

Originally posted by caz667:
I know of a couple who quite openly disagree with oral sex; saying that because it cannot lead to pregnancy it cannot be "of God".

---

From reading what is on this discussion, this is the only instance I have found where there is an opinion that says Oral sex is wrong no matter where it happens... does this couple also refrain from kissing as that is also intimate and feels nice, but doesn't lead to pregnancy?

---

No...... and don't get me even STARTED about how illogical that is.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Irish and Proud

quote:

---

Have we found something we all agree on?

---

Let's ask for a Poll!
 

---

Posted by Irish & Proud (# 4825) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
Are you suggesting sex with a dead horse outside of marriage?

---

 

---

Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
Sine, shocked. I am shocked. You know, if it weren't for you and tortuf, this board would be pretty classy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Newman's Own:
perhaps a theological term such as mutual masturbation would be preferable to such crudeness as "dry fucking."

---

"Mutual masturbation" is a theological term? I suppose I've been jerked off by plenty of clergy, so maybe you are right.

---

Yes, Scot, it truly is a theological term - one which the moral theologians used centuries before we were born. The term normally was employed in texts which explained that (for example) petting to orgasm with someone other than one's spouse indeed is adultery (whether it was adultery according to the law or not.)

Of course, I tend to think of casual sex as basically using another person as an object to masturbate against/with, but I'll save that for another thread. I of all people* should hardly have been the one to introduce some on the Ship to the concept of dry fucking... the suit of armour was a more appropriate reference, because I am a medievalist.

*For those who do not 'know' me, I'm a vowed celibate, and am in part laughing at myself here - lest I be mistaken for a prude, even though I probably am.
 

---

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
Is this a hell thread that missed it's appointment?
 

---

Posted by Gremlin (# 129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Janine:
Anyone who wants to explain "dry fucking" to the uninitiated can p.m. me... if that's not too Hellish a statement for Purgatory.

---

Feel free (IMHO) to enlighten this thread with the information too!

Gremlin
 

---

Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Is this a hell thread that missed it's appointment?

---

quote:

---

* Schools in the Netherlands enjoy a degree of independence from the state which is far greater than that experienced here. There is no national curriculum.
* Different schools handle sex education in different ways, reflecting the views of the parents and teachers. Differences between Dutch schools are probably greater than any identifiable difference between the Dutch and British models of sex education.
British schools do very different types of sex education, and I don't think there is a specific government edict.

* Sex education does not start at younger ages. It is not more explicit. There is no evidence that teachers are using sex education to promote permissive views. The difference between teenage pregnancy rates in Britain and the Netherlands cannot, therefore, be due to sex education. There must be another explanation.
Starting earlier, rather then at the same age, doesn't seem to be the solution to all the problems. Starting very young, with appropriate teaching for the age, though, is IMO, the correct thing to do.

* Teenage pregnancy is the result of teenage sexual activity. We need to relate differences in pregnancy rates to those factors which are known to influence the likelihood of young people becoming sexually active.
Do we know what they are? that would certainly bea useful piece of knowledge.

* It is well known that young people from single-parent and non-traditional family structures are more likely to be sexually active.
Is it? What evidence do we have?

It is in this area that we find a great difference between the two countries. British children are five times more likely to live in a family headed by a lone parent than their Dutch counterparts. They are more likely to be in third-party care, and to find their mothers out at work when they get back from school.
Five times!

* There is little support from the welfare system in the Netherlands for teenage mothers, and until recently, almost none at all.

---

quote:

---

basically using another person as an object to masturbate against/with . . .

---

quote:

---

Casual sex is a decision you have to make in "the moment" I think. I used to say, "no way, never". Then one day I did it and felt this strange power in being able to treat men then way they sometimes treat women...I saw the appeal they see and had the enjoyment of the sex without the guilt of not calling them the next day...or the guilt of feeling as though I _should_ call them.

I'm talking in circles here for some reason. Casual sex, as long as you are enjoying it mutually is a wonderful invention. Casual sex that is not enjoyable is a waste of time (sorry, Jenna...but it's true) and energy.

Besides, sex is great exercise and my tummy has never looked slimmer! Heh.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
If there is not more than a 3.75 mm distance between your forbidden parts and any one of their forbidden parts you are going straight to Hell when you die.

---

Oops!

But this is good to know for future reference. 3.75 mm will keep one out of Hell, you say?
 

---

Posted by Grits (# 4169) on :
 

quote:

---

What is the Christian perspective on dancing with two women at the same time, outside of marriage?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
BTW, got a link to that study? It sounds interesting.

---

Found this as I couldn't sleep:

Deconstructing the Dutch Utopia

[Named the link the title of the study]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
Dance thee 3.75 mm away. Dance thee not 3.76 mm away.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
Too true Grits. Too true. One partner is not casual. Two partners is casual and three or more partners is just too exhausting to be casual.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:

quote:

---

What is the Christian perspective on dancing with two women at the same time, outside of marriage?

---

I am of the opinion that, when it involves two partners, it becomes casual sex.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
Lurker, yes, but is it a sin to be casual with just one partner as opposed to two or more partners?

---

Ah, one partner, not one participant

I got the wrong end of the stick here, I think.
 

---

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
Sine. We have had to have the discussion about why you should invite me to parties more than once before now haven't we? But Noooo. Sine goes to a party without adequate back up time and time again.
 

---

Posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon (# 4544) on :
 
I love the holiday season in Purg. It's just so...festive. Great party guys!
 

---

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
Well, yes, Lurker. As you should be well aware, that well respected Christian thinker, RooK, has written a truly thoughtful post on the subject of multiple participants in oral sex, rather than multiple partners in oral sex. I forget exactly what he said, but it had to do with something or another about thuribles and sanitation.
 

---

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
I've always felt those Lysol wipes were more than adequate.

Can't say they taste very good though.
 

---

Posted by Grits (# 4169) on :
 
Where are those Purgatory hosts? It's going to take a truckload of Lysol wipes just to clean up this thread.
 

---

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
I know. Pity isn't it? There is never a Purgatory host around when you need one.
 

---

Posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon (# 4544) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Is this a hell thread that missed it's appointment?

---

Why - do you want it? Well, you shan't have it. It's our runt and we're proud of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
What is the Christian perspective on dancing with two women at the same time, outside of marriage?

---

As any good ol' baptist will tell you....

The two women aren't the problem, it's the dancing that could get you sent to hell!!
 

---

Posted by .Lurker. (# 1384) on :
 
Would dancing with Santa be considered as bad as dancing with two women?
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
"dancing with Santa" ... sounds like a crossword clue, an anagram ... hmm, yes, that would be bad
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Pleased to oblige!

Dancing Santas
 

---

Posted by Anselm (# 4499) on :
 
Puts a whole new spin on Santa's little helpers!!!
 

---

Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Is this a hell thread that missed it's appointment?

---

Why - do you want it? Well, you shan't have it. It's our runt and we're proud of it.

---

Thus spake the Purg-ly Host.

Now where does a Duo Seraph fit in the Choir of Angels?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:
Yes, but she posted that before the dazed and confused post-New Year's Eve crowd got hold of it.

---

How long can this "dazed and confused" thing be put down to New Year's Eve? You just can't let these Purgatorians off the leash for a moment, not one fricking moment, I tell you.
 

---

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
I thank all the nutty posters for the entertainment and all the serious ones for the discussion on-topic.

Probably we've flogged all we can out of the topic -- at least until we have the T&T pressure release.
 

---

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Janine:
Probably we've flogged all we can out of the topic

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Janine:
Probably we've flogged all we can out of the topic -- at least until we have the T&T pressure release.

---

Do we have any news on when (or even whether) this will be?

Would this be the third coming of T&T?... or is that as bad as a flogging?

Gremlin
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Janine:
depends how much you spill

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Janine:
depends how much you spill

---

And where.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Pleased to oblige!

Dancing Santas

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
So, Fr, Gregory--does one use a Hello Kitty Tarot Deck to channel Chastmastr?

---

Apparently! (Blinks and looks around, confused at having been summoned so)

quote:

---

"...I mean, when a magician in The Arabian Nights calls up a Jinn, it has to come. We had to come, just like that." ... "And now we know what it feels like for the Jinn," said Edmund with a chuckle. "Golly! It's a bit uncomfortable to know that we can be whistled for like that. It's worse than what Father says about living at the mercy of the telephone."

---

-- C.S. Lewis, Prince Caspian
 

---

Posted by eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Somebody somewhere on this thread asked whether there was anyone apart from that couple caz knew who thought oral sex was A Bad Thing. If memory serves, that famed christian bestseller The Act of Marriage by Tim and Beverly LaHaye goes on about how evil and/or life-threatening it is (I seem to remember some stats about cervical cancer...??).
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 


(reason number 805 why I love chatmastr so)
 

---

Posted by caz667 (# 3026) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by eutychus:
...If memory serves, that famed christian bestseller The Act of Marriage by Tim and Beverly LaHaye goes on about how evil and/or life-threatening it is (I seem to remember some stats about cervical cancer...??).

---

Seriously? I'd LOVE to know the logic behind that theory, if there is one! Anyone know?


 

---

Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Loopiest theory I heard was that demons get in through the mouth, so.....
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Wouldn't Jesus's bit about the things coming out of one's mouth beiing more corrupting that the things going in apply here?

A clear direction to swallow.
 

---

Posted by eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by caz667:

quote:

---

Originally posted by eutychus:
...If memory serves, that famed christian bestseller The Act of Marriage by Tim and Beverly LaHaye goes on about how evil and/or life-threatening it is (I seem to remember some stats about cervical cancer...??).

---

Seriously? I'd LOVE to know the logic behind that theory, if there is one! Anyone know?

---

quote:

---

...leading in come cases to cancer...

---

That Freud gets everywhere!!
 

---

Posted by eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Even onto my fingers?!
 

---

Posted by Rat (# 3373) on :
 
We were having a conversation along these lines at work recently (yes, we don't have enough to do). All the women agreed that we thought oral sex was in a weird way more intimate than actual sex. I.e. we'd be way less likely to do it on a casual basis with somebody we didn't know very well.

Mind you, there were a few girls at my school who didn't feel that way, if rumour is to be believed.

Rat
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
(to the LaHayes)

Is there some reason why mouth herpes causes cervical cancer, but genital herpes doesn't?

I think the comment saying that medical science was probably gonna catch up someday and find diseases for a practice "many"(coughwecough) find repugnant (show me the numbers on that one, bub) really says everything one needs to know about their standards of scientific research.
 

---

Posted by Eanswyth (# 3363) on :
 
If God didn't approve of oral sex, why did He make "things" look like tacos and hot dogs?
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Tacos?

[ETA: Oh, vulva. Ok.]

[ 08. January 2004, 04:28: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 

---

Posted by caz667 (# 3026) on :
 
Eutychus - thanks for the reply. As Kelly says I think it's a pretty weak argument but it's good to know what they said....
 

---

Posted by Pheonix (# 2782) on :
 
I think I'd agree with Rat's comment that it is (or can be) more intimate than normal sex... I'm not sure if that is because of the stigma that is still attached to it or what though...
 

---

Posted by Little Miss Methodist (# 4367) on :
 
One of the most interesting discussions I had as a chaplain was when a student asked me what the churches position on oral sex was...

We had a discussion about it and, Song of Songs aside, couldn't remember a single Bible verse that talked about this. We talked a bit about verses in Leviticus about not spilling seed on the ground, (and there was the inevitable spit versus swallow debate) but apart from more general verses about sex, could find nothing specifically helpful. What sticks in my mind about it was that we then discussed the same issue with a group of students one evening, and were slightly surprised by how willing a christian group was to talk in depth about this issue. With the CU maintaining a hard line "no-sex-before-marriage" viewpoint, it was really refreshing to find people who wanted to discuss these things, and the relevance they had to their lives, not just in a "thou shalt not..." way, but in a way that was helpful and encouraging. Sure, we do discussions like that all the time here, but not so as much in real life.

To move on to the question of why oral sex can be seen to be more intimate than penetrative sex....

I wonder if it is to do with the views we have of things in our heads. We are taught about penetrative sex in a very clinical way at school, and it has a lot more to do with the mechanical workings of it all than it has to do with sexual desire (or at least, that was how it was in my school). So I wonder if we come away thinking very much of penetrative sex as "the norm", and anything else as unusual/strange etc. Not because anything else is, but because foreplay and oral sex and countless other things are stuff you find out from reading Cosmopolitan, not something you get in year seven biology. I'm not putting this very well, but what i'm trying to get at is, that if you stop and think about what you are doing (or thinking of doing) for a moment, oral sex suddenly seems like quite a wierd thing to do. Not the feelings surrounding it, but the physical act itself, wheras previous conditioning tells us that penetrative sex is just "normal", so maybe that thought doesn't occur to us as much? Therefore, the act of oral sex with a partner can seem more intimate, because its not necessarily the "obvious" thing to do.

There is also the fact that i'd guess that many more people are happy with penetrative sex, than with oral sex. So, between a sexually active heterosexual couple, the assumption would be that both parties would be ok (at least in theory if not in practice) with penetrative sex, but that is not necessarily the case with oral sex.

And, of course, the idea of being that close to someone is very intimate.

I think all of those could play a factor (at least subconciously) in oral sex being seen as more intimate.

On a slightly trivial note - In a reletively recent issue of Cosmo, I seem to remember reading a poll that said that most men asked said they were more likely to have penetrative sex than oral sex on a one night stand, because "oral sex was more intimate and something you only want to do with a commited partner". So now you know.

I hope at least some of that made sense. Its quite late and I know what I want to say inmy head, but the words don't seem to be coming out right!

Ah well.

LMM

[ 10. January 2004, 01:01: Message edited by: Little Miss Methodist ]
 

---

Posted by Jack the Lass (# 3415) on :
 
LMM, FWIW I thought your post made tons of sense! Very helpful.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Little Miss Methodist:
...but apart from more general verses about sex, could find nothing specifically helpful.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0