|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Christian/Biblical Perspective on Oral Sex?
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
I can see some of the points that have been made to me - delicate balance between sensitive discussion and tittilation, yeah...
And just how do you get into deep discussion without falling into too much sloshing around in it- like, people might want to ask about "well, this happened to me, I did that, was it really sex?"
Might be more than some can handle. I really do see the point of some concerns.
But, my goodness gracious, I started the thread on a forum devoted partly to Sexuality! What do those offended think we will discuss there?
I thank y'all for the openness here.
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
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.
No you don't understand and appreciate what I'm saying.
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.
I don't object to conservative views, 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).
Obviously, we all do this to some extent or another, I as well as you. 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. Tit for tat, you see.
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
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?
I shouldn't have implied that barrea did not want to discuss this, and I may have spoken out of turn. I guess what I meant was that he had posted his opinion on the subject, and I didn't want it dismissed as invalid, even if it was all he had to say.
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
No you don't understand and appreciate what I'm saying.
Why do you say this? Of course, I understand exactly what you're saying. Understanding does not imply agreement. And I always appreciate what you have to say, because:
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. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
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).
I guess this is the thing that gets to me the most -- how belief in the Bible came to be regarded as "unthinking". I have been hit with that a lot on the Ship, and it still catches me off guard. As I have said before, I think it takes just as much rationale and logic to take the Bible at face value as it does to accept the interpretations of others.
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.
I doubt barrea would say this is "his" view. For me, because I accept the teachings of the Bible as God's word, that kind of eliminates my input or extrapolation, at least to a certain extent.
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.
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
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.
Believe me, Grits, it shows. Which is why people tend to respond to your posts with respect.
Kelly weighs in (general thoughts, not provoked by any one post):
1. God made erectile tissue fun, therefore he wants us to have fun with it.
2.Oral sex is sex.It is penetrative, it involves the exchange of bodily fluid and all risks and responsibilities involved with that, excluding pregnancy. It furthers an emotional bond between two partners (Let's just stick with two for this conversation), and has all the consequences that go with that.
3.God has also created a biological dynamic called homeostasis, in which two exclusive sexual partners become tolerant of each other's biological flora and fauna, so there is really no reason why oral sex cannot be enjoyed by a married couple.
4. The Song of Solomon talks about the groom devouring the fruit of the bride's garden. Come on. Do you really think the readers of antiquity would have less fun with a line like that than we would? It's not like we invented sex, oral or otherwise.
5. I am not gonna comment on sex outside of marriage, as I was in a (for the most part) celibate marriage, after marrying as a virgin, so my views on the subject will be extremely bitter.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
I'm just wondering whether this is a bit of a dead discussion... is there anyone actually out there that thinks oral sex between 2 people in sacramental marriage (let's take the scenario at its most restrictive) is sinful? And, is prepared to defend the view in theological/scriptural terms?
I guess there must be someone out there, or Janine would not have proposed the question. Furthermore, I'm guessing she's come across such people in her own tradition.
So, what gives? What's the justification for forbidding it? Why would anyone (other than those Catholics who believe every sex act must culminate in intercourse with the potential for procreation) theologically/scripturally object to oral sex within chaste marriage? As noted, even the strictest Catholic view is not that the act of itself is sinful.
I'm sure there must be some juicy reasons (I'm hoping for words like 'defile', 'unclean', 'degrade', 'incitement to lust', 'wantonly desporting' and 'of the devil'). And, at risk of sending this to Kerygmania, pls give scriptural references.
I'm straining my little brain now: if anyone, the Rev'd Paisley's Free Presbyterians might be candidates for missionary position-only sex - as it should be procreative and not an avenue for lust.
Don't let me down, now.
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
Just weighing in (and much heavier than pre-Christmas) to agree with all of Kelly's 5-point post, and especially Number 5: We all come to these discussions with different history, different experience, different reality, and that has to temper our responses somewhat. What we know or believe and what we actually do can be radically different sometimes, and that often makes it hard to be objective. It really is like therapy in a way, you know?
Sorry, Coot. You may have actually stumbled in the one and only Christian community who is all in favor of oral sex!
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
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 ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif) "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... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caz...
Shipmate
# 3026
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"What have you been reading? The Gospel according to St. Bastard?" - Eddie Izzard
Posts: 1888 | From: here to there | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
barrea
Shipmate
# 3211
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Therefore having been justified by faith,we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:1
Posts: 1050 | From: england | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
fatprophet
Shipmate
# 3636
|
Posted
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! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
[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.
--------------------
FAT PROPHET
Posts: 530 | From: Wales, UK | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
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. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) 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. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
[ 28. December 2003, 19:40: Message edited by: jlg ]
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
Agreed, and thanks, jlg.
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
that Wikkid Person
Shipmate
# 4446
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
We have only one truth and one reality. Let's make the most of them.
Posts: 1007 | From: Almonte, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
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....
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caz...
Shipmate
# 3026
|
Posted
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).
--------------------
"What have you been reading? The Gospel according to St. Bastard?" - Eddie Izzard
Posts: 1888 | From: here to there | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
Sorry about the DP.
[Childish Giggle]
My reply was post number 69 ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
[/Childish Giggle]
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
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 -- ...
Actually, there was a bit more to the story than just that:
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.
Was doing all that, and so explicitly, really a matter of discipline? Or was just it an appeal to prurient interest?
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
that Wikkid Person
Shipmate
# 4446
|
Posted
My church routinely "reads people out" for fornication, but their squeamishness about it means that it is handled locally, by the one church involved, and only to "inner circle" people, so children and non-members don't hear about it. They would never publicly confront someone, nor would they be overly explicit about why they were about to withdraw fellowship from someone, but they do routinely withdraw fellowship from people for fornication. Most people confess, so I've seldom heard of them needing to "confront" people.
--------------------
We have only one truth and one reality. Let's make the most of them.
Posts: 1007 | From: Almonte, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
My church routinely "reads people out" for fornication...
Holy crap.
Adding number 123 to the list of "Why I'm glad to be an Episcopalian."
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brojees
Shipmate
# 3333
|
Posted
For those that may not know me, I am Brojees, A Christian missionary in South America. I had posted here previously, but my fundamentalist beliefs made this forum quite uncomfortable for me as well as others here and I left amiacably after lengthly discussions with RuthW. I have remained absent, but in good standing as a member here for well over a year now.
It is not my plan nor intent to return, for as I said my fundamentalist beliefs are out of place here and I do not contribute to the edification of the members here nor they myself. But as I promised Ruth, I have kept Ship of Fools in my prayers and will continue to do so.
Janine is my dear sister in the Lord and ironically it was myself who introduced Janine to Ship of Fools sometime ago when I was active here. I am here to address Janine and to clear up a certain misconception I see here.
Janine,
As you have seen fit to discuss the matters of GCM here, you then have the responsibility to discuss them with a certain accuracy and honesty even though that might impede your playing of the abused victim.
As a participant to the objection on GCM and also as a moderator on that forum, I see certain half truths and untold stories which are patently unfair to GCM and it's mission.
First, it was the venue and the manner in which Oral Sex was presented which was the overwhelming issue objected to. Not the Subject. GCM is a diferent format than that which is to be found here, not speaking disparaging of Ship of Fools, but the two are quite different.
GCM is aimed at the Grace based movement which is afoot in the restoration community. Those who are turning their backs on the legalism of the conservative Church of Christ and seeking the freedom of God's grace. As such GCM is a witness to those still trapped in the legalism of the Church of Christ. That witness is ill served when our opponents can refer to our beacon, GCM, as being an site where Oral Sex is glibbly and flippantly discussed.
Further, many "Net Nannies" or other internet filtering software and firewalls would block out GCM because of the terminology. Simple reasoning tells us the chances are high that a person trapped in the legalism of the Church of Christ might very well have such filters on place on their computers. These applications are heavily marketed on Christian radio and quite available.
Additionally, some found the subject and the manner it was discussed to be offensive. Biblically we are forced to consider Romans 14 as equally as some of would have us consider the Song of Solomon.
Janine as I have repeated to you, this venue exists and always has where discussions of this sort are better tolerated. You were free to link to this one. GCM was not the place.
God bless you and keep you Janine, you are in my prayers daily.
Brojees
GCM may suffer significantly from this. After the recent departures over the overt USA Republicanism of the Administrator and the demonization of anyone who dared speak in opposition to the Bush/Blair actions in Iraq, GCM did not need this issue now.
I would ask that Ship of Fools now lift Grace Centered Magazine up in prayer. Doctrinally we may not agree, but it is one God that we serve, is it not?
God Bless all,
Brojees
--------------------
Revelations 3:
15. "I know all the things you do, that you are neither hot nor cold. I wish you were one or the other!
16. But since you are like lukewarm water, I will spit you out of my mouth!
17. You say, 'I am rich. I have everything I want. I don't need a thing!' And you don't realize that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked.
Posts: 155 | From: making disciples of all the nations | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
OK, you've both had your say, and now I'm having mine. Keep GCM stuff on the GCM boards or in e-mail or somewhere other than Ship of Fools, as this is not the proper venue for discussing internal politics of other forums.
Thanks,
Erin
Community Editor
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
shuggie
Shipmate
# 3141
|
Posted
[editted in light of Erin's post]
[ 29. December 2003, 17:17: Message edited by: shuggie ]
Posts: 367 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fatprophet
Shipmate
# 3636
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
FAT PROPHET
Posts: 530 | From: Wales, UK | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fatprophet
Shipmate
# 3636
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
FAT PROPHET
Posts: 530 | From: Wales, UK | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fatprophet
Shipmate
# 3636
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
FAT PROPHET
Posts: 530 | From: Wales, UK | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
(We're taking advantage of the Purg hosts' holidays.)
What holidays? I'd like to dispel this misconception. We Have No Lives.
--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte
Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fatprophet:
Legally (in English Law) oral sex is not adultery
How about in American law? A friend of mine wants to know.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
How about in American law? A friend of mine wants to know.
Yeah. A friend. Right.
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
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?
As to spreading of germs, we had a "condom party" just before Christmas at my workplace (a young persons' centre). The educator had us all demonstrating that we could show young people how to use condoms (plastic penises of various sizes and colours provided) and oral sex was also assumed and taught about. Condoms (male and female) were to be used whenever oral sex took place for reasons of hygiene and prevention of spread of disease. She left us with hundreds of condoms of all flavours and colours and ribs so that we could distribute them.
Oral sex and so on has been taught about in UK schools and wherever sex education takes place with the idea that kids will refrain from getting pregnant or picking up diseases. It's also the way the street prostitutes in my area seem to service the punters - and they use lots of condoms (evidence - we catch them at it and they leave the used condoms behind).
Biblical perspective? (because none of the above is referred to in the bible) What about Paul in 1 Corinthians 6 v12 onward?
""All things are lawful for me" but not all things are helpful? "All things are lawful for me" but I will not be enslaved by anything. The body is not meant for immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. Do yoyu not know that your bodies are members of of Christ? Shall I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who joins himself with a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, "The two shall become one." But he who is united with the Lord becomes one in spirit with him. Shun immorality. Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body."
Do we know whether Paul is talking only about vaginal penetrative sex or does it mean any kind of sex? What kind of sex did prostitutes in those days provide?
"Immoral man (and woman) sins against own body" must mean that we harm ourselves rather than that other people should criticise and judge us. And certainly the numbers of young people here in UK getting clamydia and gonorrhea and abortions backs that up. Also, many youngsters I meet seem to regret having sex of any type too soon, too often, too young, too much to please someone else, too drunk... Even if some of it was fun.
As to sinning against others, oral rape causes trauma. I'm calling it "rape" because that is how many therapists and clients would be labelling it, not courts.
I wonder if the intimacy of oral sex is as great as vaginal penetrative sex? You're not face to face, but you're closer to the private parts...
I think that "having sex" is not just about vaginal penetration, nor anal, nor oral penetration, but about taking part in something physically sexual. The biblical perspective may not be the same as mine, but ancient culture surely was sticter than ours in many ways.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Daisy May
I don't think that biblical cultures were any less sexual than ours both in variety and meaning. Sexual sins (David and Bathsheeba for example) were, of course, just as prevalent. Jesus merely refers to the Samaritan Woman having had 5 husbands and then moves on to something more pressing. The Song of Solomon (do we need to keep saying this) certainly presupposes oral sex and vaginal sex as part of a lovers' repertoire. What was different then is a much stronger presumption of faithfulness. We have lost sight of this now not because people don't value faithfulness but because self-determination and self-fulfilment are the modern mantras and NOTHING must be allowed to stand in the way of those.
One has to ask why this is so? Why do people seemingly put such a great emphasis on "doing what I want"? Perhaps because western moralising pseudo-Christian culture had been so repressive since the dessicated remains of the 19th century Evangelical Revival had bequeathed its joyless moral tight-upper-lip earnestness on a whole generation of post-Christians, (by which I mean any "Christian" who thinks Christianity is about merely being conventionally moral).
Then came the 20th century with its horrors. Those "bright young things" livened up the inter-war years in the same way as the 60's sexual revolution laid a whole generation to rest, (pun intended). Then we had AIDS and cyncisim about families, relationships etc.
We are at a stage now where the Sheffield Commissar for Public Morals and his ilk are pulling one way and the libertines another. This conflict is not being resolved healthily. To be honest I am not hopeful. But, to be honest I am not hopeful for this culture either. My hope is in God.
[ 30. December 2003, 09:07: Message edited by: Fr. Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
Daisymay, it is the approach to sex espoused by the educators to whom you refer that has very largely contributed to the sexual health problems which have now become a serious problem.
Sex is not only a physical thing because we are not only physical creatures. We are "one in body and soul" and all that we do has an impact on both aspects of this complementary unity. Teaching the approach to sex that you describe fails to reflect this reality and damages us. It is an approach to sex, sexual health and life that has had virtually no positive results. Each time the figures for teenage pregnancy, abortion, STDs etc come out we hear this tired old mantra "...need more sex education". It doesn't bloody work because, amongst other things, it is based on a false anthropology.
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
I am obliged.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
Trisagion,
The Great Pox was around in the 16th century, spreading among the promiscuous then too - Darnley had it. He was a sexually active teenager before he got married. Whether or not he did oral sex, I don't know...
There is not evidence that appropriate, efficient, sexual education causes promiscuity. In Holland it seems to work well.
And yes, there is a spiritual and emotional union as welll as a physical one, involved in sexual activity. Is it less, or the same, or more, in oral sex than "full" sex?
Fr Gregory,
Do we take it that sexual activity of all kinds is biblically promoted by canticles because it's sung about there?
But Solomon was not a "faithful" role model. He had all those women, and the Song may have more than one faithful pair involved.
And it wasn't the fault of the "revival" that morals became "strict". Wasn't it a reaction to the immorality of the previous times? And prudery was only on the surface in the 19th century. The streets were full of working girls.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
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.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pheonix
Twisted fire starter
# 2782
|
Posted
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
Posts: 2384 | From: on the move. | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
...this is not the proper venue for discussing internal politics of other forums.
Thanks,
Erin
Community Editor
One thing, please, before I let it alone, since I just now got back here:
I must say, I am not a victim on any board -- nor have I tried to portray myself as one. If that's how my incredulity sounded I'm sorry.
And I did get bad reaction to topic, and to topic-in-that-format, as well as to topic-in-that-venue. All of the above.
That's enough - I'll let it be, Erin is right. Sorry to interrupt.
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Newman's Own
Shipmate
# 420
|
Posted
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
This is purely secondhand knowledge, of course, but many of my generation (when being a virgin was very rare, but we generally were honest enough not to say "I am virginal - I only have oral sex") could have testified to having engaged in ... I'm too modest to use the term we used, but let's just say it often took place in motor cars or quieter sections of Saint James Park... perhaps a theological term such as mutual masturbation would be preferable to such crudeness as "dry fucking."
I also have heard that it would be possible to have intercourse in a suit of armour, provided one had a bit of ingenuity and a can opener... I may be naive, but even I know that there are several recorded incidents in the history of the world where people had sex without being naked.
As an aside - what I so dislike with the current "we only had oral sex" stance is that it is not honest. My generation were great ones for turning sex into a form of mere recreation (I'll save comment on that for another thread), but at least they did not deny what they were doing.
--------------------
Cheers,
Elizabeth
“History as Revelation is seldom very revealing, and histories of holiness are full of holes.” - Dermot Quinn
Posts: 6740 | From: Library or pub | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
