Posted                          

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....

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posted                          

quote:

---

Ecclesiasticus.

---

Posted                      

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?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

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                    

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.

---

Posted                       

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.

--------------------
"What have you been reading? The Gospel according to St. Bastard?" - Eddie Izzard

Posted                          

quote:

---

Have we found something we all agree on?

---

Let's ask for a Poll!

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                    

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.

---

Posted                      

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.

--------------------
Cheers,
Elizabeth
“History as Revelation is seldom very revealing, and histories of holiness are full of holes.” - Dermot Quinn

Posted                   

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

--------------------
Too many freaks, not enough circuses.
Ahhh...I see the screw-up fairy has visited us again...
Oh I get it... like humour... but different.

Posted                    

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                          

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.

---

Posted                    

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                          

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

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]

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                    

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.

---

Posted                      

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?

---