quote:

---

As part of my obedience to my faith, I do not believe in genital sexual intercourse (which, as I understand it, is genital penetration of any bodily orifice, and/or deliberate stimulation to orgasm) outside of male-female marriage. I am, happily, an active member of the gay community and of the leather community. I cheerily am OK with, advocate, practise, and/or teach (in at least one club I am a member of) practically everything else under the sun (within safety and consensuality limits) apart from the previously defined notions of sexual intercourse. (No-one ever seems to suggest that two (or more) men or women could have intimate, loving, physically affectionate relationships without sexual intercourse.

---

My response was: 'Oh, puh-lease.'

I'm not having a go at you Chast, and you haven't qualified whether the other activities are of a sexually gratifying nature - neither do you have to - talking in the abstract here. This thread is to solicit opinions on what constitutes 'sex' in the context of the goal to remain celibate and chaste and/or chaste before permanent relationship and by association, the possibility of non-sexual, physically affectionate relationships.

My position is this: it does not matter in what manner people gain sexual arousal - kissing, prancing about naked in front of the other person or rubbing up against each other fully clothed if you like. If the end result is sexual arousal, then a sexual act has taken place, and imo, is not distinct from intercourse or stimulation to orgasm (I believe also, this sort of intimacy should be reserved for the permanent and exclusive partner). [Where fetishes with inanimate objects and masturbation fit in, I don't know]

So I guess also, I am doubtful of the possibility of existence of a non-sexual, physically affectionate relationship between 2 people who are attracted to one another, unless maybe, it was restricted to hand-holding. (And I can recall at least one steamy hand-holding session).
 

I seem to remember a truly awful book around in my teens called Just Good Friends by Joyce Huggett. It was either in here or in another such worthy - and useless - tome that the classic line is to be found:

If anything that your boy/girlfriend does makes you aroused, you shouldn't do it. If watching them play the piano makes you aroused, you shouldn't watch them play the piano.

To coin a phrase:
'Oh, puh-lease.'

Are you seriously suggesting that a couple who are serious about one another abstain from mutual piano-playing-watching until marriage? That watching someone play the piano (or wash the dishes, or dance, or stand on top of a mountain and sing) is sex?

Come on!
 

If partner A sits down at the piano with the intention of arousing partner B by so doing, and partner B consents say, actively watching partner A lasciviously playing the piano. Well yes.

I think you'd be struggling to find people who get off on that though. Then again. I've seen tomb's organ.
 

Alexis (ducking and grinning)
 

Must admit I tend to agree with it, although in my courtship I think we tiptoed over this boundary on a few occasions!

With regard to the piano-playing thing - don't see any harm in arousing the other person by doing it - but obviously if you've decided to be obedient to some kind of non-orgasmic code of practice then you're just making things harder for yourself - don't you think?
 

If you read some of the comments on this issue in the "sex outside marriage" thread, amybe you will see what I mean.

Legalistic approaches to this are good old evangelistic guilt inducement, and the idea that you can't watch your partner play the piano if this turns you on - also propounded by Steve Chalke by the way - is nothing short of ridiculous.

For me and my fiance, this would mean we could never be in the same room as each other, til we got married - if taken to its logical extreme. His eyes turn me on. His smile turns me on. Shall I get him to cover his head with a paper bag?

All the best,
Rachel.
 

The simple answer of course to all problems of a sexual nature, is simply not to get into a situation that demands dealing with the problems. Let me elaborate.

It would be relatively simple not to get into friendships with members of the opposite sex (esp if you are gay). If of the same gender as those who turn you on, you will need to avoid them. As relationships of even the most platonic type inevitably involve some kind of interaction during which we use our sexuality (a fling of the hair over the shoulder, the way we walk, leave the toilet seat up or down, how we drink, the way we smile etc etc) as part of expression, all relationships should be diligently avoided.

The only other solution to the problem of sex, other than total isolation from the rest of humanity, is for the scientists to somehow create a sexless human, totally asexual and immune to either men or women turning it on. No doubt this is on the genetic engineering books...

Coming to think of it, receiving the Eucharist sometimes produces a similar effect in me. Maybe I should simply stop attending Mass?

Arggh! Maybe I should change my sig... "Oh to be asexual! This is the answer to all the world's problems..."
 

Sex is a consequence of our sexual nature, which is a part of who we are. It isn't a bolt-on bit.

Will someone want to tackle the ultimate impossible question of defining lesbian sex?

FWIW I think it any kind (gay or het) of 'sex' refers to intention and attitude as well as physical interaction. Eg a gynacologist can poke around a woman and it isn't having sex, but her lover doing the same poking in bed is.
 

now that doesn't mean they are having intercourse. and personally, i don't see anything wrong, per se, with it in the first place. depends who, and inder what circumstances and so on. but then i'm someone who will freely own up to not having been a virgin at marriage, having had sex (and intercourse)with more than one partner, and not regreting it.
 

quote:

---

I seem to remember a truly awful book around in my teens called Just Good Friends by Joyce Huggett.

---

Joyce Huggett? More like Joyce stop it!!!

She has this brilliant section where she lists all possible sexual activity on a kind of arousal richter scale something like:

Looking at each other
holding hands
peck kissing
slightly longer kissing
snogging
touching
etc etc...all the way up to
sexual intercourse

She then spends the next chapter saying "where should we draw the line?" and proceeds to draw it further and further down the list...until by the end of the chapter everything except holding hands is putting you at risk of the demons of lust!

Personally, my take on the issue is that if a couple never went any further than kissing before marriage, restraining themselves for months and months they would feel hopelessly unnatural and out of their depth come wedding night.

I guess I would say my perfect scenario would be that once you have made the decision this person is "the one" then you just get a shotgun wedding and let things roll from there!

Since that's not possible, I think the best thing is to try and avoid direct genital contact. Basically that's where the temperature starts to rise swiftly.

Most of all...be honest with yourself. If you are having oral sex, does it honestly feel like you are not having sex?
 

I should have nipped the marriage thing in the bud when Hostie mentioned it:

quote:

---

Are you seriously suggesting that a couple who are serious about one another abstain from mutual piano-playing-watching until marriage?

---

quote:

---

I believe also, this sort of intimacy should be reserved for the permanent and exclusive partner

---

There are some things in the above posts that piqued my interest: coley, Joan, nicole. And Nunc, that was Rev Gerald speaking pure truth. I think the sexual nature is problematic, (I might just pop off, read some Augustine and have a cold shower) and I spend time considering what is appropriate, what to aspire to, what we are called to, and how to put it in practice. Of course. Some days I don't give a damn.

Reflections on the possibility of physically affectionate, non-sexual relationships would have been nice. For further ideas, please check again the 4th para of the OP on thread goals.

-------
PS. Looking back, I've just noticed that my response to Hostie's post would indicate that I believe people should not mutually play the piano until marriage if such made them aroused. Sorry about that. I was looking at the 2nd question '...is sex?' My response should have been 'Well, yes. I consider it a sexual act.' Put it down to being 7am in the morn after 4 hrs sleep.
 

What do people think of masturbation, particularily teenage masturbation? I had read on a Christian website that it was a complete and utter "no-no". It was sex, and therefore only for within the confines of marriage.

bb
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rachel_o:
the idea that you can't watch your partner play the piano if this turns you on - also propounded by Steve Chalke by the way - is nothing short of ridiculous.

---

Actually you are right, rachel_o, I think it was him in the first place - I misattributed it.
 

I love reading about conservative evangelical attitudes to sex. If it wasn't so pathetic it would be hilarious.

Cosmo
 

What was that quote? "Rincewind had had several orgasms. Occasionally in company"
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
I love reading about conservative evangelical attitudes to sex. If it wasn't so pathetic it would be hilarious.

---

As opposed to the Roman Catholic Church's official line, you mean?
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dyfrig:
Or the traditional, historical, universal teaching of the undivided Church on matters of sexual conduct, for that matter.
"Women? Eugh! Disgusting things! Has anybody got a cloth?" - John Chrysostom.

---

Quite.

See also the Life of Saint Thaïs (The moral: "sexually active women are evil and can only become holy by being punished and/or driven insane") or The Life of Saint Pelagia (moral: "a woman can only become holy by becoming a man. A celibate one").

And, of course, our old favourite, the Life of Saint Mary of Egypt, which describes how the heroine had lots of sex with 'innocent men', whom she seduced into sin, despite it being their idea in the first place.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dyfrig:
Oh, btw, Alan, a propos of nothing in particular, you're a former CU exec type - is the CU a "cult"?

---

I am too and I recognise Cosmo's description.

As for "What is sex", sex is really rather messy, and orgasm is like a little death. Sex is Blood, Death, and Pain, for such is the stuff of life.
 

Apologies to Francis Bacon. Not the painter, silly, the other one.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sibling Coot:
I'm not having a go at you Chast, and you haven't qualified whether the other activities are of a sexually gratifying nature ... [Where fetishes with inanimate objects and masturbation fit in, I don't know]

---

quote:

---

and/or deliberate stimulation to orgasm

---

Which to me also includes solo deliberate stimulation to orgasm. Which, as a position (... as it were...) will doubtless make me startlingly unpopular, as well as even stranger ("Okay, so you're okay with consensual bondage and flogging, but not with masturbation?!!?!"), but it is the truth.

As for arousal, Good Heavens, what do I say? In my view, arousal simply means one is enjoying things -- or that one is not dead -- or that one has to use the lavatory -- or that one has just woken up in the morning -- or... etc. Though perhaps I am very odd. (Then again, perhaps one leads to the other -- i.e., lack of masturbation leads to very easy arousal. I don't know... and I only know how it is for me, a 34-year-old man who has never had (as far as I can tell) sexual intercourse.)

Once again I am hoping I'm not being too explicit here. I don't want to drag this into the gutter, though for me it is a relatively clean, albeit (for most people) strange gutter. But for others it might be tempting and I don't want that. (In fact, one reason (though not at all the only one) I am as active as I am in what I do is to provide an alternative without sex. If a man longs for the love and affection he never got from his father (for instance) but does not believe in gay sex, I am potentially there for him. My own foster Dad (whom I met in a gay leather bar, with fear and trembling, praying I would find someone who would respect my sexual limits) took me on without sex -- which for him was not only rare but unique -- and completely transformed my life for the better. And I must pass on what he taught me to those who now come to me. Many aren't interested without sex -- so I wave goodbye and move on. But some are.)

Interestingly, I have had many different responses from people as to whether what I do is or is not "sex." Some men I know even say that they're not even sure I'm gay, because I have not had sex with a man. Some consider what I do to be sex even though there are no orgasms. For me the definition of "sex" in any number of senses is not what is at issue -- it is what I may, as a Christian, be permitted to do, and what is forbidden me. And as far as I can tell that would be what I have posted above.

Nattering on again. I'll stop now.

David
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
FWIW I think it any kind (gay or het) of 'sex' refers to intention and attitude as well as physical interaction. Eg a gynacologist can poke around a woman and it isn't having sex, but her lover doing the same poking in bed is.

---

Hopefully her lover's hands are warmer, though.

Alexis
 

What follows is a general commentary, spanning 2,000 years, and not aimed at anything an individual said on this thread, except for what Sibling Coot's friends mentioned.

[Irony tag on...]
Considering such situations as that to which Sibling Coot was referencing:
1)If one tells God "we didn't do it," one may be assured that, one way or another, one indeed "did." Note that, in other conversations with God on matters moral, one is unlikely to state what one did not do. Now, what is considered moral (or what is truly arousing, etc.) differs according to the individual - but the principle is the same.
2)If one who is telling God "we didn't do it" equally feels obliged to tell one's friends what one did do which is another way of reaching the same destination on another road, one has no style (why would this be an announcement? And remember, I was once a Roman! Couples who practise Natural Family Planning are even worse than Sibling's friends, because they are demonstrating their heroic chastity... but that is another thread... Does anyone really want to hear details of another's sexual behaviour, which is best reserved strictly to parties who were there?); is looking for recognition of one's superiority on a purely questionable legalistic basis; and is indulging in the tiresome and rude behaviour of forcing one's friend to be a virtual voyeur.
3)Sex is as old as Adam, of course... but note that the Tempter's methods had nothing to do with sex but a lot to do with lies. (And we lie to ourselves best of all.)
4)If someone truly wants to ponder the virtue of chastity (in any state of life), there is a great deal more to that than whether one has sex or not... or how.
[irony tag off]

I don't know why this comes to mind, but I remember hearing or reading somewhere, perhaps ten years ago, of a wealthy man who was offering any girl who could medically prove that she was still a virgin at age 19 a substantial amount of money because (I'm cringing) "the best give to give to their husbands was their virginity." (I must find that address... I wonder if he'll give me the sum with 30 years compounded interest...) That enraged me - even though I'm a professional virgin and always was very strait laced. It all came across as "this sum will ensure that some guy has the pleasure of deflowering a virgin" - not morality of any kind, not self-respect, nothing. How I loathe that "saving myself" business, anyway!
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by babybear:
What do people think of masturbation, particularily teenage masturbation? I had read on a Christian website that it was a complete and utter "no-no". It was sex, and therefore only for within the confines of marriage.

---

I hope people are appreciating my relative restraint and tastefulness on this thread. I expect a fairy clap at the end.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dyfrig:
Oh, btw, Alan, a propos of nothing in particular, you're a former CU exec type - is the CU a "cult"?

---

Whether CUs are cults is a different question from the topic of this thread. If anyone is really interested in my views on that question may I suggest starting a new thread?

Alan
 

I am wondering if it is possible that when we get turned on sexually by anyone, that we instead of repressing our sexuality .. we let it blossom into its original design? That we see the one who is arousing us as an image of God. Not just as an image of God but an image of God because that person is capable of generous-wonderful life-giving creation. Not just as an object that we can hump until the ache goes away and so does thiers.

Is that possible? Can people raise themselves up and lift up the sexual arrousal to a level where we see each other as images of God, because we are capable of sexual life giving love (just like the Creator)? A God who does not sit alone keeping his thoughts repressed , but a God that reaches out with love and creates us. He wants us to have sex . He doesn't want us to walk around with our eyes glued to the sidewalk.

Can we live this way? Can Priests and the rest of us talk this way? Or must we repress and bottle up and ignore or pretend?
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by sniffy:
I am wondering if it is possible that when we get turned on sexually by anyone, that we instead of repressing our sexuality .. we let it blossom into its original design? That we see the one who is arousing us as an image of God?

---

(I suppose Williams would say that this is a rather unusual example of the Way of Affirmation...)

David
Off to see Monsters, Inc. with his foster uncle's partner
 

Well, I mean to say, what!! My ego counts for something dontye know??

At the risk of bringing upon my head the wrath of the ever-cooting one, I rather think that the original quesion was something to do wiht disbelief in non-sex if one broadens the definition beyond what is generally understood

(e.g. "that was really bad, we shouldn't have done that.

what do you mean, we didn't have sex, did we?

No we didn't.

So, it was no big deal.

Right. Okay. See you sunday.

etc."

A point which I myself brought up during the thread about "sex before marriage"

So (apart from the Coot and nicole)

ANSWER THE QUESTION

I mean, really, I leave for a week or three and people start posting willy nilly.

Honestly.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by sniffy:
I am wondering if it is possible that when we get turned on sexually by anyone, that we instead of repressing our sexuality .. we let it blossom into its original design? That we see the one who is arousing us as an image of God. Not just as an image of God but an image of God because that person is capable of generous-wonderful life-giving creation.

---

I would say that is exactly the point. (In fact, those of us who have chosen a way of life that involves total chastity have this as part of the particular ascetic vocation because it is indeed a good - one does not sacrifice what is wrong as a part of asceticism. And I would imagine that one in a vowed life, as I am, would be in something resembling hell were their sexuality repressed.)

My generation were probably the first ones to , most unfortunately, often reduce sex to merely a form of recreation. However, I'll say this much... I do not recall anyone's denying that sexual activity was just that. The "I'm a chaste virgin, only having oral sex" is all the worse for being such a lie.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:

(I suppose Williams would say that this is a rather unusual example of the Way of Affirmation...)

---

I don't think it's that unusual - I know there're different views, but I think that's what Dante was doing with Beatrice. Eros points to, sublimates to, is enmeshed with, Agape.

See also Donne: "Here th'admyring her my mind did whet/ To seek thee God, as streams do show their head."

At the risk of going from the sublime to the ridiculous, there's also interestingly an expression of this in the musical Les Miserables: "Take my hand, and lead me to salvation... remember the truth that once was spoken: to love another person is to see the face of God."
 

Always excited to see my idol quoted JtD, but not able to share these sentiments:

quote:

---

From Batter my heart Three Personned God:
Take me to You, imprison me, for I,
Except You enthrall me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chaste, except You ravish me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Shorn Coot:
[QB I expect a fairy clap at the end.[/QB]

---

Would that be from doing it with a syphilitic sylph?

-------------------------------------------
 

quote:

---

I love reading about conservative evangelical attitudes to sex. If it wasn't so pathetic it would be hilarious.

---

Joan the dwarf (quite rightly) sent me to hell for making a comment in a similar tone about liberals.

I think I'm fairly tolerant for a GLE, but Cosmo, I think you are getting a bit near the 10 commandments here.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ultraspike:
Overheard on a crosstown bus:
"I'm thinking about making a change in my sex life."
"Oh?"
"Yeah, I'm thinking about getting a partner."

---

Teacher tells her class of 15-year-olds to prepare for a test the next day. She says she will accept NO excuse short of personal or familiar death for not being in school that day. Boy stands up
"Miss, Miss, what if I said I was suffering from complete sexual exhaustion?"
His classmates snigger, but Miss just smiles sweetly,
"In that case, " she replies, "You'll just have to write with your other hand."
 

Matt the Mad Medic: *cough* Joan the dwarf (quite rightly) sent me to hell for making a comment in a similar tone about liberals.

I think I'm fairly tolerant for a GLE, but Cosmo, I think you are getting a bit near the 10 commandments here.

*****

Wearily groping for host hat ... wondering why Matt couldn't take Joan's example instead of merely citing it ...

If you want to pursue this, do it in hell.

RuthW
Purgatory host

[stupid code mistake]

[ 16 November 2001: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 

quote:

---

If you want to pursue this, do it in hell

---

Oh please!!! Can I watch?

Wait a minute - that probably raises questions of voyeurism!

Louise
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Shorn Coot:
I can't say I've ever been too keen on the erotic aspect of relationship with God - God is predominantly to me, the Father or Parent. Father, erotic, ahhhhhh! 'Orrible juxtaposition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sniffy:
I am wondering if the puritanical views that older Priests and church going folks spew so easily has destroyed any chance of people seeing that sex is a gift from God?

---

Can't the liberal views of trendy priests and non-church going folks also destroy the chance of seeing sex as a gift from God?

(With apologies to any trendies, priests, non church-goers or any combination thereof who do see sex as a gift from God).
 

quote:

---

I love reading about conservative evangelical attitudes to sex. If it wasn't so pathetic it would be hilarious.

---

Cosmo, I have given you over 48 hours to come back and defend this piece of garbage you posted here. You have not. Therefore, you are clearly trolling, which is a violation of Commandment One of our 10Cs, namely: don't be a jerk. This isn't the first time you've done this, but it damn well better be the last.

First warning. The second warning will come with a suspension. You may not get a third.
 

I know you don't like this but I have a life outside this machine and outside this ship. That means I don't spend my every waking moment thinkng and breathiing and dreaming about these boards and whether or not something I have written has irritated somebody and so I shoud withdraw it but it is my opinion so what do I do......? It's pathetic.

I notice that Dyfrig and Wood haven't been asked to justify their rather silly and snide remarks (to use one of thier favourite phrases) concerning the equally absurd teachings of the Church Fathers about sex and women. Why not? And why is it already for Wood to say that I cannot argue or debate like a human being?

And I stand by what I posted. I do think that conservative evangelical views are absurd. They attempt to railroad sex into a a process that is without pleasure, that it is not a gift from God but merely an imperative to procreate because of Original Sin. Their views on homosexuality and the attempts of many conservative evangelicals (people like the Living Waters Trust and many others) to 'cure' homosexuals of thier sin I find frankly evil, that these views and opinions and actions are outside of God.

Now I know well enough that these views which I have articulated (or so briefly I know) will be opposed by many. Fine. Let them oppose. But for far too long their has been no voice against these people who have been allowed to have their opinions (which they are perfectly at liberty to hold) without any challenge.

I also don't always reply immeadiatly because, yes, I do have other things to do and post on here when I have time, but also I don't like to give knee-jerk replies and reactions. Thus it sometimes takes a little time.

Lastly, I would say to the Administrators that there is such a thing as a private message or e-mail. If you have concerns to this level then why not take advantage of these methods of communication rather than plastering it all over the boards just to cheer up those people who have complained (although I would say the same to those who have complained - if you have a real problem then why not get in touch with me and complain rather than go off to somebody else - it reminds me of children running off to teacher when somebody does something they don't like).

Cosmo
 

Joyce Huggett IS ridiculous.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
And I stand by what I posted. I do think that conservative evangelical views are absurd. They attempt to railroad sex into a a process that is without pleasure, that it is not a gift from God but merely an imperative to procreate because of Original Sin. Their views on homosexuality and the attempts of many conservative evangelicals (people like the Living Waters Trust and many others) to 'cure' homosexuals of thier sin I find frankly evil, that these views and opinions and actions are outside of God.

---

For the record I am evangelical, although probably not as conservative as I once was. I did come across some crackpot views on sex, and recall times before and during my time at uni (where I was on Exec and study group leader for CU) on several occasions joining groups of conservative evangelicals having a good laugh at some of what the likes of Joyce Hugget wrote.

Although most evangelicals would consider that homosexual acts fall short of the ideal God has set, many of them would also recognise that the Biblical texts are too few and open to different interpretations to claim unequivical Biblical support for their views let alone condemn homosexuals to Hell because of their sexuality. I find the actions of those you mentioned in trying to "heal" people of their sexuality as abhorant and evil as you evidently do.

In short, if you want to make comments about the conservative evangelicals (or any other group) you have come into contact with fine; just don't make sweeping statements that all people in such groups are the same.

Alan
 

And I DARE, dear heart, because you posted elsewhere after this message, so don't feed me a line about how you're SO MUCH BUSIER than everyone else. If you don't have time to stick with a debate, then stay the hell out of it. It really is that simple.

Statements such as the ones you've made are right on par with the idiocy that's gotten other people suspended or banned. Don't think that just because you target it at evangelicals that it's not taken just as seriously as if you'd targeted it at Americans or blacks.

And Fiddleback, this has jack to do with whether or not Cosmo is a host, or has met Simon, or anything else. This has nothing to do with what anyone else has said to me and everything to do with my watching this shameful spectacle over the course of the past few months. This has to do with what the Ship is all about, which is NOT Cosmo's little club to take potshots at everyone else he disagrees with.

For your information, not that I expect either of you to care, the people who find themselves most at home here are those who are able to question what they've been taught. Lots of times they have not been able to do this in their own church. Usually this is because when they tried, their priests/pastors/ministers/whoever accused them of being anti-Christian and were shamed into silence. This is the first opportunity they've had to really explore the questions. And this is our main goal here.

For them to do this, and then be treated with this kind of contempt, WILL NOT BE TOLERATED here. I don't give a flying rat's ass if you're the Archbishop of Canterbury, you will leave off the swipes at traditions other than your own, or you will find your ass overboard.

I cannot be any clearer than this.
 

Please help me on this. I am not trying to be critical, but doesn't your post boil down to semantic nit-picking? Are you suggesting that it is forbidden to say (to paraphrase W. H. Auden) "Anglo-Catholic priests are sodomites", but acceptable to assert that "some (many? most? nearly all?} Anglo- Catholic priests are sodomites"?

Greta
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
doesn't your post boil down to semantic nit-picking?

---

quote:

---

Are you suggesting that it is forbidden to say (to paraphrase W. H. Auden) "Anglo-Catholic priests are sodomites", but acceptable to assert that "some (many? most? nearly all?} Anglo- Catholic priests are sodomites"?

---

And as host, can I ask that further discussion of this be conducted somewhere other than this thread (probably the Styx) to allow this thread to continue discussing what sex is.

Alan
 

flirting is very underestimated. i don't know if it's the BEST part, but it's a necessary part, for me. sex (intercourse) is a wonderful physical expression of love, but without preparing a protective, playful emotional atmosphere that can takes weeks, months or years, i can't imagine it being any more meaningful than a sneeze.

i do wonder what sex means to someone who has had many, many different partners. or for prostitutes. how do they separate sex with a partner they love from the act of sex with someone they do not know? i guess they must be able to.

personally, i've always been the type to worry more about being emotionally vulnerable, so being sexually vulnerable was out of the question. i'm always surprised at the stories people tell, though...makes me feel like i missed out on something! but, to each his own. for me, sex without love has no appeal. maybe that's a woman thing?
 

quote:

---

we have not been to Dyfrig's wedding

---

That was a cheap shot, Father Fiddleback. I hope other people will have realised that as they read it.

'frin
 

Madkaren
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by frin:
[QB]Fiddleback
I do not appreciate your attempt to drag my wedding into the evidence you use as part of your long running campaign to encourage disrespect of the hosts.

[QUOTE]we have not been to Dyfrig's wedding

---

PEEEEERRRRRRRRLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEZZZZZZEEE!!!

I have read through this thread - haven't been on the boards for ages. I've only just recovered from the RSI incurred during the 'offended' thread, and here we go again.

Do you really think, Frin that Fiddleback was 'having a go' at your wedding ? I read it as a passing remark - I didn't detect in it any resentment that he wasn't invited, or suggestion that it was an underhand event during which Secret Ships Business occurred. I have found myself in agreement with Erin on this thread - funnily enough. I do think that Cosmo and Fiddleback are a bit OTT, their wit is often savage, and is possibly off putting to many who post here. I am among those here who find it interesting to question and find my anonymity helpful. I don't like to be made to feel a fool for asking questions - though to be fair neither of them has ever made me feel that way. Your post simply isn't helpful in all this.

By the way, some of the hosts here who reprove are rude and sarcastic but seem exempted from the same rules that we 'mere shipmates' are supposed to follow. I think that that is what he was trying to say.

Let's all grow up a bit, the SOF is becoming tedious.

'C
 

He also finds the attitudes he was brought up with hard to reconcile. On the one hand taught that sex before marriage was wrong, on the other - anything goes. There wasn't any sort of middle ground.

The conservative evangelical attitudes to sex that I have encountered have been laughable - partly because I've found them not to have been thought through properly by those propounding them. Many of them were too simplistic in nature, and hadn't been thought through, so that, when challenged I was constantly being told "that's different". Mostly I would be talking to them about "whoever looks at a woman lustfully...." - a lot of them were taking this very literally, and consequently (though safe with me) some of the men struggled with relationships with women. Then they'd wind up swinging so far in the opposite direction - because there was little or no consistent guidance about the middle ground.
Are there any good sites/guides about the conservative evangelical view of sex, to counteract my current warped perception thereof?

Angel
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angel of the North:
OK, I've spoken to a friend of mine on this one. He's had many sexual partners - more than 10 times as many as me. And yet, in his current relationship, he finds sexual intercourse far harder - he knows the moves, what works in practice, yet he's had the loving side of himself so numbed by the life he's led, that, now he wants to express that, he's finding it horrendously difficult.

He also finds the attitudes he was brought up with hard to reconcile. On the one hand taught that sex before marriage was wrong, on the other - anything goes. There wasn't any sort of middle ground.

The conservative evangelical attitudes to sex that I have encountered have been laughable - partly because I've found them not to have been thought through properly by those propounding them. Many of them were too simplistic in nature, and hadn't been thought through, so that, when challenged I was constantly being told "that's different". Mostly I would be talking to them about "whoever looks at a woman lustfully...." - a lot of them were taking this very literally, and consequently (though safe with me) some of the men struggled with relationships with women. Then they'd wind up swinging so far in the opposite direction - because there was little or no consistent guidance about the middle ground.
Are there any good sites/guides about the conservative evangelical view of sex, to counteract my current warped perception thereof?

Angel

---

Pre marital sex is great fun. Post marital sex is much better.

Pre marital flirting is fun. Post marital flirting with any man but ones husband can be very dangerous indeed!

I don't think that sex before marriage is wrong. It isn't risk free, but provided both partners go into it in the same spirit it can be informative and exciting.

I firmly believe though, that once married a couple should stay faithful to each other.

'C
 

angel, i really sympathize with your friend because it seems the people i know who have had many partners have a very difficult time being open with people...maybe sex seems safer than being emotionally exposed. some of us have difficulty with both! seems pretty clear when you look around that casual sex is not the answer. and his difficulty loving is just what i imagine prostitutes must experience. what a horrible aspect of one's self to have permanently damaged. it's so hard to be a human sometimes.
 

For example, I was driving the female friend of the couple I mentioned in the OP around (she was legally blind and engaged at the time), when out of the blue she said 'You know, you really are rather attractive' in a come-on tone. Oh dear, I thought, and said 'Well. You're not on the blind pension for nothing'. We both collapsed in gales of laughter, and it was really the best response in the circumstances. This anecdote tickled me enormously and I related it to a mutual friend in this friend's presence. Afterwards, she took me aside and anxiously asked me to be careful who I told it to because 'there are people at church who would never speak to me again if they heard that'.

Sigh. This friend's home group also were in the habit of looking around furtively and asking 'Are we all married here?', before having any conversation about sex.

While I might privately think the majority of conservative evangelicals have views on sex that are absurd and pathetic (especially when I'm seething with frustration), the best I'd come out with in reasoned debate is that these views are narrow and oppressive.

Cosmo's posts can be intemperate, and I like his style, but I would be sad to think that evangelicals coming out of communities with narrow views on sexuality who are questioning or trying to look beyond their tradition might be frightened off the ship.

The Coot,
The One True Bent Evangelical Tat-Queen.

There've been some really thoughtful on -topic posts on this page, I hope we can pursue them a bit more.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Coot:

Cosmo's posts can be intemperate, and I like his style, but I would be sad to think that evangelicals coming out of communities with narrow views on sexuality who are questioning or trying to look beyond their tradition might be frightened off the ship.

---

I come from a community with very narrow views on sexuality, and I'm not frightened off the ship in the slightest.

I am, however, rather grateful to Erin for wading in and dressing down Cosmo. Sometimes, out there in real life - and even on the Ship - those of us who are "good little Evangelicals" feel that the world's attitude is that it's wrong to make prejudiced, stereotypical remarks about blacks, liberals, homosexuals etc etc, but absolutely fine to say that all GLEs have their heads stuck up there own backsides. Thanks Erin, for sticking up for us, even if you don't agree with us!

As to the subject of the thread - I think that perhaps there is something different about actual sexual intercourse, than about other sexual acts on the sliding scale that has been described. I interpret the biblical phrase "becoming one flesh" as meaning intercourse, since this strikes me as the most intimate act that 2 human beings can experience together. I believe that this act leads to some kind of spirtual connectedness between the 2 people that I don't really understand. In marriage, this act cements two distinct individuals becoming one. Not two halves making one whole - but 2 wholes coming together, to become one.

Whilst I am NOT about to get drawn into what I personally am willing or unwilling to do outside of marriage, or to condone or condemn anyone else, I wanted to mention this because I think this may be where the engaged couple The Coot mentioned are coming from.

Having said that - I'm happy to admit to being a virgin and therefore probably can be thought of as not having a clue. Ask me again after I get married.

All the best,

Rachel.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rachel_o:

I am, however, rather grateful to Erin for wading in and dressing down Cosmo.

---

Oh my. Now there's a mental image I would rather be rid of
 

It still seems to me a bit odd to ask the question "what is sex"? and not seem to reach a concensus at this stage in a thread.

So what is it? Sex is either of the two divisions of organic beings distinguished as male or female - or some quality relating to that. The word has the same root (sec-) as in section and sect.

Surely the problem we have here is that we are coming to things the wrong way round - only when you have got your brain round the concept the word seeks to describe can you then describe how it relates to adjunct concepts (sexual relations, sexual attraction etc.). If you try to do things the wrong way round you will end up trying to include exceptions in an understanding or definition.

Please understand I only speak etymologically. It may sound tough but that's what is meant by the word.

Ian
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
I remember at university some particularly naive members of the Christian Union raving about how wonderful the 'don't touch what you don't have yourself' teaching was. 'So simple', they said, 'so clear and understandable'. They weren't very happy when I pointed out that that meant anal sex between straight people was OK as well as all gay and lesbian sex.

---

I may have missed the point of the Huggett rule here, but surely a girl can't have anal sex with her chap without coming into contact with a body part that she doesn't possess herself?
 

It is the intent behind the action that is important as much as the mechanics. Is it to build intimacy, or for sexual gratification, or both, or neither - a mechanical act?

I have less problem with a one night stand, than I do with certain long term intimacies, where a great deal is shared, without it being physical. In some cases it can be more damaging than an actual affair. And yet, because it's non-sexual, it can be conveniently ignored.

To give you an example of my own. I have never met P. We have known each other for 3 years in virtual form. we talk a great deal, about a lot of things. And for a time, it could, rightly, have been seen as an affair. As it happens, neither of us was attached at the time. But if one of us had been, and we were spending several hours a week working on one of our mutual projects, a few phone calls here and there, on top of hours put in at work that actually brought money in, neither of us should have been surprised at our partners being jealous. Especially when we denied it was anything more than just professional and necessary contact for the completion of said mutual ongoing project.

The friends of mine that are not involved in this virtual world say that this is bollocks. And some people that are involved in this virtual world quite well, and are in a similar situation would apply such an epithet, as a convenient means of avoiding some highly uncomfortable truths, like their mutual project is wrecking their real life relationships.

The nature of sex is kind of nebulous, because it in part depends on the tags that one wishes to put on it. As a society both too much and too little emphasis is put on sex. Too much is placed on the physical act. Too little is placed on the feelings behind it.

You cannot disengage the one from the other, in a relationship. I have friends who, though they have never touched beyond a friendly hug, you know will marry, in that they have agreed thus. It wasn't intentional that they didn't kiss, or anything physical, but you and they can feel the tender emotion there. And it will happen. And I sincerely envy them that they can be so intimate like that, and try and follow their example in my own relationship. And I have other friends, though they use each other for penetrative sex, have no great feeling for each other. These are two extremes.
I'm afraid i cannot be more erudite than that.

angel
 

Cosmo
 

Check your "I-Spy" book of orifices. You have got the wrong one.

The anus is surely the orifice of choice when posting here on SOF. One simply inserts one's head up it and then types away. I frequently do it and look how spiritual I am.

Ian
 

Sex is intercourse, oral sex and anal sex (never had any anal, my wife wouldn't allow me and she has never been sufficiently drunk to the point of not knowing the difference). All other forms are giz on the side - a halfhearted attempt to the real one body thing.

Bill Clinton can't pull that "what is sex" thing and expect us to walk away from him with a slightly white liquid dripping from the corner of our mouths. Can he? We know that is sex. He and I have never had sex, but if he had his cigar up my doopa and his penis in my pie hole, I'd take a wild swag at it and say that we were having sex.
 

No, on second thought, I won't touch that one with a bargepole.
 

Greta
 

As enlightening as this all is, it is veering away from serious debate. Prurience is not becoming to Purgatory, and this thread is itching to get into Hell. Either take a cold shower, or prepare for the flames ...

RuthW
Purgatory host
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ultraspike:
I dated a fiercely conservative Irish Roman Catholic for several years and he refused to have intercourse on the grounds that it was against his religion to have pre-marital sex, but had no problem with oral sex. Is this hyprocrisy or was he just secretly gay as I suspect? Part of the problem was that he didn't believe in contraception and supposedly believed in the whole "sex is only for procreation" nonsense, but I believe oral sex is just as much sex as intercourse. Is this common among RCs or am I making a sweeping generalization here?

---

This reminds me of a friend of mine from school who claimed proudly after spending a night with a young man that she hadn't had sex with him, merely given him a "blow job."

She was most upset when I pointed out that with that under his belt (as it were) he achieved success beyond his wildest imaginings and was rather unlikely to call her in the near future. (His ongoing respect, or lack thereof, for my friend was an avenue I had no wish to go down).

So then, Ultraspike, I would say that your fierce Irishman was no more gay than the next man, rather he simply knew when he was on to a good thing.

Please, please, RuthW. Send this prurience to that dark recess where it most belongs.
 

Cosmo
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
As enlightening as this all is, it is veering away from serious debate.

---

David
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Septimus:
So then, Ultraspike, I would say that your fierce Irishman was no more gay than the next man, rather he simply knew when he was on to a good thing.

---

So there are some straight men who don't like traditional intercourse with a woman?? I would say that while they may prefer oral sex most of the time, it is highly suspect to a woman if that's all they ever wanted. I spent four years with this guy hoping some day we'd finally "do it", but no. To me that is not a normal man, whatever his religious beliefs.
 

It sears me to the very loins that in four years your other half didn't have the decency to arrange a fall from grace or six.

I do assure you, being a "man" myself, that anything comprising insecurity, desire and fantasy can be termed a "normal man" and dismissed as such.

Septimus (curled up behind a Harold Robbins and clutching a picture of a girl dressed as Pierrot. He weeps.)
 

Cyber sex, on the other hand...ah well....I dont know about that...I mean, its so impersonal. I can't see that there would be a real way of building up intimacy in instant messaging. It could be very sexual, I'm sure...but not intimate.
 

yes, i think both count as sex, absolutly.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ultraspike:
So would phone sex or computer sex be sex?

---

Preferably both and with two different people (whilst eating fois gras to the sound of trumpets).

Cosmo
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Happy Abby:
This experience of phone sex was definitely almost identical to the real thing.

---

It's strange, isn't it, what bakelite can do to a girl.

I'm not sure that silicon holds quite the same sway.

Septimus
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
Why do you, RuthW, imagine that reading a trashy novel should be discrete from improving literature? I always find that the trashier the novel (or preferably film) the more improving I find it. This is particularly true of tracts concerning sexual conduct and morality (even more so if they contain pictures or photogravures). So RuthW, do not be ashamed of your trashy novel fixation. Glory in it and be proud.

---

The enjoyment of trashy novels is greatly enhanced by hiding said trash behind "improving" reading.

And with that, we're off to hell ...
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Septimus:
It's strange, isn't it, what bakelite can do to a girl.

I'm not sure that silicon holds quite the same sway.

Septimus

---

Septimus - I'm confused! What is Bakelite and why would it be preferable to phone sex?

Now that this thread has descended to the netherdepths (how's that for a tautology?) tomb would like to reiterate a couple of guidelines based on his reading of the above fascinating discourse:

• Don't become a spokesman (or spokeswoman) for someone else. No matter how much you love them (you know who you are, dear) they are responsible for defending themselves and not behaving badly by posting-and-running. The good-cop bad-cop routine won't wash in hell. tomb is watching you....
  
• Don't post disgusting graphic details of sexual activites or residuae. tomb almost hurled when he read one of the posts above. If you are wondering if you have been guilty of the particular sin that has occasioned this oblique post, send tomb a PM, and he'll be happy to tell you if you win the prize. On the other hand, if you persist in posting graphic detail, tomb will let you know in an unpleasant fashion.
  
• And finally. Don't whinge about the hosts and make nasty passive-agressive posts that upset very nice people who sacrifice their time (and in some instances, their health) to make this little corner of the web a safe place for people to talk about their faith and their struggles and people and Christians. If you do, It Will Not Go Well With You.
  

That being said, carry on, and God bless.
 

I didn't know you were so delicate, tomb. We'll try to be more careful.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomb:
[list]

....tomb almost hurled when he read one of the posts above.

---

Are you sure it was only one?????
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomb:
tomb refuses to discuss the triggers for his bodily functions on this or any other thread.

---

Is that because of the thing you have with sardines?
 

ChastMaster: Yes, I supported him too.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
UltraSpike: I always understood that William Jefferson C. did give as good as he got, and that was the reason for the massive support he received from female voters.

---

Actually I was talking about my personal experience, but I wasn't aware that WJC did anything other than poke around with his cigar.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
Happy Abby: If you believe that the Old Testament strictures re. fornication were put there to prevent us from being hurt emotionally, you may also believe that the law against eating the flesh of the pig was put there to prevent us from contracting trichinosis.

---

I'm a little confused about this post (what's new??). I don't believe it says anywhere in the Bible that God asks us to refrain because we'll get hurt - I've just superimposed that notion on to the type of God, that, in my head, is the one I follow after! But it makes sense to me when I spend an evening (rather like I did tonight) drinking too much red and mulling over the past, wishing I had not had some of the sexual encounters that I had had - knowing now at least, that I would regret it and that it would also cause problems in my first full on relationship with a Christian. So, am not really sure what your point was Amos - but if it is that God gives us rules,not because he just feels like being bloody nasty - but because he actually cares about our deepest needs and doesn't want to see us as half human beings - then yes, I would follow the line that the rule about pigs was given to prevent people from getting nasty diseases.

Whew - that was a pretty impressive narrative for someone who has just consumed the better part of a bottle of wine. (pats self on back)

quote:

---

This thread is to solicit opinions on what constitutes 'sex' in the context of the goal to remain celibate and chaste and/or chaste before permanent relationship and by association, the possibility of non-sexual, physically affectionate relationships.

---

Basically I'm still where I was with the topic before we started - avoid all intimate contact. I considered Chast's take on the issue, for me this is a recipe to explode from frustration or restraint. Physically affectionate non-sexual relationships again, doubtful. Others might have more self-control, but I don't think I could do it.

As the OP I request the thread be closed.
 

[Brings bowl of water. Washes hands]
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Coot:
[QUOTE] ... salacious death spirals ...

---

Sounds like all of the sexual relationships I've ever had. But to your original premise, I can say that my best relationships and the closest to real love have also been the most chaste. A case can surely be made that love does not really need sexual intimacy to grow and often sex and its many-headed dragons are the death of it. But on the other hand sex is truly sublime when love is present, so go figure.

But I at least hereby absolve you, Coot, from any responsibility for further musings in this thread.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ultraspike:
Sounds like all of the sexual relationships I've ever had. But to your original premise, I can say that my best relationships and the closest to real love have also been the most chaste. A case can surely be made that love does not really need sexual intimacy to grow and often sex and its many-headed dragons are the death of it. But on the other hand sex is truly sublime when love is present, so go figure.

But I at least hereby absolve you, Coot, from any responsibility for further musings in this thread.

---

Hmmm...not so sure about this whole love not needing sexual intimacy in order to grow. I would say that sex is a pretty crucial element to any long lasting relationship. After all, you can love your mum to the point of wanting to die for her and you can love your friends in likewise manner but to leave them (to some extent) and spend the rest of your life with someone you are not related to, see every single day, share a bed with, maybe have children with - ah well, that, in my opinion requires a different kind of love. Sort of love that means that you keep on working through issues with that person even if at that precise moment, you hate them. Hence, mehtinketh, thats where sex comes in. Its emotional, bonding intimacy that keeps ya together.

But ah well...there I go again...off on another tangent. I'm sorry!
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Coot:
....I'm a bit conscious of being part of and generally assisting threads go into salacious death spirals, and fearing the worst now that we're in Hell, wanted to avoid it. The prurience thing....

---

Well, as I have previously posted, I have no intention of permitting that to happen. This thread may be in Hell because of topic, but that does not automatically assume it will stay there because of content.

I would like to keep it open for a while, Coot, and we'll do our best to keep the naughty-bit factor down.

[fixed my own stinkin' UBB code]

[ 21 November 2001: Message edited by: tomb ]