From: julian@sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Non-procreative sex
Date: 20 Dec 92 22:58:27 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

schnaufe@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Bernard A Schnaufer) writes:

>armstrng@cs.dal.ca (Stan Armstrong) writes:

>>Few of us, I 
>>suspect, would object to a husband manually stimulating his wife to 
>>the point of orgasm under certain conditions that might inhibit 
>>normal intercourse for a protracted period. The act itself is not 
>>repugnant to us. In fact, it is a normal part of most foreplay.

>If this is true, what a sorry state we are in.  If this is true, how very 
>	There is nothing admirable about mutual stimulation to orgasm between
>two people.  Sexual expression is not just an exercise of the stimuli which
>bring about orgasm. ...  If the procreative aspect of marital
>relations is frustrated by external intervention, then the meaning of this act
>is inherently damaged.  Let us remember that God is the source of life and that
>the life that our Lord brings forth is brought forth in Love.  If the sign of
>love between husband and wife is rendered void of its ability to bring about
>new life, it no longer is true to itself.  In addition we lose something of 

julian responds:

I am a single person so I should point out that what I say here is, um,
rather theoretical, but I think valid. I find it hard to appreciate the
view represented in the above reply: viz, that only sexual intercourse with
the intent of producing a new life is valid in God's Law for ourlives.
I am struggling even to grasp the meaning here. Leaving aside the pleasure
and deeper commitment to each other that result from intimacy and foreplay, 
whether there is intercourse or not, biology ensures that a normal couple
could populate a small village if every act of intercourse (taking the
nine months into account) were to result in birth.
When God sai go forth and multiply there were TWO people on the earth!
We now have 5,000,000,000 and we are still supposed to regard intercourse 
as only the vehicle for producing new life???
It is just false to say that "if the procreative aspect of <sex> is frustrated
... the meaning of the act is damaged" (in my opinion). This is almost as
repugnant a view to me as the "selfish gene" theory that human beings are
only machines programmed to pass on their genetic material to the next
generation. If sex is designed to produce new life and anything that prevents
that new life is against God's plan then the greates expression of unselfish
love between two people is just a mechanical act to ensure fusion. Any other
aspect of the relationship becomes meaningless. Presumably, this is why the
old testament patriarchs used to take their servant girls to bed if their
wives could not have children. (Incidentally, it is interesting that it is
always the woman who was called barren, where in fact male impotence (ie,
low sperm count) is not at all uncommon. I smell a certain bias here).
I have read nothing in God's word to lead me to believe that producing children
is a greater good than giving love. On the contrary, some people can never
have children, some people probably shouldn't have them, but everyone is commanded
to "Love God and you rneighbour".
julian