From: watson@sce.carleton.ca (Stephen Watson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Christian Sex
Date: 2 Oct 92 04:51:47 GMT
Organization: Home for Indigent Bit-Bashers

In article <Sep.30.01.36.39.1992.7324@geneva.rutgers.edu> wiggins@marigold.cs.odu.edu (Samuel E Wiggins) writes:
>Interesting enough, though, there are still some limits.  In the New Testament
>somewhere, I forget where, isn't there a statement to the effect that we
>shouldn't have sex with a woman the same way as two gay dudes would (i.e., no
>anal, possibly no oral intercourse)?  

Could you find the reference for that?  I think maybe you're confusing it
with Lev 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as one does with a female",
which means exactly the opposite (it's one of the standard "anti-gay"
verses, and no, let's not re-open THAT topic just now).  And I would also
say its not referring to the METHOD of copulation, but simply to the
mere fact of physical/sexual contact between two men.

So, I don't think you've supported a prohibition on oral or anal sex within
Christian marriage (but maybe you weren't really trying very hard to?)

>Otherwise, though, (inside of marriage)
>we're pretty free to do what we want.  I bet we're all for that.

One prohibition I *would* argue for is against sado-masochistic practices
(if you REALLY want to know more about it, try alt.sex.bondage. yuk.)
Now, I would not want to pass judgement on a Xn couple who did enjoy such
things, but my reasons for thinking it wrong arise very directly out of my
own understanding of the nature of the Kingdom of God, of Xn marriage as
a part of that Kingdom, and of sexuality in Xn marriage.

In Gen 1:24 we read that a man shall "cleave to his wife, and they shall
become one flesh".  While some writers (Trobisch?) seem to think this
refers very narrowly to the sex act, I have always felt it had a much deeper
application: the merging of two lives into one, a seeking of profound union
and intimacy with another human being.  When Seanna and I were engaged, the 
longing we felt for each other was far more than physical; we wanted "each
other": lock, stock and barrel.  I believe that the goal of marriage should
be complete intimacy, a total opening of the self to the other, and a total
acceptance of the other.  Seen this way, the joining of the
bodies is a physical dimension of a union also taking place in the emotional,
intellectual, and spiritual parts of the two personalities as well.
(I must make clear: I don't mean that the husband and wife give up their
own personalities in favour of some "group personality".  Rather, while
remaining completely themselves, they also completely and unreservedly
accept the other spouse, as they are.  In practice, there is a delicate
balancing act between "merging", i.e. losing the differences, and growing
apart because of the differences.  But I digress)

Now I also think of a Christian family as a little colony of the Kingdom
of Heaven within the Kingdom of the world.  In the Church, and in the home,
we live by Christ's law, not the world's.  The currency of the world is
Power: greed, domination, competition.  The currency of the Kingdom of
God is Love: giving, mutual submission, cooperation and (ultimately) the
giving of oneself for the sake of the other.  And, if sex is the physical
aspect of a multi-dimensional intimacy between two people, then these same
principles should be expressed as much in bed as elsewhere.  And I think
this is why Christian teaching understands marriage to be sexually exclusive
and (ideally) life-long: just how many people can you be "one flesh" with
anyway?

Now, back to S&M:
Sado-masochism, as I understand it, involves dominance/submission and the
giving/receiving of pain (some people find this sexually exciting.  I'm
not a psychologist, but I would guess that this arises from the 'old brain',
where all the basic animal survival drives like food, territory, mating, 
fear, aggression etc. hang out, and are not always well separated).
Practices may include 'pretend' rape, bondage, torture (or threat thereof).
I do not see how such things can possibly be reconciled with the Xn vision
of mutuality and kindness.  Yes, I know its only 'pretend', but it seems
unhealthy to me to play-act at things which are anathema to your value 
system.
-- 
==Steve Watson: watson@sce.carleton.ca===Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario==
| The above is the output of a 7th-order Markovian analysis of all posts on   |
| this group for the past month.  Not only is it not Carleton's opinion, it's |
| not even *my* opinion: it's really just a mish-mash of all YOUR opinions!   |