Seven Days of Sex... Woo Hoo!! :)

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Neck

************************************************** *

Is an act between a husband and wife wrong?

If the motive is wrong the act is wrong.

regardless of the act.

Sexual expression is an outward expression of the respect and desire you have for your spouse.

A spouse really knows what is acceptable to their partner.

Regardless of the spoken acceptance of an act.

Here is the answer to all the questions for this whole thread.

[aak1972]

Originally Posted by Neck

************************************************** *

Is an act between a husband and wife wrong?

If the motive is wrong the act is wrong.

regardless of the act.

Sexual expression is an outward expression of the respect and desire you have for your spouse.

A spouse really knows what is acceptable to their partner.

Regardless of the spoken acceptance of an act.

My question is this and its only question. Do you believe sodomy is a sin? And if you do which definition are you going by? Some on here believe sodomy is an act between same sex and/or unmarrieds. If that is the case why mention sodomy as a sin woulndt it be covered under homosexuality fornication and adultry. If its the websters definition well then OS AS and bestiality is a sin. People keep saying as long as it is agreed between husband and wife then its ok. Where is the line of sin drawn between married couples? Acts, positions, objects, or other people?

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

I don't doubt there is some medical aspects to AS, however I was unable to find anything confirming the 60% higher chance of cancer. I wouldn't take that as pure fact until it's validated by somewhere.

Even if the 60% number is hard to verify, there's no doubt that the medcial community has established that there is a definite link between this kind of activity and the rise of anal and colorectal cancers being seen in America. A quick Google search brings up an abundance or articles on it, such as this one:

Anal Cancer On The Increase
...Other risk factors associated with increased anal-cancer risk included gay or bisexual orientation among men, a high number of lifetime sexual partners and a history of receptive anal sex. The study also suggested that the overall increase in anal cancer rates might be partially attributable to an increase in the average number of lifetime sexual partners and an increase in the number of people engaging in anal sex, particularly among women.

http://www.aphroditewomenshealth.com...lth_news.shtml

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by Rhoni

Truthseeker is posting, as we all do, from our point of reference; how we were raised in our family of origin, the teachings we got throught the church, the ideas of friends, and our past and present relationships.

The Bible tells us the marriage bed is undefiled, and it has already been said that our spouse's body was given to us for our pleasure/mutual pleasure. This is why it is very important to discuss these things during the pre-marital stage.

There was one of my internships that all I did was counsel married couples in a fundamentalist pentecostal church and the ideas of what was appropriate in the marital bed was as diverse as the couples themselves.

Again, I will say that ANYTHING [act of sexuality] between a married [male and female couple] that is mutually agreed upon, that both enjoy and no one is hurt mentally, physically, or emotionally is within their Biblical right. There is an exclusion: watching pornography of others in the act is wrong and is not part of the sexual act of the married couple. This includes bringing other people into the marriage bed agreed upon or not...this is sin; adultry, fornication, and is not part of a pure Biblical relationship.

Blessings,
Rhoni

P.S. Thank you George. And I agree that those of us who are not married but have been, are just as much an adult and within our rights to discuss these issues.

Rhoni,

A minister gave me a book almost a year ago that illustrated how biblical sexual ethics aren’t as cut and dry as our Puritanical culture in America assumes. It goes into detail about various things that the Bible describes as acceptable that today we’d condemn.

We often forget that the Bible is Eastern literature. For example in the Song of Solomon we see the Shulamite dancing before her kinsman. She dances an erotic dance and they are reveling in her beauty. When she leaves, they desire her to come back that they might see her “navel”, a euphemism for her, “womanhood”. She isn’t condemned for the entertaining of her kinsman as she is passionately expressing her erotic feelings. If the Song was put to film, it would not be Rated – PG. In fact, it’s rather explicit literature by itself. So one could argue that a measure of erotic entertainment allowable. The issue brought to my attention was that a form of entertainment between husband and wife shouldn’t depict sinful activity or promote sinful activity, but rather normal and permissible activity.

Fornication, according to this study, is actually a very broad category that includes all prohibited activities: rape, child abuse, adultery, harlotry, sodomy, and bestiality.

Rape needs no explanation, it is when one uses force to take another.

Child abuse needs no explaination.

Adultery is viewed as a breach of the marriage contract and was typically only leveled upon a woman, but Jesus and Paul put both husband and wife on equal footing. When either has, “relations”, with another who is married adultery is committed. For example, David sought the attention of Uriah’s wife. She didn’t belong to David, she belonged to Uriah. Uriah didn’t offer her to the king to wife, therefore David committed adultery. However, if one’s spouse was aware and agreeable another partner was allowable to wife, as in the case with Abraham and Sarah and Sarah’s giving Hagar, her unmarried handmaid, to Abraham to wife. Abraham didn’t commit adultery but David did. Concubines were essentially mistresses that served the husband in a committed relationship within the auspices of the first wife. None of this was condemned, however the mistreatment of any wife or concubine was.

That brings up the subject of polygamy. Polygamy isn’t condemned in Scripture and was in fact commanded in some instances. Jesus and Paul encouraged monogamy. However there is disagreement among many scholars as to why. Most believe that Jesus and Paul essentially codified monogamy into the Christian faith by divine revelation. Others point out that Rome had already condemned polygamy and believe that Jesus and Paul were simply teaching about marriage within the context of Roman culture. Jesus and Paul therefore wouldn’t address marriage in any other context than monogamy. What may be valuable to note is that neither Jesus nor Paul condemn any Old Testament personality who engaged in polygamous relationships. In fact the majority of those mentioned by Paul in the Hall of Faith passage of Hebrews were polygamous and Paul states that they were workers of righteousness. This implies that Paul didn’t believe polygamy was a sin though marriage in Rome was strictly monogamous. From this some say that the Christian position is simple; recognize and obey the laws of your society in relation to marriage just as Jesus and Paul did.

Harlotry was essentially promiscuity, especially prostitution.

Sodomy was the temple prostitution performed primarily by males with other males and was strongly condemned, especially in relation to the worship of Yahweh. Most extend this condemnation to any form of same gender relations.

Bestiality was any relation with an animal.

The point of the book was that intimacy from a biblical perspective isn’t as puritanical as American culture would have us assume.

I asked the minister who gave the book to me if he believed what this book said and he told me that our love life is strictly between me and my wife, and that as long as we didn’t defraud or offend one another’s needs or sensibilities it was strictly our business.

[rgcraig]

I'm putting my admin hat on for this post, but staying me so everyone knows who's saying it.

Some are offended by this thread.
Some are interested in this thread.

Some of the admins are offended by this thread.
Some of the admins feel talking about this is helpful.

Just wanted to make this public so that everyone understands.

It is controversial.

[ILG]

I think polygamy was convenient for men. God gave Adam one wife, Eve. There are many strange things in the Old Testament. We could find lots and lots of scriptures to quote showing that. My sensibilities tell me flatly that God was right to give Adam one wife and that Jesus and Paul were right to elevate women the way they did. I have read a number of books on Mormonism whose religion is pretty much based on polygamous ideas. Lots of depression and abuse results.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Antipas

Rhoni,

A minister gave me a book almost a year ago that illustrated how biblical sexual ethics aren’t as cut and dry as our Puritanical culture in America assumes. It goes into detail about various things that the Bible describes as acceptable that today we’d condemn.

We often forget that the Bible is Eastern literature. For example in the Song of Solomon we see the Shulamite dancing before her kinsman. She dances an erotic dance and they are reveling in her beauty. When she leaves, they desire her to come back that they might see her “navel”, a euphemism for her, “womanhood”. She isn’t condemned for the entertaining of her kinsman as she is passionately expressing her erotic feelings. If the Song was put to film, it would not be Rated – PG. In fact, it’s rather explicit literature by itself. So one could argue that a measure of erotic entertainment allowable. The issue brought to my attention was that a form of entertainment between husband and wife shouldn’t depict sinful activity or promote sinful activity, but rather normal and permissible activity.

Fornication, according to this study, is actually a very broad category that includes all prohibited activities: rape, child abuse, adultery, harlotry, sodomy, and bestiality.

Rape needs no explanation, it is when one uses force to take another.

Child abuse needs no explaination.

Adultery is viewed as a breach of the marriage contract and was typically only leveled upon a woman, but Jesus and Paul put both husband and wife on equal footing. When either has, “relations”, with another who is married adultery is committed. For example, David sought the attention of Uriah’s wife. She didn’t belong to David, she belonged to Uriah. Uriah didn’t offer her to the king to wife, therefore David committed adultery. However, if one’s spouse was aware and agreeable another partner was allowable to wife, as in the case with Abraham and Sarah and Sarah’s giving Hagar, her unmarried handmaid, to Abraham to wife. Abraham didn’t commit adultery but David did. Concubines were essentially mistresses that served the husband in a committed relationship within the auspices of the first wife. None of this was condemned, however the mistreatment of any wife or concubine was.

That brings up the subject of polygamy. Polygamy isn’t condemned in Scripture and was in fact commanded in some instances. Jesus and Paul encouraged monogamy. However there is disagreement among many scholars as to why. Most believe that Jesus and Paul essentially codified monogamy into the Christian faith by divine revelation. Others point out that Rome had already condemned polygamy and believe that Jesus and Paul were simply teaching about marriage within the context of Roman culture. Jesus and Paul therefore wouldn’t address marriage in any other context than monogamy. What may be valuable to note is that neither Jesus nor Paul condemn any Old Testament personality who engaged in polygamous relationships. In fact the majority of those mentioned by Paul in the Hall of Faith passage of Hebrews were polygamous and Paul states that they were workers of righteousness. This implies that Paul didn’t believe polygamy was a sin though marriage in Rome was strictly monogamous. From this some say that the Christian position is simple; recognize and obey the laws of your society in relation to marriage just as Jesus and Paul did.

Harlotry was essentially promiscuity, especially prostitution.

Sodomy was the temple prostitution performed primarily by males with other males and was strongly condemned, especially in relation to the worship of Yahweh. Most extend this condemnation to any form of same gender relations.

Bestiality was any relation with an animal.

The point of the book was that intimacy from a biblical perspective isn’t as puritanical as American culture would have us assume.

I asked the minister who gave the book to me if he believed what this book said and he told me that our love life is strictly between me and my wife, and that as long as we didn’t defraud or offend one another’s needs or sensibilities it was strictly our business.

Very informational and does give you another perspective on the subject.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

I'm putting my admin hat on for this post, but staying me so everyone knows who's saying it.

Some are offended by this thread.
Some are interested in this thread.

Some of the admins are offended by this thread.
Some of the admins feel talking about this is helpful.

Just wanted to make this public so that everyone understands.

It is controversial.

I very much like what Neck is writing. It is appropriate. It is good. It is written by a man. Very, very good and appropriate. I think women might abstain from commenting on what is and is not technically appropriate. The reason for the double standard should be obvious. I haven't always done so in years gone by but I am seeing the wisdom for it.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Setting aside the strict moral/scriptural aspect for a moment....a 60% increased chance of colorectal cancer is a significant risk. Since our body is the temple of God (1 Cor 3:16), it is our responsibility to maintain it properly and not do things to endanger our health and our lives. Indeed, scripture also says a man should love his wife as his own flesh.. [Eph 5:28-29]... so he should always be looking out for her well being, physically and spritually.

In light of this it might be fair to ask : Why would a woman want to engage in this activity if she knows it increases her cancer risk by this much [endangering the well-being of God's temple]? And why would a man want to increase the risk of his wife getting colorectal cancer by doing this, simply for the sake of "spicing up" their relationship?

Some might debate the A.S. issue on moral/scriptural grounds, but I think the medical aspect of this is something to consider also.

Yes, it is a medical issue for me. I am also very low pain tolerant, so that is also a factor.

I'm not judging what other people want to engage in. I hope I haven't come across that way. I hope I haven't.

You cited one of my posts with me saying that my husband is a gentleman and wouldn't consider doing something like that to me. It apparently looks as though I think those that do otherwise are not gentlemen. I didn't mean for it to come across in that way. I apologize to any men I have offended.

As I wasn't raised in church and don't need to go into any detail - I've always believed that I must take care of myself - first and foremost. I know that when women are in love they want to please their men in every way. I'm quite possibly sure I couldn't love someone that much. Just saying.......

[Rhoni]

Originally Posted by Antipas

Rhoni,

A minister gave me a book almost a year ago that illustrated how biblical sexual ethics aren’t as cut and dry as our Puritanical culture in America assumes. It goes into detail about various things that the Bible describes as acceptable that today we’d condemn.

We often forget that the Bible is Eastern literature. For example in the Song of Solomon we see the Shulamite dancing before her kinsman. She dances an erotic dance and they are reveling in her beauty. When she leaves, they desire her to come back that they might see her “navel”, a euphemism for her, “womanhood”. She isn’t condemned for the entertaining of her kinsman as she is passionately expressing her erotic feelings. If the Song was put to film, it would not be Rated – PG. In fact, it’s rather explicit literature by itself. So one could argue that a measure of erotic entertainment allowable. The issue brought to my attention was that a form of entertainment between husband and wife shouldn’t depict sinful activity or promote sinful activity, but rather normal and permissible activity.

Fornication, according to this study, is actually a very broad category that includes all prohibited activities: rape, child abuse, adultery, harlotry, sodomy, and bestiality.

Rape needs no explanation, it is when one uses force to take another.

Child abuse needs no explaination.

Adultery is viewed as a breach of the marriage contract and was typically only leveled upon a woman, but Jesus and Paul put both husband and wife on equal footing. When either has, “relations”, with another who is married adultery is committed. For example, David sought the attention of Uriah’s wife. She didn’t belong to David, she belonged to Uriah. Uriah didn’t offer her to the king to wife, therefore David committed adultery. However, if one’s spouse was aware and agreeable another partner was allowable to wife, as in the case with Abraham and Sarah and Sarah’s giving Hagar, her unmarried handmaid, to Abraham to wife. Abraham didn’t commit adultery but David did. Concubines were essentially mistresses that served the husband in a committed relationship within the auspices of the first wife. None of this was condemned, however the mistreatment of any wife or concubine was.

That brings up the subject of polygamy. Polygamy isn’t condemned in Scripture and was in fact commanded in some instances. Jesus and Paul encouraged monogamy. However there is disagreement among many scholars as to why. Most believe that Jesus and Paul essentially codified monogamy into the Christian faith by divine revelation. Others point out that Rome had already condemned polygamy and believe that Jesus and Paul were simply teaching about marriage within the context of Roman culture. Jesus and Paul therefore wouldn’t address marriage in any other context than monogamy. What may be valuable to note is that neither Jesus nor Paul condemn any Old Testament personality who engaged in polygamous relationships. In fact the majority of those mentioned by Paul in the Hall of Faith passage of Hebrews were polygamous and Paul states that they were workers of righteousness. This implies that Paul didn’t believe polygamy was a sin though marriage in Rome was strictly monogamous. From this some say that the Christian position is simple; recognize and obey the laws of your society in relation to marriage just as Jesus and Paul did.

Harlotry was essentially promiscuity, especially prostitution.

Sodomy was the temple prostitution performed primarily by males with other males and was strongly condemned, especially in relation to the worship of Yahweh. Most extend this condemnation to any form of same gender relations.

Bestiality was any relation with an animal.

The point of the book was that intimacy from a biblical perspective isn’t as puritanical as American culture would have us assume.

I asked the minister who gave the book to me if he believed what this book said and he told me that our love life is strictly between me and my wife, and that as long as we didn’t defraud or offend one another’s needs or sensibilities it was strictly our business.

Antipas - Excellent post. For some reason the American culture itself is more puritanical than other countries but in the church our views are so filled with false teaching on this very important subject.

I have heard that it is a sin to french kiss, even for married persons. That oral sex is an abomination, and that anal sex is also an abomination and only practiced among male homeosexuals. Then you have the intercourse/sexual act as only being for bearing children which means if you can't have children, or have had all you want then you just stop having sex.

I have a comical example for you:
As a Social Service Director in a Nursing home, I led a group called "nostalgia". The elderly people described the changes from "their time" to current time. Of course the issue of sexuaility came up and one lady said she and her husband had tried for several years to conceive but to no avail. They adopted a son, who was in his late 40's at the time, and she said they stopped having sex at that time. The funny thing was that her husband was also in the nursing home but they did not stay in the same room because she didn't want him to "bother' her that way. He was always pushing other female's wheelchairs around and trying to go into other women's rooms. Poor guy had been denied sex for the better part of 40 years. And some of you think your life is so bad when you only get it 2-3 times per week.

Blessings, Rhoni