Hey, look! It’s a Christian perspective on masturbation that stands in stark contrast to that of Every Young Man’s Battle.
God made our bodies, so if we think our bodies are dirty and shameful, we are shunning God’s divine creation. And if we masturbate with shame and feelings of sinfulness, we are besmirching God’s blessing. Instead, we should celebrate our bodies and our sexual nature, and rejoice in the pleasure and satisfaction that they can bring us through masturbation. [Full article]
Hmm, nothing in there about masturbation creating “distance from God” or causing your college girlfriend to have an abortion.
I wonder about some of the things on the Sex In Christ web site - why is it okay to have a threesome with two women, but not with two men? - but overall it’s a breath of fresh air when compared to the hellfire and damnation approach taken by many religious folks.
(Via Bitch | Lab)
See also my Every Young Man’s Battle book reviews.
READ ME: Disclaimer
13 Responses to "Sex-positive Christians?"
I would use that extremely loosely when talking about that website — not even “different denomenation” or “differing views” fully capture the departure they take from scripture while purporting to identify scripture supporting their viewpoints. How far removed does something have to be before it is no longer that thing in any way?
Russ, do you disagree with the excerpt about masturbation I posted above? (It would be pointless to ask “Do you disagree with the site,” because there are so many different things on it. I agree with some of it and disagree with other parts.)
I definitely agree with this:
The rest is dicey, though. There are warnings against lust (among other things) in the hearts of humans, so under that requirement I guess masturbation would be difficult to rationalize (hard to jack-off without some sort of “lusting” going on). That said, we (me and the missus) masturbate and don’t feel particularly guilty about it. If it got to the point that I was neglecting Bly, then it would be a major problem, but I say all things in moderation! Sometimes you just gotta take matters into your own hands.
What prompted my first comment was the index page that discusses anal sex — I mean, it’s one thing to argue that anal sex is ok, it’s another to argue that it’s ok before marriage, and it’s quite another to argue that it’s ok before marriage and condoned by scripture. The passages about “come against me,” “follow after me,” and the virgins bowing their heads to the ground are laughable as citations.
And I agree that it’s a little weird that they view MFF threesomes as great, but not MMF threesomes. It comes across as, “This is something I want to do so it’s ok. The other is icky, so bad.”
I dunno, this is far less removed than, say, Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell.
And really, what is up with these silly rules:
Um, ok. Sure, I guess that kind of jibes with Leviticus and Paul but…
So, what exactly is “masculine behavior” in the bedroom? Pegging? Woman-on-top? Being assertive in bed? Doing more than lying back and “thinking of england?” C’mon, we need details here, people! How am I supposed to entice good christian girls into threesomes if I don’t have some specifics!
Wow. Consent. That kinda implies…free will! Fascinating.
People talking, making decisions as informed adults and doing what they want! Amazing.
All in all the site is almost over the top and feels a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I do love the effort they took in manipulating the scriptures to suit their purposes which, from this Jewish-Pagan’s point of view is no different from the mental gymanstics of the various protestant denominations that allow divorce or prohibit alcohol or the Catholic worship of Mary.
Yeah, some of it was kind of silly and arbitary - but that’s religion for you, no matter what brand. The “virgins bowing their heads” thing really madae me guffaw.
The thing about threesomes was the weirdest part to me… no doubt about it, the issue here is clearly what Russ pointed out: someone hasn’t gotten over their personal “ick” factor at the though of a MMF threesome, so that’s forbidden; but they think a MFF threesome would be kinda hot, so that’s allowed. But with a bunch of gender-role specific regulations attached, so as not to seem too eager about it.
The “masculine appearance or behavior” thing was particularly retarded. What does that mean?
What’s this about the husband “controlling his fantasies” about the other woman? Umm… they are having a threesome, what is the point if he’s supposed to keep his lust under wraps? Shouldn’t that be a non-issue at this point? “Oh, I’ll go to bed with you and your wife - but you’d better not think dirty thoughts about me!” WTF.
And am I the only one who got the feeling that whoever wrote this got a special feeling down there every time he typed “lesbian sex partner”?
Amber, I think somewhere, Jerry Falwell is reading this, getting a blow job, and blaming the gays for your blasphemous endorsement of such an idea. Crazy? Yes. Crazy? YES!
Historically, the physical affection between women has been regarded as permissible if it took on an overt sexual tone, and I think that in Puritan New England, while not legally permitted, such relationships were socially sanctioned in that many “looked the other way” when everyone knew what was occurring. I cannot, though, remember where I got this cite.
Still, most of the biblical problems associated with gay conduct is typically associated with male sexual activity, and not the female. Given the Hellenistic context of the New Testament, the interplay of passive/active and feminine/masculine in the sexual morality of the early Christian writings are not the same for how we tend to think of what matters morally for sex. There just isn’t a moral valuation of notions of receptivity or passivity anymore. In this sense, what it means to be masculine for us is different, if not highly inconsistent, from what it meant in the New Testament. So, to draw proof texts on the basis of the masculinity or femininity of something for support or condemnation is not as immediately legitimate as we think.
So, I think that there is some traditional evidence for permitting sexually lesbian relationships in the Christian church, but any continuity between our sense of the masculine and that of the early Christian church is very thin.
Indeed. But surely you know why, right? Because historically all those Christian societies have been patriarchal (note: not “The Patriarchy”) in nature. Men ran the show, and men are men are men - most of ‘em think two chicks getting down is hot, and I say awesome to that. Also, a lot of ‘em have a personal ick factor when it comes to male homosexuality (which is lame, but whatever). Sooo… makes sense, then, that overt sexual relationships between women are a-okay (and even encouraged) but two dudes getting it on means HELLFIRE AND DAMNATION. And maybe death by stoning.
As Duane would say, I’m just saying.
The early Christian church was born within a dominant culture that regarded sexual acts between males as permissible when the dominant male had a superior social standing over the receptive male, who was usually much younger and not yet considered an adult. For the most part, adult men who received a sexual act from another man were socially ostracized for their reception. The ick factor is not just two men having sex, but the way in which a man allows himself to be in the passive position receiving a display of power. But receptivity is not as problematic for women, given their biological structure, so for a woman to occupy the place of the receiver it is not so socially disturbing. I don’t think lesbian sexual acts were regarded as “hot” as they are now, given the distaste for things considered weak.
That’s a lot like ancient Roman culture. Cari wrote a paper about it in college and got (if I remember correctly) an A+.
Right, that’s the culture that Christianity was born into.
I did. Originally it was just a piece of erotic man on man fiction I was writing, but I was like, ‘hey, this is kinda like that Roman class I’m taking’, so I turned it in. I think it just really appealed to my professor for some reason.
Yes, I am familiar with the history of Christianity.
So, Cari gets an A+ on a paper about hot man-on-man oral action. The only A+ I ever got on a paper in college was on the etymology of ‘fuck.’ Hmmm… do I see a pattern emerging?