Your sexual foundation

May 26, 2012

in Better Sex in 2012, Sexuality, Shared walk

Scroll © Ke77kz | Dreamstime.com

Seems legit …

“Given the propensity of human traditions to multiply and block the truth, it is important for believers to be sure that their practice of church is built on the correct foundation.” ~ Jon Zens

Jon was talking about how one “does church” there, but I think he states a basic truth we must remember when dealing with any subject – including sex. Have you ever thought about all the things you have been told the Bible says about sex? Have you ever gone to the effort to see if those things are actually in the Bible? Have you looked at the “proof texts” people give for sexual limits or “freedoms”, to see if that’s really what those verses mean?

I’ve spent a couple of decades checking what I was taught. I have done the same with the multitude of claims I get via email. I have concluded much of our “traditional” teachings about sex are at best distortions of what the Bible actually says.

If your sexuality is based on wrong teaching about what the Bible says about sex, then your married sex life is built on a bad foundation. Anything built on a bad foundation is going to have problems, so I strongly suggest a foundation check! What do you and your bride think the Bible says about sex? Can you support those ideas using proper application of scripture? If you read those verses without having been told what they mean, would you see in them what you have been told they say? Have you limited something more than God does? Have you allowed something God has limited? Maybe you have done some of each!

I’d be happy to discuss specific things in the comments, but I want to leave this open so you and your bride can study and learn together.

Links may be monetised
Image Credit: © Ke77kz | dreamstime.com

Shop to give links page

40 comments
Lover of God
Lover of God

As I see it, your only argument is that we're adding rules to what God does not specifically say. This is a faulty argument - He could not possibly address EVERY single issue on the earth and put it in the Bible to read. But He gives ALL the PRICIPLES for godly living, and I think that the sexual practices that you promote are not included in these principles guided by the balance between pure passion and self-control. These practices simpy are not in the Spirit of God's teaching on life and family, and not in the Spirit of Scripture's doctrines (as well as not in the LETTERS of the Scripture). And the argument that: It is not stated in the Bible is so POOR. I mean does the Bible talk about internet, oral contraceptives, drugs, smoking, abortion etc? Even so, Christians have developed a "godly biblical" view on these things also - did they not? How did they do it? The same principles and wisdom should have been applied when it comes to sex in marriage....

Lover of God
Lover of God

Yes, I've been thinking about your arguments ...for the last months actually. Problem is, regardless of the theologians and the preachers like Driscoll who agree, I cannot begin to understand how these arguments are solid for any Christian - like mastr,, oral, toys etc.... In my mind, they simply are human creative sinful games - until recent years, there was not such a thing as "sex shop", magazines, toys etc and I firmly believe people didn't have a problem with their sexuality within their marriage, especially Christians. And I assure you I am quite liberal wihin God's grace and don't count on miscinceptions and prejudices.

Lover of God
Lover of God

Are you serious? the size as a donkey? and the liquid of a horse? What literary forms are these - for sure they are far more exxagerated than reality if they indeed refer to sex (whici is more than questionable). Just out of curiosity, where exactly is Bible graphically sezual but not pornographic? What texts? What passages? Not that I find it helpful to continue arguing about it... Interesting: seems that any argument it is given to you, you simply remain in your position, do nor re-think it, do not adjust a little bit, nothing. I would say this is a receipe for disaster: you don't respond to rebuke, you don't think about others' arguments, you don't change and you don't readjsut anything. That's your choice.

Lover of God
Lover of God

You can find Driscoll's sermon on the internet. even so, pay attention to MacArthurs's arguments and Piper's in other theologians: the Bible does not give explicit imagery for such things, ever. God knows what's going on, and He tell things, but not in images that will stirr up lust and other things when someone reads the Bible. Also your argument about oral sex not being forbidden in Bible is poor.So is the case with smoking and drugs and so on - they are not explicitly forbidden in the Bible. So why do you christians forbid them? This goes the same logic with sex toys, oral sex and other practices that the Bible does not speak of.

Lover of God
Lover of God

Took a lot of time to get some online resources against some of your theology on sex, oral sex and other practices. See the above link of John MacArthur (discussing the sermon of Mark Driscoll on Sex and Song og songs). Maybe you will find not offensive what a theologian and scholar sees as inappopriate use of Scripture in order to support worldly practices in Christian marriage: http://media.sermonaudio.com/mediapdf/417091244255.pdf http://www.driscollcontroversy.com/?page_id=105

S
S

Wow what a long response!! Generous husband thank you for all you do to help husbands with there marriage! The advice you give on sexual issues is awesome and appreciated!!! As a wife with a great sex life I appreciate that my husband is in tune to what I need physically to achieve completion! I would hate to think he was legalistic on just piv because I couldn't get there that way! Do I feel like completion is an idol no I like to get there but sometimes I don't! I believe God have us that gift for a reason! Thank you for your willingness to take on hard topics like this keep it up God is using you greatly!!!!

The Generous Husband
The Generous Husband

E - You have become more and more offensive, so I am ending this. I do understand what you have said, but I reject it as you can provide no biblical support for what you would add to God's Word.

E
E

Yes, I agree that God designed marital intimacy to involve both intercourse and climax. The question remains: how the couple can do these both, and what are the acceptable methods to accomplish both of them? We know God wants them both (for He gave the specifics needed to reach both), the question is: what are His designed methods to reach both of them? As a saying goes: The goal doesn't justify the means. Blessings, it has been a pleasure to dialog. E

E
E

"What about the fact that repeated arousal without orgasm causes damage to a woman’s internal sex organs? Is it God’s will for them to have those problems? This is the result of teaching that it’s wrong to climax by hand or mouth, and it’s not a result that reflects the God I know". Hoe did you come to these informations and conclusions? Really, what kind of "medical sources" tell that they have damage on internal organs if they are aroused but don''t reach O? COME ON, Paul, use your ........This is a LIE - just check some sound research! This is the same the world says that if a man is virgin at ...30 or more he is damaged in his organs or even totally - this is the motif to be sexually active without anything else as a responsibility.

E
E

""This idea that PiV is the only acceptable way to have an orgasm is not biblical, and it’s a horrible sentence to pass on many women. "" Please explain why you think that. I have said that PiV is natural design from God. Why do you think God is suggesting there are OTHER ACCEPTABLe ways to have sex??? I hope for some biblical principles, for if you say ""we can do anything for O and work hard for that"I am sorry I find it only SELFISH and immature and hedonistic.

The Generous Husband
The Generous Husband

E - God did not "draw a line" here, which means lines in this area are things drawn by men. That leads to legalism as we add rules on top of rules. Given that Jesus condemned that, and those who did it, I find it something to avoid. You are very right that we are accountable to God for what we teach - and that includes teaching limits that He did not set. Jesus was far harder on the legalistic than those who may have expressed too much liberty. Both are wrong, but it seems God is more unhappy with the first. I think this is because legalism is far more destructive, and it restricts the move of the Holy Spirit - which is a big deal. You think I am too concerned about orgasm. I think a lot of Christians are too afraid of it. If it happens that's okay, but if you do much to make it happen, that's somehow wrong. This idea that PiV is the only acceptable way to have an orgasm is not biblical, and it's a horrible sentence to pass on many women. While I think most women can learn to climax from intercourse alone, some can't, and for some it will take years to learn. What's more, if a man has premature ejaculation (which is NOT something he can control, regardless of what some claim) then the chance of his wife climaxing during intercourse is almost zero. If PiV is the only "allowed" way to orgasm, many women will rarely or never climax. So they get aroused, then it's over, and they are supposed to be fine with that? They are supposed to ignore the frustration? What about the physical arousal - which can last for hours or even days for a woman? What about the fact that repeated arousal without orgasm causes damage to a woman's internal sex organs? Is it God's will for them to have those problems? This is the result of teaching that it's wrong to climax by hand or mouth, and it's not a result that reflects the God I know. The interesting thing is people want and enjoy intercourse even when it does not result in orgasm, or when they can have a "better orgasm" in some other way. Intercourse is more than any other sex act in many ways - including many that are not physical. Science has found that intercourse is more satisfying than any other kind of sex, and some of the health benefits of intercourse occur even without orgasm (by the same token, some of the health benefits come from having an orgasm, even without intercourse, so having both is the best). Some women who never have climaxed from PiV, and never expect to do so, still want intercourse regularly. They climax before or after in some other way, but don't feel fully satisfied without intercourse. They would also not feel satisfied with intercourse and no climax - they need BOTH. Fortunately these women, and their husbands, understand that God has not forbidden, or even frowned on, doing both. All of this is why I would have concerns for a couple who have no interest in intercourse. If neither of them has pain during intercourse, they don't avoid intercourse to avoid pregnancy, and there is no fear issue from some past abuse, then they should desire to have intercourse. If they should desire it, and one of both does not, then by definition there is something wrong.

The Generous Husband
The Generous Husband

E - Clearly we are not going to agree here A few points to wrap it up for me. Whether or not SoS mentions oral sex or not is not really importnat. The fact is there is absolutely no biblical prohibition of the act - at least not if you stick to good hermeneutics. So, calling it sin, or even wrong, is adding to the rules - the very thing for which Jesus condemned the Pharisees. Given that God told us to avoid sex with animals, something very obvious to me, I can't understand why He would not mention oral sex if, in fact, He didn't want us to do it. God does not hide the truth, He tells us what is right and wrong. You keep talking about the "natural design of sex" but you can't give me a definition, much less any scriptural backing. As far as I can tell, it's build on circular reasoning. The reason people tend towards PiV sex is that it is the most enjoyable emotionally, mentally, relationally and physically. God made it that way, and science has proven it's true. But this in no way precludes other forms of stimulation for foreplay or to climax. I think a couple who have little or no interest in PiV have issues they need to deal with, but that's another issue. Dillow never said anything that can be interpreted "agreeing with" anal sex. She advises against it for medical reasons, but won't call it sin since the Bible does not (we should take great care in adding to what the Word says). I could cite many other sources, but I suspect anyone who does not agree with what you think won't be seen as unbiased or "sound biblical commentary" in your eyes. That something about sex is uncommon in Christian literature does not mean as much as you might think. Frankly there has been a huge fear of sex in the church, and especially in Christian publishing. I know several authors who fought and lost battles with their publisher on things they wanted to say about sex. What makes it to print is filtered, although that is becoming less true now that one can self publish more easily.

E
E

So that you don't take my word on this interpretation - see for example NEW BIBLE COMMENTARY edited by Wenham, Motyer, DA Carson, France (1994, 2010 etc) and any other sound biblical commentary that is edited by prestigious societies - they do have Song interpreted literally but in the passages mentioned it is explained it has not to do with oral sex. I have commented before checking this, but they present similar explanations as mine - it must be common sense, knowing the heart of God in the matter and just plain literary analysis of the text since I am not a theologian nor a scholar (nor Hebrew/Greek professor) as the editors are. Regarding your question, I agree - everyone is free to choose its behavior in bed - if anyone wants to kiss some intimate parts (such as genitals and butt) so be it. The perspective changes depending on the definition of sex: if sex is all about orgasm, then anything that helps that would be ok. If sex means intimacy through intercourse/penetration, then any kind of stimulation is a foreplay, a prelude to the actual penetration and would have a secondary role. But I am guessing that people who are that much preoccupied with orgasm as in practicing all kinds of things (mutual masturbation, orgasmic massage, sex toys) make an idol out of pleasure and orgasm. A question to think about: if orgasm is the climax and goal of sexual marital experience, why would a couple do anything else except mutual masturbation, oral sex, and use sex toys to orgasm, and really have penetration sex only when they want to conceive - meaning only several times in a lifetime? Why would they still have penetration sex? They can orgasm only with their hands or mouths or toys....so why have penetration sex? Why would they feel the deepest intimacy through penetration's way ? I know it is because it is the design of God for sex - it is even an anatomical form in which they feel and are indeed connected and fit as a one flesh unit. So, maybe these principles would ease our spiritual discernment regarding all kinds of sexual practices within Christian marriage.

E
E

Maybe you can quote some scholar sources for the fruit as genitals. I have studied also this, I haven't found that explanation! What would have had Jesus in mind when He said the tree is known by its fruits, as also the man is known by the same? Even if ""fruit"" would be a general accepted metaphor in that time of history, the CONTEXT is the most important in the text and as I explained, the context is clear - there is an allusion to losing virginity and both man and woman are compared to vegetal items. It cannot go any further by common sense and by correct interpretation. To be sincere, except for you, the bloggers that advocate ""Christian marriage sexuality"" I have never heard of the Song interpreted literally to mean it claims oral sex! As for natural - read again what I said. I haven't referred to natural law, but to the NATURAL DESIGN for sex coming from God. Anything that disturbs, counterfeit or significantly furthers from this is wrong and disturbing and ultimately is called SIN. The sexual act is designed by God to be penetration into vagina, period. Maybe some oral stimulation can be done if both agree but to ejaculate in the mouth is against the design of sex, period - it's a distortion of it. As for biology, maybe you can quote some studies about animals using oral stimulation! I am a scientist and I have known only of smelling the genitals (and using the pheromones) for pairing animals. Maybe some even lick themselves and one another, but certainly the sexual act doesn't consist of that: because they penetrate and fecundate the female so the species perpetuates. So even the animals don't use these perverted acts as oral sex. But even if they were, we are not animals, we are created in God's image, so we should have the highest standards as His children. Again, I am asking you: is not enough for you the design of God for sex through penetration? Do you feel the need to add oral sex, masturbation, sex toys etc to feel more? Ask yourself why, and ask yourself how do all these honor God who created sex? To me, you don't get ""enough"" by the natural design of sex with penetration and you, folks, are too preoccupied with only the orgasm, which I would say it's almost an IDOL even among Christians (for some it is indeed an idol and a master).

E
E

Verify the biblical foundations? Let's look at oral sex in SOng - the only place where it could be claimed. SS 2:3 and 4:12,16 First passage: the context - like an apple tree is her man among the young men; she delights to sit in his shade and his fruit is sweet to her taste. This is all metaphorical, for a man is not a tree, one cannot stand in the shade of one man and a person doesn't have fruits (not the reproduction cells). So, there isn\t much about oral sex here, is it? The second passage: his virgin bride is compared to a locked garden because of her virginity; she has many qualities as the spices he mentions, but they are all locked because she is virgin; she wants him to enter his garden and taste its fruits - the metaphorical image of losing her virginity with her groom. Again, what is it to say about oral? How could one see these texts as speaking of fruits as oral genital stimulation? The main argument against oral sex is it is UNNATURAL - not in the same way a condom is unnatural. A condom is still used during vaginal penetration so remains in the natural God's design for sex. But ejaculating in another organ than vagina or during night = releases (for virgin males) IS UNNATURAL. So I would say: Christian spouses, there is so much beauty and excitement IN the NATURAL design of God for sex - you don't need oral, or sex toys or mutual masturbation for the sake of simply orgasm. There is so much more to that.

Love Letters
Love Letters

He wants oral sex to be something they share together. She wants nothing to do with it. The bible does not speak against it, may even refer to it. She thinks he's demanding her to do things she is uncomfortable with. He thinks she has unilaterally decided to limit their intimacy. Both are looking for biblical truth in the situation and feel they have found justification for their position. The practical application is?

Previous post:

Next post: