Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

God Says You Can't Have Sex Before Marriage, But Anal Sex Is Okay
I found a hilarious website that finds justification for everything from backdoor fun to threesomes in the Bible. Here's why "abstinence only" means everything but the cooter for the fundies, from Sex In Christ:

“If you’re going to have anal sex, why not just have regular sex?”

This is a good question: If you’re going to have sexual contact before marriage, why not just go the whole nine yards and have regular sex? There are many good reasons for having anal sex instead. The first reason is practical: having conventional vaginal intercourse can lead to unwanted pregnancies. While it’s true that the Lord bade us to “be fruitful and multiply,” (Gen 1:22) the Bible also counsels that “For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven.” (Ecl. 3:1) Pregnancy outside of wedlock can have dire and life-altering consequences for all those involved. Having anal sex allows you to greatly reduce this risk.

Second, for a young woman who has never engaged in sexual intercourse, having anal sex allows her to preserve her virginity (i.e., maintain an intact hymen) until marriage. There is no greater gift that a bride can give than to offer her pure, unsullied maidenhead to her husband on their wedding night.

Finally, anal sex allows both partners to save the most intimate and powerful sexual act, that of face-to-face vaginal intercourse, for their mates in marriage. This type of sexual relationship represents the most powerful union between a man and a woman, and so it rightfully should be reserved for one’s life partner. Fortunately, you can engage in anal sex prior to marriage and still be able to share the deeper, more meaningful act of consecrated love through vaginal intercourse with your wedded spouse.

Next issue? "Threesomes Within A Christian Marriage." And yes, good to go!...as long as it's only the wife having lesbian sex with the third person, and the husband isn't getting it on with one of those "straight" men Lena enjoys from time to time. Oh yeah, and the lesbian had better not be too butch! Here you have it, from the website:

Playing by God’s Rules

If, on the other hand, a married couple feels their relationship would benefit from them establishing a loving involvement another woman, out of respect for the couple’s marriage, and out of respect for any marital attachments of the other woman, they must abide by certain limits and conditions:

(1) To avoid the impropriety of male homosexuality, a heterosexual couple should not under any circumstances form a threesome with another man.
(2) Both women involved in the threesome must be willing to keep within traditional female roles (i.e., not taking on masculine appearance or behavior in or out of the bedroom) and recognize the male as the leader in the relationship.
(3) If the wife’s lesbian sex partner is unmarried, it may be permissible for the husband to have relations with her only with his wife’s consent.
(4) If the wife’s lesbian sex partner is unmarried, but the wife does not wish her to have relations with the other woman, the husband should respect this.
(5) If the wife’s lesbian sex partner is married, her husband must not have objections to the relationship.
(6) If the wife’s lesbian sex partner is married, the husband should refrain from having any sexual relations with her, and should make every effort to control his fantasies about her. He should concentrate his attention on his own wife.

The latter case is the most difficult for the husband, since he must not only refrain from having relations with the other married woman, in order to avoid making them both adulterers, but he must also refrain from having lustful thoughts about her, because of what Matthew 5:28 tells us: “But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” In this situation it is recommended that in order to avoid temptation, both the husband and his wife’s female partner focus their attentions and affection on the wife. If the husband finds it difficult to control his thoughts and fantasies about the other woman, it may be helpful to realize the meaning of this passage, which is that if you commit an act in your thoughts, it’s the same as committing it in real life. If a man imagines having intercourse with a married woman, then indeed, he has committed adultery in his heart. Instead, we would counsel this man to imagine that same married woman having sex with his wife; by taking himself out of the picture, he renders himself blameless. When in doubt, a married man would do well to apply this same principle in any situation involving a threesome with his wife and another woman.

To summarize, we feel a Christian threesome is morally acceptable if it meets these conditions: It must be composed of one man and two women, all of whom recognize and maintain proper sex roles for men and women in and out of the bedroom. All married members of the threesome must consent to the arrangement and have consent from their spouses. And finally, the purpose of the relationship must be that it ultimately strengthens the existing bond between husband and wife and allows all three parties to share and celebrate their love of God together.

Well, if they're doing it right, I'm sure somebody will be screaming, "Oh, God! Oh, God!"

Posted by aalkon at July 7, 2007 9:16 AM

Comments

Seems to me a man could be brought into the threesome, as long as he only had anal sex with the wife...

Posted by: doombuggy at July 7, 2007 6:46 AM

This sounds more like it came from Landover Baptist. Amazing.

Posted by: GirlAtheist at July 7, 2007 7:06 AM

I am 99% sure sexinchrist.com is a parody site, but for extra laughs, here is a site that considers the first site to be serious:

http://www.islam-planet.com/anal_sex_is_ok_in_bible.htm

Um, for uh, a friend, I want to know how the Bible feels about sex with furries.

http://www.google.com/search?q=furries

Posted by: jerry at July 7, 2007 10:17 AM

Sounds like parody to me, too. Or else a clever Christian recruiting tool. How many men would be in favor of relationships where anal sex and threesomes with another woman were sanctified?

Posted by: justin case at July 7, 2007 11:38 AM

TO: Amy Alkon
RE: Ignorance....

....is 'bliss'....

....until the tread meets the proverbial pavement.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Read any Good Book lately?]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 7, 2007 11:43 AM

TO: Justin Case
RE: How Many?

"How many men would be in favor of relationships where anal sex and threesomes with another woman were sanctified?" -- Justin Case

Probably not very many of the REAL christian sort.

Lots of others, I'm certain of that.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[One woman is enough for any man. Provided it's the RIGHT woman. See Proverbs 31 for details.]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 7, 2007 11:45 AM

Lots of others, I'm certain of that.

Me, too. I'm also betting that more than a few religious types would be down with it as well. There's a very interesting chapter on adultery in Dan Savage's Skipping towards Gomorrah; a swinging couple he profiles are very religiously observant (Jewish, not Christian, but I think the moral foundations of both are pretty much the same).

Posted by: justin case at July 7, 2007 12:26 PM

TO: Justin Case
RE: Lots & Lots of Em

"I'm also betting that more than a few religious types would be down with it as well." -- Justin Case

True. But the real challenge, from the casual observers perspective would be, "Are they REALLY following their religious belief precepts?"

In the instance we're talking about here....it ain't happening.


"There's a very interesting chapter on adultery in Dan Savage's Skipping towards Gomorrah; a swinging couple he profiles are very religiously observant (Jewish, not Christian, but I think the moral foundations of both are pretty much the same)." -- Justin Case

Adultery is wrong in both religions. So is 'fornication'.

The base principle is one of selfishness.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Selfish: Devoid of consideration for the selfishness of others.]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 7, 2007 12:58 PM

Chuckle,
I was mostly having fun with the adultery bit. I know that's pretty much our under orthodox interpretations of the decalogue. But does Christianity forbid anal sex between a married couple? How about fellatio or cunnilingus, or sex toys?

Posted by: justin case at July 7, 2007 3:00 PM

TO: justin case
RE: Forbidden 'Fruits'

"But does Christianity forbid anal sex between a married couple? How about fellatio or cunnilingus, or sex toys?" -- justin case

When is the last time you ACTUALLY read that Book?

If you'd read it, you'd likely know the answer to your questions already.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[There is none so blind as they who will not 'read'.]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 7, 2007 3:06 PM

Nonresponsive!

Ask him about threesomes and kink next.

Posted by: Crid at July 7, 2007 3:18 PM

When is the last time you ACTUALLY read that Book

It's been a while. It's really long, you know. And confusing. Contradicts itself a bunch, too. That's why I'm checking with someone who seems to know it better.

Nonresponsive!

Word!

Ask him about threesomes and kink next.

Will I be damned if I tie up my wife while the gimp watches?

Posted by: justin case at July 7, 2007 3:22 PM

This makes it pretty clear that it is wrong to fornicate in any way, and that threesomes are not acceptable. Having sex with another woman, even with your wife's permission, is not acceptable to God.

Posted by: MikeT at July 7, 2007 3:23 PM

This makes it pretty clear that it is wrong to fornicate in any way

So, again. Fornication seems to be all about doing things with people you're not married to. I'm a happily married man. What's prohibited between me and my wife? I mean, besides threesomes, since they're apparently right out. Is my gimp scenario above O.K.? I'm sure this will be helpful to people to know where the lines are drawn.

Posted by: justin case at July 7, 2007 3:33 PM

If you look long enough in the bible, you could find justification for pretty much anything you want to do, so just start reading.

Godless heathens such as myself don't have to do this kind of research, as apparently I'm going straight to hell anyways. Life is so much simpler for me!

Posted by: Chrissy at July 7, 2007 3:48 PM

Just cruised through the site. Can somone explain to me how anal sex is fulfilling a woman's needs? It just sounds like bullshit that women can use to keep a guy interested so he doesn't wander off and fuck a heathen (which he probably will anyway, after fucking your ass).

Posted by: Chrissy at July 7, 2007 4:13 PM

Can somone explain to me how anal sex is fulfilling a woman's needs?

The women in porn movies just gotta have it. Maybe they could help explain.

Posted by: justin case at July 7, 2007 5:43 PM

"Can somone explain to me how anal sex is fulfilling a woman's needs?"

Which woman? Which needs?

I'm a guy who takes it up the ass every now and then. I think it fulfills my need to be bent over and pounded like the common piece of gutter trash that I am.

Any women out there who want to speak up about their needs? Come on, girls. This is consciousness raising. Lena style!

Posted by: Lena at July 7, 2007 7:53 PM

TO: justin case
RE: Good Book Readings

"It's been a while. It's really long, you know. And confusing." -- justin case

Not all THAT long. Nor nearly as boring as Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

Try it a chapter a night. Just before you begin your regular going-to-sleep reading.

"Contradicts itself a bunch, too." -- justin case

I hear a lot of people, who are ignorant, talking about 'contradictions'. But I find it rather humorous that when I ask them to cite some of them, they go silent.

What could that mean?

"That's why I'm checking with someone who seems to know it better." -- justin case

You know, the Roman Catholics were a lot like that, when they did the mass in Latin. All the peasants went to someone else they thought seemed "to know it better". And look what it got them.

If you want to know the Truth, you have to dig after it yourself. If only to verify that someone you think seems "to know it better" is telling you the truth.

So, if this 'someone who seems to know it better' is 'ignorant' or possibly worse, you just take them at their word. Eh?

Talk about 'faith'!

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. My Friday Morning Mens' Bible Study Group has taught me a lot of things about where I was fouled up in my understanding. And I've taught the other members a lot of things about what's in that Old Book.

You could take MY word for it, but I could be wrong too. I make mistakes....occasionally. Everyone does.

Indeed, the only Guy I know who was perfect got nailed to a tree for His trouble.

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 8, 2007 1:32 PM

> What could that mean?

That they simply don't care... That the example of your own life that you give to them inspires no faith that the body of rhetoric you embrace so noisily can actually improve character.

> taught me a lot of things
> about where I was fouled
> up in my understanding.

You've a long way to go. My heritage is Christian, too: I think you should double down on the 'humility'studies.

Posted by: Crid at July 8, 2007 1:49 PM

Chuck What could that mean?

Could mean they don't know how to Google for bible contradictions.

Posted by: Norman at July 8, 2007 2:41 PM

Crid and Norman: You're both right!

I still can't get a good answer to my gimp question, either. Maybe we'll have to let him go.

Posted by: justin case at July 8, 2007 2:59 PM

TO: Norman
RE: [OT] Contradictions

Seen that site before.

Merritt lacks the ability to grapple with complex issues.

Case in point....

God is good to all? Or good to a few?

Good to all, who pay attention to Him. If you don't pay attention, then there will be, pardon the expression, "Hell to pay".

As the old adage goes, you place your bets and you takes your chances. We all benefit or suffer from making good or bad choices.

No contradiction, except for the addle-headed.

Hope that helps.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[There is none so blind....]

P.S. I'm reminded of a passage I read last night before drifting off to sleep.....

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." -- 1 Cor 2:14

The above 'case in point' provides a nice example of the truth in that passage. Don't you think?

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 9, 2007 5:53 AM

TO: justin case
RE: The Only Reason....

"I still can't get a good answer to my gimp question, either." -- justin case

....is because I use the socratic method, buckie.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[There is nothing men will not stoop to in order to avoid having to think.]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 9, 2007 5:56 AM

Chuck - As the old adage goes, you place your bets and you takes your chances. We all benefit or suffer from making good or bad choices.

So how did you choose Christianity out of all the other choices available to you? What led you to reject all the other religions and other sects of Christianity?

Let me make one guess: you were brought up in a Christian environment, and not, say, Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim.

Posted by: Norman at July 9, 2007 6:02 AM

Chuck - Good to all, who pay attention to Him. If you don't pay attention, then there will be, pardon the expression, "Hell to pay".

Unsupported assertion. If by "Hell to pay" you a referring to an afterlife, then there can be no evidence for or against it in this world. If you just mean "bad things happen to you" then the evidence is against it.

You would not be the first person to reason that the fact you have a good life is because you are a good person and God is rewarding you.

Posted by: Norman at July 9, 2007 6:08 AM

Chuck - No contradiction, except for the addle-headed.

Just by editing a few words here and there, I bet you can clear up a lot of contradictions!

Posted by: Norman at July 9, 2007 6:14 AM

TO: Norman
RE: Why Christ?

"So how did you choose Christianity out of all the other choices available to you?" -- Norman

A number of different personal experiences. Including a couple of times when I was facing my immediate 'conversion' from this venue to the next. One being a malfunctioning parachute in the night skies over Georgia on an Emergency Deployment Readiness Exercise (EDRE). Another two days after I retired from the Army when I got into a snit with an 18-wheeler on I-25.

In both instances that proverbial 'still small voice' was yelling in my 'ear' just what I needed to do in order to survive the next few seconds.

There are myriad other reasons. So many that if even YOU had experienced them, you'd be as I am. Some of them in seeing prophecy fulfilled. Others involving engagements with members of that other 'camp'. And still others dealing with medical issues.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The first step in solving a problem is recognition that it exists.]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 9, 2007 9:16 AM

Chuck-

I've had a "still small voice" experiences too. Once I was driving through Morocco in a long wheel base Landrover with a roof rack and jerry cans on each side - a large, heavy vehicle. We had stopped for tea and when we drove off, I mistakenly drove on the left hand side of the road. The road had a mountain on one side and a cliff on the other. A Merc came round the corner towards me, driven at speed. Naturally I pulled in to the left - straight for the Merc. Eventually my still small voice pointed out that Moroccans drive on the right and I better do so too. I swerved right and just nicked the Merc's trim. The Merc's driver and passengers were understandably upset and screaming. I could not drive until I forced myself to several hours later.

Possibly my still small voice was in fact my friends screaming at me. However it came about, I remember the dawning realisation that I was at fault, and what I had to do to survive, or at least to not wipe out some innocent family.

No doubt if I had lived your life, I'd come to your conclusions. And conversely.

Posted by: Norman at July 9, 2007 11:16 AM

TO: Norman
RE: What You Hear

"Possibly my still small voice was in fact my friends screaming at me." -- Norman

Perhaps. However, you can at least ask them, if they're still in this venue.

Alone in the air at 1000 feet, or alone in a four-wheeler on in the interstate there weren't any corporal 'friends' with me.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Every man discriminates between the voluntary acts of his mind and his involuntary perceptions, and knows that to his involuntary perceptions a perfect faith is due. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 9, 2007 2:18 PM

knows that to his involuntary perceptions a perfect faith is due...

Emerson was a brilliant writer, but he was no cognitive scientist. This statement is so not justified by science... our brains can be fooled into all sorts of perceptual errors.

Posted by: justin case at July 9, 2007 3:26 PM

This is getting VERY tiresome. Could we talk about Satan for a while?

Posted by: Lena Cuisina, Drag Queen of the Damned at July 9, 2007 4:28 PM

>This is getting VERY tiresome. Could we talk about Satan for a while?

why do you suppose he's always shown all red? Don't you think blue or green would be a nice change? Or, since he's supposedly a fallen angel, shouldn't he be beautiful? In Neil Gaiman's "Sandman" series Lucifer looks a lot like a young David Bowie. My kind of Hell.

As far as the boring discussion - it's interesting to me that a man would assign that little inner voice as coming from outside. I think that most women see that little voice as "intuition". Just the subconscious absorbing of everything going on mixed with past experiences to influence present behavior.

Posted by: Kimberly at July 9, 2007 9:07 PM

> My kind of Hell.

The film was a saddening bore.

Posted by: Crid at July 9, 2007 9:32 PM

>The film was a saddening bore.

Wait, there was a "Sandman" movie?

Posted by: Kimberly at July 9, 2007 9:51 PM

Kimberly - a man would assign that little inner voice as coming from outside

Don't generalise from Chuck. Even if my voice was not just my friends, I don't take it as much evidence that the almighty creator and ruler of the entire vast universe was whispering something to me. If he was that bothered, he could have had me drive on the correct side of the road to start with and saved a lot of trouble. What possible reason could there be for any other behaviour from an omnipotent, omniscient god?

We really don't understand the brain: how it works, or what it is capable of. "The man who mistook his wife for a hat" by Oliver Sacks gives some amazing, and frankly hilarious, insights.

Posted by: Norman at July 9, 2007 11:03 PM

Old Bowie lyric. I probably bungled it.

Posted by: Crid at July 9, 2007 11:18 PM

"Battle for the mind" by William Sargant is rather old, but also well worth a read. Deals with things like how religious conversion happens under stress.

Posted by: Norman at July 9, 2007 11:24 PM

>Don't generalise from Chuck.

Sorry, didn't mean to sound like I was, Norman. I know perceptions vary from person to person. I actually had just read another blog with a similar comment from a man, and got to wondering how often men have the same take as Chuck on that little voice.

>Old Bowie lyric. I probably bungled it.

Ohh, oh. Get it now. Feeling silly.

Posted by: Kimberly at July 10, 2007 12:43 AM

Can we get back to talking about anal sex? I'm sure Lena would agree with me on that.

Posted by: Chrissy at July 10, 2007 7:41 AM

"why do you suppose he's always shown all red? Don't you think blue or green would be a nice change?"

Yes, and I think he should hang up the Prada once in a while too. He'd look good in something by Jean-Paul Gaultier, don't you think?

PS: You didn't bungle the lyric, Crid. I got it immediately. 'cause I've lived it 10 times or more!

Posted by: Lena at July 10, 2007 7:48 AM

Sounds like it's about to be writ again.

Posted by: Crid at July 10, 2007 12:53 PM

Also- To appreciate the following blog entry, you have to know that the blogger is a brilliant electric player who was to carve a slice off of almost everything good in rock n' roll around 1980. Zappa had pulled him out of a Holiday Inn lounge months before, and enjoyed his service for just a single world tour (including Chicago's uptown 9/28/78, one of the finest nights of my life). And then...

http://urltea.com/y3u

Later there's an anecdote about the time he went partying with David & Mick.

See also:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZbOdgevxDE

Posted by: Crid at July 10, 2007 1:14 PM

Wait! I bungled the dates. It was '77. But so did Adrian... There were two tours... OK, enough....

Posted by: Crid at July 10, 2007 1:24 PM

TO: Lena Cuisina, Drag Queen of the Damned
RE: Why?

"This is getting VERY tiresome. Could we talk about Satan for a while?" -- Lena Cuisina, Drag Queen of the Damned

Why talk about the proverbial 'loser'?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. I've read the end of the Book....

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 12, 2007 2:16 PM

TO: justin case
RE: Thanks....

"Emerson was a brilliant writer, but he was no cognitive scientist. This statement is so not justified by science... our brains can be fooled into all sorts of perceptual errors." -- justin case

....for providing the proverbial proof of his comment, that I used as a tag-line.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[For the power of paradox opens your eyes;
And blinds those who say they can 'see'. -- Michael Card, God's Own Fool]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 12, 2007 2:18 PM

TO: Kimberly
RE: Putting Thinks Into Their Proper Perspective

"I actually had just read another blog with a similar comment from a man, and got to wondering how often men have the same take as Chuck on that little voice." -- Kimberly

Long ago and in an Army installation, Far, Far Away....

....an aging colonel once told this, then young, lieutenant [as he was reporting for duty as the brigade Staff Duty Officer]....

He'd scrimpt and saved all his young life. And then he went to Nam. And there he got shot. And he almost died. And he realized the truth of that passage in that old Book about how one could save all they like, but when the time comes, you can't take it with you.

His life turned around at that point.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[You haven't lived until you've almost died.]

P.S. Based on my personal experience, I guess I've still got some missions to accomplish in this venue.

Maybe one of them is passing this on to you.

Enjoy....

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 12, 2007 2:25 PM

TO: Chrissy
RE: Okay

"Can we get back to talking about anal sex?" -- Chrissy

Are you a contortionist?

Ever hear of a 'Viennese Oyster'?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. For justin case...

...I don't know of anywhere in that old Book where the VO is prohibited.

Can you point out where it might be for me? Book, chapter and verse, if you please.....

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 12, 2007 2:36 PM

P.P.S. Isn't being 'ignorant' a b----?

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 12, 2007 2:37 PM

P.P.P.S. Maybe you should read more Good Books....

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 12, 2007 2:37 PM

TO: Norman
RE: Perhaps

"Just by editing a few words here and there, I bet you can clear up a lot of contradictions!" -- Norman

But, I suspect the root-cause of your 'confusion' is deeper than merely definitions. Much deeper....

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Confused? Call Counselor Troi 1-800-NCC-1701]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 12, 2007 2:44 PM

P.S. Ask her about her 'special services' rates.

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 12, 2007 2:45 PM

Leave a comment