# Biblical literalists: why is sucking a penis a sin, but sucking a lollipop isn't? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 3, 2003, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505 "2003-01-03T22:47:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![amarinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3be4f8/32.png) [@amarinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarinth)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2003, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505/81 "2003-01-05T20:44:03Z")
First, as it seems I wasn’t clear in my original post - that isn’t my position, it is a restatement of an argument I have heard many times. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > \*\*I have yet to see any major denominations condemn this act as inherently sinful, even within marriage. \*\* I doubt you’re going to find any mainstream denominations condemning it. It’s going to be more in the realm of non-denominational, right-wing churches - and in my experience, it is a not uncommon idea. ((I was once told at an conservative, interdenominational camp that kissing before an engagement was a sin.)) **Duck Duck Goose** , one of my high school youth leaders joked along those lines once, and then told us “Wait until you’re married, you’ll see.” ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2003, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505/82 "2003-01-05T20:49:07Z")
See what? What it looks like–_“down there”_? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2003, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505/83 "2003-01-05T21:00:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by amarinth \* > \*\* > I doubt you’re going to find any mainstream denominations condemning it. It’s going to be more in the realm of non-denominational, right-wing churches - and in my experience, it is a not uncommon idea. \*\* In which case, I’d like to see some _actual_ cites. We’ve already seen that outsiders often have huge misconceptions about what the church actually teaches. In addition, we’ve seen several cites indicating that oral sex is okay within marriage – and at best, one cite which MIGHT indicate that it’s wrong. > [@](#): > > \*\*((I was once told at an conservative, interdenominational camp that kissing before an engagement was a sin.)) \*\* Maybe, maybe not. Even if your recollection is accurate though, we are discussing an entirely different issue, and thus, can not logically extrapolate from that single example which you give. That is, not if we want to avoid strawman argumentation. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2003, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505/84 "2003-01-05T21:03:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\* > They think they’re Biblical literalists. \*\* But they are by no means representative of Biblical literalists. In fact, they only constitute an infinitesimal minority thereof. Let’s say that two Puerto Ricans beat up an old lady yesterday. By your logic, since these two identify themselves as Puerto Ricans, we can logical conclude that Puerto Ricans condone beating up old ladies. Logic dictates that this conclusion simply does not follow. ---
**Author:** ![amarinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3be4f8/32.png) [@amarinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarinth)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2003, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505/85 "2003-01-05T21:53:32Z")
Yes, I might be deluded and misremembering things all over the place. Silly me. Luckily, some things are written. Example, Pat Robertson in “Answers to 200 of Life’s most Probing Questions” was kind enough to point out “oral sex is against nature.” ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2003, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505/86 "2003-01-05T22:07:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > **But they are by no means representative of Biblical literalists.** So, No True Literalists, eh? 😉 > [@](#): > > \*\* In fact, they only constitute an infinitesimal minority thereof. > Let’s say that two Puerto Ricans beat up an old lady yesterday. By your logic, since these two identify themselves as Puerto Ricans, we can logical conclude that Puerto Ricans condone beating up old ladies. Logic dictates that this conclusion simply does not follow. \*\* I explained (and documented) what I meant by Biblical literalists just above the post you quoted. So, I’ve not made any statistical fallacy. And what you’ve called my logic isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2003, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505/87 "2003-01-05T22:47:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by amarinth \* > \*\*Yes, I might be deluded and misremembering things all over the place. Silly me. \*\* Well, it happens. In addition, people often misconstrue what the church actually says – as evidenced by those SDMB posters who repeatedly claim that sex is _inherently_ sinful in the eyes of the church. > [@](#): > > \*\*Luckily, some things are written. Example, Pat Robertson in “Answers to 200 of Life’s most Probing Questions” was kind enough to point out “oral sex is against nature.” \*\* First of all, I’d like to see the exact context of that quote. And second, even if Pat Robertson personally believes that, he is _not_ a denomination – and even if he were, he still would not be representative of Christendom in general. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2003, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505/88 "2003-01-05T22:52:17Z")
But we aren’t talking about Christendom in general. We’re talking about people who say that the Bible is the inerrant “word of God” — literalists. (See thread title near top of page. ;)) ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2003, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505/89 "2003-01-05T22:55:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > **So, No True Literalists, eh? 😉** I presume you’re alluding to the so-called “No True Scotsman” fallacy. (I say “so called” because its not a proper fallacy, IMO.) At any rate, you’re misapplying that term. I’m not saying that NO true literalists can consider oral sex to be wrong. I’m merely pointing out that NOT ALL literalists do. The two claims are quite different indeed. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I explained (and documented) what I meant by Biblical literalists just above the post you quoted. So, I’ve not made any statistical fallacy. And what you’ve called my logic isn’t. \*\* No, your logic is still guilty of statistical suicide. In your own words, you defined a literalist as follows: > [@](#): > > “I consider a literalist to be someone who believes that the Bible is the literal and inerrant word of God.” This definition is by no means limited to Fred Phelps and his ilk. In fact, as we’ve **repeatedly** pointed out, Phelps and company consititute an _infinitesimal_ portion of those who profess to be literalists. Ergo, it is fallacious to conclude that because Phelps is a literalist, and because Phelps abhors fellatio, that literalists in general consider it to be wrongful. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2003, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505/90 "2003-01-05T22:57:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*But we aren’t talking about Christendom in general. We’re talking about people who say that the Bible is the inerrant “word of God” ? literalists. (See thread title near top of page. ;)) \*\* Point taken – but as I’ve subsequently emphasized, that distinction doesn’t salvage your case either. Unless, of course, you can produce hard evidence that literalists _in general_ believe as you claim they do. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2003, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505/91 "2003-01-05T23:34:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > They think they’re Biblical literalists. Therefore everyone who thinks s/he’s a libertarian is actually a libertarian? Everyone who thinks s/he’s a christian is actually a christian? The problem with choosing such a small sample, with the question then becoming “Why do the followers of Rev. Phelps in Topeka, Kansas, USA think that fellatio is sinful? What verse from the Bible do they use to justify their belief?” is that it will be difficult to find an answer, due to the small number of the membership of that church. I doubt any of the Rev. Phelp’s followers are members of the SDMB. Now if you could show that, for example, the Southern Baptists say fellatio is sinful, you would have more of a chance to an answer. If you sincerely want to know what Bible verse is used by the followers of Rev. Phelps to prove that fellatio is sinful, then I think your best bet is to contact the Rev. Phelps directly. If your purpose is to show that you are more broad-minded and forgiving than Biblical literalists, then carry on. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2003, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505/92 "2003-01-05T23:36:51Z")
P.S. Much as I hate to increase the number of “hits” at the hate site to which Libertarian links, I did go check out the link and I didn’t see anything saying that fellatio is sinful. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2003, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505/93 "2003-01-05T23:42:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MEBuckner \* > Dr. Trudy Veerman links to [an article by Ted Wise](http://pbc.org/dp/wise/week0111.html) of the [Peninsula Bible Church](http://pbc.org/) which she seems to regard as supporting her position, but the specific sexual practice in question has been replaced–I kid you not–with “XXX”, so who knows what he’s talking about. That’s priceless! 🙂 > [@](#): > > We have subsitituted “XXX” in the interest of discretion and modesty, and in order to generalize the question. … My initial response is that XXX is the improper use of the body and would therefore be wrong in all circumstances, including marriage. I think XXX means anything that would show up in a X-rated movie, including vaginal sex in the missionary position by two naked people. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2003, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505/94 "2003-01-05T23:51:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose \* > seems clear to me that the article is talking about “oral sex”, meaning both fellatio and cunnilingus, especially the part where he ropes in various dietary laws. … > Clearly he’s talking about “things that you put in your mouth”. I thought the reference to dietary laws was to indicate that one should look to Leviticus, where there are several references to sexual behaviour. Reading the article by Ted Wise, I think he _might_ have been talking about anal sex, and not oral sex. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505/95 "2003-01-06T04:45:23Z")
Well, I was looking for the Pat Robertson quote, but I got hopelessly sidetracked by one Kay Arthur, who has written a book and who was interviewed by CBN, which is as close as I can get for now. BTW, the “Pat Robertson says oral sex is against nature” factoid is widely repeated on the Web, but apparently it’s from a book, so it’s not on the Internet as such, that I can find offhand. And anyway, Kay is SO much more fun. > **[Kay Arthur: Advocating Sexual Purity](https://www1.cbn.com/700club/kay-arthur-advocating-sexual-purity)** > > 700 Club Channel, In this interview with 700 Club co-host Kristi Watts, best-selling author Kay Arthur shares from her latest book, Sex According to God, her passion to promote sexual purity among today's young men and women. > [@](#): > > Kay Arthur: Advocating Sexual Purity > > The 700 Club > > In this interview with 700 Club co-host Kristi Watts, best-selling author Kay Arthur shares from her latest book, _Sex According to God_, her passion to promote sexual purity among today’s young men and women. > > \< snip \> > > KRISTI: …What does God think about sex? > > KAY ARTHUR: God created it. One day I was going to teach about sex to a group of teenagers. My sink got clogged up, so I got out the Draino and read the instructions. I was going down the highway thinking about it. I thought, ‘God, sex is like a bottle of Draino. It is a wonderful product and it does a wonderful job, but you got to use it according to the manufacturer’s directions.’ God created sex and He has a wonderful purpose for it, but the problem today is people don’t understand what God has to say about the subject. Because of that, they are learning from the streets, and the streets don’t even know what constitutes sex. Yes, sex is like Drano. And if people want to understand what God has to say about sex, they should buy my book (see below). > [@](#): > > KAY ARTHUR: I think it is because God designed us for one man or for one woman, and we know that. Even biologically He made us that way. When a woman has multiple sexual partners, she is more liable to have cancer or endometriosis. God didn’t make us to receive all of those different kinds of sperms from other people. A quick check of Google under “endometriosis risk factors” shows no link between multiple sex partners and endometriosis. I suppose she thinks it’s just another Pelvic Inflammatory Sexually Transmitted Disease. > [@](#): > > There is an article from U.S. News and World Report from May on teens and sex. Listen to this. This doctor says the kids come in thinking they have strep throat. When they find out they have gonorrhea of the throat, they are grossed out and devastated. They have no idea these sorts of things exist. They are having oral sex. That’s because they are learning from the streets, and the streets don’t even know what constitutes sex. If they would buy my book (see below), they’d know better. > [@](#): > > I just got an e-mail…“I can recall countless discussions with very confused Christian friends in my high school years about the issue of oral sex.’ She goes on to say, 'Sex was not an uncommon topic of discussion behind closed dorm room doors. There, again, oral sex was a topic of many questions and lots of confusion. In fact, this is it. Sex in general is something that is not well understood.” That’s because they are learning from the streets, and the streets don’t even know what constitutes sex. If they would buy my book (see below), they’d know better. Okay, now, enough of the book plugs–does the following paragraph make sense to anybody? > [@](#): > > …when you start having sex in different ways, then it is supposed to be in the marriage bed. Then what happens is you are setting a habit, so that’s the way you get satisfied. Then you go to your marriage bed to do it in a normal way, in a way that God ordained, and you are not satisfied, so then you are trying outside of that marriage bed to satisfy yourself because you have trained your body like Pavlov’s dog test. Ummm…She’s saying that if you have multiple sex partners before you get married, and you experiment with lots of kinky stuff, like presumably oral sex, that you will have trained your body to expect an orgasm every night in many unusual ways, whereas once you get married, you’ll have to make do with once a week, missionary position, and no more oral sex? And you won’t be satisfied, so you’ll go looking for some extramarital action, and ruin your marriage, all because you weren’t a virgin when you got married and you learned to like oral sex? And finally, she cuts to the chase. > [@](#): > > I am on a campaign. Hugh Hefner sent a copy of Playboy magazine to every male college student indoctrinating them. We started a sexual revolution that went against the Word of God, and it has damaged our society. I want us to start a counter sexual revolution for purity. The only way to do that is to get them into the Word of God. That’s why I wrote Sex According to God. It tells you everything that God says about sex. [No, it tells you everything that Kay Arthur says that God says about sex…] **Buy my book!** > [@](#): > > KRISTI: One last question: As a parent, what would a parent tell their child in today’s society where sex is everywhere to convince them to stay pure for their wedding? > > KAY ARTHUR: Use this book. It is an interactive book. Go through and mark the text and write down what you have learned. Go through everything God has to say. [Go through everything Kay Arthur says that God has to say.] **BUY MY BOOK!!** I love the Internet. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![PhiloVance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e19adc/32.png) [@PhiloVance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhiloVance)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505/96 "2003-01-06T06:35:36Z")
DDG, I read the link, and I searched for **buy** throughout the article and didn’t find it. .😕 **TELL ME HOW TO BUY THE BOOK!!!** ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Cool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecb155/32.png) [@Joe\_Cool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Cool)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505/97 "2003-01-06T08:09:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*Joe\_Cool wrote: > > They think they’re Biblical literalists. They even take their name from Bible verses:\*\* If I change my name to “Russet,” because I think I’m a potato, does that make me so? Weak, weak argument. I expected better from you. And as JThunder pointed out to you already, you’re committing a huge fallacy: Phelps is (supposedly) a literalist. Phelps believes that oral sex is sin. Therefore, literalists believe that oral sex is sin. I could just as easily say this: Libertarian (the poster) is a libertarian. Libertarian (the poster) uses logic with more holes than swiss cheese. Therefore, all Libertarians use poor logic. > [@](#): > > \*\*Your anecdotes are of no interest to me. What I asked for is logic. > > You do believe that oral sex a “sin” when men do it, don’t you? Why? Other than the Bible says so. Besides, I disagree that it does.\*\* Disagree all you like. But I’m as uninterested in your opinions as you are in my anecdotes. I believe that oral sex is a sin between two men because the Bible says that sex between two men is a sin. You’re fixating on the wrong word here: The operative item is SEX, not ORAL. For one who demands logic so loudly, you’re woefully short on providing it. > [@](#): > > \*\*If you’re going to dodge the questions, you’re useless here. \*\* If you’re only going to fight against strawmen, you’re as useless as I am. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose \* > **seems clear to me that the article is talking about “oral sex”, meaning both fellatio and cunnilingus, especially the part where he ropes in various dietary laws. … > Clearly he’s talking about “things that you put in your mouth”.** Jesus said it’s not what goes into your mouth that makes you unclean, but what comes out of it. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505/98 "2003-01-06T08:53:58Z")
Why is everybody expecting **Lib** to demonstrate that all or most literalists believe that oral sex is sinful; apart from the thread title that can be interpreted that way, if seems abundantly clear that the OP is an invitation for _that subset of self-professed literalists that **do** hold such belief_ to step up and explain why. Or did I miss the memo? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 10:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505/99 "2003-01-06T10:23:10Z")
JThunder wrote: > [@](#): > > I’m not saying that NO true literalists can consider oral sex to be wrong. I’m merely pointing out that NOT ALL literalists do. The two claims are quite different indeed. But (again) in this thread, I am interested in a debate with those who do. > [@](#): > > This definition is by no means limited to Fred Phelps and his ilk. In fact, as we’ve repeatedly pointed out, Phelps and company consititute an infinitesimal portion of those who profess to be literalists. Ergo, it is fallacious to conclude that because Phelps is a literalist, and because Phelps abhors fellatio, that literalists in general consider it to be wrongful. I made no such conclusion. I gave Westboro Baptist Church as one example, which Arnold demanded. I then gave Religious Tolerance as an authoritative cite that more broadly defined Biblical literalists and said that they consider oral sex to be a demon. Stop reformulating my arguments. Either debate the topic or go nip at someone else’s ankles. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2003, 10:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505/100 "2003-01-06T10:24:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mangetout \* > \*\*Why is everybody expecting **Lib** to demonstrate that all or most literalists believe that oral sex is sinful; apart from the thread title that can be interpreted that way, if seems abundantly clear that the OP is an invitation for _that subset of self-professed literalists that **do** hold such belief_ to step up and explain why. > > Or did I miss the memo? \*\* No, it looks like you’re one of the few who GOT the memo. 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505.md?page=6)