# Christian Churches and Sexual Positions
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-churches-and-sexual-positions/511554
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [September 25, 2009, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-churches-and-sexual-positions/511554 "2009-09-25T18:52:52Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)
#### Post date: [September 26, 2009, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-churches-and-sexual-positions/511554/21 "2009-09-26T16:13:37Z")
> [@Uncertain](#):
>
> Does the Bible use a term akin to sodomy? I thought it merely described things that happened in Sodom.
No, but theoretically “sodomy” is whatever the bad things that Sodom was doing that got it destroyed. City-wide genocide seems like a decent indicator that God isn’t too happy with that sort of behavior.
Historically, this “behavior” was believed to be depraved sexual acts (as evidenced by the word “sodomy”), but modern interpretation seems to be that the town was destroyed due to poor hospitality.
I’m not sure I buy the modern interpretation.
---
### Author:  [@dangermom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dangermom)
#### Post date: [September 26, 2009, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-churches-and-sexual-positions/511554/22 "2009-09-26T17:18:26Z")
I’ve never heard anyone say anything about positions. The rules I’ve heard are: only if you’re married, and then whatever you like as long as both are happy with it.
---
### Author:  [@gaffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gaffa)
#### Post date: [September 26, 2009, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-churches-and-sexual-positions/511554/23 "2009-09-26T18:01:07Z")
**Q:** Why aren’t Baptists allowed to have sex standing up?
**A:** Because it might lead to dancing!
---
### Author:  [@kapri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kapri)
#### Post date: [September 26, 2009, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-churches-and-sexual-positions/511554/24 "2009-09-26T19:24:52Z")
> [@Mister\_Rik](#):
>
> Thanks for the answers. Though I don’t want to veer too much off the primary question, which was _who/which denominations_ approved “missionary position” only, and do any of them still teach that. It seems pretty clear the Catholic Church was behind it (heh) to begin with. Baptists also wouldn’t surprise me (though I’m remembering a joke about a couple attending a pre-marital counseling session with their pastor and asking about whether different positions were “okay”; the pastor gave his blessing to every position they mentioned, until they asked about doing it standing up. He denounced that position on the grounds that somebody might see them and think they were dancing 😃 )
I was raised in a fundamentalist Baptist church and attended one well into my 20s, when I was married, and I never heard anyone say anything about certain positions being sinful, wrong, whatever. I never heard anyone say anything about sexual positions at all; from what I could tell, any kind of sex between married couples was fine. Premarital sex, on the other hand, was terrible, bad, sinful, etc. etc. etc.
---
### Author:  [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)
#### Post date: [September 26, 2009, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-churches-and-sexual-positions/511554/25 "2009-09-26T19:41:41Z")
> [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](#):
>
> Well, [this article](http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/318433?journalCode=ca) might shed some light, but one needs to pay to access it. Anyone have access to “Current Anthropology” magazines?
>
> Current Anthropology Volume 42, Number 1, February 2001
Yes, and from that article:
[QUOTE=Robert Priest]
All of the elements of Kinsey’s narrative are present here. It seems clear that his memory reworked and combined various elements scattered throughout Malinowski’s book and elements from medieval Catholic history. In the process he transposed “missionary fashion,” which speaks of missionaries’ expanding the possible romantic repertoire, with its opposite, “missionary position,” an expression speaking of restraint and taboo and one more compatible with his rhetorical purposes. Kinsey apparently invented a legend while believing himself to be reporting historical fact and coined a new expression while thinking he was reporting an old one.
[/QUOTE]
Later he adds
[QUOTE=Robert Priest]
The medieval Catholic Church, observing that animals copulated in the ventro-dorsal position and humans in the ventro-ventral position, concluded that the ventrodorsal position was unnatural to humans. That is, it interdicted
ventro-dorsal intercourse on the basis of an appeal to “nature,” not to Scripture.
[/QUOTE]
It’s a very interesting article. And it cites Cecil Adams.
---
### Author:  [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)
#### Post date: [September 26, 2009, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-churches-and-sexual-positions/511554/26 "2009-09-26T19:44:12Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#):
>
> No, but theoretically “sodomy” is whatever the bad things that Sodom was doing that got it destroyed. City-wide genocide seems like a decent indicator that God isn’t too happy with that sort of behavior.
>
> Historically, this “behavior” was believed to be depraved sexual acts (as evidenced by the word “sodomy”), but modern interpretation seems to be that the town was destroyed due to poor hospitality.
>
> I’m not sure I buy the modern interpretation.
Historically the official Jewish position has always been that Sodom and Gammorah were destroyed due to poor hospitality. More generally, they were not their brother’s keeper and were without loving kindness. Any of the great sages (Rashi, Maimonides, Hillel etc) will condemn homosexuality as an abomination but will tell you the crime of Sodom was inhospitality.
---
### Author:  [@Markxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Markxxx)
#### Post date: [September 26, 2009, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-churches-and-sexual-positions/511554/27 "2009-09-26T19:46:43Z")
Historically the church has looked on sex as a necessary evil. Sex is to be used for procreation and that is all.
Why? Because it’s pleasure, and most forms of pleasure were regarded as frivilous and not necessary. Why dance and sing, when you could be reading the Bible or even better, helping others to convert and “See the light.”
Everything that takes away from speading God’s word is simply a waste of time, because we are put here on Earth to celebrate the lord, not to have a good time.
At least that was the viewpoint for hundreds of years.
So if you look at it from that context you can see why missionary sex was deemed the only way. Get in and get out. In other words have sex, to be “fruitful and multiply” but only for as long as it takes to make a baby and no more.
---
### Author:  [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)
#### Post date: [September 26, 2009, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-churches-and-sexual-positions/511554/28 "2009-09-26T20:05:09Z")
> [@DocCathode](#):
>
> Historically the official Jewish position has always been that Sodom and Gammorah were destroyed due to poor hospitality. More generally, they were not their brother’s keeper and were without loving kindness. Any of the great sages (Rashi, Maimonides, Hillel etc) will condemn homosexuality as an abomination but will tell you the crime of Sodom was inhospitality.
On the other hand both Josephus and Philo seem to support the idea that lust and orgies was their sin. Josephus’ idea that the angels were being lusted after rather explains the scene with Lot offering his daughters instead.
---
### Author:  [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)
#### Post date: [September 26, 2009, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-churches-and-sexual-positions/511554/29 "2009-09-26T23:43:31Z")
> [@Markxxx](#):
>
> Historically the church has looked on sex as a necessary evil. Sex is to be used for procreation and that is all.
>
> Why? Because it’s pleasure, and most forms of pleasure were regarded as frivilous and not necessary. Why dance and sing, when you could be reading the Bible or even better, helping others to convert and “See the light.”
>
> Everything that takes away from speading God’s word is simply a waste of time, because we are put here on Earth to celebrate the lord, not to have a good time.
>
> At least that was the viewpoint for hundreds of years.
>
> So if you look at it from that context you can see why missionary sex was deemed the only way. Get in and get out. In other words have sex, to be “fruitful and multiply” but only for as long as it takes to make a baby and no more.
Cite? (You do know there’s a lot of erotica in the Bible itself, right?)
---
### Author:  [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)
#### Post date: [September 26, 2009, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-churches-and-sexual-positions/511554/30 "2009-09-26T23:50:11Z")
> [@Dr.Drake](#):
>
> Yes, and from that article:
>
> It’s a very interesting article. And it cites Cecil Adams.
Thanks for that.
Amusing that Uncle Cece is cited. 🆒
---
### Author:  [@dracoi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dracoi)
#### Post date: [September 27, 2009, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-churches-and-sexual-positions/511554/31 "2009-09-27T00:13:28Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#):
>
> On the other hand both Josephus and Philo seem to support the idea that lust and orgies was their sin. Josephus’ idea that the angels were being lusted after rather explains the scene with Lot offering his daughters instead.
The hospitality/sex argument with Sodom and Gomorrah are not exclusive positions. Raping your neighbor’s guests is simultaneously perverted and inhospitable. It may be that God only got angry enough to destroy the two cities because they were so bad in so many ways - maybe he’d have overlooked the sex or the inhospitable nature, but not both at once.
However, Lot’s reaction seems focused specifically on hospitality. He offers up his two daughters, which makes sense if his primary purpose is to show hospitality to foreigners; it doesn’t make as much sense if he’s mostly worried about the issue of illicit sex.
---
### Author:  [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)
#### Post date: [September 27, 2009, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-churches-and-sexual-positions/511554/32 "2009-09-27T00:22:25Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#):
>
> Cite? (You do know there’s a lot of erotica in the Bible itself, right?)
I can’t find my copies of Panatti’s Extraordinary Endings Of Practically Everything And Everybody ( I think that’s the book I’m looking for) but IIRC
Saint Augustine himself regarded passionate sex as dirty and unnecessary. He taught that just as you can train yourself to whistle, wiggle your ears, or fart a note, a man could train himself to become erect and achieve orgasm by will alone. He would passionlessly become hard, passionlessly insert himself and passionlessly ejaculate and then withdraw.
Pannati’s goes on for a few pages about the Roman Catholic Church’s position on sex as a necessary evil.
As for erotica- I know it’s in the OT. But I’ve never heard of any in the NT.
---
### Author:  [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)
#### Post date: [September 27, 2009, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-churches-and-sexual-positions/511554/33 "2009-09-27T00:42:30Z")
Still can’t find any of my four Panatti books (and these are big books) But another point occurs to me
Jewish law forbids self castration and says G-d only wants your foreskin. One of the apostles (or is it disciples) mentions ‘those who have become eunuchs for the kingdom of G-d’ and says of castration ‘Let he that can receive it, receive it.’
Re Sodom
Though unofficial, there are many Jewish folktales about Sodom and Gamorrah. All of them that I have heard focus on selfishness, inhospitality, and being without loving kindness. Sex simply does not come up.
---
### Author:  [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)
#### Post date: [September 27, 2009, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-churches-and-sexual-positions/511554/34 "2009-09-27T00:59:47Z")
> [@DocCathode](#):
>
> I can’t find my copies of Panatti’s Extraordinary Endings Of Practically Everything And Everybody ( I think that’s the book I’m looking for) but…
I have that book. He essentially credits Augustine for shifting the church to a pro-celibacy attitude. Sex itself was neutral, but sexual desire was bad. It seems Augustine had issues (and so did St. Paul, so there was scriptural backup). The difference is that Augustine was a voluminous writer, spending ages speculating on the sex life of Adam & Eve etc. It helps that Jesus was not sexually active in the NT (we don’t know what he was doing in his 20s).
---
### Author:  [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)
#### Post date: [September 27, 2009, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-churches-and-sexual-positions/511554/35 "2009-09-27T01:02:02Z")
Markxxx writes:
\> Historically the church has looked on sex as a necessary evil.
Cite? And in this case a quotation from a single Christian writer is insufficient. Somewhere sometime you can find some Christian writer making just about any random claim that you can come up with. This may prove that Christians have been inconsistent over time, but it doesn’t prove that the church has in general looked on sex as a necessary evil. You need to show that the usual attitude of the church has been that sex is a necessary evil.
DocCathode writes:
\> Saint Augustine himself regarded passionate sex as dirty and unnecessary.
Cite?
---
### Author:  [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)
#### Post date: [September 27, 2009, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-churches-and-sexual-positions/511554/36 "2009-09-27T01:18:12Z")
Um, the only thing I’ve heard might be bad is certain types of role play where your spouse pretends that you are someone else. They use the scripture saying that lusting after someone other than you spouse is the same as adultery (Matthew 5:28) . They claim that such imagination means you are lusting after the other person.
The same scripture and logic is used against masturbation.
---
### Author:  [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)
#### Post date: [September 27, 2009, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-churches-and-sexual-positions/511554/37 "2009-09-27T01:19:43Z")
> [@Wendell\_Wagner](#):
>
> DocCathode writes:
>
> \> Saint Augustine himself regarded passionate sex as dirty and unnecessary.
>
> Cite?
You got it. I found the book.
In his City Of G-d, there’s a chapter “Were Adam And Eve troubled by passion before they ate of the tree of knowledge?”
Note that passion is a negative, something that ‘troubles’ you.
From City Of G-d “. . . by deliberate and not uncontrollable lust.” What does he mean by deliberate lust? Just as I said erection and ejaculation obtained through will alone and not by sexual passion.
“Some people can make their ears move, either one at a time or both together.”
He gives a few more examples to prove Passionless Procreation is possible.
“At a time when there was no unruly lust to excite the organs of generation . . . the seminal flow would have reached the womb with as little rupture of the hymen. . .”
Here he is talking of Adam and Eve, saying again that they had Passionless Procreation.
Augustine argued that since they could do it, current Christian should and must aspire to Passionless Procreation
Panati goes on
“Augustine became a pathological opponent of sexual intercourse- in and out of wedlock. . . . He employed these arguments not only to condemn the act of sexual intercourse, but also to label it unnatural.”
---
### Author:  [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)
#### Post date: [September 27, 2009, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-churches-and-sexual-positions/511554/38 "2009-09-27T01:35:19Z")
_Can’t edit to add:_
I don’t get the whole hatred for sex, anyways. The same chapter that explains that sex is only for married people also points out that married people should not abstain from sex with each other.
> [@](#):
>
> **I [Corinthians 7:3-5](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+7&version=NIV)**[(NIV)](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+7&version=NIV) says:
> _The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control._
In other words. people who are not fulfilling their spouse’s sexual desires are actually setting both of them up for sin. The whole point of getting married is to control your sexual desire. Why try to control it even more than you have to?
(Obviously, the above is taking a fundamentalist Christian viewpoint. That’s what the OP wants, right?)
---
### Author:  [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)
#### Post date: [September 27, 2009, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-churches-and-sexual-positions/511554/39 "2009-09-27T02:04:39Z")
Where does it say that the whole point of getting married is to control your sexual desire?
---
### Author:  [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)
#### Post date: [September 27, 2009, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-churches-and-sexual-positions/511554/40 "2009-09-27T02:41:49Z")
St. Augustine however tended to be something of a prude.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-churches-and-sexual-positions/511554.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christian-churches-and-sexual-positions/511554.md?page=3)