TheProblemForce, I imagine things can get pretty wierd in custody court. If the lawyer phrased the question “did you and your wife ever have oral sex”, then that implies it was consensual, and both are guilty. But if the lawyer phrased the question “did you ever commit oral sex on your wife”, that can imply coersion, and she can say she didn’t resist out of fear/desire to please, or what have you. One little nuance, one little (unprovable) lie, and she won custody.
Sycorax:
According to Orthodox Judaism (and probably most Christian denominations as well) the Five books of Moses were not merely “Divinely inspired,” but actually dictated word-by-word by G-d. Granted, Moses was the one who put it on paper. However, your post seemed to be intending to imply that sex rules in the Bible were formulated by human beings, which is certainly a subject for debate rather than absolute statement.
I apologize for sounding snappish, however, I felt that your original remark was out of place, especially considering that the original post was asking for the Biblical opinion rather than for a secular evaluation of the nature of the Bible.
Chaim Mattis Keller
cmkeller: You’re right. Given the fact that I haven’t read enough of the Bible or its origins, I shouldnt have presented it as fact, and of course, I do know more about the New Testament than the Old. I like to think I know a lot about Judaism (I’d read a lot about it and was even thinking of converting), but had never heard that God dictated the first five books to Moses. I appreciate your input – I learned something and that’s what I like about the SDMB. Thanks.
Only fundamentalist Christians believe Moses wrote all the Pentateuch word for word, and fundamentalists are in the Christian minority.
Mainline Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian) have a scriptural scholarship which recognizes the absurdity of Mosaic authorship of his own death (Deuteronomy 34:7). Their position is that the scriptures are inspired, but are written in human words by human beings and are not divine dictation.
Shalom.
[QUOTE]
Chaim said:
Actually, Traditional Judaism has two answers for this:
- The final verses of Dueteronomy were written by Joshua
- Moses wrote (about this future event) and wrote with tears in his eyes at the report of his death.
Zev Steinhardt
Yes, this passage has been used by some religious leaders to condemn withdrawal, most notably as a proof texts among Catholics to show that any sexual expression which is not male-female vaginal sex (and completed as such) is condemned by God. (An argument now rarely used by anyone.)
However, a more critical look at the text shows that Onan is being punished by God for not obeying the law which says he should have impregnated his bother’s (now dead) wife. He isn’t being punished for withdrawal. There is no condemnation recorded for a husband and wife who practice withdrawal.
And in the same way, the sin of Sodom & G. is not necessarily homosexual (anal) sex; but because the citizens wanted to rape the visitors, which is hardly the kind of hospitality to strangers required by the law.
On the other hand, other scriptural passages do make it clear that homosexuality is prohibited.
On the other hand, the bible shows explicit or implicit approval of slavery, monarchy, sexism, racism, genocide, infantcide, and capital punishment for sexual misdeeds.
So, if you’re looking for a definitive list of sexual dos and don’ts; remember the other items on the list of dos and don’ts and think a little critically.
Peace.
moriah:
Well, a Talmudically critical analysis of the Hebrew text sees this as a condemnation of “wasting seed” (including both withdrawal and masturbation) because the Hebrew word your version (I’m not sure which you use) translates as “spilled” actually means “destroyed.” This choice of words (when the Torah could have used the word “spilled” or some other term) leads the Talmudic rabbis to conclude that wasteful destruction is what was being condemned in Onan, not merely the disobedience.
However, I will concede that if you don’t believe the Torah was dictated word-for-word (as you indicated earlier), then such semantical analysis makes little sense. (Re: the absurdity of Moses’s death, Zev beat me to the punch.
And not merely the rape, but the fact that they were stridently against showing any hospitality to visitors at all. The rape was merely one expression of that.
Chaim Mattis Keller
I have to agree with moriah about the sin of Onan. Think about it: 10,000,000 sperm, and only one gets to fertilize the egg. How the heck are you supposed to avoid wasting seed? As I read that passage, had he done his duty by his (his brother’s) wife, he could have done whatever he darn well wanted (subject to other regulations) afterward.
Chronos:
Depends on your definition of “waste.” The Torah does not mean to say that all sex that does not lead to reproduction is wasteful. The Torah, for example, has no problem with a fertile man marrying an infertile woman. No problem with sex during pregnancy. No problem with sex amongst the elderly.
The expression of love between husband and wife is (according to the Torah) a legitimate end in and of itself. However, selfish gratification, such as that practiced by Onan, does not.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Ah, I see… The proper use of “seed” is the expression of love between husband and wife, so masturbation or withdrawal is waste in the sense that it’s not using it to express love. Still not sure if I agree, but that does make sense.
I ought to know this since I’m a Catholic, but this is only something I’ve heard. I think that under Catholicism, the only legitimate reason for sex is to produce children. Pleasure, even among two married people, is not considered a legitimate reason. That is part of the reason why the Church forbids birth control.
Then again, if this was so, then priests would lecture married couples not to have sex after menapause, and they obviously don’t do this. I’ll have to check the Catholic Encyclopedia or a catechism, but I’m pretty sure that even married couples aren’t supposed to have sex just for pleasure.
Don’t feel too bad. Almost all Catholics have had no adult religious education. And the Mass, where there are children present, isn’t the time to start discussing the morality of spilling seed.
That may have been the way it was once taught (mostly due to Augustine’s neo-Platonic characterization of earthy sex as inherently evil and that the procreative aspect of sex within marriage is the only thing that ‘redeems’ sex). However the modern and current RC position is:
-
Sex is good (I mean, inherently, not just GOOD!). It is a pre-Fall (not the season) gift of God to humanity.
-
And yes, it is meant to be good (in the pleasurable sense) by God; and we are to enjoy it.
-
Sex is naturally intended by God to be expressed by a man and woman in a permanent covenantal marriage. Anything else is a misuse of the gift, and therefore, wrong (see pre- and extra-marital sex; homosexuality; and masturbation). Of course, there are levels of misuse – masturbation is nowhere as serious an evil as rape. Adultery is more serious than simple fornication because of the breaking of marital vows.
-
Sex is meant to draw a married couple in a deep physical intimacy which symbolizes not only their deep emotional, psychological and spiritual intimacy; but it is also a symbolic mirror of God’s intimacy with God’s people. (Yes, some Catholic mystic saints make the point that the deepest spiritual urges are like having sex with God.)
-
Sex is meant to be procreative. Even in seemingly natural, barren situations (post-menopausal, e.g.), as long as the couple are ‘open’ to a ‘miracle baby,’ sex is OK.
-
Couples have a natural right and moral obligation to regulate birth (how many and when), while, of course, being open to unplanned children. It is a myth that the RCC wants Catholic couples to have as many children as possible – regardless of what some Irish Catholic couples think.
-
Don’t have a fit about #6, I’m getting to artificial contraception. Yes, couples may regulate birth, but they may only do so naturally. It is birth control that is artificial that is prohibited. Artificial means include devices (condoms, diaphragms, IUDs); chemicals (spermicides, the pill, the morning after pill, norplant); and surgical procedures (sterilization – vasectomy or tubal ligation). The problem with artificial contraception is its artificialness – it’s not ‘natural’ like God intended.
Natural means of regulating birth include the Rhythm Method (now discredited as unreliable and no longer promoted by the RCC for over three decades) and Natural Family Planning (NFP).
According to the UN, which teaches NFP to women in Third World countries, NFP is as effective as the pill or condom. NFP works by having the woman identify ovulation through means of recognizing the symptoms of ovulation (a change in the cervical mucous or a rise in basal body temperature). Once ovulation occurs, there is only a two day window of opportunity for fertilization to take place. Given the limited motility (life-span) of sperm within a women, there is only a five day window of sexual intercourse for conception to take place within a menstrual cycle (usually 28 days).
To avoid pregancy – don’t have vaginal intercourse during those five days in the menstrual cycle – and for the rest of the month, go at it as much as you like.
If you do want to get pregnant, save up your energy during the month and hump like rabbits those five days.
In fact, when women ask their doctors about wanting to get pregnant (usually after being unable to conceive for a year or two); the first thing out of a doctor’s mouth is, “NFP.”
- To bring this back to the OP: The above outlines the position of the largest Christian denomination on sex. The RCC holds that the Bible is inspired, but it also holds that the Church, which wrote the Bible, is the interpreter of the Bible and also uses Tradition and Reason to come up with a moral guideline about such things.
Peace.
Robert Heinlein wrote:
You know what we call women who practice the Rhythm Method? Mothers. 
Moriah, you seem knowledgeable about this subject. I don’t mean to hijack the thread, but I am wondering if you could answer a question for me.
What is the RCC position on plastic surgery both cosmetic and reconstructive? I don’t really want to start an argument, I am genuinely curious.
John
Thank you, Moriah. Actually, I have taken CCD classes. It’s just that I felt a little queasy hunting up the answer to the question in The Catholic Encylcopedia or the Cathecism. (One of these days, I’m going to have to read the Cathecism, but that’s the subject for another thread.)
Anyway, C.M. Keller mentioned that Judaism forbids sex when the woman is menstruating. I was just wondering…wouldn’t women be naturally loathe to perform vaginal intercourse that time of the month? Maybe this rule was created to protect them from overeager husbands…
Well, the rule, very simply, is because God said so. If He decided to do it for that reason, I could not say…
Actually, all forms of contact are forbidden in (Orthodox) Judaism while one’s wife is menstruating. This includes any form of touching (including casual contact.) In fact, a husband and wife cannot pass items directly from one to the other. They sleep in seperate beds. They cannot even each each other’s leftover food.
Zev Steinhardt
Actually the source of the Jewish prohibition is the belief that the blood is the life force of a creature and one becomes ritually impure if one touches blood.
Sociologically, we’d call this a blood taboo.
I’m sure there must of been some wives who found the taboo a relief from an over eager husband (or one they didn’t care for). Just as I’m sure there were some husbands who found this a relief because they were grossed out by the blood of menstration or because, they too, no longer cared for the wife.
However, more than likely, this made the womem feel shamed about themselves and cursed.
Jump to present day non-Jewish society…
Many women are still shamed for their natural menstration. For those whose sex education is non-existent – they panic over the bleeding and think there is something wrong with them.
Those who are given a repressive sex education are taught that this is a ‘problem’ they must contend with in hushed and secretive conversations with mom.
Many men are equally in the dark or misinformed about menstruation, and make their wives feel shame, dirty, and unloved during menstration.
The facts:
-
It is natural. There’s nothing ‘wrong’ with it. To treat a menstrating woman (whether it’s how she treats herself of how others treat her) ‘differently’ because she’s menstrating is like treating her differently because her mouth is salivating.
-
Unless there are severe pre-menstrual symptoms lingering into menstration (rare), there is no reason why a menstrating woman shouldn’t have satisfying sex. A simple douching is all that’s necessary if there is blood present in the vagina – and even then, it’s not absolutely necessary.
-
For men who want to try cunnilingus (or are nice enough to do so when asked) during menstration, blood is the least of their concerns considering what’s already down there, and considering what woman have to put up with when it’s their turn to be oral. Again, a simple douche is all thats needed if the man is squeamish about blood.
-
Then again, if some women need a break from an over eager man, saying “Its that time of the month, dear,” works quite well.
Peace.
And now, something completely different.
There is an episode of “The Upright Citizens Brigade” (a comedy show) in which a man says that God permits him to have kinky sex with his wife through a hole in the bedsheet. The man later decides that he can do anything he wants, as long as he does it through the hole in the bedsheet.
It has been awhile since I have seen the episode, but I think that the man was supposed to be Jewish. Does the sketch allude to a Biblical passage, or did the authors of the sketch create the idea themselves?
Just wondering.
** Chickenhead **
This is an old myth that keeps cropping up. There is no truth to this myth. Jewish couples do not “do it” through a sheet with a hole.
As for how the myth started??
Well, I have one guess. Orthodox Jews wear a garment called * tzitzes *, which is basically a four cornered garmemt. It has a hole through which the head is placed. The garment then rests upon the shoulders and is worn under the shirt. My guess would be that gentile neighbors would see this garment drying on the lines outside and come to their own conclusions.
In truth, however, Jewish couples “do it” in the nude, just like everyone else. 
Zev Steinhardt
It’s…
[Cue “Liberty Bell March” and roll “Monty Python” credits…]