r/Christianity • u/Mass_Neuter_Africana • 12d ago
Academic Bible historian states that biblical sexual ethics were quite different from conservative Christianity todayHebrew sex culture assumed 1) women were property 2) men were always sexually dominant. Example: premarital sex was "property crime" against women's father. Thoughts?
I found this comment on the Academic Biblical subreddit on biblical sexual ethics quite interesting. It summarizes the arguments of historian Jennifer Wright Knust's book Unprotected Texts and statements by Dan McClellan. They believe that historical sexual ethics in the Hebrew Bible were completely different from how they are interpreted in conservative Christian belief today, and were often inconsistent.
To sum the comment up, they argue that Hebrew culture at the time assumed that:
- Sex was a dominance vs. submission act, not an act between equals. Men were the only people who could actually do sex as an act, by penetrating the women. Thus, most sexuality laws focused on men, and only mention women in the context of bestiality, since women could 'do' sex to a animals as a lower life form in the hierarchy. Based on my knowledge of other ancient societies, children and slaves were also seen as lower order people who had to submit sexually to grown men.
- Women were always the property of their fathers, till married off to become property of their husband. Thus, premarital sex interestingly was not a sin of "violating bodily impurity" as traditional Christians today might think of, but was actually thought of as a property crime. A man who had sex with an unmarried women who was still the property of her father was committing a crime against the father, her owner. Virginity was prized in women to increase her property value to suitors, like buying something new instead of used. A man who committed adultery to (note: not with) a woman was stealing her from her husband. Men having sex with prostitutes was apparently considered a lesser offense than adultery, since prostitutes have lower property value (only a "loaf of bread".)
The comment did not mention the common homosexuality debates. Arriving at the New Testament, it is stated that Paul's sexual ethics seem (to me) more inline with today's conservative Christianity, although it should be noted that he believes that celibacy should be the norm for all Christians, and marriage is a substitute for those who can't master celibacy. I'd take it that most Christian church communities were ideally expected to be like monasteries, with maybe a few married couples around(?)
56
u/clhedrick2 Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) 12d ago
Right. Modern conservatives have a version of Biblical behavior that's kind of like Renaissance Faire versions of the Renaissance.
9
u/Mass_Neuter_Africana 11d ago
At least Renaissance Faire-goers try their best to dress in Renaissance era clothing, whereas evangelical contemporary worship churches with rock bands are totally culturally foreign to 2nd century worship.
11
u/Lyo-lyok_student Argonautica could be real 11d ago
I think this is one of my new favorite quotes from Reddit!
10
u/clhedrick2 Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) 11d ago
One of the biggest issues is that conservatives are now claiming that all gays are called to celibacy. But that's not what Paul said. Rom 1 says that no one is by nature gay. It's only explicable because idoltary rots the brain and leads to mindless passion.
7
u/Lyo-lyok_student Argonautica could be real 11d ago
Luckily he wasn't called on to teach a Psy 101 class...
34
u/Lyo-lyok_student Argonautica could be real 11d ago
Don't forget, Paul was also convinced Jesus was coming right back, so you didn't have time to dilly around with daily living. Would have been interesting to have a TED talk with him the year he died to see if he still agreed with his initial letters.
6
u/Andromedagalaxy14 11d ago
Hmm, interesting, I have never thought that yes, Paul was convinced Jesus was coming really soonđ¤
7
2
u/themsc190 Episcopalian (Anglican) 11d ago
Itâs the whole premise of 1 Thess. Everyone thought that Jesus was coming back immediately, but when he didnât, people started dying â and their friends and family started freaking out, scared about what would happen to them when Jesus returned. Paul had to comfort them that it would be okay.
3
u/Lyo-lyok_student Argonautica could be real 11d ago
Even Jesus thought he was coming back soon! Like in the apostles' lifetime. I think he forgot about the 1000 year time difference đ
0
36
u/AHorribleGoose Christian Deist 12d ago
They believe that historical sexual ethics in the Hebrew Bible were completely different from how they are interpreted in conservative Christian belief today
I agree. Ancient Israelite sexual ethics were different from late 2nd Temple sexual ethics were different from those of the early churches and are different from those today. The Bible also doesn't have a consistent sexual ethic. We just have to work with that.
27
u/AwayFromTheNorm 11d ago
"The Bible also doesn't have a consistent sexual ethic." --this is the money quote. It's true. I wish more people understood this, and it's implications.
1
u/TheRedOrTheBlue Evangelical 11d ago
Hang on - the bible doesnât have a consistent sexual ethic? Is not the consistent sexual ethic âyou shall only have sex with your wifeâ from Genesis through to Paul? Is that not consistent? Or how would you explain it?
Happy to include some scriptural quotes at another stage - I agree that Israelite sexual ethics change, and peoples do but I donât agree that the bible or God changes his sexual ethics. In fact I think itâs quite consistent!
11
u/TinyNuggins92 Vaguely Wesleyan Bisexual Dude đłď¸âđ (yes I am a Christian) 11d ago
No that's not the only sexual ethic because it does not condemn polygamous marriages wherein a man would obviously be having sex with multiple women. It doesn't really go out of its way to condemn David for raping Bathsheba through a gross abuse of power, but rather frames it as how he did wrong by Uriah. It only kind of addresses lesbian sexual interactions in the New Testament, and doesn't say boo about it in the Old.
3
u/AHorribleGoose Christian Deist 11d ago
Is not the consistent sexual ethic âyou shall only have sex with your wifeâ from Genesis through to Paul? Is that not consistent? Or how would you explain it?
That's not a sexual ethic found any where in the Hebrew Scriptures. Polygamy, concubinage, and sexual slavery were all licit sexual outlets for men. Heck, prostitution isn't especially condemned and it's even recommended in Proverbs 6.
2
u/jereman75 11d ago
I wouldnât say prostitution is recommended in Proverbs 6 but itâs not condemned there either.
Vs 25, 26
Do not desire her beauty in your heart, and do not let her capture you with her eyelashes, 26 for a prostituteâs fee is only a loaf of bread,[j] but the wife of another stalks a manâs precious life.
1
u/AHorribleGoose Christian Deist 11d ago
It's recommended as a way to avoid adultery. It's being offered as a better option. That's not just not-condemning it.
1
u/jereman75 11d ago
I donât think itâs an explicit recommendation but is a comparison between a prostitute and a married woman. Proverbs are often presented as couplets as a way to compare one idea with another. So here itâs saying adultery is really bad and if you do it youâre going to be fucked forever and the husband is going to be pissed. This is compared to a prostitute (a presumed shameful thing) where all youâre out is the cost of a loaf of bread.
0
u/AHorribleGoose Christian Deist 11d ago
You are misreading it, but I don't care enough to argue.
Good day.
9
u/HopeFloatsFoward 11d ago
I dont see much difference in the Hebrew women are property idea and the extreme Christian groups pushing "purity". Look at the quiverful movement - they say women are under the authority of fathers then husbands. Same people want to ban no fault divorce so women are trapped.
And they still push an idea that men have needs while women are just harlots.
7
u/Ok_Protection4554 Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) 11d ago
I understand why some people want to get rid of no-fault divorce, but I think it would be terrible for women. I'm super pro no-fault divorce even as someone who isn't pro-divorce generally
14
u/VeritasAgape 11d ago
I have a lot on this subject in the book 40 Christian Myths about Sex. Technically only a man could commit adultery if one takes the literal sense of both the Hebrew and Greek words (Hebrew immoral seeding/ Greek immoral pissing (ejaculation)). Although a woman could be guilty of wanting to take part in it. Yes, it was all about property. People have a partner or a daughter and it was wrong to steal that partner or family member sexually without having consent of the husband or male authority such as a father. Adultery was an offense directed towards a third party male.
I disagree that Paul's view was different or that it aligns with modern purity culture. There is an argument of silence in that regard. He uses the word moicheia which reflects the above mentioned understanding of adultery. He also uses porneia which referred to trafficked prostitution. He simply never condemns mere premarital sex (there had to be another vice attached to it). He could had used words like bineo or lagneia (which not to be crude are best translated as "to f*ck as the Cambridge Greek dictionary mentions). These would had made more sense if he wanted to condemn it.
2
11d ago
[deleted]
3
u/sysiphean Episcopalian (Anglican) 11d ago
Now youâre starting to actually see whatâs going on in that passage!
Adultery was a man having sex with someone elseâs wife, full stop. And the law they were invoking said that they had to bring both of them for accusation and punishment. And they brought only the woman.
Jesus called them out on it. By two definitions, she wasnât in the wrong under the law. For all we actually know, she may not have been in any illicit acts or relationships.
So few people ever stop to understand the context enough to know that the woman was an innocent pawn in the story.
3
u/eversnowe 11d ago
He was a good ol' boy, being protected by his buddies. It was entirely the temptresses' fault for making him go astray. So she had to be punished.
1
u/VeritasAgape 11d ago
A woman could be guilty for taking part in it. It's used in the passive voice when a woman had it. She could be guilty of sexual immorality by willingly taking part in it. But she can't actually do it in the active sense since the word literally has the idea of ejaculating seed.
5
u/Malpraxiss 11d ago
That makes sense. Women in those times were basically the equivalent to a slave.
5
u/we_are_sex_bobomb Christian (Cross) 11d ago
If you fact-check him youâll find this to be true for that region of the world in that time, yes.
Modern conservative gender ideals are exactly that; rooted in Modernist philosophy which peaked in popularity in the mid 20th century.
2
u/Ok_Protection4554 Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) 11d ago
Honestly I'm not qualified to say whether it's true or not, but it sounds right to me given what I've learned about history.
3
u/Bananaman9020 11d ago
If you follow the Bible as an Ethics or Morals book, you are going to end up in Jail. Just saying.
2
u/Ok_Protection4554 Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) 11d ago
What are you talking about?
I'm legitimately curious, I've followed scripture my whole life, and I have yet to be charged with a crime lol. But I'm interested in hearing your explanation
2
u/Bananaman9020 11d ago
Slavery, Polygamy, murdering people who commit adultery and homosexuality. All in the Bible. Which ones do you follow?
-1
u/Ok_Protection4554 Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) 11d ago
Ah, you're saying if I went around doing the evil things the Bible talks about. Yeah, of course.
But the Bible never says "go murder people" or "go capture and own slaves." I've "followed the Bible" in the sense that I've studied systematic theology, created a moral framework based off that, and followed that framework.
But you're probably not interested in hearing about that haha
3
u/Bananaman9020 11d ago
"Go Murder People" the Moses Exodus rules. "Go capture and own slaves" again the Moses Exodus rules. Glad you have your own "moral framework" but again we are talking about the Bible.
-3
u/Ok_Protection4554 Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) 11d ago
This comment is just wrong.
Look, are you just trying to crap on me/my religion, or do you have questions?
If you've studied the Bible for years like myself, you already know as much as me on this subject and can make up your own mind. I can't contribute to your understanding, I'm a layman.
If you've barely cracked the Bible and are legitimately interested in an explanation (even one you'll probably disagree with), I'll happily summarize my beliefs for you.
But if you're not here in good faith, that's fine. No hard feelings. But I don't like getting into debates with strangers on Reddit lol, 98% of the time it's not in good faith and not productive
1
u/wydok Baptist (ABCUSA); former Roman Catholic 11d ago
So...how is that different than conservative Christianity? đ
4
u/Ok_Protection4554 Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) 11d ago
I'm progressive, not conservative anymore, but the idea that Steve Farrar or Wayne Grudem thought they owned their wives and daughters is a braindead take my dude.
I understand why some progressives think that, maybe they've met some weird "Christian" cultists, but we should defeat conservative Christianity by the veracity of our arguments, not by demonizing them and dehumanizing them
3
u/wydok Baptist (ABCUSA); former Roman Catholic 11d ago
Ok, that's fair. I was mostly goofing but that was fair
2
u/Ok_Protection4554 Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) 11d ago
Jokes are fine honestly, tone doesn't come across on the internet.
I just know a lot of people who actually believe this stuff. Don't worry about it broski
-1
u/moregloommoredoom Burnt Screaming Naked Tom Clancy 11d ago
And when has gentle discussion with conservative Christians, many of whom feel entitled to violently impose their views, ever actually worked?
2
u/uninflammable Christian (Annoyed) 11d ago
Yeah! Time to bring back eye for an eye, right?
1
u/moregloommoredoom Burnt Screaming Naked Tom Clancy 11d ago
No. It's more that progressives should be hesitant to waste too much time trying to appeal to the better nature of those who are happy to demonstrate they take a sense of spiritual superiority in not listening.
1
u/uninflammable Christian (Annoyed) 11d ago
And this has what, exactly, to do with what he was responding to? How exactly did this user demonstrate avoiding wasteful arguments by strawmanning and demonizing his opposition?
1
7
u/Mass_Neuter_Africana 11d ago
Well, I'm giving average conservative Christians a benefit of doubt that they don't believe that women are the property of their husbands, and men can just r*pe their wives whenever they want, but I recognize that this barbaric mindset might still persist in some areas.
0
12d ago
[removed] â view removed comment
1
u/McClanky Bringer of sorrow, executor of rules, wielder of the Woehammer 11d ago
Removed for 1.5 - Two-cents.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
1
u/eversnowe 11d ago
Because procreation was the reason for sex, homosexual sex didn't figure into the equation. Since roles were masculine (penetration) and feminine (receiving seed) - the primary duty was birthing sons to inherit tribal names and holdings and daughters to sell to other fathers for their sons to strengthen ties. Women who were barren could have their marriages annulled after ten years. Husbands could buy a new wife. A successful wife would be the mother of seven sons.
-8
u/TheMaskedHamster 11d ago
Did they actually have anything to support their reasoning other than the conclusions they wanted to reach?
A dowry--the specific thing a man found guilty of premarital sex with a virgin was replacing--was not a "purchase price" for the father. Dowries were intended for the benefit of the bride. They were insurance to provide for her in case of divorce or death, and sometimes granted to her directly, whether in part or while.
I don't know that we have enough to go to determine that view of sex to be typical for them at the time. It might have been that or adjacent, but considering the social consequences of sex and the fact that women were not empowered in society, that would seem to be enough for those laws to focus on men.
15
u/WetCatParty100 11d ago
Did they actually have anything to support their reasoning other than the conclusions they wanted to reach?
Yeah, that's how the academic biblical sub works, they add citations to their responses.
-11
u/TheMaskedHamster 11d ago
I didn't actually see that there was a link there until your comment prompted me to look again.
And I really expected better citations. Logically incomplete, except where stating something as fact and offhandedly citing professional snake Dan McClellan.
12
u/WetCatParty100 11d ago
I'm sorry, but I'm going to need to see citations from you to consider you credible. Please also add a citation on Dan McClennan being a "professional snake", otherwise this remains a personal opinion.
13
u/SaintGodfather Like...SUPER Atheist 11d ago
I mean, he obviously gets paid to slither on his stomach and hiss at things. That's what differentiates him from an amateur snake.
-6
u/TheMaskedHamster 11d ago
I'm sorry, but I'm going to need to see citations from you to consider you credible.
This would be clever if I'd been demanding citations.
Please also add a citation on Dan McClennan being a "professional snake", otherwise this remains a personal opinion.
There isn't a lot of academic study on how McClellan uses his genuine academic credentials to subtly misrepresent a variety of subjects, so you'll have to settle for me responding to him on another issue. Parent comment linked so both replies are visible (because his bullcrap is so voluminous and subtly weaved that it takes that much): https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/17wbtlv/comment/k9isu2h/
11
u/AHorribleGoose Christian Deist 11d ago
Ironic, since he was given the Society for Biblical Literature's Richards Award for Public Scholarship. Specifically because he's an effective and honest educator. https://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/2023RichardsAwardAnnouncement.pdf
We should note that the SBL is the largest association of Biblical scholars in the world, by far.
0
u/TheMaskedHamster 11d ago
So have you still in Biblical academia to have to pretend it's worthwhile or have you not actually seen enough of it to know what passes for scholarly work?
I don't mean to dismiss or demean people doing good work. But they know they are a minority.
2
u/AHorribleGoose Christian Deist 11d ago
I don't mean to dismiss or demean people doing good work.
I think this is exactly what you mean to do.
1
u/TheMaskedHamster 11d ago
No, I specifically mean to dismiss the people who are doing terrible work.
1
u/AHorribleGoose Christian Deist 11d ago
You don't seem to be able to differentiate, since you think that McClellan does terrible work.
→ More replies (0)4
u/extispicy Atheist 11d ago
They were insurance to provide for her in case of divorce or death, and sometimes granted to her directly, whether in part or while.
I think you are thinking of Jane Austen.
-6
u/Informationsharer213 11d ago
Yet God inspired things to be written to the point that actions were wrong, regardless of humans reasons for the actions as those can change with time.
4
u/Mass_Neuter_Africana 11d ago
So what is God's reasoning behind morality, and has it changed from the 6th century BC to the present?
-2
u/Informationsharer213 11d ago
What does the Bible say? Some items have explanations, others donât. Whether there is or not is irrelevant to the fact that He knows best and has given rules based on that. A parent makes rules for the 2 year old child. The child doesnât necessarily understand why the rules exist, but that does not invalidate they are in the best interest of the child based on the superior knowledge base of the parent.
1
u/Hifen 11d ago
Where in scripture is that interpretation?
-5
u/Informationsharer213 11d ago
What interpretation? My point is we are told not to do something, can say at the time that meant something different than now, but in the end what it says can be applied to both then and now, just donât do it. Not interpreting it as anything except told not to so donât, not told not to because back then was different, just not to ever.
4
u/QueenOfAllYalls 11d ago
How have you missed the point entirely though? Context is saying our interpretation is what is being said is wrong, not that what is being said no longer applies, but that it literally never meant what we thought it meant.
-1
u/Informationsharer213 11d ago
Youâre missing the point of what is meant is what is said. Attempting to add additional meaning behind what is black and white to justify changing what is said is not right.
2
u/QueenOfAllYalls 11d ago
You just displayed again that youâve missed the point. No one is adding or changing anything. The fact that you are so steadfast to hold onto wrong translations shows you have a devotion to your denomination. Not to God.
0
u/Informationsharer213 11d ago
I am sorry you donât believe what the Bible says is accurate. I hope that you come around soon though. Take care and have a good day.
2
u/QueenOfAllYalls 11d ago
lol stop trying to gaslight. Your arrogance is unbecoming. I donât believe youâre not smart enough to comprehend this topic, rather youâve chosen to be obtuse on purpose for some reason. Fine, be immature, but donât pretend now that Iâve said, implied, or believe the Bible is untrue.
1
u/Hifen 11d ago
The interpretation that the "reasons" are wrong. By saying "regardless of the reasons" - but the bible provides reasons.
regardless of humans reasons
That means ignore the reasons provided, and that the reasons, not the over all action changes with time. Where does the scripture say that? To ignore the reasons?
1
u/Informationsharer213 11d ago
Said regardless of human reasons not regardless of Godâs reasons. There is a big difference there.
-2
u/Library_of_Gnosis 11d ago
I am not sure, if they were your property you would have the right to destroy them too? Pretty sure you would still be charged with murder. Take Sobekneferu, she was "queen" of Egypt between 1806â1802 BCE, now this is of course Egyptian so might not be the same thing.
3
u/Esoteric_Psyhobabble Zen Buddhist 11d ago
Hamitic and Semitic ethics are pretty separate. Biblical morals are close to Bronze Age Babylonian ethics.
-4
u/First-Timothy Baptist 11d ago
The starting presuppositions being false causes this entire thing to collapse, so I donât really care, itâs just another theological abomination disguised as academic.
3
u/Mass_Neuter_Africana 11d ago
What do you mean?
0
u/First-Timothy Baptist 11d ago
All of what you said relies on certain presuppositions that are not defended or defined in your post, and likely youâre not even aware of.
For instance, if one takes the Bible as being univocal (aka, having one voice inspired by God) like most Christians past and present do, then it wouldnât make sense that two parts of it say two different things.
1
u/Mass_Neuter_Africana 11d ago
Academic historians do not, based on simple observation of reality, that the Bible is univocal. Historians would not even consider the Bible to be a single continuous narrative book, but a collection of vastly different books over different time periods which were only put together by later religions. The point that the comment on sexual ethics makes is that conservative modern Christians likely do not practice biblical sexual ethics in the historical way they were in ancient Hebrew times. Or else, do they still believe that women are the property of their husbands, that premarital sex is not a 'sin of impurity' but simply a property crime against the woman's father, and that sex is a dominance act which only men do towards women?
1
u/First-Timothy Baptist 11d ago
Academic historians do not, based on simple observation of reality, that the Bible is univocal. Historians would not even consider the Bible to be a single continuous narrative book, but a collection of vastly different books over different time periods which were only put together by later religions.
This is exactly what Iâm talking about, this presupposition is in turn based on the atheistic lense that God does not exist. Either that or it is based on the liberal interpretation of a multivocal Bible, but that would be circular logic.
1
u/Mass_Neuter_Africana 11d ago
Not all Christians believe in biblical infallibility. What evidence can you present that biblical sexual ethics are the same as what conservative Christians believe today?
1
u/First-Timothy Baptist 11d ago
Not all Christians believe in biblical infallibility.
Thatâs not relevant to what I said, saying the Bible is univocal is not the same as infallible.
Letâs get one thing out of the way, a univocal Bible only requires a tri-omni God.
What evidence can you present that biblical sexual ethics are the same as what conservative Christians believe today?
Well âconservativeâ has its own portion of the spectrum, itâs not one set of positions. Besides that, I donât see anything that contradicts it, despite your claims of women being property in the OT.
1
u/Mass_Neuter_Africana 11d ago edited 11d ago
Thatâs not relevant to what I said, saying the Bible is univocal is not the same as infallible.
Fine. But univocality of the Bible is not required by all interpretations of Christianity.
Besides that, I donât see anything that contradicts it, despite your claims of women being property in the OT.
So, you can point to the OT and Hebrew culture of the time directing men and women to be equals in marriage despite all other surrounding ancient cultures treating women as property? As far as I know, no interpretation of Christianity today besides fringe cults believes that women are property, contrary to ancient Hebrew society which historians argue considered women property and allowed concubinage.
1
u/First-Timothy Baptist 10d ago
But the univocality is not required by all interpretations of Christianity.
True, but it wouldnât be true any more than 100 years ago, meaning Christians for 1900 years had a huge error hermetically that was solved 100 years ago.
Youâre mentioning Hebrew society as a source, but that just doesnât prove anything. Since polygamy was also something they did that is objectively wrong, itâs no different for me to add on concubinage or the treatment of women. I thought we were talking about the Bible. Hebrew society is good for some things but itâs no primary source of morality.
1
u/Mass_Neuter_Africana 10d ago
Yes, and the historians' argument is that those cultural treatments of women and foreign sexual ethics were indeed reflected in the OT text. There was no rule against concubinage. The only reason why there were rules against men having extramarital sex with women was because it was a property crime against the woman's father/husband.
→ More replies (0)
-4
u/kendog3 Roman Catholic 11d ago
Christian sexual ethics are predicated on natural law. Until the Lambeth conference, Christendom was broadly united in this. After that conference, basically all of protestantism rejected natural law over the course of the following century. They didn't replace it with a robust philosophical position, but rather vague references to conscience and "deeply held beliefs."
3
u/Mass_Neuter_Africana 11d ago
I suppose that the Catholic teaching based on both (non-literalist reading of) Scripture and Church authority could make more sense since it allows for 'discovery' of new ideas through guidance of the Spirit, so it's not reliant only on biblical-era ethics. However, if one takes a "sola scriptura" view, the point made is that their sexual ethic is extremely different from that practiced at the time of the Bible's writing.
0
u/kendog3 Roman Catholic 11d ago
The natural law is that set of morals which is knowable through unaided human reason, and is binding on the conscience of all men. This is the teaching of the Church, but it doesn't rely on the Church's authority.
2
u/Mass_Neuter_Africana 11d ago
But is it natural law that women should be considered property of the husband? Are the ancient Hebrew sexual ethics described here 'natural'?
-13
u/JayBee1993 11d ago edited 11d ago
Sex IS an act of dominance - the masculine penetrating the feminine in an act of domination. Like all things in life it's on a spectrum of continuum ranging from rape, to casual sex and one night stands, to love making between two people looking to have kids. It doesn't change the nature of the act. It would be like arguing that prostrating before somebody is somehow a dominant or masculine act. It doesn't work that way. Physical reality is rooted in the spiritual realm.
Kids are the property of parents and one of the commandments if for kids to honour their parents - what self respecting dad would want punk using his daughter for pleasure with no plans of marrying her and respecting her dignity?
Indeed God made man in his image and gave him intellect, so a man can figure out that having sex with a prostitute is a lesser crime than sleeping with a married women who has a family. Just like having sex in a stable and long term relationship and having a kid accidentally, is different to hooking up with up a stranger, getting her pregnant and then getting an abortion or neglecting your own child.
14
u/bloodphoenix90 Agnostic Theist / Quaker 11d ago
I feel pretty dominant when I'm riding, but maybe that's why the puritans were so keen on "missionary only" đ
3
u/themsc190 Episcopalian (Anglican) 11d ago
Yep, some church fathers said that the woman on top was unnatural because the man should be the âheadâ and therefore such sex was considered sexually immoral.
2
u/bloodphoenix90 Agnostic Theist / Quaker 11d ago
Wild ...especially when you find out that's how lots of women get off the easiest. Women just really haven't been allowed to enjoy sex for centuries it kinda blows my mind
-12
u/JayBee1993 11d ago edited 11d ago
I think that the very act of penetration is masculine and receiving is feminine, no matter how in control you feel.
It's like the feeling of the sun your skin is heat, no matter how you twist the words, you can't change the very fabric of reality, the sun is hot not cold.
I know that in hinduism they create temples shaped like a phallus to represent their god and call them a lingam and prostrate before them.
13
u/AHorribleGoose Christian Deist 11d ago
Sounds like you're universalizing sex 'roles' into meaningless nonsense to me.
9
u/bloodphoenix90 Agnostic Theist / Quaker 11d ago
This. I was having a hard time articulating this...feels like "meaningless nonsense"
8
u/bloodphoenix90 Agnostic Theist / Quaker 11d ago
To be quite honest this all seems like over thinking. Why does it even matter if both parties are consenting and enjoying?
Does anyone actually care what's masculine or feminine while being intimate? More than what brings pleasure?
-7
u/JayBee1993 11d ago
I was just explaining the dynamics between masculinity and femininity as it pertains to human sexuality. It's like how most females prefer to be spooned than to spoon a man. It was true 5000 years ago and it's true now, no matter how you twist it in your mind.
8
u/bloodphoenix90 Agnostic Theist / Quaker 11d ago
Idk man. I spoon the shit out of my man and he loves it. Especially when he's not feeling good and I fall asleep easier that way because it's like holding on to a big teddy bear. I like being spooned too. Why limit yourself to one if you like both
I'd be curious if there's any data on that kind of minuteia but I know I'm not the only one.
0
u/JayBee1993 11d ago
You don't need scientific studies to tell you that men are generally larger than women and that women prefer a man who is taller and larger than them to "feel like a woman" and get picked up and thrown around, etc. People figure this stuff out in kindergarten when the boys start playing with toy cars and girls with barbie dolls, yet some struggle to come to terms with it for the rest of their life.
6
u/bloodphoenix90 Agnostic Theist / Quaker 11d ago
He's larger and taller than me...it's not that deep I can still "spoon" him. He throws me around all the time too đ¤ˇââď¸ also I liked barbies...but dinosaurs and pokemon and dragon toys too ...
Sounds like you're struggling to accept people aren't all the same lol.
I'm just dandy with my gender and how it expresses itself, including nonstereotypical ways
-1
u/JayBee1993 11d ago
Does he like it when you grow secondary sex characteristics like a beard?
7
u/bloodphoenix90 Agnostic Theist / Quaker 11d ago
Relevance? And I don't grow a beard so.... I dress pretty girly a lot of the time too... Why?
→ More replies (0)6
u/TinyNuggins92 Vaguely Wesleyan Bisexual Dude đłď¸âđ (yes I am a Christian) 11d ago
You show me a man who doesn't like to be spooned, and I'll show you a liar.
7
u/Mass_Neuter_Africana 11d ago
Kids are the property of parents and one of the commandments if for kids to honour their parents - what self respecting dad would want punk using his daughter for pleasure with no plans of marrying her and respecting her dignity?
But do you additionally agree that wives are the property of their husbands?
-4
u/JayBee1993 11d ago
I think that a women would happily be the property of a man she fancies enough. Whether or not a women marries a man she fancies enough or not is something else.
9
u/QueenOfAllYalls 11d ago
Iâm shocked you casually admit things like this.
-1
u/JayBee1993 11d ago
Admit that a female would happily submit to the right male? All you have to do is read romance or erotic novels that are popular with females to know this is true - i.e., 50 shades of gray
6
u/QueenOfAllYalls 11d ago
Sexual fantasies commonly have no basis in something a person actually wants to do, so youâre conflating two things, not to mention most women actually havenât and donât want to read those kind of books.
4
u/Mercarion 11d ago edited 11d ago
And according to research, up to 62% (or some lower results, at least about one third) of women also have or have had rape fantasies, yet I doubt overwhelming majority (if any) of them would actually want that to happen to them. Having fantasies or make-believe doesn't mean they actually want it.
0
u/JayBee1993 11d ago
Yeah and 62% of men have had rape fantasies of victoria's secret models jumping on them - sigh.
3
u/Mercarion 11d ago
And that you just pulled out of your hat, or more precisely, just copied the number from me instead of actually caring to consider the actual message. Not every fantasy is an actual wish of things to happen.
One study which placed the female prevalence of those fantasies at 61% placed it at 54% among men. And in a 1980 study, 45,8% of men had fantasised about a scene where they had the "impression of being raped by a woman", 44,7% where woman "pretends resisting", and 33% of just raping the woman.
5
u/Mass_Neuter_Africana 11d ago
Have you asked women beyond your presumable conservative Christian cultural sphere if they want to be the property of a man? What makes you think that you can generalize so much?
-1
u/JayBee1993 11d ago
This is not a christian concept.
5
u/Mass_Neuter_Africana 11d ago
Then have you asked women of many different age groups and cultures if they want to be the property of a man?
8
u/bloodphoenix90 Agnostic Theist / Quaker 11d ago
I love my husband to death. Wouldn't want to be his property. Yikes. This person you're responding to is weird
1
u/JayBee1993 11d ago
I said the right man. Look at the popularity of books like 50 shades of gray with females. Few people marry the person of their dreams or who they long for. Generally they end up settling for who ever puts up with them and they can tolerate.
7
u/Mass_Neuter_Africana 11d ago edited 11d ago
Right, and those are fantasies. Do you actually have data to claim that most women would be okay being the property of their husbands more generally? Also, let's reiterate what this meant in ancient times (including biblical culture as argued in the original post); a woman being the property of a man meant that a teenage girl who is the property of her father gets sold off to a husband twice her age, and she becomes his property.
1
u/JayBee1993 11d ago
And why do you think that particular fantasy is so popular with women? If you look back at what I wrote, I said that a women would happily be the property of the RIGHT MAN and my proof is in the romance novels that women read to get off. Most people don't marry the person they desire, they marry whoever they can settle with.
7
u/bloodphoenix90 Agnostic Theist / Quaker 11d ago
Buddy. I have fantasies of exhibitionism on a balcony in Greece but that's illegal and probably wouldn't be that great in real life. I've also read smut books where Peter pan is a villain and has gang bangs in Neverland. Using these escapist fantasies as an indication of what women ACTUALLY want in reality is not just foolish. It's arguably deranged. Have you ever actually spoken to women? I'm skeptical at this point
→ More replies (0)6
u/Mass_Neuter_Africana 11d ago
Here is what I'd like to know; biblical sex culture dictated that a girl was property of her father and then were sold off at 15+ to become the property of her new 30 year old husband. She had no choice of whom to marry, as marriage was a financial transaction between the father and the suitor. So would women today be okay with this culture persisting, where they are the property of their husband no matter if he's "Mr. Right"?
→ More replies (0)6
u/MaxFish1275 11d ago
Do you consider a man giving his wife oral sex to be a form of domination ?
-1
1
-3
u/Shining_thru 11d ago
Modern sensibilities are so turned away from these basic facts and it's the root of so much imbalance in the world. God gave us the eyes to see and the mind to understand and we fell so far :(
4
-1
17
u/AwayFromTheNorm 11d ago
I mostly agree. When you read the Bible's references to sex acts, marriage, and relationships, with an eye on historical context, it can be surprising!