something on my mind
health warning: this post will be (quite) explicit
Going down, sucking off, fellatio, blow-job. However you describe the act, it never sounds pleasant. And yet it can be enjoyable and satisfying for both giver and receiver.
Why is it that euphemisms for blow-jobs usually sound so crude? Or cringeworthy, if you're reading a Mills and Boon. And she took his throbbing member into her salivating mouth.
It was this train of thought that broke my concentration during intercessions on Sunday night. It is difficult to feel prayerful when you've been doing the deed only a few hours before. Eyes closed, hands together, a calm lull over the congregation and the vivid memory pops into my head. Eyes open, hands clammy, a panicked sense that everyone else saw your unholy thoughts. Chances are that I wasn't the only one reminiscing over making her man come while the nice people pondered the persecution of Christians in China. Or I was the only lustful trollop in the congregation, which is more likely.
Setting aside the issues of married/unmarried relationships for a moment, are blow-jobs kosher?
The bible does not forbid oral sex, it doesn't encourage it, in fact the issue never arises. In churches the issue is rarely discussed outside traditional youth group conversations, where teenagers' sincere questions are often trivialised by the leaders' responsibility to toe the party line. I'm intrigued to know whether marriage counselling events that churches occasionally hold open the debate.
I think there should be a debate, or at least a more open forum to discuss it. Surely since the first cavemen fell into rivers and found washing their intimate bits got them laid more often, humans have experimented. Especially when honeymoon cystitis kicked in. Surely women mastered the art of making their men climax without risking pregnancy centuries before male scientists generously empowered them with the pill. Especially in the days when condoms were made from animal intestines. Surely, men being the depraved creatures they are, God knew they would find new places to put their cocks.
But wait, men have found new places and these are, according to the bible, "unnatural". Here, for evangelical types, is the rub.
"Natural" refers, presumably, to sexual acts that could lead to children. So unless sperm begin training to swim the channel, blow-jobs could not be described as "natural".
However, "natural" could refer to sexual acts that lead to pleasure. Not such a silly idea if you consider the mitzvah in Exodus 21 that a man has a duty to give his wife her "marital rights". Not children, but "marital rights", which many Jewish and Christian scholars have interpreted as a husband's obligation to keep his wife sexually happy. A hypothesis that in part explains the existence of the clitoris. Of course, if "natural" does refer to sexual expression, then the question of anal sex within a marriage becomes a quandary, since it is the man's prostate that makes that particular act enjoyable.
Lots of ifs (and butts) in the last few paragraphs. This was really just a development of my random thoughts last Sunday.
I suppose the reason the debate hasn't been raised in too public a forum is the danger that it might lead to accepting other forms of sexual expression. Which, as we all know, would most likely spell the downfall of the human race. That and letting a woman become Archbishop of Canterbury.
Going down, sucking off, fellatio, blow-job. However you describe the act, it never sounds pleasant. And yet it can be enjoyable and satisfying for both giver and receiver.
Why is it that euphemisms for blow-jobs usually sound so crude? Or cringeworthy, if you're reading a Mills and Boon. And she took his throbbing member into her salivating mouth.
It was this train of thought that broke my concentration during intercessions on Sunday night. It is difficult to feel prayerful when you've been doing the deed only a few hours before. Eyes closed, hands together, a calm lull over the congregation and the vivid memory pops into my head. Eyes open, hands clammy, a panicked sense that everyone else saw your unholy thoughts. Chances are that I wasn't the only one reminiscing over making her man come while the nice people pondered the persecution of Christians in China. Or I was the only lustful trollop in the congregation, which is more likely.
Setting aside the issues of married/unmarried relationships for a moment, are blow-jobs kosher?
The bible does not forbid oral sex, it doesn't encourage it, in fact the issue never arises. In churches the issue is rarely discussed outside traditional youth group conversations, where teenagers' sincere questions are often trivialised by the leaders' responsibility to toe the party line. I'm intrigued to know whether marriage counselling events that churches occasionally hold open the debate.
I think there should be a debate, or at least a more open forum to discuss it. Surely since the first cavemen fell into rivers and found washing their intimate bits got them laid more often, humans have experimented. Especially when honeymoon cystitis kicked in. Surely women mastered the art of making their men climax without risking pregnancy centuries before male scientists generously empowered them with the pill. Especially in the days when condoms were made from animal intestines. Surely, men being the depraved creatures they are, God knew they would find new places to put their cocks.
But wait, men have found new places and these are, according to the bible, "unnatural". Here, for evangelical types, is the rub.
"Natural" refers, presumably, to sexual acts that could lead to children. So unless sperm begin training to swim the channel, blow-jobs could not be described as "natural".
However, "natural" could refer to sexual acts that lead to pleasure. Not such a silly idea if you consider the mitzvah in Exodus 21 that a man has a duty to give his wife her "marital rights". Not children, but "marital rights", which many Jewish and Christian scholars have interpreted as a husband's obligation to keep his wife sexually happy. A hypothesis that in part explains the existence of the clitoris. Of course, if "natural" does refer to sexual expression, then the question of anal sex within a marriage becomes a quandary, since it is the man's prostate that makes that particular act enjoyable.
Lots of ifs (and butts) in the last few paragraphs. This was really just a development of my random thoughts last Sunday.
I suppose the reason the debate hasn't been raised in too public a forum is the danger that it might lead to accepting other forms of sexual expression. Which, as we all know, would most likely spell the downfall of the human race. That and letting a woman become Archbishop of Canterbury.
posted by from sychar to eternity at 20:46
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home