Orthodoxy's views on non-intercourse Sexual Activity?

AMM · Sep 26, 2018

Good morning!

I'll try to keep this as appropriate and non-expletive as possible.

The Roman church would forbid non-procreative sexual activity (for example, oral sex or manual sex), whereas many (but not all) Protestant churches would allow this.

I'm under the impression that Orthodoxy is less strict than Rome on matters of contraception and birth control, so I was curious how that relates to those things like oral sex or manual sex between a couple. What about things like "pulling out" -- is this equivalent to Onan's sin? Are these things entirely unacceptable, are they up to the couple's discretion so long as they do these things in love and in a desire to become "one" with the other, or is this an ask-your-priest question?

And whatever the answer is, why?

Natsumi Lam · Sep 26, 2018

I think the reason for the problem is that the father Judah , a man with biblical authority, instructed Onan to marry and have a child. Onan spilt his seed against instruction and died.

I think the issue is to where the authority lies. It is not a normal thing for a man, with God given authority, to command such an act. Biblically speaking historically men had authority over their family.

So i think this provides an example of God's establishment of the hiarchy of authority rather then not permitting withdrawl.

I think that it should be a decision between husband and wife unless God instructs otherwise.

ArmyMatt · Sep 26, 2018

AMM said:
Good morning!

I'll try to keep this as appropriate and non-expletive as possible.

The Roman church would forbid non-procreative sexual activity (for example, oral sex or manual sex), whereas many (but not all) Protestant churches would allow this.

I'm under the impression that Orthodoxy is less strict than Rome on matters of contraception and birth control, so I was curious how that relates to those things like oral sex or manual sex between a couple. What about things like "pulling out" -- is this equivalent to Onan's sin? Are these things entirely unacceptable, are they up to the couple's discretion so long as they do these things in love and in a desire to become "one" with the other, or is this an ask-your-priest question?

And whatever the answer is, why?

for one, we are not less strict when it comes to birth control or contraception. we just take pastoral considerations into account depending on the person.

and no, no oral sex, no pulling out, etc.

but for all this stuff, you gotta talk to both spouse and priest (aside from graphic details).

RaymondG · Sep 26, 2018

ArmyMatt said:
and no, no oral sex, no pulling out, etc.

Are these sins in your church? Do they send one to a hell? IS there a reason why you believe this?

AMM · Sep 26, 2018

ArmyMatt said:
for one, we are not less strict when it comes to birth control or contraception. we just take pastoral considerations into account depending on the person.

and no, no oral sex, no pulling out, etc.

but for all this stuff, you gotta talk to both spouse and priest (aside from graphic details).

I phrased that poorly -- that's what I meant about contraception and birth control. Orthodoxy is less legalistic "you must not do this under any circumstance or you'll be condemned"

What's the reason for not allowing oral sex, pulling out, etc.? And what would you talk to spouse and priest about if they're condemned by the Church?

I'm still trying to get away from my legalistic way of seeing things as black and white, condemned or allowed

Chris V++ · Sep 26, 2018

The contemporary interpretation of the 'marriage bed is undefiled' scripture is as a license to have fun, but does Orthodoxy interpret it as 'don't defile the marriage bed?" What about Solomon's Shulamite? It reads like marital relations are intended as more than just utilitarian.

ArmyMatt · Sep 26, 2018

RaymondG said:
Are these sins in your church? Do they send one to a hell? IS there a reason why you believe this?

yes, they are sins. you will only go to hell if you refuse to repent of them. and I believe it because it's what the Orthodox Church teaches. sex acts which satisfy one member, use parts of the body not for their intended use, etc. are sinful.

ArmyMatt · Sep 26, 2018

AMM said:
I phrased that poorly -- that's what I meant about contraception and birth control. Orthodoxy is less legalistic "you must not do this under any circumstance or you'll be condemned"

What's the reason for not allowing oral sex, pulling out, etc.? And what would you talk to spouse and priest about if they're condemned by the Church?

I'm still trying to get away from my legalistic way of seeing things as black and white, condemned or allowed

because in those acts you describe, it's not done with both people in self emptying love for the other (to include potential children).

talking to your priest was more about the pastoral consideration of contraception or whatever. not about finding other areas of the human body to use in sex.

RaymondG · Sep 26, 2018

ArmyMatt said:
yes, they are sins. you will only go to hell if you refuse to repent of them. and I believe it because it's what the Orthodox Church teaches. sex acts which satisfy one member, use parts of the body not for their intended use, etc. are sinful.

Thanks for the info. What do you think of this: "They that walk after the spirit, no longer mind the things of the flesh" This lead me to not focus on what other do with their bodies, but focus on the soul....on things that live on after the body is dust again. What do you say?

ArmyMatt · Sep 26, 2018

RaymondG said:
Thanks for the info. What do you think of this: "They that walk after the spirit, no longer mind the things of the flesh" This lead me to not focus on what other do with their bodies, but focus on the soul....on things that live on after the body is dust again. What do you say?

but the body will return. we are also to present our bodies as a living sacrifice, our bodies are a temple of the Spirit.

man is soul and body together, to say that we can neglect what we do with our bodies to only focus on the soul is gnostic and not Christian. our bodies affect our soul, and the soul affects the body.

~Anastasia~ · Sep 26, 2018

I'm not saying this to set down any "rules" but what comes to my mind ...

Is that perhaps it is common for activity between a husband and wife to have different kinds of expression, which has as its goal mutual pleasure (each emptying themselves for the sake of the other) and without the intention of blocking conception of children - yet are perhaps "in addition to" strictly the act that produces children. In fact, it can be argued for some women that to restrict them to only that act could be less than enjoyable or even painful.

I have a concern that drawing too many lines about exactly what is appropriate and what is not could potentially lead to misunderstanding the overall dynamic of marital relations?

I'm no expert but it seems helpful to me to keep the motives of the heart in mind above exact actions, as seems to often be helpful in many areas where we might consider what is good and right to do?

ArmyMatt · Sep 26, 2018

~Anastasia~ said:
I'm not saying this to set down any "rules" but what comes to my mind ...

Is that perhaps it is common for activity between a husband and wife to have different kinds of expression, which has as its goal mutual pleasure (each emptying themselves for the sake of the other) and without the intention of blocking conception of children - yet are perhaps "in addition to" strictly the act that produces children. In fact, it can be argued for some women that to restrict them to only that act could be less than enjoyable or even painful.

I have a concern that drawing too many lines about exactly what is appropriate and what is not could potentially lead to misunderstanding the overall dynamic of marital relations?

I'm no expert but it seems helpful to me to keep the motives of the heart in mind above exact actions, as seems to often be helpful in many areas where we might consider what is good and right to do?

sure, that's where the pastoral consideration always comes in to play. but there are certain things that a husband and wife are not to do sexually.

~Anastasia~ · Sep 26, 2018

ArmyMatt said:
sure, that's where the pastoral consideration always comes in to play. but there are certain things that a husband and wife are not to do sexually.

I hope it's not improper to ask but my thought would be that to do those things in isolation and for their own sake would be where the problem would come in?

ArmyMatt · Sep 26, 2018

~Anastasia~ said:
I hope it's not improper to ask but my thought would be that to do those things in isolation and for their own sake would be where the problem would come in?

certainly could be. but I don't think there is any place at all for oral sex or bondage, even if both spouses are into that.

RaymondG · Sep 26, 2018

ArmyMatt said:
but the body will return. we are also to present our bodies as a living sacrifice, our bodies are a temple of the Spirit.

man is soul and body together, to say that we can neglect what we do with our bodies to only focus on the soul is gnostic and not Christian. our bodies affect our soul, and the soul affects the body.

Surprised to see you use "this group of people think this" as reason for an idea being false. I dont subscribe to the dismissal of all ideas and doctrines because they come from a religion, group, or sect other than my own. So I would need more than "that sounds Buddhist/Gnostic/Pentecostal/etc.." for a reason why a view or idea is false, or against the teachings of God.

Since you believe the body will return, presumably, as you know it now only "glorified", What do you think of the verse, "flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom........"? And we acknowledge that the body is the temple in which God dwells.......so why do we hold so sacred the temples man with hands...

I believe that we are spirits, currently using bodies. We descended into the flesh and became the flesh...which is a reason why we would be concerned with things done in the flesh. These rules would imply that there is something we can do in the flesh (not do certain sexually practices) that would please God. When , in the flesh, no man can please God. My goal is to deny the flesh, and walk after the spirit....to no longer worship with hands, but in spirit and in truth, for the father seeketh such. This goal is hindered by the idea that i am the body and can please god with it....... He who seeks to save his life shall lose it, and he who loses his life for His name sake shall save it......

ArmyMatt · Sep 26, 2018

RaymondG said:
Surprised to see you use "this group of people think this" as reason for an idea being false. I dont subscribe to the dismissal of all ideas and doctrines because they come from a religion, group, or sect other than my own. So I would need more than "that sounds Buddhist/Gnostic/Pentecostal/etc.." for a reason why a view or idea is false, or against the teachings of God.

Since you believe the body will return, presumably, as you know it now only "glorified", What do you think of the verse, "flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom........"? And we acknowledge that the body is the temple in which God dwells.......so why do we hold so sacred the temples man with hands...

I believe that we are spirits, currently using bodies. We descended into the flesh and became the flesh...which is a reason why we would be concerned with things done in the flesh. These rules would imply that there is something we can do in the flesh (not do certain sexually practices) that would please God. When , in the flesh, no man can please God. My goal is to deny the flesh, and walk after the spirit....to no longer worship with hands, but in spirit and in truth, for the father seeketh such. This goal is hindered by the idea that i am the body and can please god with it....... He who seeks to save his life shall lose it, and he who loses his life for His name sake shall save it......

we are not spirits using bodies. the Church has already rejected such teachings.

RaymondG · Sep 26, 2018

ArmyMatt said:
we are not spirits using bodies. the Church has already rejected such teachings.

I find no fault in rejecting what the church rejects....and do not wish to persuade you otherwise.

ArmyMatt · Sep 26, 2018

RaymondG said:
I find no fault in rejecting what the church rejects....and do not wish to persuade you otherwise.

well, being a priest, I can only affirm what the Church has said

icxn · Sep 26, 2018

RaymondG said:
...Since you believe the body will return, presumably, as you know it now only "glorified", What do you think of the verse, "flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom........"? And we acknowledge that the body is the temple in which God dwells.......so why do we hold so sacred the temples man with hands...

Flesh and blood in this verse we understand the sins performed by the body or those who do them. Flesh are those sins motivated by pleasure and blood those motivated by anger.

Quote from St. John Cassian (Conf. 4 Ch. 10):

We find that the word flesh is used in holy Scripture with many different meanings: for sometimes it stands for the whole man, i.e., for that which consists of body and soul, as here And the Word was made flesh, (John 1:14) and All flesh shall see the salvation of our God. (Luke 3:6) Sometimes it stands for sinful and carnal men, as here My spirit shall not remain in those men, because they are flesh. (Genesis 6:3) Sometimes it is used for sins themselves, as here: But you are not in the flesh but in the spirit, (Romans 8:9) and again Flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God: lastly there follows, Neither shall corruption inherit incorruption. (1 Corinthians 15:50) Sometimes it stands for consanguinity and relationship, as here: Behold we are your bone and your flesh, (2 Samuel 5:1) and the Apostle says: If by any means I may provoke to emulation them who are my flesh, and save some of them. (Romans 11:14)

AMM · Sep 26, 2018

ArmyMatt said:
because in those acts you describe, it's not done with both people in self emptying love for the other (to include potential children).

~Anastasia~ said:
I hope it's not improper to ask but my thought would be that to do those things in isolation and for their own sake would be where the problem would come in?

ArmyMatt said:
certainly could be. but I don't think there is any place at all for oral sex or bondage, even if both spouses are into that.

I guess my follow-up question to these messages is, is the potential of children an essential part or the only kind of self emptying love? If, as you put it, both spouses are into it, then can't that be an expression of their love for each other? (I'm not advocating for complete liberality and anarchy in the marriage bed, nor that the spouses' desires are the only thing that matters.)

Orthodoxy's views on non-intercourse Sexual Activity?

A Beggar

Preparer of the Bride

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

A Beggar

Associate Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

† Handmaid of God †

Regular Member

† Handmaid of God †

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Bραδύγλωσσος αἰπόλος μαθητεύων κνίζειν συκάμινα

A Beggar

Similar threads