Orthodoxy's views on non-intercourse Sexual Activity?

[RaymondG]

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)​

Thanks.

Do you believe that you are a person that changes daily...or are you the same person maybe growing with experience and memory? If you are the body, you would have to believe that you are a changing entity, as the body changes everyday. If the person in the mirror is you.....you are almost a totally different person every 10 years.....every 2 in the earlier stages of life. If you get scarred or lose a limb, you change permanently.

yet....The 'you' that witnesses this change in the body.....never changed/changes. So how can you be the unchanged and the changing? e.g. You look at the mirror you see a handsome guy "you say that is me". you cut your face and then look again and say that the one with the cut is now you. so were you lying before the cut? Cause this new you, is not the same as the you before the cut... Yet the one who noticed the change and used your eyes to witness the change....remained the same......
So are you the body or a one who uses it?

 

[ArmyMatt]

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.)

true love in the marriage bed is a total focus on the other, which can only be open to the possibility of having kids.

 

[AMM]

true love in the marriage bed is a total focus on the other, which can only be open to the possibility of having kids.

So does this sort of have to do with passivity/activity? In these things (especially something like oral sex), it's just one person being "loved", and they're not focusing on their spouse, just on their own pleasure? Whereas in proper sex, both people are focused on each other (and ideally, more on the other than on the self, although in a sinful world this won't always be the case)?

 

[RaymondG]

So does this sort of have to do with passivity/activity? In these things (especially something like oral sex), it's just one person being "loved", and they're not focusing on their spouse, just on their own pleasure? Whereas in proper sex, both people are focused on each other (and ideally, more on the other than on the self, although in a sinful world this won't always be the case)?

Maybe you can find a better example, as I've heard that there are ways your (example) can be done simultaneously to both partners. I believe your example may be marked as sin regardless of whether or not it is focusing on one or both.....

 

[ArmyMatt]

So does this sort of have to do with passivity/activity? In these things (especially something like oral sex), it's just one person being "loved", and they're not focusing on their spouse, just on their own pleasure? Whereas in proper sex, both people are focused on each other (and ideally, more on the other than on the self, although in a sinful world this won't always be the case)?

that's certainly part of it, plus there is no chance at kids when it comes to that.

 

[AMM]

that's certainly part of it, plus there is no chance at kids when it comes to that.

Fair enough, but kids can't be the only or even the biggest reason, can they? On that -- does the Church forbid marital relations when one member is pregnant or infertile (whether temporarily or permanently)? I think I asked this before and you said it's not forbidden in infertility but I'm wanting to understand the reason for these stances

 

[ArmyMatt]

Fair enough, but kids can't be the only or even the biggest reason, can they? On that -- does the Church forbid marital relations when one member is pregnant or infertile (whether temporarily or permanently)? I think I asked this before and you said it's not forbidden in infertility but I'm wanting to understand the reason for these stances

no it isn't the only reason. the other reason is to become one with your spouse. sexually speaking, this only occurs when both are seeking only the pleasure and good of the other.

as for infertility, there are more than enough stories of God overriding barrenness, even outside of Scripture. one even happened to an Antiochian priest I know

 

[~Anastasia~]

that's certainly part of it, plus there is no chance at kids when it comes to that.

But in the context say of an overall - session - which also included the act where children are possible?

As others have mentioned, such could be mutual and focused on the other, and I'm removing the "no chance of children" part - so theoretically could we say the act itself when those aren't concerns is still automatically sinful in itself?

It's been a long time since I read Song of Solomon, but my impression is that various kinds of - endearment and enjoyment - might be suggested.

By the way - I think oral sex and bondage are two totally different questions. One is just various kinds of bodily contact which could easily be something offered in part of a larger process (involving the act resulting in children) and for the benefit of the other - and the other requires (I think) some objectification of persons and so has its own taboos associated.

I hope I'm remaining discreet.

 

[ArmyMatt]

But in the context say of an overall - session - which also included the act where children are possible?

As others have mentioned, such could be mutual and focused on the other, and I'm removing the "no chance of children" part - so theoretically could we say the act itself when those aren't concerns is still automatically sinful in itself?

It's been a long time since I read Song of Solomon, but my impression is that various kinds of - endearment and enjoyment - might be suggested.

By the way - I think oral sex and bondage are two totally different questions. One is just various kinds of bodily contact which could easily be something offered in part of a larger process (involving the act resulting in children) and for the benefit of the other - and the other requires (I think) some objectification of persons and so has its own taboos associated.

I hope I'm remaining discreet.

well, I wasn't equating bondage and oral sex, just two things that came to mind as no-go's. there are certain parts of the body that should not go into other parts.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Ive never heard any list of bedroom sex prohibitions like oral sex being a sin before. Not like I really want to discuss this topic a whole lot. Yikes. But I’ve never heard oral sex on some banned list of bedroom activities.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Bondage....like George Costanza handcuffed to a bed and robbed kind of stuff?

 

[rusmeister]

I say, as a fallen sinner myself, that it is now clear to me that all these things described here are not part of God’s plan. They are misuse. I have been caught in the net of the world like so many others. But the truth is simple and clear. It’s not God’s plan. Accept that, and everything becomes clear. Sodomy becomes, not a narrow understanding of one particular act, but behavior that leads to the state of Sodom. And these behaviors do. If they are illegitimate in one context, they can be imagined, however wrongly, as legitimate in another. If they are illegitimate in all contexts, that pulls the rug from under the wooden leg the Alphabet Soup people are standing on.

We have all, or at least most of us have, been seduced by the world to imagine these things legitimate, and so, have enabled and abetted (however unwittingly) the evils unleashed in the world today.

Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner!

 

[ArmyMatt]

I say, as a fallen sinner myself, that it is now clear to me that all these things described here are not part of God’s plan. They are misuse. I have been caught in the net of the world like so many others. But the truth is simple and clear. It’s not God’s plan. Accept that, and everything becomes clear. Sodomy becomes, not a narrow understanding of one particular act, but behavior that leads to the state of Sodom. And these behaviors do. If they are illegitimate in ne context, they can be imagined, however wrongly, as legitimate in another. If they are illegitimate in all contexts, that pulls the rug from under the wooden leg the Alphabet Soup people are standing on.

We have all, or at least most of us have, been seduced by the world to imagine these things legitimate, and so, have enabled and abetted (however unwittingly) the evils unleashed in the world today.

Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner!

indeed. not to be crude, but Fr Tom Hopko once gave a talk on sex at Penn State, and he said that just because something can fit inside something else, that doesn't mean it should go there.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Bondage....like George Costanza handcuffed to a bed and robbed kind of stuff?

haha, in his best suit

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

TAW....making sex as boring as possible

 

[icxn]

Thanks...
So are you the body or a one who uses it?

Why not both? It's not like the soul (you) comes into being independently of the body.

 

[~Anastasia~]

TAW....making sex as boring as possible

Haha.

Well as for me I try to be - delicate - lol. I have to say that over the years I've learned some interesting foundational reasons that are helpful to know - more so than discussing specific acts. Besides, without going into details, which I think would be inappropriate, it's too easy to imagine a wide range of particulars that might fall under the umbrella of the rather general ways we tend to speak.

I do very much appreciate the distinctions that relate to not objectifying persons, for example.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I just can’t imagine a wife or husband opening up the sex act orally as Gehenna bait, but I’ll shut up...

Haha.

Well as for me I try to be - delicate - lol. I have to say that over the years I've learned some interesting foundational reasons that are helpful to know - more so than discussing specific acts. Besides, without going into details, which I think would be inappropriate, it's too easy to imagine a wide range of particulars that might fall under the umbrella of the rather general ways we tend to speak.

I do very much appreciate the distinctions that relate to not objectifying persons, for example.

 

[AMM]

But in the context say of an overall - session - which also included the act where children are possible?

As others have mentioned, such could be mutual and focused on the other, and I'm removing the "no chance of children" part - so theoretically could we say the act itself when those aren't concerns is still automatically sinful in itself?

It's been a long time since I read Song of Solomon, but my impression is that various kinds of - endearment and enjoyment - might be suggested.

By the way - I think oral sex and bondage are two totally different questions. One is just various kinds of bodily contact which could easily be something offered in part of a larger process (involving the act resulting in children) and for the benefit of the other - and the other requires (I think) some objectification of persons and so has its own taboos associated.

I hope I'm remaining discreet.

That's what I'm thinking - Song of Solomon does describe a lot of various thing. And yeah, if the procreative act is still an aspect of a "session", then that wouldn't be an issue.

But yeah, objectification is a big issue. But I'm not sure if that necessarily occurs in these other acts.

indeed. not to be crude, but Fr Tom Hopko once gave a talk on sex at Penn State, and he said that just because something can fit inside something else, that doesn't mean it should go there.

That makes sense, but I don't know if it's an argument on its own. It doesn't support that these things shouldn't happen, just argues against the fact that they should. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs a bit.

 

[ArmyMatt]

That makes sense, but I don't know if it's an argument on its own. It doesn't support that these things shouldn't happen, just argues against the fact that they should. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs a bit.

it was in the greater context of the talk. Fr Tom was definitely against Christians engaging in such activity.