Is Kinky Sex Wrong?

[Merv]

I've heard people say that kinky sex is a perversion of God's design for sex. But then again, I've also heard a few people say that anything can go in the bedroom so long as it's still between the married man and the woman.

I don't think the Bible ever stated that kinky sex between married people is bad. Does the Bible even state that general lust between married people is bad for that matter?

So where's the real truth of that? Is kinky sex wrong?

[john_anthony_gonzalez]

I've heard people say that kinky sex is a perversion of God's design for sex. But then again, I've also heard a few people say that anything can go in the bedroom so long as it's still between the married man and the woman.

I don't think the Bible ever stated that kinky sex between married people is bad. Does the Bible even state that general lust between married people is bad for that matter?

So where's the real truth of that? Is kinky sex wrong?

Gods design for sex is for reproduction and to symbolize his covenant with the church as his bride. But God gave us the ability to enjoy our marriage partners, Anything can go as long as both the married man and woman are ok with it, and the act is only between them. The only way this scenario would be wrong is if the woman didn't agree to anything the husband would do or vice versa

[McCulloch]

Gods design for sex is for reproduction and to symbolize his covenant with the church as his bride. But God gave us the ability to enjoy our marriage partners, Anything can go as long as both the married man and woman are ok with it, and the act is only between them. The only way this scenario would be wrong is if the woman didn't agree to anything the husband would do or vice versa

This is your opinion. Do you have any evidence to back up your opinion? In the past, God seemed to care about not just who you have sex with but when. You were not allowed during or for a period after menstruation. Has that changed? Why?

[john_anthony_gonzalez]

I've heard people say that kinky sex is a perversion of God's design for sex. But then again, I've also heard a few people say that anything can go in the bedroom so long as it's still between the married man and the woman.

I don't think the Bible ever stated that kinky sex between married people is bad. Does the Bible even state that general lust between married people is bad for that matter?

So where's the real truth of that? Is kinky sex wrong?

Gods design for sex is for reproduction and to symbolize his covenant with the church as his bride. But God gave us the ability to enjoy our marriage partners, Anything can go as long as both the married man and woman are ok with it, and the act is only between them. The only way this scenario would be wrong is if the woman didn't agree to anything the husband would do or vice versa

The reason the bible doesnt take a prudish view about sex, is because Sex within a marriage is viewed as a good gift from God to be enjoyed and celebrated by both husband and wife (Prov 5:15-20 Heb 13:4)

The Bible also encourages people to have sex frequently between married couples
1Corin 7:35 here it explains that husbands have a duty to maintain sexual relations with wives and vice versa so that neither will be tempted by sin to have sex outside the marriage

[Talisman]

How do do define kinky anyway and by whose rules ?

June

[Zzyzx]

I've heard people say that kinky sex is a perversion of God's design for sex. But then again, I've also heard a few people say that anything can go in the bedroom so long as it's still between the married man and the woman.

I don't think the Bible ever stated that kinky sex between married people is bad. Does the Bible even state that general lust between married people is bad for that matter?

So where's the real truth of that? Is kinky sex wrong?

Gods design for sex is for reproduction and to symbolize his covenant with the church as his bride.

This is a noble idea – however, it does not apply to those who do not accept the Christian gods.

But God gave us the ability to enjoy our marriage partners,

Humans have the ability to enjoy many different partners, including mates (and the mates of others – and unmated people). Whether that is “god given” is a matter of opinion.

Anything can go as long as both the married man and woman are ok with it, and the act is only between them. The only way this scenario would be wrong is if the woman didn't agree to anything the husband would do or vice versa

Does your version of religion condone ANY sexual practice between consenting people who are married to each other?

Must the marriage be church-endorsed or can it be a civil marriage?

[Talisman]

And must they be married at all ? If lust is wrong then that means by definition that all sex is wrong, whether within marriage or otherwise, as a man cannot have sex without an erection, and he cannot get an erection without feeling lust ! It is a circular argument. So if sex is wrong full stop then because of the lust thing then what does it matter whether it is kinky, without the use of contraception, gay, straight, married, unmarried or whatever ?

These are not incidentally my views, as I don't personally think that any sex is wrong - as long as it is consenting (and I might add between people who are old enough and capable of giving consent) and enjoyable. That really is all that matters. I am just trying to point out the absurdity of it all. Why should God care after all what we get up and with whom as long as we enjoy ourselves ?

June

[john_anthony_gonzalez]

This is a noble idea – however, it does not apply to those who do not accept the Christian gods.

Gods?.. is their more than one

Humans have the ability to enjoy many different partners, including mates (and the mates of others – and unmated people). Whether that is “god given” is a matter of opinion.

i completely agree, we have the ability to enjoy anythings that brings pleasure but that doesnt mean because it feels good its right. Do you support the idea of having multiple sex partners, and if you did would you let your kids have the same view.

Does your version of religion condone ANY sexual practice between consenting people who are married to each other?

The bibles talk about sexual relation isn't black and white (thank goodness). But it does say Any sex before marriage is wrong. But if Christian couple does mess up by doing things that neither one of them are mature enough for they probably will suffer consequences, so then they shouldn't be doing it at all.

Must the marriage be church-endorsed or can it be a civil marriage?

It can be a both,

[Zzyzx]

This is a noble idea – however, it does not apply to those who do not accept the Christian gods.

Gods?.. is their more than one

Yes, there are thousands of “gods” that are or have been feared or worshiped by humans throughout history. Any Internet search engine will find lists of the names (and sometimes the legendary characteristics) of a plethora of gods – take your choice -- or reject any or all.

Most currently popular religions, including Christianity, promote a single, favorite god (monotheism) and condemn all others as being “false gods”. None offer evidence to indicate which “gods” are true and which are “false”.

Polytheism recognizes more than one “god” (as in the case of the Norse gods). Non-theism agrees with monotheism to an extent – that all gods are false -- without making the exception to claim that one favored god is “true” or “real”.

Humans have the ability to enjoy many different partners, including mates (and the mates of others – and unmated people). Whether that is “god given” is a matter of opinion.

i completely agree, we have the ability to enjoy anythings that brings pleasure but that doesnt mean because it feels good its right. Do you support the idea of having multiple sex partners

By “multiple sex partners” do you mean?

1. More than one sex partner in a given situation (a triad or other multiple)?
2. More than one sex partner in a given time span (conducting more than one relationship at a time)?
3. More than one sex partner in sequential relationships or marriages?
4. Having more than one sexual partner in a lifetime?

I support the idea of consenting adults doing whatever they wish in private. It is none of my business what people do – and it is not the business of others – I do not care to spectate or speculate.

My personal preferences are a private matter. I suggest that we all mind our own business and not seek or strive to learn about the sex lives, toilet habits or religious preferences of others. None of them are any of our business.

Certain “moral codes” prohibit anything but abstinence unless partners are married by a churchman. Other moral codes make few sexual prohibitions. There is nothing to say with certainty which is most appropriate for any individual – though the “moral police” disagree and attempt to legislate morality according to their personal preferences.

Do you support the idea of having multiple sex partners, and if you did would you let your kids have the same view.

Generally, a question about one’s children is improper in civil debate. However, in this instance I will answer. My offspring are not children; they are adults, as adults they have the same right as every other adult, in my opinion, to make whatever decisions they wish regarding their sexuality. This has been my position exactly since they were in their late teens.

My adult offspring have adult offspring. Those people have every right to make their own decisions regarding their sexuality. Their generation has also produced offspring. They are children. Until the “age of consent” (as deemed by their society) the sexual activity of children should be influenced by parents and child-protective laws. However, I am realist enough to know that sexual activity is not controlled by parents or laws and that many young people engage in sexual activity (and probably know more about sex than many adults).

Now, what was your point in asking about my children, Sir?

Does your version of religion condone ANY sexual practice between consenting people who are married to each other?

The bibles talk about sexual relation isn't black and white (thank goodness). But it does say Any sex before marriage is wrong. But if Christian couple does mess up by doing things that neither one of them are mature enough for they probably will suffer consequences, so then they shouldn't be doing it at all.

And, if the “Christian couple” is composed of people who are “mature enough” and decide to have sex without marriage or before marriage are they wrong, evil, sinful, ungodly, lost, etc????

What is the sense in having a “law” that is ignored by many (or most)? That is a problem with “legislating morality” – it does not work.

Must the marriage be church-endorsed or can it be a civil marriage?

It can be a both,

Yes, or it can be neither.

[MagusYanam]

I support the idea of consenting adults doing whatever they wish in private. It is none of my business what people do – and it is not the business of others – I do not care to spectate or speculate.

Mphm. I can see where you're coming from, but frankly, I think such a libertarian view can be counterproductive in certain situations, and assumes an atomistic view of the human being that doesn't adequately reflect a more gregarious reality. One would like to think that sexual relationships and behaviours have no effect on anyone who is not directly involved, but to claim that this is so is a bit of a wishful-thinking fallacy. It's the second law of thermodynamics in action - human relationships and human societies are not closed systems. For example, if a husband cheats on his wife and the couple divorces because of it, it will obviously have a direct effect on any children the couple might have, not to mention psychological blowback for the cheated-on wife which can have effects on her family, her friends, her co-workers, et cetera. So, indeed, while they might not have the right to challenge these peoples' autonomy, it still is very much the business of the members of the community surrounding the involved parties.

I agree that the voyeurism you seem to be opposing here is wrong, and I agree that respect to personal privacy has to be made as regards sexual activity, but we have to make a distinction between voyeurism and legitimate concerns where psychological interests are at stake. A few friends (and friends of friends) have had parents who have gotten divorced, and it shows in the way they act and in the way they deal with other people. So, from where I'm standing, there's much more at stake than merely personal preference (but then again, I've been known to proudly describe myself as the libertarian's worst alcohol-induced nightmare). From a communitarian-utilitarian perspective, improper sexual activity can have dire moral consequences indeed.

[Zzyzx]

I support the idea of consenting adults doing whatever they wish in private. It is none of my business what people do – and it is not the business of others – I do not care to spectate or speculate.

Mphm. I can see where you're coming from, but frankly, I think such a libertarian view can be counterproductive in certain situations, and assumes an atomistic view of the human being that doesn't adequately reflect a more gregarious reality. One would like to think that sexual relationships and behaviours have no effect on anyone who is not directly involved, but to claim that this is so is a bit of a wishful-thinking fallacy.

I would NOT take the position that sexual activity does not affect anyone other than the people involved -- indirectly. For instance, a sexual contact may transfer STDs which are later passed to another partner. Whether any of the partners is married or to whom or what gender the partners may be makes no difference in the outcome.

I agree that infidelity can lead to divorce. However, infidelity ALONE is seldom the culprit – because “cheating” is likely to occur within a relationship that has problems that can include: immaturity, dishonesty, unwise choice of partners, dissatisfaction, distrust, dislike, boredom, incompatibility, rigidity, lost intimacy or interest, growing apart, etc.

Alcoholism is another major cause for divorce and harm to children – probably much greater a threat than infidelity. Do we feel as though society should control alcohol habits of parents? It might be best for the “sanctity of marriage” and the “welfare of children” that people NOT consume any alcohol during child bearing and raising years.

It's the second law of thermodynamics in action - human relationships and human societies are not closed systems. For example, if a husband cheats on his wife and the couple divorces because of it, it will obviously have a direct effect on any children the couple might have, not to mention psychological blowback for the cheated-on wife which can have effects on her family, her friends, her co-workers, et cetera.

I maintain that the marriage mentioned above was NOT destroyed by a sexual encounter – but by many factors within the marriage which (which no outsider can know – and which people directly involved may be only partially aware, if at all).

“Cheating” does not happen in a vacuum.

So, indeed, while they might not have the right to challenge these peoples' autonomy, it still is very much the business of the members of the community surrounding the involved parties.

The same argument can be made for everything every member of society does – which becomes an argument for total control. For instance, if two people marry unwisely they are likely to be unhappy and to produce a poor environment for their children – so, therefore, the society has an interest in making sure that people don’t marry unwisely. Shall we test compatibility and deny marriage to couples that fail?

I agree that the voyeurism you seem to be opposing here is wrong, and I agree that respect to personal privacy has to be made as regards sexual activity, but we have to make a distinction between voyeurism and legitimate concerns where psychological interests are at stake.

Does this mean that “psychological interests” indicate that society should watch or control what a couple does sexually in privacy?

A few friends (and friends of friends) have had parents who have gotten divorced, and it shows in the way they act and in the way they deal with other people.

Could you be more specific about what you mean by “shows in the way they act”? Is that related to voyeurism? Can the divorces in question be attributed solely to infidelity – with no other factors involved?

So, from where I'm standing, there's much more at stake than merely personal preference (but then again, I've been known to proudly describe myself as the libertarian's worst alcohol-induced nightmare). From a communitarian-utilitarian perspective, improper sexual activity can have dire moral consequences indeed.

I agree that improper sexual activity can have dire consequences (moral and otherwise). However, every sexual encounter (excepting forcible rape) represents a decision made by the people involved. As such, I hold the individuals responsible for ALL consequences of their decisions – no exceptions, excuses, whining, or whimpering.