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?

[Cathar1950]

"Is Kinky Sex Wrong?"
I think it was Woody Allen or Marx that answered "only if it is done right".
Or was that "is sex dirty"?

It seems it is a private thing that like anything that involves more then one person become a social concern.
It seems the best possibility is to educate and do research.
Of course it should be cross cultural as well as looking at animals so we don't become prudish even if it is for the kids.
It seems what ever we do is going to have some effect on our children including being an up-tight nosy prude.

[EdTheOvertgeek]

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?

What could be wrong with having multiple sex partners? As long as they all agree, what could be wrong?

Rebuke in advance:

(this isn't a real quotation)
Sex is meant to be coeitus between a man and a woman.

Meant by who? What impact does the fact that this person wants me to have sex in some way on everyone? Why should people have sex in a way that this person wants them to - how is it any of this person's business?

If you think God means us to have sex in this way, prove God's existence.

[MagusYanam]

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.

Agreed here. But it doesn't make my point illegitimate - that divorce has effects on the community, not just the marriage partners. And just because they are not direct doesn't mean they shouldn't be counted in the utilitarian moral calculus.

I agree that alcoholism is a problem, but my stance on alcohol is rather strange. I think that children should be taught to drink responsibly if they drink at all. Our current laws don't prevent underage drinking, they force it underground, merely encouraging illegal behaviour like false ID's. Also, I don't think it's particularly wise of the government to make the stipulation that an eighteen-year-old is held responsible enough to vote, to join the armed forces, to destroy his own body with tobacco, but not drink alcohol.

Personally, I think alcoholism rates would drop if there was effective treatment and more lax drinking laws, so that drinking wouldn't be seen as 'rebellious' and 'cool' and teens wouldn't be encouraged to binge-drink and develop alcoholic habits.

Meh. Pointless rant.

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.

Again, agreed. Often the sexual encounter is the straw that breaks the camel's back, if you'll pardon the crude expression. But there still is correlation, correct? (Though correlation is not equal to causation.)

The same argument can be made for everything every member of society does – which becomes an argument for total control... Shall we test compatibility and deny marriage to couples that fail? ...

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

One of the annoying things about the libertarian right is that they think everything is a slippery slope. Make an argument for gun registration? It's a slippery slope! Soon you'll be taking away the guns of ordinary, law-abiding citizens and that's against the Constitution! Make an argument for the 95-10 initiative? It's a slippery slope! Soon you'll be back in the dark ages, not allowing women the right to control their own bodies! Make an argument for environmental and worker treatment regulations on big businesses? It's a slippery slope! Soon you'll have created a stagnant socialist economy, robbing entrepreneurs of their creativity by not allowing them to reap the fruits of their own ingenuity! Enough with this kind of hyperbole. That's not what I'm arguing for - show some logical integrity here.

I think that sexual behaviour in some measure ought to be the responsibility of the community. I think that sexual education should not just include warnings about STD's and appropriate condom use (though both of those are needed), but also teach kids about viable, long-term relationships based on mutual trust and respect, so that they are better equipped to avoid psychological hurt (though in the end, that will be their responsibility).

Could you be more specific about what you mean by “shows in the way they act”?

Surely you can understand what I'm talking about here. The children whose parents get divorced can develop all sorts of psychological problems if they perceive that they are the cause of a divorce (though that perception is most often incorrect), and it can effect in turn their ability to trust others. I'd actually be interested in seeing statistics concerning how many children whose parents ended up divorced wind up having divorces themselves.

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.

Granted that all consentual sexual activity represents a decision (by definition). But if such actions have effects on the larger community, how do you address the blowback? How do you judge the utility or disutility of a person's actions? Of course what happens in private, in people's bedrooms, is their business and theirs alone. Problem is, what happens in the bedroom doesn't always stay there. (That's not ideology, that's observation.)

So what should the role of the community be? Even you have to admit that people other than those directly involved aren't unaffected by any of this.

[Zzyzx]

MagusYanam,

It is always a pleasure to exchange ideas with you. I will omit topics on which we have expressed agreement or which seem to need no further discussion.

I think that sexual behaviour in some measure ought to be the responsibility of the community. I think that sexual education should not just include warnings about STD's and appropriate condom use (though both of those are needed), but also teach kids about viable, long-term relationships based on mutual trust and respect, so that they are better equipped to avoid psychological hurt (though in the end, that will be their responsibility).

I agree completely that the community has some responsibility for teaching its members accurate sexual information and encouraging positive attitudes. I am unsure about the mechanism for such teaching – if it is to be effective.

I have LONG maintained that some of the most important things that we can teach young people involve relationship skills. The absence of such skills is one of the most glaring deficiencies of our culture. I refer here to skills involved in ALL relationships – not only sexual, intimate, long-term, pair bonding, etc – but every type of relationship in which people engage.

Of course, intensely personal relationships are particularly important to a person’s happiness, success, fulfillment and health. They, therefore, should receive special attention. However, other relationships should not be overlooked – employee / employer, parent / child, mentor / apprentice, business / customer, citizen / government, etc, etc.

Could you be more specific about what you mean by “shows in the way they act”?

Surely you can understand what I'm talking about here. The children whose parents get divorced can develop all sorts of psychological problems if they perceive that they are the cause of a divorce (though that perception is most often incorrect), and it can effect in turn their ability to trust others. I'd actually be interested in seeing statistics concerning how many children whose parents ended up divorced wind up having divorces themselves.

I understand what I thought you were talking about; however, it is often wise to ask for specifics. The reaction of children to divorce is a very complex matter. I know this from personal experience, having divorced the mother of my two offspring when they were pre-teen years (a very difficult time as I now understand).

Their responses were very dissimilar and it would be very difficult to characterize what “shows in the way they act”. I would be hard pressed to identify specific effects upon either of them that could be attributed solely or largely to the divorce. They might be unable to do so either (though one is a psychological counselor).

That divorce happened in 1973, to give some time perspective. The “children” are nearing fifty and have adult children (who have children).

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.

Granted that all consentual sexual activity represents a decision (by definition). But if such actions have effects on the larger community, how do you address the blowback? How do you judge the utility or disutility of a person's actions? Of course what happens in private, in people's bedrooms, is their business and theirs alone. Problem is, what happens in the bedroom doesn't always stay there. (That's not ideology, that's observation.)

I address the “blowback” by acknowledging that society cannot control individual decisions without loss of freedom. The “good of society” is best served, In My Opinion, by teaching individuals (as well as possible) to make appropriate decisions, then letting the make the decisions and hold them responsible (no excuses, alibis, whining or blaming others).

Agreed, that is idealistic – but it IS the way I live my life and it IS the way that I relate to others (which makes many people uncomfortable – but I simply don’t need their approval or support or anything else).

So what should the role of the community be? Even you have to admit that people other than those directly involved aren't unaffected by any of this.

I have no definitive answer. Perhaps the role of the community should be education (writ large) about all aspects of behavior and relationships – including realistic sexual education starting very young.

Another suggestion I would have is an emphasis on the rights and responsibilities involved in personal decisions. Life is a series of decisions made by the individual (including decisions to let others decide or to avoid stating a decision and allowing “whatever happens to happen” – and considering it as “intended”).

In our society, “I had no choice” is almost never true (except if there is a gun to one’s head). Alternatives exist. They may appear unattractive, but they are present. Most people making such statements evidently do not search for alternatives, or do not search diligently – but choose from a limited range (or from a single option) and later complain or excuse themselves.

Training people in decision-making and decision-responsibility could provide great assets to individuals and to society.

[john_anthony_gonzalez]

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

Your using the Websters dictionary view of lust, the bible view of lust means wanting something with extreme desire (Covet). This usually means that you don't. have it. A person can lust over a car. But a person cannot lust over a car if he already has it. The same thing with a married man. He cannot Lust over his wife during sex because he is having sex. Unless he's thinking of another woman, then it would be lusting.

[Zzyzx]

Your using the Websters dictionary view of lust, the bible view of lust means wanting something with extreme desire (Covet).

A BIG problem with using a "bible definition" of words is that the meanings change with different people or interpretations. "Lust" may mean "covet", "day" may mean millions of years" -- or anything else an "interpreter" can come up with to make it seem as though the bible supports some particular point of view -- or to "explain" errors or omissions.

Note the difference:

Merriam Webster

Covet = to wish for enviously; to desire (what belongs to another) inordinately or culpably; or to feel inordinate desire for what belongs to another

Lust = usually intense or unbridled sexual desire; or an intense longing

A dictionary definition is intended to reflect the way words are used in the real world, in real communication. Dictionary definitions are not static, but they do not change at the whim of an individual (as in "lust" means "covet").

Communication is enhanced when there is general agreement on the meaning of words. Confusion results when words have "flexible" definitions -- for the convenience of those who wish to "interpret" what they wish into written or spoken words".

[MagusYanam]

It is always a pleasure to exchange ideas with you. I will omit topics on which we have expressed agreement or which seem to need no further discussion.

Pleasure's all mine. But I would argue that, given the human capacity for philosophical navel-gazing, there can be no topics ever on which further discussion is no longer warranted.

I have LONG maintained that some of the most important things that we can teach young people involve relationship skills. The absence of such skills is one of the most glaring deficiencies of our culture. I refer here to skills involved in ALL relationships – not only sexual, intimate, long-term, pair bonding, etc – but every type of relationship in which people engage.

...

However, other relationships should not be overlooked – employee / employer, parent / child, mentor / apprentice, business / customer, citizen / government, etc, etc.

I am often astounded that more Christians are not out there advocating this kind of communitarian, relationship-based approach to education with the vehemence they can display for other causes. After all, Jesus spoke in terms of relationships - of people to God and of people to other people. His argument was that the law was not some kind of personal code, but a way in which to conduct your behaviour toward other people. And I agree, other types of relationships in this country are not taught well - we should be having some kind of active civics education in public schools as well.

I understand what I thought you were talking about; however, it is often wise to ask for specifics. The reaction of children to divorce is a very complex matter.

Indeed - divorces can be very messy things; one should expect the results to be equally messy. And it's not a very wise thing to overgeneralise about such things (as it appears I did there), but I think it may be a safe generalisation that the effects do tend to be adverse. When a good friend of my father's divorced his wife, one could tell that it had profound effects on him, even though he was the one who initiated it, and I think it may still be too early to tell what effects it had on their son (who I think was three at the time).

The “good of society” is best served, In My Opinion, by teaching individuals (as well as possible) to make appropriate decisions, then letting the make the decisions and hold them responsible (no excuses, alibis, whining or blaming others).

You won't get any disagreement from me on the sentiment. But I would note that you'd hardly expect to get any agreement on the particulars of its implementation. Given the state of politics today, it's obvious that we have quite the broad spectrum of beliefs in what comprises 'the common good', much as it's obvious that we have a broad spectrum of beliefs in what comprises 'appropriate decision' and 'responsibility'.

(I might note that it is apparent to me that our Commander-in-Chief is a far cry from the bright and shining example of appropriate decision-making and responsibility that he likes to make himself out to be, for example.)

I have no definitive answer. Perhaps the role of the community should be education (writ large) about all aspects of behavior and relationships – including realistic sexual education starting very young.

Agreed. But I think that holistically, that education should also encompass the encouragement of wholesome relationships of trust between members of the wider community regardless of age, instead of our current reductionist dialectic where everything concerning education boils down to the needs of the 'nuclear family' (for conservatives) or the needs of the 'individual' (for liberals).

[Zzyzx]

MagusYanam,

How can you be so darn reasonable and still be Christian? Isn't that against the bi-laws or something?

What can we argue about if we keep agreeing with each other?????

Seriously now, in discussions and debates with people that I consider reasonable (not rigid conformists to ANY dogma), in final analysis, we tend to say and do almost the same things -- but for different apparent reasons.

I maintain that "apparent" is only an illusion because we each follow a personal moral code in addition to or in spite of any religious beliefs to which we may or may not subscribe. Few, if any, follow every “teaching” of their religion or every principle of their favorite ideology.

Good people of any faith or no faith can interact fairly and honestly with one another as fellow human beings. Fairness and honesty lead us in similar directions regardless of religion. Thus fair and honest people tend to treat one another very similarly.

Those who are rigid and dogmatic, regardless of direction, must depart from fairness toward others when the beliefs of others conflict with dogmatic teachings. Rigid, dogmatic Muslims may follow an aspect of their faith that causes them to want to injure or kill Non-Muslims. However, my Muslim friend who is NOT rigid or dogmatic ignores the call to violence and is a peaceful, loving human being (who tolerates Christians very well). I cite him only as an example of “fair and honorable transcend belief”.

[Fisherking]

MagusYanam,

How can you be so darn reasonable and still be Christian? Isn't that against the bi-laws or something?

What can we argue about if we keep agreeing with each other?????

I often wonder the same thing.

I maintain that "apparent" is only an illusion because we each follow a personal moral code in addition to or in spite of any religious beliefs to which we may or may not subscribe. Few, if any, follow every “teaching” of their religion or every principle of their favorite ideology.

If one does not follow the favorite ideology, whos are they following when they are not?

Good people of any faith or no faith can interact fairly and honestly with one another as fellow human beings. Fairness and honesty lead us in similar directions regardless of religion. Thus fair and honest people tend to treat one another very similarly.

As long as "fair and honest" happen to be considered good and until good people of any faith or no faith do disagree(happens occasionally).

Those who are rigid and dogmatic, regardless of direction, must depart from fairness toward others when the beliefs of others conflict with dogmatic teachings.

I'm afraid right and wrong, true, and false are dogmatic. Stating rigidness or dogmatism is wrong is a dogmatic statement itself.

[Beto]

I'm assuming that according to Christian faith people that aren't Christians will go to Hell regardless of personal morals or ethics, otherwise everyone would end up in Heaven and all would be pretty much pointless, right? I may be out-dated but to be a Christian you have to believe in Heaven and Hell, or has this oficially changed? How can Christians and Muslims co-exist peacefuly with other religions knowing they will all go to Hell? How can they live with themselves? We are talking ETERNAL damnation here.