|
|
 |
Reader Feedback on "Dominant Theory"
Your statement on what "Christian moralists, including St. Paul's" thoughts of sexuality are narrow minded and incorrect.
St. Paul - the author of much of the New Testament - was clearly for sexuality in marriage.
Take a look at what he says in counsel to married couples in 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 (Quoting from the New American Standard version)
"Let the husband fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again lest Satan tempt you because of your lack of self-control."
Here, Paul is very clear that we should not deprive each other of sex - our own bodies. A result of doing so would lead to "temptation." The temptation being desiring to have sex with someone you are not married to -who isn't depriving you.
I think if more marriages followed these guidelines there would be fewer affairs and, as a result, less divorce.
I enjoyed the rest of your article. There have been some "christians" who have made sex dirty and that is a shame. For an wonderful expression of sexuality read the Song of Solomon (also called the Song of Songs).
--DG
09/26 |
I'm glad that's all worked out. I wonder who invented butt slaming?
--DGH
07/15 |
Unfortunately, Dominant Theory in sexuality is the equivalent of Dominant Theory in religion and hence, power. The guilt that religion has imposed upon men (and, to a lesser degree, women) has all but made men sexless beings. Discovering a memoir of a woman written between 1915 and 1920 which concerned mostly the feminist movement, it was made clear that the advent of feminism allowed men and women to speak and communicate during coupling, previously socially unacceptable since women were conditioned to simply accept the overtures offered by men - often, crudely constructed and hasty procedures. The only possible explanation for this is the fact that men were threatened by women who were more creative, inventive, or who sought "equal privilege" to explore sexuality and the human body of either partner. Initial conclusions are that pre-modern civil man ignored the wishes, desires and potential of women to respond sexually, no doubt caused by constant preaching by religious leaders who were either non-participants themselves (and thus, used their preaching to reinforce their own prohibitions - unsuccessfully, apparently since they characterized what should be normal sexual interest into degrading acts, and the women who participate, despicable women), or those who sought to protect the supremacy of men so that sexual engagement would not undermine their image and authority - (erroneously) relative to the women themselves, but publicly effective. And we were stupid enough to buy the theory!
--pbr
06/25 |
Found your piece very interesting. I have to say, however, the thing that caught my eye above all else was your bio at the end... A catholic priest "married with Vatican consent"? With all current debate both inside and outside the church over whether priests should be able to marry and whether existing rules against such practices have in some way contributed to the many recent alleged incidents of child abuse among priests and children, I am curious about what you think. How did you avoid such restriction? Why doesn't this happen more often? I thought this was a hard and fast rule? Curious.
--GP
05/28 |
Although St. Paul does clearly have issue with sex, I don't think he or the early church fathers are nearly as up tight about sex as you characterize them. Paul's statement about women keeping quiet in church comes from First Corinthians, and althought it was used to justify the dominance of men in the church community other parts of First Corinthians suggest a much more equitable picture of relationships between men and women, at least married men and women. For instance, "Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husdand. The wife hath not the power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife." 1 Corinthians 7:3-4.
Additionally, Paul discusses the need to have sex as a common one, and cautions wives and husbands against abstaining for overly long.
Additionally, St. Augustine discussed his sexual experiences in some detail in "The Confession." The ultimate result of this discussion is the belief that Jesus offers the possibility for the redemption of sex, just as he redeemed all flesh in Augustines formulations.
The early church was engaged in a fair amount of discourse that was sex positive. Of course discussions of positive sex were limited to marriage, but still, there were voices in the early church, and throughout church history that positvely valued sex, and held women to be equal to men.
--DK
05/13 |
your so full of crap its unbelievable
--DCM
05/11 |
In my experience with women over the years many enjoy the man on top style because after much foreplay and teasing (kissing, earlobe probing, mutual masturbation, oral sex) she wants the eye to eye contact and her hands grasping her mans buns as she sees in his eyes how tight and intimate they are. Many women really get off seeing in a mirror her man pumping up and down, filling her with his lust pole. Rolling around like two cats is really hot for some, and dirty talk and playful spanking adds to it. Pining her hands back behind her head is very erotic as she wants her man to take her with her butt on a pillow, her thighs wrapped around his waist for a noisy moaning orgasm. It jes' dont get no better than this, even if she scratches his back or buns, which has happened to me. All this after a big teasing session, a couple of drinks and a sexy woman, naked, in heels.
--HTO
05/03 |
"According to anthropologists who study mating practices, there seems to be only one society that relies exclusively on the missionary position with absolutely no foreplay."
So what about the Amish "blanket with a hole in it"
--IMP
05/03 |
send feedback on "Dominant Theory"
back to "Dominant Theory" |
|
|
