Religion
Related: About this forumDispelling the myth that Christians are sexually repressed
We've all heard that Christians are sexually repressed, but this website turns that myth on its head: [link: http://www.sexinchrist.com/|Sex in Christ: Sexuality According to the Word of God]
The homepage for this website is about "Anal Sex According to the Word of God." The verdict? Anal is brilliant, especially as a way for unmarried women to be able "to offer her pure, unsullied maidenhead to her husband on their wedding night."
So, right off the bat, premarital sex is endorsed--that's hardly a repressed viewpoint.
Other topics covered include:
Oral Sex and God's Will (Verdict: Oral is brilliant, but only if you swallow)
Viagra and God's Will (Verdict: Erections are a gift from God and Viagra is allowable)
Threesomes within a Christian Marriage (Verdict: Allowable provided six rules are followed)
Masturbation: God's Great Gift to Us (Verdict: Well, the title kinda gives it away)
A Proposal for a Christian Pornography (No verdict, just a proposal)
Bondage in Christ - BDSM in a Christian Marriage (Verdict: Perfectly allowable as long as some guidelines are followed)
Bare before God - Shaving and the Bible (Verdict: The Bible says to shave your pubes)
A Philosophical Argument for Masturbation (Verdict: Get wanking, you tossers!)
And last, but certainly not least...
Fisting and God's Will (Verdict: "Both should treat the act of fisting as a divine spiritual mystery to be entered into with reverence and awe, especially the husband."
So there you have it. Myth debunked.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)laconicsax
(14,860 posts)She was eager to get married so that she could do just about everything she had learned about in her human sexuality courses.
I asked her, "why not just have sex before marriage?"
Her response, "because I don't want to do anal until after I'm married."
cbayer
(146,218 posts)My kid's and their friends, who were and are much more vocal about sex than my generation, felt that oral and anal sex were both more acceptable as pre-marital (or strong commitment) sexual activity than intercourse. It was surprising to me, but totally logical to them.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)Do I have that right?
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)I think that it's debatable whether it can still be considered to be strictly parody since parts of it are working their way into reality.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)laconicsax
(14,860 posts)It was clearly started as a parody, and a rather obvious one at that, making it ineligible as an example of Poe's law, but as time goes on, it moves closer to a Poe.
The question (I think) is whether a parody remains a parody or becomes satire when reality begins to mirror it. Quoting 1984's "War is Peace" was a good way to parody the previous administration, but when * actually came out and said it, it stopped being a parody.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Parody, satire - doesn't make much difference to me. It's meant to mock and is written by people who don't really mean it seriously. I doubt many people take it seriously either, but I could be wrong about that.
Unfortunately, it's not really funny, imo. Not like the Landover Baptist site, which I find pretty funny.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)Parody and satire are similar but not identical. Satire is often meant to be taken more seriously than a simple parody or lampoon.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I agree with your distinction.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)It's a principle I like to live by. As Nero Wolfe said, "I try to use words to say what I mean."
rug
(82,333 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Huh.
I thought it was an "incontinent in a few years" non-mystery.