Page 1 of 1

Limits (after marriage)

Posted: Wed May 31, 2017 10:18 am
by curiousman
Hello fellow Christians!

My fiancé and I are getting married very soon, we are super excited! Both virgins, but openly talk about sexuality.

We are part of a very conservative congregation, and our elders teach that OS (oral sex) is wrong.

I think most of you here would disagree, but are there any Biblical references (even the slightest hint) that oral is wrong, and God does not approve? Or any references that it is OK, and there are no limits to what a husband and wife can do?

At this point we neither agree nor disagree with elders, but I would like to know at least if there is any reference in the Bible. Songs of Solomon have references that some believe are sexual, but it explicitly only talks about a women's breasts. If mentioning breasts was ok, why not the nether regions?

I'm looking to see if anybody has any references from scriptures...

Thank you!

Re: Limits (after marriage)

Posted: Wed May 31, 2017 10:32 am
by SeekingChange
Welcome! Have you checked out this from the main site.... What's Okay? What's Not? It is great that you are searching this out on your own and seeking His Word, rather than just swallowing what others tell you.

Re: Limits (after marriage)

Posted: Wed May 31, 2017 12:54 pm
by ItsJustUs
What do your elders give as support for their teaching that OS is wrong?

Re: Limits (after marriage)

Posted: Wed May 31, 2017 1:59 pm
by tjw
curiousman wrote:are there any Biblical references (even the slightest hint) that oral is wrong


curiousman wrote: any references that it is OK, and there are no limits to what a husband and wife can do?

No. Not directly, and no passage of scripture that I can come up with even talks about types of sexual activity.
But many speak to how husbands and wives treat each other, both in the MB, and out, and all these are all summarized
in Matthew 7:12. If both husband and wife enjoy a given activity, there is nothing inherently sinful in the activity itself, even
if one partner participates in a given activity to please the other and does not him/herself "enjoy" it, this is quite in
obedience to Matthew 7:12 also. The other partner should reciprocate in other given sexual or nonsexual activity.

The aforementioned article is, BTW, very good, and very biblical, and covers about the whole gamut of marital sexuality.

Re: Limits (after marriage)

Posted: Wed May 31, 2017 3:54 pm
by Unfulfilled
Some argue that fruit is often used as another name for genitalia. IF that is true, the. Song of songs discusses fruit and the taste of fruit. IF true. The tasting of genitalia would leave little to the imagination wherher it was talking about oral sex or not.

Re: Limits (after marriage)

Posted: Wed May 31, 2017 4:57 pm
by God's Geek
I would encourage you and your fiancé to watch this series of videos covering the Song of Solomon:

The Peasant Princess (YouTube link)

Though the pastor who gave this series of messages has 'fell from grace', I really like the messages and have found nothing to disagree about with it. At least it can open up good points of discussion for the two of you.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Re: Limits (after marriage)

Posted: Wed May 31, 2017 5:41 pm
by Job29Man
There is absolutely no Scripture to indicate that OS is wrong in any way.
As stated by others, there MAY be positive references to OS in Song of Solomon, but nothing is explicit, and we would not expect it to be explicit because the Bible is modest about such things (using euphemisms).

Your elders taught you incorrectly. They reach too far for conclusions that are not there.

Re: Limits (after marriage)

Posted: Wed May 31, 2017 6:52 pm
by Learning1


I know you were specifically looking for something from scripture. However, think of it this way. A husband and wife would use their hands to please each other. Do your elders say that is wrong ? Probably not. So what would be different about using your lips or your tongue or your mouth ? Could you ask them that question ?

I believe the Song of Songs is speaking to OS as another poster indicated. But I can't literally prove that it is. What do your elders have to say about that Song of Songs ?

Re: Limits (after marriage)

Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2017 12:05 pm
by ledgemoor
I think it is a stretch to NOT understand Song of Solomon 4 as containing a reference to oral sex.

Look at the context. He starts praising her hair. Then her face. Then her neck, then her breasts. He is working his way down :-). Next he praises her "mountain of myrrh," and "the hill of frankincense", which is her mons pubis.

4:12 - 5:1 refer to the bride as a private garden which smells good, tastes good, and has fountains, wells, and streams, which the groom eats and drinks from. A literal application -- real gardens, streams, fruits, and honey doesn't make any sense in this context. If not oral sex, what else could it reasonably refer to?

Judaism accepts Song as erotic. It is not the only erotic ancient Hebrew literature, by the way.

I disagree with Job29Man on a minor point: that the Bible categorically uses euphemisms so as not be explicit. The Bible doesn't spare anyone's sensitivities when discussing sex with animals. I believe that the flowery language in Song was not used as euphemisms, but for the opposite reason -- to make the passage more romantic and erotic than using clinical or anatomical words. "Mountain of myrrh" sounds sexier than "mons pubis", don't you agree? :lol:

We started having oral sex later in life. I deeply regret waiting so long. I fully believe that oral sex is not something optional for the kinky ones among us, but something that God intended for us to do.

I suggest that you critically evaluate your current church and consider going elsewhere. "our elders teach that OS (oral sex) is wrong" raises several red flags.

First of all, it indicates that the church is run by one person who has a strong personality and pushes his views on others.

I would be curious as to his reasoning behind why it is sinful. "Scripture doesn't specifically allow it", even if that were so, doesn't cut it. Everyone does things every day that are not specifically permitted by scripture. I can see how one man may dislike oral sex and not accept what is the most obvious and most widely accepted reading of scripture. But I really don't think that the other elders independently came to the same conclusion, or that the pastor's reasoning is good enough to convince all the other elders that it is wrong, provided the elders are permitted independent thought.

It is probably not a marriage or sex-positive congregation. They don't have a marriage ministry, right?

Re: Limits (after marriage)

Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2017 10:07 am
by The Twit
I would like to respond to the last half of Ledgemoor's comments which might help explain the problem. There may be a joint belief amongst the elders that if there is not clear prohibitions and no clear thou must do when it comes to the marriage bed. So , they then go to the default. They advised do nothing that might lead someone to sin and to do only those things that will profit you in your walk together as a couple and as Christians. The elders in orch are very concerned on the witness to those you are witnessing to (all unsaved people outside of the church) and all of those we are disciplining (young and old Christians). I will use our church and the eating of pork as an example.

The only prohibition against pork was in the OT for the Jews when they entered the promised land and it is carried on until today. Per the NT we are all free in Christ to eat what ever we want. However two of our elders read the same papers, went to the same discussion/lecture and had been convicted to not eat pork. So for them and those that live in their households pork is not consumed. At church we do have to point out at dinners which items have pork and which ones do not. Most of the time we use turkey bacon and either all beef or all chicken sausage/hot dogs. Some would think we had a prohibition in our church against pork. If you listen to the two elders they will tell you all that is wrong health wise with eating pork. But we do not have anything written down and the two elders will be the first to tell you that this is their opinion, a rule for themselves, and not a rule for all others in the church.

Now let us carry it over to sex in marriage. Note the same thinking appears in our church. My wife and I were married in the church by one of the elders and OS did come up in our premarital counseling. OS Is not officially banned nor is it encouraged. It is up to the couple. However the same thinking carried over in that we were encouraged to study, pray, and meditate on specific acts. We did have an elder believe that any form of sex that was not unprotected PIV was wrong. He was against all form of birth control and was against all other sex acts except PIV. Another elder had no problem with birth control and a few other sex acts outside of PIV. And a third had no problems with any sex acts and any birth control, except abortion. So the compromise was it is up to the couple and the leading from God in their lives. The church would not condemn or condone anything except for explicit sinful acts, homosexuality, adultery, polygamy, etc. for birth control it was put to the couple and their leading from God. Now this can be mis interpreted as a ban because the elders will not come out and say this is ok or this is wrong. They will share why they do not do X, Y, or Z. They will share the pluses and minuses of the acts. As humans they will stress the negatives of acts that they are against and this will convince you that this is wrong.

So when we got married. My wife was convicted on several fronts that OS was wrong and she would not participate in that sexual act. She still has those convictions. Hand jobs for each other is OK but OS is off the table. Is she wrong, no, for her it is a matter of preference, cleanliness, gross factor, health issues, and a list of other things. Were we corrected and would we be corrected with the attitude and the fact that we do not have OS? No, because what will it profit us to force an act that my wife finds so sick and disgusting that it would make her physically ill. On the other hand, hand jobs were and are now given freely (this has become a regular thing in our house PTL).

As for the church not having a marriage ministry. If they are teaching that marriage is right and just shacking up is a sin. Then they have the basic marriage ministry. They may have elders like ours that do have personal convictions and share those convictions to help educate or give examples of how they practice their discipleship. These convictions are just that and the individual / couple need to develop their own convictions and rules they live by, based on their walks with God and their own comfort zones as the comfort zones grow and shrink at different periods of life. What we did before children could not be done with children still living in the house. And once they leave we can go back.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Re: Limits (after marriage)

Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2017 12:00 pm
by poetess
Twit, a person can have "preferences" on such things as not eating pork, but not "convictions." A conviction implies it is sin--even if it is only sin for me, it is sin. The Bible could not be clearer that it is acceptable to eat pork, and thus anyone who calls it sin is teaching the Word of God wrongly.

Re: Limits (after marriage)

Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2017 12:12 pm
by ItsJustUs
I'm not sure. Probably not the case, but what if their conviction about pork came because of Jewish or Muslim coworkers or neighbors they didn't want to offend and hurt their witness?

[OG Note: This post is a textbook example of a "rabbit trail." 30 lashes with a wet noodle! :lol: ]

Re: Limits (after marriage)

Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2017 12:25 pm
by krikkit
Poetess, let me push back on the concept of convictions.

I believe that there are instances where individuals are called and convicted to give up a freedom that they otherwise might have.

I think of the Nazarite vows of Samson. I think of those called to lives of celibacy and service. I myself many years ago made a vow to God to abstain from something. I was young and somewhat foolish when I made the vow, but I believe that for me to engage in that activity would be sinful unless God releases me.

I think the sin is not in eating the pork or cutting the hair or even in my example of doing the thing. Rather it is in disobedience to the agreement between the individual and God.

It would be wrong for me to impose my conviction on another, but not I think to explain why I don't do that thing, and certainly not for me to abstain from the thing as a continual act of obedience and devotion.

Re: Limits (after marriage)

Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2017 1:12 pm
by poetess
Krikkit, I could answer that at some length, but we have veered completely from the subject of this thread. We can start a new thread it you wish, and I will address it there. The short answer, though, is that you're mixing several different things into one.

Re: Limits (after marriage)

Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2017 3:14 pm
by Job29Man
OK gang. The OP states that the husband and wife to be have NO conviction one way or the other about OS in marriage, therefore no one is forcing anyone to violate anything. Let's get back to the OP question please.

Re: Limits (after marriage)

Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2017 9:56 pm
by The Twit
I am going to take one more step into the mess in responding to the question at hand. There is no direct "Thou shalt not do oral sex" in all of the Bible. There are principles and practices. There is proof that oral sex was practiced and described in Song of Solomon. So the finding proof in the Bible against oral sex is a big negative. Do we see some limitations on sexual practices, yes and they are clearly stated. No homosexuality, no beastiality, no threesomes, no sleeping with certain relatives, no sleeping with your neighbor's wife, etc. but between a man and his wife they are to please each other and be available to each other.

Now a side question, this comes up every once in a while in our church. Why are the elders even making any statements like this either in sermons, discussions, Bible studies, or marriage counseling, other than giving examples in their lives? In our church people ask for written versions of our constitution, our beliefs, and our bylaws. We have to say we don't have any. Beyond the Bible and the clear laws laid out what business is it for the elders to tell a couple what they can and cannot do in the privacy of their bedroom as long as it does not violate the Bible and violate the purity of the marriage bed? Now yes they will tell a couple living together to stop living together, even to the point of having one of the the couple live with the elder or another couple in the church until the couple is married. But beyond that ,the elders will share what they have done and are doing to continue growing in Christ and being disciples of God. Now some are restrictive in their lives due to previous problems in their lives or in other family member's lives to prevent sinning. Also they do not want to lead others down the sinful paths, they take Matthew 18 and Paul's admonishment against causing a brother to stumble very seriously when it comes to working with new and young Christians. So why should this couple let what the elders say become their laws for their marriage. Note the elder that married Mrs. Twit and me, had no problem with OS, he did have problems with AS. But he left it to us to determine what limits we would have all based on all of the facts about the sexual practice in and out of the Bible.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Re: Limits (after marriage)

Posted: Sun Jun 04, 2017 8:59 pm
by C_Brown
As I recall, the Bible forbids the following, married or not:
Homosexual acts

Outside of that I don't think there is anything sexual the Bible forbids. Of course if your spouse is not comfortable with something, they shouldn't be pushed into it even when it is something that is permitted.

Re: Limits (after marriage)

Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:44 am
by themrs

I'd imagine that the verses the conservative church is using is the one about the sin of Onan and his 'spilling his seed' (he didn't ejaculate into a potentially fertile woman so there was no chance of procreation). This church may be one of those "sex has to be for procreating", opposed to any and all forms of preventing pregnancy, etc.

Re: Limits (after marriage)

Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:52 am
by Job29Man
Let's wait now to get the OP's reaction to your posts.