The Fine Art of Sexual Intercourse

[_Sethbag]

At least it used to be. I think in the current generation of members, the thing against oral sex thing has more or less died out. But yeah, ask a lot of older members and they'll condemn oral sex. There was actually a First Presidency letter instructing bishops to consider oral sex an unholy and impure act for the purposes of temple worthiness, however that got dropped pretty quickly, and didn't make it into the next revision of the bishop's handbook, which means pretty much that it doesn't count. So today there's no official stance on oral sex between married persons in the church, and it's my belief that oral sex between married people is probably pretty common amongst the younger generation.

[_harmony]

The thread about gay marriage started me thinking about fornication, and by extrapolation, sexual intercourse.

Strictly speaking (which is how our LDS leaders speak as a general rule), is sexual intercourse is even possible for gays? Most of the definitions I found stated that in order for sexual intercourse to take place, the penis must be inserted into the vagina. Therefore, it seems to me there is no such thing as gay sexual intercourse. So if there is no intercourse, how can there be any fornication? And if there is no fornication and no sexual intercourse between unmarried participants, how can there be sin?

I think they might call it sodomy. Oral sex is also pretty taboo, even potentially among married folk!!!!

Holding hands is sodomy? A kiss on the cheek is sex?

I'm not sure it's cricket to condemn anyone to a life of never being touched, never being able to have a loving relationship with another human being of one's own choice.

I think our church leaders are out to lunch on this one.

My temple vows were the 1971 variety. I promised to not have sexual intercourse with anyone but my lawful husband, but I can't have sexual intercourse with another woman... it's impossible to do so. I cannot be held to something I didn't covenant.

[_Polygamy Porter]

The thread about gay marriage started me thinking about fornication, and by extrapolation, sexual intercourse.

Strictly speaking (which is how our LDS leaders speak as a general rule), is sexual intercourse is even possible for gays? Most of the definitions I found stated that in order for sexual intercourse to take place, the penis must be inserted into the vagina. Therefore, it seems to me there is no such thing as gay sexual intercourse. So if there is no intercourse, how can there be any fornication? And if there is no fornication and no sexual intercourse between unmarried participants, how can there be sin?

I think they might call it sodomy. Oral sex is also pretty taboo, even potentially among married folk!!!!

Really?

I think he is speaking as a Mormon.

Tubesteak is not an item on the bedroom menu of Mormons.

[_harmony]

The thread about gay marriage started me thinking about fornication, and by extrapolation, sexual intercourse.

Strictly speaking (which is how our LDS leaders speak as a general rule), is sexual intercourse is even possible for gays? Most of the definitions I found stated that in order for sexual intercourse to take place, the penis must be inserted into the vagina. Therefore, it seems to me there is no such thing as gay sexual intercourse. So if there is no intercourse, how can there be any fornication? And if there is no fornication and no sexual intercourse between unmarried participants, how can there be sin?

I think they might call it sodomy. Oral sex is also pretty taboo, even potentially among married folk!!!!

Really?

I think he is speaking as a Mormon.

Tubesteak is not an item on the bedroom menu of Mormons.

And you would know this how? Word of mouth? or practical experience? Just how many Mormon bedrooms have you been peeking in?

[_Runtu]

Sexual intercourse is no longer the problem. In 1990, the law of chastity was revised so that "sexual relations" outside marriage were forbidden. One would expect that homosexual sex falls under this umbrella term.

[_harmony]

Sexual intercourse is no longer the problem. In 1990, the law of chastity was revised so that "sexual relations" outside marriage were forbidden. One would expect that homosexual sex falls under this umbrella term.

Anyone who was endowed prior to 1990 covenanted to a difference law. That one specified sexual intercourse, not sexual relations. And what exactly is sexual relations?

[_Runtu]

Sexual intercourse is no longer the problem. In 1990, the law of chastity was revised so that "sexual relations" outside marriage were forbidden. One would expect that homosexual sex falls under this umbrella term.

Anyone who was endowed prior to 1990 covenanted to a difference law. That one specified sexual intercourse, not sexual relations. And what exactly is sexual relations?

Well, then, I'm covenanted to the earlier law. Of course, I haven't violated it, either. So much for the hedonism that comes with leaving the church.

Sexual relations I think is an intentionally more vague wording, giving church leaders a little more leeway and church members less weasel room.

[_barrelomonkeys]

Did the origination of "sexual relations" term happen to coincide with the Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton uproar by chance?

[_harmony]

Sexual intercourse is no longer the problem. In 1990, the law of chastity was revised so that "sexual relations" outside marriage were forbidden. One would expect that homosexual sex falls under this umbrella term.

Anyone who was endowed prior to 1990 covenanted to a difference law. That one specified sexual intercourse, not sexual relations. And what exactly is sexual relations?

Well, then, I'm covenanted to the earlier law. Of course, I haven't violated it, either. So much for the hedonism that comes with leaving the church.

Sexual relations I think is an intentionally more vague wording, giving church leaders a little more leeway and church members less weasel room.

See, that's what I'm talking about. Under the 1971 law that I'm covenanted to, I'm allowed to have sexual intercourse with only my husband. However, I am not covenanted regarding virtually anything else... so it's conceivable that I could have numerous lesbian encounters, unlimited everything but intercourse encounters with men who are not my husband, and still not be able to be touched by a church court. Since I didn't covenant under the current law. And would this not be the same for a gay man who married under the pre-1990 law?

[_Runtu]

See, that's what I'm talking about. Under the 1971 law that I'm covenanted to, I'm allowed to have sexual intercourse with only my husband. However, I am not covenanted regarding virtually anything else... so it's conceivable that I could have numerous lesbian encounters, unlimited everything but intercourse encounters with men who are not my husband, and still not be able to be touched by a church court. Since I didn't covenant under the current law. And would this not be the same for a gay man who married under the pre-1990 law?

So I can have sex with another man or engage in everything but penetration with a woman, huh? I'm sure my wife would agree. ;)