women on top and biblical sex

woman on top and biblical sex cartoon by nakedpastor david hayward

When a man writes about gender roles, the first thing you should note is that it was written by a man. Always start the critique there.

There’s quite a debate going on that you might like to notice. The Gospel Coalition posted an article by Jerod Wilson entitled The Polluted Waters of 50 Shades of Grey, Etc.. It received a lot of criticism, such as the post by Rachel Held Evans. You can check out these links and that will provide you with a wide doorway into more conversations around this hot topic.

The Gospel Coalition is biblically bound. But be aware that it is their take on what is biblical. We should know by now that gender roles are simply that: roles… roles that are culturally assigned and either endorsed/ enforced or opposed by religious ones.

This poor couple can’t even have a good time in the bedroom anymore. Or the kitchen. Or the shower. Or the forest. Their theology is getting in the way.

Would you like to own the original drawing? Or perhaps you would like to buy a print of this cartoon!

About David Hayward

David Hayward runs the blog nakedpastor as a graffiti artist on the walls of religion where he critiques religion… specifically Christianity and the church. He also runs the online community The Lasting Supper where people can help themselves discover, explore and live in spiritual freedom.

  • http://www.edenleadership.org Philip DeVries

    Song of Solomon seems to strongly imply that any position goes based upon the mutual consent of the husband and wife. Just saying!!

  • http://paulkisakye.blogspot.com paul kisakye

    hmmm…. no comment

  • Allan

    Haha! Too True. Love it David!

  • http://perigee-syzygy.com Perigee Syzygy

    Ha, brilliant:)

  • Gary

    Song of Solomon is a wonderfully erotic book. In fact an in depth study reveals a wide array of kinky pleasures, WAY beyond what most of those in the Gospel Coalition would ever deem appropriate.

    In fact the stark contrast between “church approved” sexuality and biblical sexuality is one of the topics that helped me to break free of the mind control of my church past.

  • scott

    “or the kitchen, or the shower…” LMAO!!!!
    well done David. :-)

  • Eric

    NB: Song of Songs is sexual poetry that expresses physical intimacy OUTSIDE of the marriage bed. Otherwise there’d be no sneaking around… :)

  • Fred

    So…a woman has something to say about gender roles but a man doesn’t.

    REEEAAAALLLYYY!?

  • http://nakedpastor.com nakedpastor

    come on fred, you know that’s not what i’m saying. what i’m saying is if a man is saying what a woman’s role is, it should first be noted that he is a man. that’s clear.

  • Fred

    Okay. And vice versa?

    A close friend of mine was taught, in a work situation, that “a woman cannot be sexist” (because she is always, by necessity in our culture, in a subservient position–even when she’s the boss!). I thought that was the kind of thinking you were espousing.

  • http://freedompastor.blogspot.com Frank Emanuel

    The best commentary on SoS that I’ve read was on building a case that it celebrated empowered female sexual initiative (including auto-erotic sexuality). The scholar said it almost made up for the travesty of the sexuality of Genesis.

    What an interesting conversation the exchange with the Gospel Coalition has been. An incredible example of making scripture endorse ones particular views without thinking through the consequences. How irresponsible our plain reading hermeneutic can actually be. I love how Balmer says called it hyper individualistic leading to a theological free-for-all (which is ironically exactly what it is intended that such a hermeneutic would avoid, see Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory). I have only peripherally been aware of the 50 shades phenomenon. I’ve become more aware that the romance genre has been exploring a lot of new ground in the last few years – so it doesn’t really surprise me that something like 50 shades would come along. I think it raises important issues – but the GC response shows just how ill equipped we are to engage with those issues responsibly.

    I think your cartoon is actually quite profound. What should he be thinking? What is sex anyway? Why does everything have to be somehow biblical? What does that mean anyway? It evokes some great questions.

  • Tony Cain

    A pastor taught me this a couple of yrs ago- that when Eve offered Adam the fruit, he gave up his authority by allowing her to come between his relationship with God, he had the authority ,but when he listened to her and went agaist what God had told him , that put her in an authoritve role over him , making him subservient to her- we as men need to stand up and retake the authority that God had intended on being ours all along- we are suppossed to be the spiritual head of our wives, families and homes – so as men , stand up , protect your spiritual right as a believer and resume your role as the head , just as Christ is the head of the body, then we are to be the head if our household- I’m not saying to be the boss and belittle your wives , they are your partner love them and nurture them and be the leader that God chose you to be – I personally have failed at this over and over, but God put me in this positon and now I am taking back the authority that God intended for me all along! As for me and my house, We will serve the Lord- Joshua 24:15

  • Tony Cain

    and a wife on top in bed is not giving her authority over you , it is just another way to enjoy the sex that God intended you to have together as a couple,
    it has no bearing on who is subservient at all! :)

  • http://nakedpastor.com nakedpastor

    ya frank… i totally agree with your question “Why does everything have to be somehow biblical?”

  • http://sarahoverthemoon.com Sarah Moon

    ahaha, in the forest. *imagines pine needles going in places they shouldn’t*

  • Gary

    Tony, Your view of male headship is the result of sin not the rightful God intended role. Frankly it is a crock of shit that has caused pain and suffering for literally generations of women.

    Jesus set the record straight by declaring men and women equal and in one stroke removed the sin punishment of male dominance.

    You need to catch up man.

  • Candee

    I am liking a lot of the comments I see here from the men–many of whom seem very open minded about the roles of men and women. I do agree with Gary as far as Jesus Being the Great Equalizer. Some people I’ve known in the past did try to “spiritualize” the most mundane things–it kind of smacked of something a Pharisee might do. I know God created sex and it isn’t a far stretch to imagine He wanted males and females to enjoy it. I only wish I could’ve been at this point of confidence, freedom and true enjoyment of my sexuality when I was younger. Between my parents uptightness and others’ interpretation of Biblical standards, I wasted a lot of my younger years unable to relax and enjoy myself with my husband. Now we are in our 50′s and the sadness of his ED colors our lives. I say enjoy it while you can, because you never know what’s going to happen!! Yay God!

  • Angela

    Thank you Gary. Your response to Tony was much more eloquent than mine would have been.

  • shelly

    Okay. And vice versa? (Fred)

    It rarely, if ever, happens.

    David’s point is that cisgender men — who are writing from a place of privilege — have no real business telling a cisgender woman what her role should be. Notice the use of “cisgender”, as trans* people and non-gender-binary-conforming people are often marginalized, IMO.

  • Bob Harkema

    In regards to ‘biblical sex’. I always wondered why God having sex with teenage Mary is supposed to be literal and the Song of Solomon with same species sex is supposed to be allegorical.

  • http://stuffchristianculturelikes.com stephanie drury

    I call the Gospel Coalition the Theolojizzing Rodeo Roundup.

  • http://nakedpastor.com nakedpastor

    haha. funny. goes with the cartoon kinda.

  • http://letgoandflow.com David DiGiovanni

    Love me some biblical sex

  • http://thoughts-brigitte.blogspot.com Brigitte

    Someone posted this on FB. I thought it was breath-taking.

    Loves
    Magdalen’s Epistle

    Of Love’s discrete occasions, we
    observe sufficient catalogue,
    a likely-sounding lexicon

    pronounced so as to implicate
    a wealth of difference, where reclines
    instead a common element,

    itself quite like those elements
    partaken at the table served
    by Jesus on the night he was

    betrayed—like those in that the bread
    was breakable, the wine was red
    and wet, and met the tongue with bright,

    intoxicating sweetness, quite
    like … wine. None of what I write arrives
    to compromise that sacrament,

    the mystery of spirit graved
    in what is commonplace and plain—
    the broken, brittle crust, the cup.

    Quite otherwise, I choose instead
    to bear again the news that each,
    each was still itself, substantial

    in the simplest sense. By now, you
    will have learned of Magdalen, a name
    recalled for having won a touch

    of favor from the one we call
    the son of man, and what you’ve heard
    is true enough. I met him first

    as, mute, he scribbled in the dust
    to shame some village hypocrites
    toward leaving me unbloodied,

    if ill-disposed to taking up
    again a prior circumstance.
    I met him in the house of one

    who was a Pharisee and not
    prepared to suffer quietly
    my handling of the master’s feet.

    Much later, in the garden when,
    having died and risen, he spoke
    as to a maid and asked me why

    I wept. When, at any meeting
    with the Christ, was I not weeping?
    For what? I only speculate

    —brief inability to speak,
    a weak and giddy troubling near
    the throat, a wash of gratitude.

    And early on, I think, some slight
    abiding sense of shame, a sop
    I have inferred more recently

    to do without. Lush poverty!
    I think that this is what I’m called
    to say, this mild exhortation

    that one should still abide all love’s
    embarrassments, and so resist
    the new temptation—dangerous,

    inexpedient mask—of shame.
    And, well, perhaps one other thing:
    I have received some little bit

    about the glib divisions which
    so lately have occurred to you
    as right, as necessary, fit

    That the body is something less
    than honorable, say, in its
    … appetites? That the spirit is

    something pure, and—if all goes well—
    potentially unencumbered
    by the body’s bawdy tastes.

    This disposition, then, has led
    to a banal and pious lack
    of charity, and, worse, has led

    more than a few to attempt some
    soul-preserving severance—harsh
    mortifications, manglings, all

    manner of ritual excision
    lately undertaken to prevent
    the body’s claim upon the heart,

    or mind, or (blasphemy!) spirit—
    whatever name you fix upon
    the supposéd bodiless.

    I fear that you presume—dissecting
    the person unto something less
    complex. I think that you forget

    you are not Greek. I think that you
    forget the very issue which
    induced the Christ to take on flesh.

    All loves are bodily, require
    that the lips part, and press their trace
    of secrecy upon the one

    beloved—the one, or many, endless
    array whose aspects turn to face
    the one who calls, the one whose choice

    it was one day to lift my own
    bruised body from the dust, where, it seems
    to me, I must have met my death,

    thereafter, this subsequent life
    and late disinclination toward
    simple reductions in the name

    of Jesus, whose image I work
    daily to retain. I have kissed
    his feet. I have looked long

    into the trouble of his face,
    and met, in that intersection,
    the sacred place—where body

    and spirit both abide, both yield,
    in mutual obsession. Yes,
    if you’ll recall your Hebrew word.

    just long enough to glimpse in its
    dense figure power to produce
    you’ll see as well the damage Greek

    has wrought upon your tongue, stolen
    from your sense of what is holy,
    wholly good, fully animal—

    the body which he now prepares.

    ~ Scott Cairns

  • Tony Cain

    Gary , I’m sorry i wasn’t trying to offend anyone , including the women ,i was refering to spiritual head as in, men need to take a more active role in their church , in every church that I have been involved in it is mostly the women that are there to represent their families , i was talking about the men stepping up and making sure that spiritually that the family is in the word period, that is what I meant, i was just passing along a lesson that was taught one sunday in a church that I used to attend, as I was saying , i had failed over and over to lead my children and my wife to church to the point they were going without me , and i was being left behind , I do believe in equality of the sexes , my wife was my boss before we dated, i was not saying that women need to be subservient, as a matter of fact I called your wife your partner as in your equal, i was meaning that we , as men need to re-evaluate our roles and make sure that we are following Gods word.
    to Angela , I am truly sorry, I believe that i was misunderstood- women are not to be subservient to any man ,my wife and I do believe each other to be equals, i just meant that men , in general, need to make sure that their families are protected by the word

  • http://nakedpastor.com nakedpastor

    Tony: I’m glad you are commenting on our blog and persevered in the conversation. I admire that. I would like to contribute my own 2 cents. The whole idea of “male roles” and “female roles” as assigned by our culture and further enforced by our religion need to be seriously re-examined. These roles are based on an ancient worldview that even the bible is subject too and is perpetuated today by literalists.

    My wife Lisa and I are constantly shifting our roles. Actually, we don’t have assigned roles really. The whole idea of me as head of the household is laughable to us now. We negotiate every step motivated by love. Or try to. We do not subscribe to all this role stuff, and our relationship and family are doing very well. Try it. It’s very liberating.

    Theologically it is not impossible. Consider your family a little church. Say Jesus is the head of your family just like he is head of the church. The need for you, the man, to be head, is eliminated.

  • Tony Cain

    to the naked pastor , thank you for your 2 cents, just to let you know, my wife would agree with yours, the role of me as head of the house is laughable here also, , she has always been the one to take care of all the business,, (bills and such , ) i was just trying to take some of the stress from off of her shoulders and let her rest a while – shes pretty demanding LOL, but , seriously – i just meant that the percentage of males in the church today is far below that of the women , just that we as males need to share in the responsibility and not leave it all on our wives , I understand what you mean, the last church I was at there were only 4 men and about 12 familys represented by the wives , not that they were working or absent from their family, just that they had no spiritul walk , and the burden was left to the wives- don’t worry , i’m not offended, i just have come to the realization that part of this walk is mine to take, you know we have to be equally yoked or the furrow runs skewed! Shalom

  • Paul Heller

    I’m jumping in late to this conversation, but I had a comment in brief defense of Tony’s thoughts. I’m newly wed – 2 months into marriage and so far, so awesome. That being said, I realize I’m a newbie at this, so please forgive some of my naivete.

    Ephesians 5:22-25 seems to make pretty clear to me that God has established definite roles for the husband and the wife and actually says that the husband is the head of the home in verse 23.

    Nakedpastor, I may be misinterpreting you, but it sounds like you’re saying that Paul the apostle has an “ancient worldview” and anyone who ascribes to it is being a “literalist”.

    Your analogy of our family being like a church has already been used by Paul in verse 24. Paul says we are to be like Christ in leading our wives as he does the church. And even though culture may call me sexist for saying it, but he uses the word submission in describing the wives relationship to the husband. It doesn’t say Christ is the head of the marriage, even though that might be vicariously true since the husband is submitting to Christ, but he does make it clear that there is a role distinction, doesn’t he?

    Ok… what does this look like practically? I’ll be honest and admit that I’m not sure. Like I said, I’m a newbie at marriage. However, I do think that God holds the man responsible for how he led and loved his wife and I believe that does have practical implications.

    I once heard a man pose this question: What if at the judgement seat, God doesn’t ask to see your ministry, your work or or your influence, but simply asks to see what you did with your marriage? To a guy who wants to be a missionary (me) that’s a wonderful reminder that my first priority and responsibility is to my wife.

    To say that no role is necessary seems to implicate that I can do my own thing for the Lord and she can do her own thing. If young men were to believe that starting off in marriage, I think we’d have a generation of wives who lose their husbands to their careers, or even more subtly, to their ministries… in fact, don’t we already have that?

    Ok, I think this conversation has drifted far away from being about sex to being about sexism… I hope that’s ok.

    Thoughts for me? I don’t mean to be inflammatory here, by any means.

  • Gary

    Tony thanks for your clarifications they are well received. Understand my background is full of the very literalists NP speaks of. In my church past women are simply not allowed to lead in any capacity over a man period. I find this to be tragic and out of step with Christs teaching.

    Paul, I won’t attempt to speak for NP but as for me I would very much say the Apostle Paul had an ancient worldview. He is not God and his words should very much be taken in the context of his culture and compared to the words of Christ. His teaching for women to be silent in church and to be subservient to men is very flawed and contrary to what Jesus taught. He (if these words do indeed belong to him) is responsible for centuries of misogynistic and abusive treatment of women.

  • http://nakedpastor.com nakedpastor

    Hi Paul. Thanks for commenting. Here’s my take on that. I love Paul. But he was a man of his time, however advanced and radical. But he was a man of his time. I think it is more necessary and healthy for us to take his radicalness further, rather than his time. I think that’s an important distinction that many miss.

  • Paul Heller

    Hey Gary and NP,

    Thank you both for being gentle with me in my youth. I see a lot of wisdom and experience in the words of both of you and I hope my convictions don’t pose any disrespect towards my elders.

    Despite this, I’m really not afraid to put my foot down and say that I believe that God’s word is inspired, regardless of who writes it. To question that puts us on some very unstable ground and any argument I make on here based on the Bible is pretty much irrelevant if we don’t believe that we have an absolute authority (or truth in general).

    I suppose I was under the impression that we all were in agreement that the whole Bible is God’s inspired word. Is that not the case? If not, then how can we interpret the SoS, which started this whole discussion in the first place? If Paul has a cultural lens through which we have to interpret the Bible, then Solomon definitely does as well, doesn’t he?

    (If this is going to lead to a discussion of who put the Bible together and how it was canonized… I’m in over my head, I realize that. I couldn’t tell you the dates of all the councils that met to decide which books to keep and which to throw, but I suppose I could google them :-D ).

  • Paul Heller

    NP,

    On re-reading your comment, I’m not really sure what you mean about taking his radicalness further. Can you unpack that for me? Perhaps I didn’t understand what you meant.

  • http://nakedpastor.com nakedpastor

    hi again paul… well the big word is “hermeneutics”… the science of bible interpretation that every bible college student or seminary student must learn… and the number one thing to remember is that we have to remember that we are interpreting the bible according to our own paradigms, and that the bible was written within the paradigms of the writers (example: that the world was considered flat)… so we’ve just gone down the rabbit hole.

  • http://nakedpastor.com nakedpastor

    sure paul: a lot of people i know hate paul as a sexist pig. but i think he was ahead of his time… radical so to speak. so there are two conditions at work: a man of his time and his radicalness… i think it is more important to further his spirit of radicalness rather than his spirit of first century worldview.

  • Paul Heller

    Good thoughts.

    Thanks for the insightful discussion, sirs. I imagine that as time goes on, my thoughts on some scriptures will probably change as God gives me more wisdom and I mature.

    My only hope is that my experiences won’t determine how I interpret the bible, but rather the opposite… that the Bible will help me interpret my experiences. Otherwise, it’s of little value.

  • http://www.unnameablecuriosity.wordpress.com Christine

    Tony – In genesis, adam isn’t over eve until *after* the fall and it is as a *result* of the fall. The gender roles are described as part of the curse, which Jesus did away with. The lesson you learned is disturbing because it is portraying it as the exact opposite, implying that the lack of submission by women/lack ofauthority by men caused the fall and that the removal of roles is the curse. This appears to blame all sin on gender equality. It may have been taught to you with good intentions – to encourage men to do what all people in general should do – but it is a dangerous and misleading premise from which to begin.

    Paul – On (St.) Paul, I think it is important to remember that he is addressing the specific, practical problems of particular groups of people at a specific place and time. He is acknowledging a social reality (one that seems in conflict with Paul’s own description of what Jesus accomplished) and is trying to reconcile the two practially speaking. Paul was clear that women and men were equal, just as slaves and masters were equal, but the way that societies functioned at the time weren’t going anywhere. Paul gives the same direction to women in obeying their husbands as he does to slaves obeying even harsh masters, even encourging slaves not to seek their freedom. The circumstances of slaves and women are treated in close parallel, which makes sense because both groups were property in much the same way. I don’t think Paul means that women being subject to men is a divine order for all time any more than I think Paul meant that slavery was a divine order for all time. Paul had to address these issues because they for real for the churches to which he was writing. Whether his instructions to them were inspired/correct or limited/too compromising, either way we can be thankful we do not have to face those problems. And yet, instead of relief that we can make the equality that exists a practical reality, some want to reinshrine those injustices back into society. Just because Paul presented a way to deal with a problem doesn’t mean we need to insist on keeping or reintroducing the problem just so that we can follow Paul’s advice.

  • http://www.unnameablecuriosity.wordpress.com Christine

    Tony – In genesis, adam isn’t over eve until *after* the fall and it is as a *result* of the fall. The gender roles are described as part of the curse, which Jesus did away with. The lesson you learned is disturbing because it is portraying it as the exact opposite, implying that the lack of submission by women/lack ofauthority by men caused the fall and that the removal of roles is the curse. This appears to blame all sin on gender equality. It may have been taught to you with good intentions – to encourage men to do what all people in general should do – but it is a dangerous and misleading premise from which to begin.

    Paul – On (St.) Paul, I think it is important to remember that he is addressing the specific, practical problems of particular groups of people at a specific place and time. He is acknowledging a social reality (one that seems in conflict with Paul’s own description of what Jesus accomplished) and is trying to reconcile the two practially speaking. Paul was clear that women and men were equal, just as slaves and masters were equal, but the way that societies functioned at the time weren’t going anywhere. Paul gives the same direction to women in obeying their husbands as he does to slaves obeying even harsh masters, even encourging slaves not to seek their freedom. The circumstances of slaves and women are treated in close parallel, which makes sense because both groups were property in much the same way. I don’t think Paul means that women being subject to men is a divine order for all time any more than I think Paul meant that slavery was a divine order for all time. Paul had to address these issues because they for real for the churches to which he was writing. Whether his instructions to them were inspired/correct or limited/too compromising, either way we can be thankful we do not have to face those problems. And yet, instead of relief that we can make the equality that exists a practical reality, some want to reinshrine those injustices back into society. Just because Paul presented a way to deal with a problem doesn’t mean we need to insist on keeping or reintroducing the problem just so that we can follow Paul’s advice.

  • http://www.unnameablecuriosity.wordpress.com Christine

    (Apologies for the duplicate comment above. Tech glitch.)

    Paul – I meant to add that I don’t at all see how eliminating gender roles removes all obligations between spouses. Having the same roles doesn’t mean that each person just does whatever they want and they neglect each other. Spouses can have a mutal obligation of love, support, compassion, affection and burden-sharing, which they hold equally. Just because the responsibilities aren’t differentiated doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

  • Kristin

    Jared Wilson has updated things with a new post on The Gospel Coalition site:

    http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/gospeldrivenchurch/2012/07/20/some-reflections-just-one-explanation-and-apologies/

  • Per

    A healthy discussion on interpretation of the bible…very interesting and refreshing to hear the dialogue back and forth. I believe I am still reeling from many years of study – the ingrained thoughts.

    I think reading and hearing these comments about those verses on the role(s) of the husband and wives are much more viable in their prospective time period. And again, NP commenting about their [h/w] role as Christ AS the head makes sense from a standpoint of collaboration and synergy rather than who is in charge and leads the house down here…in our finite world.

    What paradigm and I living in today?

    Thanks everyone.

  • Mark Hunter

    Paul,

    You cite Ephesians then attribute it to God when it was Paul who,said it.

    Where does the idea that everything attributed to Paul in the Bible is actually the “word of God” come from?

    Btw, how many kids are you planning on having, because Paul,says your wife will be saved by having ‘em?

  • http://www.iwanttolivenotjustsurvive.blogspot.com Shannon

    Love the drawing, I doubt many men are thinking that in that position. Unless of course they read that post. Ha

  • Paul Heller

    Thanks for the thoughts towards my comment, everyone. I wasn’t really aware of the blog readership here before I posted and I assumed some things about accepted truths because of the content of the site that are clearly untrue. Sorry for any offense taken at my thoughts.

    Christine, yes, I agree with you. Paul was absolutely addressing specific people at a specific church. I suspect he didn’t anticipate people discussing his letter some 2000 years later. I’m not sure how to thoroughly discuss how I interpret the Bible in a blog post, since it would probably take me 10 or 15 minutes of emotional facial expression, hand movements and deliberate fluctuation of the tone of my voice to do that effectively.

    I guess I can simply say we probably disagree about the inspiration of the Bible, but I appreciate you reminding me to question my beliefs. It’s so easy to just run with a belief like that and never ask, “Why?”

    I guarantee you, I will ponder that over the next few days.

    Mark: My wife and I will have as many children as God in his mercy sees fit to give us. I don’t pretend to fully understand that verse, but I’ll ponder it also. Thanks.

  • http://nakedpastor.com nakedpastor

    Paul: I’m not sure what you mean by your statement “I wasn’t really aware of the blog readership here before I posted and I assumed some things about accepted truths because of the content of the site that are clearly untrue.”

  • http://www.unnameablecuriosity.wordpress.com Christine

    Paul: Likewise, I don’t see why you would have drawn conclusions about my view of biblical inspiration on the basis of the fact that Paul was addressing a particular church at a particular time. That wouldn’t negate his words being inspired (my point above was that it could still be viewed either way). Nor would his words being inspried negate that they were for a particular place in time. If they we inspired, we can still learn from them by acknowledging their wisdom for that time and place and learning from the principles being applied, even if the specific advice is not longer relevant. Inspired or not, we can come to those passages and our modern-day struggles with the principles given to us by Jesus and scripture as a whole.

  • http://throughthestorm.wordpress.com Wayne

    Maybe the role of us gay Christians is to teach the others that position really does not matter :)

  • http://www.unnameablecuriosity.wordpress.com Christine

    Ah, Wayne. I like the way you think.

  • Paul Heller

    Oops. Sorry to reply late to your question NP. The updates on replies to my comment fell into my spam inbox – ha.

    I stumbled onto your blog and I didn’t read any of the posts thoroughly. I was under the presumption that most people commenting believed that the whole Bible was inspired and without error. That’s what I meant. I do believe that.

    I didn’t mean offense by what I wrote and I hope none is taken. I actually really enjoyed reading your posts since commenting on this blog. Some of the messages I totally agree with you on, but others, I differ and I think that’s ok.

  • http://nakedpastor.com nakedpastor

    Thanks Paul. I appreciate your comment. Yes, disagreement is okay and even necessary.

  • Giles

    I got somewhat of a chuckle out of the tormented couple wondering is this biblical….is this biblical…… Granted, this particular verse has been difficult to properly interpret over the centuries, but Jeremiah 31:22 (a woman shall encompass the man) might put them at ease a little and perhaps even pique their curiosity to try and find out if it applies or not. Personally I suspect the verse has several different meanings, all of them applicable, and with a sexual meaning as just one of them (but a very important one, though).

  • http://nakedpastor.com David Hayward

    Giles: I’ve honestly never heard that verse applied that way before. But I’ll take it!

  • Giles

    Let’s just say I was really startled when I stumbled across the verse several years ago (I was reading Jeremiah overall at the time) and wasn’t sure if there were any interpretations/evaluations by bible scholars as to whether it had any kind of sexual connotation. Like I said, I think there are several connotations, and they’re all basically correct and not at all contradictory. As far as reading into it a biblical “endorsement” of (or allusion to) WOT here, it did cause me to reflect on the possibilities somewhat. Interestingly, Genesis 2:22 says that God brought the woman to the man (not the other way around). This is enacted in a sense when a bride comes down the aisle to meet her groom in a wedding ceremony, but it can also perhaps be re-enacted each time spouses make love: The woman comes to the man and, if Jer 31:22 is “applied” here, she “encompasses” him. To me that suggests initiating things and basically doing what’s depicted in the cartoon—but minus the couple agonizing over whether they’re doing something wrong (to the contrary, they’re doing something Truly Good—in Spirit and in Truth).

    As far as those who contend that a man becomes passive and relinquishes his authority and responsiblity by allowing his woman to be on top (and especially these days when this may very well be the position of choice for most people if various surveys are correct) and that this is simply just another way that men have become “girly,” I contend that a man is perhaps truly fulfilling his virtuous role by honoring his wife in that position, and truly his wife as his own body (Ephesians 5:28-29), given that he can better caress and touch her in that position, and she him. And part of the chivalry of the man in that position is that it tends to slow his response (ejaculation) in order to better match that of his wife (ie, her orgasm), thus facilitating a more perfect physical and spiritual communion with one another.

    Part of the reason that churches have frowned on the use of WOT in the past at least was the belief that women couldn’t conceive while on top because of the gravity thing w/r the sperm; etc. We now know that a woman can get pregnant in just about any position, as many these days apparently do—-increasingly using WOT.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X