Kama Sutra and Christianity

[Dirty Penguin]

Animals have sex out of instinct. Humans don't have sex unless they find a partner they are in love with

Dude....this is so wrong....

The human primate, our primate cousins (chimpanzee, monkeys, gorillas etc. etc. etc) and dolphins are among many animals that have sex for pleasure. Man is not truly a monogamous species. Some of us "choose" to be but it is not inherent in our nature to be.....Love and sex don't go hand in hand.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

If a cat is in heat...it jumps on the first female cat it sees.
Humans who feel like having sex, don't act that way

Wait a minute...I thought it was the female that went into heat....:sarcastic

 

[Dirty Penguin]

when there is love and not lust....two lovers will never try the Kama Sutra

but they will make love.

Again....incorrect...!

My wife and I love each other and often our relations has little to do with love and more about the "heat" of the moment....You should really try reading to psychology and sociology literature on the matter...And for many of us, whether we're in a monogamous relationship or not, do in fact practice many aspects of the Kama Sutra...whether we realize it or not.....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

So I think that from a Christian standpoint, Kama Sutra is considered lust. Because those positions are not beautiful, if seen from outside.

Yet many "christians" do in fact engage in Kama Sutra whether they realize it or not. "Christians", like may others, watch porn, visit porn sites, buy and use adult sex toys etc. etc. etc.

You may judge them harshly according to your idea of a "christian" but many, many who consider themselves to be "christians" do partake.

They are squalid and animalistic. I can't help it: I think the only missionary position is beautiful and romantic, if seen from the outside.

Don't knock the others until you try them. If done carefully and effectively your partner/spouse will love you even more....trust me....:flirt:

 

[Estro Felino]

Yet many "christians" do in fact engage in Kama Sutra whether they realize it or not. "Christians", like may others, watch porn, visit porn sites, buy and use adult sex toys etc. etc. etc.

You may judge them harshly according to your idea of a "christian" but many, many who consider themselves to be "christians" do partake.


Don't knock the others until you try them. If done carefully and effectively your partner/spouse will love you even more....trust me....:flirt:

I guess I didn't make myself clear. This thread is inspired by a sentence by John Keats, British romantic poet.
He said: Beauty is truth and truth is beauty.
Let's clarify that sex between two consenting people is never a sin.
I was talking about aesthetics and what sex looks like if seen from the outside.
of course if you think of Romeo and Juliet making love in the missionary position...your heart is so full of positive feelings. That scene is so romantic that makes you feel like crying.

 

[Madhuri]

Have you read the Kama Sutra? It isn't just about carnal lust. It's a deep look at desire, family life and love and how one should try to live well.

 

[Madhuri]

Among the seven capital sins, there is one: lust.
Of course there is a big difference between romantic love and lust. The first one focuses on the aesthetic pleasure. The second one on the genital pleasure.
As British poet John Keats said, Beauty is truth and truth is beauty. That's how Romance is created: through the contemplation of beauty.
When there is no beauty within the sexual relation, there is lust.
So I think that from a Christian standpoint, Kama Sutra is considered lust. Because those positions are not beautiful, if seen from outside. They are squalid and animalistic. I can't help it: I think the only missionary position is beautiful and romantic, if seen from the outside.

I think lust is bad because it objectifies and is selfish.
The Kama Sutra does not encourage objectification or selfish action. Though not a religious scripture, it is still based on religious principles and values.

I don't see how fulfilling sexual desires and maximising physical pleasure of self and partner within a loving relationship is sinful. I think the idea that experiencing pleasure is wrong is really weird. Imagine if enjoying good food were considered wrong, dirty. Maybe some puritans do think that. So why should enjoying sex be wrong if it is done with your husband/wife?

 

[Estro Felino]

I don't see how fulfilling sexual desires and maximising physical pleasure of self and partner within a loving relationship is sinful. I think the idea that experiencing pleasure is wrong is really weird.

I didn't say that. Maybe I didn't use the right words. First of all sex between two consenting people is never a sin, so sex (maximizing pleasure) cannot be "wrong".
This thread focuses on the relationship between aesthetics and sex, from a Christian perspective.
And given that beauty is a Christian value (I will specify what I mean by that later), I can say that there is a big difference between a sex relation which derives from esthetic pleasure (purely mental) and a sex relation based on genital pleasure (related to genital organs).

 

[Drolefille]

More things I've learned from this thread: Girl on top sex isn't romantic or beautiful even if that is the best position due to physical disabilities, comfort or preference.

 

[Estro Felino]

More things I've learned from this thread: Girl on top sex isn't romantic or beautiful even if that is the best position due to physical disabilities, comfort or preference.

Speaking of comfort, I don't think that there is a more comfortable position than the missionary, for women.
I don't know whether it is comfortable for men...or not.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Speaking of comfort, I don't think that there is a more comfortable position than the missionary, for women.
I don't know whether it is comfortable for men...or not.

Surely you can't and don't speak for all women....

 

[Estro Felino]

Surely you can't and don't speak for all women....

of course I can't. But given that you are a straight man, it would be nice if you told us about your personal experience.
Do you find the missionary position more comfortable than the other ones?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

of course I can't. But given that you are a straight man, it would be nice if you told us about your personal experience.
Do you find the missionary position more comfortable than the other ones?

Nope. I have to balance myself etc. It's a lot of exertion and can be make you tired faster. For some men and even some women that position is a physically impossible. For many women it's uncomfortable to the back and hips as well as legs (i.e. circulation). Other positions can be more comfortable or as equally as uncomfortable depending on the person/couple. Additionally over time a lot of women find the position to be predictable and unsatisfying.....

 

[Estro Felino]

Nope. I have to balance myself etc. It's a lot of exertion and can be make you tired faster. For some men and even some women that position is a physically impossible. For many women it's uncomfortable to the back and hips as well as legs (i.e. circulation). Other positions can be more comfortable or as equally as uncomfortable depending on the person/couple. Additionally over time a lot of women find the position to be predictable and unsatisfying.....

ah...I see. By the way...I think it is quite romantic....given that there is a contact between the two chests...and by the way, I think that holding your own partner in your arms is priceless for a woman.

all right...but what is the most comfortable for you, then?

 

[Drolefille]

Speaking of comfort, I don't think that there is a more comfortable position than the missionary, for women.
I don't know whether it is comfortable for men...or not.

How would you know if it's comfortable for women? This is utterly ridiculous.

 

[metis]

Supposedly the position that is more satisfying to women is the man sitting with the woman on top facing him whereas she is in complete control of the movement. The Vatican actually banned this and other non-missionary positions because women ain't supposed to enjoy sex, you know.

 

[Estro Felino]

Supposedly the position that is more satisfying to women is the man sitting with the woman on top facing him whereas she is in complete control of the movement.

well...I might say that this position is quite romantic, if seen from the outside.
But only if it's the man who controls the movement.
If it's the woman the one who goes up and down....please...it's not something "nice" to see.

The Vatican actually banned this and other non-missionary positions because women ain't supposed to enjoy sex, you know.

The Vatican didn't ban anything. We are dealing with the relationship between romance and sexual intercourse.

 

[metis]

The Vatican didn't ban anything. We are dealing with the relationship between romance and sexual intercourse.

Well, I might have overstated it a bit, but...:

Although the Bible does not mention sexual positions, from the 6th to 16th centuries, some Church authorities taught that intercourse should be face-to-face, man-on-top, primarily because they believed that semen flows with gravity, leading to conception. Exceptions were made for couples dealing with illness, obesity, or pregnancy. According to John Bancroft's Human Sexuality and Its Problems, Thomas Aquinas believed that crimes against nature included intercourse in "unnatural" ways. Protestants did not communicate proper sex positions, and the Catholic Church eventually abandoned its discourse on the topic. Simon Hardy wrote that the missionary position was used to distinguish "bestial and civilized sex." -- Missionary position - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dirty Penguin]

well...I might say that this position is quite romantic, if seen from the outside.
But only if it's the man who controls the movement.
If it's the woman the one who goes up and down....please...it's not something "nice" to see.
I think that only the man should move during the intercourse..

I would say the vast majority of women in every religion and non-religious on the planet would disagree with you here. Even in some of the most devout religious marriages there's various levels of domination being practiced by both sides (male and female). Sexual intercourse by humans can be conducted for multiple reasons. Some for procreation but not exclusive. I believe humans have intercourse for pleasure more than for simply procreation. With that we have devised the most elaborate ways to have sex.

 

[metis]

I would say the vast majority of women in every religion and non-religious on the planet would disagree with you here. Even in some of the most devout religious marriages there's various levels of domination being practiced by both sides (male and female). Sexual intercourse by humans can be conducted for multiple reasons. Some for procreation but not exclusive. I believe humans have intercourse for pleasure more than for simply procreation. With that we have devised the most elaborate ways to have sex.

No doubt.

BTW, the woman-on-top approach with the man sitting or kneeling was common with the South Pacific islanders, and in their culture enjoying sex was not considered to be related to "sin", plus the culture had it that women should enjoy sex as much as a man. In Europe, that attitude was disdained because the belief was more that it was the wife's obligation to satisfy the husband with procreation, not enjoyment, being the goal, and if she enjoyed it too much she might be inclined to try some other men. This attitude was even stronger yet in the Islamic countries.