With full respect to your theology (and I genuinely just wish to understand it more, as there are no such restrictions placed upon me by my church, when it comes to spousal love), could you point me to a verse anywhere in the Bible - or a witness from the early Christian sacred tradition (the latter only applies if you belong to a non-
sola scriptura denomination like I do) - which condemns any form of heterosexual anal sex, roleplaying or indeed 'sex toys' as immoral?
The first one I completely agree with (being selfish about one's sexual desires), inasmuch as we are told that relationships must be equally and mutually fulfilling, with both parties satisfied and respected in their desires and boundaries: "
The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time" (
1 Corinthians 7:3-5).
So far as I am aware, however, there is no scriptural 'advice' on how believers are to orient their sex lives as a couple in the privacy of their own bedrooms. That's a private decision in the context of their relationship, in accordance with their respective consciences and desires.
We also have a celebration of the pleasure of oral sex in the
Song of Songs in the Old Testament: with very richly poetic description of
fellatio:
"As an apple tree among the trees of the wood,
so is my beloved among young men.
With great delight I sat in his shadow,
and his fruit was sweet to my taste."
(Song of Solomon 2:3)
The erotic connotation is clear (oral stimulation of her beloved's penis), especially since the Hebrew word
chek (for her palate) is used. And the exact same with
cunnilingus, this time orated from the male perspective:
"I come to my garden, my sister, my bride;
I gather my myrrh with my spice,
I eat my honeycomb with my honey,
I drink my wine with my milk.
Eat, friends, drink,
and be drunk with love."
(Song of Solomon 5:1)
Again, the erotic implications of the male lover enjoying with his mouth the delicacies of the women's body (the act of stimulating the vagina via use of the tongue and mouth), is frankly celebrated by the sacred author.
And both lovers are
objectifying each other throughout the text - in terms that make clear they're both and passionately in love and mutually enamoured - with him saying to her: "
How beautiful you are, my love, how very beautiful!....You have ravished my heart, my sister, my bride, you have ravished my heart with a glance of your eyes" (
4:9) and of her other physical attributes: "
your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle, that feed among the lilies" (4:5) whilst she says of him in turn: "
My beloved is like a gazelle or a young stag" (2:9) and then very effusively:
"My beloved is all radiant and ruddy,
distinguished among ten thousand.
11 His head is the finest gold;
his locks are wavy,
black as a raven.
12 His eyes are like doves
beside springs of water,
bathed in milk,
distinguished among ten thousand.
11 His head is the finest gold;
his locks are wavy,
black as a raven.
12 His eyes are like doves
beside springs of water,
bathed in milk,
fitly set.
13 His cheeks are like beds of spices,
yielding fragrance.
His lips are lilies,
distilling liquid myrrh.
14 His arms are rounded gold,
set with jewels.
His body is ivory work,
encrusted with sapphires.
15 His legs are alabaster columns,
set upon bases of gold."
(5:10-15)
And all of this is perfectly normal and healthy in the context of a loving relationship. St. Alphonsus Liguori (1696–1787), a Doctor of the Church, in his Moral Theology, Books 2-3, n. 1151-1167, thus taught that: "
acts such as kisses and touches that arouses lust are licit in marriage and the marriage act, and as a preparation for the marriage act...unchaste touches (which certainly cannot be done without a great deal of arousal) among spouses are licit...the very state of matrimony renders all these things licit; otherwise the matrimonial state would be exposed to excessive scruples".
Further to that:
View attachment 53899
There's a scholastic moral theology manual from the late nineteenth century by an Austrian capuchin of the Catholic Church, which was used by priests for the confessional, and it stated simply: "
it is neither sodomy nor a grave sin if intercourse is begun in a rectal manner with the intention of consummating it naturally or if some sodomitical action is posited without danger of pollution."'
Anal sex between heterosexual couples (proper hygiene, protection, cleansing and safety notwithstanding) - as well as oral sex as foreplay - is considered a legitimate option in my tradition, as part of a healthy, consensual and mutually self-giving sexual relationship (so long as the couple include vaginal intercourse as part of their sex life to properly 'consummate').
