No sex please...we're Catholic.
April 11, 2013 9:13 AM Subscribe
Do Catholic couples have sex when the woman in the relationship is pregnant?
Let me break this question down...
Assuming said Catholic couple is heterosexual and abides by traditional dictums, here are my assumptions:
1.) Catholics believe the purpose of marriage is procreation.
2.) The purpose of sex in this marriage is for procreation only.
3.) Thus, once the woman is pregnant, having sex would not equal procreation.
Therefore, I revisit my question: do Catholic couples have sex when the woman in the relationship is pregnant?
Let me break this question down...
Assuming said Catholic couple is heterosexual and abides by traditional dictums, here are my assumptions:
1.) Catholics believe the purpose of marriage is procreation.
2.) The purpose of sex in this marriage is for procreation only.
3.) Thus, once the woman is pregnant, having sex would not equal procreation.
Therefore, I revisit my question: do Catholic couples have sex when the woman in the relationship is pregnant?
As a Catholic I've never heard anything to suggest that you shouldn't have sex when pregnant. The Church doesn't believe sex is just for procreation. It's also to express love between a married couple. (Not my interpretation, you understand.)
posted by billiebee at 9:17 AM on April 11, 2013
posted by billiebee at 9:17 AM on April 11, 2013
Yes, your assumption #2 is incorrect according to Catholic teaching.
posted by Justinian at 9:19 AM on April 11, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 9:19 AM on April 11, 2013 [6 favorites]
#2 is not a traditional Catholic dictum. Catholics are "allowed" to have sex even when they don't believe it might lead to a baby. Methods like the birth control pill, condoms, vasectomies, etc. are not allowed but "natural" methods like fertility awareness are.
posted by skewed at 9:20 AM on April 11, 2013
posted by skewed at 9:20 AM on April 11, 2013
Catholic doctrine does not teach that the purpose of marriage is procreation (otherwise, the Catholic church would forbid infertile people from getting married). Nor does it teach that the purpose of sex is for procreation only. The wikipedia article on Catholicism and sexuality has more than any layman would care to know on the topic of Catholic doctrine.
Disclaimer: I am an atheist raised in a protestant tradition.
posted by muddgirl at 9:20 AM on April 11, 2013
Disclaimer: I am an atheist raised in a protestant tradition.
posted by muddgirl at 9:20 AM on April 11, 2013
ook, that was...educational reading, although it assumed the answer to the OP's question was yes, rather than addressing the question directly.
Thank you for letting me know where to find that kind of discussion.
posted by amtho at 9:21 AM on April 11, 2013
Thank you for letting me know where to find that kind of discussion.
posted by amtho at 9:21 AM on April 11, 2013
Catholicism traditionally teaches that it's wrong to try and prevent marital sex from resulting in pregnancy, not that it's wrong to engage in marital sex that could not possibly result in pregnancy.
posted by Salamander at 9:22 AM on April 11, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by Salamander at 9:22 AM on April 11, 2013 [5 favorites]
amtho -- yeah, that thread actually gave me some new understanding as to why the answer was yes. I confess I found it by typing "catholic pregnancy sex" into google; that thread was the first result.
posted by ook at 9:29 AM on April 11, 2013
posted by ook at 9:29 AM on April 11, 2013
According to the Catholic church, it's okay to have sex just for the fun of it, even while actively trying to avoid pregnancy. Apparently, they draw a distinction between "birth regulation" and "contraception", the latter being impermissible.
WHAT METHODS OF BIRTH REGULATION ARE MORALLY ACCEPTABLE?
"If there are serious reasons to space out births, reasons which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is morally permissible to take into account the natural rhythms of human fertility and to have coitus only during the infertile times in order to regulate conception without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier"
(Humanae Vitae, 16).
posted by skewed at 9:30 AM on April 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
WHAT METHODS OF BIRTH REGULATION ARE MORALLY ACCEPTABLE?
"If there are serious reasons to space out births, reasons which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is morally permissible to take into account the natural rhythms of human fertility and to have coitus only during the infertile times in order to regulate conception without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier"
(Humanae Vitae, 16).
posted by skewed at 9:30 AM on April 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
Hi, raised Catholic here.
I think you may be a bit confused about point 2. Rather than the teaching being "sex is only for babies and you're not allowed to have fun", it's more like, "okay, yeah, sex is fun and that's great, but sex is also for babies, and trying to turn off the babymaking part and having it ONLY be for fun is selfish".
It's kind of like - if you happen to have sex when the woman is fertile, God wants us to keep the option open for Him to be able to step in and say "you know what -- this time I'm gonna give you a kid." If you happen to be having sex when the woman is NOT fertile, then God's cool with that and says "okay, I'll just catch you another time." And sometimes even when you ARE fertile and you're having sex God still says "eh, My hands are full, some other time." The problem comes in when you're fertile and having sex, but you're also using contraception; the thinking is that you're intentionally denying God that seat at the table to give you a kid and God's all, "hey, wait, no fair."
Although, it isn't entirely crazy for you to have drawn the conclusion that "sex is just for procreation," because that school of thought was indeed a perception the church had - in the Middle Ages.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:35 AM on April 11, 2013 [13 favorites]
I think you may be a bit confused about point 2. Rather than the teaching being "sex is only for babies and you're not allowed to have fun", it's more like, "okay, yeah, sex is fun and that's great, but sex is also for babies, and trying to turn off the babymaking part and having it ONLY be for fun is selfish".
It's kind of like - if you happen to have sex when the woman is fertile, God wants us to keep the option open for Him to be able to step in and say "you know what -- this time I'm gonna give you a kid." If you happen to be having sex when the woman is NOT fertile, then God's cool with that and says "okay, I'll just catch you another time." And sometimes even when you ARE fertile and you're having sex God still says "eh, My hands are full, some other time." The problem comes in when you're fertile and having sex, but you're also using contraception; the thinking is that you're intentionally denying God that seat at the table to give you a kid and God's all, "hey, wait, no fair."
Although, it isn't entirely crazy for you to have drawn the conclusion that "sex is just for procreation," because that school of thought was indeed a perception the church had - in the Middle Ages.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:35 AM on April 11, 2013 [13 favorites]
I attended a Catholic school that included various "health and reproduction" units in the curriculum as well as mandatory religion classes that were partially used for instilling exactly these sorts of mores.
I never heard about that, and I feel like I got the complete rundown of sexual rules for Good Catholics. I even vaguely remember the topic of "will sex during pregnancy hurt the baby/make twins/etc" coming up and us being taught that it was a perfectly safe thing to do.
That said, the rumor was that, senior year, religion class was devoted almost entirely to "marriage and family" type topics, so this could have been covered there. I did not attend that school senior year. It could also be saved for pre-Cana counseling before Catholic couples get married, which I wouldn't be privy to.
Based on my knowledge of Catholic reality, from growing up in the heavily Catholic enclave that is southern Louisiana, this is probably not the case. Even if it is technically a rule, even fairly devout and conservative Catholics (in the US, in my experience) tend to be lax about things like this.
posted by Sara C. at 9:35 AM on April 11, 2013
I never heard about that, and I feel like I got the complete rundown of sexual rules for Good Catholics. I even vaguely remember the topic of "will sex during pregnancy hurt the baby/make twins/etc" coming up and us being taught that it was a perfectly safe thing to do.
That said, the rumor was that, senior year, religion class was devoted almost entirely to "marriage and family" type topics, so this could have been covered there. I did not attend that school senior year. It could also be saved for pre-Cana counseling before Catholic couples get married, which I wouldn't be privy to.
Based on my knowledge of Catholic reality, from growing up in the heavily Catholic enclave that is southern Louisiana, this is probably not the case. Even if it is technically a rule, even fairly devout and conservative Catholics (in the US, in my experience) tend to be lax about things like this.
posted by Sara C. at 9:35 AM on April 11, 2013
Agree. The Catholic dogma is simply that sex is an activity reserved for married couples, and they must accept any pregnancies that should arise. And that they shouldn't get in the way of conception. A quick and easy shortcut to Catholic morality is that why you do something counts just as much as what you do.
An edge case that I don't have the answer to: is "pulling out" for strictly contraceptive purposes permissible? It seems like it would be OK in the "sex as emotional congress between married people" and if spilling the seed is part of that fun, it seems like it should be OK. But not if you are doing it to prevent pregnancy.
posted by gjc at 9:47 AM on April 11, 2013
An edge case that I don't have the answer to: is "pulling out" for strictly contraceptive purposes permissible? It seems like it would be OK in the "sex as emotional congress between married people" and if spilling the seed is part of that fun, it seems like it should be OK. But not if you are doing it to prevent pregnancy.
posted by gjc at 9:47 AM on April 11, 2013
Response by poster: Apologies for assumption #2.
One of the big (religious) arguments against gay marriage is the ol', gays can't procreate, in the traditional sense. Thus, I guess I made a huge leap in my assumptions about [traditional, Catholic] sex and marriage. I just continually hear the message that marriage, and thusly sex, is for the purpose of procreation. I guess I should revisit the Bible.
Thanks for the answers!
posted by AlliKat75 at 9:47 AM on April 11, 2013
One of the big (religious) arguments against gay marriage is the ol', gays can't procreate, in the traditional sense. Thus, I guess I made a huge leap in my assumptions about [traditional, Catholic] sex and marriage. I just continually hear the message that marriage, and thusly sex, is for the purpose of procreation. I guess I should revisit the Bible.
Thanks for the answers!
posted by AlliKat75 at 9:47 AM on April 11, 2013
An edge case that I don't have the answer to: is "pulling out" for strictly contraceptive purposes permissible? It seems like it would be OK in the "sex as emotional congress between married people" and if spilling the seed is part of that fun, it seems like it should be OK.
The thread that ook linked to seems to say that the unitive and procreative aspects of sex are pretty directly linked to where the man's penis is when he orgasms. This is a pretty clear guideline.
posted by muddgirl at 9:53 AM on April 11, 2013
The thread that ook linked to seems to say that the unitive and procreative aspects of sex are pretty directly linked to where the man's penis is when he orgasms. This is a pretty clear guideline.
posted by muddgirl at 9:53 AM on April 11, 2013
If you're looking for the Catholic teaching for these sorts of things, you'll need to look beyond Scripture and into Sacred Tradition, which is detailed in the Catechism.
posted by jquinby at 9:53 AM on April 11, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by jquinby at 9:53 AM on April 11, 2013 [2 favorites]
You have received enough comments regarding the inaccuracy of the second assumption. However, you are also mistaken about assumption #1. A prime function of marriage is procreation, but it is not the "purpose" of marriage per se. A barren couple is no less married than a fertile couple under Catholic doctrine. Their marriage isn't broken. Rather, the purpose of marriage is to make a man and woman holy by joining them as one flesh. That being said, it would be a sin for a couple to marry in the Roman church with either the man or woman (or both) having no intention of ever having children.
On OP's update, yes, under apostolic Christianity, a "marriage" between people of the same sex does not make sense because it is to join a man and woman as one flesh. To revisit the Bible on this topic, I recommend Genesis 2 and Matthew 19
posted by Tanizaki at 9:53 AM on April 11, 2013
On OP's update, yes, under apostolic Christianity, a "marriage" between people of the same sex does not make sense because it is to join a man and woman as one flesh. To revisit the Bible on this topic, I recommend Genesis 2 and Matthew 19
posted by Tanizaki at 9:53 AM on April 11, 2013
An edge case that I don't have the answer to: is "pulling out" for strictly contraceptive purposes permissible? It seems like it would be OK in the "sex as emotional congress between married people" and if spilling the seed is part of that fun, it seems like it should be OK.
This is not permissible.
posted by jquinby at 9:54 AM on April 11, 2013
This is not permissible.
posted by jquinby at 9:54 AM on April 11, 2013
jquinby is correct. See the Book of Genesis, chapter 38 verses 8-10
posted by Justinian at 10:03 AM on April 11, 2013
And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.You see? God in his infinite mercy wasted Onan because he practiced pulling out. So the practice is not acceptable in this theology.
And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.
posted by Justinian at 10:03 AM on April 11, 2013
Related to the pulling-out issue, Catholics also technically aren't supposed to have oral sex in lieu of PIV sex. It's okay to do it along the way, though (I remember reading somewhere "there's nothing about genitals that makes them inherently unkissable").
posted by synchronia at 10:09 AM on April 11, 2013
posted by synchronia at 10:09 AM on April 11, 2013
Seconding jquinby--Catholic teaching is derived both from Scripture and Tradition. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the definitive resource on Catholic teaching--both the what and the why are covered for pretty much any issue you can think of.
posted by yuwtze at 10:14 AM on April 11, 2013
posted by yuwtze at 10:14 AM on April 11, 2013
Keep in mind, also, that 'what Catholic couples do' and 'what the Church tells them to do' do not always coincide. Catholics don't all spend their lives slavishly following every Church dictum, no more than the followers of any other religion do. The answer to this question is different if the couple in the question is the embodiment of the Church's teachings on sex or if they're your neighbours (when the answer depends on a lot of things--the Church's teachings, their parish, the parish they grew up in, how religious they are, etc.).
posted by hoyland at 10:29 AM on April 11, 2013
posted by hoyland at 10:29 AM on April 11, 2013
Justinian, I'd actually like to see your citations that Genesis 38:8-10 is justification for coitus interruptus in Catholic doctrine. Because I heard nothing like that as a Catholic. What I have heard instead, though, is that other denominations' leaders back in the Victorian era used it as a half-assed excuse to say that the Bible forbade masturbation.
In actual fact, moreover, that particular scripture is not about contraception at all - but rather of Onan renouncing Levirate marriage. God didn't care about pulling out in and of itself - the actual problem was that Onan's brother died without having children, and Old Testament laws said that when that happens, the brother in law has to step up and impregnate the widow. But Onan had an issue about that so he pulled out. So it wasn't about where Onan's dick was when he came, it was about him saying "fuck that noise" to the obligation to knock up his sister-in-law.
One of the big (religious) arguments against gay marriage is the ol', gays can't procreate, in the traditional sense. Thus, I guess I made a huge leap in my assumptions about [traditional, Catholic] sex and marriage. I just continually hear the message that marriage, and thusly sex, is for the purpose of procreation.
I would wager that the people who make this argument are very aggressive anti-gay activists, though. These activists are not necessarily highly-placed church leaders as such, and may not even necessarily be Catholic. This may indeed be something akin to the "Onan" situation above, though - where Onan's sin was actually about something very different, but a bunch of ministers who thought masturbation was just icky wanted to find some kind of scripture that said it was bad, and they saw that and said "hell, that'll do" and started talking it up. I wouldn't be surprised if this was similar, where a bunch of ministers and/or priests just thought homosexuality was icky and was trying to justify that, and were all, "hey, they can't have kids and God said we were supposed to 'be fruitful and multiply', so....yeah, we can spin that. Great!"
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:35 AM on April 11, 2013
In actual fact, moreover, that particular scripture is not about contraception at all - but rather of Onan renouncing Levirate marriage. God didn't care about pulling out in and of itself - the actual problem was that Onan's brother died without having children, and Old Testament laws said that when that happens, the brother in law has to step up and impregnate the widow. But Onan had an issue about that so he pulled out. So it wasn't about where Onan's dick was when he came, it was about him saying "fuck that noise" to the obligation to knock up his sister-in-law.
One of the big (religious) arguments against gay marriage is the ol', gays can't procreate, in the traditional sense. Thus, I guess I made a huge leap in my assumptions about [traditional, Catholic] sex and marriage. I just continually hear the message that marriage, and thusly sex, is for the purpose of procreation.
I would wager that the people who make this argument are very aggressive anti-gay activists, though. These activists are not necessarily highly-placed church leaders as such, and may not even necessarily be Catholic. This may indeed be something akin to the "Onan" situation above, though - where Onan's sin was actually about something very different, but a bunch of ministers who thought masturbation was just icky wanted to find some kind of scripture that said it was bad, and they saw that and said "hell, that'll do" and started talking it up. I wouldn't be surprised if this was similar, where a bunch of ministers and/or priests just thought homosexuality was icky and was trying to justify that, and were all, "hey, they can't have kids and God said we were supposed to 'be fruitful and multiply', so....yeah, we can spin that. Great!"
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:35 AM on April 11, 2013
One of the big (religious) arguments against gay marriage is the ol', gays can't procreate, in the traditional sense. Thus, I guess I made a huge leap in my assumptions about [traditional, Catholic] sex and marriage.
"Gays can't procreate" is an argument that's getting thrown around a lot recently. But as I understand it, Catholic doctrine is a bit more complicated here.
The Catholic position is that men and women have naturally complementary roles to play in life — that they are, in some basic fundamental way, two sides of the same coin or two halves of the same whole.
The fact that (young healthy fertile) men and (young healthy fertile) women can make babies together is taken to be an example of that complementarity. But it's just supposed to be one example. It's not supposed to be the whole enchilada. People who are permanently or temporarily infertile still count as members of "their" sex, and still are seen as complementary to members of the "opposite" sex, due to a whole slew of other qualities that are seen as coming along with manhood or womanhood.
So the argument against gay marriage isn't "Two men or two women can't make babies, and marriage is all about babies, so they can't get married." It's more like this: "Marriage is all about two people coming together to complement each other in a natural way. Two men or two women couldn't ever do that — not even if somehow, miraculously, they were able to make babies."
More broadly: Catholic doctrine about the family depends really heavily on the idea that God Has A Plan for us; that following the plan is natural and good and struggling against it it is unnatural and wrong; and that our job is to trust the plan and be open to whatever results. When it comes to sex and gender, that means taking a basically non-interventionist approach — identifying with your "natural" sex (i.e. the one you were assigned to at birth), going along with the gender role and "natural" life script associated with your assigned sex, marrying a member of the opposite sex if you marry at all, and being totally open to the possibility that your marriage will produce children. These are all good things because they involve trusting the plan and going with the flow. On the other hand, gender transition, gay marriage and active birth control are all seen as putting up resistance against the plan, and therefore as bad things.
TL;DR: if you had to sum up Catholic attitudes on gay marriage and birth control in a one-sentence slogan, it wouldn't be "The purpose of sex is procreation" — it would be "That stuff just isn't natural."
posted by Now there are two. There are two _______. at 10:37 AM on April 11, 2013 [5 favorites]
"Gays can't procreate" is an argument that's getting thrown around a lot recently. But as I understand it, Catholic doctrine is a bit more complicated here.
The Catholic position is that men and women have naturally complementary roles to play in life — that they are, in some basic fundamental way, two sides of the same coin or two halves of the same whole.
The fact that (young healthy fertile) men and (young healthy fertile) women can make babies together is taken to be an example of that complementarity. But it's just supposed to be one example. It's not supposed to be the whole enchilada. People who are permanently or temporarily infertile still count as members of "their" sex, and still are seen as complementary to members of the "opposite" sex, due to a whole slew of other qualities that are seen as coming along with manhood or womanhood.
So the argument against gay marriage isn't "Two men or two women can't make babies, and marriage is all about babies, so they can't get married." It's more like this: "Marriage is all about two people coming together to complement each other in a natural way. Two men or two women couldn't ever do that — not even if somehow, miraculously, they were able to make babies."
More broadly: Catholic doctrine about the family depends really heavily on the idea that God Has A Plan for us; that following the plan is natural and good and struggling against it it is unnatural and wrong; and that our job is to trust the plan and be open to whatever results. When it comes to sex and gender, that means taking a basically non-interventionist approach — identifying with your "natural" sex (i.e. the one you were assigned to at birth), going along with the gender role and "natural" life script associated with your assigned sex, marrying a member of the opposite sex if you marry at all, and being totally open to the possibility that your marriage will produce children. These are all good things because they involve trusting the plan and going with the flow. On the other hand, gender transition, gay marriage and active birth control are all seen as putting up resistance against the plan, and therefore as bad things.
TL;DR: if you had to sum up Catholic attitudes on gay marriage and birth control in a one-sentence slogan, it wouldn't be "The purpose of sex is procreation" — it would be "That stuff just isn't natural."
posted by Now there are two. There are two _______. at 10:37 AM on April 11, 2013 [5 favorites]
Here's a Church publication that lays out the male/female complementarity thing pretty clearly. It also talks about gay marriage and birth control, and might give you a clearer sense of how Catholic philosophy understands those issues to be related.
posted by Now there are two. There are two _______. at 10:42 AM on April 11, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by Now there are two. There are two _______. at 10:42 AM on April 11, 2013 [2 favorites]
Here is the full text of the publication, which was a pastoral letter by the US Council of Catholic Bishops.
posted by jquinby at 10:55 AM on April 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by jquinby at 10:55 AM on April 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
(Even better! Thank you.)
posted by Now there are two. There are two _______. at 11:16 AM on April 11, 2013
posted by Now there are two. There are two _______. at 11:16 AM on April 11, 2013
I really like the way that @Now there are two. There are two _______. put it. The two ideas that stand out to me are that 1) God has a plan for us that we shouldn't interfere with, and 2) we should be open to the directions in which that plan may lead. I think I've heard Catholic wedding vows that mention children in the context of being open to the possibility of being blessed with children. That's not to say that those who are infertile can't get married but more like, if you're infertile and married, you should skip the condoms because maybe you'll get a cool surprise one day.
This does, unfortunately, lead to some wacky interpretations of Catholicism regarding medicine. Many Catholic scholars would say that a woman who was pregnant and found out she had cancer should wait until giving birth to receive treatment for cancer if that treatment could hurt the baby. This is the same God who thought it would be a cool idea to ask Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac just to see if he would do it. I think that in general, American Catholics are less nutso than, say, the bishops when it comes to this sort of thing (yeah, well, if the option of chemotherapy is part of God's plan, maybe that's the part we'll go with for now).
posted by kat518 at 12:24 PM on April 11, 2013
This does, unfortunately, lead to some wacky interpretations of Catholicism regarding medicine. Many Catholic scholars would say that a woman who was pregnant and found out she had cancer should wait until giving birth to receive treatment for cancer if that treatment could hurt the baby. This is the same God who thought it would be a cool idea to ask Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac just to see if he would do it. I think that in general, American Catholics are less nutso than, say, the bishops when it comes to this sort of thing (yeah, well, if the option of chemotherapy is part of God's plan, maybe that's the part we'll go with for now).
posted by kat518 at 12:24 PM on April 11, 2013
You see? God in his infinite mercy wasted Onan because he practiced pulling out. So the practice is not acceptable in this theology.
Onan's sin wasn't pulling out: it was disobedience.
posted by DWRoelands at 12:41 PM on April 11, 2013
Onan's sin wasn't pulling out: it was disobedience.
posted by DWRoelands at 12:41 PM on April 11, 2013
Just a data point here about Catholic ideas, regarding sex in a marriage and procreation... My grandmother (very, very Catholic woman) and I were talking about a married female friend of mine who absolutely does not want to have children -- at all. I explained this to my grandmother and she thought about it for a minute and then said, in all seriousness:
"They must be very careful with their timing, then, so they aren't surprised."
I quickly changed the subject. ;)
posted by juliebug at 12:52 PM on April 11, 2013
"They must be very careful with their timing, then, so they aren't surprised."
I quickly changed the subject. ;)
posted by juliebug at 12:52 PM on April 11, 2013
@kat518 The Catholic Wedding Rite does, in fact, mention openness to children (and to raising them according to the laws of the Church), but that vow can be omitted in certain cases.
http://catholicweddinghelp.com/topics/text-rite-of-marriage-mass.htm
posted by kellygrape at 12:54 PM on April 11, 2013
http://catholicweddinghelp.com/topics/text-rite-of-marriage-mass.htm
posted by kellygrape at 12:54 PM on April 11, 2013
Medieval penitential sex flowchart from Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe by James Brundage.
posted by feste at 5:29 PM on April 11, 2013
posted by feste at 5:29 PM on April 11, 2013
Onan's sin wasn't pulling out: it was disobedience.
I don't think we can know exactly what Onan's sin was supposed to have been (disobedience seems like a perfectly fine interpretation). But it is true that the sin has been long understood to have something to do with the specific sexual act, the word onanism having been around for hundreds of years (meaning either masturbation or coitus interruptus).
posted by torticat at 7:46 PM on April 11, 2013
I don't think we can know exactly what Onan's sin was supposed to have been (disobedience seems like a perfectly fine interpretation). But it is true that the sin has been long understood to have something to do with the specific sexual act, the word onanism having been around for hundreds of years (meaning either masturbation or coitus interruptus).
posted by torticat at 7:46 PM on April 11, 2013
I don't think we can know exactly what Onan's sin was supposed to have been (disobedience seems like a perfectly fine interpretation).
But we do know. It was disobedience of the Levirite marriage law.
But it is true that the sin has been long understood to have something to do with the specific sexual act, the word onanism having been around for hundreds of years (meaning either masturbation or coitus interruptus).
It may have meant "coitus interruptus" for 'hundreds" of years, but it's only meant masturbation for about 150.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:23 PM on April 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
But we do know. It was disobedience of the Levirite marriage law.
But it is true that the sin has been long understood to have something to do with the specific sexual act, the word onanism having been around for hundreds of years (meaning either masturbation or coitus interruptus).
It may have meant "coitus interruptus" for 'hundreds" of years, but it's only meant masturbation for about 150.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:23 PM on April 11, 2013 [1 favorite]
« Older Is there any rescuing this coffee cake? | Where to go for a child-friendly vacation in... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by ook at 9:17 AM on April 11, 2013