Sunday Public talk that talked about oral sex

by TooBad TooSad 304 Replies latest members adult

• 

  reniaa

  well here is a wt you may find useful it's 1978 but certainly in keeping with the ones on the table currently.

  *** w78 2/15 pp. 30-31 Questions From Readers ***

  Beyond these basic guidelines the Scriptures do not go and, hence, we cannot do more than counsel in harmony with what the Bible does say. In the past some comments have appeared in this magazine in connection with certain unusual sex practices, such as oral sex, within marriage and these were equated with gross sexual immorality. On this basis the conclusion was reached that those engaging in such sex practices were subject to disfellowshiping if unrepentant. The view was taken that it was within the authority of congregational elders to investigate and act in a judicial capacity regarding such practices in the conjugal relationship.

  A careful further weighing of this matter, however, convinces us that, in view of the absence of clear Scriptural instruction, these are matters for which the married couple themselves must bear the responsibility before God and that these marital intimacies do not come within the province of the congregational elders to attempt to control nor to take disfellowshiping action with such matters as the sole basis. Of course, if any person chooses to approach an elder for counsel he or she may do so and the elder can consider Scriptural principles with such a one, acting as a shepherd but not attempting to, in effect, "police" the marital life of the one inquiring.
• 

  recovering

  Then why speak about it in a public talk if it is a conscience matter Reniaa ? Is the WTBS admitting that they where way to intrusive in the past with regards to policing of the marital bed? It would appear that is what they are saying by the quote you have provided . (*** w78 2/15 pp. 30-31 Questions From Readers ***)
• 

  passwordprotected

  ll i'm getting is hearsay and footnotes nothing that shows this is an active topic of teaching, my own personal experience is it is a lapsed one that wasn't very prominent to begin with. I've said my piece if no one can bring more than footnotes and nothing from recent articles like I showed that by inference say sex acts are condemned by being outside marriage therefore allowable by being inside marriage and that what is between a married couple is between them I'm done.

  So when the Society refers married couples - in a 2007 footnote - to a 1983 WT article where oral sex is referred to as disgusting/perverted/not pleasing to God within the marriage arrangement, you don't see this as the Society re-stating the 1983 opinion?

  Interesting.
• 

  reniaa

  thats my point recovering I don't think they did I think they only mentioned it in regards to sex outside marriage and the original poster was mistaken. I have never heard one of these talks go beyond that myself, the inference has always been that what is between a married couple is between them but I think allowances were made if a woman was feeling abused by a husband demanding things she didn't want to do and could if distressed by refuse on these grounds.
• 

  passwordprotected

  Reniaa, do you believe me that the congregation in Irvine, Ayrshire, had a local needs about oral sex between married person just a couple of years ago?

  Do you believe us when we say that a 2007 WT article had a footnote FAO married couples that referred back to the 1983 WT article that called oral sex within marriage a pervertion?
• 

  african GB Member

  COULD SOMEONE PLS EXPLAIN IN DETAIL WHAT "ORAL SEX" ENTAILS, AND WHY IT'S SO EVIL IN THE EYES OF JW's?

  african GB member
• 

  recovering

  Wait a minute Renaii how do you explain this please ?

  In the past some comments have appeared in this magazine in connection with certain unusual sex practices, such as oral sex, within marriage and these were equated with gross sexual immorality. On this basis the conclusion was reached that those engaging in such sex practices were subject to disfellowshiping if unrepentant

  So they are saying that they where wrong in disfellowshipping those that where married and engaged in oral sex?
• 

  reniaa

  even the 83 stresses pornea is acts outside of marriage only.
• 

  passwordprotected

  Yes, pornea is outside of marriage, but the article says;

  What, though, if one mate wants or even demands to share with his or her partner in what is clearly a perverted sex practice? The above-presented facts show thatporneia involves unlawful sexual conduct outside the marital arrangement. Thus, a mate’s enforcing perverted acts, such as oral or anal sex, within the marriage would not constitute a Scriptural basis for a divorce that would free either for remarriage

  As already stated, it is not for elders to “police” the private marital matters of couples in the congregation. However, if it becomes known that a member of the congregation is practicing or openly advocating perverted sex relations within the marriage bond, that one certainly would not be irreprehensible, and so would not be acceptable for special privileges, such as serving as an elder, a ministerial servant or a pioneer. Such practice and advocacy could even lead to expulsion from the congregation.

  This article states that oral sex, even within marriage, is perverted. Why do they say this?

  By referring, in 2007, married couples to this article, they are reinforcing their point.
• 

  reniaa

  hi recovery yes the 78 article looks like a retraction after consideration but then there is a lot of grey areas in this, should a woman be able to refuse oral sex if her husband asks it of her and she doesn't want to do it?