WTS letter to Newlywed (Explicit Content) (page 5)

stillajwexelder

Well, there is a possibility that this goes the other way, and it?s about men who insist on going down on their wives, and please don?t noise it around the congregation cuz ALL the women will be wanting it. But probably not.

Actually a sister once approached me and discussed this with me -- her husband insisted on going down on her and she felt guilty and talked about it with me. As I was engaging in oral with my wife ,I just said it is between the two of you but if he loves you and you feel uncomforatble about it -- at least tell him. I never mentioned the matter to any other elders and left it at that

myauntfanny

Poor woman. Fancy having to feel guilty about that. I'm glad you were nice to her.

hillary_step

Obviously written with the oversight of a member of the Governing Body who last had sex in the forties and is haunted by the esteem demanding memory of his wife preparing her Watchtower while he made love to her.

HS

BeautifulGarbage

Often it is the
tenderness, patience and genuine love reflected by the husband
while sharing the marriage bed that is appreciated more by the
wife than trying to stimulate new heights in sexual gratifica-
tion, especially if some highly questionable and conscience-dis-
turbing means is used to accomplish this.

Why should one choose? I think both go together quite well.

Cicatrix

LOL 4Jwy,

You wrote them too? I wonder how many letters they were bombarded with after that article.

I got the short version of that form letter when I wrote, probably because I wasn't baptised yet and they didn't want to scare off a convert. There was no mention of disfellowshipping in my letter.

If I'd received your version and read that part that it's "not necessary" for a woman to have an orgasm, I doubt I ever would've been baptised. That directly conflicts the Bible's command to render a wife her due

Undaunted Danny

VOYEURISTIC TITILLATION I was there mates, right there in the K-hall at the service meeting circa 1973 when the "oral review" papal bull was read from the podium by a very read faced presiding overseer. They misinterpreted,[Romans 1:24-32]

I can remember as a 16 year old boy,somewhat bewildered not knowing what to make of it all....I was also there again in 1980 when the papal bull was repealed. Married couples now had to ,"fess up" their private intimacy's to the elders.Just imagine going before some flunky kid half your age to detail your private bedroom behavior. ? I've lost track in all the flip-flop flux,is 'oral copulation' on or off now days? This 'no oral copulation' ban WAS the primary reason i never married in the 'troof'.My chronic Ulcerative Colitis diseased bowel needed to be surgically removed ASAP and had a 90% risk of impotence because the prostate nerve plexus was damaged. How many ways has the Watchtower had to cramp my lifestyle? [ The public talk outline that 'tastefully' dealt with this topic' was entitled: "A Christian view of sex and marriage"] I can remember an Elder from the Campton New Hamphshire USA Congregation who couldn't bring himself to say "oral and anal copulation" so he would subsitute "Babylonish practices". NOTE: Nothing I post is made up!

Corvin

Through the whole letter I kept wondering, what exactly do they mean by the lessons of nature???????

The comment made by the writer of that letter implies that we must be ignorant of the ways of nature. They think most members are stupid and don't know that there is same sex scenarios in the animal kingdom, including anal sex and the (shudders) licking of the genitals.

Q. What do you call a blow job in Mexico . . . ?

A. Oral of Olay!

Corvin

4JWY

Left_Field:

Yes.

XQsThaiPoes

I know i may be whiping a dead horse, but can't anyone answer me? Does illicit sex mean illegal sex?

blacksheep

Yeah, really good "proof" about "unnatural acts": Doesn't nature teach you that it is a dishoner for men to have long hair but a glory for women." What the hell in NATURE teaches us THAT? Didn't Jesus have long hair? Even if he didn't I see nothing in "nature" which leads one to that logical conclusion.

Flashbacks on their flimsey "bibical" reasoning.

WTS letter to Newlywed (Explicit Content)

Share this