Monday, November 17, 2008

Going Down Until the End

I'm going to graphically discuss issues surrounding particular sex acts. If that is a problem for you, skip this entry.

I'm a married man and if I get all hot and bothered, I can fulfill my desires in a godly way, so for me it isn’t a problem to discuss this. But if it will be a problem for you to read, then move on. Lovemaking is a normal and healthy part of holy matrimony, and I don't see why I shouldn't be able to write frankly about aspects of that here.

You have been warned...

I read something written by a woman who claimed that most men didn't care or couldn't tell the difference where they ejaculated – mouth, hand, vagina, etc. It was part of a thread topic discussing fellatio and how it should be finished. She was apparently basing this on things men had written, since she is not a man and couldn't possibly know what it feels like to receive fellatio.

I can tell the difference. I find it hard to believe that most men can’t, even if they say they can't. Notice that men often say things to keep the peace. Regardless, she went on to write that men don’t have to put up with the equivalent in dealing with a sticky substance emitted from their wife. True. But women don't have to put up with monthly mood swings, either, or "Not now, I’m on my period." Yes, there are differences between men and women.

Women have probably used her statement - or similar statements from other people giving advice - to avoid or restrict fellatio.

And that’s okay. People shouldn’t do what they don’t want to do, right? I mean, her husband can decide he doesn't want to take out the trash, or lift that piece of furniture, or take her out to that nice restaurant, or any number of other things. But is that any way to love each other? Never doing anything unless it is your idea and what you are eager to do?

You may be reading this and thinking, "Oh, how trivial!" Well, perhaps for some. For others it isn't. The more restrictions and inhibitions placed on marital lovemaking, the more we miss out on some experience with our spouse.

I hope I'm not surprising you, but most guys enjoy receiving fellatio immensely, and a good percentage of those men enjoy ejaculating during fellatio, and a good percentage of those enjoy it if she consumes the ejaculate. Obviously, you don’t really have to swallow. You can easily fake it without him realizing (jumping up and running to the bathroom isn’t fooling anyone). Use your imagination here or look it up online.

When a man ejaculates, it is usually a moment of supersensitivity. I have felt the difference between it happening in fellatio and having the fellatio end just before. No, it doesn't feel the same in her hand, or waving in the air. The difference in feeling is huge for me. The swallowing aspect is mostly psychological, to be sure – as I suspect it is when a woman says she enjoys the feel of his ejaculation inside her in intercourse. But swallowing isn't a necessary part of completing fellatio with ejaculation. It is just the least messy, and like I said, psychologically stimulating for some men.

Sure, most women do not naturally enjoy the taste and texture of ejaculate. Some don't let on to that, some pretend to like it, and some learn to like it. Do you think the first time we smelled your natural vaginal odor, we thought "Well, that’s just like vanilla"? No way. But I learned to love it – to crave it – because it is a sign of my wife’s pleasure and it is something that is part of her. I enjoy cunnilingus so much I would continue to do it even if my wife were to never give me fellatio ever again. I told her that if she ever decides to kill me, to please do it by smothering me this way.

Not everyone is going to like everything, but if you’re married, why not try working on doing as much as you can to experience as much as you can with your spouse, provided it isn't harmful or immoral? If you're not yet married, consider that sex involves a lot of tastes, smells, and textures – and a lot of trust and often persistence. If you think you may have a problem with those, seek counseling or consider not marrying.

And isn’t that part of the "risk" one undertakes when they marry, especially if they have saved sex for marriage? Your partner may have turn-ons and likes and dislikes and turn-offs that are not entirely compatible with yours. Hopefully, love, commitment, and selflessness will help the couple to come up with solutions that are satisfying to both. You have genitals that fit together, and many ways of pleasing one another.

For those who have not saved sex for marriage, or at least certain sex acts, there should already be some idea of those things. Someone who makes those mistakes should not make another one by taking one or more of those things out of their repertoire once married. If you were physically able to do something before you married, you are physically able to do it once married, and ceasing to do so is a nasty form of "bait and switch".

A man who can’t tell the difference between ejaculating in your mouth, hand, vagina, or wherever would also be unable to tell the difference between ejaculating in your vagina and that of another woman. Does that make both the same? Of course not. It doesn’t make the latter okay, either, but if he isn't getting what he wants from his wife, it makes it more likely.

I do not excuse adultery, but I'm sure some such affairs or flings could have been avoided if the spouse who was cheated on had been willing to accomodate reasonable desires of their spouse.

That's just one guy's perspective. Feel free, as always, to chime in.


  1. What a naughty little post.

    Though it is nice to get a man's honest and open voice on the matter - I (and most women) would rather believe what wish was true rather than what my husband tells me.

    If you're right, my husband thanks you...

  2. This comment is not intended to start an argument but rather incite the author think a little about this subject.

    In the second to final paragraph, you state that you don't excuse adultery. Can you define adultery using entirely the word of God? What Scriptures would you use to do so? I personally find that the most revealing and direct Scripture for this is in Deut. 22 as in the NT, the authors are merely referring to sins prohibited by the OT law (because there are no definitions or elements to those sins in the NT).

  3. Okay, let me try this again without the typing errors.


    Really quick without looking anything up, Scripture makes a cumulative case that sex with anyone other than your spouse is wrong. Some would argue that adultery covers all fornication, or at least all fornication with someone other than your spouse (even if you haven't married yet), and that someone de facto becomes your spouse the moment you have sex with them, even if you haven't been through a ceremony yet. My guess is that there are different words for fornication and adultery, and that there is a reason there are different words used. All adultery is fornication, but not all fornication is adultery.

    Adultery would be engaging in sexual activity with someone other than your spouse, even with your spouse's knowledge and even presence and encouragement. If you have taken Christian vows to forsake all others for your spouse, you are not just fornicating, but you are breaking your vow.

    I'm sure some people think it is adultery to "cheat on your future spouse", but what if someone never gets married? How could it have been adultery? Fornication is bad enough, though.

  4. Where are my manners? Your blogpost is well written, enjoyable, informative, humorous and generally excellent. I just had to get that out.

    Your statement about adultery being fornication but not all fornication being adultery is correct.

    I would assert (and have asserted for years now) that God's law is precise and it behooves us to do as David did and meditate on it. There are amazing things to be learned about our design, and our Creator from His laws. In a sense, everything fornication is adultery, but that might be because the Bible doesn't use specific terms until it is defining the law. Still, I think there is a good case to be made for adultery being defined as vaginal sex with another man's wife (or his betrothed).

    Looking closely at Deut 22, one can see that the penalty for adultery is death. In the cases listed, the woman is married, betrothed and unbetrothed (virgins...remember be precise?). Note the classes of persons. First, the classified are all women. The men are not classified other than being men. This tells us that this sin is based on the status of the woman. The sin is not gender neutral. All fornication by a married man may not be adultery. Fornication in the law isn't always punished while true adultery (married or betrothed virgins) is punishable by death. Sex with a prostitute or non-virgin is not normally punished (at least by specific punishment), nor is it really mentioned directly in the law. Finally, a virgin is raped in vs. 28-29 and the man pays a fine and is forced to marry her. Clearly, there is a lot to be learned from this passage alone.

    Is visiting prostitutes not wrong (not fornication)? Is less than vaginal sexual contact not adultery? Is sex with non-virgins by a married man not fornication? I think the beginning to the answers to these questions can be found in Matt 5 whereat Jesus, after declaring the entire law still in effect and that He is not come to destroy it, declares that hate is murder and that lusting (after another man's wife) is adultery. The punishment for each of these is death. Does this mean everyone who hates or lusts should be executed? I don't think Jesus is making a civil law statement, but is expounding instead upon the importance and broadness of the tenth commandment (the commandment committed entirely in one's heart)--the heart cannot be fixed by laws. But it does declare one thing, sin is much broader than the specific OT laws.

    If we are going to live a life dictated by Biblical concepts, we should know from whence those concepts come. Too long we have been drifting, no understanding sex, marriage, children, or life purpose because we don't know what God says about those things or how He views them.

  5. Thanks for the compliments and for your thoughts on the matter. Although I know that breaking one law is breaking THE law, clearly there are some sins that are worse than others. It isn't like "Well, I'm already lusting after that other woman, so I should go ahead and have sex with her." The lust is commiting adultery in my heart, the adulter itself is an additional sin... one that can result in her being hurt, disease being transferred, and a child being coceived out of wedlock into a bad situation. Even if I confess my lust to my wife, only knows. If I engage in adultery, others know and it brings more harm.

    I also don't think the Bible needed to list every specific sexual sin. "Hey, the Bible doesn't especially say that I can't get manual sex from another woman!" Well, no. But again, epecially when taking modesty into account, the overall principles are reserving sexual activity for your spouse. (I do not think this precludes masturbation for an unmarried person... I'n referring to sexual activity involving others.)

  6. I think you're heading in the right direction with your thinking. I'd like to rephrase a little here in that your response indicates not all of what I was saying was conveyed. Understand most importantly that there is a lot in what I precisely say, and in what I do not say.

    In my understanding of Matthew 5, I do not see Jesus saying we should put the lustful man to death. His point seems to be that the sin comes from within and is so pervasive that mere compliance with outward legal restraints does not equal perfection/sinlessness. We need to be born into a different race, not born into sin.

    I would disagree that the Bible didn't list every sexual sin. I would say it at least categorized them and in that, listed all types of sexual sin. There seems to be no hint of masturbation in the law. You make a joke that the law doesn't prohibit OS or HJ (or kissing or hand holding for that matter) concerning a wife. I have long struggled with this. No it does not include that sin within the definitions of adultery in Deut 22. But we know that the tenth commandment prohibits coveting. If desiring marital favors from another man's wife isn't coveting, I don't know what is.

    Here is a horrible mistake I think is being made in the church today: confusing punishment with sin. Just because something is not punished in the law of God doesn't make it not sin. We have to see the law as a whole, but also very specifically to understand the types of sins and behaviors and what they mean and how God sees them.

    In the case of HJ or OS, the punishment isn't death, but I imagine the city elders would prescribe some sort of punishment such as lashes or fines. We too need to be wise as to what is going on with God's laws and to follow suit. We should define sins based on His laws and realize that it is His justice we work when we punish according to His dictates. And it is His judgment we invite when we do other than His justice, making it up as we go.


I have to approve your comment before it appears. I won't reject your comment for disagreement - I actually welcome disagreement. But I will not allow libelous comments (which is my main reason for requiring approval) and please try to avoid profanities. Thanks!