Puritanism reconsidered: "TheMarriageBed.com"

Non-salacious Saturday blogging

Something like 96% of the roughly 300 million people living in the United States profess some sort of belief in a higher being. Less than 10% identify as having right-wing/conservative fundamentalists religious beliefs. That leaves a heck of a lot of more or less "straight but not narrow" people of faith somewhere in the middle.

We often look back on the original New England Puritans as a, well, puritan bunch. Blue nosed, "banned in Boston," boring. Thus it's startling to recall that (compared to their contemporaries) they were libertine in the extreme. Rather than rejecting pleasures of the flesh outright, as tradition had dictated since at least St. Augustine's day, they believed that *within marriage* the pleasures of the flesh were a gift to be celebrated.

That's where websites like Paul & Lori's The Marriage Bed comes in. No, the site doesn't support extramarital or same-sex activities, and at least to the uninitiated some of the distinctions they make probably seem odd

Sex toys: We see no scriptural prohibition on toys, nor any way in which toys violate any scriptural guidelines. In general this is going to be something each couple has to decide for themselves, but below are a few things to consider

...

Some items designed to resemble parts of the male or female body are actually "modeled" after a real person, usually an actor or actress from pornographic movies. While it's not clear that this is a sin to use such a product, most Christians are opposed to it for obvious reasons. If an item is not advertised as being modeled after someone, it's just a generic sculpture.

While these prohibitions and/or equivocations are arguably a show-stopper for a lot of us, for the people who are used to hearing nothing but "no, no, no" it's a positive step.

It's also worth nothing that many of the prohibitions on the site are oriented towards reinforcing primary relationships, towards focusing sex on sex instead of sublimation, and on avoiding real pain, abuse, and especially humiliation or deprecation. Thus B&D is fine, D&S is questionable, and S&M is out according to these guidelines:

BDSM is bondage, discipline (or domination), sadomasochism (or slave-master). This is a wide category with unclear boundaries; at "low levels" playing at these things is fine provided both husband and wife enjoy them. But all these things can be, or can become, fetishes, and then are wrong for that reason (see above). BDSM is openly sexual, and is different than so-called "Domestic Discipline".

• Bondage: Tying a partner up can be very arousing for both of the one tied and the one who is not tied. It can show a sense of trust, and can allow the bound person to feel free to do nothing and just receive. If bondage is mutually enjoyed and not extreme, we see no reason not to make it a part of a couple's sex life. Some people practice bondage in a way that causes pain, making it a form of S&M.
• Spanking: There are valid biological reasons why mild pain can be arousing. Spanking, scratching and biting all fit into this category. We can find no scriptural or scientific reason to avoid this so long as both partners agree to it. However, if the pain is more than mild, this moves into S&M.
• S&M: A sadist is sexually aroused by causing pain, a masochist is sexually aroused by receiving pain. Aside from the fact that this is virtually always a fetish, we do not see either behavior to be compatible with who God has called us to be. Desires for S&M may be a result of sexual or physical abuse in the past, or may reveal problems with self-image or self-confidence.
• Dominance and Discipline: Sexual arousal from dominating or punishing another, or from being dominated or punished. This involves humiliation and degradation, and again we do not see it as compatible with who God calls us to be.

Again, we might disagree over where these lines should be drawn but you can see their lines are drawn with a degree of nuance we're not accustomed to seeing.

As they say (perhaps a bit tartly) if you're not a practitioner of their philosophy-based alternative lifestyle (i.e. evangelical Christianity) "none of this matters." For those who are (and maybe only for those who are) it's kind of cool. For the rest of us it's at least an interesting window into another way of looking at sex.

Update: Ironically, as a prudish libertine the discomfort I feel regarding sexual do's and don't's like these comes from my prudish side. Mapping one's boundaries that way pushes my "ew, kinky" buttons. I can respect it in its context, even admire it for its internal consistency and the benefits to its practitioners, but I'd rather not do it that way. To each one's own though, of course.