Church Lady And The Original Sin

The comments in Sexy Move: Not Until Tonight took a strange left turn with a new anonymous commenter. It started off with…

What about a list for women who find all of 1-10 above far too disgusting, degrading or whorish to consider, never mind perform?

Honestly I just figured it was a troll, so the first thing that popped into my head was to suggest chloroforming yourself and leaving a note that said “Do what you must.”

As more comments were left, I also became pissed off. Despite repeated denials that she was calling Jennifer a whore, she keep insisting she acted like one. Which is like saying “I didn’t call you a thief, I just said you steal things.”

But as the comments went on and on, my feeling started to change, perhaps this is someone who is has profoundly shackled her sexuality for decades, and missed out on so very much enjoyment. It’s just such a big step between where she is and what I write about, that it seems an impossible chasm to jump across. So what I’m going to do, is dredge through your comments and questions, and answer them all as best I can….

What about a list for women who find all of 1-10 above far too disgusting, degrading or whorish to consider, never mind perform?

My suggestion is to sit down with your husband, and ask him if there is just one thing you guys haven’t done together, that he would like. Then be comfortable in your discomfort, and do it. Just ask for one thing. When you get that down, ask for a second thing.

I never masturbate, and I find the thought of my husband doing so abhorrent.

The first I believe. However men have a constant build up of semen happening, and that is either eventually released via sex, masturbation, or night time ejaculations while he sleeps. It’s usually going to need to happen one way or the other about once a week. So as long as you are having some combination of sex and massive wet spots in the bed about four times a month, it is possible that he is not masturbating. Otherwise, he is masturbating with some kind of regular frequency.

Or put another way, most men make about 1 tsp of semen a day as a sort of a low average. So if you had sex once a month, and he didn’t have any kind of sexual release between sex acts, you should expect his ejaculate to be a bit over half a cup in volume. If this is the case, I don’t advise oral sex as it really will be like trying to drink from the firehose.

Oral sex is revolting – why would anyone want to put a man’s penis in their mouth?

Because it’s quite enjoyable to have your penis being sucked on. Because many women get enjoyment out of pleasuring their man, they like doing it. Some women like the feeling of power over the man when he can’t control himself from orgasming with her that way.

The thought of him smelling of my vaginal secretions afterwards is nauseating, and what sort of message does it send to anyone else who smells them on him?

Pussy has the most amazing smell. With the right woman it is both somewhat hypnotic and arousing. It is a wildly attractive smell to men and completely designed to appeal to them. Obviously after a while it builds up to “smelling funky” if you don’t have regular showers, but otherwise it’s simply amazing.

Do you often notice the smell of vagina on men in your regular life? What do you think of them when you notice it? Do you say anything?

This doesn’t exist in normal marriages, only in the realms of pornography.

No it happens in many normal marriages.

I am not a troll. I assume that because my normal views are at odds with what is written here you think I am?

Again, your views aren’t nearly as normal as you think.

Men urinate through their penises. How can having one in ones mouth be anything other than disgusting?

Urine is sterile as long as he doesn’t have a UTI. There’s vastly more germs and nastiness happening in your mouth. Maybe you should be asking why he would put a clean penis into your dirty mouth. Your hands go all kinds of nasty places and you probably put those in your mouth once in a while without thinking about it.

The idea that a man should think he can be allowed to do so shows he has no regard for a woman, and expects her to degrade herself for his gratification.

Ah… no. Quite a lot of women like giving oral sex. It’s not degrading. In fact she has all the power when she has his penis in her mouth, the human jaw is quite strong enough to inflicit a “career ending injury” on a man, so she’s very much in control.

I never undress in front of my husband – the idea of him leering at me as I remove my clothes disgusts me. Him slobbering like some animal makes my skin crawl.

Now we’re getting to to the core of it. You are both animals and share 99% of the same DNA as chimps. Human sexual response is hard wired and normal. Your husband wanting to look at you naked is something he is designed to do. His sexual interest in you is normal and natural.

Why would I dangle my breasts in his mouth? He is not an infant that needs to be fed.

The breasts are an erogenous area of the body for the woman, and a visual and tactile turn on for the man. By playfully forcing me to pay attention to them, Jennifer is provoking my sexual interest in her. It’s hot.

The whole premise here seems to be that a woman is no more than a toy to be used to appease a man’s lusts, no matter how unnatural or perverse.

Oh I don’t deny that I am sexually demanding of Jennifer. Like most women she responds positively to playful sexual domination.

These are the sort of acts men seek out whores for, not things they should demand that they be allowed to subject their wives to.

Well whores come in a lot of sizes these days….

Beyond basic sexual release, the selling point of the highest quality sex workers is the GFE, or Girlfriend Experience. The GFE is essentially a faked emotional connection to the man, where she pretends to be interested in him and genuinely sexually responsive to him. To actually get a sex worker to act like Jennifer does for me, would require thousands of dollars a night. Maybe tens of thousands.

At the low end of the sex worker scale, it’s a no frills road to getting the man to orgasm and ending the sexual encounter as quickly as possible with no illusion of her enjoying it.

So there’s simply a scale of sexual skill and sensuality at work for both whores and wives. It’s up to you which end of the scale you want to be on.

I cannot understand why women would apparently willingly do these things. Are they actually willing, or are they so afraid of the reaction of their husband that they undertake these actions out of fear of the consequences (divorce, abandonment?)

I gotta tell you, Jennifer feels sorry for you for what you’ve missed out on enjoying with your husband.

My husband and I share a deep level of intimacy regarding our beliefs, feelings, aspirations and dreams without having to be perverted.

Then why are you here if everything is so great?

Athol, how am I “oppressing” my husband? He shares my beliefs, views and opinions. Do you see me as somehow restricting by “limiting” his sexual expression to what reasonable people would do?

Yes I do see you as restrictive. He can’t even see you naked for goodness sake. One or two ejaculations a month? In some states actual prisoners get more conjugal visits than he has sex with you.

What does she achieve by placing herself in such a degraded, submissive position, allowing a man to use her as a vessel for lust?

Fabulous orgasms?

You’re throwing in the words degraded and lust. These are moral judgments that I believe are only based on your religious viewpoint, so naturally I don’t consider them at all useful to think about. Submission is a wifely requirement in the Bible, so you’ll have to take up the degrading aspect of submission with God I suppose. It’s not my religion of course, but I am familiar with the text in question.

She receives no sexual gratification by doing so, so the act is totally one-sided, quite apart from the negative physical and mental hygiene issues that arise from it.

This is your selfishness at work. Sometimes you can do something for someone else, without getting as immediate reward for it. It’s called doing something nice for someone. Furthermore, quite obviously the husband can return any and all sexual favors to the wife. There’s nothing we can do sexually as a couple that I’ve ever denied Jennifer.

What the heck is mental hygiene? It sounds like you’re worried you’re going to come down with a bad case of… ideas.

Having a man leer at my body, his lust barely contained like some animal in a field revolts me – we are not beasts, but something higher.

Again… we’re 99% the same as chimps. So while we are perhaps 1% higher than them, I’m not sure that really gets us in a position to claim we aren’t heavily influenced by our “animal” DNA.

Also your plain disgust is why your husband hides his masturbation from you.

We indulge in intercourse once or twice per month, rarely more and seldom less, obviously not simply for procreation.

So that’s around 18 times a year. The clinical definition of a sexless marriage is only doing it 10 times a year. You are fairly close to that, you’re explaining to us all that your sex life is in fact well below average and bordering on clinically dysfunctional.

Incidentally, it would be very interesting to track when those tiny handful of sex acts occur. My hunch is it’s around your ovulation time primarily. Which would be your “animal nature” asserting itself.

My husband and I are both Anglican but our families were Methodist. Our views on sexual matters are similar: we have discussed the matter and feel that the practices described here (and in fairness elsewhere too) are degrading, demeaning, unhygienic and pander to bestial natures.

Oh wait… so you simply showed up in the comments to complain and troll?

In the view of the church, the ideal is to avoid all sexual contact if at all possible. Knowing that this was functionally impossible, it was considered that marriage, where sex was contained and control, was the less of two evils (better than fornication), but not withstanding the guidance to not refuse except by mutual consent, it was a way of reducing the negative consequences of lust, not to direct lust. Lust is a sin.

…aaaaaaaaaaand your entire problem with anyone else enjoying their sex life is your particular religious beliefs that sex and sin are essentially joined at the hip. This pretty much dooms you to having a miserable sex life as every sexual engagement with your husband is a reminder of having to settle for the sordid lesser of two evils. You’re morally required to minimize your fun.

Now seriously….

….you don’t really believe that God made man and woman, told them to go forth and multiply, made doing the multiplying physically wonderful, then also made the ruling that doing the act of multiplying was evil and they shouldn’t do it. But if they really couldn’t stop themselves from multiplying, they should get married and the multiplying thing would just be not so evil, and more like just kind of disappointing to God.

Do you see how that particular facet of belief is going to ruin your sex life?


  1. "What about a list for women who find all of 1-10 above far too disgusting, degrading or whorish to consider, never mind perform?"

    If you love your husband, set him free.
    If he comes back (odds, anyone?), he's yours.
    If he doesn't… I recommend cats.

    Lots and lots of cats.

  2. Looking Glass says:

    It's like the Puritan impulse missed large chunks of the Bible. It's scary how much of it is still around, just in a different form. ("Green Living", anyone?)

  3. I cannot believe that this isn't a troll. Those kinds of views on sexuality are definitely not espoused in any reputable branch of the Anglican church. Sounds more like cult teachings to me. If this poor person is sincere, I would direct her to Proverbs 5:18-19.

    18 May your fountain be blessed,
    and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.
    19 A loving doe, a graceful deer—
    may her breasts satisfy you always,
    may you ever be intoxicated with her love.

    That doesn't sound too platonic to this devout Presbyterian. :)

    Obviously, frequency is something each couple must agree upon; I'm more worried about this woman's attitude. If she is not, in fact, a troll, she must have been seriously abused or brainwashed to have come up with those views. I'm going to dismiss the bleating about hygiene and degradation as misdirection to cover a powerful fear of vulnerability. If she were genuinely concerned about cleanliness, that's why the shower was invented. There are plenty of religious marriage and sex counselors. Find one, stat!

  4. "In the view of the church, the ideal is to avoid all sexual contact if at all possible. Knowing that this was functionally impossible, it was considered that marriage, where sex was contained and control, was the less of two evils (better than fornication), but not withstanding the guidance to not refuse except by mutual consent, it was a way of reducing the negative consequences of lust, not to direct lust. Lust is a sin."

    That's just not in line with any reading of the Bible I have EVER done. If I recall Genesis says to unite with your wife, and makes it clear that sex is something that unites you spiritually as a couple. Don't even get me started on Song of Solomon; the entire book of the Bible that is an erotic poem, that actually gave me some ideas to try with my wife.

  5. Trimegistus says:

    Your commenter needs to talk to her priest. Her idea of what the Anglican Church (or any church other than the extinct Shakers) believe about sex is laughably wrong.

    …which is what makes me suspect this is all an elaborate hoax. The commenter sounds too much like someone's caricature of a "repressed church lady" rather than the real thing. (No Scripture quotes, for one thing. Real religious enthusiasts will literally quote chapter and verse.)

  6. @Timitz, it's a very narrow reading indeed, of a single passage by Paul about how it's better to marry than to burn with passion, but remaining single like him is the ideal. Of course, just a couple of verses before that is "The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."

    As you say, there are many opposing views in the bible. And many scholars speculate that Paul was gay, and seeing how that is a "sin" his statements take on a different meaning.

  7. If real, this lady is going to eventually catch her husband cheating on her, and have the audacity to wonder why.

  8. swiftfoxmark2 says:

    Sounds like this woman is using the Bible to justify her own discomfort with sex. It sounds like she may have a past of abuse, but that is just speculation and could very well be untrue. I am only speculating this, since she indicated that she is uncomfortable with her husband looking at her naked. Definitely a red flag for past sexual abuse. In any case, I hope that is not the case.

    As to being a Christian wife, she forgets that it involves being submissive. This does not mean he gets to abuse her, but it does mean that he gets to enjoy her body. She is intentionally denying him that pleasure and that is not what marriage is about. She clearly has no regard with what her husband's desires are for her. And she hides behind this vague notion of religious conviction.

    She should also keep in mind that nobody is saying she has to perform oral sex or anything else she does not want to do. My guess too is that her husband is not a very dominating kind of a man, so I doubt she has anything to worry about when it comes to sex acts.

    This woman should be careful as well. Her behavior is classic sexual repression which can lead to her to adultery if a man shows interest in her and is much more dominate than her husband appears to be.

  9. For those saying "The Anglicians don't believe that!" you may wish to read the Anglician Book of Common Prayer. Here's the partial wedding text…

    DEARLY beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this congregation, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.

    First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.

    Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.

    Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace.

    Did you guys miss the 1000+ years of monks and nuns? Celibate priests?

    In terms of historical Christianity, her viewpoint is quite mainstream.

  10. alphapersona says:

    She wont catch him cheating – she will catch him looking at porn.

    I guarantee that he looks at a massive, massive amount of porn. 2 or 3 hours a day. Before I found game, I was in a sexless relationship (once every 2 months or so) and it made me a porn fiend. Now when I think about looking at porn, I grab my phone and scroll through my contacts.

    You know, props to her for randomly defending her beliefs where it wasn't needed or warranted, but she does more damage to her cause than she helps it.

    Thanks for the good laugh and solid read, Athol!

  11. If it works for her and her husband, fine. Her (their?) views are her views.

    However, I believe if her husband ever gets a taste of what he is missing, well, good luck there, church lady.

    And should she ever get a taste of what she is missing, well, just stay the hell away from my husband. And children.

    Maybe the established church has successfully (temporarily?) filled that bit that she is 'missing'. Her attempt to warp fellow humans to her contrived existence has her frustrated – those that love and want sex are all sinners in her eyes and nothing will probably ever change that. I can only imagine how frustrated her husband must be. oh lordy be!

  12. Ian Ironwood says:

    All right, a few comments. First, Athol: Frackin' A, man. You nailed it. This woman has obviously used her sect's narrowest definition of sexual congress to justify her own sexual neurosis, and you efficiently and effectively dismantled her arguments with humorous precision. And one comment in particular had me howling, literally:

    "What the heck is mental hygiene? It sounds like you're worried you're going to come down with a bad case of… ideas."

    That made my day.

    Secondly, it's quite possible this woman isn't a troll. She's either just old or socially conservative to Amish levels.

    Her view really was standard for 1950. Respectable wives had marital relations with the lights out in the missionary position. Any other kind of sex was for prostitutes. A lot has happened since that time, including the massive Sexual Revolution, but for a couple of generations that was the popular view, and as your other commenters have noted it is one that is rooted deep in history and Christianity.

    Debating with her, while fun, isn't going to convince her that's she's wrong or you're right. And she is going to think of your wife as a whore in her mind — but by that token nearly everyone in America outside of the socially atavistic is a whore. What it does do is expose the flatheaded fragility of her perspective. She's "Mrs. Grundy" of an earlier age, and her particular point of view is fading fast. As the last of the WWII generation dies off, her point of view is rapidly being pushed to the extreme margins of society.

    It's quite possible she found an uber-Beta who doesn't mind his bare trickle of nookie. From what she's said, it probably isn't terribly inspiring, anyway. Or its possible he's telling his hyper-controlling and terribly judgmental wife one thing and whackin' it to tranny porn in the basement.

    But one thing is clear: this woman has allowed her shallow, extreme interpretation of religion to rob her of her gods-given right to enjoy her own sexuality, and the saddest thing is she'll never understand just what she missed. Or perhaps the even sadder thing is that her husband isn't truly comfortable with her position, but doesn't have the strength of character to be honest with her, and is therefore living a life of quiet desperation and profound frustration.

    And I am curious: if she's so darn happy with her stingy rations, why is she reading your site in the first place?

  13. First off, some background: I just joined the Catholic church 2.5 years ago, and I am going through marriage preparation in the church right now. I have been reading MMSL for about a year and have read the entire blog and book.

    As several other commenters have pointed out, the views espoused by the anonymous church lady are not necessarily in line with is heard in many Christian churches. I will take that a step further and say that they are not in line with the official teachings of the Catholic church. Here are a few quotes from the Catechism (the numbers in parentheses are paragraph numbers):

    “The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator.'' (1603)

    “It is imperative to give suitable and timely instruction to young people, above all in the heart of their own families, about the dignity of married love, its role and its exercise, so that, having learned the value of chastity, they will be able at a suitable age to engage in honorable courtship and enter upon a marriage of their own.'' (1632)

    In addition, as regards the choice of some people to voluntary enter a life of celibacy, the Church teaches:

    “Both the sacrament of Matrimony and virginity for the Kingdom of God come from the Lord himself. It is he who gives them meaning and grants them the grace which is indispensable for living them out in conformity with his will.'' (1620)

    This is just a sampling, and for those curious, I highly recommend reading the entire Article 7 on the sacrament of matrimony. It is freely available online. There are also a number of popular speakers such as Christopher West who bring these teachings in a more accessible form to a lot of people, and have books with titles like “The Good News About Sex And Marriage''. Indeed, in my own ongoing marriage preparation, the deacon was required to ask us each alone if we intended to have a sexual relationship with the other. If the answer was no, the deacon would have forced us to explore why not, and if the issue lay unresolved, would almost certainly not permit us to marry.

    Now, there is one slight technical matter I will address. I feel Athol's description of semen buildup may be overstated. I am not a doctor, and can only speak from my experience. I have a very high drive, and masturbated near daily from puberty until just a few years ago. I had a desire to quit in my early 20s, as I could tell it interfered with having sex with my girlfriend. However, as I only saw her once a month (different city), it was simply too long in between, and I continued masturbating unabated. So far, this fits with Athol's description. However, around the time I joined the Church, I finally managed to quit. Since then, I am not having sex, I am not masturbating, but I have only had wet dreams very sporadically, with 6-8 month gaps. It is not like I am lacking in stimulation, as every weekday I am on a college campus full of attractive women in the 18-25 range, and I also see and touch (just hugs, kisses, and back massage, no sex) my fiance every day who I am very attracted to. So, to make a long story short, while infrequent sex with your husband will definitely increase the probability that he masturbates, it is not a physiological guarantee in the way Athol says.

    Wonderful material Athol, keep up the good work.

  14. Send her over to So she can read with her own eyes that Believers are having all sorts of hot sex.

  15. alphapersona says:

    Just gonna toss this thought in and bounce out really quick, but…

    Have any of you read 1984 by Orwell? You know how Winston describes sex with his first wife? I haven't read the book in a good three years, but I remember it being something to the effect of, "She was cold and rigid, daring not to move. It was as though sex were only to be done as a duty to the state, and not for her pleasure." Something like that. He talks about how unenjoyable it was because it was something she HAD to do out of mandate once a month, and she wanted to quickly be done with it.

    Not to say that this is how this lady views sex with her husband, but I'm betting this is how this lady views sex with her husband.

  16. How incredibly sad. This woman's repression LEAPS off the page. She sounds absolutely disgusted by the mere prospect of having sex, which makes me inagine she lies there stiff as a board while he thrusts in a furtive manner to be done with the duty as quickly as possible.

    The man in question is getting release somewhere, whether it's masturbation, an affair, or a visit to the local red-light district.

    Very sad for both people.

    I was raised a combo of catholic/baptist. My parents got busy many times a week (curse of room beside theirs).

    My husband and I follow the A.K. plan. Some sort of sexual contact everyday.

    Lady- you are missing out on some Fantastic experiences and orgasmic bliss. so very, very sad.

  17. I feel very very sorry for that woman and her husband. Painful.

  18. I wonder if this woman believes in ALL the bible's various messages about sex. If so, perhaps her perspective is that the husband should release his "degrading" sexual urges onto his slaves instead of his wife?

    She should read this fantastic book:

  19. Some men in this situation also react well to having to "win" sex through some kind of challenge, such as wrestling or tickle fighting. This can be a turn on for the woman as well, because he gets to display some manliness before sex commences. If he's naturally a bit stronger than her, then odds should be in favor of him winning and sex commencing.

  20. This column triggered some bitter memories and some ugly present day realities.

    This 'church' lady states that her husband is of one mind with her on this, but previously she expressed disgust that her should slobber over her naked body. They are certainly not of one mind.

    My wife and I are both Catholic, seven children, nightly family rosary and Sunday Mass.

    About 4 -5 years ago when she finished menopause, her sexual interest in me fell off a cliff. I could not understand and tried harder to please her. Once a week she would call me in her pajamas, slide under the covers and remove the bottoms only. No looking, no foreplay, just get hard and get it over with. I told her this was not intimate and was not love making, just penis and vagina. I felt as I was being treated like a filthy animal with dangerous appetites. Her answer was 'don't accuse me of things that aren't true', or 'this is how God wants it, respectful'. The 'church'lady says she won't do anything degrading, but I felt degraded, but felt that if I tried just a little bit harder, she would love me again.

    Eventually I started looking up this state's divorce laws. I told some of my grown children what I was considering. My oldest (who has since moved to my native country) said he would not split his visiting time with the grandchildren between two houses. That ended my EPL divorce fantasy.

    The pain was and is intense. It is worse than when our younger daughter died. At least I was able to get over the six months of zombie grief, with the Christian knowledge that she was safe in the arms of a loving God. This degradation seemed like it would never end.

    What improved things was Valentine's day 2010, when we came home from a dance, in which she was acting affectionate, we went to the marriage bed, and she did the usual loveless humiliation fuck, but this time with constant complaining. I threw her out of bed in mid-act. With that the last few embers of romantic love I felt for her died.

    Since then we have more sex, but it is something I demand for release, and to remind her she made a vow to be a wife. Provided I never let myself feel any closeness or intimacy to her it is tolerable.

    As to religion, I still believe all that the Church teaches, but am soured on the practice. Sunday Mass together, and Confession by myself. (Oh, God, do I need confession!) For a while I resented God for stealing my wife, but God didn't do it. It is her decsion alone. My pastor has told me that resentment and anger towards God is something he hears from older men quite often in Confession.

    My opinion is that women do religion to feel good. Men do religion to be good. My wife despises me because I was too beta, and uses her love of holiness as an excuse. I think it's very common for Christian women to compare their husbands to Jesus and find their husbands wanting, even though a Christian woman owes something different to Jesus, than to her husband.

    This was a harsh post, Athol.

  21. I suspected troll as well, but no troll is that dedicated to their views when called on it.

    My guess, she knows its something she wants to change. She is curious, that's why she came here. She was so committed to her views because she wanted a dialogue and for someone to prove her wrong.

    Athol, good on you for addressing her comments, I have a feeling she was looking for something just like that and I wouldn't be surprised if you received an email asking for more help in a more private setting.

  22. Athol:

    You quoted from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, highlighting two items, and then concluded that the views of "Anonymous" were "quite mainstream" in terms of historical Christianity.

    And then you cited examples of celibate monks and nuns as indicative. And in your title you mentioned "original sin."

    Respectfully to you sir, as the owner of the blog and a downright great fellow all 'round, there are some errors in what you said, with respect to how you characterize Christian belief.

    And that's no shame to you: It's not your religion. You can't be expected to know the fine details. A lot of people raised as kids in the Christian faith depart the faith with a teenager's understanding of it because that's exactly how much they learned up to that point. No shame in that, so far as it goes.

    But the actual depth of what can be learned about it ranks up there with quantum physics (albeit with less math), and sometimes the fine details make an enormous difference.

    For example, with respect to monks, nuns, priests, and bishops often being celibate. It sounds as if these folks have in some fashion rejected bodily goods (property, marriage)…it follows from this that they regard bodily goods, and perhaps matter itself, as sinful or bad, right?

    Actually, the reverse is true: The notion is that these folks have sacrificed an immense good "for the sake of the kingdom." Now, one does not sacrifice to God something of no value. The notion that those who opt for celibacy in service of God think marriage is a bad thing is in direct contradiction to the notion of a worthwhile sacrifice.

    Put it this way: All those monks and nuns being celibate is every bit as much a testimony to the perceived value of marriage in the Middle Ages as all those Hebrew priests offering animal sacrifices in the Tent of Meeting and the Temple of Solomon were testifying to the perceived value of perfect-quality herd animals among the Hebrew tribes.

    Likewise with respect to the Anglican liturgy for marriage: You quoted the three purposes listed. The second sounds a lot like "Anonymous'" view, and so you highlighted it.

    Fair enough, but Anonymous' view entirely leaves out the first and third purposes, both of which are quite positive about the value of marriage.

    You could answer, in reply to what I'm saying, that it's all talk and everyone knows there were a lot of folks in the Middle Ages and before who were down on sex, including married sex, in the name of Christianity, so doesn't that prove your point from a purely historical perspective?

    I'd answer that in a one sense (frequency) it does, but not in the required sense (orthodoxy).

    Anonymous was appealing to Christian orthodoxy to try to justify her views. Her views are not orthodox; so I and some other Christians stepped up to let her know that.


  23. …continuing…

    One can't quite say, "Well, historically a lot of Christians held those views" and conclude from that that those views are orthodox Christianity.

    A lot of Christians believe a lot of bass-ackward silliness that, if you'll pardon the visual imagery, probably leaves the saints and angels rolling their eyes and slumping over their harps with a collective groan.

    The notion equating "original sin" with sex, for example, is an ancient heresy: The Manicheans taught it. So the view expressed by Anonymous can be found rampant in the early centuries of the Church…it is not a Christian view.

    And just because those views got labeled heretical doesn't mean everyone stopped believing them right away. One can find it rampant in the Middle Ages, too, …among the Albigensians, who were considered so heretical for holding them that a crusade (!) was carried out against them.

    To ask why people these days might still get an ancient heresy decried by Christians confused with Christianity is to ask why so many Christians are ignorant of their faith and the history of it.

    Finally consider that Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and the more traditional Anglicans consider marriage a "sacrament": That is to say, a physical and outwardly visible sign ordained by Christ to be a conduit of divine grace and life into the believer for his (or her) good.

    Marriage is thus placed nearly on par with Baptism and The Lord's Supper/Communion/Eucharist in the life of the believer. And Christianity has always taught that sex is the consummative act of marriage in the same way that "consuming the body and blood" is the consummative act of The Lord's Supper.

    Y'don't consummate something holy and good with something bad.

    That fact alone should demonstrate that, while there were certainly folk in the Middle Ages and earlier who took a dim view of sex and marriage and procreation, still: The more pronounced they were in their negativity, the more distant they were from the Christian faith.

    Again: No disrespect intended to you Athol. It's not your ball-'o'-wax and you've every bit as much right to yawn at it as I do when some sports fan waxes eloquent about the significance of the infield fly rule, whatever that is. I guess it's all so much unicorn flatulence as far as you're concerned.

    But the reward to the poor lady and her husband if she can be rescued from this quasi-gnostic view (wherever she got it) is potentially great.

    So, since this church-doctrine-y stuff is my ball-'o'-wax, I hope you don't mind my stepping in, not so much to contradict you (why would you care, particularly?) as to make sure she gets her ideas straight.

  24. I'm going to bookmark that thread, so the next time I feel my wife isn't meeting my needs, being too prudish, whatever… I can look at Anon and thank my lucky stars that I'm not married to her.

  25. 61ff9aa6-0d5e-11e1-b8d7-000bcdcb8a73 says:

    Sincere or "troll" I was fascinated by what Anon brought up. As Athol noted, citing the Anglican marriage vows, there are puritanical "tapes" embedded deep in lots of our psyches. It's one thing to affirm to yourself "it's not so", or "it doesn't need to be so". It's another to slip the "not 'til tonight" agenda to your wife or declare "I want to to X with you" (after a long period of low, vanilla activity). For some, it raises anxiety of how the wife responds: "Who do you think I am?" "Where did you get that idea?"…Oh, I used to enjoy that when [name of former girlfriend] and I would do it."…"Oh, Really?" or "I saw it on the MMSL blog (or in porn)"…"Oh, so that what you do all day!"

    I suspect that to get to the point where you can up the sexual ante with some level of confidence, you need to do the "MAP", up your "rank" and "alpha-ness".

  26. Anglican, eh? That explains everything! (…No sex please, we're British! ;)

  27. Athol, my wife and I are both committed Christians, and we do many of those things listed in your original post. Pardon my french, but I absolute love sucking tits and eating pussy. I feel so sorry for this poor old prude. However, I applaud the gentle and sincere way you've tried to engage her. You might be a better man than me. I'd have just told her she was crazy and left it at that. What bothers me is that she is so sure her husband agrees with so completely with her. It is dangerous in life and in relationships to ignore human nature. And, that is exactly what she's doing. I hope she never finds his stacks of Hustlers. That'd probably crush her! Again, kudos to you for be so cool about responding to her.

  28. Sexual repression such as this is not only harmful to the people inflicting it on themselves, but I believe it is also dangerous. It is no coincidence that sexual abuse is rampant in subcultures where natural sexual expression is frowned upon and considered shameful.

  29. As a devout Christian, I have a couple of comments.

    There is some truth to the statement that sex only for procreation is a historical Christian belief/teaching. Of course, when you're trying to have enough kids to work the farm, that still works out to a LOT of sex.

    I bet this woman has never read the Song of Songs/Song of Solomon. It's nearly porn…and its in the Bible. That means that, given the whole belief in Inspiration, God CHOSE to include a book about a man and woman enjoying sex in the context of a happy marriage in the Bible that she uses to damn sex.

    If I thought God was taunting me that way, I'd be bitter too.


  30. I am no longer a Christian. I was for many years but several things caused me to reconsider that stance. One of them was all those Manicheans and Albigensians (and modern- day equivalents) who were forever at war with one another over what seems like mere differences of opinion. Sometimes the difference is/was so slight that only scholars can understand it. Basically, they are fighting against their own "team". Another difficulty for me was the Bible; all the smiting and raping was distresssing so I turned to the "Song of Songs". That should be somewhat uplifting, right? Um…not so much. I don't think I have opened the "Good Book" since.

    Here is the most beautiful thing that I have ever read about male/female relations:
    "If you read the instruction manuals for the etiquette of hat lifting, it is clear that a man lifted his hat as a way of recognizing a women's presence without staring at her. Indeed, a proper hat lifter wouldn't even steal a glance at a woman out of the corner of his eye. As Emily Post elaborated in 1923, "In lifting his hat, a gentleman merely lifts it slightly off his forehead and replaces it; he does not smile nor bow, nor even look at the object of his courtesy. No gentleman ever subjects a lady to his scrutiny or his apparent obeservation.""

    The reason I love this so much is because it speaks of the very essense of the lady being recognized and honored…rather like the greeting of "namaste" which is catching on in the States recently. She is not a "body"….she transcends that. I won't go on because I am sure that some of you may be finding the syrupy sweetness of this unpalatable.

    It is terribly difficult for me that women are not seen this way. (And yes, I know that even in 1923, the "gentleman" who treated the ladies this way was scr**ing his brains out with hookers behind closed doors.) I was hoping by what anon (aka "church lady") described about her marriage that she had actually found such a relationship. Now we probably won't know, since I doubt she will return here to explain more.

    I have been reading this blog (and other blogs and books) for many months, thinking I needed to take the red pill. It is so bitter, though, that I don't think I can continue.

  31. Oh, I forgot to attribute that quote. It comes from "A Return to Modesty" by Wendy Shalit. Shalit was a very secular Jew at the time of the writing.

  32. @Polly,

    So you honestly think that passionate lovemaking to your spouse is inappropriate or sinful?

  33. Unlike many posters here I think it is entirely possible this woman and her husband have a great marriage that works for them. If their views are this extreme and they both truly feel the same way about it, I see no reason to feel pity for either one of them. I'm quite sure their marriage provides a dynamic that mine does not, and they both gain something from it. I'm not interested in experiencing it, but that doesn't mean I'm going to begrudge or belittle them for their lifestyle. I'd agree that she is clearly trolling by coming to a non-Christian website and complaining about the tone, but that doesn't mean I think there is something inherently wrong with her marriage. It's just not one that appeals to me personally.

    One issue she brings up that I am actually sympathetic to is that we are more than just animals. One of the things about the evolutionary psychology surrounding the game community that really gives me pause is that I believe it places far too little emphasis on just how profound that 1% of our DNA that differs from chimpanzees actually is. Men can willingly choose to go for extended periods without sex or masturbation without becoming miserable human beings, if they believe there is a reward for doing so. Athletes do it all the time, as do many religious people. There is a character building aspect to self-denial, and there is value in learning to refocus various energies into other areas of ones life. Likewise, you'll never see a chimp refusing to eat food for days on end for spiritual, mental, or health related reasons, but millions of human beings do it every day. And part of the problem with our current culture is that we have become fairly terrible at self denial. I disagree with the anonymous poster's idea that because our desires are primal that makes them evil, but I do think an important part of our humanity lies in mastering those desires, and I believe it can be done.

  34. @Eric,

    Why yes, that is all good and well, but self-denial within a marriage is just plain stupid. If you want to master your desires and go without sex to awaken to some greater self, don't effing get married.

  35. Omnilove – No, I don't think sex is sinful. That would imply that God is offended by it. God being offended by something he not only supposedly created, but positively commanded for the propagation of the species, would be nonsensical.

  36. Omnilove, I agree it wouldn't work for my marriage, but there's no reason two people who both want to explore sexual self-denial within the confines of marriage can't be happy IF they are both on the same page (and it's worth noting, these two aren't practicing abstinence… there are plenty of single guys out there for whom sex twice a month would be a goldmine).

    I'm not willing to say it's stupid. It just isn't my thing. I'm glad we live in a world where we can all pursue happiness according to our own definition of it.

  37. @Polly,

    I didn't ask if you thought sex was sinful, I asked if you thought passionate sex was sinful. I actually knew a woman who thought that sex was okay for procreation, but for the sake of pleasure it was a sin.

  38. @Eric,

    Yes, because the Anon that starting this whole conversation sounds so happy…

  39. Well, when you are twenty years old and naive about sex and life and hormones (and there is no internet to enlighten you), you get married without much effing thought. But after all the children have been born, there is a desire for the relationship to morph into something deeper and more cerebral. The desires of husband and wife may not match up but at that point, seriously, what can you do but try to work through it?

    The problem I see in so many marriages is that the husband wants it to remain as it was when they were twenty and the wife wants change. I like what Eric said about refocusing the energy into other things. That is a somewhat natural progression for a woman entering her forties and ending her childbearing years.

  40. "Yes, because the Anon that starting this whole conversation sounds so happy…"

    Well, she sounds like a vegetarian scolding meat eaters. It's annoying as hell to listen to, but it really doesn't say much about the innate happiness of the vegetarian.

  41. @Polly,

    The problem I see in so many marriages is that the wife won't put out. What the hell does "something deeper and more cerebral" have to do with denying your spouse sexual pleasure?

  42. @Eric,

    I agree, but isn't denying herself sexual pleasure in order to attain enlightenment. She is a vegetarian because she doesn't like the taste of meat. It isn't hard to deny yourself something you don't like.

  43. ..but she isn't…sorry for the typo above.

  44. Omnilove – I have to laugh because you sound like my husband, "what exactly is it that you want – a meeting of the minds?"/ And I think to myself, yes a meeting of the minds would be fabulous.

    As to passionate sex being sinful, no, I don't think it is but then I don't think that polygamy or open marriages are sinful either. You have to remember I don't consider myself a Christian (or of any other religious persuasion). As far as my personal preference, I do prefer procreative (i.e. no birth control)sex. That helps me to feel more honored and it feels more honoring of my husband and children. But I see no reason for anyone else to follow this preference in their lives and I never recommend it to anyone.

  45. @Polly – fair enough. I do hope you realize that your husband may take you up on the polygamy or open marriage thingy…

  46. "It isn't hard to deny yourself something you don't like."

    No argument about that. I'm just saying we really don't know that her husband finds this situation all that untenable, or that he'd change anything about it if he could. He might be the one denying himself pleasure in pursuit of enlightenment. Clearly he married a woman with fairly extreme views in regards to sex, hard to believe he'd have done so if he believed a relationship like Athol and Jennifer's would make him happy.

  47. I've seen plenty of nature programs that wound up showing an animal or two copulating. They don't do any of things Athol's been talking about of late and the act takes place with little fanfare. That sounds an awful lot like the sex life of church lady, Polly etc. So, who's acting like beasts again?

  48. Eric may be right – the husband of the lady may well be on a spirtual journey or even have a low libido and is glad not to have a demanding wife. Thus, I think high level advice, such as questioning /checking one's assumptions and checking the needs and wants of the spouse are more on target than specific advice such as practics and frequency of intercourse. We're all different.

    I'd also like to support the importance of encouraging questioning and contrary views. Without such our learning may be limited, so thank you to the conservative lady for starting the debate and to Athol for being open-minded and inclusive.

    :-) C

  49. What else could be expected from a woman who actually believes in Original Sin?

    Quoted from:

    “The name of this monstrous absurdity is Original Sin.

    “A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as man’s sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. To hold man’s nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched. Yet that is the root of your code.

    “What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge-he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil-he became a mortal being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor-he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire-he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness; joy-all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was-that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love-he was not man.

    “Man’s fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he’s man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives

  50. Athol, as her objections seem to be based on her view of religion, perhaps you could suggest that she and her husband read Song of Solomon in the Old Testament. For example:

    Ch2, V3 – As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.

    Ch3, V3-5 – Thy lips are like a thread of scarlet, and thy speech is comely: thy temples are like a piece of a pomegranate within thy locks.
    Thy neck is like the tower of David builded for an armoury, whereon there hang a thousand bucklers, all shields of mighty men.
    Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies.

    There is enough there to make your reader blush.

  51. @ Athol: If you re-read your quotes from the Anglician Book of Common Prayer, there's nothing in there that's repressive at all.

    Referring to your bolded text:
    1: don't marry just to get laid. Well that's just ommon sense.

    2: don't fornicate (have sex outside of marriage). You don't have to agree with that notion, but it sure doesn't say "don't enjoy and love one another while porking".

  52. Athol is right…As a woman, I thoroughly enjoy giving oral sex to my husband, it's a huge turn on and I love everything about it, including swallowing (I can just imagine her head just popped right about now lol).

  53. 61ff9aa6-0d5e-11e1-b8d7-000bcdcb8a73 says:

    > Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies.

    Is this the inspiration for the expression "nice rack"?

  54. By her definitions, my poor husband suffers by sharing the roof with a nyphomaniac. Poor, poor man.

  55. I also agree with Candice. It is possible for a man to have a lower libido, or specific beliefs, or a combination thereof, and at which point, it's fine to be satisfied with 1-2 times a month.

    And that is fine.

    But i don't think most marriages are like that. And if they are, I'm not sure most of them want to be.

  56. Yes – a lot of people are trapped in places they don't want to be.

  57. Christian ghost says:

    Oral sodomy between a man and a woman has always been considered sinful in Christianity and was often illegal under the common law.

    Well into the twentieth century, men who desired it were suspected of being homosexuals.

    Most of our sexual practices would be considered deeply deviant in the eyes of our forefathers.

    They'd blush even to mention them.

  58. I am very proud of the way that Christians have come to defend the what the Bible ACTUALLY teaches about sexuality. I can confirm that what this lady believes is EXTREMELY foreign to what is considered "modern mainline Christianity"

  59. i wish all these anonymous people would pick an anonymous name! it is very hard to follow when there are so many with the same name…

  60. I just read the bit quoted above from the song of solomon. It doesn't sound sexual, just a lot of random old gibberish. How a neck being like an armoury is sexy is beyond me. There must be layer upon layer upon layer of hidden meaning within this so that only someone with the most rarified understanding can actually get it. Either that or people are told it's highly sexual and just believe it, whether they can see it is or not.
    About as arousing as Stanley Unwin!

  61. I still call shenanigans on the original post. It's just too pat and matches too well with the hostile caricature of Christians that poorly-informed atheists believe to be the truth.

    Church Lady is probably a guy in his thirties with a lot of porn sites bookmarked and a tubby neopagan girlfriend.

  62. Oh, her poor husband.

  63. "I just read the bit quoted above from the song of solomon. It doesn't sound sexual, just a lot of random old gibberish. How a neck being like an armoury is sexy is beyond me. There must be layer upon layer upon layer of hidden meaning within this so that only someone with the most rarified understanding can actually get it. Either that or people are told it's highly sexual and just believe it, whether they can see it is or not.
    About as arousing as Stanley Unwin!"

    It's called poetry, you cretin!


  64. "I still call shenanigans on the original post. It's just too pat and matches too well with the hostile caricature of Christians that poorly-informed atheists believe to be the truth. "


  65. Did it occur to anyone that maybe "Church Lady" is here on purpose to challenge her beliefs and see if they hold up? I spent much time in college deliberately having debates with others who didn't share my conservative, Christian viewpoints. Having an opposing perspective can shed great light on the parts of your own belief that aren't 100% clear.

    I myself have struggled to balance the teachings of my religious beliefs with the normal goings-on of modern society. Sometimes that is difficult. I felt like a whore when I started giving my husband blowjobs and wearing lingerie. There are times I feel embarrassed when one of us undresses with the other around. It's hard to forget or retrain when you've believed something since childhood.

    That being said, it makes me uncomfortable that anyone suggests "Church Lady" (CL) is wrong in her beliefs. It's her interpretation…which, by the way, also describes today's "common" Christian practices…they're just interpretations too.

    Who's not to say that the only reason we have "modern" Christianity is because too many people found the old rules too hard to follow? I've seen many a church start their services later and relax the dress code to attract more worshipers so they can afford to keep the place open. People just aren't interested in being good anymore if it's too hard.

    I would be interested to hear from Athol how his belief in Christianity used to affect his relationships with the ladies in his younger days. I would love to see that insight used to help Christian couples learn to honor each other and their faith through sex/intimacy.

  66. Apologies to the previous posters in advance, but here are some suggested topics for future posts here at MMSL:

    Girl Game: How to really turn him on without doing anything that could ever possibly turn him on.

    Sexy Move: Change the special sheet with a hole in it from a white one to red (rawr!).

    Her Sexy Transformation: Reignite the fire with flannel pajamas.

    Fitness Tests: How to pass them by never ever ever getting a boner.

    Monogomy Issues: Why yes, touching yourself IS cheating.

    Alpha Male: Of course your husband agrees with your views of sex, 100 percent.

    Sexy Move: You can't see them tonight. Actually, you can't see them ever.

    Beta Male: Of course your husband agrees with your views of sex, 100 percent.

    Sexy Move: Is it the second Thursday of the month again already?

    Rationalization Hamster: Of course your husband agrees with your views of sex, 100 percent!

    Best to all of you out there.

  67. Strong Man says:

    Right On. And good response, Athol. The Church Lady, who seems to have disappeared, and the Anglican marriage text that Athol brought for us, probably draw their disdain for positive married sex from this text from 1 Corinthians 7:

    7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

    8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.

    9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

    That's why we have celibate priests and nuns.

    The problem is, by doing that, they have to ignore Genesis 1, Genesis 2, the entire Bridal analogy repeatedly referred to, countless other sex-positive scriptures, as I outline in my post Sex and Scripture

    Plus–Athol's excellent logic that God created us, obviously gave us a sex drive, and told us to multiply–and wanted us to be happy.

  68. To anon 11:13. It may be poetry, but it is still utter gibberish and entirely divorced from anything erotic. If you want poetry and the erotic, try The Flea by John Donne

  69. > To anon 11:13. It may be poetry, but it is still utter gibberish…

    Try reading it in the opposite direction.

  70. Song of Solomon is definitely poetry; and a lot of people miss that it's to be read by three voices: The woman, the man, and a sort of "chorus" of the woman's friends. It's poetry inteded for dramatic recitation.

    And a lot of folk don't get Hebrew poetry because even in the original there are typically no sounded rhymes or echoed rhythms (which is convenient, since you wouldn't be able to hear them once it was translated to English anyway); instead there is parallelism: The same *idea* stated in two different ways, and a lot of ironical use of two words that sound the same with entirely different meanings.

    Beyond that, Song of Solomon has a lot of word-painting in it, like the "flock of goats" and "two fawns" bits. Your average American college-graduate dunce doesn't get it because (a.) American college educations are excruciatingly weak on the classics compared to 100 years ago, and (b.) he's not interested enough to "get inside the head" of another culture and try to think how they think for a minute. They're like tourists who travel to other countries and spend all their time in modern hotels and resorts talking to other tourists.

    Perhaps the best way to approach Song of Solomon is to (a.) know about parallelism and look for it, and (b.) treat any imagery in it as un-literally as the lyrics to a 1970's-era Yes song.

    I mean, do the woman's breasts really look like a pair of deer? Well, no: Did Jon Anderson really see mountains come out of the sky and "stand there," in and around a lake? Did he really encounter a sad creature nailed on a colored door? Do birds of prey "sing?" No, no, and no. It's poetry! (Well, and drugs. Lots and lots of drugs.)

  71. Yes, you can't just picture a woman with two deer strapped to her chest! You have to imagine seeing two soft, shy, adorable baby deer cuddling together and think of how this scene would make you feel.

    - flirtyintrovert

  72. And as for her neck being like a tower with armed soldiers, adjectives like "stirring" and "intimidating" come to mind. A woman holding her head high, with her hair up, showing off her graceful neck, walking away with her heels clicking… that's what I imagine.

    - flirtyintrovert

  73. The passage calling original sin a monstrous absurdity is a passage from the John Galt speech, attributed to the website On the site, the speech is correctly labeled as the John Galt speech, but is not identified as an excerpt from Atlas Shrugged, written by Ayn Rand. There is at least one reference to Ayn Rand as author of Atlas Shrugged elsewhere on the site, but I had to go looking for that.


  74. Song of solomon – no matter how you slice it, it's still baloney.

    If you've got to change your mindset to that of a different culture to "get it", it isn't an effective metaphor in YOUR culture.

  75. This is just hierchery of needs, nothing more. Ultimately everybody does what they want, selfishly. It's unavoidable. It's more important to her to follow the rules of her path than it is to enjoy sex. It's sad, esp for the husband. There was no birth control in the bronze age, you don't have to live that way now.

  76. If Song of Solomon is baloney, then all poetry is baloney. You aren't in the mind of the poet, no matter what, unless you wrote it yourself. So having to stretch a little is normal. Anyway, the other thing it does is show that the bible isn't sex-negative because of a few choice passages. And also to show that blowjobs between lovers are ok (or did you miss that reference earlier? – "I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.")

  77. Websites like describe the Song of Solomon as "somewhat cryptic". If its cheerleaders think it's cryptic, no wonder skeptics aren't convinced!

  78. I posted my observations of a somewhat similar "church lady"

    Catholic Woman Fisking – Round 2

  79. I cannot fathom any mistress agreeing to sleep with him owing to the fact that he obviously would have no skills and would be a lousy lay.

  80. Fifth Season says:

    It might surprise some of the commenters here that people like this “church lady” are less rare than you’d think. The New York Times ran an article in 2009 about women who are even less sexually inclined than this church lady (and possibly her husband). You can read the article here:


  1. […] Unaffectionate wife, self devastated. Hicks, I saw this on MMSL Church Lady And The Original Sin | Married Man Sex Life It seems to be pretty much what i'm fighting with her. How do you even go about changing that? Or […]

Speak Your Mind