Can you "fornicate" with your marriage mate? I've heard the WTBTS says that you can. Is this true?

by ultrabimbo 54 Replies latest jw friends

  • Elder-Patrol
    Elder-Patrol

    The answer is unequivocally: No. Consenting sexual activity involving only a husband and wife cannot constitute "fornication" according to JWs.

    Within a marriage, oral sex and anal sex are merely "uncleanness" (similar to the use of profanity or viewing of soft-core pornography). Officially, Jehovah's Witnesses eschew all uncleanness. Unofficially, a couple who occasionally dabble in the practices are expected to work on their own to overcome it. They can involve elders but they don't need to and it's not judicial.

    Only eventually, such as if one spouse continues to force it upon the other, the harasser may be considered guilty of the serious sin of "gross uncleanness with greediness". Another hypothetical would be if either or both spouses seem to advocate the practices, then they may be considered guilty of the serious sin of "loose conduct" (that is, a brazen disregard for propriety). Neither form of serious sin allows divorce with the possibilty of remarriage, per JWs.

    The fact that someone heard something from some elder somewhere is worse than useless information, since there's both hearsay and a good chance the original hick elder was wrong anyway. A recent letter to elders says that judicial committees continue to try to disfellowship people for soft-core pornography, even though in most cases it isn't considered a serious sin (the branch reverses disfellowshippings like that). Also, the Flock book clearly states that the victim of rape has not committed fornication; the fact that they have to spell out something so obvious is strong evidence that certain elders are so ignorant it's scary.

  • pirata
    pirata

    Oral and anal sex are NOT considered fornication (in the sense of porneia which is translated fornication)

    w83 3/14 Honor Godly Marriage:

    "porneia involves unlawful sexual conduct outside the marital arrangement. Thus, a mate's enforcing perverted acts, such as oral or anal sex, within the the marriage would not constitute a Scriptural basis for divorce."

    "Galatians 5:19-21 lists many vices that are not classed as porneia, and which could lead to one's being disqualified from God's Kingdom. Among them are 'uncleanness' (Greek, akatharsia, signifying filthiness, depravity, lewdness) and "loose conduct" (Greek, aselgeia, signifying licentiousness, wantonness, shameless conduct). Like pornei, these vices , when they become gross, can be grounds for disfellowshipping from the congregation, but not for obtaining a Scriptural divorce. A person who brazenly advocates shocking and sexual activities would be guilty of loose conduct".

    Basically oral and anal sex are considered "grossly unclean" and "unnatural". In reality, there is a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. If it became public knowledge that you do this and were serving as a pioneer, MS, or Elder, you may lose your privilege. It would only be considered a disfellowshipping offence if you unrepentingly openly advocate the practice to others.

  • Pistoff
    Pistoff

    They would say that oral and anal sex is unclean, gross sexual misconduct that homosexuals practice. That is a fact; many were df'd for admitting they had oral or anal sex.

    Fornication implies a single person or persons involved; adultery implies between 2 people not married to each other.

    But the Society was on the warpath against oral sex in the 70's, and again in the 2000's.

    One article described it as a practice that people go to bordellos/houses of prostitution for!

    I know, hilarious, but that is what was stated from stage.

  • THE GLADIATOR
    THE GLADIATOR

    You can pretend it's fornication - it's a lot more fun!

  • Pistoff
    Pistoff
    Also, the Flock book clearly states that the victim of rape has not committed fornication; the fact that they have to spell out something so obvious is strong evidence that certain elders are so ignorant it's scary.

    The problem is that they used to teach that you were guilty of fornication if you did not scream or resist, and as recently as 2008 one of the GB stated that they think this is a reasonable position.

    So it is NOT cut and dried, and the damage from this idea is more to the victims of rape's self esteem; they are victimized twice, by the rapist and then by the WT when they imply that they are guilty before God of fornication just because they did not fight to the death.

  • sacolton
    sacolton

    Is dressing up as Superheroes/Super Villians and role-playing considered "fornication"?

    I like to wear my Joker outfit and put Wonder Woman in a trap she can't get out of.

  • Kinjiro
    Kinjiro

    If you're married you dont 'fornicate'...you have intercourse! See "Chris Rock on marriages' on youtube... (adults only... explicit language... what the f(*&(*7 did you expect? its Chris Rock for goshsakes!!!

  • Elder-Patrol
    Elder-Patrol

    The problem is that they used to teach that you were guilty of fornication if you did not scream or resist, and as recently as 2008 one of the GB stated that they think this is a reasonable position.

    Except that "resist" doesn't mean what critics pretend it means. If a man seeks sex with a woman and she makes absolutely no statement or gesture of 'resistance', is it rape? It seems better for an unwilling woman to make her unwillingness unambiguous, no? Would it be better for her to 'resist' or be 'unresisting'?

    Yes, JWs don't expect victims of bona fide rape to have been 'unresisting'. No, JWs have never required screaming as proof of resistance. It's simply that vocal resistance was thought to be unambiguous (and effective? and scriptural?), and available to an unarmed woman.

    Here are two references from 1984 and 1968:

    *** g84 6/8 p. 28 From Our Readers ***
    For the victim to be considered guilty of fornication there would need to be proof of willing consent.

    *** w68 6/1 p. 347 The Christian’s View of Self-Defense ***
    So by no means would it be proper quietly to submit to rape, as that would be consenting to fornication.

    Today, in 2010, neither statement seems particularly troubling to me. Even a mild protestation is different than 'quietly submiting to rape', isn't it?

  • Think About It
    Think About It
    I have read, and heard that a married couple could be guilty of fornication from the standpoint of the congregation if they were to practice oral sex, anal sex, even mutual fondling of each other's genitals etc. . Are they totally crazy or what?

    Totally crazy? This cult takes crazy to another level. More like bat shit crazy. At one time the WTS decided a woman couldn't scripturally divorce her husband if he was only ass banging another woman or having sex with an animal. Some women wanted a divorce, but were told no. They changed their mind on that, but then got into the marriage oral/anal bedroom laws. I quit worrying about what they thought 15 yrs ago. Doubt seriously if other religions spend near the time on this type sexual stuff as the JW's do.

    P.S. Welcome to the forum Ultrabimbo. Glad you joined and look forward to your other posts.

    Think About It

  • St George of England
    St George of England

    NOT FORNICATION BUT NOT ALLOWED!

    w833/15p.31HonorGodlyMarriage!

    Cultivate a hatred for everything that is unclean before Jehovah, including what are clearly perverted sexual practices... Perverted acts, such as oral or anal sex, within the marriage ... 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.

    Why? Galatians 5:19-21 lists many vices that are not classed as porneia, and which could lead to one’s being disqualified from God’s Kingdom. Among them are “uncleanness” (Greek, akatharsia, signifying filthiness, depravity, lewdness) and “loose conduct” (Greek, aselgeia, signifying licentiousness, wantonness, shameless conduct). Like porneia, these vices, when they become gross, can be grounds for disfellowshipping from the Christian congregation, but not for obtaining a Scriptural divorce. A person who brazenly advocates shocking and repulsive sexual activities would be guilty of loose conduct.

    w779/15p.558

    In this corrupt system of things where Christians have to live and conduct themselves within the bounds of Christian teaching, we must avoid developing the thinking and viewpoint of those who advocate wrong conduct... Man basically knows what God intended when he put the procreative powers in the man and woman and made it possible by the sexual union of the two to produce offspring. Therefore, man basically knows that sodomy is wrong, that oral copulation is wrong, that bestiality is wrong, along with adultery, fornication, homosexuality, and like practices. That is why, in order to promote family unity, both husband and wife must act within the bounds of godly thinking, based on the principles of the Word of God.

    w762/15p.123YouMustBeHolyBecauseJehovahIsHoly

    Unnatural practices in connection with sex in marriage, such as oral and anal copulation, have caused some of God’s people to become impure in his eyes. But TheWatchtower kept above this morass of filth by alerting married couples to God’s thinking on the matter.

    w751/15p.48

    Unnatural SexualRelations. Over two years ago this magazine warned against perverted sex practices such as oral and anal copulation, pointing out that, like homosexuality, these were “contrary to nature.”

    Just some of the references!

    George

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit