Is Bondage Immoral from a Religious Perspective?

[Jesus The Inane]

I was wondering what are your thoughts on the subject? Can a Christian practice bondage sex and still go to heaven? What about a Muslim, or a Hindu, or a Buddhist?

I think a Christian who enjoys bondage sex could go to heaven. Lets keep in mind I'm not talking about bondage sex outside of marriage but of bondage sex inside of a lovely marriage. Anyways, like I said, I think a person can practice bondage and still go to heaven, atleast if you are the masochist/submissive one. And infact, wouldn't this actually help you, in a way? So as to be more submissive to God... ?

But I'm not too sure about a sadist. I mean, that fact you enjoy giving pain to your wife/husband, who you are suppose to love, would show a lot of malice in your nature, and so would be rather unchristian.

But what you guys think?

[CiaranG]

A deep pilisophical and theological question indeed

please enlighten me what made you want to ask this? Pressure from the missus?

[Felixion]

I think it's safe to say that most Christians that are "Christian" enough to truly be worried about wether they are going to heaven or hell on a literal level are probably not even considering bondage sex. Then again, what we've seen from the Catholic Church sexually hasn't really been very encouraging. I would probably say it is against some sort of doctrine that prohibits lustful sex, or perversion.

[bdh]

I think it's safe to say that most Christians that are "Christian" enough to truly be worried about wether they are going to heaven or hell on a literal level are probably not even considering bondage sex. Then again, what we've seen from the Catholic Church sexually hasn't really been very encouraging. I would probably say it is against some sort of doctrine that prohibits lustful sex, or perversion.

Provided that the sex is life-giving (i.e. no artificial contraceptives) there is no doctrine against it at all.

[Lord Tomyris]

Provided that the sex is life-giving (i.e. no artificial contraceptives) there is no doctrine against it at all.

There is doctrine against the concepts behind S&M, though.

[Tostig]

Of course it's immoral! We wouldn't want people going around having fun, would we?

[Søren]

I was wondering what are your thoughts on the subject? Can a Christian practice bondage sex and still go to heaven? What about a Muslim, or a Hindu, or a Buddhist?

I think a Christian who enjoys bondage sex could go to heaven. Lets keep in mind I'm not talking about bondage sex outside of marriage but of bondage sex inside of a lovely marriage. Anyways, like I said, I think a person can practice bondage and still go to heaven, atleast if you are the masochist/submissive one. And infact, wouldn't this actually help you, in a way? So as to be more submissive to God... ?

But I'm not too sure about a sadist. I mean, that fact you enjoy giving pain to your wife/husband, who you are suppose to love, would show a lot of malice in your nature, and so would be rather unchristian.

But what you guys think?

Firstly, I don't think it would affect whether or whether not one goes to heaven, because I would believe in the Calvinist doctorine of perseverance of the saints.

Whether it is actually right or wrong, good or bad, is a different matter.

Firstly, we must recognise that "pain" is a somewhat arbitary concept which is relative to the individual experience, not some abstract level of it. After all, all sexual actions are enjoyed by differing levels of friction; be this in intercourse or sado-masochism. Because of this we should not consider it in accordance to a universal norm, but rather in :

1. the intent of the giver and reciever
   
2. whether it is likely to cause physical harm
   
3. whether it is likely to induce a healthy relationship
   

The Bible is quite clear that sex/sexual actions are meant to be mutually beneficient to both partners -- not something for the pleasure of only one. This is both specifically referenced and also made implicit in general christian doctorine of serving one another. Even hypothetically assuming it acceptable, the giver would always have to be a sadist, and the reciever would always have to be a mazochist.

Given that, let's first take a look at sadism. The basic precept of sadism is a wish for dominance or control over the subject of the said practice -- a feeling of power. IMO, this is not conducive to a biblically acceptable relationship (and thus a good one). After all, the Bible teaches that one should serve one another, putting the other before the self -- something trying to attain feeling of dominance/control/power is arguably the opposite of.

I would speculate that a relationship which involves one trying to gain some imaginary power over the other is probably not very constructive, too.

Now onto masochism. Taking it that :

I) sexual relationships should be beneficial to both members
II) sadism is not acceptable (see previous para's.)

one can conclude that because :

i) mazochism involves a recipitant and an initiator of action (i.e. the one who would usually (but not always) be a sadist)

this means that either person giving it must be ii) a sadist iii) not enjoying it directly, other than through the other.

ii) is out of the question under premise II) (which in turn is taken from my previous explenation).

iii) can only be (hypothetically) acceptable [in accordance to I)] if it is not the sole part of the sexual activity.

However, iii) is probably not beneficial as it may (almost inevitably, actually) induce the initiator to have a psychological feeling of dominance, soemthing which would make him/her no longer iii), but rather iii) (for sadistic intent).

Here I have only replied to sadisim and masochism when the intent is dominance and submission, respectivly. This is because as far as I know this is by far the most common reason for them. Doubtless there are others too, but I would hold that there will be to great a danger of falling into the dominance~submissive state of mind for it to be healthy relationship wise (and therefore theologically).

[Felixion]

You're telling me that so long as a sexual act between a married couple is intended for child birth, there is no guideline as to how perverted, dimented, sick and bizarre the sexual act can be? Knowing a lot of other Christian doctrine, that seems hard to believe.

[CiaranG]

nope **** away my peverted friend

[bdh]

You're telling me that so long as a sexual act between a married couple is intended for child birth, there is no guideline as to how perverted, dimented, sick and bizarre the sexual act can be? Knowing a lot of other Christian doctrine, that seems hard to believe.

Pretty much. As long as everything is emotionally line (man and woman love one another) its 'open' to child birth its ok. Why would they outlaw it? If it doesn't separate you from God, its not a sin.

Of course, there is a difference between sex and sadism and massicism. Nothing outlawed about bizarre. And how much perversion can there be between a married couple?

nope **** away my peverted friend

That would be it.

[Felixion]

A married couple that enjoys bonding eachother, and subsequently doing some form of beating (whip etc...) for sexual pleasure probably have a bit of perversion, and perhaps their love is a little distorted aswell.

[bdh]

A married couple that enjoys bonding eachother, and subsequently doing some form of beating (whip etc...) for sexual pleasure probably have a bit of perversion, and perhaps their love is a little distorted aswell.

Well, its not a sin unless its truly destructive to the human form. Why else would the church allow various degrees of corporal punishment?

Of course, distortion isn't a sin. A person can be unbalanced and insane but be completely without sin. Separation from God after all.

[MaximiIian]

A married couple that enjoys bonding eachother, and subsequently doing some form of beating for sexual pleasure probably have a bit of perversion, and perhaps their love is a little distorted aswell.

Eh, it's just what they like. Who cares, it's not hurting society as a whole. I mean, it's human to like different things and derive pleasure and fun from different things.

[Felixion]

Corporal punishment in the name of Christ is a little different than whipping your wife for sexual arousal, honestly.

[bdh]

Corporal punishment in the name of Christ is a little different than whipping your wife for sexual arousal, honestly.

Still, the same logic applies to an extent. Corporal punishment for Christ can't be incredibly destructive just as it can't be any other purpose.

There is nothing fundamentally disordered about it in terms of church teaching. It would probably only be sinful if it led them away from the Church or caused them to engage in further deviant practices to an extent which is sinful (i.e. sex outside of marriage). It would only be sinful if it distracted them from God.

The teaching is that God created sexual desire and meant it to be good, so the Church doesn't say too much about how it is engaged other than that it should be 'open to life' in Church terms.

[.Socrates]

I think it would be fine, as long as you don't kill your partner from 'too much pleasure.'

[CiaranG]

there is evidence of a 11th commandment that read.

"though shall not tie up thy sexual partner and wip her whilst wearing kinky clothes"

moses didnt think it was as catchy as the others so he scratched it out

[Felixion]

I may be wrong, but is doctrine not meant to be read and applied to one's life, not just specific circumstances? Though the bible may not specifically outlaw bondage sex, sexual deviance is surely not encouraged by God's word, nor would it be dismissed just because it is practiced within a marriage? And sexual perversion surely corrupts the sanctity and holieness of a marriage.

[Mangalore]

I may be wrong, but is doctrine not meant to be read and applied to one's life, not just specific circumstances? ....

Don't get that sentence, life is a serioes of specific circumstances. The bible also does not encourage going on an airplane, drive a car, etc. , too.

[Rutilius Rufus]

Wow.

This is the creepiest thread I've seen in awhile.

I'd have to go with Oldgamer on this one, but honestly I've never given it that much thought.