Discourse on Intercourse

There are some conversations I have with Yeshua about what I see in the world. One of these was His take on a three letter word that many religious leaders have taken a stand on - intercourse. 

Yes, intercourse is more than three letters, but I do speak of physical intercourse, also known as sex.

An excellent blog I read today about Jesus and homosexuality brought an earlier conversation I had with Yeshua to mind.

Here, I try my best to restate how Yeshua described His perspective on the subject of sex.

First, there is a violent act, where one will have intercourse with another as a means of physical domination. This is not for love, nor procreation, nor pleasure. This is known as rape.

Second, there is the act where one or more partners will have physical intercourse with another for the sake of pleasuring the body alone. This often leaves the ones who do this feeling empty inside.

Third, there are those who will perform the actions of physical intercourse for the purpose of acquiring something. This can be for money, favors, fame, reputation, raises, promotions, control and/or manipulation of a person or situation. Sometimes only one person is the one who does this, sometimes more than one.

Finally, there is the union where two or more people physically express their love for each other and completely let down all barriers between themselves, giving themselves completely to another.

Only the last one is acceptable.

Of course, many may question a few things.

• Is masturbation wrong? Not exactly. It falls into the second type of physical intercourse, and it leaves one feeling empty - and alone. But there is nothing wrong, according to Yeshua, with "scratching the itch" (using a current euphemism) to alleviate physical tension of the body.

• Is homosexuality wrong? There's nothing above that says it is. When Leviticus was written, the Israelites believed that fathers lived on in their sons. No sons=no lifeline. Thus homosexuality was prohibited for males. It never really says no for women, just no bestiality for both.

• Do we need to get married? Nothing above states this. In fact, Yeshua is quoted in the New Testament as saying there are no husbands and wives in Heaven. Marriage is a contract created by humanity. Love is all that is required to meet the fourth type above.

• Doesn't some of that sound polygamous? Yes. But Yeshua also lived in a polygamous society. The bible doesn't define a marriage as "between a man and wife" but "between a man and one or more wives" then goes on to mention concubines. Our monogamous marriages are a more recent addition to our lifestyles. It's never been a requirement; so yes, the Mormons have that part right. :P

• What about a woman having one or more husbands? Sigh. While one can argue the bible was written by men in a male-dominated society where women had little means of income and very limited rights. Things are different today. Right? But I must sadly admit, there are two things that will prevent this. First, my sisters and I need to change. We women learn how to manipulate a man from when we're toddler --  our fathers, brothers, uncles,  boyfriends, friends, bosses, police officers, husbands, sons and other men in our lives. That, dear ladies, falls under the third type listed above, even when there's no "physical" element involved. While women can try to manipulate other women; it's far more successful with men. When one woman is in a relationship with two or more men, there is a tremendous temptation to twist them to her will, for she will play them against each other. The other half of the problem is that men can be possessive of things they treasure; when two or more men desire the same treasure, there is a strong temptation for jealousy. Granted, this can happen in women too, but I've seen it far stronger in men, including whether their "treasure" is female or male. So a few things ingrained in our social behaviors need to change; but it is not an impossible situation to achieve.

• What about procreation? This also falls under the third type; one or more people are participating in physical intercourse to get something out of it. Sadly, this can happen when one person IS in love with the other (fourth type) and the other is in it for something else. This in no way implies that having children following the physical expression of love is wrong. In fact, that's the purpose, to create something through our expression of love - an extension of mutual love.

• Can one be in the physical relationship for the right reason (fourth type) and another not be? Certainly, as I've just mentioned. And sadly, there are many that fall into this for reasons beyond procreation. Often the manipulative one does not tell the partner. Sometimes the manipulative one doesn't really know either, but tries to convince him/herself they are in love.

• If you find yourself in a relationship where you are in love but the other person is not, is that wrong? If you are in love while you perform physical intercourse, you do nothing wrong, unless you are aware the other person(s) has other agendas. In which case, I ask is it wrong to hand an alcoholic a drink? If you are aware the other(s) does not love you and you continue in such a relationship merely because you love them, that is closer to idol worship than shared love. In which case, you also will fall under the third type.

I'm pretty sure there will be other questions I've missed, but I hope I hit the bulk of them. This isn't just my interpretation on the statement above. I've gone over these questions a number of times with Yeshua to make sure I understood His perspective. Being raised Catholic, many surprised me at first too, though my heart seemed to recognize them as truth even when my head still wanted to argue that this would be considered "sinful."

As I said in my previous post, I needed to learn to shift perspective at times.