Personally, I think West has done a valuable job popularizing the Theology of the Body; but he errs if he glosses over sodomitic acts or dismisses them in any way as insignificant. Misuse of the body in this way ought to be clarified, and not equivocated with ‘foreplay.’ I think he was trying to drive home the point that the whole body is good, and not dirty or impure inherently, but he caused some confusion by neglecting to emphasize that the large intestine is not a substitute sex organ. It seems self-evident.
Thank you, Neithan. There is obviously nothing wrong with disagreeing with some of what Christopher West (or other theologians) say, but I do want to clarify what CW writes about the issue so that people do not get the wrong idea. This is from his book
Good News About Sex & Marriage:
“Again, a husband should never intentionally ejaculate anywhere but in his wife’s vagina. What, then, are we to say about anal penetration as a form of foreplay to normal intercourse?
Some might conclude based on a legalistic application of the “so long as it leads to intercourse” principle that anything goes when it comes to foreplay. But spouses who truly love each other aren’t looking to get away with as much as possible before ‘breaking the rules.’ They’re looking to symbolize and renew their marriage commitment as sincerely as possible.
For those who would seek to justify anal penetration as a form of foreplay to intercourse, there are some important considerations that can’t be overlooked. To begin with, the rectum is full of bacteria, which are dangerous to both the male and female reproductive organs. Furthermore, since the anus and rectum are simply not biologically designed to accommodate a penis, penetration can cause temporary or permanent harm.
Aesthetically speaking, such behavior involves contact with human waste, which is tolerated when necessary but not something joyful, beautiful, and pleasing. Marital intimacy is meant to be joyful, beautiful, and pleasing to both spouses. Is it truly loving to subject one’s wife to health risks, not to mention the discomfort or even pain associated with such behavior?
Perhaps in some abstract, objective sense there is nothing to condemn mere penetration of the anus as absolutely and in every case immoral. But subjectively speaking, for all of the above reasons it is very difficult to justify anal penetration as a loving act of foreplay to the marital embrace. It is an act that seems to stem much more form the disorder of lust than from a genuine desire to symbolize and renew the marriage commitment.”
Besides the first sentence in the last paragraph, which seems to be given begrudgingly, it is very clear CW does not want people to have anything to do with anal sex. Some people wish it were a stronger statement (which is understandable), but at the same time, people who use CW to justify anal sex are those who are 'looking to get away with as much as possible before ‘breaking the rules.’ They will focus on that one sentence instead of the entire passage.
Some people insinuate (in other threads) that CW is saying “Anal sex is fine as long as you ejaculate in your wife’s vagina,” but that is obviously not the case. I just wanted to clear that up
.
:banghead:
