What level of freakiness is allowed between a husband and wife in the bedroom? We're both trying to go to Church more together but I've never entirely understood what the consensus is on this issue, if there even is one among denominations.

Oral/anal allowed? Dirty talking? Slapping/choking? Role-playing? My wife is into all these things. I know porn isn't allowed, we don't do that

I am not interested in a non-believers or libtards perspective on this

>>33405131 (OP)
My wife is a christian that reads the bible every day, goes to church, very conservative. I'm agnostic and respect her religion.

In bed we do everything. Oral, anal, chocking, toys, handcuffs, punching, slapping, spitting, just a couple of nights ago I put her in a rear naked choke and fucked her until she almost passed out.

As long as it's with your partner that you're married to, I don't think any religious book says "only do missionary pl0x"

>>33405131 (OP)
>>33405160
where tf are you guys finding wives much less ones who do this stuff??? most married guys are in dead bedrooms, wtf

>>33405131 (OP)
There are ultra protestant denominations that preach sex is only for married couples and for procreation. The wife is to have children and serve her husband and children second. They do not say how much talking and slapping and choking you have to do to get her subdued enough to fertilize her.

Lust is literally one of the 7 sins, yes you can commit lust towards your spouse.

>>33405131 (OP)
Not answering the rest because I don’t care, but choking/strangulation is high risk. can be lethal from carotid dissection, which is often asymptomatic.
Purely from a medfag standpoint, dont fucking do that.

>>33405252
bet you're gonna tell me eating ass is bad too

>>33405131 (OP)
If you have gotten married and still can't navigate testing the waters and making requests than you are beyond cooked.

>>33405307
I think you misread what I said.

>>33405185
I'm the guy from >>33405160
Wife and I met very young. We were each other's first and only sexual partners. Highschoolmaxxing and going for it with your highschool sweetheart is probably the only safe way to meet a chick who's not a total whore yet, who can be wife material.

I was immensely lucky.

Anyways, about the sex. We've been having sex for over 10 years, so you naturally spice stuff up over time.
We have dry spells though. It's not constantly amazing. There are months where we have sex 2-3 times, and then there are times where we fuck 7 days a week.

It's honestly all about the mood we're in and how we feel. It works for us.

>>33405131 (OP)
All things done between a married man and his wife are legal in the eyes of God as long as it's done with Love. The only things that are not allowed are sleeping with someone else. In fact, one of the few things allowed in the traditional Sabbath is sex between a man and his wife. God does not want you to contain your love for your wife. That's what marriage is for, so that you may freely love this person. Go and love your wife, anon.

>>33405235
>Lust is literally one of the 7 sins,
Catholic humbuggery. This is not presented in the Bible, and is not understood to be something that you may not do with your spouse. Feelings of sexual attraction are supposed to happen between a man and his wife. That is not lust, but it is eros, which is a form of love. Of course, a marriage must also contain agape, which is the selfless form of love. When combined, these two things cannot be a sin. When you have sex with someone you love, most of it is trying to please them instead of yourself. If you have this in mind, then nothing that happens there can be said to be a sin.

>>33405473
I get what you're saying but I'm having a hard time believing that isn't some postmodern interpretation; didn't all Church's ban sodomy in all forms within marriage everywhere for pretty much the last 2k years?

>>33405131 (OP)
Anything beyond vaginal for the purpose of procreation is considered sodomy.

How are you supposed to keep the spark going? You both need to become a bit more narcissistic. When you're both caught up in your own worlds, bound together by law, sex will become exciting on its own.

>>33405131 (OP)
>>33405160
>>33405389
>my wife isn't a whore
>anyways, I was spitting in her asshole while forcing her face underwater

bro lol what

>sodomy isn't a sin

what kind of cool modern church is this?

grown up ipad babies are such degenerates it's unbelievable

>>33405473
>This is not presented in the Bible
it absolutely is

1 Thessalonians 4:3–5

> “For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust…”
no oral or anal

Romans 1:26–27

> “…God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women…”

Galatians 5:19–21

> “Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality… Those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

It literally says sex isn't meant to be sensual, full stop

These freaks will use their wives as toilets and punching bags and do all sorts of cool stuff they've seen from the internet and be like
"well, who's to say what's defined as sexual immorality really"

>>33405131 (OP)
Idk about other religions, but the Catholic position is that sex still has to be procreative. So everything is allowed, including oral and anal, so long as you always try to finish in her pussy without protection

Based, the real Christians are in the thread now. No """Christian""" woman marries an agnostic 4channer much less do depraved perverted acts with him. How about instead of asking Godless lowlifes online you investigate actual proper, conservative, non-modern, traditional, etc etc denominations and see what they think? Spoiler: every single one from copts to the assyrians to the amish to the orthodox to the mormons are universally in agreement: PIV for procreation and at best to strengthen the marital bond, anything else IS haram. You'll understand one day that lust and love are incompatible, youre supposed to one day have the same deathless love for your spouse that you do for your parents and children

Between the drug-fuelled same-sex romps of the protestant world, and the variety of child rape in the Catholic, Jewish and Islamic communities, I think it's fairly safe to say that whatever you and your wife do is nowhere near as crazy as what religious figureheads are into. They've got no legs to stand on, fuck what they tell you.

so what, according to God we just fuck to procreate and that's it? pop out 3 kids and then never have sex ever again with our life partner?
why is it so inherently enjoyable then?

>>33406682
>at least I don't molest kids
not an argument
>>33406687
if it really were enjoyable, you wouldn't need to piss in her mouth or whatever and "spice things up" as the other poster said

>>33406705
It is to people who don't molest kids, freak. I realise you've probably got some twisted justification for it, but frankly, you loons are in no place to lecture anybody else on sexuality. It's fucking weird to think you should be micromanaging other people's lives in the first place. But to try it after all the fucked up shit you're attached to is just ridiculous.

>>33405131 (OP)
Wtf are you talking about "allowed"? Just fuck your damn wife how you please. Thr answer varies. If youre catholic technically you can only come if you intend on having a baby and it must be in her vagina, in missionary position as fast as possible.

And with new ovulation tracking technology, you should be using the best means you can to predict her ovulation to ensure no sperm is wasted. And no masturbating. God commands you never waste your seed.

Thats as extreme as it gets. Do you want to be silly? Or do you want to live your life and enjoy something in this awful place? You dont even follow the whole Bible anyway and pick and choose as it is whether you know it or not.

>>33406714
do you need a plaid shirt or gloves for that strawman you're building here

the issue is people who were raised on internet porn thinking that all this degeneracy is normal and don't know how to have normal sex anymore.

>>33405131 (OP)
>Oral/anal allowed? Dirty talking? Slapping/choking? Role-playing? My wife is into all these things. I know porn isn't allowed, we don't do that
You say porn isn't allowed but brother where did you learn about those things? Not at counselling I would think.

>>33406727
Except no. Just shut out the porn if it's a problem. But the religious aspect was already brought in by OP. Which is stupid. Sell it to someone else.

>>33406682
Public school is the single largest perpetrator of child molestation and its not even fucking close to anything ever done by the catholics, jews, or even boy scouts. You evil people will accuse innocent organizations of the very thing your public 'services" are practically subsidized to do, you are evil and I will never forgive you psychopaths

>>33406419
>>33405160
I was born into the Orthodox church and whilst I'm not married, I've spoken to pretty much every authority I can on this and will certify that the "you can only do missionary" stereotype is absolutely untrue. This is a lie meant to make Christian sex look boring.

I don't know about other churches, but I was taught very clearly that "the wedding bed is undefiled." This does NOT mean that married sex has to be "pure." Quite the opposite, it means that whatever sex you have as a couple is sacred, so go nuts (just no threesomes or gay stuff).

>but that's just your interpretation
I've heard from the mouth of our own bishop that sex should be "frequent" and "what's normal for one couple is not normal for another, but that's ok." Having things be mutually consenting was the main criteria.

>ok but what about the "sexually immorality" St Paul warned against?
He wrote that in response to the widespread incest, prostitution and adultery that was occurring in Corinth at the time, that's very different from having kinky sex whilst married. In the same letters, he offered marriage as a partial solution to this, because married couples were free to bang as much as they wanted. He literally says "her body belongs to him, and his body belongs to her." Note that this goes both ways, the conjugal ownership is symmetrical, unlike most aspects of Christian marriage.

Sex before marriage = sexually immortality; sex during marriage = holy and encouraged, be kinky if you want

>>33406222
> Is it all postmodernism? Sex can't be fun
The "sex is only for kids" idea is actually the more post-modern take. The Catholic church is largely to blame here because their priests can't be married. However in the original church, you had to be married to be a priest. God wouldn't make sex so fun even after menopause if it was wrong.

>but muh sodomy
Sodomy mostly refers to homosexuality and sometimes incest; that was the main crime of Sodom.

>>33406928
What are your thoughts on the natural libido difference between men and women? Like how men naturally desire much more than women do? Is the man immoral for pushing those desires if she doesn't reciprocate? Is she sinning if she doesn't desire sex with her husband or just not as often? Is lack of sex or sexual satisfaction good grounds for a divorce?

And why no polygamy? Seems like a good idea desu

>>33407013
> What about the libido difference between men and women?
There is an excellent sermon on this that honestly opened my eyes, but I can't find it; I'll link it in a reply to this if I do.

The libido differences between men and women *can* be complementary. Man's higher sex drive is *meant* to prompt him to love his wife *proactively.* e.g: buy her flowers, leave her a love note here and there, give her your time, compliment her, etc. Us having a strong sex drive motivates us to do these things without being told to. A christian wife is far more likely to follow your lead and return the love once she sees you doing this. But the initiative is on you, and being motivated by sex is not entirely wrong in that regard.

Bear in mind that men view sex *as* love whilst sex is the product *of* love for women. This design conveniently encourages men to lead by example and demonstrate their love more, as a more loved woman almost always feels more receptive to sex. Yes, not all women are like this, be it due to being sexually wired (the better exception) or having some sort of trauma/mental block (the worse exception.)

Also women are physically capable of having more sex than men, so this whole libido difference isn't always true.

> is pushing sexual desire a sin if not reciprocated?
It's not good to be a nagging, selfish spouse.
My spiritual father has told me there are times when you just gotta suck it up and find other outlets; newborn kids are one example.

I will note that some Christians say that if your partner wants to have sex so much more than you do, that you should "return the due affection." I don't think this is actually encouraged by the church fathers; it's something to discuss with a priest.

>polygamy
Flat no. Marriage is a design of two being united, Jesus was pretty blunt about this being the only viable method.

>>33406461
None of that includes people in a loving marriage, and none of it prohibits oral or anal. And no, sex is not meant to be only sensual, but it is, by definition, a sensual act.

>>33407013
2/2 cause I ran out of words
> Is lack of sex or sexual satisfaction good grounds for a divorce?
In my church, usually no, but yes in very rare cases. If the lack of satisfaction is a result of medical, personal or phycological issues that were not disclosed prior to marriage, then you can talk to a priest, go through counselling and eventually a council will look over things and grant annulment (basically undo the marriage) if they think it's fair.

The most dramatic examples I know are ones where a man did not disclose that he was either medically impotent or secretly gay, then got married and couldn't do the deed. Note that these are all sorted on a case-by-case basis, but the over-arching theme is that divorce is BIG deal.

Personally, the fact that the church recognizes these situation is yet another example of how sex is not "JUST another part of a relationship." It is fundamental, and messing with it is not joke.

>>33406928
>Sodomy mostly refers to homosexuality and sometimes incest; that was the main crime of Sodom.
Sodomy is sodomy you faggot, you can't get a butt pregnant
If your "sex" amounts to assisted masturbation then it doesn't matter if you're married or not while doing it. Jacking off while married is still a sin

>>33406811
>Public school is the single largest perpetrator of child molestation
I'm open to the possibility that you're right. Can you please provide proof?
>innocent organisations
Lol no. Now you're lying.

>>33405131 (OP)
Only reproductive sex in the missionary position is allowed, all else is Sodomy.

>>33405131 (OP)
If it's safe, and sane, and there is enthusiastic informed consent on both sides, then you're good.

Of the things you mention, choking is extremely dangerous and you should never do it. (Consensual choking is now the second most common cause of stroke in women under the age of 40). The other stuff is fine, so long as you have learned how to do it safely.

>>33407763
Disgusting freak.

Why are you allowing strangers into your bedroom besides Jesus, God, your parents and the priests?

>>33405323
He understood perfectly

>>33405131 (OP)
It should be safe space for both.
Unless one of them is woke then it's shit.

>>33405185
>most married guys are in dead bedrooms, wtf
Those are married to non-wife materials and settled for less.
The trick is to marry young and early.
Any women passed 28 is spinster for a good reason.

>>33408366
>fucking a woke person
Ugh, learned that one the hard way. Never again.

>>33405131 (OP)
>What level of freakiness is allowed between a husband and wife in the bedroom? We're both trying to go to Church more together but I've never entirely understood what the consensus is on this issue, if there even is one among denominations.

No freakiness allowed. You and your wife are not freaks, you're human beings.

>Oral allowed?
It's a risk. So long as it isn't degrading and is acted as a complimentary action that leads to penetration of the vagina.

In other words, don't bust in her mouth that's the sin of onanism. And don't perform it as a means of degradation, treat it as a form of kissing or admiring of the the woman rather the body, or her admiring you rather your body.

>Anal
That's sodomy. And also onanism. That's a no-go.

>Dirty talking
Depends if the talking is abusive, degrading or involving lustful sentiments.

>Slapping/choking
Nope, that's recreating abuse in the marital bed.

>Role-playing
That's okay so long as what you roleplay isn't degenerate.

It's not so hard to understand. Sex had to be filled with a spirit of love, not lust. And the goal has to be for procreation, at the very least, precipitating a close bond that leads to it eventually.

My denomination is Catholic. I also understand that other Catholics will correct me or disagree with my own way of life. I love God, Christ and the Holy Family. I try to love the church. Sometimes I disagree with my own church.

Example: You get your wife pregnant. Church says sex is only for procreation. But you got your wife pregnant. If you have sex, she and you are no longer procreating. Womb is already full.

So what do you do? No sex for 9 months? Deny each other sexually during a time where the woman is very hormonal and in need of love and sex from husband?

Also childbirth can be dangerous for the baby. Pre-eclampsia is something pregnant women can have that can kill off a baby in first trimester. Male sperm is known to reduce these odds. The church would be against it.

>>33406461
NTA but I think he meant that the concept of "7 deadly sins" is nowhere in the Bible

>>33406928
>being kinky is holy
absolute clown world

imagine taking a shit in your wife's cunt and then being all "oh I see the lord's love in your eyes, why are you crying babe"

>>33408996
You understand that there are acts that can be done with love that do not rise to the level of shitting in her vagina, correct? Can you lovingly shit on someone? If you can, then it's not a sin, but if it is simply for the act itself, then no, and it is, but for the most part, a healthy married couple isn't going to sin by having sex.

>>33409179
>Can you lovingly shit on someone? If you can, then it's not a sin
No you cant and its baffling you dont know the answer to that question and had to ask the question rhetorically.

God does not care what you intend. He cares what you actually do, or outright refuse to do. Progidal son parable comes to mind.

One son intended all the best holiest and nicest things. But his actions showed he was a coward and an envious cretin.

The other son showed his intentions was rebellion, disrespect, and being wayward. But in the end, his actions showed he actually chose God and righteousness when he came to his senses.

Yet the bastard bitch son who thought he was so nice and righteous for his intentions chose to curse his own brother with his gay tantrum. Intentions get you nowhere with God. Actions do.

so no, you cant lovingly shit on someone.

>>33409413
>No you cant
Hence why I asked the question, to show that the act you're describing isn't something carried out in a loving marriage. That's different from having your wife wear lingerie or role-playing or other such stuff. There is clearly a limit, but you know that and are using the most extreme example to discount the relatively tame things married couples are into.