Christian Erotica? Seriously?
Can erotica be truly Christian literature and not porn?
That is the first question I believe a lot of people have when they first learn of MarriageHeat: a site that claims to be Christian Erotica. My first thought was to dismiss this site. It seemed like a justification for Christians to “have their cake and eat it too.” In other words, they could get their porn fix and still claim the mantle of Christianity. Even if that were true, it would be much preferred over Christians watching or reading “real” or worldly porn. We know that’s a very big problem in the Church, especially among men. I’ve heard priests comment that the most frequent sin confessed to them is porn use.
I ran across an article that mentioned this site while investigating whether a Christian could write, edit, and sell erotica without committing a sin in doing so. I wasn’t researching “Christian erotica,” — that is, erotica written for Christians. I wasn’t sure that was valid or not, though on the surface it didn’t sound as if it was. Since I was writing erotica with an evangelical mindset to reach people who read the more mainstream form, I put off any further investigation of writing erotica specifically for Christians. But once I finished that article, I decided to investigate writing erotica for Christians a little deeper by coming here to MarriageHeat.com. So I’ve read stories and comments and searched the archives. And I’ve learned what Biblical arguments are used to support this concept. Ironically, they are conclusions that I’ve already come to before. So, here is why I believe that Christian erotica isn’t porn.
One of the most significant problems with porn is the lust it can bring out in people. But what exactly is lust? While there are articles in the archives that make these points, I believe it is helpful to restate them from time to time and to pull together some thoughts. Most Christians have a big misconception about what lust really is. The dictionary definition of lust is a strong desire for something or someone. But, Biblically, lust means something specific. The defining verse is Romans 7:7, which says: “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.”
Paul here links lust with coveting from the law. That law says in Exodus 20:17, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.”
Jesus, in Matthew 19:3-9 (where he said that the man who lusts in his heart for a woman has already committed adultery), explicitly refers to coveting another man’s wife. But he’s not referring to an appreciative glance at an attractive woman whose appearance causes a sexual response in a man, as has often been stated in Christian circles. You see, it isn’t just any strong desire we might have that becomes lust. It’s only those desires that are destructive to ourselves and the rest of God’s creation as He designed it to operate. That is to say, the desire to commit sin, to disobey Him.
Lust, as used in the Bible, almost always refers to strong desires that lead to sinful activities. It isn’t merely strongly desiring something. If that were the case, we would all sin every time we had a strong desire for ice cream, a particular model of car, or anything. To make the issue that of feeling strong desire is to water down the warning. We can see this dynamic in Galatians 5:17, “For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.”
Do you see what Paul did there? He talked about the “lust of the flesh.” To put it in our terms as above, a strong desire of the flesh that leads one to sin. But he also talks about the Spirit “lusting” against the flesh. He doesn’t use the word, but it is understood and here represents a strong desire to do God’s will. His whole point is that we either choose to walk according to the strong desires of the flesh to sin or according to the leading of the Spirit. We can’t have it both ways. But Paul is not saying here that having a strong desire, in and of itself, is sinful.
So, what does this have to do with Christian erotica? Two things:
One, having a strong desire for sex isn’t a sin if you desire it with your spouse. Outside of marriage, it can be sinful, as Jesus stated in Matthew 19. But one should have a strong desire for one’s spouse. That is not sinful, but beautiful, holy, and fulfilling.
Some may ask how a legal piece of paper saying you’re married can suddenly make sex okay when before it was “dirty.” Simple, sex has been perverted by our misuse of it. Actually, I believe the concept of a certificate constituting a “real” marriage is the cause of that perversion. It relegates sex to a secondary trait of marriage as if people marry in order to have sex morally and legally.
No, I say. Rather, one has sex in order to get married. It was that way in Jesus’ day, and it is that way today as well. Remember the wedding feast in Cana of Galilee, where Jesus performed his first miracle? At that time in history, there came a point in the week-long wedding feast when the couple would go into a tent assigned specifically for this purpose and have sex. When they came out, they were considered married. It wasn’t until the Byzantine empire that the state and even the Church got involved in “legalizing” marriage. Before that, and even long after that point, sex was the sacrament of marriage.
When my wife first started thinking of sex as a sacrament instead of as something dirty and to be avoided, it totally turned her attitude around. I could tell–not only because she said it did–but because she rarely refused me after that. Sex was transformed into something holy in her mind. The sin many fall into is to treat sex as non-binding — non-one-flesh-creating. They do not commit to forming a family with that one person with whom they have sex. Thus, as God’s design to make us one flesh, sex gets abused and misused. That is “dirty” sex, not the act itself.
Two, there can be a temptation to sin by coveting the acts and attitudes in the story. MarriageHeat attempts to dampen that by avoiding size comparisons and such. However, one can still become envious and want his wife to do what another’s wife does. I’ve had to deal with that on a minor level, reading about all the women here who love to swallow. I have to remind myself, even though my wife doesn’t want to do that, I’m blessed to have a wife who gives me oral sex at nearly every sex session we have. For twenty-nine years, that was not the case.
This is a point where Paul’s theology of contentment comes into play. Philippians 4:11-13: “Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: everywhere and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.”
So, if you can read this site without coveting another person’s wife or husband–if you are content with your spouse–then reading the stories here are not only not damaging to your spiritual life, they are beneficial for your spirit and marriage. That is a call each of us must make. However, neither he who reads, nor he who does not read, should judge the other, but attend to his own situation.
That said, it is certainly not sinful to strongly desire one’s spouse sexually. It is righteous.
But is it really righteous and holy to write and read even married erotica? I’ll offer this bit of Biblical erotica to prove my point:
“I am come into my garden, my sister, my spouse: I have gathered my myrrh with my spice; I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey; I have drunk my wine with my milk: eat, O friends; drink, yea, drink abundantly, O beloved. I sleep, but my heart waketh: it is the voice of my beloved that knocketh, saying, Open to me, my sister, my love, my dove, my undefiled: for my head is filled with dew and my locks with the drops of the night. I have put off my coat; how shall I put it on? I have washed my feet; how shall I defile them? My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him. I rose up to open to my beloved; and my hands dripped with myrrh, and my fingers with sweet smelling myrrh, upon the handles of the lock. . . . His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.” (Song of Solomon 5:1-5, 16)
If God doesn’t mind putting it in the Bible, then neither should we decline to share it with others. After all, how are we going to purify and make it holy again if we fail to put forth examples of not only hot sex but hot and holy marital sex? Such stories can take us beyond, “Boy, I wish my wife were like that woman,” to “Hey, I’d like to try that with my wife.” The former is coveting, the latter is proper and holy. I believe coveting is what makes any story into porn. And the sin of coveting is on the one coveting, not the person who wrote it. For a person could covet a lover in the Song of Solomon just as easily as they could a husband or wife presented in one of our own stories.
Many people would use the following verse against the concept of Christian erotica:
Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. (Phil: 4:8)
But for those who believe, as the Bible states, that sex within the commitment of marriage and a family is good and right to be desired, then such erotic stories are pure, lovely, of a good report, virtuous, and worthy of praise. We should indeed “think on these things”.
Well said. The point about lust is a real key to this understanding.
It helps to understand that the German word lust means desire in general, both positive and negative. Only in English has it taken on a negative context. Also it's worth noting the Greek word translated lust negatively is translated desire positively
Very well said, sex is holy between a husband and wife. The point on lust is right on the money.
Our relationship with Christ is a personal one and with that there are certain things that one person can do and not consider it sin where as if another person would do the same it would be sin.
There is almost nothing in Christianity that makes it a cookie cutter experience, we all have specific hang-ups that drive a wedge between our relationships and these wedges that interrupt our communion with God and others is the sin we need to remove ourselves from.
Remember Christ crucified for the forgiveness of my sins. No man can dictate what my relationship with the creator should look like.
Very true, Jam. That point was what I was getting at when I wrote:
That is a call each of us must make. However, neither he who reads, nor he who does not read, should judge the other, but attend to his own situation.
It pointed back to the verses that suggest that everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial. For some, this stuff will not be beneficial, all due to the situation and sin in their life.
That said, Biblically speaking, God designed this to be right and holy, and of itself, something we should think on. It is the sacrament of marriage. It is the sin in our lives that have perverted it to be destructive to particular individuals. As well as the broader secular view of sex hasn't helped much.
But your point is well taken. We live in a fallen world, and God's design is often misused to the point that some would sin by reading here. But it is here when they are ready for it. 🙂
Linking lust to covetousness—yes! The decoupling of these two things causes so much harm and so many hang ups for people. Arousal and desire is not lust. Aggressively pursuing or pining away after something or someone who isn’t yours is. The distinction makes all the difference.
Define lust. Define erotica. Define porn. Define the sexual activities that married couples engage in. Are they "Christian" or not?
Hi Art. Yes, I've defined lust above as coveting someone else's property or wife. Like the Bible says that the Israelites lusted after the meat while in the wilderness. God didn't want them to have it, but to rely upon His manna. IOW, they had a strong desire for what they couldn't have. When it comes to sexual arousal, it becomes lust when you covet the person who is arousing you, when, if opportunity presented itself, you would have sex with that person. Thus why Jesus says the person who lusts in his heart after another man's wife has already committed adultery with her.
I've been working through the difference between erotica and porn of late by writing about it (that's how I work our such thoughts; writing helps me organize my views and thoughts). That isn't ready for primetime yet, not even sure i will ever post it here or elsewhere, yet. But here is a summary of where I'm currently at on those two topics.
Erotica is defined in the dictionary as literature or art that is intended to arouse sexual desire. Of course, the intent to arouse sexual desire can either be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the context. If within a marriage, it can be good. Outside of that, it goes outside of God's design and would be a negative.
Pornography is defined as "printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings."
IOW, erotica is moire of a literary and artsy aesthetic, whereas porn is not.
But that doesn't appear to get to the practical purpose we would have in mind. So as of this moment (this is still a work in progress), where I come down to the difference between the two is how we are doing it here on MH, through literature. Porn is a much broader category, and includes primarily the visual.
So the main difference appears to be that with the erotica we post here, not only is the subject matter –married sex–different from porn, but the medium is different. In what way? In that with erotica, we cannot "see" in our mind a direct picture of the subjects, even when recounting a real event. That is, we will depict the event with different bodies and in different ways than either the author's mental image of the event, or what it really looked like. In porn, you have no such filters. You see, directly, two people in the act, their real bodies, no imagination required. It's as if you are in the room with them while they are having sex. I think that is the key difference between the two, and why porn is generally considered "not beneficial" for us, while married erotica is permitted, and can also be very beneficial in helping people to establish a Biblical worldview of sex as opposed to the prevailing secular worldview many have, even in our Churches.
As to whether "they are Christian or not" depends. I would tend to think that anything that violates God's intended design for us is "sinful," of which the converse is my definition of sin. Being that we are created with this manner of procreation in mind, and these sexual feelings in place, aside from how the fall may have affected that, it is part of God's design, and in this fallen world, His intention of how we should operate. Therefore, anything outside of promoting sexual desire within a marriage, I would classify as sinful, that is, not beneficial to us. I would gather that porn most of the time falls into that category, while erotica can if it depicts extra-marital sexual activities. But due to the less direct viewing of real people in sexual acts, erotica has less chance of creating lust in any one instance.
That's where I'm at on it currently. What do you think?
I agree it’s all about definitions. We define things in a handy way to agree with our beliefs and actions. Lust is desire and desire is lust unless we decide it’s a “bad” thing. Porn is erotica and erotica is porn unless we feel a need to justify enjoying it. Lust is not covet. Covet is a desire to posses, to take away from another. Much of the confusion comes from those who translated the Bible and decided what it should mean.
Hey, Art! Thoughtful comments. Were you summarizing the definitions we all need to think on or making a request for more input?
Looks to me like MaxLoving described in depth his view of a Biblical definition of lust, as have many others on MH. The difference between erotica and porn might be stickier, and it has been discussed a great deal in the comments of many posts. But for the sake of those who are new to the site, it might bear more discussion.
My take is that erotica deals with sex, which can be godly or ungodly, and porn (from the Greek for prostitute) deals with strictly the ungodly. The OP makes a good point, I think, that we are each responsible for knowing our own reactions to even written descriptions of godly sex and to avoid those things which cause us to stumble.
As for defining what sex acts are godly within marriage, I don't see where God himself placed any further restrictions than that they be reserved for man and wife. Do you? He even enjoined married couples not to deny one another except for a limited amount of time to focus on Him.
Want to share your views on those subjects? I've often wanted to hear deeper comments from you, especially because you tend to be a pretty respectful and encouraging commenter.
Thanks for another thoughtful article, MaxLoving. I don’t mean to change your subject here, but having no other means of contacting you, I’ll put my question here.
Have you ever written an article on the ‘mystery of sex?’ I don’t know what else to call it. Maybe I make it more of a mystery than it really is, but there’s something there that I just can’t put my finger on or adequately describe, though I’ll attempt here in a few words. The animals ‘mate’ to procreate, some even for life, and yet we (most of the time) scarcely give it a thought. What is it about sex that is so binding between humans? It has the capacity of holding two people together like glue… and at the same time can be something of deadly poison when used improperly. Why? We have all kinds of interactions amongst ourselves as human beings, and this is arguably the most potent, and the most dangerous form of that interaction. Is it a ‘soul’ thing, with sex being a means where two people’s souls meet? Is sex the one and only intersection of the spiritual, emotional, and the physical all at the same time, the only possible expression by humans in a realm where only God alone is otherwise able to touch?
The Bible says that Adam knew his wife Eve (Genesis 4:1). He ‘knew’ her. That seems far beyond mere poetic expression – how and what does it mean that sex is to ‘know’ someone? To know what? The Bible says that one day we will know as we are known (1 Corinthians 13:12). I’m sure that’s ‘knowing’ in a slightly different context, and it’s also a mystery, as I’m left wondering, “Know what exactly?” And why do we so crave this form of union with another person? To varying degrees, of course, but in general – it’s a present desire in nearly every human being, male or female. Created by God, of course — that’s the easiest way to explain it… but I’m still left wondering what it is about it that is so meaningful to the human race. It has to be more than pleasure, which is merely temporary. And more than mere perpetuation of the human race. How can something be simultaneously so satisfying when done ‘right,’ and so crushing when it’s partaken in the wrong? Or am I attempting to question God on why He created things to be the way they are, and intruding on something that is not mine to question? I’d like to believe I’m just trying to understand something I just can’t get my arms around.
As you can see, I hardly know how to ask the question. Maybe it will make sense, or maybe I’m just strange in wondering about such things. About the only conclusion I’ve ever been able to come to is that even sex, like many/most things in a person’s life, is ultimately designed to drive people to Him. If sex is the means in marriage where my wife and I show acceptance and love for each other in the most intimate way possible, in spite of our individual sins/faults… is that a small picture of where I/we need to be with God, if my greatest desire is to feel loved and cherished and at peace with Him in spite of my sin, in spite of my fallen nature, in spite of everything?… that my relationship with Him similarly needs to be intimate, direct, and so close that it’s different from every single other relationship I might ever have with anyone else.
Apologies for the length. I’ll stop here.
Hi, lttlb. Yes, I have thought about the things you've mentioned. In my alternate life, I have written on it. Don't know if I've touched on all the points you've made here. So, here is my take.
Yes, it is a mystery. Or a sacrament. ("Mystery" is the Greek usage to describe
God's activity in this world, because He is a mystery to us.) That said, Paul says in Eph 5 in talking about the Church and marriage, that marriage is an image of our relationship to God. Then he adds:
This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. (Eph. 5:32)
That said, we do know that it is the creation of children which makes it so binding an act. Not that an specific sex act needs to create children for it to be binding, but it is that potential that makes it more than mere pleasure. Have you ever thought about the two flesh becoming one? While for the man and wife it does speak to the emotional and spiritual bonds that God uses in that act to join us together as one, it is very true as well that the two become most literally and fully one through the birth of a child. That child is fully of the husband and the wife, but is its own new person–the creation of new life itself.
It is one, if not the primary function of sex to not merely to procreate, but to bring life into the world that previously did not exist. That is the basis of a marriage. It is the basis of a family. When we have sex with someone, we are committing to them, "I want to form a family with you." That is a life-long bond, or at least it should be. It is when we have sex without the commitment to form the family the sex act is designed by God to form, that it becomes sinful.
Paul also said in 1 Cor that the person who has sex with a harlot becomes one with her. That is, he literally marry's her. He even uses the Gen verse about the two becoming one to support the idea that having sex with a harlot makes you one flesh with her. But that's why adultery is so wrong, and why God designed it to be that intimate and powerful of an act. In essence, the idea of premarital sex is a logical fallacy. Because all sex is marital, so once you marry someone through copulation, you sin if you do not bring that commitment to fruition by forming a new family with that person.
Of course, everyone has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. And our God is a merciful God, who stands ready to forgive us our sins. I know most of us here have committed the above sin, but we hopefully learn from our sins, accept His forgiveness, and we "go and sin no more."
That is the gist of my thinking on it currently. I hope that helps.
Thank you @MaxLoving.
MaxLoving, I agree with the connection you recognized between lust and coveting. However, I think your definition of lust as "strong desires that lead to sinful activities" could be better phrased. The way Jesus talked about lust as adultery of the heart indicates that lust can occur without actual involvement in sinful activities. Therefore, I think a more accurate definition of lust might be "willingness to act (or action itself) toward the fulfillment of covetous or otherwise sinful desires."
I also agree with your characterization of Christian erotica. It can be a beautiful and beneficial thing, but we all still have to be careful to guard our hearts and minds against harmful attitudes, like coveting the sex lives or acts described by others, or allowing ourselves to be discontent because of them.
This is a side discussion to the main point of your article, but I do have some disagreement with the cause of perversion of sex you talked about. I do agree that our status in the eyes of God is far more important than our status in the eyes of men or governments. However, I don't think there's anything wrong with having a more "official" marriage, and I certainly don't think it's the primary cause of the perversion of sex. If anything, having it more closely guarded by "official" marriages should make it seem more valuable and like a sacrament as you mentioned, not less valuable or dirty. I think it's perfectly possible to have "a certificate constituting a 'real' marriage" as you said and still see sex as a holy, beautiful and necessary thing. I'm not necessarily defending a highly-legalized system of marriage, I'm just saying I think you're improperly attributing the problem of a low view of sex to that system. Instead, I would suggest a low view of sex comes from an individual's flawed and incomplete view of marriage and God's design for it.
I also have an issue with the idea that "one has sex in order to get married." I see your point about the old Jewish weddings, but I think you may be reading too much into that. I've mentioned elsewhere on MH that I believe there is a distinct point (the commitment to each other through the exchange of vows) where a man and woman go from unmarried to married, and it is completely independent of sex. However, sex is still an extremely important part of that new marriage. Sex puts the newly-formed marriage contract into action by bringing the new spouses together as one flesh in the "consummation" of the marriage. "Consummate" means "to bring to a state of perfection; to fulfill; to complete." Sex is the perfecting, fulfillment or completion of an already-existing marriage, but is not in itself the marriage, and does not define the marriage.
I'm not so certain about your point in your last comment that sex is binding primarily because of the potential of creating children. You quoted Ephesians 5:32 about how marriage is a symbol of the relationship between Christ and the church. That relationship doesn't bear children, and yet that is what marriage (and sex, the pinnacle expression of unity) is modeled on. I would argue that the primary purpose of sex (and the rest of marriage) is joyful unity between husband and wife for the glory of God. The creation of children is not an unimportant part of that, but I believe it's secondary.
Also in regards to your recent comment, in your discussion of the harlot, I would disagree that anyone having sex with her would be "marrying" her, though it's undeniable they are becoming one flesh. This goes back to my earlier thoughts on how marriage and sex are not one and the same thing. Closely related, but not the same thing. They're just like two strands intertwined to make one rope. I believe promiscuous sex is sinful because of the unraveling of those strands. (This applies to anyone single or married: promiscuous sex is sinful because it is separated from marriage, which is the only proper place for it.)
We may merely be disagreeing on definitions and technicalities, but I'd like to thank you for your post and comments. It was interesting to hear your thoughts!
I see I have never responded to you, PatientPassion. Forgive me. Part of the lack in this system that doesn't have a way to know of any responses short of checking in occasionally.
First, I understand that not everyone will look at these things in the same way. And a complete response would be longer than I have time for this morning. But I'll say this much.
My basis for why I state that marriage actually happens when sex happens is based upon Christ linking the definition of marriage with the two becoming one flesh. I don't believe flesh is merely a metaphor, but is a very real and physical part of marriage. So this isn't entirely based upon the Jewish ceremony, which in my mind only serves to show that sex has always been the act which binds the two into one. That it is speaking of sex, and how Jesus quotes Genesis to show what God's original design for marriage was to those who questioned him–to leave father and mother to form a new family unit–is supported biologically, Biblically, and socially. If legally was the basis for marriage, then it would have been that way throughout history rather than appeared in the 800s or so. Even in Jesus' time, there was no need to go to a judge to get approval, or even to have a religious ceremony, so He couldn't have had those things in mind when he defined what constituted marriage.
Because the two into one concept is the only definition of marriage given, or as I like to say, the only basis, that's why I look at the literal two into one that this act is, at least in large part, designed to be the point at which one is literally married.
Now, is it the fullness of marriage if that is all that takes place? Not at all. One needs the social, and legal connections to make it a marriage, because that all goes back to what should be the intent of joining the two into one–a real commitment on the part of both parties to form a new family unit, even if all it ever ends up being is just those two people and no real children are ever produced from it. Without that commitment, it becomes a corruption of marriage, and is what makes fornication and adultery sinful because they don't follow God's plan and design for what sex is intended to accomplish.
That is what I believe this act produces that makes it more than mere pleasure. Otherwise, there would be no marriage. If sex was simply a pleasure like any other pleasure in this life, then it would hold no more significance than going out to eat, or watching a movie, or any other countless other pleasures of life.
I agree and appreciate your improved definition of lust. The above is my view of things, and I realize it may not be everyone's view of it. But in my study of the Bible and other aspects, that is where I'm at. Others are certainly free to disagree with me. I am, after all, just one fallible guy seeing things a particular way. Thanks for the discussion.
MaxLoving, thanks for the reply! I forgot I had responded to this post.
Your explanation actually makes sense. Maybe I didn't express it well, but I agree that the legal aspect is entirely unnecessary for marriage to be real and legitimate, and your good points have solidified that in my mind.
You make an interesting point about how Jesus mentioned the idea of two becoming one flesh when talking about what marriage is. It's a fairly convincing point, actually. However, it still doesn't make sense to me that people who have issues on their wedding night (vaginismus, anxiety, other things that prevent intercourse) aren't "truly married" because one body part can't go in another body part. I've seen stories recently of couples who are unable to consummate in the "one flesh" PIV way until weeks, months or even years after their wedding because of serious medical issues that get in the way.
I'm not sure what the answer is to questions like that. Maybe becoming one flesh in Jesus' view was broader than just intercourse, and also involved things like oral sex as a valid consummation too? I believe he had access to the Song of Solomon after all, which shows oral sex as a valid expression of sexuality. (This also brings up questions about what exactly constitutes sex, and therefore what is acceptable without the commitment of marriage, but that's beyond the focus of this post.)
I'm not even really sure it's important whether the marriage is "complete" at commitment or consummation. Whatever the case is, I think we agree that both commitment and sexual union are critically important factors for a God-designed marriage.
As an afterthought, I also find it interesting that you finished the original post with Philippians 4:8. I've been thinking on that verse in terms of sex recently. I mentioned it in another comment, and I've been doing some writing that involves that verse too! (Hopefully I can get that polished up and submitted to MH soon!)
I have been happily married to my wife Joy and we will celebrate 42 years of Christian marriage. Prior to getting married we had premarital marriage counseling. We had some weekly sessions where we discussed the book we were reading. Both of us read the book separately, then we discussed what we read. Sometimes it was on budgeting and finances, other times it was about family relationships, we both married not only each other, but our families, too. Mother-in-laws and father-in-laws. To be honest, it really is difficult to make it work 100% of the time. Personality clashes happen all the time with in-laws. This is a given. We had a sex education book to read, boy, was this tough. When you're trying to abstain from sex, looking at pictures of couples obviously engaged in sexual intercourse is tad bit embarrassing to say the least and it can arouse you, even give you subtle ideas. You end up dancing around the subject, talk about certain things and stay away from the rest. What is really the difference between a sex manual and a fiction book. Sex is being illustrated or described. I guess it depends on how the book is used and when. If the erotica fiction were used to stimulate a dull and boring marriage and put some spice back into the marriage, to keep either person, husband and wife faithful to each other, not to the sex act, what is the harm. Sex isn't being glorified, Jesus is. God has blessed the marriage bed. I'm writer and I have been toying with the idea of doing Christian Erotica, but my motives are to glorify marriage, an institution God created, starting with Adam and Eve. Now, did they have guidelines on how to do it? I sure don't know. I can't find anything in the Bible that gives a diagram on how you do it. Adam and Eve probably experimented with God's blessing. Can't we just view Christian Erotica as a method and means, not an end unto itself? Just some thoughts.
MaxLoving you are profound!