Young man with a confused expression seems to say "What's Up with That?" ~ MarriageHeat

What Does the Bible say about Girl-on-Girl Sex?

On the post “Does ‘Body Count’ Matter?” MH commented the following, in part:

“And, yes, that guidance is given in reference to the woman—but only a man could take a woman’s virginity, so to do so was to sin against (do wrong to) that woman’s father and future husband and shame her, and there were penalties for it.”

This  raises an interesting question:

If only a man can take a woman’s virginity, then Biblically speaking it would seem impossible for two women to have “sex” as defined by the Law… what are the implications of that for f/f conduct?

Not advocating; just putting the question out there.

Click on a heart to thank the author of this story!

Average rating / 5. Vote count:

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

We are sorry that this post was not one of your favorites!

Help us understand why.

70 replies
  1. ParkerJen says:

    Maybe time for me to break out a new post to share philosophy on this one!

    Personally, we believe that all-female fun is not sex defined by the law, as you say, and that it’s a gift to women who have fun without posing it as a marriage or usurping the biblical role of a man, which we do believe the Bible forbids. My husband and I believe that lesbian marriage is not permitted, but that play is.

    (This opinion is, again, ours alone and NOT the MH position).

    • Husband1028 says:

      It is not permissible if you are looking at scripture as your ultimate authority. If you are creating this mixed worldly/spiritual religion and claiming that is under Christ that is fine but that's not Christianity; that is something completely different and I would say blasphemous. Why would it be permissible for a woman to live in filth and debauchery but not the man? Our God is a god of Consistency and does not change to our whims. Scripture is either the authority in your life or it is not, no in-between.

  2. SecondMarge says:

    The topic that will not die. Virginity is an outmoded, no-longer-relevant condition, in my view. No, of course, you can not lose your virginity to another female. It’s not sex if no PIV. Again, I see no sin in what two females might do. Maybe like driving, we need a learner's permit for sex.

    • musicmaker86 says:

      While the explicit definition of "virginity" might be difficult to pin down, I firmly believe that we as Christians must use a higher form of discernment rather than relying on a purely legalistic interpretation of sex in order to skirt God's laws.

      First and foremost we need to recognize that God's laws aren't just arbitrary rules set out to test our obedience to him; they're given to us as a form of guidance to keep us from making decisions that will harm us. The term "sin" is too often incorrectly correlated with a deed that is morally wrong, but it means more than that. It means "to miss the mark" – which means that when we sin, we have missed the mark and settled for less than God's best for us. God knows what is best, better than we do. And when we violate his commandments, we arrogantly reject what he knows to be best and settle for less.

      So yes, perhaps, in a very rigid and clinical sense, losing one's "virginity" constitutes nothing less than PIV sex between a male and a female. But does this mean that all other sexual acts between all other people should be considered permissible by God, simply because they do not adhere to this particular definition of sex? Absolutely not!

      Sex is much more than the reductive physical act of a penis being inserted into a vagina. It is an act of physical, emotional and spiritual connection between two people. It's being intimately vulnerable with somebody on a deeper level than you are with anybody else. When you engage in sexual acts with somebody, even acts that technically don't meet the "losing your virginity" definition (such as oral sex, anal sex, manual stimulation) you are absolutely engaging in the kind of intimate coupling that God has commanded us to reserve for a monogamous marriage between one man and one woman.

      When you violate this command, you violate yourself by revealing a part of your most vulnerable self to someone that you may never be vulnerable with again; in essence, you have given up a part of yourself to someone that you'll never get back. When you violate this command, you violate your future spouse by frivolously giving away the gift of your personal, vulnerable intimacy to someone to whom it does not belong.

      In summary, just because a sexual act does not fall under the technical definition of "losing one's virginity" does not mean it is permissible in God's eyes. To govern yourself with such a technical, legalistic interpretation of life is to entirely miss the point of who God is and what His love is all about. It would be like believing you have received salvation just for saying a prayer once, but having no intention of actually giving your life to Jesus.

      The condition of your heart is what matters, not the rigid definition of your actions alone.

    • TruthSeeker says:

      Right on, musicmaker. God's commandments are about so much more than just rules. They're his guidance for our good, and when we treat them as a cold, impersonal list of rules with no implications beyond commanding or prohibiting certain physical actions, we miss the point entirely and fail to see God's heart in his Word.

  3. elventurist says:

    @naturalman – That is an intriguing topic and one I've actually researched a bit out of curiosity. When I ran out of proof texts in the Bible either condemning or allowing it, I looked at historical context in light of the original Hebrew/Greek. There seems to be as many arguments for allowing it as there are against it with each one claiming moral authority found in scripture. Then I turned to what Judaism taught and how they traditionally handled it, and that's when it got a little interesting. Now, mind you, even within Judaism there are many spectrums of belief across different sects, but the general consensus I found was that it was NOT looked upon in the same way as male homosexuality. When you compare the rabbinical teachings on female homosexuality to the Mosaic law and examine the difference between what was considered a sacrificial law (a mortal sin requiring a blood sacrifice for forgiveness) versus those laws which did not require a blood sacrifice (i.e. the laws on cleanliness, clothing, etc.), it's…interesting. When you further consider all of that in light of God's strong distinction of roles between male and female and the stark differences in personality, mindset, and emotional composition, it's…just…interesting.

    I hope I haven't stepped outside the lines of MH in stating any of that. I believe God's law for MARRIAGE is one man with a woman (or multiple women, perhaps…but polygyny is another debate). But, beyond that, sometimes I've found it's just…interesting.

    • naturalman says:

      Indeed. And it would seem to dovetail with that "other" debate you mention. Not attempting to start it but it's not as simplistic as some try to make it, from what I've seen. Now, one could argue F/F contact could only take place within the bounds of a marriage, but again.. interesting…

  4. Waiting Hardly says:

    We are not free to decide something is a sin if it is not condemned in the Law. This was the dangerous practice that Jesus condemned among the religious leaders of His day. As much as we would like to call something sinful, the Word says in 1 John 3:4 (KJV)
    “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” So since the Bible never addresses oral stimulation between women or unmarried couples, we are not free to classify it as a sin. Is it marriage? No. But the Bible defines that. So things like masturbation, even mutual oral stimulation, are not sins and it is not legalistic to say so since the Bible defines sins.

    • CrazyHappyLoved says:

      So to paraphrase, "if you are missing the mark, you are also breaking the law, because an ethical failure is illegal." Thank God for my Savior, who came to take away my sin (verse 5) and nailed my debt to the cross! The whole book of 1 John is about recognizing that we all sin and need Jesus to clean us up.

      The root of the Law is Love. I miss that mark to some degree daily, but He leads me to keep practicing my aim! 1 John 2:10: "The one who loves his brother and sister remains in the Light, and there is nothing in him to cause stumbling."

      I also like that part in Chapter 3, verse 2 that says, "We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is. And everyone who has this hope set on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure." Pure, unadulterated, unmixed – as in "the marriage bed is pure." For me, it means letting go of what might be "permissible" and focusing on what would help another grow toward Him and seek His best for them.

    • TruthSeeker says:

      In response to Waiting Hardly and those with similarly permissive views, I would present this case.

      There is a way we are NOT to go beyond the Bible, and there is a way we ARE to go beyond the Bible. I fully recognize that sounds dangerous, but stick with me here, and I hope you'll at least agree with the principle, if not the conclusions I draw from it.

      First, of course, we are NOT to go beyond the Bible and create entirely new rules that are not in accordance with God's will and design. For example, we are not to preach that Christians are not allowed to visit the beach, and supposedly claim some biblical basis for it.

      However, I would posit we actually have a DUTY to go beyond what the Bible says explicitly and apply the principles the Bible clearly gives us. If the Bible included an exhaustive list of sins to avoid, there would be no need to have our "powers of discernment trained by constant practice, to distinguish good and evil" (Hebrews 5:14, ESV). We could simply reference the list and be done with it. But it's not that simple, so we are called to be able to distinguish between good and evil. The Bible and the Holy Spirit give us enough guidance to do that discernment, and we must, because all the books in the world cannot contain every possible variation on human sin that we are supposed to avoid. "Thou shalt not steal $1, or $2, or $3, or $4.56, or…" You get my point.

      Yes, extrapolation of principles has very real and very grave dangers (we're not to add to God's words, Proverbs 30:5-6, Revelation 22:16). But failure to extrapolate has its dangers too (we risk "approving" evil, Romans 1:32) We must find the right balance, and walk the narrow road with God's guidance, because too far to either side is destructive (we should not turn to the left OR right, both are wrong, Deuteronomy 5:32).

      Here's an example of why we must extrapolate. Specifically in response to Waiting Hardly, this is the flaw in your logic, using your phrasing to make it more clear: "So since the Bible never addresses chopping your neighbor's arm off, we are not free to classify it as sin."

      Yes, the Bible never says "Don't chop off your neighbor's arm," but we'd obviously agree that's wrong. Why? Not because the Bible explicitly condemns it, but because it violates the broad principle that we are supposed to act in love, which means to act for the good of others. The Bible never explicitly condemns arm chopping as wrong, yet we believe it is, because we look deeper than just the EXplicit words and apply them to IMplicit situations. If we fail to do this, I dare say we lose a massive and critical part of the Christian life.

      Now let's apply that to the topic of this post, female homosexuality. There seems to be an implied fallacy that "true sex," or PIV, is the only way we can sin sexually (indicated by several commenters' apparent assertion here and on other posts that anything that's not PIV is okay). That's simply not right. Romans 1:26-27 is clear that there is same-sex sexual activity that is wrong, despite by definition not being PIV. This means that there are clearly non-PIV ways we can sin sexually. I think that has serious ramifications that cut against the licentious pre-marital sex arguments too, but that's beyond the topic of this post.

      (I'd also note, I'm not aware of anywhere that the Bible actually defines sex. I don't think there's a verse that says "sexual relations occur when a man inserts his erect penis into a woman's vagina." The Bible uses phrases like "lay with," which could absolutely include non-PIV acts. Unless there are other solid sources for this, it kind of disrupts the idea that the Bible defines sex as only PIV intercourse. I'd certainly be interesting in hearing differently, though.)

  5. CrazyHappyLoved says:

    The only place I know of where the Bible specifically addresses same-sex relationships between women is Romans 1:26-27, "For this reason [see v. 18-25; …they became futile in their reasonings, and their senseless hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools…] God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged natural relations for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise the men, too, abandoned natural relations with women and burned in their desire toward one another, males with males committing shameful acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

    This word "relations" (sometimes translated function or use) is only found in these two verses but comes from a root verb meaning to make use of or deal with, itself akin to a verb meaning to be necessary or behoove, ought. The word "likewise" (homoios – same manner) connects the behavior of the females with the behavior of the males, specifically exchanging natural use for the unnatural, spelled out for the men as desiring same-sex rather than heterosexual "relations." Some might argue that the women weren't said to exchange natural relations "with men" the way the men abandoned natural relations with women, and question what natural relations between women might be versus the unnatural. But a more simplistic reading says girl-girl and boy-boy passion (though this word has its own range of meaning) are wrong.

    That is not to say I don't believe such things happened in harems. But as long as the husband didn't object, I have a hard time seeing that as "exchanging the natural use," because they were all married—and to the same man. Obviously, multiple wives are a thing of past eras for most if not all of the world today, and that removes a gray area, doesn't it? Plus, the pattern set for us, in the beginning, was one man and one woman—and that's what MH is all about.

    • naturalman says:

      This was my general long time interpretation of "natural use" too. So I'm definitely not arguing that I believe firmly you're wrong.

      BUT… until recently I wasn't aware that "natural use" could have so many interpretations. I've seen:

      1. Anal (making "incorrect use" of the body)
      2. Prostitution (same)
      3. Bestiality (same)
      4. Refusing men entirely to be "lesbians"
      5. Refusing procreative sex (the "natural use" part being to bear children in this interpretation)

      So a passage I thought was "simple" in some ways seems less so. I'm not as able to be absolutely certain on this. Also, it's unusual to me that most any principle I can think of is generally backed up in multiple locations – and multiple locations DO seem to speak against men with men. But there's no Law based source regarding women. So was Paul presenting something new here that wasn't in the Law or is there something completely missed here.

      Again, I'm not advocating f/f conduct outside of marriage. And I'm not sure anyone wants to get into the "acceptable" marriage configuration debate – but it IS one of the more difficult things for me to be absolutist about as I dig into it. Especially if read through a more traditional "created for the man" dynamic.

    • SecondMarge says:

      There seems to be no clear and direct Bible passage saying a female can not touch another to create pleasure. Since there can be no sex, where could you logically draw a line? A back rub? Above the waist petting? Below? Oral?

      Then you have the issue of it taking place as part of a marriage with all three approving; does it improve the marriage or harm it?

    • TruthSeeker says:

      @CHL, keep in mind, "exchanging the natural use" has two parts: first giving up the natural use, and second engaging in the unnatural use. The first part isn't a problem, even Paul did that as he was unmarried, and he's writing this! It's the second part that's the problem, engaging in unnatural use, and that passage of Romans 1:26-27 makes pretty clear that both sexes ("likewise") were involved in unnatural and shameful relations. I don't think engaging in unnatural relations suddenly becomes okay because you haven't entirely given up natural ones.

      @naturalman, I think the interpretation is explained by context. The people being described were "consumed with passion for one another," and were "men committing shameless acts with men." Those both describe homosexuality. I'm fairly certain that's what Paul meant by "unnatural relations." Other interpretations would have to be shoehorned in, as I'm not sure there's enough evidence there to suggest Paul was talking about anything other than homosexuality.

      @SecondMarge, see my comment in response to Waiting Hardly above, especially the "arm chopping" example. There doesn't have to be a "clear and direct Bible passage" prohibiting something for it to be wrong.

  6. SecondMarge says:

    I read an interesting article on girl-girl as part of threesomes which argues that nothing in the Bible says it’s wrong if the wife approves. Nothing in Jewish law. I understand we are not supposed to link to other sites but it seems well researched by biblical scholars. I'll just quote a little:

    “Jewish law isn’t that restrictive of sex. Harems are fine. Sex with slaves is fine (cf. Exodus 21:7–11). Divorce and re-marriage is fine. Sex before marriage is fine for men and women. Daniel H. Gordis notes: “no verse in the Bible or statement in the Mishnah or Talmud contains any specific prohibition on premarital sex.

    "So the girlfriend in the threesome (in the Bible she might be called a concubine) is totally in the clear.

    "Jewish law does not seek to confine sex to marriage, or enforce monogamy after marriage. The crime of adultery is only in a man sleeping with a married woman, understood as an act of theft. (This opens, I’d think, the possibility the man could knowingly share his wife with other men.)"

    So girl-girl pleasure as a practice for single women or as part of a threesome with one of the women’s husbands seems clearly okay if the third is an unmarried female, less clear if she is married.

    I think it’s great that MH is open enough to explore this topic. As a (F) I am all for this kind of play and enjoy that fantasy.

    • MarriageHeat says:

      We think this is a subject that many have questions about, and if we don't talk about it, it will stay in the dark.

      The article you mention does quote a few Jewish authors, but none of them claims any credentials as Bible (or Talmud) scholars. Most of what is quoted here is from the thoughts of the article's author, one Jonathan Poletti, a religious education instructor for Catholic kindergarteners and "the #1 religion blogger" on Medium(dot)com. His thoughts on the matter are certainly as welcome as ours, but no more authoritative, I'd say.

    • SecondMarge says:

      Thanks for clarifying MH. I agree not talking about it will not change whether people do it or not. And there is good reason that at least the fantasy helps make some marriages more fun in the bedroom. And masturbating food for those of us no longer married.

      Of course the topic seems to creep into polygamy, threesomes and gay marriage. All of which greatly divide the Christian community.

  7. SecondMarge says:

    Every time we get into one of these discussions here it reminds me of the TV show about Nostradamus. They show some quatrain he wrote and claim it predicted the future. People read something in the Bible and read meaning into it then insist that was the intent. Im not here to change anyone's mind. Just maybe realize you are just voicing an opinion as am I.

  8. naturalman says:

    Here's another thing – I don't understand fully how the Christian community seems to view polygamy or same sex interaction.

    You can believe it's wrong – clearly wrong. You can believe it's unwise and not ideal (some Christians settle here on polygamy, because the Scriptures seem to at least accommodate polygamists.)

    But where does the "disgust" or anger come from? Why would anyone married who didn't want another spouse find someone with 2 spouses inherently "disgusting?" Why would someone find a sexuality they didn't have or didn't act on "disgusting?" I get believing it's wrong according to your faith's teachings. But there's things straight people do in the bedroom that as a straight man, do nothing for me. It doesn't mean I gag hearing about it or knowing they choose to do it.

    • SecondMarge says:

      Well put. Some seem to be offended/disgusted more by sex acts than other misdemeanors. Premarital sex is no different than eating bacon.

    • CrazyHappyLoved says:

      Not sure I agree there. The NT commands to Gentile believers were only a few of the OT rules for Israel, but avoiding sexual immorality (the topic we are working with here: what is/what isn't) was included, and abstaining from pork was not. (Acts 15:28-29)

    • CrazyHappyLoved says:

      Romans 12:9 says "Let love be genuine. Abhor (sometimes hate or detest, the Amplified Bible includes do not tolerate) what is evil; hold fast to what is good." If you are convinced that something is bad and hurts people and their relationship with God, then love for them makes the very existence of that thing disgust you. But that doesn't mean we should be rude to people that are doing things that disgust us; that can only be a negative influence. A gentle answer turns away wrath. And if we are called to be kind to those who hate us—different word there—it seems like the same would be true of those doing things we hate.

    • Preacher says:

      I totally agree with you. I have enough of my own stuff to deal with without trying to figure somebody else's out. I'll gladly have dialogue with anyone but it's not my job to play Savior. I'll leave that to Jesus!

  9. naturalman says:

    TruthSeeker:

    I would agree that just because something isn't intercourse doesn't mean it isn't sin.

    But (and I think this speaks to your other remark about PIV defining sex…)

    The Biblical definition of sexual morality as laid out in the Law, is very focused on virginity. Which in those times was clearly understood to be a man "having" his wife. That's why a man who lay with a woman had to be punished or had to marry her. It was established that a man joining with a woman sexually took her virginity and affected their status and moral context. And being "one flesh" – joining – is a penetrative act.

    Now, the OT goes into excruciating detail about sexual morality. Men aren't to marry or have sex with men. Women aren't to lay with animals. Men are given a long list of people they're not allowed to lay with or marry.

    And yes you are right that saying "thou shalt not steal" doesn't need to be explained. But the contention here, and the more difficult part, is that the OT does explain and go into great detail about sexual laws…and yet… seems to say nothing about a woman "laying" with another woman.

    While I'm far from a Jewish history or theology expert, it appears one of the earliest debates where f/f was even discussed was in a discussion of if two women who "rubbed together" were considered virgins for purposes of being eligible to marry a member of the priesthood. There was debate on it. But it seemed to be the takeaway that it was not regarded as a loss of virginity.

    It's clear from OT and NT that the Scriptures devote more space and clarity to being against m/m sex than the potential one NT reference to f/f sexuality. That's again, not me trying to promote it. It's me looking critically to see if there's something different, or that we're missing here.

  10. kdm1984 says:

    Woman here who doesn't find that seeming loophole compelling at all. I'm 100% heterosexual and not physically attracted to women. Only handsome men get me swoony and excited for "the act."

  11. Waiting Hardly says:

    Sex is what makes babies. If it doesn’t make babies, it’s not sex. As for chopping off another person’s arm, there is condemnation of violent attacks as well as the Golden Rule about doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. Chopping off arms violates that. Oral mutual stimulation, on the other hand, fits it quite nicely!

  12. hawk4295 says:

    God created Adam and it was not good for him to be alone, so he created Eve. He didn’t also create Sandra in the sun and Jessica all night long and let everyone just party. His plan is one man one woman for a lifetime. Now, we break his plans, but it was and always will be his plan. His plan is the best plan, not our plan.

    • naturalman says:

      And yet, Abel and Cain had sons and daughters with who, exactly?

      Yeah, that was later forbidden in law. But there continued to be a lot of instructions on who not to marry. For example, did you know the Bible tells a man not to marry a sister to "vex" her sister and "uncover her nakedness beside her?"

      Later on, David commits adultery. And through the Prophet Nathan, God says He could have given David more wives.

      Now, God isn't a promoter of or enabler of sin. If David had a drug habit, I don't think God would have said "and I would have given you more narcotics." But He did say wives. That's with an s, which indicates the plural form.

      Yes, there were examples of polygamy that did not go well – jealousy between Rachel and Leah (sisters, so to the passage referenced above, not a good idea), Solomon's wives (not the good Jewish ladies, the pagan women that turned his heart towards strange gods) and so on. But these examples were always about sin. The plural marriage itself was not a sin – the jealousy of one wife toward another was. The paganism and idolatry was. But the marriage itself was not ever called a sin.

      It's said historically that many men in the Bible even into the New Testament period had multiple wives. It's possible Boaz did when Ruth came to him. The Bible doesn't record every single thing that happened in that period of time – and it tells stories to illustrate points. For example, David's sin of adultery when already blessed abundantly and who could have been blessed more (wives being a blessing in this scenario.) The point was the moral lesson – polygamy was not.

      I'm not here to advocate polygamy or women lying with women. But I am here to try and take an honest, non retroactively judgmental, look at Scripture. And if you take it literally, you can't clearly define all polygamy as a declared sin, even if it seems "unwise." Some of the wisest men that ever lived did just fine with it until they sinned (again, the sin being things that were not polygamy.)

      Also, just because something is "unwise" or ill-advised for one person, does not make it sin for another necessarily. And the less advisable thing isn't inherently sinful. I know people who are not gluttons who don't eat particularly well. That's not "advisable" but it's not inherently sin. I know people who smoke. It's unwise – but are they sinning? I've taken jobs that weren't great jobs. In retrospect, probably shouldn't have taken them. I wasn't as wise as I could have been, but it wasn't wrong.

      Also, I'm not really keen on this assumption that polygamy was based on sex. If people in any era want casual, or extramarital sex, it's not exactly hard. David proved that with Bathsheeba. He abused his power to get a woman he wanted. Polygamous marriage is work. Biblically and religiously speaking, it's a commitment where you're required to provide for the needs of each wife. It's not some party or orgy.

      God's plan is clear on HOW marriage is to be conducted. But the assertion that it's an inherently bad idea, as defined in the Bible, is a more vague and dubious position to take. But again, I'd tend to agree that it isn't a good plan for MANY if not MOST – considering the statistics of divorce, sexual isolation, and single motherhood within the Church, maybe monogamy the way a lot of us plan" it hasn't worked so well either.

    • MarriageHeat says:

      It's unclear how polygamy is the topic unless it's through the assumption that g/g would happen mainly in a polygamous situation. "What does the Bible say about g/g sex?" Within the scope of the post, sex is the main point, but polygamy isn't. Let's avoid "topic creep" as much as possible, please.

  13. SecondMarge says:

    Are we limiting our [discussion of?] girl-girl fun to inside a marriage where both husband and wife agree and desire the activity, where the other woman is either single or her husband also approves of the activity? That way we avoid the problem of cheating. And should we separate kissing, breast fondling, manual stimulation, and strap-on penetration or consider them all as one, either acceptable or sinful?

    • Waiting Hardly says:

      According to 1 Corinthians 7, each spouse has authority over the other’s body and can say how it can or cannot be used sexually. So if the other spouse freely gives permission and retains veto power, there is not a break in the covenant, but rather an open and honest relationship.

    • CrazyHappyLoved says:

      I feel that is really stretching the intent of the passage to which you refer: "Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good to abstain from sexual relations. But because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife. Do not deprive each other, except by mutual consent and for a time, so you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again, so that Satan will not tempt you through your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that."

      There is no indication, to my mind, that Paul's instruction here suggests anything other than one-couple-only sex. Husband fulfill wife's needs, wife fulfill husband's needs, separate only to come together again. Quoting that one verse out of context can be very misleading.

      Granted, Paul wrote in a time and place where the law allowed a man only one wife at a time—as now, for most of us.

    • SecondMarge says:

      I think we play fast and loose when we throw out something as being immoral. We get back to beliefs, opinions, and reading into scripture what is not specifically there. In those cases, I revert to "do unto others." If wife and husband agree and it harms no one outside their marriage, I believe it is their decision.

  14. Good Lovin says:

    The Bible does not say enough specifically. Nor about masturbation, anal/oral sex, nor sex in front of others, nor prostitution.

    The point being everyone has guidelines with some scripture crossreference to make their righteous judgment. But, the law and the fulfillment of it by Christ, is done by the law of love. Love God, love self, love others. Do no harm.

  15. Sarge says:

    Wow, I go away for awhile and come back to a very interesting and debatable subject.
    Refer to Romans 1:26-32. These verses refer to unnatural affections and I hope will answer some of the questions here, or create more, who knows.
    Suffice it to say that M/M or G/G sex is not condoned by the scriptures, nor by God. The thing we must do is to hate the sin and not the sinner. Love, tolerance, understanding, and withholding judgement is our requirement.

    • SecondMarge says:

      Is it unnatural to put a penis in a mouth or anus? Is ejaculating in any place other than the vagina unnatural?

      We have films of many species of animal having same-gender intercourse. If it happens in nature, is it really unnatural?

      We have learned about differences in DNA that affect sexual attraction.

      We have had testing of reactions to stimulation that show we all respond to things we deny we enjoy.

      If we go by “unnatural” as the rule, we go back to sex is only allowed when it has the potential to procreate. While that was the belief not that long ago, I doubt many of us still accept that.

    • CrazyHappyLoved says:

      "If it happens in nature, is it really unnatural?" Just because some creatures do something, that doesn't extrapolate the "naturalness" of that act for all of creation. And to my knowledge, the only rule God ever made for the behavior of animals was that they not shed man's blood. "And surely I will require the life of any man or beast by whose hand your lifeblood is shed." (Gen 9:5)

      But He gave us choice; we don't have to do what our baser instincts, "the flesh," has the urge to do. He has always held us to a higher behavioral standard than His other creatures. I believe it's because we are made in His image and the choices we make should reflect that. In fact, what we do as His children reflects *on* Him. As I have heard it said, "you are the only Jesus some people will ever see."

    • Waiting Hardly says:

      I would say that there in Romans the unnatural Paul is referring to is the same for both – anal penetration. Women cannot have sex with each other because they lack the equipment to do is, which is why the OT only talks about condemning M/M sex where men lie with another man as they would a woman.

    • TruthSeeker says:

      @SecondMarge, I would use the example of "nature being natural" very, very cautiously. Remember, all of nature is under the curse, and it cannot be looked to as an authority on how we ought to behave. Think about the flaw in that logic. Animals practice homosexuality? Must be okay for us! Animals steal food and murder each other and commit cannibalism? Must be okay for us! I think you see the point. Though we have much in common with the animals of creation, we are distinct in an important way.

      @Waiting Hardly, I considered the possibility that Romans 1:26-27 could be referring to anal sex acts, but there are two significant problems with that.

      First, it's just as possible for a man to have anal sex with a woman as it is to do it with another man. So why would it only be condemned with a man if it was an act that could also be performed with a woman? The Bible would have specified the act, not just the context. Much like it doesn't say "Do not murder with a blade or stone," but "Do not murder" in general. If anal penetration was the problem, I believe the Bible would have condemned the act, not just the homosexual context.

      Second, the Bible is all about relationship when it talks about sex, not technique. To my knowledge, it always talks about "who" rather than "how." Don't have sex with another man's wife, with your sister, etc. But can we involve the hands? Tongue? Breasts? Heck, the feet? No instruction. So it would be an odd break in pattern to suddenly switch and talk about "how" instead of "who." The Bible does make breaks in patterns for emphasis, but given that it doesn't reference an act here with anything resembling clarity, I believe by far the most reasonable interpretation is that Romans 1:26-27 is not talking about anal-related sex acts.

    • SecondMarge says:

      I thought people stopped believing in curses 10 generations ago. I suppose, as with the quatrains of Nostradamus, people can read into scripture whatever they desire. People form opinions based on the teachings they have experienced, whether they are true or not. Put me on the side of current biblical scholars who do not find that the Bible opposes same sex play. I have no question that it does not apply to women. If it once applied to men, it was to increase procreation which no longer is a problem.
      As far as girl-girl or FFM harming husband-wife sex, it is just the opposite. But that was the long-failed argument for use of sex toys. It makes no more sense for FFM fantasies than for a dildo.
      This entire discussion replicates the ones opposing oral and anal sex 100 years ago. The same arguments were made against them, including the nonsensical this will lead to that slippery slope defeated theory. I can assure you, the use of a dildo which simulates MMF does not lead to actually acting it out. Fantasy usually leads to fantasy and better sex, not reality.
      If it doesn’t break the Golden rule, God does not oppose it.

  16. elkanah says:

    Answer; It is not a sin for two women to play together in bed.

    Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
    Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death;

    In both verses, it is referring specifically to men, and there is no comparable verse referring to women. These two verses cannot be said to apply to women also, because if we reverse the gender and imagine it said "If a woman also lie with womankind, as she lieth with a man…", we end up with an impossible to violate law; no woman has a penis, and so there can be no "as with a man" when two women are playing together. As for two men, one man can take the role of a woman, and the other is still a man with a penis, and hence he can lay with the first man as with a woman. Notably, God did specifically prohibit women from laying with animals in Lev 18:23 and 20:16.

    Romans 1:26-27 reads "26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

    I do not believe Rom 1 can be used to speak against two women playing in bed;
    ___1) When Paul says "vile affections", he surely means something God considers vile, and not what one of us might think is vile, and the only way to know what God considers vile is to consult His Word.
    ___2) Same as with #1; that which is the "natural use", and what is "against nature" are going to be based on God's law, and not what any of us might think is contrary to the "natural use" or is "against nature".

    It is notable that God did not speak against women playing together as He did with men. Some argue that He did in Rom 1:26-27, but Paul was very non-specific about what the women did or didn't do, and I think this is because they did something that was already prohibited (or failed to do a requirement), and adding a new prohibition was not his point, but rather to comment about societal degeneracy.

    As for the "likewise", and Paul saying "men with men", we know that "men with men" is a sin from Lev 18 and 20, but Lev 18 and 20 say nothing against women with women. I think the only thing we can be sure the "likewise" means is that both the women and the men departed from doing what is right before God. Furthermore, women are not physically able to do the "likewise" of what men are specifically prohibited from doing in Lev 18 and 20.

    So to say that women playing together is "vile" or "unnatural", or that "likewise" implies "women with women", I think goes beyond what is provable from the text and passes into speculation.

    However, if we were to suppose that Rom 1:26 refers to "women with women", then we have to wonder why God so precisely worded around "women with women" in Lev 18 and 20 such that it could not apply to women, and then added that prohibition some 1400 years later, in Paul's day, and by a single uncertain and mistakable implication via "likewise also the men" (which women still aren't capable of doing) rather than two direct and unmistakable instances as He did for "men with men" in Lev 18 and 20. Also, Lev 18 and 20 are phrased as a declaration of a law, and that transgressors thereof should be put to death. Paul's discussion in Rom 1:26-27 is phrased in the past tense, as a history report; not as a declaration of a new law.

    In 1Co 6:9 Paul says "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,…" Effeminate only applies to men, and there is no "mankind" involved when two women are playing. So I think here he is speaking in perfect harmony with Lev 18 and 20, and this would have been a good place to list women who play as not inheriting.. but he didn't.

    I think the final answer for Rom 1:26 comes from Paul himself in Rom 7:7 "I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.". Lev 18 and 20 contain a "thou shalt not" pattern concerning men with men. Neither Lev 18 and 20 nor Rom 1:26 contain that pattern concerning women with women.

    With all this in mind, I think we can conclude confidently that it is no sin for two women to play together in bed.

    Be blessed,
    Elkanah

    • SecondMarge says:

      If you are right, that would settle the girl-with-girl question, but does it settle threesome? FFM? Seems it would settle that as allowed too.

    • CrazyHappyLoved says:

      If a woman and man had consensual sex outside marriage, that was called fornication; if the woman was married, adultery. I don't see how that would change if the man's wife were present and agreeable. We do have Biblical examples of wives (i.e. Sarah, Leah, Rachel) giving their handmaidens (female slaves) to their husbands as concubines—wives with fewer legal rights, but it was still a step up from slavery. A third of Israel's tribes derived from concubines. There is no indication the wives were present or active in the consummation of these relationships, though. While it is hard for me to imagine that wives of the same husband didn't at times share their "wifely duties," we have no direct evidence of it in scripture.

    • elkanah says:

      Re: Threesomes; Yes, I believe that an FFM threesome would be allowed for the reasons outlined above.

      Now, with that said; even though no anal activity is involved in women playing together, and as such they tend not to transmit severe disease like promiscuous gays (men) do, there is still opportunity to transfer communicable maladies such as yeast infections. Also, I believe that sexual activity, be it M/F or F/F, forms strong emotional bonds, and two random women are better off not forming those bonds which might end up painfully broken later if/when they must part ways.

      For those reasons, I believe that female same-sex intimacy should stay within the confines of plural marriage. That is, where both women are each separately married to the same man; biblical polygamy. In that case, it is beneficial for the strength and stability of the group for the women to form strong emotional bonds with each other, just as it is beneficial to the group for the women to form strong emotional bonds with their shared husband.

      Re: Sharing "wifely duties"; I believe the aforementioned "bonding to strengthen the group" is part of why God allows women to play together. And I think that any man having two wives will quickly get the idea to take both to bed at the same time, and thus create a strong group bond. God made sex fun; so we do it and perpetuate the species. I think also that God made women able to sexually enjoy each other in a non-perverse way, and men to like "girl/girl" action, so that in plural marriage, these things will "just happen", and strengthen the group. A strand of three cords perhaps?

      Nevertheless, I think it is courting heart ache for a husband/wife duo to go out and find a girlfriend for the wife, without making her a wife of the husband first.

      Blessings.

  17. Strawberry says:

    All these comments are very interesting.

    I believe that while the Bible may not directly address girl with girl sex, except the mentioned Roman 1 passage, it does seem to me that, "theologically," the simple reading of Genesis 2:24 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." seems to establish one man one woman married sex.

    Also, If you use the argument, we can do anything not specifically condemned in the Bible, we can easily run into dangerous waters as Christians. The Apostle Paul puts it this way. 1Corinthians 10:23 “Everything is permissible”—but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible”—but not everything is constructive.

    In my opinion the Bible would not give the green light to practice girl-on-girl sex.

    I think about these things.

    1. You increase sexual practices that hurt the hot monogamy brand of one woman and one man.
    2. This practice may bring abuse to young women, like Pornography has done. Maybe steal motherhood dreams???
    3. Could become a gateway into swinging, in fact this would be a form of swinging, I believe.
    4. While this could be pleasurable and fun to practice and enjoy, would it create jealous reactions? Comparison is often the beginning of envy.

    I vote to keep Marriage Heat about Hot Monogamy between one man and one woman.

    • MarriageHeat says:

      Just to clarify, allowing this question was never about changing what MH allows in stories. We just thought it would be helpful to talk about the issue and what the Bible has to say about it.

  18. LuvBug says:

    An interesting question, and very relevant considering the times. Tradition would say absolutely not while modern convention says the exact opposite. But what does the Bible say?

    Interestingly, it does not say much about it directly. While the Mosaic Law specifically bans homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), it specifies male-male relations and not female-female. While this omission may seem to be tacit acceptance, it is unlikely given the Bible's insistence on the exclusivity of the marriage bed. It should be noted that the Bible records no lesbian relationship (excluding the potential for it in Old Testament polygamy, which is another discussion entirely).

    In the New Testament, we find that Jesus does not explicitly address homosexuality, though that is likely a result of such activities being religiously and culturally unacceptable in First Century Judaism (again, see Leviticus and recall that the Maccabean revolt against their Hellenistic overlords resulted in part from outcry against the immorality of the foreign ruling class). Paul, whose ministry took him into the wider Greek world where homosexuality was more prevalent, mentions it several times throughout his letters (Romans 1:24-32, 1 Cor. 6:9-21, and 1 Tim. 1:8-10). In most of these, the language specifies male homosexuality (although that could be a linguistic hitch, much like "mankind" refers to all humans regardless of sex), but Romans 1:26 specifically condemns female-female homosexuality. This implies that Biblical prohibitions against homosexuality apply equally to both men and women.

    So, given that the Bible condemns both male and female homosexuality, we are back to the question of how much is too much girl-on-girl? Sexual relations are never clearly defined in the Bible, so we must extrapolate. The argument that penetration is required for a sexual act to count as "sex" does not hold water, as a sexual climax can be reached for both sexes without penetration and the release of hormones during the build-up and climax serves to bond us physically, psychologically, and spiritually with the person we see and/or touch at that time. That is to say, become one flesh. Therefore I would argue that any act which could or actually does lead to orgasm for one or both partners counts as sex (if not necessarily intercourse). Thus the Bible did not have to go into detail and say things like "thou shalt not have oral sex with a prostitute," because it falls under the definition of becoming one flesh. And this is to say nothing of lust (a sin of the heart), which Christ himself equated to committing the sinful act of adultery (Matthew 5).

    Now that we live under Grace rather than the Law, we must keep in mind that sin is still sin and that the freedom we enjoy in Christ is not a license to continue in sin (see Romans 7, etc.). Just as murder and theft are still sins, so are the sexual sins. Which explains the frequent admonitions to avoid sexual immorality in the Epistles. Keep in mind that the Law was put in place to instruct us on the nature of sin and to protect us for our sinful natures.

    While I am sure not everyone agrees with me, I pray that all at least study God's Word and accept it as truth, even if it is difficult. God bless!

  19. Megantxmom says:

    Idk whether it is or isn’t. I consider myself straight. But the hottest stories on this site that give me the biggest orgasms are the ones where other wives are masturbating. I love the detail and joining them exactly as they are.

  20. Sarge says:

    CrazyHappyLoved: 1 Corinthians 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
    If you’re not the husband (man) or wife (woman) than anything outside of that union is unlawful to the Lord. It does not define anywhere what fornication is, but only adultery. So I presume, and I believe I stand on solid ground, that whatever is within the bonds of marriage is condoned by the Lord. Anything sexual that involves anyone other than a MW marriage is adultery and fornication. And since the scriptures are quite clear that only men and women are to be married, it goes without saying that MM or FF sex is a sexual sin.
    But, lest we be judged for judging others, God is the only one who can judge, and it is our responsibility to not only remain chaste and stay within the bounds of God-approved marriage but not to judge others. Love, Charity, and Hope are our God-given responsibilities.

    • Waiting Hardly says:

      One must carefully define what fornicate means. It literally means sex with a prostitute, especially a pagan temple prostitute. It never meant all sex outside of marriage.
      And I believe the 1 + 1 formula is the minimum to make a marriage, so involving others consensually would just be above the minimum. For instance, if Paul wrote “let every person have an associates degree”, it wouldn’t be a prohibition of people also having a bachelors or masters degree as well. It would just be the minimum baseline.

  21. hornyGG says:

    Interesting post and very well stated comments. Now I'm not going to quote scripture and try to get real deep into this subject. Just gonna give my own personal opinion, so take it as you will.
    First of all, I love dick! I am heterosexual and will be that way till the day I die. Now that doesn't mean that I don't find women sexually appealing because I do. I appreciate the sight of a beautiful woman, doesn't mean I wish to sleep with them. Sure I have girl on girl or threesome fantasies, but that is where it stops. They are just fantasies. I love reading about other women and their masturbation habits and fantasize about catching and watching another woman masturbate, perhaps masturbate along with her. Ben and I have shared fantasies about threesomes and they get us hot, but that doesn't mean we desire to actually pursue the fantasy in real life. They are just fantasies and will remain as such.
    Now whether or not girl on girl sex is a sin or not is something we all can debate from now till the end of time. To me, the Bible isn't real clear on that. It is clear on that sex between two men is an abomination.
    Like my former pastor once said, a person can translate a scripture into whatever fits their own personal beliefs. Personally, I don't live by what the Old Testament says, I live according to the New Testament and Jesus's words. Like I said, this is just my own personal opinion and is not meant to be judgemental on anyone else's opinion or beliefs. God bless ya'll and stay horny my friends.

    • Sarge says:

      Thank you HornyGG.
      If we take all scriptures literally we would be frozen in fear of trespassing into sin. So we need to pray, study, and listen to our hearts. My late wife and I also shared a fantasy of FF sex, and on occasion MFF sex, but like you that’s where the line was drawn. Now the scriptures do say that as you think it in your heart the sin is the same. Maybe if it’s a mental affair we’re having with a real person in our life.
      I’ll stand on my opinion that all homosexual sex is a sin, but not homosexuality thought in and of themselves. It’s the act itself that is the transgression.
      FYI. I always love your stories, they’re among my favorites.

    • CrazyHappyLoved says:

      I think you are referring to Proverbs 23:7 "For as he thinketh (other translations say 'calculates') in his heart, so is he." In context, it speaks of a rich man offering you food, speaking to you generously, but adding up the cost of everything you eat in his mind. Partaking of his "gifts" will backfire on you in the end. It doesn't refer to the man's sexual imagination, but hearing that portion of the verse by itself, one might extrapolate.

  22. Sarge says:

    CrazyHappyLoved, I’m actually referring to Matthew 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

    I still think it’s more in line with the commandment that we not lust over what our neighbors have. I don’t think it’s referring to fantasy.

    • Waiting Hardly says:

      Agreed. Lust is desire for what is not yours with intent to take it anyway. Matthew 5:28 really means that if you go out looking for someone to commit adultery with, you’ve already done it in your heart.

    • SecondMarge says:

      I see lust as desire: I like my neighbors car. I go out and buy the same model and color. I see covet as theft: I covet his car, so I break into his home and steal it. No one is harmed by the former. Desire and lust are both in the Bible in a positive way.

  23. MonsterCock23 says:

    Would I want my lovely little wife to get railed by another girl with a strap-on dildo? No… It seems very vulgar and pushing the boundaries of what sex within marriage is: a very intimate and holy thing and not something to invite other people into. If my wife wants to be fingered or eaten out by another woman while she sucks me off? how is that ok but another guy doing it is NOT OK? I don't get it, and I guarantee you it would turn into a threesome REAL QUICK with me taking them both; I know I don't have the self-control to NOT DO THAT. It's not something to play around with: girl on girl is NOT OK.

  24. Fearless Lunk says:

    I am not a fan of discussing this topic on a site like this… so I won’t be sharing my own conclusions. I understand that people can come to their own conclusions, I get that. But some people have done the work of listening, reading, investigating, praying, talking with the LGBTQ community, studying scripture, seeking spiritual clarity — some people have DONE THAT WORK… and some people haven’t… not in the slightest. And I can tell who is who in many of these comments. I honor this forum where we all get to say our opinion, but it’s kind of a circular argument. The truth is, the title of this post could have been ANY edgy topic… “What does the Bible say about singles having phone sex?” …”What does the Bible say about men sticking dildos into their own ass?” And so on. In general, people will think the Bible is “rigid on sin” for the topics that they are not a fan of or not a participant in. And the Bible will be “liberal in freedom” for the topics that one sees themself enjoying. 50 years ago, would a community like this be pro vibrators, pro masturbation, pro Anal play, pro erotica in any form? Likely no. The world was in a different place, and Christianity was in a different place. But communities evolve, and they come to understand that Biblical truth doesn’t change, but our understanding of how it applies does change. (Aren’t we all glad that we no longer justify slavery using scripture?) I think that the best starting point should not be “I know what’s right and wrong because I know Scriptures like the back of my hand.” << FYI, this is exactly what the Pharisees would say. And Jesus came along with mic drop moments: “You have heard it said….” I am more appreciative of people who begin with a posture of “Lord, here I am, and here is my broken and fragmented understanding… please teach me and guide me.”

    • SecondMarge says:

      It is interesting the wide variety of opinions that fit under the umbrella of Christianity. Covering the entire range of going into marriage untouched only having sex for procreation, no masturbating and no oral or anal. The other end of the spectrum almost anything goes with most of us moving from the former towards the later. Not only do we accept (or not) actions, but thoughts or fantasies. Do we realize just how far most have come from the former, yet not realize how much further those that follow us will go?

    • Fearless Lunk says:

      Elkanah, God teaches us through 3 primary methods (and 100 smaller derivatives of this). #1 He teaches through Scripture (especially the life of Jesus). I don’t think any Scripture should be ignored, but like the examples J&R shared below, we shouldn’t only read scripture with our “western logical” lens, but should understand what was cultural or temporary guidances, and what things are more universal cross-generational and foundational teachings (Love your neighbor, There is no condemnation, Rejoice always, Fruit of the Spirit, etc). #2 He teaches through the Church. By this I do not mean the institution, but rather the Body of Christ. Even in our brokenness, God speaks through us to encourage and admonish others, and Vice versa. The Gospel is communal, and we will never understand it’s depth just studying it in a vacuum. #3 He teaches us through His Spirit. Jesus literally calls the Holy Spirit our “Counselor.” God is at work in each of us differently. This is why to one Christian drinking alcohol is okay and to another it is sinful. The Spirit convicts and directs us in unique ways… always guiding us toward truth and intimacy with the Father. If you’ve ever sat in nature or looked at the stars and walked away with a better perspective on your life, that was the Holy Spirit at work, meeting you and guiding you as you offered up your attention to Him.

  25. J&R says:

    I find it hard to take any of Paul's writings at face value on the point of "nature." In 1 Corinthians 11 he spends quite a bit of time arguing that men should pray with uncovered heads and women with covered heads. He then supports this by saying nature shows that it is disgraceful for a man to have long hair or a woman to have a shaved head. In this instance he seems to be conflagrating nature and the culture of his day. I believe it is likely that he addressed different issues with a similar approach.

    As a cisgendered heterosexual man, these issues have rarely impacted me directly, but the exclusion that many have felt in an effort to live up to "what the Bible says about x" cannot be understated. I've seen first hand people who have struggled with their sexual identity be shamed by name from the pulpit. I can't believe that such condemnation of a person's identity brings glory to god in any way whatsoever.

  26. elkanah says:

    [Edited heavily for tone and to stay on topic.]

    This question of girl/girl "sex" isn't a minor side-topic; I believe getting this wrong has had a significant adverse effect on the human family.

    God did not speak against girl/girl "sex" in Leviticus 18 through 20. Instead, He used surgical precision to describe and condemn an act that only men are physically capable of (Lev 18:22, 20:13). As for Rom 1:26-27, it is very non-specific in meaning. Some think it's referring to girl/girl, some say anal, and others oral. It's not plain and direct, as we see in Lev 18 through 20. However, God did condemn men "playing."

    Even in our own lives, we can see that God made differences between the sexes in how we relate. Average straight women are often quite physically affectionate with each other, sitting on the sofa semi-cuddling while watching a movie, hugging on all occasions, sitting on the side of the bed to do each other's hair, and so on. It is unusual for men to share more than a handshake. I believe this is because most women are nurturers, and part of nurturing is physical closeness.

    The church has treated all "homosexuality" as equivalently evil, some even presenting the notion that it's a sin to even "be gay." No, it's not a sin to "be gay"; it's a sin for a man to lay with a man as with a woman. Same-sex attraction in men is not prohibited. You have little control over who you're attracted to. What you DO have control over is where you put your penis, and improper usage thereof is what God prohibits. Terminology matters, and the church, in my opinion, has done a really poor job of it in this case.

    What if the church had not equated girl-girl attraction to male homosexuality? Rather than ministering to these women, the church sent them into the waiting arms of the world to be taught all its evil ways. How many of these ewe lambs were lost thereby? The forgoing isn't the extent of the damage caused, but I will stop here. To me, girl/girl "sex" is not a minor side-topic.

    • SecondMarge says:

      Not sure if that just confuses me more than tells me your opinion.

      I see no reasonable argument made here that makes sense to deny girl-girl fantasies. The arguments against the act itself, while weak to me, do have some standing. I am willing to wager that the generations that follow will no longer need this debate. All same-sex play will be acceptable, just as we no longer believe as the generations before us that masturbating and oral sex are wrong. The words in the Bible will be seen as what and who they were meant for.

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply