TOM THE DANCING BUG: Your Handy "Sex-Act Morality Flow Chart"

By Ruben Bolling


Published 8:50 am Thu, Jan 19, 2012

, , , , , , ,

28 Responses to “TOM THE DANCING BUG: Your Handy "Sex-Act Morality Flow Chart"”

  1. Sagodjur says:

    Rick Santorum is going to sue you for stealing his intellectual property.

  2. bex says:

    Sexuality – Young and warm and wild and free

    Sexuality – Your laws do not apply to me

    Sexuality – Don’t threaten me with misery

    Sexuality – I demand equality

  3. TimHaynes says:

    “Are you doing it solely for procreative purposes?”
    should be
    “Are you doing it to support the spousal love communion, with an openness to any life that may result?”

    I hate it when there is a misrepresentation of the orthodox Christian understanding of the nature of marital union.

    • The Chemist says:

      Yes. There is precisely one kind of orthodox Christian.

    • davidasposted says:
    • Mike Norman says:

      I do, too. It’s utterly pointless to rail against a straw version of repulsive and intrusive orthodox Christian sexual morality, when we could be much better served by railing against the actual repulsive and intrusive orthodox Christian sexual morality.

      Thanks for bringing this up to help us further the discussion.

      • petertrepan says:

        He’s not referring to all Christianity. He’s just referring to the kind of Christianity that dominates 100% of religion-related political discourse with bigotry and authoritarianism while “mainstream” Christians remain utterly, utterly silent.

        • MrsBug says:

          That’s because a lot of us “mainstream” Christians don’t care what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Or someone else’s for that matter. And our voice is drowned out by the wack-a-doodles.

          At least I don’t.

    • rev says:

      I hate it when the No True Scotsman fallacy gets wheeled out.

    • You’ll notice he doesn’t use the word “Christian.” And “an openness to any life that may result” is an attitude that is used to disparage beautiful acts of sodomy and blowjobs and onanism and anything else that wastes seed.

  4. jtropp1 says:

    Based on:

    • jtegnell says:

      Woah! Good thing SOPA/PIPA haven’t been passed yet, or BB would be taken down in a heartbeat thanks to Ruben!

  5. Kungfujohnny says:

    If it happens in marriage and both parties agree, there is nothing wrong with it!

    The whole thing about spilling seed is in reference to Jewish law at the time about what happens to widows. In the Old Testament, children, specifically sons were the retirement plan. According to Jewish law, if a woman became a widow before she had a son the next unmarried brother of her husband was to marry her. Once the widow had a son she was could either stay married or move on. The story you’re talking about was about a man who married his dead brothers widow and refused to get her pregnant so he could keep banging her. That is what the Lord saw as reprehensible. It wasn’t about not getting her pregnant, it was that the man was taking advantage of the woman.

    • bingowings85 says:

      Aah so that’s what spilling seed refers to. I was going to rant on about retirement.

    • SamSam says:

      The story you’re talking about was about a man who married his dead brothers widow and refused to get her pregnant so he could keep banging her.

      Uh, Bible citation please.

      • Antinous / Moderator says:

        Dorothy Parker (apocryphally) named her parrot Onan because he spilled his seed upon the ground.

      • rhodian says:

        bible citation: genesis 38, 8-10. “so he could keep banging her” is an inference, but not an entirely unreasonable one.  it seems pretty clear that the problem was that he was refusing to get her pregnant since it wouldn’t be his heir.

        • SamSam says:

          “It seems pretty clear that the problem was that he was refusing to get her pregnant since it wouldn’t be his heir” is the standard interpretation of why he spilled his seed on the ground. It seems entirely unnecessary to add a second, completely orthogonal explanation, “so he could keep banging her.”

          That’s the one I was asking for a citation for. I’ve never heard any religious text mention it….

          • rhodian says:

            and yet, is it necessary for the author(s) of genesis to spell everything out for us?  that it wouldn’t be his heir isn’t an entirely satisfying or complete explanation.  so, the child wouldn’t be his heir – what does he lose?  nothing, except that once the widow has been provided for, he no longer has a  *ahem* duty to keep servicing her.  while i agree that it’s important not to attempt to read ancient texts with modern eyes – cultural differences make such inferences extremely suspect – on another level i think it’s reasonable to argue that in some fundamental ways we aren’t really all that different in our common humanity.  it seems to me more reasonable to argue that the author’s culture would have predisposed them to not mention/euphemise onan’s motivation rather than that onan managed to fail in his obligations while simultaneously NOT wanting to keep sleeping with his brother’s widow.

  6. Antinous / Moderator says:

    I will close my eyes and think of babies.

    Wait.  I thought that we weren’t supposed to think of babies when we’re fucking.

  7. Mark A says:

    He sure isn’t wearing that sweater vest to impress the ladies. It is a sign of repressed fashion sense.

  8. Egypt Urnash says:

    I just got back from a furry con yesterday. I went RIGHT to the red box.

    (I was gonna say “I went straight to the red box” but given that I’m a transwoman who swings pretty much all the ways I didn’t feel that was appropriate.)