Two questions

[Joleneakamama]

You argue that it's ok for a woman to go out and share her nakedness with another woman because there is no penis..

That was certainly NOT my position. I said that in nature animals draw attention to hormonal animals.
I said that ALL intimacy belongs in commited relationships.

Siblings cannot marry, siblings are prohibited from being intimate.
As already seen, men are prohibited from sex acts with men....this is covered.

Yahusha spoke on this topic of lust, that it's not just the act itself mentioned in the OT it's actually the lust in the heart after the woman regardless of the physical act that causes one to commit adultery in his heart.

You realize that lust toward an available woman is not prohibited, and not sinful?

and the sins that first happen always start in the mind.

So now we are back at the question of where is there an example (you need 2 or 3 to meet your standard) of a woman under her husband doing some kind of sinful lusting?

What sin is he going to bear if his nakedness and his other nakedness ...get naked with each other?
Her husband's wife is "his nakedness" ...which she is already very familiar with.

One thing I am sure of. Men tend to judge women as if they are men. Women are wired very differently.
For one thing women tend to be externally motivated and try to "please" their husbands in ways he may never notice that are a complete waste of her time. They are also sensitive and a husband judging their relationship. Feeling they are not trusted would likely cause far more harm then him letting them determine their own boundaries with each other.
If he "does his job" he really has nothing to worry about.

 

[Mojo]

Good questions. I don’t have an immediate answer to all but at its most basic understanding, lust falls under the category of coveting. It’s really just the NT term translated from Greek. As such, the lust of a woman that Jesus mentions only reinforces Torah teaching on coveting a neighbors wife, not necessarily some new category of sin. Likewise, some of the other technicalities of sexual pleasuring would fall under the umbrella of “seeing their nakedness”. In its most strict interpretation, it means coital acts, but I don’t think it’s an irresponsible stretch to apply it to general pleasure touching. A parent bathing a child and touching all body parts isn’t seen as obscene. A male nurse caring for a sick male patient by bathing and dressing isn’t obscene. That same level of contact with different intent would fall under the umbrella of “seeing their nakedness” in my interpretation of things.

 

[Joleneakamama]

Coveting is also son, one of the "top ten" in fact. But ....

29Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? 30Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? 31But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

Men are instructed not to covet what belongs to their neighbor. There is not a sin in coveting what God allows.

 

[Thomas]

That was certainly NOT my position.
I said that ALL intimacy belongs in commited relationships.

Of course! I didn't mean to imply this was your position, most of that was directed at the "not cheating" post. A woman going out and doing oral and other acts with another woman. It's not a covenant that she can make and as I understood it, was that it is falls into lust. He sides with the woman who cares? I disagree. Coveting what she cannot have is lust, and she cannot do that. they are not one.

You realize that lust toward an available woman is not prohibited, and not sinful?

No I never thought of those being the same thing, but started going over a few scriptures on the topic cleared that right up. Thank you for this tidbit of information.

What sin is he going to bear if his nakedness and his other nakedness ...get naked with each other?
Her husband's wife is "his nakedness" ...which she is already very familiar with.

Yeah.. never thought of that as well.. This is more of a nail in the coffin.. can't argue with this under a man in covenant it more or less has to be allowed or it's automatically a conflict of the other scriptures..

Siblings cannot marry, siblings are prohibited from being intimate.
As already seen, men are prohibited from sex acts with men....this is covered.

I argued the siblings point of view because of the logic of women with women. If that's allowed under a man, and say the man takes two sisters contrary to the wisdom of Yah. Is this considered incest relation? if not why? and if it is, does that mean the man caused or causing the wife to sin? and if it's because there is no intercourse then that comes back around and says why is it wrong for any two women to do things outside of covenant? Because there really is no command against it. Because it's not really sex. And I sort of see the logic now..

But your position is that all sexual acts are still confined to proper covenantal relationships. And all covenantal relationships that Yah forbids, also includes the sexual acts of intimacy in those relationships to be forbidden. Is my understanding of your position valid?

 

[Joleneakamama]

Is my understanding of your position valid?

It sounds like it to me.

 

[frederick]

Hopefully this is written out comprehendible enough to understand my position.

I doubt I've seen more straw men or red herrings in a single post before on BF. Quite an achievement

If a man has two or more wives and he wants to be all in bed together, that's his right and choice to do so. Argue all you like, present all the straw men and red herrings you like, there is nothing scripturally forbidding him from doing that and they can all enjoy the intimacy.

Can a man lust for women? Hell yeah, they're my wives. Can women lust for a man? Hell yeah, I'm their husband. Cheers

 

[Maddog]

Coveting IS an act of volition. It is not accidental. The legality of such depends on the context. If it is permitted by law and by transaction then coveting is a necessary ingredient to acquiring. If it is already prohibited then patriarch should not proceed to his detriment. If a woman already belongs to a man then she is off-market to others regardless of beauty or abilities. If woman(women) is(are) acquired in accordance to the rules, then enjoy. The men of Jesus' time already knew what is adultery. I think Jesus was addressing what we would call pornography today. Nudity was a fundamental part of pagan temple worship. Nudity and beauty is a common draw for men's eyes. The ancient pagan temple priest is your modern day pimp.
Can a woman "own" another woman? Yes. Sarah and Hagar come to mind. This is DEscriptive not necessarily PROscriptive as regarding societal norms. If she "owns" a woman, is she restricted as to her activities? I don't see any restrictions in scripture, intimate or not. For instance, when a woman has a baby, another woman is intimately involved as midwife.

 

[Thomas]

I doubt I've seen more straw men or red herrings in a single post before on BF. Quite an achievement

If a man has two or more wives and he wants to be all in bed together, that's his right and choice to do so. Argue all you like, present all the straw men and red herrings you like, there is nothing scripturally forbidding him from doing that and they can all enjoy the intimacy.

Can a man lust for women? Hell yeah, they're my wives. Can women lust for a man? Hell yeah, I'm their husband. Cheers

Haha My purpose wasn't really to strawman it, straw Manning is like taking the weak position correct?

And steel manning is like explaining the strongest position or argument for a position.

I do not know what red herrings are I'll have to look that up later today.

But I'm really just trying to wrap my head around all of this you know..

Jolene AKA mama has been very very helpful and so I really appreciate her input, she's the only one really giving me good arguments to chew on lol

But thank you guys for all of this information.

 

[Mojo]

Jolene has a super power advantage. She’s a real life woman living in a real life plural family. Insights most of us just don’t have.