I do notice the symmetry. It is saying that each of them can use the others body as they like, without regard for the other. But that's fine, because they can do it right back.

A progressive system is not built off "I'll do what I want to you but I also will let you do it back". That conveniently ignores that there is still an entirely non-consenting party in this.

Your body belongs to you. Your partners body belongs to them. And religious institutions teaching the opposite of this is what has lead to decades of marital rape and entitlement. I call that very very far from a progressive system

▲

jimmygrapes 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Consider this: neither man nor women, when fully committed to each other as if they are one, and maybe even if they are not committed, can control the emotions and impulses inflicted upon them by the other.

It's ok to set aside misgivings about the whole thing and how the world has corrupted it all and just explore the possibility of depth and beauty and love. You don't have to chose the worst interpretation of things, even if others have.

▲

condwanaland 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Describing my interpretation of a passage that quite literally says "your body belongs to someone else" as a 'worst possible reading' would be comically hilarious if not for the rather sinister undertones.

Your interpretation of this passage is reading far more into things and doing far more justifying than mine is

▲

danhau 4 hours ago | parent [-]

From your earlier comment:

> It is saying that each of them can use the others body as they like, without regard for the other

This is your own interpretation and it shows your bias. The bible (and I assume other religious texts) is easy to misinterpret due to bias. It's not written like a technical documentation where the tiniest details are specified; thus giving plenty opportunities to subject a text to arbitrary meaning.

This was a problem even in biblical times. 2 Peter 3:16

> as also in all of his letters, speaking in them of these things. In those, there are some things that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unsettled twist, as they also do to the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

The solution is study. Not superficially reading and guesstimating, but to study the text itself, the surrounding verses, the context. Who wrote it? Who's the audience? What, more broadly, are they trying to say? Crosschecking with other verses in bible. Things like that (See Proverbs 2:1-5, Psalm 1:2, Joshua 1:8, Psalm 119:97, 1. Timothy 4:15)

Coming back to the text in question (1. Corinthians 7:4). The surrounding verses provide context on what this is about:

> To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. > Let the husband give to his wife her due, and let the wife also do likewise to her husband. > Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent for an appointed time [...].

Put simply: "marry and enjoy sex." That's basically what the apostle Paul is trying to say here. But of course, that alone doesn't debunk your interpretation.

Paul also wrote Ephesians 5:28-33

> In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. A man who loves his wife loves himself, for no man ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cherishes it [...] Each one of you must love his wife as he does himself; on the other hand, the wife should have deep respect for her husband.

Also vers 25:

> Husbands, continue loving your wives, just as the Christ also loved the congregation and gave himself up for it.

There are further verses, but this comment is getting too long.

▲

condwanaland 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Also, from your comment

> "marry and enjoy sex" is what Paul is trying to say

This is your interpretation and shows your own bias. I read it as "you must have consent from your partner to withhold your body from them". Which is revolting and coercive.

	▲	jacksonastone 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I think their point is if you are a reader of Paul's work and the surrounding text you can deduce pretty soundly he isn't saying take turns in mutual abuse, but something else. Big picture, Christianity has a central, and odd tension, of sacredness of individual, but also perfect unity in community. The Trinity as the prime example. But marriage also as two flesh becoming one. Much of Christian writing is how to resolve that seeming contradiction (individuality with perfect unity and love)

▲

condwanaland 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Funny how my view that 'your body belongs to yourself and no one else' doesn't require study and cross-referencing and other passages to understand.