Posts: 3,097
Threads: 105
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: May 2009
"Canon lawyers defined the natural and moral fashion in which intercourse could take place as the missionary position since, as Albertus Magus (1200-80) explained, 'Nature teaches that the proper manner is that the woman be on her back with the man lying on her stomach.' Deviation from this was sanctioned only when physical obesity necessitated or there was danger of smothering the foetus in the advanced states of pregnancy. To act contrary to nature was to use a bodily member or vessel not granted by nature for such use - that is, oral and anal sex - while coitus with the woman on top was also prohibited because the position was believed to impede conception."
http://books.google.com/books?id=SYjTlnRRsoAC&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=Albertus+Magnus+missionary+position&source=bl&ots=KKJguURA8r&sig=gbQjIShZxBFTvjwLUkB8_jtdGZo&hl=en&ei=MlbjTMLMIcOAlAeoydTiDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Albertus%20Magnus%20missionary%20position&f=false
I was just wondering how many trads agreed or disagreed with the medieval scholastics.
![[-]](https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/images/fisheaters/collapse.png)
•
Posts: 14,428
Threads: 191
Likes Received: 1 in 1 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Oct 2007
I'm responding to this only so that I remember to look at all the responses. I'm interested because I've heard both sides of this debate.
•
Posts: 4,495
Threads: 81
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Oct 2010
•
Posts: 3,097
Threads: 105
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: May 2009
(11-17-2010, 12:34 AM)Walty Wrote: I'm responding to this only so that I remember to look at all the responses. I'm interested because I've heard both sides of this debate.
Do you know of any old threads that discussed the topic? I'd be interested to read them, in addition to any responses to this thread.
•
Posts: 319
Threads: 5
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Nov 2009
It is a grave sin to have sex with your spouse on any day but Monday, Tuesday or Thursday, in any lighting status but lights off, in any covers status besides under the covers, in any position other than missionary. :readrules:
•
Posts: 3,097
Threads: 105
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: May 2009
(11-17-2010, 12:36 AM)ardens Wrote: It is a grave sin to have sex with your spouse on any day but Monday, Tuesday or Thursday, in any lighting status but lights off, in any covers status besides under the covers, in any position other than missionary. :readrules:
I think medieval canon law actually forbade sex during penitential times like Lent. I think one also used to be required to abstain from sex before receiving holy Communion. Don't quote me on either of these though.
•
Posts: 7
Threads: 1
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2007
I agree that it is ideal.
•
Posts: 7,589
Threads: 238
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Apr 2008
I am gonna be a complete modernist here and say that any position works so long as the semen go in the right spot in the end.
•
Posts: 3,097
Threads: 105
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: May 2009
(11-17-2010, 12:52 AM)Baskerville Wrote: I am gonna be a complete modernist here and say that any position works so long as the semen go in the right spot in the end.
I'm just wondering what theological writers and schools you base your view on.
•
Posts: 319
Threads: 5
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Nov 2009
(11-17-2010, 12:56 AM)Resurrexi Wrote: (11-17-2010, 12:52 AM)Baskerville Wrote: I am gonna be a complete modernist here and say that any position works so long as the semen go in the right spot in the end.
I'm just wondering what theological writers and schools you base your view on.
I think his point was that Modernists don't base their views on theological writers or schools
•
