Talk:Menstruation

Sinfulness?

I'm confused, and believe me when I say that I'm not trying to be disrespectful. I read the cited reference which claims that sex during menstruation is a sin, but all of the Biblical references are from the Old Testament. It's my understanding that those same books from the Old Testament contain many laws and prohibitions that were not supposed to apply after Jesus came and began what is referred to as "the New Covenant". Why, then, is this specific act still considered a sin but other Old Testament laws and guidelines not? What is the guideline for knowing which still apply? --DinsdaleP 13:20, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

It says "were a serious sin", so the language implies that the act was a sin in the OT, and presumably no longer is a sin. HelpJazz 13:27, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Oh, I took it to be (poor) grammar because of the plural use of "relations". I'll clarify the sentence to refer to past tense, then. --DinsdaleP 13:30, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

The cited reference appears to think it's still sinful. Ungtss 13:32, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Well that's another issue entirely then. HelpJazz 13:37, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Then I guess it was a grammatical error, and my original question above stands. --DinsdaleP 13:39, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

The passage itself is pretty clear that it's not sinful but simply caused "ritual uncleanliness" -- shoot -- the woman was ritually unclean simply for having her period, and nobody ever said that was sinful. I vote for removing the commentary at the bottom about it being a "serious sin." Any seconds? Ungtss 13:42, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

I just removed it. It was really unnecessary as the Bible quote is already right there on the page, and the reference was full of odd ideas. -DrSandstone 13:43, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

That was written before an edit conflict. To be clear, I removed the reference, and I'd be in favor of removing the last sentence as well. -DrSandstone 13:45, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Good call. Ungtss 13:44, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

I'll knock it out. Ungtss 13:46, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

To be fair, the Bible does seem to make a distinction between incidental contact with a menstruating woman (resulting in ritual uncleanliness, Leviticus 15:19-24) and sexual contact (as in Leviticus 20:18, Ezekiel 22:10). In Ezekiel, sexual contact with menstruating women is listed among God's justifications for destroying the house of Israel. Whether or not this applies to modern non-Jews is a separate issue.--Brossa 14:55, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Contemporary Sensibility of Biblical Prohibition

The examples given to justify the validity of the Biblical law are not good justifications for avoiding sex during menstruation. The Neuberger quote is based on 1910 medicine, and lumps concerns about venereal disease and leprosy in the same pronouncement regarding menstruation. The Ben-Noun quote is specifically addressing the development of chlamydial and gonococcal diseases. Neither of these presents a contemporary medical reason why sex during menstruation between a healthy married couple would be wrong, even if the Biblical prohibition says it is. This goes back to my question above - what makes this Biblical prohibition from the Old Testament is valid in all cases while others like Kosher dietary restrictions can be ignored by Christians? --DinsdaleP 20:08, 7 October 2008 (EDT)