Phil Robertson: You Can’t Get STD’s From Biblically Correct Sex
The “Duck Dynasty Star” and sexpert doesn’t believe you can get a sexually transmitted disease if you use the Bible as a sex manual.
“Biblically correct sex is safe,” Robertson said during a sermon in West Monroe, Louisiana last month. “It’s safe. You’re not going to get chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, AIDS — if you, if a man marries a woman, and neither of you have it, and you keep your sex between the two of you, you’re not going to get ever sexually transmitted diseases.”
Robertson went on to blame “orthodox liberal opinion” for the spread of “debilitating diseases” around the U.S. and the world and accused his audience of being — like himself — “sexually immoral” at some point in their lives…
Researcher Elizabeth Boskey challenged the notion that monogamous sex can be devoid of sexually-transmitted diseases in a column for About.com this past February.
“Even if you had undergone regular screening, if you were infected while having sex with a partner who had not been tested in years, there is always the possibility that they were infected asymptomatically a long time before you got together – and just didn’t know it,” Boskey wrote. “Even when you are having sex with someone who is infected with an std, you won’t necessarily get infected the first time you sleep together. Particularly if you intermittently practice safe sex, it could take months or even years.”
Copyright 2014 Liberaland
mea_mark October 8th, 2014 at 11:07
Apparently Biblically correct sex can cause extreme ignorance though. Phil Robertson is a good example.
uzza October 8th, 2014 at 11:07
Sorry Phil, but I couldn’t handle 300 concubines, let alone 700 wives (1 Kings 11:1-3)
arc99 October 8th, 2014 at 11:07
Which part of the Bible Phil? The part where Abraham gets to sleep with his wife’s servant or the part where Jacob gets to sleep with the woman he wants and her sister as long as he keeps working for his father-in-law?
Please clarify.
R.J. Carter October 8th, 2014 at 11:26
Abraham didn’t get to sleep with his wife’s servant. He and Sarah chose to get impatient. Both Rachel and Leah were virgins, which kept that a closed circle (and is my example for arguing for polygamy when that debate finally comes up, post 50-state gay-marriage approval).
arc99 October 8th, 2014 at 12:44
Well my wife may have a few objections. But if all of that is included in Biblical sex then praise god and sign me up.
R.J. Carter October 8th, 2014 at 14:33
It was Sarah’s idea in the first place, so if you’re wife is okay with it… oh wait, God wasn’t pleased with Abraham’s actions on that one.
Carla Akins October 8th, 2014 at 15:43
I realize that it’s not a popular choice, but I’m with you. If you want a life choice with multiple partners – go for it. I personally could not do it but I have no issue as long as everyone is an adult. Historically some cult(ish) groups have placed undue pressure on the young.
R.J. Carter October 8th, 2014 at 16:25
Not a popular choice agreeing with me? :-)
Carla Akins October 8th, 2014 at 17:04
That too! (laughing)
Tammy Minton Haley October 8th, 2014 at 17:40
you know your bible…
R.J. Carter October 9th, 2014 at 07:28
Eighteen years raised in a one-God apostolic tongue-talking holy-rolling believer in the liberating power of Jesus’ name church. If the church doors were open, we were there. :)
Tammy Minton Haley October 9th, 2014 at 21:22
you seem disturbingly normal… :)
southern baptist, here…putting the “fun” in fundamentalism!
R.J. Carter October 10th, 2014 at 09:07
That’s what the missus and I “converted” to as adults.
Dwendt44 October 8th, 2014 at 13:07
Don’t forget the concubines.
R.J. Carter October 8th, 2014 at 14:32
Who could? (Not Abraham’s, but Solomon’s and David’s.)
Dwendt44 October 9th, 2014 at 01:03
Among others. IIRC, Gideon (ya that one) had numerous wives and a few sex slaves too.
mea_mark October 8th, 2014 at 11:07
Apparently Biblically correct sex can cause extreme ignorance though. Phil Robertson is a good example.
uzza October 8th, 2014 at 11:07
Sorry Phil, but I couldn’t handle 300 concubines, let alone 700 wives (1 Kings 11:1-3)
arc99 October 8th, 2014 at 11:07
Which part of the Bible Phil? The part where Abraham gets to sleep with his wife’s servant or the part where Jacob gets to sleep with the woman he wants and her sister as long as he keeps working for his father-in-law?
Please clarify.
R.J. Carter October 8th, 2014 at 11:26
Abraham didn’t get to sleep with his wife’s servant. He and Sarah chose to get impatient. Both Rachel and Leah were virgins, which kept that a closed circle (and is my example for arguing for polygamy when that debate finally comes up, post 50-state gay-marriage approval).
arc99 October 8th, 2014 at 12:44
Well my wife may have a few objections. But if all of that is included in Biblical sex then praise god and sign me up.
R.J. Carter October 8th, 2014 at 14:33
It was Sarah’s idea in the first place, so if you’re wife is okay with it… oh wait, God wasn’t pleased with Abraham’s actions on that one.
Carla Akins October 8th, 2014 at 15:43
I realize that it’s not a popular choice, but I’m with you. If you want a life choice with multiple partners – go for it. I personally could not do it but I have no issue as long as everyone is an adult. Historically some cult(ish) groups have placed undue pressure on the young.
R.J. Carter October 8th, 2014 at 16:25
Not a popular choice agreeing with me? :-)
Carla Akins October 8th, 2014 at 17:04
That too! (laughing)
Tammy Minton Haley October 8th, 2014 at 17:40
you know your bible…
R.J. Carter October 9th, 2014 at 07:28
Eighteen years raised in a one-God apostolic tongue-talking holy-rolling believer in the liberating power of Jesus’ name church. If the church doors were open, we were there. :)
Tammy Minton Haley October 9th, 2014 at 21:22
you seem disturbingly normal… :)
southern baptist, here…putting the “fun” in fundamentalism!
R.J. Carter October 10th, 2014 at 09:07
That’s what the missus and I “converted” to as adults.
Dwendt44 October 8th, 2014 at 13:07
Don’t forget the concubines.
R.J. Carter October 8th, 2014 at 14:32
Who could? (Not Abraham’s, but Solomon’s and David’s.)
Dwendt44 October 9th, 2014 at 01:03
Among others. IIRC, Gideon (ya that one) had numerous wives and a few sex slaves too.
Skydog2 October 8th, 2014 at 11:13
“if a man marries a woman, and neither of you have it, and you keep your sex between the two of you, you’re not going to get ever sexually transmitted diseases”
This is true, right?
arc99 October 8th, 2014 at 11:14
Yes it is true. It is also true that there is nothing uniquely “Biblical” about that scenario. It is basic science and common sense.
Skydog2 October 8th, 2014 at 11:16
The guy is an idiot but it doesn’t mean everything he says wrong.
tiredoftea October 8th, 2014 at 12:54
Well, he might know about making duck calls, but that’s as far as I’d go.
Larry Schmitt October 8th, 2014 at 11:16
But that’s not the only kind of sex condoned in the bible, as others here have pointed out. You can’t have it both ways (pun intended).
Anomaly 100 October 8th, 2014 at 11:27
That would also be true if two gay men or women married, so he kind of left that part out. Lies of omission are a thing.
Skydog2 October 8th, 2014 at 11:56
Yep.
tiredoftea October 8th, 2014 at 12:53
From the article:
“Researcher Elizabeth Boskey challenged the notion that monogamous sex can be devoid of sexually-transmitted diseases in a column for About.com this past February.
“Even if you had undergone regular screening, if you were infected while having sex with a partner who had not been tested in years, there is always the possibility that they were infected asymptomatically a long time before you got together – and just didn’t know it,” Boskey wrote. “Even when you are having sex with someone who is infected with an std, you won’t necessarily get infected the first time you sleep together. Particularly if you intermittently practice safe sex, it could take months or even years.”
Skydog2 October 8th, 2014 at 11:13
“if a man marries a woman, and neither of you have it, and you keep your sex between the two of you, you’re not going to get ever sexually transmitted diseases”
This is true, right?
arc99 October 8th, 2014 at 11:14
Yes it is true. It is also true that there is nothing uniquely “Biblical” about that scenario. It is basic science and common sense.
Skydog2 October 8th, 2014 at 11:16
The guy is an idiot but it doesn’t mean everything he says wrong.
tiredoftea October 8th, 2014 at 12:54
Well, he might know about making duck calls, but that’s as far as I’d go.
Larry Schmitt October 8th, 2014 at 11:16
But that’s not the only kind of sex condoned in the bible, as others here have pointed out. You can’t have it both ways (pun intended).
Anomaly 100 October 8th, 2014 at 11:27
That would also be true if two gay men or women married, so he kind of left that part out. Lies of omission are a thing.
Skydog2 October 8th, 2014 at 11:56
Yep.
tiredoftea October 8th, 2014 at 12:53
From the article:
“Researcher Elizabeth Boskey challenged the notion that monogamous sex can be devoid of sexually-transmitted diseases in a column for About.com this past February.
“Even if you had undergone regular screening, if you were infected while having sex with a partner who had not been tested in years, there is always the possibility that they were infected asymptomatically a long time before you got together – and just didn’t know it,” Boskey wrote. “Even when you are having sex with someone who is infected with an std, you won’t necessarily get infected the first time you sleep together. Particularly if you intermittently practice safe sex, it could take months or even years.”
Foundryman October 8th, 2014 at 11:27
Biblically correct sex contains the use of stones and rocks too doesn’t it?
Foundryman October 8th, 2014 at 11:27
Biblically correct sex contains the use of stones and rocks too doesn’t it?
LiPao October 8th, 2014 at 11:51
Did biblical sex include reverse cowgirl?
tiredoftea October 8th, 2014 at 12:52
No, reverse shepherd.
LiPao October 8th, 2014 at 11:51
Did biblical sex include reverse cowgirl?
tiredoftea October 8th, 2014 at 12:52
No, reverse shepherd.
Maxx44 October 8th, 2014 at 11:53
Everyone knows the bible is infallible as text for history, science, and now sex education. The hits keep on coming.
tiredoftea October 8th, 2014 at 12:51
Don’t forget governing!
Maxx44 October 8th, 2014 at 11:53
Everyone knows the bible is infallible as text for history, science, and now sex education. The hits keep on coming.
tiredoftea October 8th, 2014 at 12:51
Don’t forget governing!
rg9rts October 8th, 2014 at 12:04
Heee Haaa ROTFLMAO HOO HOOO HOOOOOOT
rg9rts October 8th, 2014 at 12:04
Heee Haaa ROTFLMAO HOO HOOO HOOOOOOT
Obewon October 8th, 2014 at 12:07
Wasn’t it Lot who offered his nubile daughters to an entire crowd of strangers? Duck Ignorance!
R.J. Carter October 8th, 2014 at 12:09
Because heterosexual gang rape is preferable to homosexual gang rape, doncha know? (Although Lot wasn’t being saved on his own recognizance, but on the intercession of Abraham, so Lot himself wasn’t exactly a role model to begin with.)
Obewon October 8th, 2014 at 12:13
“Lot’s daughters plotted to make their father drunk so they could sleep with him and thereby assure that they would have children.”-Phil’s favorite bible passage proves what a complete idiot Robertson is! http://www.gotquestions.org/Lots-daughters.html#ixzz3FZR67cCR
bhil October 8th, 2014 at 14:23
So long as they were “sleeping” with him and not that other thing.
Dwendt44 October 9th, 2014 at 01:01
Not to mention that Abel and Seth has sex with either their mother, EVE or their sisters, your choice. They don’t mention that little interesting dilemma.
bhil October 9th, 2014 at 09:43
Phil must have conveniently missed that part.
tracey marie October 8th, 2014 at 13:08
and didn’t lot procreate with his beautious daughters per gods instructions
Obewon October 8th, 2014 at 12:07
Lot offered his nubile daughters to an entire crowd of strangers! Duck Ignorance!
R.J. Carter October 8th, 2014 at 12:09
Because heterosexual gang rape is preferable to homosexual gang rape, doncha know? (Although Lot wasn’t being saved on his own recognizance, but on the intercession of Abraham, so Lot himself wasn’t exactly a role model to begin with.)
Obewon October 8th, 2014 at 12:13
“Lot’s daughters plotted to make their father drunk so they could sleep with him and thereby assure that they would have children.”-Phil’s favorite bible passage proves what a complete idiot Robertson is! http://www.gotquestions.org/Lots-daughters.html#ixzz3FZR67cCR
bhil October 8th, 2014 at 14:23
So long as they were “sleeping” with him and not that other thing.
Dwendt44 October 9th, 2014 at 01:01
Not to mention that Abel and Seth has sex with either their mother, EVE or their sisters, your choice. They don’t mention that little interesting dilemma.
bhil October 9th, 2014 at 09:43
Phil must have conveniently missed that part.
tracey marie October 8th, 2014 at 13:08
and didn’t lot procreate with his beautious daughters per gods instructions
tpartynitwit October 8th, 2014 at 12:40
So if I clutch a Bible and shout verses while shtupping, I can’t get STDs?
tiredoftea October 8th, 2014 at 12:51
Between your knees, between your knees. It works better than an aspirin.
tpartynitwit October 8th, 2014 at 13:03
Sounds constricting.
Dwendt44 October 8th, 2014 at 13:04
But impossible.
tiredoftea October 8th, 2014 at 13:08
Possible with fully functioning hips and knees.
tiredoftea October 8th, 2014 at 13:08
Bend over.
tracey marie October 8th, 2014 at 13:08
I will repeat that hilarious question/comment to my friends
Larry Schmitt October 8th, 2014 at 12:40
I thought he meant the missionary position.