"Repress your sexuality (which IS harmful)don't have sex with anyone but a woman (Yeah, right.) don't have sex outside of marriage.

There is no direction in these words. We all know it, it just takes an butthead like me to say it."

This goes to the heart of the debate: do we seriously believe that Jesus was damaged by the fact that he lived a celibate life? There is certainly a strand within modern society that seems to suggest so, but I'm sure they are not right. The problem comes because it is hard in modern society to build the sorts of relationships that address the needs that are met by a sexual relationship. But I know from my own experience that it can be done, although only by making it a priority; I need to have close friends whom I'm spending quality time with. Keith Clark's 'An Experience of Celibacy' is the best discussion I know of the issue; he's a Capuchin Friar, a Catholic monk who works in the community.

Backtracking to your reference to a prostitute - I didn't make myself clear: what Paul says in the passage I referred to is that even sex with a prostitute creates 'one flesh'. My point is that if that's the case, how much more a medium term emotionally meaningful relationship. And yet that 'one flesh' status is what should only occur in marriage, and anywhere else is damaging.

But behind that appears to be the logic 'Then you have to factor in masturbation, which if I think of someone sexually, it's the same as actually having sex with them in Gods eyes.' Therefore I might as well go all the way with one person that I do care about. The mistake in this logic is to take Jesus' words literally - my understanding here is that he is exaggerating to make his point, as he often does and which seems to have been the style of the teaching of his day.

Enough for now - the problem with reading academic books as I am at the moment is that you tend to absorb their style, which isn't always helpful. So sorry if I've getting wordy and obtuse!