The 6 Raunchiest, Most Depraved Sex Acts (From the Bible)
What happens when you take a really skanky sex story and dress it up in a lot of flowery words? You get the Bible. Or large chunks of it, anyway.
Sure, rather than using phrases such as "reverse frog squat," or "slinging manjam," Biblical sex is referenced almost exclusively as "coming in unto" (a phrase still used by porn stars who tend to drop the "in unto"). But once you get past the unimaginative verbs, the Bible has some nasty, nasty stories. Such as:

Sunday school lessons tend to focus on God turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt like she's starring in one of Sarah Connor's nightmares from T2. It's the sort of imagery that might distract you from something like flagrant incest. But sure enough, at Genesis 19:30-36:

Something tells us Lot's daughters would lose any drinking game centered around "Never Have I Ever." If you've done it in a cave--and you've done it with your dad--you've probably also done it tangled in Fruit By The Foot or by accident with a vegetable.
"Say, I've got a neat idea."
They were so eager to secure some seamen that they nearly polluted the genetic pool for all who came after them. Or maybe they just thought that a world populated by exponentially degenerative DNA sounded funny. To their credit, maybe that's why we have viral videos today.
To Make it Even Weirder...

Speaking of people who might want to steer clear of drinking games, the Bible seems to blame the whole thing on booze, a strategy you'll recognize from work the morning after karaoke night. The alcohol in this case is wine, which raises the question: how much wine do you have to drink before you became oblivious to the fact that you were having sex with your daughter ... a second time?

In Genesis 29: 21-28, Jacob had taken a job where he was to be paid entirely in woman. His boss, Laban, promised his daughter Rachel in exchange for seven years of work. After the seven years, Laban pulled a fast one and swapped in his ugly daughter, Leah, instead:

Unless Leah and Rachel were sisters of the identical "Mary-Kate and Ashley" variety, there is very little reason why Jacob wouldn't realize fairly early in the process that he had the wrong sister. Who knows, maybe they were serving some of Lot's date-rape wine at the party.

The Torah offers further exposition in Megillah 13b: Jacob and Rachel had actually expected Laban to perform the wife-swap and devised a secret signal to reveal that it was really her under the veil (apparently lifting the veil was too obvious a solution).
However, in a last-minute display of womanly wile (what Toran scholars agree is "bitchiness" in modern English), Rachel taught Leah the signal, and she used it to double-double cross Jacob, fucking him in every possible meaning of the word.
After waking up to the presumably hideous Leah, Jacob offered to work another seven years just to get Rachel. This teaches Christians today that the Rachel of Genesis was hotter than the Rachel of Friends. Leah, however, was named after "hidden beauty," or "butterface."
Leah (left) with sister Rachel.
To Make it Even Weirder...
If you read the passage again you'll notice that right in the middle of it is mention of a third woman: Zilpah, Leah's "hand maid." She's right between the verse commencing the night of boning and the verse concluding it. What was she doing there? Watching? Is it our fault that we're picturing that whole scene as just a writhing Chex mix of sex organs?
"And some sheep, too, why not?"
Painting by Amy L. Rawson.
If you've ever heard masturbation referred to as "onanism", well, you've got one guy to thank. Onan was apparently one of the pioneers in the art of ejaculating somewhere other than into a sex partner, as we see in Judah 38:8-10:

Onan's the one in the background, walking away to go masturbate behind those rocks.
Now there's something a woman never forgets. You're getting busy with your husband's brother, he splooges on the ground, and promptly gets slain by the LORD. Talk about awkward.
This particular verse was taken slightly out-of-context when it gave birth to "onanism," which refers to both coitus interruptus and masturbation. It's probably just as well that he died, and didn't have to walk around the rest of his life listening to people refer to jerking off as "Doing an Onan."
To Make it Even Weirder...
This story became the basis for Christian arguments against masturbation. The story does not address the counter-argument: what if God has no righteous purpose for your semen that particular day, and you're just bored?
God: Hard on Masturbation.
But more importantly, what about women? They don't have seeds to spill at their whimsy. Yet female masturbation never come up in the thousand or so pages in which he rambles about everything from having almonds in your diet to how he owns an awesome robe. Surely a fair God who loves all his children equally wouldn't allow women to masturbate and not men!
Or we could just point out that if God killed everyone who masturbated, Japan would have ceased to exist sometime in 2005.
Popular Cracked Videos
-
Sex as Understood by Adolescent Boys
Why Mario is Secretly a Douchebag
Why the Ending of 'Star Wars' is Secretly Kind of Dumb
Recommended For Your Pleasure
-
The Sex Ed Lessons You Wish They'd Taught You
1,996,876 views -
What People in Famous Photos Were Actually Thinking
83,253 views -
-
Classic: The 9 Most Badass Bible Verses
4,809,951 views -
The 5 Most Depraved Sex Scenes Implied by 'Harry Potter'
3,038,409 views
588 Comments
Trending Now Friends' Recent Activity
Flashback
Cracked Shows
Most Popular
Elsewhere ...



oh wait.. scratch that.. "i will go up that palm tree and grasp the boughs" hand*** is totally fine it seems.
ReplyI now know why Song of Solomon isn't recited in Sunday School.
ReplyOr in any church I'm aware of.
I now know why Song of Solomon isn't recited in Sunday School.
ReplyOr in any church I'm aware of.
I am a bit freaked out by the fistfucking followed by a bowel movement...
ReplyActually I'm pretty sure Lot gets in big trouble with God..and he disowns his daughters or something of that nature.
Replywhat about seed spilled on a girlfriends chest? will God smite me or high-five me?
ReplyHaha this is great. I always perceived the story of Lot as one in which the daughers date-raped their dad, since he "didn't know' they were humping his presumably rock-hard member to "preserve his seed" (which, technically, weren't they already doing by existing? Is incest really preferable to your Dad's bloodline dying out? Oh, wait, it's the Bible- incest is cool).
Replythe "sons of god" in the bible are not giants and are not people. Only Adam and the angels are called sons of god. Everyone else is called sons and daughters of man. And if you read the apocryphal book of Enoch, you'll see that this is actually in fact a reference to how a bunch of angels fucked a bunch of human women and produced giant monsters which were always hungry. There wasn't enough food to go around, so the Angels started trying to fix the sitch and ended up making it worse by teaching people how to make weapons and fight wars with each other. For the food. For the giant monster angel babies. And that's when some other angels snitched to god about what these dudes did. So then god punished them by throwing them into a bottomless pit, and decided to scrap the rest of the world because it was sort of unfixable. Enoch was Noah's grandpappy.
Replyhey ! ... my number +923216318628 ... my name is muhammad salman
Replyin live multan,pakistan
coll me ! 2012
weird.
What's your address?
in the Bible the mothers of the giants do die in birth. Their bellies were split open
ReplyLike the victims in ever Alien movie? HOLY CRAP!
why boner
Just a little problem with the Leah thing reason he got her instead of Rachel:
ReplyFIRSTBORN RIGHTS
yup thats all, in those times firstborns got everything from the best inheritance to the obligation of being married before your younger siblings. (some others are illustrated when Jacob buys firstborn rights from his older brother for a meal)
So he din't get screwed it was the law, second the handmaid thing yeah that happens, however when a wife isn't able to bear children,the male will take his wifes handmaid and the child will be considered his wifes.
I masturbate anyway
ReplyThese stories are from a much different culture and time. If a woman had no heir, it was left to the nearest kin to provide the heir. Lot's daughters didn't get him drunk and rape him because they were horny and no one else was around, but because they were doing what they believed proper, producing children. Knowing their father would not willingly have sex with them, but that he was the only male relative, they got him drunk so he wouldn't realize what he was doing and still propagate.
ReplyOnan was not having sex with his brother's wife by choice. His brother had died, and by the same law, he being the next male relative, had to provide an heir for his brother. However, he did not want to raise a child that would not be considered his own, thus he pulled out. Refusing to follow law/ritual in providing an heir for his brother was the sin, not the wasted "seed."
Song of Solomon was written for his wife- God intended sex in marriage to be a beautiful and wonderful thing. This book is showing that. The "bowels" were just a reference to any insides, not actually meaning your intestines.
yup, the fact that these stories are written with "a different culture & time" in place & are morally abhorrent is just one proof that it was written by human beings & shouldn't be used as a moral guide by anyone.
if morality comes from God, then that morality is perfect and does not need to change, therefore the argument that it was "a different place and time" is bullshit.
the only time incest inccures degenerative DNA and genetic defects is when it is done through multiple generations ie a brother and sister have sex produce children there children have sex and produce children and so on.
Reply Hide All See All 3 Replieswhen it comes to a normal couple having sex they have about a 3% chance to have a child with a genetic defect most often that defect is congenital heart defect.
around 3 to 4% incestous relationships between cousins produce a child with a defect(usually congentical heart defect). then it jumps from 3 to 4% to around 7% of a chance between closer relatvies(ie brother and sister and so on)
but the actual difference between closely related (bro and sis) and non related couples is so small that many scientists have said there is no social or scientific reason incest is illegal or taboo.
in conclusion when incest occurs 93% to 97% of the times the babies are perfectly healthy with no birth defects
and rarely does that child become mentally deficient
But then again, it's incest.
Unless they're both carriers for a gene that causes some kind of defect.
Actually, while you're right about there being no scientific reason for the taboo, there is a social reason. Incest fucks up all the relationship hierarchies; if a woman marries her father, for instance, is his role as her father more important than his role of her husband? Should he interact as a father or a grandfather with any kids they have? Should her siblings be considered her siblings or her step children? Are her kids her children or her half-siblings? As you can see, it fucks familial relationships to hell and back. Most anthropologists believe that that's the main reason for the incest taboo, along with the fact that marriages are usually less profitable financially if they occur between direct family members. Sorry for any stray anthropology-speak that ay have accidentally slipped into my comment!
The great thing about the Tamar story is there's some evidence that says she wasn't just dressed as a whore, but as a temple priestess who worshiped through sex, suggesting that Judah wasn't just getting freaky with his daughter in law, but was thought he was worshiping a fertility goddess through sex. This is debated, but Jonathan Kirsch wrote a great book where he covers this story (I read it in college and it started me onn reasearch for a paper I got to present at a religion conference in Boston) and its really really interesting. If you like weird bibical s**t you dont often hear in church, get it.
ReplyThe story of Lot always kind of pissed me off, earlier in the story he offers his daughters to an angry mob to keep the mob from hurting two strangers who are visiting his house and then later on he has sex with those same daughters and through the whole thing he is referred to as a "righteous" man.
Reply Hide All See All 8 RepliesYeah seriously. Apparently looking back at the city is so horrible you get turned into salt, but offering your kids up fror gang rape is A-OK.
So letting men rape other men is better? What else could Lot do to get rid of the homosexuals that came knocking at his door? Let them rape him and his guests?All of the men of the town had surrounded his house. The righteousness of God is shown when the angels strike the men blind and thus Lot's daughters are spared. When Lot's wife looked back, she was turned to ash/salt because she stopped and the explosion from the meteorites was enough to burn anyone who got caught up in the radius.
So according to you and Bookgal1977, gay anal rape and murder is A-OK. Sure, whatever. That's in your sick country (you must be from Denmark where child and animal porn is legalized) but over here in the west, gay anal rape is even worst than ordinary rape (man raping woman in vagina) which is still a very sick crime. Lot was no warrior and he didn't know his guests were angels. To him, he had two choices, let the men brutally anal rape him and his guests (which they threatened to do against Lot as well if he didn't give them the guests) or let them have sex with his daughters.
Which would you choose? You'll turn over your fellow kinsmen and yourself to be anal raped to the point where you'd probably bleed to death? Yeah right! Me personally? I'd go out with a knife and start stabbing all those homosexuals and once they started overwhelming me, I would have killed myself because death is a better experience than your gay anal sex which is where a man loses his dignity forever. I'd rather burn in Hell than lose my honor and dignity. Thankfully the angels dealt with the homosexuals.
Personally, I couldn't give a damn about homosexuals. I've hated homosexuality even before I became a Christian. I hate heterosexual anal sex too. I see no reason as to why anyone would perform such acts. I have no problems with homosexuals so long as they mind their own business but if they surround your house demanding to rape you and your fellow kin, yeah, I'm going to get pissed just as I'd get pissed if their were heterosexuals demanding to rape the women in my house. And just for the record, the New Testament teaches that no one should be killed if they practice homosexuality but it teaches that homosexuals should repent. But rape is rape. Gay rape is still rape Bookgal1977 and I hate rapists no matter who they be (woman or man) and thus Sodom's destruction was righteous.
As for the daughters having sex with Lot, they raped him after they got him drunk. Too much strong wine can make you drunk, your wine and beer nowadays are weak and contain other s**t which is why you can have so many and not feel any effect. Back thousands of years ago and hell, even in the medieval times, wine and beer were far more potent.
As for The Book of Solomon, it was written by Solomon about one of his wives. Solomon actually fell from grace by going after women and he was punished for it. The priests that put the books of the Old Testament together somehow thought that Solomon's SONG should be included when it had nothing to do with God just like all of the sex acts listed here have nothing to do with God. Solomon wasn't righteous. Just because he was included in The Bible didn't make him the best ever thing until Jesus came about. Solomon's sin is lust, in fact, his father David suffered the same temptation but he repented and unlike his son, Solomon, he didn't give in to worshiping idols.
Give me one verse where it's said that The Bible is the word of God. It contains words from God but it's not the word of God. The word of God was Jesus and his sacrifice. Not every word from Moses is from God. Even Jesus states this when he tells the Jews about divorce.
And I think I'll trust Jesus who came from Heaven over anyone else.
I suggest you get your facts right next time atheists. Seriously, anyone can quote out of context from any book. To fully understand The Bible, you have to read it all.
As for the "giants" that refers to the fallen angels. Seriously, read The Bible in its original language for the correct translations.
Farewell.
nKLSL, just shut the hell up already. You've managed to offend women, homosexuals, people from Denmark, atheists, and christians. I'm not even going to get into the seriousness with which the bible should be taken, because I don't want to offend decent christians, but since when do you get to decide which parts of the bible to follow (that aren't "god's word", and that are), and which to ignore. Your mornonic rant contradicts itself over and over, as you claim to not be sexist and not be homophobic, yet show such hostility to women and homosexuals. Women are worth no less than men, and homosexuals are certainly not sinners, or 'sick' people that need to be 'cured'. The only people who need to be 'cured' are intolerant, disgustingly rude people like yourself. Yes, it absolutely was wrong of Lot to offer his daughters, because that's like offering meeger gold to buy them off, denoting the value of his own daughters. I'm sure if he offered up his two sons you would consider it a different story entirely. Also, if these men were homosexual then Lot would be a total idiot to offer up his DAUGHTERS. Finally, whilst anal rape may be degrading to men, it's no more degrading than vaginal rape is for women. As for the incest, if the wine were strong enough to make him unaware they were his daughters then he would have been incapable of getting an erection, hence he knew they were his daughters, yet still consented, and still became sexually aroused. My expectations for you to take any of this onboard though are very low, as you've clearly not developed properly beyond the egocentricity and inability for proper empathy that a toddler would possess. Nevertheless, I'd like for you to keep your disgusting views in your own mind (which I'm sure would be a psychologist's idea of a kind of puzzle of hidden mental traumas).
To nKLSL:
So you seemed pretty contented by interpreting the giants as "angels", fine, but to me this whole "women having sex with winged creature" is still sick as anything described by supposedly holy texts as such should not be a potential plot for sex scenes in X-men movie. And you seemed so supportive of Lot's resort of curbing the homo's sexual thirst by offering his daugthers to them. Okay I think your pea brain has narrow the whole scenario to "either this way or he and his guest angels will be penetrated by those men". But is that realistic? How about slaughter a pig/ chicken/ mouse in front of them to kill their mood? Or try to hold them down while others can escape, or trick them into drinking drugged wine.... etc. Normally people get really creative if they want to avoid something really bad. So if you ask me, offering his daughters is by no means the only way to get out of that disaster. The whole "you want sex? fine. leave my precious guests alone. f**k my daughters to your hearts content" logic just sick, depraved, idiotic and would be one of the most ridiculous thing ever happened should this show up in the news of your local newspaper.
One of the best things about you people is you always manage to find some little petty excuses to defend whatever nonsense written by those demented nomad men, so you can go waltzing away humming hallelujah while secretly wishing those who actually spent a split second to think about all these things will rot in hell.
nKLSL, you are deceived. If you say the Bible is not God's word that means anyone can pick and choose from the Bible what they like and what they don't like they can say, "Oh, that part isn't God's word." It doesn't work like that. Either all of the Bible is true or none of it's true. And you can be righteous and still sin, which Lot did a lot. It was a sin for him to offer up his daughters but the angels made it right. It was also sinful for the daughters to get their father drunk and have sex out-of-wedlock with him. Never does the Bible say these things are OK and people suffer for their sins. They can still be considered righteous, however, for the things they got right outweighed their sin.
nKLSL, you're an idiot. The story of Soddom and Gamorrah isn't about homosexuality, any more than the story of Onan is about masturbation. Always like holier-than-thou Christians to get distracted by one small detail and miss the entire point of the story. God didn't strike the people down for attempting to have sex with the angels, he struck them down for attempting to rape the angels. In those days, a guest was to be treated with absolute dignity. It was the solemn duty of a host to treat a guest with the utmost respect and protect the guest from all harm, even if it meant the host sacrificing himself or his family. That's why Lot offers his daughters, because it was his responsibility to protect his guests at all costs, especially once he invited them into his home.
The rest of the men in the city on the other hand, were nasty to the guests and attempted to humiliate them in the worst way possible as a way of demonstrating their own absolute power in the community. They weren't talking about raping the angels because they wanted gay sex, they were trying to send a message to the strangers, the same way long term convicts send messages to the new guy in prison by attempting to rape him. It was about power, not sex, and their sin was inhospitability, not homosexuality. If they were gay why would Lot offer his daughters at all?
This story is completely taken from a Greek myth in which Apollo and Zeus come to Earth to test mankind. They also are set upon by the men of a town in a similar manner. They destroy these men, and later are taken in by the poorest man in the town. This man offers them food and a warm bed by the fire while he and his family starve and sleep in the cold. This man like Lot, was intended to be an example of the best nature of human kind, the truly benevolent host who expected no reward. The gods then bestow this man and his offspring with good fortune throughout his generations. Same story, and you know it wasn't about homosexuality because the Greeks were pretty ok with that. Again, it was about treating people, especially those who have done you no wrong and seek your protection in the right manner. At the time, people were expected to even house their enemy if he sought their protection.
Additionally, the story of Lot's wife is an explanation myth. In the area, by the sea coast, there sometimes form salt pillars four or five feet high. Over time these pillars become weathered and sometimes look like human beings. The idea of Lot's wife turning to salt is meant to explain this phenomenon and is likely a co-opted version of another Greek myth in which Orpheus goes into the underworld to win back his wife. Hades allows him to leave with his wife, only if neither looks back until they reach daylight. She looks back at the last second, and is condemned to the underworld again.
You need to read more. I suggest starting with the bible. There is nothing more deplorable than a person who justifies evil acts and hatred by pointing at a book, while having absolutely no idea what is in said book outside of what some other bigot told him it said.
I don't understand why people want to believe this crazy stuff. However, I will say after reading the comments that if the believer is someone like Grandma Death, I have absolutely no problem with that.
tl;dr
Hal umum dalam sebuah kelompok lawan jenis dalam arti saling tolong menolong Yang terlalu keluarga intim.
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesWait, what?
I see your point, and raise you a shama lama ding dong.
Google Translate says it's Indonesian. The translation seems to be about incest, but I can't make much sense of it (which is typical for Google Translate).
I'm going to go out on a rather short limb and suggest that in 17th-century English translated with a great deal of guesswork from ancient Hebrew, "my bowels were moved for him" refers to orgasm, rather than defecation.
Reply Hide All See All 3 Repliesi agree. ive read translations that say "my inward parts themselves became boisterous within me." again, we're talking about a translation from ancient hebrew text. "bowels" dont necessarily mean "crap"
"Bowels", as the word was used way back when, refers to the abdomen as a whole--basically, she got all tingly and fluttery and aroused.
...and then she pooped.
Number one is actually talking about angels having sex with women, which then made the giants. So the women never had sex with Giants. Either way though, giant babies yes.
Replythe giants referred to here are references to fallen angels. the children born of these unions were known as a new race of people called the nephilim. . .
Uhm, I'm pretty sure that "Judah" isn't actually a book of the Bible. The reference that #4 is trying to give is actually GENESIS 38:8-10, not Judah 38:8-10.
Reply