The Theological Stance Limiting Marital Sex to a Single Position and Stiffening Condemnation of Marriage

The fundamental principle of this religious premise establishes that the sexual act has as its sole purpose the conception of children and the preservation of the species, strictly excluding the pursuit of lust. From this perspective, there is only one practice permitted by divine mandate for spouses: the missionary position, strictly defined as the man on top, the woman below, and both facing each other.

This rule stems from a historical and doctrinal precedent linked to evangelization processes. According to this view, religious missionaries introduced the rule to eradicate the customs of native peoples such as the Aztecs, who were attributed with using positions like "doggy style," among other variations. In that sense, popular or contemporary names such as "the padlock," "the little goat at the cliff," or "the swing" are directly dismissed as nonsense that disrupts the established order of married life.

Likewise, the doctrine analyzes the power dynamics generated in intimacy through cultural trends. It criticizes the influence of expressions such as grupera music and its slogan "women on top," arguing that even if men act cunningly or complacently toward these proposals, a reversal of authority ultimately occurs where the woman comes to dominate the man. Therefore, it is emphasized that men must neither give orders nor ask their wives to perform positions contrary to the divine norm.

Within this assessment of marriage, it warns that giving in to such practices degrades the figure of the husband, placing him in a status below that of an animal or reducing him to the condition of a "kitten." The discourse describes a scheme of manipulation in which the woman conditions intimacy and demands financial contributions—referred to symbolically as "the envelope"—transforming the marital relationship into a space marked by neglected responsibilities and blackmail.

The core point of this theological stance lies in the contrast between the conduct of married women and that of individuals engaged in prostitution. The argument establishes a fundamental distinction based on the socioeconomic conditions and motivations of both groups. On the one hand, the suffering of sex workers is recognized, noting that they resort to such activity out of strict economic necessity, as income from conventional jobs is insufficient to feed their children and support their families.

It states that sex workers must face adverse situations, deal with difficult individuals, and navigate precarious environments, exemplified by the use of wire-spring beds. In contrast, the criticism of the married woman is based on the fact that, despite having the security of a home, a formal partner, and comforts such as a "king-size" bed, she chooses to engage in acts described as improprieties or "filth" to obtain money and satisfy lust.

In conclusion to the doctrinal analysis, it is pointed out that wives who pervert the marital bond by acting out of comfort rather than extreme necessity commit a much graver moral offense. Consequently, it warns that these women will be judged and condemned with three times the severity faced by sex workers, having turned marriage into a place of indulgence, personal appetite, and spiritual neglect.