Religious Stance Warns That Marital Relations Must Strictly Be Face-to-Face and Solely for Procreation
A strict doctrine on marital intimacy holds that the sexual act was conceived exclusively for reproductive purposes and not for the pursuit of lust. According to this approach, straying from the traditional face-to-face position transforms marriage into a space of domination and moral deviation. Furthermore, it warns that wives who resort to these practices will face a divine judgment three times more severe than that of prostitutes.
According to rigorous religious precepts, the fundamental purpose of sexual relations is strictly limited to procreation and the arrival of children. From this perspective, any use of intimacy focused on lust is unacceptable under divine commandments. Therefore, it is emphasized that couples must not engage in behaviors or trends that deviate from the sacred meaning with which the union between a man and a woman was established.
Within these guidelines, it is established that there is only one position permitted and approved by God to carry out intimate union: the man on top, the woman on the bottom, looking face-to-face. This posture, identified as the missionary position, was the teaching imparted during evangelization processes in contrast to the customs maintained by the Aztecs, who used back-facing positions and other modalities rejected by religious authorities.
Any other positional variation is categorized as nonsense that deforms human behavior. Practices known by popular names such as the padlock, the little goat on the cliff, or the use of swings are flatly rejected. It is noted that demanding or accepting these types of acts places the husband in a condition worse than that of an animal, stripping the marital relationship of all spiritual dignity.
The analysis also questions the influence of popular culture and *grupera* music, whose expressions promote female prominence in intimacy. Although many men accept these dynamics cleverly thinking it is mere fun, it is warned that it is actually a mechanism through which the woman ends up exercising total dominance over the man.
This dynamic of domination results in husbands ultimately being treated submissively, comparing them to pets or kittens upon whom conditions are imposed. In this context, the stance criticizes wives who use blackmail to manipulate their husbands, conditioning intimate encounters on money or the fulfillment of material demands, which degrades the matrimonial bond.
The position draws a harsh comparison between married women who engage in lust and individuals involved in prostitution. It explains that sex workers turn to this activity driven by economic necessity, insufficient wages in formal jobs, and the obligation to provide food for their children, having to endure terrible men and rest on wire-spring beds.
On the contrary, it berates wives who, despite enjoying comforts such as a king-size bed and an attractive spouse, use the marital space to perform indecorous acts in exchange for money or benefits. According to this discourse, the behavior of these wives is ethically worse, as they pervert their homes out of pure pleasure and convenience.
Finally, it warns that wives who turn marriage into a place of lust and spiritual neglect will be judged and condemned three times more than prostitutes themselves. The statement concludes that using the institution of marriage for unbridled carnal satisfaction incurs the highest divine punishment.
