Mm, no, that is not Biblical, sorry.
There is nothing in the Bible that says that sex is inherently sinful unless you’re using it for procreation. That is purely a product of misogynistic and puritanical Christian theologians after the fact.
The Bible spends very little time talking about sex and gender in prescriptive ways. (”Prescriptive” meaning “giving commands about what you should/shouldn’t do and telling you how to interpret it.”) And most of the few prescriptive things in the Bible are about adultery being bad.
What the Bible has a lot of are stories about people, which often include people behaving badly (yes, even for the standards of the day). And there are a lot of complex people and complex stories where it doesn’t boil down to a simple “this person is good” or “this person is bad”/”this act is good” or “this act is bad”. Even when the Bible tells us that someone was committing sin, it often doesn’t tell us what the sin was, it assumes we will know/figure it out from cultural knowledge of the story. Except that there are a number of stories (such as the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah) where the cultural knowledge of What The Story Means have changed multiple times over the centuries. In the case of Sodom, Genesis (where the story is) doesn’t tell us what the sin is. Ezekiel 16:49 and Isaiah 1 (written centuries later) do: the great sin of Sodom, for which they were destroyed, is inhospitality/abusing the poor and vulnerable. That seems to also be what Jesus is referencing in Matthew 10-11. Today, most Christians assume that the sin must be gay sex. And there was a period of a few hundred years around the time of Jesus where a lot of people thought the sin was specifically that the people of Sodom lusted after angels. These are all different interpretations of the same story and “what does it mean/what sin are they committing.”
But like I said, the sexual sin the Bible cares about by far the most is adultery. There’s a lot of patriarchal stuff where women’s sexuality is more policed than men’s sexuality, but there’s nothing in it about sex being bad in itself. In fact, there are a number of cases where the Bible approves of extramarital sex in ways that are deeply counter to any Christian interpretation ever.
For example, Ruth. Noted for her great virtue and faithfulness! Also slept with a man to get him to marry her. (One of the things that is never translated is that in Biblical Hebrew, both feet and hands can be euphemisms for male genitalia. Ruth lays down at Boaz’s “feet.” Wink wink, nudge nudge.)
Anyway, there’s nothing in the Bible that says sex is inherently bad or sinful. That’s mostly due to Augustine deciding that sin was a sexually transmitted disease, i.e. that all humans are inherently sinful because we are conceived through sex which is inherently sinful. He made that up! Dude was very misogynistic, and also very messed up about sex, and unfortunately he was also the smartest and best theological writer of his era writing in Latin, and so he became the foundation of Western Christian theology. And that was one of the things he said that was most popular because monasticism was, for a long time, the way of showing your devotion to God. And one of the things monks and nuns aren’t supposed to do is have sex. And Augustine’s view of sex as inherently sinful fed into that. But, of course, you can’t just forbid sex entirely, which is why the exemption for reproductive sex exists.
The closest the Bible gets to condemning non-reproductive sex is the story of Onan, but it’s one of those stories where the Bible doesn’t actually tell us what his exact sin was, it expects us to know. If you believe that sex is inherently sinful, then it’s obvious he was killed because he masturbated! ... but if you look at the larger context, that’s not what the sin is at all.
This is part of the story of Tamar (not the Tamar who was David’s daughter), which is told in Genesis 38. This Tamar was Judah’s daughter-in-law, and her husband died and they didn’t have any kids. In those days, they practiced levirate marriage: if a woman’s husband died and they didn’t have kids, she would be married off to one of his brothers, and any kids she had with her new husband would legally be her first husband’s kids. (At this time polyamory was practiced, so he could still have kids of his own with a different wife.) This was designed to provide for childless widows so they wouldn’t just get thrown out with no home. A woman without kids would not have a share of her husband’s resources after his death, and might not be welcome back in her birth family; and also, in days before social welfare programs you needed to have kids to take care of you in your old age. And from a patriarchal standpoint, it ensures that the dead man has heirs to inherit his property and carry on his name and lineage. And also, a woman who had been married but didn’t have kids was the butt of all kinds of social scorn as a barren woman.
So Tamar marries another of Judah’s sons, Onan. Onan, for some unspecified reason, doesn’t want to have kids with Tamar, so he “spills his seed on the ground” before going in to have sex with her to lower the chances he’ll father a child. Now, by doing this he is defrauding both Tamar and his dead brother. He owes them at least one child. And also, he’s deceiving Tamar. He’s not saying “no, I don’t want to have sex with you,” he is pretending to fulfill his responsibilities while actually doing things to ensure that those responsibilities are never actually fulfilled. And so God kills him (one of the few times God directly strikes someone down in the Bible). To reduce all of that to “he was killed because he masturbated” is ... reductive and ignores the main point of the story.
Anyway, after this, Judah says “hey, my next son is too young to get married, go back to your father’s house and I’ll call for you in a couple of years.” Which is a dick move because a) she’s being returned home in disgrace as a barren woman, her life is going to be shit in her father’s home, and b) he is lying. He’s not ever planning to let her marry another kid of his, but he’s also not releasing her so she can find another husband. He’s keeping her in a state of limbo.
When it becomes clear, several years later, that Judah is not going to keep his word, that’s when Tamar veils herself as a sex worker and arranges a meeting with Judah. They have sex, she keeps his seal as payment (and proof that he’s the one she had sex with), Judah doesn’t notice that he just fucked his daughter-in-law. Couple months go by, and Judah gets word that she is visibly pregnant. He goes to visit thinking this is awesome, she’s going to get stoned to death for adultery (and will no longer be his problem). Except when he shows up, Tamar produces the seal. Judah realizes what happened, declares her to be righteous, and marries her himself. (They have twins.)
Now, you know what both Ruth and Tamar have in common, besides the fact that both had sex with men they weren’t married to? They’re two of the five women in Jesus’ genealogy! Now, genealogies are supposed to be connecting you to important people, right? The point of them is to say “hey look, I’m important because my ancestors were these awesome men who did great things!” So the people who get named aren’t all your ancestors, just the ones you think are important. With that in mind, the five women in Jesus’ genealogy are:
Tamar (dressed up like a sex worker to seduce her father-in-law)
Rahab (a literal sex worker)
Ruth (seduced a man to get him to marry her)
Bathsheba (committed adultery with David, but many modern commentators think it may have been rape)
That’s it. Those are the five women named. One virgin ... and four women who had sex that Christians would consider ‘bad/sinful.’
