196

That's the case for a lot of modern Christian ministries, though they'll hum and haw about circumstances, such as if an infertile woman should have sex with her husband.

The scholarly consensus regarding Paul's proscriptions is that even childbearing is inappropriate since the apocalypse is imminent. That sex is only allowed to sate men whose lust burns too hot (or something to that effect.)

Obviously, the apocalypse didn't happen before that generation died, and Christians had to renegotiate with their dogma.

It's also noted that there's no such thing as rape or consent at the time, in that in any sexual encounter, the dominating / penetrating individual is the one taking power and is presumed to have agency. So when two guys get it on, the top is guilty of adultery or fornication (and is killed for such sins) but the bottom is free of responsibility. He is killed anyway because the incident pollutes the land with bad spirit and requires the death to regain its purity (which is really rather chthonic for what becomes a very spirity dogma).

There's a lot of apologetics devoted to navigating this because otherwise modern Christians have to contend with the lack of consensual sex, the chattelization of women and active participation in institutionalized sex slavery (non-Hebrews captured in war were totally allowed to be sex slaves), so it's all a mess.