So I went to the Dale Martin lecture (Sex and the Single Saviour, The Cornithan body; now at Yale time at Rose and Duke)

We've been sort of talking around this idea of celibacy and xian identity for a while, and i think that Martin really pushed the idea logically forward--and he worked pretty heavily in the bible as well. I have five or six thots below. (Spencer you can mock my spelling of the word thot)

1. The idea that the body in the two origin myths in Genesis did not suggest two complimentary selves, but an ideal androgynous body. Christ and Paul, in their discussions of the return of the flesh, was talking about this perfectible body. (see also Wayne Meeks The Myth of the Androgyne) 
2. That Paul, borrowing from the stoics, not only prioritized celibacy over marriage.But it is impt to remember the Stoic Philosophy suggested that people should be married, that the philosopher should fuck his wife, and that he should not have pleasure in fucking his wife. So, the Pauline ideal is not a love marriage that will provide a steam valve for stray erotic or romantic feelings but that a marriage should be emotionless and sexless. 
3. That the problem then with feelings of sexuality that burns (i,e if it is better to marry than burn, what are the implications of this burning....) If Paul is inheriting a levite concern about the connections between a geographic space and a personal space--that the defilement of the body is defiling of the people which is defiling of the land (cf the overlap b/w Romans and Leviticus)--you can see this esp. in 1 Cor 6, where xian men who penetrate a prostitute plunges the member of Christ into a polluted world--where Christs body is penetrated by the world, where fornication causes Christ to be penetrated. 
4. This continual discussion of the word penetrated, on the idea of the defiling of Christ, is thruout jewish and xian scripture--all of this suggests that the passages which forbid sexual acts discuss the degrading of bodies, which mirrors the failures of patriarchy. ..
5. in this sense, the reinforcement of patriarchy has a numbers of odd off shoots-for example, in Pseudo_Pauline texts, superiors are told to love there inferiors, but not vice versa, and in early  xian texts, that were way beyond even being deutrocannonical, the more a text encourages women the more it is aestetic, and vice versa. 
6. which  is slightly different then the holiness codes of the OT--(i mean the idea that same sex behavior disrupts hierarchy is still there)--so the sexual ethics where men having multiple wives and concubines has been placed aside for example, which suggests that even w/i the xian corpus the meaning of sexuality evolves and changes thru-out a text t hat is not supposed to. 

So I have questions: 

1. Do  men who have sex with women in the prioritized space of the marriage bed, deny themselves pleasure. If they commit explicit acts that Paul guides against--then are they not committing queer acts, and in this queerness, denying their marriage rites, and by queer acts i mean everything from sex for pleasure, women on top, to masturbation, to oral sex, to anal sex to etc etc. Does the possibility of sanctified christian blow job exist? 
2.  If the perfect body is an androgynous body, how does that complete against the idea of complimentary philosophy? How does it argue against the obsession with fecundity? 
3. If queer sex is marked not by act, but by profligacy, which is something Paul hints at, in his discussion of fouling Christ's body, then is non profligate msm possible? 
4. Is there a possibility for a female sexuality to emerge from the dialectical pattern found in the early tradition
5. If we think of the scripture has having a kind of fluidity within a tightly revealed social context, how far can this script move and stay within that tradition? 
6. The more and more I get out of radical queer attempts to push forward this agenda, is not an inclusion, but the idea that all kinds of sexuality that we hold post-enlightenment as morally good, and perhaps even healthy and necessary are profoundly different than the expectations that are given for our traditions and scripture... unless you look at the men of the old testament, which you know, doesn't leave women any place...
7. Which suggests a neo-liberal, heavily codified, state sanctioned gay sexuality, allows for a mainstreaming of queer sex, but will eventually abut the problem put forth by 1. 

it's a mess.