It's always seemed like those were the only two real possibilities, and that they both lead to the same place by different paths: The Tanakh is at worst indifferent to and possibly even condones lesbians, despite condeming homosexual MEN harshly, one of the few cases of an apparent gender distinction that favors women.

HOWEVER, I've also long thought procreation the driving issue, particularly for a relatively small (by most accounts, immigrant) population with a unique culture radically different from the native neighoring ones in religious and other aspects. It's the same principle we see in the prohibition against marrying non-Jews; theologically, Solomon is clearly held up as the greatest, wisest and holiest of Israels kings--and simultaneously the principal cause, through his multitude of foreign wives and concubines, of Israeles civil war and the ultimate destruction of both Israel and Judah. Let's not kid ourselves; Jews were forbidden from consorting with "Pole Dancers for Tammuz" not just because of the momentary act of worship involved, but because there was little doubt how the children of such dalliances would be raised. That (and money, and PR) is the practical basis for temple prostitutes turning sex into worship, and for Jews being forbidden to indulge in it with them.

It's also the basis for the well documented genocide (which, while I'm not endorsing it, was hardly novel or remarkable for Bronze Age conquerors). They call it ethnic cleansing for a reason, and while that does nothing to legitimize it does a lot to explain it. At that time at that place leaving a defeated but nonetheless implaccable foe to lick its wounds while you carried away their wealth and left their men dead did little but ensure those dead mens children would come seeking vengeance in a generation. There were plenty of Mesopotamian Vercingetorixes around to illustrate what a bad idea that was (the Jews themselves were subjugated many times only to return from the ashes and present a mortal threat to past conquerors).

Whether the sin of Onan was masturbation or refusing his duties under Levirate marriage most definitely can be and is argued, but on the principle of procreation in general and promulgating the Hebrew faith specifically, I think it's another case where all roads lead to Rome. While the Tanakh condemns neither anal nor oral sex themselves EXPLICITLY, the context of all the other prohibitions against sexual acts that hinder the preservation and growth of Jewish culture and faith strongly imply that they're not really acceptable either, if not necessarily "sinful", as such. It's all of a piece; even the male oriented perspective of the Tanakh, IMHO, has as much to do with the far greater difficulty of determining paternity rather than maternity. You tell me: As a lawyer, would you say our culture of "male-fascism" recognizes parental rights more for mothers, or fathers? Who's body and consequent choice do we consider in abortion laws, for example, and who usually gets primary custody of children in divorce proceedings? Whose biological as well cultural links to children would it be more difficult to safeguard in a culture that didn't even know about DNA or genes, much less how to do a paternity test? Ever heard of a "maternity test"?

With all that in mind, it still seems pretty clear that there's no prohibition against lesbians or female masturbation until Paul, but, once again, that conclusion seems inevitable on the basis of the text however we approach it.

This is the part I meant was oversimplified; the Tanakh doesn't give a free pass for "mere" fornication instead of adultery, as we both also know. In fact, a man having sex with an unmarried woman was not only required to marry her, it was the only case I know of where divorce was legally impossible, even under the Tanakhs otherwise notoriously lax divorce laws. There aren't a lot of permutations here either: Whether or not you're married, if you have sex with an unmarried virgin you have to marry her and can never divorce her; if you have sex with a married woman it's adultery and you're both stoned to death. That's a long way from "you can fornicate with any unmarried girl you want without consequences! "

I'm not sure it's fair to speak categorically of "Christians" discouraging polygamy; the worst I can recall even Paul saying is that BISHOPS "should be the husband of only one wife", and that's from a man who saw any and all wives as potential stumbling blocks (looking at Samson, Solomon et al. it's hard to argue).