Christianity and Sex

[spiritletter]

I'm sixty five, so it's easier for me to discipline my sexual instinct, but I remember being young and being driven by sexual desire to the point that it frequently disrupted my life. To me, Christianity, or that version which was constructed by the church long after the death of Christ, has not sufficiently dealt with the subject, and has no advice other than "just say no." I think the progressive church needs to deal with this as well, because I see no counseling about it anywhere.

We live in a culture that is conditioned by sexual imagery, which does not make it any easier. About half of what I see on television is using flesh to sell products. However, there are cultures in the world where women go bare breasted and it does not create the kind of scene as say, the famous Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction created at the Superbowl.

In scripture we are cautioned against sex, and frequently that rhetoric becomes a kind of anti-woman rhetoric (Eve and the Serpent, etc.)

Somehow, understanding is missing on contemporary spiritual discourse, and I would like to open a topic discussion about contemporary Christianity in all its forms and the response to human sexual desire. I would like compassion to be the guiding principal rather than a lot of strident moralizing.

Anybody game?

[MagusYanam]

This looks like an interesting topic, but could we maybe have a specific question for discussion?

As I understand the tradition, the early Christian community viewed men and women as equals, and tended to oppose the way the societies around them treated women like chattel or property. There was a firm insistence on monogamy because they believed that monogamy promoted equality, but even among the original apostles asceticism was not expected (St Peter was married, after all). St Paul does seem to be rather schizophrenic on the issue of gender equality - in his letter to the Galatians, he seems convinced that men and women are equals in faith and equals in the Church, as one in Christ, but elsewhere he seems bent on discouraging women from active roles in the Church. However, later church patriarchs, under certain Gnostic influences, began seeing carnal acts as inherently evil and a vehicle for the transmission of original sin (hence, the creeping misogynism) - as a result, we have quaint eccentricities in certain Christian groups such as male-only clergy and clerical celibacy.

Actually, reading the Scriptures, I don't find that much against sex per se, but plenty against sexual abuse, exploitation and adultery.

[spiritletter]

I'm sixty five, so it's easier for me to discipline my sexual instinct, but I remember being young and being driven by sexual desire to the point that it frequently disrupted my life. To me, Christianity, or that version which was constructed by the church long after the death of Christ, has not sufficiently dealt with the subject, and has no advice other than "just say no." I think the progressive church needs to deal with this as well, because I see no counseling about it anywhere.

We live in a culture that is conditioned by sexual imagery, which does not make it any easier. About half of what I see on television is using flesh to sell products. However, there are cultures in the world where women go bare breasted and it does not create the kind of scene as say, the famous Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction created at the Superbowl.

In scripture we are cautioned against sex, and frequently that rhetoric becomes a kind of anti-woman rhetoric (Eve and the Serpent, etc.)

Somehow, understanding is missing on contemporary spiritual discourse, and I would like to open a topic discussion about contemporary Christianity in all its forms and the response to human sexual desire. I would like compassion to be the guiding principal rather than a lot of strident moralizing.

Anybody game?

Good start. Okay, here are specific questions: what, if anything, does the following have to do with Christ:

In Texas a couple of years ago inoculation against the papiloma virus in women was made illegal because, according to hyper-religious constituents, such inoculation would lead to promiscuity. I'm wondering just how this idiocy was supported by scripture.

Adultery: What if two people have been married a long time and agree to have other sex partners without damaging the marriage?

Also, the references to masturbation in the Bible are so vague as to not really qualify a later catechistic prohibition.

Is there a particular published study that addresses these issues?

[MagusYanam]

Adultery: What if two people have been married a long time and agree to have other sex partners without damaging the marriage?

I think the moral questions that always have to be asked are, 'is it exploitative?'. Does it demean or compromise the humanity of the people involved? Does it cause or can it cause damage to other people (children, for example) and to the society? My moral intuitions tell me that adultery is wrong because it does demean and compromise the humanity of the people involved, and it can and does cause damage to the society. Even if a married couple without children enter such an agreement, the rightness or wrongness of it would still depend on the attitudes and situations of their partners, and whether or not any exploitation or psychological harm was being done.

In Texas a couple of years ago inoculation against the papiloma virus in women was made illegal because, according to hyper-religious constituents, such inoculation would lead to promiscuity. I'm wondering just how this idiocy was supported by scripture.

I'd wonder that too. I hadn't heard of this incident, but it sounds... insane (as if papilloma was an effective deterrent against promiscuity anyway!).

Also, the references to masturbation in the Bible are so vague as to not really qualify a later catechistic prohibition.

I've heard the story of Onan and Tamar used to justify such prohibitions, but in all seriousness it sounds like Onan was more guilty of pride and ambition than anything else - he wanted his own sons to inherit, not the sons of Tamar.

[spiritletter]

Adultery: What if two people have been married a long time and agree to have other sex partners without damaging the marriage?

I think the moral questions that always have to be asked are, 'is it exploitative?'. Does it demean or compromise the humanity of the people involved? Does it cause or can it cause damage to other people (children, for example) and to the society? My moral intuitions tell me that adultery is wrong because it does demean and compromise the humanity of the people involved, and it can and does cause damage to the society. Even if a married couple without children enter such an agreement, the rightness or wrongness of it would still depend on the attitudes and situations of their partners, and whether or not any exploitation or psychological harm was being done.

In Texas a couple of years ago inoculation against the papiloma virus in women was made illegal because, according to hyper-religious constituents, such inoculation would lead to promiscuity. I'm wondering just how this idiocy was supported by scripture.

I'd wonder that too. I hadn't heard of this incident, but it sounds... insane (as if papilloma was an effective deterrent against promiscuity anyway!).

Also, the references to masturbation in the Bible are so vague as to not really qualify a later catechistic prohibition.

I've heard the story of Onan and Tamar used to justify such prohibitions, but in all seriousness it sounds like Onan was more guilty of pride and ambition than anything else - he wanted his own sons to inherit, not the sons of Tamar.

You may be right about adultery. Still, we live in another age. A friend of mine once said that "Till death do us part" was conceived in a time when people didn't live very long.

Your analysis above is more than I've heard recently in any spiritual context. People seem to circumnavigate the subject of sex and never quite dig into it.

[Vanguard]

In Texas a couple of years ago inoculation against the papiloma virus in women was made illegal because, according to hyper-religious constituents, such inoculation would lead to promiscuity. I'm wondering just how this idiocy was supported by scripture.

I don't think in this context it is more approrpriate to deny the opportunity for others to be vaccinated if that is their desire - there are strong reasons to do so. With that said, I would be quite uncomfortable if the state mandated that all young women be vaccinated.

Also, the references to masturbation in the Bible are so vague as to not really qualify a later catechistic prohibition.

I agree any reference is quite vague in the Bible.

You may be right about adultery. Still, we live in another age. A friend of mine once said that "Till death do us part" was conceived in a time when people didn't live very long.

I agree with M-Yanam on this one. Curiously, which position are you taking? Do you think M-Yanam's characterization is reasonable or are you arguing that things are different and M's take on things is archaic?

Your analysis above is more than I've heard recently in any spiritual context. People seem to circumnavigate the subject of sex and never quite dig into it.

I also agree. There is much to be said regarding Christianity and sexuality. Things have progressed though there is still much more to do.

[spiritletter]

In Texas a couple of years ago inoculation against the papiloma virus in women was made illegal because, according to hyper-religious constituents, such inoculation would lead to promiscuity. I'm wondering just how this idiocy was supported by scripture.

I don't think in this context it is more approrpriate to deny the opportunity for others to be vaccinated if that is their desire - there are strong reasons to do so. With that said, I would be quite uncomfortable if the state mandated that all young women be vaccinated.

Also, the references to masturbation in the Bible are so vague as to not really qualify a later catechistic prohibition.

I agree any reference is quite vague in the Bible.

You may be right about adultery. Still, we live in another age. A friend of mine once said that "Till death do us part" was conceived in a time when people didn't live very long.

I agree with M-Yanam on this one. Curiously, which position are you taking? Do you think M-Yanam's characterization is reasonable or are you arguing that things are different and M's take on things is archaic?

Your analysis above is more than I've heard recently in any spiritual context. People seem to circumnavigate the subject of sex and never quite dig into it.

I also agree. There is much to be said regarding Christianity and sexuality. Things have progressed though there is still much more to do.

Vanguard, re adultery I'm just repeating what friends have told me has been on their minds. Personally, I think multiple sexual relationships are emotionally confusing and unpredictable. We tried it in the sixties. I want to get these issues out there for discussion.

I didn't mention homosexuality. Like masturbation, the Biblical references are pretty minor and vague. Somebody told me that Christ's objection to homosexuality was really an objection to the way Roman's sexually exploited their slaves.

[Intrepidman]

I don't see a problem with the way Christianity was 'constructed'. IMHO, the message is true and timeless.

I think the problem is twofold.

1) The massive sexualization (if that's a word) of society. I don't have little kids, but I can't imagine what it would be like to be watching TV with my 3 year old daughter when a commercial for Viagra, or Enzyte comes on. "Daddy, what's erectile dysfunction? Daddy, what's male enhancement?"

Then don't watch TV? You can't go anywhere without being bombarded with sexual images.

2) The 'puppyfication' of adolescents. What do I mean by that? IIRC, in most cultures up until very recently the age of adulthood has been 13, more or less. In the US we insist on treating people who are, let's say, fertile, as kids.

This must be very frustrating for them. Their hormones are going crazy, they (often) want to have independence. They are being flooded with sexual images. Yet they are told by well-meaning Christian parents,"Don't have sex, it's a sin, wait until you are married." They are also told that masturbation is a sin equal with adultery, sometimes.

I have a suggestion. Quit treating pre-pubescent kids like little kids, and more like pre-adults. Treat 13-year-olds as adults, with all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities thereof.

[Goat]

I don't see a problem with the way Christianity was 'constructed'. IMHO, the message is true and timeless.

I think the problem is twofold.

1) The massive sexualization (if that's a word) of society. I don't have little kids, but I can't imagine what it would be like to be watching TV with my 3 year old daughter when a commercial for Viagra, or Enzyte comes on. "Daddy, what's erectile dysfunction? Daddy, what's male enhancement?"

Then don't watch TV? You can't go anywhere without being bombarded with sexual images.

2) The 'puppyfication' of adolescents. What do I mean by that? IIRC, in most cultures up until very recently the age of adulthood has been 13, more or less. In the US we insist on treating people who are, let's say, fertile, as kids.

This must be very frustrating for them. Their hormones are going crazy, they (often) want to have independence. They are being flooded with sexual images. Yet they are told by well-meaning Christian parents,"Don't have sex, it's a sin, wait until you are married." They are also told that masturbation is a sin equal with adultery, sometimes.

I have a suggestion. Quit treating pre-pubescent kids like little kids, and more like pre-adults. Treat 13-year-olds as adults, with all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities thereof.

I am not to sure about treating 13 year old as 'adults with all the rights/privileges and responsibilities thereof', but I certainly feel they have the need to get all the proper education about the issues so they can make informed choices. You can't shield them, and they certainly going to be making their own mistakes, but you can at least give them the tools they needed to reduce the chances of bad consequences, and perhaps to avoid some of the riskier behavior until later.

[Intrepidman]

...but I certainly feel they have the need to get all the proper education about the issues so they can make informed choices. You can't shield them, and they certainly going to be making their own mistakes, but you can at least give them the tools they needed to reduce the chances of bad consequences, and perhaps to avoid some of the riskier behavior until later.

I agree. Christian parents are really dropping the ball there. I know I did. Sex is a wonderful natural play-time between a man and his wife, and should be presented as such. There is no shame, guilt, sin, etc., associated with married sex.

I think the difficulty might be that for our whole lives sex in any form is a sin, and a 'bad' one, at that. Then you get married, and a switch gets flipped, and you and your wife can go at it as much as you want.

The fact that something that is 'bad' suddenly becomes 'good' (very good, I would argue ) is a dichotomy that is difficult to reconcile.