I’ve gotta say one more thing about sex and then I’ll retreat to my straightjacket...
...it’s about this notion that sex is “fun.” That Christians have to quit telling people that pre-marital sex is BAD/verboten because it makes them feel guilty and become psychologically reactant* (not that I deny there’s some truth to that). They feel bad about sex itself, which is so unfortunate because sex is natural and good and we don’t want people having to deal with all this baggage once they get married (if they do), or before they get married.
*HT: the wonderful Jan at the view from her.
The concern about baggage is a good one; these issues can certainly be a problem. But not because of telling people they shouldn’t have sex before marriage. More because sex education in our country is so inadequate, but I won’t get into that now. Frankly, I think part of the problem is the perpetuation of a shallow, light-hearted view of sex, even by Christians.
Not that I’m suggesting sex be dour and “dutiful,” no. But I fear that Christians are now trying to so hard to undo the enculturated views that sex is always sin or something only done to produce children and heaven forbid you should like it, that the pendulum has swung the other way into la-la land.
Perhaps we need to define what we mean by “fun.” Would this be any positive, exciting experience? Does sex have to be “exciting” to be good? Sure, by nature it’s highly pleasurable and enjoyable and can certainly have different “fun” aspects to it (more so perhaps at certain times than others). But focusing on all this feel-good happy stuff, as if sex is merely entertainment, or amusement, ignores its power. What about its deeply-cleaving nature? The bonding, healing, communing, ministering, not-to-mention-making-babies aspects of it? Sex is as deeply serious as it is anything else, and we'd best not ignore this.
Even so-called Christian sex therapists apparently say and do things that are, how do I say this, tacky. They may be on the right track by emphasizing Scripture, relationship, and knowledge, but then spoil it all by taking a detour via hyper-openness and hip-ness. Some offer clients feathers and flavored lubricant samples, for example. Sheesh.
Something much more deserving of attention lies in the area of boundaries. Dan Edelen said something absolutely wonderful in his comment to Jan’s post:
I also think something has gone wrong in our culture when men no longer see it as their role to protect women. I think many men have been cowed by the feminist movement into ignoring that role. Protecting a woman's "virtue" goes along with that protection. Our pornographic culture, though, works at odds with this. And that only enables men to think that can steal a woman's virtue and not think anything of it.
This is so incredibly important that I can’t highlight it enough. The corollary to Dan’s statement is that women must consider their own virtue worthy of keeping, their own sexuality worthy of keeping under wraps until the proper time. And of course be aware of their own ability to help gentlemen to do the same.
But the virtue isn’t because of virtue itself. It has to do with a bodily giving and receiving that is commensurate with the totality of giving of oneself in all other ways – which of course is marriage. Sex without such a commitment represents a sharing of one personal aspect that’s way out-of-proportion to the sharing level of the other aspects, which is why trust plays such a major role in the sexual relationship. In an uncommitted relationship there is conditional trust, whereas a truly committed one (for life) carries an inherent level of trust that an uncommitted relationship can never have.
Sex therapists, and other Christians, would do well to help one another maintain proper boundaries in this regard, as they would to maintain distinction between the public and the private. And recognize what should be which, and what should be shared by whom.
It's about what is ours to have, and when. What is ours to guard and keep, and to give, and when. Giving sexuality away (or taking it in) outside of the bounds of marriage has a carelessness to it, not to mention that it actually devalues sex. (This applies equally to the married and the unmarried.) Sex is trivialized and objectified, essentially making it a vehicle for fantasy-fulfillment rather than for cementing, celebrating, consummating, and building up a marriage. (I think I’ve said this before but it bears repeating, so pardon me.)
You know, for as much as people may think they value sex (and I learned this the hard way), what they really value is their desires, urges, and hopes – not sex itself for what it is created to be and meant to be for. Bodies, and body parts, are valued as means to an end rather than part of the end that is the marital coital embrace. (Not that sex isn’t also a means in true marriage, but it's a different sort of means. You know what I mean.)
(minor edits done 5/08/07)
