Intellectuelle   Sex

Since Marla has clarified blog policy for me, I�m going to break the promise I made in a former post and link to a post at my other blog again. I do so biting my fingernails, though, because I�m not sure what I�m in for. (Maybe if I don�t make a big deal out of it, it won�t be a big deal?)

The post has to do with sex...the kind of sex that doesn�t require another person. The thing that either no one talks about (and probably rightly so), or that people talk about as if to say, what�s the big deal?

I�m writing about it because others have, and I�m concerned about much that�s been said. I�m writing to offer a perspective that I feel is important. I think the subject is a big deal, even though a private one. So I�ve gone out on a limb and added my thoughts to the mix. Have a look.

I've posted a follow-up to my original post on autoerotism at my personal blog.

I welcome charitable discussion of specific points made in the post.

My discovery of some other writings by Christians on the subject of autoerotism has led to another set of installments in what has become a series of sorts at my other blog. The latest posts examine a limited defense of masturbation by a Christian: part 1, part 2, and part 3.

There's been much written on avoiding temptation to be unfaithful in one’s marriage, especially concerning practical steps that can be taken. The practical is, indeed, important, but more so is the tending of one’s inner life, where scenarios develop in the first place. These scenarios can cause us to lose mindfulness of the practical aspects. (I.e., we don’t care about minding natural boundaries when cultivation of an inappropriate scenario occupies our inner life.)

The first boundary crossed when seeds of unfaithfulness germinate is the view of another person as less than other, in all the aspects that the person is "other." What separates mere friends from potential adulterers is that there is always a sphere of the friend’s life that one will never enter, whether in thought or in deed. When one ceases to think of the friend as “other,” though – other in certain aspects of life, person, and marriage – one starts to imagine thoughts of ownership of that person that are untrue. This is a wholly different concept than that involving mere consent.

(Although the violation of the otherness of a person will, at some point, meet with legitimate consent issues involving someone...if not another person, then ultimately God.)

There will certainly be a common sphere shared by friends -- a sphere of common interests and experiences, as well as a bond of caring and fidelity. But part of that bond of caring and fidelity is to never violate the “other” of that person.

Contrast this with one’s spouse – a spouse must never be an “other!” And, not to be misunderstood, I don’t mean that he or she is not to be honored as a distinct and separate person. However, marriage means that two become one, and thus one's spouse is privy to one’s living space, possessions, and habits as well as one’s thoughts, wishes, troubles, everything – by the nature of being one’s spouse. Trouble happens when one spouse or the other denies this belonging and withholds or rejects what ought to be shared. (Sharing involves both the giving and the receiving) It’s a sure-fire intimacy-killer, and tills the soil for unfaithfulness. Faithfulness means being faithful in every way to everyone involved – faithful to both offering one’s “things” and taking in one's spouse’s shared things, as well as never giving to, or taking from, any other what rightfully belongs to a spouse.

This concept of "otherness" applies to many things, not just marital fidelity. Perhaps in our culture of ease and sense of entitlement, though, we've come to think that whatever we want (or think we want), we can have. Yet the ten commandments speak of coveting, and, though they address things such as neighbors' possessions, the issue is not limited to these things. Just about every sin imaginable starts with the prideful coveting of something that has not been granted us. We sin because we want what is not rightfully ours. But would that we'd all enjoy the bounty that the Lord does grant us, allowing that which we might desire wrongfully to always remain "other."

The language of sex, that is.

I’ve gotten the idea from several sources that many Christians younger than me (and perhaps not) are not convinced by the statement that sex ought to be reserved for marriage. Nor do they view all extra- or premarital experiences or solo sex as necessarily wrong. Rather than hear that doing these things is wrong, though, they want to know why the alternative is better. They want constructive suggestions toward a positive view of sex.

Well, I’m all for the positive. I have many thoughts on this, as well as doubts as to my ability to articulate them in a meaningful way. I have doubts as to whether my thoughts might be meaningful to anyone besides me. Sex is a, uh, touchy subject. Discussions of sexual morality can release negative passions rivaling their positive counterparts in sex.

And you may wonder, what could a 40-something woman who’s been married for 19 years have in common with a single person, in the sexual arena, so as to have anything worthwhile to say to them? Well, trust me, more than you might think. My own journey to discover what sexuality is and what it means, both personally and in the sense of the absolute, has been long and torturous. But along the way I’ve come up with some things, I think. I humbly offer them here.

There has of course been great writing on sexuality over the years. Writing solid in scholarship, theology, and wisdom. Much of it has also been suppositional in nature. My writing here will be no different. However, as this is a blog series I have not prepared for it as I would a book, and I suffer no delusions as to my writing ability. So I can with all confidence say that my commentary will be neither thorough, detailed, nor entertaining. But hopefully it will be clear enough in its own right, and contribute to the overall discussion.

First, I want to establish that sex and sexual desire are intrinsically good. As are multitudinous instances of their expression. However, not every sexual act is good (no kidding) nor is every instance of indulged desire. The trick is figuring out which is which.

While I understand the wish for a fleshing-out of the positive reasons for non-marital abstinence, I can’t help but be reminded of how I felt at age 13. I really wanted to drive. I thought it was stupid that I had to wait 'til I was 16. But though I may have been perfectly capable of driving at 13, rules is rules. It didn’t hurt me, anyway, to wait, and probably kept me from causing damage. This is just one of many things I’ve wanted in life before its proper time. In pursuit of these I bungled a lot of other things, and ultimately didn’t achieve what I was hoping for in the first place.

But I don’t know how someone who doesn’t want to delay gratification can be convinced that doing so is best, especially if they’re like me (stubborn, needing "good" reasons). As I’ve learned, though, commitment to such a delay has to be made in faith. It's done not because one feels like it or really wants to, but because one trusts in Something greater than one’s immediate wishes or desires. In this trust one can find the strength and peace necessary to turn one’s energies toward another activity.

The truth is, most of the benefits of this decision to trust may not actually be appreciated until much later (if ever) in this life. There may indeed be worldly rewards for illicit sexual activity. But the Christian’s reward is in heaven...why trade it for a paltry one?

...continued from Part I.

In Eros Defiled, John White suggests that our sexual attitudes and practices get “set” by the same mechanism that caused Pavlov’s dogs to salivate at the ringing of a bell: habit, and association with pleasure (pp. 40-42). Orgasm, being a very intense physical, mental, and emotional pleasure, is no doubt a strong behavioral reinforcer that helps establish both healthy and unhealthy sexual patterns. Yet as Lauren Winner suggests in Real Sex, discipline of the body, mind, and heart can help guide the creation of healthy patterns and provide a positive kind of positive reinforcement.

Awhile back I wrote some posts on masturbation (three links). These were mainly responses to some excusatory posting and other writing I’d seen done by several Christians – even James Dobson -- which prompted me to try and develop a sort of apologetic for the non-masturbatory life. After doing this I found that others had done it too. Most recently, via a Google search for commentary on Eros Defiled, I found Derek R. Iannelli-Smith's Reflective Review (pdf), in which he quotes J. Robertson McQuilkin in Introduction to Biblical Ethics:

...self-stimulation, at least apart from sexual play in marriage, violates two probably all three [sic] of God’s purposes for marriage. The first purpose of marriage is oneness; sex was designed to cement and promote that oneness.

Before continuing the quote, a comment: some may wonder what this has to do with, say, someone in their teens, or someone older who is not married. I think the assumption here is that marriage is the only place for sex, period. In keeping with the theme of sex as a language, consider sex as a specific and exclusive language spoken as one between two people in the covenant of marriage. Specific, because this same language can never be spoken by these or any other individuals in any other context or with any other people. Just as a sperm and an ovum come together to make a unique individual, the married couple’s sexual language is all their own. Exclusive, for the same reason. Exclusive to that marriage, that two-becoming-one. To take one half of this language and speak it with another is to corrupt the language, as is beginning to create a language with someone outside of the complete two-becoming-one of marriage.

(Update: I just realized that this argument must be qualified in order to accommodate legitimate re-marriage. It should be re-defined according to the matter of fidelity, which will be discussed in part III).

Masturbation runs in the opposite direction. It is sex stripped of love, stripped of commitment, stripped of all the purposes for which sex was created.

Quoting Jay Adams in The Practical Encyclopedia of Christian Counseling:

Masturbation is a self-oriented pleasure brought about by autoerotism, in which, contrary to Paul's assertion in I. Cor 7:4-5, one assumes rights over their own body that belongs to his spouse...Masturbation is a manifestation of the desire to "get"; true biblical sexual relations are governed by love and the desire to "give."

(I’ll say more on that later.)

Iannelli-Smith adds,

Masturbation reveals a heart problem and a disorder of worship in adults [as opposed to that done innocently by children].

Masturbation reveals a heart problem. Not a mortal, unforgiveable sin that will irreparably wreck your life, but let's call a spade a spade: indeed, a disorder of worship. Life, in many ways, is about worship. Everyone worships something, or a lot of things. What is being worshiped in the case of solo sex? Well, perhaps self, and sex, rather than God, if, as I believe, and as Iannelli-Smith upholds, God is a God Who’s set forth right and wrong attitudes of the heart, and judges according to these. For example, the sin of adultery lies not so much in the committing of the act as in the consideration of the act, which reveals an allegiance (worship) to something or someone other than God. It is not mere temptation; it’s already an indulgence of temptation. (In the review, though I think some parts could be worded better, Iannelli-Smith makes some good points about right and wrong ways of being let off the hook for immoral sexual behavior, and includes words on homosexuality. )

In Real Sex, Winner makes a case for the necessity of being chaste in the context of the Body of Christ. I think this is important; we are all part of this Body, which, as a whole, must support the chastity of its members. However, taken too far, it might lead one who fails in chastity to blame this failure on lack of support from the Body. In such a case the Body may indeed be partially to blame, yet the matter of where one’s heart is lies solely between the individual and God.

...continued from part II.

Part of the trouble in accepting the limitation of sexual activity to marriage is a view of sex as merely the intensely pleasurable thing that it can be...mostly for the pleasure itself. In other words, a short-sighted view. Really, a selfish view. Don't reach for your gun yet; this can be true in marriage as well. Now you can get your gun. There is little reverence for sex outside of the delirium it can induce and perhaps also the fact that it can create a new human life (which often-times is not desired), or that it can bring two people very close together, and not just in a physical way.

But what of sex as the consummation of a sacred bond, the bond of marriage - so sacred that it mirrors that of Christ and the church? (Ephesians 5) This language of Christ and the church, as is also spoken of God and the nations of Israel and Judah in the book of Isaiah, is rife with terms of fidelity. How can Zion play the harlot? (Isaiah 1:21) How can the church betray its first love? (Revelation 2:4)

"Consummation" means "completion, fulfillment, perfection - an arrival, something carried to the utmost point or degree." That is the purpose of sex - to complete, fulfill, perfect, be the arrival of, and carry to the utmost point or degree a marriage. A marriage being the joining together of man and woman in spirit; in person -- heart, mind, and body; and in life -- daily, and until death.

fidelity, n. [L. fidelitas, from fidelis, faithful, trusty, from fides, faith, trust.]
1. faithfulness; careful and exact observation of duty, or performance of obligations or vows; good faith.
2. firm adherence to a person or party with which one is united, or to which one is bound; loyalty
Syn. - conscientiousness, trustworthiness, trustiness, fealty, allegiance, constancy, exactness, accuracy, integrity.

Sex is about fidelity. If one has sex with someone to whom one is not married, one will not be faithful to him or her unless both go to their graves together in an acting marital relationship. If one has sex with someone outside of marriage, then one is not being faithful to either one's current or one's future spouse(s), which is part of where I think the language of "saving" oneself for marriage comes from, and rightly so.

Jared at Thinklings links to a post about people who ask, “When Are You Having Another One?” He considers the appropriateness of such a question. Many good issues raised in the comments, about levels of formality and involvement during interpersonal communication and how one might determine what’s appropriate.

It’s amazing what people say about one’s family size, even if well-meaning. After I gave birth to my daughter, the anesthesiologist said, “Now you’ve got a nice family,” or something like that. As if now that we’d had a girl after two boys, we were “done.” (Whether we actually are or not is beside the point.) When I conceived my daughter after a miscarriage, my OB (whom otherwise I liked) commented, “You must really like it (having kids).” Sheesh.

De at Thinklings links to a post by Scot McKnight and this quote about Rhythm-less Lives:

We are breaking down rhythms — night isn’t night anymore; we have lights that make “day” last longer. The agricultural calendar no longer obtains: we expect all foods to be in season all year long.

What happens to rhythmless lives? Our question for the day.

Well, never mind strawberries in March and miracles of tungsten (or halogen); consider the new birth-control pill, Seasonique:

SEASONIQUE™ works with your body just like a traditional monthly pill. You can feel comfortable with SEASONIQUE™ (emphasis added) because it offers:

The same 99% effectiveness, when taken as directed

The same hormones

The same once-daily routine

And quarterly periods. Yep, four per year! Wouldn't that be great?!

Ack!!

Comfort here pertains to: effectiveness against pregnancy, familiarity with the hormones used in the monthly Pill, and routine. Seasonique “works with your body”...sure, as does just about every other chemical you might put into it, for good or ill. “Good” or “ill” being defined by what you want from it, I guess.

Monthly menstruation may not be a woman’s favorite thing, but good grief. Why not slow the orbit of the moon, or the rotation of the earth? (If they keep pushing Daylight Savings Time back, they just might.) When does fact become fiction, or fiction fact, and how far can we alter certain rhythms before the music stops? (see C. S. Lewis in The Abolition of Man)

‘K, I’m off to eat my fake blueberry-particle bagel with a glass of quasi-orange juice after downing my meal-in-a-pill (daily vitamin) while I visit with my friend who’s bottle-feeding the baby she conceived via artificial insemination and delivered via scheduled C-section...

*sigh*

(note: I am not so earthy-veggie or crunchy or whatever that I have a problem with invention, intervention, or alteration of every "natural" thing. I think there is proper use and place for most every one of these. But proper use is determined by the rhythm you're dancing to...)

Well, I thought my series was done, but then I saw this post at Cerulean Sanctum. Dan Edelen speaks primarily to homosexuality, but what he says in Sex and the Created Order got me thinking about the creative aspect of sex.

When Paul appeals to the created order in Romans 1, noting how those who flaunted it succumbed to the punishment of God by having normal affections warped against that created order, he’s not quoting Scripture but Creation. He melds the truth of general revelation with the preponderance of sexual imagery in the special revelation of Scripture. He appeals to archetypal imagery of God as Initiator and His people as the Receivers of His Spirit and riches. The Lover and the Beloved of Song of Songs. The Bridegroom and Bride. Christ and the Church.

...Our sexual dimorphism exists to create life, expressing in our sexuality the very creative power of God Himself because we’re made in His image. It reflects the union of Christ and the Church, the fecund riches of God poured into His people. The Initiator entering the Receiver. All of receptive creation is feminine against the masculinity of God expressed through His acting on us as the prime Initiator. The created order not only reflects sexual dimorphism expressed through heterosexuality, it demands it in order to show the fullness of God. Particularly in God’s highest creation, Mankind.

Interesting stuff.

When I mention creativity in the context of sexuality, I’m not suggesting bedroom gymnastics, toys, “pushing the limits” or exploring the outer boundaries of what people can do sexually, nor erotic art, nor the most obvious creative aspect of sex – producing children. What I’m conceptualizing is the many-streamed bubbling spring that quenches thirst and gives life in many forms, not just the procreative, when the language of sex is well-spoken between spouses.

First, the disclaimer: I am not an expert. I am simply a woman who seeks to know and understand those things which are relevant to her life, and as a member of the human race as well as a married woman (and a Christian one), that quest includes sex. (Martin LaBar, bless him, noted my “longstanding interest” and “occasional writing” on the topic at his blog, which I confess gave me a slightly chagrined chuckle.) Yes, I’m interested in sex...aren't you?

Dan speaks of the violence against the created order evident in acts of homosexuality. I won’t address that particular point, but will suggest that such violence is present in any sort of sex outside of the covenant bond of marriage. Violence is destructive. I can feel the latent dander rising at the mere suggestion that premarital sex, or adultery, or even masturbation might be, by their nature, violent...but they are! The intensity of a sexual act, especially one resulting in orgasm, is a potent thing by its nature. The misapplication of this potency, by nature of its potency as well as its misapplication, would seem to me to be a violent thing. Any act against God’s created order, be it decree, purpose, or formed thing, could be said to be violent – violence committed against the created order and therefore against whatever or whomever it is acted upon.

A harsh statement, I know. But look at the damage caused by sexual miscommunication within marriage. Sex can either build a couple up and make their marriage the very picture of the Song of Songs, or it can cause such distress, such consternation, such damage to emotions and trust as to make a person ill. It can affect a spouse’s every waking moment. Most of you who are married probably know what I’m talking about. The marriage bed isn’t always full of roses. Or maybe it is -- sometimes the bed is blooming, sumptuous and heady; other times it’s full of thorns. Or maybe a little bit of both. Yet in Christian marriage there is always hope, hope for grace and healing and discovery or re-discovery of everything that marital consummation can be.

It’s clear, then, that sex can be destructive even in marriage. Does this mean that sex can be creative outside of marriage? Sure. But what is being created, and does that creation ultimately lead to life in the way life is defined for the Christian by God?
There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death -- Proverbs 14:12, NASB.
Not everything that seems good is good. Not everything that looks or feels good is good. We all know that, but it doesn't always keep us from falling into this trap. Which is all the more reason to trust the wisdom and decrees of God above all else.

I love reading fiction, or non-, that shatters stereotype in the way that God's love in Christ devastates the heart.

Tim is a novel by Colleen McCullough in which a 40-something well-to-do spinster and a gorgeous but mentally arrested 25-year-old laborer develop an unlikely friendship and, eventually, marry. Set in Australia, the story deals with cultural stereotype, evidencing the unkindness and exploitation that can go along with it. But more so it celebrates the goodness that can be found in the most "unlikely" of persons and relationships.

Much of what might make a person attractive or valuable to another are the very things defined as unattractive by a culture of ostentation. Such distortion causes that which is not important to be grossly over-considered while valuable traits are overlooked or missed entirely. Even worse, such traits may be disdained in the eyes of those shackled by greed or other self-focus.

(Note that cultural stereotype in the story does not include Christian mores, as it often does in writing that attempts to blast stereotype. This story is not a call to abandon Christian principle; indeed, Tim and Mary's friendship is completely upright.)

On the night their marriage is consummated, Tim considers:

It was as though her differences had been invented just for him, he had no conscious awareness that she was exactly like any other female. She was Mary, and her body belonged to him as utterly as his Teddy [bear] had; it was his and his alone to hold against the inroads of the night, warding off terror and loneliness.

Pop had told him no one had ever touched her, that what he brought to her was foreign and strange, and he had understood the magnitude and responsibility better than a reasoning man, for he had owned so little and been respected by so few. ...His devotion to her was purely selfless; it seemed to come from somewhere outside him, compounded of gratitude and love and a deep, restful security. ...How beautiful she was, he thought, seeing the lines and the sagging skin but not finding them ugly or undesirable. He saw her through the eyes of total, unbounded love and so assumed that all of her was beautiful.

Gratitude, love, deep security...the basis of a godly marriage and a godly sexual relationship. Not to mention friendship in a "platonic" context.

"It was though her differences had been invented just for him..."

...because they had. God's design is one for the other (or as the title of an excellent book by Bryan Chapell on marriage states: Each For the Other.)

But can a person with the "full quid" remain or become as innocent as Tim (who was not the full quid) in this regard? Yes, I believe so. One can keep pure of certain knowledge by avoiding it, and keep one's motives free of guile, which certainly is not required by intellectual acumen. The person innocent of deceit and open to wonder and discovery in the proper context will indeed understand the magnitude of things better. He will better understand his responsibility toward them, and appreciate true beauty more. ("He...assumed that all of her was beautiful.")

But of course loss of innocence still happens, through many means. Some self-imposed, some not. Yet innocence of approach can be recovered (as I have discovered). It can be rediscovered in forgiveness, in making right what was wrong and setting out on new paths in rightness of action. This is repentance leading to redemption. Even more so than Tim, who, despite his limitations, could still learn via the language of love, we all can learn anew in God's mercies. They are new every morning. Alleluia!

What might such innocence mean when it comes to...sex?

Drink water from your own cistern, and fresh water from your own well...Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth. As a loving hind and a graceful doe, let her breasts satisfy you at all times; be exhilarated as always with her love. Proverbs 5:15, 18-19, NASB

Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle, which feed among the lilies... Song of Songs, 4:5, NASB

(I don't completely get the cervine analogies but that's okay...)

A man may love his wife's breasts not merely for the features they may or may not possess, but for what they are and to whom they belong. He will not dislike them for what they lack, nor esteem them according to the fantasies they may or may not fulfill. Not that they may not be fulfilling, or that he may not fantasize about them. But he may love them for what they mean both to her and to him, as belonging to both and to the exclusion of all others, and communicate this in a sexual encounter.

Of course a man may take this approach to his wife (or vice-versa) in every area, not just sex:

He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh Ephesians 5:29, NASB

In this context, spouses do not speak a sexual language of body parts divorced from personality nor true belonging, nor are the parts imbued with characteristics of the beholder/partaker's fancy like objects compared side by side in a shop of strange and wonderful delicacies (likely forbidden). Archetypal yearnings attach themselves to those things within both the beholder and the beheld represented by their particular bodies and parts, not the parts or bodies as separate from the persons. It is such things considered apart, or a person considered apart from his or her personhood, apart from what those parts and persons mean to the relationship of two-become-one, that is the embodiment of fetish.

Mary was not Tim's Teddy. She was so much more than that - she was the fulfilment of what Teddy was to Tim in childhood. The truth is that sexual fetishism of any kind represents childishness, even if sophisticated, no less than a teddy bear and infinitely more sinister. Despite Tim's apparent childishness due to his mental limitations, as the story relates, he was still a man. More so than many men with the "full quid." In that sense, he was the full quid. And so was his marriage.

********
Other posts in this series:

note: this post has been rewritten to change the tone. I apologize greatly for the first version.

Apparently the celebrities really do set the trends. The Taboo is Gone.

According to the story from CBS News:

"Today," says Brides magazine Editor in Chief Millie Martini Bratten, "we see so many celebrities who are either pregnant at the altar or they get married after they've had a baby, so it's something people are talking about openly."

"Brides with bellies" are no longer taboo: "The stigma is definitely gone. If couples have already planned to have a family and it happens to coincide with the wedding, they're perfectly fine with that. … It's a different bride and groom today. Their weddings are not like their parents' weddings. They're marrying older. They're living together. They're doing things all at once. So, it's more about celebration, rather than hiding something."

...Rosalie Peng can attest to the wide availability of such gowns. She's expecting her first baby in July, and isn't concealing anything.

"I feel very proud of how my body looks in a wedding dress," Peng says. "I think it's a miracle of life to be pregnant, and any little girl's dream, really so this is like the best part of your life!"

Says relationship expert (pop-culture expert) Amy Kean:

"It's just a reality for many women now. In your 20s, a lot of times, you're focusing on your career and, all of a sudden, you're in your thirties, and you're faced with this much narrower window of time to all of a sudden get married and have a family. So, sometimes these happy events just kind of overlap. And what really matters is if you love each other. I mean, who really cares if you're pregnant?"

As for any lingering social stigmas, Kean says she doesn't "really think there's any downside...a lot of these brides are really creative and combining their bridal and their baby registries and having a giant party and having a big shower for both events. And, in a way, it's really magical, because a lot of them are sort of celebrating starting a family together and a life together at the same time, so there's just more joy all around."

More joy all around...

But no one mentions the inconsistencies. Throwing out “convention” on one hand by conceiving a child before marriage, yet keeping the convention of a wedding gown, especially a white one. Why white? Why wear it at the altar? If you're going to throw out the meaning of things, let's throw it all out.

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)

Folks have been having a field day with this. I don’t know Stephen Colbert; I watch next to no TV. Maybe he deserved it:

(This link has the complete clip)

But whether he did or not, I can’t help but be embarrassed for him. I should be embarrassed for her too, though her response was brilliant.

Colbert, though clearly ill at ease, managed to save face, sort of, and for that he's to be commended. But why didn't he dump her? “‘Scuse me, lips are getting dry, where’s my water” or whatever. And then, “No, Ms. Fonda, your chair is over there.” (She'd probably have stayed after him; I wonder to what extent...)

What’s really unfortunate is that many are championing, or at least not minding, Fonda’s actions. There’s nothing worth applauding, though, when a woman uses her wiles this way, no matter what the reason. Whether the world is full of boorish brutes taking endless advantage of women (the “weaker” sex, right?) or not. Why does no one seem to mind when the tables are turned?

(Am I overreacting? Maybe.)

Let it be “on notice” that women are more aware of their sexual power than they let on, and need to use it every bit as respectfully as men are responsible to use theirs.

(Where is that straitjacket?)

Chuck Colson tells us what a firm of divorce lawyers is up to:

The billboard, set high above Chicago streets, was enough to stop traffic. It featured, on one side, the torso of a buxom young woman wearing a black-lace brassiere and little else. The other side featured the torso of a young man with six-pack abs. The billboard's message? "Life is short: Get a divorce."

So, life is too short to waste in an unhappy marriage. But why the show of flesh? Why not a couple in a flashy car, or cavorting on the beach or something (wait, that’s a health insurance advert). Oh I get it, marriage is about sex. Only people with perfect bodies can get it, I guess. Satisfaction, that is.

Shoot, wish I'd known that before.

The billboard, says its conceiver, Corrie Fetman, "promotes happiness and personal integrity."

Says Colson, “It tells children that there are people out there who are trying break up their parents' marriage.”

I think it tells kids that there are people trying to tell other people to be self-indulgent and childish, that marriage is about certain ideals rather than building a relationship or, heaven forbid, a family, as Colson points out.

I’ve observed this view to be prevalent, that personal integrity is synonymous with being “true to yourself” – true to what you like, and what you will accept, what you will accept being only that which you like. (Note the frequency of the word you) As Chuck says, it means that "life is about gratifying one's desires." But really, it’s the ultimate in wusshood, or wimpiness, or whatever people say these days. "buk-buk-buk" (That's a chicken noise.)

I confess that I had a bit of this attitude in my younger days – personal integrity was about self-identity, which was about tastes and preferences. It was a misguided attempt to “find myself” and assert personal worth. Boy am I glad to have been disabused of that notion; my apologies to whomever I may have inconvenienced with my selfishness. And I’m grateful to those who set a better example.

I can’t stop talking about sex. I just... I just can’t.

From the February/March 2007 issue of Working Mother magazine (“The Only Magazine for Balance Seekers”) comes the question, How’s Your Sex Life? “A whopping 73 percent [of 800 working mothers surveyed] said that they’re unsatisfied with either the quantity or the quality of sex they’re having...yet studies show that – yikes! – our grandmothers had more sex than we do.”

The reason? A “clear division of labor...one of the wife’s responsibilities in tending to domestic affairs was to fulfil her husband’s sexual needs,” says Scott Halzman, MD, author of The Secrets of Happily Married Men: Eight Ways to Win Your Wife’s Heart Forever. But “two thirds of today’s young wives say they are too tired to match that rate.”

The author, Lisa Armstrong, goes on to cite time (due to work, household responsibilities, and children), lack of societal support for mothers, and other factors such as resentment of a husband's leisure, the “sensual saturation” factor experienced by mothers of very young children, and an evolutionary protective instinct (“Not having sex is a protective defense...You don’t want another child if you can hardly stand up!” – Edward Laumann, PhD, author of The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States.)

Well, can't say I buy the last one. Suggested solutions include “being playful” and making sex a priority in one’s schedule (as in, scheduling it). Not sure I buy those either, in and of themselves. But maybe they work for some.

(How does one write about a topic like this? How does one talk about violation of decorum, decorously? I don’t know. Maybe one doesn’t.)

*deep breath*

So, here’s my shocking confession:

I bought a book that no self-respecting woman (or woman in her right mind) should publicly confess to buying. Or perhaps even buy at all: a collection of explicit watercolors inspired by excerpts from Anais Nin’s verbally pornographic Delta of Venus.

(Hello? Are you still there?)

If you promise to keep a straight face, I’ll tell you why. I was curious. (okay, stop it.) I’m curious about feminist ideas of female sexuality. Dunno why, I just am.

How are the pictures? Oh. Well, I find them unpleasant. Really. Judy Chicago’s depictions are harsh, past explicit to the point of pain. So hot as to sear the meat right off the bones. An immolation unintended, I’m sure, by the many references to passion’s fire, not that Nin’s text fragments need further, ah, fleshing out. This being just one of the ironies that cause me to bring it up. (I was not familiar with Chicago’s work before acquiring the book.)

*pause to collect wits, and wipe brow*

Reviewers describe Chicago’s Fragments of the Delta of Venus, surprisingly, as “sensuous,” even “ambrosial.” Not sure what I’m missing; they are raw, stylized in an almost frozen (rather cubist, to my basically uneducated eye) sort of way. Exaggeratedly literal. Oddly enough, they appear stripped of much that I assume to be basic to female sexuality; no mention of love-making – just sex, glaringly exposed.

(One could say that I don’t understand or appreciate the style, but if the art is supposed to help me understand something about myself, doesn’t it follow that the style would be more accessible, or more generally appealing?)

From the book’s Introduction, of greater interest:

Over the course of my career I have been repeatedly drawn to the subject of female sexuality, a subject that has been dominated by male artists and a male gaze. Female perspectives on erotica have been singularly lacking, which is one reason that I have been attracted to the challenge of creating a visual language for female sexual agency. – Judy Chicago

Well, the perspective offered by Chicago is far from decorous, and Nin’s work, while erotic in every way, violates all bounds entirely. Rather than clarify, this serves to further confuse female sexuality. Such things aren't necessary to a woman's sexual agency -- they merely trade one shackle for another. There are far better ways to be freed, and to affirm women as sexual creatures on par with men.

In describing the book, Sarah Lazarovic explains,

Upon being asked whether women are more comfortable these days that they don’t need to think about feminism as much, Judy Chicago answers:

A historian named Gerda Lerner said that women live in a state of trained ignorance. You were trained into not knowing anything about our own history, and, unless you awaken that, you never even know what you’re missing. It’s not an accident that young women don’t know and don’t think about it. You’re not given the information you need to actually decipher and deconstruct some of your experiences, especially as you get older, unless you do avail yourself of the information that will help you make sense of what you’re experiencing — to realize that you have not seen work that speaks to you and to your own sense of self and sexuality.

I’m not sure to what history Chicago refers, but she seems to roll the public achievements of women and their private sexuality into one unit. And surely concerns about deciphering and deconstructing are particular to individual women. But most can be answered by an understanding of the gospel, and the life and faith that follow, rather than specific focus on certain topics; such focus merely attempts to put band-aids on the wounds of a hemophiliac (or makes the wounds worse). As to women of history, a little searching reveals plenty of material to be inspired by.

(Ideally, a woman will find inspiration in the women of her own family, but this doesn't always happen -- which is why the "Titus 2" model of older women of the church mentoring the younger is so important, even for women with strong family role models.)

Regarding sexuality, American parents apparently have stopped preparing their children for its proper expression, if they ever did. I won’t deny that a girl needs mentoring. But familial (parental) guidance, good literature (the Song of Songs, for example), a support group (such as a church), and a good marital relationship should be sufficient to help her “make sense” of her sexuality. She doesn’t need an image of a female threesome, for example, as in Chicago's book, Fragments From the Delta of Venus. A healthy understanding of herself, others, and all that entails, and the dignity inherent in that will provide for a woman all she needs to blossom naturally and fully in the course of her marriage. No additional deciphering necessary.

(As for deconstructing, I’ve had to do that with some of the warped ideals, selfish fixations, and falsely discriminate sexual information that got into my head as I grew up.)

Chicago: This man in Louisville, Kentucky bought the box suite [a heart-shaped valentine box containing intaglio prints from Fragments from the Delta of Venus] for his wife last Valentine’s Day and when she got them, she completely freaked out and sent them back.

Lazarovic: Because they were too explicit for her?

Chicago: Women don’t have a lot of history of seeing their sexuality expressed from another point of view. She’s an art collector. I’m sure she sees hundreds and thousands of images of the male gaze. I’m sure she just never saw something like this. In the history of art, women’s bodies are the embodiment of sexuality. They do not possess female sexual agency, because the woman is, in and of herself, meant to embody sexuality.

Of Chicago's book, Fragments from the Delta of Venus, Judy Chicago's interviewer remarks:

Q: I was surprised by the flowery imagery and softness of this book.

A: It’s very soft. I wanted it to be soft. I worked with a young, female designer at powerHouse [Chicago's publisher] and you know we worked to make the book intimate, modest, evocative, sensual. It’s sort of my version of Corbet’s Origin of the World. I wanted Delta to be a sort of analogue, your own private place where you could go and explore these images that are not usually readily available, that I hope would speak to people about an aspect of their sexuality and their sexual experience that they don’t usually see.

As for a “private place”...why would a woman need her own private place to explore sexuality, which is meant for mutual experience in a marital relationship, except for masturbatory purposes? Exhibitionism and voyeurism, even if artistic, and even of nameless, faceless archetypal figures, are still intimacy squandered and stolen. They are masturbatory activities.

(Are Chicago’s pictures evocative? Sure. Are they sensual? Not really. As I’ve said, they’re blunt, caricatured. And frankly, close-ups of genitalia are basically that, whether stylized with flower petals and other objects, or not.)

I wouldn’t think that the average American woman of today has much trouble finding her sexual imagination. What she may have difficulty with is connecting it to a real-life marital relationship, and Chicago’s work unfortunately does little toward that end. Nor does it help de-objectify women as sexual beings. Though her stated purpose is to call attention to women as sexual beings and give them license to find fulfilment, she gives no information as to purpose, besides unfettered sexual hedonism. Sexuality still seems to be about the one who has it, not the nature of the relationship in which it is to be shared.

And this is the view of society-at-large, which objectifies sex and condones it without discrimination (as long as there’s mutual consent) while simultaneously promoting it in terms of group-think. (Not to be confused with group sex, although that’s not ruled out either.) And unfortunately, not many even in the church are saying that sex isn’t basically about the self, even if reserved for marriage. Which, taken to its conclusion, means that sex is, in essence, masturbatory. And many do not seem to contest nor have a problem with this.

Feminists such as Chicago react against a notion that men control (or suppress, by default) the sexual agency of women, and want to escape dependency upon men. But to demand something of someone, even if it be recognition, is still dependence. Either sex can be gracious or not, controlling or not. (Note the domineering wife and the milquetoast husband.) Should a guy allow himself to be manipulated or subjected by a woman, even if mildly (see this post)?

Most of the sexual problems anyone has are, I suspect, a result of misunderstanding what a good relationship is and how to build one, and where sex fits in and how. Though for some, it could also be a lack of information. But not for lack of feminist art. Dependency in relationships isn't necessarily a problem, either -- spouses do depend upon one another, ideally, in a mutual and reciprocal way. And as in any other type of relationship, communication and mutual respect are crucial.

To dichotomize sexuality by gender is to diminish its all-important unifying aspect. Yes, there are differences, but they're meant for complementary, not cross-purposes, and a spouse needs as much understanding of his/her spouse as of him/herself.

(Part IV is better, I promise.)

(warning: not for the faint of heart)

Judy Chicago’s magnum opus, The Dinner Party, was completed in 1979, and recently moved into its permanent home at the Brooklyn Museum. As described by LewAllen Contemporary:

Judy Chicago's The Dinner Party elevates female achievement in Western history to a heroic scale traditionally reserved for men. The Dinner Party is a massive ceremonial banquet in art, laid on a triangular table measuring 48 feet on each side. Combining the glory of sacramental tradition with the intimate detail of a carefully orchestrated social gathering, the artist represents 39 "guests of honor" by individually symbolic, larger-than-life-size china-painted porcelain plates rising from intricate textiles draped completely over the tabletop. Each plate features an image based on the [flower, or butterfly], symbolic of a vaginal central core. The runners name the 39 women and bear images drawn from each one's story.”

In her coverage of the installation for the Washington Post, Rachel Beckman confesses, “The vaginal imagery was blatant, like a Georgia O'Keeffe flower that stopped pretending to be a flower. I blushed. I giggled.” In relating her discomfort to Chicago, she was told:

I think we're all educated to be frightened of female power. So am I surprised you reacted that way? No. I'm not surprised. And I don't think you should be upset with yourself about it. I think you should be upset about the culture that made it that way.

Well, now I’m sure I’m not the one who doesn’t get it -- it’s not about female power, or squeamishness, or even "the culture" -- it depends on which culture you're talking about. Whatever happened to modesty? Decorum?! (Mystique? Not Friedan's version.) Should I be upset that "the culture" taught me that certain parts belong in certain places, under certain wraps, whether archetypically representative or not?

More notes on the Introduction to Fragments from the Delta of Venus by Judy Chicago:

egotistical men (and women)
...It's certainly true that, historically and today, there are egotistical, insecure men who have squelched women (and probably other men too), which is worse when they are in groups and can maintain this environment. But this is not due to their masculinity. It seems that Chicago and other feminists genderize selfishness. Or, rather, see the selfishness of others but are blind to their own.

Not that selfishness may not manifest itself sometimes in ways generally characteristic of one gender or the other. For example, I see Chicago's reaction to male oppression as decidedly female - the proverbial hissy fit. In her outrage she says, "Well, I'll show you." (And does she). I've observed other feminists adopt such "masculine" bully tactics as well. Fight fire with fire. Though she claims to recognize the value of a gracious word or action, her art does not strike me as gracious.

self-service
I won't argue that women shouldn't be encouraged to assert their sexual agency fully in marriage, as well as fully accept the sexual agency of their husbands. But, like Kinsey, Chicago has taken sexual agency out of marriage as its arena exclusively and portrayed it as existing for its own sake. In other words, idolized it.

This is a difficult thing to talk about. And I don't necessarily have it all figured out. I am not condemning a woman's, or anyone's, taking of sexual pleasure in marriage, but if it's all about taking and none about giving (as in, a massive pendulum swing), then people are just using one another in a masturbatory way. There is no generosity. This is part of my objection to autoerotism (solo masturbation).

Indeed, some of Anais Nin's fragments from Delta of Venus as illustrated by Chicago are of a woman's erotic response to her own body, or to the female body.

It’s clear that many are confused as to just what constitutes being a prude, so I, ever humble and magnanimous, offer to help clear that up.

(First of all, isn’t “prude” an ugly word? Think a person with a bad cold talking about dried plums.) With that in mind, I give you Webster’s definition, copyright 1983:

prude, n. [O Fr. prude, prode excellent; Fr. prude, prob. from L. prudens, prudent.] a person affecting a bearing or demeanor that is overly modest or proper.

Two things here: affecting, and overly. Meaning that a prude isn’t someone who honestly thinks that wearing a vagina costume in public is...is...who would never wear a vagina costume in public for reasons of propriety (just in case: propriety, n. [Fr. propriete; L. proprietas, from proprius, one’s own.] 1. the quality of being proper, fitting, or suitable; fitness. 2. conformity with what is proper or fitting. syn. appropriateness, circumspection, decency, seemliness, correctness.) or thinking that it’s stupid, but someone who pretends to not be sexual when s/he is. Who goes to extremes to keep a certain appearance.

By this definition, “prudish” does not apply to someone who thinks that certain sexual activity is incorrect, inappropriate, or unwise even if partaken by consenting individuals, but to someone who puts on a show of propriety while in truth being (secretly) improper.

Wikipedia gives us a much more nuanced and expanded definition, in which sexual repression is offered as being synonymous with prudery. Repression, according to the Free Dictionary, is: "psychology: The unconscious exclusion of painful impulses, desires, or fears from the conscious mind; a state of forcible subjugation; control by holding down."

According to Webster 1983, it means "to repress; to crush; to quell; to put down; to subdue; to suppress; to check; to keep down; to hold back, to restrain." OR "to prevent the natural development or expression of; to control too strictly or severely."

I think we’d all agree that limits, however, are good. Limits are our friend. They help keep us and others safe and happy (truly happy), or at least joyful in the ultimate sense of the word. And sometimes restraint is necessary. But for the Christian it becomes less necessary as one’s impulses and desires are transformed. Though certain impulses and desires may be eliminated entirely, others integral to our being, i.e., part of the imago dei, become un-corrupted so that their object is different. They are experienced, and can be fulfilled, in a proper and healthy context, or otherwise kept dormant.

Want to know someone famous who was sexually repressed on purpose? Ghandi. He attempted celibacy in marriage in order to purify himself. But this is not something Christian or biblical (see I Corinthians 7). Sexual desire and expression are not things to purify a marriage of; they're an integral part of it. The problem is, once again, a view that sexuality is solely, or primarily, about the self. But it's not. It's about marriage.

So a person who thinks that sex is for the ecstatic cementing of a marriage, and not for any other purpose or context, is not a prude. Or a prune.

(Since one of my favorite bloggers, retired professor Martin LaBar, linked to one of my posts and mentioned that it wasn’t about sex, I thought I’d better get with the program ;-) )

(Warning: frank language ahead)

Joe Carter links to Challies, who writes about Naomi Wolf’s article in New York Magazine, The Porn Myth, which first appeared in 2003. Wolf, a third-wave feminist,* explains how "The onslaught of porn is responsible for deadening male libido in relation to real women," and says this ultimately weakens the family. (No, this isn't Focus on the Family talking, this is a feminist!) Other cultures, Wolf says -- traditional cultures, even -- know this about sexual ubiquity. She even quotes from Proverbs 5:18-19: "Rejoice in the wife of your youth...let her breasts satisfy you at all times."

Wolf also says something rather modern about orgasm and Pavlovian response:

After all, pornography works in the most basic of ways on the brain: It is Pavlovian. An orgasm is one of the biggest reinforcers imaginable. If you associate orgasm with your wife, a kiss, a scent, a body, that is what, over time, will turn you on; if you open your focus to an endless stream of ever-more-transgressive images of cybersex slaves, that is what it will take to turn you on. The ubiquity of sexual images does not free eros but dilutes it.

I wonder if she’s read Eros Defiled by John White, published in 1977. In it, he discusses Pavlov’s dogs and reward as a powerful operant conditioner, which I mentioned in Part II of my “Learning to speak the language” (of sex) series.

In Eros Defiled, John White suggests that our sexual attitudes and practices get “set” by the same mechanism that caused Pavlov’s dogs to salivate at the ringing of a bell: habit, and association with pleasure (pp. 40-42). Orgasm, being a very intense physical, mental, and emotional pleasure, is no doubt a strong behavioral reinforcer that helps establish both healthy and unhealthy sexual patterns. Yet as Lauren Winner suggests in Real Sex, discipline of the body, mind, and heart can help guide the creation of healthy patterns and provide a positive kind of positive reinforcement.

While I believe, as does White, that human behavior is based upon more than mere physical conditioning such as that experienced by rats or dogs, at the same time, humans are clearly also conditioned via thought and (especially) emotion. There really is no escaping this. These features of human conditioning shape our disciplines and our habits, which in turn shape us. However, before that, it is our will, and our spiritual state, which shape our thoughts and emotions.

As for dilution (see end of Wolf quote above), I mentioned this in one of my pieces on masturbation at my old blog, Off the Top, a couple years ago:

I assumed that the oft-lamented statistic that says that evangelical Christians have a higher divorce rate than non-Christians was a result of the fact that evangelicals actually get married instead of living together, some of them precipitately without being prepared for marriage. However, The Wandering Heretic quotes from and comments on the recently published book, Forbidden Fruit: Sex and Religion in the Lives of American Teenagers by Mark Regnerus:

Evangelicals are more sexually impure than almost any other demographic group in the United States. Not only is the Evangelical faith ineffective in lowering pre-marital sex rates in teens and divorce rates in marrieds, it actually appears to be damaging to sexual morality. . . So it appears that atheists and liberals are not only better at keeping their knees together before marriage they excel over Evangelicals in keeping their partnerships intact after marriage.

Ouch. Is it true? Or am I missing something in the statistics? If it's so, why? And what do we do about it (assuming that you agree with me that it shouldn't be true)?

Read The Wandering Heretic's post and then come back and tell me it ain't so ---or how to make it different.

Thanks to John Piper, here's a little more insight on the whole issue of teen sexuality and chastity among evangelicals. It turns out that the book I mentioned (without having read it) distinguishes between teens who take their faith very seriously and those who claim to be evangelical Christians but admit that they don't adhere to key Christian doctrines. The former (16% of American teenagers) are for the most part living morally pure lives while the latter group are not doing so well in the same area.

The devil is always in the details ---especially with statistics. We still have quite a job to do in encouraging nominal Christians to discover the joy and the obligation of living a holy life, but the picture is not as bleak as I thought it was at first.

See also this follow-up post by Caine at The Wandering Heretic.