Christianity and sex

I was in the car today when my father was listening to the preacher on the radio. He gave what was according to him an list, from absolute truth, of what God prohibits sexually. I can't recite it exactly, but as well as I can, he said God prohibits incest, homosexuality and lesbianism, extra-marital sex, bestiality, rape and S&M.

So being trapped in the car, and the ESV generously having been given away on the Kindle, I looked up some verses in Leviticus. Paul makes some comments in the New Testament--feel free to point them out--but Leviticus is the detailed source. Leviticus 18 is pretty clear that males shall not commit incest. But 18:18 is clear by implication that polygamy is acceptable. 18:22, the big homosexuality verse, says "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."--that is, unless there's some other places he's citing, it does not prohibit lesbianism. Most interesting, Leviticus 18:19 clearly prohibits menstrual sex. There's no way I can see of reading this section and arguing that 18:19 is moot and not 18:22 or the incest prohibitions. Chapter 20, in pretty similar words, reiterates many of these prohibitions, including the one about menstrual sex, which seems to have been missed by this preacher and most people I've read on the subject.

(This is a sidenote, but I found Chapter 19 stuck between those two to be very interesting, with verses 9-18,29-37 being awesome ethical rules and standard religious prohibitions, and verses 19-28 being rather bizarre and for the most part completely forgotten by modern Christians. "Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.", "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.", "Do not ... put tattoo marks on yourselves.", etc.)

So, yeah, Biblical literalism, especially combined with preacherly assumption of omniscience, annoys the heck out of me. If this doesn't apply to your branch of Christianity, feel free to take as not applying. But this is not a strawman, this is a response to something very real in my life.

How would you like to approach these verses in question?

Personally? I treat them the same way I treat the Code of Hammurabi or the Zend-Avesta, as an interesting historical attempt to understand how humans should act.

For those who believe in the Bible? I would like the pretense of literalism and divinely obvious truth to be swept away. Or at least a reading of the Bible that wasn't so convenient, that interpreted the Bible as it comes instead of how we'd like it to come. If you're going to filter your Bible through the lights of modern ethical understanding, at least be honest about that, and don't treat your understanding as if it came down on tablets from Mount Sinai. I would say that several of the people here are good about that.

1: "I can't recite it exactly, but as well as I can, he said God prohibits incest, homosexuality and lesbianism, extra-marital sex, bestiality, rape and S&M."

Even putting aside the question of Cain's and Seth's wives, the marriage of Abram and Sarai makes it hard to argue that God forbade incest prior to the handing down of the Law at Sinai.

I asked my question in >2 richardbsmith: because of your last sentence that "this is not a straw man...something very real in my life."

For those who consider themselve bible believers, in contrast to me who I suppose by the standards of some is not a bible believer, we must approach each verse literally as a command from above.

I do not expect they are persuaded by calling their literal approach a pretense or requiring their assumption of divinely obvious truth to be swept away.

That is not my personal approach, but it is one we can take, if that might address the thing real in your life.

From my perspective as a Christian, it is hard to reconcile Paul's announcement of personal freedom and that we are not to judge, with the list of things to do and not to do.

The median age of first marriage in the US in 2010 is 28yrs for males, 26 (or 26.5) for females.

I couldn't find the median age of first intercourse, but the average age is something like
17 years (16.9 for males, 17.4 for females) according to one source.

I'm not sure how spot on accurate any of that is, but lets take those numbers as a reasonable starting point.

What all that means is that if biblical laws as understood by the "No sex till marriage" crowd were to be universally observed, everyone would begin his or her sex life with a fast of over nine or ten years duration, on average.

Now if that's your vision of the good life, well, there's no accounting for taste, and heck! its a free country, but I think most of us would blow a raspberry at the very thought of it.

Three cheers for the author of life, who gives you life in abundance, youth, health and joy. But no sex till you're pushing thirty. Who thinks that's not just plain daft?

#5: I do not expect they are persuaded by calling their literal approach a pretense or requiring their assumption of divinely obvious truth to be swept away.

Then adhere to what the literal approach demands. What is written, accept, and what is not written, do not add, at least not as God-given.

That would be an interesting approach - is there an interest in working through Leviticus with a literal mind, applying its principles to today's cultural environment?

Isn't it in Acts that Paul visits Jerusalem, and the Jewish Christians and the apostle to the gentiles establish which laws must be followed by the gentiles? Much of Leviticus is not binding on Christians.

Robert

>1 prosfilaes: Fortunately most ordinary Christians seem to disagree with your preacher's interpretation of scripture.

#8: Hasn't that been done by some sects of orthodox Jews?

#9: True, but that's subject to interpretation. I can tell you for sure it never says Leviticus 18:7-18,22 are still relevant (that's incest and homosexuality) but Leviticus 18:19 isn't.

I'm surprised the preacher didn't mention porn. I suppose you might be able categorize that as some kind of televised orgy, but there's no mention of orgies either! I mean, if God was against porn and the dudes writing it down didn't know anything about TV or photography, you'd think God would at least have the foresight to tell them "No naughty drawings!" instead.

#10: And on which station of the radio dial may I find these ordinary Christians? Locally I'm hard put to identify any groups of Christians who don't disagree with homosexuality. Given that the largest church in the world has taken a firm position against homosexuality and even contraception, I'm questioning the numbers worldwide. You can invoke "ordinary Christians" all you want, but when those who speak for Christians say other things, I have to wonder how much the "ordinary Christians" really matter; you will be known by those you let speak for you.

And I didn't want to come off this aggressive; I do understand he does not speak for all Christians. Neither, however, can his position be dismissed as an unimportant one, especially not where I live.

>13 prosfilaes: I don't disagree with much of what you say, but I'm a member of that "largest church in the world" and, from my experience and reading, both the praxis and the opinion of many of its ordinary members differs from its official position. That fact cannot be brushed aside. You may claim to know people by who speaks for them; I prefer to know people by their fruits. We don't elect our leaders in the Catholic Church, and it seems there is even less of a selection process with many of these self-proclaimed evangelical preachers.

I also don't want to appear aggressive. I understand that his position is important, particularly in the USA, but I want to emphasise that worldwide most Christians appear to be voting with their feet (or their genitals, perhaps, in this case) and that praxis does not match the rhetoric of evangelical preachers or the official doctrine of Rome. That's important.

Edited to add: on which station of the radio dial may I find these ordinary Christians?

The silent majority rarely appears on radio stations; it just gets on with it... silently.

Acts 15
James decided that Gentiles turning to God should not be troubled, only they should write to the Gentiles to instruct them to abstain 1. from things polluted by idols 2. from fornication 3. from whatever has been strangled 4. and from blood.

The reason given is "that in every city Moses has had those who proclaim him"

I am not sure how binding this might be, and I am not sure how the decision follows from the reason given.

Paul elsewhere argues that faith comes before the law and Moses. (Gal 3.17)

Actually father/daughter incest is NOT prohibited in Leviticus, so I guess people get a pass on this one.

>11 prosfilaes: regarding the work of orthodox Jews.

I am certain that Leviticus has been reviewed from a literal perspective. However I have not done so. I do not know which commands I might pick and which I might drop from among those given in Leviticus.

I do not know of any broadcast media outlets for a more liberal view of Christianity.

>6 modalursine:: "But no sex till you're pushing thirty. Who thinks that's not just plain daft?"

My wife (the PhD in evolutionary biology) and I thought that waiting until we were married was not only quite sensible but in many ways heightened the experience.

>16 Arctic-Stranger:
Leviticus 18:6. "None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness"
Although not specified in the examples which follow, father/daughter incest must surely be included in v.6.

> 18 heightened the experience

Er ... compared to what? I believe it likely that long-delayed sex was a lot more exciting than no sex had been.

In a little capsule review of experimental psychology regarding pleasure, I recently read:

Among its strking discoveries is that it is impossible for us to know who is having more pleasure -- or even to know reliably when I myself am having more pleasure than I had on a previous occasion. Through a range of empirical cases and meticulous argumentation, Harvard psychologist Daniel Gilbert has shown how pleasure appears as an aspect of one's own experience that one finds toughest to judge accurately. ("These experiments tell us that the experiences of our former selves are sometimes as opaque to us as the experiences of other people"). (Future Foucault, p. 485)

>20 paradoxosalpha:: Modal's question assumes that it is daft to think that waiting to have sex until marriage is a good thing. This reflects an odd fascination that certain sections of modern culture have with people who make that decision -- remember the American track star (her name evades me at the moment) who made waves in the lead up to the Olympics because she said she's a virgin waiting until marriage? (Edited to add: I found the coverage of Lolo Jones, a report of which can be found here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreligion/2012/08/lolo-jones-cant-be-sexy-christi... )

The reaction in the media was one of bewilderment mixed with incredulity: how is such a thing possible? She must be either (1) lying or (2) very weird.

Why is the decision to wait until marriage treated as such a foreign concept? Why does it strike such an oddly-sounding chord, mixing astonishment at its "otherness" with a bit of arrogant suspicion of that "otherness"?

Somebody please explain this to me, because I don't get it. I don't understand why saving the gift of your sexuality, the gift of your body, for the person to whom you make the deepest commitment of love and life, is considered such a strange idea.

> 21

I'm just saying that you have no standard at all for comparing your "heightened" experience to anyone else's. Your defensive posture cloaks an indictment of other people's choices to enjoy their sexuality without the sanction of a church- or state-recognized marriage.

>22 paradoxosalpha:: "Your defensive posture cloaks an indictment of other people's choices"

Modal's the one who indicted my choices by calling them "daft" -- which is exactly the point I was trying to make. There seems to be a general consensus in the media (and amongst some posters here on LT) that if you make the decision to abstain until marriage, you are making a "weird" decision -- and not only that, it is hinted that your decision is dangerous because it is, as you seem to indicate here, "judgmental".

> 23

Modal in #6 said "Now if that's your vision of the good life, well, there's no accounting for taste, and heck! its a free country, but I think most of us would blow a raspberry at the very thought of it."

Statistics say he's probably right, and most of us would. You aren't satisfied with your own dissidence, though. You have to protest that it's "sensible" and "heightened the experience."

And in the part that you found most objectionable, he wrote: "But no sex till you're pushing thirty. Who thinks that's not just plain daft?"

Were you "pushing thirty"? Sorry to ask such an intimate question, but you decided to make it about yourself personally. Can you see why, given the curve of human physical development over time, it can seem that delaying sex well into one's third decade would be a counterproductive program?

#14: worldwide most Christians appear to be voting with their feet (or their genitals, perhaps, in this case)

The problem is that tends to lead to hypocrisy; we'll do it, but that doesn't mean we won't tell other people not to. Or even just we'll do it, we won't lecture people one way or the other, but if a bunch of people jump on someone for doing it, we won't get involved.

The silent majority rarely appears on radio stations; it just gets on with it... silently.

Claiming to be the majority is one of the oldest tricks in the book. Even if we accept your unevidenced claim, where's the honor in letting someone else speak for you and then claiming what they say doesn't represent you? Where's the wisdom?

>15 richardbsmith: "I am not sure how binding this might be"

Depending on the chronology of the Pauline Epistles (and the authenticity of the account in Acts!), Paul would appear to have reneged on the prohibition on meat sacrificed to idols.

The lasting influence of the 'council' in Acts 15 seems to have been its exemplification of synodality rather than its concrete decrees.

I'm not aware of a major historic church which insists on avoiding blood or strangled animals (though the taboo has been independently reinvented by many over-earnest individuals, memorably Christina Pontifex in The Way of All Flesh). A piece of trivia I picked up was that this ruling was explicitly rejected as no longer applicable by the c15th Council of Florence ("since the cause of that apostolic prohibition has ceased, so its effect has ceased"); similarly, of interest to Anglicans, Richard Hooker cited this as an example of a Law uncontestedly declared by the Holy Spirit yet "abrogated by decease of the end for which it was given" (Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Bk III, Ch. x).

>13 prosfilaes: "And on which station of the radio dial may I find these ordinary Christians?"

I'm surprised John hasn't already suggested the BBC.

According to Steve Bruce's sociological study of Televangelism, Pray TV, mainline ecumenical, and generally rather bland, Christianity dominated the American airwaves in the 50's and the turning point came with an apparently innocuous FCC decision in 1960 to stop discriminating between 'commercial' and 'sustaining' time - stations still needed religious broadcasting to fulfill their public interest obligations, but could fulfil this requirement with paid-for programming. A further ruling meant that the restrictions on the amount of commercial time permitted for each hour of programming did not apply to religious programmes. For various reasons, it was not the mainline denominations who were prepared to pay (and solicit funds on air to do so!).

>6 modalursine: I couldn't find the median age of first intercourse, but the average age is something like 17 years (16.9 for males, 17.4 for females) according to one source.

Spot on, in my case. I was almost 17 and the experienced older lady who encouraged my fornication was 17 and a few months. I suspect that ages are lower for today's teens.

If only I could be that age, and know what I know now.

>25 prosfilaes: letting someone else speak for you

Nobody is speaking for me. Some people within my Church say things with which I disagree. Others say things with which I agree. I don't think that's hypocrisy.

ref 18

Well, chacun a son gout. For an individual or couple, making a free choice, why should I or why should anyone object? None of our damn business.

But as a general rule, enforced as in times past with the rule of law?

Death to fornicators (Its in Shakespeare, neh? ) and its alive and well in certain countries today.

Even as general advice to be taken (or not) under one's own volition, its pretty daft.

Might as well tell people not to pee. Builds character and anyway micturation, fech!

>26 rwb24: I'm surprised John hasn't already suggested the BBC

Actually I've heard "conservative" Christians criticising the BBC because it has quite an open policy on religious broadcasting. Christianity appears to be losing its privileged position and the faith programmes cover a broad spectrum of religious belief, probably of the more moderate middle-of-the-road open-and-tolerant variety.

Thankfully, in these threads, evidence for support of Godwin's Law is rather thin.
But there is another likelihood of a reference arising, for which I don't believe a title has yet been given. As these discussions continue the possiblity increases that someone will refer to their wife as being an evolutionary biologist. Has anyone else noticed this?
What is the reason for this? To give some sort of scientific credence for a claim? Or merely to show tolerance for a point of view that we can't quite come to terms with?
Any suggestions for a title?
One of my mistresses, who seems to be a closet creationist, supports the view that sex is enhanced after marriage both physically and spiritually. Usually.

>32 jbbarret:: I'm the one who's at fault at here, and if it rises to the level of a nonsense Internet meme.... I was going to go on another rant about some guy named Goodwimple, but I think I'll let that alone for the moment, in order to make the more humble confession:

I'm the one who's at fault here, but that's mainly because I am married to an evolutionary biologist, on whose knowledge and kind instruction at the dinner table I rely quite heavily as a crutch, seeing as how the last time I was formally schooled in biology was 8th grade (I focused on physics and chemistry in high school, scoring sufficiently well on AP-equivalent exams so as to avoid having to take science in college ... a decision I have lived to regret).

And though it is perhaps less than proper, I do also lean on her credentials and our marriage as a symbol that theology--even conservative theology--can coexist quite happily with the findings of modern science, even that branch of science--evolution--where the conflicts between the two are supposed to be so intractable. My wife, by the way, does the same thing on occasion: I'm lifted up as proof that the faithful need be neither afraid nor scornful of good science.

She is a participant, for example, in The Clergy Letter Project, "an endeavor designed to demonstrate that religion and science can be compatible and to elevate the quality of the debate of this issue." As part of that, she has spoken at area churches about both the scientific basics of genetics and evolution (she's a geneticist and approaches evolution through the lens of genetics and genomics) and on how she herself reconciles her Christian faith with her work as a scientist. We've also been asked preliminarily by our church to consider offering a series of lectures next year to the congregation as a whole speaking to the issue from the perspectives of both a scientist and a theologian.

The key to the answers that we give in this area is that any apparent conflict between the two is illusory at best: I often take the epistemological approach of affirming that both science and faith seek the truth, and that truth properly perceived cannot contradict the truth; my wife often goes in the direction of exploring how the sheer wonder and awesomeness of the world reflects the love of the Creator in whom she believes.

>33 nathanielcampbell:: truth properly perceived cannot contradict the truth

Nothing wrong with that.

Amazing how much is packed into "properly perceived".

#29: You're personalizing it. Whatever you do is fine, but if you're saying that majority of Christians disagree with those who are the public face of Christianity, then yes, they are letting someone else speak for them.

>35 modalursine:: Intentionally so. (And the humility to admit that we rarely perceive things properly or correctly should, I think, be demanded of all of us.)

#21 Somebody please explain this to me, because I don't get it. I don't understand why saving the gift of your sexuality, the gift of your body, for the person to whom you make the deepest commitment of love and life, is considered such a strange idea.

Well, we're mortal. There's a great deal to be said for carpe diem. (...Maybe it's a reverse Pascal's Wager....)

"Man that is born of a woman is of few days and full of trouble. He cometh forth like a flower, and is cut down: he fleeth also as a shadow, and continueth not."

"Happiness shared is happiness multiplied"

"Practice makes perfect"

"Use it or lose it"

Sexual activity is one of the great consolations for being human (and mortal).

I'm old enough to remember When It Changed, and I would not want the culture to change back.

(This conversation might deserve a thread of its own.)

>36 prosfilaes: Well, we disagree on that. Maybe we have different understandings of what Christianity is? And as I said, we don't elect our leaders, so what can we do when they say things we disagree with, except say and do what we believe to be right, which is precisely what we are doing?

Is it hypocrisy for someone to retain her US citizenship even if she disagrees with Obama? Is it hypocrisy for someone to continue to identify as part of a family even if he disagrees with his father's political or religious views? Is it hypocrisy for someone to remain a Catholic even if she disagrees with some of the utterances of the hierarchy?

>38 AsYouKnow_Bob:: old enough to remember When It Changed

Yes, wasn't it 1963, Philip Larkin's Annus Mirabilis?

#21: I don't understand why saving the gift of your sexuality, the gift of your body, for the person to whom you make the deepest commitment of love and life, is considered such a strange idea.

It's a little like waiting until marriage before your first kiss. It's an ascetic oddity. While people do tend to attribute some specialness to one's "first time," the notion that virginity is some kind of "gift" to give to your spouse smacks of the bedtime stories about Santa Claus keeping a list of naughty and nice kids concocted to make kids behave. And the inevitable other side of the "gift" narrative is that if you do have sex before marriage, you've been "deflowered" or "spoiled" or become "damaged goods," that now you'll have no "gift" to give to your spouse and that you'll never get it back. If someone really wants to wait until marriage, that's their choice. But to teach a child that virginity is some kind of magic gift they need to hold onto lest it escape on the wind never to be seen again is as retarded as teaching them to believe in cooties.

#39: And as I said, we don't elect our leaders

That's true of your sect, but it's hardly true of Christianity as a whole. A number of Protestant churches do literally elect their leaders, and many Protestants are willing to vote with their feet even when that's not true.

say and do what we believe to be right, which is precisely what we are doing?

If they are the majority, then they don't speak very loudly.

>6 modalursine: "The median age of first marriage in the US in 2010 is 28yrs for males, 26 (or 26.5) for females.

I couldn't find the median age of first intercourse, but the average age is something like
17 years (16.9 for males, 17.4 for females) according to one source."

So really the median age of first intercourse has remained pretty much the same since forever, but the age of first marriage has increased by 10 years in the last century and a half. I suspect that, if sex before marriage was made illegal, and you could somehow enforce that, the age of marriage would immediately fall to what it was in Victorian times. (Not that I'm proposing that, or even think that would be a good thing. 17 is a bit too young to get married in an age when a college degree is essential to most careers. But that's what would happen.)

>42 prosfilaes: That's true of your sect

Well, it is the largest Christian "sect" in the world, so it does have some significance.

they don't speak very loudly

Well, firstly I would say with all due respect that you, as an outsider, are probably not aware of all the "speaking" that goes on on the inside. Public debate has its pros and cons but is not the only way of "speaking". Secondly, they speak by their actions, which are probably more significant than words.

~5

"For those who consider themselve bible believers, in contrast to me who I suppose by the standards of some is not a bible believer, we must approach each verse literally as a command from above.

I do not expect they are persuaded by calling their literal approach a pretense or requiring their assumption of divinely obvious truth to be swept away."

Of course, that is only true if one of your religious leaders hasn't had a dream, the allegorical interpretation of which is that his group is excused from virtually all of these commandments from above.

~6

"What all that means is that if biblical laws as understood by the "No sex till marriage" crowd were to be universally observed, everyone would begin his or her sex life with a fast of over nine or ten years duration, on average."

Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat. Darn, that trick never works.

>41 Lunar:: "But to teach a child that virginity is some kind of magic gift they need to hold onto lest it escape on the wind never to be seen again is as retarded as teaching them to believe in cooties."

I think that grossly misrepresents the view of human sexuality that I am proposing. It is not some commodity that once given can never be regained, or any other such prudish neo-Victorian nonsense. What I am proposing, and what my wife and I fully intend to implement in raising our children, is an open and frank discussion of the blessings of human sexuality, blessings that reach far deeper than simply fulfilling the rush of physical desire in a one-night stand.

The blessings of human sexuality are as much emotional and spiritual as they are physical. They are about communicating love, respect, and companionship with another. Human sexuality is a powerful tool of bonding, physically, emotionally, and spiritually. And the implications of sexuality's deep and resonant significances are that it is not something to be taken lightly, to be frittered away because your boyfriend pressured you into it on prom night or your girlfriend thought that at 16, you were to be soul-mates and that her only way of keeping you around was to put out. We should have a deep respect for ourselves as sexual creatures, a respect that says, "I'm worth waiting for. I'm worth waiting for that moment when we each are fully prepared to make that deepest commitment of love and respect to each other."

(This, by the way, is not a conversation we ever got from our parents. The most either of us got from our parents were brief, nervous, and hesitant intimations about using protection. The view of sexuality that we both got growing up did in many ways veer into the prudish mode, not because of some cult of virginity but because it wasn't talked about: it was taboo. We both regret that it was so and are committed to being far more open--God help me, I'm blushing just thinking about it--with our children in these matters.)

> 47 blessings that reach far deeper than simply fulfilling the rush of physical desire in a one-night stand.

You are offering a straw man and implicitly constructing a false dichotomy between celibate-until-marriage and one-night-stand as the only approaches to sexual behavior. I had plenty of "pre-marital sex," and none of it consisted of "one-night stands" or the adolescent arm-twisting you describe.

It's true, as you say, that the potential rewards of sex are not limited to physical gratification. But the idea that every sexual act should deliver all the possible "blessings" thereof just sets up a pointless and absurd standard. Some of my meals are highly nutritious, some are tasty, some are both. If I insisted that they all be both, I suspect I would eat less often and less well -- or I would be obsessively preoccupied with food.

Your ungrounded assertions notwithstanding, I think that my prior sexual experience has contributed positively to, rather than detracting from, my sex life with my current wife. And I think what's good for the gander is good for the goose, too. Our daughter has already had some pretty frank talk from us about sex, so forgive me if I'm unimpressed by your blushing intentions.

ref 47

"The blessings of human sexuality are as much emotional and spiritual as they are physical. They are about communicating love, respect, and companionship with another. Human sexuality is a powerful tool of bonding, physically, emotionally, and spiritually. "

Fine. Agreed. Sweedak.

So here are Bob and Alice, young adults say in their mid to late 20's, decent, self supporting, and unmarried. They meet. They are mutually attracted to one another. They develop a romantic relationship and in due course, they both desire to do what comes naturally.

Let me not put words into your mouth.

You tell me. Do you say it would it be wrong, or foolish, or sinful (i.e. contrary to the will of the author of goodness) , or ill advised, or perhaps just not the wisest course for them to enjoy physical sex with each other so long as they are not actually married to one another?

What word or words would you use to explain why they should abstain? What is your justification?

In an earlier post, you seemed to be giving a utilitarian justification, that the experience would be heightened if it came at the end of a long fast. Wouldn't abstaining for a week or so before the wedding achieve the same effect? One enjoys a meal more if one has worked up a good appetite before hand; but then again, would one enjoy a gourmet meal optimally if one were ravenously hungry? Isn't there such a thing as too much of an otherwise good thing? How about fasting for a month or more before eating?
Surely that would be more than "over the top" ?

But I sense (and again, I don't mean to put words into your mouth) that utilitarian concerns are not what you're about, but rather, you attach some sort of value to virginity itself.

Of course, it seems to me that purposely and self consciously preserving virginity well beyond the age when most people would wish to be rid of it is a perversion in the classical sense of being something "contrary to nature".

What's so hot (no pun) about virginity in people in their twenties and older that anyone should value it either in themselves or in others?

#14: worldwide most Christians appear to be voting with their feet (or their genitals, perhaps, in this case)

Just as long as that guy who votes with his genitals isn't the one in the booth before me at the next election . . .

>49 modalursine:: It really is extraordinary how you can pervert the meaning of what I'm trying to say -- none too subtly implying that I must have a secret "virgin" fetish or some other such nonsense.

There are two ways we can approach this: from the theological perspectives I hold because of my faith, and from "utilitarian" considerations, as you call them. Frankly, I don't think it's much worth my time to lay out the former, as you've shown a consistent unwillingness to try to understand them, choosing rather the pervert them into notions of virginity fetishes. But since this is a thread on "Christianity and sexuality", I will make the attempt nonetheless.

Human sexuality has what philosophers would call two final causes: (1) procreation and (2) pleasure (though pleasure might also be thought of as an efficient cause, in which case we are discussing two different types of sexual pleasure, that of the act {efficient} and that of the result {final}). Theologically, the first of these (procreation) is the primary, for it is in the act of procreation that we enact a significant part of being made in the image and likeness of God: for as he creates everything, so we act to create. (Though in this act of procreation we are not different from all other species, who also act to procreate.) The second final cause of human sexuality, however, is pleasure (and this is something that we don't appear to share with most other species, with the notable exception of the bonobos and perhaps some other primates). But that final cause is connected to and subordinated to the first, for again it acts in analogy to God's creative power: for God saw what he created, and declared it good. God takes pleasure in creation.

The biology of human sexuality appears to back this schema up: for indeed male-female sexual intercourse is the means for propagating the species, and it is (most of the time) a source of pleasure. Furthermore, that pleasure comes with biological strings attached: the hormones released in sexual intercourse include oxytocin (the same hormone that nursing mothers release), which provokes emotional attachment for the sexual partner. In other words, the pleasure of sex is biologically designed to lead to greater attachment between partners and thus more stable relationships .... all of which are good things for the primary final cause of procreation.

So what does all of this have to do with the theology of waiting until marriage? A key component of marriage is the commitment that a man and woman make to each other both for the purposes of a lifelong union in love (the two shall become one flesh) and for the purposes of procreation -- which is just another way of saying that the two final causes of human sexuality find their most stable and committed fulfillment within the bonds of marriage. It's not for nothing that having sex is what "consummating" the marriage means: consummation is the completion or bringing to perfection of something.

To give of oneself sexually is to make oneself completely open, completely vulnerable: the intimacy of sexuality demands a high level of trust, respect, and commitment if it is going to be practiced with justice. This, then, is where my argument goes: not that losing your virginity before marriage is some blot on your soul, or makes you less attractive or less desirable, or whatever other nonsense you'd like to impute without foundation to my thoughts; but that giving of yourself (whether you are a virgin or no) is something that demands a lot of the loving relationship in which you are doing the giving -- and receiving the sexuality of your partner in return.

I'm not condemning people for having sex before they were married -- for though it is theologically an abuse (in the sense of mis-use, i.e. misdirected) of our sexuality to wantonly share it without the guarantees of respect and trust I've mentioned, it is also I know an easy mistake to make, one that has plagued many a saint and sinner alike (anybody remember Augustine's hang-ups in terms of sexuality?) At the heart of Christianity are forgiveness and redemption for those mistakes, those misguided and misunderstood times in our lives when we followed a mistaken and wandering path -- in this case, a path that treated sexuality with less than full respect and trust and love it deserves. What I'm saying is that Christianity understands how important respect and trust are to a just and equitable sexual relationship: a relationship of mutual loving gift, rather than a relationship of casual use and disregard.

I would not love my wife any less had she had sexual partners before we were married. But by choosing to wait for each other, we were making a statement of our belief that our sexuality was best practiced within the commitment that marriage brought. Sharing in each other's sexuality is a responsibility that demands deep levels of love and trust, and we felt that making the vowed commitment of that love and trust, before family, friends, and God, was an important step in that process of sharing.

And finally, since you seem quite insistent that there must be some "utilitarian" stuff to back this up, I would point you to a recent article in the New York Times: www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/opinion/sunday/the-downside-of-cohabiting-before-marriage.html which documents "The Downside of Cohabiting Before Marriage". The gist is that sex and cohabitation before marriage create those emotional bonds without laying them out explicitly in the form of marriage: and this leads to all kinds of havoc when one person in a relationship decides that the commitment already made sexually isn't what they actually want to make with everything else in their lives.

Edited to fine-tune several areas, as well as to move the statement about forgiveness and redemption in order to clarify its place in the argument.

Edit #2, A Disclaimer: This post should in no way be understood to, in the words of CJ below, "boil down {our theology of marriage} to reproductive futurism, heteronormativity, and little else." This addresses the place of sexuality in marriage, not the whole shebang.

> 51 I would not love my wife any less had she had sexual partners before we were married.

And I wouldn't love my wife any less if she had been a virgin when we met ... I think. It's contrafactual, after all. Still, I'm sure I wouldn't find any need to "forgive" her for it.

>51 nathanielcampbell:

So our theology of marriage needs must boil down to reproductive futurism, heteronormativity, and little else?

I pray that is not the case.

>53 cjbanning:: Oh dear, I hope I didn't put my foot it in it that badly. I've added a disclaimer to post 51 to clarify that I am not at all suggesting that our theology of marriage "must boil down to reproductive futurism, heteronormativity, and little else." Rather, I was addressing the specific place of sexuality within marriage and why marriage is the best place for the exploration of sexuality, to wit, that marriage provides the deep and stable levels of mutual love, respect, and trust on which just and verdant explorations of sexuality must be built.

If we're going to boil things down, the better place to start would be with marriage as the arena for cultivating those deep and stable levels of mutual love, respect, and trust.

While people do tend to attribute some specialness to one's "first time,"

It did stand out as mayhap the most anti-climactic 55 seconds of my life.

#40 jbbarret
AYKB> at #38: ...old enough to remember When It Changed

Yes, wasn't it 1963, Philip Larkin's Annus Mirabilis?

Pretty much, although there were (and still are!) tremendous local variations.

I can recall the Old World: the morality enforced by the matriarchs was that extra-marital/pre-marital sex was Wrong, period. Sexually active girls/women were sluts, and were to be shunned by decent people.

About ten years later - after The Change - most of these same matriarchs (many of them little old ladies by this point) were telling young women that they would be FOOLS not to have a trial run - if not a trial cohabitation - before they made a marriage commitment. They were speaking from personal experience and hoping to prevent their daughters from making the same mistakes that they had made.

It was a remarkable change, and it took about a decade for sexual 'morality' to reverse itself 180 degrees. I watched it happen.

As it turns out, today, something like 95% of Americans have had premarital sex; the percentage of people who haven't had premarital sex is slightly lower than the number of people who have experimented with homosexual relations.

Abstinence/chastity is now rarer than homosexuality.

OTOH, some religious prohibitions have some real public health benefits. Amazing how many young people are soon infected with viruses that they will carry for the rest of their lives. Some SEEM pretty innocuous initially but make problems later, e.g., consider three Herpes viruses (cold sores, genital Herpes, CMV). People who have one have a 5% elevated risk of dementia later on, two--25% elevated risk, three--40% elevated risk. Add all the other risks of being infected by these and other viruses and pathogens, and chastity/monogamy can look like sane choices!

Well, sure: but if it's based upon evidence-based fear of sexually transmitted viruses, then it's not so much a "religious" prohibition....

#44: I would say with all due respect that you, as an outsider, are probably not aware of all the "speaking" that goes on on the inside. Public debate has its pros and cons but is not the only way of "speaking".

It is, however, the public speaking that defines how you look to outsiders.

they speak by their actions, which are probably more significant than words.

The pen is more powerful then the sword. A thousand people getting black-market condoms and staying silent will likely just increase the efforts to crack down on black-market condoms. What people stand for has a lot more impact then what they do in their bedroom. For example, as far as I know, Martin Luther King Jr. sparked no revolution in the acceptability of adultery in the US.

>59 prosfilaes: Ah well, we continue to disagree, unsurprisingly.

> 58 High schoolers today are under such peer pressure to have a "relationship", but relationships can take so much time that could be spent on activities that will hopefully lead to a successful adult life--financially, but also in broader sense, as this is the period of life in which one develops interests and skills. I tell my son not to overlook his soul-mate if he meets her now, but that it is easier to fit in a relationship once you're in college.

A fundy dad of my acquaintance thinks young people busy with serial relationships are developing attitudes that will lead later to divorce. He encouraged his sons to socialize in groups until they are of an age to look for life partner.

OTOH, a popular, lovely dancer-friend of my son's (just in Gr 11!) took her life a couple weeks ago. According to her last Facebook entry, her parents' prohibition against dating in high school may have been a factor. So-o, while I talk to my son about these matters and provide the most excruciatingly detailed info on STDs, etc., I so won't issue directives! (As if :)

#61 And I think that really brings us to the crux of the matter, that what is right for one person isn't necessarily right for another. What happened to your son's friend was terrible but there were almost certainly a number of other contributing factors. Nonetheless, the real damage is almost always done when someone tries to dictate how another person should live their lives. There is certainly a great deal of evidence that kids who are under pressure to remain virgins until they marry will simply find other ways of expressing their sexual feelings . Some studies show that they are often more at risk of disease and unwanted pregnancy simply because, when nature takes over and they eventually do 'succumb' they will not have preoared for the event, either emotionally or practically (regarding contraception and protection from infection) and that they will be more traumatised by the event as they need to tell themselves that somehow it 'wasn't their fault'. (No, I'm not going to go off and look up all the references, the studies are out there, google them, though a good place to start might be with something like Jessica Valenti's The Purity Myth). None of this is because they didn't have sex but because they were under pressure to deny their feelings and, often, to lie about the consequences. Girls who find themselves unintentionally pregnant and deny the existence of that pregnancy until it is too late to consider their options are more likely to come from backgrounds where they fear their parents will not understand or be sympathetic to their relationship.

Now don't get me wrong here, none of this happens because someone chose not to have sex (or because they did) - it happens when people who feel inclined to enter into a sexual relationship are met, not with understanding, advice and a healthy attitude to their own bodies, but with the simple rule that 'You don't do it because I say you don't do it.' If Nathaniel and his wife were comfortable with their decision not have pre-marital sex that's fine for them as long as they both felt the same way but they don't have the right to criticise anyone else's decision to go ahead, whether that is with a single life-partner or with a different girl or guy every night of the week.

The biggest problem as I see it, is when a church or religious community tries to impose its views on other people about whom they know nothing. Make the choice based on your own feelings, morals or common sense but don't do it (or not do it) just because some old, poorly translated book of uncertain authorship tells you to. And as far as our kids are concerned, a child brought up with self-respect, respect for others and a healthy moral compass based on their own understanding of what is right for them, and not on parent-imposeed guilt, will make the right decision for themsleves whether their parents or the Bible agree with it or not.

#63

Oh, god, twits, twits everywhere. Look, unless you and your wife also live in antiseptic bubbles and never touch any other human being or animal or anything such organisms may have touched--there is a chance, however small, of contracting any number of infections, including those with pap viruses. There's more than one. Look it up.

#57

How useful is it to propose as "sane" a choice that--according to this thread, I'm in no mood to go hunting after US statistics--95% of population rejects by the age of, again according to this thread, 17?

Is it REALLY true that 95% of people end up becoming sexually active around that age solely because of peer pressure? Any chance biology could have something to do with it, the fact that humans are a super-sexual species, have evolved as such?

The point is that we have to contend with powerful instinct and innate desire. Another sexually-transmitted disease: life. We are SHAPED by sexual encounters of our ancestors not only as individuals but as species--our genome is riddled with sequences of non-human origin, some (probably most) viral, acquired through sexual contact. The "sane" choice, for that whopping majority who will begin to want sex early, is to be informed about how to lead a healthy sexual life. Not having sex at all simply isn't going to sell to most, whatever their religious convictions.

Edited: The original of this post was an ill-founded attempt at arrogantly making an argument from authority rather than from evidence. I apologize.

Oh, because a simple cleaning lady couldn't know something a PhD doesn't?!

But don't worry, you PhD snob--I got mine in molecular biology and biochemistry at age 27, and haven't stopped doing research since. I USE viruses to do my daily chores!

>66 LolaWalser:: I think this can also takes us into a deeper discussion about the nature of trust in a loving relationship. It could be argued that tests for STD's (in a monogamous relationship) are an implicit admission that one partner doesn't trust the other. That bond of trust could be considered important enough to a healthy and respectful relationship--a just relationship, as I have said above--to accept whatever miniscule risk there might be in not being tested.

And this, then, brings us back to the question of what place sexuality has in human relationships. As I've argued, for human sexuality to be practiced in a just manner--that is, in a manner that does not put one partner in a position of power over the other, but places each on an equal footing--demands a certain high level of trust and loving commitment. Can unmarried persons establish such levels in their relationships? Sure. But marriage is a very good way of establishing such levels, because it makes those commitments open and above-board, rather than leaving them undiscussed and implicit. The danger in the latter situation is that one partner may have a different perception of the commitment-level of a relationship than the other: and that asymmetry can lead to sexual injustice.

My concern here is not (as some have implied or even stated openly) with some neo-Victorian idea of the cult of virginity. My concern, rather, is to ensure justice in the sexual relationship -- for I hope that we all recognize that the history of human sexuality is plagued by its injustices, usually towards women.

Sexual liberation addressed some of those injustices, principally by freeing a woman's sexuality from subservience to a man. But it created thereby a different set of injustices by ignoring the reciprocal respect and trust that a truly just sexual relationship demands.

#67

The US medical insurance system is a disgrace. Pap tests are free in Canada and administered during annual checkups, it didn't occur to me to think of the cost. From what I remember from my time in the US, my insurance then, miserable as it was, covered it, though. It's a shame you don't seem to have what would anywhere else be considered basic coverage.

Unfortunately, the point remains. It is largely theoretical, but you really should be aware of it, if for only theoretical reasons. What we classify as sexually-transmitted diseases can, in many cases, be transmitted non-sexually, it's just that sexual contact is the most common route.

>68 LolaWalser: ...in Canada...it didn't occur to me to think of the cost...

Even in Canada, it's important not to accept or pursue unneeded tests and procedures. With finite health dollars, doing so means that someone else will not have a more needed test or procedure.

>64 LolaWalser: The point is that we have to contend with powerful instinct and innate desire.

That may be the point of at least some religious and social constraints. The instincts and desires selected for in ancestral hunter-gatherer groups environments may not be a good fit for larger, mobile populations in agricultural / industrial environments. For one, pathogens were slower-acting and less virulent in the ancestral environment. There were fewer opportunities for messing around in small groups of mainly extended family.

Not to argue, but I find encounters of biology and environment fascinating!

#69

If we are talking specifically about pap tests, I think their usefulness has been amply demonstrated. It's not something I looked into in detail, but I doubt anyone in Canada suffers from being over-tested. I have the impression most people (myself included) think they could do with more attention from their GP.

That's may be the point of at least some religious and social constraints.

Maybe, but constraints on behaviour have always existed and most often didn't mean complete abstinence and limitation to a single partner. Constraints must take in account human nature. Promulgating pre-marital abstinence as the best or "sanest" choice ignores that a person may have pre-marital sex and yet end up with a single or few partners. Pre-marital sex in itself isn't a ticket to STD-rife slutdom. How many virginal ladies have been infected by their traditionally god-fearing husbands in humanity's history, can we get stats on that? Or children, in utero?

You are right that the environment has changed and made transmission more of a mass threat. But that is true for any infection and epidemic nowadays. And we have never been better equipped to deal with disease, both because of medical advances, and because we can finally address sexual behaviour in public discourse, as equals.

ref 51

A longish quote, but how else to demonstrate that we're not attacking straw men?

I'm not condemning people for having sex before they were married -- for though it is theologically an abuse (in the sense of mis-use, i.e. misdirected) of our sexuality to wantonly share it without the guarantees of respect and trust I've mentioned, it is also I know an easy mistake to make, one that has plagued many a saint and sinner alike (anybody remember Augustine's hang-ups in terms of sexuality?) At the heart of Christianity are forgiveness and redemption for those mistakes, those misguided and misunderstood times in our lives when we followed a mistaken and wandering path -- in this case, a path that treated sexuality with less than full respect and trust and love it deserves. What I'm saying is that Christianity understands how important respect and trust are to a just and equitable sexual relationship: a relationship of mutual loving gift, rather than a relationship of casual use and disregard.

The unspoken but clearly implied subtext is that sex outside of marriage is "casual use and disregard" and hence an abuse of the human sexual faculties.

Starting from certain well known assumptions, one derives the proposition that normal, healthy human relations are an abuse if they include sex outside of marriage.

Healthy normal activity is calumnified as abuse.

Normality is called perversity

Marriage alone , it would seem, can protect against "casual use and disregard".

(Never mind the percentage of marriages which end in divorce. )

With such conclusions, what can we say about the assumptions from which the conclusions are derived?

>71 modalursine:: Odd, since the implications you draw from the quote aren't actually there. Read it again. What did I say qualified as abuse of sexuality? "...to wantonly share it without the guarantees of respect and trust I've mentioned."

And what were those guarantees of respect and trust designed to do? "Respect and trust are {very important} to a just and equitable sexual relationship: a relationship of mutual loving gift, rather than a relationship of casual use and disregard. "

I go on to say (in 67): "For human sexuality to be practiced in a just manner--that is, in a manner that does not put one partner in a position of power over the other, but places each on an equal footing--demands a certain high level of trust and loving commitment. Can unmarried persons establish such levels in their relationships? Sure. But marriage is a very good way of establishing such levels, because it makes those commitments open and above-board, rather than leaving them undiscussed and implicit. The danger in the latter situation is that one partner may have a different perception of the commitment-level of a relationship than the other: and that asymmetry can lead to sexual injustice."

What you are trying to draw out of that is, "Healthy normal activity is calumnified as abuse. Normality is called perversity." The reason your argument is a straw man is because that's not what I said, nor what I believe -- unless, that is, you believe that an unjust sexual relationship that lacks mutual respect and trust qualifies as "healthy normal activity".

So if you are prepared to discuss the asymmetries of power and expectation that lead to sexual injustice, then we can keep having a conversation. But if all you want to do is impute to me the perversion of normativity, then we're not going to get anywhere.

It's rather funny that you make that argument. If you read something like the columns of Dan Savage, he tends to not give a flying fig what people do in their relationships, so long as it's consensual and honestly done.

> 77

As is widely known, the marital context is a great insurance against "asymmetries of power and expectation that lead to sexual injustice."

ROTFLMAO.

(edited to remove obvious typo)

>73 Jesse_wiedinmyer:: Yeah, well, I think I have a greater concern for justice than Mr. Savage, who apparently doesn't care if we treat each other like crap, so long as we don't do it in public. Either that, or we should talk about the word "consensual", which in fact does imply a concern that persons in a relationship act with justice towards one another. But I think that we need to go further, for a woman who has been taught her entire life that she should be entirely submissive to her husband, including sexually, will have so internalized that misogyny that she will "consensually" allow him to rape her at his will. In such a case as that, there should still be a concern for the asymmetry of power.

>74 paradoxosalpha:: " the martial context is a great insurance against "asymmetries of power and expectation that lead to sexual injustice."

Well yes, the "martial" context would be problematic, since war is all about asymmetries of power.

But presuming you meant "marital", then perhaps you should read the concluding portions of my post 67, which I will quote here: "My concern, rather, is to ensure justice in the sexual relationship -- for I hope that we all recognize that the history of human sexuality is plagued by its injustices, usually towards women. Sexual liberation addressed some of those injustices, principally by freeing a woman's sexuality from subservience to a man. But it created thereby a different set of injustices by ignoring the reciprocal respect and trust that a truly just sexual relationship demands."

So here's the thing: you haven't actually been reading the ideas I've been posting. You saw that I supported the idea of waiting until marriage and then assumed that I must therefore be stuck in some old patriarchy. Your assumption is absolutely wrong. My arguments for marriage as the sexual domain in this thread have been entirely motivated by a desire to correct sexual injustices, not to preserve them.

But you don't seem to want to have that conversation. You don't seem to want to talk about the injustices that occur in a sexual relationship when the expectations and commitments and trusts of the partners are asymmetrical.

When you do want to talk about that, let me know.

Yeah, well, I think I have a greater concern for justice than Mr. Savage, who apparently doesn't care if we treat each other like crap, so long as we don't do it in public. Either that, or we should talk about the word "consensual", which in fact does imply a concern that persons in a relationship act with justice towards one another. But I think that we need to go further, for a woman who has been taught her entire life that she should be entirely submissive to her husband, including sexually, will have so internalized that misogyny that she will "consensually" allow him to rape her at his will. In such a case as that, there should still be a concern for the asymmetry of power.

Huh?

I'm not sure where the "in public" even comes from.

>76 Jesse_wiedinmyer:: How we evaluate Savage's views depends on how we understand "consensual". At first reading, I understood your post 73 to indicate that Savage doesn't care if we treat each other unjustly, as long as we do it "consensually". The "in public" was a nod to the oft-repeated dictum that "we shouldn't care what people do in the privacy of their own homes." It was, perhaps, out of place.

So the question is, what does "consensual" mean? If it means that the relationship is based on an equality of mutual respect, then Savage and I would, technically, agree.

But often, that's not what "consensual" actually means. Thus, I offered the example of a woman who has so internalized the misogyny of a patriarchal upbringing that she believes she should always consent to her husband's sexual demands, no matter how unjust they are. If she so believes, then her husband's sexual demands might be "consensual", and yet there remains an unjust asymmetry of power.

In a case such as that, I would argue there is an injustice that we should care about quite strongly.

Obiter Dictum: It's quite possible that I've been reading too much feminist theory, esp. Judith Butler, lately, and that's it's influencing my writing here with phrases such as "asymmetry of power". This is an occupational hazard of being an academic.

I'm getting a lecture on patriarchal hegemony from someone who believes that sex should only occur within marriage? And why do you assume that it will quite obviously be a woman who submits to her husband's demands?

Savage's arguments largely seem to be based upon the idea that if you're willing to do it, you also must be willing to "own" it. (ie. if you want an open relationship, your partner must be informed that this is what you want, and be able to accept or walk away from it on honest terms.) This includes open relationships, bdsm relationships, homosexuality, etc.

>80 Jesse_wiedinmyer:: "if you're willing to do it, you also must be willing to "own" it"

That might be one way of describing the mutual justice that I am describing, although I think Savage and I would disagree on whether things like "open" relationships and bdsm accurately reflect mutual love, trust, and commitment. As I've said, I think that commitment (the exact opposite of "open" relationships) is an essential component of sexual justice -- and the biology seems to echo that, given the "bonding" hormones that are released during intercourse. As a Christian, I'm also going to introduce more stringent ideas of normativity to the conversation than Savage would. So there is both common ground, I think, and areas of disagreement.

"I'm getting a lecture on patriarchal hegemony from someone who believes that sex should only occur within marriage?"

Which is why it might be useful for everybody to actually read what I've been posting, rather than making assumptions that those two things must automatically conflict. What you are seeing from me is an attempt to refract Christian sexual ethics through the lens of contemporary perceptions of the injustices of patriarchal hegemony.

As is widely known, the martial context is a great insurance against "asymmetries of power and expectation that lead to sexual injustice.

The laughing at you is because you say things like the above, and then turn around and say things like this:

But I think that we need to go further, for a woman who has been taught her entire life that she should be entirely submissive to her husband, including sexually, will have so internalized that misogyny that she will "consensually" allow him to rape her at his will. In such a case as that, there should still be a concern for the asymmetry of power.

Without realizing that the traditional structure you praise is exactly what creates the asymmetries of power and expectation you claim to be against.

>82 StormRaven:: You do realize that I didn't write the first quote -- paradoxosalpha did, right?

So again, what you all seem to be missing is that the sexual ethics I am suggesting, which finds its most just and verdant exploration within the context of the commitment, trust, and mutual love of marriage, rejects the "traditional structure" of marriage that creates the asymmetries of power and expectation, and chooses rather to promote a structure of marriage (also traditional, not that you would care) that seeks to eliminate those asymmetries by centering marriage not upon a master/slave dialectic but upon a lover/beloved one (i.e. there's still mutual service involved, but the key motivation is not power but love). In Christian theological language, this decenters marriage from the egos of either partner and centers it rather on communion of divine love.

I'd disagree emphatically with that. Savage is eminently concerned with sexual ethics. He just doesn't believe that it needs to be constrained to such a narrow practice, provided that loving and honesty are at the forefront of that.

72

I read you as holding that sexual relations belong most properly to a relationship characterized by the highest levels of mutual respect, love, and commitment in the context of power equality.

That all seems very properly high minded and correct. I don't see any problem with that so far.

But then it seems, you also hold that
1) Formal marriage is the only condition under which those conditions can be fulfilled. AND
2) Sexual intercourse under any lesser conditions would be "abuse".

There's where I fall off the wagon:
1. Your idea of marriage is an idealized one. Who would object if all married lovers were to meet those ideals?

2. Talk about making the best the enemy of the good! Can we not conceive of a temporary relationship as valuable, worth while and a proper use of humankind's sexual capacities? Wouldn't we be better off with all those endorphins running around ?

Why should we forego the consolations of intimate human relations even if marriage and the conception of children isn't in the near plan?

And what if you don't quite meet Mr or Ms Right for a while? Are you supposed to be a life long celibate because the ideal partner has not surfaced?

And that only applies (or until lately only applied) to heterosexual lovers. What about those who are legally unable to marry?

We've been there, and we've lived in that world, and most of those with a choice have turned their backs on it for good reason.

What about those who are legally unable to marry?

What like a brother and sister?

Re Pap smears, I think I'll back up and side with Lola on their advisability--unless one abstains entirely. To paraphrase President Reagan, "Trust, but verify". One does not want to discover that one's partner has cheated by learning that one has advanced cervical cancer.

Unfortunately, Pap smears won't detect HPV-caused throat cancers, which are on the rise. According to article below, only 50% are curable at this point, but the HPV vaccine does protect against HPV-caused throat cancers as well as cervical cancer. Sounds like once the virus is in the population, it can be spread by deep kissing as well as vaginal, anal, and oral sex.

Oral Sex Linked to Rise in Men's Throat Cancer
By SUSAN DONALDSON JAMES
Oct. 20, 2010
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ReproductiveHealth/hpv-oral-cancers-rise-oral-sex-p...

Let's not forget that the idea of Christian marriage is a relatively (in historical terms) modern concept. The issue here is commitment, not the wedding ceremony. There are many people the world over who choose not to have their relationships regulated by church and/or state and yet treat their partners with love and respect (not to mention acceptance and without feeling the need to 'forgive' one another for having had previous partners). Interestingly (well, to me, anyway) when I got married back in the 70s and when those things were more important to the average person than they are now (I hope), I did actually once ask my soon-to be-husband whether it bothered him that he hadn't been 'the first' (not that I was his either). I've always thought his reply was very wise - "I couldn't care less who was the first as long as I'm the last". We've now been together for 39 years, married for 36 of them and, to date, are still each others' 'last' (though because we both prefer it that way, not because that's how anyone else thinks it should be).

And as an aside, there's not much I'm proud of these days about living in the UK but I am very proud indeed to be able to say that here, too, Pap tests (like breast screening, contraception and, in fact, all other non-elective health care) come free under the NHS (of course, nothing is actually free but as everyone pays into the NHS once they hit adulthood, there are no benefits to not using it). Heaven only knows how long that will last under the present government but at least it's something we can still be proud of for the moment.

~88
"And as an aside, there's not much I'm proud of these days about living in the UK but I am very proud indeed to be able to say that here, too, Pap tests (like breast screening, contraception and, in fact, all other non-elective health care) come free under the NHS (of course, nothing is actually free but as everyone pays into the NHS once they hit adulthood, there are no benefits to not using it). Heaven only knows how long that will last under the present government but at least it's something we can still be proud of for the moment."

Yes, I am also often proud when a gun is put to my neighbor's head and his property is taken to support a practice of which I approve. As a member of the Gang Of Good Deeds it warms my heart to see the wonderful things we do with our victims' money, in addition, of course, to paying our salaries.

And I note the wondrous phenomenon that the demand for our services is always increasing. This must mean that The Universe approves.

>85 modalursine: sexual relations belong most properly to a relationship characterized by the highest levels of mutual respect, love, and commitment in the context of power equality.

A good post, modalursine, and I tend to agree with you about endorsing this "very properly high minded and correct" ideal without "making the best the enemy of the good" when the ideal is not reached, and also that there may be many ways in which the ideal may be approached, not only via marriage. But I think Nathaniel is entitled to present arguments in favour of an ideal.

>88 Booksloth: The issue here is commitment, not the wedding ceremony.

Agreed. In Catholic theology the sacrament of marriage comes into being when the couple make the commitment. It is the only sacrament which is not administered by a minister, but by the couple themselves. The minister is a witness, and there is certainly a value in the eyes of the Church in having the public celebration of that commitment, but arguably the sacrament of marriage exists wherever there is the commitment regardless of whether it has been publicly ackowledged.

>89 lawecon: Off topic, really, but does that mean that you are against the concept of paying taxes to support the necessary functions of society, lawecon? Or is it merely that you don't think universal health care is one of those necessary functions? Or have I completely misunderstood your rather flowery language?

>85 modalursine:: "But then it seems, you also hold that
1) Formal marriage is the only condition under which those conditions can be fulfilled. AND
2) Sexual intercourse under any lesser conditions would be "abuse". "

Once again, you seem not to have read what I actually wrote. So, to quote myself for I believe the third time (originally from 67): "For human sexuality to be practiced in a just manner--that is, in a manner that does not put one partner in a position of power over the other, but places each on an equal footing--demands a certain high level of trust and loving commitment. Can unmarried persons establish such levels in their relationships? Sure. But marriage is a very good way of establishing such levels, because it makes those commitments open and above-board, rather than leaving them undiscussed and implicit. The danger in the latter situation is that one partner may have a different perception of the commitment-level of a relationship than the other: and that asymmetry can lead to sexual injustice."

What you will see is that I am not drawing the false dichotomy that you suggest I am. Rather, I am suggesting that the clear, open, and binding commitments of mutual love that are made when two people get married set the best standards, the best arena, for the practice of just sexuality. I am not saying that all sex outside of marriage is "unjust" in this sense; rather, I am saying that marriage provides the best context for sexual justice. (And John's points in 90 about the sacramental bond being self-administered, self-guaranteed, as it were, are well taken.)

Of course, you will respond (as have others) that the historical evidence of marriage emphatically denies that it is a necessarily just institution -- though I would ask, what evidence do you have that a marriage-less society would be any less unjust? But again, what I am trying to offer here is a discussion of sexual ethics as they might be practiced today, with the historical and ethical perspectives we have today about sexual justice.

Furthermore, for every example of injustice in marriage you might offer, I could hold up an example of marriages that have modeled quite emphatically a just and loving relationship of mutual respect and honor. I could offer my parents (who celebrated their thirtieth anniversary a few weeks ago), or my in-laws (who are coming up on their fortieth in a few years). Or I could point to the excellent example of a loving relationship that Booksloth offers in post 88.

But I may just be wasting my typing-breath here, because I think I've finally figured out what's going on here. I thought that this was a thread intended to discuss Christianity and its thoughts on sex. But apparently, I was wrong. It seems the purpose of this thread is to mock Christianity and its thoughts on sex.

I am told the acts being condemned in Leviticus 18 are religious acts Canaan being big on sex as an act of worship. So what ever else it may be it injunction not to stray away and start worshipping other gods.

Not just sex. The Talmud debates whether it is only tattooing the names of other gods that is punishable.

One of the things the discussion of the New Testament in this context convinces me is that absolute sureness that you know what's right here is unreasonable. How the laws of the Old Testament are to be interpreted in the light of the New is not exactly clear.

>91 nathanielcampbell:

I think everyone here is invested in sexual partners being fully consenting and not dominating each other. But why not frame the conversation directly in terms of sexual justice instead of marriage--when, as you stipulate, marriage has been the agent of rape culture much more than it has been an agent against it? Why demonize casual sex instead of striving to insure that sexual activity both within and outside marriage is as just as we can make it?

"I thought that this was a thread intended to discuss Christianity and its thoughts on sex. But apparently, I was wrong. It seems the purpose of this thread is to mock Christianity and its thoughts on sex."

I think this treats Christian "thoughts on sex" as much more monolithic than they really are. The perspective you sketch, reminiscent of that of the last Roman pontiff, is only one possible viewpoint. For example, St. Paul, due at least in part due to the apocalyptic worldview endemic to early Christianity, was very much anti-sex and saw marriage as the refuge of those who lacked the willpower for celibacy.

think everyone here is invested in sexual partners being fully consenting and not dominating each other

Well, unless dominating is what they're consenting to.

That's a different sort of domination, at least in theory.

> 96

Agreed on all points.

> 98 That's a different sort of domination

Or even several. Embracing the practice of an ideology that subjugates you is not the same as role-playing a slave for an evening.

I find my experience of marriage to be nearly the polar opposite of nathanielcampbell's. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of marriages I know of which embodied the kind of justice, mutual respect, and intimacy that is being discussed. I can count roughly the same number of people who are not married, but are in relationships which would count as fulfilling the sacrament of marriage in the Catholic sense, which are also consistent with that definition, but which have not been formally recognized as such either by a civil or religious ceremony.

Unfortunately, my experience of marriage as a concept is that it creates an expecation of permanence which is often only possible if one or both of the participants submits to injustice and unhappiness. It seems to me that it would be better to acknowledge that sexual relationships are usually not lifelong commitments and celebrate those for whom they turn out to be. I have had a longer, more equal, even more intimate - though not sexually - relationship with my best friend than she has had with her husband or any of her sexual partners.

Perhaps we should focus on celebrating and encouraging the development of trust, justice and intimacy regardless of whether sex is involved. Is it possible to envision a Christianity wherein the sacrament in the Catholic sense is not about sex at all, but about all those other positive characteristics that nathanielcampbell has described? Or does Christianity at some fundamental level demand that sex be an inextricable part of a sacramental relationship?

ref 86

Did I mention my nephew who married his sister?

He became an "Internet Minister" and performed the ceremony for her and her now husband himself.

Oddly, divorce rates and various measures of marital infidelity are rather greater in the "Bible Belt", where people presumably prescribe in greater proportions to what passes as "traditional" attitudes towards sex and marriage, than they are in the general US population.

I can't go so far as to say that one thing causes the other here, (hypotheses non fingo), but it is a curious factoid.

Are traditionalist Catholics and low church protestants anhedonic and anti sex, or more so than those if other persuations?

It would be too wide and too wild a generalization to say "yes", but consider:

You and your unmarried lover of opposite sex, both of you over 21 , have been invited to spend the holidays with her parents.

In case A, the parents live on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, are secular liberals, perhaps they are academics, but in any case they are well educated and probably comfortably off.

In case B they are traditional Catholics or low church protestants.

In which scenario should you two plan on being given beds in separate rooms and in which household would you be better advised to be more discrete than usual about your sexual relationship?

One could always be surprised, in either direction, of course, but what are the odds?

An interesting article in the Huffington Post examines the striking imbalance that comes with the hook-up culture -- flings and hook-ups apparently vastly decrease the likelihood of female orgasm, while stable, committed, loving relationships allow mutual pleasure to thrive: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erika-christakis/sex_b_1428949.html

>104 nathanielcampbell: Probably completely off topic but there was an article in the Grauniad recently about the invention of the vibrator (The buzz: how the vibrator came to be). "In 19th-century Britain, women suffering from chronic anxiety prescribed pelvic finger massage. Doctors found this tedious and time-consuming, so they invented something to do the job for them". Apparently there is a new film about it.

The recent film was Hysteria a lightweight, not unpleasant fictionalization of the invention, the setting, and some of its consequences.

Robert

The WP page on it is pretty amusing reading...

One of the first vibrators was a steam-powered device called the "Manipulator", which was created by American physician George Taylor, M.D. This machine was a rather awkward device, but was still heralded as some relief for the doctors who found themselves suffering from fatigued wrists and hands. Circa 1880, Dr. Joseph Mortimer Granville patented the first electromechanical vibrator.

>107 Jesse_wiedinmyer: I'd love to see one of those steam-powered ones in action... purely on a professional basis in my role as a steam locomotive fireman, you understand...

Edited to add: reminds one of the old Rugby Song, "An engineer told me before he died..."

Don't know the rugby song, but...

An interesting article in the Huffington Post examines the striking imbalance that comes with the hook-up culture --

This reminds me of a quote that I'd read recently (in discussing the role of television, etc. to shape culture). I believe that it came from Fromm. He said something to the effect that we shape our cultures as much as they shape us. Which would probably just eventually end with the ol' nature v. nurture discussion, but...

Re: #104 - An interesting article in the Huffington Post examines the striking imbalance that comes with the hook-up culture ...

(Coincidentally) there's an article in this month's Atlantic arguing that hook-up culture is good for women.

>110 AsYouKnow_Bob:: Depends on how you define "good". What it does is allow women to focus all their energies on succeeding in high-pressure careers, because "maintaining a relationship" isn't among the pressures vying for their attention.

But is it a good thing to worship money over good human relationships? And is it a good thing, from a sexually ethical perspective, to promote a system in which women are continually disadvantaged by asymmetrical expectations of sexual satisfaction?

The discussion we should be having is, how do we reform our societal expectations of money and careers in order to promote both gender equality and the development and maintenance of healthy, stable, long-term relationships? Rather than encouraging women to compete with men to see who can sacrifice their personal lives on the altar of career advancement the fastest, we should be reevaluating how to allow both men and women to be more successful in both arenas of life.

Rather than encouraging women to compete with men to see who can sacrifice their personal lives on the altar of career advancement the fastest, we should be reevaluating how to allow both men and women to be more successful in both arenas of life.

No argument there.

Still, the Atlantic article is the first time I've seen the pro 'hook-up culture' case made.

there's an article in this month's Atlantic arguing that hook-up culture is good for women.


Conversely, there was another one recently (in either Harper's or the Atlantic) stating that the current culture (including the idea that working women are now more likely to be the breadwinner in a situation) now places more women competing for a a smaller subset of "attractive, available" men. This, the article argues, has led to an asymmetric situation where certain men are getting to massively play the field.

Here... All the Single Ladies.

The whole situation doesn't really seem less fraught with frustration and peril than it has ever been.

Gloria Steinem again: “I can’t mate in captivity.”

Ha! That's good!

I don't know what frustration and what peril you mean, Jesse. The writer's? (Didn't have the time to read to the end.) I don't know what she'd be frustrated about, she got to live her life like she wanted, more so than any number of women (and men). She was happy at the time, what more could one ask for? Besides, we all know a zillion anecdotes. I know people happy because they married, and those unhappy; gay and happy with partner although unmarried; gay and single and miserable; happy because they divorced, and the opposite; happy only because they get to spend three months away from their family every year, and those happy only during the winter they DO spend with their family and so on ad infinitum. I even know a happy triple--one woman with two male partners, all upper class professionals, never married to anyone any of them. It began as her double affair, but she couldn't take the secrecy and guilt very long, she fessed up, and the men, amazingly, accepted the status quo, became friends. That was fifteen years ago.

Seems to me the times have never been better, as far as recognition and acceptance of the diversity of human "social arrangements" (as I think she puts it.) So times are changing, as they ever do. Anything that reduces marriage and babymaking can only be good for the planet.

I wasn't going to post in this thread again, filled as it is with piously droning noises of some faraway, alien civilisation--fascinating, and needing no comment--but what the heck, SOMEONE has to put on the record, loud and clear, the opinion that sex is a lovely thing in itself, a sensual pleasure that can be partaken of in spirit of play and a snack as well as a sacred ritual and a banquet, that so-called "short-term relationships" have their place, use and pleasures, that not everyone who doesn't want to get married is missing out on supreme bliss or being victimised if they still, in their unmarried state, insist on having sexual relationships, that women were liberated by the contraceptive pill and the laws acknowledging their humanity and personhood AGAINST the programme of every major religion and every bloody church's political meddling.

Misogyny is the universal problem which endangers women, the all-pervasive and variously expressed notion that the female is something lesser and worse than the male. In every language I know there exist variations on "don't be such a girl!"; the opposite is completely unthinkable, gibberish. Misogyny victimises women, not sex. (How incredibly offensive is that idea?! Sex is something men "do" to women?! Sex is something women suffer?!)

Amen, Lola.

"Love is a sport, an art, a religion, as you will."

My mind still boggles at Nathaniel's proposition that traditional Christian marriage is in any way a counter to misogyny. I know it's possible to cherry-pick NT proof texts and use them to feminist effect, but really.

This just in:

Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality Hardcover
Christopher Ryan (Author), Cacilda Jethá (Author)

http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Prehistoric-Origins-Sexuality/dp/0061707805%3FSub...

aka

http://amzn.to/RIAZXL

I've read only a review at a usually trustworthy source so we'll assume that their science is at least not instantly dismissible on its face.

I'm more than a little skeptical as to whether any existing pre literate groups still exist that work that way, or even, judging from what smattering I have about 19th century utopian movements and of various "hippie" communal arrangements, that fully modern homo saps can function happily that way for any extended period.

Nevertheless, it does bring another perspective to thinking about sex and marriage as social institutions.

At what point does an informal sexual arrangement become a form of marriage?

>115 LolaWalser:: "SOMEONE has to put on the record, loud and clear, the opinion that sex is a lovely thing in itself, a sensual pleasure that can be partaken of in spirit of play and a snack"

Read the "All the Single Ladies" article again. Heck, read just the first few paragraphs. What do you see?

You see that sexual relationships create deep emotional and psychological bonds the breaking of which can be devastating. You see that sex comes with strings attached, no matter how much you try to argue to the contrary. (There's an irony here that it's the Christian defending the basic biological facts of sex against a materialist who tries to deny them.)

Finally, I'd kindly ask you to rescind the accusation that in arguing for deep sexual commitment I am somehow perpetuating misogyny. If you had bothered to read anything I've written in this thread, you will see that I have consistently been concerned with justice and equality in relationships.

It's one thing to argue about how to best ensure justice and equality in a sexual relationship. It's quite another to accuse anyone who suggests that justice is complicated of misogyny.

Re: #115: Lola, I would 'favorite' that a hundred times if LT allowed it.

From Jesse's Atlantic article at #113/114:

...as the economy evolves, it’s time to embrace new ideas about romance and family—and to acknowledge the end of “traditional” marriage as society’s highest ideal.

could I take a moment to recommend The Technology of Orgasm : "Hysteria," the Vibrator, and Women's Sexual Satisfaction

It's been a week, and I find that I'm still brooding about nathanielcampbell's questions up at #21:

Why is the decision to wait until marriage treated as such a foreign concept? Why does it strike such an oddly-sounding chord, mixing astonishment at its "otherness" with a bit of arrogant suspicion of that "otherness"?

Somebody please explain this to me, because I don't get it. I don't understand why saving the gift of your sexuality, the gift of your body, for the person to whom you make the deepest commitment of love and life, is considered such a strange idea.

First off, I'm a liberal, so I start from the position that people have autonomy and should be allowed to make their own decisions about how they want to live their lives.

But to answer the question:
It's considered "such a strange idea", "...met with astonishment at its 'otherness'" only because it's now very much the minority position.

People are now allowed to make their own decisions in these matters. And most people choose other paths in life.

And as for why 'a bit of arrogant suspicion of that "otherness"', I think I must point to the fact that it's strongly pushed on other people, even (or usually) by people who didn't in fact wait themselves? Some of the most bizarre principles are the ones pushed by people who didn't follow them, and some of the most distrusted principles are those where the kids told to live by them suspect (or know) the adults pushing the issue didn't.

For reason, while I listen to "I've Never Been to Me", it always annoys me at some level; the protagonist tells us that her life is fantasy and the life of motherhood is reality, but her version of that life is the fantastic dreams of someone who've never walked a mile in those shoes. Perhaps the protagonist really did pick the best life for her, and is just discovering that in all life the bitter comes with the sweet.

>121 AsYouKnow_Bob:: But isn't it the "liberal" idea that we should treat minority views, not with suspicious astonishment, but with respect and tolerance?

Astonishment is not disrespect or intolerance.

I saw exactly one story on this Lolo Jones, and the attitude there seemed to be one of "Well, that's exotic...".
If there was "intolerance" (Was she denied a place on the team due to her lifestyle? Was anyone attempting to deny her equal protection under the law?), I didn't see it.

Here's the story I saw: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/sports/olympics/olympian-lolo-jones-draws-atte...

The "suspicious astonishment" seemed to be at her cynicism, her willingness to play the marketing game: she had posed nude for ESPN and mentioned that she was a 30-year-old virgin. I saw nothing aimed her lifestyle as such. If you have cite, please share.

#119 Me too!

I'd also like to add that I consider it an extremely healthy thing that a majority of women these days (with the possible exception of Lolo Jones, if the article is to be believed) do not see their sexuality as a bargaining tool or a prize to be 'won' by whichever male offers the best goodies, be that marriage, money, presents or prestige. The way in which a certain type of woman dangles the promise of her virginity in front of men by flaunting her sexuality then putting an inflated price upon it may have been acceptable when marriage was a financial trade-off; nowadays it is just abhorrent. Fine, if this young lady wants to remain a virgin that's her choice (though what kind of woman would wish to be seen as a 'victim' is another matter altogether) but posing nude for strangers to ogle and then playing noli me tangere with the real men with whom she enters into a relationship is just sick and reflects just as badly on the men who like that kind of thing as it does on the women who do it.

>126 Booksloth:: "I'd also like to add that I consider it an extremely healthy thing that a majority of women these days ... do not see their sexuality as a bargaining tool or a prize to be 'won' by whichever male offers the best goodies, be that marriage, money, presents or prestige."

I absolutely agree with you to the extent that such a consideration would be healthful, were it not for the fact (as lawecon notes in128 below) that one powerful school of feminism does, in fact, see a woman's sexuality as a bargaining chip, only now it is a bargaining chip for her own "happiness".

(Though apparently "happiness" is now an entirely selfish construct which takes no care for the other. I use other people and other things to achieve my own happiness -- if I leave behind a string of sexual partners shattered by my callous play-and-throw-away attitude, it doesn't matter a wit. At least I'm happy, right?)

~126

Without specific reference to Lolo Jones (whoever that is) or virginity, I find your following remarks to be, ah, rather remarkable:

"I'd also like to add that I consider it an extremely healthy thing that a majority of women these days (with the possible exception of Lolo Jones, if the article is to be believed) do not see their sexuality as a bargaining tool or a prize to be 'won' by whichever male offers the best goodies, be that marriage, money, presents or prestige. The way in which a certain type of woman dangles the promise of her virginity in front of men by flaunting her sexuality then putting an inflated price upon it may have been acceptable when marriage was a financial trade-off; nowadays it is just abhorrent. "

In two ways:

(1) I can't imagine that you really believe that the overwhelming number of women in Western society don't see their sexuality as a bargaining card. It is. It always has been. They'd be rather stupid and blind to believe otherwise. The only thing that has changed is that today it is a bargaining card for what they want, not for what their family or clan wants. (That you in fact don't believe in this view is illustrated by your reaction to public nudity. If sexuality is and shouldn't be a bargaining card, you would have no reaction at all to such an act.)

(2) Of course marriage is or should be, to a great extent, a financial arrangement. If it isn't, it isn't going to survive very long. If you simply mean that it is a bad long term strategy to sell oneself as a "trophy wife," then you're probably correct. But financial it is and always has been.

Read the "All the Single Ladies" article again. Heck, read just the first few paragraphs. What do you see?

Actually, YOU'll see a much more complex picture if you read PAST the first few paragraphs--especially all to the end.

No, not all sex creates deep "emotional and psychological" bonds. Do you really want to have that conversation? I'd rather not. I have zero desire to start a Sexual Ed 101 here for someone not only as clueless but poised to remain as clueless as you.

You have an incredibly limited, parochial, judgmental outlook; so much so that you probably don't realise how offensive your assumptions and categorical statements on this topic have been--and would be, I'd wager, to most people who don't mentally reside in the Middle Ages.

>129 LolaWalser:: "You have an incredibly limited, parochial, judgmental outlook; so much so that you probably don't realise how offensive your assumptions and categorical statements on this topic have been--and would be, I'd wager, to most people who don't mentally reside in the Middle Ages."

Wow. I'm just left kind of speechless at the vitriol of these statements.

But if you find what I've said so incredibly benighted and offensive, I hope you would do me the favor of explaining why my outlook is so "limited, parochial, {and} judgmental". What is it about advocating mutual respect and loving commitment for the purpose of sexual justice that fits such a description?

I could be writing this post with a snarky and contemptuous attitude (indeed, that last question might gesture in that direction). But I'd rather not do that. I'd rather not stay closed off, unassailably convinced that I am right and you are wrong, and that the story ends there.

Instead, I'd like honestly and openly to learn what it is about the perspectives that I have shared that so offends you. Would you mind trying to actually explain, specifically, what I've said and why it's offensive to you?

For I know it is surely possible that I am initially blinded by my own perspectives from seeing yours, from understanding sympathetically how I seem to hurt you. I don't want to remain blinded, however; I don't want to remain "clueless". I want to learn. Will you teach me?

I have one piece of advice: listen to what people with experiences different from yours are saying.
If they say they have found sexual or other happiness without marriage, or in two or three marriages, with one or with "n" people, serially or, heck, collectively, that they have enjoyed sex in committed and uncommitted relationships and so on in infinite permutations--that sort of thing ought to illustrate the possibility that your way of living isn't necessarily the only correct and happy one.

But with your belief in sin, and what constitutes sin, you are probably fatally hampered from ever allowing the realities of life to interfere with your naive idealisations.

>131 LolaWalser:: I freely admit, then, that there are many who have claimed to find sexual satisfaction in any number of permutations, as you list. (Please note: in the following comment, I leave aside all of my religious views on sex and "sin", and instead examine sex in the light of two key principles: justice (or equality), and biology.)

If what we are aiming for here is to leave our "naive idealisations" behind and instead "allow the realities of life" to inform our understanding of sexual ethics, then what are we to make of the evidence presented now in several different Atlantic stories that many of those permutations of sexual behavior do lead to inequalities of sexual expectation, intimacy, and satisfaction?

To take just one example: is it ever just for a woman to "fake" an orgasm? Or does faking it inherently perpetuate an atmosphere of deceit and dishonesty and an asymmetrical set of standards for mutual sexual satisfaction? And lest this be taken as somehow "misogynistic"--which it is avowedly not intended to be--let us also acknowledge that it is the misguided sexual expectations of men that appear to create the impetus for faking it in the first place. Thus, faking an orgasm appears to be an exemplary symptom of asymmetrical and dishonest sexual expectations.

The conversation I've been trying to have in this thread is about what sexual behaviors encourage justice and which behaviors encourage inequality. It's not enough just to say, "Some people like X and some people like Y." What if there are inherent factors in X or Y which create sexual inequalities?

We can all agree that there are some X's and Y's--take paedophilia for instance--that are inherently wrong. Often, the argument is made that what distinguishes such "wrong" sexual behaviors from "acceptable" ones is that the latter category is practiced between consenting adults.

But what if the practice of those consenting adults is still unjust? What if, try as a person might to freely exercise their sexual libido at command, they discover that emotional attachments form, despite their best efforts to have no strings attached? What if strings do come attached in a sexual encounter whose founding principal was "no strings attached"? What do you do then? How do you deal with the disconnect between expectations and reality?

This is where we come back to the biology of sex. You say you don't want to have a Sex Ed 101 class here, yet you are amongst those in other threads in "Let's Talk Religion" who repeatedly assert that religious people need to base their views of the world not on how they want things to be but on how science demonstrates the world actually to work. So let's look at how science demonstrates sex to actually work.

One of the hormones released during human sexual intercourse is oxytosin (the same hormone that a woman's body releases when she is nursing a child). The so-called "bonding" hormone, oxytosin promotes the formation of emotional attachment, in this case between sexual partners (as, in the case of a nursing mother, it promotes that attachment to the child, so that, as my wife put it last night, "you don't chuck the screaming kid out the window when he wakes you up in the middle of the night"). Now, there's good reason for this hormonal response. In the pre-widely-available-contraception world (i.e. the vast majority of human existence and evolution), a primary function of sex between man and woman was procreation. And when sex comes with high possibility of pregnancy, it is in our best interest for the parents to be emotionally attached, for that promotes the creation of a stable environment for child-rearing.

Social expectations of such a stable environment for child-rearing and the procreational purpose of sex have changed very fast and in many different ways. But the evolutionary biology hasn't kept pace.

So it turns out that the basic biology of sex runs counter to the ideal of "no-strings-attached" sexuality. Shouldn't that factor into how we define and practice our sexuality?

#132

I freely admit, then, that there are many who have claimed to find sexual satisfaction in any number of permutations, as you list.

Others only "claim", but in your case the claims are self-evidently truth and nothing but truth? I'm perfectly willing to believe you when you say you're happy--have the decency to extend the same courtesy to the rest of us.

what are we to make of the evidence presented now in several different Atlantic stories that many of those permutations of sexual behavior do lead to inequalities of sexual expectation, intimacy, and satisfaction?

As I already noted, you have either completely misunderstood or completely ignored the message of the article you referred to. I thought it was a mediocre piece of journalism, but I'd certainly discuss it--with people who actually read it. I'd say you may want to look up that historical study of marriage referenced in it too.

What if there are inherent factors in X or Y which create sexual inequalities?

What, exactly, is "sexual inequality"? I don't get the fake orgasm example at all. What's "unequal"? Who's treated "unequally" in it--the woman because she's not getting the same number of orgasms, or the man (why a man, by the way, what if it's a lesbian encounter?) because he's being lied to?

But what if the practice of those consenting adults is still unjust?

What if you first waited for THEM to tell YOU that they feel their "practice" is "unjust"?

What if, try as a person might to freely exercise their sexual libido at command, they discover that emotional attachments form, despite their best efforts to have no strings attached? What if strings do come attached in a sexual encounter whose founding principal was "no strings attached"? What do you do then? How do you deal with the disconnect between expectations and reality?

First, "freely exercising sexual libido at command" does not parse logically in my head. Assuming it's not a total salad of nonsense, there's quite a bit of "exercising libido at command" in marriage/committed relationships. At least, there are expectations about asking for and giving sex.

Emotional attachments formed when none were expected--things happen. Not always, and not always what you'd expect. Divergent expectations, or changing expectations, or changing affections, desires and plans are part and parcel of human life. I'm sorry, but have you read ANY non-theological literature at all, fiction I mean? That's its prime territory, human expectations and the ways they get fulfilled, or, more often than not (at least outside pure romance) upended.

So let's look at how science demonstrates sex to actually work.

It would be angeringly dishonest if it weren't so funny. You are picking one semi-digested factoid about formation of emotional attachment between a mother and her infant (do let's skip the appalling phenomenon of postnatal depression, which sometimes may lead to suicide or infanticide), and from that reach back to... ALL sexual human relationships? I can't tell if it's willful blindness or sheer ignorance.

Clearly you're making far too much out of oxytocin--it doesn't and never did prevent prostitution, divorce, child abuse, abandonment and murder. How do they fit in? Therefore it can't be the be-all and end-all of all human sexual relationships, or a guarantee of any kind of permanent attachment, and you might do well to actually believe the stupendous evidence that people are, indeed, capable of what you call "no strings attached" sexual relations without automatically falling apart or suffering tremendous "injustice".

I've recommended Helen Fisher's work before, and do so again. She's a physical anthropologist and researcher of human behaviour who did a number of studies of brain chemistry involved in formation of affective attachments. You'll find out more about the variety of bonds formed, how they are reinforced, and why they are flexible. Do you even notice that people from and break bonds, fall in and out of love, maintain a variety of friendships, sometimes love and sometimes hate their parents, or children...? I assure you, all of that is part of actual human experience.

You know, this is getting too ridiculous for me. I really feel like I'm explaining life on Earth to some alien--but one who'll nevertheless whack me over the head with his holy book regulations in the end, whatever the story.

Can we wrap up? All of us who have experienced and live in domestic/sexual arrangements different from Nathaniel's are victims, victimisers or both. And we probably aren't going to heaven either.

That's enough sad news for one day, I must go grab a sandwich or shag a stranger, whichever I find first.

130> Mutual respect? I know very few people who would have a one night stand with someone they did not respect.
Relationships are always transient, There is no marriage in heaven. To declare only sex within the marriage as legitimate is not to advocate justice, but restraint, where others want freedom.

>133 LolaWalser:: Thank you for a lengthy and thoughtful (if at times irritatingly condescending) response. You have given much to think about, as well as some other avenues to pursue (e.g. the recommendation of Helen Fisher). I think I will also need to do some more research on the biology, as you seem to indicate that the hormonal effects of oxytosin in human sexuality are negligable and unimportant.

While I should take time to process and think about much of what you said, there are two places that I feel I should comment on now.

(1) " I don't get the fake orgasm example at all. What's "unequal"? Who's treated "unequally" in it--the woman because she's not getting the same number of orgasms, or the man (why a man, by the way, what if it's a lesbian encounter?) because he's being lied to?"

My assumption was that lying is a form of injustice -- perhaps you question that assumption? It also seemed self-evident to me that the male approach to sexual encounters that seems to prompt the faked orgasm was unjust -- i.e. the man needs the woman to lie to him to boost his own sexual ego (of course I satisfy women!); and that by faking orgasm, the woman confirms this asymmetry of sexual expectation rather than being honest. Could you explain to me why such asymmetries of expectation and dishonesty are not unjust? Maybe I'm just missing something here.

(2) "All of us who have experienced and live in domestic/sexual arrangements different from Nathaniel's are victims, victimisers or both. And we probably aren't going to heaven either."

I was trying to have a civil discussion in which both sides are open to learning from the other, so I was distressed to see you make such unfounded (and uncharitable) assumptions about my worldview. I have never in this thread said that "all who have experienced and live in domestic/sexual arrangements different" from my own are "victims, victimisers or both", nor have I ever, in any comment anywhere posted on Library Thing, declared anything about the eternal state of your souls. To impute such a claim to me is unjust, unkind, and simply not true.

Please reread my posts 67 and 91. You will see that I have not declared all non-married sexual relationships unjust. Quite to the contrary, I openly admitted that sexual justice is possible outside of marriage (see post 67). What I have proposed is that the open and honest commitments and deep levels of trust that marriage can provide are good standards for ensuring sexual justice. Is this true of all marriages? No. Is marriage the only possible way to provide that environment and those standards? I don't believe it is necessarily so, as there is good evidence for some non-married people to have such relationships.

But it seems that, while I am the one accused of not reading Kate Bolicks' piece in the Atlantic, I am also the only one who is trying to have a serious conversation addressing some of the problems it raises, to wit:

(1) The "prevailing attitudes of the high-status American urban male" are increasingly trending towards not only a disinterest in commitment but also a frank admission that they want to "play the field", are only interested in "physical" rather than emotional relationships, and end relationships not because they are bad but because they can't "continue fending off all the sexual offers." As Bolicks' concludes: "If dating and mating is in fact a marketplace—and of course it is—today we’re contending with a new “dating gap,” where marriage-minded women are increasingly confronted with either deadbeats or players."

(2) One example she gives is of the "increasingly lopsided sexual marketplace that is the American college campus," where a 2010 New York Times article chronicled the seeming disconnect: “If a guy is not getting what he wants, he can quickly and abruptly go to the next one, because there are so many of us,” a University of Georgia co-ed told The Times. "The alternative is just to give up on dating and romance because “there are no guys,” as a University of North Carolina student put it." When Susan Walsh dug deeper, she discovered that the sexual scene on college campuses had devolved along the "Pareto principle", where "only 20 percent of the men (those considered to have the highest status) are having 80 percent of the sex, with only 20 percent of the women (those with the greatest sexual willingness); the remaining 80 percent, male and female, sit out the hookup dance altogether. (...) Yet the myth of everyone having sex all the time is so pervasive that it’s assumed to be true, which distorts how young men and women relate. “I think the 80/20 principle is the key to understanding the situation we find ourselves in—one in which casual sex is the cultural norm, despite the fact that most people would actually prefer something quite different,” Walsh told me. "

Bollicks concludes: "For centuries, women’s sexuality was repressed by a patriarchal marriage system; now what could be an era of heady carnal delights is stifled by a new form of male entitlement, this one fueled by demographics."

There are several areas here that are identified as new forms of sexual inequality and male entitlement. Yet, I seem to be the only one on this thread who is interested in discussing what to do about it. And every time I make suggestions, I'm ridiculed for ... what was it again, " one who'll nevertheless whack me over the head with his holy book of regulations in the end, whatever the story."

(Please note that once again, I have not said anything about my "holy book of regulations". But I suppose it would too much to ask you to respond to what I actually say rather than your imaginary world in which I'm a holy zealot.)

>134 SimonW11:: "To declare only sex within the marriage as legitimate is not to advocate justice, but restraint, where others want freedom."

But is that what I have declared? No. (Please reread my posts 67 and 91, as well as 135 just now.)

I have identified a problem with modern sexual relationships, to wit, the asymmetry of power and expectations and the resultant injustice that comes from relationships that are not founded on mutual respect, honesty, and commitment. I have suggested that marriage--idealized, I suppose, and revisioned to do away with patriarchal hegemony--can offer a stable, committed, and deeply loving context in which sexuality can be practiced with justice and mutual love.

I have not declared that sex outside of marriage is illegitimate, nor am I trying to take away anyone's freedom. I am simply trying to address a problem in our modern sexual culture.

Does anyone else want to constructively discuss how to address this problem? Or do you all just want to continue lambasting me not about what I'm actually saying but about the imaginary stereotype of me you have constructed in your heads?

To keep it as brief as possible, I'll address only two points:

on faking orgasms or generally lying to your partner, such that they have a false impression of the relationship--you seem to be supposing a chronic deception, chronic lack of honesty (and orgasms!), about a very specific problem which, really, could have any number of solutions--be honest, discuss the problem, try different things. Obviously, any chronic deception in a relationship is at least problematic (and immoral and unethical), at least in abstract (if one side never finds out, and the other never feels guilty or otherwise unsatisfied with the situation). But I don't see why, if that's the essence of the argument (deception), it has to be sex-related, or why a sex-related example would be worse than any other (spying, thieving, spreading rumours, whatever).

On that article: first, I never completely believe that type of journalism, their statistics, research or conclusions. Those are conversation pieces, informal chatter about vague notions of what's going on in "culture", "society" etc. It's not even sociology, it's Kaffeeklatsch with attention-grabbing headlines and exciting soundbites, the more exciting the more extreme they are. It's anecdote for anecdote, ad hoc stats for ad hoc stats time, and cherry-picking galore.

With that in mind, on the excerpts you chose:

1. a new “dating gap,” where marriage-minded women are increasingly confronted with either deadbeats or players."

What about the women who aren't marriage-minded, and what about the men who ARE marriage-minded? In case anyone's missing the obvious, the world isn't made up of only two kinds of people: women who want marriage, and men who don't.

Moreover, if you read the article--and harking to Nathaniel's second excerpt--you find out that's it not really ALL marriage-minded women who (according to this article) have trouble finding husbands, just like it's not ALL college girls who have trouble finding committed, monogamous boyfriends. It's a minority in both cases, in the former, highly educated, well-off professional women; in the latter, it's the girls who aim for the "most desirable" specimens on the campus, the guys who have dozens of girls throwing themselves at them. (Why those creeps are deemed desirable by anyone is just another mystery of the zoo that is the American college campus, a habitat rife with stupidity surpassing even the American society-wide average.)

Why should we worry about the problems (assuming these "problems" really exist) of these minorities? I'm not being flippant or callous. In the past ten, fifteen years I've seen more than one article about professional women who can't find partners on their level, regarding education, job, class. One can feel on an individual level for their disappointments, but I simply don't see this as something problematic for the society as a whole. Nobody set out to "get them", the system isn't rigged against them, they achieved, at a minimum, independence and often brilliant careers, material comfort and security. They didn't find lasting love, a committed partner. Neither have many people who have married. That's sad, but, again--why would it be a collective problem? I don't think it is.

Second excerpt brings home the plight of the college girl who'd like to date--steadily--a "high status" ape, sorry, guy. {...} "only 20 percent of the men (those considered to have the highest status) are having 80 percent of the sex, with only 20 percent of the women (those with the greatest sexual willingness); the remaining 80 percent, male and female, sit out the hookup dance altogether."

Can't we just be grateful for the 80 percent of males AND females who aren't "hooking up" or whatever the 20 percent is doing, and hope that someone somewhere is actually getting an education, along with some romantic experience of non-hooking up variety? Why do I have to worry about the "high status" chimps and groupies and their Spring Break orgies? I don't think I have to. This is another pumped-up bullshit "problem" clothed in gorillas-in-the-mist lingo for "credibility".

Anecdote for anecdote time: while I've always worked closely mostly with men, I do know dozens of professional women high in academic and industrial hierarchy. Most of them ARE married, and most even have children. Of the rest, most are in partnerships, a few are divorced... I had to rack my brains to think of any one of them who is unwillingly single, and I think one of the secretaries possibly might be so. If my thrice-cursed toad-faced snake-haired dragon-witch from deepest circle of hell advisor could find a husband, well, then, believe me, there is NO woman who couldn't wrangle herself a man, if she put her mind to it.

The point is--and this is the point made very well in the article--that one has to make the best decision at the right time. It is recognising this moment that is difficult, and no one can prescribe it to anyone else.

The plural of anecdote is not "Data".

I know very few people who would have a one night stand with someone they did not respect.

As someone who's done quite a bit of bar work, I might not agree with that.

Though I'm also reminded of the time I was working in a restaurant and one of the male servers came in bragging about how hot the woman was that he'd met at the bar a half hour before it closed the night before and taken home to bed.

Another co-worker and I asked him whether or not he'd gotten her number the next morning. "No," he said, "You must be fucking insane. I have absolutely no respect for anyone that would sleep with someone that they'd known for an hour."

"How long did you know this woman before you slept with her?" we asked.

"Fuck you," he said.

A) Sexuality is one of the most powerful and personal forces known to humanity. Some people can do hookups, others cannot. Some people like a little (or a lot) of pain with their pleasure, others do not. Some people can be very open about what they want when they fuck, others cannot, even if they are with a very willing partner. (If the F word offended, insert copulate, but that sounds very impersonal to me.)

So making generalizations about sex are about as useful as making generalizations about food preferences, spirituality, or music.

B) Marriage is a form of committed relationship. Having committed relationships is a social positive, required for child rearing, home ownership, and a host of social and economic activities that require at least two people who are relatively certain that they will be together to pay off the mortgage, and see that the kids have some consistency. Marriage is the most recognizable and enduring type of that relationship, but not the the only kind.

Nor is there anything magical about marriage that binds two people together. My wife and never really had it. My girlfriend and I do. (Even my dear, sweet fundamentalist Christian mother saw that the Redhead was much better for me than my ex, and acted appropriately.)

C) Sex is basically about intimacy. (But see A above.) Faking it can be the enemy of intimacy, but on the other hand, I don't think I would like the Redhead to grade me after every sexual encounter.

D) I know very few people who would have a one night stand with someone they did not respect.

I was married to someone I did not respect. I know I am not the only person in that situation.

I was married to someone I did not respect. I know I am not the only person in that situation

But were you sleeping with each other?

So making generalizations about sex are about as useful as making generalizations about food preferences, spirituality, or music.

Quoted for truth.

The point being that people are different.
People not only want different things, but different arrangements work for different people.

It's one of the great things about people: we differ.

I was married to someone I did not respect. I know I am not the only person in that situation

But were you sleeping with each other?

Point taken.

Sorry. It was low hanging fruit. Excellent post.

No problem. And actually your point was very well taken.

#128 I can't imagine that you really believe that the overwhelming number of women in Western society don't see their sexuality as a bargaining card. It is. It always has been. They'd be rather stupid and blind to believe otherwise.

I do generally try to give a more reasoned reply to other people's comments but really, all I can say to this one is, what absolute bollocks! The fact that you have clearly been very unfortunate in the women you have known or, more likely, have put your own, rather odd, interpretation on their actions, is very sad, though not entirely unexpected. Ah well, back on 'ignore'.

In general, this thread seems to be turning into a squabble between those who have a healthy, caring and enjoyable sex-life (with one partner, multiple partners or their own hand) and those who resent that fact. Hardly surprising, then, that the latter see motivations in others that simply don't exist.

>146 Booksloth: Completely off topic and fatuous, but I do think "bollocks" has a much nicer ring to it than "bullshit". Thank you, Booksloth.

#147 Now that just brings to mind an image of ringing bollocks - what are you doing to me john? Maybe we've been talking about sex for far too long.

>148 Booksloth: "Cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey?" Presumably they would ring when they hit the ground?

#149 The ones I was thinking of were more like a Newton's cradle. Probably TMI.

#149 - not actual bollocks there. Brass monkey was a brass cannon ball stand. Iron cannon balls contract at a different amount to brass, in sufficently low temperatures the size change difference would make the cannon shot unstable on the stand.
Favourite anecdote, hence why I interupt an interesting thread.

As you were.

>151 reading_fox: Interesting, and I certainly didn't know that. I think the image of metallic monkey testicles bouncing across the cobble stones still has a nicer, er, ring to it though! And mention of cobble stones also brings to mind "A load of old cobblers", probably equally unconnected.

>151 reading_fox:: A popular factoid, but refuted as in the wiki entry:

It is often stated that the phrase originated from the use of a brass tray, called a "monkey", to hold cannonballs on warships in the 16th to 18th centuries. Supposedly, in very cold temperatures the "monkey" would contract, causing the balls to fall off. However, nearly all historians and etymologists consider this story to be an urban legend. This story has been discredited by the U.S. Department of the Navy, etymologist Michael Quinion, and the Oxford English Dictionary (OED).

They give five main reasons:

The OED does not record the term "monkey" or "brass monkey" being used in this way.
The purported method of storage of cannonballs ("round shot") is simply false. Shot was not stored on deck continuously on the off-chance that the ship might go into battle. Indeed, decks were kept as clear as possible.
Furthermore, such a method of storage would result in shot rolling around on deck and causing a hazard in high seas. Shot was stored on the gun or spar decks, in shot racks—longitudinal wooden planks with holes bored into them, known as shot garlands in the Royal Navy, into which round shot were inserted for ready use by the gun crew.
Shot was not left exposed to the elements where it could rust. Such rust could lead to the ball not flying true or jamming in the barrel and exploding the gun. Indeed, gunners would attempt to remove as many imperfections as possible from the surfaces of balls.
The physics does not stand up to scrutiny. The contraction of both balls and plate over the range of temperatures involved would not be particularly large. The effect claimed possibly could be reproduced under laboratory conditions with objects engineered to a high precision for this purpose, but it is unlikely it would ever have occurred in real life aboard a warship.

So, the brass monkey's balls are bollocks.

#153 But as my (part Irish) grandfather used to say - Never let facts stand in the way of a good story.

#153 - so what is the explanation for the term? I'm still sure it deosnt' relate to an actual monkey.

>153 jbbarret: : Yes, and that's reminiscent of the watergate phrase, "Don’t confuse me with the facts", now often quoted with the additional, "My mind's made up".

Quite suitable for many of these threads.

>155 reading_fox: : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass_monkey_%28colloquial_expression%29

An interesting story this morning on the BBC illuminates the difficulty of defining acceptable sexual boundaries: Topless Kate pictures: Duke and duchess sue French magazine Closer

The French celebrity-gossip magazine Closer has published topless photos of the Duchess of Cambridge, for which the Duke and Duchess are suing the magazine:

A spokesman for the couple, who are on a tour of South East Asia and the South Pacific to mark the Queen's Diamond Jubilee, strongly condemned publication of the pictures.

The duke and duchess, who were staying at the French chateau of the Queen's nephew, Lord Linley, "have been hugely saddened to learn that a French publication and a photographer have invaded their privacy in such a grotesque and totally unjustifiable manner", said the spokesman for Clarence House, the Prince of Wales's office.

The spokesman said the incident was "reminiscent of the worst excesses of the press and paparazzi during the life of Diana, Princess of Wales, and all the more upsetting to the duke and duchess for being so".
(...)
The BBC's Nicholas Witchell said he had rarely seen such a level of publicly expressed anger from the palace over such an incident, and this anger reflected Prince William's feelings on the matter.

Our correspondent said that the prince had a "look of absolute thunder" on his face as they left Kuala Lumpur - a stop on their nine-day tour - to travel to Sabah in north Borneo. Kate, meanwhile, "looked composed and was smiling", he said.

The interesting thing, however, is the response the controversy has elicited from the magazine:

Closer's editor said the couple were "visible from the street".

"These photos are not in the least shocking. They show a young woman sunbathing topless, like the millions of women you see on beaches," said Laurence Pieau.

She described the reaction as "a little disproportionate".

On the BBC News Hour this morning, I heard a spokesmen from the magazine indicate that they would not have run the photos if they were "demeaning" -- but since it's just a woman's bare breasts, they're not demeaning, so they went ahead and ran the photos.

My question is this: who gets to decide whether a picture of a woman's bare breasts are demeaning? Is is the magazine who publishes them? Or is it the woman whose breasts have been photographed without her permission?

> 157

I can hardly see what sex has to do with it.

>158 paradoxosalpha:: Are you being intentionally obtuse in order to make a point, i.e. the same point the magazine is making, that bare breasts aren't anything to be bothered about? Or does it not seem obvious to you that, given the place bare breasts have in western society's definition of female sexual attractiveness, the objection on the part of the royals is to having such sexually-charged photos published?

And that begs the question: who gets to decide whether a picture of a woman's bare breasts are demeaning or not? The magazine who publishes them, or the woman whose breasts have been photographed without her pemission?

> 159

It seems to me that the essential controversy is about celebrity and privacy, and the "sexual" element is just icing on the cake that will enhance media ratings.

FWIW, I don't think that sunbathing topless women are outrageous, and insistence that they are or should be strikes me as part of an oppressive double-standard.

What is outrageous is photographers who stake out people to get comprising shots of them when they they think they are having a private moment. I can only imagine how I would feel if pictures of the Redhead and myself were in the papers when we thought we were alone.

This is about decorum and privacy, not sex.

>160 paradoxosalpha:: "FWIW, I don't think that sunbathing topless women are outrageous, and insistence that they are or should be strikes me as part of an oppressive double-standard."

But shouldn't the decision over that be left up to each woman? Shouldn't a woman have the right to decide for herself whether she finds sunbathing topless to be demeaning or acceptable?

The problem I'm seeing is that the French magazine assumes that all women should find such things acceptable -- thus, its statement that it can publish the pictures because "they aren't demeaning."

What if the subject of the photos does find them demeaning?

I think Arctic is mostly correct in 161 that this is about decorum and privacy, rather than sex per se. But the issue I think it could raise -- or rather, the issue I want to raise -- is the question of who gets to decide whether a public display of semi-nudity, such as topless sunbathing, is acceptable or immodest? For it seems to me that the French magazine is making the assumption that it can't be modest, even though some women would think otherwise.

Is it safe for us to make such assumptions about other people?

I agree with paradoxosalpha, the problem here is invasion of privacy--certainly demeaning and humiliating in itself--not "sex". The tabloid is obviously totally disingenuous, her breasts are far more bankable than those of the anonymous masses, who needs that explained? She's a celebrity, as is her husband, people will gawk at naked celebrities not caring whether the images are bought or stolen.

Regarding topless beach-going, and likely going off on a tangent, I'm reminded of an anecdote I read in Slavoj Zizek's Living in the end times. During dinner once at some American college everyone present was asked to introduce themselves, with their name and sexual orientation. Zizek refused, and contrasts that with an incident back in Slovenia, when some American academics, escorted to the beach, found the presence of topless women upsetting, degrading or some such. Illustrating the differences in what, vaguely put, Americans and Europeans find is boundary-crossing.

Or, take nipples. After my first arrival in North America I didn't go back to Europe for about two years. So, on the first trip back my vision was renewed, I was noticing things for the first time. And one of the first was something really silly, but oh so eloquent--I was at the newsstand, looking over magazines and suddenly it struck me--there were naked women on magazines for women, AND, they HAD NIPPLES. Breasts were shown everywhere, in frank photos, not coyly hidden or in silhouettes. You never see photos with nipples on ordinary American magazines. Heck, you don't see them on softer girlie magazines like Playboy.

Then there were posters with naked people, just plain naked people. Different ones, for different stuff--a rock concert, I remember, some theatrical piece... This in my super-bigoted, ultra-hypocritical, hair-curlingly conservative Catholic Mediterranean hometown.

And one of my biggest artistic regrets: there are so many bloody nuns running around there I kept wanting to photograph them because I was getting these visual treats of nuns in frame with all kinds of objects, people--and Dalmatian dogs--on THREE separate occasions!--but, anyway, I never did, being far too shy to take pictures of strangers, even if they are bloody nuns, but at least I have the mental image of this one time--a nun is standing in the street in front of a Sisley boutique window, which has an enormous poster in it, of a topless girl in jeans, and this ginormous nipple is right next to the nun's face (both facing me), almost the same size.

Again something you just can't see in America.

But hey. In America, a bunch of total strangers at dinner may ask you which church you go to or who you prefer to sleep with.

>163 LolaWalser:: " During dinner once at some American college everyone present was asked to introduce themselves, with their name and sexual orientation. "

Seriously? Goodness me. Had I been there, they would have gotten a great big "none of your business" out of me. (I didn't find out until half-way through my junior year of college that my mentor/advisor was gay, because he didn't wear his sexual orientation on his sleeve -- even though he'd married his long-time partner when I was a freshman {Massachusetts in 2003}.)

Do those of us who are straight go around introducing ourselves, "Hi, I'm _____, and I'm heterosexual"?

#157: I don't see an essential distinction here between bare breasts and any type of this photography. There's certainly a cultural distinction in the US and apparently the UK, but I wonder if we would be so respectful if a Muslim politician was upset that she was photographed without her hijab. In general, I go with the theory that if you willfully do it in public, that you are vulnerable to be photographed, that you don't get to play the demeaning card. Of course, these type of photographers will push the lines of public as far as they can go and then some. I find the Sun's distinction, as listed in the BBC article, to be relevant; they published nude photos of Prince Harry because he was naked in a hotel room with strangers. If the Closer's claim that they were visible from the street--and I mean, visible from the street, and not from a tree by the street with a telephoto lens--I have a hard time finding legally against the Closer.

> 164 Do those of us who are straight ...

I rather took the impression that you did, in this thread anyhow. #18 was it?

>167 paradoxosalpha:: Touche, though I would add that this is a thread devoted to the topic, "Christianity and sex", so one could expect it to be an issue. In this case, I was using myself as an example to make a point--which, incidentally, is how I found out that my advisor was gay.

>166 prosfilaes:: "If the Closer's claim that they were visible from the street--and I mean, visible from the street, and not from a tree by the street with a telephoto lens--I have a hard time finding legally against the Closer."

Given both the anger expressed by the Duke of Cambridge and the modesty with which the Duchess has acted in pretty much every public appearance in years, I suspect that they're stretching the definition of "visible" to include "from a tree with a telephoto lens".

Do those of us who are straight go around introducing ourselves, "Hi, I'm _____, and I'm heterosexual"?

I don't understand where this question came from. Just to be clear (or at least more clear), Zizek doesn't specify whether the dinner question was asked by a gay or straight person, nor does he imply that the gays rushed to volunteer their orientation.

In fact, if I had to, I'd bet that the idea came from some well-meaning, meddling hetero. Of course, there's the question of the wider context, whether there was any preceding conversation, what was Zizek supposed to lecture on, the hosting department etc.

>169 nathanielcampbell: "from a tree with a telephoto lens"

From the Grauniad: they were taken with long lenses and the couple would have had no idea they were being photographed

I do generally try to give a more reasoned reply to other people's comments but really, all I can say to this one is, what absolute bollocks!

I dunno. Withholding sex has a long and storied pedigree as a way of getting what one wants, from Lysistrata all the way through Jack In the Box.

>172 Jesse_wiedinmyer: Withholding sex has a long and storied pedigree as a way of getting what one wants

It has been used by Sudanese women as a form of political protest, and I read recently of a similar initiative in west Africa.

#172/3 Couldn't agree more - by men and women both (as has withholdling food, house-cleaning, good-natured company or just about anything else under the sun).

Cohabiting couples now as likely to have children as those who are married (Guardian)

Report finds the law has failed to keep up with changing family circumstances

Now the subject of this bloggery rings a familiar bell, as well as inspiring a rueful guffaw.

>176 paradoxosalpha:: Why is "Jesus will think I'm a slut" not an acceptable reason for waiting to have sex until you are married?

Or are you about to impose your version of sexual morals on other people?

Why is "Jesus will think I'm a slut" not an acceptable reason for waiting to have sex until you are married?

Wow, where to even start?

How about: not everybody believes in Jesus?

Or are you about to impose your version of sexual morals on other people?

Did you even read the link? It's all about the guy imposing his version of sexual morals on other people.

We did it right.

Feeling judged? I couldn’t care less. You know why? Because my wife and I were judged all throughout our relationship. People laughed, scoffed and poked fun at the young, celibate, naive Christian couple.
…

Turns out that people couldn’t have been more wrong. Looking back, I think that the women saying those things felt like the floozies they ultimately were, and the men, with their fickle manhood tied to their pathetic sexual conquests, felt threatened.

"Floozies"?

>178 AsYouKnow_Bob:: So because some people don't believe in Jesus, therefore nobody is allowed to believe that Jesus wants them to wait until marriage?

The condescension here is clear: if you do wait until marriage because of your faith, you are screwed up and shouldn't be allowed to practice your sexuality as you want to. You will be told by those who know better than you that your sexuality is not your own to do with as you want; you must follow their rules and have sex before you are married. Period.

Now, we all know that what I've just written is hyperbolic. Yet, the implication of the blog post linked in 176 is clear: if you make a choice about your sexuality that goes against what the blogger believes is sexual orthopraxis, then you should be mocked.

Reading comprehension challenge: For anyone who has read the linked blog post in #176

As for me, I thought the crippling blow was landed by commenter pheenobarbidoll:

So I think you didn’t think this little story through very well, or have a good proof reader to helpfully point out this now sounds like a complete bullshit story you made up to cover for the fact that no one actually gives a shit about your sex life.

I don't know what's more pathetic, thinking about sex all the time, or thinking about NOT having sex all the time.

Either way... the elephant is in the room! The elephant is in the room!

#179: The author of the text being mocked is completely abusive to those who disagree with him. I mean, floozy? harlot*? He also jumped to a lot of conclusions about other people; he briefly talked to a woman he didn't know and assumed he knew all about her wedding and what caused her husband's headache. (I mean, headaches are something that can often get doctors to throw up their hands and mutter words like "idiopathic", but he knew the cause without meeting the guy.) It's not his choice about his sexuality, it's his judgment about other's sexuality; and what's more, jumping to conclusions about the matter and pejoratives towards those who disagree with him. People who jump from "the groom has a headache" to "their marriage was just another party" deserve all the mockery they get.

* Okay, so E. Gary Gygax got away with it; but that's E. Gary Gygax. More mundanely, it was 1979, too.
** What, you're not familiar with the Harlot Table?

Interestingly enough, I found http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/09/20/everyones-getting-marrie... open in another tab. She says "Crowder and his wife made the (perfectly fine) decision to wait until they got married before they had sex or lived together." and "Well that sucks. People weren’t supportive of the decisions they made as a couple. That’s pretty lousy of their friends." She makes it pretty clear her objections aren't about the choices the author of the text made, but his reactions and unjustified assumptions about others.

> 184 Harlot Table

Made my day!

I like my tarts saucy.

01-10 Slovenly trull
11-25 Brazen strumpet
26-35 Cheap trollop
36-50 Typical streetwalker
51-65 Saucy tart
66-75 Wanton wench
76-85 Expensive doxy
86-90 Haughty courtesan
91-92 Aged madam
93-94 Wealthy procuress
95-98 Sly pimp
99-00 Rich panderer

If Cowder had written an article that just spoke of who well his decision went for him, then bully for him. But it seems like the best reason for waiting is that you get to use all sorts of archaic insults for those who did not, not that you are practicing a higher standard of love. In his case, waiting led to a lower standard of love. Definitely WJWNotD.

>188 Arctic-Stranger:: Yet, the entire point of my participation in this thread has been to assert that sex within marriage does appeal to raising the standards of love rather than lowering them. Not that anybody has cared to listen...

I waited before I married my first wife. (Well I should say my wife, because we are technically still married, although we have not lived in the same household for four and half years, and slept in separate bedrooms for the last year we did live together.)

I do not regret that decision, and if a couple were doing that, I would encourage them in that direction. But a) not all people are the same, and b) not all situations are the same. I knew a couple that got married in college, mostly because they chose to wait, and the waiting was a lot harder than they anticipated when they made that choice. Rather than give in to temptation, they rushed into a wedding. Not a marriage, but a wedding. The wedding was the gateway drug for sex. The marriage was a disaster.

But they were so fixated on NOT having sex with one another that they did not see other serious problems in the relationship. Although neither of them believe in divorce, that is exactly where they are heading.

So tell me, which is preferable. To wait, marry badly and then divorce, or to not wait, give time for flaws to come out, and then part?

>190 Arctic-Stranger:: I don't mean to presume to speak for the couple you describe, but I think their example offers an important point to think about. Is having sex the reason to get married? Or is loving each other the reason? And can you love each other deeply, respect each other deeply, and be committed to each other deeply and wholly, without having sex?

My own experience indicates that you don't have to have sex in order to figure out whether to marry somebody. Is that experience universalizable (if that's a word)? Probably not. But it's the experience I have to go on.

Thus, to answer your question, I would have to point out that those aren't the only options. Having said that, however, if we assume for the moment that they are the only options, I would lean towards the latter (not wait, give time for flaws to come, and then part). But only because I'm forced to choose between those two, rather than other, better ways.

As I said, I would encourage people who wanted to wait, but there are dangers.

I was doing premarital counseling for a couple, and went over the basic "marriage killers"-- money, in-laws, children and sexual dysfunction. I asked if they had problems in any of those areas. They looked at one another, then me, and I realized what was going on.

"Not having sex is NOT a dysfunction," I quickly added, and they breathed a sigh of relief. They are happily married, as far as I can tell, but I realized how I came to expect that couples who were getting married were already having sex--mostly because up to them, all of them were.

When I got into a situation where I really did not want to marry couple, I would pull the chastity card. "Before I can marry you, you have to move out, and not live with one another." I only did that once, and to a couple whose relationship was already a disaster, and whose marriage I was pretty sure was just going to be worse.

I do not say that things are necessarily as I describe them, only that this is how it appears at the time.

OK? Got that? Consider it said three times.

On matters of sexuality, Christianity looks to me like the Jr Anti Sex League.

Am I alone in that? If so, I'm a lone kook so never mind.

If not, how could that be? Wouldn't the circumstance of being perceived as the JASL , for those who see the truth is otherwise call for some explaining?

There's always R&F theory, (Rogues and Fools, that is), but can we do better?

>193 modalursine:: "On matters of sexuality, Christianity looks to me like the Jr Anti Sex League. "

Seems to me you would do well to acquaint yourself with modern evolutions in Christian sexual ethics. I might suggest, as a place to start, Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body. Then you might try other liberal Christian critiques, such as those of Lisa Cahill and James F. Keenan.

Then come back to me and we can talk about just how far modern theology is from the Jr Anti Sex League.

ref 194

What you're saying is that after I've read all of the above, I will come to understand how the position of the JASL is aligned with true morality as defined by the author of the universe.

A fellow who thinks that Priestly Celibacy is "a good thing" and that people get a fully valuable human "soul" at conception , or that sex outside of marriage is an "abuse" of the sexual faculty , or that sex is "primarily" for procreation, is hardly in a position to distinguish his position from that of the JASL.

Do any of the stalwarts of "modern evolutions in Christian sexual ethics" dissent from the positions I've outlined above? If they do, are their views generally made known to the faithful, or are their works deprecated reading?

What explains the lack of familiarity with these dissenting opinions among the faithful, let alone among the population at large?

What explains the perception (you seem to have conceded that its not just one isolated eccentric person's foolish or wicked idea) that Christian sexual morality is the JASL ?

>195 modalursine:: I'll keep this post in mind the next time you accuse a theist of making unfounded and uniformed assumptions about the content a particular concept that they don't understand. (You might try googling, at minimum, Lisa Cahill and James F. Keenan, lest you continue to completely mischaracterize their thinking.)

Actually I think that is a fair characterization, given that you said it "looks like..." I can easily see how a person not involved in the church, but looking at it from a distance, would think that.

ref 196

...
Cahill discussed the issue of personal integrity, referring to Pope John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body.” For John Paul II, the purpose of sex was two-fold—to express permanent love and commitment, and to procreate, she added. ...

Hmmm... one purpose of sex is to express permanent love and commitment.

Nope, no clear eyed person could see the JASL there, holding that only permanent love and commitment makes the cut.

Now I see why you don't provide a precise yourself of what these thinkers have written or defended. It doesn't support your contention.

Maybe the appear to be the JASL because the are the JASL ?

While I cede your first point about appearances, your last comment does not make the cut.

You are shocked! Shocked! that a Catholic would think that sex should have to do with permanent love and procreation?

If I say that guns should only be used for hunting for subsistence and target shooting, does that make me anti-gun?

Is it that ANY standard associated with sex makes someone JASL? (Or just the ones you happen to agree with?)

>198 modalursine:: Fundamentally, Christian sexual ethics ( as understood by theologians such as John Paul II and Lisa Cahill) affirms the goodness of human sexuality, but next to that also emphasizes the responsibility of human sexuality.

Now, if thinking that sex comes with responsibility is somehow "anti-sex", then I suppose you've proven your point. In that case, you don't have to care about your sexual partner. Just fuck whoever you want. You don't have responsibilities toward them (especially, I suppose, if you get her pregnant?). Just enjoy it for yourself.

What an enlightened view!

Without the inflammatory rhetoric, I am wondering what sexual ethics you think are not JASL? Do you have to the liberal side of Dan Savage?

ref 199

You are shocked! Shocked! that a Catholic would think that sex should have to do with permanent love and procreation?

Hardly that. I was half expecting to get my come-upance hearing a more civilized sexual ethic being justified on Christian or even specifically Catholic grounds. Instead, we get the usual line which certainly gives the appearance of being essentially anti sex.

Now one more time, I don't say this is necessarily how it is, only that this is what seems apparent at the time; but it appears that the "real" rule is "sex is evil but we'll make a concession that its sort of necessary if there's to be a next generation, and because "its better to marry than to burn". so we'll say its ok in marriage as long as its for procreation but not otherwise. We'll also specify as many days as we can invent on which we discourage sex even between married people"

Call that the "modified manichean" rule of sex. Where do the results of the actual more subtle complex and nuanced rule , as endorsed by Christian worthies, differ from the results we get from the crude "modified manichean" one?

ref 200

So those are the only choices you can conceptualize? Celibacy until marriage, even if marriage isn't in the cards until age 30 or 40, no birth control and no abortion, and no condoms for any purpose either, on the one hand, or a brutish self centered hedonism on the other?

Shame!

>197 Arctic-Stranger: it "looks like..." I can easily see how a person not involved in the church, but looking at it from a distance, would think that.

Arctic-Stranger, you may have put your finger on the disconnect underlying a lot of the Christian-atheist conversations here. "It looks like" from the outside is often very different from what "it is" from the inside.

This just in:

http://www.delanceyplace.com/index.php

author: Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha
title: Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality
publisher: Harper Collins
date: Copyright 2010 by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha
pages: 85-87

AS asks what sexual ethic would NOT look like the JASL to me.

I haven't forgotten, but its easier to recognize it when you see it than to describe it for someone who really doesn't know.

For a quick and dirty stop gap answer, while I try to articulate something a bit more coherent, consider the US social milieu up through say the 1950's and contrast that with today.

Three guesses which one the JASL likes better.

Think of the word POSSLQ.

PS. Just went to a lecture about the Mogollon controversy. A prominent female archeologist was prevented by her family from attending one of the early extremely important and consequential Pecos Conferences (circa 1927, I think) because she would not be properly chaperoned. I may have the details a bit muddled, that wasn't the main point of the lectures, but it struck me as typical of a (thankfully) distant age.

Sounds like the JASL at work to me. But that was then, and this is now.

"Please calmly watch these barbarous displays
Which could not happen nowadays"

#204: "It looks like" from the inside is also often very different from what it is, and some of us have quite a bit of experience on a Christian church from the inside.

>207 prosfilaes: Those who have left may well have had a different experience "from the inside" than those who have remained.

I did a speaking tour of western Australia a few years ago, at a time when I was based in South Africa. On hearing I had come from South Africa, many Australians would say to me, "Oh, things are bad there, aren't they?". My reply that actually things were going rather well in South Africa surprised them, because they were hearing this from the many white South Africans who had emigrated to Australia post-1994. These emigrated because they had certain negative attitudes towards the new political dispensation and fears for the future, and were acting as if those were the reality. Nobody can say they didn't have "quite a bit of experience on" South Africa "from the inside", but nevertheless much of it was no longer very relevant.

>202 modalursine:: "but it appears that the "real" rule is "sex is evil but we'll make a concession that its sort of necessary if there's to be a next generation, and because "its better to marry than to burn". so we'll say its ok in marriage as long as its for procreation but not otherwise. "

Read again my precis (which you requested) of modern Christian sexual ethics, as I posted in 200: "Fundamentally, Christian sexual ethics (as understood by theologians such as John Paul II and Lisa Cahill) affirms the goodness of human sexuality, but next to that also emphasizes the responsibility of human sexuality."

But I suppose you can't be bothered to learn what actual theologians today are saying about this, as it would completely decimate the straw man you've worked so hard to construct.

>203 modalursine:: "So those are the only choices you can conceptualize? Celibacy until marriage, even if marriage isn't in the cards until age 30 or 40, no birth control and no abortion, and no condoms for any purpose either, on the one hand, or a brutish self centered hedonism on the other? "

How many damn times do I have to repeat myself before this point becomes clear?

From my post 67: "Can unmarried persons establish such levels in their relationships? Sure. But marriage is a very good way of establishing such levels, because it makes those commitments open and above-board, rather than leaving them undiscussed and implicit."

From my post 135: "Please reread my posts 67 and 91. You will see that I have not declared all non-married sexual relationships unjust. Quite to the contrary, I openly admitted that sexual justice is possible outside of marriage (see post 67). What I have proposed is that the open and honest commitments and deep levels of trust that marriage can provide are good standards for ensuring sexual justice. Is this true of all marriages? No. Is marriage the only possible way to provide that environment and those standards? I don't believe it is necessarily so, as there is good evidence for some non-married people to have such relationships."

From my post 191: "Thus, to answer your question, I would have to point out that those aren't the only options. Having said that, however, if we assume for the moment that they are the only options, I would lean towards the latter (not wait, give time for flaws to come, and then part). But only because I'm forced to choose between those two, rather than other, better ways."

But again, it would be too much for you to read what I've actually written, as it would completely overturn your prejudiced and distorted assumptions about me.

#206

Was that an answer?

ref 210 ref'ng 206

That was an IOU with a partial down payment.

K. Just making sure.

ref 212

The article, and the comments following it, are pretty clearly expresses attitudes that are NOT in the JASL orbit.

http://nyti.ms/RTYSa2

Would that satisfy my IOU to state something that I would not consider JASL?

The moral case for sex before marriage (Guardian)

Condemning premarital sex and promoting abstinence are not working. Lasting, loving relationships are made through intimacy

Is female sexual pleasure devalued? (Naomi Wolf answers critics of her new book, Vagina: A New Biography)

But in the last decade, instead of informed and respectful discussion about women and their bodies, we have veered into a raunch culture in which celebrities boost their popularity by releasing porn videos, rock star John Mayer casually says that he sees hundreds of vaginas before breakfast, and critically acclaimed new TV shows feature young women recounting horrible hookups with ever-escalating porn-based expectations. Female desire, arousal and satisfaction, let alone women’s (or men’s) emotional needs, are very rarely part of this picture.

Indeed, serious or even remotely respectful discourse about women’s erotic well-being has been so marginalized that in today’s climate, when one brings new findings on female arousal and satisfaction into public debate, as I am doing with my book, I find that one must make the case from the start that these numbers — and female sexual satisfaction — matter at all.

But here’s one number that says it all: between 12% and 43% of women in America self-report ”hypoactive sexual desire disorder”— these women say they feel a loss of libido, a decline of desire. Other estimates put the prevalence rate at about one third of American women. The Association of Reproductive Health Professionals claim that 30% of women do not reach orgasm regularly when they wish to — a percentage that has not budged since Hite’s report.

With pleasure so elusive and mockery of the very discussion so normative — even in “serious” venues such as the New York Times and the Washington Monthly — it seems clear that women have a long way to go before we are living in a society respectful of our bodies, minds and the connections between the two.

>296: "For a quick and dirty stop gap answer, while I try to articulate something a bit more coherent, consider the US social milieu up through say the 1950's and contrast that with today. Three guesses which one the JASL likes better."

And yet, neither I nor the Catholic theologians I have pointed you to are suggesting returning us to some idealized / misogynistic version of the 1950's. Indeed, the entire impetus for the Christian sexual ethics I have been proposing is to prevent that kind of misogynistic marginalization of women while also upholding Christian ethical values of love, commitment, trust, and equality. So once again, you've constructed a straw-man that misrepresents what we're trying to talk about.

At this point in the thread, you've collected enough straw to feed a herd for the winter...

"Think of the word POSSLQ. "

I've never even heard of the word "POSSLQ". Would you care to elaborate?

re: 213

This is not JASL in the same way National Geographic or a Red Sox game is not JASL. This does not have to do with sex but with age.

POSSLQ --Persons of the Opposite Sex Sharing Living Quarters.

I believe this is a census designation now.

I think we may need, PSSHSSLQ--Persons of the Same Sex, Having Sex and Sharing Living Quarters.

Interesting article about polydandry as practiced in the high himalayas,

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/27/high-in-the-himalayas-brothers-share-one-w...

aka

http://bit.ly/Qptio7

Clearly this is much less (or actually, not at all) about individual fulfillment, romantic attachment and such as it is about making the best of a tough environment.

Interesting too, that all the co-husbands mentioned in the article were siblings. One suspects that unrelated men sharing a spouse harmoniously happens rarely if never; though come to think of it, R Crumb and Aline have another man (I forget his name, as I do most people's unless I've met them repeatedly) as a regular in a menage a trois.

D'oh! If there's a word for it, maybe its not so rare as all of that after all. Probably shows that I'm a boring old bourgeois at heart. Then again, how ofter do defenestrations occur?

In the past 2 days I have read this thread from start to finish (excepting the lest half of 2-3 of Nathaniel's extremely long posts.

I have repeatedly been frustrated that in almost every post that Nathaniel responds to he has taken that post to be about him personally... for about 160 post I wondered what is it with this myopic seeming guy... and then he told in post 163 that in 2003 he was a freshman.

It is a reasonable assumption that all of the others posting more than once or twice on this thread are quite a bit older both in years and experience... not to guess that us older ones also never had the luxury of spending much of our youth in Utopian thought. So aside from our various belief systems there is a serious generational disconnect... that also shows in some replies.

We all know people of all ages who, when they talk, "it" always comes back to being about them : what they do, or what they have, or what they believe.

Nathaniel, I'm sure you have a 'good heart' but my problem with much of your position is not so much your choice of life style or the reasons for the choice but that you argue for the betterment of humanity from a personal, inexperienced and idealistic point of view.

And not coincidentally a very similar point of view has a long history of being closely tied to a slippery slope of terrible, centuries long, human rights abuse which we have just begun via democracy to crawl back up. Not because the point of view itself is necessarily wrong but as the old saying goes, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".

The ideal for a man/woman (or otherwise) relationship which you propound was, I believe, and still is very rare in real life... in your home, yes - perhaps ...also perhaps high in the Himalayas. Would it be because of the agreed upon expectations and a very compatible set or shared ideals that make them work?

~218

"Clearly this is much less (or actually, not at all) about individual fulfillment, romantic attachment and such as it is about making the best of a tough environment."

As has been most marriage traditionally, at least if you define politics as part of a "tough environment." Yet another good reason for laughing one's ass off about the bumpersticker "Marriage = one man and one woman".

~219

"I have repeatedly been frustrated that in almost every post that Nathaniel responds to he has taken that post to be about him personally..."

Nathaniel is just a sensitive guy who has grown into being a sophomore before actually attaining that status. But, to be fair, he has many interesting things to say and is worth reading.

Elaine099 at #219: great post - - that's a good analysis, thanks for that.

Yeah, I keep checking back for recent activity on this thread because the topic of 'sex'/'sexual mores' almost always makes for a fascinating conversation - but I too have no desire at all to join in on a pile-on.