Thoughts on Sex and Religion

2008 January 21
by the chaplain

Although there is no uniform view of sex in the Church, there can be little doubt that, for the most part, the Christian community has negative attitudes about sex. Even within moderate congregations sexuality and sex are viewed in a restrictive light. Committing a sexual sin is viewed more gravely than most other sins. There is a spoof that has been circulating in various forms in blogs, in presentations and in books as being a credible document. The authenticity of a document credited to Ruth Smythers in 1894 is questionable. Though it appears to be a fictitious document, it reflects views commonly held during most of the 1800s and into the 1900s. Remnants of such views continue to reside within the Christians community, particularly within the fundamentalist and evangelical community. Even though it is a more recent document than it purports to be, and it is likely over the top at various points, as it helps to articulate the attitudes of the age, it is found here in the chapel for reflection and contemplation purposes.

To the sensitive young woman who has had the benefits of a proper upbringing, the wedding day is, ironically, both the happiest and the most terrifying day of her life. On the positive side, there is the wedding itself, in which the bride is the central attraction in a beautiful and inspiring ceremony, symbolizing her triumph in securing a male to provide for all her needs for the rest of her
life. On the negative side, there is the wedding night, during which the bride must pay the piper, so to speak, by facing for the first time the terrible experience of sex.

One cardinal rule of marriage should never be forgotten: GIVE LITTLE, GIVE SELDOM AND ABOVE ALL, GIVE GRUDGINGLY. ….. While sex is at best revolting and at worse rather painful, it has to be endured.

Most men, if not denied, would demand sex almost every day. The wise bride will permit a maximum of two brief sexual experiences weekly during the first months of marriage. As time goes on she should make every effort to reduce this frequency. Feigned illness, sleepiness and headaches are among the wife’s best friends in this matter. Arguments, nagging, scolding, and bickering also prove effective, if used in late evening….Clever wives are ever on the alert for new and better methods of denying…A good wife should expect to have reduced sexual contacts to once a week by the first year of marriage and to once a month by the fifth year of marriage…..By their tenth anniversary, many wives have managed to complete their child bearing and have achieved the ultimate goal of terminating all sexual contacts with their husband.

Most men are by nature rather perverted, and if given half a chance, would engage in quiet a variety of the most revolting practices…including among others…mouthing the female body; and offering their own vile bodies to be mouthed in turn.

A wise bride will make it the goal never to allow her husband to see her unclothed body, and never allow him to display his unclothed body to her. Sex, when it cannot be prevented, should be practiced only in total darkness….Once the bride has donned her gown and turned off all the lights she should lie quietly upon the bed and await her groom. When he comes groping into the room she should make no sound to guide him in her direction, lest he take this as a sign of encouragement. She should let him grope in the dark. There is always hope he will stumble and incur some slight injury, which she can use as an excuse to deny him sexual access.

When he finds her, the wife should lie as still as possible. Bodily motion on her part could be interpreted as sexual excitement by the optimistic husband.

If he attempts to kiss her on the lips she should turn her head slightly so that the kiss falls harmlessly on her cheek instead. If he attempts to kiss her hand, she should make a fist….

If the husband attempts to seduce her with lascivious talk, the wise wife will suddenly remember some trivial non-sexual question to ask him. Once he answers she should keep the conversation going, no matter how frivolous it may seem at the time….She will be absolutely silent or babble about her housework while he is huffing and puffing away. Above all she will lie perfectly still…

The wise wife….relentlessly pursues her goal first to limit, later to annihilate completely her husband’s desire for sexual expression.

For most of its history the church has viewed sex as evil, so evil that it must be managed carefully and firmly. Just over a century ago, wives were encouraged to keep strict control of sex within their marriages. A couple’s sex life was not something for them to discuss or come to a mutual understanding about. Women were cautioned not to allow themselves or their husbands to enjoy sex lest they be consumed by evil. The implication of the instruction is that sex is for procreation rather than pleasure.

Even today, within the church and outside of it, unmarried women who become pregnant frequently carry a disproportionate share of the blame for getting pregnant in the first place, and the subsequent responsibility for rearing, with little or no assistance or financial support from the fathers, the children they conceive. It’s still the case in western societies that sexually active women are often regarded, negatively, as sluts, and sexually active men are regarded, positively, as studs. The implication continues to be, within our current supposedly liberated, enlightened culture, that women should restrain their own sexual appetites, and those of their male partners who, after all, are just being men and can’t be expected to control themselves.

This attitude is not limited to western, predominantly Christian, cultures. One need only consider Muslim honor killings, the recent well publicized judgment of a rape victim’s guilt for her own rape and strict requirements that Islamic women keep themselves covered from head to toe, lest men be rendered unable to control their own sexual impulses. In Islamic societies, even more than in Christian ones, women are held responsible for ensuring that sex is confined to appropriate parameters. In both Christian and Islamic cases, the attitude toward men is negative. Men are animals who crave sex so much that if women do not exercise appropriate control, men’s animal instincts will bring about the ruination of both women and men. In Christian societies, women were taught to be the moral exemplars in their homes, on matters of sex as well as in other areas. The church and society as a whole expected women to be the moral centers for their families and society at large, a view that does not speak highly of men. Within many churches, females are still charged, more strongly than men, to maintain high moral and sexual standards.

There are groups within Christian circles, and some church teachers, who are teaching a more balanced view of sex and sexuality. While a range of their more progressive and balanced teachings are found on the Internet, many pastors and teachers do not speak to the issues in their congregations for fear of being viewed as heretical.

Though most Christians have long since repudiated in private the extreme views of their great-grandparents, the underlying view of sex and sexuality as being evil remains. For evidence of this one only has to look at laws that remain on the books in many communities. Though the laws have been long disregarded, no politician will request that they be removed least he or she be viewed by the electorate as a sexual pervert. One such law is the Nevada law that says sex without a condom is illegal. In hotels in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, every room is required to have twin beds that are a minimum of two feet apart when a couple rents a room for only one night. Also in Sioux Falls, it is illegal to make love on the floor between the beds!

Many of our horrific views of sex and sexuality go back to both Augustine and the early mystics of the second and third century mystics, and possibly the apostle Paul, whose writings on such matters sometimes seem to be contradictory and undoubtedly were taken out of context. The mystics secluded themselves from society by living in caves, in the woods and on poles with the hopes that they would thereby be free from temptation and sin. These forerunners of the monastic movement shaped their Church’s definitions of sin and righteousness. The playboy Augustine, when he became a Christian, held that sex was the devil’s tool to lead people away from God. He argued that, to be holy, one must cease participating in sex. Hence, he put down the foundation for priests to be celibate and for sex’s only godly value being in procreation. To its shame such archaic, unhealthy thinking continues to pervade North American society.

– the deacon

27 Responses leave one →
  1. 2008 January 21

    Hilarious! I know it’s exaggerated, but it wasn’t that far off. I knew a woman who spent her wedding night hiding in the closet. She was frantically trying to phone her married sister to find out what was happening.

  2. 2008 January 21
    Billy permalink

    My wife did not read that booklet, apparently.

    I find it interesting the way that the church swings fairly widely on what is proper and what the proper sex-roles are. At different times in christian Europe’s history, women have been the sexually insatiable ones trying to subvert (pervert?) the natural purity of man and vice versa (or wherever the vice is worser). Many of the writings of medievel clerics are, to say the least, baudy and earthy with a keen appreciation for the natural sexuality of women and men. There was even an Irish saint (can’t remember her name off the top of my head) who was well known in the early Irish church (before they accepted the primacy of Rome) for ‘helping nuns deal with accidental pregnancies’ (a saint for abortions? (from the book “How the Irish Saved Civilization)). Even among the Puritans of Massachusetts almost half of the first born children were born less than 8 months after marriage (from a book called “Sex in Middlesex”). I guess back whan the peasants were kept ignorant, allowing the outlet of a healthy sex life (within (or at least closely followed by) marriage, of course) was acceptable. It would take more time than I have (full time job, two kids, four cats, mortgage, son heading for college, etc) but that would be an interesting study — the ‘acceptability’ of sex compared with level of education. After all, even in Victorian England, it was well known that the poor women were sluts while the middle class women almost had to be raped by their husbands (which explains the prevalence of pornography in the library of the Victorian middle-class male).

    Tracts such as the one cited here put yet another weight on my mental scale. This scale is labeled “Religion is love” on one side and “Religion is power” on the other. This adds a few more femtogrammes to the power side (and there’s very little on the love side).

    Great post. Sorry for the long comment. In my line of work, it’s an occupational hazard.

  3. 2008 January 21

    I thought I saw this post in my reader last week, but then it disappeared. I’m glad it’s back!

    I’ve often wondered why humans struggle so hard with sexuality? Is it because it reminds us of our animal ancestry and instincts? Or is it more about control over society? After all, in feudalistic times inheritance was by male offspring and the only way to make certain your male offspring was yours (as a male) was to keep control over your wife’s sexuality. Which reminds me all the more how much like animals we are.

  4. 2008 January 21

    I’m going to hell, that’s for sure :-)

  5. 2008 January 21

    I predict (prophesy) that you will get a lot of traffic here because of the topics of this post.

    My initial reaction to the brochure was that it was more a product of the Victorian mindset, than one of religion. Historically sex has not been so prim and proper, and I doubt most women actually thought the way the brochure taught. I think you are closer to the truth when you describe it as fiction. It’s almost stereotypical Victorian prudishness.

    However, there are aspects of religion that clearly and markedly have this effect on the publics’ attitude toward sex. I’ll be damned if I understand why, though, because it always has seemed to me that sex is as natural, and as important, to the human species as breathing and eating, and should be dealt with just as nonchalantly. Why people have such a reaction to sex is, it seems to me, a conditioned response, with the conditioning coming partly from religion. If we were all brought up with a better attitude about it, then we could deal with it better.

    How many here have had a hard time discussing sex with someone other than their current sexual partner? Like their children? Or relatives, or friends? Wouldn’t it be nice if you could have a natural conversation with your kids about sex, much like you discuss any other day to day topic?

    One of the things I specifically regret about being brought up religious was the subject of masturbation when I was younger. So much guilt and misinformation was laid out by the Catholic Church, and all for naught. I could have done without the guilt trip.

  6. 2008 January 21

    Well, I guess I was in the wrong conservative Christian church cause I was taught that sex was a wonderful and exciting thing… The only “negative” — if it’s that — was that its practice was restricted to the marriage covenant. I was taught that “saving” sex for marriage meant that I could not only avoid a world of hurt, but that I could keep from affecting the marriage bed by comparing my spouse to other lovers. I was taught that with time and practice, sex could only improve as both partners got to know each other better and grew closer together in the spiritual, mental, and emotional arenas. Finally, I was taught that sex was a signpost to heaven, a shadow of the intimacy and joy we would one day experience in heaven. And I learned that all of this was coincident with Biblical teaching. Guess I associated with “bad” Christians…!

  7. 2008 January 21
    the deacon permalink

    Billy…. Clergy and Popes in the Middle Ages having sex with nuns and other ladies was viewed by the protestant churches as an indication that the Roman Catholic Church was beyond redemption. Such activity was viewed as one of the justifications for their separation from Catholicism.

    Ordinary girl….The post was withdrawn to modify it and make it clear that the document appears to be questionable. Thank you for articulating questions that many of us have held. I am not sure when we look at the diversity of cultures that we can say that humanity has struggled with sexuality. Cultures like those in Polynesia have had a balanced view. There is little question in my mind that western and middle eastern religions have a strong element of sexual control. The terms slut applied to a woman and a stud to man suggests that there is a strong sexist element to that control.

    That human sexuality has an animalistic element to it cannot be denied. Our enjoyment of intimacy for the sake of mutual pleasure and as an expression of love indicates that there are elements of our sexuality that move beyond our animalistic nature.

    Spanish…Culture and religion often become intertwined to the point where they cannot be distinguished. Sexual repression has been grounded in the church’s primary documents from the beginning. Repressive attitudes have swayed back and forth over the centuries. One of the roots seems to go back to the Old Testament period when the Israelites attempted to define themselves as being distinct from the other cultures around them. One of the points of distinction was rejecting sexual activities associated with the fertility rituals. The control of sexuality in Israel was passed down to the church.

    Longing….In the last two decades there has been a growing movement to embrace sexuality as you have outlined, including many evangelical churches. I too was raised in a church that spoke about sex in a more open manner until we had a change in pastors. Then it became a forbidden subject. Today there are Christian Colleges that do not expel students for academic dishonestly such as cheating on tests or plagiarism, or for stealing money from another student but will immediately expel a student who is found to be engaged sexually with another student.

  8. 2008 January 21

    Wow, that is that article from? The one about the ‘wise bride’ and the ways she should avoid sex. :) That’s a good author! Personally I never wish to have sex with any person. Far too painful for my liking. I can’t even use a tampon! Thanks for the very interesting post!

  9. 2008 January 21

    I am sick of popular culture’s view on sex. Sex is fine, but if you get VD (STD/STI for us juvenile dudes), especially if you are a woman, than to hell with you. Sex is also especially a necessary quality for a boy to become a “man”, and the more women he scores, the more “manly” he is. Yet if a woman goes sexing guys around, she is a slut.

    Plus, the whole media ideal for “powerful, independent” women includes the whole thing with being sexy, maybe even sometimes “slutty”. And if you happen to be modest, don’t care for sex…man, talk about being a “prude”.

  10. 2008 January 21

    Jersey – Are you implying, from your own opinion, that women who do not enjoy or want sex are ‘prudes,’ or are you saying that’s how popular media sees these women?

  11. 2008 January 21

    Man, interesting post, thanks Chaplain.

    Sex most be one of the most intriguing, confusing, enigmatic qualities of being a human.
    Is it really just remnants of animal instincts, or does it contain a greater value? If we allow that it does contain a greater value, is that value existent in only our imaginations, sustained by the fact that sex is enjoyable?

    I honestly don’t know. The perceptions and opinions surrounding sex in the past and in our world today are certainly some of the most perverted, and warped attitudes of any natural concept humans have a hold of.

    I certainly do wonder about masturbation- if it contains any value beyond necessity, if it can be completely denied, or if it should be denied, and if it is shameful or not.

    Also, in regards to Longing for Holiday I experienced very similar views to what you described in the church I attended before I became an atheist, although I am fairly certain that such inventive, progressive views are a product of modernity, and haven’t existed for very long.

    Thanks for the post, sex is undoubtedly one of the most enthralling features of our existence.

  12. 2008 January 21
    Alex permalink

    The article, bona fide, or not, seems pretty accurate. My wife and I have been together 12 years – we lived together for 5 years, and have been married another 7 years.

    Sex for us occurs about once a month, maybe twice a month on a good month. I gave up initiating sex long ago, because I could never tell when she was in the mood, and I just got tired of being constantly rejected.

    I am now in despair that at age 35, my sex life is over, and it never really began. I was very shy growing up, and had practically no sexual experience prior to the woman I am with now. We only do the same few things in bed, and she has listed off the things she will not do for me sexually. So, if I stay with her, I will never have certain experiences. I won’t go into details, but be assured, they are generally considered very vanilla.

    Do I divorce her, or have affairs? Because I don’t think she is ever going to change her sexual behavior.

  13. 2008 January 22

    Sex is natural, as is enjoying it. When did natural things become abhorrent? My long-term girlfriend and I have similar views on love and sex, and they certainly aren’t very archaic.

  14. 2008 January 22
    Ashi permalink

    It is better to have sex after marriage. It helps in developing the relation and taking it to the next level. The wedding season might be over but who can deny the fact that wedding is once in a life time experience. One of the best things I love about the wedding is the bridal dressing. It is every brides dream to look more beautiful and elegant on her wedding than any other given day. So in case you missing it again or you are single here is the opportunity for you to get that feeling going on going on

  15. 2008 January 22

    Great post. Good to see the Ruth Smythers material again. Thinking about the approach of religions towards sex, so much of it seems to be about fear and control rather than naturalness and beauty. And, of course, the greater the prohibition and attempts to control, the greater the hypocrisy that eventually emerges. This is most noticeably seen today in the recent Catholic priest sex abuse scandals, and the use of prostitutes by some religious police in Iran. As you point out a lot of the church’s teaching has been negative as ill-informed preachers swallowed the line that the Song of Songs was about Jesus and the Church.

  16. 2008 January 22
    Sarge permalink

    I have a book from the same period, “What Every Boy Should Know”. Very involved in the dangers of what happens if you give in to “Base Urges”. With pictures, yet!

    There are a couple churches here where women must be “churched” after their cycle or birth. A woman who isn’t regularly “churched” had damn well better come up with a baby or account for why she hasn’t. And if she isn’t married, look out.

    As one who was dragged into the Southern Baptist influence, I remember a joke which we irreverent youth used to tell out of earshot of disapproving adults:

    Why don’t baptists copulate standing up?

    They wouldn’t want to be thought dancing if someone walked in on them.

  17. 2008 January 22

    Waiting until after marriage to engage in sex can be a disaster. That’s foolishness, plain and simple.

    I think if you’re lucky a wedding is a once in a lifetime experience, barring any untimely death or irreconcilable differences that might develop. Furthermore, I have to say the wedding ceremony in the US has become this ridiculous event of mass expense. I saw a show recently about people who are in debt and need help (I think it was called “Maxed Out”) and there was a couple who was $63k in debt. You know what $43k of that was? From the loan they took out for their wedding.

    That article was a hoot. My feelings are that the founders of these religions which frown on sex were clearly incapable of having “normal” and healthy sexual relationships themselves. Maybe they weren’t attractive, maybe they were impotent, maybe they were gay, maybe they had perversions that were frowned upon, who knows? I just find it difficult to believe that happy, healthy, attractive guys who were getting good and frequent sex would be so down on sex and make it such an evil thing in their philosophy.

  18. 2008 January 22
    Billy permalink

    Deacon: I’ve run across many of those tales of monks, nuns and priests (sounds like the beginning of a bad joke — “A monk, a nun and a priest went into an adult book store . . . ). Oddly, they seemed to disappear from clerical writings about the time of the reformation. Prior (pun not initially intended) to that, it was both a source of complaint from a member of the church (usually trying to curry a promotion by making others look bad) and a way of proving one particular order was better than the other (Nyah, Nyah, Cistercians impregnated fewer nuns than Franciscans). In other words, the usual make yourself look good by making them look bad.

    The other place the stories were common were in the jokes and songs of court jesters (I met a nun, and I asked her if she had hair down there. She answered, “Nay, good sire, and I do not lie.” I answered, “I know you tell the truth, for grass does not grow on a well-trod path!”).

    My point in the initial comment was that attitudes toward sex have swung wildly from Augustine to today, and within a specific era geographically.

    I agree with PhillyChief (even if he is a Mac user) about sex before marriage. Sexual compatability is an important part of balanced marriage (part of this complete marriage). The problem is, though, my daughter is 14. My wife and I have been open about sex with the kids, but now that she has permission to date (initially I said she could date at 31, but I relented (and she hasn’t been on any dates)), tracts similar to this one start to look strangely appealing.

    Part of the problem of an open mind is that I can change my mind, and can often see both sides (or more) of an issue. Oh, well.

  19. 2008 January 22
    the deacon permalink

    PhillyChief….the amounts spent by some couples on lavish weddings they cannot afford is outlandish. The chaplain and I have known of couples who have been paying off their wedding loans for ten years. Cultural, ego, long held fantasies that do not match reality and marketing are all factors. In this area I find myself giving credit to a large number of clergy for encouraging couples during pre-marital counseling to be more judicious in spending.

    On of my issues with the church discouraging premarital sex is the overlay of guilt placed upon young people regarding natural desires. The modern church has not wrestled with the onset of puberty having decreased dramatically over the last hundred years while at the same time adolescence has been extended. The church continues to hold onto ancient teachings that arise out of an ancient culture in which marriage followed within a year or two of the occurrence of puberty.

    A hundred years ago it was not uncommon for couples to marry between the ages of 16 and 18, or earlier in remote areas (my grandmother was 14 when she was married in northern Ontario). Now with young people going to college and starting their careers before marriage many couples are not getting married until they are 25 or older. Yet the church continues to teach abstinence and put young people on guilt trips.

    Sarge….The conservative church teaches that the desire for intimacy is a “base” or “old nature” urge. Young people are urged to resist such urges and to remain pure and holy for Christ Jesus. Such language carries not only negative connotations and guilt while single, it also contradicts statements that sexuality and intimacy is wonderful within marriage. I have often wondered what makes it so horribly evil outside marriage but so wonderful and fulfilling within marriage.

    Athinkingman…A pastoral couple I know who conducts marital enrichment seminars three to four times a year for twelve couples at a time give the Song of Songs as a reading assignment on the Friday night. These couples are told to go home to read it to each other with the husband reading the male part and the female part, and just go with their desires if need be. The couple reported that in conducting seminars for over fifteen year they have never had a couple read through the whole book.

    Billy….What we often hold in theory can become a struggle when it comes to our own children as they hit the age of 14 and 15. We want the best for them. We want them to find fulfillment and joy. We desire their first experiences to be positive, warm and filled with love. Yet we know that at that age sexual experiences are awkward, less about love and more about lust, and filled with disappointment. I believe that helping guide and comfort them is a better route that overlaying guilt and restrictions.

  20. 2008 January 23
    Billy permalink

    Deacon: Couldn’t agree more. That’s what we try to do. I also discovered that trying to be equal doesn’t work. My son (17) and my daughter are completely different people. And despite my progressive politics and social views, I view dating differently for both of them. Not fair to them, but honest.

  21. 2008 January 23
    Sarge permalink

    Deacon, I’ve often wondered about what happens in the mind when you have a lifetime of “good” (say, sexual abstinance before marriage) with a lifetime of a label of “bad” for people who engage in such proscribed conduct.

    Then, one day, it is “help yourself”. How much of the pleasure is, in fact, guilty? I somehow doubt that ‘good/right” and “bad/wrong” are that easily shelved over night. I often wonder what problems that causes.

    Billy, my sons are grown and gone, but they, too, are quite different and had quite a different outlook than me, and still do. Personally, I think it’s a good thing, they’re their own men, not a clone of me or my wife.

    It’s odd. My yopungest has been married for some time, he married someone who was about as opposit as he could get from his mother. She is not from the USA, she is very tall, and she is African descent. But, under the skin…

    This lovely woman who is a treasure told me once when we were visiting, “Y’know, the more I’m around you, the more questions I’ve had about my husband get answered.” She said this with a very considering look.

    I am, though, experiencing a grandparent’s greatest joy: watching the grandkids pushing their parent’s buttons. Heeheehee.
    That joy, I’m told, has stayed the same throughout history.

  22. 2008 January 23

    Deacon

    I see I was right. You do seem to have attracted quite a few comments, and very diverse ones too, I might add. Another prophesy fulfilled. Praise dog!

    Nice and Blue asked

    Is it really just remnants of animal instincts, or does it contain a greater value? If we allow that it does contain a greater value, is that value existent in only our imaginations, sustained by the fact that sex is enjoyable?

    What an interesting question. Personally, I think sex is more than a remnant of our animal instincts, it is an animal instinct. More specifically, it is the means by which humans and most other organisms fulfill the evolutionary mandate. It is hardwired into us, it is pleasurable in order to ensure we do it and do it regularly to ensure the perpetuation of our species, and without it we wouldn’t be here. It is nothing more than a biological act required of us, like eating, defecating and breathing. No value needs to be placed on it.

    However we obviously place value on it, but I contend that it is more cultural than biological. And if the culture can place it on there, then the culture can take it off. Or we as individuals can strip it off (pun intended).

    At this point in our civilization, we don’t need cultural overlays to sex. We can enjoy it for the pleasure it gives us. With the right protections, we can avoid all of the negatives historically associated with it – STD, pregnancy, guilt, even HIV. Why force ourselves to be slaves to the culture?

    Alex asks

    Do I divorce her, or have affairs? Because I don’t think she is ever going to change her sexual behavior.

    If the marriage is predominately about sex, and it isn’t satisfactory, then the only thing you can do is either fix it, via discussion and counseling, and eventual behavior modification, or leave the relationship. I can’t generalize such an individual decision however. For some people, sex is all there is, for other, not so much. You and your wife can only decide that. Personally, I think there’s more to marriage than sex, (and I think sex is VERY important.) There is no “too much” or “too little”. There’s only “do we agree”. If not, things need to be worked out.

  23. 2008 January 23

    This conversation has been very interesting and enlightening, thanks to all of you.

    You explanation makes a lot of sense, Spanish Inquisitor. If the only value we associate with sex is prescribed by society and culture, and really doesn’t exist at all, then all the guilt trips and strict rules society (especially religion) have dictated around sex are suddenly as hollow and as translucent as the air we breath.

    This realization qualifies as an epiphany on my part, one of many I’ve experienced while I was transitioning out of religion and into atheism.

  24. 2008 January 24
    the deacon permalink

    While the sexual drive has elements strongly rooted in our animal past and nature let us not overlook the added elements help us to transform it from a biological act into a wonderful experience. Our humanness allows a biological act to have the erotic dimensions of erotic foreplay and anticipation. Our humanness enables us to move beyond sex for the sake of procreation and physical need so that it can be a beautiful and dynamic means to express love and desire for one’s mate.

    Yet even for couples in a committed monogamous relationship there are moments where sex can take place for the sake of sex. It can be raw, energetic, passionate and definitely satisfying. A loving relationship allows for both, the wondrous lovemaking and the raw sex for sex’s sake.

    Alex asks a troubling question that many couples find themselves facing. While it is true that physical intimacy is only one element of a relationship, we must not end there with a period and thereby not address the central core issue. While it is true that physical intimacy is only one element of a relationship, we must recognize that it is a major element. If that element is out of kilter, tensions will increase and impact other areas of the relationship. For those caught in such situations my heart goes out to them.

    It is up to each couple to work together to define the nature of their sexual relationship. Unfortunately, more often than we would wish to admit, the definition settles upon the least and the most restrictive rather than them working together in love to explore their sensuality, desires, fantasies and sexuality. Too often the conversation starts with a “no” rather than “lets talk about it and maybe try it”. And if the couple tries it and the experience does not go as smoothly and it ends there. What would happen to most people if they made a decision to love or hate sex based upon their first experience or two? In love a couple should try to learn from the experience, understand what made elements positive and negative, and then continue to explore it further until they become settled on the matter. I am not involved in couples therapy, nor do I desire to do so, but it seems to me that if there was more meeting of the minds regarding the beauty of sex, a greater effort to love each other and explore their sexuality together that our society as a whole would have far fewer hand-ups with sex.

  25. 2008 January 25
    debbyo permalink

    I don’t think we can underestimate the impact of class and capital on the expression of our sexuality. Ensuring the inheritance went to the correct DNA meant not only keeping the female libido in check, but keeping her at home where she could be kept an eye on. The churches were very handy in enforcing this, making efforts to highlight biblical passages that supported the ruling class’s ambitions to keep the women chaste and obedient. Perhaps, there were a randy bunch of landed gentry women in Victorian times, but for the most, there were probably generations of good women who never learned the joy of sex. Probably never had an orgasm. Animal instinct extinguished by the needs of the powerful (including themselves). Who’s to blame? Politics or religion? I believe governments use the superstitions of their people to further their aims – for instance, to make war. Who would be more likely to die for a cause than those who think that they will be rewarded in an afterlife? And who can never make you accountable for their fruitless deaths? Politics and religion work hand in hand. Which is why I can never understand why the religious and alternative medicine crowd see scientists and atheists as the enemy.

    One blogger says” “At this point in our civilization, we don’t need cultural overlays to sex. We can enjoy it for the pleasure it gives us”. While I’m not sure what you mean by needing “cultural overlays”, there are certainly economic and legal reasons why many don’t have the freedom to express their sexuality. Why would we be so different from the Victorians that we would be immune from the effects of politics. Ask a gay man in Japan if he’s free to express is sexuality. As a girl sold as a bride at 12 if she’s free to express her sexuality. What are we enduring now that we can’t quite see? For example, is sex now compulsory? (Don’t get me wrong. I like it.)

  26. 2008 January 26
    VorJack permalink

    Even if we limit the discussion to the physical value of sex, we’re not limited to “just” pleasure. There’s also the so-called “cuddle complex,” the rush of hormones and other chemicals that are released during and after sex. These relax inhibitions, increase affection, and otherwise allow the couple to feel closer and more intimate. In evolutionary terms, this was likely important to help keep the mated couple together in support of their offspring. Today it can help to relieve the stresses and tension involved in relationships, and just generally make both members happier and more attached to one another.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. See The Difference? « A Thinking Man

Leave a Reply

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS