Posted on

Haters.

The “sexsay” (as my brother from another mother has dubbed it) isn’t in print ’til tomorrow…

but the hate mail has already started. And the comments got so bad this afternoon a web editor decided to shut ’em down.
Only two things I can say, really:

First:

“Lord, help us live so foolishly for you that we draw onlookers and those who would deride us. And while they watch and mock, change all our hearts that we might learn to laugh at the foolishness this world calls normal and run away with the circus that is real life.” (from Common Prayer: A Liturgy for Ordinary Radicals)

And second:



Posted on

Why I’m a virgin.

“I like to talk about sex.

This is natural for a woman who grew up in a culture that surrounds us with it, who is the product of parents who taught me no topic is taboo. But few who discuss sex with me are prepared for what I divulge:

I’m a virgin.”

Click here to read the rest of this essay I wrote. It’s online now and in print Sunday, June 24, in the Perspective section of the Tampa Bay Times.

Posted on

Casual sex.

I was asked recently why I’m opposed to casual sex.

I’ll tell you:

The purpose of sex is twofold: procreation and unity (spiritually, emotionally, biologically). A lot of people among the people who disagree with that embrace an assumption that we who believe sex is for babies and bonding don’t also believe sex should be pleasurable. That assumption is false. Sex should, in fact, be pleasurable (spiritually, emotionally, biologically) — yes, even according to we who believe sex is for babies and bonding.

But we who believe sex is for babies and bonding also believe the following:

1. We aren’t supposed to decide to unite because uniting is pleasurable. We are supposed to experience the pleasure because we decided to unite permanently.

2. When sex is as it should be, it isn’t about getting. It’s about giving.

And we don’t take that lightly. Both the unity and the procreation imply that sex should be selfless.

In uniting, sex is meant to be selfless: Each person gives self to the other, turning two into one. It’s at once a metaphor for the marriage covenant and a reflection of Christ’s covenant with the church. Procreation also requires selflessness: If sex partners make a baby, each person gives of self to and for the child, before and after the child is born.

In our culture, unity (the biological part of it) happens in multiple contexts:

  • marital sex
  • pre-marital sex (the partners intend to marry each other)
  • non-marital sex (the partners either don’t necessarily intend to marry each other, definitely don’t intend to marry each other or haven’t gotten that far in their thoughts about the future)
  • extra-marital sex (one or both of the partners is married, and neither partner is married to the other)

Mostly within the contexts of non-marital and extra-marital sex, the sex might just be casual. Casual could mean no strings attached, no commitment. It could be a “friends with benefits thing,” or an “I just met you” thing. It is, in any case, “happening by chance, without serious intention, careless or offhand, apathetic,” according to dictionary.com.

By default, to engage in sex that is casual is to be closed off to the possibility for procreation. Few who have casual sex are ok with it if it results in the making and subsequent co-parenting of a baby, in other words. Also by default, to engage in casual sex is to take sex lightly. And since the purpose of casual sex is not procreation and unity, the purpose of casual sex is pleasure, be it physical or emotional or both. But whether one, the other or both, the sex, therefore, is self-focused.

It’s a decision to unite temporarily because uniting is pleasurable.

It isn’t about giving. It’s about getting.

And when sex is about getting, sex is distorted. It becomes mutual use.

And to use your partner is to turn your partner from “person” to “object.”

And to objectify someone is to rob him or her of what comes standard with hearts and souls:

dignity.

And that is why I’m opposed to casual sex.

Posted on

Abortion, contraception and egocentrism.

A day or two before the start of winter break, my high school class congregated in our English teacher’s classroom. We were freshmen. From her desk, the teacher described for us the food she planned to prepare for her family’s impending Christmas dinner.

“Our turkey is already thawing,” she said.
I shook my head and furrowed my brow and my jaw probably dropped.
“A turkey?” I laughed. “Who eats turkey on Christmas?”
I scanned the room and waited for signs of solidarity from my (now awkwardly) silent classmates.
One of them finally spoke.
“Um… everyone?”
Taken aback, I couldn’t concoct a response. Everyone eats turkey on Christmas? I thought. No way.
Somebody else had to ask: “What do you eat on Christmas?”
“Lasagna…” I said. “I thought everyone did!” 
Red in the face but a good sport about it, the incident ended in laughter. I’ve shared the story before, but it warrants a retelling, as it’s a great illustration of egocentrism. Egocentric describes a person when he or she lives like what’s normal for him or her is (or should be) normal for everyone, like the way he or she perceives something is how something is (or should be) universally perceived. So it’s egocentric, for instance, to assume that because my family eats lasagna on Christmas, all families eat lasagna on Christmas.
Egocentrism is normal in childhood and adolescence. Kids still have a lot to learn.
Apparently, so do adults.
Twice today, I stumbled upon online commentary — one post about abortion and one post about contraception — written by people whose opinions on both are, basically, the exact opposite of mine. To sum up both arguments, the abortion writer asserted that consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy and that because sex and procreation are disconnected in our culture now, we ought to treat them like they should be. The contraception writer asserted that a woman deserves the right to control her fertility and any other perspective (i.e. that of my church) is an assault on people who have vaginas.
(For the record, I have one, and I do not feel assaulted.)
But to the point:
I’m reminded of some of the people I’ve encountered whose opinions also oppose the aforementioned two — the people who hold up signs with pictures of aborted babies on them, who picket in effort to see Roe v. Wade reversed, who say bad things to and about the women who choose to use the pill.
There’s always been, and always will be, a lot of argument between both sides.
Like…
“It’s just a bunch of cells.” v. “It has a soul.”
and
“Sex is recreational.” v. “Sex is for babies and bonding.”
You catch my drift.
Well I’ve reached a point at which I’m pretty frustrated with both sides.
Why?
Because of egocentrism.
Because you have the half who believe it’s just a bunch cells telling the half that believes it’s a baby that abortion ain’t no thang because it’s just a bunch of cells. You have the half who believe it’s “my body, my choice” telling the half that believes our bodies are not our own that we should be pro-choice because these are our bodies and therefore our choices.
Then you have the half that believes a baby in utero has as much value as the woman in whose uterus it grows telling the half that believes if it’s in utero it isn’t a baby… that abortion is wrong because it results in the death of a baby. You have the half that believes “it’s ok to have sex when you’re not fertile, but it’s not ok to turn off your own fertility” because it turns sex from selfless (as it should be) to self-focused telling the half that doesn’t believe sex should be selfless that we ought not to control our fertility, lest we turn sex into a selfish act.
In other words, you have a bunch of people saying “Because I believe X, you should live your life like X is true.”
So basically, you have a bunch of people living like what’s normal for them (like the belief that what’s inside a pregnant woman’s uterus is a baby) should be normal for everyone, and like the way he or she perceives something (that sex is recreational, for instance) is how it should be universally perceived.
And there are two hunches I have about this.
1. That there is an incredible lack of empathy for each other on both sides.
Try for a second to see the world through the eyes of somebody whose opinion is the opposite of yours. Because if I believed what’s inside a pregnant woman’s uterus is just a bunch of cells, I’d think abortion ain’t no thang, too. And if you believed what’s inside her uterus is a baby — no matter how small — your heart would break, too, every time you hear about an abortion. Stop arguing and start talking. Say, “I feel this way because I believe X.” Invite the person who disagrees with you to empathize with you, and offer them empathy, too — even if they don’t. It goes a long way.
and
2. That on both sides, this is actually less of a fight for rights and more of a set of impassioned efforts to turn the world into one where believing what you believe will be easy.
I only can speak for my side — that is, the side that is for neither abortion nor contraception — when I say this, but I have seen so much judgment and so little modeling. If we are going to be pro-life, we ought to be pro-life consistently. What is life-giving about wearing a grim reaper costume outside an abortion clinic? What is life-giving about parading across a college campus with pictures of aborted babies? And why is it that we really fight for the reversal of Roe v. Wade? “Too many abortions” is not the problem. Abortion is a symptom, and the reversal of Roe v. Wade would be a Band Aid. So do we fight for its reversal because we want to see an end to abortion, or is it because we want the world to validate what we believe?
Do we engage in wars with each other because we’re trying to change the world for the better, or because we’re trying to change the world into us?
Do we want laws and institutions to cater to us because we’re right and they’re wrong, or because we’re dying to live where it’s always safe to believe what we believe?
(Note to self: it’s never gonna be.)
Posted on

Women and men, sex, dating, and the following question: Do you know what that’s like?

A friend of mine and fellow blogger – the lovely SVB – recently wrote a thought provoking post about dating on one of her blogs.

In it, she mentioned a magazine article she had read, written for women, but by a man. Here’s a snippet from SVB’s post:

[The magazine article’s writer says women] shouldn’t be quick to give themselves physically, emotionally, mentally, and spiritually to every man who shows them attention. Rather, they should be more concerned with falling in love with God and letting that be enough and then patiently waiting for God to bring them a man–someone who will value their faith and virtue, and encourage them in it. It’s a beautiful sentiment. It’s hopeful, optimistic.   

I can’t believe it.  

I say those words not in a, “Oh wow, this is so beautiful, I can’t believe God loves me this much, this is amazing!” type of way. I mean I literally cannot believe what this man is saying. I want to believe it. I agree that what the author lays out is how things should be, but it’s not how things actually are.

Indeed it isn’t. So how are things actually?

Complicated.

There is no short answer, no explanation that isn’t complex, no reality completely pleasant. Relationships are messy and people are a mess. If I could sum up the struggle SVB wrote about in her post, I’d put it like this:

As Christians, we are told to, called to, want to save sex for marriage, to seek first the kingdom, to discern before we date, all in a culture that doesn’t.

We are told, called to, want to do X, in other words, while we are…

  • surrounded by Y
  • in a culture that sets us up for Y
  • where Y is normal, and where X, therefore, is not.
Do you know what that’s like?

It’s like growing up with unfettered access to unlimited texts, instant messaging, instant movies, fast food, an iPad, an iPod and iTunes (which is now the norm – a norm which, by default, renders patience and moderation obsolete) but being expected to become an adult who can be patient and participate in anything only moderately.

So, basically, our culture is an environment that is not conducive to patience. Kids rarely (if ever) have to wait, and if we ever tell them to wait, we subsequently discover that they literally can’t. Which makes sense, because you can’t provide a kid with a life that requires no patience and have it result in an adult who can be patient. You can’t provide a kid with a life of excess and have it result in an adult who embraces moderation. And I think deep down, people know this, which is why our culture’s response to it is disheartening: We see that kids are impatient, so we accept kids as impatient. Kids see that adults expect them to be impatient, so they don’t think they have to be patient. And rather than teach them that they have to be patient and show them how to be patient, we just lower the bar (which results in a bunch of impatient adults).

In the same way, most people who want to do X in a culture only conducive to Y will wind up going for Y.

It’s like this:

We see that people don’t save sex for marriage.

We see that many men and women lack integrity, or are selfish, immature or dishonest.

We can continue not to date them, or we can lower the bar.

Most people lower the bar.

But most people don’t understand the damage that it does.

When we lower that bar, “a man or woman who a) lacks integrity, or who b) is selfish, immature or dishonest, or who c) will not wait until marriage to have sex with us (or some combination of the three)” ceases to describe men and women who aren’t good for us. It just becomes a description of men and women, period. So regardless of whether the men and women who exhibit those traits are the norm, we decide that they are.

And once the men and women who exhibit those traits are simply “men and women” to us, we either don’t date, or we date anyway. And if we do date, because the men and women who exhibit those traits are the norm, they are also the expectation. And when we expect that, we can accept that. So we settle for men and women who fit that description. But we don’t even realize we’re settling, because, as far as we’re concerned (once we’ve lowered the bar), we are just getting guys and girls who are normal – guys and girls who are good as guys and girls can get. But as long as we assume that that is as good as guys and girls can get, we will feel content to have wound up with a guy or a girl like that. And as long as we are content to wind up with that kind of person, people will be content being that kind of person.

Which is how that kind of person becomes the norm.

Which is why people like SVB and me are single a lot.

Back to the question. Do you know what that’s like?

Regardless of who you are and how you live, even if you don’t believe in soul mates or “the one” (and sorry kids, but neither exists!), meeting somebody with whom you are truly compatible is like finding a needle in a haystack. But when you’re saving sex for marriage, seeking first the kingdom and discerning before you date, you can’t even find the haystack.
SVB puts it this way:

 …sometimes I wonder if we, the Christian girls, have got it all wrong. What if this so-called man the author outlines, the one that is supposed to fall in love with us and our virtue and faith, doesn’t exist?

If we lower the bar, he doesn’t have to exist.

If we lower the bar…

He sees that we don’t expect him to aim higher.

So he doesn’t.

We give him permission to sell himself short.

So he does.

We act like a man can’t date without having sex.

So guys don’t have to date without having sex.

Really, we sell them short.

I think the fear here is that so many bars are so low now that no guy will want to reach as high as ours.

And that is a risk I am frankly willing to take.

– – – – –

Click here to read SVB’s post in full.

Click here to check out SVB’s other blog, “That’s What She Said.”