Welcome to Upside-Down world. That's where we live. We live in a world where those who consider sex with anyone at any time for any reason or none whatsoever are the ones who value sex, but those who consider it as exclusively for marriage, for one particular person alone -- like a rare jewel -- have no regard for sex. We live in a world where atheists who loudly claim that human beings descended from amoeba on one hand and are of great value on the other are being reasonable, but Christians who claim we are valuable because we are made in the image of God are being irrational. And so it goes.
You've seen the most obvious example I can think of. It is the debate around homosexuals. If you hold a position against the morality of such activities, you are not opposed to the morality of such actions -- you're scared of them. They call it "homophobia". And why are you scared? Well, because secretly you're in favor of such actions. So, you see, those who are opposed are actually in favor and the term for those who are against is not "anti", but "phobic".
I wonder why it doesn't work that way everywhere? It would seem to me that it should if we are going to be fair (and "fair" is all the rage, isn't it?). I mean, if you hate Christians, that must mean that you're actually afraid of Christians because, well, you're pretty sure they're right and you secretly want to be a Christian. But, no, we're not allowed to assume that, are we?
13 comments:
I am one who believes the only appropriate sex is that which involves a husband and his wife, but no other scenario, including those same two people before they got married to each other. Quaint, is it not?
I also believe that sex, though it's perceived by many as such, is not an expression of love, but is a selfish expression of lust. Strangely, when I voice this belief, I'm regarded as having sexual hangups, or that I'm frigid or some other mental malady. But the fact is I've always been as horny as a three-balled tom cat (sorry), though more so in my younger years. I enjoy sex as much as the next guy. I even consider myself a romantic as I enjoy time with my wife even when NOT having sex, seeking new ways to be together, wishing I had a job so I could afford to buy her stuff, the whole nine yards.
But sex is not how I show love, nor do I regard sex as a sign that I am loved. It's just sex. It's a procreative act that feels great, but that's so that we take the time to even do it. Imagine how well our species would have survived if sex didn't feel great.
So I think I have the most logical and reasoned view of sex, seeing it for what it truly is, and I'm considered strange for it. THAT seems upside-down to me.
BTW, I use and have seen others use the term "Christo-phobe" for use against those who unfairly criticize Christians and it serves well when debating those who try to legitimize homosexual behavior. I know you don't prefer to engage in name calling, but in this case I do it to make the same point you're making. The thing is, I think their fear is legitimate. They fear the ramifications of being on the wrong side of the argument for God's existence. Or worse, perhaps they fear being reminded that they are on the wrong side.
There is a problem with the premise that sex is simply a selfish expression of lust. God designed it. That would mean that God designed "a selfish expression of lust" (read "sin") as the primary, God-sanctioned, God-commanded means of procreation and union in marriage. It is my suspicion that your view is a product of living in a twisted world that has lost all sense of what God intended. No anger or insult intended. Maybe just a push for you to rethink.
On your second point, actually, if what I described (in jest) is the truth, then it is a good thing, right? I mean, if people are angry at Christianity because they secretly believe it is true and secretly want to be a Christian, that would be a good thing ... right?
I see your point of your first response, but I would tweak it this way: God designed and sanctioned for use within a marriage the means of procreation which mankind has twisted into a selfish expression of lust. The extreme pleasure of the act is necessary because the act is so necessary for the survival of a species, in this case, ours. But the extreme pleasure isn't necessarily the point of the act--procreation is. But even within a proper marriage, when not used to procreate, sex is still an expression of lust rather than love even though the word "love" is bandied about during the course of the engagement. I'm not saying that lust is wrong in this context, as lust for someone other than one's spouse is wrong. Only that it is still lust.
Marshall Art: "sex is still an expression of lust rather than love"
Marshall, given that you and I are not opponents, how would you respond to the fact that I can assure you that sex in my experience has been an act of love rather than an expression of lust. (Don't misunderstand. It can be such an expression. I'm simply saying that it hasn't always been in my experience.) Would you conclude that I'm lying or confused, or is it possible to you that you might be mistaken? I can tell you without equivocation that I have engaged in sexual relations with my wife not as an act of lust or as an act of self-interest, but specifically and intentionally as an act of love. Is that simply an impossibility to you? (I'm asking in a friendly way, not confrontational.)
Well, it's difficult to articulate exactly. Part of it has to do with whether or not it is lust in a "sinful" way in a marital situation. I say no, except if it interferes with one's devotion to God or, as Paul puts it, times of prayer.
I would start with the notion of "love". Love is not sex, it's something else, something not dependent upon sexual relations. Would you agree with this? Lust, OTOH, is ONLY sex. Lust does not require love.
Fidelity is an expression of love. Having sex with only your wife is an expression of love more than is the sex itself. Having sex for HER pleasure is an expression of love more than the sex itself. Love is putting the other's concerns above your own. A test would be to engage in an arrangement where only she is pleasured and do that only. That would be an expression of love showing that concern. To not want to do that even once would demonstrate the selfishness that sex really is.
Sex as an expression of love is a romantic notion with which I have no problem, but it isn't really accurate. Again, that's not to say it is wrong in a marriage. Indeed, Paul suggests it would be wrong to deny your wife or for her to deny you.
Put it this way: rather than an expression of love, because you love each other you have sex WITH each other. You still love each other but are, really, using each other, by mutual consent (if not mutual desire) for personal pleasure. It is loving to share such moments, but you're still expressing lust.
I think this opinion strikes people as odd, and like I said, when I voice this opinion I'm immediately thought of as prudish or uptight or some other negative connotation. But we really wouldn't do it if it didn't feel so good, so that pleasure is what drives it, not love. "Love" makes it seem as if it is more than it is. That's OK. We've got the green light morally.
Now. Where's my wife?
No, Marshall, I don't think you're prudish or uptight. I suspect you're tainted by a horribly twisted view from the world from which you are recovering. ;)
FYI, I have engaged in sexual relations with my wife without regard to my personal pleasure.
If you define love as seeking the best for the loved one and you believe that she is best served in that way at that time, it is not "using each other ... for personal pleasure."
Side note: I believe that when Paul wrote "The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does" (1 Cor 7:3-4), he was addressing exactly that question. The only way that makes sense to me is to read it as, "In marriage, your body is not your own. Seeking your own pleasure isn't the way to go. Providing them the most pleasure is." But, hey, that's just me.
I agree with your closing statements regarding Paul's words. But, c'mon. Are we not seeking our own pleasure most of the time? I, too, have shared the experience with my wife for her sake rather than my own just as she likely has not always been in the mood for me (I'm assuming here---I'm really one hot dude. :D ) But really, is that typical?
Marshall Art: "But, c'mon. Are we not seeking our own pleasure most of the time?"
Okay, now this is a far cry from "sex is a selfish expression of lust". Your question outlines the problem: We are selfish, sinful people. I'll buy an assertion that "all too often sex is a selfish expression of lust." True for sinful people. Not necessary, but true.
Marshall Art: "But really, is that typical?"
And this is the aim, isn't it? Are we typically doing what we ought, being what we should be, living like we're supposed to live, or not? Being holy is not typical for me. It's something I'm growing into and something I'm aiming for. And sex as a genuine act of love rather than mutually using each other for personal pleasure ought to be the typical, the norm, something to aim for.
So ... both of these responses are a long way from your original claim. ;)
Stan, you "wonder why it doesn't work that way everywhere?" In some senses it does; among homosexuals, there sometimes arises behavior describable as heterophobia. But it should be pointed out that it doesn't even universally work 'that way' there. If meant as an insult, as you seem to suggest, then it's hardly necessary that it be an apt description of the putative homophobe's views. Do you deny that there is a basis for the usage of the term, as you describe it? The actions of folks like Ted Haggard, John Paulk, and Mark Foley among others seem to give a bit of credence to the view that putative homophobes have more gay 'issues' than is seemly, don't you think?
That being said, it's not clear that 'homophobic' is generally meant as an insult. Assuming you've taken a chemistry class or two, do you recall the descriptions of behaviors of some materials as being (for instance) hydrophobic or hydrophilic? The use of '-phobic' does not necessarily denote fear but potentially any type of negative interaction or feeling. In addition to (or in lieu of) irrational fear of homosexuals, homophobia can entail prejudice, antipathy, or aversion. But even then, that's not to say that the use of the term is always apt, as with intended insults mentioned above.
Cobalt,
First, maybe it wasn't clear, but the question was more tongue-in-cheek -- intended more for humor than genuine response.
Given your genuine response, I'll address a couple of your comments. Seems fair. First, I'm aware that in terms like "hydrophobic" the suffix doesn't denote fear. On the other hand, the very first definition that I found for the word was "fear of or contempt homosexuals". When psychologist George Weinberg coined the word, he defined it as "the dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals". That would include a fear of contagion or a fear of losing the values one holds on the subject. So while the suffix could simply entail "prejudice, antipathy, or aversion", it was not intended to convey that and I've never heard it used that way. The explanation I've always heard when I've asked people who have used the term is fear ... always fear.
You also reference "putative homophobes", suggesting that the term is not always used as an insult. Again, I'll admit that it's possible but in all the years I've heard, seen, or read the term, I have never observed it being used as anything but an insult. That is, no one has ever even hinted at something like "You have an aversion to homosexual behavior ... but that's certainly okay." It has always been used as a dismissive term. "Anyone who is opposed in any sense to homosexual behavior is not a reasonable person; they only do so because they are homophobic. The only reason that anyone could ever have for such an opposition would be an irrational fear of homosexuals. End of discussion."
But my first point was the most salient. I intended it as humor. I don't actually believe that those who oppose homosexual behavior only do so from a fear or aversion to that behavior nor do I believe that those who oppose Christianity only do so from the same sort of irrational response.
If they're right, and we really do have an irrational fear, which is suggested by use of the suffix "phobia", you'd think they'd be a lot more tolerant instead of raggin' us on our mental condition.
I'm still of a mind that sex is not truly an expression of love, but I do concede that that's OK in a proper marriage. Paul's message seems to back me up regarding those who cannot remain celebate. He seems to acknowledge that the act is, if not selfish, self-centered when used for sexual gratification.
Post a Comment