See, I just can't see this as a sex-positive message, no matter how much fun they might have said it would be once you got married.
Honestly, and very generally speaking (so not speaking to Teppy's FAC's view, or Susan's college group's view) I think it's a more sex-positive message than the general culture's message, because I think it is a more honest assessment of sex, that takes into context the power (or potential thereof) of sexuality. And granted, this is just opinion. Sex can bring both life and death. Sex can bring ecstacy--both physical and emotional, and pain--both physical and mental.
Antibiotics and contraceptives reduced many of the permanent negative consequences which can sometimes result from sexual intimacy, and I think somewhere along the line, we've (as a culture) started seeing it as completely inconsequential, when it is not.
That I am recognizing there are potential, permanent, negative consequences is no reflection of a sex-is-bad opinion. It's a recognition of the (potential) power of the act. I think driving is great--got my learner's permit and license the moment I could, but there are potential, negative, permant consequences from operating an automobile. Food is great, but there are negative consequences from certain uses of it. Home owning is great, but there are negative aspects of it, ditto parenting. I think the culture treats sex as if it were as significant as a Kleenex.
I want this cooooat. Waaah.
Sigh. Now, so do I.
(edited because context is often helpful)
Paul was, actually, not a woman-hating bastard, and I can explain further if anyone likes, or you can wait for JZ.
I think the culture treats sex as if it were as significant as a Kleenex.
Interestingly, my best friend and I were talking about this last night.
We (and by we I'm referring to my college fellowship group, not the Baptist church of my childhood) were taught that ANY expression of sexuality pre-marriage WHATSOEVER was a sin. Sexual fantasies were wrong. Masturbation was wrong.
This strikes me as entirely bad, not least because it's so likely to cause guilt over things that have already been done and hurt no one.
The Victorians were very anti-masturbation, weren't they? I remember seeing pictures of belts that would give boys a shock if they got an erection.
since the advent of AIDS, scare-tactics/ heavily abstinence (even if not abstinance-only) SexEd is really common, and promotes pretty screwed-up attitudes toward sex.
Agreed. If a school is going to pretend to teach sex ed, the responsibility to students is to tell them the facts, and let their parents or churches sort out the morality. Kids now are hearing that condoms are useless and hormonal contraception = abortion, and that's the kind of lesson that's more likely to lead to an unwanted child than anything else.
And Teppy gets the
naughty
post number. Oh well, top 100 at least.
I'm just going to say what's on my mind, because I respect you too much to mutter every time I read one of your posts on this sort of topic.
I'd rather you spoke your mind.
I love you and don't want to end up resenting the bandwidth you use. Your posts on religion usually read as extremely narrow minded, to an extent that stuns me, given what an open minded human you are, generally.
I have strong opinions on the matter, which I am definitely stating in a blunt fashion, without a lot of respect or concern for the feelings of people who have deep feelings of faith or are active in their churches. I am sorry - it's not my intent to offend, and yet I'm obviously not making any effort to NotOffend either. I'm certainly aware there are many faithful people here (including my wife).
I'm really not narrow minded on the issue. I recognize the near infinite variety of human experience in faith, and how people act on that in their lives. Close friends, writers I cherish, family members - many, many people in my life (including you) who live in accordance with their faith, and their values. I am not dismissive of those people or their beliefs.
I have no excuse for being so rudely blunt on the subject. But, I also think there are things which require/insist on voicing your moral outrage. I know you are deeply invested in moderation, compromise, respecting and creating a middle ground. But I hate what my country has become - and most of what I hate has been driven by the religious right. Suspension of habeus corpus, justifying torture, war mongering, oppressing dissent, disenfranchising gays, disenfranchising blacks. These aren't just political issues. The Conservatives have grounded these choices in their religious beliefs. And a very large (though perhaps un-monolithic) portion of this country shares those values.
I have huge amount of rage towards the Catholic Church (a source of no little tension in my marriage). I think it is completely indefensible organization - utterly morally bankrupt.
I don't see very much of the Bible (which I have read, and derived spiritual sustenance from) in the Christianity which is most dominant in this culture.
I don't have any respect for creationism (sorry, vw). It's willful, anti-rational ignorance. Teaching it is profoundly wrong - Orwellian. Pre-enlightenment.
While Christianity is not monolithic about sex, the dominant strands, the pervasive impact has been massively damaging on this issue. I think it is absolutely fucked up in the extreme. I don't have any respect for the Purity movement. None. There is nothing I've heard from any of the refugees from the various FAC's which has made me think anything except that they are mind-controling cults which get a pass from scrutiny because they're Christian.
Within the context of this board, it is probably unjustifiable for me to vent my anger so much about religion. But you know what it feels like? That thing that Jon Stewart is always exposing - how Fox news will bring some extreme right winger on espousing the most ridiculous notions, and then positing some reasonable leftie on the other side, and treating them as if they are both equally reasonable.
And they're not. This is the danger of moderation, Cindy. Treating unreasonable, damaging ideas as if they were worthy of respect. As if they were just another point of view.
Creationism isn't just another reasonable idea. It's anti-scientific. It's wrong. I don't and can't act like it is anything but fucked up.
Sure there are sexy Christians with their sexy and healthy ideas about sex. That is not the legacy of Christianity about sex in this country, though, and I don't think any one can make a persuasive case that Christianity has promoted a healthy idea of sex.
Still. I do respect your faith and your religious values and actions, Cindy. And I am genuinely sorry that my rage on these issues runs down the line as a personal attack on your values.
I should probably just bite my tongue on the issue. (continued...)
( continues...) Though very honestly, there are times when that discretion feels more like a immoral act of omission. I don't think the Catholic Church would be having a massive, institutional scandal about raping children if people hadn't bitten their tongues for centuries. You bite your tongue often enough and you cut off speech. But I'll try to err on the side of discretion. Because (among other things) I love you enough that I wouldn't want to hurt you, or tar you with such a broad brushstroke.
I don't think waiting is a stupid choice. It's just a choice, like eating meat or not eating meat. You go where your belief takes you.
I do think, however, that US culture gives us some seriously mixed messages about sex, to the point that even those of us raised without religion can find ourselves feeling the pressure to remain chaste, and then feeling dirty when we don't.
(Of course, mass of contradictions that I am, I also feel that most people have sex long before they're ready for it emotionally.)
I'm pretty sure Jim Elliot (the missionary who started this conversation) went to my college.
Wheaton, maybe?
I think the culture treats sex as if it were as significant as a Kleenex.
Interestingly, my best friend and I were talking about this last night.
Heh. That happens to me a lot--something comes up somewhere, and then I hear it in a bunch of very separate places, for a few days. How did you get on the subject?
Paul was, actually, not a woman-hating bastard, and I can explain further if anyone likes, or you can wait for JZ.
Gee, I wish you would, Teppy. Every time I start, I end up shutting my browser window in frustration, and not just because I itch when we hold historical figures to today's standards, but that's a part of it.
