Dani C-S asked me to ruminate on this topic for a project she and Hannah Jo are putting together.
I grew up in an evangelical Christian home. Since I was an active part of various Christian youth groups during elementary school and high school, and then went to two different evangelical Bible colleges (a year each), I was around for several "sex talks", as it was something they tended to feature every year. A helpful hint: If your youth group is having a Surprise Event, it's likely Sex Talk Night. (Unless you're in Youth For Christ with Dave Beatty—then it's "walk through the cemetery and ponder your legacy" night.)
Since then, I have left my faith for various reasons. I'll note that sexual issues were not among my reasons to leave. However, I have been studying sexuality lately and gaining new perspective. From this new perspective, I have found that I can look back on my former Christian view of sex and see a few things that I missed before. This piece is not meant to be critical of the faith. If anything, I would challenge Christians to consider their faith when speaking about sex, and I think this consideration could change some things for the better. I will touch on that in a few of the points below.
I. Sexual Fantasy and Masturbation
Given that most of the sex talks I heard in high school were given to unmarried teenagers, it was assumed that we weren't having sex, and most of the questions and discussion drifted to this topic. Was masturbation okay? What exactly was lust? If you're attracted to someone, were you just not supposed to think about it? What were we to do with all these hormones?
Churches differ greatly on this, but the most explicit answer I ever got was this: Masturbation, the physical act, is okay. However, sexual fantasy is not, because it is lust, and Jesus clearly stated that lust was wrong. So, if you can separate the two (sorry, girls!), you're in the clear.
Matt 5:28-29 (NIV) [Jesus:] "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell."
I will assume that lust is simply sexual fantasy about another person—it does not need to include intent or maliciousness, just sexual daydreaming. Given that the context in which 'lust' was defined for me was in youth group events focused on masturbation and accompanying thoughts, this is the definition I had when these Scriptures were read.
Now. Let's talk about this rationally for a second. Humans are mammals, and mammals reproduce through sex. The species has a vested interest in our desire for sex. Not only that, we are mammals with consciousness. When you mix an inborn desire for sex with consciousness, you get sexual fantasy. This can be repressed, but it is a normal thing.
On top of this already stacked deck, we have contemporary culture. Sex is everywhere in our culture. Sex advice columns, women's magazines with tips on how to look sexy and DRIVE HIM WILD, advertisements which rely on sex to sell their products, the idolization of Hollywood personalities and their sex appeal—it is everywhere, and I haven't even mentioned pornography yet. We instinctually evaluate people on their sex appeal, and our culture reinforces this and modifies it to some extent.
Now, if there's one thing you can say about the Gospels, it's that the commands within are not always possible. It is not possible to "be perfect as God in heaven is perfect." This is an impossible standard, and it has reasons for being there, but I won't go into that here. The command against lust is basically a command against being a conscious mammal. It does not produce lust-free humans. It produces guilt, and my high school years are a fine example of that.
Also, I would raise the issue of the book of Song of Songs. It is inescapably erotic. This is sexual fantasy, and it is part of the biblical canon. If the characters within are married, why don't they live together? Why are they meeting in fields in secret, hiding from her brothers? This account of sexuality is a far cry from the current Christian idea, not only in what is allowed, but in explicitness. It is a celebration of all that Christianity holds unmentionable.
Masturbation itself is not mentioned in the Bible. This could be a signal that, in their culture, masturbation simply wasn't something to get worked up about. It might not have been worth mentioning because it was normal and non-consequential. Masturbation provides physical relief and orgasms. That is all. These are not bad things, and the sexual fantasies that accompany them are generally just for the purpose of facilitating such physical relief. Fetuses masturbate in utero—it is that natural.
More than that, I suspect that it is nearly impossible to refrain from sexual fantasy and masturbation until marriage, and then go on to have a healthy sex life, let alone a single life that is not full of tension and irritability. Masturbation causes your body to release chemicals that increase happiness and decrease stress—a prohibition on it is strange. I am skeptical that such repression and a lack of awareness about one's own body will lead to a good sex life after marriage. That's a lot of repression to unlearn. On the flip side, masturbation is an excellent way to get to know your own sexual quirks (for women: how do you like the clitoris to be touched? barely at all? often?) and thus be able to pass this information on to your partner who, in the Christian context, likely doesn't have much experience with your particular set of genitalia.
II. Abstinence
Abstinence is the game plan for Christian youth until marriage. Too bad it doesn't have a definition. What exactly are they abstaining from? How are we defining "sex"? Sexual intercourse, okay. But there's a lot more to sex than that! Let's see, which of these behaviours are acceptable to someone who is "waiting until marriage":
a passion-filled look from across the room hugging holding hands kissing kissing with tongue lying on a bed together massages feeling the breasts, through clothes feeling the breasts, sans clothes feeling various genitalia, through clothes feeling various genitalia, sans clothes mutual masturbation talking explicitly about sexual desires blow jobs/fellatio cunnilingus anal sex sexual play with food hand jobs, male or female play with vibrators, dildoes, etc.
I haven't gotten to penetration of the vagina with the penis yet, nor have I covered every non-penetrative sexual act. So what does abstinence cover? The truth is, the only command in abstinence is "don't". There is no object to the command, you are left to figure it out on your own. Christian sources are generally not explicit, so as not to give people ideas.
When President Clinton was questioned about Monica Lewinsky, he said that they had not had sex, although she had been going down on him and there was some play involving cigars. So, if you're abstaining from sex Clinton-style, feel free! If your definition of "virginity" means that your hymen is still intact (which, by the way, is not a great indicator) or your penis hasn't been inside a vagina, then there are a realm of activities open to you that, yes, leave you open to STIs.
What is the Christian position on these matters? There isn't one. Don't get pregnant, don't be obvious, don't talk about it. Don't put up your hand at Sex Talk Night and ask, "So, if we didn't actually have sex, but someone had an orgasm, is that okay?" without fearing the scorn (and envy) of everyone else in the room.
This is not only stupid, it is ineffective. Education and clarity are not your enemies, please stop avoiding them.
Speaking of stupid, here's another aspect of abstinence. In the Christian parent's mind, the best form of abstinence is the "nothing past kissing" model. Consider the wedding night of such a person. To expect someone to go from first base right through to a home run, with no experience, lots of repression, and no complications, in a single night... is ludicrous. There is so much pressure to have sex on the wedding night—a time when you are likely very stressed out and exhausted—and then you are expected to perform well in an art form that you have never participated in before. This doesn't facilitate relaxation, and trust me, relaxation is key to female sexual pleasure. This is a recipe for disaster, not God's Perfect Plan for Ultimate Sexual Pleasure. You don't enter the Olympics without practicing, and this isn't much different with such expectations built up.
If the Christian model was to save sex for two weeks after the wedding, using those two weeks to experiment with everything but intercourse, I would be much more in favour of this plan. It would help to mitigate the years of repression required beforehand. Spice it up a little, force people to get creative. It just doesn't make sense to jump to "the end" of our culture's sexual script right off the bat. You're missing some of the best parts!
This is also where a key part of sexual education comes in. Where do Christians get sex ed? Not just Tab-A-in-Slot-B type education, but techniques and areas of sensitivity and possible complications and so on. They don't. It's silly. Tons of people already know tons of stuff about sex and different things to try and possible problems, and none of this information is shared. And then, since this is a taboo topic and it's expected to "happen naturally," when there are problems, no one talks about that, and they don't get fixed. It's silly.
III. Homosexuality
Ah, homosexuality. The favourite topic of the Christian right these days. Okay, I have a few things to say about this:
The homosexuality in the Bible is not the homosexuality that you're thinking of. In the New Testament, the word that Paul uses that is translated 'homosexual' is a Greek word that translators have searched for, high and low, in ANY other Greek document, and have come up with nothing. He might have made it up for all we know. So, what does it mean? We're not sure. It could mean 'pedophile'. More likely, it refers to people who use the services of temple prostitutes, since many religions at the time thought that sex was a way to encounter God, and thus employed temple prostitutes to facilitate the experience. Why is it not translated that way? Well, there are debates, and ... let's just say it wouldn't be easy to translate it that way and sell a copy of your translation. People will stick with what agrees with them and assume that you're the heretic.
In fact, "homosexuality" is a fairly recent concept. Up until the mid-1800s, there were people who engaged in sodomy, but this was an activity, not an identity. Today we have people who pay for the services of sex workers, but we don't have a particular name for them. It might be seen as somewhat deviant, but we generally don't talk about Prostitute-Users as a homogenous group. The truth is, our ideas of what is "normal" in sex vary throughout time. This is part of the reason why if you search the King James Version for "homosexual", your search will turn up exactly nothing. Instead, we have "sodomy", which is defined by Bible Gateway as "ritual homosexuality"—in other words, man-on-man temple prostitution.
In light of the cultural differences between our time and the eras in which the Bible was written, let's think about homosexuals today. In recent years, sexual orientation has become an identity. People will now proclaim proudly that they are gay or queer or straight or bisexual. This was not the case in the past. Sex was something you did, not something you were. So, this is a new phenomenon.
Most out-of-the-closet queer people will tell you that it wasn't a choice on their part. Queer people who grew up in Christian contexts often went through agonizing years trying to be straight, and eventually gave up, often leaving the church because of the condemnation found there. To condemn them as having chosen something that they have tried so hard to choose not to be (for reasons of persecution, complexity, group identity, guilt, etc.) is just heartless. Whatever happened to "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"? If God is going to judge them, that's up to him.
Matthew 22:36-40 (NIV): "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
The purported task of the Christian is to love people and love God, end of story. It is not to judge or condemn. It is not to impose current cultural understandings of sexuality on ancient passages of Scripture, and use them to pass laws in a free country restricting the rights of people who think differently than you and aren't hurting anyone. It is just to love. Welcome them in the church. Maybe it will shake things up enough to get you back to these key passages.
Some Concluding Thoughts
Sex is a normal, natural, fun thing. It should not be ignored or repressed. It should be done responsibly, yes, but that is a different kettle of fish. Sexual fantasy is part of the Biblical canon, and impossible to avoid. Masturbation has many good effects, and I cannot think of any ill effects. I can think of some urban legends (blindness, etc), but that is all. Abstinence, in order to make any sense, needs to be defined, and that requires openness about all sexual acts. Discrimination of any people, homosexual or not, goes against the command to love people, and homosexuality as we understand it isn't in the Bible anyways, as it didn't exist back then.
So, be open, be loving. Celebrate this. If God did create sex, it should not be repressed and thought of as dirty or sinful, it should be enjoyed and done well.
<-- Non-Blog Writing