I decided I should start doing the reviews by chapter, not by Part, because the chapters are getting longer. If a review gets too long and needs to be broken up, I’ll break it down by the sections of the chapter, with <h4> headings. So without further ado… chapter 5!
At the beginning of this chapter, we resume Fred’s story of sexual turmoil. Fred explains how a few years into his “wonderful new life in Christ,” he would look around the church service on Sunday morning and see other men “freely and intensely” worshipping God, but he didn’t feel anything special — thus he concluded that there was something wrong with him; there was a “wall of separation” between him and God.
He tried hard to figure out the reason for this wall. Finally it dawned on him. It had to do with his other Sunday morning routine. He would get the Sunday paper and — cover your children’s eyes! — flip through the department store inserts looking at pictures of models in bras and panties! He also admitted that he’d been known to laugh at “dirty jokes.” Remembering the Scriptures, he realized he was still sexually impure:
I remembered that the Bible said such things shouldn’t even be mentioned among the saints. I was worse… I would even laugh at them! And my eyes? They were ravenous heat-seekers searching the horizon, locking on any target with sensual heat.
A couple of things to remark on here. First of all… such things shouldn’t even be mentioned? Well, in that case, I guess this whole book is one big fat sin, since it mentions S-E-X like craaaazy. Oh, but we aren’t saints, so maybe it’s okay. (Geez, this is ridiculous. You can’t talk about sex? No wonder there are so many teen pregnancies.)
As to the last sentence in the above quote — aside from having a misplaced modifier — it basically makes him sound like a big ol’ creep. But, that’s probably what happens when you deny and repress every aspect of your natural (a.k.a. God-given) sex drive, denying yourself any outlet (masturbation is a no-no!) for your sexual feelings.
What had happened to me?
Fred now mentions that at this point in the ongoing drama of his life, he was married to Brenda the Pure. This part is too hilarious not to quote:
As God continued to work in my life, Brenda and I married, honeymooned in Colorado, then settled into a new apartment building on the edge of a cornfield in a Des Moines suburb. Was this a little slice of heaven or what?
HAHAHAHA!
But living in the cornfield with his sexually naïve wife apparently wasn’t good enough for Fred. His mind and eyes continued to wander. Bad Fred!
Chapter 5 from here on out is so full of choice verbage that it’s hard not to just retype the whole thing. You really have to read it for yourself to get the full effect. I’ll do my best to summarize, though.
If you’ll recall, the back of this book claims that it offers advice on “how to develop a realistic battle plan for remaining pure” (emphasis mine). I’m interested to know whose reality Fred and Steve are talking about here. Reflecting on his transgressions with the ad inserts, the dirty jokes, and of course his heat-seeking eyes, Fred says:
By God’s standards of sexual purity, I wasn’t even close to living His vision for marriage. Clearly I’d taken steps toward purity, but I was learning that God’s standards were higher than I’d ever imagined.
Imagine you’re a guilt-ridden young Christian guy reading this book — and buying all its BS. Not very encouraging! What’s a guy to do! You think you’ve made so much progress — only to hear this!
Oh, and in case you’re wondering, this is where he explains what the title of the chapter means. It refers to “stopping short of God’s standards.”
Desperation Sets In
Years pass. Fred vows to rid his life of this remaining sexual impurity, but he just can’t seem to do it. (I guess he never stops to think that there might be an actual reason for that — and no, the answer isn’t Satan.) Apparently he is under ’sexual bondage.’
Ooh Fred! Didn’t know you were into the kinky stuff!
God knows we can choose to be pure. So why don’t we? We aren’t victims of some vast conspiracy to ensnare us sexually; we’ve simple chosen to mix in our own standards of sexual conduct with God’s standard.
It’s that simple. We’ve “chosen” to be “impure.” (Sorry; I’ll try not to get too quotation-mark happy.) That’s clearly what it is. It couldn’t be because… oh, I don’t know… sexual feelings are natural and have been an integral part of the human species forever? Didn’t you even say that yourself, Fred? Back in chapter 3? Let’s see… you said: “Attraction to girls is natural.” Interesting.
Authenticity or Just Acceptance?
The authors pose a question: What’s your aim in life — authenticity or acceptance?
Hmm… well, guys… not sure what you mean by “authenticity” … I know that I’m not fake or imitation Amber Rhea. And I do strive for self-acceptance. So I guess my answer is acceptance?
Oops! Wrong answer!
To aim for acceptance is to live your life by the question, “How far can I go and still call myself a Christian?” You want to seem to be a Christian, but you also still want to be accepted by your friends at school and in the youth group, without seeming weird or fanatical. Authenticity requires a different question, which can be stated like this: “How holy can I be?”
Huh. Did not know that!
The authors then take great pains to explain that people choose to be sexually impure because they want to be accepted by their peers. Something else I did not know! I always had sex because, well, I wanted to. What my friends peers would or wouldn’t think wasn’t a factor -But obviously I can’t be used as an example; I’m an anomaly. Women gain intimacy through “communicating deeply,” was that it?
Anyway. We get to hear from Pete and Mary, who are engaged to be married, but whose relationship is in jeopardy — because of popular R-rated movies. -Actually, let me back up. Apparently Pete’s first marriage was “ruined” by X-rated movies. Not him watching them in secret from his wife — but he and his wife renting and watching them together. We don’t get details on how exactly this ruined their marriage, only that it did. I, for one, would like to hear much more about this intriguing topic.
The things some people get worked up about! Mary is in tears describing how she’ll leave the room (she says she heads to the kitchen! that’s right, woman! make me a sandwich!) during the “steamy” scenes and ask Pete to turn the movie off, but he refuses, insisting that they rented it so they might as well watch the whole thing and get their money’s worth. (Makes me think of the whole “getting your money’s worth” myth/syndrome… I can’t remember the technical name of it… anyone?) She feels “dirty and cheap” after this drama, and they — get this — pray about it together before he goes home. Apparently Pete has some serious work to do! He has a problem!
Here’s a thought. Instead of agonizing over and praying about R-rated movies, maybe Pete and Mary should be giving thanks that their lives are peaceful enough that they have time to worry about such things.
Together on the Middle Ground
More about mixing our standard’s with God’s. Will the authors never stop belaboring this point? We get it already!
Fred and Steve call us to fight temptation and rid our lives of every trace of sexual impurity. They use verses from the Bible to make an analogy:
When the Israelites left Egypt for the Promised Land, God told them to cross the Jordan River and destroy every evil thing in their new homeland. That meant killing all the heathen people and crushing their gods to powder.
Woohoo!! Nothing like some good old-fashioned God-sanctioned murder!
The Israelites weren’t good enough at it, though. They weren’t careful to destroy everything, so their culture “mixed” with that of the pagans and they adopted depraved ways… yadda yadda yadda… eventually God removed them from their land. So, this shows how allowing yourself to look at underwear ads in the newspaper will ultimately destroy your marriage.
Ready to Count the Cost?
This is the end of the chapter, so I guess it’s supposed to be the inspirational/motivational part. Too bad it actually sounds pretty depressing (anyone sensing a theme?) For example:
It’s likely that you have at least a hint of sexual impurity in your life. In that case, you’re not ready to pay the price of true obedience — like avoiding the sensuality found in many Hollywood movies. Like avoiding sexy thoughts about the “goddesses” at your school. Like training your eyes to look away from string bikinis, full-busted sweaters, and the hot-looking babes who wear them.
String bikinis… full-busted (”full-busted?”) sweaters… -See, there they go again, teasing these poor guys! Let’s describe in detail everything you’re not supposed to look at! Is this a test?
I’ll end this installment with my favorite quote from the book thus far, taken from a highly irrelevant anecdote about Fred having dinner with his college roommate’s parents:
I was served my first artichokes (which fascinate me to this day)
Can’t make this stuff up, folks.
53 Responses to "Chapter 5: Stopping Short"
I like the X-Files reference.
X-Files reference? What is the X-Files reference? Obviously you are much more perceptive about these things than I am.
(she says she heads to the kitchen! that’s right, woman! make me a sandwich!)
“Woman, get back in here and make me a sandwich!”
“We just spooned up like little baby kittens. Isn’t that right, Honey Buns?” “That’s right, Poopeyhead.”
Obviously, Mulder needs to be reading this book so he can get all that porn out of his life.
Oh right. :) I thought you meant in the book itself. I was going to be incredulous at the thought that these party people would’ve ever watched the X-Files.
I mean, all that sexual tension between Mulder and Scully… come on! It’s not appropriate.
Okay, I had a longer (potentially funnier) response going and it disappeared. Erg.
First, just want to comment that I’m impressed by the diversity of your friends/acquaintances, M@ber. I’ve certainly got religious friends, but none who would feel the need to defend their beliefs at any point during your critique of these obviously misled and unhappy authors. Just me living in my happy progressive bubble…and probably why I deluded myself into thinking this country would have had some sense in November. But I digress…
I think you’ve really hit the heart of the matter here - to use their platitudes, what is “separating these people from God” is their self-induced guilt about being a sexual entity. It actually has NOTHING to do with sex or sexuality, but it’s guilt. (Ah, the great Christian tradition.)
If these folks could just acknowledge the fact that they are sexual beings and that there’s nothing WRONG with that, perhaps they could get past this “separation.” There doesn’t seem to be much hope of that though… I find so much hypocrisy in the conservative Christians I have the pleasure of calling family.
Perfect example: Every time I get together with one of my sisters we have to go to a movie. It has to be a romantic comedy. Annoying? Yes, but it seems nothing else will do. So, after watching “Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason” she says, “I wish those 3 (Renee Zellweger, Colin Firth and Hugh Grant) would make more movies together.”
I’m rather stunned because, for the first time, it’s occured to me that in real life, she would have NOTHING to do with any of these people. By her standards, they’re immoral. They have multiple sexual partners. They CLEARLY do not have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ (Have YOU asked Jesus into your heart?). Simply put, she would not like these people and would not associate with them.
I’m contemplating this situation and trying to determine what my response is going to be when she looks down at her watch and says, “Oo! If I hurry I can make it home in time for Desperate Housewives.”
Now, be forewarned, “Desperate Housewives” grates on every nerve I have.
If you enjoy the show, fine. But I’ve seen a couple of episodes and my opinion is pretty firm…They are HORRIBLE people (characters). They have NO redeeming qualities. They’re lying, scheming, vindictive and, for those who care, there’s a fair amount of bed-hopping.
So, concerning my representative of the conservative Christian community (and I know she is not alone in this): Why is it BETTER to release your sexual energy by watching things you deem to be immoral, instead of acknowledging your sexuality and finding an honest way to deal with it? Can someone explain this to me??? I’m not saying go out and fuck someone, I’m saying admit that you have desires like EVERY other person on the planet. Perhaps we were, hm, CREATED that way. Maybe just let yourself follow through on that Orlando Bloom fantasy instead of deciding it’s an “impure thought” halfway through???
Sorry. I’ll stop ranting.
I had to sit in my car and figure out if I was asking myself the same questions and, yeah. I don’t have a problem with the Bridget Jones lifestyle. I probably wouldn’t be CLOSE to Bridget if she were real, but I’d like her. I don’t watch Desperate Housewives because, while the show’s addictive, they’re horrible people who seem to consistently violate their own morals. (I make no apologies to fans of the show. If you like it, enjoy. I think it’s vile.)
Amusingly, I also realized that if *I* hurried, I could make it home in time for “Boston Legal.” The show with a cross-dressing Santa Claus and a lead character who’s essentially a sex-addict. But they’re honest about who they are and they’re dealing with their issues. My sister, of course, would find the show immoral and appalling. [sigh]
Erg. Okay. I’m getting off my soapbox and going to try to write this damn grant. It’s only for 35K. Not like it’s worth anything… [sigh]
If these folks could just acknowledge the fact that they are sexual beings and that there’s nothing WRONG with that, perhaps they could get past this “separation.”
The authors of this very book affirm this, Niki. Sexual desires are good and natural. But they are meant to be acted upon in certain ways. If I object to someone chewing with their mouth open, it’s not because I think food is evil.
To be clear, I think there is much worth questioning in this book (assuming it is as Amber presents it, which I do assume). But the principle here is exactly what you seem to desire, Niki–people are indeed sexual creatures and that’s okay. But it’s not okay to act out our sexuality any way we see fit.
Human beings are also emotional creatures, and that’s okay. But it is not okay to act out our emotions (such as anger, fear, confidence, etc.) in any old way we wish. We are supposed to exercise self-control, which means living out our emotions (and our sexual desires) in the way that God intends. In many ways this is what we mean when we tell someone to “be an adult” (do we still tell people that anyomre?)
The list of people (at least in the western tradition) who have argued that we should abandon ourselves to every desire in any way we wish is very, very short. Whether we’re talking about the ‘major’ philsophical tradition of the Greeks (starting with Socrates and Plato and continuing all the way up into the present), or the philosophical theologies of the monotheistic religions, or most of the philosophical ‘oddballs’ who have popped up from time to time (such as Nietzsche)–people are not encouraged to do simply whatever comes into their heads, emotionally or sexually (and maybe these two are rather strongly connected?).
I’ll bet you yourself believe that there are certain inappropriate ways of acting sexually, Niki. I’ll grant you that Christians have more on their list of such ‘inappropriate activity’ than you do, but in principle it is hard to see that great of a difference between our respective views. We are sexual beings, but we have certain responsibilities to live out our sexuality in a way that is appropriate to the kind of creatures that we are.
Well, if you look at the writer of the piece, Xon, you will see that Jenny was the one to comment on Amber’s blog entry, not me. Not that I disagree with her, but you are putting words in my mouth. (And people often confused us back in the day.)
And, yes, I bet my (and Jenny’s) list of inappropriate ways of acting seuxally is shorter than Christians. Do I despise Christians for it? Hell no. If that’s how they want to live their lives than more power (Almighty or otherwise) to them, no matter how ridiculous I might find it. If they get some sort of comfort or purpose in a certain set of rules, then splendid. I am TRULY happy for them.
However, don’t dare to judge me or others like me because we don’t gravitate towards Christian sexual ideology. Not only is it not very Christian to do so, but it only falls on ears who have heard the relevant arguments and have come to conclusions different from your own. We might be heathens destined for hell because of our un-Christians ways, but hopefully we’ll have enough prayers for our souls from good Christians souls to make a difference in the End. (And maybe God might also take into account the good, decent, caring lives we led too, before He banishes us to eternal damnation for inappropriate sexual activity for the mere decades we graced the Earth.)
I’m sorry, Niki, you’re absolutely right. Don’t know how I got mixed up there. My last comment was intended for Jenny, not you. A big ‘mea culpa’ on that one.
As for the rest of what you said, uh…thanks for the input? :-) Touched a nerve (or two)?
Niki, is it really any surprise that Xon confused you and Jenny? Since you are the same person, after all.
The authors of this very book affirm this, Niki. Sexual desires are good and natural. But they are meant to be acted upon in certain ways.
Yeah, but the more of this book I read, the more I wonder how much they really meant that statement. Did they just pay lip service to it because it sounds good, and they certainly don’t want to say sexual desires are bad (even if that’s what they mean — which is what it’s shaping up to look like)?
According to them, the only way to act on your sexual desire (talking about men here — women just stare at the ceiling, I guess) is plain ol’ vanilla sex with your wife. You aren’t allowed to ever indulge any role-playing fantasies, for example, because that would mean you’re thinking of other people (even if they’re fictitious people or just generalized personas). You aren’t allowed to watch “dirty movies” together because you’re watching — and hence, thinking about — other people having sex.
But I digress. The thing that I really wonder about is, if you spend your entire life working so hard to repress every sexual thought and feeling you have — how do you suddenly “flip the switch” back on for your wife? Conditioning goes a loooooong way. And if you’ve conditioned yourself to think that almost all sex and sexual feelings are bad, it’s going to be pretty tough to suddenly make the cognitive switch, even though you know it is your wife.
And on another note, you repress yourself for that long and hoo boy! The floodgates are going to open on your wedding night, and it is NOT going to be pretty. Is it any wonder, then, that in chapter 4, a man calls into our dear Fred’s radio show and says that his wife told him: “I just don’t like sex that much, and I wish I didn’t have to do it anymore.” Let’s be honest now! I wouldn’t like sex with someone like that either! He probably has no concept of foreplay or how to please his partner (since his knowledge of female anatomy is probably nonexistant) and pops after 20 seconds.
-But, I’m assuming. Bad me. My satirical, sarcastic nature gets the better of me sometimes.
Somewhat related: just finished listening to the always-fabulous teen radio call-in show, “Life on the Edge Live,” brought to you by the party people at Focus on the Family. What was the topic this week? Ding ding ding… purity!! Best quote from the show: “pull it out and do it with your little sister” (referring to ‘pulling out’ this book [the closest thing to the female equivalent of Every Young Man’s Battle, as far as I can tell] and reading it with your sister… but that is too priceless). Lots of hard questions from teens and non-answers from the hosts. Maybe I’ll blog about it later. Probably not, though.
More coming…. don’t want this comment to get TOO ridiculously long.
How did I miss this? You really need to get an RSS feed set up with ASB. Or did I miss that too?
Let’s be honest now! I wouldn’t like sex with someone like that either! He probably has no concept of foreplay or how to please his partner (since his knowledge of female anatomy is probably nonexistant) and pops after 20 seconds.
Er…so the only way to learn foreplay and how to please your sexual partner is to have sex with lots of people? Or, if you insist on monogamy, then the only way to have any hope of learning is to have sex before you get married? This is bizarre.
People learn by, you know, doing. Some don’t start ‘learning’ in this way until they are married, others learn earlier. But it all can get figured out (and the process of figuring it out is fun in its own right).
There are people with all different levels of “libido” from all different walks of life. These ‘walks of life’ include ideological walks. I’m sure that there are ‘cold fish’ pagans and atheists and buddhists and taoists. And, yes, there are ‘cold fish’ Christians as well.
If it’s his first time, his endurance (and general artfulness) will be somewhat unimpressive (probably). If it’s her first time, it will hurt (often). This was the case for the kid who ‘got laid’ at a post-game party when he was 15. It is true for the shy atheist who didn’t lose her virginity until she was 24. And it is also true for the modest Christian girl who “saved herself” for marriage. Somehow, because her first experience was on her wedding night, its awkwardness becomes scandalous evidence that there is something wrong with people who choose to do it this way?
Yeah, yeah, RSS feed… :P One day, maybe. I kind of feel like a loser now that I have a Bloglines account (which is addictive and useful), and *I* don’t even have an RSS feed. But whatever. I never was one to necessarily keep up with the trends. Oh, and I’d have to figure out how the hell RSS works so I could integrate it with my blog. I refuse to move to Wordpress or MT or something!
Back to responses.
I’ll bet you yourself believe that there are certain inappropriate ways of acting sexually, Niki. I’ll grant you that Christians have more on their list of such ‘inappropriate activity’ than you do, but in principle it is hard to see that great of a difference between our respective views.
I don’t think people should just do whatever the hell they want. But as long as sexual activity is between (or among, if group sex is your thing) consensual, of-age partners, and all partners are being responsible to practice safer sex so as to protect themselves and their partners — I don’t have a problem with it. Anything that is non-consensual, puts anyone in danger, or imposes on anyone else shouldn’t be done, but that’s pretty much a no-brainer. (And a lot of that ventures out of the purely sexual realm anyway.)
My personal list of things I wouldn’t do is longer — but I’m not going to impose that on anybody else. If that couple over there gets off by dressing up in leather and peeing on each other, then hey, more power to them. Personally, I think that’s kind of weird, but I’m not going to tell them not to do it just because I wouldn’t want to. Nobody’s getting hurt, both parties involved are ok with it… end of story.
Likewise, as Niki already pointed out, if someone wants to be a Christian and live by a stricter set of rules about what is acceptable sexually, more power to them, as well. It’s their decision and their life. I’m not going to try to stop them.
But why is it so hard to accept that one’s personal view of things doesn’t apply to everyone? I guess for Christians it’s a part of their beliefs, because they believe that there’s one God who is always right and wants everyone to follow Him. Still, I know plenty of Christians who are sincere in their faith but don’t try to enforce its rules on me and other non-Christian friends.
But let’s tie it back to the book, shall we? These guys say you shouldn’t rent X-rated movies to watch with your spouse. I’m sure there are plenty of Christian married couples who find this silly. What is their rationale? They try to use a few nebulous Bible verses to “prove” that it’s a form of sexual impurity — but people have used the Bible to try to prove lots of things that most of us recognize as BS. (Look at the Ku Klux Klan and other groups that call themselves Christian and do horrible things supposedly in the name of God.) It’s really just a couple of guys with some fairly extreme opinions, trying to push those opinions on everyone under the guise of “God’s will.” Hey, if they think it’s wrong to watch porn with their wives, then fine. But why do they feel the need to tell every other Christian married couple they shouldn’t, either?
We are sexual beings, but we have certain responsibilities to live out our sexuality in a way that is appropriate to the kind of creatures that we are.
What do you mean, “the kind of creatures that we are”?
Aside: raise your hand if you think I should increase the font size in the comments window. I’ll probably be geeking out for most of the afternoon tomorrow, working on CSS for my blog etc.
Xon, in your first comment you seemed to be missing the point in speaking about *actions* that aren’t acceptable. The issue that’s bugging us is that the book is spending so much time on *thoughts* that the author thinks are unacceptable. You wrote:
“But it is not okay to act out our emotions (such as anger, fear, confidence, etc.) in any old way we wish.”
Are you including the things that this author is including? Thoughts about sex that are not acted upon, looking at pictures of underwear models, and masturbating? Are those all “actions” that shouldn’t be “acted” upon?
My point in asking is that your generalities seem to defend the author, yet you’re letting on that you don’t fully agree. So we should address some specific issues from the book.
*Thoughts about sex that are not acted upon.
*Looking at underwear models (the dude’s Sunday morning ritual)
*Masturbation
Just went back and read the reviews and comments from the beginning and wanted to let you know how much I’ve enjoyed this series of posts. Great work!
And, yes, I’d like the font size to be increased. I have to increase the font size by holding down Control and using my mouse’s scroll wheel just to read it (the PC way… I’m sure you can hit Apple-Plus on a Mac or something).
Yeah, in Safari (and some other browsers) it’s Command (aka Apple)-plus. Safari will increase the font size no matter what, even if the page is coded with fixed point or pixel sizes. IE isn’t as friendly. Anyway, like I said, today I’ll be geeking out with my blog, so I’ll make sure to change everything to relative font sizes.
Damn, people. I have too much work to do to get sucked in here! :-)
Adrian beat me to the punch here and I can’t phrase it any better. Please just refer back to his comments.
Since my personal beliefs seem to be of importance to some…”I’ll bet you yourself believe that there are certain inappropriate ways of acting sexually, Niki [Jenny]. I’ll grant you that Christians have more on their list of such ‘inappropriate activity’ than you do, but in principle it is hard to see that great of a difference between our respective views.”
Friend, you might be surprised.
Let’s see. Sexual impropriety…that would include anything that is 1) non-consensual or 2) involving children (which would by default be non-consensual).
There may be things that I’m not comfortable doing. (Niki and Amber are probably just having a giggle fest here since they KNOW me and…well, I’m just waiting to be labeled a slut yet again. Yes, I’m such a whore.) However, I cannot and WILL NOT say what is wrong for other people, as long as no one is getting hurt.
You may argue that they’re hurting themselves by violating their bodies (the holy temple of God) blah, blah, blah. I’ve heard it. HOWEVER.
I fervently believe that as long as people are being honest with themselves and are consciously trying to do what is right for themselves, they’re not hurting themselves. (Themselves, themselves.) My values are based on honesty, which is why I believe that there is no greater offense/sin that you can commit against yourself than hypocrisy. To tie this in to my earlier comments, it is MUCH worse to try to repress your sexuality than it is to find honest ways to deal with it.
To generalize - if you don’t deal with your issues, they’ll deal with you. I believe that people are much better off if they can accept themselves, their humanity, their fallibility and their capacity for growth from the beginning.
Telling people to pray about something like sexuality, to “give it to God” is all well and good, but I’d like to find someone who has honestly been able to pray away sexual desire. And, whether you’re married or not, you reach a certain age and you’ve got it. Clearly, it’s natural and we’re supposed to have sexual thoughts (yippee!). Why should we have to suppress them simply because we lack a piece of paper declaring us husband and wife?
Yes, Xon, I believe that we should live out our emotions the way that “God” intends. But I don’t think that God intends for us to repress who we are. I think that God created us as multifaceted, complex and unique people and that one set of values will not translate for everyone. (I used quotes up there b/c I’m not crazy about the term “God” since it tends to imply we believe in the same higher power, which I don’t think we do. My God isn’t about judgment. My God is all love and compassion.)
I’m not sure that our views *are* that similar. You seem to want people to be true to the God of the New Testament (or maybe the Pauline God?). I want people to be true to themselves (and by extension the world, a higher power and the universe at large).
But enough dramatic verbage from me…
[Hand is raised for larger font and also for spell check! Some of us need some help. :-)]
It’s their decision and their life. I’m not going to try to stop them.
But why is it so hard to accept that one’s personal view of things doesn’t apply to everyone? I guess for Christians it’s a part of their beliefs, because they believe that there’s one God who is always right and wants everyone to follow Him. Still, I know plenty of Christians who are sincere in their faith but don’t try to enforce its rules on me and other non-Christian friends.
But this was a “Christian” book, being sold in the “Christian Inspiration” section of a bookstore. It is clearly intended to be read by other Christians, not by non-believing satirists. You say that they (Christians) can live by whatever rules they want, but that they shouldn’t expect everyone else to do so. But how have the authors of this book broken this rule? How are they ‘expecting’ everyone else to live by their own sexual code? They wrote a book arguing for their position, perhaps trying to persuade (but there is nothing wrong with using persuasion to get other people to agree with you, is there?), and it is marketed in such a way that its intended audience is clearly Christians.
Adrian asks about the distinction between thoughts and actions. Is there no difference? I realize that this was unclear in my original choice of words. If it helps, change ‘act out’ to ‘live out.’ It is good and natural to be sexual creatures, but this sexuality must be lived out in an appropriate way (and we have different ideas of what is appropriate, to be sure).
Life–and hence the way we ‘live out’ our sexuality–includes both thoughts and actions. If I spend all day fantasizing about people other than my wife, then I am not honoring her as I should (My vows were to take her, forsaking all others, as my wife; etc.). You may disagree with this, but the point is that in an important sense this fantasizing would be a form of living our my sexuality. We live with our thoughts just as much as with our actions. It is a modern idea that thoughts can run amok with no consequences upon our actions. Christianity (and many ancient philosophies) reject drawing the distinction between thoughts and actions so rigidly. So, my view is that we must guard both our thoughts and our actions (in all things, not just sexuality, but we are talking about sexuality in this discussion). There are certain ways we should both think and act concerning sex, and certain ways we should not think and act concerning sex.
I do not intend to defend the authors so much (as I have not read the book) as to defend the general position of Christianity from slander or misunderstanding. The authors do seem to have something wound a little too tightly around their sexual axles, but I think the types of principles they are trying to apply are generally correct. (They think thoughts matter too, and not just actions; they think that faithfulness to one’s spouse involves not constantly dreaming about someone else’s spouse; etc.) I think this because I am a Christian, and because I’ve grown up around these sorts of discussions about sex (contrary to what many may think, sex is not ’something secret’ in most evangelical circles I have experienced, which includes three major strains of American Protestantism) and have some idea of what is usually motivating the sorts of things that these authors appear to be saying.
But I do think the authors are a little off, as I said. But not so far off as to merit caricatured satire. Actually, check that: they may very well deserve to be satirized, but the basic principles with which they are operating do not. Much of the satire (so far) appears to be aimed (perhaps this was unintentional) at the principles of Christian morality (such as the relationship between thought and action, or the importance of remaining faithful to one person and the work and effort that this requires), and not merely at the little silly things these authors happen to say.
Jenny, I appreciate your explanation of what you think genuine sexual morality is, and it is very different from the Christian view. I think your antepenultimate paragraph almost hits it on the head:
I’m not sure that our views *are* that similar. You seem to want people to be true to the God of the New Testament (or maybe the Pauline God?). I want people to be true to themselves (and by extension the world, a higher power and the universe at large).
But, if you’ll recall, my claim was that in principle our views are not so different. Why did I say that? What ‘principle’ was I talking about? The principle that it is not okay to live out our sexuality in any old way we see fit. On this principle, you have agreed with me (ruling out sexual relationships not based upon mutual consent, for instance), and that was all I was getting at–we agree that there are inappropriate ways of living out our sexuality.
Again, we do agree that there is some sort of standard towards which people ought to be conformed. You think the standard is ‘be true to yourself’ (though not, I presume, if what you yourself really want is to have sex with a child) I think the standard is ‘be true to the God of the New Testament or Paul’ (what’s the difference?). This is exactly right; we have different standards. But I’ve never denied that. My claim was simply that neither of us would tell people to just do whatever they wanted sexually, full speed ahead and damn the torpedos.
So pretend that you wrote a book explaining your position. Or just take your most recent post. What if a Christian decided to write a satire of your position, and in the course of that satire made fun of the fact that you are going to ‘drive people crazy’ by making them think that they have to ‘repress’ some of their sexual desires? Would that be a fair criticism of your position? I don’t think so. But you do think that some desires should be repressed (i.e., not acted upon/funnelled into some other sort of activity)–such as pedophilic desires. You said so yourself.
So where does that leave us? I’m afraid you’re still not ’seeing’ the point I made in my first comment in this thread. This portion of your recent comment in particular raises my eyebrow:
Telling people to pray about something like sexuality, to “give it to God” is all well and good, but I’d like to find someone who has honestly been able to pray away sexual desire. And, whether you’re married or not, you reach a certain age and you’ve got it. Clearly, it’s natural and we’re supposed to have sexual thoughts (yippee!).
Did you think that this was somehow a criticism of my own position or the position of most Christians or the position of the authors of the book? Because here we are all agreeing again, in principle. “Clearly, it’s natural and we’re supposed to have sexual thoughts.” Amen, a thousand times. But this has never been in dispute in this entire discussion.
Much of the satire (so far) appears to be aimed (perhaps this was unintentional) at the principles of Christian morality (such as the relationship between thought and action, or the importance of remaining faithful to one person and the work and effort that this requires), and not merely at the little silly things these authors happen to say.
Well, sorry if you took it that way, but I think you’re putting that on there yourself. I’m not trying to make fun of the big over-arching idea of “Christian morality.” It is all about the silly things they happen to say — and I don’t like the fact that they put it all under the umbrella of “God” and “Christianity” and so on. I think they’re unfairly co-opting an entire religion to try to justify their freaked-outedness (new word for you there!) about sex.
[Hand is raised for larger font and also for spell check! Some of us need some help. :-)]
I increased it. It kind of looks not that great at the moment, but it’s a temporary fix. It’ll look better once the Great CSS Migration is complete. And as for spell-check… you should really write your comments in a word processing program anyway, in case your browser crashes or you accidentally erase everything you wrote. Plus, I have absolutely no idea how to program a spell-checker. And I refuse to use any other blogging system out there!
Use Firefox as your browser with the Spellbound plug-in. Problem solved for all web site comment forms. :)
People learn by, you know, doing
Well, Xon, learning/teaching theory will tell you that the people who learn this way are called active experimenters. However, in US American culture, they make up only 25% of the country. Therefore we must take into account the other 75% of learners and sex. Therefore…
* For the 25% of abstract conceptualizers, learning the theory behind the sexual act(s) would be most appropriate.
* For the 25% of reflective observers, self-reflection, and perhaps even a little (gasp!) masturbation might be in order.
* For the 25% of concrete experiencers, tapes or observations of sexual act(s) would be beneficial.
Have to respect the different learning styles, mi amigo. Props to Kolb (1984).
!!!!
Niki, you’re my hero. :-D
Ah, this is fun…
>>It is a modern idea that thoughts can run amok with no consequences upon our actions.
And I don’t know whose idea that is. I don’t believe that anyone here is making that argument. The fact that you mention it seems to imply that you think someone here believes that.
I, for one, firmly believe that every action and thought stem from an experience and have an effect – however large or small and whether we notice them or not, though I prefer not to judge them qualitatively. I don’t find judgment to be a very useful way of approaching life or people.
>>So, my view is that we must guard both our thoughts and our actions (in all things, not just sexuality, but we are talking about sexuality in this discussion). There are certain ways we should both think and act concerning sex, and certain ways we should not think and act concerning sex.
I’d love it if you could talk about things in your own words. Phrases like “guard both our thoughts and actions” smack of sermons and Sunday school platitudes to me. I tend to place more value on what people say when they use their own language, not what’s been drilled into them by someone else or by tradition. That said, you’re certainly entitled to your beliefs and whosever language you choose to voice them.
However, I’m curious about your continued judgment of thoughts. You (as the book’s authors, according to what I’ve determined from Amber) seem to offer no answers for dealing with what you agree are normal, healthy, could we even say GOD GIVEN sexual thoughts. You talk about not fantasizing about other women “all day” – how that means you’re not “honoring” your wife (again, that word just feels like a religious platitude to me that has lost its meaning). Are you saying that any sexual thought you have that doesn’t relate to your wife is wrong? You’ve given us a pretty extreme example there.
Let’s de-personalize this for a moment and back up to that vast population that isn’t married. What is the appropriate way for an unmarried person to deal with their sexual energy? I’d love to hear your solution. What’s the Christ-like way of dealing with those thoughts and impulses? Those of us who can’t go home and fuck a spouse, what are we to do? What am I supposed to do when I think of Orlando Bloom and, well, it’s just an “impure thought?” If I want to be a good Christian, what do I do with that thought?
>>I do not intend to defend the authors so much (as I have not read the book) as to defend the general position of Christianity from slander or misunderstanding.
You know, Xon, I think most of us have a pretty good feel for the general position of Christianity. I don’t think anyone here is trying to attack a religion. What I will happily question and critique is an extreme and alienating presentation of a religion that I believe was founded on love and inclusiveness. By telling people that their thoughts, which we all agree are perfectly natural (and is that is natural holy?), are wrong we accomplish nothing. Telling people that what they are feeling is wrong leads to guilt, which is nothing but a pure waste. As I said before, it’s guilt that leads to that “separation” from God. Ugh. More stupid platitudes. I bet God hates what people have done with this religion. It’s the guilt that makes people feel isolated.
Since no one can change the fact that they have sexual thoughts and feelings, by telling them that these feelings are wrong you tell them that THEY are wrong. There is nothing they can do to overcome those thoughts so there is no way they can avoid that guilt if those thoughts are wrong. This type of doctrine only serves to alienate people from spiritual growth. If you’re stuck on the fact that you can’t stop thinking about that hot girl in math class, you’re never going to develop as a spiritual person. If you let yourself think about that girl, fantasize about that girl, you can work through the issue and move on with your life.
>>(They think thoughts matter too, and not just actions; they think that faithfulness to one’s spouse involves not constantly dreaming about someone else’s spouse; etc.) I think this because I am a Christian, and because I’ve grown up around these sorts of discussions about sex (contrary to what many may think, sex is not ’something secret’ in most evangelical circles I have experienced, which includes three major strains of American Protestantism) and have some idea of what is usually motivating the sorts of things that these authors appear to be saying.
Trust me, Xon, you’re not alone in being very familiar with American Protestantism. What gets me here is, again, the extremity of your example. The whole “constantly dreaming” bit. I feel (and I’m sure you’ll tell me if I’m wrong) that this is something of a justification on your part. You believe, as does your church, that fantasizing about someone other than your wife is wrong, but everyone knows this happens. We can’t stop it, we’re human. We’ve been created this way. By making it an extreme version you can distance yourself from it – “Well, I don’t fantasize THAT much.” I would argue that the amount makes absolutely no difference. If somebody is hot, they’re hot and that’s okay. What’s important here is the ability to acknowledge that fact so that it doesn’t tie you down.
It’s like Amber’s example earlier – Don’t think about the color blue. Think about anything but the color blue. NOT the color blue.
Or just go ahead and think about the color blue. And now move on.
(Those who are so inclined, please re-read the last two paragraphs and insert “Orlando Bloom” for “the color blue.” Enjoy.)
>>Jenny, I appreciate your explanation of what you think genuine sexual morality is, and it is very different from the Christian view.
Let’s rephrase that to YOUR Christian view. I know plenty of Christian churches where I’d be in the majority here.
>>The principle that it is not okay to live out our sexuality in any old way we see fit. On this principle, you have agreed with me (ruling out sexual relationships not based upon mutual consent, for instance), and that was all I was getting at–we agree that there are inappropriate ways of living out our sexuality.
Let me clarify my position. I believe that there are healthy and constructive ways to live ones life (I’d rather not call any of them inappropriate). If you are being honest with yourself and about what you want and your motivation, then you’re okay. You’re very likely to proceed in a constructive way.
However, if you’re not being honest with yourself, life is not likely to be pleasant. To continue using sex as the ever-present example:
I, with my moral code that sex outside of marriage is perfectly fine, have a totally crappy day. I’m overdrawn on my checking account, my apartment is a disaster, I just can’t get inspired to write a grant I need to write, my intern comes in and has to wait for projects because I’ve been too distracted to prepare them for him. Crap day. One of my coworkers suggests going out for a drink. Welcoming the release, I agree. We hit a bar in my neighborhood and I’m finally just relaxing and letting the day go. An acquaintance from the Kerry campaign walks in. Now, this guy is intelligent, has a cool job at a great nonprofit, clearly has his politics straight, he’s cute, friendly and I’ve wanted him since the moment I met him. We get to talking and he invites me back to his place. Of course, I go, right? He’s hot, an amazing guy and I want him.
Let’s go back to my honesty and motivation thing. Would I be sleeping with this guy because that’s really what I want? Or am I sleeping with him to reaffirm the fact that I am a worthwhile person – that even though I’ve fucked things up in the rest of my life, this guy, who I think is cool, still wants me.
It all goes back to being honest with oneself. (At least for me it does.)
>>But you do think that some desires should be repressed (i.e., not acted upon/funnelled into some other sort of activity)–such as pedophilic desires. You said so yourself.
Let’s get one thing ABSOLUTELY straight here. I do NOT endorse repressing anything. Repression is not an effective tool for dealing with any emotions or desires. Nothing changes if it’s repressed, it usually just builds up until the person explodes. I refer you back to my belief that if you don’t deal with your issues, they’ll deal with you.
While I can’t say what triggers pedophilia (wouldn’t it be fabulous if I could – the beginning of such a huge solution!), I don’t think that it is ever a healthy or honest action. Every child molester I’ve encountered (and it’s truly disturbing how many there are) has VERY OBVIOUSLY not dealt with their issues. Again, I certainly can’t say what drives them – perhaps it’s having power or control over something/someone? Regardless, they’re not being honest about what they want.
I would equate this with rape – it’s not actually about sex. Sex is not difficult to get (prostitution, bars, creepy old men, etc.). There’s something else driving it, whether it’s power or control or whatever. I really don’t think that’s a *sexual* desire. I think it’s a sexual *expression* of a different desire.
Regardless, repression is NEVER a healthy or constructive option. Clearly, I don’t believe those types of impulses should be carried out, but they should be DEALT with. I would wager that it is repressing them that ultimately causes people to carry them out.
Ugh. I need to NOT try to delve into a pedophilic psyche…
>>”Clearly, it’s natural and we’re supposed to have sexual thoughts.” Amen, a thousand times. But this has never been in dispute in this entire discussion.
But you still haven’t explained what good Christians are supposed to do about it.
Okay…this is absurdly long and rambling. At this point I can only hope it’s coherent. Apologies for the length…
Well, sorry if you took it that way, but I think you’re putting that on there yourself. I’m not trying to make fun of the big over-arching idea of “Christian morality.” It is all about the silly things they happen to say — and I don’t like the fact that they put it all under the umbrella of “God” and “Christianity” and so on.
Listen, I have to step in on this because this is absurd. You’re trying to have it both ways here. You are poking fun at some elements of Christian morality here. It’s not Xon concocting something because he’s insecure in his beliefs or anything. It’s that this has been a running ‘joke’ about Christianity.
You can’t have it both ways on this. You can’t have a satire - which, by the way, this whole thing isn’t remotely close to satire … it’s sarcasm - in which you belittle things that are, on the whole, representative of some of the core elements of Christianity (as you say, some of the ’silly things’ that are said) and try to divorce them from the things they represent.
Case in point, let’s take the Christian notion of waiting for marriage. It’s been well documented and repeated here that you’re all fine and well with people who decide to take this route, but you then slip in comments like ‘repressing your natural urges.’ It’s a backhanded slap.
I’ve got no problem with you, or anyone else, poking fun at Christianity or Christian morals or anything of the like. That’s your right. It doesn’t offend me in the slightest. We happen to disagree over issues of religion and what-not, and that’s fine.
But let’s call a spade a spade … much of this has been a sarcastic take on Christian morality. Anything less is quite hypocritical (since we’re talking about ‘being true to ourselves here).
There are truly disturbing and vast leaps in logic here …
And I don’t know whose idea that is. I don’t believe that anyone here is making that argument. The fact that you mention it seems to imply that you think someone here believes that.
Xon was answering a direct question about thoughts separating from actions, posed by Adrian and re-asked by others, and was offering some background in giving his explanation. I don’t think, by any means, he was assigning this belief to everyone.
But what I have seen plenty of is lots of hemming and hawing about Christianity in general. I’ve read plenty of comments labeling Xon as an ‘extremist’ who isn’t truly representative of Christianity. Odd, considering those making those charges aren’t Christians themselves and, by all accounts, aren’t exactly experts on the religion.
But, relating to this specific instance, I see all this dancing around the issue of how so many folks know ‘real Christians’ don’t really believe this or that. Concerning the thought vs. actions, we see lots of accusations hurled at Xon (which, by the by, are unusual to me considering Xon, a man who has intentions of entering the ministry, has been nothing but respectful and accommodating in this discussion) which label him ‘extreme.’
But if we take a look at Scripture, we see that Xon’s explanation wasn’t really off base.
You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ 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.
- Matthew 5: 27-29
This is where Xon is basing his beliefs and his argument on. It’s not some fanciful and outlandish fringe theory. It’s pretty well-known in our ‘uber-exclusive’ Christian circles.
So, again, I don’t have any problem with you poking fun at Christianity … just admit you’re doing it. Take eponymous for instance - I know up front that he has some strong feelings and some strong criticisms about Christianity, and religion in gneral. He made them known right off the bat when I first began visiting his site, and we’ve had some candid discussions concerning religion and faith and beliefs.
And I respect the hell out of him, and I’d like to think he feels the same about me despite our differing views on faith. But I earned that respect because when he makes a criticism about something I hold dear, I know where it’s coming from and it allows me to understand it better. Thus we are actually able, if we choose to, openly debate it.
Here, I’m just getting wishy-washy sarcasm which is quick to be PC and say ‘well I don’t mean all Christians … just this guy, and that girl, and his mom, and you Xon.’
Let’s be honest … if you don’t like Christianity, then that’s fine. It will enable this to be more open rather than hiding behind some weird third-party critique.
Well you guys, if you’re going to get so upset about it then maybe you shouldn’t read my blog. Yes, the whole thing is SARCASTIC. I said that from the beginning. Being sarcastic, irreverant, and potentially offensive is something I do particularly well (as Jenny and Niki can attest!) I’ve explained what I do and don’t have a problem with but Jmac, it seems like you don’t believe me. I may be a sarcastic bitch, but I’m honest. Here’s some more honesty:
I have no problem with Christianity. What I DO have a problem with is people (Christian or otherwise — but obviously, in this case Christians) who try to impose their beliefs and way of life on others. Somebody has decided to wait until marriage? I’m not going to tell them not to. Likewise no one should tell me my decision not to do so is ‘wrong’.
I’m not making fun of Christianity as a whole. I don’t know how many more times I have to say this. I don’t like the way these guys are co-opting Christianity — and a whole heap of guilt — to express what is simply their opinion. Do I think some of the principles of Christianity (including a lot of the sex stuff) are ridiculous? Yeah, I do. People are free to follow whatever religion they want though, and I’m not here to preach that they shouldn’t.
if you don’t like Christianity, then that’s fine.
Why does everything have to be so extreme? I don’t completely hate all of it or completely love all of it. I think the core foundation of Christianity is wonderful. There’s some other stuff more on the periphery that I’m not so wild about.
I do have some questions/comteplations about the nature of Christianity, forgiveness, etc. that I might post in a separate blog entry at some point. Then you all can fill me in, and I want to listen. I wish you wouldn’t think I’m mocking your whole religion, but if you feel that way I can’t help it.
Jenny pretty much already said everything else I want to say. For all her talk of being busy and sleep-deprived (hmm… that’s familiar) she’s much more eloquent than I am. And Jenny… you should totally go home with that guy from the Kerry campaign. Wait, wasn’t he married? Or was that someone else? Oh, your string of men… ;-) Village whore junky slutbunny! (sorry everybody else; that’s an old-school inside joke)
And finally… this is a blog, after all. A place slightly less personal than a diary, but basically just somewhere for me to rant about whatever I want. I’m not writing a book of my own here. If I were, I would probably say ‘fuck’ a lot less.
At this point I almost wonder if I’ll finish my book reviews. I probably will, since it seems that more people enjoy reading them than those who don’t. But there are like 15 more chapters to do… so we’ll see.
Amber I’ve never said I didn’t enjoy the book reviews, and I’ve never said that I was upset. This whole thing doesn’t offend me. All I pointed out was that much of this ‘discussion’ appears to actually be some criticism of Christian morality. And I have said over and over again that if that is what is truly intended, then that’s fine.
My contention has come in the comments section, and not your actual sarcastic take on this book, where Xon was answering questions posed to him and all of sudden comments and accusations start flying where I felt there was this tenuous line of trying to attack the individual and not the faith.
And I don’t think anyone here has ever indicated that they’re trying to impose their beliefs and values on anyone else. As Xon pointed out, this was a Christian author of a Christian book in the Christian inspiration section intended for Christians to read. If anyone is reading into anything here Amber, it’s you. Xon offers his beliefs and everyone shouts in unison ‘don’t force your values on me!’ … and it’s quite obvious he never did that. It’s also quite obvious that the author of this somewhat silly book was speaking to a particular segment of Christian readers, and it wasn’t intended for you to pick up.
I haven’t once said I didn’t want you to write about this or that you shouldn’t do this. I just asked if this was truly honest. And when I do so, I’m told that I just shouldn’t read if it offends me, despite the fact that it doesn’t and this is just some sarcasm and good old fashioned fun … despite the fact that there is a lengthy discussion consisting of 29 comments in this one section. The point isn’t that you don’t have the right to do this or that you shouldn’t be able to voice any opinions you have, it’s that when someone offers a differing point of view the ‘geez guys, don’t get so worked up … it’s just my blog … I can have a blog can’t I?’
No one said you couldn’t. But seeing this many comments, and seeing how long some of them were, I figured I’d chime in on what I felt I was observing. And all of a sudden, a differing view point has everyone in damage control? And that this is ultimately my problem (what problem it is, I haven’t yet figured out)?
But you have told me that you are being honest and considering that I have known you for some time and have known you to be a good and honest person, I will accept that.
Xon offers his beliefs and everyone shouts in unison ‘don’t force your values on me!’
I don’t think we’re saying that (or at least, I’m not, anyway). I was just pointing out that there are people out there who do try to force their values on others.
I don’t think we’re saying that (or at least, I’m not, anyway). I was just pointing out that there are people out there who do try to force their values on others.
Well, neither I nor the authors of the book are “forcing” our values on anyone else in this discussion. We are trying to explain, and (in the case of the authors) to persuade. But persuasion is not coersion.
So, if nobody who is actually in this discussion (including, indirectly, the authors) is actually trying to ‘force’ their values on others, then why do you keep feeling the need to point out that some people like to do that sort of thing and boy I don’t like it very much? I take it as a given that we all dislike value coersion, and while we’re at it I would also add (as a non-exhaustive list) puppy kicking, cancer, and telemarketers.
So, ahem, back to the conversation that we are actually having (or that I think we are having). Jenny, I have no desire to be jealous over terminology. If you are using ‘repressed’ to mean simply “not dealing with” a particular ‘issue’, then I agree with you that repression is bad. You’ll notice that I have occasionally (though not consistently) referred to ‘funnelling sexual desires into other things’, which is closer to what I would advocate as a general approach to ‘dealing’ with sexual urges that are not leading in a direction you think you should go. So we can all add ‘repression’ to the list of things we all hate, if you like.
We could have a discussion about what is or is not a genuinely ’sexual’ desire, but right now I’ll just observe that your exclusion of pedophilia by definition from sexual desires is rather convenient.
“I’m against feeling bad about your sexual desires.”
“Really? What about pedophilia (or rape)?”
“Oh, see, those aren’t really ’sexual’ desires, but are actually dishonest actions that are motivated by something other than sex.”
This just won’t do within the context of our discussion. Granting your hypothesis that pedophilia (and rape) are actually motivated by something other than sex, they nonetheless clearly constitute ’sexual’ actions. Whether the pedophile is motivated by his own insecurities or by a failure to ‘grow up’ or by his own internal dishonesty, he still ends up putting his penis inside a child. He had something going on ‘inside’ that urged him to do that, and my belief is that he ought to have not followed that urge. You appear to agree with me on that score, and so I say (again) that we agree in principle that some urges (sexual and otherwise) ought not to be followed.
If you say that what was urging him to do this awful thing was his own “dishonesty with himself” then I’m okay with that (per hypothesis), but it doesn’t change the fact that you are still advocating that people should not do sexual acts that flow out of such dishonesty. There are sexual acts that ought not be done (pedophilic acts motivated by dishonest sexuality). And having sex with a child is clearly a ’sexual’ act, in the broadest definition of the term, which is all I’m using.
Again, since I have no desire to haggle over precise words that are used, I have no objection to dropping the word ‘inappropriate’ when it comes to sex. You prefer words such as “constructive” and “pleasant”, and you believe that someone who is simply ‘honest with themselves’ will most likely proceed in a constructive and pleasant way. If they are not so honest with themselves, of course, then the implication is that they may very well fall (oops, is that a Sunday School word?) into ‘unconstructive’ and ‘unpleasant’ activities. If you prefer ‘unconstructive’ and ‘unpleasant’ to ‘inappropriate,’ then so be it.
So, back to this issue of thougths vs. actions and my contention that they cannot be rigidly separated from one another. Jenny said:
And I don’t know whose idea that is. I don’t believe that anyone here is making that argument. The fact that you mention it seems to imply that you think someone here believes that.
People here are making the argument that one of the reasons the authors of this book are silly and worthy of ridicule is because they believe that people must be careful not to indulge some of the sexual thoughts that they have. It has been suggested that this is a recipe for disaster, that this constitutes ‘repression,’ and that it obviously doesn’t make anyone want to be a Christian. How could anyone make this argument without assuming that actions and thoughts are drastically different things, and that thoughts are in general innocent and harmless? This assumption is the only way to make this criticism of ‘The Book’ work. As soon as you grant that some thoughts might be ‘dangerous’–at least if they are acted out in certain ways–then you have in theory agreed to the principle put forth in The Book that people need to be concerned about some of their thougths in addition to their actions.
Now, you still disagree–and very strongly–with the particular thoughts that The Book says we must be concerned about. I also would probably disagree with The Book on this, but would agree with it more than y’all (Amber, Nikki, Jenny, etc.) do. But the principle–that we need to be concerned about some thoughts–is clear and rather uncontroversial, a fact that is made clear by the way you have reacted to my claim that you reject it. “None of us are arguing that.”
Well then, if you are not arguing that, then on what basis can you say that The Book is leading young men down a dangerous and repressive path? It is not enough to say that these sexual desires are just ‘natural’ (a fact The Book–and everyone here–affirms). If you grant that some desires/urges/thoughts are the sorts of things we ought to be concerned about and careful not to act out in certain ways, which apparently you do grant since it is not the case “that somebody here is making that argument” [that thoughts are innocent and never lead to unpleasant consequences], then you cannot make fun of the authors of The Book simply because they believe the same thing.
You can try to point out where they go wrong on some of the specifics, and some of the sarcasm has been aimed at that (and has been quite funny). Something like this, “Here is why the authors of The Book are wrong when they say that fantasizing about someone other than your wife is something that we should be concerned about.” But the reasons you give for that “why” can’t simply be that ‘fantasizing’ is a natural thought-process that everybody has, because (again) you have already granted that some thought-processes (aren’t they all ‘natural’?) are the sorts of things we should be concerned about.
If you say that you have not granted this, then you are back to affirming that thoughts are harmless and actions are all that matters, which is what I originally said you were assuming but which you said you were not assuming. So you can’t have it both ways.
Either make the ‘modern’ distinction between thougths and actions and claim that thoughts simply do not matter, or admit that they do matter and come up with different reasons for laughing at The Book’s view of sexual thougths other than the very fact that it claims that thougths sometimes matter.
The only other matter that seems to still be hanging in the air (unless I’m forgetting something) is the fact that I myself have still not given my own precise view about what Christians should do about the sexual thoughts/desires/urges that they have. But I don’t think this would be relevant to what we are talking about. All I have ever been arguing for is the broad principle that a ‘constructive’ life is a life concerned with thoughts and not just actions. I don’t see why I am obligated to list out my own view of what exactly to do about the many sorts of sexual thoughts/desires/urges that one might come acrosss.
I am not saying this to be stubborn or argumentative, but rather because I really think that such an explanation would only serve to further remove our discussion from its original course. We are not debating our own particular views of sexuality (though Jenny has volunteered this information in some detail on two different occasions now). None of us are surprised to find the ‘conservative Christain’ view and the view generally put forth by Amber, Nikki, and Jenny to be at odds with one other. And nothing of much value would be added if I were to list out my particular view (though I have already hinted at how I think many sexual urges can be dealt with). We would just see, again, that we disagree.
I’m not against disagreements, mind you. There are constructive ways to disagree, of course, and this is why I have been participating in this discussion in the first place. Over matters of principle, I thought it might be worth our while to hash some things out. But on the particular issues of exactly how to deal with sexual urges and desires that aren’t leading in a Biblically-faithful direction, I don’t see how we’re in any position to discuss those things at this point.
So, if nobody who is actually in this discussion (including, indirectly, the authors) is actually trying to ‘force’ their values on others, then why do you keep feeling the need to point out that some people like to do that sort of thing and boy I don’t like it very much? I take it as a given that we all dislike value coersion, and while we’re at it I would also add (as a non-exhaustive list) puppy kicking, cancer, and telemarketers.
Excellent.
I think the authors ARE trying to force their beliefs on other people. Yeah, it was supposedly written for Christians, but anybody can read it. Just because I’m not a Christian doesn’t mean I can’t read it. Plus, if it’s intended for only Christians, you could argue that they’re preaching to the choir (even though they’re probably not, since there are a lot of Christians who I’m sure would disagree with a lot of what they have to say, and the way in which they’re saying it.) You guys should see the way this thing reads.
And in the end… if you think they’re not and I think they are… well, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I think they’re being ridiculous — and that’s where that is.
And just to be even more clear. I don’t think anybody here who has been commeting on this discussion is trying to force their beliefs on anybody. But I think the people who wrote the book are.
I admit that I haven’t read the last handful of comments yet. But…
I just wanted to point out that, as humans, what we think about does impact our behavior. Psychologically, cognitions are actually a form of behavior, and drawing an arbitrary line between thoughts and actions doesn’t negate this fact. What we think drives what we do.
So, if someone doesn’t want to engage in pre-marital sex, it would behoove that person to find something to occupy his or her time other than thinking and fantasizing about sex. This is not the same thing as saying “don’t think about sex, don’t think about sex.”
Or, a second tack would be to think about sex in a way that is consistent with his or her beliefs. You could say that they should just admit that their desires are natural, which they are, but for them, they are trying to hold off on their desire until they find what is an appropriate partner with whom to indulge in the natural. Fantasy and thinking about X, Y, or Z are not necessarily a safe way to stave off actual behavior. For some, fantasizing and masturbating might help. Often though, our thoughts become the catalyst for our overt behaviors.
One more thing — even though I think your characterization of the author as a chauvanist is silly (the lack of writing on women’s feelings doesn’t mean he doesn’t know that women do more than “stare at the ceiling”) the instances you point out speak more to the adolescent male’s point of view than they do the Christian male’s alone. I tend to think that all or most of our male teens think of sex in an unhealthy way — that the girl is there for his pleasure or to be used. Chalk this one up to society at large, magazines, movies, pornography, parents not teaching their kids, or whatever else influences us to believe such bullshit. We are socialized to believe this at large. This is definitely not a Christian idea at all and any Christian who professes this belief is either not reading the Bible or is actively engaging in heresy. God views men and women equal in terms of sexuality. Man is woman’s and woman is man’s.
“I’m against feeling bad about your sexual desires.”
“Really? What about pedophilia (or rape)?”
“Oh, see, those aren’t really ’sexual’ desires, but are actually dishonest actions that are motivated by something other than sex.”
You don’t agree with that, Xon?
I think I answered that question in the paragraphs that follow, Amber.
I’m not trying to be snippy, but rather am guessing that people are tiring of reading post after post on the same merry-go-round. If there is something unclear about what I said in my previous explanation (right after the portion you just quoted), then point it out and I’ll try to clarify.
“I think the authors ARE trying to force their beliefs on other people. Yeah, it was supposedly written for Christians, but anybody can read it. Just because I’m not a Christian doesn’t mean I can’t read it. ”
You can always read the Bible too, but is that forcing a belief on you too?
I think the authors ARE trying to force their beliefs on other people. Yeah, it was supposedly written for Christians, but anybody can read it. Just because I’m not a Christian doesn’t mean I can’t read it. Plus, if it’s intended for only Christians, you could argue that they’re preaching to the choir.
How is writing a book trying to ‘force’ their beliefs on other people? Are you against efforts to persuade others of your point of view?
To me, ‘force’ means men with guns coming to your house and telling you to live a different way, or else. You know, the long arm of the law and all that. Is there some portion of The Book where the authors advocate illegalization of all non-Christian sexual behavior? If so, you haven’t mentioned it. If not, then it’s misguided to say that they are ‘forcing’ their values on you simply by trying to argue in favor of their values.
….
“I believe that people should recycle, and here’s why…”
“Hey, man! Stop forcing your values on me!”
….
Yeah, it was supposedly written for Christians, but anybody can read it. Just because I’m not a Christian doesn’t mean I can’t read it. Plus, if it’s intended for only Christians, you could argue that they’re preaching to the choir
Logically, this is madness. On the one hand, you don’t care whether the authors of The Book were trying to write a book only for Christians, because “anybody” can read it. Somehow just by being able to pick up the book and read it you have now had the authors’ values “forced” upon you (no matter what they even intended). On the other hand, if the authors really are trying to write a book just for Christians, then they are guilty of “preaching to the choir.” IOW, they are guilty of not presenting arguments in an attempt to persuade those outside their circle of beliefs.
So, which is it, Amber? Do you want these authors to offer arguments to try to persuade you, or don’t you? If they do, would you be willing to drop the “forcing their values on me” rhetoric?
Well, I’m kind of tired of trying to argue with you Xon, because apparently everything I say is logical madness or makes no sense or is a contradiction in terms. Maybe that’s the case. I’m no philosopher. I was just trying to ask some probing questions (to use a phrase I hate) about the motivations and intentions of this book, and at the same time basically make fun of it and tear it apart because I think it’s ridiculous.
If there is something unclear about what I said in my previous explanation (right after the portion you just quoted), then point it out and I’ll try to clarify.
So, do you not agree that pedophilia and rape stem from motivations that are not sexual in their nature? Sure, the act itself may appear sexual in nature — but what of the motivations? I’m not a psychiatrist, either, so I’m not going to try to get too deeply into the possible psyche of a pedophile. But the motivations for those who commit these crimes may be things such as abuse in their own past, a psychological disorder, a feeling of powerlessness on their part, psychosis caused by drug use… etc. Very different from the motivations you and I feel when we want to climb into bed with someone. I’m probably not phrasing this the best way possible. Maybe you can deduce my meaning. Or Jenny… maybe you can try to say it more eloquently?
My brain is fried today with bad Chick-Fil-A, too much tea, HTML coming out of my ears, and thiry million IM windows open.
Xon: If there is something unclear about what I said in my previous explanation (right after the portion you just quoted), then point it out and I’ll try to clarify.
Amber: So, do you not agree that pedophilia and rape stem from motivations that are not sexual in their nature? Sure, the act itself may appear sexual in nature — but what of the motivations? I’m not a psychiatrist, either, so I’m not going to try to get too deeply into the possible psyche of a pedophile. But the motivations for those who commit these crimes may be things such as abuse in their own past, a psychological disorder, a feeling of powerlessness on their part, psychosis caused by drug use… etc. Very different from the motivations you and I feel when we want to climb into bed with someone.
Xon: Whether the pedophile is motivated by his own insecurities or by a failure to ‘grow up’ or by his own internal dishonesty, he still ends up putting his penis inside a child. He had something going on ‘inside’ that urged him to do that, and my belief is that he ought to have not followed that urge…If you say that what was urging him to do this awful thing was his own “dishonesty with himself” then I’m okay with that (per hypothesis), but it doesn’t change the fact that you are still advocating that people should not do sexual acts that flow out of such dishonesty.
So, as I said before, I am open to the non-sexual explanation of pedophilic motivations. I’m not a pshychologist either, and I frankly don’t know what motivates most rapists and pedophiles to do what they do. But what they do is clearly sexual, no matter what its motivation. That’s my position.
There are plenty of pedophiles who would argue that what they feel is completely natural and that it is analogous to what a man and woman feel toward each other when they “climb into bed.” They just prefer children. If a child is willing to engage in sexual activities with an adult, and that adult does not coerce the child in any way, then who are you to think badly of them for doing so? Rind, et al. recently published an article that talks about pre-adolescent and adolescent children who have sexual relationships with adults. They concluded that these sexual relationships weren’t harmful in a great number of the cases — especially when the child consented. Does that make it ok? I’ll leave that conclusion up to everyone to make.
So, yeah, probably most pedophiles are driven by sexual urges. They may indeed have abuse in their past, but so do a grand number of porn-stars, strippers, and mail-carriers, probably. Are they wrong for doing what they do because they are driven to do it “because” of their history of abuse? Does that make stripping or acting in porn movies a non-sexual act?
There is a component of sex in all sexual activities. All of the ‘philias’ have sexual components — be it masochism, sadism, fetishism, pedophilia, froteurism, etc. If there wasn’t a sexual component, the underlying etiologies wouldn’t manifest in sexual ways.
There’s way too much to read here. I think I’m going to go reconfigure my own website to use the word filter again, and I’m going to add “antepenultimate” to the list of banned words.
There’s way too much to read here. I think I’m going to go reconfigure my own website to use the word filter again, and I’m going to add “antepenultimate” to the list of banned words.
Yeah, that’s one of those words you pick up when you’re learning the syntax of ancient Greek. Never thought I’d get to use it again, though!
antepenultimate is my new favorite word, replacing apotheosis. I loved penultimate and adding the ante to the front pushed it over!
My question is, can this continue indefinitely? Penantepenultimate? Antepenantepenultimate?
now you’re just being silly.
Anything can happen in the basement of Peabody Hall. Who’s the guy that was always writing 666 on the dog calendar? And why has Prof. Brient (with a basement office) spent so much time in the library lounge?
That guy? His was the post just prior to yours.
You know… the—Oh, that’s just too easy.
I’m in the same baement office as Dr. Brient! What’s going on?
I think that’s the question Adrian was asking you.
I most certainly did not write 666 on the dog calendar. I wrote the caption about the pramatics of insertion between the kittie cat and the big puppy dog.
Unless you meant Mr. X…