Contemporary Sexuality
Recently I have been cogitating over the place of sex in the life of the unmarried christian male. It has been both stimulating, interesting and challenging.
Consider the way Britney Spears was originally presened. She was presented as a young and innocient girl, a "heidi" like persona. Also consider the heroine's more recently portrayed by Anne Hathaway in Ella Enchanted and Princess Diaries one and two. Now juxtapose that with the more modern presentation of Spears as well as for instance, the heroine presented in Dark Angel or any one of the more "sexy" heroine's we are so often bombarded with, often wearing very little and normally very rough and ready (Elektra, Catwoman, your average model photo etc).
The one presentation is of a young, sweet, innocent, delicate young maiden who has a beautiful smile, who never wears anything above the knee or with a plunging neck line and to whom a peck on the cheek is a big deal. The other is of a sexually charged, over indulged almost animal like woman ready to meet the world with her sexuality. The kind of woman who is way past innocent foreplay and has all the sexual experience in the world. Society will tell you this woman is growing up, and moving into new phase of her life when she is expressing herself sexually.
Now, which do you prefer? Which of the above is more appropriate or "proper?". That would have to depend on your moral view point. You see the former still sees love as a non sexual concept. She does not require a good "lover" because adeptness in bed is not what she's looking for. A kind word and a bunch of flowers would impress the former. The latter however, is looking for a good time sexually. She assesses her men based on their sexual ability rather than any other gentlemanly qualities they may have.
I must admit that I would far rather have the former. That is the kind of woman I am looking for. Now, before you cry foul and run me out of town because I am "not letting the woman express herself", or I'm being chauvanistic because I'm demanding that she "not express herself sexually", or not enjoy "sexual freedom". The constraints I'm placing on the woman are exactly the same constraints I place on myself. Being a christian I have promised to remain a virgin until marriage; a christian also views sex in a sacred light. Sex was created for marriage in order that a married man and woman can enjoy ultimate intimacy. The christian approach to sex is that it is to please the marriage partner. Therefore, sex for pleasure outside of marriage, or for my own gratification is not acceptable.
Modern society has made sex a commodity. As my friend mentioned, sex is being demythologised to the point where it becomes as normal as any other bodily function, like blowing your nose. Doing the deed becomes as normal as riding a roller coaster.
Everyone concerned might think that we are better off now than we were before. Problem with that is that it is difficult to prove. The two approaches to sex are mutually exclusive. The other issue is that a decision to go with the latter can be made earlier because it allows gratification now. It does not require marriage for its fullfilment.
The world would however, be a better place, if sex was put back in its rightful place. There would be far more romance, far healtheir relationships. I think people would in general, be happier as well. Sex is supposed to be something magical and mysterious, that's how it was created, and not something as regular as eating.
posted by Michael Wiles at 12:45 pm
6 Comments:
Good post. You seem to have hit the nail on the head about the commoditization of sex in the sense that it is used massively to sell things, from music to movies to cars, clothes, whatever. I don't think this is new, but certainly it is more common now, and it changes people's views of sex in general.
Chesterton wrote: "Keeping to one woman is a small price for so much as seeing one woman. To complain that I could only be married once was like complaining that I had only been born once. It was incommensurate with the terrible excitement of which one was talking. It showed, not an exaggerated sensibility to sex, but a curious insensibility to it. A man is a fool who complains that he cannot enter Eden by five gates at once. "
The point is that we devalue the gift by engaging in it outside of the place where it was intended to be enjoyed - in the marriage relationship. And I don't think it's just devaluing it - it will actually in the long run decrease the pleasure derived from it. God knows what's best for us more than we do - we should trust to His judgement. I do think that it is difficult to keep up this standard (meaning not just remaining a virgin but keeping your views of sex so lofty) with the world as it is because we are being assaulted by the media and people all the time with the opposite opinion and it becomes easy to devalue the sanctity of sex.
The ironic thing however - I was reminded of this when I watched "Ella Enchanted" again - is that there is still a place for Love. There is still a place for that innocent, unadulterated, pure and sweet love. Like the love between Ella and Prince Char.
Okay... maybe it can only happen in the fairy tale, or when the woman is still young and naive.
No, don't get me wrong - I think it is fully possible. When one person loves another in the true sense, that Love doesn't involve anything physical, or else it's not Love. Take away whatever physical intimacy there is and Love will still be there. If it isn't, it wasn't Love in the first place, but a confused mix of lust and love. A relationship that is not confused in this way is the best of all.
All I was saying is that I think it's rare in this world, even among Christians. A lot of Christians don't maintain virginity until marraige and the liberal values of the world seem to seep in everywhere. So the chances of meeting and being attracted to someone who feels the same way you do is low. But then again, the chances of meeting someone, falling in love and then later getting married seem low to begin with (to me) and yet people seem to do it all the time.
You're simply a romantic, as am I, and there's nothing wrong with that. Certainly, desiring that perfect relationship which in one's mind is always pure and sweet and where physical intimacy is only added after marriage vows, is, I think, perfectly normal, and isn't only the stuff of fairy-tale. It most certainly takes two people with those same ideals and a certain strength (and Grace) to achieve though. It is both valuable and right, and because of this, it is worth striving for.
It would be interesting to see how many people actually experience the love we're talking about. In other words, do they marry because this person lights up their world? or do they marry because they've been going out for like 5 years, and it's the next logical thing to do. I don't know.
I do think that a lot of marriages that are more then say 5 years old don't _look_ like they married for love, because there's not a lot of love left. One of the contributing factors here could be that the the "love" side of things lost out to the physical.
I don't agree with the comment that true Love is love that does not involve sex, as if sex is somehow a bad thing.
Rather, within Christian marriage sex is the appropriate for a couple to express their love. God made sex, and a reading of Song of Songs will show that God thinks its a good thing.
And that is where the worlds view and a godly view of sex are oppossed. The world's view is of sex as just another bodily function, scratching an itch, whereas the godly view sees it as exciting, enchanting, powerful, and having an appropriate place, appropriate boundaries, and appropriate expression.
So true love will wait, but sex is part of marriage.
Otherwise what exactly does one flesh mean?
There is a neo-gnostic view of sex which views it as evil. Many of the Victorians subscribed to this, to the point where women where told to endure sex rather than enjoy it, and there was a neurotic fear of referring to anything sexual; skirts for curved table legs in case they caused young men to lust, versions of the bible with any reference to sex cut out.
That view, based on a Platonic/gnostic aversion to matter is evidently the work of Satan. And it sets up the consequent reaction, which we are experiencing today.
Andrew
I don't think either of us has said that sex within marraige is a bad thing - in fact my view is the same as yours - it is for a couple to express their love and become more intimate in a way that's not possible without the physical union.
I said "A relationship that is not confused in this way is the best of all." I was meaning a relationship that is not a marriage relationship. I think involving physical love in a relationship would confuse your feelings, emotions and make it more different to discern your true feelings for one another. I think there needs to be a period where a friendship is built up before your marraige so that you are able to open up to each other sexually. Doing that from the start will likely cause pain, rejection and guilt. Inside marraige is a whole different story - it's obvious that's where sex was designed to be both enjoyed and beneficial.
Post a Comment
<< Home