SEX - Part III

Posted by Pamela Urfer

As we struggle to find a way of discussing sex at the university level, let’s first distinguish among different types of “sex.” Premarital sex is one issue, and probably the one most of concern to students. Cheating on a spouse is another. Pornography is a third. Homosexuality comes in here somewhere. And then there’s marriage. And divorce.

It’s helpful if we can agree that not all of these are equally horrible and offensive to God. Nor are all sins equal. The Apostle John distinguishes sins that do and do not inevitably lead to death. (1 John 5:16.) And Jesus speaks of the “unforgiveable sin,” implying that whatever it is, is worse than some others he could name. There’s rape, and then there’s the rape of a child. Much worse.

Currently, Christian practice treats divorce as more a disaster than a sin, even though that is not the traditional stance. Nor does this position acknowledge the relative weight of its consequences. More hurt to families and children has happened because of divorce than because of, say, homosexuality (with only 5% of the population participating versus 50%) even though, at this time, disproportionate attention is given to the evils of same-sexuality.

Going back to premarital sex, we must acknowledge that this is no longer the huge problem it once was. For most of history, for a man to have sex with a woman meant the risk of getting her pregnant. If they were not married and he abandoned her, pregnant, both she and the child would suffer – poverty, ostracization, loneliness.

How could that be prevented? Marriage. And if the man were already married? A little late to be thinking about that, but he could still provide financially for her and the child, at least until she found another mate. That would, at least, eliminate societal approbation and poverty. The problem here is that once the man got a woman pregnant, what would prevent him having sex with her again? If he liked her, it would be hard for him to refrain. This, of course, would place his wife and children in a painful situation. Now they would be the ones suffering societal approbation and perhaps poverty, as funds were diverted elsewhere. Thus, it became common to label the woman a whore and exile her from the community, most likely to a brothel.

These were all serious considerations in the days before reliable birth control. And Christian teaching, quite rightly, proposed many and varied restrictions to prevent these ills. Societal care was taken to assure that unmarried persons not be left alone or in “compromising situations.” A woman’s virginity was considered a prize to be claimed only by her legitimate spouse, and a lack of it a hindrance to a respectable married life. Many less than Christian hindrances were also applied: any illegitimate offspring were labeled “bastards” and had a limited chance of succeeding in life, which was thought to encourage restraint. And, of course, the same “outlaw” fate would be visited upon the woman, if usually not the man.

All these concerns and their (partly successful) remedies were dealt a death blow in the 1960s with the invention of the Pill and other preventative devices. Yet, with (much) less worry today about pregnancy, but with the same societal norms holding sway in many communities, new methods of insuring compliance with the still-existing ban of pre-marital sex must be discovered, or invented. Scriptural quotes are invoked, ignoring the fact that pre-marital sex is never mentioned in scripture, only extra-marital sex, as girls were married off as soon as, or before, they became sexually mature. Chastity is held as a high moral goal, creating the need for Chastity Balls and Purity Rings to validate the effort. And I’m sure Christian parents still warn their sons about marrying a girl who has “slept around.”

But which men today are as concerned about female chastity as they were when the status of their male heir could be called into question, or when one episode of pre-marital sex could label their wife-to-be a whore? And which parents really believe that their daughter will never find a good husband if she is not a virgin? Who cares about this sort of thing anymore?

God? Does God care? I’m not sure He does. Scripturally, sexual purity is not a Christian but a ritualistic concept. The Israelites refrained from sexual acts as a preparation for bringing their sacrifices before the altar. Jesus praised the “pure of heart,” not the pure of body. Scripture also says that God’s bottom line is the Great Commandment: to love Him with all our heart, soul, mind and strength, and love our neighbor as ourselves. Loving your neighbor means looking out for their welfare. Pre-marital sex is not necessarily harmful to anyone’s welfare – and might even be good for it.

What do you think?

SEX - Part II

Posted by Pamela Urfer

In my last posting, I mentioned a book, Sex and the Soul, by Donna Freitas, which had been quoted in a recent Newsweek article. In her book, Freitas recommends that college students be given an opportunity to tell the truth about what they want out of relationships, including courtship, romance, intercourse, and abstinence without incurring the derision and wrath of their peers, mentors and campus ministers. Freitas feels that the dominance of the hook-up culture places undue pressure on students and praises “True Love Waits,” an organization at Harvard (and elsewhere) for opening up the discussion.

Under her direction, Freitas’ own students, dissatisfied with the prevailing level of “sex talk” on their campus, decided to publish their own newspaper, one devoted to sex, dating, religion and spirituality. “The purpose was to challenge the sexual ethic on campus with both personal experience and religious wisdom – in the hope of making romance and relationships more meaningful.” The plan worked. Other students told the publishers how they’d spoken truth, said aloud some things they’d thought themselves but were afraid to admit, wrote of feelings they didn’t know anyone else on campus shared, and made them feel less alone.”

Freitas goes on to say that “the students’ stories, discussion, and articles made it painfully clear that hook-up culture does not help young women and men discover the thrill of sexual desire or romantic passion, of falling madly in love and expressing this love sexually. Within hook-up culture, many students perform sexual acts because that’s ‘just what people do.’” Feitas goes on to say that “living within hook-up culture means putting up an ‘I don’t care’ front about behavior, submitting to unwanted experiences, and, in many cases, slowly chipping away at personal standards, expectations, sense of self, and respect for others, until these are sublimated so fully that students almost can’t remember what they were in the first place.” The result of the campus-wide discussion was that a fresh, new approach was made in the area of both sexuality and spirituality.

I realize how difficult it is to start a discussion about sex, especially for those who believe that sex outside of marriage is a sin. But in our culture sex is more than a sin; it’s a contamination. Richard Beck, a Christian psychology professor, says that when he asks his class “Raise your hand if you feel like you spend too much money on yourself?” Every hand goes up. When he then asks, “How many of you aren’t virgins anymore?” No hands go up. But, he says, “there were a lot of nervous faces in the room.”

“Why the reticence? We all know sexual sins are qualitatively different from other kinds of sins, but why are they?” As he explains, “the reason has to do with the metaphorical structure of the sin and its associated psychology. Most sins are understood via ambulatory or performance metaphors. Sins structured this way are ‘mistakes’ or ‘failures.’ We ‘stumble’ and ‘fall.’ But note that there is nothing particularly noxious about falling down. It hurts, but there is no stigma attached to it. Thus, we willingly admit to committing these ‘ambulatory sins.’”

But sexual sins are structured by a different logic, a purity logic. When we fall in sexual sin, we become “polluted” or “defiled.” This brings a strong feeling of revulsion, which, when centered on the self, creates self-loathing and shame. Worse, the logic of contamination implies permanence. You don’t just “get back on your feet” after a contamination sin. You simply experience a self-loathing that is associated with a permanent “taint.”

Is this the situation at UCSC? Are our students bothered and depressed by the dominant sexual norms but feeling powerless to change them? Are they ashamed to admit they have had, or what to have, sex because of the contamination aspect? Do we even know what the students think? Perhaps it’s time to find out.

SEX - Part I

Posted by Pamela Urfer

A few months ago, one of the Newman Center students, Andrea, asked me about organizing a forum on Sexuality and Spirituality. She said:

“I feel that this is an important topic for people of faith, especially since the Christian Church is unwilling to engage in conversation about it. In college people are exploring their sexuality, whether they consider themselves spiritual or not. I think it would be wonderful to engage in conversation that is open and not controlled by leaders who are simply shouting ‘abstinence only’… without a reason why.”

Then, a few weeks ago, an article came out in the Religion page of Newsweek called “Sexual Revolution, Part II” by Lisa Miller. Miller is talking about a recent dispute at Harvard between the True Love Revolution, which supports sexual abstinence as a lifestyle, and feminist students who say that “calling the sexual act degrading to [women] is the complete opposite of feminism.” They say women have the right to have sex with whomever, wherever and however they want. The TLR counted by changing their mission statement to assert that sex outside of marriage is “harmful to both parties,” and that choosing abstinence is “true feminism” which “recognizes the natural characteristics, strengths and abilities of women and seeks to affirm them in this identity.” This position has the feminists up in arms because it raises questions about the goals of the sexual revolution: Does female liberation mean being able to say yes? Or does it mean saying no?

Unfortunately, what might have been a useful discussion has turned acrimonious with hot-headed letters posted in the student newspaper and on message boards throughout campus. Miller thinks this is a shame as she feels TLR is on to something here and admires its ability to articulate students’ dissatisfaction with sex and sex talk on campus. Many students complain that the “hookup culture” is dominant and oppressive. Donna Freitas, author of Sex and the Soul, believes college students are not given an opportunity to tell the truth about what they want out of relationships – desires that include courtship and romance – without drawing the derision of their peers and even their professors.

Their health services hand out condoms and lecture about sexually transmitted diseases. Their friends boast and complain endlessly about hookups real and imagined. “The average college student is miserable about sex. The idea of getting to step away from it is really appealing,” says Freitas. Miller believes that religious groups on campus are missing an opportunity if they don’t invite a more nuanced conversation about sex and help guide students through this modern sexual wilderness. Why not look to religion for some of the most thoughtful analyses of how liberated women and men can reasonably opt out of sex – or, at least, the kind of sex they don’t want to have? Christine Firer Hinze, a theological professor at Fordham University, believes that choosing abstinence can carry a strong counter-cultural message and a vision of personal fulfillment beyond immediate gratification. “A religious viewpoint can point you in a direction that says wholeness, integrity, enjoying life, even being a sensual person, can lead to a kind of fulfillment.” Teaching kids that saying no can feel as good as saying yes – that’s a revolution.

I think Andrea would agree with me that it’s time for us to talk about sex and God in the same breath.