Comments: Some Issues in Human Sexuality

From Fraser's piece:
"I am disinclined to take moral lessons about sex from anyone who does not seem to appreciate that sex is sexy."
AMEN! At the same time, I am disinclined to accept moral _or_ political arguments---from putative Christians---who do not bother to _deconstruct_ "sex" : that it begins, in committed relationships, as acts of LOVE, and not just an itch-scratching. I think that the fracas over gays comes from objectifying gay sex, but I think that that in turn results from a bass-ackwards objectifying of _all_ sex.
Why can't people get it through their heads, that _when you love someone, you want to please them_, and that often (though by no means invariably) _pleasing them takes the form of touching them_ ---in ways that prompt physical pleasure and release? And also sharing in that pleasure together? Bringing joy to the beloved is a highpoint of being human, but is easily missed in the grunts, giggles and guffaws (and much grouchiness of late) that we bring to the word "sex". Something far more profound than is expressed by words like "homosexual" or "heterosexual". Yes, sex has its coarser, or strictly physiological side (e.g. the Cycle of Arousal), where it may be little more than itch-scratching. Yes, it can be lots of "fun". But if Christians are not going to hold up to the world what relationships can be, and how physical pleasure is a rich and meaningful part of them, who will?
This isn't "Sex 101". It's "Love 101". And for a religion where love is what we're supposed to be known by (ala the 1960s hymn), Christians have shown precious little understanding of it (and even less practice).

Posted by J. Collins Fisher at Saturday, 15 November 2003 at 8:31am GMT

Sexuality is a bigger concept than 'sex', And it represents a deep and basic expression of what and who we are. Our sexuality is expressed in how we dress and talk and think of ourselves. But human sexuality is also a kind of power and that brings it into the realm of politics. That individuals should express themselves sexually in any sort of consumer fashion which appeals to them is not a new idea but it is now being put forward as a basic right. Somehow Christian tolerance is supposed to write a blank check for this sort of consumerism ? Sexuality being human is liable to all sorts of pathologies, evidenced in behaviour which ranges from bullying to manipulating, controlling, seducing, betraying etc. But the sheer fashion and sentiment of our time seems to cloak the pathology of sexual consumerism in an aura of romantic freedom. I marvel at this myopia.

Posted by Jay Wilson at Wednesday, 24 December 2003 at 5:19am GMT

Having just ploughed through the whole of 'Some Issues in Human Sexuality', I am a little dismayed that 'the whole sweep of Scripture' much vaunted by those who wish to dissociate themselves from 'proof texts' (as I would too) amounts to no more than this - God's will for humanity is revealed in the 'marriage' of Adam and Eve. All other kinds and varieties of relationship, all revelations from experience or possible inspirations of the Spirit are weighed in the balance of Adam and Eve's 'permanent' (not a lot of choice), 'exclusive' (ditto), man-and-woman (ditto) relationship. That the modern Anglican church should put so much literalist faith in a story which is meant to be a metaphor is, frankly, disappointing and a bit shocking. I had honestly thought better of my church. Is anybody else who has read SIIHS similarly struck, or have I, perhaps, read the text wrongly?
I'd be interested to hear from others.

Posted by Alis Hawkins at Monday, 26 January 2004 at 9:23pm GMT