April 27, 2008
Okay, so I’m a bit tired of the kink series myself, so I’m going to switch gears. For May, I’m going back to some basics and I’ll be looking at the connections between sexuality and spirituality with a more spiritual focus.
I welcome any questions you have, please e-mail them to askthemonkquestions@gmail.com
See you back here soon!
April 13, 2008
Continuing down the list…
8. Dressing up/roleplay
This one is actually surprisingly tricky. As Rob Bell was fond of saying in his book ‘Sex God’, “This is about that.” Sexual fantasies, God love them, have a sometimes bafflingly broad spectrum. Any appetite is like to inspire some daydreaming. Sex fantasies are equivalent to food cravings; they often nag until satisfied, they can be a barometer of the health of one’s appetite, and they get weird when pregnant women are involved.
Preggers big-love aside, there is a very important similarity between fantasies and cravings: exposure. No farmer in Germany during the middle ages ever got a craving for raw squid and avocado surrounded by white rice, wrapped in seaweed and topped with wasabi. (Which is delicious, by the way.) Why? Because he had no idea that sushi existed or, more like than not, that any of those ingredients existed. You don’t get hunger cravings for food you don’t know exists. In fact, have you ever gotten a craving for food you’ve never tasted?
Sex fantasies, I believe, work on the same principle: you have to know it’s out there to want it. If that is true, then roleplaying will always be derived from some aspect of your own life experience. Since sex is all about intimacy, the elements of your sexual development should be shared between spouses. If your first crush was a teacher or you got the pretty nurse when you broke your arm in middle school, those would be perfectly healthy fantasies as an adult. If you lack the gift of contenance, the occasional whig, accent or “that’s not me” article of clothing on your spouse may do you quite a lot of good.
However, it is important not to forget yourself in sex. When roleplaying it is possible to become, in many respects, someone else. Sex needs to always be you and your spouse, the more of you there is involved, the better. Also, I think it’s very unwise to pursue a sexual fantasy without knowing where it came from. Some people, in day-to-day life, need a certain amount of risk to be interested and others are terrified of risking anything ever. In both cases, an element of danger from a “getting caught” fantasy to a rape fantasy could aide your intimacy. If you want the danger element because you’re attracted to the idea of “dirty” sex, you should avoid it.
The fantasies that you engage in, should be an expression of self. Either the person you feel you are or the person you want to be. Some fantasies, however, distort what sex ought to be. For instance, while I do not oppose the use of sex toys, I would oppose using them to indulge a gang-bang fantasy. If a woman wants her husband to be rough or to bind her because she wants to feel that he possesses her; that’s wonderful. This is an expression of wanting to feel unconditional belonging and/or a positive reaction to that one part of the Edenic curse. On the other hand, if she wants to be punished because she really wants to do bad things or because she feels she deserves punishment for something she did or a certain way she is; this is a bad sign.
Also, this shouldn’t be taken as an opportunity to play out your lusts for someone other than your spouse. For those lacking sexual continence, or “Akrasians” to borrow from the Greek, the eye does not wander because they are unsatisfied with their spouse in a specific way (i.e. she’s not pretty enough or he doesn’t listen enough) or they think about sex in terms of conquests. Those people are not Akrasian, they are merely dissatisfied or players. If you are truly Akrasian, you don’t think in terms of superiority (“I like her hair better than my wife’s”), you just like variety (“Blond is as nice as brunette is as nice as red hair”); but you may like it enough to cheat. In these cases, as I said before, adopting that variety will be a good thing because these variations have nothing to do with the Selfness of the spouse; the spoon doesn’t change, just the soup.
That whole “same spoon” thing has to stay firmly in your mind when you take on roleplaying. Emphasizing different parts of your personality or exploring the person you’re afraid to be is fine, this is still you and your values. Do not let yourself or your spouse become someone else or entertain the person you’d be if you weren’t a believer.
April 3, 2008
Okay, continuing down the list of kinks, I’ve got some easy ones this time around.
4. Sexy toys/vibrators
Most anyone that would disapprove of these will base their decision on one of two things. Either a) they believe that masturbation is a sin (the Pope, I’m looking in your direction) or b) they think it’s unwise because you may like it more than “real” sex with your spouse. To start, masturbation is not a sin, lust is. It is possible to just throw your mind into the physical pleasure of masturbation and be none the more sinful for it.
Remember that the sex drive is an appetite, lust is not the same as feeling hungry, or even dwelling on the hunger. Lust is behind “as soon as Steve isn’t looking, I’m grabbing his french fries” or “I’m going to eat this asparagus, but I’m going to pretend it’s chocolate cake.” Lust is the willing desire for sexual relations you have no right to, ergo it always has a specific object in focus (real or imagined). Without a specific object, it’s just hunger.
So, if you’re flying solo, and enlist the assistance of an inanimate object, as long as you are focusing on the actual physical sensations, and not pretending it’s James McAvoy, you’re fine. Also, if someone enjoys watching their spouse make themselves come, toys could be quite helpful. Now, what if the vibrator owns what the husband can only rent? First, we must remember that “different” does not always mean “better,” more likely, it just means different. Christians should not feel constricted to the short set of sexual experiences dictated by their spouse’s physique. The point of intimacy is not just to share in each other, but to share with each other. You ought to be sharing each other’s orgasms as much as you’re giving each other orgasms (it’s like the difference between listening and hearing).
It doesn’t matter which appendage, toy, or orrifice your spouse uses to make you come, what matters is that your mind unites that pleasure with its image of them. At its core, sex is all about unity. The pleasure, the privacy, and the populating are just the road you walk, unity is the destination; if a bike gets you there sooner, be sure to wear a helmet (I’m told that “apple” and “bluebird” are affective).
5. Shaving off all pubic hair
If anal is a kink, then I suppose oral is, too. There are fewer oppositions to oral than anal; the gross factor is significantly less. Since anal is fair game, oral is certainly on the menu. If it comes down to matter of reccomendation, I’m in strong favor of cunnilingus being in every husband’s top five maneuvers, while I regard fellatio as an icing.
At any rate, there is no opposition to shaving the pubic regions in the Bible, and I’d reccomend it for two reasons. 1) It would make oral sex much more pleasant and 2) a well-kept garden is easier on the eyes than a weed lot.
6. Sex outdoors
The obvious objection is that you lack privacy, which is valid (no one should be watching you have sex with your spouse and if anyone pulls a “not even God?” on that one, I’m going to assume you know why it’s stupid and ignore it). However, the Bible draws strong connections between nature and the outdoors and sex. Honestly, what could be a more appropriate environment for sex than creation itself?
I’m separating sex outdoors from exhibitionism. If you and your spouse find a nice and deserted spot of forest or even have a sufficiently high fence ‘round the backyard, no reason not to go au naturalle and indulge your natural instincts (mind some sunscreen). If exhibitionism is your aim, your spouse ought to be your only audience. In cases where the extra audience got admittance without your knowledge, you are not at fault. Chalk it up to experience and keep dancing.
7. At least kissing someone of the same gender
Homosexuality is off the table, I’m sorry. I know some believers have engaged in same-sex kissing as a kind of satire or an obscure irony. Personally, I think that’s begging for temptation, if not a flat cover-up of your real desires. So, it’s right out as a bedroom activity and highly inadvisable as a joke.
April 1, 2008
Okay, so lacking any inspirations of late, I’ve decided to address kinky sex and where I think Christians ought to land on the subject. Put quite simply, I’m for it. On the mystic level, sex is the wedding vow. You can’t get more physically intimate than the good old missionary position, you really can’t (unless you have scars or something that you’re really sensitive about, but you catch my drift). You are vulnerable, exposed. In perfect intimacy, everything is laid open, bare and nothing is off limits.
Don’t misunderstand me on that one; once you’re in the club, nothing is off limits, but there is a morality bouncer. I’ve searched for a sufficient metaphor on this one and I’m blank so far. Here is what I keep coming back to:
Some things ought to be a certain way, if they are not, they ought not.
The universe has an order, our bodies are perfect example of this. Blood, bile and acid all work in our favor, but only when they are where they are supposed to be. Watch almost any episode of ‘House’ and they never get in a bigger rush than when some fluid is going where it doesn’t belong. There is no getting around that you’re only supposed to have one living person in that club with you and they’ve gotta be of the opposite sex.
I understand that the love a lesbian woman feels for another lesbian is as real as what a straight man feels for his wife. Honest, I really do get that. There is a tragedy in homosexual love for me. For all its sincerity, it is invalid and there is just no getting around that.
An equal tragedy is that almost everything beyond the missionary position has gotten this “worldly” taint thrown on it. That two Christians can carry on a lifetime of sexual interaction and never explore the most obvious of variations is mind-boggling to me. So, I want to address some sexual “kinks” from the Biblical perspective that I hope I approach all things with. Not really knowing where to start, I asked my atheist, kinky sex expert friend, TBK, for her list of must-tries. This way I’d get a mix of acceptable and unacceptable behaviors and, hopefully, get some suggestions in the comments for gaps to fill in for later posts.
Without further ado…
1. Anal play
Many people, myself included, are put-off by the very idea. I mean, this is pretty much the least sanitary part of our bodies. (I’ve often wondered why God chose to put our excretions in with our genitals; no answer, so far.) The counter argument is that anal play, including penetration, feels absolutely amazing (once you get used to it).
On the sanitation issue, I’ll just say that urine is no worse than excriment and let you sort that one out yourself. There are no Biblical allusions to heterosexual anal play and none of the principals of proper sex are infringed upon by anal play itself. So, while I wouldn’t put it on my personal recommendation list, it’s fair game from the God corner.
2. Threesome
Straight for the jugular. Thanks, TBK.
Because there are only two sexes, any threesome neccessarily will have something, at least, akin to homosexuality. Ergo…. There could be a counter argument made that, since the Old Testament seems to condone polygamy of the MFF variety, two wives pleasuring their husband without attending each other would be good and right. Ten years ago, this wouldn’t be worth considering, but polyamory is a growing phenominon and since God’s view of marriage is not constrained by our government’s, there’s a very real possibility that some believers may set themselves up in the Isaac way.
Polyamory is a big issue that I’ll have to come back to. However, the end is that there’s no way to have a threesome without crossing the homosexual line. Categorically, it’s out.
3. Tying and being tied up
A little light bondage… where to start? Bondage on any level has been thuroughly covered in the image of dirty deviance. While any sexual activity that uses pain as a facilitator for pleasure is off the Christian table, bondage does not mean whips. Partner A is restrained, hand-cuffs are popular but silk scarves would work just as well. (As they say in the Coast Guard: If you can’t tie a knot, tie a lot.)
I’m all for bondage, within certain parameters (no injury, avoid pain). I’d even encourage it for couples who have been married for a while. Being bound brings in whole new levels of trust. You are helpless in the hands of your spouse and now they are going to deliver incredible pleasure. If that doesn’t make you feel closer, you’ve got real problems. Intimacy is all about trust, sex is intimacy incarnate, so maintaining trust in the bedroom is absolutely key to maintaining a healthy marriage.
Okay, that’s all for now. Please comment, more to come.
March 30, 2008
I know I’ve been delinquent on posting this week (or two, I haven’t been counting). This month has presented me with some trials that I haven’t done too well in. It’s hard to feel right in advising when my own walk is stumbling. However, I’ve got a new post coming this week and, until then, here’s a devotional poem I wrote.
HYMN TO CHORUS
Watching her hands to keep us in time
We wait for her rhythm to awaken our love
Hoping our souls will be saved by her rhymes
Entering, filed in our sleep-walking lines,
Coffee cups and NIVs, we feel pious enough
Watching her hands to keep us in time
Standing, in pockets of unison, at her sign
We lift our eyes to the noteless words above
Hoping our souls will be saved by her rhymes
Singing someone else’s love song to the divine
Our effortless eloquence remains something rough
Watching her hands to keep us in time
Alone in our silence, we pass the false wine
Listening for what our body and blood are barren of
Hoping our souls will be saved by her rhymes
We are an audience rehearsed and refined
With choreographed gratitude and well-scripted love
Watching her hands to keep us in time
Hoping our souls will be saved by her rhymes
March 12, 2008
Sin is a really tricky subject. Many people shy away from Christianity, specifically, because of this supposed list of “don’ts” that churches wave about. I mean, there’s some really fun stuff on those lists. When one is dedicated to the avoidance of sin, it is very easy to make for yourself a religion of guilt, lacking the mercy and glory that true religion bestows. When one becomes dedicated to the abolition of sin, you are bound to fall into “legalism” (a Christianese word refering to the practice of putting words into God’s mouth). The thing that is most appaling about legalism is that it always ends up chasing gateway activities; things like dancing, drinking and rock n’ roll, which supposedly lead to actual sins, making them just as bad.
Imagine a castle town. You have the big royal castle in the middle, with peasanty buildings surrounding it, and it’s all bordered by a wall. Now, it’s being invaded… by SIN (buh buh buh bum!). As anyone who saw ‘The Two Towers’ knows, you put archers on top of the wall and hold off the hand-to-hand combat until the Orcs break through the wall with an Olympic torch. What I’ve seen in the lives of far too many Bible-toting pew leeches is this legalist approach where, when the walls are under siege, they send the soldiers out in front of the wall. They actually protect the wall instead of letting the wall protect them. Then something goes really wrong and the next thing you know, the castle is demolished and all of the thatched roof cottages are on fire; the walls, however, look emaculate.
So, here is the real heresy of legalism: one spends so much time keeping sin out of their actions (being my metaphorical wall) that what goes on in secret, in the mind and heart and behind the closed door, goes undefended. This is where all of that hypocrisy comes from. Now, in my metaphor, the walls ought to protect the city and if the walls are actions, how do our actions prevent sin?
I noted two approaches to sin already: avoidance and abolition. Both of these approaches are bad for the same reason: they focus on the sin. True religion is not a prison sweeping its searchlights about for crime and uncleanness. True religion is a rock face; you are at the bottom and righteousness is at the top. Every day you go out and try to climb it. Each failure teaches you that you need this thing and need to lose that thing. In time, you get ropes and harnesses and carabiners, you’re eating healthy and working-out before you climb. The point is getting to the top and everything that gets in the way gets left behind (also, you’ll never make it to the top without the aide of all that fancy equipment, not with all those injuries you sustained climbing too high without a rope).
True religion is all about keeping your eyes on righteousness and regarding sin as an obstacle to be overcome and forgotten.
March 7, 2008
On a number of occasions, people have asked for me to give my thoughts on Leviticus 15. It is a problematic chapter for them, specifically the latter half. Basically, what it says is that if a man ejaculates, everything the semen touches is “unclean”. If a couple have sex, they are “unclean”. And a woman is “unclean” during and seven days following her menstruation. I think I am right in saying that it is the term “unclean” that creates the problem. Just to clarify, this is ceremonial uncleanliness. Whilst unclean, you can’t offer a sacrifice or participate in a couple other religious ceremonies. That’s it. While basic pre-soap sanitation is at work, if you read the whole book; most people would spend most of their time being unclean. Unclean, by Levitical law, is almost the norm. The point of this is not to make you dirty and wicked, it’s to make the ceremonies special. The point is that cleanliness requires special effort, going out of your way, in a word: preparation. Levitical law is not meant to point us towards our flaws, but to God’s perfection. Sacred ceremonies required personal preparation which was meant to be a time of meditation upon the act you are preparing for. Think of religious ceremonies as a date. You put on your nice clothes, use special perfume/cologne, you’re on specific behaviors. You prepare for a date by making yourself presentable. This does not mean your jeans and t-shirt are shameful or anything, it means that the date is a special time that deserves special attention. The same is true of religious ceremonies; Levitical law is just the prescription for getting gussied-up for God.
February 24, 2008
You know you need a nap when talking to the girl at the grocery store distracts you so thoroughly that you try to leave with out paying. Yeah… that was a first. Okay, funny stories about sleep deprivation… go!
February 22, 2008
I was editing my site and came across this old post I wrote
http://www.thebeautifulkind.com/2006/10/24/what-would-jesus-do/
What do you think about Jesus? What do you think about these lines from the bible? What’s your response?
-The Beautiful Kind
Dear TBK,
That’s an impressive list of allegations (I guess that’s the right word). I’ll just warn you right off, some of my responses are going to be painfully academic, but I’ll keep it as spiritual as I can without doing the subject injustice.
For those what didn’t visit TBK’s site, the short version is that, using cannon scripture, TBK has put together a 15 point list of Jesus’ short-comings. Now, I’m going to take the defense by the numbers.
#1. (Relevant scripture: Luke 9:59-62) There are people who have actually interpreted this as a command to not bury their dead. This interpretation went out round about the same time as the Black Plague; odd timing, you think? What Jesus asks the two men in this passage is to take on a new life. By saying “Follow me,” Jesus was saying “come away and learn to imitate me. Be as much like me as possible.” Both these guys accepted but wanted to take care of one last thing before hand. They wanted to wrap up their old life before starting their new one. This story is about the transition between Believer and non-believer. To follow Christ must mean an immediate break from your old life. It’s harsh, but considering that Jesus, being God, was responsible for your very existence, it’s not all that unreasonable.
#2. (Luke 6:29b) TBK: “He’d tell you that if someone steals $5 from you, to give them $10. WTF?”
Not exactly, he’d tell you that if someone stole $5, don’t stop him from taking $10. Slight difference. Here’s how the logic works: everything a man has, including his skin and his job, God gave him or allowed him to have. So, and this mostly only applies to God’s followers, if someone steals $5 from you and you actually need that $5 for something, God will provide you with another $5. Therefore, it’s not worth fighting over. God does not want his people fighting in the private sector (cops and soldiers are different because governments are allowed to do some stuff private folk aren’t).
#3. (Luke 6:29a) Sort of. The “smiting on the cheek” thing was actually an ancient Hebrew insult. Sort of like flipping someone off, only way worse and much more to the point. This more about verbal than physical abuse.
#4. (John 2:1-4) I love this story. Water into wine, baby! Anyway… Jesus dissing his Mom. At this point in Jesus’ life, his Mom knows he can perform miracles, which is what she asks him to do. However, he hadn’t started his public ministry yet; timing is a big deal with Jesus. When he says “what have I to do with thee?” the Middle English translates better as “Why are you asking me to get involved?” Which he immediately follows with “My time has not come yet.” Read verse 5, Mary ignores him and tells the servants to do whatever Jesus tells them to. And what does Jesus do? He does what his Mom wanted him to do.
#5. (Matt. 15:21-28) This is another one of those timing things. Strictly speaking, the religion of the Jews was just for Jews until around 40 A.D. (Acts 10:9-16) There were Gentiles who got in well before that (most notably Rahab, the prostitute from Jericho, and Ruth, the Moabite, who are both great-grandmothers of Jesus), but for the most part, the Gentiles were SOL. This one woman, though, displayed the faith which made her one God’s children; because she was in the family, Jasus healed the daughter.
#6. Yep.
#7. “He’d be sexist. No woman was a disciple and no woman would sit at his table in heaven.”
When Jesus called his disciples it was a “drop what you’re doing and walk around Israel with me for three years.” In that culture, women couldn’t do that. If nothing else, there’s no way people would believe that Jesus wasn’t having sex with these women. There were times when they all slept under the stars, zero privacy. Female disciples would have ham-stringed Jesus’ ministry. It was the culture that was sexist, not Jesus. As for Jesus’ table in Heaven, I direct you to Revelations 19:6-8.
#8. Yep.
#9. (Matt. 17:17) Jesus told his disciples to go around healing people. However, because they doubted his power, they couldn’t heal this one guy. The night before this happened, the disciples saw Jesus “transfigured” and talking to Moses and Elijah. If any Jew wanted proof that Jesus was God’s son, that should’ve done it. So, if he’d done tons of signs and miracles in front of you and you still weren’t convinced; yes, he would get mad and yell at you.
#10. The way that Jesus lived was actually not unusual for a spiritual leader. Prophets had lived this way for centuries and many rabbis did the same. It was a well accepted cultural practice.
#11. (Matt. 21:19-22) This is an object lesson, Jesus was fond of them. The fig tree had leaves and should have been bearing fruit, but it didn’t. Jesus curses the tree then talks about faith. The leaves are like calling yourself a Christian and the fruit is like actually having faith in Christ. If you claim to be a Christian, but don’t actually believe, you get cursed like the fig tree. No posers!
#12. Jesus is God. Real life, created heaven and earth, all-knowing, all-powerful being, God. He decides to make himself human, albeit temporarily, and be subject to human rule so that he could save all humans from Hell. Which part of that doesn’t sound meek? And he had to tell us he was God or we wouldn’t have believed in him, or the salvation of the crucifixion. Jesus actually tried pretty hard to keep his whole lineage under wraps until the time was right (which not too long before he died).
#13. (John 7:2-14) Jesus wasn’t being devious, he just wasn’t telling everyone who he was. He didn’t deny who he was, just didn’t advertise it. Reason #1: the Jews were trying to kill him! He was keeping a low profile because it wasn’t the right time to be executed. Reason #2: He wanted to make a point about his teachings, check out John 7:16-30.
#14. Unfortunately, without specific instances of these traits, I can’t answer them. However, I have read the Gospels through multiple times and can’t think of any times those got exhibited.
#15. Yep.
Send your Jesus, faith and Christianity questions to askthemonkquestions @ gmail.com
February 13, 2008
The standing philosophy, as any graduate of a Bible College knows, is that sex has no place at all in the life of the single Christian. The logic being that sex is a marital act and, therefore, has no place outside of a married relationship. Which works as long as all we’re talking about is intercourse. However, the contemporary thought, fearing the sin of lust, is to remove even sex in the abstract from the single’s life. This idea that purity equals naivete. The result of this approach is that Christians too often find themselves totally unprepared for sex when the proper time comes or (and I’m not entirely sure which is worse, for reasons I’ll explain) they are overcome with basic human curiosity and “jump the gun”.
I say I’m not sure which is worse because, in the first case, while there’s no sin in being even abjectly unprepared for your honeymoon, the fall-out is that these Christians bring an element of shame to their marriage bed which further silences them on the subject, damages the marriage (contributing to divorce rates), lends creedance to the belief that multiple partners is nessa to be good in bed (a stumbling block to many), reinforces the stereotype that good sex ends at marriage (yet another big stumbling block), and hamstrings a major part of our understanding of God. Yep. Insufficient sex ed is, in my belief, the #1 root of Christian divorces.
Our culture leaves little to the imagination, so the issue isn’t one of Tab-A-Slot-B. Because our world is saturated in the sweat of the heaving breasts that sell us everything from wonder-bras to web-hosting, a mechanical understanding of sex is not enough for the Christian. I’m talking about a philosophical education, here; attitudes, not anatomy. We are coming to bed with God’s rules and the world’s opinions. To illustrate…
Imagine you’re making dinner for a nine-year-old’s birthday. So, you take free-range, boneless, veinless, etc. chicken breast, wrap it with slices of corn-fed ham smoked and marinated to knee-weakening perfection, topped with a sauce of emmental cheese cultured in the heart of Berne, seasoned evenly with young basil and just a hint of cinnamon; and, on the side, a serving of perfectly ripened macintosh apple circles in an oh-so-lite cherry sauce. It’s a dinner that will (or ought to) make a grown man cry. You present the meal to our nine-year-old and his reply is “I wanted a Happy Meal.” A proper Happy Meal, mind you, none of this ‘healthy alternative’ nonsense. He wants that processed and colored chemical pancake old Ronald calls a hamburger with over-greased, under-salted french fries and a Coke (the devil’s drink). Remember being a kid and wanting Happy Meals? Remember why you wanted them? THE TOY! Culinary choices being made by factors that have no relation with the food itself!
Victoria’s Secret commercials have about as much to do with the real purpose of sex as a Hot Wheels car has with the flavor of your McNuggets. If God’s purpose for sex was a car, physical pleasure would be the doors (I’m picturing a Delorian, here, FYI) and procreation the trunk (hatch-back, if you’re Baptist). Given the current state of popular Christian sex ed, honeymooners are prepared to do little more than climb in the front seat, grab the steering wheel and yell “Vroom” (or whisper “zoom zoom” licentiously, their pick). After they’ve gone hoarse, they may discover there’s a key in the ignition, turn it and, if they are very lucky, teach themselves to drive without totaling their Delorian.
I’ve heard tales of male seminary students calling their mothers on their honeymoon, so ill-equipped were they. That’s not even the worst-case scenario. At least, that guy knew to seek guidance. The truth is that sex must be a part of the Christian single’s life if the Christian’s marriage is to reach maturity. Bad sex doesn’t guarantee divorce, even no sex doesn’t stamp that one. However, those first five years are make or break, statistically speaking. Five years of married sex is not enough to undo twenty years’ bad education. If Christians are to have marriage as God intended it, we have to walk across the threshhold with a redeemed view of sex in our arms.
