Okay, now I'm going to do what many people think is impossible--I'm going to defend sex as a representation of love and union, as well as sexual abstinence prior to marriage, without ever using the words "Jesus", "in the Bible it says..." or anything else of that nature. While I do believe those points to be more than valid, I do realize that an argument of that nature would be an immediate turn off to non-Christians, many who feel that there is no argument for my case outside of the rambling off of traditional Christian doctrine. Though my argument is religious at its foundation, it more leans towards our general spiritual natures rather than a specific religious doctrine.
Now, to the point--almost every living creature we can think of has sex. Why? It's very simple--they have to to survive. Because of this, each species has a hormonic drive to engage in sexual activity, otherwise the species would have disappeared a long time ago. As was stated in the post I'm responding to, humans also have this drive--this primal, animalistic drive to engage in sexual contact with a partner. The big difference though? For humans, it's fully and completely a choice. Animals have sex because of instinct--through evolution, they've become programmed to do it, otherwise they would not survive. Humans experience this very same desire but with one key, unignorable difference--the ability to choose to do it. Sex is not just something we do--it's something we choose to do, and that makes a world of difference.
See, I think there's three sides to every human being that are always in constant conflict. We can't deny the fact that we're animals who physically are of this Earth, and because of that we inheret characteristics of things of this world, such as sexual drive. But there's also another side to us that's unlike anything else in the known universe--the ability to rationally think and to make decisions and accept responsibility for them. Almost every one will agree with these two sides. But I would add on a third side--our spiritual side--the part of ourselves that is part of the larger scheme of things, which includes our conscience and our ability to make moral decisions. Either way, we have at least one side to us that is in no way related to this system of "instincts" on which the rest of the world revolves--and there's nothing else like it in this world. Our different natures are always in constant conflict--what one side of us thinks is good may not get another nature's approval. For instance, if we're in a supermarket and we're really hungry but have no money, our animalistic side will tell us to just grab food and eat it to satisfy our bodily need, but our rational and spiritual sides will tell us that it's wrong to steal something that belongs to someone else. Vice-versa, if we're giving up our time to, for instance, do grueling charitable work (like doing yard work for someone unable to do it outside in the hot sun), it will be satisfying to our conscious-driven side (knowing that we're helping another person), but our animalistic side will be telling us to get the hell out of there and go relax somewhere. So when it comes to sex, it cannot be argued that it is satisfying simply because it satisfies the desires of the body, because you're missing huge portions of what makes us human that could be going without satisfaction. Just because it's satisfying basic, bodily desires doesn't necessarily make it a good thing.
Now to sex in relation to marriage. I believe that marriage is important because it's the strongest commitment two people can make to one another. Marriage (like I discussed in a previous blog post), isn't just about living together and having a family, it's a total union between two people. A man and a woman are two parts of a whole, and marriage and sex are what ties them together. Never is this more evident than in their physical sexual organs, which are perfectly compatible with one another. In marriage, two people totally commit their lives to each other, and in the process, spiritually become one. Sex is the physical representation of the commitment made during marriage--two parts are literally coming together as one and creating wonders in the process. And a child created through marital sex is the physical embodiment of that union--at that point it's not even just two parts coming together, it literally is both parts as one. How can this unity be anything less than the greatest possible human representation of love for each other? Not only is the body fully physically pleased because of the physical touch and unity, but so is the spiritual nature because of the impossible to describe strength of the total spiritual unity between yourself and your spouse. Love is all about connecting and bonding with one another, and marriage and sex go hand-in-hand in creating the strongest sort of love possible--the lifetime commitment of love and unity between two people and the physical and spiritual embodiment of it. How can a union of this magnitude be described as anything less than love in it's purest form?
And it's not just the sex that's the full display of love for your spouse, it's also the sexual abstinence beforehand. What shows love for someone more than sacrificing something for them? In the case of abstinence, you're sacrificing your bodily desires in order to give the most important person in your entire a life a gift that's so special it can be given only once. How is this anything but love? So many people perceive virginity as something just for the taking, but what people don't realize is that it's an incredibly precious gift to be given. I think that people need to realize that it needs to be kept safe before it can be given as the greatest gift one could possibly give to another human being--the gift of oneself, totally and completely, in it's original, unblemished state.
So while yes, I will agree that sex is at least partially about animalistic desires, I believe it can be so much more than that if people understand what an amazing act it really is. It really is in the human-only choice of when and with whom to have sex that shows just how much love is involved. Sex can be about just bodily satisfaction, but it can also be about that and so much more--the physical embodiment of the total unity, love, and commitment between two people, total satisfaction for mind, body, and spirit, and the greatest gift one could give to another. I think I'll choose the latter, as I really believe that this is the type of satisfaction that could only be made in heaven.
Nick, This was awesome to read. In a lot of ways I do agree with you.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I do believe people can have so called casual sex...I know I couldn't but I feel uneasy saying people can because it would require so much detachment and it would purely be for pleasure. I suppose for some people it would be acceptable if both parties knew it was casual. But...when you get down to it. Sex is for baby making. I'm not saying that even in a religious sense, just a biological one. People tend to bond with the person they sleep with. Ah..I don't know. The idea makes me a little iffy. People COULD have casual sex, whether or not they should is another thing. But that's where more of my morals come out. In my personal opinion I don't condone behavior that is purely animalistic ignoring what I think what makes people so special, our logic and willpower.
There are a lot of different factors for sex as well, mostly because of the differences between how men and woman's bodies react to sex. Woman release oxytocin during sex, which is a bonding hormone. As far as I know...men do not release this hormone. That's not to say a man doesn't bond with a woman during sex. However it is important to point out that men were biologically designed to have as many orgasms as possible in order to continue reproducing. This is why generally men are much more sexual beings compared to woman. I'm sure there's some study out there that shows how man have more instances of sexual thought than woman. That doesn't mean they are more animalistic than woman,they were just pretty much programed that way. Woman on the other hand are programed to perceive sex as an opportunity to conceive a child. A womans body is designed not to have orgasms in order to reproduce. The bonding hormone released during sex is to insure the male she is choosing to have sex with will be a well suited choice for the father of her children. Regardless, if a girl WANTS to have children at all, when a woman chooses to have sex with someone her body is subconsciously choosing that person as a mate. Woman are on average more picky when it comes to choosing a sexual partner or significant other than men are. It's funny to think that even when girls are looking for a boyfriend, subconsciously they are looking for the father of their children, someone who has the qualities of a good father that wont abandon their children. I mean I certainly don't think about children when deciding to go out with someone, but it is true. Women then are less likely to be as sexually active as men because of how naturally selective they are. Of course, there are exceptions as we all know. That may seem more pure compared than mens instinct to have as many orgasms as possible but it all goes back to our biological differences. When it comes down to it both are in a way slaves to their own design. It isn't sexist to say that woman are more emotional or men are more sexual. On a general biological and chemical level, it's true. But as you said we aren't just animals and our biological and chemical makeup doesn't have to rule us. I think it's incredible how we can bend our nature and instinct with will power. I would say in a perfect world it would be most beneficial if a person waits til marriage to have sex, just from a purely logical sense. Birth rates would drop, more women would probably attend college or continue with their education if teen pregnancy was lowered. Not to mention...if two people have sex and bond with each other and then somehow break it, it's going to be a burden on their emotional state for a long time. On a realistic side, it doesn't seem reasonable to ask people to wait til marriage. It would be fantastic if it could be reasonable but not many people are as self disciplined as you. I think the best thing I could ask of someone is to wait until you love someone or have been in a stable relationship long enough to trust and know the other person. Just something to think about :)
Hmmm....I think you brought a whole new dimension into this: the differences between the different sexes. I think it's important to be able to understand what our biology is causing us to feel in order for us to be able to overcome it.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I don't really have much to say regarding your response because I really think you understand what I'm saying (something I'm not used to lol). Honestly liz, your response surprised me in many ways, because I always thought of you being very left-winged on many your moral viewpoints, but your response has revealed to me that I've sort of misjudged you in that respect: you're able to make some very astute conclusions by looking at the big picture and I admire you a lot for it.
The only thing I will just slightly disagree with you on is when you say that you don't think it's reasonable to ask people to wait till marriage: I think it's more than reasonable to ask them and maybe even help them do so, even though it definitely may not be easy (especially with the added pressure of society of the past 40-50 or so years). With that being said, I agree that it's not realistic to assume that everyone will wait, but I think sometimes words of encouragement can make all the difference.
And liz, I'm really, really glad you enjoyed reading this as much as I enjoyed writing it. I'm pretty open about my moral opinions, so I'm always up for a discussion of this nature. I really appreciate the response, it has given me even more to think about :D
And I'm glad someone actually reads my blog XP
ReplyDeleteSorry I posted/deleted so many. The comments thing is broken, I swear :P Anyway.
ReplyDeleteThis was really interesting for me to read, because it's the argument I used for a really long time to support my own decisions in terms of sexual intimacy. I know there is more to your opinion than this- that there IS a lot of religious basis behind it- but this is what I always said, so it's cool to hear someone else reiterating it. Not something I hear very often.
More recently, as you might guess, I've had to do a lot more thinking about it, mainly as I am forced to revise my definitions of "sex" and "virginity", but I still agree with a lot of it. And I definitely understand the logic behind it, because it DOES make so much sense to me still. I mean, really, if you got married and on your wedding night your wife said to you, "I didn't even know you, but I loved you so much already that I waited my entire life for this moment," how amazing would that make you feel? Not everyone thinks like that, but since that's the kind of person you are, I'd take a guess that you're more likely than the average individual to end up with someone like that too, so that works out well :P
As far as the “different sexes” thing goes, it IS important to remember that we have different biologies and hormones that make us act in different ways, I won’t deny that. However, I also think there’s a great deal to be said for the societal aspect- the two genders have been trained to think about sex differently. Women are bombarded with all these conflicting images of half-naked video game “babes,” Playboy bunnies, and being called “prudes” if we won’t “put out”, while simultaneously being called “whores,” “sluts,” or STD-ridden if we give into these pressures. Men, on the other hand, are encouraged to have sex as a sort of rite-of-passage, being rewarded for their efforts with names like “player” and “pimp” that are generally regarded, at least by other guys, as good things. As a result, women often end up unwilling to express any interest in sex- even so much as admitting that they enjoy it- because even if they’re not having a lot of sex, or having It with multiple partners, admitting that you LIKE having sex is often enough to get you branded a slut, whereas men go around boasting about their sexcapades and getting slaps on the back for it. These factors put a lot of pressure on both genders, especially teenagers, to fit their specific role as either a "gentle, nurturing mother" or a kind of "boys will be boys" sex fiend, so to write ALL that off to chemicals would kind of be an easy out.
Hey there! Our mutual friend Beth linked me to this page because of a similar blog post I made about sex and chastity. This is a very well done piece. Your reasoning is solid and you points are clear. I applaud your insight in this issue, and for the great writing with which you express it.
ReplyDelete