

### Honestly

A Book about Sex for Christians

Tom Copeland

#

Smashwords Edition

Copyright 2013 Tom Copeland

All Rights Reserved

License Notes: This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this ebook with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each person you share it with. If you're reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then you should return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.

Ebook formatting by www.ebooklaunch.com

# Table of Contents

Introduction

Part 1

Chapter 1: Jewish Sex and the Old Testament

Chapter 2: Plato Paul and the Patristics

Chapter 3: Reformers, Pilgrims and Victorians

Chapter 4: The American Sexual Revolution

Part 2

Chapter 5: Sexual Anatomy and Physiology

Chapter 6: Sexual Arousal and Response

Chapter 7: Desire

Part 3

Chapter 8: Sexual Behavior

Chapter 9: Sexual Orientation

Chapter 10: Questions and Special Topics

A Closing Thought

# HONESTLY

### A Book about Sex for Christians

"...for all the faith and sex and fear, and all the things that keep us here, in that mysterious distance between a man and a woman."

Bono and U2 - A Man and a Woman

# Introduction

I've put this book off for a long time. There are several reasons. First, I'm naturally lazy, and if I can get away with not doing something, rather than doing it, I'll usually do that. Second, this is a scary topic. Bono's not the only one who thinks so. The theologian Helmut Thielicke wrote that sex is part of the _mysterium tremendum et fascinatum_ ( _see Thielicke, The Ethics of Sex_ ); something like trying to understand a terrifying and fascinating mystery. I think _tremendum_ is a good word here. You don't have to be a Latin scholar to see that it's where we eventually get the word "tremendous", right? Well, it's also very closely related to the word "tremble". And that's what a lot of us feel about sex. On one hand, it can be exhilarating and we end up on the bow of the Titanic shouting out "I'm the king of the world!", and on the other hand it may cause so much anxiety that we can't even tremble, or speak. So it's a bit scary to most of us.

Sex is also one of the most powerful forces on earth. To try to write about it in a book seems presumptuous at best. Just think about these examples of how powerful sex is.

There is one person in the Bible who is described as "a man after God's own heart". Just one. It's a pretty exclusive spiritual club. He's also, by the way, the king of a great nation, the commander of thousands of men, a giant-killer, a poet and songwriter, incredibly good-looking and basically the envy of anyone who knew him. But he's turned into a depressed, bed-ridden, sad old man whose family has fallen apart. Not by armies or other kings or economic hardship or natural disasters, but by one young, beautiful girl taking a bath on the roof.

Or what about a TV evangelist who has a world-wide network of media influence. He preaches to thousands, maybe millions every Sunday. Poor old people who don't have enough money to pay their electric bills send him $20 checks every week. He's at the top of his game. He has an entourage, he has limousines, he has Christian "bling". He's the king of his strange, strange world. But all it takes for him to fall is a $50-an-hour prostitute who he pays to dance for him in a Shreveport motel once a week. She just dances and takes her clothes off while he watches. He risks, and loses it all.

Or maybe you're the President of the United States; the most powerful person in the world, and you're a Rhodes Scholar, and you're brilliant, and charismatic and attractive. You have a faithful wife and a teenage daughter. Oh, and did I mention that you're a Christian? And a Baptist? And you put _everything_ on the line for a few steamy minutes in an Oval Office closet with an intern in a blue dress.

If that's not enough, maybe you've met this next guy. Or you're married to this guy. Or maybe you _are_ this guy. He's a banker, or a teacher, or a plumber or a youth minister. He has a wife and kids, a good reputation. He's a leader in his church. He coaches his daughter's soccer team. And his secretary, or boss, or son, or wife catches him looking at pornography on the internet and he loses reputation, respect and relationships. All for a secret look at digital naked women. Think sex isn't powerful?

And the way we deal with sex is also irritating. Particularly the way we deal with it in our culture. There are pockets of sanity here and there, but in general we're way off base when it comes to how we think about sex. That includes Christian people. That includes me. That's the irritating part.

I don't expect people who don't know the basic truths about life to be able to handle the complexity of human sexuality without messing it up pretty bad. Just being alive is hard enough. So it doesn't really surprise me, or bother me for that matter, that the unbelieving culture treats sex as a joke, a commodity, a marketing ploy, a power source, or whatever. How could they do otherwise? If I wasn't a Christian, I like to think I'd still be a nice guy (we all think that, don't we?), but I'm pretty sure I'd think of women as sex objects, and I'm not completely certain I would have been faithful to my wife for the last 25 years, and I'd probably be addicted to porn on the internet like about half the men in the world are now. Of course, being a Christian doesn't mean that _won't_ happen, but I think _not_ being a believer would probably make it a sure thing for a lot of us "good guys". So I can't complain too much about the wickedness of people who live in darkness.

But those of us who live in light should be better at understanding and managing our sexual selves. And we should be about a thousand times better at teaching and training and helping heal people in our churches who have fallen into the nastiness of our culture. The church, in general, has a pitiful track record of dealing with sex. It truly is an area of the faith where our tendency has always been to "shoot the wounded".

I think a lot of people are tired of that. We need a change.

Well, it's scary, and powerful, and often irritating, and in spite of unusually healthy self-esteem (a gift from my parents) and a happy, satisfying marriage, I feel pretty inadequate as an expert on the subject. So, if you keep reading this book, I hope you'll not think of me that way, but as just another sojourner trying to shed some light and offer some guidance along an often difficult path.

So why write now? Over the past few years I have had the pleasure of teaching two courses in human sexuality, one graduate and one undergraduate, at Hardin-Simmons University. In the process of teaching these courses, I have often been encouraged by students to put into book form the things we were talking about and doing in class. In addition, I've been able to do some professional presentations on integrating sex and Christian faith, and in doing so I've been encouraged by my therapy colleagues that a new book on sex and Christian faith might be a good thing to have.

So, the main goal for this book is to try to offer some healthy perspectives on sex for Christian people; including therapists, clergy, students and couples who want to try to make sure they are the best stewards they can be of all of the gifts of grace.

God knows we need it. Most of the information about sex that we get from the world outside of the church is ridiculously distorted, and so, sadly, is a lot of what we get from inside the church. It should break our hearts that this most basic of human qualities has rarely truly been embraced by Christians, the people who are supposed to know more than any others what real life and real love is all about. I hope this is a small step in that direction.

This book basically has three parts, although what makes a part might be debatable, but I'm thinking of it that way. You think of it however is best for you. I'm telling you this at the risk that you'll decide to skip over some parts and just read the parts you really like, since that's what I usually do. I've found that, with a few exceptions, most writers don't really have enough to say that's worthwhile to fill two or three hundred pages, and I'm certainly not an exception, so feel free to pick the parts you like, and skip the parts that bore you, or might not be what you're looking for.

On the other hand, I've also found that when I only read the things I like, I usually don't learn anything. Like fundamentalists who love the passage about wives submitting to husbands, but ignore the passages about slaves submitting to their masters. Or the TV preachers who love the idea that God has plans for us "to prosper" but ignore the chapters in Isaiah about how God hates our worship if we don't take care of the poor and the orphans and the widows. Or liberals who love the passage in Matthew about visiting the sick and the prisoners, and worship a God of grace, but seem to ignore the God of the Old Testament who killed your goats and camels and even children sometimes just to make a point. Anyway, you can decide. Read what you think is important.

So the book basically has three parts. The first part is really about how we think about sex. I believe that how we think about sex is much more important than what we do about it, because I think, in this case, our doing is mostly a product of our thinking. So we'll address history, philosophy, theology and psychology of sexuality.

The second part of the book will be the practical part, or relational part. Not really a how-to or self-help section, but a section that looks at what really happens between men and women and how we can make it happen better. There will be some basic information here about anatomy and physiology, sexual arousal and response, and hopefully some dispelling of myths regarding sex.

The very last part of the book is about dealing with sexual problems and questions. This section may be helpful to therapists, those studying to be therapists, clergy and couples who are working on improving their sexual relationship. Maybe it will be helpful to you.

# PART ONE

# CHAPTER 1

### Jewish Sex and the Old Testament

I always tell my students that to know a thing, you must learn the history of the thing. Sexuality is no different. Of course, some things never really change. We basically have sex the same ways that people have always had sex (with a few notable exceptions that we'll discuss later) and some of the basic ways we think and feel about sex haven't changed over time, but we are all products of our cultural heritage, and the way we view sex as a culture always has an effect on the way we live out our sexuality as individuals and couples. This is particularly true when we're talking about something as value-loaded and powerful and permeating as sexuality, and is even more salient if we try to integrate sexuality with something as value-loaded and powerful and permeating as our faith. So before we try to really understand why we feel and think and act the way we do, we need a brief history lesson.

* *

Ancient Jewish Tradition

For contemporary Christians, the history of sexuality begins in ancient Judaism, which is a good thing. Many of us in the church aren't aware of it, but the Jews of the Old Testament seem to have had a pretty healthy attitude toward sexuality. They treated their sexuality as something that God had given them as a special gift, to be cherished and enjoyed to the fullest.

For some reason, whenever I think about Judaism and sex I think about Tevye in "Fiddler on the Roof" (Okay, that sounds a little creepy. Hang with me here.). He's just always been, for me, the epitome of somebody who dives headfirst into the gifts that God has given him, with open arms and an open heart; expecting to be overwhelmed by the goodness of the gift. I can just see him bouncing around doing that Russian dance thing, shaking his belly, wine dripping off of his beard, singing about how thankful he is for the gift of sex.

Here's maybe a better example. A few years ago I had the opportunity to attend a week-long workshop with David Schnarch, a well-respected leader in contemporary sex therapy. In the workshop Schnarch described "eroticism" in marriage by having us visualize a young boy at a picnic on a hot, July afternoon with a huge juicy slice of watermelon in his hands. Instead of holding the slice at arm's length (like most adults would do) to keep the juice off of his shirt, and carefully picking through the watermelon to avoid the seeds, the kid just sticks his face into the watermelon, juice running down his arms and his neck, watermelon up to his ears, grinning like he just won a trip to Disneyworld. He doesn't care if it's messy, if his shirt gets dirty, or what anybody else thinks about it. He's totally focused on the wet, wild, pleasure of the experience.

I think that's a good healthy picture of marital eroticism, although most of us have enough hang-ups that we never really get there, and I think it's probably a good picture of the historical Jewish approach to sex.

Jewish law seems to imply that it wasn't just the Jewish men who had a healthy appetite for sex. In fact, in the Talmud (the ancient Jewish book of rules for living), it is a married _woman's_ right to have sex. Men were required by the Talmud to have frequent intercourse and give pleasure to their wives. The frequency required was based, strangely enough, on occupation, so that men who were camel drivers or sailors weren't required to have sex as often as men who didn't commute to work. And the men who were required to please their wives most often were "men of leisure"; independently wealthy men, or unemployed men. In fact, if you were unemployed, you were directed to have sex with your wife every night. Apparently, the more free time you had, the more time you should spend pleasing your wife sexually. The implication seems to be that, left to their own natural tendencies men will neglect their wives' need for sexual interaction. I know, men do think about sex a lot, but remember, we're also sometimes really lazy and selfish. There are a lot of guys who would rather drink a beer with their friends, watch football, play golf, or go hunting than be with their wives. It's sad, I think, but it happens.

This (the Talmud requirement) seems to contrast quite a bit with modern culture and our extreme emphasis on the male need for, and "right to" have sex. This issue seems to be particularly important in conservative Christian marriages. It's not uncommon in therapy for me to hear a frustrated husband quoting to his wife various scriptures about how "her body is not her own" and that it's not Biblical for Christian spouses to deny each other the marital pleasures of the flesh. In fact, one of the most common problems that couples present in sex therapy in recent years is low desire, often in the _female_ partner. So there's obviously been some shift in this situation over the centuries. More about that issue later.

According to Ruth Westheimer, Judaism is "intensely sexual". Sex is considered a "mitzvah", or a divine command, and not just for procreation, but also for pleasure. In her excellent book, Heavenly Sex: Sexuality in the Jewish Tradition, She proposes that the traditional Jewish marriage ceremony not only condones, but _requires_ orgasms.

Under the wedding canopy, a groom promises his bride that he will provide her with comfortable standards of food, shelter and sexual gratification.

The holiest men are required to marry. Celibacy is not a virtue. Orgasms are (p.3-4).

Jewish tradition also connects marital sexuality with one of the most recognizable Jewish events, the observance of the Sabbath. Jewish couples often make it a specific practice to engage in intercourse on Friday nights after the Sabbath meal as another expression of God's intense love for His people. In fact, rabbis are traditionally commanded to have sex with their wives at least once a week, and preferably on Friday night.

Of course, in contemporary Christian culture, there is often a "disconnect" of sorts with traditional Judaism, and many Christians prefer to rely only on the Christian Bible to try to gain an understanding of Jewish culture. From a scholarly standpoint, this may not be preferable, but it is often the practical truth, so it's vital to look at the history of sexuality in the Jewish culture as it is portrayed in the scripture. Happily, there is no lack of emphasis on sexuality in the Old Testament, and most Christians who read the scripture with an open mind will see that the text only tends to support traditional Jewish views of sexuality. And you don't have to read very far to begin to get the picture.

* *

YADA, YADA, YADA

Adam _knew_ his wife. If you're like me and you grew up in a pretty conservative Christian church, you probably remember the giggling among the kids and the anxiety among the adults the first time you heard someone explain in public just what that sentence means. We all learned at some point that this _didn't_ mean that Adam recognized Eve when he woke up in the morning, or when he came home from a long hard day in the garden, naming new animals and trees and things. Of course it meant that they had sex. And we've all heard someone say under their breath when they're gossiping about someone that "did it" and wasn't supposed to be doing it, "I heard they know each other _in the Biblical sense_." And we raise our righteous eyebrows and say "Ohhhh..." because we somehow understand that although gossiping like this is bad, of course, it's not nearly as bad as actually saying out loud "they had sex".

Euphemisms make us feel better about things we think are wrong, or bad. People in my parents' generation, for example, wouldn't say the word "pregnant". They'd say "She's expecting." I used to think "Expecting what?" A package in the mail? A puppy? What? _Pregnant_ somehow made them uncomfortable, so they euphemized.. You know all the other examples. Instead of "He died", we say "He passed away." Instead of saying "penis", we teach little boys they have a "wee wee", or a "pee pee" or something even dumber than that (some of us are old enough to remember Steve Martin in _The Jerk_ , discovering his "special purpose"?).

Well, the phrase "Adam knew his wife" is a bit euphemistic. And it's probably good that it is. Can you imagine how much trouble the Bible would be if right there in the first story it said "Adam had sex with his wife?" Yeah, right. Teach that in Vacation Bible School. God made the night and the day and the earth and the sky and the animals and the plants and people, and then the people had sex. Oh man. That would have given the Baptists some trouble. We'd have to figure out how to put that in the same category with the non-alcoholic wine that Jesus made at the wedding at Cana. Some of you know what I mean.

So it's euphemistic, but it's not really that simple. Like most of the Bible, this sentence probably has at least a couple of layers of meaning. And you probably can't get to those layers without looking at the language. So that brings us to (and it's about time, I know) the word that is translated "knew". It's the Hebrew word YADA.

Here's what it's not. For example, you wouldn't meet someone in a Hebrew singles bar in Jerusalem and say, after a couple of margaritas, "Hey, why don't we go back to my place and we can, you know....YADA?" That just wouldn't be right. I'm not sure what the correct word would be, but it wouldn't be YADA.

YADA means "a deep knowing". The kind of knowing that only comes with time, with some history, some shared "real life". The intensity of knowing that is only there when real intimacy has happened. YADA happens when you really get inside somebody emotionally, and maybe even spiritually.

One of my favorite movies of all time is _Shenandoah_. If you're younger than 35 or so you probably haven't ever seen it. It's the story of a family in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia that is torn apart by the horror of the Civil War. Jimmy Stewart plays a guy named Charlie Anderson, the widowed father of three sons and a daughter. The kids are all young adults, struggling with making choices about life and love in the middle of chaos and death, and Charlie's always arguing with God about something. That may be one reason I like it so much. Anyway, in my favorite scene of the movie, a young Confederate soldier comes to the family farmhouse at night to ask Charlie for his daughter's hand in marriage. The old man is sitting on the porch when the young man rides up (I'm paraphrasing here, but it goes something like this). He takes a long draw on his pipe and asks (imagine the Jimmy Stewart voice here), "Why do you want to marry her?" The young man looks a little confused and answers, "Well, sir, I love her!" Charlie says "But do you like her?" The young man, even more confused, blurts out again "I _love_ her!" Then Charlie says something to the effect of, "After you've been together for 40 years and had babies and cried and laughed and hurt together, _then_ you can say you love her. 'Til then it's important that you like her."

The kind of love Charlie Anderson is talking about is YADA.

I tell my students that you can't YADA someone you picked up at a party. You can't YADA someone when you're really drunk, or they are. You can't YADA someone you've been dating for 2 months. You can't YADA someone who's not old enough to really "be known", that is, teenagers don't really YADA. YADA is about quality. Adam _knew_ his wife. He knew her deeply. He knew her intimately. He knew her with a depth that only comes from... well, from God.

So, the first description of marital sex is right at the beginning of the Biblical story, and it's a very particularly worded description. Do you think maybe God was intent on sending the message from the very beginning that _this_ was how sex was supposed to be? Do you think He probably knew how we would try to mess it up every possible way we could? Do you think maybe He hates it when we call it "casual"? When we "hook up"? Some of you will probably say a quick evangelical "amen" to that.

But don't you think He probably also hates it when we do it with our husband or wife just because we feel obligated, or because we feel pressured, or guilty? Or we make our partner feel guilty enough that they give in, or we just go through the motions and there's no depth, no real intimacy, no real YADA? It seems to me in either case we've made it something much less than what was intended. Maybe there's a way back to the real thing. We'll see. But first, let's look at what else the Old Testament might tell us about sex. Let's take a look at maybe the most erotic book of all time.

* *

The Love Song of All Love Songs

This is probably a good time for one of those warnings like "the following may contain language that may not be suitable for young children". And if you're not a child, but you've been bothered so far by the level of openness about sex, you probably should stop reading now, because the Song of Songs is not about procreation. It's about desire, erotic dreams, verbal foreplay, breasts and genitals, tastes and smells, fruits and spices, and a lot of wine. It's not for prudes, or the weak of heart.

Okay. Now, why in the world is there a book in the Bible that's overtly about sex? Don't tell me you haven't wondered about that. I mean, the whole YADA thing is kind of necessary to show us that Adam and Eve procreated, and there are quite a few places in the Old Testament where sex really _has_ to be mentioned in order to understand the mistakes people made and the nature of sin (David and Bathsheba, Judah and Tamar, etc.). But the Song isn't like that. It's not about sin and redemption (at least not on the surface), and it's not about husband and wife coming together to make babies. It's just about raw, juicy, fragrant eroticism. It's about desire, and longing and wishing for sex. It's about being consumed with passion for a lover. In fact, according to Carey Ellen Walsh, author of Exquisite Desire: Religion, The Erotic and the Song of Songs, it's really more about the _wanting_ than the _doing._

Yearning itself may even come to be experienced as pleasure. The Song is concerned with the provocative question of whether the exquisite sensation of wanting another could surpass in any realistic sense the pleasure of sexual consummation. The surprising claim that it can does seem to be the premise of the Song, which stays focused on the experience of yearning, not its relief. (p. 23)

At this point, we should address briefly two of the sometimes contentious aspects of the Song. First are the questions of the general intent of the writer, the intent of the church fathers in including the Song in the Canon (the list of writings that were considered worthy to be included in the scripture), and ultimately God's purpose for the Song. There are, of course, a variety of positions to take on these issues, from the most liberal notion that it is simply a poem about sexual desire between a man and a woman, to the most conservative Rabbinical or fundamentalist Christian proposal that it is nothing but an allegory about God and Israel.

I think the most practical, realistic and exegetically sound approach is somewhere in between. I believe that most, if not all Scripture is multi-intentional. That is, it contains, first, a historical meaning that indicates something pertinent to us about the actual situation or culture or experience of the human scribe. Secondly, it contains a contemporary meaning that is applicable to the life of the individual reader, perhaps even at a particular point of time in that reader's personal journey. Third, I believe scripture contains timeless truth that has value for describing, understanding and facing the complexities of the human condition. I think the Song contains at least this many levels of meaning.

So I do think it certainly has something to say about God's relationship with Israel, otherwise inclusion in the Old Testament would be pointless. It also has something to say to us about the Bridegroom's desire for His bride, and the church's desire for Christ, since one of the explicit purposes of Old Testament is to point to and deepen the anticipation of the Messiah. But I also think the Song has truth for the contemporary reader, and the church, regarding the nature of sexual desire between a man and a woman. The detailed beauty of physical sexuality, depth of longing and explicit desire, and consuming passion for the lover surely indicates that the Holy Creator takes _His_ pleasure in our own.

The second issue that sometimes causes consternation among readers is the level of desire and sexual interaction between lovers who are not married. Again, extreme positions range from conservatives eliminating, disregarding or discounting the eroticism of the book to liberal interpretations that disregard Hebrew moral issues and assume that the lovers are having an actual physical relationship. Middle ground here is also more reasonable and accurate; the raw desire and expression of that desire can't be denied, but the lovers clearly stay within the bounds of Judaic law and don't actually have sex with each other. They talk about it, they dream about it, they even seem to tempt each other with it, but they don't do it. Walsh writes that the sexual relationship between the lovers is never physically consummated, and in fact;

The separation of the lovers is essential to the book's thematic design. The man's separation is achieved by his viewing the woman as inaccessible... [and] the woman's sustained yearning, for her part, is born of something else: the man's absence."(p. 97,98)

Seems like the perfect metaphor for a group of people who are longing for their Messiah to come (or come back) but in the meantime are faced with figuring out how to live with just the promise of His coming, and the longing for his arrival.

One of the most interesting and sometimes troublesome aspects of the Song is its explicit nature. The Song is explicit in its descriptions of sexual desire, and explicit in the language and imagery used by the lovers in the Song, male and female alike. The writer's pervasive emphasis on the smells and tastes and images of desire cannot be mistaken as unintentional, or without specific purpose. There is an obvious attempt to engage the reader in the sensual experience of the lovers. Consider these images, all from the Song.

From the woman to the man:

Make me drunk with your kisses, your love is better than wine

Between my breasts my lover is a cluster of myrrh

My beloved is a branching apricot tree...

in that shade I have often lingered tasting the fruit.

He has brought me to his house of wine

Let me lie among the blossoms in a bed of apricots

A crimson ribbon, your lips. The curve of your cheek a pomegranate.

Awake north wind, breathe upon my garden, let its spices stream out.

Let my lover come into his garden and taste its delicious fruit.

I rose to open to my love, my fingers wet with myrrh, sweet flowing myrrh.

My love has gone down to his garden, to the beds of spices...

I would give you spiced wine to drink, my pomegranate wine.

Hurry my love, Run away, my gazelle, my wild stag, on the hills of cinnamon

* *

From the man to the woman:

The fig tree has sweetened... and the young budded vines smell spicy

You are fragrant, you are myrrh and aloe

Your breasts are two fawns...I will hurry to the mountain of myrrh

Oh the wine of your kisses, the spice of your fragrant oils,

Your lips are honey, honey and milk are under your tongue... The gold of your

thigh shaped by a master craftsman, your belly a mound of wheat, your

breasts are two fawns, twins of a gazelle.

I have come into my garden, my sister, my bride,

I have gathered my myrrh and spices, I have eaten from the honeycomb,

I have drunk the milk and wine. Your breasts are clusters of fruit, like clusters of

grapes on a vine, the scent of your breath like apricots,

your mouth good wine

It seems unlikely that a Creator who utilizes this type of language and imagery to teach His people about love has anything but a burning desire for us to enjoy this level of eroticism and freedom of expression in our marriages. To decide otherwise seems to negate or discount the true passion of sexual intimacy between a man and a woman, which in turn may discount the passion of the Father for His people and Jesus Christ for the Church. This passion can't be watered down (s _ee Song of Songs ch.8,v.7_ ).

### Questions for reflection and discussion.

How should we apply the idea of YADA to our contemporary lives?

How would our sexual relationships be different if we embraced our sexuality as a wonderful, exciting gift from God?

What do you think the passion and sensuality of the Song of Songs should mean to Christians today?

How should churches address these qualities of the scripture?

How would your relationships be different if you applied these ideas to your own life?

What would you have to change to make this happen?

### Chapter 1 References and Resources

Helmut Thielicke - _The Ethics of Sex_ , 1964. James Clarke and Co., Limited.

Sandra Leiblum, Ed. - _Principles and Practices of Sex Therapy, 4_ th _Edition_ , 2006.

Guilford Press.

Ruth Westheimer - _Heavenly Sex: Sexuality in the Jewish Tradition_. 1995. NYU Press.

Carey Ellen Walsh - _Exquisite Desire: Religion, the Erotic and the Song of Songs_ , 2000. Augsburg Fortress Press.

Ariel Bloch and Chana Bloch - _The Song of Songs, a New Translation_ _, 1995_. University of California Press.

Rob Bell - Sex God; Exploring the Endless Connections Between Sexuality and Spirituality. 2007. Zondervan.

Sexuality and the Sacred, James Nelson and Sandra Longfellow, Eds.1994. Westminster

James Nelson - Embodiment: an Approach to Sexuality and Christian Theology. 1978. Augsburg Press.

Timothy Taylor - A Pre-History of Sex; Four Million Years of Human Sexual Culture. 1996. Bantam Books.

# Chapter 2

### Plato, Paul and the Patristics

To understand the history of humans, or at least a semi-academic history of humans, you have to include the Greeks. Like it or not, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and all the lesser-known toga wearers had an enormous impact on how we in Western culture, Christian or not, think about almost everything ( _see Thomas Cahill, Sailing the Wine Dark Sea_ ).

Every time we try to decide what is right or wrong, good or bad, real or phony, eternal or temporal, we rely at least somewhat on the ideas that came from early Greek civilization. American Christians like to think that we are somehow immune from Greek influence, because we don't like the idea that a civilization with gods and goddesses and naked wrestlers has, in part, made us who we are. This difficulty is reflective of our tendency in America, and maybe particularly in American Christianity, to be fairly dualistic in our ethical approach to everything. We like to be able to classify people and ideas as clearly good or bad, right or wrong, black or white. We hate gray areas. To understand sexuality, we have to be able to put aside this dualism and realize that we have been influenced for the good and bad, by both "good" and "bad" sources.

Most information regarding the sexual climate of ancient Greece leads to the assumption of a very open and unrestricted approach to all things sexual, and I think we can probably just agree to that without having to come up with a lot of examples. There seems to have been a pervasive attitude of tolerance for sexual experience and orientation of any style, with little moral restriction, except that which might irritate the gods and tempt them to mess up their crops, start a war or cause monsters to eat their children.

In terms of specific ideas and teachings, I think the most significant impact that ancient Greek culture has had on Western civilization, and particularly our thinking about sex, comes from the writing of Plato. Plato was, of course, a student of Socrates, so that most of what we know of Socrates came from Plato, and much of Plato's thinking is obviously Socratic in origin. Plato's most important idea, or at least the one that seems to affect us most in the west, may be _philosophical dualism_. Plato's dualism is a complex idea, of course, that basically means there are two worlds; a world of _matter_ , or things and a metaphysical world of ideas, or what Plato called _forms_.

The critical issue for us in Plato's dualism is that he believed that only the world of forms, or ideas, was ultimately real, and that the world of matter was not. What we experience as physical reality is only a faulty, subjective representation of the true reality. This true reality is called _metaphysics_ , or that which is beyond the physical. For example, as I'm writing this I'm sitting in a chair at the kitchen table in a cabin in the mountains of New Mexico listening to a CD of Lucinda Williams. I experience the chair, the table, the computer, the music, and the mountains as very real, and you'd think I was goofy if I told you otherwise. The music is really good, by the way, but let's focus on the chair as an example. I can feel it, see it, and I "know" that it is holding up my weight. Plato would say, however, that although my experience is not completely invalid, it is not ultimately real, and certainly not eternal. The only true, lasting existence of something called "chair" is in the eternal, metaphysical idea, or form, of chair, or maybe more accurately, "chair-ness." For Plato, the things I experience through my senses are not ultimately real. (By the way, if you haven't read it, you should take a few minutes and read Plato's _Allegory of the Cave_. It's the best, most concise way of learning about Platonic dualism. It's easy to find online, and if I can understand it, I'm sure you can.)

So why does any of this matter to us? Well, a few important philosophical, theological and psychological principles can be traced, at least partly, to Platonic dualism. Not the least of these is how we Christians think about the eternal vs. the temporal.

For the past few years I've been blessed to be a part of a band that leads worship in my church. We're all people in our 40's or 50's who always wanted to be rock n' rollers and never got the chance. It's been a cool gig. Anyway, a couple of weeks ago at church, a man came up to me and asked if some Sunday we would play the old hymn "This World is Not My Home". Think about that old song (and so many others like it);

_"This world is not my home, I'm just a' passin' through..._ ".

We could re-write this old hymn to say something like "This world is not real, or ultimate, or eternal, but I know a place that is."

Does this lyric come from good Christian theology? Sure. From Paul? Of course. Does it also show influence of Platonic dualism in Western culture? Probably. In fact, it's hard to imagine that Paul himself wasn't influenced by Platonic dualism to some degree. If you think about it, it only makes sense. He was extremely well-educated, so he had to know Plato's work. And he was writing for an audience that had lots of Greek thinkers in it, and if Paul did anything right as a scribe, he always knew how to write for his audience. So let's talk about Paul for a bit.

If you read his letters, particularly Romans, it's pretty clear that he struggles with the whole spirit vs. flesh scenario, and at the least, he uses it to help his audience understand the difference between redeemed and unredeemed realities. Paul's indirect ideas regarding sex were later distorted by Augustine, who we will address later. But his distinction between the world of spirit and the world of flesh are clear, and his preference is equally clear.

For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the spirit. For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who walk according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God, for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Romans 8:3-8

Now, it's easy to see how a few centuries of focus on scripture like that (particularly if we're just a little _out_ of focus in our interpretation) could lead us to a place where we have a distaste, or at least believe that to be truly pious we _should_ have a distaste for all things physical. However, Paul was not always as anti-physical as it may seem. In fact, most of the time when we see the word translated "flesh", Paul is using the Greek word _sarx,_ which means not the physical body itself, but the sinful part of the person; the part that he often refers to as the "old man". He does talk about the actual physical body in Romans 6, where he instructs the church to "not let sin reign in your mortal body that you should obey its lusts, and don't go on presenting the members (parts) of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness, but present yourself to God as those alive from the dead, and your members (body parts) as instruments of righteousness to God"(v.12-13).

It seems clear that the body itself is not really inherently bad, in Paul's view, but that believers need to take care to not use their bodies, or actually, their body parts, for sin, but to intentionally use these parts for righteousness.

My wife and I used to teach a young couples' Sunday School class with our friends Harold and Susan Preston. When we were discussing a difficult passage of scripture, or talking about a touchy subject, Harold used to say "Now, I don't want the Sunday School answer, give me the bottom line. What does this mean to me on Thursday afternoon?" Well, the Sunday School interpretation of this passage might be that we should use our hands and feet, our words, thoughts and deeds for righteousness. That is certainly, and generally true. But if you look at verse 12, it's pretty clear that Paul is addressing _lusts_ of the body. This has to include sexual lust, particularly since he references the "members" of the body, which most likely refers to genitals. So, if we apply this to verse 13, we are charged with using our parts that might otherwise be used for sexual lust in the service of righteousness. The only way this can make sense is if God looks at our marital sexual relationship as "righteous".

So, if we misapply Platonic thinking to Paul's writing, as many have done over the centuries, and believe that the "things of this world" (which includes our physical bodies) are not ultimately significant, but that the only real truth is metaphysical, or spiritual, what does that mean about sex? If we distort Paul's ideas about spirit, flesh and the body, where does that leave us?

Does sex even matter? Can we just ignore things related to our bodies, not worry about food or clothing, and discount all physical desire like the Ascetics did? Should we, like the Epicureans, decide that anything that requires physical exertion or effort makes us weaker spiritually and thus should be avoided? Or maybe we should be unconcerned, as the Gnostics were, with use, and even abuse of our bodies for physical pleasure, since those bodies are ultimately not real, or true.

Of course, most of the contemporary church would now reject all of these options. The point is that these are all distortions of the Biblical view of sexuality that have messed up thinking in the church in one form or another since its inception, and these are all variations of the application of Platonic dualism to the problem, or blessing, of sexuality. The first guy to twist things a little too far the wrong way for us was, ironically, maybe the greatest theologian of all time, and one of the two true fathers of the Catholic church, St. Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo (Hippo was a place in Northern Africa, not the thing you see in the zoo.)

* *

Augustine, Aquinas and the Patristics

Some of you are already thinking about skipping to some part that you'd like better, because you're Protestant, and Augustine was clearly Catholic, and you may think the two have nothing to do with each other, but give me a chance to clear that up for you. Also you may not know what "Patristic" even means. Don't worry about it. It's one of those things academics have to do to justify ourselves sometimes; using language that normal people might not be familiar with. I'll probably do it from time to time to stay valid with some of my colleagues. Plus, it wouldn't kill you to look up a new word now and then.

The reason Augustine is important to us is that he, along with Thomas Aquinas, basically wrote the theology of the Catholic church. From the early Catholic church was born, through a pretty painful labor, the early Protestant church (remember the Reformation?), and from there came the American Protestant church. So if you're Baptist, or Assembly, or non-denominational, you probably have more Catholic theology in you than you know. For example, Protestant fundamental Christians have a fairly strong tradition of believing that faith is superior to knowledge, sometimes to the point of disdain for higher education, and particularly seminary education. Well, Augustine wouldn't have agreed with those folks about education, but he _was_ the first theologian to really fight for the idea that we should have faith in order to gain understanding, rather than the other way around.

One of Augustine's most harsh, and most adamant judgments was in the area of sexuality, and its here that we probably start with the distortion of Paul's thinking. The root of Augustine's considerable negativity toward sex would seem to be grounded in his "conversion experience" as a young man. Apparently, as a youth and young adult, Augustine was quite the "ladies' man". Well, no, that's not strong enough. What would you call a guy who had multiple mistresses and concubines? I'll let you come up with a word.

Okay, he was one of those. His mother, however, was a God-fearing Christian woman who daily prayed for his repentance and redemption. Her name was Monica, and she became a Saint in the Catholic church. In spite of her concern and supplication, he continued in his lusty ways for quite some time. The story goes that at one point he was in Milan studying, and sat down on a garden bench. On the bench was a copy of the scripture. Kind of a weird story - he heard children singing, and some other stuff happened, and then he heard a voice that said "Take and read". When he opened the text, the first verse that he read was Paul's admonition to "flee from youthful lusts" in 2 Timothy 2:22. Apparently he felt that this was a word straight from God to him, so he did a pretty smooth one-eighty. He gave up on the women, and began to study for the priesthood.

This would have been okay, and not hurt us much in the area of sex, except that Augustine seemed to think that what had worked in his life should be applicable to everyone who was a believer. This, by the way, is one of the most serious dangers of not living in healthy Christian community. We begin to think things like, "Man, that weekend I spent eating nothing but corn dogs and praying for 6 hours at a time in my Speedo really changed my life. I think if everybody did that they would be as good of a Christian as I am." We really need brothers and sisters to tell us when we're drifting a little off-track.

But apparently no one did that for Augustine. So he proceeded to expand and expound upon the idea that sex was mostly unpleasant, if not downright disgusting. He emphasized that sex was a shameful part of the human condition. He believed that when the Genesis account stated that Adam and Eve sewed together fig leaves to cover themselves, it was because they recognized that their genitals (and the ungoverned arousal of the genitals) were an indication of willful disobedience of God. Augustine also was one of the first to connect sex with shame. He promoted the use of the word "pudenda" for genitals, from the Latin word _pudere_ , which means "to be ashamed."

He and many of the church fathers, or Patristics, wrote that sex was just a necessary evil that couples must endure in order to produce offspring. For example, Tertullian, a Roman theologian and apologist who lived from160 to somewhere around 230 A.D., wrote in a letter to his wife that he wished they could be freed from their "disgusting habit." He also wrote that it was no accident that the sex act occurred physiologically "between urine and feces", a sentiment later echoed by Freud. Origen, another church father even castrated himself, according to some historians because he took Matthew 19:12 a little bit too literally, I think. Those examples are both a little gruesome, I know, but they illustrate just how strong these anti-sex convictions were. Other early church fathers, including St. Jerome, proposed that not only was sex sinful outside of marriage, but that a husband who enjoyed his wife too much sexually was actually committing adultery _within_ the bonds of marriage. I think he probably had to work pretty hard to make that argument make sense, even to himself. In any case, this is one of the sad legacies of the church's teachings on sex that is unfortunately still with a lot of us. Too many married Christian people still think that there is something inherently sinful (and shameful) in the sex act, even with their husband or wife. They might not actually verbalize it, but it's there. We'll talk more about that later.

The second major writer of Catholic theology, after Augustine, was Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas is second to Augustine only chronologically, coming along about a thousand years later. In terms of influence, Aquinas is probably more significant.

Aquinas differed from Augustine theologically on at least one major issue. Whereas Augustine wrote that reason was subordinate to belief, Aquinas, in general, seemed to elevate reason to at least equal standing with faith, if not sometimes actually putting reason ahead of faith. This emphasis on rational thinking (an attempt to reconcile Aristotelian logic with Christian theology) led to what became known as Scholasticism, the dominant Catholic theological position for the next several hundred years.

Although he didn't waver much from Augustine's disenchantment with sex, Aquinas did emphasize that there were _two_ reasons to justify sexual intercourse within marriage, as opposed to procreation only. Aquinas believed that unbridled sexual impulses tended to interfere with the healthy functioning of the mind, and marital sex offered a way to manage these impulses so that rational thinking remained intact. Aquinas did concur with Augustine and others that procreation should be the ultimate end of sexual behavior, so he prohibited any behavior that wouldn't normally lead to procreation, but he did allow that there might be some other benefit to the practice besides offspring.

So, sex in marriage was restricted by the Catholic church to 1) procreation, 2) avoiding lust, or 3) just being able to think straight. It's really no wonder Christians have had so many problems with their sexuality. And it's no wonder that the Catholic church had to wait several hundred years before, at Vatican II in the early 1960s, the pope finally decided to say that sex was not just for the purposes of procreation, but it was also for developing the marital bond. Nothing really said about getting physical pleasure, but hey, it's a step in the right direction. It's also one of the reasons the Catholic church has been so adamant about birth control. The issue of intentionally blocking conception is certainly a sticky theological problem, but the other aspect of their difficulty with birth control is that if you permit it (other than the "rhythm" method, which basically means watching the calendar and trying to be abstinent during ovulation), you are officially admitting that believers would be having sex for the purpose of, God forbid, physical pleasure. The church, thanks to Augustine and these other guys, just couldn't do that.

It's also interesting to note that the Protestant reformation, although not specifically based on restricted sexuality, gave birth to at least some strains of Christianity led by folks who believed that sexual pleasure was not so despicable. Martin Luther was one of these.

### Questions for Reflection and Discussion

What impact do you think the ideas of Augustine, Aquinas and the Patristics have had on your own Christian experience with regard to sexuality?

Have you seen evidence in your own church experience of this historically negative attitude toward sexuality?

How do you think your church could work to replace this attitude with a healthier one?

How do you think the church would have been different if we had a historically positive view of sexuality?

### Chapter 2 References and Resources

Thomas Cahill - _Sailing the Wine Dark Sea: Why the Greeks Matter_ , 2004. Anchor Press

Plato - _The Allegory of the Cave_ , in _The Republic_

Augustine - _Confessions_

# Chapter 3

### Reformers, Pilgrims and Victorians

Luther and the Reformers

The Protestant Reformation of the 16th century changed the world in a lot of ways, and that included how Western culture dealt with sexuality. At the least it offered some Christians an alternative to the restrictions of the Catholic church, although this alternative was still not incredible healthy or enlightened, and probably self-serving for the reformers. Luther and the other reformers came out of Catholicism; Luther himself was an Augustinian monk who had taken a vow of celibacy. And he was only one of many.

By the time of the Reformation, the Catholic church had become not only the primary religious force in the west, but also the dominant political and financial institution of the time. There were several reasons for this. First, the church was enormously wealthy and the major landowner in many regions. Second, wealth often leads to corruption. The church was enmeshed with political and military leaders throughout Europe, and it was common for a bishop or cardinal to be a close political advisor to the king. Third, the church controlled education. Most common people couldn't read, and if you wanted to learn to read, you were taught in a monastery or nunnery. So, if you learned to read the scriptures, you learned to understand them based on the rules of the church. In addition, many of those taught by the church became monks or nuns. This was an attractive option not only because of the opportunity for education, but because of the social status of the call to celibacy.

Augustine (interpreting Paul) had proposed that celibacy was the highest virtue, and the only truly virtuous way to avoid the sins of the flesh. And although they had been tempered by Aquinas, Augustinian views of sexuality were still pervasive. So becoming a monk or nun was considered significantly holier than marrying and producing children. This was obviously a popular vocation for parents to push their children into. Some estimates are that, by the 16th century, as many as 1 out of 4 people were choosing to join the clergy. It's impossible to know whether all of these people really felt a call to serve God in ministry, or they just wanted the education, free room and board, the cool monk clothes, and potential for social advancement. But in any case, there were a lot of them. This seemingly inexhaustible human resource only served to strengthen the power of the church ( _see Carlson, 2004 for a thorough discussion_ ).

This is the culture that produced the reformers.

Luther, Calvin and the other reformers were not only disillusioned with the power of the church and the Pope, but also with the moral excesses and indulgences of the supposedly holy, celibate priesthood. The reformers condemned the allowances made by the church for adulterous affairs of kings and princes, but mostly they condemned the church's refusal to acknowledge the "underground" sexual activities of nuns, priests, bishops and even popes.

Luther, to his credit, didn't seem to be quite so condemning of the individuals involved, but rather of the institution and the illusions of holiness that it tried to promote. In fact, Luther became convinced that it was virtually impossible for the vast majority of people to live up to a standard of celibacy ostensibly "required" by the church. He believed that maybe one person out of 1000 was actually given the gift of celibacy, and that it was no wonder that the clergy was drowning in sexual sin. He believed that celibacy was unnatural and unbiblical (Gen 2:18) and it was simply not within the realm of human possibilities to resist the quite natural and God-ordained need for sexual activity.

Of course, Luther himself was one of those who was unable to resist. His justifications for a non-celibate clergy and the virtues of marriage were needed not only to reform the church, but to allow for his own marriage. His wife, Katherine, was smuggled out of a nunnery in an empty pickled herring barrel so they could be married.

They must have wanted each other pretty seriously.

Luther held on to the Augustinian view that the primary reason for sex is procreation, and he also embraced the Pauline idea that marriage is a potential remedy for lust. However, unlike Augustine, he believed that sex within marriage was right and good, and unlike Paul, he believed that marriage was actually more virtuous than celibacy. This became his foundational argument against a celibate clergy and in favor of the healthy nature of sex within marriage. He proposed that not only was marital sex good, holy and healthy, but that it was a necessity for maintaining a healthy relationship within the marriage, and that a sexless marriage would end up inevitably causing one of the parties (usually the husband) to stray into sin. It's important to note that Luther never really got to the point that he believed sex in marriage was without sin, but he believed that sex became _redeemed_ within the marital bond. Everything we do as fallen beings is sinful, but through grace those sinful things can become holy.

It's also important to add here that although Luther believed that denying your spouse and refusing to "pay the conjugal debt" would lead to problems, he did make allowances for sickness, disability, etc. He specifically taught that the husband of an invalid wife should trust God to give him self-control, and not take his wife's illness as an excuse for looking outside the marriage for sexual fulfillment. By the way, I wouldn't recommend using that phrase "pay the conjugal debt" in your own sexual relationship. Just doesn't sound that romantic to me. Maybe that's just me.

One other note before we leave the reformation. In addition to the pre-reformation church's general distaste for sex, there was also a distinct gender bias in the church's approach to sexuality. It was generally accepted, and promoted, that the woman was the vehicle of sexual temptation and the catalyst of the fall as described in Genesis, that is, man would certainly not have eaten the forbidden fruit had the clever woman not tempted him. This, of course, led to a significant level of subjugation of women in many arenas, including marriage and sex.

Luther was not much of a feminist by today's standards. He wrote, for example, that because men had broad shoulders and narrow hips, they possessed intelligence, and because women have broad hips and narrow shoulders, they ought to stay at home; also because they have a "wide fundament" to sit upon. These stereotypes notwithstanding, Luther did write that husbands and wives should be "partners" and that "whatever the husband has, the wife has and possesses in its entirety...the wife differs from the husband in no other respect than sex; otherwise the woman is altogether as the man" ( _see Exhortation to the Knights of the Teutonic Order_ ). And Luther didn't just talk the talk. His wife, Katie (the one he smuggled out of a nunnery in a fish barrel), became not only a model mother and wife, but also a successful businesswoman. Martin referred to her as the "morning star of Wittenberg" since she began her day at 4:00 AM. And when he died, he left everything to her, contrary to the societal norm of leaving your estate only to a male heir.

* *

Pilgrims, Victorians and Freudians

After the Reformation, probably the two most significant forces shaping our current view of western and ultimately American sexuality were 1) the migration of the pilgrims and Puritanism to America and 2) the culture of Victorian Europe. Both of these cultures were caught up in the dilemma of a desired image that just didn't match up to the reality of human nastiness.

It is important to present a balanced view of the Puritan influence here. The most commonly held stereotype of Puritanism is reflected in H.L. Mencken's idea that "Puritanism is the haunting fear that someone somewhere may be happy." Although the Puritans certainly were severe in their convictions about sexuality, it is inaccurate to view them as anti-sexual. In fact, the Puritans had a deep appreciation for sex as a wonderful gift from God that should not be abused (that is, engaged in outside of marriage) or neglected. Richard Godbeer writes of James Matlock, a Puritan who was excommunicated for denying his wife "conjugal fellowship" for two years. So, in contrast to Catholicism's disdain for sex, the Puritans were fairly progressive. It is true however, that stepping outside the bounds of matrimony for sexual pleasure brought dire consequences.

According to Reay Tannahill, author of Sex in History, sexual purity was demanded in the colonies, and when violators were discovered, punishment was severe.

Where men were deprived of women, and where many women were suspect, sexual sin was rife, and the Puritan assessment of human weakness seemed to be justified. In the tradition of the time, punishment was harsh. Fornicators were flogged, and then had to make some public confession in church; adulterers were similarly treated, and sometimes branded as well; the pillory or the stocks were the penalty for parents whose child was born too soon after the wedding day; an infant born on a Sunday was often refused baptism because it was believed that it must have been conceived on a Sunday. The weak-minded might be burned...or hanged- like the teenage servant, Thomas Granger of Duxbury- for having carnally abused a mare, a cow, two goats, five sheep, two calves and a turkey (p. 329).

Well, we've always gone to extremes regarding sex. I don't know whether it's our natural depravity that pushes societies to adopt such extreme legal and moral positions, or the extreme positions of fundamental reactionaries that push us to sexual depravity- maybe looking for some sort of balance- or maybe it's both. In any case, it seems like the two always go hand in hand. Whenever you find sexual behavior that's completely out of bounds, you find a group of judges, or religious leaders, or politicians that are willing to do just about anything to "ensure" moral purity. Of course, those who yell the loudest against the sin are often those who are caught most tightly in its web ( _for a discussion of Puritans and sex, see Godbeer, 2002 and Ryken, 1986)_. In any case, the rigid Protestant-Puritan quest for virtue and sexual purity combined with the Augustinian-Catholic distaste for and distrust of sex set the cultural course for American sexuality for the next couple of hundred years. Not much seems to have changed until the mid-1800s to the early 1900s, when Victorianism began to drift toward America.

Victorian Europe was a facade of sexual purity built on a "resurrection of courtly love" (Tannahill, p. 347) that called for all virtuous women to renounce all evidence of their sexuality, including being sexually interested in or active with their husbands. This, as Luther predicted two hundred years before, led to a culture of adultery, prostitution and venereal disease wrapped in a sweet, pretty exterior of multi-layered petticoats, chastity belts and chin-high collars. The numbers of prostitutes in London and Paris were probably in the 5000 to 10,000 range during this period. It was common practice for a man to have a wife to bear children, keep his home in order, and be his lifelong, faithful companion, and have a mistress or multiple prostitutes to fulfill his sexual desires. In fact, prostitution was not only tolerated by Victorian society, but was considered a necessary part of the cultural sexual equation.

In Vern Bullough's Science in the Bedroom; A History of Sex Research he quotes William Lecky, a 19th century historian:

... _it was the prostitute, the very symbol of degradation and sinfulness, who ultimately proved to be the 'most efficient guardian of virtue'. By this he meant that only by tolerating the kind of double-standard that prostitution implied could the good woman- the non-sexual woman- be preserved in her chastity (p. 97)._

The Victorians were, like the Catholic church, like the Puritans, and the later Christian church in America, unable to acknowledge the truth about sexuality, and were therefore destined to suffer from their ignorance, and stubbornness. Bullough wrote that the "key missing ingredient" in the culture was a "willingness to see sex as a vital... force that was capable of doing more good than harm, and a willingness to see it as one of life's pleasures." (p. 49). One of the products of this unwillingness, not surprisingly, was an abundance of empty marriages, and a large number of women afflicted with what was then known as "hysteria". These women, unlike their male counterparts, often sought medical help for their ailments. This eventually led a number of them into the care of a Viennese physician named Sigmund Freud.

Hysteria was, because of the population that it manifested within, considered to be a _female_ mental disorder, hence the name. _Hysteria_ means literally "wandering womb." It was then considered a _neurosis_ , and now probably would fall into the categories of anxiety disorders or mood disorders. Of course we know now that those diagnoses are certainly not limited to women, although women are still more likely than men to admit they have psychological needs. But Freud was not so enlightened.

I know that some of you are already thinking I've gone over to the other side because I've even mentioned Freud, so I'll try to make this part as quick and painless as possible, but it's impossible to discuss the history of sexuality without acknowledging Freud's contributions. I know he was an atheist and he thought religion was a neurosis and all that (just to be honest, religion _is_ a kind of neurosis for a lot of people, including some Christians). But anybody who comes up with a theory, without the benefit of modern scientific methods, and that theory is still around and being used by people in the profession a hundred years later...well, he must have been on to something.

Ted Dowell, who was one of my professors at seminary, was fond of saying in class, "All truth is God's truth". So if Freud, or Edison, or Einstein or Copeland or anybody else discovers something that is actually _true_ , what they discovered remains true, even if they (the discoverers) are faulty. By the way, we're all faulty. Including Freud. And certainly me.

So when Freud began to deal with these "hysterical" women, one of the things he found as he began to talk to them was that they often had early memories of their relationships with their parents, and that some of those seemed to manifest themselves, unconsciously, in sexual imagery, ideas or preoccupations. From working with these women, Freud began to formulate his theory of infantile sexuality, and ultimately his theory of psychosexual development.

Let me say here that most of the Christian people who dismiss Freudian theory as vile and disgusting have never read it, and certainly never really studied it at any length. So, here I'll ask you, like I ask my Psychology 1301 students, to reserve judgment about the value of Freudian theory until you've heard me out.

First, let's be honest about the problems with Freud. 1) He did place too much emphasis on sexuality. 2) He did place too much emphasis on early childhood development to the neglect of the rest of the life-span. 3) He was too pessimistic, believing that once your parents screwed your life up by age 5 or 6, about the best you could hope for was to lie on a couch 30 years later and talk to a psychiatrist about it for seven years and about half a million dollars, and maybe just how screwed up you actually were would become even more clear to you. 4) The way he described childhood attraction to the opposite-sex parent (the Oedipus and Electra complexes) is too creepy for most people. 5) His theory doesn't really fit everybody. 6) He was an atheist and thought religion was a neurosis...oh yeah, I already said that.

Now, what's right about Freud? 1) He placed a lot of emphasis on our sexuality as one of the foundations of our identity, and one of the places where we get most messed up. Turns out this is actually true. 2) He showed that early childhood is probably the most important part of the life-span when it comes to the formation of our personality, and a lot of what's wrong with us as adults does have to do with what our parents did or didn't do when we were little. True again. 3) His Oedipus and Electra ideas made us understand why a lot of us are mama's boys or daddy's girls (take a minute and Google up the words to the country song "I'm Already Taken" by Steve Wariner from a few years back. It's Freud's phallic stage - Nashville style) and why a lot of us are attracted to lovers who are like our opposite-sex parent in some way, even when (maybe especially when) that opposite-sex parent is bad in some way.

For example, a woman I'll call Lucy, who was on staff at a local domestic violence shelter, used to come to one of my classes and speak about the inter-generational pattern of domestic violence. Lucy's father hit her mother for most of Lucy's childhood, and when she started dating she was shocked to realize (after several years and bruises) that she tended to seek out men to date who were likely to be violent toward her. She said "I've got radar for men who will abuse me. I can go to a party with 20 guys there, and within 15 minutes I'll be talking to one who will treat me badly." Now, logic would tell us that Lucy would do everything she could to _avoid_ men like that. But for some reason, logic is not working here. And of course, that's just one example.

Okay, I could go on, but you get the picture, I hope. Even if Freud was wrong about some things, there are some very important things he was right about. And we can't dismiss the historical value of what he did.

For Freud, the emphasis on sexuality was a by-product, in some ways, of his desire to help people deal with psychological problems. His goal was not to be a sexologist, but an effective psychiatrist. Fortunately, he wasn't the only person who was working on sexuality as an academic pursuit. There were several players in the early sexology field of the late 1800s and early 20th century, but we'll only mention two of them briefly here; two researchers who specifically chose to focus on sexuality as their life's work; Richard von Krafft-Ebing and Henry Havelock Ellis.

Krafft-Ebing was a German Catholic who did his most important work and writing toward the end of the 19th century. Although he didn't do much in the way of challenging Victorian rules and ideologies, he did attempt to open up the academic and medical cultures to the significance of human sexuality as a complex biological, psychological and societal force; a force that should be acknowledged, analyzed, and intellectually appreciated, if not personally enjoyed. In fact, his emphasis on the power of sexuality laid the foundation for Freud's work.

Although he continued in the Catholic tradition of viewing sex as basically destructive - "a volcano which scorches and eats up everything" (Bullough, p. 48), Krafft-Ebing brought some of that potential destruction into scientific discourse, cataloguing a variety of sexual problems and dysfunctions in his major work, _Psychopathia Sexualis,_ an encyclopedia of case studies describing in detail the dangers of any type of sexual activity that was not ultimately reproductive, including masturbation, fetishism, homosexuality and sadomasochism (which he named in honor of two authors of sexually variant novels, the Marquis de Sade and Leopold von Sacher-Masoch).

Whereas Krafft-Ebing's major contribution was identification and description of sexual problems, Henry Havelock Ellis' contribution to views on sexuality at the turn of the 20th century was much more positive and progressive.

Havelock Ellis is generally credited with being the first researcher to actually present a positive and healthy view of human sexuality. Ellis was not militant in his approach, but in subtle accounts and descriptions of what he believed were natural and healthy processes (such as infantile sexual exploration and adolescent masturbation) he promoted a tolerance for sexual pleasure as an end in itself, and a tolerance for sexual behaviors that might be considered outside the current cultural norms. In doing so, he confronted Victorian Europe (and later America) with its hypocrisy toward sex. He differed from Krafft-Ebing, Freud and others in that he focused on normal, healthy behaviors rather than pathology and remedies to pathology. Lastly, Ellis was clearly ahead of the times regarding female sexuality and believed that the Victorian idea of the virtuous woman as asexual was completely inaccurate. He argued that women were actually far more sexual than men, but that female sexuality was manifested differently than male sexuality. He listed several ways that women's desire and responses were different, including:

1. Women were more passive than active in their sexual response.

2. Women's responses were more complex and less spontaneous.

3. The response was stronger when a relationship was established.

4. There was greater variation, both among women and within one woman.

5. Although the male response was localized to the penis, the female response was much more diffuse, including other erogenous areas.

6. He vehemently disagreed with Freud's idea of the vaginal orgasm, and argued that the female orgasm was a combination of clitoris, vagina and uterus working in concert. (see Bullough, pp. 84-85)

Ellis's ideas here are particularly interesting, I think, in light of the male-dominated, phallocentric models of sexuality and sex therapy that emerged in the 1950s and 60s, most of which seem to have ignored some of the major ideas in this list. More on that later.

* *

American Sexuality at the Turn of the Century

It seems that American views of sexuality, as I said earlier, were dominated by Protestant Puritanism and Catholic rigidity from the 1600s to the late 1800's, when we can add to that mix the crazy-making dysfunction of Victorianism. If Europeans were hypocritical in their approach to sex in the 1800s, Americans did it bigger and better, with a shot of progressive, pioneer spirit thrown in here and there.

For example, American wives and mothers, at least those in the upper and middle classes, maintained the ideal of the virtuous, dispassionate Victorian woman, but were also more likely than their European counterparts to be somewhat independent, to get their hands dirty in the fields or family business, and to be (at least subtly) politically active. American men were also caught up in the dichotomy of wanting a virtuous wife and seeking sexual satisfaction from another source. Bullough writes of the story of William Berrian, the rector of Trinity Church in New York City, who, in an 1857 sermon, bragged that in a ministry of almost 50 years, he had only visited a house of prostitution 10 times. That's right. He bragged about it, _in a sermon_.

The medical community didn't help with this flood of ignorance. American physicians commonly wrote and taught that female sexual arousal was aberrant and even dangerous, and that women who had orgasms, especially outside the context of procreation, were putting their health and their partners' health at tremendous risk. Common misogynistic medical advice included the idea that the female reproductive system was the cause of insanity in women, that intercourse for women after menopause was unnatural, and that young women didn't develop intellectually as thoroughly as young men did because the development of their "special apparatus" and the development of intellect were mutually exclusive. The adolescent female body just couldn't handle both tasks at once ( _see Bullough, pp. 28-29_ ).

Special apparatus. That's funny. I've got to use that again at some point.

Then there was the strange pseudo-medical influence of people like Sylvester Graham and William Kellogg, who both believed (or at least promoted the idea) that eating too much meat or rich food caused sexual tension and a lack of restraint. They each, conveniently and profitably for them, had a solution for this problem. Graham had developed Graham flour, and marketed Graham crackers as a sexual deterrent. Kellogg did the same with Kellogg's Corn Flakes. Weird, huh. Think about what you're doing to yourself the next time you have a big bowl of cornflakes.

Of course, those are both better options, I think, than a spiked ring to wear around your penis to make sure you don't get an erection, or spiked gloves taped to your hands to make sure you don't touch yourself, both of which were actual products marketed in Victorian America to keep children from sexual self-exploration. Too bad those parents didn't know about corn flakes yet.

### Questions for Reflection and Discussion

What did the Reformation do for our attitude toward sexuality?

Is there a difference today in the Protestant attitude and the Catholic attitude toward sexuality?

What about the early researchers and theorists; Freud, Krafft-Ebing, and Ellis? How did they each impact how we think about sex today?

What are the effects of the European Victorian attitude toward sexuality that you see still at work in our culture today?

### Chapter 3 References and Resources

Alan Carlson - _A Revolutionary Theology of Sex: Martin Luther on Sex, Marriage and Family_ , 2004. Family Research Council Witherspoon Lectures.

<http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WT04G01>

Martin Luther - _Exhortation to the Knights of the Teutonic Order_

Lyndal Roper - _Luther: Sex, Marriage and Motherhood_ , 1983. History Today,33,12,p.33.

Martin Luther - _The Estate of Marriage_ , 1522.

Richard Godbeer - _Sexual Revolution in Early America_ , 2002. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Leland Ryken - _Worldly Saints; The Puritans as they Really Were_ , 1986. Zondervan.

Reay Tannahill - _Sex in History_. 1992. Scarborough House.

Vern Bullough - _Science in the Bedroom : A History of Sex Research_. 1994. Basic Books/Harper Collins.

# Chapter 4

### The American Sexual Revolution

"We're gonna have a revolution.

_Well, you know, we all want to change the world_."

The Beatles - Revolution

Americans, we like to think, are just too smart to put up with stupidity for very long (of course that's not really true, we just like to think it is) and so it was inevitable that someone somewhere in this great country of ours, would come to our sexual rescue and begin to pull us out of the quicksand of ignorance and moral duplicity that had us eating whole boxes of Graham crackers in our carriages on our way to the whorehouse.

This same head-buried-in-the-sand mentality persisted into the 1950s and 60s, when we watched the virtuous Lucy and Ricky Ricardo sleeping in separate twin beds. How funny is that? That some Hollywood genius thought that twin beds would keep us from thinking that Ricky Ricardo was having sex with his wife. Of course, we knew he _was_. And of course, they really _were_ , since they were an actual married couple. We just wanted to pretend that they weren't, because somehow that made us feel, well, cleaner....or something. It certainly made us feel better about Lucy (There was no doubt really about their friends Fred and Ethel. They were doing it for sure).

But Lucy had to be pure, just like Laura Petrie of _The Dick Van Dyke Show_ , and Donna Reed of _The Donna Reed Show_ , and June Cleaver of _Leave it to Beaver_. They not only were pure, because they weren't having sex with their husbands, but they were also devoted to their husbands' success above all else. This included having his dinner ready on time, wearing pearls and heels while they vacuumed the house, entertaining his business associates in the home whenever he happened to bring them by, and on and on and on- basically setting up a perfect little sanctuary for him to escape the stresses of the professional work world, of which she was completely ignorant. He was the smart one, she was the pure, pretty one; sitting at home upon her nice, wide fundament (Luther's words, not mine). Not a lot of progress, in some ways, from the 16th century. Well, okay, there were vacuums and curlers and gas stoves and high heels, but that's about it. And a significant number of Americans, mostly men, were really happy with this arrangement. But there were, underneath the smiles and pearls, a group of dissatisfied and disaffected women that had been silent too long.

The tide had to turn, and so it did.

* *

Factors in the Revolution

There are several factors that contributed significantly to what became known as the Sexual Revolution. We're going to address a few of them briefly here; the Kinsey reports, the feminist movement, Playboy magazine, the birth control pill, sex on television, obscenity, and gay liberation _(for a thorough discussion on the sexual revolution see Escoffier, 2003 and Allyn, 2000)._

Now, since I've mentioned Playboy and sex on TV, let me say before I get going here that I think the sexual revolution was both bad and good for our culture. There are those on the secular/left-wing/liberal end of the spectrum who are certain that the revolution was not only good for us, but that it actually didn't go far enough, and that we still need more revolving. In some ways they're probably right. There are also those of the Christian/right-wing/conservative end of the argument who still rant and rave that the sexual revolution was the worst thing that ever happened to our country, and they dream of the "good ol' days" when couples slept in twin beds on TV and women didn't dare work outside the home, especially when they had children. Well, they're probably right about some things too. I hope that as we sift through this a little, you can try to decide for yourself what good came out of this time in our history, and also what we could have done without.

My take on it is that, in general, the sexual revolution was a good thing when you really weigh the pros and cons, and that if Christian people had been in on it, redeeming it, helping shape it, rather than just yelling about it from the pulpits and pews, it might have been really good for us. I think Christians should have _led_ the sexual revolution. Think how different and really revolutionary that might have been. Instead we just waited to see how nasty it would get, then we did what we've done since Sodom in the Old Testament...and Rome and Corinth in the New Testament and Augustine in the early Patristic period and most of us in the contemporary American church. We whined about how bad our world was getting and we complained about how wicked _those_ people were and how they were ruining " _our_ way of life", and we condemned them and held up signs that said things like "God hates fags". We decided that we had to take a polar opposite position so that everyone would see how wrong and bad and godless the secular people were and how right and good and holy the Christians were and they would all come running to our churches to join us.

This tactic has always worked _so_ well for us. I guess that's why we keep repeating it.

Alfred Kinsey was a biologist who drifted from his first passion, studying gall wasps, to become one of the most controversial academic figures of the 20th century. Kinsey's personal story is both sordid and a little boring and doesn't really concern us, but his professional contribution to sexology was dramatic, and his influence on American culture was vital to the revolution.

In the 1940s, Kinsey and his staff began to collect information, through interviews, on the sex lives of Americans. This data collection resulted in the publication of two volumes; Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1952). Both volumes caused some stir, detailing the specific sexual behaviors of Kinsey's volunteer sample, but Americans weren't really disturbed by the information about men (except for the parts on homosexuality, which we'll mention later). After all, we've known since the beginning that men were sexually active. It was the volume on female sexuality that really upset us. Kinsey's data on female sexuality clearly depicted American women as active sexual creatures who fantasized, wanted orgasms, had sex before marriage, cheated on their husbands and even masturbated. No one was ready to admit that. Merely reporting it seemed to be cause for condemnation. No less than the Rev. Billy Graham seems to have proposed that the Kinsey Reports would be the downfall of American society.

It is impossible to estimate the damage this book will do to the already deteriorating morals of America. The moral laws governing marriage have been scorned and immorality advocated. Young people are encouraged to have pre-marital experiences.

Happily married husbands and wives are going to start suspecting each other when they read that one out of every four wives is unfaithful to her husband. Doctor Kinsey's report shows itself to be completely lopsided and unscientific when it says that seven out of ten women who had pre-marital affairs had no regrets. He certainly could not have interviewed any of the millions of born-again Christian women in this country who put the highest price on virtue, decency and modesty.

[The report is]... an indictment against American womanhood....we have millions of women who still know how to blush—women who believe that virtue is the greatest attribute of womanhood (1953).

I have a tremendous amount of respect for Dr. Graham, and he may have changed some of his thinking about this type of information in the last 50 years, but his response in 1953 typified the conservative Christian response to Kinsey's report on female sexuality. I think it's interesting that the backlash against the information on women among Christian leaders was so much more severe than the response to the information on men.

The truth about Kinsey's reports is that they are pretty boring; lots of tables and statistics, etc. No fun at all really. No pictures, no photos. Nothing there to really corrupt the youth, if you know what I mean. In fact this thing you're reading right now is much more explicit, and has diagrams and pictures. Maybe that's a change for the better. And now, we also know that Kinsey's books were not only boring, but also just not very well done, in a scientific sense. There are some real methodological problems with his work; basically with the sampling process and the interviewing process. So, some of Dr. Graham's criticisms were valid even though his conclusions may not have been. And as valid science goes, Kinsey's work is really not. But it is important for a couple of reasons.

It was the first time any American researcher had made an attempt to collect a significant amount of real data about sexuality. Kinsey and his staff interviewed several thousand people and got them to talk about their sex lives. Nothing like that had ever been done before. It was a major academic step in sexology. Second, Kinsey's report on the American female went a long way toward dissolving the neo-Victorian Donna Reed /June Cleaver myth, and in doing so, paved the way for the rest of the revolution.

In the late 1950s, _McCall's_ magazine hired a young free-lance writer named Betty Friedan to do a story called "The Togetherness Woman." They were looking for a nice, sweet story that perpetuated the idea that the best possible life for women was one that involved immaculate housekeeping, flawless care for the offspring, and attentive (but not passionate) affection for the husband and full, unwavering support for his career, with no consideration of any personal goals and aspirations. Friedan began working on the article, and after several months of research and interviews, became convinced that "the togetherness woman" existed mostly on television and in the minds and hearts of men who continually benefitted from the illusion. Certainly there were many women who were completely satisfied with their roles as wives and mothers, but Friedan discovered an undercurrent of discontent among many women that the general public, and certainly the editors of _McCall's_ , weren't ready to accept ( _for a good discussion, see Cohen, 1988_ ).

She found that many of the women were unhappy in their marriages with the constant demands of children and housework, and with little or no domestic or emotional support from their husbands. Even among the women who were happy in their marriages, Friedan still found a significant number who were interested in pursuing higher education, or in using the higher education they already had in the work force, or even actually pursuing a professional career. To Friedan this was the big story, so she wrote it that way. Only she couldn't find a magazine to publish it. What they wanted was "The Togetherness Woman" and what they got (several years later after the article turned into a book) was The Feminine Mystique, and the beginning of the feminist movement. Friedan's book made feminist theory accessible to the public for the first time. She exposed the gender and sexual inequities of the American culture and opened the door for women to become a significant political and cultural force like never before.

In the early 1950s a young businessman was driving across the country toward California and stopped in a gas station in the Nevada desert. On the wall in that gas station was a calendar with a picture of a nude young woman on a red satin sheet. The young traveler was mesmerized by the photo, and after some investigation, bought the rights to the photo for $500. He took that photo and made it the first centerfold of his new magazine, which he decided to call "Playboy". That young man of course, was Hugh Hefner, and the young woman in the photo was Marilyn Monroe.

The advent of _Playboy_ was significant not because if offered men a chance to look at pictures of naked women. That had always been an option if you were desperate enough and knew where to go to find them. Hefner's innovations were two-fold. First, _Playboy_ offered pictures of naked women in a completely different context. Prior to _Playboy_ , men who wanted to look at pornography would have to go "underground" and visit seedy peep shows and adult bookstores... in _person_. This put a significant restriction on the average "normal" American male's need for visual nakedness. Of course, no truly respectable man would visit such places or be caught with that kind of material. But with _Playboy_ , pornography was artfully scattered between articles on politics, culture, sports, and business. Second, not only was pornography "legitimized" by this new context, but you could actually buy it through the mail and have it delivered straight to your front door. No risk of the preacher or your boss or some other unfortunate person running into you at the porn shop. Consequently, thousands of men who would have previously not considered buying pornography because of the social risk involved now felt the "freedom" to indulge themselves. These two changes in the culture of pornography, by the way, became one of the three foundations of sexual addiction - accessibility. We'll talk about addiction later.

The fourth major impact on the sexual revolution was the development and availability of the birth control pill, approved by the FDA in 1963. Prior to the development of the pill, there were two common forms of birth control; condoms and abstinence. The pharmaceutical company Ortho actually developed a contraceptive jelly in the 30s, and a coil diaphragm in the 40s, but the use of both of these was limited at best. For most women, definitive contraception meant deciding to not be sexually active. The advent of the pill meant that not only was contraception easier and more available, but that for the first time in history women were able to make the decision to have sex without the fear of pregnancy. This was liberating for many women, but was (and sometimes still is) vehemently opposed by some Christians, who held tightly to the notion that sex is only intended for procreation. If you used the pill, you were obviously deciding to have sex for non-procreative reasons, and the Catholic church in particular just couldn't condone sex without the potential for reproduction. And this was with regard to _married_ women who just didn't want to get pregnant. Of course many users of the pill were single women who for the first time could become sexually active outside of marriage without worrying about the possibility of pregnancy, and without being dependent on a male partner to provide the contraception. The idea of a medical innovation that made it easier for single people to become sexually active without any consequences was particularly disturbing to conservative Christians. In spite of the church's stance, this sense that women could truly be in charge of their own sexual activity and make their own sexual choices enhanced the empowerment that women would begin to embrace as the feminist movement began to grow, and as the "free love" movement of the 60s began to develop.

In 1956, a young author named Grace Metalious wrote a book about a fictional New England town called "Peyton Place". Although it was considered scandalous and controversial by many conservative Americans, it became a best-seller, and in 1958 became a hit movie. The true scandal, however, of Peyton Place probably occurred in 1963, when the book was turned into a TV series.

_Peyton Place_ , the series, was much less provocative than most soap operas that have been on TV since the 70s, but it had a significant impact on our culture because it was one of, if not the first television series that portrayed the illicit, behind-the-scenes sexuality of small town America. In a sense, _Peyton Place_ was an entertaining, even titillating portrayal of what Kinsey revealed about our culture in his boring, pseudo-scientific way. Folks in this sleepy village didn't sleep in twin beds like Dick Van Dyke and Mary Tyler Moore. They slept in each other's beds, with each other's husbands and wives. _Peyton Place_ was probably the first place a "sex scene" was portrayed on TV. It went something like this: two fully-clothed people, sitting on the edge of a bed together, they begin to kiss, they kiss more passionately, and the camera pans slowly to the open window, the breeze blowing the curtains slowly in and out of the window, and the screen fades to black. And we have our first sex scene on television. Pretty exciting, I know.

By the 60s, a TV set in every home had become the cultural standard, and a focus of nightly family activity. I'm a child of the 60s, and I remember vividly how we would eat our dinner in the evenings as a family, then move quickly to the living room to watch _Gunsmoke_ , or _Bonanza_ , or _The Andy Griffith Show_. My parents were part of the generation that had to begin to actually censor what their kids saw on TV, thanks to shows like _Peyton Place_ , and the _Smothers Brothers_ and _Laugh-In_ a few years later. In a few short decades, sex in America had moved from secretive, mysterious, unspoken places to open scientific investigation in our universities, and now into our mailboxes and living rooms. Some of us were thrilled, but some of us just weren't ready.

I mentioned the _Smothers Brothers_ above. Most of you under the age of 30 won't know who they are. Tom and Dick Smothers' variety show, which began in 1967, angered censors because of political and anti-war satire and mild sexual innuendo. CBS cancelled them in 1969. The reason they're important is that they, along with " _Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In_ " and a few others, followed the lead of _Peyton Place_ in pushing the limits of what American propriety would allow on the air. Walking hand in hand with the revolution of sexual freedom was the revolution of freedom of expression. America in the 60s became confused and obsessed with what was "decent" or 'obscene" or "pornographic" (and we still aren't sure). Comics like Lenny Bruce became popular for routines laced with dirty jokes and "blue" language. Jim Morrison of The Doors exposed himself at a concert in Miami in 1969. Crowds in San Francisco held "nude sit-ins" or "swim-ins", claiming their legal right to nudity. Women began to go bra-less, and to actually hold public bra-burnings, protesting sexual oppression and societal control of their bodies and their sexuality. As with most social movements, the feminists and other sexual revolutionaries probably went too far in some cases, and there were certainly some extreme and even ridiculous tactics. But the questions that were prompted and the standards that were challenged by these extreme events and attitudes may have been just what was needed to jolt a repressed and confused sexual culture into doing something different. America in the 60s just wasn't sure exactly what that _something_ should be.

The last factor contributing to the sexual revolution (that we will address briefly here) was the beginning of the gay rights movement. Although there had always probably been pockets of "out" gays on either coast of the U.S., homosexuality was mostly closeted and most Americans just pretended that it didn't exist. This changed, or at least began to change, one night in New York's Greenwich Village in the early summer of 1969. The Stonewall Inn was a small club that, while technically not a "gay bar", was open and accepting of homosexuals. On the night of June 28, police raided the Stonewall and attempted to arrest patrons for lewd behavior. This was not an unusual occurrence. What _was_ unusual was that for the first time, the patrons fought back, actually injuring several police officers. This rebellion inspired several other violent protests over the next few nights. This "we've-had-enough" response by the gay community sparked a level of gay activism that had never been seen before, including the development of gay newspapers that publicized the struggle for civil rights for homosexuals. In the summer of 1970, the first "Gay Pride" parades were held in New York and San Francisco.

So, was the sexual revolution good for America? I still think so. Like any revolution, it left casualties in its wake; the innocence of the 50s, the repression of female sexuality, and the pretense that all Americans were heterosexual, to name a few. But it also opened the door to new possibilities like scientific research on sexuality, more freedom of expression, more equality for women and homosexual Americans, and more honesty about sexuality in general.

Were there problems? Sure. Was if offensive to many Americans, and particularly Christians? Absolutely. Did many of the revolutionaries take their attitudes and behaviors to ridiculous extremes? Certainly. But let's be honest. We're stubborn, and none of us likes change. It usually takes a revolution of some sort to get even minor social changes accomplished, and some of the walls torn down by the sexual revolution had been maintained for thousands of years.

Whether we like it or not, it happened. And the seeds were sown for the exploration, experimentation, permissiveness, openness and sexual disillusionment of the next 40 years.

### Questions for Reflection and Discussion

Overall, do you think the Sexual Revolution was a positive or a negative thing for American culture?

If you had been alive during this time, how do you think you would have responded, as a Christian, to all of these changes?

How would the outcomes have been different if the church had led the sexual revolution, instead of reacting against it? Would this have even been possible?

Is it time for a new sexual revolution in our culture? If so, what should that look like? Who should make it happen? What are the issues or problems it should address?

### Chapter 4 References and Resources

Jeffrey Escoffier - _Sexual Revolution_. 2003. Thunder's Mouth Press.

David Allyn - _Make Love, Not War - The Sexual Revolution: An Unfettered History_. 2000. Little, Brown and Co.

Alfred Kinsey, Wardell Pomeroy, Clyde Martin \- _Sexual Behavior in the Human Male_. 1948. W.B. Saunders.

Alfred Kinsey, Wardell Pomeroy, Clyde Martin, Paul Gebhard - _Sexual Behavior in the Human Female_. 1953. W.B. Saunders.

Billy Graham - _The Bible and Dr. Kinsey_. 1953. Billy Graham Evangelistic Association.

Cohen, Marcia - _Betty Friedan destroys the myth of the happy housewife,_ in The Sisterhood: The True Story of the Women Who Changed the World, 1988. Simon and Schuster.

Friedan, Betty - _The Feminine Mystique_. 1963. W.W. Norton and Co.

# Part Two

# Chapter 5

### Sexual Anatomy and Physiology

"You are fearfully and wonderfully made".

Psalm 139:14

Discussing sexual anatomy is uncomfortable for most of us, unpleasant for some of us, and for a few of us, almost impossible to do without serious embarrassment. One of the things I always hope to accomplish with my human sexuality classes is to decrease some of this embarrassment with my students. Although many of them are pretty comfortable with sexual terms, I know that many of them are not; at least not in mixed company. So I work hard to desensitize them by using "real words" and not hesitating to say whatever needs to be said. I try to answer questions about anything and everything they could possibly ask in a non-reactive, straight-faced way. This goes against my own natural tendency to a certain degree. I grew up in a fairly conservative Christian home where any kind of "crude" language wasn't tolerated. My mother was an English teacher, and using proper language was always very important to her. This included not using slang words like "dang", certain words that referred to the anatomy or bodily functions (belly, gut, snot, and pregnant) and some words that just sounded bad to her, like "poke."

So, of course, we never talked about sex, or sexual parts. My home wasn't much different than most conservative Christian homes in the 60s and 70s, and I'm pretty sure that still holds true for a lot of people today. Because (among other factors) a lot of us never talked about it in our families, sex became something a little bit hidden, offensive, or even bad, as I've mentioned earlier. It seems amazing to me, but many conservative Christian families are just as ashamed to talk about sex today as we were 40 years ago. This almost always leads to, or contributes to our already existing sense of shame about sex, and particularly about our bodies. And if we're ashamed about our bodies, we're certainly going to be ashamed to talk openly about their most private parts. This is, in itself, a shame. The coolest thing about learning all the parts and functions of the sexual anatomy is that we _are_ "fearfully and wonderfully made". The intricacy, efficiency and specificity of our bodies are profound. Our sexual anatomy is as Thielicke said, a "mysterium tremendum et fascinatum."

Having said all that, this book is about changing patterns and shedding some light in the dark, so here we go. No fear. Let's talk about our sex parts.

* *

Male Sexual Anatomy

Male genitals have, throughout history, been the subject of much legend. From ancient Chinese sculptures of ridiculously oversized penises to the cable television show _Hung,_ penis size has always been either a source of pride or embarrassment for men. We'll address this issue, or non-issue, a little later. First let's talk about what the penis is, what it does, and how it works.

The _penis_ is made up of several different parts, all with specific characteristics or functions. The shaft of the penis is actually made up of three separate tubes, or chambers, filled with spongy or erectile tissue. Two of these chambers run along the top side of the penis. These are the _corpus cavernosa._ These two chambers are filled with smooth muscle tissue that becomes engorged with blood during arousal, and causes the penis to become hard, or erect. The blood flow into and out of the corpus cavernosa is determined by the relaxation or constriction of these tissues. Normally, during sexual arousal, this smooth muscle tissue relaxes, allowing blood to stay in the corpus, and causing erection. If the tissues constrict, they force blood back out of the penis, and the erection is lost. Drugs like _Viagra_ or _Cialis_ help these smooth muscle tissues relax so that the blood stays in the corpus cavernosa and erection is maintained. Although the penis is mostly external, the corpus cavernosa actually extend into the body, past the scrotum and testes and into the perineum, the area between the scrotum and the anus. During an erection the corpus cavernosa become erect not only externally, but internally, so that the male perineum becomes hard and also somewhat sensitive and pleasurable to the touch.

The third structure runs the length of the bottom, or underside of the penis and is called the _corpus spongiosum_ , which as you can imagine, is filled with spongy tissue. The corpus spongiosum is designed to protect the _urethra_. The urethra is the tube through which urine and semen is expelled. Because in the male the urethra is outside the abdomen, it needs protection. The urethra runs right down the middle of the corpus spongiosum, like a straw encased in a sponge. The spongiosum also extends internally past the testes into the perineum.

The exterior of the penis is composed of several different areas. The largest is the _shaft_ , which is the area from the base, where the penis attaches to the abdomen, to the _foreskin_ and _glans_ at the tip or head of the penis. The shaft, like all the penile tissue, is rich in nerve endings and sensitive to contact, but the most significant concentration of nerve endings and thus the most sensitive areas of the penis are in the _glans, corona and frenulum_.

The _glans_ , or what is commonly called the head of the penis, is smooth tissue with a dense concentration of nerve endings that make it extremely sensitive to contact. The glans remains somewhat pliable during arousal because it doesn't contain the same kind of erectile tissue that is in the corpus cavernosa, but it does fill with blood and increase in size during arousal. Just under the bottom of the glans is the _corona_. This area is where the foreskin is attached on an uncircumcised penis. On a circumcised penis the corona is a soft, flat ring of tissue, sometimes darker in color than the rest of the shaft, because of the scar caused by circumcision.

The _foreskin_ is a layer of skin that covers the glans when a penis is not erect, and pulls back from the glans during erection. The function of the foreskin is protection of the glans, but removal of the foreskin through circumcision doesn't really put the glans in any danger. Circumcision is a Jewish tradition, based on Old Testament law. Originally it was the "mark" that God gave his people to distinguish them from the Gentiles. The practice is still a Jewish religious tradition, but it has survived and spread throughout many other cultures chiefly because it makes penile hygiene a little easier.

There are a lot of misconceptions about circumcision, so let's put a few of them to rest. First, there's not any evidence that there is any functional difference between being uncircumcised or circumcised. A circumcised penis may be a tiny bit less sensitive to touch in the glans area than an uncircumcised penis, but because there is such a high level of sensitivity in the glans to begin with, circumcision seems to make no noticeable difference. Second, women don't seem to prefer either style. Most women are not terribly enamored with or visually attracted to the penis anyway, so slight variations probably are not of much consequence. Third, although infant circumcision certainly causes some pain when it is performed, men do not remember this pain any more than any of us remember our actual birth. So the "cruelty" issue is not relevant for most men. In any case, circumcision is a personal choice for parents, and seems to have no significant bearing whatsoever on the life of the child or adult.

Probably the most sensitive part of the penis for most men is a small triangular area just on the underside of the glans called the _frenulum_. The frenulum has no function other than sensitivity, but contains a significant concentration of nerve endings and thus is a prime arousal location for most men.

Finally, what about the issue of _size?_ Does size matter? Not really, and here's why.

First, most penises (probably about 95%) fall into a very normal range of length and girth, and there's not a tremendous amount of variation. Penis size is like almost every other human characteristic, and follows the pattern of the statistical "normal curve", meaning that the vast majority of men are in a very normal and similar range of size, while a very small number of men have penises that are either very large or very small. Depending on which studies you read (and you can imagine how hard it is to get accurate information from men about their penis length), most penises are between 5.5 and 6.5 inches long when erect. A few are longer than that, and a few are shorter than that, but most are in this range. Penis size when not erect, or flaccid, is really of no consequence, since smaller penises become larger, proportionately, than larger penises. So a penis that's 3 inches long when flaccid and a penis that's 5 inches long when flaccid may both end up being about 6 inches long when erect. For this reason, erection is often referred to as the "great equalizer".

Second, as with regard to circumcision, research shows that most women don't care much at all about penis size. A large penis may, for a few women, be more _visually_ appealing because they've been culturally conditioned to think it's better, but most women are not influenced much by the visual appearance of the penis.

Third, size doesn't impact penis function at all, except in very extreme cases. As we will discuss later, the penis is not the main source of female pleasure during sex, so the truth is, any average (or below or above average) penis will do, when it comes to having good sex. The vagina is a flexible tube that expands or contracts to "grip" whatever is in it. So if the penis is small, it will fit around it. If the penis is larger, it will stretch to accommodate it. And the vagina isn't particularly sensitive to _length_ , since most of the nerve endings in the vagina are located in the outer one third of the vaginal barrel. In fact, most vaginas are about 6 inches deep, so a penis that's eight or nine inches long really has no place to go and may actually be uncomfortable for a woman. So, if size matters, it's only in your head (the big one, I mean).

Two more things to address quickly about size, first, you're stuck with what you've got.

Unless you result to drastic and highly questionable surgery, or painful and dangerous stretching exercises, there is no way to increase the size of your penis. In spite of the claims of those wonderfully happy and sexually satisfied "couples" on late night infomercials, there is no pill, cream, spray or any other product you can buy that will increase penis size. So, if you're worried that your penis is too small, get over yourself. It's just not that big of a deal.....

Sorry, that didn't sound right. What I mean is it's just not that important.

Second, there are **no** external clues as to how big a man's penis might be. A very short man might have a larger penis than a very tall man. And penis size is not related to shoe size, size of nose, ears, hands or any other part of the body.

The other external male genitals are the _testes or testicles, and scrotum_.

The testes are two glands that have two major functions; 1) to produce sperm, and 2) to produce male hormones, mainly testosterone. The testes produce millions of sperm each day, although sperm production varies depending on several factors (including age). Each ejaculation contains 200-300 million sperm, so the testes have to be constantly producing. Testes in mature men range in size from about the size of a large walnut to the size of a small chicken egg. Unusually small testicles may indicate some type of physiological disorder and should be examined by a physician. It is normal for a man's testicles to hang a bit unevenly, and not be exactly identical in shape and size, much like a woman's breasts, but healthy testicles should be fairly similar in shape and size. Testicles also may have natural variations in their surface, but all men should examine their testicles regularly for any unusual lumps. These could be an indication of testicular cancer.

The origin of the word "testes" or "testicle" is a little cloudy, but it is likely that it comes from a Latin root "testis", which is related to the idea of testifying, or giving testimony. There is an old Roman legend that when a man made an oath, he grasped his testicles or perhaps the testicles of the man he was swearing to, indicating the serious nature of the oath. This may not be accurate with regard to the Romans, but in Genesis 24:2, there seems to be a reference to the practice among the Jews. Abraham tells his servant "place your hand under my thigh" while taking an oath. The Hebrew word for thigh could also be translated as "loin" and has probably been softened a bit by translators. It may also be a reference to the ancient idea of swearing (literally or symbolically), on the testicles of the king. In any case, the two words are closely connected. You might want to think about this the next time you're called on in church to give your "testimony".

The testes are covered by the _scrotum._ The scrotum is a good example of how our sex organs are "wonderfully made". Sperm are very sensitive little guys, which is why we need to produce millions of them in order to have any possibility of fertilizing an egg. They are particularly sensitive to temperature, and they thrive at about 93 degrees, several degrees lower than body temperature of 98.6, which is much too warm for sperm to survive for very long. The scrotum does a couple of different things to protect the testicles and keep the sperm at optimum temperature. First, the scrotum is rich in sweat glands. The ability to sweat helps keep the testicles cool when their environment heats up. When it's hot, the scrotum also has the ability to become very thin and flexible, allowing the testicles to hang further away from the body, which helps protect them from body heat. When the temperature is cold, the scrotum becomes thick and somewhat wrinkled, protecting the testes from the cold outside and drawing them closer to the abdomen. The scrotum also thickens and draws the testes close to the body during times of fear and danger. This drawing close to the abdomen is also facilitated by the _cremaster muscle_ , which is the muscle that connects the testicle to the abdominal cavity. This muscle and the nerves associated with it may also help explain why trauma to the testicles is felt in the abdomen.

The thickening and drawing-up of the scrotum when the temperature is too cool is the basis for the phenomenon of "shrinkage" which infamously and hilariously humiliated George Costanza on _Seinfeld._ The scrotum draws up and thickens when a man is swimming, due to immersion in lower temperatures for an extended period of time. When he comes out of the water, wearing a wet bathing suit, the shrinkage becomes even more intense. This not only draws the scrotum tight to the body, but also draws the penis in as close as possible to the abdomen. Thus a penis that is normally 4-5 inches long when flaccid may draw up to 2-3 inches during "shrinkage".

The testicles need this protection not only for the regulation of sperm temperature, but also because the testicles are glandular organs, like the kidneys, or pancreas, and as such are easily damaged if not protected. Like other organs, they are also the source of potentially excruciating, nauseating pain if they take a direct hit. All men are aware of the serious pain associated with a blow to the testicles. This pain is a warning, and a way of teaching men to constantly be protective of their testicles. The testicles are full of nerve endings, but these nerves are connected via the spermatic cord and cremaster muscle directly into the abdomen, which is why when a man is hit in the testicles, he doesn't feel it in the scrotum, but in the lower abdomen.

The internal structures in the male that are significant in sexual functioning are the testes as we discussed above, the _epididymis, vas deferens, prostate, seminal vesicle, ejaculatory duct and urethra._ These structures are not primarily involved in causing or facilitating sexual arousal, but are all part of the delivery system for semen during orgasm and ejaculation.

The _epididymis_ is a glandular structure that rests on top of each of the testes and collects sperm from the testes to move into the _vas deferens_. The vas deferens is the tube through which semen travels on its way to the _urethra_. During the sexual response cycle, seminal fluid begins to move up from the testes into the abdomen by way of the vas deferens. Before the vas deferens connects with the urethra, it is joined at the _ejaculatory duct_ by fluid from the _seminal vesicle_. The seminal vesicle produces fluid that helps protect and nourish sperm as they travel toward ejaculation and potential fertilization of an egg. After passing the ejaculatory duct, the vas deferens passes through the _prostate_ , where it joins with the urethra and collects prostate fluid to add to the semen.

The vas deferens is the tube that is cut during a vasectomy. In most cases, a vasectomy is a relatively painless and simple doctor's office procedure, done with a shot of valium, local anesthetic, one or two very small incisions, and a quick snip and cauterization of the vas. Although some men are terrified of the idea, there really is nothing to be afraid of. You can usually take a couple of Tylenol afterward, take a nap the rest of the afternoon and you're fine by the next day. And although a vasectomy stops the flow of sperm from the testes into the vas deferens, it does not stop the production of sperm. Sperm are simply re-absorbed into the testes. Testosterone production or availability is not affected at all, nor is ejaculation. An orgasm and ejaculation after a vasectomy looks and feels exactly like before the vasectomy. A man who refuses to do this and forces his wife to have an invasive surgery or take birth control pills for years because he's scared of somehow losing his masculinity needs to grow up, be a real man and get the vasectomy.

Below the prostate are the Cowper's glands, which add one more important kind of fluid to the semen. The urethra contains residue from urine, which is highly acidic. Cowper's fluid helps neutralize the acidity of the urethra (another "wonderfully made" moment). If sperm arrived in the urethra without Cowper's fluid, many or most of them would die from the acidity. When the sperm and fluid from the testes are joined by seminal vesicle fluid and then by prostate fluid, and Cowper's fluid, the semen is ready for ejaculation. Cowper's fluid actually begins to flow as soon as sexual arousal starts, neutralizing the urethra ahead of time to clear the path for the sperm. When a man is aroused and drops of clear fluid begin to be secreted from the penis (sometimes called pre-seminal fluid), the main ingredient in this is Cowper's fluid. By the way, this pre-seminal fluid may contain healthy leftover sperm, or some ambitious ones who have worked their way ahead of the others. Pre-seminal fluid can, and sometimes does cause pregnancy. This is why the "withdrawal" method of birth control, discontinuing intercourse just before ejaculation, is just about the most unreliable method available.

Semen is a milky fluid with the consistency of egg whites. This makes some logical sense, since semen is basically made up of sperm and protein. About a teaspoonful of semen is typically ejaculated in an orgasm, although that amount may vary some, particularly with regard to the time that has passed since the last ejaculation. If a long time has passed since the last ejaculation (maybe 24 hours), there is more and thicker semen. Multiple ejaculations in a short period of time will decrease the volume and consistency of semen. Semen may also have a thinner consistency, contain fewer sperm and reduced volume with each ejaculation as men age, particularly after age 50 or so.

* *

Female Sexual Anatomy

Female sexual anatomy often seems a little more mysterious for most people (even women) than male sexual anatomy, probably because it seems mostly internal, whereas male anatomy seems mostly external. Although this appears to be true initially, we've seen clearly that the male anatomy has a lot going on internally that many people (even men) aren't aware of. Conversely, although female anatomy may seem to be mostly internal, it is the external anatomy that is probably most often misunderstood.

The external female genitals (as pictured above) are collectively called the _vulva_. Often this is referred to as the _vagina,_ but is actually the vulva. The vagina is a specific internal structure, as we will see later. The vulva is composed of the _mons pubis_ (sometimes called the _mons veneris_ , _mound of venus, or pubic mound_ ), the _labia_ or lips, the _clitoris_ and the vaginal and urethral openings.

The _mons_ is a pad of fatty tissue, designed mostly for protection of the other parts of the vulva, but is also rich in nerve endings and pleasurable to the touch for most women, particularly when aroused. The _mons_ also is the area where most pubic hair is concentrated.

Almost every semester in my classes some student brings up the question of why we have pubic hair. I think that's a pretty good question, and I'm not sure anybody has a really good answer. From an evolutionary perspective, it really makes no sense in terms of protection. It's been a long time since humans needed hair for protection from the elements, so that's probably not the reason. There are two potential answers that make some sense to me biologically and psychologically. First, pubic hair may serve as a visual stimulator that draws our attention to the genitals, maybe in the same way the hair on our head functions to draw attention to us, and attract potential mates. Also, pubic hair signals that a person is sexually mature and therefore a potential mate. This could have some mating/bonding/reproductive impact, although when we're sexually aroused most of us can focus our attention the genitals without the visual cue of pubic hair. The second possible answer is that we have retained pubic hair because the areas covered with pubic hair are rich in sweat glands, like our underarms, and the hair helps maintain the odors produced by the sweat. Although this may not seem like such an appealing idea, the truth is that humans do respond, probably on an unconscious level, to odors that are secreted in our sweat. Thus, pubic hair may serve as a vehicle for sexual attraction.

The vulva is bordered by two folds of fatty tissue, almost an extension of the mons, called the _labia majora_ , or major lips. The _labia majora_ serve to protect the vaginal and urethral openings and the clitoris, are rich in nerve endings like the mons and are often are covered by pubic hair, although usually more sparse than on the mons. Just within the labia majora are a second set of tissues called the _labia minora_ , or minor lips. The _labia minora_ are also rich in nerve endings and somewhat pleasurable to the touch. The _labia minora_ come together just below the mons to form the _clitoral hood_ , a protective covering for the _glans_ of the _clitoris_. The _labia minora_ are composed of tissue that is analogous to the tissue of the scrotum in the male.

The _clitoris_ is probably the most mysterious and misunderstood part of the female sexual anatomy. This is probably due to the fact that the clitoris is mostly hidden from view, and if it is visible, it is usually only during sexual arousal (there are some exceptions to this). It is also due to the misconception promoted during the 60s and 70s by sex researchers who were determined to focus the female orgasm on vaginal penetration and thrusting rather than clitoral stimulation. This determination, by such influential sexologists as Masters and Johnson, was an extension of Freud's (unfounded) contention that vaginal orgasm was not only typical, but _normal_ , and that clitoral orgasm was a female sexual dysfunction. Freud's focus on vaginal orgasm has been a contentious issue for years, particularly with feminist sexologists, who perceive Freud's idea as misogynistic and very detrimental to perceptions of female sexuality for the last 100 years.

The clitoris is composed of erectile tissue, just like the penis. And like the penis, it is intensely rich in nerve endings, making it the focal point of female arousal and orgasm. Unlike the penis, the clitoris is mostly internal, and only the _glans_ or head, and a small part of the shaft may be visible. Although many people think the clitoris is only about an inch long, the clitoris contains corpus cavernosum that actually extend into the pelvis down along both sides of the vagina, just like the corpus cavernosum in the penis extend into the perineum of the male.

In some women the clitoris is always completely covered by the hood, and is never easily visible. In some women the glans is always visible, and in others the glans only becomes visible during arousal. The glans and shaft of the clitoris varies in size from woman to woman, from smaller than a pencil eraser to about the size of the tip of a small finger. Just as with penis size, clitoris size seems to have no impact whatsoever on sexual functioning.

The clitoris is composed of erectile tissue that is analogous to the penis in the male, but unlike the penis, the clitoris has only one function; pleasure. Remember the "wonderfully made" reference? It only makes sense that God planned for us to have sex for _pleasure_. If not, why the clitoris? It doesn't do anything else. I think the clitoris is clear evidence that God intended for humans, and particularly women, to have sex for pleasure.

It's unfortunate, but we have to take a minute here to mention the sad issues of female circumcision and clitoridectomy. The two practices, both tragic, are sometimes confused, but they are different procedures. Female circumcision is technically the removal of the clitoral hood, which was a historically rare and misguided attempt to increase female pleasure or arousal. Although the clitoral hood is somewhat analogous to the penile foreskin, because the clitoris is so sensitive, the hood is essential to keep the clitoris from becoming irritated and painful. The glans of the clitoris becomes irritated and painful with too much stimulation, so removal of the hood has the reverse of the intended effect. On the other hand, _clitoridectomy_ is removal of the clitoris itself, or at least the glans, and sometimes the labia minora. This is a brutal and inhumane practice that is still carried out in some primitive cultures with the intention of eliminating female sexual desire and arousal. Clitoridectomy is abusive, misogynistic and unacceptable in civilized culture. This type of practice is generally referred to now as _female genital mutilization._

Just below the clitoris is the _urethral opening_ , through which urine is expelled, and just below the urethral opening is the _vaginal opening._ The vaginal opening is sometimes covered by a thin layer of tissue called the _hymen_. The hymen doesn't have a clear biological function, and certainly no evident sexual function. The hymen is the object of much historical myth; believed even in recent history, to be evidence of virginity. Historically, if a female had an intact hymen, it was believed that she was a virgin, and if the hymen was not intact it was incontrovertible evidence that she was not. Blood on the sheets after the wedding night from the breaking of the hymen was evidence of sexual purity.

The truth is of course that lack of an intact hymen probably doesn't mean anything about virginity. First, some females are actually born without an intact hymen. Second, the thickness of the hymen is variable, and may be as thin as tissue paper, making it very susceptible to breaking or tearing away as a result of vigorous physical activity, or insertion of a tampon. A woman who has used tampons or had any object inserted into the vagina, as happens in a gynecological exam, won't have an intact hymen, so it's clearly no test of virginity. And even if the hymen is still intact, it may not bleed during first penetration.

The area of tissue just inside the labia minora, surrounding the urethral opening and the vaginal opening, is sometimes called the _vulvar vestibule_. And it's much like a vestibule of a building, or a home; it's a portal, or entryway to the internal female genitals. The first internal structure we'll address is the _vagina_.

The _vagina_ is a tube that serves as a receptacle for the penis during intercourse and as a birth canal during childbirth. At the top end of the vagina is the _cervix_ , the opening to the _uterus_. The _uterus_ is mainly reproductive, but is fairly active during sexual arousal and response. The response of the uterus during sexual arousal will be discussed a bit later.

The vaginal barrel is about 4-5 inches deep when a woman is un-aroused. The vagina opens somewhat and lengthens a bit during arousal to become about 5-6 inches deep. The vaginal walls are mucous membranes that become lubricated during arousal, and expand and contract to contain whatever is within. The vagina is a bit like an empty balloon, collapsed onto itself, but flexible and expandable if needed. The vaginal walls are surrounded by two separate structures, called vestibular bulbs that help the vagina "grip" and contain whatever is within it. The _vestibular bulbs_ are structures lying alongside the vaginal entry, just internal to the labia majora, that swell during arousal and contribute to arousal and response. Second, within the pelvis the vagina is surrounded by a set of muscles called the pubococcygeus muscles, or PC muscles. The PC muscles contract during arousal and response and contribute to a sense of vaginal fullness, or tightness. These muscles are also rich in nerve endings. Increasing the strength of the PC muscles through Kegel exercises may contribute to improvement in sexual response, particularly if these muscles have been weak and out of shape.

The vagina and the structures surrounding it are full of nerve endings, but by far the richest concentration of nerve endings is in the outer one-third of the vagina. The deepest third of the vagina that is potentially stimulated by the glans of the penis is much less sensitive, which is why there is no real advantage, in terms of female satisfaction, in having a penis that is longer than about 5-6 inches.

About 2-3 inches inside the vagina, on the anterior, or top of the vaginal wall, is an area known as the G-spot. The G-spot is named for Ernst Grafenberg, who first identified it several decades ago ( _see Beverly Whipple's research_ ). The G-spot is not evident in all women, but in some women exists as an area of tissue, from about the size of a dime to the size of a quarter, that swells or thickens somewhat during sexual arousal. In these women, stimulation of this area may cause arousal or orgasm. The physiological origin of the G-spot is still unknown. Some speculate that it represents the female developmental remnant of the male prostate. Another possible explanation is that this area may be adjacent to the internal extension of the clitoris, and when the clitoris becomes erect, the G-spot becomes very sensitive. Exactly why the area exists in some women and not in others, and exactly what it is, is still unclear.

There are several sexual issues, parts, techniques, etc. that kind of fall into the "icing on the cake" category in my opinion. If it's a natural part of your experience, then enjoy it. But if it's not, or you can't find it, or it doesn't work for you, or it takes too much effort to make it happen, then sometimes you just need to relax and not worry about it. Striving for a sexual goal can become obsessive and dysfunctional pretty quickly. Finding the G-spot is probably in that category. Although many women report the existence of a G-spot, women who don't experience this change in the vaginal wall during arousal certainly can have full and satisfying sexual experiences and relationships without G-spot stimulation. So if you or your partner has the experience, good for you. If you can't find it, or you find it and it doesn't feel like anything special, good for you too. Relax and don't worry about trying to achieve something you read about in a book, including this one.

Female sexual anatomy, of course, is not limited to the genitals, but also includes the _breasts_ , and particularly the _nipples_. The role that breasts play in sexual arousal varies from woman to woman and from time to time even within the same woman. In spite of Da Vinci's idea ( _see his sketch_ , _The Copulation_ ) that there is a major nerve connecting the nipples directly to the female genitals, the connection is actually a little more indirect. Stimulation of the breasts and nipples is arousing for most women, but how much so is variable. Some women report that they are able to achieve orgasm from nipple stimulation, some women find it only slightly pleasurable, and most women are somewhere in between. The breast is mostly composed of fatty tissue, but full of nerve endings, particularly in the nipple and the surrounding tissue, the areola. The nipple is composed of erectile tissue, so that it fills with blood and becomes hard or erect when stimulated. It's also very sensitive to temperature, like the scrotum. So nipple erection is not always a sign that a woman is sexually aroused. It may just be a sign that she's cold.

### Questions for Reflection and Discussion

Did you read anything in this chapter that was new information to you? If so, how was it helpful to you?

Did you read anything that challenged or changed something you thought you already knew?

Why is it important for us to have accurate anatomical and physiological information about our sexuality?

### Chapter 5 References and Resources

Alice Ladas, Beverly Whipple, John Perry - _The G Spot and Other Recent Discoveries about Human Sexuality_. 1982. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Julia Heiman and Joseph LoPiccolo - Becoming Orgasmic: A Sexual and Personal Growth Program for Women. 1976. Simon and Schuster.

Debbie Herbenick - Because it Feels Good: A Woman's Guide to Sexual Pleasure. 2009. Rodale.

# Chapter 6

### Sexual Arousal and Response

I mentioned before the level of shame that most of us, particularly conservative Christians, have historically been taught to have with regard to our sexual parts. Well, that shame is multiplied several times when it comes to talking about the way those parts respond to sexual stimuli, and the way they work when we participate in sexual behavior. Talking about a penis is bad enough, but talking about an erection or an orgasm is much more difficult for most of us. We seem to be able to compartmentalize the anatomy and physiology into an objective, maybe even scientific place that's less threatening. But talking about getting aroused, erect, or lubricated just seems too personal and too intimate.

I certainly understand that. There's nothing weird about it. In fact, if you know someone who freely talks about those things at the dinner table or while you're watching the ball game or on a first date, well.... we worry about that person, don't we? Boundary issues maybe? So if you're uncomfortable with this, don't worry about it. You're not alone. But it's important that we deal with it so that you _can_ think about it and talk about it within the right contexts; like your marriage, or with your teenager when they ask those hard questions that parents dread. So here we go.

* *

The Sexual Response Cycle

The human sexual response cycle was first identified by Masters and Johnson in the 1960s. They did this by inviting volunteers into their lab and measuring their physiological response to sexual activities. This was ground-breaking work, and changed the nature of sex research from surveys and questionnaires to a focus on physiology. Although M&J's focus was limited to the physical aspects of sex and never really addressed relationships, and their sampling was a bit skewed, it did open the door on the amazing physiology of sexual behavior and opened our eyes to a whole new set of things to be thankful for, and to be worried about ( _see Masters and Johnson, 1966 and Masters, Johnson and Kolodny,1982_ ).

The sexual response cycle they identified has four stages; _excitement or arousal, plateau, orgasm and resolution._ This isn't terribly mysterious stuff (at least on the surface), and the names of the stages reflect the basic processes pretty clearly. During _excitement,_ sexual arousal begins and increases until it reaches the _plateau_ stage, where it "levels off" for a period of time, and then arousal increases sharply and moves toward the climax of the cycle, the _orgasm_ stage, where sexual arousal at its physiological peak. After the orgasm, the body returns to its baseline level, where it was before arousal began. This is called the _resolution_ stage. Although the cycle is fairly simple as a general idea, it becomes a little more complicated when you begin to apply it to individuals and different demographic groups.

For example, male response patterns tend to be quicker and more extreme than female patterns, but not necessarily. And female response patterns may include multiple orgasms while male responses almost never do. Then again, many women don't have multiple orgasms. And among those who do, some have one big one followed by one or two small ones, and others may have a series of six or eight small ones, and still others may have a smaller orgasm that leads up to a much more intense second or third one. And we're just getting started with the possible variations. You can see that while the cycle as M&J described it is certainly useful, it is not absolute, and other researchers and theorists have added to it or challenged it over the past 40 years.

The first of these was Helen Singer Kaplan. Kaplan believed that Masters and Johnson had left out of their cycle one very significant idea; sexual desire. She didn't discount the basics of their cycle, but modified it to include the stage of desire, which she believed came before arousal and excitement ( _see Kaplan, 1975_ ).

This revision by Kaplan was a significant step in sexology because it added a clearly psychological component, sexual desire, to the purely physiological model of M&J. This addition becomes particularly important for future research and theory regarding female sexual response, which is probably more dependent on, and more complicated by psychological _desire_ than by physiological arousal. We'll spend a lot of time dealing with the complex issue of desire in the next chapter.

Others have challenged Masters and Johnson over the past few decades. For example, David Reed proposed an _Erotic Stimulus Pathway Model_ (s _ee Stuart and Thatcher, 1996_ ), composed of the four stages of seduction, sensation, surrender and reflection. Reed's model approaches the sexual experience in terms of our learned, developmental response to erotic stimulation. According to Reed we are first seduced by sexual stimuli (desire), began to experience physical sensation (arousal), surrender (orgasm), and then reflect, or give meaning to our experience (resolution) after orgasm.

No other challenge to the sexual response cycle has been as thorough and distinctive as that proposed by Rosemary Basson and her colleagues, who have produced considerable research and theory in the area of women's sexual desire, arousal and response. One of Basson's primary contentions is that the models and presuppositions used to identify arousal and response in men are not valid model for describing the same processes in women. Basson proposed that female interest and participation in sexual behavior is governed by a much more complex set of factors than male sexual behavior, including non-sexual rewards, appropriate or inappropriate context, and a variety of potentially intervening psychological factors.

In spite of the challenges and revisions to the sexual response cycle over the years, its usefulness in describing the _physiological process_ of sexual behavior is fairly solid, and we'll use it here to see what exactly happens to our bodies during sexual arousal and response. Just remember, like most things in psychology, it's based on a model and a theory, not a perfect rule.

_The excitement stage_. During the excitement stage several basic things begin to occur in both males and females. First, _vasocongestion_ begins to occur. Physiological sexual arousal depends on vasocongestion. Put simply, it means that tissues fill with blood. This is true not only of the areas containing erectile tissue but also of the entire genital area in both males and females. As soon as the brain begins to respond to sexual stimuli, it begins to direct blood flow to the genitals and the female breasts, and sends messages to those tissues to relax and accept the additional volume. This causes the corpus cavernosa in the penis and the clitoris to become erect, while the scrotum and testicles in the male and the rest of the vulva in the female become full and somewhat swollen.

In addition, the uterus begins to elevate to make more room for the vagina and to prepare for the potential of a deposit of semen at the cervix. The vaginal walls begin to produce lubrication and the glans of the clitoris may become visible and protrude out from under the hood. In the male, as the scrotum fills with blood and thickens, the testicles begin to elevate toward the body.

The excitement phase may last anywhere from a few seconds to a few hours in extreme cases. How long it takes for a person to become sexually aroused depends on a lot of different things of course, including age, experience, time since the last sexual experience, and a multitude of psychological, relational and environmental factors. So there's a very broad range of what's normal when it comes to timing. As with most things sexual, normal is often best determined by whether or not it works for you and your partner.

_The plateau stage_. It would be a mistake to assume that during the plateau stage nothing really happens. Excitement and arousal does "level off" in that the changes during plateau are not as extreme as during the excitement stage. But there are some very important things that take place during this stage.

In the female, the uterus becomes fully elevated. This movement of the uterus from lying flat on top of the bladder to a "standing" position helps open the inner third of the vagina for intercourse, but also positions the cervix to receive semen. At the same time, the vaginal barrel begins to do something pretty amazing. The outer one-third of the vagina tightens and closes a bit, forming what is called the "orgasmic platform". This contracting of the vagina readies the muscle structure surrounding it for the orgasmic contractions. While this is happening, the inner two-thirds of the vagina expand and open up, forming a pool for the semen to be deposited into during ejaculation. When the inner two-thirds open up, it sometimes makes a sound as the mucous membranes of the vaginal walls separate from each other. This sound (sometimes called "quaffing") is sometimes mistaken for gas, and may be a bit embarrassing. It shouldn't be, because it's a clear signal that the female is moving closer to orgasm.

The other significant process in the female during the plateau stage is the retraction of the clitoris. During the excitement stage the clitoris begins to swell and become erect, and as it does the glans often protrudes from under the clitoral hood and is exposed. However, during the plateau stage the clitoris becomes fully aroused and actually withdraws back under the clitoral hood. This is a protective process, as the clitoris becomes more and more sensitive with vasocongestion, often too sensitive for direct touch. Although some women may enjoy direct clitoral stimulation throughout the response cycle, for many women the clitoris becomes too sensitive for direct contact after the excitement stage, and indirect contact is most pleasurable, such as applying pressure or friction to the mons or the clitoral hood.

Finally, during the plateau stage the labia minora swell significantly and change color. The color change is dependent on skin pigmentation, but also on whether or not the female has had children. In a woman who has given birth, the labia minora turn from pink to a dark wine color. In women who have not given birth, the labia simply turn a darker pink color. Legend has it that this color change in the labia is the source of inspiration for the wearing of lipstick by women. In ancient Egypt, women developed the practice of painting their facial lips dark red in order to mimic the color of the labia during sexual arousal. This was apparently pretty enticing for Egyptian men, and the practice caught on. So, if you ever wondered why women wear lipstick, now you know. Well, at least you know the legend.

In the male, vasocongestion continues, the testicles swell and elevate up against the body. The swelling of the testicles is sometimes not clearly visually evident because of the elevation and drawing up against the body, but as the scrotum fills with blood and swells, the testicles do also, even if the enlargement isn't apparent. In addition, during the plateau stage, Cowper's fluid begins to be secreted from the penis. This pre-seminal fluid is emitted to neutralize the urethra so the sperm can survive. Although it may provide some lubrication for intercourse, that is not its primary function. As we mentioned earlier, this fluid may very likely contain living sperm, making conception possible without an actual ejaculation.

_The orgasm stage_. The orgasm stage in both males and females is characterized by a series of intensely pleasurable muscle contractions throughout the body, but focused particularly in the pelvis and the genitals. The number and intensity of contractions varies greatly from person to person and from experience to experience.

In the female, orgasm seems to not only be pleasurable, but actually may be designed to aid in fertilization. During orgasm the uterus contracts rhythmically and as it does, the cervix dips down into the vagina. If there has been an ejaculation and there is a pool of semen in the vagina, the cervix dips into it and draws the semen up into the uterus. Of course, this is not necessary for fertilization to occur, but it may help sometimes.

In the male the most distinctive part of the orgasm stage is ejaculation. Ejaculation occurs due to the series of strong, rhythmic contractions throughout the pelvic muscles and the male genitals, forcing the semen out of the urethra. Each ejaculation usually produces about a teaspoonful of semen. The volume of semen depends mostly upon the time since the last ejaculation. Ejaculations that are more closely grouped together (e.g., several in one day) will result in lower semen volume per ejaculation.

The response cycle as Masters and Johnson described it allows us to get a pretty clear picture of what generally happens to our bodies during sexual activity. But like Kaplan proposed, none of this happens unless someone has some _desire_ for it. In the next chapter we'll take a close look at what sexual desire is, where it comes from, and some of the difficult issues associated with it.

### Questions for Reflection and Discussion

Think of one thing you learned in this chapter about sexual arousal and response that was new or different information for you. How will that information be helpful to you?

What do you think is the most important thing for us to learn about human sexual response? Why?

Do you think it's a positive thing or a negative thing that sexual response seems to vary so much from person to person and from time to time?

### Chapter 6 References and Resources

William Masters and Virginia Johnson - _Human Sexual Response_. 1966. Little Brown and Co.

William Masters, Virginia Johnson and Robert Kolodny - _On Sex and Human Loving_. 1982. Little. Brown and Co.

Helen Singer Kaplan - _The Illustrated Manual of Sex Therapy, 2_ nd _Edition_. 1975. Brunner- Mazel.

Elizabeth Stuart and Adrian Thatcher - _Christian Perspectives on Sexuality and Gender_. 1996. Gracewing Publishing.

Rosemary Basson - _Women's Difficulties with Low Sexual Desire, Sexual Avoidance and Sexual Aversion_ , in _Handbook of Clinical Sexuality for Mental Health Professionals, 2_ nd _Edition_. Stephen Levine, Ed. 2010. Routledge.

Lenore Tiefer - _Sex is Not a Natural Act, and other Essays_. 2004. Westview Press.

_Cindy Meston and David Buss -_ _Why Women Have Sex; Understanding Sexual Motivations \- from adventure to revenge (and everything in between_ _). 2009. Times Books._

# Chapter 7

### Desire

If an alien dropped into any one of our cities, or our home when the TV is on, or one of our bookstores, or advertising agencies, there's a good chance that they would report back to the mother ship that they had discovered a planet where the people were all obsessed with something called "sex". It shows up in every sitcom, every movie, most ad campaigns, every talk show and even sports events. You can't watch the Dallas Cowboys play without having the cameras cut to the cheerleaders and focus for a few seconds on their backsides, or their cleavage. I've been to the new Cowboys Stadium, and they actually have platforms in the end-zone plaza for dancing girls. They remind me of the "go-go" dancers of the 60s. I mean, come on. Do we really need dancing girls in short shorts over our heads while we're getting our hotdog and beer at a ball game?

Now you know by this point that I'm not very prudish, and I think the body is a wonderful thing. But we are flooded with images and messages that paint a big phony picture of a culture that thinks about sex all the time, can't get enough sex, and so has decided to build sex into everything we do, from our fast food to our football.

Of course, on one hand this is not so phony. We do have a type of cultural obsession with sex, and it's hard to deny that, if you examine our culture as a whole. But as individuals our interest in and desire for sex is as variable as our height and weight and hairstyles. And because of the broad, overly-publicized cultural obsession, any individual who doesn't _conform_ is often seen as faulty, dysfunctional or abnormal. I think this is a major problem for us, and deserves a significant chunk of our time and energy here. So let's start by seeing if we can figure out what _normal_ really is.

Defining normal is difficult at best, and happens in a variety of ways. Most of us tend to think that some level of sexual desire is normal, although that may not even be true. Lenore Tiefer, a significant sex researcher and writer, makes a case in her book Sex is Not a Natural Act _,_ that our cultural view of sexuality (including what our level of desire should be) is socially constructed and somewhat contrived, and I tend to agree with her. And if it's not a natural process, how do we know what's normal?

The easiest and most unreliable way is to base it on what is normal for _you_. This is what most of us do most of the time, including me. It goes like this: If you're like me, then you're OK. If you're not like me, there must be something wrong with you. At the very least you are probably on a slow but steady pilgrimage of understanding and wisdom that will culminate in you becoming as much like me as possible.

Does that sound familiar? Be honest. Most of us think that way to a certain degree. And it's pretty stupid. It's the way we tend to view anything that's different from us. It's one of the foundations of racism and most other "isms". It's the viewpoint of most of us who are heterosexuals when we think about homosexuals, for instance. Even if we disregarded Biblical questions, we would still tend to think there was something wrong with homosexuals because we perceive them as so _different_ from us. There are people who know nothing about the Bible but are disgusted with homosexuality because of its "otherness". They think "If you're not like me, you must be wrong, even sinful."

In a less dramatic, less public application, one partner wants to have sex several times a week (at least partly because this conforms to what we think is the cultural standard) and the other partner only wants to have sex once every 10 days or so. And they each think that the other is wrong. This is usually not a fair fight; however, because the high-desire partner has more ammunition. Not only is the low-desire partner "not like me", but also not like the rest of the culture. In other words, there must certainly be something wrong with you if you don't want very much sex, or at least as much as I want. At the same time the high-desire partner has a lot of ammunition, the _low-desire_ partner is usually in complete control of their sex life. This puts them in a very common predicament that David Schnarch calls "gridlock" ( _see Schnarch, 1997, 2002, 2009_ ). And it's no fun. That sounds familiar to some of you too, I'll bet.

So a healthy definition of normal is not particularly related to what I as an individual think or believe. There must be a better way.

We can also decide what is normal based on other cultural standards. These can be related to religion, government, family dogma, and a multitude of other influences. One of the classic examples of this in the study of human sexuality is the contrast between a place called Inis Beag, an island off the coast of Ireland documented by John Messenger in the late 1950s and early 1960s, and Mangaia, a remote South Pacific island studied by Donald Marshall in about the same time period. Although these studies are both quite old and the cultures of each have changed significantly since then, they offer extreme examples of the difference that cultural standards and indoctrination can make in our sense of normality.

On Inis Beag, sexuality was so repressed that breast-feeding of babies was a shameful act. Married couples were never naked with each other, and intercourse was performed through openings in their neck-to- ankle undergarments. On the other hand, on the island of Mangaia, young adolescents were commonly taught how to have and give orgasms by adults within the village. Multiple sexual events every night were common among the adults, and almost all women reported multiple orgasms nightly. On Mangaia, low sexual desire was unknown, or at least unheard of.

For most of us, both of these examples seem pretty extreme, although I'm sure there are quite a few of us who think that Mangaia is just the sort of island paradise we've always dreamed about. In fact, there are probably some of us who also think that Inis Beag would be a little like paradise in some ways. You're thinking, "Wow, if I just didn't ever have to think about sex again, that would be wonderful, and make things so much easier." I know some of us can relate to that idea more than the first one.

In any case, most of the folks on these islands had the sense that the way they and their culture felt about sex was quite _normal_. And anybody who was different was not healthy, or normal at all. So it seems to me that allowing for a cultural definition of normal is not necessarily valid either.

A third way to define normal is to rely on research, or a scientific approach. This at least seems a little more concrete, and does give us some numbers and statistical data that we can use to see if we're really okay, or really not. Being an academic, I have a real appreciation for the concept of collecting data to try to understand a psychological phenomenon. One of the primary goals of using research, or a scientific method, is to try to eliminate errors in our thinking, and often it does just that. For this reason, research is technically a better tool for defining "normal" than either personal experience or cultural standards. On the other hand, there are some problems with using research, or more accurately, the way some of us use research- even really good research. For example, one of the most comprehensive studies on sexual behavior was done by a group led by Edward Laumann at the University of Chicago in 1994. These researchers reported that 43% of women in their survey reported some type of sexual dysfunction, and the most prevalent was _loss of desire._ These are reputable researchers with good methodology. But how do we translate this information into something we can apply to our own lives?

Let's say, for example, that I read a study in a psychology journal that reports that 68 percent of married women over 40 said that they desired sex at least once a week, 22 percent said they want to have sex at least once a month, and 10 percent said they wanted to have sex at least once every 2 months. That seems clear enough. So what do I really know, now that I have those numbers?

Well, it depends. First of all, those numbers technically only apply to the women _in the study_. So if those women are not a good representative sample of all women, then that decreases the usefulness of the information a bit. Second, what if there were only 65 women in the study? Can I really generalize from 65 women to the entire female population, or to this woman sitting in front of me in my office for marriage counseling, or even to my own partner? Well, maybe, but maybe not.

Third, does 68 percent equal normal? Does majority really mean anything when it comes to sexual desire? Is there anything in this study that really proposes the idea that the women in the 22 percent category or even the 10 percent category are not normal? Probably not, but if we hear these numbers on the _Today Show_ , or see them in _Cosmopolitan,_ or our spouse uses them against us in an argument about sex, they can make us feel like there's clearly something wrong with the 22 percenters, and the 10 percenters probably need to rush to their gynecologist for a testosterone patch. It's not the research that's the problem. It's what we do with it, how we interpret it, and how we often use it to get what we want. That's the real problem. But even if we use research responsibly, and handle the numbers accurately, it's still not very useful in trying to decide if we can label ourselves or our partners as _normal_ , or not.

One last resource in the quest for "normal" is the world of experts. I want to make it clear right away that I don't consider myself to be one of these just because I'm writing a book. Any idiot can write a book. In fact, many do. I'm just another sojourner, probably just as lost as everybody else. But there are those who aspire to expertness or have expertness thrust upon them, so to speak. Some of these are wonderful, and some of them are not so wonderful. I've read most of the books out there on desire; from Christian to secular authors, pastors to clinical psychologists, and everything in between and I still haven't found an expert (Basson may be the exception) who really has a sensible, balanced, functional answer to the issues surrounding sexual desire. In spite of their best efforts, we still have a lot of misconceptions and confusion about desire.

So what do we do? Most of us have a pretty strong desire to feel like we're normal, especially about sex. I can't count the number of times I've had a husband say to me something like, "She never wants sex. She could never have sex the rest of her life and it would be okay with her. That's not normal, is it?" Or his wife says, "He's never satisfied. He'd do it every day if I'd let him. It's all he ever thinks about. That's not normal, is it?" And of course, these roles could easily be reversed.

My answer to both is usually "I don't know", which is pretty unsatisfying to them. Or sometimes I'll just answer "Yes" to both questions. "You're both incredibly normal." This is also troublesome for most couples, because they came to me to get more ammunition and to be able to prove that their partner is wrong.

So, is normal what they really want? Isn't that what we all want?

Well, maybe not. Maybe we'd be happier and healthier if we could figure out how to be who we _are_ as individuals and couples, and not worry so much about what's normal. Maybe the answer, at least with regard to sexual desire, is to throw away the whole concept of normal, or at least make it much more broad and inclusive. Make it easier for more of us to fit into. What if we tried to develop some general guidelines or principles about sexual desire rather than trying to figure out what normal is? Let's start with what we know about sexual desire and how it happens.

* *

What causes desire?

Good question; really complex answer.

The obvious and simple causes are the physical, sensory things that most of us would guess are related to desire. Unfortunately, these probably aren't necessarily the major things, but let's deal with them first then get on to the other, less obvious issues.

* *

Sensory factors

_Touch_ is the most obvious sexual sense. The effect of physical touch on sexual desire is clearly evident for most of us, but is extremely variable at the same time. There are specific erogenous areas that are fairly universal; male and female genitals and female breasts and nipples. Beyond that, response to touch can vary greatly from person to person and from time to time. One of the most wonderful and satisfying components of a long-term, committed sexual relationship is the process of knowing the particular physiological sensitivities of your partner, and learning to stimulate or enhance their desire through touch. It's a _yada_ experience.

Probably the second sense that is most clearly involved in sexual desire is _sight_. This is especially true of men. Men are designed to be stimulated by visual cues, and I don't think we need to try to deny that or apologize for it, although most of us probably need to apologize for what we do with it sometimes. It's a natural phenomenon, built into our DNA, and it's not going away. Evolutionary sexologists would propose that this visual stimulation is built into us to help us choose mates for the most successful production of progeny. And that's a pretty hard idea to argue against. Although I hope that's not our only sexual motivation as healthy adult males, it's certainly a part of what goes on in our sexual desire system.

Most men love to see sexual images, love to see female flesh, and will go to great lengths to make this happen. From the time testosterone starts flowing, men will manipulate almost any situation to get a glimpse of a thigh, or cleavage, or just any small bit of skin that may be exposed. When my daughters were in middle school and wanting to wear shirts that sometimes showed their bellies or backs (thank you Britney Spears) I told them that for teenage boys, "skin is skin." Any skin is good. And they want to see as much of it as possible.

Of course, western culture has perpetuated and promoted this to the point that we don't really have to work very hard to see something that will turn us on. As I mentioned earlier, the images are everywhere. And if we do want to work for it, and pay for it, we can see just about anything we want on the internet. Internet porn is a multi-billion-dollar industry, and probably the most prevalent issue I deal with in therapy with men. So there's no doubt about the viability of visual stimulation for men. But does the same thing apply to women?

Well, twenty years ago I would have had an easy answer to that. No. But as Bob Dylan said, "the times, they are a-changing." In general, women are not _naturally_ as visually stimulated as men. There's not much doubt about that. But over the past few decades since the sexual revolution, women have become increasingly exposed to sexual images of men, and a subtle shift has occurred so that many women now report that they _are_ visually stimulated by sexual imagery; not as much as most men are, but much more than women in previous generations were. It also seems that most women are visually simulated by different _kinds_ of images than most men.

Whereas men have a tendency to be stimulated by images of genitals and breasts and buttocks, most women are more stimulated by images of males that are not so explicit. Many women _are_ very interested in images of healthy, strong, male arms, chests, and legs, or an overall image of a guy with a "good body", but are not at all interested in images of penises or testicles. Of course there are some exceptions to this.

Some women (mostly younger women) are actually very interested in and stimulated by explicit images, including erotic or pornographic material, but this is still a minority (probably less than 20%) and many women are specifically turned off by erotic or pornographic images. So, although there is some level of visual stimulation there for many women that was not really there a few generations ago, it's still not as intense or powerful for most women as it is for most men.

Most men are aroused by the _sounds_ of sex, to a certain extent, and experience a surge of desire if they hear female arousal or orgasm sounds, although these aren't always reliable (look up the fake orgasm scene in the movie _When Harry Met Sally_ ). But most women aren't particularly aroused by male orgasm sounds. So there's a bit of an inequity there. _Taste_ is not a huge desire-builder for most people, although there are some people who may associate a particular food with sex, and the taste of that food might become associated with sexual feelings to the point that it actually causes desire. This is one reason for the idea of aphrodisiacs, which we'll discuss in a bit. This type of associational learning is particularly true with regard to _smells_.

Smells are strong memory cues for most of us. Just think about the smells of Thanksgiving or Christmas; a turkey roasting, pumpkin pie, cinnamon, peppermint, chocolate, a real Christmas tree, a fire in the fireplace. Does that bring some memories to mind? Does it feel like home? Warmth? Comfort? Even love? Now you're probably hungry, I know. Well, if a certain smell is associated with sexual desire, the learning effect can be pretty strong there also. Perfumes, colognes, or lotions that our partner wears may become pretty stimulating for us. By the way, some research ( _see Hirsch, 2001_ ) proposes that the most enticing types of smell for women are licorice, cucumber, and baby powder. Women tend to like smells that are clean and fresh on men, and are often turned off by the woodsy, earthy, smoky smells of many men's colognes. Conversely, most men are turned on by lavender and pumpkin pie, fresh doughnuts, cinnamon and vanilla, licorice, and some citrus smells. Men aren't particularly fond of flowery smells that dominate most women's perfumes. So if you're a guy and want to turn her on, take a shower with Ivory soap. If you're a girl and you want to get him excited, make a pan of homemade cinnamon rolls.

Sex is simple, huh.

* *

Hormones, pheromones, magic pills and aphrodisiacs

Before we talk about other things that do influence our desire, let's spend a little time addressing those that probably don't. We'll start with the idea of aphrodisiacs. Every semester in my Human Sexuality class I ask the students to "tell me something that you've heard is an aphrodisiac." They come up with all the standards; chocolate, oysters, strawberries, and occasionally something creative and weird like fried catfish. No kidding. Catfish.

The best short answer is that there is no such thing as a _true_ aphrodisiac, although there are some things that _function_ as aphrodisiacs because of conditioning. In spite of legend, tradition, marketing gimmicks and teenage boy mythology, there is nothing you can eat or drink that really makes you want to have sex, or makes somebody want to have sex with you. Foods that historically are thought of as aphrodisiacs mostly fall into that category because of their size or shape or color. The strange reasoning is that if something looks like a sex organ, it is an aphrodisiac. Weird logic, but it's true. Oysters, tomatoes, peaches, cucumbers, bananas, figs and just about anything else you can think of that might possibly resemble a testicle, labia, vulva or penis has been considered an aphrodisiac at some point by somebody. You can easily see how silly this is.

Some legends are a little harder to debunk. One of the things people always mention is chocolate. Chocolate is often considered an aphrodisiac not because of how it looks, but because of association, probably our most basic form of learning, and because of a slight bit of chemical truth. Chocolate was historically used as a special drink by the Aztecs. It was considered a drink for royalty and for special occasions (although Montezuma is thought to have consumed 50 cups a day). Because it was exclusive, different, and expensive it became associated with something that you'd have on a special occasion, like a wedding, or a special date, or a holiday. Over time chocolate became associated with love, and we still think about it that way today.

This alone was enough to make it "romantic", but chocolate also contains caffeine. This means that if you drink 50 cups a day you probably have quite a buzz. Montezuma and later Casanova always drank chocolate to enhance their lovemaking prowess. In addition (here's the chemistry part) chocolate contains a chemical known as PEA (phenyl ethylamine) that acts like an amphetamine, and is also a chemical released in our brain when we fall in love. The problem with PEA as an aphrodisiac is that the level in a typical serving of chocolate is not enough to influence our behavior at all. In fact, research shows that people who consume even 3 servings of chocolate a day are no more sexually active than those who don't. If you drank 50 cups like Montezuma did, you might feel a little sexier, but you'd also probably feel pretty sick.

The other "aphrodisiac" that's confusing to people is alcohol. Many of us think alcohol is an aphrodisiac because we're more likely to have sex if we're drinking. And that's true- particularly for young single people. Alcohol tends to "sexualize the environment" for men and for women, but it actually doesn't act as a sexual stimulant at all.

Alcohol in your brain binds to receptors for the neurotransmitter gamma-amino-butyric acid, or GABA. GABA is the neurotransmitter that lowers your inhibitions. Late at night when you get drowsy, your GABA neurons are firing more. That's why you're less inhibited when you're sleepy. The same thing is true when you're drinking. Alcohol binds to GABA receptors and makes us feel like we have no inhibitions, so we're more likely to take risks, act silly, do embarrassing things, and have sex than when we're not drinking. The down side of all that of course is that alcohol is actually a depressant, and while it lowers our inhibitions, it also lowers our neurological sensitivity and restricts blood flow. One drink too many makes our extremities just a bit numb, reduces our muscle coordination and can keep our erectile tissues from becoming....well, erect. Not really a very good situation for optimum sexual response.

The next category of bogus desire enhancers is the group of pseudo-medical remedies with enticing names like "Provestra", "Steel Libido" or "Ad Lib". These are usually marketed on late night television, through the internet and sometimes in health food sections of pharmacies or grocery stores. The quick and easy answer to all of these, whether they're natural, herbal or synthetic, is that they don't really do anything for actual sexual desire. There is some evidence that some of the oils and lubricants enhance _arousal_ , but they don't cause desire. So don't waste your money. If there was a pill you could take to actually increase desire, the big pharmaceutical companies would have found it a long time ago and they'd be making billions on it. Trust me on that one.

Lastly, we should address pheromones. Pheromones are _unconscious odors_ that our brain recognizes, but we aren't aware of in our consciousness. Pheromones are particularly evident in animals. When many female animals go into heat, or estrus, they emit a pheromone that's detectable only by the males of the species. That's why if you have a female dog that isn't spayed, all the male dogs for miles around will know when she's in heat. It's a clear signal that she's ready to breed. Human pheromones probably do have some effect on us, but we're not sure if that effect is related to sexual desire at all, and if it is, exactly how it works. We do know that women who live together, like in a dormitory, begin to have coinciding menstrual cycles after a few months, and this is because of the pheromones that they emit at certain times during their monthly cycle. But because humans don't necessarily mate in response to a woman's menstrual cycle, we don't have much good evidence that women send out pheromones to attract or signal men that they're ready for sex. So, again, don't waste your money on pheromone perfume or cologne, or especially that tiny bottle you can order from the ad in the back of the magazine for $99.95. And by the way _, if_ pheromones _did_ work for humans like they do for dogs and deer, they wouldn't be selective. When you sprayed on that special spray, all the men within 500 yards might come running to you for sex. Most women aren't interested in that kind of attention. So now that some of the mythology is out of the way, let's get back to what actually does influence our sexual desire.

* *

Hormones

Well, if it was just about cinnamon rolls and soap it would be simple. But hormones are complicated. And I'm not a biologist. So we'll try to cover the basics even if we don't come up with answers for everything.

There are two categories of hormones that affect us sexually; the predominantly male hormones (androgens), and the predominantly female hormones (estrogens and progesterone). This seems straightforward enough, but actually it's not, because both genders have both groups. Men normally have a much higher level of androgens than women, and women normally have a much higher level of estrogens than men, but men _do_ have estrogens and women _do_ have androgens. The balance of these two groups is the key to how our hormones affect us sexually. And the balance is probably different for everybody.

One thing that is pretty simple- testosterone is the hormone that causes us to feel sexual desire. The main biological reason that men tend to have higher levels of interest in sex than women is that their testosterone level is much higher - actually 10-20 times higher. Testosterone is synthesized primarily in the testicles, but also the ovaries and the adrenal glands, so removal of the testicles or ovaries doesn't completely eliminate testosterone. There are actually three types of testosterone, but only one of them, "free testosterone", is available in the bloodstream and influences sexual desire. Testosterone is not just related to desire, but also encourages muscle development and bone density, secondary male sex characteristics during puberty, and aggressive behavior. Testosterone is at its peak during late adolescence and young adulthood, and slowly but steadily declines for the rest of our lives.

The actual effect of testosterone on sexual desire is pretty clear, but is also very hard to quantify, because free testosterone is difficult to measure, and because unlike the other animals most of us don't have sex just because of biological urges. We do know that testosterone seems to be inhibited somewhat by estrogen. For most men this inhibition is not a problem, because their estrogen levels are very low. But this relationship between estrogens and testosterone becomes more complex in women.

Estrogens are synthesized by the ovaries and the adrenal glands in women. Estrogen levels in women peak monthly around ovulation, and drop during PMS when progesterone peaks. Estrogen generally makes women feel healthy and vital, and drops in estrogen (like during PMS and at menopause) are related to fatigue, poor concentration, sleep problems (like hot flashes), and depressive symptoms. So, if a woman's estrogen level is fairly high, she probably feels good physically and mentally, both of which tend to be associated with increased sexual desire in women. However, at this same point in time, her testosterone level, which may not be very high anyway, may be somewhat inhibited by the estrogen. So does her desire or potential for desire go up or down at this point?

Good question. It could do either, or neither. Or vary from time to time. Conversely, when her estrogens are lowest, her testosterone is more available, but she may feel cranky, tired and depressed. And her desire may be higher, or lower, or stay the same. And it may change from month to month, or through different phases of her life. So although we know hormones have something to do with sexual desire, and that testosterone is the main player in the game, we still don't know how levels of testosterone or estrogens are going to affect any particular woman at any particular time of the month or of her life cycle. Like a lot of things in life, when it comes to hormonal influence on sex, men seem to be pretty simple, and women seem to be much more complex. Of course, biology is only part of the desire picture.

* *

Psychological and Relational Issues

I don't think it's always been the case, but in the last several years there has been an emerging view in the sexology/sex therapy world that desire is not just a biological phenomenon, but is clearly influenced by psychological and relational factors. This seems to be particularly true for women. This is not necessarily a dominant view at this point, but is steadily gaining strength against the medical/pharmacological model of diagnosis and treatment.

One of the major influences in this emerging view has been the work of Rosemary Basson and her colleagues. Basson's research indicates that

"Women commonly, especially in long term relationships, initiate or agree to sex for a variety of reasons - sexual desire is infrequently cited. Reasons include increasing emotional closeness with the partner, increasing the woman's own sense of well-being, to feel more attractive, more attracted to the partner, to conceive, and only sometimes to satisfy her own sense of sexual desire/need." (2005, p.292).

So according to Basson, women _usually_ have sex for reasons _other_ than physiological desire. And this is not a weird or unusual thing, but is actually quite normal (there's that word again), particularly for women in long term relationships.

One of the most important ideas that Basson proposes is that there are two different kinds of sexual desire; spontaneous desire, and responsive desire. Spontaneous desire is what most men experience most of the time. Sexual desire seems to come "naturally" with no physical stimulation, either "out of the blue" or in response to visual or other sensual cues. This is the kind of desire men report when they say something like "Whenever she gets out of the shower and walks through the room in the morning to get her underwear... that really turns me on." It takes about 5 seconds. We don't need to focus, or prepare ourselves, or work up to it, or clear our mind of the day's clutter. It just happens. It seems totally natural, and spontaneous.

Strangely enough, most women don't respond that same way when their husband walks around naked _._ Comedian Jerry Seinfeld defined this as the difference between "good naked" and "bad naked." But a lot of men just don't get the difference. Remember, we think people should _be like us_. The thinking for many men goes like this. If it turns me on when she walks through the room naked, then it should turn her on when she sees me naked also. Or, if it turns me on to see when she's physically aroused, it probably turns her on to see my erection. Or, if it would turn me on for her to sneak up behind me and grab my crotch while I'm standing in the kitchen scrambling eggs, it probably turns her on when I grab hers. Now, when you read that, you may think it sounds pretty ridiculous. But the truth is that many of us (men) are guilty of those very assumptions.

What Basson has proposed is that not all, but many women are more likely to experience desire in _response_ to sexual stimulation and activity. The model ( _with_ _my_ _elaborations and comments_ ) goes something like this:

1. A woman experiences some psychological or relational reason to agree to or initiate sex, for example "When I see him play with the kids like that, I just feel such love for him." She may not ever initiate. This is a common complaint for many men, who have decided that both partners should initiate sex. We'll talk about that a bit later.

2. She experiences a willingness to engage in sex, and she may express it, or she may "save" it for the next opportunity. Men usually don't do this. We think if we feel it now, we should act on it now. Women seem to be able to store away their desire and bring it up at a later time. And they're perfectly happy with this. This is one reason they seem to desire sex less. If they do feel desire, they don't always need to express it or act on it.

3. She engages in some type of sexual stimulus, within the appropriate context for _her_. For example, if she's got a busy day ahead of her at work and is anxious about it, bringing up sex when she gets out of the shower in the morning may not be the best context (and probably not while she's cooking breakfast for the kids). If she's at her best when the kids go to bed early and she has a couple of hours to relax, that may be a good context for her.

4. She processes this stimulus, within context ("I really love him, this is a good time for me, I'm nice and relaxed") , and may either continue in the activity, or stop it.

5. This stimulus, within appropriate context, begins to cause some level of subjective arousal. She begins to feel aroused and is consciously aware of feeling aroused.

6. The feeling of arousal, in appropriate context, causes a desire for the stimulus and arousal to continue, and increase. This is _responsive_ desire. Many women will describe it like this. " I don't really feel like I _want_ it, and certainly not like I _need_ it. But once we get started, I get turned on and I really enjoy it." Or, " I never really think about it on my own, but if he wants to, and I'm okay with it, I usually enjoy it a lot."

7. The experience results in some type of sexual reward (satisfaction, with or without orgasm) and some type of non-sexual reward (intimacy, closeness, etc.).

8. These rewards make the experience pleasant and pleasurable and _may_ lead to the potential for some increase in spontaneous desire, but mostly set the stage for agreement, willingness and responsive desire for the next sexual experience. This is hard for men to understand. We think." If we did it last night, and you enjoyed it, then why don't you want to do it again tomorrow?" But for women who mostly act on responsive desire, having a great sexual experience doesn't necessarily increase their spontaneous desire at all.

What this means to all of those very happily married women out there who feel like they have some type of abnormally low level of desire is that, well, they're actually pretty _normal_. What it means to their husbands who think there's something wrong with their wives because they don't want to have sex very often is that their wives are pretty _normal_. They probably don't need therapy or hormone adjustments, or a dietary supplement or a testosterone patch. They probably need husbands who are less demanding, less critical, less selfish, more sacrificial and less focused on sex as the ultimate expression of whether they are loved or not.

Now before I get too tough on husbands (I can do that because I am one), I want to point out that most of them are also probably very _normal_. While being obsessive and demanding and selfish is clearly _not_ good, desiring your wife sexually is a normal thing, and a natural thing for most of us, and a very _good_ thing. Just as the woman who can have sex every two weeks and be satisfied is normal, and doesn't need to be "fixed", her husband who would like to have sex three times a week is also normal and also doesn't need to be "fixed". Neither one is broken. They're just different in their style and level of interest in sex. Different is not wrong. Different is not pathological. Different doesn't have to be dysfunctional. In fact, different is probably good.

If they were both like the woman in this scenario, they would probably not have a very active sexual relationship, and would miss out on the intimacy and closeness and pleasure it provides. Sex wouldn't be important enough. If they were both like the man, they would focus all of their time and energy on sex and probably not work to enrich the other areas of their relationship. Sex would become too important. Both of these alternatives are problematic.

So what does a couple like this do? First, they have to agree that they are not wrong, just different. I know I've said that enough already. But it's vital to working through this. Second, they learn to sacrifice.

I believe (and it took me a long time to learn this) that the key to a good healthy Christian marriage is a commitment to a long-term pattern of mutual sacrifice. One of my favorite passages of scripture is Philippians chapter 2.

3 _Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves._ 4 _Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others._

5 _Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:  
_ 6 _Who, being in very nature_ [a] _God,  
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,  
_7 _but made himself nothing,  
taking the very nature_[b] _of a servant,.... NIV_

I think this is the essence of marriage; to give up your rights for the rights of someone else, to think of your partner as more important than yourself, to become a servant. It's the hardest thing in the world to do, because it goes against our most natural tendency- to be _selfish_. And this has to happen in our sexual relationship just like it does in every other part of our marriage.

David Schnarch says that marriage is a "people-making machine". By this he means that marriage always makes you into something that you weren't before you got married, and you wouldn't have been if you hadn't. Marriage changes you. And I believe that our sexual relationship is one of the basic places that marriage changes us. It teaches us that we cannot always think of ourselves. It confronts us in maybe our most selfish, egocentric aspect, our own physical bodies, and _requires_ that we set our own desires aside to show love to another person. It can teach us that the true beauty in being human and Christian is in somehow figuring out how to get over ourselves, transcend our basic selfish, animalistic nature and live sacrificial lives. So, let's talk about a couple of practical ways that can happen.

Unhealthy couples see their differences as problems to be solved. One thing that healthy couples always seem to do is to figure out how to embrace their differences and learn from them. In therapy I often use the analogy of a tug-of-war. When couples have differences, their natural tendency is to pull against each other; to try as hard as they can to make their partner come over to their side, accept their viewpoint, and become more like them. This is one way to eliminate the conflict, but the long-term effect on the relationship is damaging. It usually leads to resentment more than growth. But still we do it. If my partner likes to spend and I like to save, we tend to pull against each other. If I'm a harsh disciplinarian with the kids and my partner is too easy on them, we tend to pull against each other. If my partner likes to plan our life out years and years in advance and I like to live "in the moment", we pull against each other. So the harder we pull, the harder they pull, and after 20 years, we're miles away from each other. We live with a kind of irrational fear that if we let up, we'll get pulled completely over to their side and something catastrophic will happen.

Sometimes this is true. But most of the time, with couples who are basically healthy and actually love each other, easing up on the rope (so to speak) has the opposite effect. My partner relaxes a little bit also. Tension drops a bit. We make a small move toward each other. If we do this over time, we take small steps toward each other, and actually become more like each other. And 20 years later, we feel a comfortable, healthy synergy that we would never have had as an individual. The spender learns the value of saving money. The penny-pincher learns the freedom of having fun with your resources. The harsh parent softens, and the lax parent toughens a bit. The planner relaxes about the future and the spontaneous one learns how important it is to have some kind of plan. Healthy couples become more like each other, move toward each other, see their differences as strengths instead of weaknesses. As Schnarch says, they learn to _tolerate anxiety_ in order to grow.

The same movement can happen with our sexual relationship. A high desire partner and a low desire partner can learn to quit pulling against each other, ease up on the rope, and move slowly toward each other. It may take a long time to happen, but the results are worth it. Here's a specific application. When you whine and pout and make your wife feel guilty because she doesn't have sex as much as you want, she'll tend to pull even harder in the other direction, and will have even less desire than before. She'll be afraid to kiss you or hug you because she's afraid you'll misinterpret it as a sexual invitation. She'll think of sex as something that's required of her, an obligation or a job, rather than a choice. She'll pull harder, and you'll pout more, sigh and whine more, feel sorry for yourself and get angrier.

On the other hand, if you quit pestering and criticizing your wife about never having sex, and you quit pouting and sighing every time you don't get what you want, and decide to focus on what she needs, rather than what you want, it actually sets her free. I heard Joyce Penner say in a workshop once that "unless a woman is free to say no to sex, she never really says yes." I think that's brilliant. When you ease up on the rope and allow her the freedom to say no, it gives her the freedom to say yes. If you take off the pressure, reduce the sexual tension, allow sex with you to be a _completely free, loving choice_ , she is at least _free_ to ease up on her end of the tug-of-war, and be more open to the idea of sex. If you move toward her view, appreciate her approach to sex, and learn from her that love is expressed in many ways other than sex, it allows her to do the same.

Let me take a minute here to address some of the serious damage that is being done to sexual relationships today by some Christian leaders who propose that it is a woman's duty and responsibility as a wife to please her husband sexually, in all the ways that he wants to be pleased. These folks misuse scripture to promote the idea that if a woman doesn't have sex with her husband and satisfy him she is sinning against him and against God. Mark Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, is a very influential proponent of this harmful and misogynistic picture of Christian marriage. Driscoll even proposed in a 2007 sermon that women should perform oral sex on their husbands, because it's Biblical.

Now I believe that oral sex is certainly not _un-Biblical_ , and that if a woman wants to give her husband oral sex, that is clearly okay. _But Driscoll proposed that a woman who refuses to do so needs to_ _repent_. He even said jokingly in the same sermon that if a woman has an unbelieving husband she should perform oral sex on him to show him Christian kindness. In a later video with his wife Grace, from their Mars Hill Church, he asks her what she thinks about a woman who isn't having sex with her husband, and Grace responds that the woman is sinning against her husband and against God, and must repent.

You know that I believe that it is part of God's plan for a marriage to include a healthy sexual relationship. But the specific activities in that relationship and the frequency of activity is not prescribed in the scripture. Just because men like oral sex does NOT mean that their wives are required by scripture to give it to them. What a woman chooses to do with her husband sexually is just that; a choice. It also may be true that many women who don't want to have sex with their husbands have selfish, childish husbands who treat them like sexual objects, or worse.

One of the saddest parts of Driscoll's approach is that he places so much responsibility and emphasis on the _wife's_ role in the sexual tone of the marriage. He doesn't acknowledge the damage that is done in Christian couples every day by men who demand or expect their wives to do what they want sexually, _because they believe it's her Biblical responsibility._ This idea alone has done so much damage to Christian marriages that couples often never recover from it.

One of the sad outcomes of all this is that because Driscoll is cool and hip, and because he teaches a black-and-white, dualistic, fundamental message, many cool and hip evangelical churches have adopted his approach, or something similar, to teach their young couples about Christian marriage. These couples are encouraged to adopt a set of rules for their sex life, defined by someone else, when the healthy thing for them to do would be to struggle through their issues, learn to sacrifice for each other, become more like Christ, and work out their own relationships for themselves. I encourage you; please don't get caught up in this false teaching. If your church begins to teach this or promote it, challenge your leaders to take a different approach. This one is destructive.

So, let's go back to my tug-of-war analogy. Moving toward the middle over time doesn't mean that we become clones of each other. If that happens we actually lose some synergy. She may never become the one who initiates sex, and maybe she doesn't need to. And he may never become the one who says "I really don't feel like it tonight. Can we do it tomorrow night?" But they can move toward the middle of the spectrum rather than pulling further away from each other. I hear husbands say all the time "I wish she'd initiate sex more." I understand that, because men "want to be wanted" more than anything else in the world. And she may begin to do that over time because she understands that you like it. But who really cares who initiates it? Happy, healthy couples don't get hung up on exactly who does what. They move closer to each other over the years and appreciate their differences as strengths. And they sacrifice their selfishness for their partner.

### Questions for Reflection and Discussion

Do you think misconceptions about sexual desire have impacted you and your own relationships negatively? If so, how?

What is the most significant thing you learned from this chapter about sexual desire?

What can we do to have a healthier view of sexual desire in our culture, particularly with regard to female desire?

How would you counsel a couple who experience a significant difference in their individual levels of desire for sex?

### Chapter 7 References and Resources

David Schnarch - _Passionate Marriage; Keeping Love and Intimacy Alive in Committed Relationships_.1997. Henry Holt and Co..

David Schnarch - _Resurrecting Sex; Resolving Sexual Problems and Rejuvenating your Relationship_. 2002. Harper Collins.

David Schnarch - _Intimacy and Desire; Awaken the Passion in Your Relationship_. 2009. Beaufort.

Alan Hirsch - _What Flavor is Your Personality?_. 2001. Sourcebooks.

Rosemary Basson - _Women's Difficulties with Low Sexual Desire, Sexual Avoidance and Sexual Aversion_ , in _Handbook of Clinical Sexuality for Mental Health Professionals, 2_ nd _Edition_. Stephen Levine, Ed. 2010. Routledge.

# Part Three

# Chapter 8

### Sexual Behavior

We've already addressed the question of what constitutes "normal" when dealing with human sexual behavior, and concluded that statistics may not be the best way for us to make that decision. However, statistics do help us see if some of our expectations or assumptions about sex are wildly exaggerated or grossly underestimated. I think there are three basic ideas that are important when reviewing sexual behavior in our culture (and I'm referring to only consenting adult sexual behavior). First, in spite of the research we do have available, what people do in their private sex lives is still fairly mythical. That is, we don't really know what's true and what isn't. People can lie on surveys, and often do to make themselves look either more interesting and entertaining or more nondescript and boring than they really are. Second, as we've already established, norms and numbers can be useful, but couples should spend most of their time and energy on what works for _them_ , not what the rest of the world is doing or not doing. Third, my basic approach is that within a marriage anything that both partners agree to, if no one is harmed and there is no 3rd party involved, is okay. With these in mind, we'll take a look at what the research seems to tell us about what people do and don't do.

The statistical information I'm presenting here is taken mostly from three basic sources. The foremost is the National Opinion Research Center/University of Chicago study done in 1994 by a group led by Edward Laumann. The results of this work were published in Sex in America: A Definitive Survey. This study involved over 3400 randomly selected Americans, ages 19-59, who participated in 90-minute interviews. This was the most comprehensive study of sex in America since the Kinsey reports, but was much more useful and applicable than Kinsey's work, because of the greatly improved methodology.

The second source of information here is a more recent study done by Debbie Herbenick and others at the Center for Sexual Promotion at the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University. Herbenick's study reported recent (past month and past year) and lifetime prevalence of sexual behaviors among over 5800 American men and women, ages 14-94. Although the data collected was different in format from the Laumann study and over a decade has passed, it seems that much of the information gathered by the Herbenick study, at least with regard to major sexual behaviors, supports that from the Laumann study.

The third study we will reference here, in a less substantial way, is the SWAN study in 2003 of sexual behaviors of midlife women, both pre and post menopause. The SWAN study is not as extensive or broad as the other two, but offers some interesting information that I believe is pertinent to the discussion of sexual behavior in our culture.

One of the most significant ideas to come from the research on sexual behavior in America is this statement from the University of Chicago Chronicle:

The results of the survey revealed a new way of thinking about sexuality. Sexual behavior is not just determined by instinct, the researchers found, but is socially determined and socially controlled to a greater extent than previously believed. Friends, family, neighborhoods, religious beliefs and education dramatically influence who Americans choose for sexual partners, how many partners they have and how they behave sexually.

Clearly, we are not _just_ biological creatures acting upon biological urges. As I've tried to convey since the beginning of this book, sex is complicated. Desire is complicated. Sexual motivation is complicated. Yes, testosterone is important. Physiological stimulation and vasocongestion are important. But these factors alone don't seem to determine what we do, or how often we do it.

* *

Sexual intercourse

There are three major questions related to intercourse that are important to most of us. First, _how often do people do it_? How often other people do it is of course not why we ask this. We're not really that concerned about other people. We ask so we can decide if _we_ are doing it enough, or too much. As I said when we discussed desire, we all want to feel like we're normal. Second, _when people do it, is it good for them_? Do they have orgasms? This is mostly important to women. Men typically don't have much trouble with orgasms. The ratio of intercourse to orgasm for most men is 1:1, or pretty close to that, but not so for women, so a lot of women who don't have orgasms during intercourse want to know if there's something wrong with them (or their partner). Third, we are often curious about, if not consumed with _positions for intercourse_. This is an issue that has been mostly created by media, from pornography to movies to websites and even desktop calendars (more about that later). We heard about or saw somebody in a movie doing it in some exotic position available only to yoga masters or contortionists in a circus, and we were intrigued. We're tempted to put our own bodies through some kind of torture in order to experience what must be the ultimate in sexual pleasure. Well, we'll see if that makes any sense.

But first let's discuss frequency. Research indicates that about 60% of people in America report having intercourse either 2-3 times a week or a few times a month. Only 2-10 % (depending mostly on age) reported 4 or more times per week. In Laumann's study, 18-29 year olds reported about 84 times per year, 40 year olds reported about 64 times a year, and 70 year olds reported about 10 times a year. If you look at only the married respondents, those in their 30s reported about 112 times a year, and those in their 70s about 16 times a year. Within this sample, age and marital status are the significant factors. If you're younger you have intercourse more often, and if you're married you have intercourse more often. And the majority of people are doing it once or twice a week. The SWAN study in 2003 supported this rate. In that group of midlife women, 37% reported having intercourse 0-2 times per month, 32% reported once a week and 30% reported 2 or more times a week.

So if you're a married couple in your 30s and you have sex about once a week, you're okay. And occasionally if the kids are at your mother's house, or it's your birthday, and you do it twice a week; you're just fine. And sometimes when you're so busy you can't even find time to talk to each other, and you get around to it about every 10 days or two weeks, well... congratulations. You're pretty "normal".

So, as we all might have guessed, younger people have more sex than older people. Of course, as we get older, our skills and knowledge tend to improve, both as individuals and as a couple, so that older, happily married people tend to report high sexual satisfaction. In happy, healthy married couples, as quantity decreases, quality often increases. That we do it less as we get older is not a surprise. That we do it more if we are married _may_ be a surprise to some people. The portrayal of married people in the media has historically emphasized the decline of sexual activity after marriage, and it's true that some married couples have sexual relationships that start off great and then slowly wither and die. But the image that's presented in television and movies of the young single person who is having sex so much more often than his or her unfortunate married friends is just not usually true. Like those diet ads that have before and after pictures of someone who lost 50 pounds in 2 months, there should be a disclaimer at the bottom of the screen; "Results not typical."

When it comes to orgasm, there are some interesting things that show up in research. Although 75% of men (remember, these men are from 18-59) report that they _always_ have orgasms during intercourse, only 29% of women do. If you add the percentage that reports that they _usually_ have orgasms during intercourse, the number grows to 71% of women and 95% of men. Of these, the highest percentage is married women (75%), and the lowest is for non-cohabiting, never married women (62%).

So a lot of people say that they _usually_ have an orgasm during intercourse. But how much does that impact their satisfaction? Although men and women have pretty discrepant rates of orgasm during intercourse, about 40% of _both men and women_ report extreme physical satisfaction and extreme emotional satisfaction with their relationship. So women who don't always have orgasms may still be very satisfied, and men who have orgasms all the time may not be. Maybe orgasm isn't the key, or the only key to sexual satisfaction.

As I alluded to before, we sometimes can get a little extreme and a little silly when it comes to positions for intercourse. I once had a friend give me one of those small, tear-off desk calendars that had a line drawing of a different intercourse position for each of the 365 days on the calendar. I'm not kidding. Three hundred and sixty five different positions. Well, first of all, nobody needs or uses that many positions. Second, they're mostly variations on three or four basic ones. And third, the ones that aren't variations on the basics are often just ridiculous. The reason they're ridiculous is that they don't really _work_ for real people in real life. There are 4 basic things that make intercourse positions work.

The first is _gravity_. Gravity can work for you or against you in sex. If it works for you it makes sex easier, it can last longer and often makes orgasm more likely. So any position should be evaluated based on whether gravity is working for you or against you. In man on top, woman on top, and some sitting positions, gravity is your friend. It contributes to clitoral contact. In standing or side by side positions, gravity is working against you.

The second factor is _stamina._ Sex requires at least some physical stamina, and some positions require more stamina than others. A person who is in good physical condition may be able to utilize and enjoy positions that are uncomfortable or impossible for someone in poorer physical condition. If you can't stand on your hands with your feet on the top of a chair in normal life, you probably can't do it and have intercourse at the same time. And if you have trouble running for 10 minutes, you probably won't be able to have sex standing up for 10 minutes either. If you have relatively low physical stamina, a position like face-to-face, lying on your side, will allow you to have leisurely intercourse. Choose positions that allow you to optimize your stamina.

The third important factor is _freedom of movement_. For example, most people are able to move their hips up and down, while lying on their back or front, more easily than back and forth while lying on their sides. In addition, many people like to use their hands to stimulate, or just caress their partner during intercourse. The best sexual positions allow the greatest freedom of movement of hips and pelvis, and sometimes hands. All three of these factors contribute to the fourth and most important factor, which is _clitoral stimulation_.

As we know, most women reach orgasm most of the time because of indirect stimulation of the clitoris involving friction applied to the clitoral hood or lower mons. Thus, the best intercourse positions for female orgasm always optimize clitoral stimulation. For example, all rear-entry positions take away the possibility of clitoral stimulation through intercourse (although they do allow for manual stimulation), and most face to face positions, although not all, allow for some level of clitoral stimulation. The best way to ensure good clitoral stimulation during intercourse is by using the _coital alignment technique_ , or CAT.

The coital alignment technique is pretty simple, but a lot of people (men in particular) are basically ignorant of it because it is contrary to many of the images or ideas of intercourse that are often portrayed in the media or learned informally from our peers. Most men grow up with the idea that good intercourse involves lots of vigorous thrusting of the penis in and out of the vagina. Although this _may_ lead to orgasm in some women, in many women the level of clitoral contact provided by the in-and-out motion is not constant or consistent enough to achieve orgasm.

There are two keys to the coital alignment technique. First, in the face-to-face, man on top position, the man should move his pelvis, or slide his body up toward the head of the woman so that when the penis is in the vagina, his pubic bone is directly above and in contact with her pubic bone. This may mean that he will need to lean forward, making his torso more parallel to hers, rather than up at a steep angle. The second key is that instead of thrusting in and out, and "banging" his pubic area against hers, he should rock, or slide slightly back and forth, maintaining as much constant contact between their pubic bones as possible. This places the clitoris directly between the pubic bones and creates significant and consistent friction that will often lead to orgasm in the woman. These same adjustments apply, in reverse, if the woman is on top facing the man.

I usually demonstrate this in my class by telling my students to hold the heels of their palms together, with their hands facing opposite directions. Then without losing contact between their hands, simply rock their palms back and forth. Then I ask them to keep their hands in the same position, but to bang their palms together. That's the difference in the CAT and typical male thrusting. I often tell men to think about how a woman might touch herself as she masturbates (most men are happy to do this). They almost always say that she would rub her pubic area or clitoris until she has an orgasm. No man ever thinks that a woman would slap her pubic area or bang the heel of her hand on her clitoris to masturbate. Well, if women masturbate by applying constant back and forth friction to the clitoris, then for intercourse to lead to orgasm, it should mimic the way a woman masturbates as much as possible. The coital alignment technique does just that.

So, if we analyze intercourse positions with regard to potential for female orgasm, we have to evaluate which ones make the CAT more available. The "missionary" position (man on top, face to face), woman on top, face to face and some sitting positions are very good for utilizing the CAT. Rear entry positions, standing positions and side by side positions are generally not great for clitoral contact or CAT.

* *

Non-intercourse activities

The broad category of non-coital activities includes basically anything and everything people could do sexually without having intercourse so we'll focus here on the major areas of interest for most people; oral sex, manual stimulation and masturbation, foreplay or sex play, and anal sex.

_Oral sex_. Besides intercourse, oral sex is probably the sexual activity that gets the most attention in our culture. This is probably because it's one of the most common male fantasies, and men control media, so porn and other media are full of portrayals of oral sex. And it's clearly one of the most common non-coital activities. Research indicates that between 60 and 80% of people say that they've participated in oral sex in their lifetime, and about 25% report it as their most recent sexual event. The tendency to participate in oral sex increases as education increases (40% among high school grads, and 80% among college grads), and is higher among whites than blacks and Hispanics.

However, not everybody enjoys giving or receiving oral sex. Some people think it's unclean or unhealthy in some way. Others feel too vulnerable or uncomfortable for their partner to stimulate them orally, and others (particularly women) may feel that it's too submissive or feel dominated by their partner if they give oral stimulation.

Oral sex performed on a woman is technically called "cunnilingus", which comes from two Latin words; _cunni_ , which means vulva, and _lingus_ , which means tongue. Some women report that they are most likely to have orgasms this way, due to the concentrated clitoral stimulation by the tongue. But others may experience too much direct clitoral contact through oral stimulation and prefer manual stimulation or intercourse. Some women may have feelings of shame or embarrassment about the appearance of their genitals, potential genital odor or taste, and prefer that their partners not stimulate them orally at all. For many, this level of anxiety will limit their ability to enjoy the process.

While many men enjoy giving oral stimulation, and actually prefer it over other activities, some subcultures view oral sex as subservient and even deviant, and males may even be looked down on or ridiculed for performing oral sex on a woman.

Oral sex performed on a male is called "fellatio", from the Latin word _fellate_ , which means "to suck". While most men enjoy fellatio, some are inhibited by it, and may be unable or unwilling to have an orgasm. Some women are turned off by the idea of fellatio, or just find it unappealing and would rather avoid it, particularly with regard to ejaculation. Although semen is perfectly harmless (if there are no infections or STDs of course) many women object to the idea of their partner ejaculating in their mouth, and may be vehemently opposed to swallowing semen. These factors may inhibit the oral sex process enough that some couples may just choose to avoid it altogether, or only practice it occasionally.

_Manual stimulation and masturbation_. Although some couples may think manual stimulation by their partner is not "real sex" , there are many couples who use it as an integral part of their sexual repertoire, and many who prefer it to oral sex as an alternate to intercourse. There are at least two reasons manual stimulation is good for many couples. First, it's easier for most people than intercourse or oral sex. It requires less stamina than intercourse, and you can do it in basically any physical position, so it doesn't require any gymnastics or contortions. This may be important if you're older, if you're not in great shape, you have some physical limitations or you're just too tired for intercourse. Second, most people are more coordinated with their hands than with their mouth and tongue, and certainly more than with their genitals. So it makes sense that accuracy of stimulation - the ability to "hit the right spot" - is enhanced with manual stimulation. In other words, manual sex offers better stimulation a) in the right places, b) with the right amount of pressure and c) at the right speed.

Although some couples may find the idea unappealing or deviant, others include not only manual stimulation, but also _mutual masturbation_ as part of their sexual schema. This may present a psychological difficulty for some couples who believe that self-stimulation is somehow detrimental to their relationship, or may be offended by the idea of their partner not "sharing" in the experience. Others find it to be a very stimulating variation, and consider mutual masturbation to be very much a shared experience. There are other considerations when dealing with the issue of _individual masturbation_ , and we'll discuss that in a later chapter.

_Foreplay or sex play_. Although this category can include just about everything else in this section, I decided to address it briefly here as a separate set of behaviors, because there are some ideas and issues that are important to address. First, let me reiterate that I believe that _anything_ a couple wants to do as sex play is okay, as long as they both agree, no one gets hurt, and there's no third party involved. This part of a couple's sexual relationship is often the easiest place to be creative, to introduce some novelty, and to make sure that we don't develop too much of a predictable pattern. That's the positive side; the beauty and benefit of sex play.

The negative side is this. The word "foreplay" implies that it is something that comes before another thing, which is the _main_ thing, or the most important thing. This can lead to a couple of problems. First, the focus on intercourse as the culmination of every sexual encounter tends to make sex a "goal oriented" experience. For most couples, this can detract from the freedom and pleasure that come with a more relaxed approach to sex. Being goal oriented can even contribute to arousal and orgasm problems, since it sometimes causes couple to feel performance pressure. Psychological pressure is antithetical to good sex.

The other drawback to the idea of "foreplay" is that the focus on intercourse as the main event detracts from the pleasure and enjoyment of the moment. If intercourse is the main thing, we may rush through the "preliminaries" quickly and even absent-mindedly in order to get to it. This is a shame, since foreplay, or sex play can involve highly stimulating, pleasurable and intense situations and activities which a creative, patient couple may find to be even more satisfying than intercourse. It may be a strange analogy, but my evangelical background causes me to think of foreplay and intercourse in much the same way many of us grew up thinking about a church service. We had about six steps, or procedures to go through in order to prepare us for the sermon, which was of course the main event. Imagine if we only did the prayers, the fellowship, the singing of hymns, the special music, and the offering, and then we left and went home to eat our pot roast. Many traditionalists in my generation would think we _really_ didn't have church....because we had no sermon. What a shame that we thought the prayers and music and fellowship and giving of gifts wasn't enough. They were just preliminaries. Thankfully, even most evangelicals have moved away from this kind of thinking. We should do the same with the idea of sex play. It shouldn't be a means to an end. It should be an end in itself.

_Anal intercourse or stimulation_. Anal intercourse, like many other activities, is portrayed in pornography as a common practice, when in fact it is not common at all. And like with many things sexual, the portrayal of anal sex in the porn industry has in effect filtered down through movies and television into the sexual mindset of our culture. Again, this is an idea that is mostly promoted by men, who are still mostly in control of the media. The truth is that the vast majority of people do not engage in anal intercourse. Only about 20-25% report that they have ever tried it, and only 1-2% report it as their most recent sexual experience. It's safe to say that less than 5 % of couples actually enjoy and practice it as a common form of sexual interaction. The reasons are pretty obvious to most of us.

As I've stated many times, clitoral stimulation is primary for most women with regard to arousal and orgasm, and anal intercourse offers no opportunity for clitoral stimulation, unless done manually. So the physiological potential for female orgasm through anal intercourse is minimal at best. In addition, anal penetration is often very painful. The anal opening and the rectum are not designed to accept an object as rigid or as large as an average erect penis. And even if a woman becomes comfortable with penetration, there is still a potential for anal or rectal tearing or other tissue damage. Lastly, there is significant potential for bacterial infection. The rectum contains high levels of bacteria that may not always be controlled by condom use, and even with a condom, transfer of bacteria from the anal area to the vagina is a possibility.

While anal intercourse is mostly problematic, and many couples find anal penetration unappealing, anal _stimulation_ may not be. Because of the high level of nerve endings in the perineum and around the anus, some people find manual anal stimulation to be very pleasurable, and it may enhance their arousal and orgasm. And if basic hygiene is practiced, external anal stimulation doesn't carry the high risk of anal penetration.

_Fantasy_. Since the early 60s, when Helen Kaplan described sex as "friction plus fantasy", the most commonly held public and professional opinion has been that sexual fantasy is a good thing, and that happy healthy individuals and couples use it to have more satisfying sex lives. Well, Kaplan may have been partially right, but the way most people, including sex therapists and educators, have dealt with the issue of sexual fantasy has been problematic at best, and often very damaging.

There are two aspects of sexual fantasy; fantasy that happens in the mind of the individual and isn't shared with the partner, and fantasy that the couple shares and possibly acts upon. I'll first address the individual aspect.

Most of the media in our culture tend to reflect Kaplan's notion that it's a normal and good thing to engage in any kind of sexual fantasy. Popular magazines often even encourage couples to fantasize about people other than their partners, even during intercourse, in order to achieve or enhance orgasm. I think this is a big mistake. I've said several times that anything that couples do together is okay as long as they don't bring in a third party. Fantasy about someone other than your partner brings in a third party. It may seem harmless at first, but it's one of those things that will plant itself in your head, and will tend to grow, like a careless weed. Because orgasm is such a strong behavioral reinforcer, pairing an image or idea of someone other than your partner with your orgasm will tend to make your brain think that your orgasm is connected with the third party, rather than your actual partner. Continuing this fantasy will often cause the real partner to become less and less arousing. They just can't measure up to the fantasy partner, in appearance or performance. And Christians who do this sort of thing often become consumed by guilt because they're aroused by someone other than their partner, and they're keeping it a secret from their partner. Dysfunctional arousal patterns, false comparisons and expectations, overwhelming guilt; none of this is good for your sexual relationship.

On the other hand, not everything about the concept of sexual fantasy is negative. Fantasy can be used to enhance the relationship if done with the right way. And there are at least three basic guidelines for doing it the right way. First, fantasize _only_ about your real partner. Second, if you don't have a real partner, it's best to fantasize about someone who is not real, or at least someone who is clearly out of reach and not within your world of possibilities. Consider it like a "safety hierarchy of fantasy". It's always best to fantasize about your real partner, but if you don't have one, it's better to fantasize about a "mystery partner" than another real person. If you can't do that, it's better to fantasize about a movie star or model rather than your sister's best friend, or the guy who sits in front of you in physics class, or your son's 2nd grade teacher.

The third safety guideline is to fantasize about things you and your partner have already done, or things you are pretty sure your partner would agree to. If you fantasize about things that you know your partner doesn't like, you're setting your partner up for unfair comparisons and setting yourself up for disappointment. The safest possible kind of sexual fantasy is one that is about your real partner and about something wonderful and exciting that you've done together in the past.

Some of the benefits of safe individual fantasy are 1) it can be a good psychological rehearsal for activity that you think you might want to do with your real partner, and a way to plan and think through potential sexual experiences, 2) it can be a "safety valve' for sexual expression if your partner is unavailable, (deployed with the military, for example) and 3) it may help to increase your sexual desire if desire is low.

Sexual fantasy that is shared by couples is a very different situation. I believe that couples can have fantasies, share those with each other, and act them out if they want to as a way of increasing their sexual repertoire, keeping their experiences new and exciting and just having fun with their sexuality. I think the ideal situation for a couple is that they can be open and honest about any and all fantasies, with a few basic guidelines (yes, you've heard these before); both are in agreement about it, no one gets hurt, no third party is involved, and (here's a new one) they don't take role-playing too far. For example, I think if a couple wants to dress in pirate clothes and somebody be the captain and somebody be the deck-hand, that's pretty harmless. But if a couple acts out a fantasy in which the man meets the woman in a bar and he pretends to be a businessman out of town on a trip, and she pretends to be a lonely single woman out looking for sex, well... that can be a little too much like real life for some people, and might make that scenario seem pretty attractive, and available, on his next business trip. It could be harmless and fun, but it could be dangerous. Pirate costumes are pretty safe. Silly, but safe.

### Questions for Reflection and Discussion

What do you think is the biggest misconception we have about sexual behavior in our culture?

What is the biggest misconception _you_ have had about sexual behavior?

What can we do as a culture to have a more accurate view of which sexual behaviors are common or uncommon, okay or not okay, healthy or unhealthy?

Do you think there are some sexual behaviors that healthy committed adult couples should not engage in? If so, which ones and why?

### Chapter 8 References and Resources

Robert Michael, John Gagnon, Edward Laumann, Gina Colata - _Sex in America - A Definitive Survey_. 1994. Little, Brown and Co.

Debbie Herbenick, Michael Reece, Vanessa Schick, Stephanie Sanders, Brian Dodge and J. Dennis Fortenberry - _Sexual behavior in the United States: Results from a national probability sample of men and women ages 14-94_. _Journal of Sexual Medicine_. 2010.7(5). 255-265.

Also see http://www.nationalsexstudy.indiana.edu/

Virginia Cain, Catherine Johannes, Nancy Avis, Beth Mohr, Miriam Schocken, Joan Skurnick, Marcia Ory. 2003. _Sexual Functioning and Practices in a Study of Mid-life Women: Baseline Results from SWAN._ _Journal of Sex Research_ 40,3, 266-276.

# Chapter 9

### Sexual Orientation

Fair warning; this is not going to be a short chapter. If there's one thing I know about the issue of sexual orientation, it's that there is no good short answer. The questions are just too complex, too difficult for a simple, quick response. But it's an important question, and one that we shouldn't be scared of discussing openly and honestly.

Maybe more than any time in this book, I need to say clearly here that I am still a searcher, a seeker - not an authority. I've struggled with this issue professionally for at least 30 years, and I still don't know the perfect answer. I still have conflicts. Some things are still "gray" to me, and the dualistic, "black and white" answers that I hear from people on all sides of the issue are often self-serving political statements or closed-minded religious statements, or both, that ignore the complexity of the issue. I'll try to not do that here. I think I have come to some conclusions for myself about the issues, but I don't think I'm smart enough to propose that they are definitive, or ultimate. I hope I continue to evolve as I learn and grow. And I'm committed to respecting most (not all, but most) of those who hold different views and opinions.

My goal for this chapter is not to convince you that I'm right about anything. I want to present some ideas, first dealing with spiritual and Biblical issues, and then looking at science and information from research. I hope this chapter will make you think about the questions in some new ways. So although I don't want to try to convince you that I'm right about everything, I also don't want to be cowardly in dealing with this very important issue, so I will share with you my own struggles, convictions and conclusions. I'll share some of my own background and my own development with you in hope that some of you will be able to identify with those things in your own lives and in your own faith.

I originally thought that it might be best to write about my own convictions at the end of the chapter. I was a little afraid that if I put it all out there at the beginning, some of you would immediately decide that I'm not on your side, and you'd close the book and not even consider the rest of the ideas in the chapter. I hope you won't do that.

For years I've wanted to be compassionate and loving and accepting of homosexuality, I just couldn't figure out how to do that because of the conviction I've held that the Bible condemns homosexuality. I guess I could say I come by that honestly, having been raised in a very traditional Southern Baptist home, having been a member of Southern Baptist churches, and then Texas Baptist churches for most of my life, and having attended Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (one of the most conservative places on earth) and before that, Texas A&M University (one of the most conservative places on earth). The traditional conservative approach to scripture was built into me early on, and has been a basic part of who I am for most of my life.

On the other hand, I've become pretty liberal in many other areas of my life over the years; in my attitudes toward most religious, political and social issues. So I've been conflicted, and ironically my convictions about the nature of the Bible have kept me from loving people like I should have.

I want to say here very clearly that I have not decided the Bible is wrong about homosexuality. What I've come to believe is that _my_ _approach to using the Bible_ has been wrong, and I can't continue to do that.

The key for me, and the focus of this chapter, is how the basic belief I have always held about the scripture had to change in order for me to be able to become more like Jesus. How's that for ironic? It even sounds and looks weird to me as I read it back to myself, and it's a little bit scary. I can visualize the looks on the faces of some of my friends and family members when they read that.

If this makes sense to you, then maybe these ideas will be helpful. If not, that's okay also. I understand the struggle. As for me, it's time to take the chance, and say that I believe that the church should fully accept and welcome gay and lesbian Christians, with no qualifications except those that we require of any members of our fellowships. I also believe that there is no legal or moral reason to deny gay and lesbian couples the right to marry. Maybe the next few pages will help you understand how and why I've come to that decision.

Let me say here also that although you must make these decisions and come to conclusions for yourself, it's imperative that you do that in _dialogue with people who think differently than you_. We all get caught up in our various social, religious, political bubbles and rarely spend time talking with people who really challenge our ideas and presuppositions. We may read things that they write, and that's good, but we should all take a chance. If you're a conservative thinker, visit with some liberals and maybe even some gay Christians. Listen to their stories. Or if you're gay, take time to hear the issues that your conservative brothers and sisters have. Take some intellectual "communion" with them. See what happens. The body of Christ is just that; a _body_. Listen to the whole body.

I'm not sure there's any one issue that has divided culture, and Christians, as has the issue of sexual orientation. As I've said before, our sexuality is so closely tied to our identity that anything that challenges or criticizes or questions our sexuality also challenges, criticizes and questions _who we are_. This is one thing that I'm pretty sure heterosexuals don't really "get" the way gays and lesbians do. We are never, and never have been persecuted, criticized, ostracized and rejected by family, friends and church because of our sexual identity. Heterosexuals also don't know the pain of _self_ -rejection and _self-_ condemnation that many gays and lesbians feel because their _identity_ seems to conflict with their spiritual convictions. I do not know what that's like, and if you're not gay, you don't either. I know how it feels to be convicted of my sinful behavior, but I have no real idea how it feels to be condemned because of _who I am_.

One of the arguments that straight Christians often make (I've made this one also) goes something like this, "Well, I was born with a tendency toward heterosexual lust, and promiscuity, and all sorts of things, and I choose to not act on those, so why can't gay people do the same?" We propose that it's not sinful to have same-sex attraction; it's just sinful if you act on it. You can be gay and okay if you choose to remain celibate your entire life. Some gay people, because of their Biblical convictions, choose this path for themselves, and I really respect their conviction. But there's a significant difference in choosing that for yourself and someone else thinking they should be able to dictate that for you.

From the heterosexual perspective, proposing that gay people should just remain celibate may seem like a reasonable idea, but it's really an attempt to equate two very different situations. As a straight man, I may be required by my convictions to restrict, or channel my sexual feelings into appropriate situations, but I have several socially accepted and sanctioned situations available to me. If I'm single, I may choose to wait until marriage, but I have this glorious hope that someday I will be able to experience it, and God and everybody else will bless it and approve of it. So there's hope! If I'm married and tempted to cheat, I can remind myself that I have an appropriate, sanctioned sexual opportunity with my spouse, and God and my church and my family wholly approve. Even if my marital sex life is pretty dismal, I still have an opportunity, or at least a hope for an opportunity.

If I'm gay, and I must restrict my behavior for religious convictions, then that's just the sad end of the story. There is no glorious hope for a sexual experience out there in my future. I'm not required to choose the appropriate situation to express my sexual identity, because there is no appropriate situation. God does not approve. My church, family and friends will never approve. No hope. These two scenarios are not comparable at all.

There's another problem with this position. There is of course a difference between sexual attraction and sexual behavior. But when Christians follow that up with the proposal that being gay is okay as long as you remain celibate, we are not only requiring that gay people don't act on their sexual feelings, we are taking away the option of lifelong intimacy, companionship and partnership. This is more difficult for most people than a restriction on sexual behavior. It condemns gay Christians to a life of loneliness. Justin Lee, in his excellent book Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from the Gays vs. Christians Debate _,_ gives a very detailed description of his own experience and his frustration as he considered the two possibilities; either he was condemned to spend his life without intimate partnership and companionship, or the church was wrong in the way it used the scripture. I encourage you to read Justin's book, and if you're straight, to consider what it would be like if the tables were turned and you were told that you must live alone and be celibate in order to have a possibility of living a life that honors God.

I want to offer one last idea here about our standard Christian arguments regarding homosexuality. The good old Christian slogan of "hate the sin, love the sinner" is not an appropriate way for straight Christians to think about gay people, although I again admit to doing it myself. Straight Christians often use a parenting analogy to express how this could make sense. So I'll do the same.

Think about having a child who tells you a lie. Most of us would handle that by saying that we can hate the lie, but we absolutely don't hate the child. But if we think about it for a minute, the main reason we can choose to not hate the child is that even though the child lied, _we don't consider the child a_ _liar_. We would never use that language with our kid. We would say to a teenager "You lied to me, and that's wrong," but we would never really consider saying "You're just a _liar_ " to our kid. Why? Because to do that would tell him that we believe lying is part of his identity. It's who he is. But we don't really believe that, and neither does he. He might even say "Dad, I know I lied, but _I'm not a liar_!"

However, if our 15-year-old son has told us he's gay, and we say that we hate his gay behavior, but we love him, that doesn't make sense to him because his sexual orientation is not a behavior, it's part of his identity and it _compels_ his behavior. Straight parents quite possibly might refuse to believe this, just as we would refuse to believe our kid is a liar. A father might say "Well you did a gay thing, but _I know you're not gay_." And the son might say back "Dad, I did something gay because I _am_ gay. It's who I am."

You can't say you "hate the sin" to someone for whom the "sin" is an integral part of their identity. They will not believe that you really do "love the sinner." I know that some of you who read this will disagree with me and continue to hold tightly the notion that _you can_ _really love someone and despise a significant part of their identity_. Paul tells us in Romans 13:10 that _love does no harm_ to our neighbor. I propose to you that if the one who you say you love experiences rejection and condemnation as a part of your loving them, you should seriously examine whether what you are offering is actually love, or some attempt to make yourself feel better. I know. I've been that person for a long time.

We have to have a new approach. The body of Christ has to be better than this.

As I'm writing this, it's Holy Week and Christians worldwide are focusing their attention on the passion and the resurrection of Jesus. But many here in the U.S. are focusing more of their attention on two Supreme Court cases that will be heard this week; the possible overturning of Proposition 8 (that prohibits gay marriage) in California, and the possible overturning of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which allowed states to not recognize gay marriage from other states, and federally defined marriage as between "one man and one woman."

Protesters and supporters from both sides of the issue are lined up outside the Supreme Court building today in the snow and rain, holding signs and shouting at each other. As you can imagine, the protest against gay marriage is led primarily by conservative Christians who believe that homosexuality is a sin and that legalizing gay marriage will signal a basic failure of our country to preserve the sanctity of the family. This is not, however, just a battle between believers and unbelieving gay activists. It is a serious disagreement among Christians. A family feud of sorts.

This past week I spent a few hours visiting and having dinner with an openly gay theology professor at a seminary in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area, and several of his students. Four of the students were gay, and one was a straight pastor who is a very outspoken advocate for gays and lesbians. They shared with me and several of my students their personal stories of how their church experience was impacted by their sexual orientation. These stories, like many I've heard from gay Christians, were often sad, even heartbreaking as they recounted their rejection and alienation from the traditional church and their fear, while closeted, of their church, their Christian friends and their family discovering their true sexual identity. But these stories were also encouraging and hopeful.

These men were not bitter toward the church. They were reconciling. They were embracing. They were all actively engaged in _loving_ the church, and loving Christ, and sharing that love with a determination that I don't witness in many heterosexual Christians. I was surprised that some of them identified themselves strongly as "Southern Baptist", although they are not presently involved in a Southern Baptist church. I was impressed and encouraged by the patience and compassion they expressed for those of us who have struggled with the idea of sexual orientation and the Scripture. I spoke openly with them that it has been difficult for me (and many like me) to fully accept homosexuality because to do so means that I have to change, or even give up a view of scripture that I've held for most of my life.

I think a lot of conservative Christians feel that way. Of course there are conservative Christians in our churches who are filled with hatred and animosity and condemnation toward gay people. They are pretty easy to identify because they make a lot of ugly noise. But I know Christians who really want to love all people, to compassionately care for all people, to accept all Christians into their fellowships, but who cannot figure out how to make that fit with a view of scripture that has been a foundation of their faith for years and years. This is a hard, hard issue. And I don't think it has an _easy_ answer. But I do think there is a good answer, at least for me. You will, of course, have to decide for yourself.

Dealing with Scripture

There are three issues to reconcile related to the Bible and homosexuality; 1) the overall view of the authority, application and purpose of Scripture, 2) interpretation of specific passages and 3) our willingness to apply the scripture equally and fairly in all situations. These are all interrelated of course, but we will consider them briefly as individual issues first.

_Authority and Purpose of Scripture._ How we view the authority and purpose of the scripture is foundational. In my very simplified approach, there are 2 basic perspectives, with lots of options in between. I believe that people on _either_ end of this spectrum can still consider the Bible to be the authoritative, inspired Word of God. I'm not sure we can plant ourselves on either end of the spectrum and honestly deal with gay brothers and sisters the way Jesus would have.

_Perspective 1._ In this most conservative view, all scripture applies to our lives in a literal or at least very specific way, and all scripture (whether from Jesus, or Paul, or Moses) should be considered as directive and applicable to all of our lives across time and culture. Context is sometimes important, but is mostly minimized, unless used to reinforce the applicability of the particular scripture. For example, we may agree that the verses in Leviticus that address homosexuality were directed at specific Old Testament issues, but we would also argue that they still prescribe a truth for us today. The prohibition against the behavior doesn't change over time and culture. In this view, scripture is preeminent, and the ultimate authority for truth. Personal experience, cultural influence, and our interpretations of the character of God or of Christ are valid only as much as they come from and conform to our interpretation of the scripture. We may know Christ, but _we know Christ through scripture_ , not the other way around.

Some of the dangers in this approach are:

a) We practice our faith as if ideas and scriptural interpretation are more important than relationships. We usually don't intend this, but to our gay brothers or sisters, this is surely what we sound like. Being right is more important than sustaining our relationship with them. As blogger Fred Clark wrote recently for _Patheos,_ our "stance" on an issue becomes more important than the "substance" or action it produces. The consequences become inconsequential to us and the harm that may result to actual people is viewed as collateral damage. So if we protest against gay marriage, and the consequence is that a gay man can't get good health care because he can't get insurance through his partner's employer, or he isn't allowed to visit his partner in the hospital when he's dying, that's just too bad. The proper stance and holding on to the right idea is most important. We just decide to accept the pain it may inflict on others.

b) We discount knowledge of God and of Christ that is gained through experience and fellowship of the body if it doesn't easily fit into our perception or interpretation of scripture. We discount any "knowing" of Jesus that doesn't fit with our schema, or our view of scripture, although in doing this we may discount some fairly significant Christian experiences and contributions, such as that of Teresa of Avila and other mystics.

c) We decide that our interpretation of scripture is _accurate_ and closest to what God actually intended, with very little consideration that we may be wrong. We become so enamored with the idea of truly "knowing" what the scripture means that we can't tolerate the notion that our ideas are faulty. I recently read a comment on a Christian blog protesting gay marriage which said "it seems like we're worried these days about offending everybody except God." Well, that's a valid concern, if you're _absolutely certain_ that God is offended by gay marriage. If, however, we consider the possibility that God may be more complicated than that, then we have to consider that maybe our intolerance and exclusion of gay Christians is what actually offends God. We denounce "liberal" cultural influences, but are blind to the way _our_ conservative American culture is constantly influencing us. We say that the opinions of man don't matter, and yet we are blind to the fact that we all filter the scripture through our own opinions _,_ education, and even our politics _,_ because it's impossible to _not_ do that. We cater to our own audiences and constituencies. We preach to our own choirs. We are arrogant, and prideful in our certainty, and we criticize and distrust those who are not as sure as we are. We believe that you can't really be a committed Christian and live with scriptural ambiguity. If you don't know what God means in all passages of the Bible, you must not be as faithful or righteous or as in line with "God's will" as those of us who do _know_.

d) We have such a need for truth and _rightness_ that it overshadows our need to practice grace, and love. There's something in us, me especially, that loves the idea of being _right_. Just ask my wife. It's a sinful, arrogant flaw, and I've got tons of it. Being right makes me feel good. It makes me feel secure. And part of being right is the knowledge that people who don't agree with me are therefore wrong. If I'm totally honest, that feels a little bit good to me also. Rob Bell wrote in _Love Wins_ of how we have become so enamored in American Christianity of being able to say with certainty who's in and who's out, who's going to heaven and who's not. We like that certainty. Being able to easily separate sheep from goats is really cool _for the sheep_. It's easy for me to claim rightness at the expense of others. But it's very difficult for me to claim rightness _and_ be completely Christ-like in my attitudes and actions. I'm not saying you can't pull it off. Just that it's really hard for me. I know I'm called by God to love without reservation or condition. I'm not sure that I'm called by God to be _right._

_Perspective 2._ If we take the second perspective, the one on the liberal end of the spectrum, a few scriptures _may_ be specific and directive, when there's really no doubt about their interpretation, value and application; for example, the commandment to not murder is accepted universally among Christians. But this view will mostly focus on the broad ideas in the Bible, and the basic ideas that seem to be without much dispute. The basic goal of the scripture is to _tell the story of God's love for us through Christ_ , not to provide specific directives for all of life's ethical or moral choices, particularly if that involves pulling five or six verses from the entire Bible to _prove_ those directives. Most scripture is seen as contextual and not directly applicable to all people across time and culture. The Bible offers us _principles_ for living that transcend time and culture, but very few specific directives. In addition, the words of Jesus carry more weight than those of Paul. For example, since Jesus never addresses homosexuality in the scripture, maybe it's not such an important issue, and maybe Paul's admonitions about it are less authoritative, since Jesus ignores it. Lastly, we interpret particular scriptures based on what we believe about the character or nature of God and of Jesus, which is based on our broad view of the Bible as a whole. We don't tend to make decisions about what God thinks or what God's opinions are based on specific texts. There are some potential dangers in this approach to scripture also.

a) We are reluctant to deal honestly with passages that are difficult for us or those we care about. We may hesitate to accept something that really is pretty clear in the scripture because to do so will be difficult or painful for someone we love.

b) We have a tendency to discount scriptures that seem to conflict with the character of Christ that we believe is represented throughout the Bible as a whole if those passages don't conform to our preconception about the character of God or of Jesus. So if I decide that the Bible as a whole portrays Jesus as full of grace and boundless mercy, it is difficult for me to accept that there is a cost for sin, and that consequences of behavior, however painful, may be part of God's will.

c) We lack consistency, structure or discipline in interpretation of the scripture. If we decide that our theology and our Christology are based mostly on broad ideas, tradition, cultural influences and personal experience, we may be haphazard and too loose in our approach to moral and ethical issues. We may get caught up in a habit of tolerating or even accepting any new idea, just because it's new.

d) We focus on tolerance, acceptance, love and grace _at the expense of seeking truth_. We can easily develop a view of scripture that is based on relativistic and completely subjective reasoning.

So, both of these perspectives have potential problems, although I believe the conservative view is more problematic. Both have some merit. And of course, there are almost endless variations in between. You have to decide where you are, and then maybe where you should be.

_Biblical Interpretation, or Hermeneutics._ The second major issue that divides us when dealing with the Bible and sexual orientation is the interpretation of specific passages. I'm not a Biblical languages scholar, and I'm not sure it would matter if I was, because this has basically turned into an unresolvable conflict between two opposing sides; each clearly convinced that they are right and the other is wrong. Here's a brief, simplified summary.

The conservative position is that the passages in Genesis (the story of Sodom and Gomorrah), Leviticus (that it's an abomination for a man to lie with a man as with a woman), Romans, 1st Corinthians and 1st Timothy (lists of sins and sinners) are clear and indisputable prohibitions or condemnations of homosexual behavior. Conservative scholars offer convincing hermeneutical evidence to support their interpretations of these passages. On the other hand, more liberal scholars offer their own evidence to dispute these interpretations, proposing that Old Testament passages are clearly temporal and contextual, and that the language in Romans, 1st Corinthians and 1st Timothy refers to very specific abuses, such as homosexual _lust_ , and _pederasty_ (the sexual use of young boys by adult men) rather than a general condemnation of homosexuality. Liberal scholars propose that the scripture really doesn't address loving, consensual, committed homosexual relationships between adults at all.

So which side is right? I'm not really sure, and I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't really matter that much. In The Protestant Era Paul Tillich wrote that "the Bible is a subject for interpretation: there is no doctrine, no prophet, no priest, no power, which has not claimed biblical sanctions for itself." We all want to think we have figured out what it says and what it means, and we intend to use that knowledge to support our presuppositions and our prejudices. One of my favorite theologians, the late Rich Mullins, said often that when we try to figure out the scripture it's important to remember that "God knows what it means. The rest of us are guessing." I agree with Rich. Another important philosopher in my life, an old-school Midland, Texas oil man named Jim Henry used to say "Sometimes, the harder the decision is to make, the less it matters." So maybe it doesn't matter so much that we come to a conclusion as to the most perfect, accurate translation and interpretation. Maybe the best option here is to not decide.

Donald Miller wrote in Searching for God Knows What that we are consumed with defining moral rightness, promoting a "propositional gospel" based on ideas, rather than a "relational gospel" based on knowing Jesus and loving people. Miller says "...I think most Christians want to love people and obey God but the feel they _have_ to wage a culture war. This isn't the case at all. Remember, we are not elbowing for power in the lifeboat." (p. 189). We are not competing for truth.

Maybe there is no reason for us to fight a war against what we perceive as immorality in our culture, because we all (even within the body of Christ) have varying ideas about what actually constitutes immorality. And what if we're wrong? I'll say that again, louder, and to myself. _What if we're wrong?_

Should Christians be for radical anti-abortion laws to protect unborn children, like the one just passed in Texas, or for laws that allow for safe, healthy choices for women, particularly in instances of rape and incest? Should Christians be in favor of the death penalty, or opposed to it? Should Christians be in favor of strict gun control, or in favor of the right to bear arms to protect ourselves, even to wear concealed handguns in church? Should Christians support our nation going to war in places and against countries that are not directly threatening us, or should we be pure pacifists? Should Christians accumulate wealth, or share everything in common with other believers? Who's right?

Well, usually I think _I am_. And usually you think _you_ are.

We think we must be right, but maybe _rightness_ isn't the point of being a follower of Jesus. In fact, Pete Rollins proposes that we have made an idol of rightness and certainty. He tells a story of a college Christian group that confessed their shortcomings to their campus, not by admitting that they might have some flaws in their thinking, or might be arrogant in their ideology, but by confessing that they hadn't lived up to their own standards prescribed by their own foundational beliefs. Rollins wrote in The Idolatry of God that in doing this Christians can protect themselves "... from the terrifying experience of being wrong" in any of their basic beliefs while overtly appearing to be open to engaging those who are not like them. Just think of that phrase for a minute, _the terrifying experience of being wrong_. This really hits me hard. Do I really have the courage, as a follower of Jesus, to accept that some of the things I think, and have always thought could be wrong? Do I have the courage to accept that my use of the Bible is culturally influenced, even culturally determined, and clearly distorted by my own personal history, my friends and family, my education? Can I intellectually grasp the idea of _not knowing_ , and still hold onto my faith in God? A God I can't _really_ know? Can I live with mystery?

I don't know exactly what the scripture always means. I don't know the true nature of God. I don't know if my judgments and prejudices and scriptural interpretations reflect the mind of God, in fact it would be really surprising if they did. All I really have is this thing we call faith _,_ and _faith requires not knowing_.

So, I can't make life-altering decisions about the lives of other Christians based on passages that are not necessarily clear; passages that come from either Old Testament law or the writings of Paul, with no corroboration in the words of Jesus, no mention in the Gospels, or from any other New Testament writer.

Paul made quite a few statements that we have decided over time were temporal or contextual, both because of his specific intent to instruct particular churches or individuals, and possibly because of his own personal circumstances and biases. He told women to be quiet in church, but that was directed specifically at the Corinthian church because women were visiting and gossiping and making noise at the back while men were doing the business. Most of us now don't think women should have to be quiet in church, although Paul clearly stated that, and we don't really ever question the translation of those words at all, just the context. He clearly stated that young people shouldn't marry, unless they just couldn't control their sexual urges, because it was so much easier for a single person to really serve God, and having a spouse was a huge distraction. He told slaves to submit to their masters, probably because he really believed that Jesus was returning to earth within the immediate future, and that believers should just be content with their circumstances and wait for Jesus to come. So we discount those verses. Women teach in our churches, and even preach. We refuse to tolerate slavery, and we encourage our young people to get married even if they're not burning up with lust. Paul clearly wrote _temporally and contextually,_ yet conservatives build most of their case against homosexuality on three of his verses.

I don't think there is any foolproof way to know what is exactly meant by these three particular Pauline passages, and the stakes are too high for me to make exclusionary choices based on even a very well-educated guess. The stakes are real. The stakes are _people_. Depending on the research you read, between 25-40% of non-heterosexual teenagers have attempted suicide and as many as 75% report having had suicidal thoughts. The rate is as much as _five times higher_ for teens who identify themselves as gay than for heterosexual teens. For the church to do anything that could possibly contribute to that is unacceptable. Pete Rollins proposed in How (Not) to Speak of God that we might pursue orthodoxy not as having "right beliefs" but as rather "believing in the right way", that is being loving, sacrificial and Christ-like in our believing. Then he says this. "Orthodoxy as right belief will cost us little; indeed it will allow us to sit back with our Pharisaic doctrines, guarding the purity of our interpretations. But orthodoxy as believing in the right way , as bringing love to the world around us and within us... that will cost us everything." Do we want to sit back and guard our certainty, or do we want to lose ourselves and bring the love of God into our world?

Biblical interpretation is a good thing. I believe in doing hermeneutics, and I respect those who have studied the languages and nuances of scripture to try to give us the best possible understanding of what the text "means". But hermeneutics is not a clear-cut, irrefutable process. So the question for me is, am I really willing to make theological decisions and bold critical statements about the sinfulness or holiness of another person's sexuality based on taking my best shot at trying to figure out the absolute meanings of words written in another language a couple of thousand years ago? I just can't do that. There are too many variables there for me. If you believe you can, I'll try to respect that.

Reconciling the two sides of Biblical interpretation is like trying to get the Democrats and Republicans in our congress to come together and agree on a controversial issue. Their backgrounds, social influences, basic political presuppositions, their commitment to fundamental ideas, their commitment to their audiences and their supporters, _and what they believe is at stake_ will not allow them to consider that the other side may be right. The same has become true of conservatives and liberals as they deal with interpretation of scripture related to sexual orientation. The two factions are at an impasse, and I'm not sure about either side. So I have to make my decisions based on something more certain for me than trying to interpret individual scripture passages.

_Applying Scripture Consistently._ The final Biblical issue is whether or not we fairly and evenly apply the scripture to our lives. I know that not all scripture is alike, and there are different principles for application of different types. The Old Testament history books are not the same as the books of poetry. The Gospels don't serve the same function as the letters of Paul, and some particular books, like Revelation, or Ecclesiastes are in a category of their own. But I do think it's possible to examine our consistency or inconsistency when applying scripture from similar sources.

To illustrate this, and how bad I think we are at doing it, I want to propose two very different examples of issues that are clearly addressed in scripture, and yet mostly ignored by the American Christian church. The first issue has been ignored because most of us are not courageous enough to address it, and I think we should. The second issue has come to be ignored over time because we have made a healthy decision to love people in spite of sin, _and_ in spite of what the scripture says. My proposition is that if we are going to spend so much time and energy opposing homosexuality, we should spend at least as much on these two things, both of which are clearly addressed by Jesus, and both of which have probably done more damage to the church and the cause of Christ than a generation of gay marriages could do. The first is the accumulation and worship of wealth and the second is adultery and divorce.

Before I start, let me clearly say that _I do not think the answer to this dilemma is for the church to condemn divorced people, or to condemn rich people._ That would be an enormous step backward. So that's not my point.

Money is mentioned in the Bible maybe 2000 times. Many of these verses and passages address how we use our money, the obligation to care for the poor, and the admonitions against the love of money and the accumulation of wealth. Here are just a few:

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Mark 10:25

Lay not up for yourselves treasure upon the earth. Mark 6:19

Having food and clothing, let us be therewith content. 1Timothy 6:8

No servant can serve two masters. You cannot serve God and money. Luke 16:13

All the believers had everything in common; they sold their possessions and goods and divided the proceeds among the fellowship... Acts 2:44-45

No one claimed any possessions as his own, but they shared everything they had. Acts 4:32

Give to everyone who asks you, and do not ask for your property back from the man who robs you. Luke 6:30

Wait. Are you kidding me? Don't ask for your property back from somebody who robs you? So if a guy steals my lawnmower out of my storage shed, I should just let him have it? And if I'm in a New Testament church, I should live communally? We all should share all our stuff? But I went to school for 20 years and have worked the last 30 to get all this stuff! And you're telling me that 1st Timothy 6:8 might not allow for me to have a 50-inch TV, new golf clubs, and a vacation home? This is getting too personal. I have those things. I don't want to give them up. Surely God doesn't want me to give those up. God _blessed_ me with those things.

It seems like we modify our application of these scriptures to fit our American-Christian-Capitalist culture. We remind ourselves that God has nothing against rich people. We remind ourselves that there's nothing in the scripture that says it's a sin to be wealthy. Besides, if we didn't have rich people in our churches, how would we pay for our stuff? How would we pay for the gym, or the sound system, or professional staff to do all the work that the rest of us are too busy, or unconcerned to do? It's a tough question, isn't it? Rich people pay for our ministries. If we didn't have rich people in our churches our churches wouldn't be able to own property, or have highly paid pastors and associate pastors to visit the sick, and do outreach and evangelism. Nope. I don't think we're going to put up with that. The Bible must not really _mean_ what it sounds like it means.

Of course if we're honest, these scriptures aren't really very hard to interpret at all. There's not much question as to what the words really mean. We just choose to not apply them because we don't like what they would require of us. We would have to give up too much.

I need to be clear at this point. I honestly don't think God has anything against rich people. I think what God probably despises is our obsession with wealth, our selfishness with it, our adoration of the power and privilege it offers us, our relentless pursuit of it, and our dependence on it for security. Rich people may _have_ the money, but our _attitude_ toward it is pretty universal in the American church.

The scripture is very clear that if we have a rich person in our church and a poor person in our church and we give preference to the rich person, we are offending God. Think about that for a minute. Have you ever been in a church where the rich and the poor were really treated the same? Have you ever been in a church that elected one of the poor or homeless members as chair of a building committee, or chairman of the deacons, rather than a wealthy member? Aren't we much more likely to give preference to the doctors, or the attorneys, or the business owners, or the college professors?

Whose opinions do we value most? Do we give preference to the rich? If we do we are clearly violating scripture; and not just principles, but specific directives in scripture.

What about depending on money for security? Do you think God could possibly be offended by my retirement account? Money that just sits for 30 or 40 years, doing nothing, so that when I retire, I can travel, and afford a new pickup and eat well and live comfortably, while within a mile of my house, people are hungry and homeless? The scripture says that if a poor person asks me for something, I should give him whatever I have. Yet, we instruct our children that we won't give money to a beggar on the street because they will just use it to buy alcohol. Strange, but the scripture never addresses that. It never expresses any concern about what the person might do with our gift; it just clearly states that we should give it to them. We just choose to ignore this clear, unambiguous directive. We have chosen our opinion over God's opinion. We don't seem to be that concerned about re-writing scripture that addresses treatment of the poor, or whether or not our massive accumulation of wealth in a poverty-stricken world might be offensive to God. But we're still pretty sure that gay marriage is a big, big problem, worthy of a _lot_ of Christian time and energy.

The second example is how we deal with heterosexual sin, particularly adultery and divorce. Again, let me hurry to say that _I am in no way suggesting that we take a step backward and condemn or reject those who have been divorced or have been in adulterous relationships._ Their sin is no greater than mine or anyone else's. My observation is rather that the American conservative church has over time, decided to accept and fully embrace those who have divorced and remarried, many in the context of adultery. I think this has been a good thing and would not advocate otherwise.

But the scripture is pretty clear about the nature of adultery and divorce. Jesus himself said that if we divorce for any reason other than sexual infidelity, we have caused our spouse to commit adultery, and that anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Not a lot of argument about the intent here; about "what God meant". I understand that Jesus was responding to the historical abuse of Jewish law concerning divorce, but there is no question here about the interpretation of his statement. He clearly condemns adultery, he condemns divorce for any reason other than sexual unfaithfulness, and he condemns marrying of divorced persons. So how have we responded to that? Again, it's really very strange, considering how we have responded to gay Christians.

We have decided over the last few decades that even though the Bible, even Jesus himself, clearly condemned these behaviors, we will accept these people anyway. We consistently accept divorced and remarried people into our fellowships. They walk down our aisles and fill out our cards and join our churches and take our communion, _with no questions ever asked about their relationship history or their sexual behavior_.

Stranger still, we not only accept them, but we accept them as they are and don't try to change them. We don't say "Yes we welcome you into our church, if you will only repent and return to your first husband who you divorced several years ago." Or "Yes, we welcome you into our church if you will divorce your current wife and live celibate for the rest of your life, because we know that your divorce from your first wife was not because she cheated on you, but because the two of you fought for seven years and finally just couldn't make it work." You would think it was a little crazy if we asked questions like that before allowing people into our fellowships, wouldn't you? So we don't. We accept them as they are. They teach our children in Bible study. They lead worship. They serve as deacons or elders. They serve as _pastors_ in some churches.

How has this happened? These people have clearly lived, _and some are continuing to live_ in a state of sin, as defined by Jesus in the scripture. How have we tolerated that? Why did we not preach and write and blog and carry signs and protest? Why did Christians not demand that the government refuse to legalize remarriage of divorced people? After all, marriage is supposed to be between "one man and one woman."

We didn't do those things for several reasons. First, we accepted and tolerated it and eventually got used to it because the _majority_ of us can _identify_ with it. I may not cheat on my wife, but I do understand heterosexual desire, and how it can get out of control. I do understand the frustration of marital issues. I relate to, and I can identify with heterosexual sin. So I am more tolerant of it. It's _like_ me. Homosexual sin is very much _other_ than me. Second, we accepted it because to not do so would be really tough for our churches. If the five or six major churches here in Abilene decided to not accept divorced and remarried persons, church memberships would decline significantly, and we'd lose valuable talents and resources in our ministries..

Third, and this is the most important reason, we have learned to accept divorced and remarried persons because we have at least some feeble understanding of _grace_. We, only by the power of God's love in our lives have grown to be able to extend grace to those who have fallen short of what we perceive as a Biblical standard. That's a good thing. Fifty years ago our pastors and theologians preached against this movement as being far too liberal and un-Biblical. Many of them thought it would destroy the foundations of the family and the church. And yet we did it. Divorce has done some significant damage to the family, and to the church; _much more than homosexuality has_. And yet we chose to be accepting of divorced and remarried people, because we learned that the price of excluding these people and their relationships was greater for us and for the cause of Christ than the price of inclusion. We chose to err on the side of inclusion.

We decided that when we stand before God, we would rather hear the voice of eternity saying "You were too inclusive. You let too many sinful people into my fellowship" than the unthinkable alternative; "You were too exclusive. Even though you were sure you were _right_. You kept some of my most precious children out of my church."

Let me add one last caveat about all of these examples. I'm not proposing here that we just give up the fight and "continue in sin so that grace might increase," as Paul wrote about in Romans 6. I know that two or three or 47 wrongs don't make a right. What I'm proposing is that we are _honest_ about the fact that we don't really apply the scripture fairly and consistently, and we allow that confession to build compassion in us toward other people, and particularly toward other Christians. Let's be honest about how we use the Bible. We, even those of us who are Baptists or former Baptists who claim to be "people of the Book", don't use it as a prescription for dealing with all of life's tough issues, _except_ when it works to our advantage. Can we just be open and honest about that, and quit using it as a hammer on those _people who are not us?_

So my proposition to myself, and to anyone who might choose to try, is this:

If you insist on applying the Bible directly and specifically to people's lives in the area of sexual orientation, then be courageous enough to apply it in the area of monetary wealth. For every sermon, blog, or statement against homosexuality, I want to hear one (preferably from the same person) against the accumulation of wealth by Christians in a world where people are starving. For every conservative Christian who protests the legalization of gay marriage, I would like to see a conservative Christian (preferably the same one) protesting the very un-Biblical, but very American, fusion of capitalism with Christianity, and the oppression of the poor by our financial system.

For every quotation of scripture condemning homosexuality, I want to hear one condemning the American mega-church with staff salaries that rank in the top 10% of their communities. I want to hear Christian leaders condemn churches with bowling alleys, bookstores and cafeterias built, not for missions, as we usually propose, but so that members can insulate themselves from the world. If we can dish out the Biblical "truth" to gays and lesbians, we should have the guts to take it when it is served up to the rest of us.

I also challenge the conservative American church to be willing to extend the same level of grace to one group of Christians who may be living an un-Biblical lifestyle as we extend to any other group of Christians who are clearly living an un-Biblical lifestyle (by the way, that means all of us). We have accepted divorce and remarriage, and even what the Bible calls _adultery_ in our churches because we realized that _people fail_ , and that they fail often, and that to exclude those who live obviously failed lives is to exclude us all.

So let me add another slightly different idea here re: how you might be able to deal with sexual orientation and stay true to what you believe about the scripture. This is not my idea, and I don't necessarily agree with all of the facets of this approach, but I think it's a good argument to consider, and it may be a reasonable position for some of you.

* *

Sanction vs. Sanctification

I have a good friend who has made the journey from conservative Baptist preacher's son to becoming an Anglican who has no condemnation toward gay or lesbian Christians or couples. He is someone who absolutely takes the scripture seriously, and knows the Bible as well as anyone I've ever met. I asked him how he has reconciled his convictions. This is his proposal.

Instead of deciding that homosexuality is fine and good and sinless, he proposes that all of our relationships are _not_. Whether you've been divorced and remarried three times, or you're in a gay or lesbian relationship, or have been in a heterosexual marriage for 50 years, _all of these_ are corrupted and sinful and less than what God intended for us. They all reflect our brokenness, our lack, our selfishness and our universal desire to place ourselves above God. The good news in this approach is that through grace, we are _all_ being redeemed and God uses all of these relationships to do that work in us; to _sanctify_ us.

For example, I've been married to the same woman for 30 years, and I've been deliriously happy with her. Most conservative Christians would applaud that and praise us for being such a good heterosexual example of marriage. But within that relationship I have been selfish, and she's been selfish. I've lost my temper. She's talked down to me. I've refused to listen to her ideas. She's criticized me too much, and on and on and on. Yet within that sinful context, God continues to redeem us, to make us more Christ-like, and to bless us. The church has _sanctioned_ our relationship, but God continues to _sanctify_ it.

You may have cheated on your spouse, divorced and remarried. The scripture technically says that's unacceptable, but God can, and does redeem your current marriage, and uses the most broken relationship to make you more like Jesus, and to teach you how to really love another person. The church, for the most part, has chosen to _sanction_ your relationship also, but God is at work _sanctifying_ it.

And finally, you may be in a gay or lesbian relationship, and you may have struggled, or continue to struggle because you grew up believing that your feelings and your behavior were sinful. Other Christians may reinforce this. The good news here is that even if the scripture _does_ condemn your relationship (and as I've said, I'm not sure it does), it doesn't condemn it any more than any other, and God redeems it. God uses your relationship to make you more Christ-like, and to show you what love really is. God is at work _sanctifying_ your relationship also. To God, it's just another broken human situation that needs mercy, regardless of sexual orientation or circumstance. The difference here is that most of the church, and conservative American Christianity, has chosen to not _sanction_ it.

For some of you who are absolutely convicted that homosexual behavior is a sin, maybe my good friend's approach makes sense to you, and will help you consider whether God really discriminates (like we do) in the acknowledgement of sin, and the offering of mercy.

Very few of us are really good at applying the scripture to our lives. This same good friend I mentioned above told me just the other day that our problem is that we don't take sin seriously, unless it's someone else's. I think that's true of most of us, and it's certainly true of the church when we deal with sexual orientation. I can say I love the poor, but how is that reflected in my bank account? I know the scripture clearly states that pride is a sin, but I'm unbelievably arrogant. I know it's wrong to criticize others. But I'm one of the most critical people you'll ever meet.

The fact is that _I live in sin,_ as it's defined by the scripture. Regardless of any of my particular behaviors that may or may not be sinful, I know one thing without a doubt. I am consistently selfish, and I am consistently more concerned with _what I want_ than what I think or believe or even "know _"_ God wants. I guess I wish that I was better than that, but I'm not. I live in a state of constant spiritual failure, and my life is tolerable to myself and others only because of immeasurable mercy. I may give lip-service to holiness, to purity, but I never really live it. So do I really believe it? Have I really accepted it? If so, how can you tell?

I know those aren't earth-shattering revelations about me. But this is. Although I'm a failure at really believing the scripture, and pitiful at living out my convictions, I am nonetheless completely loved and accepted into the fellowship of my church, and more importantly, by the Creator of the universe.

We call that _grace_. And it's unlimited.

* *

What We Know, and Don't Know, from Science and Research

Research on sexual orientation generally is related to one foundational issue; trying to determine what causes sexual orientation, and then there are several other second-tier issues such as whether or not orientation can be changed, whether or not we should try to guide our children toward a particular orientation and whether or not gay parents tend to raise gay children, to name a few. The research can also be divided into two broad categories; biology and social science.

It's important to emphasize here three important ideas about using scientific research, and three basic intellectual mistakes we can make. First, although we can gain good information from research, the very nature of scientific research is that it uncovers trends, or tendencies, or patterns. It doesn't, except in very rare cases, offer us _proof._ It's an intellectual mistake and misuse of research to equate science with proving absolute truth, and to claim that it does. In fact, science often leads us to more questions, rather than easy answers.

The second and equally important idea is that although science rarely proves absolute truth, we can't ignore the information that it _does_ provide. Christian conservatives are particularly guilty of saying that since there is no scientific _proof_ about sexual orientation, the research should be discounted. This is also a serious intellectual mistake, and may be more damaging than the first instance.

Finally, all research is not equal. Research is like almost everything else in our world. It can be good or bad, done well or done poorly, fair or extremely biased and often interpreted in various ways by people with various special interests. As much as we may hate to admit it, researchers with an agenda tend to produce biased results. Pastors, teachers, and activists on all sides tend to quote research that _seems_ to support their interests and preconceptions, often without reading the actual studies or knowing anything about the scientific process (or lack thereof) at all.

The third mistake we can make is to accept all research as equal.

The biological research on sexual orientation falls into three basic categories; brain structure, hormonal influences and genetics. Some of the earliest research on sexual orientation involved evaluating brain structure. The most notable was done by Simon Levay in 1991. Levay compared the ventricles in the brains of gay men with those of heterosexual men and heterosexual women, and found that the brains of gay men were much more similar to those of heterosexual women than those of heterosexual men. This study has been critiqued pretty soundly for its small number of subjects, and because the work was done on corpses of gay men who had died of AIDS. I think it's problematic to draw significant conclusions from Levay's work, but it is important because it did indicate some potential biological differences and opened the door for biological research into sexual orientation.

Research into hormonal influence in sexual orientation is not much more significant than brain structure research. Some limited research suggests that prenatal hormones produced by the mother may influence sexual orientation, and prenatal levels of testosterone may influence a child's tendencies toward stereotypical male or female body style, resulting in feminized males, or masculinized females. Although this may be a possibility, and feminized or masculinized body style may be _related_ to orientation, the research is inconclusive about any causal effect hormones may have as a potential source of sexual orientation differences.

The genetic research on sexual orientation, while not conclusive, offers the most significant evidence of biological influences in sexual orientation. Some of the best genetic research comes from twin studies. Because identical twins share identical genetics, they offer a good look at genetic influence, when compared with fraternal twins, non-twin siblings, and the general population. Twin studies are built on the concept of "concordance rate", or the probability that if one person has a characteristic, another one will also.

The percentage of homosexuals in the general population is probably between 2-5%. That means if I and another man are unrelated, and I'm gay, the probability that he will also be gay is 2-5%, or exactly what the rate is in the general population. Studies of concordance rates among twins and non-twin siblings consistently indicate rates that are significantly higher than that.

A conservative estimate, utilizing the most recent twin study information ( _see Langstrom, et.al., 2010_ ) indicates that if a man has a gay identical twin, the likelihood that he will also be gay is 20-30% ( _Some studies have reported as high as 45-50%, but those may be problematic. See Bailey and Pillard,1991_ ), or close to 10 times the rate in the general population. If he has a fraternal twin who is gay (fraternal twins do not share the same genetic makeup), the likelihood that he is gay drops to about 8%, or maybe 3-4 times the rate in the general population. If he has a gay sibling, the concordance rate is even lower, but still higher than the general population.

The obvious question here is how much influence we can attribute to genes, and how much we should attribute to people growing up in the same environment at the same time. It's a valid question, and we don't know the exact answer. The key to understanding the data is to recognize that the rate between identical twins is significantly higher than between fraternal twins. That difference is what allows us to conclude that genetic influence is really at work. Research also indicates that if a man has a maternal uncle who is gay, the concordance rate for him is significantly higher than the general population, a situation where environment is clearly different. This also may indicate that these genetic influences may come from the mother's side of the equation. So what do these numbers tell us?

Well, although it may be disappointing to some on the liberal end of the issue, the numbers simply don't indicate that sexual orientation is _completely or even mostly_ genetically determined. Even among identical twins, the rate is only 20-30%, which indicates that around 70% of factors involved in sexual orientation are not directly accounted for by genetics. Of course this is true for many behavioral issues. For example, we believe that we learn to talk and use language through good parental models, socialization, behavioral conditioning, and some level of personal will. But if our genetics did not prepare us for the ability to talk, and even the desire to talk, we would not develop language. Human behavior is incredibly complex, and sexual behavior is no different. It's a misuse of research to claim that we are simply "born gay", but it would also be a serious misuse to believe that biology is not a very significant factor in sexual orientation. And although it may disappoint those on the conservative end of the spectrum, it's also not an accurate interpretation that sexual orientation is 70% controlled by the individual.

Choice is still _not_ a factor in orientation. Do we have some choice in how we behave? Sure. Do we choose who we're attracted to? No. If you're straight, think about how throughout your life there have been people that you have seen or met and you've been instantly, automatically attracted. Then of course you have met many others, and there has been no attraction whatsoever. Have you ever seen someone across a room, or beside you in class, or at work, and said to yourself "I am going to choose to be attracted to that person. I'm not naturally attracted, but I'm going to decide to be attracted to that person?" No, of course you haven't. You may make choices that enhance your attraction, or decrease it, but you don't choose attraction. You're either attracted or you're not. It's never a choice; never a decision.

Francis Collins, a committed Christian who is the Director of the National Institutes of Health and former head of the Human Genome Project had this to say about genetics and sexual orientation, in an email to David Roberts at _ExGayWatch_. Collins was responding to being misrepresented by Dean Byrd on the NARTH (North American Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) website. This is the most authoritative, balanced summation of genetic research on sexual orientation I've seen.

The evidence we have at present strongly supports the proposition that there are hereditary factors in male homosexuality - the observation that an identical twin of a male homosexual has approximately a 20% likelihood of also being gay points to this conclusion, since that is 10 times the population incidence. But the fact that the answer is not 100% also suggests that other factors besides DNA must be involved. That certainly doesn't imply, however, that those other undefined factors are inherently alterable.... This is about all we really know. No one has yet identified an actual gene that contributes to the hereditary components....but it is likely that such genes will be found in the next few years.

Collins specifically refers to male homosexuality. This is significant. Although there is some similar evidence for genetic influence in female orientation, it is not as strong, and we actually have much less data related to female sexual orientation than data related to male orientation, so it's tough to draw many conclusions about it. It may be that female sexuality is more fluid or malleable than male sexuality, so that social and developmental factors may have more influence, at least for some females.

So where does this leave us? Are there really any answers, or just more questions?

I think this is what we know from biological research. It's not perfect, not even conclusive, but it is something; 1) Sexual orientation is influenced by multiple factors, including biology, socialization and psychological factors. 2) At least for males, genetics is the single most influential factor, accounting for as much as 30% of variation. 3) Although genetics may only account for 20-30% of variation, other factors are not likely to be directly controlled by the individual. In other words, choice doesn't seem to be a factor. 4) The evidence of biological influence, though significant, is smaller for females than for males.

Social science research has addressed other issues and theories, and doesn't really offer much more significant information about orientation, except to rule out a few classic ideas. To start, the old Freudian theory of the weak father and dominant mother is not really supported by any significant evidence, although there are occasional case studies or stories that may support it. This is important, since a great deal of "reparative therapy" has been based on the notion of dysfunctional childhood experiences, losses or deficits that lead to psychological needs which are then filled by sexual relationships. This theory may hold some truth about sexual behavior in general (in fact I believe it does for some people) but _not_ with regard to sexual orientation.

Early childhood gender non-conformity (boys playing with dolls or playing house, girls preferring aggressive, outdoor activities rather than pretending to be mommy), although possibly related to sexual orientation, hasn't been shown to be a significant factor in determining orientation, and learning theory doesn't adequately explain sexual orientation either.

Although actual sexual behavior (desire, arousal, and orgasm) seems to follow some rules of learning theory and may be influenced by classical and operant conditioning, homosexuality in our culture is almost universally punished, not reinforced. Sure, sometimes pop culture endorses gay and lesbian behavior as a "cool" factor (remember Britney kissing Madonna on the MTV Video Music Awards?), and sometimes teenagers even pretend to be gay to get attention, but it is almost impossible to suggest that our culture actually reinforces homosexual orientation.

Some final questions. First, is there evidence that growing up with a gay couple as parents 1) has any effect on a child's sexual orientation or 2) has any negative psychological effect on a child? At this point, there is not any really persuasive evidence either way. It's actually a little early to have any definitive research about gay couples and particularly gay _married_ couples raising children, since this type of family is still a fairly new cultural phenomenon. The American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy website reports that there are about 600,000 same-sex couple households in America, and children live in only about 27% of those, or less than 200,000 households. Based on the limited population and the newness of the phenomenon, the most comprehensive and recent literature seems to suggest that there are really no harmful consequences for children who are raised by long-term-committed or especially married _gay couples_. There is also no real credible research indicating that gay parents are more likely to raise gay kids.

The truth, as I see it, is that we really don't know enough about this to make any claims. A couple of recent studies have examined children with homosexual parents and have proposed that 1) children with homosexual parents are more likely to become homosexual (Schumm, 2010), and 2) children with a homosexual parent have more psychological problems than others (Regnerus, 2011). Some of the information here may seem fairly compelling as it's presented by the researchers and those with a political or social agenda, that is, it seems true at face value, but there are basic problems with both studies, if we're trying to determine if parenting causes orientation, and if kids with gay parents are more at risk for problems.

First, Schumm proposed that kids raised by gay parents had up to a 17 % tendency to be gay themselves; a number far beyond the general population, but the Schumm study was problematic in its structure. It was a loosely defined "meta-analysis" of prior research. A true meta-analysis evaluates and compiles data from multiple studies to try and summarize data, usually over a period of time. The Schumm study was based in part on the review of ten popular books about sexual orientation. These ten books are not academic texts or compilations of research, but mostly collections of stories and anecdotal information from a strongly skewed sample. Schumm included some other data from research studies, but a significant part of his information came from reviewing and "analyzing" stories and personal accounts in these non-academic books. This makes his conclusions and the percentages that he proposes questionable.

In addition, both studies (Schumm and Regnerus) included kids who reported that they had _at least one gay parent._ These are _not_ studies of kids who were raised by long-term-committed gay couples or married gay couples. A kid who has one gay parent may have experienced significant emotional trauma and disruption of the family, particularly if they were part of a family that experienced divorce, and subsequent single parenting because of one parent's sexual orientation. Kids growing up raised by a single gay parent may also experience social stigmatization and other kinds of negative impacts from their environment. This may not paint an accurate picture of gay parents at all, due to the multiple confounding factors that may be at work in families where _one parent_ is homosexual. Regnerus is probably right; kids growing up with a gay parent may have more problems to deal with. But we can't extrapolate from those results any kind of conclusion that gay parents cause kids to have more problems than straight parents. In fact, Schumm stated very clearly in an interview with _Lifesitenews.com_ that lesbian mothers are not as relationally stable, and are more likely to be single mothers. He's not necessarily assessing gay parenting as a singular issue. He's also assessing _single_ parenting. Regnerus' work also includes kids with one gay parent. We already know that kids who experience the breakup of a family through divorce have more problems to deal with. So that's nothing new. It doesn't really tell us that these kids have problems because they are raised by _gay parents_ at all. Regnerus states in a copy of the article on his website www.markregnerus.com , "It does not evaluate the offspring of gay marriages, since the vast majority of its respondents came of age prior to the legalization of gay marriage in several states. This study cannot answer political questions about same-sex relationships and their legal legitimacy." Regnerus also quotes Theodore Sirota in his article; "One veteran of a study of the daughters of gay fathers warns scholars to avoid overlooking the family dynamics of "emergent" gay parents, who likely outnumber planned ones: 'Children born into heterosexually organized marriages where fathers come out as gay or bisexual also face having to deal with maternal bitterness, marital conflict, possible divorce, custody issues, and father's absence' (Sirota, 2009, p. 291)."

The use of the results from both studies to disparage gay parents is questionable. We just don't have data to determine if a long-term gay couple, or a married gay couple produces kids with problems, or not, or kids who are gay, or not. However, as with many of these questions, I think it's helpful to look at the other end of the spectrum and ask the same question.

The fear on the conservative end of the spectrum is, I guess, that if we allow gay couples to raise children, they will cause those kids to become gay. This is based, of course, on the assumption that parenting causes sexual orientation, or that kids learn their orientation from watching their parents. Let me say that one more time, in italics. _This is based on the conservative assumption that parenting causes sexual orientation, or that kids learn their orientation from watching their parents._

Just let that sink in for a second.

If parenting determines sexual orientation for kids raised by gay parents, then it should work for kids raised by straight parents also. If we learn how to be attracted to a specific gender by watching our parents be attracted to each other, then straight parents would never have a gay kid. And we know that the vast majority of gay or lesbian people come from straight parents. It's also probably true that kids who are raised by gay parents have a more open attitude toward homosexuality, but openness does not equate with orientation.

To propose that parents cause orientation places the responsibility for gay kids directly on their parents. We absolutely don't accept that line of reasoning for straight parents. So why would we think it would apply to gay parents?

Okay, one last question (it's an important one) and we'll wrap this up. The question is whether or not gay people can change and become heterosexual. We'll ignore the obvious corollary, which is not whether they can, but whether they _should._ You understand my position on that, I'm sure. So we'll look at whether or not they _can._

Again, if you'd like to read an extensive discussion of this question, from the perspective of a Christian who has been through the process, I encourage you to check out Justin Lee's book Torn.

Therapy directed toward helping homosexuals become heterosexual has been around for quite a while, and there have been several different incarnations of the idea over time. It began with the founding, in the 1970s, of the Exodus International ministry, a group that basically advocated radical _reparative or ex-gay therapy_ , and has recently gone through significant changes which have left the future of the program in question.

Early on, ex-gay ministries like Exodus faced considerable internal strife and external criticism, due to false claims of success, charges of hypocrisy and misrepresentation by its leaders and what appears to have been a fairly punitive approach toward gay people in the guise of Christian love and a helping ministry. Although I and many others basically don't agree with the approach of reparative therapy and ministry, it is important to note that some of these ministries have made progress toward acceptance, respect and compassion for homosexual people. In fact, current Exodus International president Alan Chambers has within the last year proposed that Exodus discontinue reparative therapy, citing that it doesn't work, and that it may be harmful.

In an interview with the New York Times, Chambers said, (I'm quoting the Times here) that "virtually every ex-gay person he has ever met still harbors gay cravings, himself included" in spite of his happy, faithful 15 year marriage to his wife. And although he still believes that homosexual behavior is a sin, he stated that "we've been asking people to overcome something in a way that we don't ask anyone else." In a follow-up interview with Lisa Ling for the Oprah Winfrey Network, Chambers reiterated these convictions, and also mentioned that he couldn't continue to condone some of the reparative therapy tactics at Exodus, such as the use of _heterosexual pornography_ to push gay men toward heterosexual attraction. Well, that really rocked me a bit. I had no idea that kind of thing was still a part of reparative ministry; using pornography to try to turn people away from "sin." That's pretty unbelievable.

Ironically, Chambers' recent statements echo the sentiments and positions of professional psychology and psychiatry organizations for the past 20 years or so, most of which have taken a strong position against the efficacy or ethics of reparative therapy. However, research by Christian psychologists Mark Yarhouse and Stanton Jones found at least some conflicting evidence.

Yarhouse and Jones did a study of people who had been a part of Exodus International and examined whether or not they had experienced change away from homosexuality and toward heterosexuality. They found that there was statistically significant change in some participants, concluding that some people can and do actually change their orientation. But the changes they reported, while statistically significant, in most cases seem to represent some level of movement along a scale, not a revolutionary change from gay to straight. The researchers acknowledge this limitation.

For example, they used a modified Kinsey scale, rating sexual orientation from 1(exclusively heterosexual) to 7 (exclusively homosexual). Their data shows changes in scale scores for their various samples such as; 5.03 to 4.20, 4.97 to 4.42, and 5.56 to 4.67. Again, these are significant statistically, but only really show movement of about one step on the Kinsey scale. Although Yarhouse and Jones concluded (rightly I think) that earlier statements from the APA and others proclaiming that change is impossible are not completely accurate, it is important to read their own statement about the limitations of what they found.

In addition to clarifying what we found, it is equally important to clarify what we did not find. First, we did not find that everyone can change. Saying that change is not impossible in general is not the same thing as saying that everyone can change, that anyone can change, or that change is possible for any given individual. Second, while we found that part of our research population experienced success to the degree that it might be called (as we have here) "conversion," our evidence does not indicate that these changes are categorical, resulting in uncomplicated, dichotomous and unequivocal reversal of sexual orientation from utterly homosexual to utterly heterosexual. Most of the individuals who reported that they were heterosexual at...(the last measurement)... did not report themselves to be without experience of homosexual arousal, and they did not report their heterosexual orientation to be unequivocal and uncomplicated. (Yarhouse and Jones, 2009, p.9)

I also think it's possible that those who experienced change had a more flexible or fluid sense of orientation to begin with.

If you're interested in learning about a more compassionate, balanced, respectful alternative to reparative therapy, you might check out the _Institute for the Study of Sexual Identity_ , and Sexual Identity Therapy, an approach developed by Warren Throckmorton and Mark Yarhouse. SIT has been accepted by the APA as an alternative that may be appropriate for some gays and lesbians whose religious identity won't allow them to easily or completely embrace their sexual orientation. Dr. Yarhouse is the director of this center at Regent University. This approach attempts to help people who are in distress because their sexuality conflicts with their values move toward an integrated self. _Success is not determined by a change in_ _or_ _a complete acceptance of a homosexual orientation._ SIT is an attempt to bridge the enormous gap between reparative therapy, which proposed that all could and should change their orientation, and gay-affirming therapy, which proposes that the only way to be healthy is to affirm and embrace your sexual orientation, even if that means denouncing your religious convictions.

So, can people change? Maybe a few can, but I think the last few decades of attempts show that most can't, and the vast majority don't. And it's worth noting that among those who seem to have changed, most have changed only by some degree, and those changes have been described in a variety of ways including; reducing same-sex attraction, increasing opposite-sex attraction, changing behaviors, changes in feelings, and changes in sense of identity. A complete change in sexual orientation, making a one-eighty from gay to straight is pretty rare, if it occurs at all. These findings and the lack of findings should compel all of us toward compassion and love, not claims of truth or rightness.

As you can tell, I prefer a more liberal position than Yarhouse and Throckmorton, but I really believe it's a good thing that some moderate approaches are being offered by and for Christians, if for no other reason than to acknowledge that sexual orientation and faith _can, and should_ be integrated into a whole, healthy Christian self. And there may be more than one path to follow as we make that journey. I think that's good news.

### Questions for Reflection and Discussion

What is your position on the Biblical view of sexual orientation? How do you think you should use the scripture to support your view?

What do you think about the church's general treatment of homosexual people?

Should there be a reform of your church's position on homosexuality or should it stay like it is?

Do you believe that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation? If so, how would you support this belief?

### Chapter 9 References and Resources

Justin Lee - _Torn; Rescuing the Gospel from the Gays vs. Christians Debate_. 2012. Jericho Books.

Rob Bell - _Love Wins; A Book about Heaven, Hell and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived_. 2011. Harper Collins.

Paul Tillich - _The Protestant Era_. 1948. University of Chicago Press

Donald Miller - _Searching for God Knows What_. 2004.Thomas Nelson.

Peter Rollins - _The Idolatry of God_ : _Breaking our Addiction to Certainty and Satisfaction_. 2013. Howard Books.

Peter Rollins - _How (Not) to Speak of God._ 2006. Paraclete Press.

Simon Levay - _A difference in hypothalamic structure between homosexual and heterosexual men_. _Science_ _,_ 1991. 253, 1034-1037.

J. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard,1991. _A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation_. _Archives of General Psychiatry_ **48** (12) 1089-96.

Niklas Lσngström, Qazi Rahman, Eva Carlström, Paul Lichtenstein. _Genetic and environmental effects on same-sex sexual behavior: a population study of twins in Sweden_. 2007. _Archives of Sexual Behavior_ _._ **39** (1): 75-80

Francis Collins - _The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief_. 2007. Free Press.

Walter Schumm - _Children of homosexuals more apt to be homosexuals? A reply to Morrison and to Cameron based on an examination of multiple sources of data_ , 2010. _Journal of Biosocial Science_ _, 42_ , 721-742.

Theodora Sirota - _Adult attachment style dimensions in women who have gay or bisexual fathers._ 2009 **.** _Archives of Psychiatric Nursing_ , 23 (4) (2009) 289-297.

Mark Regnerus - _How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study._ 2012. _Social Science Research_ , 41,4,752-770. See also www.markregnerus.com

Erik Eckholm - _Rift Forms in Movement as Belief in Gay "Cure" is Renounced_. July 6, 2012. The New York Times. <http://alanchambers.org/lisa-ling-extended-interview/>

Mark Yarhouse and Stanton Jones - _Ex Gays? An Extended Longitudinal_

_Study of Attempted Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation_. 2009. Sexual Orientation and Faith Tradition Symposium, American Psychological Association Convention.

Institute for Sexual Identity, Regent University www.sexualidentityinstitute.org

# Chapter 10

### Questions and Special Topics

Teaching my undergraduate Human Sexuality class for the last 15 years or so has been a tremendous amount of fun for me. I feel guilty sometimes for spending so much time talking and teaching about sex while my colleagues try to keep a room full of nineteen year-olds interested in things like statistics. I have to admit, most of it comes pretty easy for me. But there are difficulties. Unlike statistics, questions and problems related to sexuality often have no clear, definitive answer. And trying to deal with problems and hard questions about sex is a little like walking through an ethical, theological and moral minefield.

I've made a lot of mistakes over the years, but one of the things I think I've done right in the course is to have the students submit questions at the end of class, that I try to address at the beginning of the next class. I know who asked the questions, but I respond without identifying the source of the question. When I started this, I found out very quickly that they were not shy (at least on paper) about asking anything and everything. I got questions about slang words, body parts, legends and myths, abnormal and even deviant behaviors, and personal sexual traumas and dysfunctions. And I answered them as bluntly and clearly as I could. At first this was a little scary, but over the years I have become more and more comfortable using words that I normally wouldn't use, addressing issues that are disturbing for most of us and offering my opinion and advice on some very sticky problems. I've been very blessed to work at a university that allows me to do all of this while integrating my Christianity and maintaining my convictions about the healthiest way to live as a sexual person and take part in a sexual relationship within our culture. And it's worked pretty well. My students consistently say that it's one of the best parts of the class. So it only made sense to me to bring this book to a close by trying to deal with some of the major issues and questions that people seem to always have about sex. So this is kind of like my "Top 10" questions of sexuality, and my best, humble attempt at answers.

1. How do we learn to communicate about sex?

2. What do we do if we have sexual problems or dysfunctions?

3. How do we talk to our kids about sex?

4. Is sex education a good thing?

5. Is masturbation okay or not?

6. What do you think about premarital sex?

7. What about pornography?

* *

How do we learn to communicate about sex?

Communication in marriage is hard. It takes work. Even those of us who deal with it every day find it difficult to implement good practices in our personal lives. My wife Lori and I are both therapists and both psychology professors. We know by heart all the techniques and models and potential problems in couples communication, and we _still_ have trouble talking to each other sometimes about sensitive or troublesome issues.

And if normal couple communication is hard, communicating about sex is even more so. All of us are sensitive about our sexual selves; our bodies (particularly the sexual parts of our bodies), our sexual abilities, our inadequacies, our desires and sometimes our lack of desire.

Because of this, most of us are reluctant to talk about our own sexuality or sexual relationship openly and honestly with our partner. And when we do, we easily become defensive or accusatory, or we might just shut down and refuse to talk altogether. We don't have time here to go into detail about communication models and techniques, but I do want to introduce you to a couple of resources and give you some guidelines of my own.

One of the best models of communication that I've ever come across is the Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP) developed by Howard Markman, Scott Stanley and Susan Blumberg at the University of Denver in the early 1990s. The model is based on solid, longitudinal research and it's a really useful, practical model that any couple can implement for themselves. It's available in their self-help book Fighting for Your Marriage. One of the first things I do with couples who are having trouble with communication is to ask them to get a copy of this book and begin to work through it. PREP is based on what's called the "speaker-listener technique", that is, one person is the speaker and the other is, well.....the listener. It includes some basic things like making "I" statements rather than "you" statements, and is directed toward the goal of managing conflict, not eliminating it. I use the PREP technique to get couples to focus on talking about feelings, rather than "facts", because facts or ideas are more likely to erupt into escalating conflict, and feelings are more likely to de-escalate conflict.

A second resource is the work of John Gottman. Gottman is a very well-known and respected therapist, theorist and researcher. I use his text The Marriage Clinic in graduate clinical supervision, and his ideas are readily available in his many self-help books. Gottman has a lot of good ideas, but my favorite is his "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse".

Gottman says that there are four types of destructive communication that couples use; criticism, defensiveness, stonewalling, and contempt. All four are bad, but Gottman says that happy, healthy marriages can tolerate some of the first three. We can deal with some criticism, but not too much. We can stand some defensiveness, but not too much. And we can stand a little stonewalling, or shutting down, every now and then. But happy marriages don't tolerate contempt. In fact, in The Marriage Clinic, Gottman calls contempt the "sulfuric acid of marriage". Contempt is that attitude, expressed in language, or sometimes just in a _look_ , that sends a clear message that I am disgusted with you. I can't stand you. You're pitiful. You're useless. You're stupid. It's the core of what you are saying when you drop the f-bomb on your partner. You can't say much that's worse, or more harmful.

I use this idea, like PREP, with almost every couple I see in therapy, and we work on ways to reduce criticism, defensiveness and stonewalling, and completely eliminate contempt. If you have communication difficulties in your relationship that you can't seem to work out, I encourage you to get one of these books and take a shot at fixing your communication. If that doesn't help, see a therapist.

Both of these models can be applied to sexual communication as well. But there are some particular things about sexual communication that I think couples should consider. First, what should we talk about and not talk about? When someone asks this, it usually means "Do I need to tell my partner everything about my past behavior?" and/or "Do I need to tell my partner everything about my present behavior?" My answer is yes, and no.

I think if you keep sexual secrets, even things that are in your past and mean nothing to you now, the secrecy can be harmful. So I think you should tell your partner about your sexual past. However, there's no real benefit in giving them all the details. If you had multiple sex partners in the past, I think you should say that. But you may not need to go into detail about how many times you had sex with each person. Or if you did some touching and other non-intercourse activities, you should say that, but probably not exactly when and where and how long, etc. Details are usually not useful and can often be harmful. The exception to this is when there may be STDs or HIV possibilities. In those cases, your partner should have all the information needed to be safe.

Otherwise, be honest, but it's okay to be vague. If you feel compelled to describe things to your partner in detail, you should ask yourself if you are doing this for them and for the good of the relationship, or are you doing it for _you_ , to relieve your conscience. Selfish disclosure is just that, selfish. And if you're the listener here, be satisfied with very few details.

With regard to telling everything about your _present_ behavior, I think couples should be completely open and honest, with maybe one exception. You don't need to tell your partner every single thing that runs through your head. If you see an attractive man and for a moment you imagine what he looks like naked, I don't think you need to tell your husband "Honey I just imagined that guy naked. I just wanted you to know." That's just hurtful, under the disguise of confession. If you notice that someone is attractive, but don't linger and lust, that's just a natural reaction that probably won't impact your relationship at all.

However, if you develop a pattern of looking at other people and imagining them in sexual situations, and you can't seem to control it, you probably _should_ have a serious talk with your partner because that behavior will begin to affect your relationship at some point. And your partner deserves to know. Finally, if you ever move beyond just thoughts, and find yourself flirting with or tempted by another person, or texting, or emailing someone outside your marriage, or making actual physical contact with someone, you absolutely need to tell your partner about it. Keeping it a secret will become like an infection in your relationship. Your partner may not know what the infection is, but they'll know it's there. And the truth is, most people who cheat get caught. It will come back and bite you. Complete and total honesty offers at least the potential for healing.

* *

What do we do if we have sexual problems or dysfunctions?

Well, by now (if you didn't already know it) you probably get the idea that sex doesn't always work out great for everybody. With all the attitudes, history, physical and psychological and theological issues that two people bring to the sexual relationship, it's really a wonder, as Garrison Keillor once said, that we ever figure out how to "do it' at all. The truth is, depending on which research you look at, anywhere from 20-70% of people report some level of sexual problem or dysfunction in their lifetime. That means there's a decent chance it will happen to you or me. So what do you do if you and your partner are having some type of sexual problem?

I'm not a big fan of people who do therapy in a book. I think most cases are too individualized to tell people exactly how to fix problems in a small amount of text. So although I know I'm guilty of it myself sometimes, I prefer to offer here some guidelines, rather than prescriptive solutions, for couples who are dealing with a sexual problem. But before I even do that, let's look briefly at what the basic areas of sexual dysfunction are, and how we define them.

From a professional treatment standpoint, sexual dysfunctions have historically been defined based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association. Not all therapists and theorists agree with everything about this model (I'm one of those who doesn't), but it is still the dominant approach in the field. Sexual dysfunctions are often divided into gender categories. Male dysfunctions are; premature ejaculation, male orgasmic disorder (delayed ejaculation) and erectile dysfunction. Female disorders include female arousal disorder, female orgasmic disorder, and the sexual pain disorders; vaginismus and dyspareunia. Other disorders can be found in both genders; sexual aversion disorder and hypoactive sexual desire disorder. Then there are the paraphilias, which all involve sexual arousal that is related to some object of desire that is considered to be atypical, and finally gender identity disorder.

Aside from the paraphilias and gender disorder, there are two major issues to mention regarding the way we have defined sexual problems. First, they are clearly historically based on the _sexual response cycle_ proposed by Masters and Johnson about 40 years ago. And we haven't done much in the way of revision since then. Second, they are all historically based on biological dysfunction. What's obviously missing from the list is a focus on the psychological and relational aspects of sexuality and sexual experiences. This absence leads to problems in diagnosis and treatment for most practicing therapists.

For example, if a woman goes to a therapist and says "I never have an orgasm when my husband and I have intercourse," she might be diagnosed with female orgasmic disorder. This diagnosis is a pretty clear statement that _she_ has a problem, much like if she went to her medical doctor and was told that she has the flu. So we then treat her as if she has a problem. But what if her husband has no idea what her clitoris is, or where it is, or what he should do with it during sex? Or what if he's just mean to her all the time and she never really _wants_ to have sex with him? Or what if she's been taught that women who like sex are sluts, and good Christian girls just don't? Does she still have an orgasmic disorder? On the other hand, what if a woman is desperate for attention, or incredibly lonely, or has been taught that the way to get what she wants is to use her sexuality? And so she wants sex all the time. Is that functional or dysfunctional?

Or what about a man who can't keep an erection long enough to have successful intercourse? We could diagnose him with erectile dysfunction and send him to his doctor for Viagra. But what if he tells me that his wife constantly berates him and tells him he's not much of a man, or what if she never has an orgasm and blames him for it, and constantly reminds him of his failure before they start each time? Does _he_ have a sexual disorder?

I think these are good questions. And so do people like Rosemary Basson and Lenore Tiefer, who I've mentioned before. Isn't it likely that the relational aspects of sexuality, and the partner's behavior in a sexual relationship should be at least as important, and maybe even more important than the individual "pathology"? I think so.

Having said all that, what should a couple actually do if they have a problem? Here are my guidelines, in a specific order.

1. Communicate.

2. Get educated.

3. Get therapy.

4. Get medical help.

Step 1 is communication, which we've already discussed in detail, so I won't go over it again. But if you've communicated well, and you and your partner understand each other well, and you still can't seem to find any answers, then you should go to step 2; education.

For most of us, taking a class in sexuality is not a real option, and our best option for becoming educated about sex comes from reading a book. I'll recommend a couple of these in a minute, but before I do I have to say that there are several "educational" options that I do not think are very helpful. Watching porn videos together is not a good educational experience for most couples, particularly in terms of solving sexual problems. Talking to your friends or family is also not a great option. What your friend or your sister or your mom tells you about his/her partner or their sexual experience is simply just not completely true much of the time. People lie about their sex lives. Even to people they love. Finally, please, please, please, don't get your sexual education from magazines or questionable web sites. _Cosmopolitan_ and _Men's Health_ are not reputable sources. Believe it or not, their goal is not to help you. It's to make money. Don't try to solve your relationship problems with magazine articles or "tips" from Joe's Sex Site. Read a good reputable book together, then discuss the things you think apply to you and your partner. Often this will open the door for more and deeper communication, and many sexual problems can be solved this way.

There are a couple of books that I recommend to Christian couples. One is A Celebration of Sex, by Doug Rosenau. Dr. Rosenau is a Christian sex therapist who is not only solid in his theology, but straightforward and honest in his approach to sex and sexuality. The other is The Gift of Sex by Cliff and Joyce Penner. The Penners are pioneers in the Christian sex therapy field, and all of their material is solid, honest and reliable. There are many other books about sex that I believe have good ideas and good educational material for couples, but many of them also contain questionable theories or recommendations, and so I won't recommend those here. You can make those choices and discernments for yourself.

If you have communicated well, and you feel like you are now fairly well-educated on your sexuality, but you still can't seem to deal with the problem, it's probably time to get some professional help. This means looking for a good sex therapist, or a good psychologist or marriage therapist who has some training and expertise in sexual issues. Is this embarrassing for most people? Not as much as you might think. Is it really possible to go into an office and tell a complete stranger about your sex life? Do people really do that?

Well, yes they do.

I'm still a little surprised at how folks come into my office and almost immediately began to tell me the intimate details of their lives - often without me even asking. For some reason, for most people, when we get in a therapy room we realize that it's just not as intimidating or horrifying as we thought it would be. This seems to apply to sex therapy just like it does with anything else. So if you get to this point, and still need help, have the courage and maturity to take the step for the sake of your marriage. And look for someone who will treat your relationship, not just your individual pathology. Find a therapist who understands that sex is psychological and relational and spiritual, not just biological. Call your church for a reference, ask your friends and family for recommendations, do whatever you can to find a therapist you think you can trust, and make an appointment. And just go.

Finally, if you communicate well, and you become educated about your problem, and you try therapy, and you still don't get relief, it may be that you actually need medical attention. A good sex therapist will probably recommend that you see an M.D. to rule out physiological issues early in the course of therapy. But I think it's important that you see the therapist _first_. Here's why. We live in a culture that has decided that there must be a medical (and usually pharmacological) answer for every possible ailment. Although medications are often wonderful blessings in our lives, they simply aren't the answer to every problem, particularly when it comes to sex. Too often, when a couple experiences a sexual problem the first thing they do is decide that the woman should see her gynecologist and try to get a pill to fix the problem. Sex is rarely that simple. As we've seen, it's much more likely that her "problem" is relational, rather than biological. So we should evaluate the non-medical issues first, and then look for medical answers if other attempts to solve the problem just don't seem to help.

* *

How should we talk to our kids about sex?

If you're a parent, that question probably just raised your anxiety level about 10 points. One of the hardest things to do for most parents is to figure out how to talk to their children about sex. We're scared to do it. We don't know what to say. We don't know what to not say. We don't know which words to use. We don't know if our kids will run screaming out of the room or fall on the floor laughing at us. We kind of hope they'll stop us and say "Hey, don't worry about it. I already know all that." And we're terrified that they'll stop us and say "Hey, don't worry about it. I already know all that."

We know it's scary, because 1) parents tell us how scary it is, and 2) because most parents just avoid it and don't do it at all. But we need to do it. If we want our kids to know the truth, if we want them to share our values, and if we want them to be prepared at all for a world that will flood their minds with sexual imagery and ideas, we have to be brave enough to talk to them about sex. It's an imperative. Not an option.

So here are some guidelines for walking through this particular minefield.

Talk early, and often.

Okay, so _how early_? Do I tell my three-year-old about sex? Is that too late? Can I just wait till they have a health class in middle school? When is the best time? Well, the best time is usually _when they ask_.

Kids are going to be curious about sex. And this is going to happen to them very early. Bill Cosby used to tell the story of when his twin daughters, who were about five at the time, walked in on him in the bathroom and saw him standing in front of the toilet, urinating. They squealed and giggled and screamed "Oh daddy! You got a wally-wally!"

Hopefully that doesn't happen to you, but _something_ will happen to cause your daughter to ask that really embarrassing question, or your son to sing a little song in public about his penis (like one of my nephews once did when he was about 4), or point at a woman's breasts in the grocery store, or repeat a neat little slang word they heard at kindergarten, or....on and on and on.

The point is, it's never really too early. Talk when they ask. Talk whenever they see something that stimulates their curiosity. Talk whenever that image pops up unexpectedly on the television and you _know_ they're wondering "What are those people doing?" Early is always better than late.

One reason our blood pressure goes up when we think about talking to our kids about sex is that we almost always think of it as a one-time event, like it's the national championship game of parenting. We have one shot, and if we mess it up, our children are doomed to a lifetime of sexual ignorance, and we are labeled forever as the parents who just can't cut it. We have failed them. No second chance. No redemption.

This is just silly. There's no reason whatsoever that we should ever think about having "the talk". We should think about having lots of little talks, all the time, through many years, whenever the subject might come up. Let's spread the anxiety around a little. After about the 5th time you have to say "intercourse" to your 11 year-old, it won't be so bad. Or when your second-grader comes home from school and says "Dad, what's a vagina?", you'll decide that you can handle pretty much anything after that. So let go of the idea of a one-time event that will change the course of human history. Embrace the idea of many small talks, all along the way.

Use real words.

This one is tough for some of us. I grew up with parents who wouldn't dare use real words for genitals or anything sexual. Remember, my parents' generation wouldn't even say "pregnant" out loud. So for a lot of us who are over 40 or so, using real words for sexual things is pretty foreign to us. This has shifted for the good in younger generations, and hopefully we'll see more parents who use honest language with their kids, but it's still tempting to not say words like penis, vagina, clitoris, semen, to a child.

We're scared that our kid will be the one who gathers all his classmates around at recess and says, "Okay you guys, here are the real words for all our parts. Let's start with PENIS." Then the school board calls a special session to discuss whether or not you should be charged with the crime of using actual biology to educate your own children, and then your church excommunicates you for telling your own kids the truth, and your life is over as you know it, all because you chose to teach your son to say penis instead of "doodle" or "winky" or some other stupid name.

Using silly words about sex or genitals sends a clear message that for some reason we shouldn't say the real words out loud. The only possible reason is that we believe those words are somehow bad, or wrong. What our children learn from this is that honesty about sex is not allowed, because sex is really something wrong, bad, dirty or shameful. I know that's not our intent as parents when we use slang or silly words, but it sends a subtle message that we all should be a just a little bit ashamed of our sexuality.

Show a healthy sexual relationship to your children.

I know this may initially sound wrong to you, but you can show your kids evidence of a healthy sexual relationship between their parents, while keeping your sexual relationship absolutely private. It's not as hard as it might sound. Just let them see that you're affectionate with each other. Let them see that you like to be physically close to each other. Make it clear to them that you like to be alone together. You don't have to explain to them _why_ you want to be alone. It's enough that they know you want to. Have date nights or weekends and leave them with a baby-sitter or your parents. Flirt with each other. It will gross them out a bit. That's excellent. It not only teaches them that sex is actually really good within a marriage, but it also gives them a sense of security. The absolute best thing that can happen to a kid is to be sure that their parents love each other. They act like they don't like it, but deep inside they actually thrive on it. So make sure they know. And make sure they know that your love for each other is also physical, even passionate.

When our daughters were in high school, one night Lori and I were just sitting in the living room watching a movie. We weren't involved in anything romantic, just watching a movie, but we had all the lights off in the house. About ten o'clock the phone rang and it was our daughter Katie. She said, kind of cautiously, "What are you doing?" I said, "Well, we're watching a movie." Then I said "Where are you?" and she said "out in front of the house." So I asked her "Why are you calling me if you're sitting out in front of the house?" And she said "Well, I'm out here in the car with some of my friends and we were going to come in but I wanted to make sure, you know... that you and mom... you know.... were dressed and.....you know." Well, we laughed about that for a while, but I have to say, I was a little bit proud.

Balance privacy with positive self-image.

Because we really don't want our kid leading the sex discussion on the playground in kindergarten, it's important to figure out how to balance a healthy view of sex with an understanding that things can be healthy, and still should be private. One of the major sexual problems in our culture, as I've said earlier, is that we are often dishonest about important issues in sexuality that should be brought into the open, but we are flooded with images and ideas of personal sexual behaviors that absolutely should be kept private. It is a parent's job to help a child navigate this mess, and learn that although sexuality should be honest and open, that honesty and openness is mostly reserved for our most intimate relationships. It's an uphill battle, because the culture will teach your children to put their personal sexuality out there for everyone to see, in their music, their choice of clothing, through sexting and social media, and disguised as "self-expression" and "honesty". We have to teach our kids that sexuality is a wonderful, fun, pleasurable gift that is _most_ wonderful when it's very exclusive, and shared only in the most intimate relationship.

Teach your own values.

If you don't talk to your own kids about sex, you have no right to criticize or whine about all the bad messages they get from the rest of their world, including sex education in schools. I have no patience or sympathy for parents who abdicate their parental responsibility to the school system, the media, or even the church, and then gripe about the values that these other entities impose on their children. Whether we believe it or not and whether we like it or not, parents are still usually the most significant influence in their children's lives. This is particularly true of parents who have a good relationship with their kids. They want our guidance, our limits, and our boundaries. They will, of course, fight us about these things, and we'll feel like we have no influence whatsoever, but teenagers will still often report that their _parents_ are the single most important influence in their lives. Not their peers, not the internet, their _parents._

I know this isn't always true. But it's still mostly true. So be a parent, not a friend. Draw the lines. Tell them what you believe. Tell them what you think is right and wrong. Don't hand your kids over to the community, the school or even the church for values-education. Step up. Do it yourself. Talk to them about sex and teach them your sexual values.

Teach an integrated self.

As I've alluded to before, I believe that sexuality is not just physical, but clearly psychological, relational and spiritual. I think we should teach this to our children. Our culture will focus on the physiological aspects of sex. Our children are taught that good sex is not much different than eating a really good meal, or having a great workout in the gym, or any number of purely physical experiences. This most common view of sex in our culture is reductionist. It reduces sex to just a physical thing. This devalues sex, and makes it more likely that we will think of it casually, like sharing a package of Oreos with a friend. It's up to parents to teach that sex is about relationship. It's up to Christian parents to teach that sex is also about spirit. Kids who understand that sex is more than a physical experience will probably value sex more highly, and may be more likely to reserve it for their most important relationships.

Teach across gender.

Lastly, do your best to teach your kids about sex as a couple. Of course there are things that might be better if reserved for same gender discussions. I have two daughters, and I confess that I didn't discuss it with them when they began to have their periods, and I think that's really okay. But it's healthy if a father at least peripherally acknowledges that a daughter is at that point in her life, and the daughter is aware that the dad knows about it too. It may be better for a father to talk directly to a teenage son about masturbation, but it's also good for the son to realize that his mom also knows that people masturbate, and that she and the dad are on the same page about the issue. We don't necessarily need to have long detailed discussions about what our opposite gender children are experiencing, but we should find ways to at least be involved in the parental process, across gender. I think this helps kids understand again that there is nothing dirty or shameful about their sexuality, and it also helps dispel some of the mythology and fearfulness toward the opposite gender that may come from peers and cultural influences. If girls grow up with a dad who's not ashamed to put a box of tampons in the basket at the grocery store, they'll expect that same attitude from a husband in the future. And that's a good thing.

* *

Is sex education a good thing?

That's a tough question. It's like a lot of things in our world that can be very good, or very bad. If it's done well, which I think is rare, it can be very good. If it's done poorly, which happens far too often, it can be very bad. But from a broad perspective, looking at all forms and styles and models, and after reviewing most of the research on outcomes, my conclusion is that it's actually a pretty neutral force in our culture. There are some situations where it has probably been harmful, and it has been harmful from a variety of perspectives. And there are some reports of it being very helpful and effective, also from varied perspectives. But the general outcome and effect it seems to have had on us over the last few decades is not terribly significant. It has been neither as wonderful and effective as the proponents would like us to think, nor as devastating and damaging as the opponents would like us to believe.

I think this is important to know because we hear horror stories from both sides of the argument; that if we don't have good programs we will see an explosion of teen pregnancies and STDs, and if we have mandated programs we will see an explosion of teenage sexual behavior and our children will all decide to become promiscuous or gay, or both. I just don't think the evidence supports this argument on either end very well.

Remember, you can _always_ find some research to support just about any argument. And if you listen to the polarizing voices in this debate you will certainly hear them quoting research to support their side. But we get the best knowledge by looking at large amounts of research over time, and when you do that with sex education, you just don't find anything very convincing either way.

One last note; and I've alluded to this in an earlier section. Most parents who are against sex education are conservative Christians who complain about the ideas and attitudes that are taught by public school programs. But if parents and churches did their jobs, we wouldn't have public school sex education. Public school sex education developed out of necessity. We gave it up, and somebody had to fill the void.

* *

Is masturbation okay or not?

Masturbation for some folks is a non-issue. They don't think there are any reasons why it should be considered anything but a normal, healthy activity. For others, mostly conservative Christians or others who have a religious prohibition against it, masturbation is a troubling, confusing issue that often carries with it an enormous burden of guilt and self-condemnation. There are a few important considerations that help me work through this question, and maybe these will help you do the same.

First, let's just address the act itself. By itself, with no contextual issues considered, the pure act of masturbation seems harmless to me. The medical-psychological professional world will agree with me. There is no evidence of any kind that masturbation causes any harm whatsoever to the individual, and any reports or warnings that it does are simply false. Masturbation won't cause hair to grow in unwanted places, it won't cause any body parts to fall off, and it won't make you insane. However, the _context_ of the act may change the _impact_ of the act, so it's important to consider context.

Masturbation typically occurs while thinking or fantasizing about sexual activity. In fact, it's pretty difficult for most of us to envision how we could masturbate and not think about something sexual. For many Christian people, this thought process is simply identified as _lust_ , and therefore immediately becomes sinful. The Greek word that is translated as lust in the New Testament most often is _epitheumia_ , a strong desire for something that is forbidden. Many people find it hard to separate, in theory or in practice, masturbation from lust and therefore they consider it to be a sinful act. The logical application of this belief is to decide that masturbation is not allowable for Christians. I respect this position and think that if you believe this and are convicted that you should never do it, then that's just fine. But I'm not sure that it's simple enough that we can make that judgment for someone else, or make a blanket statement that it's wrong or sinful.

As you know by now, that's not the way I tend to think about the scripture. Sometimes the concept of lust seems pretty clear to me. Other times I'm not sure exactly what _is_ lust and what _is not_ lust. For example, if you're a single person, and you fantasize about having sex with someone, and you masturbate, you might simply say that since you are single, and the Bible forbids you to have sex, then to think or fantasize about having sex is a sin. I'm not sure about that. If you believe that having sex before marriage is a sin, okay. But is it really a sin to think about it? Does the Bible as a whole really support this?

Remember earlier when we reviewed the Song of Songs, and the incredible eroticism portrayed there? The Song clearly describes two young people, unmarried, who think almost constantly about having sex. They describe their thoughts (fantasies, maybe?) in great erotic detail. In fact, at least one Old Testament expert ( _See Walsh, 2000_ ) is bold enough to propose that Song of Songs 5:2-6 portrays the young woman masturbating as part of a sexual dream, interrupted only when the lover awakens her and tries to come through the door. Of course, some conservative scholars probably disagree with this interpretation, and it would be a risk to propose Walsh's interpretation in many churches (or in a book about sex for Christians), but if this interpretation is possible it means that as God portrays the overwhelming desire of the church for the Bridegroom, he includes in that portrayal a scene of desire so strong that when the young woman wakes up and goes to open the door for her lover, her "hands drip with myrrh, her fingers with liquid myrrh." I don't know if Walsh's interpretation is absolutely correct, and neither does she, and neither do you, but it seems plausible to me, and if so, it certainly doesn't condemn masturbation.

Although it may be okay to fantasize about sex if you are single, it's a problem to fuel that fantasy with pornography. We'll discuss pornography later, but suffice it to say that using pornography to masturbate, whether you are single or not, has too many negative consequences, regardless of your religious convictions. So masturbation as you think about having sex with your fiancé, or (if you're single) some unreal fantasy partner out there in the future may be okay, but if you bring in porn, it's not okay. The context changes everything.

I want to be clear about one issue here. There's a very real and substantial difference between masturbating while using porn and actually cheating on your partner with a real person. Sometimes people say in therapy, when they find out their partner has been doing this, "It's just like he cheated on me." Well, I'm sympathetic about the sense of betrayal they may feel, and the hurt that comes with it, but those two things are not the same. You may think they _feel_ the same, but they're just not the same. I'll talk about that more in the next section. Masturbation may become unfaithfulness over time, and may even lead to unfaithfulness, and I think any sexual activity is clearly out of bounds if it involves any level of unfaithfulness to your partner, whether through pornography or especially through fantasizing about a real person who is not your partner. Again, the context of the act changes the act.

Some people believe that if you are married, to masturbate is wrong or sinful because you should only have sexual experiences as a couple. I disagree somewhat. I believe that if you are married and you masturbate while thinking only about your partner that is _generally_ okay. It becomes problematic in three specific instances; 1) when you fantasize about your partner doing things that you know your partner will not do in real life, 2) when you fantasize and masturbate because you would _rather_ do that than have a sexual experience with your real partner, and 3) if masturbation becomes compulsive or obsessive. If you fantasize about things that you know your real partner won't do, you set yourself up for disappointment in your partner, and you set your partner up for failure in pleasing you sexually. And if you choose to masturbate instead of being with your real partner, that indicates a serious relationship problem, and you need to begin a plan to get some help pretty quickly. Occasional masturbation to deal with sexual arousal or tension when your partner is not available, or at times when your partner's interest in sex is much lower than yours, is likely not problematic, but anything that becomes habitual or compulsive can become dysfunctional.

One last idea about masturbation (and this generalization may get me in trouble), but from my perspective as a Christian who is a therapist, and a parent and a teacher, it just isn't that big of a deal to me. I know somebody might twist this and say that I believe that _lust_ isn't a big deal. That's wrong. I'm married, and if I lust for another woman that is absolutely wrong, unhealthy and dysfunctional, and I and my marriage can't tolerate it. But not all sexual fantasy and masturbation falls under that same level of dysfunction for me. If you're a young person trying to remain celibate until you marry, and you masturbate to try to relieve some of your natural sexual tension, I don't think you should feel terrible about that. In fact, I don't think you should feel guilty about it as long as it doesn't become controlling and compulsive, and you're not using pornography. And if you work with young people, I don't think you should preach and teach that it's a horrible sin and that they need to constantly repent for something that is so harmless in many cases. I've seen many more young lives damaged by senseless guilt than by masturbation.

* *

What do you think about premarital sex?

As you can imagine, Christian college students are usually concerned about this question. So here are my opinions, for what they're worth.

First, I want to follow up on what I just wrote about masturbation. And no, I don't think you can apply the same rules to premarital sex. It's different of course, and the consequences are drastically different. The similarity I want to draw is the danger of focusing so intently on a notion of sexual "purity" that we produce young people who become consumed by guilt. I believe that we have made a kind of "false god" out of the notion of purity. Abstinence for people prior to marriage is almost always the very best option. I believe that and I teach that. I would believe that even if it wasn't a Biblical idea. It works best, there is less "baggage" and less danger of unwanted consequences. But many of us and many of our kids have not lived up to this standard. Does that mean we should have no standard? No, but it also doesn't mean that we should deny the redemption of Christ when it comes to sexual behavior.

In many of our churches and families we have elevated sexual purity to the absolute pinnacle of Christian life. The church often seems to take the position that if you maintain your physical virginity until marriage, then you've been a Christian success, but if you lose it, you've been a Christian failure. This false dichotomy has been the basis for _True Love Waits_ and other well-intentioned virginity based programs. As I said, I think abstinence until marriage is the best idea. But we never do the best. We lie, we cheat a little on our taxes, we over-eat, we love our toys more than our neighbors; we sin and sin and sin. _We are not pure_. And if you have reached puberty, whether or not you have had intercourse or any physical sexual contact with another person, _you are not sexually pure_. No one is. So let's teach our kids that waiting for marriage is best, and let's encourage them to do that, but let's stop filling them with guilt and making them hate themselves because they had premarital sex. Consider this written response from a student in my undergraduate Human Sexuality class a few years ago after we talked about this subject in class.

I went through most of my young adulthood feeling so ashamed and dirty because that's the way a lot of the people around me made me feel - the church, my private Christian school. This kind of belief system of purity and abstinence had some major negative psychological, physical and spiritual effects on me. I know I'm not the only one who experienced this... It's like once you have sex you're impure, dirty, hopeless. What's the point of trying anymore? Sometimes either you give up and give in to the negative view of yourself or kill yourself trying to make up for it.

Students in my class have reported some pretty bizarre methods that youth pastors and teachers have used to teach them about purity; like passing around a cup and having everyone in the group spit into it, and then offering it to someone to drink, or having someone offer another person an already chewed piece of gum. In other words, if you've had premarital sex, you're like a cup of spit, or a piece of chewed gum. Nobody will want you. And there's no mention of the most significant part of the Gospel - _redemption_. The body of Christ has to be better than this. We cannot keep doing this to our kids.

Sex is serious. Premarital sex is serious. It is never trivial, never casual. But our sexual self, just like the rest of our self, can be fully and completely redeemed. That's the message of the gospel, and it applies to sex just like everything else.

* *

What about pornography?

The use of pornography in our culture is a significant problem. I could quote lots of statistics here to impress you, but the truth is we all know how prevalent it is. It's pervasive. I read a report a couple of years ago about a research project at a college in the northeast designed to compare men who viewed pornography with those who didn't. The project was abandoned because the researchers couldn't find a large enough sample of men who didn't. That's true of most people now, including Christians. It's hard to find a man who hasn't looked at pornography, and many women have, if only out of curiosity. We're not all addicted and not all compulsive, but it's affected all of us, and some more than others.

There are several problems with pornography. The first is that it's not real. Pornography presents ideas and images, particularly about women, that are not real. This is compounded by the fact that if we look at porn, we tend to forget that it's not real, and we tend to expect the things that happen in porn to become a part of our real lives, with our real partners. For the most part, that's just not going to happen. So we set ourselves up to be disappointed in our real life, and our real partner.

Second, porn is abusive and degrading to both genders, but particularly to women. Women are portrayed in very specific ways in pornography, with the intent of pleasing a selfish, childish, mostly male audience. Women are portrayed as wanting sex so badly that they are willing to do it with anyone who happens to drop by the house to deliver a pizza. They're portrayed as so desperate for sex that they enjoy being used by multiple men at one time. They're portrayed as being willing to do anything that their male partner wants, with no limits. They are usually portrayed as submissive, dominated by men who treat them as objects. Porn objectifies us all, but it most consistently and harmfully objectifies women. This has always been true of traditional, "professionally" produced porn, and it's also true, maybe even more so, of the new home-made porn that floods the internet now. It's abusive and degrading and devastating for men to video their wives or girlfriends, even if they consent, and post those images on the internet. I honestly can't think of much that is more harmful, or more contrary to what a husband should be.

Third, pornography brings a third party into the relationship. This is always a bad idea. Most of us would never consider bringing a real third person into our sex life as a couple, but we don't think much about the damage that it may do if we introduce virtual people into our relationship. These are just a few reasons why pornography is unhealthy across the board, and becoming addicted or compulsive with it can be seriously destructive.

As bad as porn is, I think we should temper our outrage and disgust a bit if we learn that our partner has looked at pornography, because it's almost impossible for a young person to grow up in our culture and not be exposed to it. Most people have looked at it. It's almost a universal experience among young men. In your Sunday School or Bible study or Life group class, if there are ten guys there, there's a decent chance that six of them look at porn at least occasionally, and a three of them are compulsive or addictive about it. And that's probably a conservative estimate.

Internet pornography is driven by what researcher Al Cooper called the "triple A engine" - affordability, accessibility and anonymity. This is what makes it so pervasive and also so easily addictive and compulsive. It's free, and it's right at your fingertips; on your notebook computer, on your desktop, on your iPad, or your smartphone. It's also very easy to hide. The hiding it from others, ironically, makes your brain think it's actually more interesting and exciting than it really is, and makes the habit harder to break.

Most users of porn are men, so in relationships most "victims" of porn use are women. I hesitate to try to characterize how women feel about anything, since I'm not a woman, but I've heard many women in therapy talk about the feelings they have when their male partner uses porn. Here are some things I think I know. When a man uses porn; 1) his wife very often feels like she's not desirable enough and that's why he's looking at other women, 2) she thinks maybe if she had sex with him more often or better, or became like the women in porn he wouldn't have the need for it and 3) her desire for sex with him decreases significantly, or even disappears, because of the emotional pain she feels when she thinks of his porn use.

It makes sense for women to feel this way, and sometimes those first two things are true. Some men _are_ using porn to replace their wives because they are dissatisfied and are trying to find something they think will be better or sexier or more fun.

But with many other men those first two perceptions really are _not_ true. I've worked with many young Christian guys who get caught up in looking at porn, and they have no _real_ desire for anyone other than their wife. They're truly in love with their wife, and in fact they think their wife is completely desirable, and they are very happy with their sex life within their marriage. They're _not_ looking for more sex, or different sex, or better sex, or a skinnier, prettier or sexier wife. For these men, using porn is not a substitute for something they think they're missing. It's not an effort to find something better, or new, or different, and they would never think of being unfaithful to their wives with a real person. Using porn (or any other sexual compulsion) is a deeply ingrained destructive habit that has become built into their behavior over time, and they're susceptible to it. It feels compulsive; almost addictive.

I'm going to use an analogy here that I hope will make sense. I don't in any way want to sound like I'm trivializing the issue, or how women feel when this happens. I know the effects of sexual behavior are different than the effects of eating too much. But the truth is, for many men, looking at pornography works this way in the brain.

It's like a person with bad eating habits (like me) who has a wonderful, delicious meal and is completely satisfied, then an hour later he sees a bag of Oreos on the counter in the kitchen. At first he just walks by and avoids them, because he knows they're not healthy or good for him. Then a few minutes later he comes back by and he takes a couple and eats them anyway. Now why would he do that? It makes no logical sense whatsoever. He's not hungry. He really enjoyed the wonderful, healthy meal that he had an hour ago, and he knows cookies are bad for him. So why eat the Oreos?

Because he sees them there, and his brain remembers the taste of the Oreo from all the other times he's eaten Oreos since he was a little boy, and he compulsively eats a couple. The neurons in his brain that are designed to make him feel pleasure start firing more rapidly than normal. In addition to the taste of the cookies, his brain also gets a little bit excited by the notion that he's _sneaking_ the Oreos, maybe eating them while his wife's in another room, because if she sees him he'll be confronted with his irresponsibility and his gluttony. It's a secret, and it's forbidden, and those factors unconsciously make the process more interesting and exciting, and addictive to his brain.

Then the reality of it hits him. He thinks, "I'm such an idiot. Why did I eat those stupid cookies? I was already full, and now I just feel sick." He immediately regrets it, he's irritated with himself and his lack of discipline, and he swears he'll change his ways and never do that again. He tells himself that he'll be better next time, and he may - but often he isn't, and the cycle repeats itself. Another analogy, maybe a better one, is shoplifting. Why would someone who can easily afford whatever they want (Winona Ryder? Lindsay Lohan?) shoplift something like a cigarette lighter, or a cheap bottle of perfume? They do it because the secrecy and the "thrill" of the process becomes a compulsive, almost addictive event. It's not logical. It's impulsive and stupid. But they do it again and again.

For some men, pornography seems to work that way.

This doesn't make it okay. I'm not making an excuse for the behavior. I'm just proposing that if couples are going to deal with this problem, they need to understand it for what it is. It's not always a desire for somebody else, or dissatisfaction with our real partner. Sometimes it's a little bit like cocaine to our brains.

What this all means for a woman whose partner is tempted to look at porn is this. _It is not your fault_. Never, ever, ever is it a woman's fault that a man looks at porn. It's his problem; his choice. You can't fix it by being wilder, or sexier, or losing weight, or getting your breasts enlarged, or initiating sex more. _You aren't responsible for this_. He has to fix this.

Does it hurt you? Of course. Most women wonder why that fact alone isn't enough to make him stop, and sometimes it is. But remember. Its' not just a behavior, it's a pattern, a habit. For most of these guys the pattern of opening up a computer and looking at porn was built in when they were young teenagers, or even before. Most of them think that when they get married and start having a blessed, holy sexual relationship with their wife the porn issue they've struggled with for 15 years will just go away. Many of them confess it to their fiancée before they get married because they feel guilty about it and they hope that it will be over because they now have a real sex partner who loves them and is sharing their wonderful new life.

Unfortunately our brains don't work that way. Falling in love and walking down the aisle doesn't change neurological habits. Those patterns that get built in are like cow trails through the pasture. We follow them over and over and over until they are well-worn and almost automatic. To decide to not go down those paths anymore must be a _constant, conscious choice_. New habits must be formed, new trails worn, and this usually takes time. But I promise it can be done.

There's no magic to fixing it. It takes time, commitment, and a lot of patience and support from your spouse. There are a few things that seem to help: 1) Be honest with your spouse, with an accountability partner, with a group of men at church, or with all of those. Honesty destroys secrecy and makes the process less exciting and interesting to your brain and therefore less addictive. 2) Keep making the decision to not go back, to control the temptation. It's like a smoker who wants to stop smoking. You quit over and over and over until one day you really actually _quit_. And it is over. So don't give up. 3) Work hard to focus your sexual attention on a real live person; your wife. That doesn't mean that you ask her to have sex more, that means that any time you have a sexual feeling or thought, you direct it toward her in your mind, and away from the porn viewing process. Sexual response is at least partly learned, and you can retrain your brain. If you start thinking about porn, replace the thoughts with sexual thoughts about your wife. Get aroused, fantasize about her, and masturbate if you want to. But _keep your mind focused on her_. Re-direct your thoughts. Create _new_ neurological pathways in your brain. 4) Don't be afraid to look for help. Go to a counselor, or go to a group. Many churches have groups going on all the time for men who struggle with porn or sexual issues. If your church doesn't have one, ask your pastor or elders if you can start one. I promise you that if there are other men in your church who struggle with porn or other sexual temptations.

And if you fail, make the decision again. Start over and try to stick with it again. Don't give up. Fight the fight. You _can_ stop.

### Questions for Reflection and Discussion

What is the best plan, in your opinion, for talking to your kids about sex?

Do you think sex education in school is a good thing, or a bad thing?

Where and how do you think it should happen? Who should do it? Who should pay for it?

What do you think the guidelines should be regarding masturbation; for single people?

For married people?

What is the most important thing that you learned about the use of pornography?

What do you think we can do to help young people deal with the issue of internet pornography?

### Chapter 10 References and Resources

Howard Markman, Scott Stanley, and Susan Blumberg - _Fighting for Your Marriage; Positive Steps for Preventing Divorce and Preserving a Lasting Love._ 1994. Jossey-Bass.

John Gottman - _The Marriage Clinic; A Scientifically Based Marital Therapy_ , 1999. W.W. Norton and Co.

Douglas Rosenau - _A Celebration of Sex._ 2002. Zondervan.

Clifford and Joyce Penner - _The Gift of Sex._ 1981. Word Publishing.

Al Cooper - _Sex and the Internet: A Guidebook for Clinicians_. 2002. Brunner-Routledge.

_Patrick Carnes -_ _Out of the Shadows: Understanding Sexual Addiction_ _. 1983. Compcare._

_Take Back the Night: Women on Pornography_ _. Laura Lederer, Ed. 1980. William Morrow and Co._

_Andrea Dworkin -_ _Pornography: Men Possessing Women_ _.1979. Perigree Books._

# A Closing Thought

As I've worked through this book over the last couple of years, I've also worked through my own theology of sex, some of my own struggles with the Bible, and some questions I've always had trouble with in my work as a therapist, teacher, and even as a husband and father. It's been a good thing for me, and as I finish, I wonder if it wasn't just a little self-indulgent. Actually I'm sure it was. Most writing is.

I just hope that some of it has been helpful to _you_. My goal, although I've obscured it from time to time with my own rants and rambling, has always been to help people with their sexuality. I'm convinced more than ever in my life that sex is one of the most powerful forces on earth, both for good and for bad. It breaks my heart that for many of us, and for most of us at least some time or another, the bad seems to outweigh the good. _Please don't believe in that_. Believe that it really is a gift from God. We mess it up in a million ways, but that's not an indictment of sex. That's an indictment of _us_. It can be better. We can be better. The church can be better.

Love each other. Be Jesus to each other, even in your sexuality.

If I've written anything that helps a tough issue make sense to you, or helps you understand something a little better, or helps you be a better partner, or parent, then it's been worth the effort.

Tom Copeland

Abilene, Texas

July 9, 2013

# About the Author

Tom Copeland, Ed.D., is a psychology professor and director of the Honors Program at Hardin Simmons University, in Abilene Texas. He has been teaching at HSU since 1994. He is also a Licensed Professional Counselor and a Licensed Marriage and Family Counselor. He is an elder and worship leader at The Mission in Abilene. He has been married to Lori, also a psychology professor and therapist, since 1983. They have two married daughters and one grandson.

