Sex and the Religious Right

This, I've decided, is the heart of the matter. This is where the rubber (if you'll pardon the expression) meets the road.

This is where the Religious Right is making the mistake that will spell either its undoing, or ours.

Juxtaposing this post of me True Ann-Sister's, on the intellectual sophistication of the Catholic Church and its embrace of science, and yesterday's cover story in the NY Times Magazine (still not finished), I've gotten this feeling that not just the Catholic Church but the whole Religious Right is suffering from a bad case of genophobia.

The Right is not trying to legislate morality -- it's trying to eradicate lust. This is like trying to shovel your driveway during a snowstorm by catching all the flakes on your tongue before they hit the ground.

That's not to say that the rest of us aren't wasting our energy, too. Our puerile preoccupation with getting off is proving a bit of a distraction.

(I submit, as Exhibit I, the lyric from Avenue Q:

The Internet is for porn,

The Internet is for porn,

So grab your dick

And double-click

The Internet is for porn!)

Legislation is simply no match for the sacred power of sexuality. Even when misapplied, this drive is perhaps the greatest of life forces. The Bible depicts it, repeatedly and explicitly, because it is so closely aligned with other, loftier yearnings (the Song of Songs, one of the great early pieces of erotica, is more traditionally viewed as a love poem from Israel to God).

Legislation to limit access to birth control demonizes this sacred force and drives it underground, where it becomes distorted and demonized. Priests abuse children; men abuse women. It becomes a tool for tyranny.

Instead of holding Purity Balls and working to restrict access to birth control, the Religious Right should give serious reconsideration to teaching its adherents to understand and celebrate the sacredness of sexual desire.

Not just because the genie won't go back in the bottle. But because desire not celebrated is desire distorted. Driven underground, the sacred becomes -- well, just plain sick.

--T.A.

Comments

[amba]

Purity Balls!! Exactly!!!

That's it in a nut, er, shell.

[realpc]

"the Religious Right should give serious reconsideration to teaching its adherents to understand and celebrate the sacredness of sexual desire.'

I thought Christians believe sex within marriage is sacred and a gift from God. I realize some versions of Christianity hate sex, but definitely not all. There is a world of difference between celebrating promiscuity and appreciating sex within a loving marriage.

Sexual liberation of the 1960s celebrated promiscuity, and really turned of millions off Americans, probably gave birth to the moral majority. Sexual liberation brought joy to lots of men, sorrow to lots of women. It damaged millions of children who watched their parents' marriages disintegrate because of adultery.

So no, I don't think the religious right is an enemy of sex. It just wants sex confined to where it belongs. Different species and different human cultures approach sex in different ways, so it's hard to say where sex really belongs. But I can sympathize with the religious right on this. I mean, maybe it's ridiculous to expect virgin brides, or grooms. But our society could definitely stand some cutting back on lust, definitely. This is yet another point where I have always differed from liberals.

[david]

Real PC:

I have tried to carefully consider and phrase my comment. I hope you'll do the same, should you reply.

Please note:

1) Nowhere did I say, as you suggest, that the Right is the "enemy of sex." I **did** say that the Religious Right is trying to use legislation to eradicate lust. There are substantial differences between the two statements.
2) Categorizing me -- or anyone -- as a liberal, is convenient, facile, and, generally, inaccurate. It sounds as though you are using that label toward me to make you feel better about your own beliefs. Am I a liberal or not? Please carefully read and consider my statements below. Then you'll have a better idea.
3) I agree that, as a culture, we have over-indulged. I do not know of a single instance -- with the notable exception of the formation of religions that did away with fertility cults -- where trying to curb sexual behavior with legislation has had a lasting, positive influence. Legislating against homosexuality did not eradicate homosexuality. More to the point, it did not in any way improve the lives of people who felt or knew themselves to be gay. Banning prostitution everywhere but Nevada gave us Las Vegas. So I must say again: legislating against lust does not have lasting beneficial effects.

3) "Confining sex to where it belongs" makes a lot of dangerous assumptions: namely, that sex "belongs" somewhere; that we should all adhere to an agreement that it belongs somewhere; and that, if we can't, it should be legislated. I agree with the first assumption, not with the second two.

4) The Religious Right derives its moral imperative from a belief system that is uncomfortably close to the seat of political power. Rather than having a salutary effect on the seat of power, this proximity tends to taint the moral purity of the cause, the adherents, and the efforts of the religious movement that has used political sway to enforce its moral agenda.

Thanks for posting your comment.

[realpc]

I do NOT think birth control or abortion should be made illegal. I just understand their motives. Lust and pornography everywhere is not something to be proud of.
We can't go backwards and start confining and protecting women (I'm a woman and I sure as heck don't want that), or forcing pregnancy on them.

But I disagree with your suggestion that the religious right hates sex. It hates the lustful and pornographic sex that has become so prevalent here. I don't have kids, but I can understand how awful it must be for parents now, trying to shelter their kids from ugly profanity and predators.

Sexual practice varies greatly between different species and between different human cultures. Some animals have sex just to say "hello," some are monogamous, some are polygynous, some have an anything goes approach.

But rules and rituals of some kind are usually found, in the more advanced species. Humans are usually either monogamous or polygynous. Women like monogamy, men tend to have a fondness for polygyny.

Anyway, restrictions and rituals surrounding sexuality is the norm, and they vary depending on the culture. We practice monogamy here, which makes women happy and often frustrates men. The religious right is just acknowledging that we must have limits. Wanting to go back to the pre-birth control era is of course ridiculous, but the motive is desperation. They don't want their daughters caught up in the ugliness of unrestricted lust, and I can sympathize.

[karen]

I can agree with that, too. Of couse, i'm religious Right :0). I think i'm getting pretty proud of that. We come in all shapes and sizes, too, ya know. We aren't cookie cut from Pat Robertson (thank God).
I wonder whose really pushing the buttons marked *go*, here. Male or female Right?

I did this little sentence- maybe you could link the words- David. They can be folowed w/your link above, anyway.

*I hold the opinion that it is the males' gynephobic, kolpophobic propensities that create hamartophobia for hadephobia*. I only did this 'cause i thought it'd be funny- and because i could. I'm a woman.

I doubt the fear of sex. i agree the digrace of misplaced and gross lust. And, i really don't blame men more than women, but i'd really like to.

[karen]

In thinking harder, i think it's projection.

[Vikki]

Personally, I think people's "concerns" about lust and sex and porn, etc. are born mostly of fear. And I agree, David, that to try to drive sex underground distorts its role in our lives in unhealthy ways.

Come on, every generation, as it ages, thinks the younger generations are too sexualized. (These kids today, with their jungle music and their petting parties!) This has been going on throughout recorded history. You'd think we'd learn something about our own human nature by that fact.

Where I grew up in Indiana, the KKK ruled the state in the first couple of decades of the last century, and one of their main PR gigs was to ride up to places where young people would gather to make out, and stop them. These events were highly publicized and key to the Klan's image as protector of the American way of life. They wanted, among other things, to prevent the degradation of our society by lust.

I'm not comparing the forces at war against sex and lust and porn today to the Klan, I'm just saying that they are carrying on some of their traditions.

And it makes me really nervous when people start talking about sex being "sacred." To call it that places an importance upon it that strikes me as a bit dangerous. Sex should not have that kind of power over us. Sex has a place in every person's healthy lifestyle, and we would do well to talk to our children about what that place is, instead of trying to shelter them from knowing about it or coming in contact with it, which is fruitless and ultimately damaging to them.

Me, I've had some sacred sex, and I've had some pretty pathetic sex as well. I've had sex to console myself, to feel better about myself, and also because I loved and really felt a connection to my partner. And you know what? All of it is okay! I might have vastly preferred the great sex over the bad, but I would never choose to give up the option to have bad sex, or to think that it was a transgression of the role of sex to use it in that way. Holy cripes, it's just sex! Sometimes you eat four-star, and sometimes you eat at McDonalds, you know what I'm sayin?

I know, I compare sex to eating at my peril. How DARE I?

When I was under 18, I had sex with a few men who were over 18, and believe me, I was fully capable of "consent," and it makes me really angry to think that someone might have stepped in and told me that I wasn't, or tried to prosecute my partner in the deed. That's just ridiculous. We need to stop getting hysterical about young women (for they seem to be the focus) giving blowjobs, having sex, and taking their tops off for cameras. Of course children haven't yet developed to the extent that they are capable of consent when an adult is involved, but young women certainly are. We just want to protect them, and keep them from making what some of us would call bad choices, and perhaps we want to also establish their less-than-equal role in our society, but the urge to protect should not be confused with the fact that young women are fully capable of deciding for themselves, and living with the consequences.

[David]

All right, all right. I used the word "sacred" a dozen too many times. All I'm trying to say, where the right is concerned is: let's say sex is sacred. (I'm actually OK with that. Many mundane or everyday things are sacred; the two aren't mutually exclusive. The sacredness of Macdonalds' sex and four-star Michelin-guide sex isn't determined by the haste, or their quality, or the furtiveness of the moment, but by the power inherent in the act itself.)

But do you really want (I say to the Religious Right) to legislate in the area of the sacred? That seems like a really bad idea -- and it seems like we've learned that before.

[Vikki]

David, I gotcha, but I would disagree only to say that the power lies in the quality.

I just can't believe that 2-minute sex in a gas station bathroom is "sacred," no matter how you define that word.

But maybe I'm doing it wrong. Hell, it wouldn't be the first time.