posted
I would like to welcome everyone to the Giants Shadow Bar (a game). Where you can drink til' you can't type strait or talk til' you can't talk no more. But just remember to enjoy yourself.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sexuality is not just sexual intercourse. It is human touch. A woman stroking the cheek of her premature infant great-grandson on the one place not covered by tubes and needles is an expression of sexuality. So is a teenage boy snuggling his beloved grandfather before he passed away. Sexuality is bigger than sex.
I don't agree with that. I think they are changing the word to mean something that people don't really mean by it, and that tends to confuse things. That is "Intimacy" they are talking about, not "Sexuality". Sexuality, I think, refers only to love in a romantic and/or physical sense -
And we wonder why the Catholic Church is struggling with issues of sexual abuse?
HELLO! WAKE UP, PEOPLE!!!
There is a decided difference (as Tres pointed out earlier) between "SEXUALITY" and "INTIMACY" -- and there had better be a pretty big divide between the two when it comes to relationships between parents/children and grandparents/children.
This "sexuality" talk that links SAFE, NURTURING TOUCH -- i.e., AFFECTION -- as SEXUALITY, is just another way the Catholic Church (IMHO) is trying to smoothe over past (and probably still continuing) indiscretions.
Whoever that speaker was was WRONG.
Let me tell you about being the mother of an infant with about 2 inches of flesh available to be touched because the rest of that infant was covered in needles and tubes and was tied down to rpevent thrashing.
The stroking of the two square inches (and the singing of lullabyes, hymns, reading stories, talking inanely for hours on end) was about:
Comfort Nurture Blessing Reassurance
NOT SEX.
Sex is a physical act of stimulation designed to give physical pleasure of especially the erogenous zones (orgasm/release from sexual tension brought about by using touch, smell, sound, etc., designed to arouse sexual tension in the body of your partner, and in your body).
When a church -- with a high rate of sexual abuse cases -- is espousing the act of nurture and affection between caregiving adults and children-teens as a form of sexuality, I am sickened. Appalled. Heartbroken.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shan, I'm not going to debate the issues of faith, however, I will say: let's not brand Catholicism alone with their problems in this area; numerous religious organizations, and other organizations (non-religious) have had serious issues with Sex impacting the way they work (hello, TailHook? Hello, Southern Baptist Conference 1970s style?)
The reality is, we have all of these issues around sex, and as a result, we get into problems.
So, I wouldn't lavish this all on the "Catholic church is evil" bit. I haven't heard that method expoused by them directly, but I've heard similar expoused by a lot of groups - including MTV's "Love Calls" so, hey, everyone want to set their own definitions.
Getting back to the thread title: my wife & I celebrated a big anniversary yesterday (we'll say more then five and less then 15, how about that).
And here's what I can tell you: a good relationship does fine sex or no, it's the intimacy that matters; a bad relationship happens and ends fast because sex is all their is. Sex can be a crutch, or it can be a solid part of your life that works
But it is not the end-all-be-all of a relationship. Trust me, Sex doesn't pay the bills, turn the lights on, take out the trash, etc. But, once a day or so, it's a great way to escape all of those things Posts: 202 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Calm down. You are misunderstanding me. I am talking about a wider definition of sexuality than you are comfortable with and that's fine. As I said, you can use the term "physical intimacy" instead.
You wrote about how physical touch in the case of the infant is about Comfort, Nurture, Blessing, Reassurance. Isn't sex, the way it is supposed to be, about the same things? It is all part of our human need and our human gift to express ourselves to each other through touch.
quote: Sex is a physical act of stimulation designed to give physical pleasure of especially the erogenous zones (orgasm/release from sexual tension brought about by using touch, smell, sound, etc., designed to arouse sexual tension in the body of your partner, and in your body).
Sexuality is about so much more than that. Understanding it in only that way cheapens it and us and makes it a perversion.
No one is at all suggesting that the kind of sex you describe is a valid expression of love when talking about children.
Shan, please believe me when I say that I take the sexual abuse of children by priests very seriously. My cousin (not the speaker I am talking about) is very probably the world's foremost champion for victims of sexual abuse by priests That is not an exaggeration - books have been written about his struggle. I say this not to boast, but so that you will take me seriously when I tell you that I take this seriously and know something about it.
A better understanding of physical intimacy and its rightful and sacramental nature is part of the solution. Our ideas about intimacy, sex, and sexuality have been warped by generations of trying to close off and repress all sexuality so that we have no idea how to express it in a healthy, appropriate, sacramental way. This is what leads to the kind of perversion that we both rightly abhore.
That and a hierarchical system that lacks transparency and is designed to keep secrets. But that is another conversation.
Let's please keep discussing this either here on in another thread. Or feel free to e-mail me. It is very important that we understand each other on this.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Absolutely, nurturing qualities belong in a sexual relationship.
However, I HIGHLY and VEHEMENTLY disagree with the way the speaker is phrasing it.
To call the nurture given by a parent to a child, or a grandparent to a child (or for that matter, any adult in relationship to a minor) a "sexual" relationship is WRONG.
IMHO.
And I don't think I'm wrong.
And I am certainly glad that you and your cousin champion the rights of sexual abuse victims -- I think the championing would go a lot farther if the dividing line between appropriate touch and nurture for adult:adult as compared to adult: child was made much more clear.
And thank you for your concern, but really, I am quite calm. I am being forceful and very vehemently clear, yes. For a variety of reasons. Not least of which is that I, too, have experience working as an individual and at policy levels on this issue.
Thank you for the bump and the response. Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shan: To call the nurture given by a parent to a child, or a grandparent to a child (or for that matter, any adult in relationship to a minor) a "sexual" relationship is WRONG.
posted
I think the only reason you guys feel like it's wrong and kmbboots doesn't is that she views the word "sexual" in a different way than you guys do.
And honestly, I wish that "sexual" didn't have so many strings attached to it.
quote:And honestly, I wish that "sexual" didn't have so many strings attached to it.
Unfortunately, it does, and those strings will not be easily removed, principally because some of those strings have been legitimately borne from the natural ambiguity of language, and from the often vast differences between common, scientific, and legal definitions of the same words.
It would be a terrible disservice to simply remove all the "strings" from the word unless you can first introduce more precise terms to carry the other baggage. By this I mean, removing the "erogenous" connotations from the designation "sexual" especially in the way Shan is talking about (assuming I understand him) is more likely to allow sexual predators and their political allies to justify their actions.
Aside from that, neutering "sexual" in that way also robs our language of a perfectly useful and still powerful word. If "sexual" comes to mean any physical interaction with another, then patting your son on the back becomes "sexual intercourse" or perhaps even "sexual assault", if it's unwelcome contact.
I think a more useful campaign would be to increase the use of the word "intimacy". You can speak of "physical intimacy" and how it is a necessary and beautiful part of adult/children relationships and still steer clear of any suggestion that you are also including erotic (i.e. "sexual") contact. Also, even if such physical intimacy as kmbboots is talking about is sexual in a clinical sense, (and I think there is ample room for debate on that topic), "sexual" in that context would still be a clinical or scientific use of the word, not the way the word is used colloquially. I'm not sure I see the value in trying to force a clinical definition into colloquial use when "intimate" is already available and already carries the colloquial meaning kmbboots seems to want to grant to (or enhance for) "sexual".
kmbboots, if I'm misreading you, please let me know. What other meaning for "sexual" are you trying to promote that "intimate" doesn't share?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's right on the money, Karl. Part of nurture and caregiving includes some very physical aspects . . . diaper changing, bathing, feeding -- not to mention rocking, holding, hugging, wiping tears, hand-holding, carrying, etc.
These activities are very intimate in many ways. But when adults are caring for children (or other less capable adults, for that matter), these activities should not occur in a sexualized manner.
Let me rephrase:
Has food played a role in eroticism? You bet. Massage? Of course. Hand-holding, hugging, bathing? Absolutely. In the context of adult-to-adult relationships, wherein sexual activity is either the goal, or a nice extra.
Does that mean that every time someone eats a meal, holds a hand, gets a massage, they are looking for sex? I don't think so. Nor do I regard these basic activities as sexual in nature -- no matter what we make of them during certain other activities in our life.
"Intimate" is a different kettle of fish. With a definition that contains many uses, and can be reasonably assigned to the safe nurture and caregiving that occurs in context of the adult:child relationships.
Edit to add:
quote: By this I mean, removing the "erogenous" connotations from the designation "sexual" especially in the way Shan is talking about (assuming I understand him) is more likely to allow sexual predators and their political allies to justify their actions.
Yep -- that is a big concern for me, Karl. And, as a mom, I also don't think "motherhood" needs to become the starting point for a litany of reasons/excuses/justifications for sexualized adult:child relationships.
As a matter of fact, I do have to confess to being QUITE irritated at the designation of "sexual" touch to a mom that is caring for her baby on life support. Who the hell can even THINK of sex at a time like that? Hello?
quote:As a matter of fact, I do have to confess to being QUITE irritated at the designation of "sexual" touch to a mom that is caring for her baby on life support. Who the hell can even THINK of sex at a time like that? Hello?
I agree. This does seem, to me, to be such an unusual use of the word "sexual" that it makes very little sense to use it if you are trying to increase communication or understanding. I can't make sense of using that word in that context except as a nod to some other political agenda.
That said, I also agree that sex and sexuality carry way too much baggage in our country, often making frank discourse difficult. I applaud reasonable efforts to de-stigmatize sex in the appropriate setting. However, the case you point out above doesn't seem to me to be an appropriate use of the word, nor does that particular setting seem like an appropriate venue for trying to de-stigmatize "sexual", even if you agree such de-stigmatizing is otherwise a good thing.
In fact, I can't think of any definition of "sexual" (dictionary, clinical, scientific, or common usage) that would include such touching. It seems to me that the speaker is defining "sexual" in such a unique or private way as to hinder communication rather than help it.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shan, I'm still not making myself clear. And I don't think that, for this discussion, it is at all necessary that I change your minds about the word "sexual". As I have said (a few times now) "physical intimacy" works just fine. In the definition I was using "sex" is a subset of "erotic sexuality", which is a subset of "sexuality", which is a subset of intimacy. The problem of using just intimacy, is that intimacy doesn't require touch.
I was not describing the touch of a great-grandmother as erotic. At all. No one is saying that erotic touch is ever justified with children. I was not talking about erotic sexuality.
The problem that has led to the abuse is not that the lines between appropriate, healthy expressions of physical intimacy have been blurred to make everything "okay". Rather is is that the lines have disappeared entirely as everything, all of it, has been labeled "evil".
I understand that the term "sexuality" carries baggage. Please don't let that become a stumbling block to the discussion.
The point I was trying to make about sex is that it is not just about eroticism. It is not just a matter of arousal and release. When properly used it is an expression of a relationship - just as any other kind of intimate touch is.
Here is another example that may help: My grandparents adored each other. When my grandmother had a back injury, she had to use a special hospital bed for a while. My grandfather confessed to my dad that he missed sleeping with his wife. Papa was, I believe, 92 at the time and Nana would have been 85. I doubt there was a lot of arousal and release. There was a need for a physically intimate expression of their love for each other.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem of using just intimacy, is that intimacy doesn't require touch.
But it also doesn't exclude touch, and adding "physical" to it clarifies what kind of intimacy you mean.
quote:When properly used it is an expression of a relationship - just as any other kind of intimate touch is.
I disagree. When properly used, the word "sexual" is most emphatically not like "any other kind of intimate touch", and that's the crux of the disagreement.
Yes, a sexual relationship can and usually should include many other aspects that are not specifically coital, genital, or erotic, but those are extra-sexual aspects of a relationship that is also sexual. They are not all different expressions of the sexual nature of the relationship.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we may be seeing this through the wrong end of the telescope, partially because of lack of context and partly because of the ambiguity of the language as it was used.
I think the person at kmb's class was not trying to say that all those things are sexual, but that as humans we need *physical* expressions of love and that we need to be open to receiving them in various ways. In other words sex is, just like those other things he mentioned, a natural, tender, innocent expression of love. I think he was trying to equate them in *that* sense, not in the quasi-freudian sense that every touch is sexual.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
"Our relationship was unfulflling because it was strictly sexual"
"Now that I've found someone who enjoys cuddling, touching, and other physical intimacy as much as I do, I find the sexual aspect of our relationship is more enjoyable and meaningful."
"I know him intimately, though our relationship was never sexual."
While the use of "sexual" in these sentences does imply an exclusion of other forms of physical and emotional intimacy, they also illustrate why such exclusion is essential if the word "sexual" is to retain any meaning. If "sexual" were to include other forms of touch, those sentences would make little sense, or at the very least would not make the sense they do now.
How would you word the sentences above to say the same thing if you expand "sexual" to include things that are not coital, genital, or erotic?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem of using just intimacy, is that intimacy doesn't require touch.
But it also doesn't exclude touch, and adding "physical" to it clarifies what kind of intimacy you mean.
Karl, how many times would you like me to say that "physical intimacy" works fine for the purposes of this discussion?
quote:
quote:When properly used it is an expression of a relationship - just as any other kind of intimate touch is.
I disagree. When properly used, the word "sexual" is most emphatically not like "any other kind of intimate touch", and that's the crux of the disagreement.
When properly used sex - not the term, but sex itself - is an expression of a relationship. A hug is an expression of a relationship, as is a handshake. Different relationships, different expressions.
I had (foolishly) moved on from the discussion of terms.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
I think your point is understood (and a good one, as well). My point is that his saying those obviously non-sexual (by definition) things were sexual was, IMO, metaphorical speech.
I wasn't there, but I sincerely doubt the speaker or the audience were confused in the way that you and Shan seem to fear.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Karl, how many times would you like me to say that "physical intimacy" works fine for the purposes of this discussion?
I'm not being purposely obtuse, though clearly I'm misunderstanding what you are saying. This is exacerbated by phrases like this:
quote:The point I was trying to make about sex is that it is not just about eroticism. It is not just a matter of arousal and release.
While I might agree that "sex" isn't just about arousal and release, per se, I'm not sure I agree that it is not about eroticism. What is sex about other than eroticism in some form?
My point is that although I agree that a sexual relationship can include many other forms of physical intimacy that are not erotic, coital, genital, etc., "sexual" implies those things.
Please know that I'm not just trying to get the last word in. It seems to me that you are espousing some use of the word "sexual" that I don't think I can agree is legitimate if the word it to retain its primary meaning. What, specifically, can "sexual" mean that is not coital, erotic, or arousal/release?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I think your point is understood (and a good one, as well). My point is that his saying those obviously non-sexual (by definition) things were sexual was, IMO, metaphorical speech.
I wasn't there, but I sincerely doubt the speaker or the audience were confused in the way that you and Shan seem to fear.
Of course, I wasn't there either. All I have to go on is kmbboots' original post. I disagree with the use of the word "sexual" in the way it is used in that post for the reasons I explain above.
I understand your point that perhaps it is metaphorical speech. However, I question its usefulness as metaphor. The word necessarily carries with it the baggage it has, and thus, as metaphor, will color the thing it is being used to represent.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: However, I question its usefulness as metaphor. The word necessarily carries with it the baggage it has, and thus, as metaphor, will color the thing it is being used to represent.
I gathered the point was to try to remove some of that baggage... we are talking about Catholics here.
I really just think there was something lost in translation. I got instantly what kmb was getting at and really liked the speech, though I completely agree that the logical implications of what was said (taken as written) would rob English of a perfectly useful (in fact, a necessary) word.
heh. Did I just answer the title question?
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
My mistake was in introducing the term here without either the time or the expertise to explain it in the way that it was introduced during the presentation. We also had sufficient context to overcome the "baggage" as a large part of the presentation was about overcoming the baggage. Password is entirely correct that neither the speaker nor the audience were confused. I regret this error. Seriously, if it bugs you, let it go. This is now four times.
The term was used in this context: "Sexuality is the desire for intimacy, both emotionally and physically. It is the physiological and psychological grounding of our capacity to love. At is undistorted best, our sexuality is that basic eros of our humanness - urging, pulling, driving us out of loneliness into communion; out of stagnation and into creativity." James Nelson
James Nelson, the man our presenter was quoting and who I am quoting here, is a fairly important theologian and professor of Christian ethics. I think you might be interested in reading more from him. He has written many books:
I am not trying to say that we should drag the erotic into where it doesn't belong. I am trying to say that all physical intimicy should be infused with the divine. When it isn't it becomes, at best, barren.
quote:I regret this error. Seriously, if it bugs you, let it go. This is now four times.
I'll leave the discussion, then, as I have had no intent to harp on anything. My intent was clarification, both of what I wanted to say, and what you were trying to say. I try not to make a habit of re-iterating my point just to see my words in print, therefore, if I appear to not have "let something go" it's because I thought I saw the chance of clearing up miscommunication. Though, rather than risk a 5th time, I'll just bow out. Sorry if I've offended.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Karl, you never offend me. I just ran out of ways to say that if using the tem "sexuality" carried enough baggage to be an obstacle, we could agree to not use it. edit to add: It just felt like I had already surrendered the point two pages ago. Sorry that I was cranky.
I am certainly interested in continuing the discussion with you - any discussion with you, actually. Without the offending word.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*grin* I was going to try to clarify where I thought kate might have been coming from using some of James Nelson's writings. Glad to know I was on the right track.
It’s good stuff if you get a chance to read it. I think one of the distinctions that counld be clearer is “sexuality” as a core aspect of humanity whether or not the person is sexually active vs “sexual activity” (not just intercourse). One of the key concepts that folks like Nelson are trying to make is that everyone has, participates in, and expresses sexuality, even if they are completely celibate. I think that is why the word sexuality, specifically, was used, rather than substituting intimacy. One of the key concerns of the Catholic church is, obviously, the healthy expression of sexuality and acknowledgement of oneself as a sexual being within a celibate lifestyle. "Sexuality" defined this way, is not necessarily erotic. I think that the quote kate gave, without the background distinctions and boundary drawing, probably gave the wrong impression. And maybe for the purposes of this discussion it is the wrong word to use. But I can absolutely guarentee that the person using it, if they were drawing from Nelson's work, was NOT advocating the eroticization of parent-child relationships.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am certainly interested in continuing the discussion with you - any discussion with you, actually. Without the offending word.
Actually, I'm not sure anything else is being discussed on the thread anymore. :bushing:
Words and their meanings are very important to me, which is probaby why I appear to be harping on the point. I know that you conceded the point as far as this thread goes. I wasn't so much looking for surrender as for consensus. I don't mean that I want you to just accept my point, but each time you "conceded" for the sake of this thread, you seemed to maintain that there is a non-erotic use of "sexual" that we just weren't understanding. I simply wanted to know what that usage was.
I can understand what was mentioned about metaphor, and also what dkw wrote above. I'm still not sure I agree the word isn't being somewhat bastardized by that usage. I was thinking about this a lot over lunch and the only non-erotic sense I could think of that the word has is in regards to the difference between men and women as separate sexes. I don't think that is quite what you and dkw are talking about either, is it? As for other meanings, dictionary.com doesn't list any, at least.
I never meant to imply that Nelson (or anyone) was advocating blurring the lines of sexuality for nefarious reasons, but I think that using the word too loosely can open it up for being co-opted by those who would. It's entirely possible that he defined his terms as he was using them and he was therefore understood by his audience. If nothing else, though, by so doing, he has drastically limited his quotability.
At any rate, I'm glad I didn't offend you. I certainly didn't intend to. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahh. I see. I thought it was an obstacle to the discussion, whereas it had actually become the discussion. That's different. Shall we continue here or a different thread?
Also, I ask your indulgence. My understanding of this (such as it is) is intuitive rather than learned. This make it tougher for me to articulate.
Did you get a chance to look at the Nelson article?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
We can continue here if no one objects, or if, once I'm done with the article, I think of something that might have broader appeal I'll start a new thread.
(I'm heading home from work now, though, so I might not post until tomorrow.)
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I am not trying to say that we should drag the erotic into where it doesn't belong. I am trying to say that all physical intimicy should be infused with the divine. When it isn't it becomes, at best, barren.
OK, I read the article linked. Basically he argues that there is a shift happening in religious perceptions of human sexuality. He then defines 7 signs of this shift. I can see why his arguement could be comforting or appealing to modern or progressive Christians. Not being Christian myself, I didn't see a whole lot I felt qualified to comment on. He basically describes an evolution of Christian thought on sexuality, and I imagine thoughtful Christians can read this with rejoicing, finding it evidence of God's bringing His children closer to some universal truths.
From an athiest/agnostic perspective, however, the article can also be viewed as more Christian apologetics. Between the lines it could be describing a philosophy (Christianity) trying to regain lost ground in a world whose changing sexual attitudes threaten it with irrelevance. Now, I know that's not his intent, of course, but the article can certainly be viewed as evidence of such from an outside perspective.
I don't have any problems with his 7 signs insofar as they describe trends in Christian thought. Most of them I view as at least innocuous if not actually welcome.
Number 4 (a trend from viewing salvation as anti-sexuxal towards a view of "sexual salvation") intrigues me. I wholeheartedly agree with this quote:
quote:Sexual sanctification can mean growth in bodily sef-acceptance, in the capacity for sensuousness, in the capacity for play, in the diffusion of the erotic throughout the body (rather than in its genitalization) and in the embrace of the androgynous possibility.
I would love to know to what degree his concept of the "androgynous possibility" and mine converge, though I imagine there are some marked differences, too.
Point number 7 (a shift from understanding sexuality as a private issue to understanding it as a personal and public one) unsettles me. Not that I disagree that such a shift exists, but it means something different to me as a gay man than I'm sure it means to Mr. Nelson. I understand his points and largely agree with them. To the extent that he simply points out this sign and doesn't call for a reaction to it one way or the other, I have no problem with the article itself. This sign unsettles me, though, because the most visible, outspoken, and active manifestation of this shift has been the enormous push in many churches to legally and officially damn homosexuals to second-class relationships.
One sentence which I have to actively not take offense to is this:
quote:"Hurt, boredom and disease have sobered more than a few--and the forces of religous and political reacton rejoice."
If I grant that his point in saying this is that the religious rejoice in a "seen the error of their ways and returned to the flock" kind of "sobering", then I can understand the sentiment, though I disagree with the use of the word "political" in that sentence. Every other way that I can interpret that sentence sickens me.
So, now that I've read the article, is there anything specific about it you wanted to discuss? Or about my reaction to it? Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I wish that I could find an article of his that more clearly outlines his views instead of his observations - I'll keep looking.
My first reaction to your reaction was that I read the sentence above ("Hurt, boredom...") entirely differently. My take on it was that Nelson thought that this is a bad thing - not including himself among the "forces of religious and political reaction". I thought that he was saying that those forces were taking advantage of the "sobering" to return to the old ways and to push a conservative agenda.
Does this makes sense? Perhaps I read too optimistically. I'll look at it again.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, now that you mention it, I'm sure that sentence could be meant the way you took it. The biggest problem with the example you linked to is that it doesn't give me enough of a feeling of what he thinks about these observations.
So, assuming you are right about your estimation of the intent of that sentence, let me revise my reaction to "the idea of that kind of rejoicing sickens me." Better?
I am interested if you can find something that better illustrates his views rather than just observations.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Point number 7 (a shift from understanding sexuality as a private issue to understanding it as a personal and public one) unsettles me. Not that I disagree that such a shift exists, but it means something different to me as a gay man than I'm sure it means to Mr. Nelson. I understand his points and largely agree with them. To the extent that he simply points out this sign and doesn't call for a reaction to it one way or the other, I have no problem with the article itself. This sign unsettles me, though, because the most visible, outspoken, and active manifestation of this shift has been the enormous push in many churches to legally and officially damn homosexuals to second-class relationships.
Karl, I'm assuming that you wouldn't recognize the name of the seminary he taught at (he's retired now) from the intro to the article -- it's a United Church of Christ school and one of the leaders in that denomination's Open and Affirming movement. Also the article was written in 1987, when the various "reconciling," "more light," "open and affirming" movements were gaining steam. So I'm pretty sure the shift he was seeing was religious people begining to see sexual orientation as a social justice/civil rights issue. The push you refer to is a reaction to that shift.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In regards to the "rejoice" quote, I think you have to look at the sentence before it: "The sexual revolution of the ‘60s and ‘70s is mostly over, and some of its superficial and exploitative forms of freedom have proved to be just that. Hurt, boredom and disease have sobered more than a few . . ." What is being rejoiced in is a return to concern about sexual ethics, but now an ethics centered on building healthy relationships rather than lists of prohibited acts.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks dkw. No, I didn't recognize the seminary. I don't know a lot about the Open and Affirming movement.
Regarding the "rejoice" quote, I did try to take it in context. I just found the context to be ambiguous, at least for a person such as myself, unfamiliar with any of the author's other works. And I did grant that the intended use of the phrase was likely benign. It's a hot button issue for me, though, so while I can give the benefit of the doubt, I'm also wary of underlying implications.
BTW, I appreciate when you comment on my posts. You are one of the people who most underscores for me what I miss about Christian fellowship. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Books are better, but harder to share over the internet.
quote: I would love to know to what degree his concept of the "androgynous possibility" and mine converge, though I imagine there are some marked differences, too.
I, personally, managed to reconcile my attitude toward sexuality and my faith almost as soon as I had an attitude toward sexuality. I know a great many people who are not so fortunate. I have seen enormous hurt done by a Church I love. So you can, I think, understand why I feel that the fact that we are quoting this man (and others like him) in Catholic classes is a source of great hope for me.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
