Category Archives: christian sexism

Women need respect, men need love (3) Men need love, and not just sex…


This is the third part in my ‘Women need respect, men need love’ series (part 2 here), where I try to look at the male side of the whole ‘women need love, men need respect’ mess, which will alo be the longest of the three. (After all, the only perspective I can write from is from that of a straight married man.) And I must say that I’m appalled by how men are described in this kind of discourse, as if we are oversexed animals driven only by a few primitive needs, with no selfcontrol and not really a need for love even.See also for example my post On similar misandry in Christian fundamentalism and consumer capitalism? from 5 years ago already. Porn and a certain kind of sexist fundamentalism are creepily close actually, and the same dehumanising ideology under porn and hook-up ideology is also present in this kind of funamentalism. The only main difference I can make out is that one side gives in to the animalistic sexuality they see as default, while the other more or less tries to tame it in marriages. But apart from that they’re rather the same, n

From the first paragraph of the ‘love and respect’ book, underlining done by sheila Gregoire

matter how much pretence of being ‘biblical’.

It would be an understatement I felt quite insulted as a man and as a Christian when I read Sheila Gregoires overview of the ‘love and respect’ view of what men want sexually and how they should be ‘respected’  I still feel the same way every time I reread it. Let’s add a shortened version here to refresh:

She honors her husband’s authority in the marriage, allowing him to make the decisions. She does not speak up when she disagrees with him, even if he is being selfish and seriously burdening her.(…)This is true even in cases where he is a workaholic; drinking too much; or having an affair. (…) No matter what, in all of these cases, she regularly gives him sexual release, without any regard for her own feelings, understanding that this is a need that he has, and that he cannot show her love without it. (source)

There’s a lot of toxic things in here, but at this moment there ‘s 3 very dangerous things jumping out for me:(1) erasing communication in a relationship will never do any good, and can only make it worse for both partners (2) the idea that a man feels respected when he’s tread as a despotic narcissist is just beyond alien to me. How you can have an intimate relationship without communication?
But the ultimate creepiness, and the ultimate degradation of the male side in the equation is like I already said (3); the idea that mere ‘sex as release’ is the driving need for men.

And then to say that those views are based on a verse from Paul that says that men need to love their wives as themselves is too much cognitive dissonance for me to handle. Note that Paul uses the verse to correct an asymmetry in gender patterns in his world, not at all to express pop-psychological needs, let alone express an absolute need for men and a desire for women that’s less important as the ‘love and respect’ doctrine seems to teach. I would assume it would be the other way around anyway: Love your wife as yourself is the most important command here, and there’s no way explaining it away if you really strive to be ‘biblical’. But alas; I have given up believing that US fundamentalists care one inch about being biblical though, so I’m not surprised anymore by this butchering of scripture, although it saddens me a lot to see how this kind of thinking can vaccinate couples against deep intimacy. Which is a very hideous thing!

Yes, no one can deny that in a way men need respect (as all people do), but I’ve already there is no actual respect in being treated as an entitled narcissist. Gender is irrelevant even, all people need basic respect, and all relationships need mutuality in that, especially if we’re speaking about an intimate relationship. Let’s also remark again that there is absolutely no respect in  not being communicated to.

Now let’s take this overview of what the ‘love and respect’ doctrine teaches about men and their ‘need for sex’:

Men need physical release. They experience this as respect. If you don’t give it to them, they will be tempted to have affairs or to ogle other women.
Sheila Gregoire summarising ‘love and respect’

This kind of thinking might come from a man who wants to excuse his own weaknesses, but still is extremely denigrating and dehumanising to men. Why does the worst misandry always come from men who claim to defend their own gender? Yes, men desire sexual release among other things, but we are humans, not animal slaves to our bodies, and we certainly will survive without ‘getting release’. Men can and should have selfcontrol. That’s what the bible tells us too. That’s what I was told as a teenager as one of the reasons why having no premarital sex is a good idea: it’s a training in selfcontrol, and even within marriage there will be times that there is no sex. And a man is able to survive that, and love his wife. And still have other forms of intimacy with her.

It’s also nonsense to say that mere ‘physical release’ is the reason of most affairs. Most men are looking for something that’s missing in their relationship. Often even love and being understood and stuff like that.

The ‘men just need sex’ trope, combined with the myth of the absence of male selfcontrol is not just insulting, but it’s also very destructive for men as well as for their relationships when they start to believe that crap, making them aim for much less than they could and should be. Which isn’t only bad for them, but also for their lovers to, who deserve much better.

But we probably shouldn’t be surprised that some people think this way: it’s the underpinnings of the modern Western porn industry, basic individualistic consumerism, and our human psychology often works with self-fulfilling prophecies: strong beliefs of not being able to do something will very often manifest themselves and be affirmed. It’s bad enough that certain corners of the non-Christian world sell us this nonsense to get people hooked in their web of consumerist screwed-upness, but I expect more from Christians than a complete disbelief in male selfcontrol, and a higher view of what men expect from sex and relationships too.

Both men and women deserve better.

But yes, the male body desires sexual release. (Just as women have a sex drive too by the way) And yet that doesn’t mean that every sexual release as such will actually satisfy or fulfil us in any way. Or that a man always needs to get everything a body asks for. We’re not simple bodily animals. My body also wants sleep at moments that I can’t get it, and more food than is good for me. Not listening to your bodies needs is what makes us human. And just treating sex as mere release is just masturbation, and adding a human partner will not make much difference for that in a way. Except that we use another human being, that we are commanded to love as ourselves according to the bible verse behind the ‘love and respect’ logic to get that physical release.

It makes me feel sad and lonely that this is what people think of sex, even within marriage.  Or of sex at all. If that would be all there was to it I would choose a life of celibacy, and pray to God to make me asexual. Or become one of those people who think sex is indeed by definition dirty, and always a sin and a weakness.

I’d even say that the mere idea that anyone would feel respected by getting sex-as-mere-release from a partner that doesn’t even want it without any actual emotional connection is beyond creepy. It’s a recipe for marital rape even, which I suppose to be punishable by law in any civilised modern country. Any man who’s content with that has no clue what intimacy is.

If that is really what a Christian book about marriage teaches, something is beyond wrong, antichrist even.

But it’s also no wonder that a man who has such a low view of sex, which is affirmed by his experience, might have no qualms with exchanging the source of the ‘relief’ with another one, be it porn, or maybe an affair in which more than this approach to sex is explored or the humanity that the marriage is vaccinated to by this destructive doctrine is sought back.

Because yes, as is very evident, men still need love. We’re as human as women and children are, and don’t differ much from them. Only the worst psychopath who tragically doesn’t have all of his humanity together might not. And while our body might desire sexual release, that is only a small part of the story, and probably one of our desires that is easiest put aside, or transformed into something else.

As Shane Claiborne says:

If we are able to have a healthier understanding of sexuality and to celebrate singleness as well as marriage and family, then we can transcend some of this. One of my mentors is a celibate monk, and he says we can live without sex but we can’t live without love. And there are a lot of people who have a lot of sex and never experience love, and people who never have sex [but] have deep experiences of intimacy and love. (the irresistible revolution)

Everybody needs love.
It’s much more basic than needing sex. And more destructive if we don’t get it.

The big problem is this whole ‘all we need is sex’ stuff. It can never satisfy. It empties sex of meaning and make sex itself more unsatisfying, which is quite ironic when you have put all your hope for fulfilment in sex.

You won’t get any fulfilment, but you will be told that’s all there is.

And this mess is supposed to be male chauvinism… It’s a good recipe for men making themselves worse than they could be, more sinful, and having terrible loveless sex-lives.

If that isn’t beyond sad?

what do you think?

peace

Bram

Women need respect, men need love (2): Women need respect!


From the first paragraph of the ‘love and respect’ book, underlining done by sheila Gregoire

In part 1 of this series I reacted against the slogan ‘women need love, men need respect’ that seems a US import slogan linked to bad marriage advice that is rather pervasive in certain evangelical circles, with some pop-psychological weirdness attached to it.

I am well aware that it should be more than obvious that all people, of all genders need both love and respect, in and out of marriage relationships. There should be no question about that. And actually, all that I’m saying here should just be common sense. I’m rather shocked that it isn’t for some people. But as my title indicates,  I strongly feel that it might good to emphasise, in our time and culture, that women really need respect and men really need love too.

I’ve already touched upon in my last post that the original version of the saying has been abused and made into an ideology that has been destructive for vulnerable marriages. The series on Sheila Gregoires blog from last week had some very extreme examples of that. (Watch out, disturbing stories there)
Yes, it’s true that normal people with healthy relationship skills and enough love and respect probably would just take a message of ‘don’t be selfish’ from the book, as Sheila already said in her post, but there’s still a poison in the book, and it seems also in similar ‘Christian marriage books’ that focus on the supposed needs of the man which are much more important that those of the wife. Not everybody gets bitten when they meet an European adder, and because a healthy person usually won’t die when bitten, that we need to encourage all people to go play with adders, is it?

I50861956_342361363022927_3993856368762159104_nt’s quite clear if you actually read the verse that the whole theory is built on that ‘psychological needs’ are not what Paul had in mind in Ephesians 5:33, and none of the abuse that the book brought haver happened if men would actually love their wife as they love themselves, as that verse also very clearly says. Which is a clear command, and not a hint about pop-psychological needs.

The poison is very clear if we follow Sheilas series (1 2 3 4), and damaging for both sexes: the advice of unconditional respect for the man can lead to bad relationships and ruined marriages.
Which by the way means that on the other side of each of these stories the teaching has turned a man into someone who isn’t even able to be in a healthy relationship, and -very ironically since we’re speaking about supposedly Christian teaching here-, a bigger sinner than he should and could have been, led astray from Christlikeness and turned into the likeness and image of a toxic ‘manliness’ that is in certain aspects the opposite of how Christ wants us to grow. Entitled narcissism is a good way to create hell here on Earth, both for yourself and the people closest to you. But we will not focus on the the male side here, which will be for a next post.

So let’s go back to the title: Women need respect!

Yes, I know: It’s very weird and discouraging that such a thing even needs to be said. Someone once said that feminism is the radical idea that women are human, and the sad thing is that we still need to hear that in Western society of the 21st century sometimes. Porn culture and male-dominated sexism are still pervasive in our world, turning the sexes against each other. And this often means that even the basic respect of treating the other like a person is lacking.
As a Christian we should never join this toxic tendency, for it is pure antichrist toxicity. Jesus Himself treated everyone as a person, and showed a lot of respect for all kinds of people who were often not treated as a full person in his own culture and society. Sadly this indeed included women too in his world, as it sometimes does today. But he didn’t bother with those societal patterns at all and broke all of the rules whenever they were in conflict with ‘love your neighbour’.

Think for example of the Samaritan woman in John 4, with whom a lot of barriers existed: Men didn’t talk to women, Jews didn’t talk to Samaritans, and so on. Jesus doesn’t bother at all with these things. Neither did he bother with those petty restrictions he when Mary of Bethany breaks all societal patterns  in which only men could listen to a rabbi. Or when they bring the woman caught in adultery before him.
Jesus certainly didn’t find the idea that ‘women are human’ a radical idea, even though some of the people around him might have been shocked by his inclusion of women as much as with his inclusion of both the oppressed and outcasts like the Samaritans and chronically ill, as well as the oppressors -who also were outcasts- in the form of the Roman soldiers. But his friendships with women were very remarkable for his time and culture, especially the gospel of Luke was quite scandalous in that regard!

All of this is basic biblical knowledge. If we are to call ourselves Christians this means that any societal rule that prevents us from respecting others made in the Divine Image should be dismissed. I don’t even need to refer to my own adherence to Christianity though, since this is a very basic form of humanism that should be common sense to all of us moderns, even though it still might be revolutionary for some if I look around. The sad truth is still  that in a lot of circumstances a lot of women (among other humans) do not get the basic respect they deserve as human beings even. This always is an injustice that should be countered!

Every human being, including every woman, needs to be seen as a fellow Image of God. None of them (regardless even of how they present themselves to us, not even a sexy model in an ad) should ever be treated as a mere sex object that is enjoyed and preyed on as such in porn culture, and seen as an evil temptation to be avoided in certain religious circles. Certainly both are two versions of the same evil, and and as I said before in other posts: one of the best remedies is simply friendship. Personally I have no idea how a marriage or sexual relationship in general would even be possible without friendship at all. But friendship should be our basic impulse towards every person of the other sex that we meet. If we would do that the respect I’m speaking of here would always be present!

And so it still needs to be said: Women need respect!

So how much more important is this in a monogamous partnership that is supposed to be based on love as our Western marriages are? It’s rather obvious that i f we don’t give someone the basic respect as a person that ‘love’ won’t even be an option, let alone loving someone as yourself as Paul says in the verse that the ‘love and respect’ stuff is based on.

If you can’t treat someone as a person you have no business being with them. You will only hurt them, and  respect is something that is very easily naturally reciprocated in a healthy relationship but also often dies when it isn’t… I keep on saying things that should be entirely obvious,  but any relationship needs respect from two sides, otherwise it can and should not go very deep. And a relationship that goes so deep as a marriage does cannot survive in a meaningful without mutual respect, and love is impossible without it.

It doesn’t matter what the gender of a person is, we all need to be treated as a person especially by our life partner.  And the opposite of respect is one of the most destructive things in a relationship. Contempt is one of the most dangerous things that can be added to a relationship, and one of the most sure ways to kill either the love or the whole marriage.

And while I’m writing all of this I still have a nagging voice that says. ‘this is just too obvious to write down’. But when I read stuff like what I’ve read last week on Shelia Gregoire’s blog, or discussions in certain Facebook groups, or thinkabout certain relationships I’ve seen go to ruin in my live I fear that I’m naive.

It needs to be said again and again.
It needs to be shown to the world.
It needs to be shown to the church too I’m afraid!
It needs to be live out and be a light.
We need to be a friend who shows respect!
We need to crush all forms of dehumanisation!
Women need respect!
All people do!

So what do you think?

peace

Bram

The sexist umbrella that makes no sense at all


The subtitle of this blog is ‘My book of the damned’, because I sometimes touch on subjects that are completely off the radar for most people, even though they might be rather interesting or important.

Today we have the opposite, instead of saving something from the realm of damned and shining light on something interesting that is ignored by the mainstream I’ll shine some light on something that should be banished to far beyond the realm of the damned because it’s both harmful and stupid.

I’m speaking of the so-called ‘umbrella of protection’ diagram here, which seems to be used in certain ‘Christian” environments to explain how the order of the family is supposed to be. According to someone in my facebook list it’s even used in Flemish churches, although I’ve never encountered it myself luckily.

Just look at it for some seconds. Think about how umbrellas work. This is not how umbrellas work. Not even my little ponyland or Utopia are there laws of physics and logic that could be bended to make an umbrella work like this. No matter how you twist the whole thing, all umbrellas except the biggest one will always be redundant.

Now I know that a bad metaphor does not necessarily make an idea invalid,  and neither does a bad explanation of it.  So I know that I have to say something about the ideas behind the whole thing. But I can be rather short.

If the idea that the man is the mediator of God for the wife, and the wife is the mediator of God (through the man?) for the children, then the basics of Christianity are denied here. And the basics of protestantism too (the priesthood of all believers. Making the man a priest for all of his household members has some very weird theological implications outside of Christianity (like nullifying the idea that Christ brings is the one who connects us to God for women and children). And it’s as nonsensical as the ‘all men are leaders, all women are followers’ trope. No, most men are not leaders (and some women are). If everyone is a leader the word doesn’t even have any meaning anymore. And even though they are a minority, the bible certainly has a lot of women leaders and a lot of men who are not leaders.

If this is solely about protection then even psalm 23 doesn’t make sense in this worldview, and is only for me. Women should pray ‘my man is my shepherd, mediating the Lord for me’, while children should say ‘my mother is my shepherd, mediating my father who is mediating the Lord for me’. This is pure nonsense. God will protect anyone, and needs no authority over us to do so.

Hagar in the Desert

Think for example of Abraham, one of the most notorious figures in the history of religion, and certainly a man of God even though not always the best example in family relationships. When his wife Sarah kicks out his pregnant second wife Hagar the angels protect her, even though she just lost her ‘male umbrella’ according to this umbrella paradigm. Later the same thing happens with her son Ishmael when he’s 13. (Picture Gheorghe Tattarescu, 1870, Romania, I doubt angels actually look like that though)  God can protect any of us well enough without having any ‘umbrella’ of any authority over us. And for sure, we should protect the ones we love, but the whole hierarchy chain of the umbrella theory is very cramped and weird.

Where does it come from? It appears that this scheme comes from some bloke called Bill Gothard, who’s also leader of a homeschool movement and seems to be a rather weird cult leader (A FB-friend of me has been hurt and traumatised severely by his influence when growing up). His institute has even turned the theory and other rather weird authoritarian things in very cute but rather brainwashing songs for children and as you see from that link and the comments, more people have been very much hurt, damaged and traumatised by his approach.That alone should be enough to just discard the whole thing, and watch out for his influence in Evangelicalism. Here’s a good introduction to the story of Gothard (although not a super readable website) for those who want to dig deeper, and the afore-linked homeschool anonymous site has interesting stuff too.

To add a layer of irony, this whole Authoritarianism-gone-wrong stuff thwatchmanat is so pervasive in American Christianity is partly a Chinese import. Like the creepy extreme shepherding movement, Gothard is influenced by Watchman Nees ‘Authority and submission’ paradigm, which puts extreme emphasis on absolute submission.  (sample chapter from Nee here) Watchman Nee as a Chinese Christian was influenced by his culture -as anyone is- and imported a bit of Confucius here when it comes to the role of authority and hierarchy, which was taken to an unbalanced extreme.  For those who like to check for themselves: Here’s the whole reasoning behind the theory of ‘umbrella protection’ which is very clearly influenced by Nee if you’re familiar with his way of thinking.

But let’s go back to the diagram and look at it as it is drawn.  if we just open our eyes, the diagram itself cannot hide the truth that all of this is plain nonsense and the truth is still plain and open for anyone with eyes to see. The only ‘umbrella’ we need is the protection of God Himself. No other umbrella under it would ever do anything at all and they are all useless and unneeded…

Yes, we all are a blessing to each other, and we all help each other, but we’re all under the same umbrella together. It’s a basic Christian truth God is available to all of us through Christ.

peace

Bram

Boys who have to make the first move and the misandric introvertphobia of patriarchy…


puddleWelcome again at Brambonius’ blog in English. As you already guessed from the rather strange title filled with contemporary (pseudo)feminist lingo, today I’ll venture into new grounds again, places where I don’t have much reference material at all…

By lack of better words this post is  about the ‘misandric introvertphobia of patriarchy’ where ‘misandric introvertphobia’ can be taken both as one combined term, the discrimination against introverted men, as as the combination of both. (see also note at the end.)

Where do I start? If it wasn’t clear already: I’m an introverted man myself, so I’m offering some kind of insider perspective here. Even if you don’t agree with me at all, I hope you will still be able to read this as the account of a specimen giving an insider perspective…

To simplify things too much for those wondering what the introvert/extrovert business is actually about: an introvert gets his energy from being alone, an extrovert gets it from being around people. So I don’t like big groups and mass event. Too many people around me can drain my energy especially if I have to pay attention to them, and I might need lots of time alone to regain that energy… And oh, it’s not a lifestyle of choice, it’s an inborn personality type parameter. One can learn to not act on it and pretend to be ectravert in some cases, but that would be at the expense of a lot of energy and  a loss of identity.

I personally don’t see a problem with people being different from each other. So please, be extroverted all that you want and hang out with loud people all the time as much as you want, as long as you don’t expect me to do the same. And that’s the problem introverts sometimes face. We’re seen as asocial by some, and completely misunderstood and unknowingly erased by a lot of others. In certain circles this isn’t a problem (most computer programmers and certain subcultures of nerds for example will be quite introverted and might be scared from people that are too introverted) while in others it is.

I can remember that around age 12 or so I read a sentence in an interview, I can’t recall at all with whom, but he said something like ‘I something hear young people say that their hobbies are reading or listening to music, and then I always thing ‘that’s not true, youLarus are just bored most of the time’. I had no words to describe how I was shocked by that sentence, so much that I still remember it more than 20 years later. But it seemed a complete unwillingness to understand people who were like me, and unlike that guy himself…

Years later, in my young twenties I had a job among ‘working class people’ in the public green department of the city. Before that job I never realised how big class differences could be, and how much certain personality types were favoured over others in certain environments. I was also quite shocked by the openness in which people could say racist, sexist and homophobic stuff in a way that would be impossible in places that I could understand much more, for example the academic circles my wife was in at that moment. They probably would be a textbook example of everything ‘intersectional feminism’ is against, except that it would be quite classist to say so…

Unlike the usual and more canonical forms of institutionalised bigotry on basis of ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation (and class, I was already an outsider because I was of the more ‘intellectual middle class’ type, you know, I read books, and liked philosophy, and stuff like that. ) there also was an unspoken and unnamed aversion against introverted people too. I’ve been called asocial and excluded because of the moments when I wanted to be alone after being with those people who drained my energy. I was completely an outsider, and not part of the supposed ‘privileged’ mostly male group btw. (Not wanting to talk about women in a not-so-positive way might already have played a role in that too) Much less than the few women who had more affinity with the group culture and a more outgoing personality, who were much more able to fit in. (or the non-Belgians)

Unspoken and unnamed but still perceived real differences sometimes seem to be much more of a barrier than the classical areas of discrimination. At least those can be addressed, while I didn’t even have the word ‘introvert’ nor any explanation to explain how I was different at that time…

‘Patriarchy’ as a whole seems to be favouring ‘strong men’ who are ‘manly’, which often excludes more introvert men, who thus or have to adapt and change their personality (which is even more energy draining, and creates a lot of cognitive dissonance) or be ostracised and excluded. It’s not always being male that gives privilege in a patriarchal environment, but more often the amount of privilege is directly proportional to the way in which you fit a desired model of manlinness. Having a personality completely opposite to that model of manliness will not really be helpful here, while being a Marget Thatcher clone will surely make you ‘one of the boys’… At least in the ‘masulinlist’ environments that I’ve seen.

All of this is probably also part of the reason I’m allergic to a lot of Christian masculinity stuff. The dangerous extrovert leader with a lot of assertivity just isn’t me and can’t be me. Sorry Mark Driscoll, whatever your ideas about how to get men into your church, they’ll always scare me away and offend me! Another part of the reason is that their so-called Christian ‘manliness’ is often the opposite of the character laid out in Paul’s list of the fruits of the Spirit, so it fails to be ‘biblical’ on all acounts. If you claim to follow the book, do your best to take that book seriously…

So let’s now go to the boys who have to make the first move from the title. That seems to be a ‘rule’ in certain cultures: the male always takes the initiative. The first time I heard about that rule I thought it was something alien from barbaric backwards groups or weirdos living in a closed community after being left there after colonisation times for centuries without contact with the mainland culture, but it actually seems quite prevalent in certain American ‘conservative’ Christian circles for example. Some even defend it as a biblical concept for some reason.

I’ve never understood that kind of logic, but it is something that makes the world a lot harder for introvert boys while it favours the more outgoing men that are already favoured by this kind of culture and seen as more manly. Introversion in men is not exactly supported by that kind of gender standards, in ways that go far beyond this silly rule. Or as I posted on facebook earlier, in a text that was more written for shock value maybe:

“Wanting boys to always take the first step in romance and relationship ultimately just creates a Darwinian selection against introversion in men. But since it does select for introversion in women and I suppose that introversion isn’t that gender-dependent the net result is only that introvert boys in every generation need to or slaughter their personality or remain alone without procreation…”

Oh yes, I’m exaggerating here, and we introverts generally do often develop coping mechanisms to live in an extrovert-normative world, but living with coping mechanisms all the time will still be quite exhausting. And it feels fake to never be able to be yourself…
(I also do know that introIlikehugsverted is not always the same as shy, thank you…)

So, systems that are based on male domination are destructive for most introverted males, who might in certain situations need to or give up their personality or give up their chances on a place in the system.

And even without this whole story and incoherent rant, ‘the boy always has to take the initiative’ is a dumb rule that is sexist to both genders at the same time anyway…

What do you think?

Peace

Bram

Note at the end: I guess that only those words ‘the misandric introvertphobia of patriarchy’ already might be problematic to some… And not just because this kind of feminist-sounding lingo might make me unpopular by some people, since I’ve lost those kind of readers a long time ago anyway. Some other people more inclined to feminism might dislike my use of the word ‘misandry’, since the use of certain shibbolets  and a certain kind of logic that’s quite like the ‘guilt by association’ fallacy. Ironically that’s probably in part because its use by idiots who would themselves engage in the misandry described in this post though…
And then the other word I used, ‘introvertphobia’, is also not a canonical term in the catalogue of bigotry against minorities. I must say that I actually don’t really like the use of ‘-phobia’ for discrimination against a certain group, on grounds of etymological consistency among other reasons. Fear is not the same of discrimination or ‘bigotry’, and the whole X-phobic thing to me sounds a lot like Orwellian Newspeak sometimes… But the simplest way to be understood is to use this kind of terminology now I’m afraid, and thus my use of a -phobic neologism.
And then there’s the problem I have with the word ‘patriarchy’, which is often not defined at all and used as a container for all the sexist things in society one doesn’t like. Thus being one of the ‘thought packages’ I described in my last post that doesn’t have many meaning except for the establishing a strong we/them dichotomy.
Notice also that by now I stopped bothering with trying to follow a certain orthodoxy of ‘political correctness’ belonging a culture that I’m unable to understand anyway. Walking on invisible eggshells is unsustainable anyway…

10 old traditional and/or biblical Christian ideas that are sometimes mistakenly seen as ‘progressive’…


Foto0067Before we close the year with some lists of the most-read stuff of 2014 and an evaluation of my project of demodernisation (and de-Americanisation, see also here) I will post this one last long and maybe to some controversial blogpost. This time we’ll talk about certain basic Christian ideas or at least ancient minority positions within Christianity that are sometimes regarded as new and ‘progressive’ ideas and thus tied to a new and ‘progressive’ form of Christianity which is incompatible with either the old-fashioned nonsense of the past or the true ‘conservative’ Christianity, depending on which side of the false dilemma one finds themselves. Which is very problematic actually…

I’ve seen the combination of the words ‘progressive Christianity’ gain more and more influence over the last years on the English-speaking internet. The term itself is like other words including ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ a term that I find utterly unhelpful and quite ambiguous .  I’ve also seen a lot of very different and sometimes quite contradictory interpretations of what ‘progressive Christianity’ is supposed to be, some of which were interesting to me, and others which weren’t at all… It seems that the expression became more popular (at least in the blogosphere) when the ’emergent’ brand lost its prominence, and that it also took over some of the content of that label, especially in the form of its ‘updated protestant theological liberalism’ (which frankly doesn’t interest me at all as a moderate anti-modernist).

(The main reason that I’ll never use the word ‘progressive’ to describe myself is that I completely reject the modernist myth of ‘progress’, which seems to be the root of the whole idea of contemporary progressiveness. But that’s another story that would only derail this post)

All of this does not mean that ‘progressive Christians’ don’t  have a lot of interesting things to say. A lot of the stuff that progressive Christians believe in and want us to talk about (but not all!) is very important to me too, or at least stuff I agree with… The problem here mostly the false dilemma that some see that I’ve mentioned already: the mistaken idea that ‘progressive Christianity’ (or ’emergentism’, or liberal protestantism, or…)  is a new and better and modern thing (or postmodern or contemporary or whatever word  is used to describe both their chronological snobbery and modern-Western cultural imperialism/neo-colonialism) , something completely distinct from what came before disconnected from it, and better than anything before it anyway.

While the opposite is true: most of the prophetic things that ‘progressives’ have to teach us are quite old, and they are important truths that have a long history within Christianity. Some as a minority-view, some as the majority-view in other times or other Christian traditions. Some normative outside of modernism even…

Let’s also talk here  the confusion of terms with some of the other words besides ‘progressive’ before we start. I’ve written before about the term ‘conservative’, which only means an impulse to conserve a certain tradition. For example the American use of the word ‘conservative’ has nothing to do with ‘conservative Christianity’ as some kind of ancient basic orthodoxy, but with some fairly recent (last 200 years mostly) forms of protestantism tied to the political old-school liberalism of the founding fathers and the American constitution (which has nothing to do with Christian orthodoxy at all!)

Fundamentalism as a Christian movement has not much to do with a basic Christian orthodoxy either. It’s more an early 20th century reactionary antithesis to liberalism, emphasizing not at all the core of historical Christianity but some areas in which they disagreed with liberal theology of that time, which gave a very unbalanced view of what the ‘fundamentals’ of Christianity were that did not follow basic Christian orthodoxy at all. So while fundamentalism might be a photo-negative of classical liberal theology, it still is thoroughly modern in a lot of ways.  (see also this post for my problem with the bad photo-negative copy of it in American anti-fundamentalism, which is itself tied completely to what it tries to escape from)

So let’s list some of the ideas that are rejected by some or all American conservatives and fundamentalists, while embraced by progressives and thus seen as ‘progressive’ (or ‘liberal’)  by a lot of people. Those ideas are not new nor progressive nonetheless but have been part of the rich and diverse history of Christianity from the early days and can be traced back to the bible itself.   Most of them can be solidly defended from a basic orthodox reading of the bible.

(Note also that some of the things that are very important to the current ‘progressives’ are absent from this list because they just don’t fit in the list. Some are new for the modern age or just repackaged old heresies or non-Christian philosophies adopted by liberal Christianity. Rejecting the supernatural -spirits, angels, the afterlife- for example is not a new idea that people  could only come up with after evolving to a new step and entering the modern age. The Sadducees, who were more conservative than the Pharisees, already taught this and Jesus and the NT writers could have easily followed them, but they rejected it in favour of the views of the Pharisees…
But my exclusion of certain progressive ideas from this list doesn’t have to mean that I either agree nor disagree with any of them, just that I did not include them. I probably have forgotten a lot of stuff that could fit in this list….)

1. pacifism and Christian non-violence
I always assumed that pacifism or at least a tendency to non-violence were part of basic Christianity from my reading of the gospels, and especially the sermon on the mount. (I say this as a pentecostal kid living in a post-Catholic Belgian culture btw.) I know that some see it as an ideal that doesn’t always work, but even then, with enemy-love as one of Jesus commandments I could not conceive of Christians who would completely dismiss the idea in favour of militarism.
Great was my shock when I explored the internet as a young twenty-something and discovered Christians (mainly from the US) who completely dismissed the idea of Christian non-violence as dangerous and naive and placed it under the category of ‘liberal nonsense’. Such a view is completely a-historical and completely ignorant of the words of Jesus himself.
Christian non-violence does have a long history. It was prominent in pre-Constantinian times and while it wasn’t the majority position in later times (Even with ‘just war’ doctrine most wars would be seen as illegitimate btw… You can’t defend any of the American wars of the last half century with just war theory for example!) it has popped up regularly in the history of Christianity among groups or people who wanted to take Christ seriously. We see it appear already with the first Christians -who rather died that killed for their faith- over St. Francis of assisi -who went to meet the Sultan unarmed to talk about Christ in the middle of a crusade- and the line goes all the way to the Quakers and Anabaptists, and the modern Christian peacekeeper teams.  Christian non-violence is a deeply biblical idea that has been held in different degrees by a lot of people who took the New Testament and the words of Christ very seriously!

2. Anticapitalism
Recently the pope said some things about capitalism that were not received well by some American evangelicals. But contrary to what some people thought he did not say anything new and did only reword catholic doctrine that was already popetrickleaffirmed by the popes before him. What he said was quite logical for most non-American Catholics and other Christians also. I’ve never understood why capitalism is such a holy cow to certain (mainly American) Christians. It is a very modernist economic idea that has not much to do with classical Christianity but is tied to historical liberalism, and it can devolve very easily into economical and social jungle-law Darwinism, which is the opposite of anything a Christian could ever defend. So while it cannot be linked to the bible being a modern invention, it also goes counter to some Biblical and historically Christian ideas. Look at this list of quotes from the church fathers for example.
I once wanted to write a series about Christianity and capitalism but never got further than this first post  I also have written a post called Abundance is the enemy of capitalism. starting from the biblical idea of abundance as a part of shalom, which is opposed to the capitalist basic principle of scarcity…

I can also add that there is nothing new or ‘liberal’ about vaguely ‘socialist’ ideas and ways of living. The church of Acts was quite ‘communist’, as well as most monastic orders.
And let’s not forget that the only false god that is called by name in the gospels is Mammon, of with Jesus says that he cannot be served together with God…

3. ‘Green’ lifestyles and ecological awareness
If God is Creator (which all Christians including all evolutionary Creationists affirm – as far as I know) , and we are to love God above all, some respect for His creation seems to be very logical to me. Taking care of creation is also a commandment in genesis (unless you see ‘ruling’ as a very oppressive dictatorship, but I would say that we aren’t to do anything to nature we wouldn’t want rulers to do with us…) It always was logical to me that Christians should have a lot of respect for nature as the work of Gods hands, although it might be that this impulse was fed more by my (almost post-)catholic teachers in school than in my pentecostal upbringing.

Premodern people did live a lot closer to nature. Jesus spent a lot of time in nature praying and meditating throughout the gospels. Our modern disconnect with nature is far removed from the world of the bible, but respect for nature as Christians is a tradition that goes back at least to (again) Francis of Assisi, and probably the Celtic Church.
There is no good reason for us to condone destruction of Gods creation in favour of our idols like ‘the economy’ or ‘progress’. None of these does have to have any of our allegiance as followers of Christ…

I could also refer to Pope Francis here, who is rumoured to write an ecological encyclical in 2015  and repeat that there’s nothing progressive at all about conserving nature. If there’s anything at all that deserves to be called ‘conservative’ if that word has any meaning at all, it’s conserving the creation in which God has put us…,
(The same is true for most of the other ‘progressive’ views of Pope Francis. They are -like most things in this list- not new at all and actually quite ‘conservative’ in that they have a long biblical and traditional history)

4. Not taking the first chapters of genesis as literal history
And then for something completely different: I can’t be the only one who has noticed that the debate about a literal reading of genesis does mainly live in fundamentalist and evangelical circles, while it is more of a non-issue in most other classical orthodox denominations, including the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church. Which already should say something about how ‘progressive’ the idea of a  non-literal reading of the first chapters of the bible actually is I guess.
There have been a lot of readings of the Creation story throughout church history, some of which were literal while others were completely allegorical. Augustine for example, while writing about ‘the literal interpretation of genesis’ assumes that the seven days where metaphor and that the whole cosmos was created at the same moment…

Even Charles Darwin himself did not think that his ideas of evolution were incompatible with his Christian faith. He did lose it over the cruelness of  nature though.

5. Rejecting the idea of hell as eternal conscious torment for all non-Christians
Another debate that is as old as the history of the Church is the fate of those not in Christ. While universalism has always been a minority position, belief in hell of some sorts seems to be a majority position, the details vary a lot throughout church history. Some of the church fathers seem to tend to very generous inclusivism or even in the direction of hopeful universalism, with some like Origen even arriving at full universalism. (Which means that Christ in his death and resurrection was able to save all from hell, not at all that all religions are the same or so…)
Another part of the discussion is the nature of hell. C.S. Lewis seems (in line with more orthodox church fathers) to see hell as being cut of from God, the Source of all life. Other orthodox thinkers see hell as the same place as heaven, where the undiluted presence of God is unbearable to those who hate Him.

Another alternative idea about the fate of the wicked is Annihilationism (the wicked are just annihilated and cease to exist after the judgement), and old and in origin Jewish idea that has been made popular in more recent times by the seventh-day adventists (also followed by the Jehovah witnesses by the way) for mainly biblical reasons.

6. Rejection of an exclusively ‘penal substitution’ view of the atonement in Christ
And another important discussion, but here the evangelical default itself is historically a more recent minority position: penal substitution atonement as we know it (Jesus saved us by taking Gods wrath upon Himself on the cross) is only as old as protestantism. For the other 1500 years and in other traditions very different ideas existed about how Jesus saved us by his life, death and resurrection. We even see this in the famous Narnia story, where Lewis follows a classical ransom-version of Christus Victor atonement: the sinner (Edmund) is freed from slavery to death and sin (the witch) because Jesus (Aslan) took his place and defeated death and sin in the resurrection… Note that this still IS substitutionary atonement, but not at all penal substitution. (If I understand correctly the idea of penal substitution as some protestants teach it is regarded as abhorrent and even heresy by a lot of Eastern Orthodox thinkers)

I am of the opinion myself that no theory of atonement will ever explain everything that happened so we need a lot of them together to have a more complete picture. Some popular versions of penal substitution, especially when elevated to the level of ‘gospel’ do sound very troubling to me though…

7. Egalitarianism in marriage and women preachers
As a Charismatic I became convinced of egalitarianism between the sexes for biblical reasons. I don’t see how a couple can be ‘one flesh’ as genesis says and still have one who always have to lead and another who always has to follow. I also am convinced by the bible more than by Christian tradition  of the importance of women in every role in the church., Jesus is quite ‘feminist’ (anti-sexist might be a better word) himself compared to his culture, like in the story of Martha and Mary for example, and the early church had a lot of women in a lot of positions, up to the female apostle Junia and the businesswoman Lydia who had a house church in her house.

It’s nonsense to put this kind of egalitarianism away as ‘liberal’ or claim it as solely ‘progressive’. I’ve seen women preachers in African pentecostal churches, and you can say a lot about those, but ‘liberal’ and ‘progressive’ did in no way apply to them. I’ve never had any interest in the liberal ‘we moderns know better than those dumb bronze-age desert people’ reasoning, and it still doesn’t convince me at all.
I do believe in the need of equality and mutual submission in marriage though for biblical reasons and from experience. I’ve met a lot of women who were used by the Holy Spirit through preaching, and denying that would feel quite a lot like blasphemy against the Holy spirit. God does use women in a lot of roles, and calls individuals for very different things, regardless of their sex.

(Let’s also repeat here that I don’t believe that any idea about ‘biblical manhood’ that does not fit with the fruits of the Spirit as described by Paul has any legitimacy at all. None of that stuff is biblical, it’s just unhealthy cultural stereotypes that are made legitimate by abusing bible verses.)

8. Rejection of the idea of the ‘rapture’ (and of dispensationalism as a whole)
Let’s be short here: the idea of ‘the rapture’ isn’t even 200 years old, so it’s from the same time as a lot of liberal theology. Traditionally most Christians have been amillenialist but there are more interpretations of biblical eschatology that make more sense than the dispensationalist one.
Nothing progressive about rejecting the rapture or dispensationalism, it’s just what every Christian before the 1800’s and most non-evangelicals since then did, whatever their eschatology was…
Some forms of dispensationalism do seem to border on heresy for completely different reasons too though.

9. ‘Mysticism’
Mysticism is a hot word in certain circles, and one that has a lot of different interpretations. The most basic meaning is to experience the presence of God yourself as a believer. It’s nothing new though, there runs a deep mystic tradition through both Eastern and Western Christianity which was already very important in the first centuries of Christianity with the desert fathers and mothers.
What does seem to be new and endemic to certain corners of contemporary progressive Christianity is that mysticism does in some way exclude the idea of supernatural beings. This is completely contrary to a lot of older Christian mystics who did encounter angels, demons and other ‘supernatural entities’ as if it were the most normal thing one could do…

10. Not framing the trustworthiness of the bible as ‘inerrancy’
The bible is very important for Christians for a lot of reasons, and it is one of the means through which we can encounter God. The bible is a library of books that are seen as inspired by God by Christians (‘God-breathed’ according to Paul in a very well-known verse) but the fundamentalist notion of ‘innerancy’ of the literal text of the bible goes further than how Christianity classically saw the bible. It did not by accident come into being around the same time  as the Catholics invented papal infallibility, a time when modernism eroded any faith in trustworthiness of the bible, the Christian tradition or Christian authorities.

This went further than the trustworthiness that premodern Christians ascribed to the bible, and gave rise to the modern ‘new atheist’ reading of the bible which is as far removed from the message of the bible as the fundamentalist one. (They are closely related anyway as purely modernist traditions)

So while I do affirm the trustworthiness of the bible (something that isn’t in the historical creeds btw!) I don’t think we should go looking for scientific or other details that are just not there. And we should not fear contradictions or paradoxes. God can speak truth through things that are not 100% historical as well. We have differences in the 4 gospels, and different theological agendas, even the church fathers knew that, but it wasn’t a problem until modern times (and it still if for the Orthodox and most Catholics…) so maybe we want the bible to be something that it isn’t meant to be.

In the end, the Word that became flesh is Jesus Christ, and the bible is here to point at Him, not at itself… It isn’t a paper pope and if it becomes an idol that distracts from God it’s really sad, not?  We should always seek God and Jesus in the bible, otherwise studying it won’t be of any worth, as Jesus says to the Pharisees somewhere…

So we come to the end of my list of things that are  not at all new to Christianity and can’t be claimed to be exclusively tied to ‘progressive Christianity’, whatever that even may be. Note again that the list is by no means exhaustive, and that I probably overlooked very important ones…

(I didn’t include much that goes against the republican ‘Americanist synchretism’ that some  American conservatives seem to believe in, with America as some holy entity that is more special for God than other countries or cultures. For non-Americans like me such things are too irrelevant and illogical to even address… Neither did I address double predestination for example, which is seen as heresy by the Eastern Orthodox and rejected by most non-protestants…)

So what do you think?

peace

Bram

A Christian reaction to porn that doesn’t dehumanise the objectified further?


It’s quiet here, so let’s go back to controversy and write about some kind of weird subject like the pornification of images (moving or not) of human beings made in the Divine Image… (generally called ‘porn’ by most people) And let’s give it a long title full of complicated words so I won’t attract too many Beavis and Butthead-type of readers…

Yeah,  it’s been a while since I wrote a post about things related to sex and love and so (the last and only one since July or so being my little effort to raise some awareness of asexuals as the most ignored sexual minority) so why not….

So where to start? A while ago I read this article called 3 lies that kept me trapped by porn from a guest-blogger on Micah Murray’s redemption pictures. To clarify where I stand on these things I must probably start here with saying that, while it’s an understatement to say that I’m not a fan of porn at all, I’m generally not a big fan of most Christian anti-porn propaganda either… so I didn’t expect that much from the article, since most articles with a title like that are just more of the ‘every man’s battle’ stuff, an affirmation that it’s more or less expected for a man to be addicted to porn on one hand and a lot of guilt-creation that partly misses the point on important details on the other hand. I tend to not find that especially healthy. But, to my big surprise, this article turned out to be a completely different cup of tea that needs to be shared more. (if you still get my mixed metaphors here) .

The post was written David E. Martin, who has a Christian website for people who do have problems with porn called ‘My chains are gone’. His website and ministry have an approach to the problem of porn and its solution that is worth looking at, so I recommend you all to not just read his guestpost on redemption pictures but also his site if the subject is of any interest to you.  I might not agree with every line they write, but overall they have a lot of interesting things to say that I hadn’t heard before. It’s quite quite different from the standard stuff most Christian repeat all the time, as the 3 lies in the title already show:

1. The unclothed human body is primarily sexual in nature.
 Therefore, to see another body unclothed is a sexual event.

2. The automatic and natural response to the sight of an unclothed body is sexual arousal. Therefore, the best strategy against lust is to limit the opportunity to view the unclothed body.

3. To be drawn to the sight of nudity (beyond your spouse’s) is a perversion.
Therefore, we must make every effort to eradicate this “perversion” from our hearts.

He exposes these ideas as lies that hinder those trapped in an addiction pornography in breaking with those habits. Maybe a bit counter-intuitive but I do agree with him, and I would say that the de-pornification of the human body might be the most important thing in learning to look at human beings as made in Gods image and loving our fellow human who happens to be of the sex we’re sexually attracted to. His approach is connected to ideas I have been alluding to in some of my blogpostVenus of Willendorfs (See for example posts with titles as On sexy poorn models and human dignity; meditating on sexy models; on nudity in game of thrones and some American bloke again…; Some thoughts on the myth that ‘men are visual’; On similar misandry in Christian fundamentalism and comsumer capitalism) But it’s not at all something I’ve seen discussed that much by most of my co-religionists even though some of them like to talk about porn a lot…

It’s an easy subject to start discussions of sin and holiness and whatever, but I often feel like important things are missed.  Although I naturally completely agree with Jesus who says in the sermon on the mount that looking lustfully at a woman is to commit adultery in your head, there are some points in the standard blablah that I don’t find very helpful.

Some of these things have to do with what David writes about on his site. the standard approach is not helping in what I earlier called the depornification of the human body, and moreover  ‘Looking lustfully’ is not synonymous with looking at a nude. Also we do easily forget that porn as we know it in our current culture is not a universal thing but in the current incarnation something unique in world history and very specific to our culture. The way bodies are depicted in our porn would not be very sexy to a lot of people from other times and cultures….

Well it actually isn’t even to me. And I’m a 21st century Western male…

So let’s get to some more points that are often overlooked:

1.) Assuming porn addiction is just how men are wired: Normalizing problems of a certain part of the Western population in a very peculiar time and culture as ‘this is how men are wired. Get used to it.’ is not the way to go. Men are not wired into being addicted to what is called ‘porn’ in our time and culture and in the very myopic way a certain subculture frames our human sexuality in a very narrow and unhealthy way. Porn addiction means that persons (male or female) are conditioned to like it and neuroplastically deformed into it.

2.) Missing the core of the problem gives us some pretty bad solutions: The problem is not in the first place what we see, but it is what is in our hearts when we see it. Porn is very often in the eye of the beholder. If we really learn to love watching porn is impossible, since seeing someone as a human being is incompatible with pornificating them.  The deepest problem is not what we see, but how we watch it and why we’re watching it.

3.) Furthering dehumanization is part of what we should eliminate: Pornification is always a dehumanization of the depicted humans into mere sex objects. If we want to get beyond it we should not follow that line of thinking but reject it. Accepting that women are nothing but sexy temptation and then avoid them is equally dehumanising. The ‘rape culture victim-blaming’ stuff that when a man has sinful thoughts when he sees a woman it’s her fault is only perpetuating the deeper sin of dehumanization, and actually not solving even a molecule of the problem.

4. We should also never forget the  formative danger in porn: We seem to ignore as a culture how porn shapes and deforms our view of the human body. It creates a new and perverted reality, in which sex is not that healthy at all and in which humans are less human than how God created them to be.  It is a fake ideal world that fills peoples head but that no living person will ever live up to. We might think that porn is just showing us how sex is and how sexy people look, but it’s actually completely fake on one hand, and transforming human sexuality to its own image and likeness on the other hand.

Yes, one of the exact dangers of porn is how it is making up it’s own very depraved standard of sexiness that isn’t real at all and then it tries to conform the real world to it. Which is especially dangerous for young people who don’t have their view of sexuality fully formed, like teenagers in puberty. Peoples brains are actually altered by watch porn by the way.  This brain-altering already happens with adults watching porn, but it’s extremely dangerous with young people whose view of porn isn’t even formed yet like I said.

5. Porn is not just ‘showing sex’ but  lying: The things depicted in our modern porn are not default human sexuality at all, let alone human sexuality as God meant it. It’s a very peculiar way of framing sex, a language that seems universal to many people.It’s actually a very artificial and unnatural mutation of human sex, not just a way of visually describing how humans have sex. The bodies are fake, the angles are very artificial and unrealistic.  Our modern ‘porn’ goes way beyond nudity in what it gives to stimulate our sexuality so a very big and abusive industry can make a lot of money.

Yup, the end goal of most porn is probably money for some shady types somewhere.

6. Watching modern porn is learned behaviour:
Looking at the beauty and sexiness of the sex one is attracted to is very natural, but modern porn goes a lot further than this and is much more niche… Consuming modern porn is learned behavior, like drinking wine or listening jazz.

It’s something I didn’t learn though. Except for simple nude pictures most porn when I accidentally see it doesn’t work for me, probably because it’s too far away from my own sexual experience (and lack thereof in my younger years).  Most times when I do see real ‘porn’ beyond playboy-level I’m actually repulsed, not aroused.

(Clarification: I do like female nude art a lot btw, maybe too much. But one of the things I like most about female nudes is some untouchable sacred innocence which is so real that any ‘wrong’ thought is misplaced.  Which is completely incompatible with porn and probably impossible to describe to people who don’t know what I mean. Think about Ransom and the green woman of Venus… It is because I love female nudity so much that I hate porn.)

I do think not getting it and being repulsed by what goes for porn nowadays is not a very abnormal reaction for a uninitiated person actually. Look at this description from a (female) guest-blogger at irrestistible Fish (and read the post too later after you’ve finished mine and see also her part II) about her surprise when she started to watch porn:

Porn was not exactly what I had expected.
I knew it would be graphic, but this, this was beyond graphic.
This was not like the sex scenes in a movie.
This sex wasn’t just sex.
Porn sex was different.
The bodies were ‘perfect’, the positions, acrobatic.
No one had a single hair follicle visible anywhere on their perfect bodies. And visible their bodies were. Microscopically so.
Everything was up close and zoomed in. Nothing left to the imagination.

There was no kissing, no intimacy, no love, just animalistic, self-gratifying acts of sex.

Only reading this paragraph makes me feel dirty and uninterested… Call me a romantic but I don’t even want to be able to fantasize sex without kissing, let alone intimacy or love.

What would even be the fun of that? Yuck….

This way of picturing the human body and sexuality is blasphemy against the Imago dei itself. Blasphemy against love.

(I’m actually very lucky to have formed my view of how female  bodies are not from porn but from biology books, more regular nude scenes, and more classical nude art or nude photography, and that the default for a female body in my head is mostly just my wife, not a forced ideal that doesn’t exist. )

So what is the most important thing here? I would say that what we should never forget is that porn is in the eye of the beholder. It’s not what comes in through our eyes that makes us unclean, but our own heart and how we process those things. Sexually perverted people will look at every woman with lust and predatory thoughts, no matter how they are dressed. Being a woman is enough to be subject to pornification for some.

But one of the most important commandments for Christians is to love our fellow humans as ourselves, which very certainly does not include dehumanising them as sex objects.  Even the label ‘humanist’ to me would imply a higher standard than dehumanising other people in to sex object. And not unimportantly  here is that it doesn’t matter that much if we consume them with our eyes as porn or turn our eyes away… The second one might keep us from certain sins like the ‘looking lustfully’, it still makes us regard the person in question as less than human.

How can we ever learn to love fellow humans that we cannot look at because they are only sex objects for us? This approach will never make us love more even if it can help us by means of mere sin management. But in the end we need to learn to love the other. This is why I do think that for example Dan Brennans work on cross-gender friendship is very important (check out his groundbreaking book ‘sacred unions, sacred passions‘ on the subject) Pornification of the human body is completely incompatible with love and loving the other as ourselves., and we need to let go of it…

But this might requite a letting go of cultural conditioning and might  need some help from the Holy Spirit…

So what do you think?

peace

Bram

Why are asexuals the most ignored sexual minority?


asexualSomeone on my facebook wall notified me that his week (October 26 – November 1st) is Asexual Awareness Week. And since I wanted to write about that subject for quite a while now, this might be a good opportunity.

What am I talking about? Asexuality as a sexual orientation just means that the person is not sexually attracted to other persons. It’s quite simple if seen as ‘the fourth orientation’:
Heterosexuals are sexually attracted to (some people of) the other sex,  homosexuals are attracted to the same sex, and bisexuals to both genders (Some use the word ‘pansexual’ for not making any gender distinction in sexual attraction too) and asexuals don’t experience sexual attraction to anyone. Note that sexual orientation has nothing to do with sex drive, asexuals can have a sex drive physically but it isn’t directed towards other humans. It’s not the same as celibacy either.

When looking at subjects like this one the meaning of words and the definitions that are used are of utmost importance. Note that the word ‘attraction’ which is often very loosely used can mean a lot of different things. Within the asexual community there is a distinction between sexual attraction (which is not experienced by asexuals) and romantic or aesthetic attraction that can be experienced but are for asexuals not linked to sexual attraction. Some asexuals are aromantic, but others are heteroromantic, homoromantic or biromantic.
Another word used in the asexual community is ‘demisexual’ (or grey asexual) for people who only can feel sexual attraction when a relationship of intimacy has already developed.

(I’m not quite sure if that last one is a separate sexual orientation though. And I do think semantics are interesting here: sexual attraction does not mean that one wants sex, should have sex, or can have sex without being devastated. As someone who has been a virgin until my twentysomething years I can say that I, although I’ve always have been heterosexual, needed a lot of time before there was a space in my life in which sex was appropriate and ‘in place’. With my personality and a worse sexual history I might have actually collapsed into pseudo-asexuality…)

But asexuality definitely is a thing: some people don’t experience sexual attraction as their sexual orientation. That’s the theory, but we’re not speaking just about issues here, we’re talking about humans, their life, and a part of their being. And it seems that for some reason, a lot of asexuals are still ‘in the closet’ because for some reason some people do not like asexuality. Not only do some not believe in it, but it seems some people can be very negative towards the idea itself, and towards asexuals. From wikipedia:

A 2012 study published in Group Processes & Intergroup Relations reports there is more prejudice, dehumanization and discrimination toward asexuals than toward other sexual minorities, such as gay men, lesbians and bisexuals. Both homosexual and heterosexual people thought of asexuals as not only cold, but also animalistic and unrestrained. The same study also found more bias towards sapiosexuals (people who find intelligence the most sexually attractive feature) than towards homosexuals or bisexuals, and that attitudes towards sapiosexuals was the strongest correlate of attitudes towards asexuals.[55] Asexual activist, author, and blogger Julie Decker has observed that sexual harassment and violence, such as corrective rape, commonly victimizes the asexual community.[5

Now what I do find interesting here is that it seems that some of the people who do advocate for sexual minorities are negative about asexuality. (I’ve seen a lot of letters being added to the English abbreviation LBG, but rarely the A for example, and I’ve almost never heard anyone in my own language mention them when speaking about sexual minorities)

I wonder if it has something to do with the mistaken idea that sex is so so so very important and the most important thing that a lot of people (including advocates for sexual minorities, who often have to fight for their sexual identity) have, which is completely negated by the existence of asexuals.

Humans are not defined by having sex or experiencing sexual attraction. As a Christian I can point here to the fact that two of the most important persons in the New Testament were unmarried, not just the apostle Paul but also Jesus Christ Himself were unmarried. The absence of a sex life or a life partner does not make one less human, so why would anyone at all have problems with an ‘absent sexual orientation’? People who are ‘not into sex’ have a lot of other things they can put their energy into. I don’t see at all what the problem would be.

(Any conservative Christian argument against staying unmarried is bogus anyway, like our examples of Paul and Jesus and all those millions of celibates in the history of Christianity make clear. Some people are called to have families, others can do other things with their life. Yes, everybody is different, get used to it.!)

So I guess that I just want to give you this for asexuality awareness week: asexual people exist. If you want to read more you can read this website. People around you might be asexuals and be still in the closet because it’s a taboo far beyond other sexual identities for some apparently. (I don’t see why though) They seem to be the most overlooked sexual minority. But they are as human as anyone else.

peace

Bram