quote:

---

As part of my obedience to my faith, I do not believe in genital sexual intercourse (which, as I understand it, is genital penetration of any bodily orifice, and/or deliberate stimulation to orgasm) outside of male-female marriage. I am, happily, an active member of the gay community and of the leather community. I cheerily am OK with, advocate, practise, and/or teach (in at least one club I am a member of) practically everything else under the sun (within safety and consensuality limits) apart from the previously defined notions of sexual intercourse. (No-one ever seems to suggest that two (or more) men or women could have intimate, loving, physically affectionate relationships without sexual intercourse.

---

My response was: 'Oh, puh-lease.'

I'm not having a go at you Chast, and you haven't qualified whether the other activities are of a sexually gratifying nature - neither do you have to - talking in the abstract here. This thread is to solicit opinions on what constitutes 'sex' in the context of the goal to remain celibate and chaste and/or chaste before permanent relationship and by association, the possibility of non-sexual, physically affectionate relationships.

My position is this: it does not matter in what manner people gain sexual arousal - kissing, prancing about naked in front of the other person or rubbing up against each other fully clothed if you like. If the end result is sexual arousal, then a sexual act has taken place, and imo, is not distinct from intercourse or stimulation to orgasm (I believe also, this sort of intimacy should be reserved for the permanent and exclusive partner). [Where fetishes with inanimate objects and masturbation fit in, I don't know]

I seem to remember a truly awful book around in my teens called Just Good Friends by Joyce Huggett. It was either in here or in another such worthy - and useless - tome that the classic line is to be found:

If anything that your boy/girlfriend does makes you aroused, you shouldn't do it. If watching them play the piano makes you aroused, you shouldn't watch them play the piano.

To coin a phrase:
'Oh, puh-lease.'

Are you seriously suggesting that a couple who are serious about one another abstain from mutual piano-playing-watching until marriage? That watching someone play the piano (or wash the dishes, or dance, or stand on top of a mountain and sing) is sex?

If partner A sits down at the piano with the intention of arousing partner B by so doing, and partner B consents say, actively watching partner A lasciviously playing the piano. Well yes.

Must admit I tend to agree with it, although in my courtship I think we tiptoed over this boundary on a few occasions!

If you read some of the comments on this issue in the "sex outside marriage" thread, amybe you will see what I mean.

Legalistic approaches to this are good old evangelistic guilt inducement, and the idea that you can't watch your partner play the piano if this turns you on - also propounded by Steve Chalke by the way - is nothing short of ridiculous.

For me and my fiance, this would mean we could never be in the same room as each other, til we got married - if taken to its logical extreme. His eyes turn me on. His smile turns me on. Shall I get him to cover his head with a paper bag?

The simple answer of course to all problems of a sexual nature, is simply not to get into a situation that demands dealing with the problems. Let me elaborate.

It would be relatively simple not to get into friendships with members of the opposite sex (esp if you are gay). If of the same gender as those who turn you on, you will need to avoid them. As relationships of even the most platonic type inevitably involve some kind of interaction during which we use our sexuality (a fling of the hair over the shoulder, the way we walk, leave the toilet seat up or down, how we drink, the way we smile etc etc) as part of expression, all relationships should be diligently avoided.

The only other solution to the problem of sex, other than total isolation from the rest of humanity, is for the scientists to somehow create a sexless human, totally asexual and immune to either men or women turning it on. No doubt this is on the genetic engineering books...

Coming to think of it, receiving the Eucharist sometimes produces a similar effect in me. Maybe I should simply stop attending Mass?

Sex is a consequence of our sexual nature, which is a part of who we are. It isn't a bolt-on bit.

Will someone want to tackle the ultimate impossible question of defining lesbian sex?

quote:

---

I seem to remember a truly awful book around in my teens called Just Good Friends by Joyce Huggett.

---

Joyce Huggett? More like Joyce stop it!!!

She has this brilliant section where she lists all possible sexual activity on a kind of arousal richter scale something like:

Looking at each other
holding hands
peck kissing
slightly longer kissing
snogging
touching
etc etc...all the way up to
sexual intercourse

She then spends the next chapter saying "where should we draw the line?" and proceeds to draw it further and further down the list...until by the end of the chapter everything except holding hands is putting you at risk of the demons of lust!

Personally, my take on the issue is that if a couple never went any further than kissing before marriage, restraining themselves for months and months they would feel hopelessly unnatural and out of their depth come wedding night.

I guess I would say my perfect scenario would be that once you have made the decision this person is "the one" then you just get a shotgun wedding and let things roll from there!

Since that's not possible, I think the best thing is to try and avoid direct genital contact. Basically that's where the temperature starts to rise swiftly.

I should have nipped the marriage thing in the bud when Hostie mentioned it:

quote:

---

Are you seriously suggesting that a couple who are serious about one another abstain from mutual piano-playing-watching until marriage?

---

quote:

---

I believe also, this sort of intimacy should be reserved for the permanent and exclusive partner

---

There are some things in the above posts that piqued my interest: coley, Joan, nicole. And Nunc, that was Rev Gerald speaking pure truth. I think the sexual nature is problematic, (I might just pop off, read some Augustine and have a cold shower) and I spend time considering what is appropriate, what to aspire to, what we are called to, and how to put it in practice. Of course. Some days I don't give a damn.

Reflections on the possibility of physically affectionate, non-sexual relationships would have been nice. For further ideas, please check again the 4th para of the OP on thread goals.

What do people think of masturbation, particularily teenage masturbation? I had read on a Christian website that it was a complete and utter "no-no". It was sex, and therefore only for within the confines of marriage.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rachel_o:
the idea that you can't watch your partner play the piano if this turns you on - also propounded by Steve Chalke by the way - is nothing short of ridiculous.

---

I love reading about conservative evangelical attitudes to sex. If it wasn't so pathetic it would be hilarious.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
I love reading about conservative evangelical attitudes to sex. If it wasn't so pathetic it would be hilarious.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dyfrig:
Or the traditional, historical, universal teaching of the undivided Church on matters of sexual conduct, for that matter.
"Women? Eugh! Disgusting things! Has anybody got a cloth?" - John Chrysostom.

---

Quite.

See also the Life of Saint Thaïs (The moral: "sexually active women are evil and can only become holy by being punished and/or driven insane") or The Life of Saint Pelagia (moral: "a woman can only become holy by becoming a man. A celibate one").

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dyfrig:
Oh, btw, Alan, a propos of nothing in particular, you're a former CU exec type - is the CU a "cult"?

---

I am too and I recognise Cosmo's description.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sibling Coot:
I'm not having a go at you Chast, and you haven't qualified whether the other activities are of a sexually gratifying nature ... [Where fetishes with inanimate objects and masturbation fit in, I don't know]

---

quote:

---

and/or deliberate stimulation to orgasm

---

Which to me also includes solo deliberate stimulation to orgasm. Which, as a position (... as it were...) will doubtless make me startlingly unpopular, as well as even stranger ("Okay, so you're okay with consensual bondage and flogging, but not with masturbation?!!?!"), but it is the truth.

As for arousal, Good Heavens, what do I say? In my view, arousal simply means one is enjoying things -- or that one is not dead -- or that one has to use the lavatory -- or that one has just woken up in the morning -- or... etc. Though perhaps I am very odd. (Then again, perhaps one leads to the other -- i.e., lack of masturbation leads to very easy arousal. I don't know... and I only know how it is for me, a 34-year-old man who has never had (as far as I can tell) sexual intercourse.)

Once again I am hoping I'm not being too explicit here. I don't want to drag this into the gutter, though for me it is a relatively clean, albeit (for most people) strange gutter. But for others it might be tempting and I don't want that. (In fact, one reason (though not at all the only one) I am as active as I am in what I do is to provide an alternative without sex. If a man longs for the love and affection he never got from his father (for instance) but does not believe in gay sex, I am potentially there for him. My own foster Dad (whom I met in a gay leather bar, with fear and trembling, praying I would find someone who would respect my sexual limits) took me on without sex -- which for him was not only rare but unique -- and completely transformed my life for the better. And I must pass on what he taught me to those who now come to me. Many aren't interested without sex -- so I wave goodbye and move on. But some are.)

Interestingly, I have had many different responses from people as to whether what I do is or is not "sex." Some men I know even say that they're not even sure I'm gay, because I have not had sex with a man. Some consider what I do to be sex even though there are no orgasms. For me the definition of "sex" in any number of senses is not what is at issue -- it is what I may, as a Christian, be permitted to do, and what is forbidden me. And as far as I can tell that would be what I have posted above.

Nattering on again. I'll stop now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
FWIW I think it any kind (gay or het) of 'sex' refers to intention and attitude as well as physical interaction. Eg a gynacologist can poke around a woman and it isn't having sex, but her lover doing the same poking in bed is.

---

Hopefully her lover's hands are warmer, though.

What follows is a general commentary, spanning 2,000 years, and not aimed at anything an individual said on this thread, except for what Sibling Coot's friends mentioned.

[Irony tag on...]
Considering such situations as that to which Sibling Coot was referencing:
1)If one tells God "we didn't do it," one may be assured that, one way or another, one indeed "did." Note that, in other conversations with God on matters moral, one is unlikely to state what one did not do. Now, what is considered moral (or what is truly arousing, etc.) differs according to the individual - but the principle is the same.
2)If one who is telling God "we didn't do it" equally feels obliged to tell one's friends what one did do which is another way of reaching the same destination on another road, one has no style (why would this be an announcement? And remember, I was once a Roman! Couples who practise Natural Family Planning are even worse than Sibling's friends, because they are demonstrating their heroic chastity... but that is another thread... Does anyone really want to hear details of another's sexual behaviour, which is best reserved strictly to parties who were there?); is looking for recognition of one's superiority on a purely questionable legalistic basis; and is indulging in the tiresome and rude behaviour of forcing one's friend to be a virtual voyeur.
3)Sex is as old as Adam, of course... but note that the Tempter's methods had nothing to do with sex but a lot to do with lies. (And we lie to ourselves best of all.)
4)If someone truly wants to ponder the virtue of chastity (in any state of life), there is a great deal more to that than whether one has sex or not... or how.
[irony tag off]

quote:

---

Originally posted by babybear:
What do people think of masturbation, particularily teenage masturbation? I had read on a Christian website that it was a complete and utter "no-no". It was sex, and therefore only for within the confines of marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dyfrig:
Oh, btw, Alan, a propos of nothing in particular, you're a former CU exec type - is the CU a "cult"?

---

Whether CUs are cults is a different question from the topic of this thread. If anyone is really interested in my views on that question may I suggest starting a new thread?

I am wondering if it is possible that when we get turned on sexually by anyone, that we instead of repressing our sexuality .. we let it blossom into its original design? That we see the one who is arousing us as an image of God. Not just as an image of God but an image of God because that person is capable of generous-wonderful life-giving creation. Not just as an object that we can hump until the ache goes away and so does thiers.

Is that possible? Can people raise themselves up and lift up the sexual arrousal to a level where we see each other as images of God, because we are capable of sexual life giving love (just like the Creator)? A God who does not sit alone keeping his thoughts repressed , but a God that reaches out with love and creates us. He wants us to have sex . He doesn't want us to walk around with our eyes glued to the sidewalk.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sniffy:
I am wondering if it is possible that when we get turned on sexually by anyone, that we instead of repressing our sexuality .. we let it blossom into its original design? That we see the one who is arousing us as an image of God?

---

(I suppose Williams would say that this is a rather unusual example of the Way of Affirmation...)

Well, I mean to say, what!! My ego counts for something dontye know??

At the risk of bringing upon my head the wrath of the ever-cooting one, I rather think that the original quesion was something to do wiht disbelief in non-sex if one broadens the definition beyond what is generally understood

(e.g. "that was really bad, we shouldn't have done that.

what do you mean, we didn't have sex, did we?

No we didn't.

So, it was no big deal.

Right. Okay. See you sunday.

etc."

A point which I myself brought up during the thread about "sex before marriage"

So (apart from the Coot and nicole)

ANSWER THE QUESTION

I mean, really, I leave for a week or three and people start posting willy nilly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sniffy:
I am wondering if it is possible that when we get turned on sexually by anyone, that we instead of repressing our sexuality .. we let it blossom into its original design? That we see the one who is arousing us as an image of God. Not just as an image of God but an image of God because that person is capable of generous-wonderful life-giving creation.

---

I would say that is exactly the point. (In fact, those of us who have chosen a way of life that involves total chastity have this as part of the particular ascetic vocation because it is indeed a good - one does not sacrifice what is wrong as a part of asceticism. And I would imagine that one in a vowed life, as I am, would be in something resembling hell were their sexuality repressed.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:

(I suppose Williams would say that this is a rather unusual example of the Way of Affirmation...)

---

I don't think it's that unusual - I know there're different views, but I think that's what Dante was doing with Beatrice. Eros points to, sublimates to, is enmeshed with, Agape.

See also Donne: "Here th'admyring her my mind did whet/ To seek thee God, as streams do show their head."

Always excited to see my idol quoted JtD, but not able to share these sentiments:

quote:

---

From Batter my heart Three Personned God:
Take me to You, imprison me, for I,
Except You enthrall me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chaste, except You ravish me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Shorn Coot:
[QB I expect a fairy clap at the end.[/QB]

---

Would that be from doing it with a syphilitic sylph?

quote:

---

I love reading about conservative evangelical attitudes to sex. If it wasn't so pathetic it would be hilarious.

---

Joan the dwarf (quite rightly) sent me to hell for making a comment in a similar tone about liberals.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ultraspike:
Overheard on a crosstown bus:
"I'm thinking about making a change in my sex life."
"Oh?"
"Yeah, I'm thinking about getting a partner."

---

Matt the Mad Medic: *cough* Joan the dwarf (quite rightly) sent me to hell for making a comment in a similar tone about liberals.

I think I'm fairly tolerant for a GLE, but Cosmo, I think you are getting a bit near the 10 commandments here.

*****

Wearily groping for host hat ... wondering why Matt couldn't take Joan's example instead of merely citing it ...

If you want to pursue this, do it in hell.

RuthW
Purgatory host

[stupid code mistake]

quote:

---

If you want to pursue this, do it in hell

---

Oh please!!! Can I watch?

Wait a minute - that probably raises questions of voyeurism!

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Shorn Coot:
I can't say I've ever been too keen on the erotic aspect of relationship with God - God is predominantly to me, the Father or Parent. Father, erotic, ahhhhhh! 'Orrible juxtaposition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sniffy:
I am wondering if the puritanical views that older Priests and church going folks spew so easily has destroyed any chance of people seeing that sex is a gift from God?

---

Can't the liberal views of trendy priests and non-church going folks also destroy the chance of seeing sex as a gift from God?

quote:

---

I love reading about conservative evangelical attitudes to sex. If it wasn't so pathetic it would be hilarious.

---

Cosmo, I have given you over 48 hours to come back and defend this piece of garbage you posted here. You have not. Therefore, you are clearly trolling, which is a violation of Commandment One of our 10Cs, namely: don't be a jerk. This isn't the first time you've done this, but it damn well better be the last.

I know you don't like this but I have a life outside this machine and outside this ship. That means I don't spend my every waking moment thinkng and breathiing and dreaming about these boards and whether or not something I have written has irritated somebody and so I shoud withdraw it but it is my opinion so what do I do......? It's pathetic.

I notice that Dyfrig and Wood haven't been asked to justify their rather silly and snide remarks (to use one of thier favourite phrases) concerning the equally absurd teachings of the Church Fathers about sex and women. Why not? And why is it already for Wood to say that I cannot argue or debate like a human being?

And I stand by what I posted. I do think that conservative evangelical views are absurd. They attempt to railroad sex into a a process that is without pleasure, that it is not a gift from God but merely an imperative to procreate because of Original Sin. Their views on homosexuality and the attempts of many conservative evangelicals (people like the Living Waters Trust and many others) to 'cure' homosexuals of thier sin I find frankly evil, that these views and opinions and actions are outside of God.

Now I know well enough that these views which I have articulated (or so briefly I know) will be opposed by many. Fine. Let them oppose. But for far too long their has been no voice against these people who have been allowed to have their opinions (which they are perfectly at liberty to hold) without any challenge.

I also don't always reply immeadiatly because, yes, I do have other things to do and post on here when I have time, but also I don't like to give knee-jerk replies and reactions. Thus it sometimes takes a little time.

Lastly, I would say to the Administrators that there is such a thing as a private message or e-mail. If you have concerns to this level then why not take advantage of these methods of communication rather than plastering it all over the boards just to cheer up those people who have complained (although I would say the same to those who have complained - if you have a real problem then why not get in touch with me and complain rather than go off to somebody else - it reminds me of children running off to teacher when somebody does something they don't like).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
And I stand by what I posted. I do think that conservative evangelical views are absurd. They attempt to railroad sex into a a process that is without pleasure, that it is not a gift from God but merely an imperative to procreate because of Original Sin. Their views on homosexuality and the attempts of many conservative evangelicals (people like the Living Waters Trust and many others) to 'cure' homosexuals of thier sin I find frankly evil, that these views and opinions and actions are outside of God.

---

For the record I am evangelical, although probably not as conservative as I once was. I did come across some crackpot views on sex, and recall times before and during my time at uni (where I was on Exec and study group leader for CU) on several occasions joining groups of conservative evangelicals having a good laugh at some of what the likes of Joyce Hugget wrote.

Although most evangelicals would consider that homosexual acts fall short of the ideal God has set, many of them would also recognise that the Biblical texts are too few and open to different interpretations to claim unequivical Biblical support for their views let alone condemn homosexuals to Hell because of their sexuality. I find the actions of those you mentioned in trying to "heal" people of their sexuality as abhorant and evil as you evidently do.

In short, if you want to make comments about the conservative evangelicals (or any other group) you have come into contact with fine; just don't make sweeping statements that all people in such groups are the same.

And I DARE, dear heart, because you posted elsewhere after this message, so don't feed me a line about how you're SO MUCH BUSIER than everyone else. If you don't have time to stick with a debate, then stay the hell out of it. It really is that simple.

Statements such as the ones you've made are right on par with the idiocy that's gotten other people suspended or banned. Don't think that just because you target it at evangelicals that it's not taken just as seriously as if you'd targeted it at Americans or blacks.

And Fiddleback, this has jack to do with whether or not Cosmo is a host, or has met Simon, or anything else. This has nothing to do with what anyone else has said to me and everything to do with my watching this shameful spectacle over the course of the past few months. This has to do with what the Ship is all about, which is NOT Cosmo's little club to take potshots at everyone else he disagrees with.

For your information, not that I expect either of you to care, the people who find themselves most at home here are those who are able to question what they've been taught. Lots of times they have not been able to do this in their own church. Usually this is because when they tried, their priests/pastors/ministers/whoever accused them of being anti-Christian and were shamed into silence. This is the first opportunity they've had to really explore the questions. And this is our main goal here.

For them to do this, and then be treated with this kind of contempt, WILL NOT BE TOLERATED here. I don't give a flying rat's ass if you're the Archbishop of Canterbury, you will leave off the swipes at traditions other than your own, or you will find your ass overboard.

Please help me on this. I am not trying to be critical, but doesn't your post boil down to semantic nit-picking? Are you suggesting that it is forbidden to say (to paraphrase W. H. Auden) "Anglo-Catholic priests are sodomites", but acceptable to assert that "some (many? most? nearly all?} Anglo- Catholic priests are sodomites"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
doesn't your post boil down to semantic nit-picking?

---

quote:

---

Are you suggesting that it is forbidden to say (to paraphrase W. H. Auden) "Anglo-Catholic priests are sodomites", but acceptable to assert that "some (many? most? nearly all?} Anglo- Catholic priests are sodomites"?

---

And as host, can I ask that further discussion of this be conducted somewhere other than this thread (probably the Styx) to allow this thread to continue discussing what sex is.