Thread: Celibate partnered relationships Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028547

---

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
The Church of England is on record of accepting same-sex relationships as long as they are celibate.

What exactly does this mean? Does it mean no physical affection at all? Or does it just mean no intercourse?
 

---

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
Good question. However, it is clergy in civil partnerships who are supposed to give an undertaking to their bishops that the clerical longjohns remained all buttoned up. Lay Anglicans in civil partnerships are neither asked nor expected to abstain from sex.

I understand that bishops of the Church of England vary in their scrutiny of their civilly-partnered priests' domestic lives.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I know we haven't even answered the questions in the first post, but here's another one: define intercourse.

Seriously. Without being tremendously graphic about the plumbing, it's by no means clear when you get to gay and lesbian couples exactly what fits in the definition.

On reflection, it's not 100% clear for heterosexual couples either - so long as the people in question have a bit more imagination.
 

---

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :
 
The most common definition of celibacy is simply "no sexual intercourse". In law these days in the UK that's defined as anything penetrative. It's sometimes also defined as anything involving one person stimulating the other person to climax, hence puzzlement about what we mean by celibate.

Where would one draw the proverbial line? That's a very good question.

Hand holding?
Kissing?
Cuddling?
Stroking of other parts of the body?
Stroking other parts of the body when that leads to excitement?

Much to contemplate.
 

---

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
Ah, in that case maybe celibacy means 'no excitement.'
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Or 'no excitement caused by touch'.
 

---

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :
 
At last we understand why so many services are so incredibly dull: the imperative not to cause excitement is weighing heavily on the minds of those conducting them....
 

---

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
'Celibacy' means 'no bonking'.
 

---

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
Ah, but what is 'bonking'? That is the great Clintonian mystery. Is it Tab A into Slot A? Is it any action intended to stimulate the Other to orgasm?

'What is celibacy,' said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer.
 

---

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
Who cares what is bonking? Once reproduction is not (or no longer is if the couple is heterosexual) an issue, then all sexual connection whether it involves penetration or not is entirely recreational.

Does the couple share a bed? If not, then they could reasonably be described as "celibate".

I am sure that JJ is smart enough to have worked out the semantics and when he says he is celibate that is exactly when he means.

m
 

---

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :
 
Supposing they don't share a bed but they still have sex? Supposing they do share a bed but don't have sex? Not sure that bed-sharing is a particularly reliable indicator of sexual behaviour (though it's a common one)?
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
Good question. However, it is clergy in civil partnerships who are supposed to give an undertaking to their bishops that the clerical longjohns remained all buttoned up. Lay Anglicans in civil partnerships are neither asked nor expected to abstain from sex.

I understand that bishops of the Church of England vary in their scrutiny of their civilly-partnered priests' domestic lives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The Church of England is on record of accepting same-sex relationships as long as they are celibate.

What exactly does this mean? Does it mean no physical affection at all? Or does it just mean no intercourse?

---

Is that likely to be a problem in (subjective) practice? Most of us have close friends, or family members, or pets, with whom we are generally able to express physical affection without being in any great danger of being thought to be engaging in sexual behaviour.

I suspect that most of us have a category of things that we would do with a sexual partner but not with a close friend. There may be a degree of variance in those categories between individuals or cultures ('sharing a bed' is probably a good example - clearly sexual to some, not necessarily sexual at all to others) but assuming minimal communication within the particular couple it ought to be possible for the individuals concerned to know whether either of them thought that a certain act was sexual or not. It's the same with friendship behaviour - there are cultures in which male friends kiss, and cultures in which they do not, but most friendships manage to get by without confusion as to whether an affectionate gesture is or is not sex.

The requirement for celibacy might be stated as "don't do anything that you personally consider to be sexual contact, or which practically everyone would consider to be so". The first clause rules out any sort of inappropropiate touching in cases where it may be hard to define in practice what the boundaries are, the second rules out the sort of contact that induces orgasms. What additional advantage would a more detailed rule provide?

The clear disadvantage of a detailed rule or test question (such as multipara's "are you sharing a bed") is that there can be genuine disagreement in good faith between different people as to whether something counts as sex. The same act can carry a different emotional weight with different people: see for example, the "is a blow-job the same as 'full' sex?" question that crops up every couple of years or so here. For some people it obviously is, for others it oviously isn't, because it can and does mean different things to different people.

We should, in my view, permit Christians to follow their consciences in freedom rather than define precisely what appropriate physical contact may be acceptable for everyone in all circumstances.
 

---

Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
Mormons deal with this of course: "what is sexual chastity"? To the sisters it is, that no one of you will have sexual intercourse except with your husband to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded. To the brethren it is that no one of you will have sexual intercourse except with your wife to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded.

Well, it USED to be that way; since 1990 it reads: You shall have no sexual RELATIONS (em. mine) except with your husband or wife to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded.

The change came about precisely because of homosexuality and oral sex (in all its varieties) being excused as NOT being "sexual intercourse" per se: and thus the door on all sex as mere "recreation" was decidedly closed....
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
If the Mormons wanted to forbid oral sex, they needed to change the wording again after 1998 didn't they?
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
All these rules are crazy. Whatever happens between consenting adults should hold no concern for the rest of us.

But what worries me is how on earth they are policed?


 

---

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Traditionally the Christian sexual ethic was that sex acts should be ordered towards procreation. Therefore pretty much any use of the genitals that can't result in babies was a Bad Thing, even for heterosexuals (unless it was being used as foreplay towards reproductive sex).

Now that Christians have largely abandoned the idea that sex has to be procreative, none of the remaining sexual prohibitions make very much sense at all, because the underlying logic has been lost.

To put it another way: if Bad Sex = non-procreative use of genitalia, then homosexual uses of genitalia are automatically wrong. But as we no longer have a coherent definition of Bad Sex, any prohibition on homosexual sex is going equally incoherent.
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Indeed

So, we need to have a new rethinking and consensus on the ethics of human sexuality and the sacrament/ordinance of marriage.
 

---

Posted by Try (# 4951) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Indeed

So, we need to have a new rethinking and consensus on the ethics of human sexuality and the sacrament/ordinance of marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Now that Christians have largely abandoned the idea that sex has to be procreative, none of the remaining sexual prohibitions make very much sense at all, because the underlying logic has been lost.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Try:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Indeed

So, we need to have a new rethinking and consensus on the ethics of human sexuality and the sacrament/ordinance of marriage.

---

IMHO, we are actually well on our way to working out a new set of norms for sexual morality as a church. These new norms for the morality of any given sexual act are:
1. the absence of force or coercion
2. a context of a loving, committed relationship between two people

Now, we just need to get the laws of our denominations and nations changed to reflect these two new norms.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
All these rules are crazy. Whatever happens between consenting adults should hold no concern for the rest of us.

But what worries me is how on earth they are policed?

---

Archdeacons' visits??!
 

---

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
amber; glad you posted as you have missed the point of what I was trying to say re celibacy and relationships.

I would say that if an individual says that (s) he and his/her partner are in a celibate relationship irrespective of reproductive age, sexual preference or what-have-you, and that individual states that the 2 parties sleep apart ( and the individual is not having a bit on the side-never mind the other party) then it is reasonable to assume that the relationship is celibate.

Never mind that the biggest and most complex sexual organ is the brain.

Get me now?

m
 

---

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
All these rules are crazy. Whatever happens between consenting adults should hold no concern for the rest of us.

But what worries me is how on earth they are policed?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
All these rules are crazy. Whatever happens between consenting adults should hold no concern for the rest of us.

But what worries me is how on earth they are policed?

---

That isn't an inherent part of the question in the OP (or the answers to it). It seems to me quite sensible to ask what is acceptable for a partnership who have already voluntarily agreed to a celibate lifestyle. What is involved in making that commitment? It's not necessary for anyone else to enforce, or care about, or even know of, that commitment for the question to arise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
why would the anyone need to know just where two people draw the celebate line?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
Part of that was discussing the question with others - not because they needed to know, but because other people's views helped us to be sure of our own. The conclusions we came to, however, were private. We weren't accountable to anyone but God and our own consciences for what we decided. And no one in fact knows (or ever will know) what that was.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by multipara:
amber; glad you posted as you have missed the point of what I was trying to say re celibacy and relationships.

I would say that if an individual says that (s) he and his/her partner are in a celibate relationship irrespective of reproductive age, sexual preference or what-have-you, and that individual states that the 2 parties sleep apart ( and the individual is not having a bit on the side-never mind the other party) then it is reasonable to assume that the relationship is celibate.

Never mind that the biggest and most complex sexual organ is the brain.

Get me now?

m

---

Oh yes I see what you mean, but I think about it 'my way': Because of my autism needs, I can't get to sleep when alone (well, not unless I want to be awake all night). So I am quite happy to share a bed with a trusted person for a hug so I can sleep, even if it's entirely platonic. So if someone said to me "do you and your partner sleep together", they'd get a very literal and accurate answer. Even if I was celibate. Which I'm not. Might be more clear if they said 'did we have sex'.

Also (continuing to ponder), if statistics are any good, there are oodles of couples who share a bed but don't have sex, e.g. people married for a long time who can't be bothered any more.

So the presence of two people in a bed may not mean as much as people think in a variety of circumstances. If there's any Archdeacons leaping out of wardrobes and going "Aha!" at people sharing beds, they may be reaching the wrong conclusion.

[ 13. July 2010, 12:51: Message edited by: amber. ]
 

---

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
Yeah, the "getting an answer to the exact question you asked, not the one you thought you asked" can be an issue for people dealing with the likes of us
 

---

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Now that Christians have largely abandoned the idea that sex has to be procreative, none of the remaining sexual prohibitions make very much sense at all, because the underlying logic has been lost.

---

Except those against coercion/rape and statutory rape.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
The decision to be celibate or have sex or draw the line somewhere in any relationship is personal. It only becomes an issue when there is some pressure to conform going on.

---

quote:

---

There is still an interesting (and possibly useful) discussion to be had on what we think it would mean, in practical terms, to choose to live a celibate and partnered lifestyle.

---

I agree - but if it's never going to be enforced, then why does it matter?

Of course, it could be that no-one thinks it's ever going to be enforced now. But once the consensus has been reached on what is and what isn't celibacy, and once it gets codified, you might find that opinion on whether it should be enforced or not will change at a later date.

The evangelical wing of the Anglican church would have serious egg on their faces if the powers that be did medical tests on Jeffrey John on a regular basis, but not on any other member of the ordained clergy. What's the rationale for treating Jeffrey John differently?

But of course, it would be silly to perform such medical tests if there still isn't an agreement on what is, and what isn't, celibacy.
 

---

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
Gorblimey.

Just wondering what sort of medical tests would one do on any individual to determine whether they were having consensual sex?

The only forensic kit I've ever used is designed for assessment post sexual assault.

If the Church were being so picky, examining the sheets might be more helpful.

And yes, if anything would make the whole church, not just the evos, a laughing-stock, this would.

The truth is that JJ has disarmed them all with his honesty, he is a good priest, and and that is what threatens the factions in the C of E.

Or so it seems to me.

m
 

---

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :
 
Examining the sheets?!

That'll only work if they're in bed
 

---

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
And couldn't prove that they were doing anything in there together at the same time...

I suppose you could look for evidence of anal sex but a) that's a violation of human rights where no law-breaking is concerned, b) lots of gay male relationships don't involve anal sex anyway and c) it would demonstrate to the rest of the country that the church had finally completely lost the plot.
 

---

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :
 
And I'm not sure that the latter suggestion for testing would be very handy for many lesbians, either
 

---

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
*chuckle*

amber and Lip, get a grip, for goodness' sake. Get out those irony meters and clean off the rust.

If you ever have the time, read Richard Ellman's excellent biography of Oscar Wilde. Hotel sheets were looked at and evidence provided by the prosecution when Wilde was tried and convicted of 'gross indecency" It would make a cat laugh, but there you are.

As for evidence of female to female sex, we all know that as far as the church is concerned it does not exist. Don't forget that the Supreme governor VR back in the 19th century refused to make it an offence, as she could not work out the fine details.

m
 

---

Posted by wilson (# 37) on :
 
If the test is whether we are willing and/or able to enforce it then most Christian teaching on personal morality is off-limits for discussion. So the natural response to "Love your neighbour as yourself" is not "Who is my neighbour?" but "Who cares, that can't be enforced".

I speak as someone who doesn't think gay partnership - celibate or not - are wrong.
 

---

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :
 
I'm still not clear on which 'it' we'd be trying to enforce anyway. Did we ever reach a vague consensus on what 'celibate' means?
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by multipara:
Don't forget that the Supreme governor VR back in the 19th century refused to make it an offence, as she could not work out the fine details.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by multipara:
Don't think so, ken.

Given what we know about her upbringing ( virtual solitary confinement courtesy her mother and Sir John Conroy),the track record of her uncles and her hysterical behaviour about heterosex ( the Lady Flora hastings affair), and the general cluelessness about lesbianism in an age where women were not thought to have libidos) I'd reckon she didn't know.

Mind you, HR Vicness considered herself to be above all the rules!

m

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
Ah, in that case maybe celibacy means 'no excitement.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
Ah, in that case maybe celibacy means 'no excitement.'

---

So just wait until they've been together for 15 or 20 years, and there'll be no problem...

---

Ooo I dunno about that....

I think we'd still struggle to know what forms of, or build-ups to, Outercourse (if any) would count as celibacy, though.

If Jesus reckoned that just looking at someone in a lustful way was as bad as having sex with them, then we're all doomed anyway (except for the forgiveness of God).
 

---

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
JH, this is way of topic but what the heck:

Her Royal Vicness was unique and she bloody well knew it. Don't forget that the Married Women' s Property Act was passed in her lifetime-when she had more property than anyone else in the civilised world and it was hers, not Albert's.

You may be sure that she considered her royal randiness to be something special since the wealthy of the time amused themselves with lovers not husbands (unlike her until she discovered John Brown) and the poor were too fucking exhausted to worry.

m
 

---

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by multipara:
JH, this is way of topic but what the heck:

Her Royal Vicness was unique and she bloody well knew it. Don't forget that the Married Women' s Property Act was passed in her lifetime-when she had more property than anyone else in the civilised world and it was hers, not Albert's.

You may be sure that she considered her royal randiness to be something special since the wealthy of the time amused themselves with lovers not husbands (unlike her until she discovered John Brown) and the poor were too fucking exhausted to worry.

m

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by amber.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
All these rules are crazy. Whatever happens between consenting adults should hold no concern for the rest of us.

But what worries me is how on earth they are policed?

---

Archdeacons' visits??!

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0