Tonight as Jews around the world celebrate Shavu’ot, a holiday honoring the giving of the Torah, my congregation, Kol-Ami, will be holding a special study session at 7:30 PM to discuss Judaism and sexual ethics. Please join us at 1200 N. La Brea for what promises to be a fascinating and insightful discussion about an issue I believe we gay people should discuss with greater frequency.
On this holiday, many Jews engage in all-night study sessions, considering the meaning of Scripture and its various commentaries, often relating those lessons to struggles we face in our daily lives. Thus, this discussion fits right into this ancient Jewish tradition.
As those who regularly read this blog know, I have occasionally weighed in on the struggle gay people (particularly gay men) have in trying to draw the boundary dividing appropriate from inappropriate sexual behavior. It seems that all too often all too many believe that sex is okay provided we play safe, that the conversation ends there.
But, I believe sex should be more than that, more than just pleasuring ourselves with another as we satisfy this natural human instinct. It should serve as a means to connect us in a deeper way to our fellows. Note the use of “should” in this paragraph. This is my idealistic notion of sexuality, my recognition of its potential.
As part of the category I created, (Gay) Male Sexuality & the Monogamous Ideal, I penned a series of posts last year (here and here for example) encouraging gay men to engage in a serious conversation on sexuality and sexual ethics.
I offer further thoughts on this topic (in many ways just rehashing points I have made previously) below the jump:
For my part, I, like many gay men, continue to wrestle with the issue. I know that when find a boyfriend, monogamy will be nonnegotiable. Indeed, I won’t take any advocate of gay marriage (or any marriage for that matter) seriously if he contends monogamy is a negotiable aspect of the marital bond.
But, where do you draw the line when you haven’t found that special someone? Should we be celibate, seeking sexual intimacy only with those individuals with whom we have formed an intense and intimate bond or where potential for such a bond exists? Or should we let ourselves go and “play the field” as some have counseled?
The answer lies somewhere between.
I believe we should tie our sexual expression to some kind of human connection that transcends the physical pleasure of the act, that we should strive to see our partner as more than just someone who titillates him, to recognize the person beneath the desired body. To that end, we should at least get to know the individual before we have sex with him.
But, yet, some of my friends have reported, oftentimes when entering into a liaison merely because they are horny, after having resolved the sexual tension, they become more relaxed and thus better able to relate to the human being whom they had met out of desire. A mere moment of horniness so serves as the means to a deeper connection.
And men being men, sometimes such a “resolution” provides a means (otherwise not readily available to those of our gender) to a more intimate connection, but too few of us, alas, seem to recognize that.
This has become my idealistic vision of what sex should be, a means to forge a more intimate connection with another human being.
This idealistic vision, however, can sometimes prove quite limiting. Our sex drive does not always correspond with our need for human connection. We find our urges come on strong when there is no ready means to satisfy them and no explanation for their sudden strength. That’s where the discussion of ethics comes in. What do we do in such situations? Should we always elect restraint? Does Scripture offer any insight into these dilemmas?
I hope tonight’s discussion will help us clarify this issue.
As I conclude these thoughts, I want to offer an anecdote, a story which helped me realize how limiting my idealistic vision could be. I mean, if I only saw “good sex” as that which enabled individuals to connect on a deeper level, would I then be calling all other sex “bad” (as I once did, but no longer do)?
What about those cases where sex provided a release which enabled us to go on with our lives, that the pleasure it afforded removed (or helped remove) some obstacle which prevented us from accomplishing?
So, here’s the anecdote. About ten years ago, while sitting with some friends at a coffee shop in Washington, D.C., an acquaintance joined us, relating how a friend, after hooking up with a man he had met at a local watering hole and falling asleep in his bed, woke in the middle of the night to find him intensely typing away at his computer. A few days later (just before the coffee-shop conversation took place), the friend was watching TV with my acquaintance where he saw his recent hookup offering perspectives on politics.
My acquaintance related this story as a means of “outing” this talking head. Yet, while my friends were more interested in the tale’s revelatory aspects, I was fascinated by the man’s post-sex productivity (havinglong been aware of his analytic gifts even if I didn’t always share his insights). A hookup couldn’t be bad, I pondered, if it helped this thoughtful man find inspiration for his work.
Perhaps some will fault me for insisting on seeing sexuality as more than just a means for two individuals to pleasure each other. I will acknowledge the observation and say in my defense that I find this hedonistic reduction tends to diminish sex, objectifying each partner. Indeed, in the aforementioned situation (which I cite to show a potential beneficial aspect of a random hookup), the pundit used my acquaintance’s friend as an object to help remove a creative block.
All this just illustrates my point about the complexity of sexuality and the need to discuss this issue and to try to find an ethical framework in which to express our sexuality, a framework which both recognizes the potential of sexual intimacy to foster a more deeper spiritual intimacy between human beings and acknowledges the “necessity” of sexual expression as a means of release.
Having thought deeply about sexuality during the period last year when I elected celibacy, I learned that while celibacy may serve us well for a period of time, we human beings are designed to express ourselves sexually.
At the same time, sex is more than just a drive for pleasure and procreation. Those who try to dismiss the feelings of shame that often accompany sexual activity as nothing more than a cultural (or religious) creation attempt to rewrite human nature. Such shame is a human reality, encountered among individuals in countless cultures and in nearly every age of recorded human history (or at least after humans started recording our emotions).
I guess what I’m just trying to say that when we consider our sexuality, we need to recognize both things, the naturalness of our sexual drive and the reality of sexual shame, to find, as I put it in a previous post, “the proper balance, that ancient Greek concept of moderation and harmony.” I’m far from the first to say this.
Perhaps, my thoughts today are not as well-organized as I would like. I know I’ll take these topics up again in future posts, but do hope they remind you to consider these fundamental issues as I invite you to join my congregation tonight for what promises to be a stimulating discussion.
If you don’t live in LA and do, but can’t make it tonight, I encourage you to use the comment thread to build on the points I made here or take issue with them, to, at least, keep the conversation going. Perhaps it will have reverberations beyond this blog — or perhaps it will help you find a deeper meaning in this natural human instinct. Such is my hope.
A happy Shavuot to you, GPW!
Shavuot’s all-night study reminds me of one of the strange congruences between Judaism and the Catholic religious order I used to belong to. Our rule allowed us to be excused from communal prayers in order to study, but we were never allowed to study less in order to pray more. 🙂
I am sure I have opined on this subject before. Opining R Us.
Anyway the triple purpose of sexual intercourse in the Catholic tradition over time has come to be first, procreation, second, interpersonal communion and third,
sexual pleasure. That’s for the standard and classical model, male with female in marriage. And in that context, sex is part of a sacrament, a ritual meeting place between the human and the divine.
For “guys like us”, I morph that into good sex having three aspects: creativity, connection and play. Some sexual relationships feature one over the others, but the best ones have significant regions of all three.
And while I’m at it, due to being discomfited and influenced by Jack Malebranche’s book Androphilia, I think that our sense of ourselves as men, not just people, but men, can help us honor other men in the same way.
My standards are lower. I’d settle for a gay culture where sex is merely NOT a means to hurt people, cheat on a commitment, spread disease (whether negligently, or deliberately as in bug chasing), etc. If we as a culture could just develop those standards, I’d say, f*ck away!
My rules are simple:
1) I do not have sex with strangers.
2) I do not sneak or cheat for sex. (Which includes: not helping others cheat, not doing Larry Craig stuff, etc.)
I have additional rules, but let the above suffice for illustration. My rules leave me a fair amount of leeway, while ruling out the behaviors or situations that would (in my own view) be really hurtful or dangerous.
P.S. Generally I think morality should be based on the thoughtful application of PRINCIPLES rather than rules… but I have found that, in the heat of the moment, sound rules (previously derived from sound principles) can be a lifesaver.
To make it more bottom-line: How about striving to not help anyone cheat? Or at least knowing the individual enough to be sure that we aren’t a party to *his* hurting someone?
Relate, how? Relate, to what? What real connection is there, other than ‘We are two people who are desperate enough to have just had sex with a stranger’? A post-orgasmic state will naturally make that encounter more relaxed.
I believe that what you are really saying, GPW – probably without realizing it – is that anonymous sex is a schizoid coping device. “Schizoid” in its scientific meaning: “Of, relating to, or having a personality disorder marked by… an inability to form close relationships.” Anonymous sex can give people the illusion of ‘relating’.
A release… from what? Just a question to think about. When one identifies the true nature of one’s prison, one may also identify more complete and effective ways of obtaining release from it. Or of gaining inspiration, etc.
Dan, another great post on male sexuality and the monogamous ideal.
My rules are:
1) Do not have sex with someone who you just met for the first time.
2) See rule #1.
I’ve made a point of knowing that I won’t go home with a person the first time I meet them, that it doesn’t become an issue for me. When I met someone whom I was interested in, I would either arrange a time to meet him again, or exchange phone numbers. If we didn’t get to see each other again for whatever reason, then I knew it wasn’t worth having sex with him. So, yes, there have been a couple of occasions where I was intimate with someone on the second time I met him. ILC, I don’t know if that violates your rule #1 or not.
The thing is, I have never been able to disconnect the emotional attachment with the physical attachment. So I was never able to just have sex with someone one night, and forget about them the next. Anyway, by waiting at least a couple of days before meeting this person a second time (and possibly having sex with him), you get the chance to think about what’s going on, and gives you a chance to know the person better. Among other things, to find out (hopefully) if the person is in another relationship, and to see if there is some sharing of values.
Whether one agrees with these rules or not, I would still suggest following my rules if you decide you are searching to find someone for a relationship, with slight modifications.
1) Do not have sex with someone who you just met for the first time.
2) If you go out and don’t find “Mr. Right” and you find yourself trying to rationalize that “Hey, I couldn’t find someone I’m interested in dating, so I might as well go home with someone,” see rule #1.
3) If you find this hot guy, but either you or he has decided that there is no way, for whatever reason, you are going to have a relationship, and you find yourself trying to rationalize that “Hey, this guy is so hot and since we’re not going to date anyway, I might as well go home with him tonight,” see rule #1.
Dan, the anecdote was interesting, and provoked some thoughts. Maybe the sexual encounter did assist in productivity for the talking head, but something tells me that it would have happened regardless. Maybe besides being horny, he had a deadline. I guess I question how much interest this talking head had in his partner, but of course, I would not know for sure. But as your anecdote implies, it doesn’t appear that the acquaintance’s friend and his partner ever even met up again. Perhaps that all that both persons wanted out of it.
Pat, I respect your approach. I offered my rules as an example. People can draw “the line” in slightly different places. I think what is important is, making an honest effort to draw it. It’s the person who says, “Who cares about lines?” or “What’s wrong with anonymous sex?”, that I tell: don’t expect to date me anytime soon. (And yes, I look good in my age group, and know how to show someone a good time. 😉 )
Dan-
If you want to learn about Judaism and sexual ethics, why on earth are you turning to a Reform “gay temple”? Let me guess- they didn’t even present as one option, what Judaism really says about male-male sexuality between Jews:
• anything that may lead to arousal is forbidden
• anal intercourse is one of the worst sins possible
Of course not. They came up with their own ideas about sexual ethics and then declared that they were Jewish. That is deeply dishonest. It’s like the gay synagogue in San Francisco having an event a few years ago called “Jewish Perspectives on Marriage Equality” and featuring like eight speakers, not a single one of whom mentioned that Judaism considers both civil and religious marriage to be between a man and a woman.
If you want to believe whatever you want to believe, it’s a free country. But don’t call it Jewish. How would you feel if someone started to argue that higher taxes, more regulation, and a weak foreign policy were “Republican ideals”? I don’t think you’d like it one bit.
David Benkof is 100% correct. One who does not believe in, let alone adhere to, Torah laws and philosophy cannot be said to have “shown a love for Torah and Jewish Scripture.” Along the lines of what David suggested, it’s the same as saying that someone who cheats on his wife – while conviently changing the ageless, agreed-upon definition of monogamy – has “shown a love for monogamy.” Whatever Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionism are, Judaism they ain’t. In fact, in my opinion, these “movements” are absolutely no closer to authentic, Judaism than are the different flavors of Christianity; they may all be based on Judaism, but they are not Judaism. Intellectual honesty should come into play, as far as I’m concerned.