Reflections on Celibacy and Safe Sex
It’s been well over a year since I ended a vow of celibacy I undertook just over three years ago. I wanted to see what it was like not to have sex for a period of time. Fortunately, I was single (as I am now), so didn’t have to disappoint a boyfriend. :-)
One thing which struck me when I talked about my decision with my gay male peers was how, while some commended my choice, most criticized it. I certainly understand the drive which underlies their criticism (now perhaps better than I did back then). And while I appreciate their standpoint, one thing which troubled me about many of these conversations was how all too many of my gay peers (and it oftentimes seems men in general) have limited the conversations on sexual restrictions to playing safe.
As if there should be no further limitations.
That idea struck me again when I read about how twenty-one years ago, Kevin Jennings handled his meeting with “Brewster.” He wanted to make sure the teen used condoms for intercourse. That’s a good thing, a very good thing, to tell sexually active individuals. But, it’s not all we should be saying. It seems most of us are like Jennings. We don’t want to discourage any sexual expression, provided, of course, it’s “safe.”
And this is where I’ve come down harshest on Jennings, that in the years since that encounter, while he has talked about it repeatedly, he never once questioned whether he should have encouraged “Brewster” to see sexuality as a means not just of physical intimacy, but of emotional intimacy as well. To be sure, he was young at the time and “cnihtwesende,” as I put it in a previous post, may then have had difficulty expressing this notion.
But, as he got older and continue to talk about the experience, having seen more of the world, wouldn’t he have developed a deeper understanding of our sexuality. Perhaps, he addresses that issue in his writings–which I’ll soon find out when the books I’ve ordered arrive.
Now, I know there are many gay men who do understand the emotional aspects of our sexuality, but sometimes it seems even they are reluctant to talk about it. Yet, talk about it we must if we want to have a serious conversation on gay marriage and convince skeptical straight people that we are serious about the institution.
For, a defining aspect of marriage has always been sexual exclusivity. And it’s important that we understand and communicate why that ideal serves a mainstay of the institution.
13 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
First of all there is nothing wrong with celibacy since it is indeed something that is of a “higher order”. It is a vow that is very hard to keep – ask any Catholic priest about the temptations that come their way after he has made a voluntary vow of celibacy (which is for life). From that angle when a priest breaks that vow and commits an outrage upon a young person, or with an adult woman (most of the time), then the breaking of the vow is of a very, very serious nature.
Second, sexual activity itself is overrated. For too long there has been this emphasis upon the sex act which in reality turns us into “animals” because the act itself becomes something that is mechanical. I think that this is the problem with the Jennings types in this world.
Third, as a straight person, I reiterate that marriage is between a man and a woman. That continues to be my position. However, that is really a position that takes in the more religious viewpoint and I do believe that there is another side – that of the civil law. From the civil law point of view, a partnership between two consenting male or female can be accepted under partnership law. The issue of a civil license is quite separate from the sacramental view of marriage. The granting of a civil license is a different matter. It would be far better to discuss this in the form of civil union, rather than the use of the word “marriage”.
Since there are a lot of heterosexuals who live together without the civil license I do not understand the constant push for a change in the civil law. If this was just about getting recognition by insurance companies and the like, then there would be some ways of working to get a broader definition of a partnership. If, on the other hand the whole thing is based upon “breaking down a barrier”, then yes, I will continue to object to this particular push.
Comment by straightAussie — October 15, 2009 @ 5:29 am - October 15, 2009
Dan, I’m with you on the emotional aspects of intimacy. I, for one, was never to separate the emotional from the physical parts of intimacy. But that is the least of my problem with what Jennings did, or more aptly, failed to do. He should have advised Brewster to not have anymore, and definitely not with a predator, the latter, because he already has been hurt by it somewhat, and continuing to do so would likely cause more physical and/or emotional harm (perhaps that’s what you also meant when discussing emotional initimacy?). I suppose he could have discussed the emotional side of sex with Brewster. I’m just not sure, and if Jennings was sure if Brewster was doing this because he was seeking an emotional connection with these predators, or he just wanted physical intimacy without any emotional connection.
I agree with you about the condom part. In all the quotes I have seen, Jennings did not advise or suggest that sex was okay as long as he was using a condom. It was after the fact. More like it was bad enough that he had sex with a predator, and was hoping he did not make it worse by not protecting himself.
I give Jennings more of a break than you do. Sure, in his book, he should have been regretful of his decision. If I were to interview him, I would question him on what he would do now if he was in the same situation.
StraightAussie, I somewhat agree with you. Perhaps the best route is to get government totally out of the marriage business. We can call any license given by the government to two consenting adults a civil union. And then we can leave it to the churches to decide who they want to marry (including same sex couples). And obviously we each get to decide whether we want to call anyone else’s civil union a marriage or not.
Comment by Pat — October 15, 2009 @ 7:31 am - October 15, 2009
I find that no matter how much I try be tolerant, I do not like eavesdropping on gays discussing their sexual intimacy.
Comment by heliotrope — October 15, 2009 @ 9:32 am - October 15, 2009
Sexual morality is not a human choice. Celibacy is only moral when it is a gift from God. Our bodies were bought at a price, and we must honor God with our bodies because they don’t belong to us–they belong to God. My believing community (ELCA) has discerned after careful prayer and study that God calls gays who are not gifted with celibacy to lifelong, monogamous, publicly accountable relationships. This is not a human choice–it is a discernment of the will of the Spirit.
I think it is wrong to base sexual morality on human norms or what each individual thinks is right. The only source for sexual morality is God, who speaks to us through Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience (the Methodist 4-legged stool, which I think most mainline Christians would agree with). By prayerfully examining those 4 sources in a believing community, we can find God’s will for our sexuality, and not be led astray by our own misguided attempts at morality.
Comment by Ashpenaz — October 15, 2009 @ 9:48 am - October 15, 2009
I agree helio, listening to guys talk about having sex with women just seems … gross.
Comment by Joe — October 15, 2009 @ 10:30 am - October 15, 2009
Hells Joe,
I feel that way about my coworkers. Talking about it with friends is different, but I’m… odd that way.
Comment by The_Livewire — October 15, 2009 @ 10:32 am - October 15, 2009
Joe,
Listening to anyone talking about his sex life is not a zone of comfort for me. However, I will say what you want to hear. My tolerance for gays is challenged when a gay starts talking about his sex life. You see, I am clearly a borderline homophobic bigot. But, if you feel more comfortable dropping the “borderline” qualifier, please be my guest.
Comment by heliotrope — October 15, 2009 @ 2:28 pm - October 15, 2009
D, one of the premises I take away from reading your post is that you feel sexual exclusivity between male partners leads to intimacy between those partners. That’s not really borne out by any investigations into long term male relationships. Some long term couples are sexually exclusive, others aren’t.
From the research I’m familiar with, for long term male couples, its pretty much a wash for sexual monogamy. Some are and find that to be a key value in their relationship but others aren’t, and still report a corresponding level of emotional intimacy.
Sexual exclusivity and emotional intimacy aren’t the same thing. One doesn’t necessarily lead to another and teaching that they do isn’t correct. Building intimacy requires a lot of work in a lot of areas, not just in the bedroom.
Main one? Common values. What does seem to work is that a couple has to share the same value, either for sexual and emotional monogamy or emotional monogamy only. M/M relationships just won’t work if both parties aren’t on the same page with that — as well lots of other things, too.
As to whether or not gay men are serious about marriage, I’d argue we’re about as serious as straight people are, the Goessleins and the Milford’s included.
Comment by Jody — October 15, 2009 @ 3:06 pm - October 15, 2009
Isn’t it amazing how Jody and his fellow gay leftists do everything they can to criticize and tear down sexual restraint and monogamy?
As to whether or not gay men are serious about marriage, I’d argue we’re about as serious as straight people are, the Goessleins and the Milford’s included.
Problem is, gay liberals support the Gosselins and insist that the Milfords are dysfunctional.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 15, 2009 @ 3:49 pm - October 15, 2009
NDT, *THAT* is all you got from Jody’s writing?
Do you really believe that exclusivity inexorably leads to intimacy?
I think that part’s a classic case of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
HOWEVER, Jody, sexual expression can’t possibly be entirely be separated from *some* kind of emotional meaning/intimacy. There’s no such thing as “it’s just sex”.
Anyone who tells you “it’s just sex” is lying to someone, usually themselves.
All the same-sex relationships I’ve been witness to (yes, this is anecdotal, but extensively so with uniform results), when they go from exclusive (monogamous) to open cross a fundamental line in how they interact with the rest of the world.
If such relationships can be thought of as organisms, these relationships go from being endotherms, that is, capable of producing their own energy, capable of keeping themselves going, to ectotherms, that is, relying on taking energy from the outside world in order to keep themselves going.
I’ve seen it a million times, individuals in these “open relationships” taking emotional energy from other people, usually single people, in order to get what they’re not getting from the other in the relationship they’re in.
I’m as hardcore a Leftist (in your parlance) as they come, but I see what I see. Just how much of one’s own humanity does one really have to give up in order for the physical closeness of sexual actiivity with another human being to mean absolutely nothing on a level higher than simple friction?
Sex always mean’s *something*. It may mean simple camaraderie and nothing more. It may mean comfort. It may mean something intense but temporary. It may mean tenderness or yes, even kindness to a stranger, but it always means SOMETHING.
Sex meaning nothing is a choice to ignore or deny that whatever-something it meant.
Jody, you can argue til you’re blue in the face about common values between the two men who decide to open up a relationship, but as soon as the relationship opens, it begins to involve other human beings. Other human beings who have a choice? Yes, of course, but the more open relationships there are, the fewer the available highquality choices there are out there.
Couples in open relationships are never about just two people.
Comment by God of Biscuits — October 15, 2009 @ 11:32 pm - October 15, 2009
Actually, I pointed out that neither having and open or closed relationship is an assurance of intimacy or by extension success. When looking at couples who have been together a long time, research-wise, neither open nor closed relationships dominate.
Yes, it does.
Presumably, yes. Those human beings have choices, too.
G, that doesn’t follow.
I say that thinking you are trying to argue that people in open relationships suck the life out of other relationships, be they closed or just with single people. I’m drawing on your endo and ecto thermic idea here. But that’s an assertion offered without support; an opinion. I disagree.
There are closed couples that suck the life out of other closed relationships all on their own. They manage to do it to other single people, too. Some open couples do it. Some single people manage it as well. Some people are just assholes. Some couples are, too. That’s just life.
Comment by Jody — October 16, 2009 @ 3:04 am - October 16, 2009
And by “eavesdropping” you mean “reading a thread that has Sex right there in the title, on a blog that has Gay right there in the title, although no one is forcing you to read the (free of charge) blog or the particular thread therein.”
P.S. Although I enjoy watching “gay pr0n,” I don’t enjoy watching anal sex scenes — it’s just not very erotic to me. So my utterly revolutionary solution is to AVOID VIEWING pr0n that has a lot of futtbucking in it.
Comment by Throbert McGee — October 16, 2009 @ 5:53 am - October 16, 2009
#12,
You are 110% correct. I should have moved on and my comments were gratuitous. I mean this sincerely.
Comment by heliotrope — October 16, 2009 @ 10:26 am - October 16, 2009