Tag Archives: sex

The Sexuality of Homosexuality

Homosexuality. It’s one of the most dividing issues in America today. Everyone has an opinion on it. Christians are especially known for their “bigoted” views on the subject. They believe against it, calling it an abomination, raging against the laws supporting it. “Because the Bible says…” is their favorite mantra.

What the Bible actually says – that’s a discussion for a different post, where we can fully explore the issue.

But whether it’s wrong or not, that says nothing about the state of the heart. What does the heart want – and is it wrong to want in the first place?

Feeling a certain way, having a desire for a certain thing – desire, a leaning toward one thing or another, is not in and of itself wrong. Many are quick to point out the verse that speaks of the thoughts of the heart – that if a man so much as looks at a woman in the wrong way, then it is adultery in his heart. Therefore, to have a liking for one of the same sex is so much worse, even if the person never acts on it.

But that’s just it – the action itself is the problem. Even the thoughts of the heart is an action. It is not in the sudden, quick look – the so-called “first look.” It is in the entertaining of that look, the lust that grows in the heart – that is where sin is found.

Homosexuality is defined as a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex. Quite surprisingly, the word in and of itself is not a sin. A man is attracted to a woman walking down the street – this is well known. But there is very little talk about this kind of attraction, other than that a man must not continue to look. To be attracted to one of the same sex, however – that is an abomination, and there is something disgustingly wrong with that individual. They need to get right with Christ right away, and probably even then there will still be something a little “off.”

Is there a double standard here? Men are allowed the first look, because after all it’s natural. Men are sexually driven creatures, and they are compelled by what they see. As it turns out, so are women, but that’s yet another post in and of itself.

So men are naturally attracted to a pleasing woman. It’s accepted, because it’s natural for him to desire a woman.

What about when a man is distracted by another man, or a woman by another woman? “Abomination!” cry the righteous Christians, thumping their Bibles and pointing to Scriptures. No action was taken, barely a thought formed. But the mere distraction alone is enough to damn them, it would seem. No grace period for these disgusting souls.

Here’s the thing. Looking at one of the opposite sex, or one of the same sex – it’s the same thing. Both are sexual lusts, driven by sexual desires. That’s not to say that it would not be wrong to act on those desires – this is purely looking at the heart matter.

A person can’t help their natural inclination. Those that claim that a person is born homosexual – they are right. A person has certain desires, just as a man might have a domination fetish, or likes role play, or any other sexually-driven desire.

The Bible has much to speak on the topics of sex and immorality. But notice that it has less to say about the heart’s desires. Yes, there’s the problem of lust – but it’s not even about that. It’s the deeper issue of what a person desires in their heart. And sometimes, their heart honestly desires sin.

Sin is beautiful to look at. It wouldn’t be there if it wasn’t pleasant to the eyes. Paul says that there is a sin that so easily besets us. I think sometimes we claim that verse, but then toss it aside when it becomes convenient.

An action, even entertaining a thought process – that is sin. But to have the desire already there – that is merely a manifestation of Jeremiah’s warning that “the heart is deceitful, and desperately wicked…”

No man can trust the heart. The heart is full of wicked desires, sexual or otherwise. We have very little right to be blasting the homosexuals for their desires, when we ourselves are allowed “little” sins.

Sexuality became very twisted when sin entered into the world. What once was pure and holy became corrupt and vile. The union between a married man and woman stretched into that of any soul who happens to be “in love” or even just in the wrong moment at the wrong time. God created every person with a sexual desire, one meant to be given to their spouse. But as sin often likes to do, that desire becomes corrupted, and corruption can take many forms.

Who are we to say that one form of corruption is better than another?

 

Why is breastfeeding so controversial?

So – breastfeeding. I think most of those in my circle are in favor of doing it, but the debate reigns on where and when. This breastfeeding article gives some good points, and here’s a few of my own to add. (And here’s another one from the opposite side of the issue!)

First, a history lesson. The controversy on breastfeeding is a fairly new one. It begins a few generations ago, when companies first introduced infant formula. Initially, they claimed that it was “better than breast milk.” They convinced an entire generation of new mothers that their own milk wasn’t as healthy for their baby, and so they bottle-fed their babies. An entire generation of children grew up being very little exposed to breastfeeding. In removing a primary function of the breast, that left the other function to take over – sexualization.

This took place during another shift in society – that of becoming more sexualized, more open. Fewer clothes, seductive poses, declining marriage rates and rising numbers of unwed mothers, and so much more. Enter technology, and the problem explodes with posting seductive pictures, chatting online, and sexting. Conservatives and the church react to what they see as a growing trend, and breastfeeding inevitably gets swept up in the fray. Breasts are sexualized, and we already have a problem with women “not covering up” and thus by logical conclusion that extends to breastfeeding, as well.

It wasn’t always like this. I remember reading an older book, a fiction novel, probably written sometime in the 30’s-50’s. Not so long ago, but before the craze started. One scene in particular featured a woman feeding an infant (she was a wet nurse). A man in the scene studied her, with more awe than being turned on. Being moved by the miracle he saw, he even reached forward to touch her – and not only were they not married, they were not even a love interest, simply good friends. Not saying whether the scene was morally right, but the point is, things weren’t always this stiff about breastfeeding. There was a time in history where it was perfectly acceptable for a woman to feed her baby so naturally – and she didn’t hide away in another room to do it.

A note for those who say that breasts aren’t naturally designed to be sexual – take a peek at Song of Solomon, as well as a few passages in Proverbs and other areas. Even then, the breast was most definitely sexual and intended for the man’s delight and pleasure. “Let her breasts satisfy thee at all times” wasn’t written for the babe. There’s nothing wrong with breasts being sexual; it’s all about balance. Like most things in nature, they serve a dual purpose. It’s all about time and place.

So… what IS that time and place?

Seduction vs. Sexuality – No shame

There is a difference between seduction and sexuality.

Sexuality is natural, a physical response to stimulation. It’s a part of nature and exists in every corner of the biological world where two sexes are required to mate. It’s physical and entirely natural, and has nothing to do with morality, either good or bad. It’s as natural as any other bodily function, and exists in both men and women. And, like every other part of Creation, it is what God labeled as “good.” It wasn’t sexuality that was tainted by the fall. God still calls it “good,” for both male or female.

Seduction is the purposeful acting upon sexuality. It is in the carriage of a person, the way they handle themselves, the way they dress and walk and speak. Much like sexuality, seduction is also natural and is therefore “good.” But unlike sexuality, seduction begins in the heart and mind, it is a purposeful step toward a certain direction. It deals with morality and ethics, and can most definitely be sinful.

Many people confuse the two. Some feel their sexual responses and feel guilty, thinking that they are in sin or that there is something wrong. But sexuality alone is no more wrong than an inclination for food or drink. A natural desire for hunger can turn into gluttony, a desire to quench thirst can turn into an alcoholic. But we don’t feel guilty for those responses, because we know control, and we understand that these responses are part of the body’s natural physical function. So it is with sexuality – it’s a natural response in response to the world around us. What we DO with that response determines the morality of the situation – and that’s when it moves from sexuality to seduction.

But, just as with taking that purposeful step toward that feast spread on our table, seduction is not in itself wrong, either. In the proper context, it is a good thing. It is not wrong to act upon one’s sexuality. It is wrong, however, to do it outside of the proper context – just as much as we know that it would be wrong to wander to our neighbor’s house and take of the food lying on their table. We may be hungry, but it doesn’t excuse the wrong of taking another’s food.

Sexuality is a natural impulse, and a good one. It may even be in response to something we don’t want. But the impulse itself is not wrong, it’s natural. The entertaining of that impulse, the purposeful seduction – that is what transgresses the morality of the situation. But in the proper God-given context, both seduction and sexuality become a beautiful dance of harmony.

There is no shame in sexuality. There is also no shame in seduction – when in the proper context.