LUSTY LADY: Virginity, sin and sexual integrity

Because I'm always curious about how other people view sexuality, and I'm half-heartedly working on this ongoing book proposal about sexual freedom, I'm always poking around Amazon and such. This time, it was through a circuitous process, leading from Nichelle's post to seeing that Tara McCarthy, whose Been There, Haven't Done That: A Virgin's Memoir I read when it came out, writes under Tara McCarthy (for adults) and her married name, Tara Altebrando (for teens).

Looking up books on virginity, I came across Soul Virgins: Redefining Single Sexuality by Doug Rosenau and Michael Todd Wilson, which sounded interesting. I am not against chastity; I really don't think I have the right to tell anyone else what to do with their sex lives. But...I do find it disturbing how circumscribed acceptable sexuality is within this framework.

Soul Virgins

In an article (part 3 of an 8-part series) by Rosenau entitled "Eight Skills for Sexual Integrity: Become the Master of Your Mind - You don't have to be a slave to sexual fantasies and urges," men are painted as pretty much slaves to their sexual desires, even as they're told they can overcome them. It's this push-pull, you're okay but only if you go against your own nature, acceptance/rejection that to me seems highly confusing. They're saying that men have these thoughts, but should be ashamed because women (and God) would be upset:

What if God decided to give the woman in your life the ability to see your every sexual thought for a day? If you're the average male, this would be the ultimate nightmare! We would be driven to our knees in desperate bargaining: "Lord, please not that. I promise to grow up!"

And it's really the assault on sexual thoughts, on "impure" thoughts, that I think is such a vital piece of "sexual freedom." Even thoughts are not safe, not okay, not part of one's private sphere of sexuality. I mean, who exactly is having sexual fantasies with all our clothes on? (Okay, yes, it's conceivable, but I'm just not clear on how the following clarifies things)

It's important to note that not all sexual thoughts are lustful, and not all are wrong. Sinful lust is when we start mentally disrobing and visualizing people in sexual situations.

I don't want to just pick on these people, because I really do want to understand these ideas and ways of thinking about sex. I don't think men should walk around ashamed and full of guilt for their lustful thoughts. But I believe in a fairer balance, where fantasies and thoughts are and plus/and part of a couple's sexuality, not an either/or part.

When confronted with feminine beauty, men don't often think of the woman as a real person with feelings, a person with a soul, one that experiences joy and fatigue. Instead, they zoom in on female parts, not even looking at the whole body. It is narrow and one-dimensional.

We all look - men and women, at each other. I think it's natural to look, and there are ways of looking that can be leering and gross and sleazy, and ways that can be the opposite of that. I don't think looking at someone and getting turned on is necessarily bad - for the watcher or the watchee. It all depends on the context. Maybe the super tired mom gets a little thrill after a long ass day doing errands, etc., by having some guy smile at her, or knowing she turned his head. Maybe the women all decked out wants to feel better about herself and has dolled herself up. And we all know that it doesn't really matter what you're wearing - women get sexually harrassed in sweatpants all the time. I'm not saying sexual harrassment doesn't exist, or that we should encourage it, but there are lines and demarcations, and while I do think we should consider everyone we meet as a whole person, part of that person is their sexuality. To deny that is just ridiculous and I feel like this goes beyond monogamy; it's asking for mental as well as physical monogamy, and is really a much vaster program than just "don't touch anyone else." And the reasoning is all because it's God's way.

There are some good parts of this series, like the idea of meeting nonsexual needs nonsexually. I am pro-sexual integrity as well, it just means something different to me than to this author.

Justin reflected on his relationship with his wife, and finally noticed that he had too many eggs in the sexual basket. He wasn't very affectionate unless they were making love; he usually celebrated victories by making love; he was encouraged out of his funks and felt affirmed in his masculinity through sex. One time, he even told his wife that sex would help him get over the flu!

Men and women both use sex, and can be used by sex. I thin it's important to be aware of what you're using sex for and what kinds of interpersonal relationship you get into, sexual or otherwise, because it can be highly confusing and potentially hurtful. But sex itself is not inherently wrong or bad (or positive or good) - it isn't inherently anything, which is why I think the phrase "sex-positive" gets confused and misused. To me, being sex-positive doesn't mean endorsing every sexual act ever; it doesn't mean having the most sex possible 24/7 with just anyone, it doesn't mean elevating sex over other forms of communication. It does mean valuing what sex can (and can't) do for us and maximizing the positive aspects of it, as well as valuing sexual expression and feelings.

Other interesting-looking upcoming "virgin" titles: (I know Vegan Virgin Valentine is a reprint, but I still love the name)