Source of book: Borrowed from the
library
I first discovered Miguel De La
Torre while researching one of my Patriarchy posts several years ago. Among
other things, his excellent interpretation of the Parable of the Workers caught
my eye - it matched what my dad explained to me as a child, before he went all
right wing.
In any case, I decided to put this
book on my reading list.
I can’t even really remember when
it was that I realized that the Evangelical teachings on human sexuality were,
to put it bluntly, horseshit on a stick. It was likely a gradual process,
starting from when I hit puberty at the latest.
There are several factors, but I
think all of them can be summarized by “I payed attention to actual evidence,
not dogma.” Which is, come to think of it, a significant factor in my
deconstruction generally.
First of all, I read through the
Bible in its entirety - which is a HELL OF A DANGEROUS THING TO DO. You can
never again look at the Bible the same way after you read it with an open mind,
rather than as a proof-text for the dogma you already believe.
First of all, most of what
Evangelicals teach about sexuality is not actually in the Bible at all. And it certainly
does not match what the Bible actually does say about it. For example,
Evangelicals are pretty strongly against polygyny, despite the fact that the
Bible not only never forbids it, it assumes it as the norm, regulates it, and
approves those who practice it.
Likewise, the Bible takes for
granted that women are the chattel of men, to be bought, sold, and raped pretty
much at will. It’s right there in the Ten Commandments, where males are
commanded not to covet other males’ property - slaves, donkeys, and women.
And then, despite this being
glossed over in theology and even in translation, men were permitted to take
and own sex slaves, which they were free to rape whenever they wanted.
In addition, other than not
fucking the property of other men, committing certain kinds of incest, and not
fucking another man as if he were a mere woman, male sexuality was pretty
unregulated.
So, it was pretty obvious after
reading the Bible through the first time that its teachings on human sexuality
were so rooted in the treatment of women as chattel that it both permitted and
even encouraged things we now recognize as morally evil: rape, sex slaves,
treatment of women as property - but it also failed to forbid most of what
Evangelicals claim males should not do.
I highly recommend Unprotected
Texts by Jennifer Knust for a scholarly look at what the Bible actually
says about sex - which is not what Evangelicals teach.
In contrast to that book, A
Lily Among Thorns seeks to develop a truly Christ-like theology of
sexuality and the body, one based on loving our neighbor, rather than one based
on the ownership of female bodies.
To do that, De La Torre examines
the biblical text, but also the history of Christian teachings. And, most
importantly, he looks at how both of these are so rooted in evil beliefs about
the nature of women, the nature of the human body, and the human hierarchies
that benefit wealthy males at the expense of everyone else.
In other words, he reads it and
develops his theology based on the perspective of those who have been damaged
and oppressed by our teachings on sexuality.
***
Let me say at the outset that
there are a few things I disagree with the author on - I will mention
them - but overall, I think this is the best exploration of how a
Christ-follower can and should view the human body and its sexuality that I
have read.
Perhaps even more to the point, I
can say with confidence that if you find a man (or a woman, but especially a
man) who fully embraces De La Torre’s view as expressed in this book, you will
find a person who is good, thoughtful, and most notably, safe to be in a
relationship with.
The disagreements I have with him
are minor, specific, and do not at all reflect moral issues. De La Torre
proposes an entirely decent, loving, and mutual approach to sexuality, and our
world would be a far better place if more people - and particularly more men
thought this way.
I mention men a lot here, because
we live in a society that is still fairly patriarchal. And Evangelical doctrine
is very patriarchal. Because society and the church are literally set up
to privilege wealthy white males, most of the danger and destruction comes from
those with power, not those abused by it. Fixing men will do far more to fix
the problems of sexuality than fixing women.
I will work through the book a bit
at a time using quotes. I took a lot of notes, so this will be a long post,
with a lot of information. That said, I do encourage you to buy the book. It is
such a great resource for healthy sexuality - and I really wish I had read it
when I was a teen.
I also should mention here that
this book is more about the theological side - although it is very practical
too. I read Forever…
by Judy Blume concurrently with this one, so I discuss the practical
side of sexuality, and how I realized that my experiences didn’t fit with
Evangelical theology in that post. I also talk about this in my recent review
of Intercourse
by Andrea Dworkin.
***
As I dive into the book itself, I
also want to note that one of the things I have appreciated the most about the
book is that it examines the problem of our view of human bodies in general. It
is often overlooked just how influential the Gnostics (and their progenitors,
the Stoics) have been in Christian theology starting with Augustine and Jerome.
Their view of the spirit as good and the body as bad permeates Christian
thought, unfortunately, which has made sex into something dirty, to be
tolerated as necessary for reproduction, but not a beautiful good in and of
itself.
Let’s start with the preface,
which, interestingly, recounts the doomed reelection campaign of Silvio
Berlusconi - in which he promised to be sexually abstinent for two and a half
months before the election. Which somehow made him a “family values” hero.
Which, wut? De La Torre explains.
Why is sexual abstinence linked to family values? The
prevalent ascetic tradition within Christianity has taught us to associate
sexual abstinence with purity and holiness. Many Christians, believing that
there is a moral degradation of our society and that it is the result of
excessive sexual promiscuity, recoil at the concept of sacred sexuality or the
possibility of an ethics based on sex. These Christians see sexual desire as
both powerful and dangerous.
Any of us who grew up Evangelical
know just how much time and effort and pearl clutching went into impressing on
us that we were not to have sex until we were properly stuck in a marriage.
This came not only from our parents, but from the entire church-industrial
complex. Far more was said about sex and not having it than on any other moral
concern.
The author goes on to note that
sexual desire is seen as inherently dangerous, and that harsh laws are
increasingly considered necessary to address it. (See: Project 2025…)
He also notes the paradox that our
often Puritanical society is also based on the use of sex to sell things. They
are, he notes, the flip sides of the same coin.
In this book I will search the Christian Scripture, in spite
of their patriarchal tendencies, to find biblically based guidelines and
principles for developing an ethical sexual lifestyle that is aware of how
sexism, homophobia, and even racism and classism have influenced past and
current conversations on sexual ethics.
As he says, he will eschew both
conservative and liberal views in favor of a liberative reading.
To use a liberative methodology means to explore sexual
ethics by (1) listening to the stories of those voices that are usually
ignored, the voices of those abused by the prevailing sexual norms; (2) paying
close attention to who benefits, either through power or privilege, from the
present normative sexual practices of society; and (3) challenging sexual norms
that prevent individuals from living the abundant life promised to them by
Christ.
I believe that social injustices pervert human relationships
and distort any definition or concept of love.
If you think that sounds a bit
like Andrea Dworkin…you would be right. They have different concepts of how to
address patriarchy and oppression, but they see the same issues at play.
Although Moses, the prophets, Jesus, and Paul did not make
sexuality the focal point of their teachings, issues involving sexuality are
currently tearing apart Christian denominations and individual churches.
Believers are no longer divided over issues of doctrine, but rather over issues
concerning sex…Few sitting in the pews properly know their denomination’s
Christological doctrines, but they do know where their church stands on
premarital sex, homosexuality, and ordination of women.
And this:
Sidetracked by these divisive issues and afraid to tackle the
topic of sexual ethics head-on, Christians have failed to seriously and openly
discuss sexuality as an integral part of our humanity. Quite simply, they run
the risk of making their perspective on the topic irrelevant.
So what is the issue here, and how
can we do better?
The church’s traditionally negative attitudes toward sex in
general - and, by extension, toward women, people of color, and gays in
particular - have made it difficult, if not impossible, to create biblically
based and just sexual ethics. But when the biblical text is read from the
viewpoint of the marginalized in society, specifically those who are normally
oppressed due to their gender or sexual orientation, preconceived notions about
Christianity and sex get turned on their heads. Reading from these margins of
power forces the reader to move beyond a biblical interpretation that merely
reflects their own opinions about sexuality. To read from the margins provides
a liberating approach to dealing with issues of sexuality.
De La Torre also addresses the
myth of “objectivity.” There is no such thing. We are all subjective, and we
need to admit that and acknowledge what that means for our views.
I maintain that there is no such thing as objectivity. All
ethical reflections are subjective. Only the subjective ethical reflections of
those within the dominant culture are labeled objective. The approach
employed in this book challenges the assumption that ethics - in this case -
sexual ethics - can be understood apart from what the interpreter brings to the
analysis.
The preface is followed by an
introduction. (Maybe they should have just been the first two chapters?) I
definitely want to quote a few lines from the introduction, though, because I
think they are very much on point not only for a discussion of sexuality, but
indeed for any discussion of theology and ethics.
Any discourse on Christian sexual ethics is also a debate
over biblical revelation and inspiration; specifically, how scriptural
interpretations are formulated and used. Although there are many theories, the
basic question is whether the Bible consists of God’s actual words as dictated
to human secretaries or the testimony of believers who witnessed God’s movement
in their specific place and time. If the latter is true, could God’s revelation
be misconstrued due to the prevalent existing social structures of the time -
social structures that accepted polygamy, genocide, or slavery without qualms?
The question we must wrestle with is whether the Bible itself supports
patriarchy, or rather that the authors of the text, as members of an
unquestioning male-centered social order, simply presumed their own
gender-based social structures as normative?
Those with a sense of how the Bible has historically been
used to foster oppressive structures voice concern about returning to some
romanticized pristine illusion of biblical times.
Yes! I am firmly in the second
camp - actually reading the Bible with an open mind destroyed any belief I had
in a literal dictation. And unfortunately, the Bible has indeed been used
throughout history to justify slavery, genocide, and the mistreatment of
women.
Though we do not want to admit it, we all read biblical texts
selectively. All of us come to the Bible with a specific life story and read
our personal biases into the text. Our social location influences how we
interpret Scripture, and the biblical interpretations we construct - which
usually justify lifestyles beneficial to us - can contradict the very essence
of the Gospel message. As we all know, the Bible has historically been used to
justify atrocities like genocide, slavery, war, crusades, colonialism, economic
plunder, and, of course, gender oppression. Bible verses have been quoted,
sermons preached from pulpits, and theses written in theological academies to
justify barbaric acts in the name of Jesus.
And none of us are exempt from
this risk in our own time:
Those who read the Bible from the position of authority must
guard against misinterpreting scripture, consciously or unconsciously, as a way
to protect their power and privilege. Passages that foster either sexism or
partriarchy must be reinterpreted from the perspective of those marginalized by
the text, or rejected in the same way we Christians today reject passages that
foster genocide.
I love De La Torre’s central
interpretive lens.
The mission and purpose of Christ’s coming was to abundantly
provide life, both temporal and eternal. It is through this lens, rather than
the lens of patriarchy so often used, that we must read and interpret the
entire biblical text. In short, if a biblical interpretation prevents life from
being lived abundantly by a segment of the population - or worse, if it brings
death - then it is anti-Gospel. When a reading of the Bible relegates women to
second-class status, reducing them from persons to sexual objects, then such
interpretations cease to be biblically based.
It is with this in mind that De La
Torre begins the main part of the book with “Liberating the Female Body.” I
probably should give a content warning here: the history of male misogyny among
church fathers is brutal. I mean, absolutely sickening.
It is here as well that De La
Torre expresses his core belief about good sexuality: it is intimately
connected to familial relationships. Sex is to be in the context of people who
love each other as equals and commit to mutual care. This doesn’t necessarily
mean marriage per se; likewise, marriage is not nearly enough to make a
familial relationship. My own experience with terrible marriages, both
professionally and personally, bears this out. And patriarchy is a main cause
of terrible marriages within church and society.
Reading the scriptures through the lens of patriarchy has
been used to justify advocating the male superiority as God ordained it.
However, when we realize that these structures are a consequence of sin and not
the order of things as ordained by God (as discussed in the introduction), we
can see that the ideal relationship is far from what has historically been
perceived as God-sanctioned. Patriarchal structures prevent familial
relationships - relationships based on mutual giving and vulnerability - from forming.
There is also an excellent
discussion of the question of both men and women being made in the image
of God. In Patriarchy, only males are truly in the image of God - and thus men
are gods. (See also: Trump and MAGA…) One good line from a longer discussion:
If man, like God, has a penis, does it not stand to reason
that all who have penises are closer to the perfect image of God? Following
this line of thinking, the penis itself becomes a sacred object shared by God
and males.
The author goes on to examine the
way that the Bible often (although not always) and church fathers (near
universally) reduce women’s purpose to procreation. I’ll note Augustine’s
bizarre claim that it would have been better if God had put another male in the
Garden with Adam rather than Eve - he notes this would have literally been
“Adam and Steve.” And it wasn’t just Augustine.
Relying on Augustine’s writings, the medieval scholar Thomas
Aquinas would conclude that insofar as Adam’s purpose for existence was an end
in and of itself, women’s raison d’etre was to procreate.
If this sounds like what Simone de
Beauvoir was railing against in The
Second Sex, you would be right. And don’t forget Martin Luther with his
praise of women who die in childbirth, because they gave their lives for their
sole purpose for existence. And later, he is also quoted to the effect that
women were like children, and needed a man to tell her what to do as if she
were in fact a child. Yuck.
But women are not only considered
inferior, but also downright dangerous, because they are so damn sexy.
Women were cast as the eternal temptress, responsible for
arousing desire among holy men. Eve and all women who follow were the reason
why men become sexually excited. Augustine maintains that a battle exists
between the mind and aroused penises, which are caused by women.
I approve of the author’s
inclusion here of the passages where angels themselves got so horny that they
just had to fuck human women, thus creating the monsters.
Yeah, so you can see throughout
this chapter just how deeply rooted misogyny and sexism is in the Christian
tradition. The bottom line is, unfortunately, that John Calvin was one of many
when he claimed that women were no more than a “necessary evil.”
One final note in this chapter: De
La Torre does a great job of illuminating the mistranslation and
misinterpretation of the Mary and Martha story. Martha wasn’t stuck doing
housework. The word for what she was doing is the root word of “deacon.” She
was literally a deacon of the house church along with her sister. They were
leaders. And Martha was busy serving. As the author notes here, a better
reading of the passage elevates both Mary and Martha - as Christ did.
The next chapter is even more of a
challenge to current Evangelical practice. Because the author takes on the way
that racism is inseparable from Evangelical sexual norms. Oh hell yes, he goes
there. And he is one hundred percent correct.
No conversation about oppressive sexual structures can be
complete without an exploration of how race is eroticized for the purpose of
controlling bodies of color.
There is too much information in
this chapter to summarize, but it is excellent. Straight up excellent.
Sexism reflects just one aspect of what it means to be a
“real man.” It is therefore appropriate to expand our understanding of
oppression to include all forms of prejudice imposed on those who fail to live
up to the standards of being a white male with economic privilege. Male
heterosexual superiority in the United States is as much about race and class
as it is about gender. It would be naive to think that gender, race, and class
structures of oppression exist as separate, isolated compartments. These normalized
forms of oppression interact with, reinforce, and at times conflict with each
other, yet their outcome is similar: to maintain white heterosexual male
privilege.
De La Torre also does not pull any
punches when he discusses the open belief that white males owned the bodies of
their slaves, and could fuck and rape them at will. During that era, young
Southern men typically had their “sexual initiation” by fucking slave girls
soon after they reached puberty. And yes, the author mentions Strom Thurmond
and his child by his family’s teenaged black maid. (He raped her when she was
only 15.)
Every Evangelical who still clings
to the church’s teachings needs to read this chapter, and understand that all
of this violence and rape was fully condoned by the Southern churches,
justified by scripture, and considered part of what a good white Christian was
entitled to in this life.
The next chapter looks at the
anti-body tendencies in historical Christian theology. And yes, this is another
doozy. It is fascinating how much “pagan” philosophy has become orthodox
Christian teaching - but here we are. Central to this is a disdain for the
body, which goes beyond Christianity to the broader American culture.
De La Torre traces this basic
aversion to the body and its functions back to the Stoics, and the book does a
good job of doing this succinctly yet persuasively. The author then traces this
belief through history, showing how it led to a belief that the “spiritual” was
good, the body and particularly sex was evil. Eventually, we ended up in a
strange place.
Pain, suffering, deprivation, and self-mutilation were
spiritualized, whereas love was desexualized so that desire for sex could be
replaced with desire for God. Pleasure was found in self-denial so as to
concentrate on things of the spirit rather than of the flesh. As a result,
desire of sexual pleasure was demonized, an urge requiring suppression. Through
pain, the opposite of sensual pleasure, the joy of salvation could be
achieved.
I won’t recap all of the Augustine
stuff in this section, but this book does give a great overview of how fucked
up Augustine’s views of sex were. Including his blaming of women for desire.
Various theological luminaries are quoted reducing the purpose of sex to
procreation, not pleasure. One can easily imagine that women rarely if ever got
orgasms from this kind of sanitized procreation.
I can say that, along with reading
the Bible, reading Confessions as a young man did a lot to cause me to
reject Evangelical teachings. I could not square this idea that bodily pleasure
was evil with the reality of my experience. Or with any hope for a truly loving
and pleasurable marriage.
The author also notes how control
of sex by organized religion serves to maintain power.
Sex has been transformed into a tool to protect patriarchy.
Sexual ethics was defined to perpetuate an unjust social order, mainly at the
expense of women. Therefore, establishment of any justice-based social order
will require a subversion of the normative sexual ethics of the dominant
culture, which were and continue to be designed to privilege affluent males. To
seek a liberationist sexual expression, sex must move beyond existing for the
sole purpose of procreation or channeling lust.
De La Torre further argues that
the “traditional” focus on rules - what is forbidden - is misguided. This is
one of my favorite passages in the book. Here are some of the best parts:
The quest for power over others dictates theological and
ethical pronouncements concerning sex by relegating sexual acts to a binary
system of what is permitted and what is forbidden. As such, sex is narrowly
defined by what we do with our genitals. How we employ our genitals in one
Christian culture or epoch may be defined as sinful, whereas a different
Christian culture or era may deem it acceptable.
See, for example, past eras when
it was considered more
sinful to have oral sex with your spouse than it was to rape your mother.
Or the whole polygyny thing.
The biblical principles of justice that call for attending to
the needs of “the least of these” must be reapplied by each succeeding
generation to make sense in the evolving cultural ethos. If not, what the Bible
has to say becomes irrelevant to the vast majority of Christians, as the
credibility gap between the official church teaching on sexuality and the
experience of most churchgoers continues to widen.
This very much happened to me: the
gap between doctrine and reality was just too great. But I can also mention the
vast gap between the Catholic doctrine forbidding most contraception, and the
reality that two-thirds of Catholics have used the pill, and over 90% have used
some forbidden form of contraception at least once.
Implementing biblical principles concerning sexual ethics
does not mean developing new doctrines or ethical pronouncements. It requires
developing more effective praxis, by debunking the stereotypes and biases of
previous generations. Because any given group of Christians can be subject to
oppressive social forces, Christianity is best determined by focusing more on
the correct actions of the believer toward the disenfranchised and less on the
official church’s beliefs and doctrines.
Preach!
The main focus and concern of orthoeros is the sexual
prejudices of those in power. Those whom society empowers usually impose
restrictions on the powerless so as to enhance and secure their privileged
spaces, as in the case of patriarchy. For this reason, it becomes crucial to
construct a sexual ethics from the perspectives of the sexually marginalized -
those subjected to sexual oppression. Those who are privileged by the present
sexual patterns that cause oppression - specifically those who dominate their
wives, partners, or supposed economic or racial “inferiors” - lack the moral
authority to pass judgment on proper sexual relationships that may appear
contrary to their so-called ethical vision.
White Evangelicalism is in deep,
deep, denial about this. They have not yet understood that their support of
Trump has ruined any moral authority they might have had. They have NONE. It is
utterly laughable that they think anyone outside their bubble can or should
care what their opinions are. They have no morality, and thus no moral
authority.
The same applies to my parents at
this point. They still think their opinion about my life matters. It doesn’t,
because they have burned their moral authority to the ground. I will not be
lectured about my choices regarding my marriage by someone who cannot
tell good from evil at an elementary level.
At this point, having discussed
the wrong ways to approach sexuality, De La Torre sets forth what he believes
are the minimum standards for healthy sexuality, and I fully agree with him on
this.
This familiar relationship is not so much a set of rules as a
way of being. The focus is not on the type of sex that occurs between
individuals. How then is orthoeros established? For orthoeros to bloom, sex
must be safe, consensual, faithful, mutually pleasing, and intimate.
Yeah, that’s how I wish for sex to
be as well. How it should be. And how it rarely is within “christian” marriages
in my professional experience. I won’t quote it here, but De La Torre goes
through each element, and he really does set forth a beautiful vision of
sexuality. It requires responsibility, mutuality, and equality, though. Which
is the polar opposite from what virtually every “christian” marriage advice
book promotes.
He also strongly ties this in with
social justice - a brilliant insight that really needs to be shouted from the
rooftops.
Injustice is the violation of vulnerability and the taking
advantage of mutuality - in short, the abuse of power over another. The basis
for most unjust social structures is the denial of bodily rights - denying the
right to clothing, food, shelter, and health care for the body through economic
oppression, or denying the right of the body to participate in the fruits of
society because of its gender, skin coloration, or sexual orientation. Our
society’s obsession with the idealized white, heterosexual male body leads to
injustices usually manifested in the form of classism, sexism, racism, and
heterosexism. It is assumed that these idealized bodies are privileged to have
power and control over poorer bodies, darker bodies, female bodies.
That kind of sums up the MAGA
movement, doesn’t it? The abuse of power over others. And white Evangelicalism
is at the core of this abuse, unfortunately. De La Torre explains my own
experience pretty well:
Before we can hope to make great sex achievable for all, we
must first analyze the power structures that perpetuate the privilege of one
group at the expense of the sexually marginalized. We must critically question
the system of patriarchy, heterosexism, sexism, and their supporters. Yet when
one voices the concern that the predominant sexual mores may foster oppressive
social structures, one runs the risk of being labeled a libertine or a non-Christian
by those who benefit most from reasserting their positions of power.
Yep. Feel free to express doubt
about, say, the Trinity, or even the afterlife. But don’t you dare
suggest that gay people should be free to experience loving sex.
And, in another amazing passage,
De La Torre goes after another sacred cow: original sin.
And yes, it is far past time that
this destructive, unbiblical, and thoroughly man-made doctrine was consigned to
the dust bin.
Yes, it is unbiblical. It was
invented by Augustine, as a way of explaining his own sexual hangups. He made
sin into a sexually transmitted disease, rather than actions and systems that
harm others. It ultimately removes responsibility from people, societies,
systems, and cultures, and pushes it back into the murky past and a guy who ate
some fruit.
Here is the money line from this
discussion:
The problem with the doctrine of original sin as a stain
on one’s soul is that it ultimately roots all evil in Adam’s original act of
disobedience. In short, blaming the original sin of Adam (the Fall) for the
sins of oppression prevalent in today’s society is a questionable doctrine that
obstructs ethical reflection. Doctrines are always being formed, reformed, and
at times deformed. Most doctrines, either explicitly or implicitly, secure the
power and privilege of those formulating the ethical pronouncements of the day.
For example, “family values” is the present-day purity code used to condemn
those whose sexual practices fall outside of the Religious Right’s moral
vision. Today’s cultural spiritual leaders are perpetuating their own doctrines
that, in effect, turn the Christian church into a new form of prison.
And yes, the author points out
that a woman can be celebrated as a CEO, given leadership positions in society
(like my wife, a manager at her hospital), and yet be denied leadership in the
church. This is one reason we left organized religion and have not
returned.
Well into the twenty-first century, the universal Christian
church, rather than serving as the vanguard for the liberation found in Christ
Jesus, usually finds itself still serving as the major legitmator of sexism
(and heterosexism). Thus, the Christian Church remains among the most
discriminatory institutions in existence - perpetuating unjust social
structures.
The second half of the book looks
more positively at what makes for good sex, including justice in our
relationships.
One of the opening discussions is
the cesspit that is “biblical marriage.” And to illustrate that, the author
looks at the Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints (aka, the polygamist Morman
sect). As has come to light, in these groups, girls as young as nine are
married off to older men, who, having economic privilege, can marry - rape,
really - as many young girls as they can afford to support.
The example of Hildale probably isn’t what those clamoring
for the establishment of marriage in line with a literal biblical
interpretation have in mind. But as far as truly biblical marriages go,
Hildale, Utah, can serve as a perfect blueprint.
As De La Torre gives ample
evidence of in that chapter, this is not really disputable. To go back to a
“biblical” marriage system, we would indeed have polygyny and child rape as
normal.
From there, the author goes
through history to the present, showing that “marriage” isn’t what we think it
is. These days, most of us consider it a love match, a mutual contract for love
and support. Up until recently, it was property ownership of women, an economic
contract between families, and certainly nothing that could be considered
mutual. (Although, as he notes, since the poor lack property, marriages between
impoverished yet free persons has always been closer to egalitarian than
marriages where property is the primary consideration.)
De La Torre also briefly touches
on the modern affectation that is the stay-at-home mom. Historically, only
wealthy women could afford to be idle - it was a status symbol.
In addition, the concept of the male as exclusive breadwinner
was (and continues to be) unheard of among the poor. Although women of class
were excluded from the workforce until about the mid-twentieth century, poor
women and women of color were always expected to work, mostly in domestic
roles, to help financially support the family. Even children, as recently as
this past century, were also responsible for bringing home enough to eat. Women
in poor families have always had to and still must work to earn money; the
option of staying hime to care for the house and children full time is not
feasible - it remains a class privilege disproportionately exercised by
affluent whites.
Hey,
I wrote about that once, and also posted about The
Way We Never Were by Stephanie Coontz. I have also noted that my wife
and my decision to split breadwinning became a stupid and senseless bone of
contention for my mother, and eventually led (along with other actions) to my
wife withdrawing completely from a relationship with my parents.
The next chapter, on sex and the
single Christian, is an interesting exploration of a lot of misconceptions
about what the Bible actually says. Let’s start with a Martin Luther quote:
“Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel.
[Masturbation] is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest
and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin.”
There are times when L. P.
Hartley’s immortal line, “The past is a foreign country - they do things
differently there” seems so true. I mean, say WHAT? Masturbation is worse than
adultery or incest?
That’s up there with notorious
white supremacist preacher Doug Wilson’s claim that gay
marriage is far worse than slavery was.
Leaving aside the fact, to start
with, that the Onan
story isn’t even about masturbation, but about the use of coitus
interruptus to avoid fathering a child for his deceased brother (levirate
marriage), did Luther not realize that nearly all humans masturbate?
So yes, De La Torre goes through
the bible to show, among other things, that masturbation is never addressed,
and apparently does not appear to be a priority for God. He also looks at how
celibacy came to be the official Christian ideal, despite that position not
really being biblical at all.
One particularly fascinating
passage in this section addressed something I hadn’t really been aware of. I
had not realized that the Catholic Church didn’t officially force celibacy on
clergy until a thousand years after Christ’s death.
And, as usual, women paid the
price for these decisions by powerful men. The wives of priests who wished to
remain clergy had their marriages declared void - reducing them to the social
status of prostitutes. From there, they - and their children - were sold into
slavery. Yeesh. Not to different from Augustine sending his mistress and child
away without means of support after he had his “conversion experience.” This is
exactly what the author means by the problems inherent in seeing sexuality from
the viewpoint of power and privilege, rather than its opposite.
De La Torre also advocates
strongly for accurate sex education in this book. This is tied to his belief
that our bodies are sacred, and we need to understand how they work. And also,
because a significant part of expressing sexuality in a way that promotes
justice is not impregnating a woman without her consent. Hence the need for
contraception in many cases. He also proposes better education on the “social
and emotional” components of sex. Which is really good, actually. My home state
of California has been trying to add this into its health classes recently, and
my children benefited from this. Unfortunately, health is not a universal
requirement, so some students still don’t get it.
And then there is the discussion
of premarital sex, which is refreshingly realistic. I mean, the Bible actually
does not actually forbid premarital sex. (That’s one of the biggest lies we
were fed.) For example, Ruth, who goes and grabs Boaz by the dick. And they
have sex before he officially marries her. Damn seductress. Too bad she had to
become an ancestor of the Hebrew kings, and eventually Christ, right?
And the exploration of Song of
Songs is also excellent. An unmarried woman who defies convention and the males
in her family, invites her lover to have sex with her over and over. Yeah,
reading that for the first time blew my mind and ruined my belief in certain
doctrines. It’s a gorgeous erotic poem, and is primarily about female desire
and pleasure.
The book also notes something I
have said many times before as well: just because two people are married
doesn’t make the sex moral or ethical. Too many people I have known or worked
with have used marital sex in a harmful and abusive way, or used it as a
weapon, or as a transactional act. De La Torre insists that marital sex is only
“familial” if it is based on mutual giving and vulnerability.
The author also questions, as I
have, whether expecting people to wait until their late 20s or 30s to have sex
is so divorced from reality as to make the expectation irrelevant to most
people. And we both conclude it is.
Furthermore, contrary to the usual
Fundie claim (one my parents used on me) that if you have sex before marriage,
you will be blinded by lust and miss red flags, marrying primarily because it
gives you permission to have sex leads equally - perhaps even more - to poor
decisions.
If we insist that sex must wait until marriage, we reduce
marriage to simply a license to have sex. Entering a marriage so as to engage
in sex is unwise and by far the most inadequate reason to ever wed. Wrong
reasons for marriage can lead to poor judgment in choosing partners. Such
marriages, based more on lust than on love, can only contribute to establishing
an unhealthy relationship that is supposed to last a lifetime.
By looking at sex, not as “dos and
don’ts” involving our genitals, but as an expression of a loving relationship,
he is able to envision a far better experience of intimacy than doctrine will
give you. His description of the gradual exploration between two lovers (again,
see Song of Songs), is beautiful, and something that I am eternally grateful
that I was able to experience.
The chapter on same sex
relationships is excellent as well. As
I have done, he cuts to the chase: the prohibition on same sex
relationships is inseparable from its roots in misogyny.
Much can be revealed about a person in the sexual acts that
person vehemently and loudly condemns - specifically the fear of gays, and more
precisely the fear of possibly being perceived as gay.
I am pretty strongly cishet, but
for various reasons, I have been perceived as gay pretty often. Probably my
love for flannel shirts, poetry, and violin. But whatever, I don’t particularly
care or mind. But for many men, it really matters. Why? Because “being
gay” means they aren’t “masculine” enough. (Again, misogyny at work.)
Whenever any individual fails to deal with their sexuality in
a healthy manner, it will manifest itself in destructive ways, not just for the
individuals, but also the overall community.
I strongly recommend reading this
chapter for that reason. It goes through the trail of destruction that
anti-LGBTQ bigotry has left in our churches and our society. And kudos to De La
Torre for his strong statement as to why gay rights are not negotiable.
One final note: For many who disagree as to how a biblical
text is interpreted on any number of issues, a compromise is usually proposed
in which both parties simply agree to disagree. This strategy can usually be
beneficial. However, when the interpretation fosters oppressive structures,
then agreeing to disagree can never be an option. When the Bible’s ancient
words are used to support slavery, women’s subjugation, and ethnic cleansing,
then such interpretations must be condemned for Christ’s sake. Interpretations
that limit gay civil rights or advocate subjugation and oppression of
homosexuals should also be challenged and condemned.
As Robert Jones Jr. said: “We can
disagree and still love each other unless your disagreement is rooted in my
oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist."
[The quote is often wrongly
attributed to James
Baldwin, another black gay writer - who I highly recommend reading.]
Also major kudos for pointing out
that the sin of Sodom - as stated in the Bible and confirmed by hundreds of
years of Jewish interpretation - wasn’t homosexuality, but violent
xenophobia.
The same xenophobia demonstrated by the Sodomites, who sought
to physically rape the foreigners in their midst, is present today in the
actions of those who economically rape the poor and the undocumented alien.
Both in ancient Sodom and in the modern United States, the residents in power
desire to subordinate the stranger, the undocumented, and the alien in their
midst. Rather than using this passage to condemn homosexuality, today’s
preachers would be more biblically sound if they used Genesis 19 to show how
First World nations economically treat the peoples of Third World nations,
which is not so different from what the Sodomites hoped to do to the aliens in
their own midst.
Trump and the MAGA voters who put
him in power expressly so he could abuse immigrants are the true Sodomites in
our nation.
As the author notes, even the
sexual acts of the Sodomites aren’t homosexual: they are heterosexuals
perpetrating same-gender rape.
Also good is that De La Torre
talks about the bizarre biblical references to angels getting horny and fucking
human women. I love this bit of snark, in reference to the passages in 2 Peter
and Jude to human/angel sex:
Why then mention Sodom and Gomorrah? Because the men of
Sodom attempted to gang-rape Lot’s guests, who were angels. The townsfolk’s
unnatural lust for angels is being condemned, not homosexuality. And again,
both conservatives and liberals, heterosexuals and homosexuals can agree that
sex with angels is probably not a good idea.
I have already discussed the David
and Jonathan story more fully in Unprotected Texts, but I will note that
De La Torre also notes this rather obvious gay relationship. Discussed only in
this book, though, is the story of Ehud. Which, well, once you see it, you
can’t unsee it. Just saying.
The chapter closes with an
assertion that homophobia has been and continues to be used as a paradigm for
oppression.
Thus the man’s penetrating penis provides the personal
capacity to dominate others, especially his adversaries. The resulting gaze of
the dominant culture’s male assigns effeminacy to others who do not have a
penetrating penis by which to “make” history, or “provide” for their family, or
“resist” their subjugation. Women, nonwhites, and the poor usually end up
becoming the “not male.” But those who are deemed to be “real men” cannot rest
easy in their position. They fear that their masculinity - which is defined by
the power they exert - would be forfeited if any suggestion or allegation of
passivity or vulnerability was successfully made.
This leads easily into the chapter
on predatory sex, which is also excellent. It starts with Jerry Falwell,
naturally, that disgusting false prophet who co-founded the Religious Right on
a platform of segregation.
In this case, after a pastor was
prosecuted for raping multiple children, including some as young as age six,
Falwell referred to the “scandal” as a “bump in the road.”
This is, unfortunately, par for
the course when it comes to religion’s response to sexual violence against
women and children.
It is disturbing that for some, a loving relationship between
two individuals of the same sex is an abomination before the Lord, while the
rape of children by a prominent pastor is simply “a bump in the road.” With all
the talk about when not to have sex and who not to have it with, churches have
done a poor job in engaging their congregations to deal with sexual practices
that bring harm, if not death, to the most vulnerable members of society: women
and children.
I won’t quote much from this
chapter other than that, because it should be thoroughly uncontroversial to all
decent humans. But it does need to be said, and De La Torre says it well.
A professional note here: the very
worst divorce case I ever did was one where a pastor was so sexually abusive to
his wife that she had taken to locking herself in the spare bedroom at night to
avoid being raped and expected to perform sex acts she found painful and
degrading.
It was ultimately the result of
her adult children insisting she see a therapist (a wonderful, professional
woman within the denomination, interestingly) and eventually seek a restraining
order and a divorce.
I had the pleasure of seeing her
again a decade later, and she was a different person. She looked ten years
younger, and glowed with happiness and wellbeing. Leaving that abusive piece of
shit was a literal lifesaver for her.
The fact that people like him find
their way into ministry and are allowed to continue to abuse women and children
is a huge black mark on the Church, and a major reason that membership is
declining.
I will touch on a couple of other
areas briefly. The author looks at BDSM a bit, and, while he isn’t particularly
a fan, I think he does a good job of delineating between consensual role play
that is pleasurable for both parties, and pressuring someone to do acts they
find unpleasant and undesirable.
But what was most fascinating to
me is this:
Are the extreme cases of self-denial and self-mutilation
practiced by the early Christian ascetics in their desire to pursue heavenly
pleasure a sanctified form of sadomasochism? If so, we have developed a faith
in which the ultimate desire to please God is satisfied through the
prolongation of pain.
The Christianity that developed found pleasure in the state
of being dominated by God. The pleasure received from sadomasochism is not so
much the pain received or inflicted, but rather the knowledge of control over
another. In the early Christian ascetics’ renunciation of sexual pleasure, did
they turn God into a dominatrix?
Yeah, good question. On a related
note, of those I am acquainted with who have indicated some interest in BDSM,
most have had traumatic religious experiences from authoritarian parents and
churches. I suspect that many - maybe most of us? - have deep connections
between trauma and sexuality, and at least in fantasy, may use sexuality to
heal those wounds?
I also loved that the author notes
that porn isn’t monolithic. In his view, there is nothing dirty about sex or
human bodies. But there is an issue when (usually) women are degraded, and sex
is reduced to power and violence. In this, I agree.
But most interesting here is his
mention of shows like CSI, which are pornographic in their depiction of
violence against women. He notes that while there are male victims in these
shows, the more graphic and shocking violence comes against women. This is a
kind of pornography of violence, and is perhaps more morally and ethically
problematic than depictions of sex.
Ultimately, De La Torre’s call for
all of us to be aware of how violence against women is glorified in our culture
is helpful. To know is to be able to counteract in our own behavior, and make
sure that as men we honor and cherish our women rather than treat them with
disrespect, objectification, and violence.
When I was dating Amanda, I was
given a number of “christian” marriage advice books, which universally turned
out to be shit. Ironically, the best advice I read at that time came from the
secular (at the time) radio show host, Dr. Laura - her
advice was that men were human, had emotions too, and that treating each other
kindly was the basis of a happy partnership. Good advice. (Even if she
eventually moved to the right wing, and went off the rails.)
If I had discovered this book at
that time, it would have been a welcome one for its overall solid discussion of
sexual ethics. (Never mind that it wasn’t written until 2007…too late for me.)
I am considering buying this book for my own shelves, and can highly recommend
it to anyone looking for an alternative to Evangelical Patriarchy-based sexual
rules, but who still wants to ground their beliefs in the Christian
tradition.
And even for those for whom
Christianity is not their belief, there is nothing in this book that should be
objectionable to any decent human who wants to form a sexual ethic based on
equality and mutual care.
***
My (minor) disagreements with
the author:
First the big one: the author is
very negative about Prenuptial Agreements. As an attorney, I have the opposite
view. The author - like most conservative religious sorts, interestingly - sees
premarital agreements as inserting filthy lucre into what should be a love
match.
As an attorney, I understand that
because our laws already insert property rights and spousal support into
marriages, the lucre is already there whether you want it to be or not. Only a
rejection of private property and income in general can sever this connection.
A prenup is there to clarify rights, and in many cases, to modify the default
legal relationships between the parties. There is nothing inherently “better”
about the default rights than other approaches. Folks wishing to marry may well
wish to clarify those legal monetary relationships using a prenup, and this
does not minimize their love for each other or make them mercenaries. That’s my
two cents.
Next, De La Torre, presumably
because of his intended audience, glosses over modern scholarship regarding
biblical authorship. In the most annoying example, he assumes Saint Paul wrote
the Pastoral Epistles, when the evidence is pretty undisputed that they
post-dated Paul by over a century. They are essentially a forgery - at best a
“in the style of Paul” tribute. Make of that what you will. This is a minor
quibble, and does not diminish the argument the author makes, and his choice to
ignore this probably is intended to appeal to his intended audience.
I’ll also note some disagreements
in his approach to sex work, but again, these are minor. And any person who
chooses to avoid either paying prostitutes or becoming one is hardly immoral.
And he does avoid blaming sex workers. I think he is a bit naive to assume that
if we fixed economic and gender inequality, sex work would disappear, but
certainly economic and gender justice would reduce the numbers of people who
turn to sex work because of necessity.
The same applies to polyamory or
short-term sexual relationships. While neither is something I am interested in,
and the author’s views are defensible, I think that either can be
ethical - and indeed supported by the Bible depending on which passages you
choose.
As to all of these (except
prenups), I think these are extremely minor disagreements, and ones that are
within the range of differing perspectives, not ultimate motives.
