I received this feedback to our sex show via email and decided to share it. The author wanted to remain anonymous so I respect that. We’ve known each other for a while and none of these words carry any venom one way or the other.

One non-Christian take on it might be that people have a sex drive which is a physical need akin to hunger, thirst. In some fashion, it will find an outlet whether one is married or not. If a man or woman fails to find a spouse throughout their life, that physical need (while not as immediately vital as air, food, water, etc) must be met. Bottom line.

The sex drive is certainly a physical “need” though I’m not sure it’s akin to the other more personal survival oriented drives. We have the power to deny it without it being ultimately fatal. So when you say it “must be met” I disagree. Now to be a healthy, functioning human being I would say that the ideal situation is that it would be met as part of a good, loving relationship.

A “loving creator” would not create a biological need that required a societal solution. I believe marriage developed as a way to create a sense of obligation for men who would otherwise wander. It operates under the illusion of a pact or oath, though it cannot be enforced as other agreements have. It’s not the sole function, or even necessarily the primary one for most couples… but marriage is at least in part a protective “burden” of sorts.

That’s a fairly dark view of marriage.

The idea of sleeping around or having multiple partners being wrong developed gradually over the years, as (in the first case) suffering mothers and outraged in-laws demanded some form of “oath” to satisfy their need for justice and (in the latter case) equal rights flourished.

I’m not sure that I agree with your idea that I can get behind this idea that the concept of monogamy developed in the fashion you propose. If it did develop independently of God then I would say it became more common as society changed so that larger families were no longer necessary to support the agrarian/hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

People taking what was historically and culturally acceptable (Solomon’s wives and concubines) that are included IN the Bible as being condoned BY the Bible. That’s my interpretation. On that note, that is why people who interpret the Bible’s SETTING and method of DELIVERY as PART of the scripture get it wrong. Whole other tangent, I know. But these same whackos equate King James-era English with “sounding biblical”… those interpreting a message spoken in tongues are often guilty of regressing into “Thees and thous”. Man I’m way off target now. Guess I’m saying that the polygamy thing has no merit to someone who is intelligently interpreting the bible. So I’ll give non-polygamist Christians that.

Okay so let’s look at Solomon. Polygamy was certainly a fact of Old Testament life. I would say that generally the patriarchs had one wife and based on my study of the Bible, God did not smile on Solomon’s lifestyle. Many of his marriages were political in nature as was the custom of the time. In any case though, assuming that polygamy is “okay” by God’s standards, those people are still married and are charged with remaining faithful to that bond. I would also note that just because something is in the Bible does not mean that it is condoned by the Bible.

On the issue of homosexuality… I can’t concede that such a vast part of the population, more clear historically now than ever before, are innately sinful. Especially gay Christians who fervently believe in both the Bible and the wholesomeness of their biology. It’s not a virus, a “learned behavior” or a chemical inbalance. Not on this scale. If there was a god and he did this… what a miserable bastard!

I think you’re missing the point when it comes to sin. We’re all, every one of us, innately sinful. Homosexuals haven’t cornered the market on that. Sin is pervasive in our world. It has permeated the fabric of the universe. I’ll agree with you that homosexuality isn’t a virus or a chemical imbalance. I won’t agree that it’s never a learned behavior, I think it can be. Generally though, I’ll agree that it’s not a choice. I’m guessing you think it’s unfair of God to hold us accountable for sins that we don’t “choose” to commit. That is a different topic for a different post.

And I mean the following lines with the utmost respect for our friendship, and I do not mean to open sore wounds. You are, however, one of the most earnest, open and accepting people I know, Christian or not. So I’m not too worried about offending. Here goes…

I’m not offended in the least.

Knowing what I know of your past, I can strongly sense some resentment in your wife’s conversation about what you’ve mentioned in the past… the porn issue. I sense it in other topics, from her (retracted, I know) comment about men being dogs, to the “issues” you guys hinted at on today’s ‘cast… It feels like the resentment and hostility I’d expect from a husband if he cheated and then came crawling back. I know it’s clearer to me because I know that you’ve fought this “sin”, but I bet I would still wonder if I didn’t know.

Naturally she resented me for my habits of the past. It cost me my job and very nearly our marriage. We actually talked at great length about this last night and I think Leigh agrees that her resentment goes much deeper than just what I did. She’s got some things of her own going on. That doesn’t change the fact that what I did was wrong, harmful, sinful, etc. I have to own what I did. As a couple we’ve come a long way over the past seven years and I believe with all my heart that she has forgiven me. That doesn’t mean that the damage is undone. It’s not and may never be.

No offense or hurt feelings intended! One more time I drop the disclaimer, even though I’m sure with you I don’t need to. It’s always bothered me that you felt shamed by this. I think that if there were a god (ITWAG for short from now on), and it wasn’t intended for man to have a “supplementary outlet” for this urge… it shouldn’t have been made possible/necessary.

Shamed by what? By my addiction and the damage I caused? Sure I am and well I should be. What I did was wrong. It hurt my family deeply. If you aren’t ashamed of your wrong doings then I question the strength/usefulness of your conscience. Now, that’s not to say that I still walk around with my head hung down. I don’t. I’ve moved on and have gotten some healing in that area.

Porn isn’t a “supplementary outlet”. It’s degrading and dangerous to its participants (both consumers and producers) and is ultimately unnecessary in my opinion. If you do need to hit the “self-service pump” as Sid put it then I don’t have a problem with that. Do what you gotta do. But before you do that you need to check why you feel that need. If magic time ain’t happening in the bedroom then some serious communication needs to happen. “Acting out” is a symptom of a larger problem.

If a man has a biologically, god-given urge (we can say urge, it’s okay to use that word!), and his wife is not interested, or not as appealing as she once was… what sin can there be in finding an outlet elsewhere that doesn’t not break the oath of fidelity by going to another person?

Urge is a good word. If the wife “isn’t interested” then there’s a problem and it needs addressing. If she’s “not appealing” then there’s a problem and it needs addressing. An outlet elsewhere is not a solution. When I married my wife I made a promise to be faithful to her, to cherish her. She’s attractive to me as a person no matter what her body looks like. I take my promise very seriously and before I break it because I “need an outlet” I’ll try and find another solution. There almost always is one.

I do think the whole of Christianity is really uptight about this issue. But it has permeated everything from our nation as a whole (“moral policing”) to my own life through an upbringing in church. In essence, the more people enjoy it, the more it has been scrutinized.

I agree and I think that came across in the show. Christianity has focused a great deal on sexuality and much damage has come as a result. Moralism has been a problem with people long before Christianity came on the scene. Control of the populace is not a problem that only religious society has. It’s easy though, given the history of our country and religion to link Moralism and Christianity. I don’t think Jesus was a moralist in the sense that he went around telling people what they needed to do and not do. He did tell people not to sin, but I don’t think that was the core of his message. Of course that’s another topic for another post.

Thanks for you feedback and keep it coming!