Shades of Sexual Ethics and Amnesia

I converted to Christianity in October 1984 while deliberately leaving a life of psychotic delusions, hallucinations, memory loss, substance abuse, and sexual promiscuity. My sexual ethics quickly changed to a conservative view. Recently, I reconsidered a moderate view of sexuality.

I ended up with a remarkable recovery from psychotic breakdowns and addictions that leaves me grateful to God. Part of my conversion included a strong commitment for no sexual relations apart from a marital covenant. That meant no sex with a partner unless that partner was my wife, regardless if I would ever marry. I also did not limit the definition of sex to coitus while sex includes any eroticism between partners that involves the manipulation of genitals such as lap dances, mutual masturbation, dry humps, digital sex, oral sex, use of sex toys with a partner, and anal coitus. For nearly three decades, I believed and taught that this sexual ethic was a moral imperative. I likewise rejected the validity of technical virginity that specifies one is a chaste virgin if he or she avoids coitus before marriage despite premarital involvement with non-coital sexual relations such as lap dances, mutual masturbation, dry humps, digital sex, and oral sex.

Perhaps the most awkward fact of my teen sexuality in the late 1970s and early 1980s was my partial amnesia. I recall various before and after scenes with memory loss of during scenes. At some level, the partial memory loss sounds ridiculous while I have no clear explanation for it. As a teen I always desired and sometimes sought sexual encounters, so I lacked psychological motive to forget those details. Or did I previously suffer trauma from a scandal when I relished flirtation from hot women who called me jailbait? I cannot remember. In any case, I recall different concepts of sexual ethics.

One repetitive memory involved the question, "Swallow or spit?" In these cases, an attractive female offered me fellatio while deferentially tendering the option of swallowing or spitting the resultant ejaculation. I suspect that most of the females typically advocated equal rights while in the respective incidences they focused on popularity and attention. The deference, however, involved two options that were high risk for STDs and no low-risk options. Nevertheless, one hygienically savvy female shared the news of her engagement while proposing that protected dry humps and protected oral sex with me was okay during her engagement and pending marriage.

I eventually found popularity at various New Jersey strip bars. Some dancers gave me free drinks and some bar owners consulted my opinion during dancer auditions. I recall a thing for a particular married dancer. Her husband was okay with me when I tipped her, but other times he fumed at me. I also recall him at his conversion van in the parking lot collecting money from a line of men and handing out condoms to them when they took turns with his wife. I as well met subcultural Christian strippers / lap dancers who saved coitus only for marriage.

In early August 1983, a couple months before I turned twenty, I ended up in a psychiatric hospital with a diagnosis of substance abuse and psychotic delusions with audio and visual hallucinations. I also fretted to my psychiatrist about my supposed virginity. The hospital released me after a month. But in early September 1984, I again ended up in psychiatric hospitalization with the same symptoms and the same hang-ups about virginity. This second time around the psychiatric block, I eventually turned to Christ and found remarkable healing from addictions and recurring psychotic delusions. Six months after my conversion, my psychiatrist said: "You need no more therapy or medication. Your faith has healed you."

During my first year of Christianity, I diligently considered competing views of Christianity. In regards to sexual ethics, the official view of all the churches and denominations that I investigated taught strictly against sexual relations, coital and non-coital, apart from marriage. Typical support for this conservative sexual ethic focuses on Matthew 5:28 that says lustful looks at a women is adultery in the heart. I also talked to subcultural Christians who approved of and participated in non-coital sexual relations apart from marriage. They said they did not lust for coitus apart from marriage. I recall reflecting on past insane jealousy for various women and the likeliness of feeling insecure while developing a significant other relationship in that Christian subculture. No damned way would I marry a woman who would lap dance on other men, or even merely kiss another man for the entertainment industry. Alternatively, I felt safe and satisfied with conservative sexual ethics while enjoying a close relationship with God.

I recently considered that I unjustly judged Christians who hold onto their technical chastity apart from marriage, which means that they avoid vaginal and anal coitus except for a marital covenant. My Christian relationship with God continues to develop while I believe that Matthew 5:28 warns against lusting for illicit sex. I no longer believe that the Bible categorically forbids non-coital sex apart from marriage. Christian individuals and couples may opt for conservative sexual ethics for themselves, which is my situation, but that is for each single adult and each married couple to decide.

I end this brief opinion piece with an outline of three important qualifications that deserve their own essay: First, age of consent laws contain age-specific prohibitions against coitus and non-coital sex that are enforced by threats of criminal punishment. Second, corporations possess legal rights to restrict amorous encounters among employees that involve a conflict of interest. Third, moral revisions of a marital covenant such as a change from conservative sexual practices are never a unilateral decision but a mutual decision between both spouses.

Copyright © 2015 James Edward Goetz

Originally published at OpEdNews http://www.opednews.com/articles/Shades-of-Sexual-Ethics-an-by-James-Goetz-Bible_Christian-Religion_Christian-Sexual-Taboos_Christian-Values-150113-130.html

Sacred Sex, Celibacy and the New Testament Part 2: Adulterous Lust

"Why does my wife call me an adulterer? Sure, during the salsa dance, I asked her hot sister to sneak away with me to make love, but I struck out. I never seduced my sister-in-law."

Jesus Christ warned about adultery in the heart:

[27] "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' [28] But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. [29] If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. [30] And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to go into hell. (Matthew 5:27–5:30)

I heard many people misinterpret the above verses from Christ in the Sermon on the Mount. The faulty interpreters suggest that Christ condemned all sexual temptation when he warned about lustful looks at beautiful women. But the same Gospel that warns against lustful looks also says in Matthew 4:1–11 that Christ resisted temptation. Likewise, mere thoughts and feelings of temptations are not sinful. In the case of lustful looks, those looks go beyond temptation in the sight of sexually appealing eye candy.

The warning against lustful looks goes back to the tenth commandment in Exodus 20:17. That commandment warns men that they shall not covet their neighbor's house, wife, or anything that belongs to their neighbor. And the word "covet" refers to an excessive desire.

For example, in a modern day scenario, a man named John might see that his next-door neighbors own a stunning house and the wife looks stunning while she dives into her pool or applies sunscreen. This might instigate John to feel temptation. He might feel tempted to takeover his neighbors' house and make love to the wife. At this point, John has not coveted the house or wife. And if he refuses to harbor the temptation while following the Lord, then he avoids the sin of coveting.

But if John decides to feed these temptations, then he begins excessive desires for forbidden possessions. He might begin to make plans. He sees no way to steal the house, but he plans to seduce the wife. When opportunity arises, he tries to make the wife feel special. After developing a rapport with her, he subtly makes suggestive glances while trying to seduce her. He tries to pace the seduction over a few days or even a few months, but nonetheless, John commits adultery in his heart.

Regardless of how far John goes with his adulterous plans, God calls him to repentance and restoration in the name of Christ.


Copyright © 2012 James Edward Goetz

New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright 1989, Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Sacred Sex, Celibacy and the New Testament Part 1: Matthew 19:3–12

Jesus Christ taught about divorce, marriage, and celibacy in Matthew 19:3–12. Jewish leaders called Pharisees challenged Christ about divorce laws. Christ responded with a powerful teaching about marriage and sex:

[3] Some Pharisees came to him [Jesus], and to test him they asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?" [4] He answered, "Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' [5] and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? [6] So they are no longer two, but one flesh." Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.'' [7] They said to him, "Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?" [8] He said to them, "It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but at the beginning it was not so. [9] And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery."

[10] His disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry." [11] But he said to them, "Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. [12] For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can." (Matthew 19:3–12)

During the days of Christ, Jews debated about the two rabbinical views of divorce taught in the school of Hillel and the school of Shammai. Hillel taught that a Jewish husband could divorce his wife for any reason and Shammai taught a husband could divorce his wife only in the case of a sexually immorality. Likewise, in the case of divorce, Christ sided with the school of Shammai.

Christ also used this opportunity to teach about marriage. He referred to Genesis 1:27 and said that God made humans both male and female. Then he referred to Genesis 2:24 and said a man should leave his parents and join his wife to become one flesh, which refers to marriage and sexual union between a husband and wife. Based on these precedences, Christ proclaimed that nobody should divorce.

The Pharisees then asked why Moses commanded to give certificates of divorce. Christ replied that the biblical law about certificates of divorce was written for the hard-hearted Israelites. That biblical law was an accommodation apart from the biblical model taught in Genesis 1—2. Christ then clarified that nobody should divorce his spouse except for a severe violation such as adultery. Christ also taught that remarriage after divorce for a non-severe violation was adultery. For example, a no-fault divorce is invalid in the eyes of God while God requires such a divorcee to remain faithful to his spouse.

This strictness alarmed Christ's disciples. They suggested to Christ that abstinence from marriage was better than the risks of a disappointing marriage. Christ then taught about the option of deliberate lifelong celibacy while referring to three types of eunuchs: (1) males born as eunuchs, (2) males involuntarily made into eunuchs by castration, and (3) males choosing the life of a eunuch for God's kingdom.

The term "eunuch" in ancient Jewish tradition referred to (1) pagan males castrated in childhood to later to serve in harems without sexual temptation, (2) males with presumed congenital infertility, and (3) various governmental officials who could enjoy marriage.1 Christ first referred to males born as eunuchs: that is, males with presumed congenital infertility. He second referred to castrated males. He third figuratively referred to normal males deliberately choosing lifelong celibacy to fully serve in God's kingdom.

Christ's discussion of eunuchs focused on normal males who choose lifelong celibacy to fully serve in God's kingdom. Given the ancient context that Jews prohibited castration,2 Christ never suggested the concept of literal self-castration. Instead, he referred to Jews who choose lifelong celibacy to fully serve God.3

Christ taught paradoxes about marriage. First, divorce is impermissible because God made the husband and wife one that should never separate, but extreme violations make divorce permissible. Second, God commands humans to leave their parents and marry, but lifelong celibacy is also an option from God. What is more, Christ chose lifelong celibacy.
__________
1. "Eunuch," accessed May 28, 2012, http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5904-eunuch.
2. "Castration," accessed May 28, 2012, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0004_0_04056.html.
3. For example, the Jewish sect called the Essenes avoided marriage as much as possible. See "Essenes," accessed May 28, 2012, http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5867-essenes.



Copyright © 2012 James Edward Goetz

New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright 1989, Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.