"Safe-Sex" Isn't Christian Sex
You’ve heard the term “safe-sex” before, most likely with the verb “practice” preceding it. What does that even mean? “Practice safe-sex” as if sex were intrinsically dangerous. Isn’t that what this assumes? So, what is so dangerous about sex?
Well, as far as I know, there are three possible outcomes of sex (which are not mutually exclusive), which are children, diseases, and a emotional charge.
First, let us consider children. To practice “safe-sex” means that children are dangerous. Yet, who honestly wants to say children are a danger or pose a threat? You might be surprised. While almost no one will tell you children pose a threat to their direct health, there is the commonly made feminist argument that it poses a threat to the freedom of the parents, and to the mother in particular. This should immediately set off alarms in the mind of the Christian. Children are a burden? President Obama seems to think that giving a child a woman is to “punish” her. Unfortunately, many Christians accept this feminist anti-Christian view.
This view assumes a couple of things, and I want to sort them out. To say that parents have freedom without children is to assume that a child enslaves them. But in a Christian view, this is incorrect. God is glorified through his children, and his love is fulfilled even more in His children. Love is can be bountiful in this way. While the Bible doesn’t condemn small families, there is always a positive attitude towards large families. Children are not chains.
Further, consider the Trinity as a model for the Family. The Earthly family models itself after the Divine family. The self-giving love between the Father and Son is so strong, that Love is a Person, whom we know as the Holy Spirit. The Mother and the Father’s self-giving love, including the giving of one self physically through the act of sex so that they’re considered one flesh, also becomes a love so strong, it gives birth to a whole new person. The Holy Spirit is not a burden, but an expression of love. So children too are not a burden, but an expression of that unique love in the act of sex. To deny that expression, through means of artificial birth control, is like denying the Holy Spirit.
Maybe “safe-sex” refers to protecting one self from disease. But then this also assumes a philosophy of sex that is anti-Christian. If you are worried about contracting disease, then it is likely you are not having sex to conceive children with a person whom you love, but merely for pleasure, and contracting a disease is contrary to such a view of sex. This too is anti-Christian, and I hope that’s obvious to everyone. But I’ll pound the point a bit more.
To have sex merely for pleasure is to assume a certain metaphysic, which is that you can separate the emotional from the physical. But this is not the nature of man. Man is not a ghost in a machine. Man is not a soul inside a body. Man is truly a soul and truly a body. There is a difference. For example, if we assume that man is a soul and not a body but merely within that body, certain oddities follow. For example, is Person A shot Person B, it would be incorrect for Person A to say to Person B, “You shot me.” It would be correct to say, “You shot my body, but not me, for I am soul, and you cannot shoot my soul.” This is counter-intuitive. We recognize that we are truly spiritual and truly physical.
However, to say that sex can be had merely for pleasure is to deny that we are truly spiritual and physical. What this view says is that we can divide ourselves. My body affects my emotions and my emotions affects my body. When my friend shoves me, I feel sad. When I feel sad, I begin to cry. I cannot have sex and say it didn’t affect me. You may try to disconnect the two, but you will never succeed. Some people may have so much sex with so many different people that they become numb, but that’s not the same as saying it no longer exists. This is hard-heartedness. So, there are metaphysical problems with this view of sex.
Finally, there practicing safe-sex the emotional way. Some people will suggest to have sex with a friend or someone they know so that way, they don’t have to be attached. This is your “friend with benefits.” But this runs into the exact same problem as the previous view. It’s just not physically oriented, it’s emotionally oriented. However, this one affects women differently than men. In the previous one, disease does not tend to differentiate between sexes. However, because emotions are different in men and women, it’s going to affect them differently. Men can be more distant than women, and can more easily focus on the carnal rather than emotional. Women, on the other hand, are more emotional, and so, when letting go of emotions under this view of sex, they’re the one’s losing more. Is it any wonder that men don’t really fight the feminist views of sex? They’ll get more sex out of it! And the women? Well, they’ll be told they’re being empowered because they have more control over their bodies and they’re making their own choices, but something has gone perversely wrong when throwing yourself over strangers in such practice that is supposedly dangerous that we need to practice being safe results in millions of murdered children and scarred women. What’s so safe and empowering about this?
What is safe-sex? Well, let’s consider these same outcomes, children, disease and emotional impact. When married, I know that I (as a man) will have a mother for my children who will show them nurturing love and always be there for them (there is the consideration of divorce, but that’s not Christianly permissible). I know that my love for my wife can be strong enough to produce another person, and so together we can be more like God. I know my child will live and will not be murdered. I know that because sex is the most intimate thing two people can express for each other, it will be accessed only through the most intimate of commitments, marriage. In this security, I can express myself safely both emotionally and physically. I needn’t worry about any disease because I know she hasn’t been with anybody else. Emotionally, I may be insecure. Maybe I’m not as thin as I would like to be, or maybe not I’m not as sexually experienced as I think I need to be, but I know that in the emotional security of my wife, sex is something we can learn together. Sex is not just mechanistic, but emotional as well. Maybe my mechanics aren’t that great (and women get insecure enough to get breast-implants) but we can continue to grow and so long as I am emotionally present, we both know that is all we could ask need (how many times do we hear about married couples who feel like their spouse isn’t emotionally present during sex? Is it any wonder that Christians are reported as having better sex than their secular counter-parts?) Safe-sex is married sex. It’s Christian sex.
Trying those two lines on a college campus, see how many people convert LOL
Well, as far as I know, there are three possible outcomes of sex (which are not mutually exclusive), which are children, diseases, and a emotional charge.
First, let us consider children. To practice “safe-sex” means that children are dangerous. Yet, who honestly wants to say children are a danger or pose a threat? You might be surprised. While almost no one will tell you children pose a threat to their direct health, there is the commonly made feminist argument that it poses a threat to the freedom of the parents, and to the mother in particular. This should immediately set off alarms in the mind of the Christian. Children are a burden? President Obama seems to think that giving a child a woman is to “punish” her. Unfortunately, many Christians accept this feminist anti-Christian view.
This view assumes a couple of things, and I want to sort them out. To say that parents have freedom without children is to assume that a child enslaves them. But in a Christian view, this is incorrect. God is glorified through his children, and his love is fulfilled even more in His children. Love is can be bountiful in this way. While the Bible doesn’t condemn small families, there is always a positive attitude towards large families. Children are not chains.
Further, consider the Trinity as a model for the Family. The Earthly family models itself after the Divine family. The self-giving love between the Father and Son is so strong, that Love is a Person, whom we know as the Holy Spirit. The Mother and the Father’s self-giving love, including the giving of one self physically through the act of sex so that they’re considered one flesh, also becomes a love so strong, it gives birth to a whole new person. The Holy Spirit is not a burden, but an expression of love. So children too are not a burden, but an expression of that unique love in the act of sex. To deny that expression, through means of artificial birth control, is like denying the Holy Spirit.
Maybe “safe-sex” refers to protecting one self from disease. But then this also assumes a philosophy of sex that is anti-Christian. If you are worried about contracting disease, then it is likely you are not having sex to conceive children with a person whom you love, but merely for pleasure, and contracting a disease is contrary to such a view of sex. This too is anti-Christian, and I hope that’s obvious to everyone. But I’ll pound the point a bit more.
To have sex merely for pleasure is to assume a certain metaphysic, which is that you can separate the emotional from the physical. But this is not the nature of man. Man is not a ghost in a machine. Man is not a soul inside a body. Man is truly a soul and truly a body. There is a difference. For example, if we assume that man is a soul and not a body but merely within that body, certain oddities follow. For example, is Person A shot Person B, it would be incorrect for Person A to say to Person B, “You shot me.” It would be correct to say, “You shot my body, but not me, for I am soul, and you cannot shoot my soul.” This is counter-intuitive. We recognize that we are truly spiritual and truly physical.
However, to say that sex can be had merely for pleasure is to deny that we are truly spiritual and physical. What this view says is that we can divide ourselves. My body affects my emotions and my emotions affects my body. When my friend shoves me, I feel sad. When I feel sad, I begin to cry. I cannot have sex and say it didn’t affect me. You may try to disconnect the two, but you will never succeed. Some people may have so much sex with so many different people that they become numb, but that’s not the same as saying it no longer exists. This is hard-heartedness. So, there are metaphysical problems with this view of sex.
Finally, there practicing safe-sex the emotional way. Some people will suggest to have sex with a friend or someone they know so that way, they don’t have to be attached. This is your “friend with benefits.” But this runs into the exact same problem as the previous view. It’s just not physically oriented, it’s emotionally oriented. However, this one affects women differently than men. In the previous one, disease does not tend to differentiate between sexes. However, because emotions are different in men and women, it’s going to affect them differently. Men can be more distant than women, and can more easily focus on the carnal rather than emotional. Women, on the other hand, are more emotional, and so, when letting go of emotions under this view of sex, they’re the one’s losing more. Is it any wonder that men don’t really fight the feminist views of sex? They’ll get more sex out of it! And the women? Well, they’ll be told they’re being empowered because they have more control over their bodies and they’re making their own choices, but something has gone perversely wrong when throwing yourself over strangers in such practice that is supposedly dangerous that we need to practice being safe results in millions of murdered children and scarred women. What’s so safe and empowering about this?
What is safe-sex? Well, let’s consider these same outcomes, children, disease and emotional impact. When married, I know that I (as a man) will have a mother for my children who will show them nurturing love and always be there for them (there is the consideration of divorce, but that’s not Christianly permissible). I know that my love for my wife can be strong enough to produce another person, and so together we can be more like God. I know my child will live and will not be murdered. I know that because sex is the most intimate thing two people can express for each other, it will be accessed only through the most intimate of commitments, marriage. In this security, I can express myself safely both emotionally and physically. I needn’t worry about any disease because I know she hasn’t been with anybody else. Emotionally, I may be insecure. Maybe I’m not as thin as I would like to be, or maybe not I’m not as sexually experienced as I think I need to be, but I know that in the emotional security of my wife, sex is something we can learn together. Sex is not just mechanistic, but emotional as well. Maybe my mechanics aren’t that great (and women get insecure enough to get breast-implants) but we can continue to grow and so long as I am emotionally present, we both know that is all we could ask need (how many times do we hear about married couples who feel like their spouse isn’t emotionally present during sex? Is it any wonder that Christians are reported as having better sex than their secular counter-parts?) Safe-sex is married sex. It’s Christian sex.
Trying those two lines on a college campus, see how many people convert LOL
Comments
Post a Comment