Category: Culture

Selling Corn Syrup

Posted on

It’s all about the spin. I remember back in the early 90’s when medical reports encouraged people to eat less red meat for their health we started seeing the “Beef. It’s What for Dinner” ads. PR to convince us to buy more stuff that isn’t good for us. Well as more people are realizing the dangers and ubiquitous nature of High Fructose Corn Syrup, the Corn Refiners Association has jumped into full PR spin mode. They recently launched a $30 million advertising campaign to convince consumers that HFCS is a natural compound like honey. (It’s made from corn so therefore it’s natural right?) Forget that it can only be made in industrial laboratories using numerous chemicals (including stuff like sulfuric acid), the FDA ruled earlier this summer that it can be labeled as “natural.” Hence the advertising campaign. Take a look at this recent commercial.

 

—

 

Playing on people’s fears and lack of information, the Corn Refiners have hit the sweet spot in labeling lingo. If it is “natural” then it must be good. But honestly even if we buy that “natural” claim, there are still numerous issues with this commercial. First substitute in another natural sweetener like sugar or honey into the dialogue and yes, as a mom I would be worried about feeding that to my child. Added sweeteners are unnecessary and unhealthy. They are a special treat, not just everyday afternoon snack fare. Who cares if HFCS is from corn and is just like sugar and honey – it is just like sugar and honey – full of empty calories and dangerous in large amounts.

The PR spin is necessary because we are consuming HFCS in crazy large amounts. It is in everything, its health issues hidden because it isn’t labeled as sugar. Corn is a veggie and most people might not know that HFCS is a sugar. If they bother to read the ingredients at all the impact of HFCS at the top of the list doesn’t hit them. And so obesity issues and diabetes continue to rise as the food that is easy to find and consume is stock full of high empty calories. And that doesn’t even account for the number of other health issues and allergies that are linked to HFCS.

Because HFCS is so popular (its in everything), most of the corn that is grown is very similar. We have lost the historic varieties of corn and the array of nutrients they provide. We now eat a very nutrient poor form of corn that not only sweetens most of our food but is the feed for the cows and chickens we consume. Our diet in essence is based strictly on corn. This is a health risk as we need a greater variety of nutrients to stay healthy. But it is also a societal risk to rely on one substance as our main food supply. If corn somehow faced a blight like potatoes did in Ireland, we would be facing a serious food crisis.

But even beyond the health risks, by supporting the use of HFCS one is supporting a seriously broken economic system. Our market is flooded with corn. It is a highly subsidized commodity. Farmers must grow ever increasing amounts of corn that are sold at low prices. Without the government subsidies most farmers would make no profit on their corn at all. But the more corn one grows the more subsidies one receives. So farmers must turn to genetically modified corn that is copyrighted (meaning they must buy new seed each year). They must use vast amounts of fertilizers and pesticides (some which are built into the genetic structure of the corn itself). These chemicals not only destroy the ecosystem and poison water supplies, but they are oil based. To grow this corn we are expending large amounts of oil, an ever dwindling resource in our world.

In addition the US reliance on corn to insert into all of our food has encouraged more farmers to grow the corn. Since the government subsidizes it (and not other varieties of veggies), it is a way for farmers to actually make a living as a farmer. But only US farmers. There is a huge surplus of US grown subsidized corn that continues to flood the world market. Other countries cannot compete. World organizations have declared the subsiding of food on the trade market illegal, but the US continues to subsidize. Good for our multimillion dollar agribusinesses, bad for family farmers around the world. Counties like Brazil are seeking to sue the US for illegal trade practices, but one doubts the affect such suits will have.

So as one soccer mom embarrasses another mom for her lack of knowledge and encourages her to feed HFCS to her kids, there is a lot more at stake than just a pseudo-natural product. The Garden of Eden parallels in the commercial are frightening. But I guess that’s just good marketing – getting us to not just desire, but eat the forbidden fruit. And we just play along…

Read more

Ten Reasons I Know I’m Back in Texas

Posted on

1. I can order Dr. Pepper anywhere I go.

2. The Iced Tea tastes good.

3. Local craft stores have big displays with supplies for making homecoming mums. (see picture)

4. At the seminary orientation we were served biscuits and gravy for breakfast and King Ranch Chicken for lunch.

5. Local fast food restaurants serve carrot raisin salad as a “healthy side” option. (not that I would ever eat it…)

6. People spell “y’all” correctly. (okay second grade spelling lesson for all y’all Midwesterners – the apostrophe replaces the dropped letters. So when contracting “you all” the apostrophe goes between the “y” and the “a” NOT the “a” and the “l”. This isn’t a pet peeve of mine or anything…)

7. I can go swimming without freezing to death and wear a tank top without being “immodest.”

8. My neighbors have a palm tree in their yard.

9. I have access to eco-friendly cleaners and lawn-care options.

10. It’s hot (duh).

Read more

Vampires, Myth, and Christianity

Posted on

So we made it to Texas and it has been a crazy week. I finally have my laptop connected to the internet and am stealing a few minutes to sit down and write. But as I considered what to blog about (usually whatever is on my mind at the time…), I realized that I’ve spent a lot of time recently thinking about vampires. Yes, vampires. But bear with me here.

I actually bloged about my encounters with vampire (books) three years ago (here), so it’s not a new subject on this blog. But after reading through Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight series recently, vampires have once again been on my mind. If you haven’t heard of the series that means you are most likely not a teenage girl (or a huge fantasy geek). I was intrigued by any book that merited a midnight release for it’s fourth installment and had been following the debates as to if the books were sexist or not (I personally think not). So I decided to give the books a go and ended up throughly engaged.

As you probably gathered at this point the books are about vampires (sorry for the spoiler). But the main characters in the books are “good” vampires – they feed off animal blood, not humans. What I found most intriguing though was the process by which these characters became vampires. Each of them had been at the brink of death and were at that point transformed into vampires – immortal, perfect creatures (at least in this series). Given the author’s expressed religious devotion, I can’t help but see the spiritual parallels there. The chosen ones being essentially resurrected into strong, beautiful, gifted, eternal (yet physical) beings. Interesting concept.

But the obvious spiritual connection in the books reminded me of other conversations I have had relating Christianity and vampires. The whole concept of blood being shed to give another eternal life mirrors vampire lore. There are of course those that recognize that with derision as this quote demonstrates –

“Almost two billion people on the face of this planet are Christians,” he said. “That means every Sunday you’ll find hordes of these creatures lining up to drink the blood of their god in a ritual called communion.

“And what does their god and his church offer them in return? “Everlasting life …

“If that is not the promise of a vampire religion, then I don’t know what is …”

Sinton said Christianity was the only religion that worshiped a corpse and one of a handful that still engaged in blood rituals.

“Visit one of their churches and you’ll often find a huge statue of their vampire Christ looming over the congregation,” he said. Instead of blood dripping from fangs, Christ’s blood drips from his hands, feet, side and crown.

“1.9 billion people believe this immortal god is their salvation and that his blood can redeem and protect them. “Listen to some of the hymns they sing,” he said, “as they sway hypnotically before this eerie preternatural creature …”

Are You Washed In The Blood?
Jesus Thy Blood and Righteousness
Nothing But The Blood
Saved By The Blood
The Blood-Washed Throng
The Bloodwashed Pilgrim
There Is A Fountain Filled With Blood
There Is Power In The Blood

“With all this blood imagery,” Sinton said, “no wonder the congregations descends like vampires when the priest calls them up for communion …” The Christian Bible states that Jesus actually said “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:54).

By drinking the blood of Jesus and eating his flesh, Christians believe they die and are reborn as immortals.

But others see those same elements and embrace the similarities. I’ve heard of goth oriented churches that play up the vampire connection especially related to communion. I guess it’s just another form of cultural contextualization. Some churches reach yuppies by presenting Christ as the ultimate CEO, other churches reach the goths by comparing Christ to vampires. (I think I’d rather attend the vampire church…)

The connection of shed blood and immortality is an ancient one – one of the oldest religious beliefs around. Some dismiss Christianity for dwelling on it. Others (like C.S. Lewis) believe that in Christ myth became fact – making it all resonate with our deepest cultural longings. As he wrote in God in the Dock –

The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact. The old myth of the Dying God, without ceasing to be myth, comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history. It happens — at a particular date, in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences. We pass from a Balder or an Osiris, dying nobody knows when or where, to a historical Person crucified (it is all in order) under Pontius Pilate. By becoming fact it does not cease to be myth: that is the miracle.

In Christ in a way we have the fulfillment of legend. An interesting concept if nothing else.

But I’m sure that’s not the reaction most have to the books. Obsessing over Edward Cullen seems more the norm…

Read more

Silly liberal, coffee is for conservatives

Posted on

Are coffee shops too liberal? Are laptops, lattes, and deep conversation an affront to traditional Midwestern values? According to the Conservative Cafe they are just that.

The Chicago Tribune ran an article last week about the Conservative Cafe. Sick of liberal infested coffee shops that play folk music, the Conservative Cafe was created as a place where politics could be discussed without the nauseating liberal influence, t-shirts sold that say “Zip it hippie” and “Peace through Superior Firepower,” and Fox News played all the time. Midwestern values would be upheld – no silly laptops or ipods. And only strong basic coffee would be served – the only stuff real people (farmers and factory workers) need to get through their day – no frou-frou lattes (and I highly doubt anything remotely close to Fair Trade).

On one level the whole thing is utterly amusing. It’s a gimmick of course – and it probably works well in a Midwestern small town. I have no problem with the idea of creating safe space for people of a particular ideology to gather and discuss. But why exactly does such camaraderie have to be based on the ridicule of those not like them? One can hardly be for anything these days without referencing what one is against, must we be cruel in the process?

But then again I’m just one of those liberal hippies who drinks lattes, works on my laptop, and likes folk music. I guess my opinion doesn’t count.

Read more

Michigan and Cultural Collisions

Posted on

So I spent the last week in Michigan. Since we have nothing else going on in our lives right now, Mike spent the week speaking at summer camp for high schoolers. I got to hang out with the kids at his parents house down the road. Basically I spent my time avoiding the swarms of mosquitoes, holding a crying baby, and watching Emma have a great time with her grandparents. Fun times – but no chance to get any work done.

What I found amusing this past week were some of the juxtapositions of cultures and ideas I witnessed. Rural Michigan is interesting because you have traditional farms up against small towns being destroyed by Meth. I also saw in one town a biker rally – leather, studs, lots of tattoos – and right next to the bikes was an Amish buggy hitched to a fence.  In some ways the worlds are changing too fast for any balance to be achieved.

Then there were the experiences at the camp. I visited one evening to hear Mike speak on contentment and priorities. I sat in the back with the kids, so I got to observe the high school girls in front of me. They of course didn’t pay any attention to Mike, but instead spent the whole time playing MASH. So much for contentment…

Then I was down at the lakefront talking to a friend from college (whose dad runs the camp) about how pesticide and fertilizer runoff from nearby farms is destroying the lake and has already poisoned the camp’s well. She, an environmental educator, was describing how to help restore the ecosystem. Great ideas, but at the same time the camp staff were right by us painting the boathouse and were washing their paintbrushes in the lake. Kinda hard to work for one goal when others subvert it.

But I only got to observe…

Read more

Rant on Community Laws

Posted on

Do community “laws” discriminate against certain sorts of people? (rant to follow…)

I was thinking about this the other day as I read in the paper about a local suburb that was making a new law restricting the number of cars that can be parked in front of a house. The law is in response to a local car collector who apparently has a dozen cars parked around his house, but I had to wonder about the ways it will hurt lower income households. I’ve had groups of friends who have rented houses together and therefore needed to park 8-9 cars in front of the house. And for families with multiple generations living together, multiple cars are just part of having multiple adults living together under the same roof. This is America – to be a working adult in most places in the country (that have no public transportation) you need a car. So this new rule limits the people who can live in the community to small single family households.

Same thing with laws about parking on the street. In towns that ban overnight street parking unless you have a home with a driveway, you can never have guests. I hated this when we lived in an apartment. We were more than willing to have friends or family stay on the pull out couch, but they would get a parking ticket (or would be towed) if they came to stay. The law effectively implies that only those rich enough to own a house with a driveway are allowed to entertain and socialize.

And don’t even get me started on the communities around here that have laws stating you cannot hang clothing up to dry outside. So I am not legally allowed to be environmentally friendly???

I understand these laws are all about property value and even safety, but when did your “right” not to have to look at my laundry or a few extra cars necessitate legal action? Does it really mess your life up to have to look at that stuff? As much as it messes up the lives of those that honestly need to park that many cars on the property? Some days I just have to wonder how far we will go to insulate ourselves against dealing with anyone not exactly like us or with anything we may not like. Are we really that self-consumed?

Read more

The Silver Lining on Gas Prices

Posted on

Since my life is all things baby these days, for some reason I pulled out Emma’s baby book and flipped through it. In the section about “the world around me” there was a list of how much stuff cost when she was born. I had to laugh when I saw the entry for a gallon of gas – $1.89. That’s one of those things that I should be looking at twenty years later and laughing at – not three and a half years later. I hope I don’t look back three years from now at Aidan’s book and laugh at the $4.17 price that’s listed there.

What I have found pleasantly amusing are the articles in the newspaper that attempt to point out the silver lining to high fuel prices. Most mentions of the high prices are complaints with a few threats about how we are destroying the environment by using fuel thrown in. While I don’t deny the truth of that, it is refreshing to read an optimistic viewpoint on occasion.

So what good is there in high fuel prices? According to recent articles the good ranges from better communities to more comfortable outings. Apparently since people are driving less these days (because they just plain can’t afford to drive anywhere) they are instead doing things in their own communities. They are riding bikes, walking to the local ice cream shop, sitting on their front porch, and taking their kids to neighborhood parks. In essence, people are reverting to the good old days when neighborhoods were actually neighborhoods. So even though I haven’t actually seen this happen yet in my community (our local park is full of texting and smoking jr. highers who hog all the swings…), it is apparently happening somewhere (or at least one hopes).

What I have noticed is the another silver lining the papers mentioned – that due to high fuel costs restaurants and shops are restraining their air conditioning usage. So instead of walking in from a pleasant summer night (I grew up in Texas all nights in Illinois are pleasant) into a sub-zero restaurant that makes you wish you brought a parka, one is able to actually dine comfortably in (gasp) summer clothes. So while I am not one to disdain AC in general, I am liking this economically driven sanity in AC control I am experiencing these days.

So as crazy at it may seem even high gas prices have some sort of a silver lining. (or perhaps we are desperately grasping at straws and are too easily amused…)

Read more

Book Review – Jesus Made in America

Posted on

I recently finished reading Stephen J. Nichols’ Jesus Made in America: A Cultural History from the Puritans to The Passion of the Christ (IVP 2008). When I first received this book, I was excited to read it. The concept intrigued me – an historical overview of how the cultural sensibilities of different eras in American history shaped our common conceptions of Jesus. This is a theme I’ve personally explored and one that I believe is little recognized by the church. We all to an extent create Jesus in our own image, and reading the history of that tendency in America captured my interest. What I discovered instead though was a book that although fascinating fell prey too often to the author’s personal biases.

In my reading of the book, I discovered early on a major theological difference with the author that effected my encounter with his theories. Nichols sets up the book with the assumption that there does exist one right way to think about Jesus. In a book about how our cultural background influences our perception of Jesus, I found this assumption to be a bit out of place. There was no acknowledgement that this “correct Christology” might have been influenced by cultural factors, just that it represents right belief that everything else must therefore be deviating from. So it is in light of this basic assumption that Nichols examines the history of Jesus in America. His Christology is the standard that he holds everyone else up to. Of course this results in those he examines being either completely right or completely wrong about Jesus. He goes to great lengths (stretching might better describe it) to prove that the Puritans held to this correct Christology, while others (The Passion of the Christ, Veggie Tales, and CCM for example) fail theologically. It’s a black and white world apparently for him when it comes to understanding Jesus.

This emphasis on correct Christology develops throughout the book. He dismisses many of the cultural portrayals of Jesus because they emphasise relationship or practice over doctrine. He asserts that correct Christology must always be primary for believers. While I respect the need to have a good theology, I question his hierarchical approach. I just can’t picture Jesus stopping himself in the middle of the Sermon on the Mount, slapping his forehead, and saying “but what am I thinking! All this stuff I’m telling you to do is great, but what is really going to matter is that over the next few hundred years people are going to debate how best to talk about me, hold councils and votes as to who really is right, and kill those in the minority. Making sure you agree with what the right group says about me will be the primary part of your faith…” Maybe the Bible just forgot to record that part of the sermon.

I honestly agree with many of the critiques Nichols has of popular cultural conceptions of Jesus (I can’t stand Jesus is my boyfriend songs), I am just not as inclined as he is to dismiss them altogether. He assumes that any theory of Jesus is a complete reduction of Jesus to just that theory and so dismisses them as having no redeeming value whatsoever. In what reads as a litany of his personal pet peeves with Christianity, Nichols I believe confuses his personal dislikes with bad theology. His biases against certain groups (hippies, liberals, youth) are strongly displayed. Anything connected to such groups can hold no value for him. So while I don’t believe that Jesus can be reduced to just being a friend, or a revolutionary, or a moral leader I have no problem saying that Jesus does contain those aspects. To ignore those portrayals of Jesus is just as reductionistic and limiting as claiming any one of those encompass fully who Jesus is. And to do so because one is more comfortable with the Puritans than the Jesus People seems like just another case of creating Jesus in our own image in my opinion.

While I found Nichols’ thesis flawed and fairly biased, I do have to say that the cultural history presented in the book makes it well worth the read. The different eras’ portrayals of Jesus are accurate and are useful in helping one to understand what shaped the church today. Knowing that the church hasn’t existed in a vacuum, but has been influenced by culture could possible bring some needed humility to the church (I just wish Nichols had learned from his own writing). I particularly thought that the sections that dealt with faith and politics were the strongest in the book. In those sections Nichols’ historical analysis shines through his personal likes and dislikes and the reader is treated to a well developed perspective on both the Founding Fathers and the contemporary situation.

So I do recommend this book, but with a few cautions. Enjoy the cultural history, but be aware of the author’s presence shaping what you read and in many ways undermining his own thesis. Even so, I found it an enjoyable read.

Read more

Will Blogging Change History?

Posted on

So blogging has already changed the face of journalism, the question is, will it change history? This question arose as an aside in an editorial I was reading earlier today. The piece was about the need for more museums that make an effort to focus on what have typically been the marginalized voices in our society. The point was that by having museums and history books that focus solely on warriors, leaders, and inventors we convey rather blatantly what and who we value in our culture. Such things preserve that which society deems should be preserved and so serves to shape the current culture by imparting values. Social history movements take the time to listen to the other voices – those of women, the poor, migrants, the oppressed. These voices often make up the backbone of a society, but are often ignored and silenced. They are not seen as important enough to listen to so therefore their perspective is not written down as part of history. Who they are and what they value slips away in light of the stories of those who have accomplished “great things.” Including their voices and stories will not only demonstrate that they are valued, but perhaps help demonstrate that society isn’t a monolithic structure that values violence and power above all else.

Listening to the voices on the margins and getting a varied perspective are the goals of this broader approach to how we do history. So given that blogging has in many ways allowed the voice of the average person to be heard (and often even respected), I wonder if it will serve to help pave the way for a shift in historical perspective. Such social history approaches have been present since the 1970s, but haven’t gain widespread acceptance in classrooms that continue to see history as a parade of great names and dates. But today it is easier that ever to explore multiple perspectives on a topic. One isn’t restricted to the party line fed to us by the commercial media or the government. On blogs we can often hear from the people affected most by cultural events (or about such events at all). We are getting used to valuing the voices on the margins and perhaps that will eventually help us alter how we approach history as well.

Read more

Sex Thoughts

Posted on

Disclaimer – Really long post ahead that is sure to piss at least a few people off.  Enjoy.

 

I’m usually very wary about Christian books that deal with sex for two basic reasons.  Generally they so super-spiritualize sex that it becomes nearly indistinguishable from say a prayer meeting or worship service.  Secondly I find that I usually completely disagree with the typical Christian conceptions about sex.   And this is where I get in trouble.  Where I cross the lines of taboo topics for decent Christian conversation and confirm people’s worst fears about me/young people/the emerging church.  Where I either make people uncomfortable or just piss them off.  So I usually play by the rules, avoid the topic, and let everyone assume I think like a “typical evangelical woman” (whatever that is) on the subject.

 

Well it’s kinda hard to keep my mouth shut when I’m sent a book to review that I have serious issues with on this topic.  So at the risk of stirring up another hornet’s nest here, I have to say that I have issues with Michael Leahy’s new book Porn Nation (and honestly I continue to find it amusing that these anti-porn sites/books have porn related titles.  I know it’s meant to bring porn users to them, but it also brings up all sorts of real porn when one searches for them on Google or Amazon.) The book is Leahy’s story about how his sex addiction destroyed his life.  Of course it also has sections on how our culture is oversexed and some really generic ideas for spiritual healing.  In all it was a very short book that I found didn’t end up saying much at all and what it did say was based on false assumptions and dichotomies.

 

I don’t deny that a sex addiction is harmful or that it has destroyed families.  As with any addiction the potential exists to cause harm to those one loves the most.  I appreciate the author’s vulnerability in telling his story and admitting how his addiction hurt others.  I also don’t deny that porn can exploit and often has connections to sex trafficking, forced prostitution, rape, and slavery.  Or that there are illegal and deviant forms of it.  Sex can be used to hurt, control, and demean.  Such injustices are always wrong wherever they occur.  But as I read the book I had the distinct feeling the author was throwing the baby out with the bathwater so to speak.  His personal pain caused him to swing to the opposite extreme of viewing all sexuality as bad and to blame the sexuality in our culture for his struggles with selfishness and addiction.   While I question his naïve historical view of sex (assuming that we are the first generation to ever be sexual), as well as tendency to lump all cultural expressions of sexuality under the porn label, it is his negative view of sexuality that I had the most problem with.

 

Early in the book as he describes his first experience with sexuality (an accidental orgasm and the thrill of seeing a topless picture of a women), the author assumes a tone of disgust and regret.  From the awkward and incomprehensible “sex ed” class taught by a priest to his own sexual experimentation, the assumption is that being a sexual being is a bad thing.  This is his message after working through his sexual addictions, but it is also the message I have heard my whole life from the church.  Even before the recent trends within evangelical Christianity to describe the sole purpose of sex as being procreation (basically for anti-homosexual reasons), sex wasn’t something to be celebrated.  In typical modern dualistic fashion, our bodies are disparaged and sexuality is seen as the basest expression of that despised flesh.  Sure some books like Intended for Pleasure hinted at that aspect of sex, but only as long as there wasn’t too much pleasure involved and sex was described as really being about spirituality.  Basically the vicissitudes of Platonism haunted the bedrooms and made an easy scapegoat of sexuality.

 

This view of sex defined the way children were raised and youth were taught.  Children were taught in the most Skinneristic of fashions to be utterly ashamed of and disgusted by their bodies through the quick reproves of parents whenever they attempted to touch their genitalia.  Youth pastors held the sacred honor of scaring teens away from sex by whatever means necessary.  A mixed bag of fear tactics, heavy guilt, and extreme suppression usually made up their arsenal.  It generally worked too (at least for appearances sake, those who “sinned” through dressing too sexily or by getting pregnant were not so subtly asked to leave).   Anyone one who expresses curiosity about sex openly was silenced and generally ridiculed.  But of course everyone knew that most of the guys and a good handful of the girls were exploring their sexuality on their own trying to ignore the conditioned guilt they felt at being a sexual being.

 

Sexual memoirs like Leahy’s just portray the continuation of this rejection of the body.   At one point in the book he describes the sad situation of girls who feel like they have to “put out” for guys or dress really sexy in order to be affirmed as a person.  I agree, that is bad and is part of the continued evils girls face as we emerge from patriarchy.  Girls should be taught to respect their bodies and themselves.  This respect includes understanding who they are as sexual beings and the best way to discover healthy sexuality.  Leahy though decides to merely lament the fact that girls these days are not innocent (once again historical naivety – were they ever!?), and proceeds to blame Brittney Spears, MySpace, and rap music for the downfall of the young.  Apparently denying and ignoring sex (along with figuring out how to shelter “children” from it) is preferred over teaching healthy ways to interact with it.

 

Of course in Christianity where sex is to be saved for marriage whole other issues arise because of a lack of healthy ways to understand sex.  Girls, taught to be ashamed of sex from birth, are generally told that although they will most likely not enjoy sex they had better give it to their husbands or else it is their fault if he strays.  Years of suppression and guilt are to be overcome in a night.  They need to please men enough to keep them from sin (affairs, porn, fantasy…), but of course stay within healthy spiritual boundaries.  Anything that indulges in the sheer physicality of sex or that encourages sexual exploration and fulfillment is taboo.  Only tasteful lacy lingerie on occasion is permitted, the lights should always be off, no games or stories or toys, no sex vacations, no experimenting with positions, no movies or fantasy play, no masturbation, and, most assuredly, no talking about any of this stuff ever.  Couple who do cross those lines face lingering guilt and wonder if they are doing something wrong by enjoying sex with their spouse.  Women become angry and ashamed if the husband tries to be intimate in those ways.  They blame his deviant sex addiction and shut their sexuality down even further.

 

And the resources given to help are books like Porn Nation that continue to spread the “sex is evil” lie and tack on a few pages at the end about how after years of struggle they found healing and are happily married.  Sorry, but I find that lacking.  I firmly believe that God created sex and that we are meant to enjoy it.  Yes, I think that should happen with a committed relationship – that relational connection and intimacy being part of what it takes to be fully enjoyed imho.  So I won’t deny that I am a sexual person.  Nor will I play the game of attempting to hide that away by being made to feel guilty for dressing a certain way (that “way” varying depending on who is doing the judging) or just because I am a woman.  I will not run from expressions of sexuality in culture or think they hold the power to destroy people (addictions and selfishness are problems, sexuality is not).  I will not see the physical body as something only to be shamed by, or see developing my relationship with my husband sexually as anything I should ever feel guilty about.  Yes, sex can be used to harm and destroy, but there are ways to develop a healthy sexuality that strengthens and respects people that doesn’t require the extremes of disparaging the body or suppressing sexuality.

Read more