Let's Talk About Sex

The following theoretical was written as a response to a question about how to determine correct sexual ethics on a rather nicely varied discussion board of the Christian persuasion. I'm debating whether or not to post it, and probably sign it -- the celibate libertine.

I’m very wary of declarations of the “Biblical” code of sexuality. I think to a very large extent concepts don’t translate well between 1st and 2nd centuries C.E. and today.

The Biblical view of sexuality is complicated, to say the very least. For instance, if I said that rape (in the modern sex-without-consent understanding) is immoral, I would hope that I wouldn’t get much argument. But if you consider the way marriage has worked for the vast majority of human history, an awful lot of sex-without-consent has taken place while being dubbed marriage. (Ladies, close your eyes and think of England!) The idea of consent is constructed in a very different way – for instance, modern ethics would insist (and rightly so) on the consent of both parties involved; whereas, historically, the consent of the fathers involved was considered to be more important to forming a legitimate marriage or sexual union. Examples off the top of my head: Lot offering his daughters to be raped and the rule in Deuteronomy 22: 28-29, where if a man “rapes” a unbetrothed girl he’s to pay off the father and marry her. (I recognize that the law at least ensures financial security for the woman involved, or perhaps just relives her father of needing to provide for her – but I think it still illustrates the vastly different understanding of “moral” behavior in different times.)

The Bible is also an extremely androcentric book, which is another point to consider. There was a thread on another board about whether or not masturbation was moral. Well, the directly applicable Bible verses relate only to male masturbation. If we limit the scope to the Old Testament, this also applies to homosexuality. Male homosexuality is condemned, but there’s no mention of female homosexuality. Much of the Bible also assumes a male audience – one illustrative quip I’ve heard is that if a group of lesbian women were instructed that they were not to lie with a man as with a woman, the response would be something along the lines of “well, of course!”

My point is not that the Bible, Church tradition, community standards, what have you, should be ignored -- a egotistic standard of sexuality that is not in conversation with these and other sources is certainly not going to be moral. My point, which I think, a number of us here would agree on to varying degrees, is that reasonable people could disagree of the exact parameters of "moral" sexuality in good faith.

Working from Jesus’s command to love your neighbor as yourself, and the recognition of the basic personhood of women, I think the most fundamental rule for any Christian of any gender would be that exploitative sex and nonconsensual sex are absolutely wrong. The description of marriage in Ephesians 5 is one of the relatively few positive descriptions of human sexuality in the Bible. Frequently, the headship of the husband is emphasized as the defining feature, but it really is more proper to emphasize the idea that the husband is to love his wife as his own flesh. The trust, love, and loss of egotism in the relationship between the two partners is the defining element.* In fact, my feminist addition, is that the androcentric nature of the text should lead one to emphasize the action of the husband as the defining factor. (Now if we harmonize this with Galatians 3:16, treat husband and wife as arbitary constructs of human society, things get interesting.)

Depending on one’s understanding of the Bible, Church tradition, which Church tradition, I also believe that there can be a number of good faith understandings of how that principle should be put into practice. Additionally, while I firmly disagree, I don’t take issue with the belief, based on a literal reading of the Bible or logical paths, that homosexual activity is a sin provided that the person holding said belief treats all people with basic human respect. And now, I'll piss people off and say that treating all people with basic human respect means NOT forcing your opinions on what constitutes sin onto someone else's life via the secular government.

‘Tis complicated. To not even bring up the issue of exactly how the categories of immoral, unethical, and sinful should be broken up. Cheerios!

*There's varied several texts I'm drawing this idea from: First, a podcast from Ancient Faith Radio, you can find at: http://audio.ancientfaith.com/paradosis/par_2008-06-18_pc.mp3
For an extremely different and yet similar understanding see Vladimir Soloviev's essay, "The Meaning of Love" (which was actually written to defend a long-running affair). It's published in the collection The Heart of Reality, trans. Vladimir Wozniuk.

mmm...catharsis

My excuse for seeing Wanted is that I, as a Russian major, must support the foray of director Timur Bekmambetov into American cinema.

My reason is that he's a slick and stylish director, and I like slick and stylish movies -- even if they're a bit low on the substance part. That and I'm in a mood where an ultraviolent flick is good for the mental health.

To begin, Wanted meets my basic demand -- it was worth the ticket price. (5.50 -- yay, for the local cinema's ladies' night!) Bekmambetov used an interesting series of cuts to keep the exposition from being too dull. (Can the Time Warp be dull?) The car chases were thrilling. The violence was creative and artful. The pacing felt a little slow at moments, but overall, it worked.

The movie relies heavily on a voice-over from James McAvoy. I'm not certain how I feel about it. I suspect it was a nod to Fight Club. The film also bears some strong similarities to Bekmambetov's campy Russian vampire film of gloriousness Night Watch. Both films open with a lesson in the history of the film's universe -- in Night Watch, the formation of a truce between the armies of light and darkness and here, the formation of the mysterious Fraternity. Both films have an underlying theme of creating and preserving balance (more on that later). The parallels between Wesley and Anton (the protagonist of Night Watch) are extensive -- wimpy dude suddenly finds himself killing things in visually nifty ways. And there are daddy issues.

Oh yes, and Konstantin Khabetsky -- who played Anton in Night Watch and appears to be Johnny Depp to Bekmambetov's Tim Burton -- appears as a Russian assassin with a collection of pet rats and a damn good bottle of vodka. (Platinum Russki Standart -- I wants it, precious!) His character is a little "off" -- I think blazhennii might be the Russian word for him -- and throughly delightful. We also have an Easter egg with the buzzing flies. Poor flies.

James McAvoy did well with his character he was believable whether he was wimping out, babbling in terror, or kicking ass. Morgan Freeman was predictably solid and created enough ambiguity around his character to make the twist that shall not be revealed fairly satisfying. Angelina Jolie was the weak link. Yes, she's hot with the guy and tattoos. But she apparently has two modes in this movie. Grim face and smirk. What happened to the Angelina Jolie of Girl, Interrupted?

If you go to this film, go expecting style, enterntainment, creative ways of inflicting a lot of damage. Do not go if you want a lot of substance.

But lest it be said that film has no substance at all, I will argue that it has some. The theme of balance provides some meat -- particularly if you wanted to force the film into conversation with the larger body of Russian philosophical work on the difference between egotism and individuality. Our assassin squad seems to operate with a binary of the wolves and the sheep. Are you going to be a sheep, blindly stumbling to your "destiny," or are you going to be a wolf and take destiny into your own hands? The movie doesn't provide a clear answer -- which I do think was on purpose -- and I like that. I wish that the film had taken a little more time to explore not playing that game at all -- which is suggested by the wishes of Wesley's father for his son, but whatever. Summer action flick.

Also, no one in their right mind should bring their six year old to this film. Someone did. The film is rated R for a reason. Shame on you, parent who did so!

On the Theme of Small and Cute Animals...

When I was younger, I was huge fan of the Redwall series. (I still take a bit of pride in having been an active member of the online fanclub Dibbuns Against Bedtime that was integrated into one of the later novels. Even if I haven't read said later novel.)

So, I thought I'd reread Redwall -- why not?

The opening scene is our bumbling little novice friend, Matthias the mouse tripping across the abbey in an oversized tunic and sandals. What's my first thought?

Geez, Abbott Mortimer is certainly failing according to the Rule of Saint Benedict, which specifically instructs the Abbott to ensure that all novices and brothers have properly fitting robes.

Ah -- the joys of being a religions geek!

Well, look what the cat dragged in...

Today, my sister's cat merited his oh-so-cliched name. Rascal brought us a baby rabbit.

Mind you, we're quite used to finding small dead animals on the doorstep, courtesy of Rascal or the other cats multiple suitors. So if he had brought us a dead baby rabbit, we would have sighed, and buried it, and gone on with life. However, Rascal decided not to kill the baby rabbit. In fact, other than piercing the baby's ear, he didn't harm the rabbit at all. He just brought the baby in the house and dropped it at the sister's feet

So, now we have a baby bunny, eyes not open, in apparently perfect health. (He's as active as a comparably aged kitten, so we don't think there are any internal injuries.) We've got him in a box with an old dishtowel and a heating pad of microwaved rice. The plan is to wait until it's close to dusk (when momma rabbits return to the nest according to a couple wildlife rehab sites), put him outside where we think the mother might find him, and hope for the best. (The mother's won't take them back was they've been touched by a human tale is apparently false.)

The baby is cute. Especially when he's dreaming. Or having nightmares about being picked up by a huge tomcat and dragged away from his nest. He "pops" every now and then. And there are pictures and video when I get them from the sister's camera.

Stupid cat.

ETA: We believe that the baby rabbit (dubbed George Michael by my sister, for reasons unknown but presumed to be sufficient) has been reclaimed by his mother. We left him in the area where we suspected the nest might be and were checking on him every now and then. Around 11, I shown a flashlight down to the were he was from the deck and saw a full-grown rabbit hopping away. Cut the lights, waited thirty minutes, and then walked down to check. No George Michael in his box, no signs of raccoon or possum dining, we suspect momma rabbit has her baby back.

Good thing too, as the closest wildlife rehab center is a 140 mile round trip. Saving this bunny could have gotten quite expensive. And, although, my mother was well on her way to trying to domesticate him . . . well, we really don't need an illegal pet rabbit -- cute though he might have been. (Little white stripe on his forehead. Very adorable. I mean, if a great-aunt had domesticated a skunk...)

Again. Stupid cat. But all's well that end's well.

Submission and Authority

I found a draft from a while back, and I can't figure out why I didn't publish it. So from February:

Russ Adcox (one of the CofC preachers/thinkers who I find well worth the reading time) has an interesting post up on the issue of authority. The particular context is the idea of discipleship and submission to the authority of Jesus in Christianity. A member of the congregation apparently brought up the problem that the idea of Jesus as an authority figure could cause an individual who has been abused by authority figures in his or her life.

I think there's a difference between a spiritual authority to whom you submit to for teaching and guidance and who recognizes that your submission is only possible because you have a basic authority over yourself, and an authority that claims you have no real choice, you will submit, or else.

On Beale Street the other night (I had friends in town), a group of about three people were hanging out with a large sign, informing everyone there that if our names weren't found in the book of life, we'd been spending eternity swimming in a lake of fire. This would be the submit or else version of authority. This would be the type of authority that kicks my fight or flight instinct into high gear. Should I ignore them and go elsewhere on Beale? Or should I sit down in a half-lotus position and start chanting the lyrics of "My Sweet Lord"?

This second type of authority is destructive and oppressive. It's the type of authority that has to assert itself through violence -- whether the spiritual violence of being damned to hell for eternity, or the realized violence of destroying another's house of worship. The implication is that one does not really have a choice. Anything which challenges the hierarchical norm will be punished.

I can see the fundamentalist reply of tough cookie -- that's just how it is, submit now or burn. To which I really can't reply with anything other than -- no. Ain't buying it.

Free submission to an authority is a different matter, of course

WTF?

Don't ask how my internet browsing ended up at beinggirl.com. But, eww! Shouldn't there be some sort of public outrage over this garbage being handed to girls?

"Shaving is a part of growing up. It's ladylike and fun so EMBRACE it."

Is bad grammar ladylike as well? That one I may have in spades. (Yes, the comma in the quote is also missing on the website.)

And just ugh! Not that I feel the need to be embraced as ladylike with my gloriously hairy legs, but . . . how on earth did this myth that women shaving their legs is somehow natural and innate become so f'ing pervasive? Oh, yeah, marketing. Like this crap!

Shaving one's legs is not a part of growing up. It is a part of a particular ideal of feminine beauty that one should feel free to participate in or reject.

As my sister -- who does shave -- says: They're your legs!

Calling Progressive Christians!

Check out this new carnival, submit your writing, and anticipate other writings!

July's theme is Community, and the carnival will be hosted at Reweaving.