is all sex in marriage holy?

[Guest]

Sex is the greatest intimacy we can experience with another person, and it is not appropriate to be that intimate with someone who has made no commitment to us and to whom we have made no commitment. (Being married is very different to living with someone.)

I don't agree with this statement. I suppose that stems from the fact that my hubby and I are swingers.

He tells us it is for married couples only. There is no suggestion as far as I know in the Bible to suggest that sex is only for producing children. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that as God made it enjoyable He intended it to be enjoyed.

Where does it say that, specifically?

When He says that if we are single and are struggling with unfulfilled sexual needs, the solution is marriage, isn't He telling us to enter into an appropriate relationship so that we can have sex, not to produce children, but to satisfy our sexual need? And satisfying it is enjoyable.

I don't agree with this conclusion either. I don't feel that a committment as sacred as marriage should be based on anything so corruptible as sex. I mean, in the grander scheme of things, it's a bodily function. Our bodies wil die someday. So if our bodies start to "decline" with age and sex is no longer the thought at the forefront of our brains, or perhaps if one half of the couple or the other suffers a physical infirmity that makes sex painful, difficult or even impossible...what is to become of the marriage? I just don't think being horny is a good enough reason to get married.

Sorry if I offended anyone. I know - I'm not even registered here yet and can't help posting.

Much love...
intuition897

[drewcosten]

I think I'm going to like you, intuition897. Please keep posting.

[matt]

Sex is the greatest intimacy we can experience with another person, and it is not appropriate to be that intimate with someone who has made no commitment to us and to whom we have made no commitment. (Being married is very different to living with someone.)

I don't agree with this statement. I suppose that stems from the fact that my hubby and I are swingers.

I'd like to respond, but let me clarify here... Our anonymous friend made two statements; which one were you disagreeing with? (or were you disagreeing with both?)

I don't agree with this conclusion either. I don't feel that a committment as sacred as marriage should be based on anything so corruptible as sex.

I'm with you here, at least as far as deciding to base one's marriage on the fact that you are horny. I don't think that was what Paul was getting at in that passage though.. Could you clarify what you mean by sex being corruptible?

[intuition897]

Sex is the greatest intimacy we can experience with another person, and it is not appropriate to be that intimate with someone who has made no commitment to us and to whom we have made no commitment. (Being married is very different to living with someone.)

I don't agree with this statement. I suppose that stems from the fact that my hubby and I are swingers.

I'd like to respond, but let me clarify here... Our anonymous friend made two statements; which one were you disagreeing with? (or were you disagreeing with both?)

Actually yes, I disagree with both. Emotional intimacy trumps sexual intimacy every time. Sex just happens to be the best way to express that intimacy. It's the vehicle, not the destination. And actually, the second half of the statement I partially agree with. This depends on where you're coming from. For others, no-strings-attached sex is not appropriate. If you cannot have NSA sex without feeling that you are offending God, harming others and their relationships, and undermining your feelings of self-worth, then of course it's wrong! I won't get into the particulars of it, because I'm sure no one wants to hear it, but for hubby and myself we do not experience these conflicts.

I don't agree with this conclusion either. I don't feel that a committment as sacred as marriage should be based on anything so corruptible as sex.

I'm with you here, at least as far as deciding to base one's marriage on the fact that you are horny. I don't think that was what Paul was getting at in that passage though.. Could you clarify what you mean by sex being corruptible?

Sure. This goes back to the way I view sex. I don't see it - in and of itself - as something holy. It's a bodily function. We experience arousal the way we experience hunger. It's a drive. We don't consider eating dinner with our partner to be a holy and sacred event, even though our conversation over dinner may be very intimate. We go out to restaurants to do this! It's not hidden. Now I'm certainly not suggesting that we need to bring sex THAT far out of the closet, but just that we take a more common-sense approach to it. Why do we hoist a simple element of our humanity onto a pedestal like this? By corruptible, I mean that it is subject to abuse. Sex is very much a worldly thing and it can be used to hurt and manipulate others. But love is not something of this world. Love is eternal and incorruptible. It cannot be used against someone, or else it is not love. It makes more sense to me to base a lifelong relationship on love rather than on sex.

[matt]

Emotional intimacy trumps sexual intimacy every time. Sex just happens to be the best way to express that intimacy. It's the vehicle, not the destination.

Agreed, on both counts.

This depends on where you're coming from. For others, no-strings-attached sex is not appropriate.

This is where I start to lose you. How can sex be both the best way to express intimacy, and no-strings-attached at the same time? You can't take something that is precious in it's ability to express intimacy, make it commonplace by stringing together a series of no-strings-attached encounters, and hope that sex will still maintain its preciousness. One or the other has to go, and I would suggest that probably both will.

If you cannot have NSA sex without feeling that you are offending God, harming others and their relationships, and undermining your feelings of self-worth, then of course it's wrong! I won't get into the particulars of it, because I'm sure no one wants to hear it, but for hubby and myself we do not experience these conflicts.

I agree with you that feelings are important to listen to, but I suppose we ought to be careful not to make this the basis of our convictions. A lack of conflict in the conscience doesn't make a thing right.

Sure. This goes back to the way I view sex. I don't see it - in and of itself - as something holy.

No, of course not; "it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.'" But that's not to say that there isn't a proper way to go about it.

It's a bodily function. We experience arousal the way we experience hunger. It's a drive.

So is having to go to the bathroom, and yet you don't argue about the nature of our response to that drive. I think if I told my wife was going to start relieving myself on the couch instead of that cold hard uncomfortable toilet seat she would take offense. Yes, they are both drives, but that says nothing about how we order our response to these drives.

We don't consider eating dinner with our partner to be a holy and sacred event, even though our conversation over dinner may be very intimate. We go out to restaurants to do this! It's not hidden.

The dinner isn't, no. But I don't go around to the other tables at the restaurant and share with them the intimate conversation I'm having with my wife.

By corruptible, I mean that it is subject to abuse. Sex is very much a worldly thing and it can be used to hurt and manipulate others. But love is not something of this world. Love is eternal and incorruptible. It cannot be used against someone, or else it is not love. It makes more sense to me to base a lifelong relationship on love rather than on sex.

I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at here, but just because I am exclusively devoted to my wife in the area of sex does not mean that we are basing our relationship on that. We base our relationship on love, but what does that mean? Surely not taking the best way you have of expressing your intimacy with your spouse and spreading it around liberally among others.

Matt

[intuition897]

This depends on where you're coming from. For others, no-strings-attached sex is not appropriate.

This is where I start to lose you. How can sex be both the best way to express intimacy, and no-strings-attached at the same time? You can't take something that is precious in it's ability to express intimacy, make it commonplace by stringing together a series of no-strings-attached encounters, and hope that sex will still maintain its preciousness. One or the other has to go, and I would suggest that probably both will.

I probably shouldn't bother trying to explain this because it really does go against the grain, even if relgious values were not involved. But I'll give it a whirl.
Not all sex is making love. Making love is what we do with one another, and it's what we communicate to one another through sex that is unique as a fingerprint. No one else can duplicate it. It is something that is untouchable. But deep love and intimacy is only one thing that can be expressed through sex. Just as you can play an instrument like a piano or guitar to create different kinds of music from classical to jazz to country to rock, sex can be used to epress many different things. Some expressions are not as healthy as others, and some are downright evil, but it's definitely a spectrum.

No, we don't consider sex to be precious. It is powerful, and should be respected and never abused, but precious? No way. Sex is part of our humanity, and is not something we'll need after our bodies die. At least that's what I've come to believe? Is there any scripture about this? All I know of is Jesus' statement that there is no marriage in heaven. Anyway, that being the case, I do not understand how it can be something so holy and necessary here in this life - which is really just a dry run for the real deal after death - and then completely unnecessary in the afterlife? It just doesn't ring true to me.

I agree with you that feelings are important to listen to, but I suppose we ought to be careful not to make this the basis of our convictions. A lack of conflict in the conscience doesn't make a thing right.

No, but it does make a person ignorant, though. I'll freely admit that what my husband and I choose to do may very well earn us a one-way trip to hell, because I can't presume to read God's mind. There is so much that is beyond my understanding. I know what millions of other people say about the matter, and they swear right and left that we'll burn in hell. But seeing as how none of us humans can predict the future, no one can tell me they know this for a FACT. Would they be willing to stake their own eternity on this knowledge? I doubt it. Because when it comes right down to it, it's an assumption, not direct knowledge. All we have to live by are our consciences and Jesus' example. No, I'm not rationalizing; I truly believe that we're doing the right thing for our marriage, and we would feel morally conflicted to do otherwise. We will not pack ourselves into a box that others say we should fit into, just for the sake of conformity. I know this tends to cause waves, which is why we usually keep to ourselves. But it does get a bit lonely. I like people. I genuinely do, and it bothers me that I can't "connect" with them and talk like normal people do about something as simple as sex. But in so many ways, our beliefs are polar opposite to one another. All I can do is try my best to bridge the gap by explaining our position.

Sure. This goes back to the way I view sex. I don't see it - in and of itself - as something holy.

No, of course not; "it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.'" But that's not to say that there isn't a proper way to go about it.

Agreed.

It's a bodily function. We experience arousal the way we experience hunger. It's a drive.

So is having to go to the bathroom, and yet you don't argue about the nature of our response to that drive. I think if I told my wife was going to start relieving myself on the couch instead of that cold hard uncomfortable toilet seat she would take offense. Yes, they are both drives, but that says nothing about how we order our response to these drives.

If you really wanted to use your sofa to relieve yourself on in the comfort and privacy of your own home, have at it. It doesn't affect me one bit. Might give me a bit of a chuckle, but if you can assure me that you're not offending or harming yourself (emotionally, mentally, spiritually or physically) or others that your actions affect, then it's a simple matter of choice. Of course, peeing on your sofa (or whatever) is not exactly sanitary or inoffensive where your family is concerned.

We don't consider eating dinner with our partner to be a holy and sacred event, even though our conversation over dinner may be very intimate. We go out to restaurants to do this! It's not hidden.

The dinner isn't, no. But I don't go around to the other tables at the restaurant and share with them the intimate conversation I'm having with my wife.

Neither do we. However, we have been known to put on our manners for company and invite them over for dinner. And a good guest doesn't sit at a table where he has not been invited.

I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at here, but just because I am exclusively devoted to my wife in the area of sex does not mean that we are basing our relationship on that. We base our relationship on love, but what does that mean? Surely not taking the best way you have of expressing your intimacy with your spouse and spreading it around liberally among others.
Matt

I had hoped that my posts didn't come across as monogamy bashing, and if they did I'm truly sorry. That isn't my intent. I think monogamy is an admirable lifestyle choice for a couple and a beautiful expression of their love for one another...as long as it's a conscious choice and not the prescribed default. I just think there are many married couples who, at some level, resent having to conform to rules that do not make sense to them as the price one must pay in order to be in a relationship with someone they dearly love. Maybe I'm just a rebel or something, but I just don't like the sense of "or else" in a relationship like that.
Again, sorry Matt!

[matt]

Not all sex is making love.

I'm in full agreement here. Obviously something like rape is not loving.

Making love is what we do with one another, and it's what we communicate to one another through sex that is unique as a fingerprint. No one else can duplicate it. It is something that is untouchable.

I think I'm following you here (correct me if I'm wrong): the message is more important than the medium..

But deep love and intimacy is only one thing that can be expressed through sex. Just as you can play an instrument like a piano or guitar to create different kinds of music from classical to jazz to country to rock, sex can be used to epress many different things. Some expressions are not as healthy as others, and some are downright evil, but it's definitely a spectrum.

Once again, I agree that sex can be used to express all kinds of things. But the question at hand is whether it should be used to express those things. I would say that expressing something other than love would be more akin to expressing violence with a Stradivarius: it will ruin both the medium and the message. And what would the man or woman who fashioned the Stradivarius think? To see their handiwork, which is capable of expressing such beautiful strains of music, used to bludgeon a person over the head?!

I realize that you are not using sex to express violence, and the above is only an analogy. If it is not too personal, could I ask you what other things you are expressing when you participate as a "swinger"? (I ask this because as we have agreed, it is "what comes out of a man or woman that makes them unclean". So what we are expressing through sex is very important, though not the only thing that matters.)

No, we don't consider sex to be precious. It is powerful, and should be respected and never abused, but precious? No way.

By precious I mean only that it has a unique power to express intimacy in the physical realm. In that respect, it is of great worth, regardless of how one thinks about it.

Sex is part of our humanity, and is not something we'll need after our bodies die. At least that's what I've come to believe? Is there any scripture about this? All I know of is Jesus' statement that there is no marriage in heaven.

I try to avoid making predictions about what heaven is going to be like, and what we will be doing once we're there, but this seems reasonable to me. (By the way, how do you get "no sex in heaven" from "no marriage in heaven"? It couldn't be that sex is supposed to be only in marriage, could it? jokes... )

Anyway, that being the case, I do not understand how it can be something so holy and necessary here in this life - which is really just a dry run for the real deal after death - and then completely unnecessary in the afterlife? It just doesn't ring true to me.

I think we've already discussed the "holy" bit in regards to sex, and come to agreement on that. I don't quite understand what you mean by "necessary", maybe you could explain that a bit. That aside, I would assume there will be lots of things that we have here that we won't have in heaven, but that assumption alone doesn't give us license to do what we like with the things that are given to us here.

I'll freely admit that what my husband and I choose to do may very well earn us a one-way trip to hell, because I can't presume to read God's mind. There is so much that is beyond my understanding. I know what millions of other people say about the matter, and they swear right and left that we'll burn in hell.

Deciding a person's eternal fate is mercifully not my job. Nor would I want it to be mine... I think there has probably been a lot of damage done by people who take this decision out of God's hands where it rightfully belongs.

No, but it does make a person ignorant, though. ... [snip] ...But seeing as how none of us humans can predict the future, no one can tell me they know this for a FACT. Would they be willing to stake their own eternity on this knowledge? I doubt it. Because when it comes right down to it, it's an assumption, not direct knowledge. All we have to live by are our consciences and Jesus' example.

Of course we cannot predict the future, but that is not an excuse for ignorance in the present. We may not be able to say who is and isn't going to be in hell, but we have been given instruction from God about how we are to live presently. Christians like you and I have more than just our consciences and Jesus' example to go by. We have been given the Word of God, and promised that the Spirit who inspired the Word would lead us into the truth of what that Word says. I don't mean to imply that you don't believe this, but I'm just pointing it out in hopes that perhaps our discussion could turn there next. We can swap logic and feelings all we want and never arrive any closer to the truth.. Would you mind giving some comments on 1 Corinthians 6:12-20?

So is having to go to the bathroom, and yet you don't argue about the nature of our response to that drive. [snip]

If you really wanted to use your sofa to relieve yourself on in the comfort and privacy of your own home, have at it. It doesn't affect me one bit.

I was waiting for this one... I mean no offence, but I think you're missing the point of the analogy..

Neither do we. However, we have been known to put on our manners for company and invite them over for dinner. And a good guest doesn't sit at a table where he has not been invited.

I'm not following this at all.. Sorry..

I had hoped that my posts didn't come across as monogamy bashing, and if they did I'm truly sorry. That isn't my intent. ... [snip] ... Again, sorry Matt!

No need to apologize; as I said I didn't really know what you were getting at, so I try not to take offence at least until I do!

Matt

[intuition897]

Remeber watching Crocodile Dundee? He's in the bar in NY and the black guy walks up to him and tries to have a conversation with him. They both end up saying, "Huh?" and "Say what?" I think we're just on two different pages here. But that's okay! I love ya anyway!

I'm going to go into more detail about the why's and wherefores here, so for those of you who are squeamish, now might be the time to skip to the next post.

Making love is what we do with one another, and it's what we communicate to one another through sex that is unique as a fingerprint. No one else can duplicate it. It is something that is untouchable.

I think I'm following you here (correct me if I'm wrong): the message is more important than the medium..

Correct.

Once again, I agree that sex can be used to express all kinds of things. But the question at hand is whether it should be used to express those things. I would say that expressing something other than love would be more akin to expressing violence with a Stradivarius: it will ruin both the medium and the message. And what would the man or woman who fashioned the Stradivarius think? To see their handiwork, which is capable of expressing such beautiful strains of music, used to bludgeon a person over the head?!

I guess, to continue the musical analogy, I'm sure that there are those who believe that Christian rock is irreverent and offensive. But the point is to inspire people. It may not inspire THOSE people, but there are some whom it does reach and touch in a way classical music never will. It's just not their thing.

Hearing an artist masterfully playing classical music on a Stradivarius is akin to making love. There is nothing so beautiful. But to only play classical music on such a fine instrument seems like a waste to me. Would the violin's maker roll over in his grave knowing it was being used to play some down-home bluegrass? Or to rouse people to dance the two-step together? And surely there's some genius in the playing of Celtic folk-music? Some music you listen to, some music you dance to. In either case, music is common ground, and there's a relationship and a dialogue between the musician and the listener. There ain't no sin in that.

I realize that you are not using sex to express violence, and the above is only an analogy. If it is not too personal, could I ask you what other things you are expressing when you participate as a "swinger"? (I ask this because as we have agreed, it is "what comes out of a man or woman that makes them unclean". So what we are expressing through sex is very important, though not the only thing that matters.)

One thing I must make very clear here is that we do not participate in this with people who do not think the same way we do. There is mutual respect between all parties, and the emotional boundaries of our marriages are given a wide berth. To address this other question:

However, we have been known to put on our manners for company and invite them over for dinner. And a good guest doesn't sit at a table where he has not been invited.

When we do this, we have to realize that we are guests in each others' bedrooms, lives and marriages. We don't overstay our welcome, and we know better than to impose on the graciousness of our hosts. This is just good manners. We know that we wouldn't put up with some jacka** disrespecting us or our marriage, so we don't do that to others. Now when I say that we "put on our manners for company", I mean that we don't discuss the intimate details of our relationship with others. If we need to discuss something that is very private, we excuse ourselves to discuss it, just as you would at dinner with friends. The relationship is quite similar to that of a neighbour or co-worker or family friend. It's just that sex is not an off-limits topic of discussion, nor is physical expression.
What do we express with it? Friendship, really, and love. An appreciation of each other. Friends comfort one another. They give you a hug if you need one. They encourage you when you're feeling like crap. They give you a kick in the butt when you're feeling sorry for yourself. This is similiar to what we do. We're just able to incorporate our sexuality into it without the confusion of emotional entanglements.

No, we don't consider sex to be precious. It is powerful, and should be respected and never abused, but precious? No way.

By precious I mean only that it has a unique power to express intimacy in the physical realm. In that respect, it is of great worth, regardless of how one thinks about it.

Yes, I think we agree. Sex is definitely a gift, and an extremely powerful tool. It can be used to hurt (manipulation, rape) to express deep caring (making love), and yes, for fun (this is the Texas two-step I was referring to). The "fun" expression is definitely on the positive end of the spectrum, not the negative or even on the neutral, because if it is gone about correctly, people are improved by it.

I try to avoid making predictions about what heaven is going to be like, and what we will be doing once we're there, but this seems reasonable to me. (By the way, how do you get "no sex in heaven" from "no marriage in heaven"? It couldn't be that sex is supposed to be only in marriage, could it? jokes... )

I suppose it is. I have no idea what heaven is going to be like either, and I try not to let my imagination run away with me. My reasoning is this: heaven is supposed to be perfect, right? I can't imagine living perfectly with so many other souls without being able to communicate deeply with them in some way. It feels to me like our earthly bodies are a hindrance, as we're locked away in our own minds, unable to read one another's thoughts and emotions. If I could wish for one thing, it would be to finally be able to perfectly express my love for my husband. He's my best friend, my knight in shining armour and I'd walk through fire for him. I just wish there was some way I could do the Vulcan mind-meld thing and have him just...UNDERSTAND! Making love is the closest thing we have on earth to this kind of union. It would be nice to just cut out the middle man and just...understand one another. Am I nuts? I wonder sometimes... lol

That aside, I would assume there will be lots of things that we have here that we won't have in heaven, but that assumption alone doesn't give us license to do what we like with the things that are given to us here.

My beliefs came about in a lengthy and slow evolution. That assumption alone doesn't account for it. I'm not really inclined to go into exhaustive detail about it all, for the sake of your death by boredom and my developing carpal tunnel syndrome from all the typing... I'll just say that my beliefs are as firm as anyone's.

Deciding a person's eternal fate is mercifully not my job. Nor would I want it to be mine... I think there has probably been a lot of damage done by people who take this decision out of God's hands where it rightfully belongs.

Amen to THAT!

No, but it does make a person ignorant, though. ... [snip] ...But seeing as how none of us humans can predict the future, no one can tell me they know this for a FACT. Would they be willing to stake their own eternity on this knowledge? I doubt it. Because when it comes right down to it, it's an assumption, not direct knowledge. All we have to live by are our consciences and Jesus' example.

Of course we cannot predict the future, but that is not an excuse for ignorance in the present. We may not be able to say who is and isn't going to be in hell, but we have been given instruction from God about how we are to live presently. Christians like you and I have more than just our consciences and Jesus' example to go by. We have been given the Word of God, and promised that the Spirit who inspired the Word would lead us into the truth of what that Word says. I don't mean to imply that you don't believe this, but I'm just pointing it out in hopes that perhaps our discussion could turn there next. We can swap logic and feelings all we want and never arrive any closer to the truth.. Would you mind giving some comments on 1 Corinthians 6:12-20?

Not at all, but I'd like to "Phone-A-Friend". He's actually a former minister and fellow "lifestyler", and our views are remarkably similar. For the sake of accuracy, I'd like to ask him a question before I respond.

If you really wanted to use your sofa to relieve yourself on in the comfort and privacy of your own home, have at it. It doesn't affect me one bit.

I was waiting for this one... I mean no offence, but I think you're missing the point of the analogy..

Oh, no...I got it. Again, I think we just have that Crocodile Dundee phenomenon going on.

No need to apologize; as I said I didn't really know what you were getting at, so I try not to take offence at least until I do!

Matt

Well, here's to hoping you never need to be offended.

[ThatWikkidPerson]

http://www.book22.com/merchant2/

How very odd. For people who want to buy sex toys for their Christian marriage, without seeing any pictures of other naked people, on one of many Christian sex shop sites, apparently, mostly named after the Song of Solomon (book 22 of the bible).

[ThatWikkidPerson]

And, upon reading all of the posts, due to a lack of intellectual stimulus:

A lack of conflict in the conscience doesn't make a thing right.

Doesn't make it expedient (good or useful) either, though of course it is lawful.

C.S. Lewis said that there's nothing on earth that is good that we'll lack in heaven. Christ had a body when he rose. It was a new, freer, powerful body not bound by the usual physical laws. We'll have bodies like that. He could eat in that body. He could touch people. Lewis was amusing when he said his expectation is that anything in heaven must be better than stuff on earth (said stuff being merely shadows or previews of what God actually fully intends) and that the heavenly host would be "trans-sexuals" by which he meant their sexuality would transcend earthly sexuality, not that we'd all have had a special operation.

Why are we even pretending to believe that if a married couple are "swingers" that they are "going to burn in hell?" We all know better than that. We know that, if "swinging" like two "wild and crazy guys" has good or bad consequences, these consequences will be seen on earth. I believe in a God who is more than capable of making His displeasure known, should He feel any. I don't feel the responsibility to help Him, most of the time (not unless He asks).

So, difficult as Christianity may be to grasp:

-for Christians, it is lawful to have sex with people they aren't married to
-this doesn't make it automatically good or expedient somehow
-if it is bad, there are likely to be consequences, but not "hell" consequences so much as "dead conscience" and "can't hear God" consequences and perhaps hurting others less able to handle such activity. Maybe "ruining the picture God expects us to display for the benefit of the angels." Or not.
-it is incumbent upon the rule-makers and the "this isn't ok for Christians" people to justify their point of view, lest they be merely making human laws, rules and guidelines for each other to follow and pretending to speak for God. So, if something is fun, it should not automatically cause us all to ask "But is it ok for Christians?" This question should not be our immediate response to fun. Heroin is no doubt fun, but I have concerns as to it being a good thing for my life. That being said, I quite enjoyed a shot the doctor gave me last month, as it made me ripping high. Context is a lot. Very little is "ok" or "not ok" for all Christians. We wish it were as simple as that, but it ain't. The bible reflects this reality.
-the central image or symbol used to display God's repeated displeasure with idolotars (people who took some time out from worshipping God, so they could worship other deities, but ones made by men to appeal to men, deities that were *about* men, rather than the other way around) is that of a whore, or an unfaithful wife.

Like everything else, it behooves us to lend significance, to *invest* significance in things that we decide should really matter, like a marriage, or a ceremony of any kind, or like certain people. If we try hard, we can raise kids and ensure that we don't see them as significant to us in any way. If we try hard, we can live with a spouse that doesn't matter to us a bit. By itself, sex is just a silly thing, a messy, smelly, squelching biological thing like defecating or giving birth. If we choose to lend significance to it, however, it can become deeply meaningful and special between two people, because of the communion, the collaboration, the fellowship, intimacy and trust seen in it. It may take some ironing out of differences, and some repeated airing and comparing of differences (and maybe some tears and KY Jelly) before both parties start to practically realize some of the significance they wish to invest the act with. This isn't always easy, but it's the kind of work many people enjoy, the kind of practice many are willing to put in. If sex is invested with the significance of being a way to make money, a way to hurt a third party, an activity one is professionally proficient in, or nothing at all, then that is likely what it will be to the person, and others involved. I believe in a God who made things, and, childlike, is eager for us to explore His handiwork. A party of financial planners isn't always the most gratifying group of people for an artist to display a new piece to. Nor is a flock of lawyers or a gaggle of priests.

Not everything can be special. I deliberately chose to make sex a special thing. I have had opportunities for it to be the icing on a good evening, a friendly way to get to know someone, a shared indulgence before moving on with seperate lives. I chose to make it more special than that. I have made it so special that I'll be lucky if I ever get any. Precious? We decide what is precious to a certain degree, and also have to recognize what is hard to get. Diamonds and gold are precious to many people, both because we decide they are, and because it is hard for us to get them. For someone like me to end up having sex with a woman who likes me, and I like her, and neither of us has had to compromise our views of what the act of sex means (in my case, that it not be at all temporary); this would be "better far than gold." It would be so significant and precious that it might not even exist (not the sex itself, but what it would be built upon, and the significances built into it.)

Sex isn't so important to me that it is everything, or that I'd do anything at all to get it. If I really want french fries, there are MacDonalds' everywhere. If I want something more special, I may have to wait, go hungry, and maybe never get what I'm after at all. Life's full of that.