"Going Vixen Mode" since 2019

i hate drawing hands but i hate not drawing my tabletop guys feeling emotions even more so im gonna power through

christianity and sex-positivity are strange bedfellows. both the scriptures and the church (church here meaning the whole christian faithful, not any one particular denomination or tradition) from its beginnings through to today have taken a decidedly dim view of sex and sexuality. the general christian attitude towards sex ranges from "a heterosexual married couple can have as much sex as they want" to "sex is only acceptably when a heterosexual married couple are trying to conceive children". not a particularly broad range of opinion!

so where does that leave me, as a person who is both a christian and generally sex-positive? the easiest answer is simply to say that the scriptures were written by men in patriarchal cultures and the church is dominated by men in patriarchal cultures and they have a material interest in regulating and controlling sexuality, and therefore if one rejects patriarchy (as I do) then one can also reject patriarchal attitudes toward sex. and while this is fine answer and I do not begrudge anyone who comes to this conclusion and then stops there, I personally find it unsatisfying. I want to engage with scripture and tradition through my faculty of reason (shoutout richard hooker), rather than simply reject it out of hand.

when thinking about sex I find that the best place to start is with a comparison to another bodily activity--eating. like sex, eating has both a biological function and a pleasurable aspect. and while it has generally been regarded as a laudable act of pious discipline to eat only that which is strictly needed for sustenance, the church does not condemn anyone who eats for pleasure as a glutton. indeed, feasting has been a central part of the christian life for centuries. eating only becomes gluttony when done to excess, in ways that are harmful to the self and others, such as if one deprives another of food in order to satisfy one's own appetites.

why then should sex be treated differently from eating? again setting aside the patriarchal aspect, it is a simple fact that sex carries inherent risk that eating does not. not only is there the risk of unwanted pregnancy but also the potential spread of STIs and other diseases. this is still a major concern today; imagine how much greater the risk would be in societies before the development of scientific medicine. limiting each person's sexual activity to only partners whom they are in a binding legal relationship with, i.e., marriage, is a way to mitigate the risks inherent in sexual activity.

so what is different between then and today? today we have, through our wonderful god-given human ingenuity, developed other methods of mitigating the risks of sex--contraceptives. we have made it possible to have safe sex. if the material conditions of sex have changed, then I believe our theology of sex can change also. (as an aside, the catholic church by forbidding contraceptives implicitly acknowledges that contraceptives undermine their conservative theology of sex)

the word most often used in scripture to talk about pre-marital or extra-marital sex is πορνεία ("porneia"), most famously translated as "fornication" in the king james version. today the strict definition of fornication is generally taken as "sex between unmarried persons", but the meaning of the term as it appears in scripture is and has been the subject of much debate. conservatives tend to apply it broadly to a whole range of sexual activity; john calvin in particular believed that any sexual act not undertaken strictly for the purpose of conceiving children was fornication. but if the definition can be pushed in a restrictive direction, why can it not also be pushed in a liberating direction? why could we not say that fornication is a sexual act which causes harm, either deliberately or through neglect? that sex outside of marriage was not bad because it is inherently bad but rather because it carried great potential for harm?

this then is my position: safe sex is mostly fine, and not in and of itself a sin. I will not go so far as to call it a spiritual act as some of the more radically sex-positive people are wont to do, but it's fine! just like eating a supreme pizza instead of subsisting on bread and water is mostly fine. what makes sexual activity sinful is when it causes harm, whether physical or emotional. what makes sexual activity sinful is when it damages relationships. chastity is a virtue just as temperance is a virtue, but god will not reject you if you enjoy the gift of sexuality.

Much in the same way a lot of Jewish law about food and other social behaviors can be linked to specific health and safety concerns of the era, and has undergone significant reevaluation since their inception, both among various Jewish sects and in various eras of Christian interpretation of the Old Testament, this is exactly the kind of intelligent analysis of biblical writings on sex that I am looking for in my own journey with faith