Moved.

Deeply so.

That’s how I felt as I slowly lifted my body out of my seat after the lights went up at the end of Obaaberima(a Ghanaian term that means girly-boy). The play chronicled the life of a young Ghanaian man, as he slowly and at times reluctantly comes to terms with the duality of his complex sexual identity. (I’m not going to go into much more detail about it’s premise here as I don’t want to spoil if for you. But if you’re really curious read this.)

My thought after getting a very brief rundown from a friend was that seeing the  play would make for an entertaining and enlightening evening. It’s story being so far removed from my own experience that I went in thinking it would simply offer me more insight into what it means to be young, black, male and queer in our society.

My thoughts after sitting through the 80-minute production?

Obaaberima is an incredibly well-crafted theatrical piece that everyone should see! Tawiah M’Carthy brilliantly performed the one-man show, alongside exceptional musical accompaniment provided by Kobena Aquaa-Harrison.

Obaaberima was…

Beautiful. Poignant. Inspired. And if nothing else, honest.

At bottom, honesty is what Obaaberima is all about. Finding your truth and growing into who you are meant to become, despite all the noise from the outside world telling you that being different is not okay. It’s a message that makes the play incredibly relatable, for anyone who has ever been made to feel that their difference(s) – which make them wrong and somehow less worthy – need to be put away or hidden from society’s disapproving gaze. (And who among us hasn’t been made to feel that way at some point in their lives?)

It’s that message, combined with M’Carthy’s undeniable acting talent, that makes Obaaberima a must see. So, I encourge – no, urge – those of you lucky enough to be in and around the Toronto area between now and October 7, to see Obaaberima…soon.

–

Obaaberima runs from now until Sunday, October 7 @ Buddies in Bad Times Theatre (12 Alexander Street, 416.975.8555). Tickets $20 – $37.

This week Full Frontal Nerdity returns after an extended break. Apologies for the unforeseen absence, but I have a typically controversial topic as penance to kick things back off with.

How is homosexuality portrayed in the Bible?

There are a number of mentions in the Old Testament, and absolutely none whatsoever in the New Testament. So anyone who is wondering “What Jesus said” can be reassured that Jesus said absolutely nothing about it. So any placard waving evangelical types can rest easy that Jesus had no problem at all with same sex relations.

As my Christian friends tell me that Jesus died for our sins and therefore the Old Testament rules no longer apply, perhaps we can leave it there; but as I have already done the research on the Leviticus and Corinthians quotes – we’ll cover them off too.

Much of the debate is around the interpretation of biblical text, on top of the translation from Hebrew to Greek to English / French / German / etc that has been undergone over the years. Some of this can be laid to rest by considering the cultural norms of the society at the time of the document or later translation, and others by looking at the use of language in the surrounding passages.

Let’s start with Leviticus. This was a list of guidelines for the “modern Hebrew man” to live by at the time. Here homosexuality is mentioned twice, though it is the use of the word “abomination” that is so oft shrieked by preachers taking a stance of bigotry.

Lev. 18:22,

You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

Lev. 20:13,

If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them.

Leviticus uses the word “abomination” a lot. It is not defining something as evil (as per the English meaning of the word) but as something ritually unclean, or against the social norms. This might explain why other acts such as eating shellfish, trimming one’s beard and wearing mixed cloth are also listed as abominations. Notably, all of these abominations are mentioned again in Deutoronomy, except homosexuality. That isn’t repeated in the rule book… So it is apparently not as important as mixing linen with cotton or having a prawn sandwich in the eyes of the Old Testament authors.

Leviticus 20 refers to the highest sins, for which there should be a death penalty. Numero Uno is idolatry. For context, those pin up calendars, worship of sport heros, etc., in biblical terms, are a capital offenses.

So far, I’m building up a picture of a synthetic fibre sports jersey and denim jeans wearing clean shaven chap who regularly heads to the crab shack after catching the game making up the seventh circle of Dante’s hell. In fact, I might go and take my ABOMINATION placard to the nearest Gap store to see if I can save a few souls by enlisting them to a one fibre dress code.

Let’s leave poor Chad (our damned sports fan) for a moment and return to our comparison of Leviticus to Deuteronomy. As we have discovered, homosexuality is a notable exception in the otherwise complete repetition between the two Books. In its place, there is the punishment of male temple prostitution by death. Potentially what was meant originally in Leviticus before translation and the modern trend for literalism. Otherwise maybe Deutoronomy is a deliberate change, regardless looking at the verses in the broader context – it does minimise the severity of the Biblical condemnation when compared to the other items in the rule book.

There are further mentions of homosexuality in Corinthians and Romans, which we’ll look at in the next issue of Full Frontal Nerdity. But just in case you still aren’t convinced that the book of Leviticus should be taken with a grain of salt, I’ll leave you with His words on menstruation…

Lev. 15:19-30,

And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even. And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean. And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean. Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation. And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness.

Lev. 20:18,

And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.

I’m no great fan of pigeons, but if it takes the sacrifice of two for every women’s monthly visitor – they might have gone the way of the dodo by now.

The longer I live, the more I realize the impact of attitude on life. … The remarkable thing is we have a choice everyday regarding the attitude we will embrace for that day. We cannot change our past… we cannot change the fact that people will act in a certain way. We cannot change the inevitable. The only thing we can do is play on the one string we have, and that is our attitude. I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90% of how I react to it. And so it is with you… we are in charge of our Attitudes.  -  Charles R. Swindoll

While I rarely quote the clergy, I agree with what Charlie boy stated above; that our attitude has a huge impact on how we experience life – our sex life especially. If our attitude is positive towards sex, chances are we will experiment and enjoy our experiences as a young adult. If our attitude is more negative our sexual experiences will likely be limited in our young adulthood or leave us racked with guilt and self-loathing.

But where do our respective attitudes come from?

Partly from our family, but we all know the slutty clergy man’s daughter or the frigid offspring of an aged hippy. As children become teenagers they are influenced by many people and factors. While some people believe that family has the largest influence on young adults, others – like me –  feel that friends have more influence on young adults. In fact, I propose that the attitude we have towards our own sexuality is most strongly influenced by that of our peers during our early teens…

First, while most young children spend the bulk of their time (excluding the hours they spend at school) with their family, which means their family exerts the greatest amount of influence on them, young adults spend the majority of their free time with their friends. Whether fighting against parental control or just trying to make friends, teenagers spend a great deal of time interacting with their peers as they develop their own sense of morals and values.

Second, peer pressure can be one of the strongest influences that teenagers face. Most new experiences that young adults have are the end result of peer pressure. What one teenager thinks is “cool” is forced on to others in order to fit in. (Admittedly, many parents may also encourage their children to conform, but it is usually for an entirely different reason: not wanting their children to embarrass them in any way. Sadly, peer pressure often continues to be a major influence, even into adult life.)

In short, while family influences children the most, as children grow up and become young adults their strongest influences are their friends. Teenagers spend the majority of their time with their peers, rather than family, so it is only natural that they exert more influence on them.

Peer pressure also causes most teenagers to do things to try and fit in with their peers, an influence that is usually much stronger than family. The fact that this influence is so strong at a time when they are undergoing puberty, developing curiosity towards sex and defining their own sexual identity ensures that it plays a huge role in shaping their attitudes towards sex. Their friends  during their young adulthood will likely shape their attitudes in ways that will likely change their experiences in (or out) of the bedroom (or dungeon) well into their adult lives.

So parents, my advice is to use peer pressure to your advantage. As you set about providing a sex positive example for your own children, pass it on to their friends as well. By doing so you’ll greatly increase the odds that one of your progeny’s BFFs – who will probably have the greatest impact on their attitudes towards sex – will one day ‘teach’ your kid(s) something they worked hard to ignore when it came out of the mouth of one of their old and (obviously) very out of touch parents.

I was born in Jamaica. And though I came to Canada at a young age my mother has never let us forget where we came from. Regular visits to the island, coupled with regular reminders that living in Canada didn’t necessarily translate to being Canadian reinforced in my siblings and I an affinity for and acceptance of Jamaican cultural norms and values as superior to those of our adopted country. For my mother we may have become (eventually) Canadian citizens but my siblings and I were always Jamaicans. (My Jamaican cousins would beg to differ.)

Not surprisingly, acceptance of Jamaican cultural attitudes and norms significantly impacted my dating, love and sex lives. There are just some things that the average Jamaican doesn’t do or isn’t supposed to do. And some things we do that I’ve come to realize aren’t universal. For your edification, here is a small sampling:

Paper Men Need Not Apply: When a Jamaican single mother rules her house with an iron fist like my mother did there are a few things you can count on; there will be no back chat (the penalty is death, or something that feels suspiciously like what I imagine death feels like), education is a must, the lord Jesus Christ is your saviour (I was in Church on Sundays and secular music was forbidden on this day of rest) and even though you’re a male child you will have to help around the house with things like washing dishes, cleaning bathrooms and maybe even cooking.

While instructing the pre-pubescent version of Sam Sharpe on the finer issues of things like properly pressing clothes or seasoning meat my mother would let it be known that “these Canadian girls don’t know how to do anything” and that I couldn’t count on them to take care of me so I “better learn to do these things and stand on my own feet”. Plus, as my mom would put it, “no woman worth her salt wants a paper man and if you can’t press your pants and cook your own food and stand on your own, you’re a paper man”.

How did this play out in the dating world? Well, first and foremost I’m nobody’s pushover. In fact it’ll be a cold day in hell before you’ll hear about a woman putting me “under heavy manners”. Unless I get married or something. And second, though, I’m not Bobby Flay, Susur Lee or Rob Rainford I know my way around the kitchen. I’ve been known to say, fry fish, grill vegetables and serve a dessert plate with fresh fruit, pound cake and sorbet for the ladies. At her place. And do all the dishes when I’m done. On occasion I’ve also even laundered a woman’s clothes. I’m talking the full hundred: washing, folding and pressing. I’ve managed to wear the apron and the pants, to pamper women without being a pushover. Let me tell you, this not being a paper man thing has paid off handsomely with the ladies. Very handsomely.

Some Fruit Is Forbidden: Guess how many of my Jamaican friends have ever admitted to going downtown? If you guessed none, congratulations you’ve won the door prize. See, in Jamaican circles oral sex is frowned upon. At least publicly. I have one friend who swore up and down that he “never nyam the pussy”. This guy was adamant about the “duttiness” and “slackness” of the act. But he was like the Ted Haggard of anti-oral sex crusaders—railing against an evil by day but seeking it out by night. Little did he know that we knew that he was eating more pussy than cervical cancer Alf.

This message was NOT brought to you by Jamaica's Tourist Board

Why the big anti-oral stance in Jamaica? The answer is too complicated for me to discuss right now. All I know is that as long as I’ve known about sex I’ve known that oral sex was a no-no. Men shouldn’t “bow” and women shouldn’t “goggle”. It’s amazing how many dancehall reggae songs are devoted to admonishing anyone who practices such “nastiness”. (Sidebar: During my school years my friends and I used to smirk every time a convertible raced through the streets of Toronto with Mr. Vegas’ tune ‘Heads High’—sample lyric: “Mi wan fi hear yu scream, If yu mouth clean, No man never rope you in fi no ice cream”—pumping from the stereo system. See, that song is largely about women who are “clean”, aren’t freaks and don’t give head. But we knew first hand that all these Betsy’s from Brampton and Maritza’s from Markham were “bowing and blowing” like the Jamaican girls wouldn’t and we also knew they didn’t know what the hell the song was about. They just liked the beat).

Now informal research indicates that what is claimed publicly by many Jamaican men and women is different than what happens privately. And within my social circle it’s an unwritten rule that you save the oral action for the “special ones”. How said special one is determined is anyone’s guess and likely varies from man to man anyway. Regardless, you’ll be hard pressed to find a Jamaican man who publicly acknowledges he’s tasted the vagine or worse yet that he enjoys it. In fact, probably the only thing worse than being called a “bowcat” is being called a batty man. Which leads us to…

Homosexuality is an abomination unto the lord: It is said there are more houses of worship per capita in Jamaica than any other nation on this planet. Know what this means? Jamaicans love them some church. And nothing can get the devout whipped into a fervour like talk of homosexuality. Check this for a more complete discussion of homosexuality in Jamaica.

Remember when I said a surprising amount of dancehall reggae songs are devoted to anti –oral sex talk. Well, I could say the same thing about anti-gay songs too. When I was young(er), I didn’t even give the lyrical content of some of these songs a second thought. I sang them as casually as I would sing a church hymn or ‘Yellow Submarine’ or ‘One Love’. Thing is, I never took these songs with anti-gay lyrics too seriously. I never have hated gays. In fact, as far back as my early teens I did the cold hard math. More gay men meant more women for me. (Ahh, nothing like naked self interest to stimulate social change or awakening). So, on that front I didn’t give a crap whether a man was gay or straight. I mean, seriously, what did another man’s sexual orientation, tastes or predilections have to do with me? So I danced and sang along to these songs while not really connecting to the message.

But as my consciousness and awareness grew I re-examined my relationship to these songs, some of which are or were personal favourites. Though I still could or can appreciate an amazing turn of phrase, the clever construction of a given lyrical passage or the way a given artist “rides the riddim” I just have a hard time listening to some songs now, songs I had always adored. I just can’t promote that kind of message, a message that advocates discriminating against or acts of violence against someone because of their sexual orientation. (I meet Queer folk all the time these days and when informed that I’m Jamaican, I often sense or see a bit of apprehension flicker in their eyes. Of course it’s possible that I’m projecting my own thoughts and feelings).

All in all, I’m very proud of my Jamaican heritage. I still cherish and adhere to many of the cultural values and beliefs my mother and others instilled in me. But, when a boy becomes a man he must put away childish things and learn to make decisions on his own. Well, I am a man now, a decidedly un-paper man like one at that. And I’ve chosen my life. A life that loves freely and doesn’t judge others for the choices they make in theirs. It’s one love people. One love.

Natural Family Planning or NFP is an umbrella term for a number of techniques taught by the Catholic Church as a form of contraception. (Some hippies choose this as well as a “natural, holistic manner.”) As you may imagine it’s a bit of a hot topic in some circles.

Dr. Roger Pierson is a scientist who was part of a research team that studied the ovaries of 50 healthy women. The study found that ovarian follicles develop more than once during a woman’s menstrual cycle. In 68% of the women studied, two waves of ovarian development occurred. Dr. Pierson also said that “up to 40% of women may not be able to use natural family planning methods because there will not be a ‘safe’ time” in their menstrual cycles.

Theresa Notare is Assistant Director of the Diocesan Development Program and contends with Dr Pierson on this last point. In her opinion, NFP science knows that a woman’s signs of fertility can be observed so that the fertile and infertile phases of the cycle can be identified. It does not matter how many “waves” of development a woman may experience; as soon as the ovaries are “serious” and produce the mature egg, the hormonal message will be sent to the cervix telling it to secret mucus – the primary sign of fertility.

This is true. An oft missed point in our schooling is the fact that women will produce cervical mucus upon ovulation. I am informed that this is a “milky and stickier” form of vaginal discharge. (I am finding this majorly gross.) So through observation, it is possible to pick up on the physical signs that ovulation has occurred.

Nevertheless, those of you who are avid followers of Full Frontal Nerdity already know that, the female reproductive system is cunning like a fox. Ladies are capable of spontaneous ovulation, caused by outside stimuli (such as a really attractive guy). Their funky hormones will also induce a sexy glow on ovulation making them appear more attractive to the opposite sex, while also causing them to behave ‘unusually.’ Add to that the fact that women can ovulate upon orgasm (as well as a myriad of other stimuli) and sperm can live in and around the womb for up to three days and it becomes overwhelmingly clear that NFP has serious flaws as a contraceptive system.

For those of you who are keen to try NFP based on your cultural beliefs, despite all of the above, please note NFP should not be considered the new name for the rhythm method, because it is actually a range of observations and techniques, often taught by certified instructors. And one of the big benefits of NFP is the fact that it will give you a broader appreciation of your own fertility, as well as your partner’s. Still, based on its potential risks, if your culture and beliefs allow a combination of NFP techniques and modern contraception, it would be best to use both, as NFP offers no protection against STDs.

Hey all.  So glad you made it back to read the follow up to Part 1 of my eye-opening (if only for this wanton wench) interview with TB, Dirty Girl turned Devout Christian. And take it for me, you’re all in for a treat, because tonight she’s talking abstinence, adultery, and sex scandals – in the church.

Happy reading all!

–

Skye: As you’ve walked on both sides of the abstinence divide what would you say are the pros and cons of abstaining while single or in a relationship?

TB: (giggles) Oh my. This question makes me laugh, because all I’m thinking is ‘There’s pros and cons? Hmmm…’ My brain is having trouble getting past that – I’m definitely all the way in on this Christian thing.  Hilarious.

Okay, let’s start with the pros first as I’m sure I can rattle those off (grins).

When you start dating someone you’re trying to get to know them so you can see who they are. Some people are open books and will show you everything up front, but most of the time it’s a slow process of gathering information and clues to figure out what they’re about. Then you can decide if that person is a fit or a match. So, to a degree physicality complicates that. If I really like what you do physically, am I able to separate the emotional tie from the yearning and the urges in a way that allows me to really see you for who you are? I can’t say for sure, but I do know that it complicates things.

Also, science has proven that we bond with people we have physical interactions with. Of course, based on the circumstances of modern society many of us have learned not to do that – but again only to a degree. So, when you enter into a physical relationship you have to ask yourself if your connection is more about your physical response to your mate than a real emotional or mental connection.

Now for the cons? If you have a high sex drive, I imagine it would be very hard for you to abstain and find appropriate outlets. Also, if you are someone who is very, very sexual being able to manage that in relationship so that you provide respect to your partner if they are not that way would be a struggle.

Skye: From what I’ve seen it seems that Christians are quick to forgive the sin of adultery, but have a much harder time with homosexuality. Why do you think that is?

TB: I completely agree with you on this. I think that is a real fault within the community.

My perspective is that sin is sin. It doesn’t matter what the sin or circumstance is, sin is sin. So, in that respect, by Biblical standards, adultery is no different than homosexuality. But in answer to your question, I think our culture is the main reason this is an issue at all. There’s a stance on homosexuality in society that says it’s one of the most, if not the most, horrible sins. When it comes to homosexuality it seems we’re quick to forget that we should hate the sin not the sinner.

Part of this is also about an exaggeration or misunderstanding of Biblical text, like the whole idea of Sodom and Gomorrah. Sodom and Gomorrah wasn’t destroyed based on homosexuality, it was destroyed because of the excess. Now, while it’s true that all that excess was connected to sexual acts and that the Bible does specifically say man should not lay with man and woman should not lay with woman, the same rules apply to committing adultery. You just shouldn’t do it. So, in my opinion, it’s our cultural attitudes that make the reaction to homosexuality so much more intense.

(sighs) The community has condemned homosexuality as the most heinous of sins, which doesn’t make sense. I mean if the Lord is a covenant making God – and remember marriage is a covenant – then that should be the more horrible of sins. But that’s not the case based on our cultural mores. And it’s a crime really; this issue makes me very sad. I often think that if I was coming from a homosexual relationship trying to find the Lord, where would I be welcome? Based on what I’ve seen of the church the answer is basically nowhere.

Skye: What you just said brought up another question for me.  Based on what you just said about not being welcomed in the church as a homosexual, I’m guessing you believe that that would be the main stumbling block to going to church for a queer person. But wouldn’t the fact that homosexuality is considered a sin be the biggest hurdle to going to church for someone from that community?

TB: I would say no. But that’s because I think sin is sin. I mean, how many people in church are adulterers? Have cheated on their taxes? Have stolen? It’s still sin that they’ve engaged in and they have no trouble walking through the doors of any church. All those people have no right to think that they are better than a gay man or woman walking into church. To me anyone believing they are is preposterous and simply doesn’t make sense.

Of course, I can totally understand why someone who is queer would feel nervous about it or like they were going to be judged more harshly. But do I think that the fact that homosexuality is a sin is the biggest thing keeping queer folk from coming to church? No. I think it’s society’s views about homosexuality that makes things hard for them.

The other thing about this is that as our culture starts to change – however slowly – in terms of the acceptance of homosexuality, the church feels the need to take a harder and more overt stance on the issue. This makes it more difficult for members of the gay community to find an opening within the church. So the church is trying to reinforce the idea that the Word of God is set and unwavering, but the way they’re presenting that idea isn’t helping to create a more welcoming space for queer people.

But again, if you understand, as I do that it’s about sin and not the sinner, then you can open up a bit on that idea – as you would for any other sin, and be more accepting of  homosexuality.

Skye: A few days ago it was reported that a Seattle Pastor denounced masturbation – even by oneself – due to the fact that it makes you ‘gay.’ Based on this story and your own experiences what it is about masturbation that is such an issue for the church?

TB: There is a lot of commentary on masturbation within the church. Too much almost. My personal perspective on masturbation is that if I masturbate I open myself to being sexual outside of a relationship. It feeds lust and allows it to continue, in a cyclical way. I feel hungry sexually so I take care of it, then I’m good for a bit, but when I’m hungry again I take care of it then too. And then I feel hungrier, and it all just creates the space for lust to grow and grow. It allows an appetite to develop. And if you’re trying to abstain from sex is that a good thing? I don’t think it is.

All that said, I’ve never heard the ‘gay’ take on it. That’s a new and fresh to me. And I totally disagree with that. I mean what’s that idea taking into account? Preference? Gender? Nature vs. nurture? I don’t see how it makes sense.

What I have heard that masturbation is self abuse, which is a pretty commonly held view among the people I interact with at church. And the idea behind that is that you are using your body and your sexuality in a way that it is not designed to be used, and diminishing from the sacredness of sex between two people in covenant.

Skye: What about using masturbation to ‘cope’ while abstaining?

TB: I’m sure some people within the church use masturbation that way, but I don’t think it’s a good idea – at least it wouldn’t be for me. I’m just not willing to go there myself. I also don’t think that it’s generally encouraged as a way to get through abstinence in the community.

Skye: This month we featured the story of a preacher’s kid who after being married and divorced by her mid-twenties had to battle all that she’d been taught about the dirtiness of sex during her childhood. And another guest contributor wrote a post in which she pointed out that the idea of saving yourself for marriage pushed by religion is about regulating sex to erect “strict boundaries around the legitimacy of children and thusly, inheritance.” A) Do you think religious taboos around sex make most devote Christians believe that sex is dirty? B) What are your thoughts on the idea that religious doctrines about sex are primarily about regulating sex?

TB: I do believe that our parents’ generation grew up with the idea that sex is dirty and that they hold on to that perspective. I don’t think that that idea is something that is true for people in our age group and younger. I think I talked about this earlier when I said within the Christian community there is a movement to open the doors and dialogue around sexuality. So, I don’t think currently within the church that most people consider sex to be dirty. In fact, I find that often times its celebrated as a natural thing, a reasonable thing, something you should do – within the confines of marriage.  Explore, enjoy and celebrate sex within the bounds of a marital relationship. Preachers talk about sex in church fairly openly now – at least in my experience.

As for the second part of the question I disagree. If you understand that sex is sacred and that to do it you should have the safety of having a covenant with your partner then I don’t think you’d see it that way. Yes there is a restriction that you can’t have sex with just anyone, but that’s not the focus of that idea. The focus is ‘do you understand how beautiful and wonderful and powerful this experience can be?’ I don’t think the ‘whole thou shall not’ attitude is what it’s about now. Was it once the main focus? Without a doubt, yes. But now it’s not.

Skye: Based on the high number of sexual scandals involving religious leaders doing everything from allegedly molesting children to having group sex with their congregants, do you think the church’s current stance on sexuality is realistic? After all, if church leaders aren’t able to abstain as necessary, how can their followers be expected to?

TB: I think that the shift I’ve been talking about regarding opening up discussions of sexuality in the church is in part about preventing such things from happening in the future. I think that part of what has permitted a certain number of sexual sins within the house of God is the perception that sex is wrong, you can’t experiment within your marriage, and that you can’t try new things. It has allowed and encouraged bad choices.  So, the trend to more openness around sexuality in church is already dealing with the so called unrealistic ideals around sex to some degree, and I’d like to think that there’ll be fewer scandals in the future because of it.

FIN

So we’re in the final days of Losing My Religion (aka sex and religion) month, and it took until now for me to get my act in gear so I could bring what I’ll call an alternative perspective to you all. For the better part of this month you’ve heard from people who moved away from religion to experience sexual freedom, individuals highlighting the sexually repressive nature of religion and still other contributors shedding light on the highly erotic nature of biblical text (here’s looking at you Elizabeth Rose). Well, tonight I’m bucking the pseudo-blasphemous tide by presenting my interview with a former dirty girl turned good. Real Good…

The Believer, is a good friend of mine who was never exposed to any type of religious practice as a child, lived the life of a the consummate dirty girl from her teens right through to her early thirties, and then, suddenly (at least to those of us on the outside looking in) she handed in her I’m-a-proud-slut-who-is-up-for-anything-anytime-anywhere card to become a devout Christian.

No. Word. Of. A. Lie.

For nearly a decade now my God fearin’ girl TB has been living life sex free and loving it (even while in a relationship) because of her religious beliefs. But enough with my preamble. She can fill you in on what’s what in her life much better than I can. So without further ado, dear readers, I give you TB, my absolute favourite church girl, in her own words…

–

Skye: What if anything were you told about dating, sex and relationships as a kid?

TB: What was I told about dating, sex and relationships? Uhhm, well (laughs)… I was told you do not date. If you met someone you like you somehow your connection would just morph, almost magically, into marriage without any type of dating process. I was instructed that sexuality was bad and wrong even if you were married. And I was told that relationships are bad and should be avoided.

Skye: That’s quite a pessimistic view of relationships, one I’m sure must’ve been hard to overcome when you started exploring connections with men. How did you shake off all the negativity you’d heard about dating, sex and relationships growing up to even consider dating?

TB: I’ve actually never thought about that…I don’t think I made a conscious attempt to get past it. I just felt or knew there was a possibility of creating or having a connection with someone; one that was balanced, healthy and all the great things most of want. Now, that’s not to say there wasn’t any fear or an internal struggle with the idea that a relationship with someone could go wrong. But right alongside all the fear there was enough hope to make me want that type of connection anyway.

The Believer is a former 'bad girl' gone good

Skye: How would you characterize your attitude to sex prior to your religious conversion? How would you characterize it now?

TB: I think that I was very comfortable in my sexuality. I was comfortable with the idea of sex and having freedom with sex, within a relationship or not. I think it was really a question me asking myself ‘what do I want?’ and ‘what do I feel?’ Those questions pretty much determined my approach and attitude to sex back then…I don’t necessarily think I put a lot of weight on relationship.

Now, I definitely do put a lot of weight on relationship, and much less so on what I want and feel regarding the physical aspects of my connection to a partner. I think there’s a safety that’s created through relationship that allows freedom – sexually. Now for me it’s about the relationship between me and my mate, how our connection creates all sorts of possibilities, sexually and otherwise, rather than it just being about physicality.

Skye: Is there any part of you that thinks that shift might’ve happened with age, even if you hadn’t become a Christian?

TB: You know what, I don’t even know. I was very, very comfortable with the idea of I do what I want, when I want – without exception. Operating like that was so easy for me. I don’t know if that would have fallen away with age.

But, what is really important to me now that definitely came out of being in that place, is that I want my marital relationship to have freedom sexually. The idea of sexual freedom hasn’t ended for me because of my religious beliefs. Instead, I believe that being married to someone I’m committed to will allow it to really blossom. That’s super important to me.

Skye: Okay, you’ve used the phrase ‘sexual freedom’ a number of times, so clearly it’s pretty important to you. But what exactly do you mean when you say that?

TB: Sexual freedom to me is about being able to physically express yourself. Express relationship and create a physical and emotional bond, without restrictions based on other people’s perceptions or social acceptability. Essentially, it’s about having sex on the terms you and your partner set within your relationship, regardless of what anyone else might think.

Skye: According to a recent study 80% of single Christians, aged 18-29, are having sex. Why do you think young unmarried Christians are choosing not to abstain despite the church’s stance on such behaviour?

TB: I think there is a tendency among people to say ‘I will do this – abstain – for a period of time and once the period of time is over, I’ll do what I want.’ But I think that’s just what we humans do, regardless of sex or Christianity.  We say things like ‘I’m going to diet for the next three months, then after that it’s on. I’m going to eat whatever I want.’

There is a movement within the Christian community that says you can do what you want. If you want to have sex, just go and have sex. The Bible does specifically outline what should happen around that, but ultimately a lot of people just do what they want.

Skye: You just mentioned the fact that the Bible specifically outlines what Christians should be doing, or more correctly not doing, regarding pre-marital sex. I haven’t read much on this, but it seems this is a debatable point. So, from what you understand is pre-marital sex explicitly prohibited in the Bible?

TB: The (does air quotes) prohibition of pre-marital sex is conjecture in the Bible. It’s conjecture because it says you are only to engage in a sexual act with a person you are in covenant with. Covenant is used in the Bible at different points to represent different things, but the general consensus based on its usage is that covenant means marriage.

However, there were covenants between siblings, which were applicable at the time the Bible was written. For example, there were often covenants between a dead man and his brother that allowed the brother to take his widowed sister-in-law as his wife. But it’s important to note that the brother and his sister-in-law were not married when that happened. Still, there was a covenant between them that was applicable in those times.

Now in answer to your question, although the Bible does specifically address the issue, no, it does not explicitly say you should only have sex within marriage. What it does say is this: sex should only be indulged in by two people in covenant, which is often a representation of marriage in the Bible. So, for many Christians that is taken to be an edict not to have pre-marital sex.

Skye: Do you think you have an easier time abstaining since you know exactly what you’re missing, or does that knowledge make living sex free more challenging?

TB: That’s a good question. (pauses) Because I’m an appetite driven, in that once my appetite’s dead I don’t think about it, I don’t know if it affects me at all or if my experience makes it more or less challenging. My best guess would be that in general if you haven’t had sex, it’s a lot easier to abstain. But I’m really not sure if I wrestle with this in my mind, as I don’t get urges or think about it too much now that I’ve been out of the game for so long. (laughs) I’m sure once I partake in sex again, my appetite for it will come back with a vengeance, but for now I’m good.

Skye: Would you say that choosing to abstain edifies your connection to God? If yes, how so?

TB: Yes and no. Yes in that there is a mindset, a focus, a complication that sexuality adds that doesn’t necessarily allow you to turn all your attention to God. So, in that way, yes. Abstaining just keeps things clear and simple for me. It doesn’t muddy relationships. It doesn’t cause me to think about sex. On the other hand, is it possible to have a good relationship with God and be sexually active? Yes. So, yes and no.

For me I think that once it moves into a marital relationship sex has a different meaning, than just being physical. Out of that it becomes, or at least it should be, a way of representing God as well. Ideally it becomes another way to worship God, relationally.

Skye: You are currently in a LTR with a man who you are not sleeping with, someone you hope to marry. If after your marriage it were to come to light that you and your partner are sexually incompatible in a significant way, how do you think you would handle it? And in your experience is the potential for such problems between newlyweds who chose to abstain during the courtship discussed within the church at all?

TB: I’m going to answer the second part of that question first. The potential for sexual incompatibility is discussed in church. Ideally, within any given church a couple can go for pre-marital counseling, which would include a discussion of sexuality. What you like, don’t like, what you do and don’t want to do, what’s comfortable and what’s not…

Skye: Wait, people sit down and discuss all of that with their minister? You can say ‘Pastor I really like being handcuffed and I want a partner who’s into that’ in the counseling sessions?

TB: Yep, at least from what I’ve heard and seen at my church. Although I’m sure there are churches where that doesn’t happen and the discussion isn’t so open.  And again, my understanding is that within the context of marriage there should be sexual freedom. That’s all a part of pre-marital counseling, so we should be able to find out if we’re compatible sexually, prior to getting married.

Of course there are limitations to that, as chemistry is chemistry, and you can’t foresee it. But at least you can have a clear understanding of what you and your partner both desire, need and are comfortable with in the bedroom. You’ll have the basics down.

Okay, back to the question about me and my partner having a significant sexual incompatibility issue after marriage…I would have a problem. A big problem. It would definitely be a problem. Did I mention that would be a problem? (laughs)

For me at that point I would have to stop to consider if my partner and I are open, comfortable, free and established enough emotionally to deal with working it out by modifying things, exploring and discussing the issue, to allow us to both be happy in the bedroom.

–

That’s all for now folks. Come back tomorrow, for Part 2 of my interview with TB, when she dishes on the pros and cons of abstinence, masturbation, homosexuality and the church, and more.

When the lovely folks here at Met Another Frog asked me to contribute to their discussion of sex and religion, as a former Catholic schoolgirl, I was only too happy to oblige. Since those days, I’ve discarded my plaid skirts, cable-knit knee socks, and saddle shoes. They may have made a brief reappearance for a few themed parties in college, but it’s been a long time since I was plagued with the Catholic guilt and inexplicable reverence for religious rituals that defined my elementary school days.

Frankly, Catholic guilt used to be a major repressive force in my life for many many years. I still have no idea why certain religions equate moral uprightness with chastity and self-deprivation. But it has a strong effect on how those of its flock conduct themselves. And not necessarily in a productive way! Catholic guilt was the reason that I went through a purging period of my life during which I threw out ALL my miniskirts and generally saucy clothing. I know. Tragic.

Catholic guilt was the reason that I preferred to be drunk off my face in order to have intimate relations with another person during my undergraduate years.

Catholic guilt was the reason I didn’t have any redeemable personality for the longest time.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that religious obligation is the sole reason for my lack of social development all these years. All I’m saying that religious restrictions and fundamentalism is far too conducive to narrow-mindedness, regret, over-cautious attitudes, and…well…despair.

It’s no wonder that, in that kind of environment, we more adventurous types tend to rebel.

When I was eighteen, I immediately opted to go as far away from home as possible. And having achieved that, I insisted on being as wild as possible. (Those stories shall never see the light of day, I tell you!)

And I couldn’t even stop there. I had to go abroad. I had to date outside my race. I had to choose a career based on the humanities and the liberal arts.

Catholic guilt can keep people in check, within the flock, but it can also have the opposite effect — forcing some people to go bat crap crazy in order to cope with the pressure and the guilt that we associate with our upbringing and with our lifestyle expectations.

Because of my Catholic guilt, I have made some of the most questionable decisions that a lady can make, in terms of romantical entanglements as well as overall life decisions.

But at the same time, I wouldn’t be the person I am today if I hadn’t made those inadvisable decisions, or been driven by guilt and the need to escape from it.

In overcompensating for and rebelling against this Catholic guilt, I’ve had amazing life experiences abroad, embraced my inner saucy self through my wardrobe choices and my well developed sense of humor, honed certain methods of interaction with the opposite sex (i.e. FLIRTING) and learned what it is to have loved and lost – including the fact that it’s possible to get over it all eventually.

In other words, what I’m saying is that Catholic guilt has two sides to its coin. It can either make you or break you. I’d like to think that it made me. It made me better, faster, stronger, awesomer.

One day I hope to write the Pope to tell him that his institution is the reason that I live the promiscuous life that I live today. It’s the reason that I take chances and the reason that I understand risk and payoff.

The pope made me slutty.

And I’m perfectly okay with that.

“I just don’t understand. What do lesbians actually DO together?”

I remember my mom asking me that when I was just a teenager. At the time I didn’t know anything about sex – period – so I certainly didn’t know the answer to her question. It wasn’t until much later on that I realized that her query probably meant that her sex life wasn’t very interesting or varied.

We were Christian – United Church – which is on the more liberal and less
fundamentalist side of Christianity: sometimes I think it’s more like a social justice club that meets on Sunday mornings, than a church. Although I never received a direct, verbal message at home or at church that sex was bad, somehow I understood that: 1) sex wasn’t something that I should explore before marriage; 2) if I did so before then, it would get me into trouble; and 3) lesbians were a little weird…obviously.

But what I do remember hearing is my mom also saying,

“I don’t wear a button advertising my heterosexuality, so why do homosexuals feel that they need to?”

I knew well enough to take that to mean that non-heterosexuals should keep their sexual preferences to themselves. And when I told her about the sex ed lecture Sue Johanson gave at my school in grade 10, she responded with a fearful,

“Just make sure you keep your pants on!“

I am sure her response was based, at least in part, on the fact that she had been given up for adoption because her biological mother had made the mistake of not “keeping her pants on” way back in 1924; when it was still pretty taboo to be a single mom – particularly in a small town. So it’s no surprise that I was terrified of both sex and my body, or that I remained non-orgasmic until my late-twenties.

Although, religion played a very indirect part in my fear and reluctance to have sex, as I grew up I distanced myself from the church. But, as I became more comfortable with my body and having sex, my attitude also started to change. I started to explore spirituality more extensively. Among other things, I read Living in Sin? by Bishop Spong, who served as bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Newark for 24 years and whose work challenges conservative interpretations of the Bible. His book helped me to understand that the natural expression of my sexuality was “ok” and NOT scorned by God – whoever or whatever that is. I also explored paganism, which celebrates rather than disparages the diversity of sexuality. Gradually, I began to embrace the notion of pleasure (I had never realized that sex was supposed to be about pleasure. What a radical idea!).

As I began seeing the Bible, its interpretations, and what it means in a more open, less fundamentalist light, my understanding of all that sex could be and mean to me also started to broaden…

I discovered spiritual sex.

The world opened up.