PART FOUR

TOUGH QUESTIONS AND VALUE-FILLED ANSWERS

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

INTIMACY, GENDER, AND COMMITMENTS

The preceding chapters don't pretend to answer every question regarding single sexuality. Instead, they present a new, positive approach to single sexuality: temporary celibacy is a way singles can assert and protect a sense of personal and physical self-worth.

Now the real work begins. We must apply this new model to the various problems and issues that singles face--fantasies, lust, masturbation, sexual compatibility, single parenting, etc. The approach from the perspective of value sheds new light on some old problems and issues. The following questions were asked by single adults who attended my sexuality seminars. During the final break, I would ask the singles to write down their questions anonymously (which allowed them to be totally honest and ask questions that they would never raise publicly). Then in the final session I would try to give a value-oriented response to each question.

In many cases, the singles themselves contributed extraordinary insights. What follows is a compilation of my thoughts and their insights. Let's take a few of the simpler questions first and save the last chapter for the more difficult questions concerning fantasies, lust, and masturbation.

1. There seems to be a confusing interchange of terms. Sometimes you talk about sexuality in a way that suggests physical intimacy, and sometimes not. Is there a difference between sexual intimacy and sexuality? And if so, what is it?

The Bible says that in the beginning God created humans as male and female (Genesis 1:27). That means that we are all created as sexual beings. No one has been created without an inborn sexuality and genital apparatus. Everyone, whether he or she likes to admit it or not, is a sexual person, and therefore his or her sexuality pervades and influences every aspect of life. Sexuality is the omnipresent influence. It affects all relationships--between parents and children (fathers treat their sons differently than their daughters, for example), between brothers and sisters, and between friends (males will treat their male friends differently than their female friends and vice versa). Individual sexuality is always a part of relationships. Some people may try to deny that or pretend otherwise, but, no matter how hard they try, it is impossible to escape their inborn, gender-specific sexuality.


This can be proven by the fact that we each see life through the grid of our own experience, which is always an embodied experience. All that we know and understand about life is grasped through our bodies, not in spite of them. We cannot remove ourselves from our bodies and view the world from some objective vantage point. Furthermore, these bodies are either male or female, so our experience of life is relentlessly male or female. For instance, I, Rick, have only one body and mind out of which I view life--which is male. So I see life from a male perspective. In the same way, a woman sees life through her sexual perspective as a female. She cannot step outside of her sexuality in her perspective. That's why I think the increase in feminine studies today is a very positive movement; we are discovering that we can't analyze life, culture, or science, and so on, from only a male perspective.

We all wear colored glasses, and the glasses are in one of only two colors--male and female. Men see the world through their uniquely colored lenses, whereas women see the same world through different tinted lenses. Thus the world looks different to each sex.

2. If males and females are so different, how can they come to an understanding of each other's perspective?

We can learn to appreciate what a person of the opposite sex experiences through discussion, communication, and the like, but that takes a lot of effort. The attempt to understand someone who is different from ourselves requires much work and planning. Men and women have to continually work hard at their relationships, because there is no way we can understand a person of the opposite sex without listening attentively.

Of course, even then we will never completely understand another person. There is no way we can feel or think exactly what another person feels or thinks. That's why counselors are taught to never say, "I understand what you are saying." A counselor hasn't lived through what the other person has. So instead of "I understand what you are saying," counselors are taught to reflect what they have heard and say, "Let me see if I have heard you correctly. What you are saying is..." Even though our experiences may be similar, our perspectives will be different because we are distinct individuals. Because of this, our experiences will never be exactly congruent. Of course, we should try to understand each other better. Yet as we pursue understanding the opposite sex, we must realize we cannot fully reach this goal. Our pursuit is not a curse, though. It is a blessing in disguise, because the pursuit brings excitement and adventure into relationships. A husband and wife can know each other for sixty years, and yet be surprised by each other every day. Seen in this way, sexuality is one of the lenses that most greatly affects our world view, and our sexual differences enhance the growth and development of intimacy.

3. Is intimacy, then, the process of getting to know each other better? How does this differ from sexual intimacy?


Intimacy is the gradual growth in understanding of another person by listening, discussing, sharing, being mutually involved. Intimacy can occur in many areas: emotional, social, spiritual, and the physical. Thus you can become intimate with a person and not have physical contact. But even though there is no physical contact, sexuality is involved. In this way, every relationship is a sexual relationship.

And yet, although every relationship has sexual aspects to it, I still think it is a good idea to reserve the term sexual intimacy primarily for physical, genital contact. However, though the term will be helpful in most cases, there are exceptions to this definition. Sometimes people can be sexually active without being sexually intimate. Conversely, two people can be sexually intimate without ever disrobing or touching genitals. An example of this would be kissing. Kissing is an area of sexual activity, and certain types of kissing are inappropriate in relationships that aren't exclusive. In fact, some women feel that certain types of kissing are more intimate than sexual intercourse. This illustrates our uniqueness as individuals; God did not make cookie-cutter people. Everyone views sexual intimacy in different ways.

Thus, if someone is going to be intimate with another person, he or she will need to find out what intimacy means to that person. To one man, intimacy may mean an honest discussion about finances or past failures. To a woman, it may mean a long silent stroll on the beach or a deep conversation of mutual vulnerability. To another person, intimacy may just refer to orgasm. To another, intimacy might refer to a certain way of kissing.

To make this even more confusing, two people can have sex without being sexually intimate. The sex act itself can be done in a very non-intimate way--on an animal level. This is sex without intimacy. A kiss, for instance, can be a non-intimate expression of affection. An extreme example would be rape. Rape involves genital activity, but it is not sexual intimacy. It is just the opposite. It is sexual abuse. Molestation would fall in the same category. Just because physical touching is involved, that does not mean intimacy is also taking place.

4. Many writers distinguish between emotional intimacy and sexual (physical) intimacy. They say that emotional intimacy is just as intense and often as dangerous outside of marriage as sexual intimacy. Do you believe there are distinctions?

I don't think you can make clear distinctions as some authors try to do. Emotions are involved in sexuality, even in cases where the emotional aspect is denied or put on hold. Emotional intimacy can be as damaging as sexual intimacy outside of marriage--because emotional intimacy between a man and woman always has a sexual aspect to it. Even though two people are not genitally involved, they may be more intimate than a husband and wife who have been genitally involved but are dysfunctional in other areas, as in their communication levels.


Once again, we are intrinsically sexual beings. Everything we think and feel is colored by our sexuality. So if a person has an intellectual intimacy with another person, there will be a sexual aspect to it. That's why there are appropriate and inappropriate things to do and say to someone of the opposite sex, even on a social level.

Remember, we cannot separate these spheres of our lives from each other. Instead they are like overlapping circles. They all interconnect and affect each other. I think damage is done when we try to completely separate these aspects and deny that sexuality influences our relationships. Intimacy is highly complex, and we do ourselves a disservice when we simplify it too superficially.

In my own life, I have concluded that it is healthy to admit that my friendships with women (even those other than my wife) have a sexual aspect to them. I have found that if I admit my inherent sexuality and respect its power, I can maintain a higher degree of purity and compassion. But when I try to deny the sexual aspect, the very act of denial is usually covering up some problem or issue I need to face. In the same way, singles should not be afraid of their sexuality or deny it, but recognize it, be aware of it, and respect it. If singles try to avoid or deny that truth, it can eventually resurface with destructive impact.

Unfortunately, many Christians pretend that they attend church as neutered people and that there is no sexual dimension to their relationships. This pretense about sexuality was demonstrated in some insufficient earlier attempts to promote the idea of gender equality. As a way of promoting equality, some pretended that we really didn't have sexual differences or inclinations. They attempted to eliminate the distinctiveness of male and female. But the truth is clear: though we are equal in God's eyes, we are distinct sexual beings.

5. God made us different sexually to force us to do the work of developing quality relationships. How does this perspective affect the issue of homosexuality?

Much attention today focuses on sexual discrimination and the difficulty of living out the homosexual lifestyle. That may be true on a broad, social level at this point in our history. But I would like to suggest, from a theological point of view, that rather than being a difficult lifestyle, homosexuality may be the easy way out. Some people may engage in homosexual relationships rather than make the effort to understand the perspective of the opposite sex. It's easier to have a relationship with someone of the same sex because it does not require as much effort.


Of course, homosexual practices violate both biological design and God's intent. Scripture clearly declares the behavior as sin, condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. (See Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:18-19, 24-27; and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.) But why is Scripture so against homosexual behavior? Again, it is not just an arbitrary rule, a "don't" from God. God always has positive reasons for His instructions. At heart, homosexuality is wrong because homosexual practice does not challenge us to develop a deep, giving intimacy. Why is this the case?

A greater challenge exists in understanding and developing intimacy with a person of a totally different perspective than with someone who has a similar perspective. This is especially true sexually--it is much easier for a man to understand another man's sexual needs, desires, and physiology than it is for the same man to understand a woman's needs, desires, and physiology. A man can pretty much guess what would please a male partner because he already knows what pleases himself; and the same is true, of course, regarding lesbian sexuality.

Heterosexuals, on the other hand, are forced by their differing physiology to ask more questions, talk more, and listen better--which is actually an asset, because in the long run it makes the heterosexual relationship deeper and more intimate. Homosexuality, then, is a cop-out and a compromise. If sexual differentiation is that which drives us to question, listen, and communicate, then a lack of sexual differentiation will short-circuit this process and will result in lower levels of intimacy and self-worth.

6. Do men and women have equal sexual needs?

Sexual celibacy is a way of protecting and asserting value, and our sex drives are God's guarantee that we won't avoid relationships but will stay involved in building relationships of intimacy. In these two areas, each gender's needs are equal and congruent. The level of self-worth in both males and females is directly related to how they allow themselves to be treated physically. We can again go back to the $600 table illustration. How the table is treated is directly related to the value that is placed on the table. If people allow themselves to be treated poorly, it reflects that they don't have a sense of high value--either by themselves or others. Both men and women have the need to build a moral foundation for their lives. Both need to be able to see value within themselves. They can do that if they don't spend themselves sexually.


Because our culture still has vestiges of a strong patriarchialism, it tends to be the men who carry fewer scars in this area. The women are often put in the place of having to protect their virginity and are pressured by the men. Because the women are the ones who bear children, they also have to be more concerned about protection against pregnancy But things are becoming more equal. Paternity suits are making pregnancy a matter of concern for men as well. The rise in sexually transmitted diseases makes the matter of protection, and concern over whom one is sleeping with, more of an issue for each person. Women are taught not to be so passive; they are more sexually aggressive today. In my experience in singles groups, I have had as many or more problems with women making sexual advances toward the men as I have had with the men making advances toward the women. It goes both ways.

It is a misconception to say that men have a greater sex drive than women. In my experience in counseling Christian married couples, there are just as many problems with the man's lack of desire for sex as with the woman's.

The cultural stereotype is that men are always wanting sex; if anyone doesn't want sex, it will be the woman. That is not always the case. Men may think about one aspect of sex (the physical act) more than women, but women may think of the romantic, the interpersonal, the love and caring aspects of sex more than men do. Those thoughts reflect a basic drive in sexuality, a drive toward relationships that both sexes share equally. Sex isn't just physical expression; that is only one part. Sex also includes a basic attraction and a desire to be in a relationship with another.

In most areas, men and women have equal sexual needs--the need to experience intimacy, to give and receive love. How those needs may actually appear or be acted out may be quite different, and they will also vary from person to person regardless of gender. Generalizations don't help much, because individuals are different. A man cannot deal with his spouse based on generalizations as statistically codified by sociologists. If he does, he may quit listening to her or stop picking up clues from her behavior or words. Generalizations are useful when studying society as a whole and charting trends, but they are not foolproof in dealing with a significant other in one's life. We have to deal with people as individuals, giving attention to their differences. The key is to listen, to ask questions, and to communicate.

7. In Christian circles, how do you let a man or woman know you are valuable?

I have come to know hundreds of singles throughout my ministry. Some singles have clearly regarded themselves to be of great value and have projected well their sense of high self-worth. Other singles have projected their low self-worth equally clearly. How does it show? By how high that person's standards are.


For example, there was a man in one of the singles groups who was attractive, well-built, well off financially, a sincere Christian, and very sensitive. He was the man every woman wanted. He was asked out a lot by different women, but he consistently said no. In that same group, there was a woman who was cute, petite, shapely. She had a soft and gentle spirit and was a committed Christian. This woman was asked out by scores of men in the group, but she chose not to date either. It was no surprise who this man finally asked out on a date--the woman who had not dated indiscriminately. It was no surprise to me that she accepted a date with this man the first time he asked. They did not sell themselves cheaply to other people in the group. And by keeping themselves separate, by saving themselves emotionally and physically, they built this storehouse of emotional and personal wealth that everyone could sense.

People with high self-esteem will be attracted to each other. A man who understands the importance of sexual purity will be attracted to a woman who has that same understanding.

If you want to let others know of your value, don't let anyone treat you cheaply. That may mean not going out every night of the week, not engaging in solicitous behavior, not dressing seductively, and not playing sexual games with many partners. I've known some men who like to kiss women even though they have no intention of a serious relationship, as well as women who like to kiss and hug on dates with no intention of ever dating that person again. When they do this, they are spending out of their moral account, and that will be noticed by others. The men who want the cheap thrill will be attracted to the "easy" women, but the men who are seeking more lasting relationships will not be attracted to them. And, of course, the opposite is also true: the women who have a high respect for their own self-worth and value will be attracted to men who have the same sense about themselves, and these women will not be attracted to men who treat other women cheaply.

Again, building up a sense of moral self-worth is exactly parallel to building financial worth. If we want to build up a savings account, we have to decide how much we will spend and how much we will save. We have to set up boundaries on what we use our money for.

In the same way, singles need to set up boundaries emotionally and personally in many different areas of life. For instance, it is inappropriate to tell deep personal secrets to every person you meet. A woman once told me how wonderful her date was the night before, because they stayed up all night and told each other all their deep personal secrets. She thought that was great, but I think that was dangerous. She had no boundaries. She was trusting him without discovering if he could be trusted or not. She did know how to protect her own moral value. Part of who she was as a person was her intimate past experiences, and to share that indiscriminately was to empty her moral bank account.


It reminds me of Hezekiah, one of the kings of Judah, allowing the emissaries from Babylon to look at all the royal jewels (2 Kings 20:12- 19). He was boasting and showing off his wealth. He didn't have the wisdom to understand that once the rival king knew all that wealth was there, he would want it. Eventually the foreign king sent his armies to attack and to steal the wealth. Hezekiah had opened his boundaries and showed someone else his intimate goods without knowing whether the person could be trusted with that information or not. That happens often with singles. Remember, healthy boundaries usually communicate a sense of self-worth and value, just as a security fence around a home communicates wealth.

7. I feel that men more than women play the field and have lost the meaning of love and commitment. What do you think?

In my experience, both men and women have lost the meaning of love and the whole notion of moral purity as a foundation upon which to build their future lives. We each have a moral bank account, but both men and women alike have spent so freely that little if anything remains in their accounts. Success in life and a personal sense of self-worth come from making sure that we are making more deposits in that account than withdrawals. Some people never balance their checkbooks--they just hope they have enough and expect to bounce a check every once in a while. That's not a good way to handle finances. It's much better to monitor your bank account, have more deposits than withdrawals, and have good credit. The same is true in the moral arena.

9. Why do people have difficulty in making commitments?

As with the word virgin, the word commit has been twisted and has been seen in a negative light. Commitment is a positive term, but to a lot of people the word is regarded as the opposite of freedom. They feel it is an either/or situation--you can either be committed or be free. Actually, commitment frees us to have stability in our lives.

Why is commitment important in the value approach to sexuality? Because it is only in the context of commitments that people are able to develop relationships of lasting worth and value.

To return to our example of renting versus owning', people are free to choose to rent a place to live all of their lives. But if they sacrifice and save toward ownership of a house (which will require commitment and longevity), they will have something of great value in the long run. In the same way, appropriate commitments build value. It is only by committing ourselves to organizations, to causes, and to other persons that we find life to be of value. Lack of commitment does society and others no good. It is only through commitment that we can make lasting contributions.

10. Am I naive to believe that the Lord has one special man for me and that we will together build a marriage and lifelong commitment? If God does, how can I recognize this person?


Many Christian teachers believe that God has one particular person picked out for you; I do not agree. The reason people teach that is because their observation is from hindsight. (For an example of this, see Tom Stafford's, Worth the Wait, pp. 105-13, especially p. 107.) People who deeply enjoy their marriage relationship cannot imagine receiving the same blessing from being married to someone else. They are looking back and saying, "My mate was God's perfect choice for me." I think that's romantic, but also problematic. First, the notion that God has already chosen a certain, specific person to be one's mate diminishes the role of personal choice and free will. Instead, it fosters the idea that each person must try to find God's perfect will in its absolute and inflexible specificity. Such singles end up as frustrated as the proverbial farm boy who had to search for a needle in a haystack.

Second, the idea that God has a perfect mate chosen for each person becomes twisted when the marriage goes sour. God then becomes the responsible party for choosing the mate, and the blame for the failed relationship is loaded upon God rather than on the individuals involved. If divorce follows, God may become the scapegoat.

God does not want us to act like children in this most important area of life; He doesn't want us to return to an ancient form of allowing others to choose someone for us to marry. Instead, He wants us to make wise decisions about whom we should marry, using our own resources and the wisdom and insight He has given us through godly counsel and the Word.

God is powerful enough to help us with whatever decision we make in this area. For those who are in difficult marriages, thinking that God has one special person for you offers a loophole. As one unhappily married woman said, "The real problem with our marriage is that he is not the perfect person God chose for me. I disobeyed God in marrying him, so there is no way I will be happy with him. I must divorce him to get back to the center of God's will."

That is absurd reasoning. We should not rationalize away a poor marriage. I once asked an unhappily married pastor's wife if she thought her husband was God's choice for her. She thought a moment and said, "Once you marry someone, that is God's choice for you. Before you marry, God has a lot of people whom He could shape to be your mate." I liked her response.

This notion of God's perfect mate also creates problems for those who lose a mate through death. One such widow said, "Jim was God's perfect choice for my life. I know there can never be anyone else for me. I hate being lonely, but I don't want to settle for second best. So I guess I'll stay single." Unfortunately, in doing so she is limiting the image of God from functioning fully in her life.


My wife and I have talked about what we each should do if the other was to die. I shared honestly that if by some tragic accident I were to lose my life, I would not want her to believe that the image of God in her is so limited that she could not find happiness with someone else after my death. Although I have a wonderful relationship with my wife and am very grateful, I don't think I am the only person she could be happily married to, and vice versa.

The secret is not so much in looking for the perfect mate but in becoming a whole person who would make a great mate for someone. The more a single looks for someone else to provide completeness in his or her life, the more off the track he or she can get. Concentrate on developing a sense of personal wholeness and value. Quality friendships and relationships will follow.

11. Doesn't your whole paradigm of value and your $600 table illustration reduces sexuality to a commodity?

As with all metaphors and similes, the table story is not perfect. I do not want personhood to be seen as a mere commodity nor people to be objectified as possessions to be appraised. I try to say the opposite: because of the love of God shown in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, people are priceless and can't be treated as commodities. The only reason I use this illustration is because most people have lost the ability to make moral and ethical decisions, but they are good at thinking in economic terms. Thus I use the illustration so that people can grasp more easily the much deeper truth that a person's sense of self-worth is directly related to how one allows oneself to be treated sexually.

The idea of using financial examples to communicate spiritual and relational truths actually is not original to me. It goes back to Jesus, who often used earthly illustrations to communicate deeper truths. He used an illustration about economics in the parable of the talents, communicating the deeper truth that our talents/gifts/abilities are to be used, not wasted or stored away (Matthew 25:14-30). He spoke of the need to count the cost before building a tower or going to war (Luke 14:25-35) and applied that financial lesson to the value of commitment in relationships, especially the commitment to follow God. The parables of the lost coin (Luke 15:8-10), the rich fool (Luke 12:13-21), the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31), the unjust steward (Luke 16:1-13), the two debtors (Luke 7:41-50), the treasure and the pearl of great price (Matthew 13:44-46), and many others amply illustrate the appropriateness of economic analogies. But just because an analogy is appropriate, it does not follow that people should be viewed as commodities--any more than Jesus' analogy of the sheep and the goats should imply that people be treated as animals.

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

THANKS FOR VISITING! GOD BLESS YOU!

[ Index | Internet | Salvation | Computer | Botany | Study | Personal ]