Comments on: The enemy of desire is duty: against the 30-Day sex challenge and “Relevant Church” http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/03/20/the-enemy-of-desire-is-duty-against-the-30-day-sex-challenge-and-relevant-church/ Sat, 19 Jul 2008 23:11:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Jeremy Pierce http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/03/20/the-enemy-of-desire-is-duty-against-the-30-day-sex-challenge-and-relevant-church/#comment-310249 Jeremy Pierce Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:24:50 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/03/20/the-enemy-of-desire-is-duty-against-the-30-day-sex-challenge-and-relevant-church/#comment-310249 It's worth distinguishing between duty in the sense of merely following rules without any further reason and duty in the sense of what you refer to as going the extra mile for another person or doing what you'd want them to do for you if you were the one strongly desiring sexual connection. The first kind of duty is worthy of the criticism you're offering here. The second is not. I one partner strongly desires sex and the other does not, they can either both stubbornly refuse to back down (in which case one wins and the other doesn't), or one of them can give in to the other's wish. If it's the one who didn't want sex who gives in, that seems to fall under your criticism. It seems as if it's duty sex rather than desired sex. I want to argue that your conclusion doesn't follow. If the person is motivated by love for the other person, then this can be an instance of the Golden Rule or the extra mile (as you noted). I think you're right that setting an arbitrary rule to get people to have sex more often isn't going to ensure that people have such motivations. What might be better is going back to those motivations. Nevertheless, it seems to me that you can have high expectations for people if you think Golden Rule and extra mile considerations are morally obligatory, as Jesus clearly taught. He said we ought to have such motivations, and it does imply that we ought to seek to do to others what we would have them do to us in similar conditions (i.e. when you yourself are the one who has a very strong desire for sexual relations). It does imply that we seek to go the extra mile for the other person in sexual relations. It doesn't imply doing so as a mere rule. That wouldn't satisfy the command at all. The command is to seek to be motivated by love for the other, and that kind of rule-following isn't at all mere duty. What you say seems to me to amount to a criticism of the Pauline command that husbands and wives should always seek to be available to each other sexually except in times of special devotion to intense prayer (I Corinthians 7). Now maybe you have another way of reading that or maybe you just reject that part of Paul's teaching, but it does seem to me to be a legitimate application of the Golden Rule and extra mile teaching of the Sermon on the Mount, at least when taken the way I've been describing. I think you're right to reject this particular proposal, but I also think you've taken it a little too far. It’s worth distinguishing between duty in the sense of merely following rules without any further reason and duty in the sense of what you refer to as going the extra mile for another person or doing what you’d want them to do for you if you were the one strongly desiring sexual connection. The first kind of duty is worthy of the criticism you’re offering here. The second is not.

I one partner strongly desires sex and the other does not, they can either both stubbornly refuse to back down (in which case one wins and the other doesn’t), or one of them can give in to the other’s wish. If it’s the one who didn’t want sex who gives in, that seems to fall under your criticism. It seems as if it’s duty sex rather than desired sex. I want to argue that your conclusion doesn’t follow.

If the person is motivated by love for the other person, then this can be an instance of the Golden Rule or the extra mile (as you noted). I think you’re right that setting an arbitrary rule to get people to have sex more often isn’t going to ensure that people have such motivations. What might be better is going back to those motivations. Nevertheless, it seems to me that you can have high expectations for people if you think Golden Rule and extra mile considerations are morally obligatory, as Jesus clearly taught. He said we ought to have such motivations, and it does imply that we ought to seek to do to others what we would have them do to us in similar conditions (i.e. when you yourself are the one who has a very strong desire for sexual relations). It does imply that we seek to go the extra mile for the other person in sexual relations. It doesn’t imply doing so as a mere rule. That wouldn’t satisfy the command at all. The command is to seek to be motivated by love for the other, and that kind of rule-following isn’t at all mere duty.

What you say seems to me to amount to a criticism of the Pauline command that husbands and wives should always seek to be available to each other sexually except in times of special devotion to intense prayer (I Corinthians 7). Now maybe you have another way of reading that or maybe you just reject that part of Paul’s teaching, but it does seem to me to be a legitimate application of the Golden Rule and extra mile teaching of the Sermon on the Mount, at least when taken the way I’ve been describing. I think you’re right to reject this particular proposal, but I also think you’ve taken it a little too far.

]]> By: sophonisba http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/03/20/the-enemy-of-desire-is-duty-against-the-30-day-sex-challenge-and-relevant-church/#comment-287749 sophonisba Mon, 31 Mar 2008 04:22:12 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/03/20/the-enemy-of-desire-is-duty-against-the-30-day-sex-challenge-and-relevant-church/#comment-287749 <i>Try smiling. I mean seriously — do it right now. Try it. Smile the hugest most ridiculous grin right now at your computer. Now hold that ridiculous grin for ten seconds. Ok now stop. Don’t you weirdly FEEL happier, even in just the smallest degree?</i> Yes, this is why retail workers, who are required to smile 8 hours a day at people they neither know nor like, are the happiest people in the world. Look, if you get off on 'doing your duty', more power to you, seriously. There are way weirder kinks out there, and you're not hurting anybody and you're clearly helping your own relationship. But it's no more applicable to the general public, or the general Christian public, than a suggestion that we all start having sex in combat boots and rubber corsets just because you personally happen to find it stimulating. I would also add that having sex as a duty would merely make me feel angry and resentful. But discovering that someone was having sex with me as a duty would make me feel angry, resentful, degraded, and nauseated. When it's not a mutual kink, duty sex is the greatest insult you can offer a spouse short of adultery. Try smiling. I mean seriously — do it right now. Try it. Smile the hugest most ridiculous grin right now at your computer. Now hold that ridiculous grin for ten seconds. Ok now stop. Don’t you weirdly FEEL happier, even in just the smallest degree?

Yes, this is why retail workers, who are required to smile 8 hours a day at people they neither know nor like, are the happiest people in the world.

Look, if you get off on ‘doing your duty’, more power to you, seriously. There are way weirder kinks out there, and you’re not hurting anybody and you’re clearly helping your own relationship. But it’s no more applicable to the general public, or the general Christian public, than a suggestion that we all start having sex in combat boots and rubber corsets just because you personally happen to find it stimulating.

I would also add that having sex as a duty would merely make me feel angry and resentful. But discovering that someone was having sex with me as a duty would make me feel angry, resentful, degraded, and nauseated. When it’s not a mutual kink, duty sex is the greatest insult you can offer a spouse short of adultery.

]]> By: Jessica http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/03/20/the-enemy-of-desire-is-duty-against-the-30-day-sex-challenge-and-relevant-church/#comment-287656 Jessica Sun, 30 Mar 2008 21:48:35 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/03/20/the-enemy-of-desire-is-duty-against-the-30-day-sex-challenge-and-relevant-church/#comment-287656 Snide. Snide.

]]> By: bmmg39 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/03/20/the-enemy-of-desire-is-duty-against-the-30-day-sex-challenge-and-relevant-church/#comment-285105 bmmg39 Fri, 28 Mar 2008 02:17:01 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/03/20/the-enemy-of-desire-is-duty-against-the-30-day-sex-challenge-and-relevant-church/#comment-285105 Yes, I tried it. No, it didn't work. If you're sad, you should show it rather than internalize it with a phony smile. On the plus side, I sure am glad I tried your experiment with smiling rather than sex. THAT would have been ugly... Yes, I tried it. No, it didn’t work. If you’re sad, you should show it rather than internalize it with a phony smile.

On the plus side, I sure am glad I tried your experiment with smiling rather than sex. THAT would have been ugly…

]]> By: Jessica http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/03/20/the-enemy-of-desire-is-duty-against-the-30-day-sex-challenge-and-relevant-church/#comment-284677 Jessica Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:24:18 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/03/20/the-enemy-of-desire-is-duty-against-the-30-day-sex-challenge-and-relevant-church/#comment-284677 I understand your criticisms, but I also believe the maxim: "Act as you would feel." Sometimes -- and I expect vehement disagreement on this point, but it's nonetheless my experience -- acting as though you feel a certain way in fact creates those feelings. Try smiling. I mean seriously -- do it right now. Try it. Smile the hugest most ridiculous grin right now at your computer. Now hold that ridiculous grin for ten seconds. Ok now stop. Don't you weirdly FEEL happier, even in just the smallest degree? Going through the motions often triggers the feelings the motions are "supposed to" reflect. And for me, once in a while I have sex with my husband when maybe I wouldn't have initiated, or am not revving to go. And you know what? Nine times out of ten, I feel closer to him, happier in the moment, and glad I did. In my case, fulfilling what I DO see as my duty (I'm getting ready for the epithets to fly...) actually creates desire. Just thought I'd share. I understand your criticisms, but I also believe the maxim: “Act as you would feel.” Sometimes — and I expect vehement disagreement on this point, but it’s nonetheless my experience — acting as though you feel a certain way in fact creates those feelings. Try smiling. I mean seriously — do it right now. Try it. Smile the hugest most ridiculous grin right now at your computer. Now hold that ridiculous grin for ten seconds. Ok now stop. Don’t you weirdly FEEL happier, even in just the smallest degree? Going through the motions often triggers the feelings the motions are “supposed to” reflect. And for me, once in a while I have sex with my husband when maybe I wouldn’t have initiated, or am not revving to go. And you know what? Nine times out of ten, I feel closer to him, happier in the moment, and glad I did. In my case, fulfilling what I DO see as my duty (I’m getting ready for the epithets to fly…) actually creates desire.

Just thought I’d share.

]]> By: Charlotte http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/03/20/the-enemy-of-desire-is-duty-against-the-30-day-sex-challenge-and-relevant-church/#comment-281795 Charlotte Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:38:54 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/03/20/the-enemy-of-desire-is-duty-against-the-30-day-sex-challenge-and-relevant-church/#comment-281795 Quite obviously, the church assumes some sort of Edenic context for a relationship in which there are no work/ family/ life responsibilities, and no headaches, backaches, or PMS days. I wonder how Mr. Pastor gets his sermons done if he has to walk the daily mattress walk. HOWEVER, from what I understand, this was trying to get at the old boys'/ wives' tale that sex stops once you're married and that you get laid only if you're single. That's why the reverse challenge was for unmarried couples to stop having sex for 30 days. In other words: Another misguided way of promoting the heterosexual legal normative. Quite obviously, the church assumes some sort of Edenic context for a relationship in which there are no work/ family/ life responsibilities, and no headaches, backaches, or PMS days. I wonder how Mr. Pastor gets his sermons done if he has to walk the daily mattress walk.

HOWEVER, from what I understand, this was trying to get at the old boys’/ wives’ tale that sex stops once you’re married and that you get laid only if you’re single. That’s why the reverse challenge was for unmarried couples to stop having sex for 30 days. In other words: Another misguided way of promoting the heterosexual legal normative.

]]> By: Kelly http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/03/20/the-enemy-of-desire-is-duty-against-the-30-day-sex-challenge-and-relevant-church/#comment-278615 Kelly Sat, 22 Mar 2008 18:28:58 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/03/20/the-enemy-of-desire-is-duty-against-the-30-day-sex-challenge-and-relevant-church/#comment-278615 In other words, to me this isn't so much about sex as a means to reclaim or restore intimacy, but about power. The pastor wants to be able to tell me what to do in my bedroom because "people are not having enough sex." I'm sure he'll be more than happy to tell me who to vote for in November. In other words, to me this isn’t so much about sex as a means to reclaim or restore intimacy, but about power. The pastor wants to be able to tell me what to do in my bedroom because “people are not having enough sex.” I’m sure he’ll be more than happy to tell me who to vote for in November.

]]> By: Kelly http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/03/20/the-enemy-of-desire-is-duty-against-the-30-day-sex-challenge-and-relevant-church/#comment-278600 Kelly Sat, 22 Mar 2008 18:12:05 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/03/20/the-enemy-of-desire-is-duty-against-the-30-day-sex-challenge-and-relevant-church/#comment-278600 Excellent post. I actually feel a little sick to my stomach reading about this. Aren't there already plenty of suggestions in the Bible for the myriad ways one might live a Godly life without the Relevant Church's misguided proscription? It's a lifetime of work just to get the "love God, love your neighbor as you love yourself" part. Who do these guys think they are coming up with further instructions? Oh, I get it. On Relevant's website, it says that one of their Core Values is "To COMMUNICATE the Truths of the Bible with CREATIVITY and RELEVANCE." Alas, the creativity has gone awry. Excellent post.

I actually feel a little sick to my stomach reading about this. Aren’t there already plenty of suggestions in the Bible for the myriad ways one might live a Godly life without the Relevant Church’s misguided proscription?

It’s a lifetime of work just to get the “love God, love your neighbor as you love yourself” part. Who do these guys think they are coming up with further instructions?

Oh, I get it. On Relevant’s website, it says that one of their Core Values is “To COMMUNICATE the Truths of the Bible with CREATIVITY and RELEVANCE.” Alas, the creativity has gone awry.

]]> By: Jendi http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/03/20/the-enemy-of-desire-is-duty-against-the-30-day-sex-challenge-and-relevant-church/#comment-278417 Jendi Sat, 22 Mar 2008 15:29:22 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/03/20/the-enemy-of-desire-is-duty-against-the-30-day-sex-challenge-and-relevant-church/#comment-278417 30 days? Hasn't this pastor ever heard of the menstrual cycle? Re: intimacy versus sex, have you seen the gift book "P*rn for Women" - pictures of hunky men doing the dishes, taking out the garbage, asking the woman about her feelings, etc. Seriously, Hugo, amazing post. One of your best and that's saying a lot. 30 days? Hasn’t this pastor ever heard of the menstrual cycle? Re: intimacy versus sex, have you seen the gift book “P*rn for Women” - pictures of hunky men doing the dishes, taking out the garbage, asking the woman about her feelings, etc.

Seriously, Hugo, amazing post. One of your best and that’s saying a lot.

]]> By: davev http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/03/20/the-enemy-of-desire-is-duty-against-the-30-day-sex-challenge-and-relevant-church/#comment-277596 davev Sat, 22 Mar 2008 02:03:34 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/03/20/the-enemy-of-desire-is-duty-against-the-30-day-sex-challenge-and-relevant-church/#comment-277596 Does this Relevant Church stipulate the specific sexual act that must be performed every day or does intimacy and outercourse “count?” I looked at the website, but I couldn’t any details about what qualified as “sex.” If only penetration involving the penis counts as sex, then it doesn’t seem to take into account older couples where the man might have a refractory period lasting longer than 24 hours. There has been a push to pathologize long refractory periods and medicate the condition. Viagra and similar meds can have real dangers and side effects and I would hate to see men spurred into taking them by facing requirements set up by a pastor. One of the videos does mention a workbook for opening communication and sharing about one’s needs to his/her partner. At least that seems like a good thing. Does this Relevant Church stipulate the specific sexual act that must be performed every day or does intimacy and outercourse “count?” I looked at the website, but I couldn’t any details about what qualified as “sex.”

If only penetration involving the penis counts as sex, then it doesn’t seem to take into account older couples where the man might have a refractory period lasting longer than 24 hours. There has been a push to pathologize long refractory periods and medicate the condition. Viagra and similar meds can have real dangers and side effects and I would hate to see men spurred into taking them by facing requirements set up by a pastor.

One of the videos does mention a workbook for opening communication and sharing about one’s needs to his/her partner. At least that seems like a good thing.

]]>