We still don’t know the full story of what happened between megapastor Ted Haggard and the Denver-based male escort, so it’s premature to draw conclusions about this specific incident. Yet, like any parable, we can start to examine the lessons, even if we don’t know all the details.
That Haggard admits he purchased methamphetamines is, I think, the most significant part of the story right now. Sex and drugs tend to go together, but there are many, many drugs out there, like pot, cocaine and painkillers, that aren’t necessarily used in sexual situations. You can do a bump of coke in the bathroom at a club for a boost of energy, or you can stay at home on a rainy night, dim the lights, put on Coltrane and light up. You can pop a vicodin in your office before the board meeting. But meth is a sex drug, and while there are certainly straight people who use it, crystal, or “tina,” is ubiquitous on the gay party circuit.
It gives the user – so I’m told – an overwhelming sense of immortality and invincibility, as well as a raging, uninhibited sex drive. An acquaintance of mine who has used it said it makes you feel “amazing” and turns you into the Energizer Bunny in bed, except that the ad slogan would be “it keeps on coming” instead. The idea that someone would use methamphetamines without intending to use it to enhance sexual performance and experience would be akin to someone randomly taking a hit of Cialis without intending to get laid.
So while it may remain in the realm of possibility that Pastor Ted innocently arranged for a massage with a man he did not know was a prostitute, it defies credibility that innocuous conversation with a masseur would casually and naturally turn to discussions about how to obtain a gay sex drug.
Haggard’s evangelical colleague James Dobson was quoted by The New York Times today saying, “The situation has grave implications for the cause of Christ and we ask for the Lord’s guidance and blessings in the days ahead.” For once I agree with him.
In Paul’s letter to the Romans, there is a passage on sexual immorality that is at the heart of the ongoing discussion about homosexuality and Christianity. In the time and culture in which Paul was writing, as with today, many people believed that only heterosexual orientation is natural, and that gay people are folk who “exchange natural intercourse for unnatural” motivated by “the lusts in their hearts.”
But increasingly today we come to the awareness that sexual orientation is less about lust than something innate, with evidence that it is genetic in origin. This turns Paul’s sentence on its head, or at least opens it up to a new, more expansive reading: the sin is in the exchange of one’s natural sexual identity for one that is false.
We don’t know yet precisely what Mr. Haggard’s situation is, but the anecdotal evidence about what happens when a gay person suppresses their natural identity in exchange for an outwardly heterosexual lifestyle, including marriage and children, is vast, and it’s not pretty.
The problems arise not only because of sexual urges that are difficult to restrain, but because sexual orientation is an essential part of identity and self-awareness, quite apart from sexual activity. Sexual attraction and activity is merely a manifestation, an expression of who you are. Pretending to be heterosexual is not about refraining from gay sex, it’s about denying a huge part of what makes you you.
“The cause of Christ,” as Dobson puts it, is love. May we all come to understand that we do not serve Christ faithfully by only pretending to love someone. We do not serve Christ by loving someone only on the condition that they conform to ancient prejudices about sexual orientation. We will serve Christ best by loving honestly and sincerely, which can only be done when we honestly and sincerely love our own true natures.
As progressive Christians, we must resist the temptation to indulge in schadenfreude over an Evangelical’s hypocritical downfall. Mr. Haggard remains our brother in Christ. May he find healing through the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
66 comments:
what troubles me the most about haggard's situation is not that he is a *gasp!* sinner, but that this is just the next chapter of outting and the political agenda involved here.
IF these accusations are true, it is an issue for him, his family, and God.
i have little knowledge of haggard, and i cannot judge his commitment to Christ, and i will not judge him a hypocrite.
as a fundie, i'm sure he was (publically, at least) in theological opposition to gay sex. a man can have desires he honestly deems sinful, and even fail on occasion, without being a hypocrite. hypocrasy is when you set different standards for yourself that you do not do for others.
Healing starts with the truth, Haggards not there yet. He needs a 12 step program.
His dishonesty is so deep one wonders if his religious belief is fake. Was he ever on the path, or did he stray?
To advise the President on religious/moral issues like being against homosexuality, while obviously a clost case himself, is the height of dishonesty, and hurtfull to those who wrestle with the issue everyday of their lives.
but what is meant when you say 'agianst homosexuality'?
i am, for theological reasons, opposed to homo acts, but not opposed to homos at all.
are we to relegate folks, gay,straight, or pedo or whatever, to the sum of their sexual desires?
i will not, and cannot, do that and still be able to claim that my own relationship desires are just one small facet of who i am.
we dont know the truth of haggard.
what we do know is that the accuser is probably lying to some extent.
like i said, having desires, and having an honest belief that these desires are wrong, is not hypocrasy, nor dishonesty.
if anything... it affirms the struggles of those who wrestle with the issue everyday of their lives.
Andy: I must take you to task on your understanding of methamphetamine. Having experimented with it myself, AND I MUST VEHEMENTLY DISCOURAGE ANYONE FROM USING IT, I can say to you that the drug is NOT inherently sexual; in fact, it has little to no appreciable sexual effect on me. I have acquaintances who do it and go on lengthy and detail-oriented cleaning binges. It does seem likely to me that Haggard probably made the purchase for sexual pursuits, as most people seem to do. It seems likely, too, that the activities in which he intended to participate were probably homosexual in nature. It is important to remember, as our politicians only do when it is convenient for them, that we are ALL sinners -- imperfect, unclean, incomplete, searching. Sometimes, we all wander in darkness (I do not mean this as a comment on this poor fellow's misguided fundamentalist evangelicalism or his potential homosexual activity). The best that we can do, sometimes, s to pray that we, and our brothers and sisters (Remember that in response to the man's question, "Who is my neighbour," the Lord told the parable of the good Samaritan), may eventually find the light. There, but for the Grace of God, go I. (And sometimes, I go there anyway.)
Well, if there's one subject where I really don't mind having my ignorance shown up, it's drug use. ;P
Gino...about that hypocrisy issue:
"People want to know, how do you have a good family? It is not hard. It is easy. First of all, you find a person of the opposite sex and you make a life-long commitment to them."
i still dont see the hypocrasy.
if he taught that to others, and but didnt hold himself to the same standard, that would be hypocrasy.
clearly, since he took the route he prescribed, he is following his own standard.
that he may have had desires for other things plays no such role in whether he is a hypocrite.
please notice, also, the context of the quote you use against him.
he is speaking of making a marital commitment, as opposed to not making one.
we dont know if he broke his vows or not, but if he did, that makes him a sinner. if it can be shown that he was breaking his vows way back when he was making them, it would show a hypocrasy toward his wife and marriage.
Gino, according to the story, he was doing this once a month, for three years. That's more than a one-time slip-up. That is hypocrisy. This was all very recent, too, and Ted Haggard has been pastor of New Life for ages (I grew up in Colorado Springs and know lots of people who've attended the church for years. In fact, the rector at my church back home is friends with him). Ted Haggard has been a big name in the local news since before I moved away in 2002. And he's always been an outspoken evangelical conservative. So his views are not recent, they are enduring and consistent. Thus, if the allegations are true (and it sounds as though they could be), then I think it is fair to say that he is a hypocrite.
Having grown up in the evangelical community (the same one Haggard works in, even), I can tell you that the proper procedure if you have even just a one-time slip-up like that is to repent and seek forgiveness -- and part of this repentance is removing yourself from leadership. Haggard didn't do this *until* he was called out, which suggests to me that he lacked the repentant heart his beliefs call for.
How is this not hypocrisy?
Gino, he has been part of the broad political movement that has used demonization of gay people to get people to the polls. The video on Beliefnet has him arguing how "easy" it is to have a happy family. Yet this same man who condemned the so-called "homosexual lifestyle" (ordering drugs through a prostitute I patronize monthly is not something either I nor anyone I know does) is unable to control those urges. Easy, huh? Millions and millions of people -- myself included -- have struggled with their sexuality because so many people have told us a) God wants it that way and b) it's easy. It's NOT easy. In fact, it's not even possible. And now, clearly, he, of all people, should have been aware of that. I have no patience for people who deflect their own self-hatred onto others in the name of God.
"Having grown up in the evangelical community (the same one Haggard works in, even), I can tell you that the proper procedure if you have even just a one-time slip-up like that is to repent and seek forgiveness -- and part of this repentance is removing yourself from leadership. Haggard didn't do this *until* he was called out, which suggests to me that he lacked the repentant heart his beliefs call for."
law fairy, i'll grant you this.
but, if he did not do it, he would have no need of repentance, and removing himself would not be required, but, and i'll grant this also, the accusations on their face are enough to cause an innocent rightous man, in an act a good judgement, to to step down for the good of the ministry until the issues can be resolved.
i'm not ready to jump on the guilt bandwagon yet, per gay sex.
the accuser is already showing evidence of not telling the truth, and he claims to be pushing an agenda anyway, which makes him more suspect.
andy, you are assuming he is gay and convicted him of it already.
i dont see the proof.
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.... VICODIN.
Well, Gino, he has been found "guilty" of "sexual immorality" by his own church board. Somehow I suspect even with evangelicals' strict standards, a simple massage isn't quite enough to merit this kind of disciplinary action. Besides, if you want a massage, you go to a spa, you don't rent a guy out of the back of a magazine.
You claim I'm "convicting" him, but it's his own church using the word "guilty." Once again, you're the one associating homosexuality with criminal behavior -- pshaw, that I'm "convicting" him of being gay. That's not it at all. I'm convicting him of using prejudice and dishonesty to further a political agenda.
I see a tearful, highly televised repentance coming up, sometime after this all dies down and we all go, "Oh right, *that* guy." Given that forgiveness is doctrinal in Christianity, he will undoubtedly be forgiven and avoid responsibility for his actions. His homosexual experimentations will be lumped into the same category as the drug use, namely near-irrisistable temptation anthropomorphized into imps, i.e. the "demon of homosexuality" or the "demon of crystal meth." He will proclaim that with the help of Christ he's conquered these demons and stand as a shining example for the effectiveness of the evangelical ex-gay movement. "You too can change!" That kind of thing. Not saying that this is a conspiratorial ploy or calculated "scandal" to promote ex-gay ideology, but they'll certainly exploit this unexpected opportunity. Expect sermons where the raging bull demons of homosexuality and drug abuse (they will be linked for subconscious effect) stand as hurtles to cross in the sprint to Christ's arms.
You know what they say about homophobes.
Sorry, self linking again. But what's so hilarious about this is the conservatives' long term, outright fascination with homosexuality (Andy, I'm not talking about Christians in general here, just conservative Christians.) Republicans have been pushing their political agenda using the bible as a tool of hate for long enough. Now they get a serving of crow. It's what they deserve.
oh... you can also slide in behind the wheel of a semi-truck with a bag of meth - it's a huge hit with truckers who need to stay awake and drive for days and days...
oh, and gino, uh, have you seen a photo of him? he's gayer than liberace... and he's got a bad case of 'gay face' the horrible pursed-lip estrogen smile - NELLIE NELLIE NELLIE, so so so gay... and not only is he gay... he's clearly a huge bottom. you're not making any unfair assumptions andy - simply stated self evident facts.
he's clearly a huge bottom
LOL. One of the early news articles I saw about this referred to him as "a top Evangelical leader" and I thought -- a top? No way.
andy,
to say that i am equating gayness with criminality is unfair.
but a question, lil off topic...
can a man have a fantasy for gay type sex, and still be hetero. we already seen, several times, that a gay man can be turned on by a woman,as evidenced by the large number of gays who have married and bred before 'turning gay' so to speak. at least publically,anyway.
like mc greevy.
or malcom forbes.
It's not unfair, you have a history of doing it on this blog. You think I said he was "guilty" of being gay, and earlier you equated homosexuality with bestiality and pedophilia. That's a criminal association, and it's wrong and I won't let it pass.
can a man have a fantasy for gay type sex, and still be hetero
Well, there does appear to be a continuum of sexual orientation along which people fall at different places. One could easily be mostly heterosexual but find themselves occasionally turned on by someone of the same gender, and the opposite is true, as well. There are also bisexuals out there.
that a gay man can be turned on by a woman,as evidenced by the large number of gays who have married and bred before 'turning gay' so to speak
Yes and no. I'll give you an even better example of that: my own church's Bishop Robinson, who was married for many years -- happily -- to a woman and had children. As far as I've ever heard him speak, sexual orientation was not something he struggled with. He was straight...and then, who knows what happened, something changed.
For the record, Haggard has said this is something he's been struggling with his entire life, so I don't think we can say he "changed." But there's also Cheryl Swoopes, the NBA star. She says that she chose her sexual orientation.
And all of these various experiences actually underscore my point here: sexuality is a kind of weird thing that no one fully understands. To say that everyone is heterosexual, or can be heterosexual if they just pray/try hard enough, is just not true. That is not the way it is. And it puts impossible burdens on people, making them think they have to be what they cannot be. Being heterosexual is only "easy" if you're actually heterosexual.
For the record, Haggard has said this is something he's been struggling with his entire life, so I don't think we can say he "changed."
this part is new to me. i thought he was denying it.
As I've said before, God's primary purpose for us is goodness rather than just love (which is an accessory to commit goodness).
Part of goodness is honesty. The reason that this guy put a damper on the cause of Christ is that he was a hypocrite- not because he didn't love his fellow man but because his arguments criticized others for doing that which he himself engaged in. His actions discredited my moral code, making my interpretation of God's purpose, which is goodness, appear to be unattainable. He made goodness a joke, and for that he will be remembered as not only a hypocrite, but as a man who, more than most hypocrites, took the credibility out of our notions of morality.
Well, look who returns to the Blogosphere. Your senior year must be crazy.
I do feel bad for Haggard and his family, but I'm also angry because, once again, one of the leading faces of Christianity in America has turned out to be a fraud, which makes all of us look bad, and then there is the self-betraying way in which his hypocrisy served to hurt the lives of millions of LGBT people around the country.
"... having a family is easy.." HA! Even being hetero doesn't automatically make having a family easy. Anyone can MAKE a lifelong commitment, but it's the keeping it that is the hard part.
Gino & Andy... about this...
can a man have a fantasy for gay type sex, and still be hetero
Well, there does appear to be a continuum of sexual orientation along which people fall at different places....
Answering from a girl's point of view... yes. I've had a couple incidents where a girl turned my head in a "more than friends" and even as those incidents played out, I still considered myself hetero (and in the end just wasn't interested in the hoo-hoo's and ha-ha's of the female body - turns out it was their personalities that I dug)
"we already seen, several times, that a gay man can be turned on by a woman,as evidenced by the large number of gays who have married and bred before 'turning gay' so to speak."
I'll just remark (also a woman) that in our society I imagine it's probably easier to see women as sexually appealing in general, because women are plastered everywhere as sex objects. Our advertising is *designed* to make people want to have sex with women. Thus, it's not too much of a stretch for men *or* women to find women sexy, regardless of sexual orientation. Obviously this doesn't apply to everyone, but as Andy noted, sexual orientation is a spectrum, and it seems to me that if you have even slight inclinations toward women, being in a society that bombards you with sexualized images of women certainly isn't going to turn you *off* from them.
ok, so at what point on the spectrum does a hetero man become a gay man?
and doesnt this spectrum concept defeat the notion of the 'gay gene'?
and andy,
any references i made to pedo or bestia being in a similar catagory as homo were in context of being out of the biological procreative order, not a reference to criminality. (and i also dont believe bestia is a crime in the traditional sense although there have been laws against it.)
i have the same rights to make a moral call as you do upon any sexual behavior that you dont like. on some we may agree, on others we may not, and for our own reasons. i can respect that, and you, for it.
i failed diplomacy 101 in college.i'm not much of an ass kisser, and couldnt do it well if i tried.
i think i've been respectful toward you, and you been patient toward me. lets continue in that vein of friendship, and keep in mind, what i wrote about you in my blog is as true now as it was then.
so at what point on the spectrum does a hetero man become a gay man?
When they start having monthly appointments with male hookers?
I mean, I think the obvious answer to your question would be when wherever they fall on the spectrum is closer to Lance Bass than Sylvester Stallone, i.e., the preponderance of their attractions/fantasies are about men.
As I said, sexual orientation is complicated and not fully understood; anyone who says otherwise should be regarded as highly suspect, and probably selling a book. That's why it's dishonest and damaging of the religious right to make the claims that they do about sexuality.
And no, it doesn't undermine the genetic theory. We have observed that altering genes in fruit flies changes their sexual orientation, and scientists have observed minor physical differences between gay and straight people, including a higher tendency among gay men to be left-handed (I'm a righty, btw), different reactions in the hypothalamus gland to odors between straight and gay men, and a statistical correlation that the more older brothers a man has, the more likely he is gay.
Just because some people's orientation may be genetic in origin does not mean the same holds true for everyone.
there are other noticable differences, but all these are beahvioral that i'm aware of.
gay men tend to be more graceful in their body movements(some call it femmy), and have dust ruffles on their beds, with matching comforters and pillowcases. (i have neither,btw)
Law Fairy: bully for you on the sexualization of women. I have an ongoing argument with someone who argues that essentially all women are bi, because of some big survey or other that showed something like 90% of women have had some fantasies about or physical attractions to other women.
WHATEVER (grrr). The main message we (Americans at least and I think all Western cultures) receive from all advertising and most media is that if you have the use of two big breasts (someone else's, or, you know, your own) you will be happy. Frankly, I'm terribly impressed there are gay men who are "just gay" at all--that may be better proof for a gay gene than any of the neurological stuff!
Add in our standardized too-early removal from the loving arms of Mommy (via compulsory schooling, if not daycare) and a few generations of breastfeeding being "bad" (f-ing "medical experts") ... and a natural burgeoning of female sexuality timed RIGHT when we go to college (and are both out-of-the-house and truly removed from Mother-support for the first time, in many cases) ... hello, what should we expect? We've designed our entire society to encourage lesbian experimentation--and to be completely non-understanding of a man who rejects sex with women.
...
(Well, OK, I guess I have to mitigate the media part ... there is the secondary advertising message that if you don't have the use of someone's big breasts, chocolate might make you feel better temporarily.)
---
(And, no, I never did. But I am a big fan of chocolate.)
And, just to destroy all personal credibility:
"There is more in Heaven and in Earth,
[Jim], than is dreampt of in your
Philosophy."
I have seen a demon. It was very unpleasant. oh, no, I guess it's maybe two now; but the second was fleeting, so I'm less sure. (I have also run into several that I have not "seen," per se.) (Angels too. They are not cute and fuzzy. They were more scary than the demon, actually, because of their intensity. "Fear of God" made a lot more sense to me after that.)
That said, "the demon of crystal meth" is probably an athropormorphism. I don't think they really care which way they take you down, although some of them might have energies they prefer to associate with and to that extent different ones might associate with one or another "sin" or "drug."
Excuse me, I mean to say these things "If the allegations are true"
It is likely that this hooker is lying to some extent- hookers have a way of commiting immoral acts for money. I am probably less informed than you on this matter.
LC, i have no hooker knowledge.
It is likely that this hooker is lying to some extent
Which is supposed to mean what, exactly? Haggard did say not all of the allegations are true, "but enough of them are." He was dismissed for "sexual immorality."
[Incidentally, I saw Haggard on the same History Channel show on the Antichrist, LOL.]
It seems to me, LC, that you are trying to imply that generally speaking, prostitutes are less truthful than evangelical ministers. I'm not sure there's empirical evidence for that assertion.
KR...whoa...?
evangelical ministers say they love you and take your money.
hookers just take your money for loving you.
i believe the hooker's love is more honest,and therefore, more pure.
Funny, but any seriousness in that assertion lies in the mistaken (in my opinion) belief that "Love is all you need,"
Goodness is what matters!
Prostitutes, no matter how they are pushed by fate into doing what (or who) they do, commit immoral actions on a day to day basis. Least of these is dishonesty- they will pretend to love or be attracted to whomever they escort for maximum profit (otherwise, the customer may as well use a toy). Add sexual immorality to the equation and it is clear that prostitutes are not just less truthful than ministers- they are less moral when money is to be made.
As for ministers, I am Catholic, but what I will say is that, whereas hookers by definition profit from lies, ministers profit from truth- or at least their perception of it. They profit from telling people that God loves them and that God wants them to love one another. All of this is true, so if they take something for themselves along the way it is not from lies- the lies are usually post facto to cover up the stealing. The minister is generally more moral, not only because he or she has studies moral teachings extensively, but because the profession of ministry is based on moral rather than immoral acts.
If all of this sounds elementary to anyone, I'm right along with you. I am seriously wondering whether Andy and Gino are kidding and I'm missing the joke.
What about the story of Rahab in the book of Joshua? Yeah, okay, basically she lied, but she lied to help the Israelites, so apparently that's okay. The Old Testament is sooooo fucked up, I swear.
What does the fact that she lied in an act of goodness (according to God's will) have to do with a prostitute or minister lying to make a buck.
Don't get this argument confused with "it's your intentions that count," when we talk about goodness, it really cannot be expressed through varying terms such as "intentions" or "actions" or "results" or "sentiments". Goodness is goodness. It is one of those words that is so pivotal and meaningful that it cannot be accurately defined- a dictionary does it no justice.
Slippery slope, LC.
a basic tenet (of which, as I recall, you are very fond): God is Truth.
ergo, lying is not godly.
Sort of justifiable int he hurly-burly of human existence, MAYBE. But not "good."
---
Andy, sorry for tangents.
"they will pretend to love or be attracted to whomever they escort for maximum profit (otherwise, the customer may as well use a toy)."
I don't know about that, lc. I think anyone who purchases a prostitute's services does so understanding exactly what he or she is paying for. Anyone who actually believes that the hooker loves/is attracted to him/her is, well, deluded, to say the least. Truly, I can't buy the argument that anyone is reasonably *fooled* into thinking the prostitute likes him/her. Pretty Woman, real life ain't.
By convincing I mean convincing the libido, not so much the intellect. Love has an aspect of sexual stimulation to it, so it's not that hard to convince the libido of love. There are other elements that probably aren't all that active when a person hires a prostitute, and are thereby null and void in comparison.
Convincing the libido? What the hell?
Love has an aspect of sexual stimulation to it
Well, romantic love, does, sure. But I wouldn't say my love for God has an aspect of sexual stimulation, any more than my love for Grandma or my cats.
And, I might point out, the reverse of your statement is absolutely NOT true (i.e., sexual stimulation has an aspect of love to it -- that is definitely not always the case).
l-c: Ever hired a prostitute? Met and conversed with one? Had sexual relations with (any)one? Methinks ye speak whereof ye know not and therefore ought to keep silent. (Yes, I've done all of the above, at least once, and I count some prostitutes among my friends, yet I'm not commenting on that aspect of the situation.) And while I love this statement: "They profit from telling people that God loves them and that God wants them to love one another", it seems to me that FAR too many ministers (and Christians in general!) spend the vast majority of their time preaching not God's eternal and unconditional love, but condemnation of the perceived sins of others. Sheesh. What part of "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" do we not understand?!
"By convincing I mean convincing the libido, not so much the intellect."
waaaaaaaait a minute. So you're equating sexual stimulation with lying?? Because what? How can sexual stimulation be a lie? Because she doesn't buy him a ring and take him to church the next morning?
I don't see the connection to lying at all. Please explain how turning someone on, even intentionally, is deceptive. And, if at all possible, try to do it without portraying ALL women as liars, because as you know many of us evil teases have the tendency to dress in a manner that appeals to men. I mean, doesn't this suggest that if a woman dresses with the intent to draw men's attention to herself, she is inviting all such attention (rather than the subset she actually wants) and as such has the responsibility to "follow through," so to speak, or be considered a liar?
And, so that you won't accuse me of tricking you into saying something you don't mean to (we feminine deceivers, we!), yes, I am suggesting that this sort of reasoning leads some men to think rape is not really rape.
LF, we're not talking about provocative dressers, we're talking about those who have sex for money.
What kind of hooker simply lays on a bed and, like an appliance simply instructs "insert here"- NO WAY. If a prostitute wants to make money he or she engages in foreplay, kissing and such to pass of the illusion of what the customer is missing (which is why the customer purchased the services to begin with.
As for my lack of experience in the sex business with the exception of watching WAY too many episodes of Deadwood (I highly reccomend this series), what I do understand is business. What I do understand is human nature and human desire. I understand that sexual desire creates inevitably the illusion of what we truly yearn for- love.
I think I kind of see where LC is going with this. We do tend to tie our self-esteem toward our sense of being sexually desirable, and, if no one is having sex with us, we don't feel desirable and esteem suffers. Personally, I think having to pay for sex would make me feel even less desirable, but that may not be true for everyone. But even if people are willing to pay for the illusion that someone will validate their self-worth through sexual intimacy, I don't think anyone really equates that with love. I have to say, love is not a necessary ingredient for bangin' hot sex.
Bollocks, l-c. Perhaps at your age and experience level of both sex and life, and more importantly the latter, you might believe that having sex with someone leads to the illusion of affection. For you, for some years to come, it might. It might even be one of the influences that lead you into a happy, loving, committed relationship. In fact, given your inclinations, I hope that's the case, and I hope that you get to live happily ever after. Speaking as someone who has a lot of sex with a lot of people, though, I can tell you that while the time spent together and the conversation one has with said people (in between rounds) sometimes leads them to become something other than just "objects", whether "buddies", friends, or something more romantic, we know what we're there for -- there's no illusion that any of us wants, at least in the beginning, anything from the other besides sex, and if anything else develops, it's not because we confuse sex with anything that it isn't. (Yes, in some ways, I and some of my acquaintances (NOT ANDY) could be the poster-boys for the objections certain churches have to homosexuality; we're youngish, easy on the eyes, nicely-built, we aren't looking for love, we love to have a good time, we sometimes use drugs, and we certainly use our bodies to give ourselves and each other pleasure, which seems to be the most damnable offense of all! But get to know us, and we're not what those bigots would have you believe. We all have our vices, but most of us have some pretty strong redeeming characteristics, too.)
lc, I guess I'm just having a hard time seeing how it's "deceptive" when the john KNOWS what he is getting into. He is paying for a service, i.e., enjoyable (presumably) sex. Sex with a blow-up doll isn't as enjoyable as sex with a real live willing human being. But there's nothing deceptive about doing more than just lying there.
I think your point only holds if you're willing to deem two other categories of people just as deceptive: 1) men who have casual sex and 2) actors.
Men who have casual sex have virtually certainly at one point had sex with a woman who wanted more than just sex, and likely did not do anything to prevent her from thinking that sex would lead somewhere, even though they had no intention of taking things any further. This is not rare. It's happened to me, it's happened to virtually every woman I know. If prostitutes are deceptive for giving a man what he bargains for, then men are at least as deceptive for knowingly letting women believe something that isn't true just so that they can get sex. Obviously this doesn't describe all men, but I think it describes most men at at least one point in their lives. Virtually every man I know has at least once pretended to have stronger feelings for a woman than he does, so that she will have sex with him. This is precisely the sort of behavior you're accusing prostitutes of, except that unlike a john, the girl did not bargain for the fakeness -- she thought he was genuine.
Actors are paid to pretend to *be* people they're not. That's at least as deceptive as a prostitute, who is paid to *do* something he or she may or may not want to do.
I am just bothered that you're making this broad statement that prositutes are "dishonest", when they're no more dishonest than, frankly, the vast majority of people in their everyday lives. Indeed, truly, they're probably *more* honest than many people in relationships, as they're upfront about what they want: money. So whatever else you may find unpalatable about prositutes, I don't think this is the right thing to take issue with.
LF: Men who have casual sex have virtually certainly at one point had sex with a woman who wanted more than just sex
Not guilty!
But in the interests of fairness, let us also admit that there are women who hire male "escorts," too. My friends who use callboys actually are quite adamant that affection is the LAST thing they want. They want someone with a rockin' bod to do sexual things to them and then to get the hell out. I'm not defending this, I'm just saying LC's ideas about prostitutes don't really match what's actually going on out there...
...which is a good thing.
I guess we can come togethre and agree that men do not want love from prostitutes (I never thought this to begin with). What I do believe is that men who hire prostitutes are not getting any satisfaction from their current sex/romantic life. Satisfaction comes from desire, which imitates love. It may just be an overreaching psychological analysis focusing on men who go to prostitutes, but if desire is what they're missing, maybe it is desire that they are seeking. Overreaching further, there's the remote chance that the reason we desire desire in our lives is that it imitates love.
"I think your point only holds if you're willing to deem two other categories of people just as deceptive: 1) men who have casual sex and 2) actors."
I guess I do. It's obvious that the former is deceptive if you think about it- they decieve by pretending in return for gratification. Actors also pretend in return for gratification. I myself have acted and I know exactly how stimulating and gratifying it can be to perform to an audience (almost sexually, but luckily not to the point of arousal). The prostitute has the client think what he wants to think while in reality she is nothing more
(as love is concerned) than a blow-up doll- in return for financial gratification.
Call me a sucker for Plato's logic but I can't help but agree that drama does not simply compose fantasies- it imitates and alters reality itself.
lol, Andy, fair enough. I should have said "heterosexual men" :)
Gay men may also do their fair share of misleading screwing, or not -- but I can't speak to that with much authority, never having dated one ;)
And you're quite correct there a women who utilize the services of male escorts. And in the interests of fairness, there are certainly women who are otherwise misleading when sex/relationships are concerned (e.g., women who say they are on the pill but aren't because they want to be impregnated, etc.). I apologize for unfairly shoving the blame onto men -- I think my point remains valid, though: there's nothing inherently more "dishonest" about prostitutes than about anyone else.
And, thus, lc, given your agreement with the points I made, doesn't this kind of deflate the point that prostitutes are dishonest such that we shouldn't believe them? That is to say, prostitutes should be trusted just as much as any other random stranger, no?
Of course, it's all a moot point now that Haggard has admitted that "enough" of the allegations are true. But still, I loves me a good argument :)
Actually I'd say that you can't really believe an actor as much as any other stranger if he is, for example, trying to get out of a speeding ticket. Obviously a good actor is better at lying than are others, just as a prostitute is better at lying than others.
"Obviously a good actor is better at lying than are others, just as a prostitute is better at lying than others."
Wow. It's like you said, "Proposition X."
And then I said, "Proposition X does not hold for reasons A, B, and C."
And then you said, "Hmm, actually, C is a very good point. Proposition X again."
I have a headache.
LF, welcome to debating with LC. Sigh. However, I can vouch for him. For all his exasperating denseness at times, he really can be endearingly sincere. He's also a sr. in high school, if that puts his comments/life experience into better perspective for you. He just needs to go to college (please God, a real one) and be exposed to his intellectual equals on different ends of the political spectrum and I think some of his ideas will shake loose.
Much appreciated. I not only sympathize with LF's exasperation- I also share it.
The idea that prostitutes are not the moral equals of ministers is such a fundamental, "Duh" belief for me that I may be failing to understand your argument. If you're willing to take this to the end I would appreciate if you would concisely outline your reasoning and Proposition versus my own.
Who said anything about moral equals?
We're simply arguing that prostitutes are capable of telling the truth and ministers are capable of lying. Period. Wouldn't you agree?
lc, I've never said or implied prostitutes are as moral as ministers (though, to be fair, some prositutes are probably more moral than some priests -- at least the people they have sex with are of age and willing participants -- but that's neither here nor there). In fact, if you'll allow me to quote myself:
"So whatever else you may find unpalatable about prositutes, I don't think this is the right thing to take issue with."
This is not the kind of thing someone says if she's trying to equate prostitutes with Mother Theresa.
I'm just saying that there's nothing inherently more dishonest about prostitutes than there is about anyone else. Prostitutes have sex for money. Whatever else you want to say about that, I'm inclined to think that it's FAR more "honest" than a LOT of sex that occurs in society. Speaking strictly about American prostitutes (my understanding is that in some Asian countries, the prostitutes are more likely to trick/coerce men into bed and then expect payment, so I'm leaving them out, as this is dishonest and possibly a form of rape), selling sex for money is in fact one of the most honest businesses you can be in. Seriously -- it may be a lot of other bad things (physically unhealthy, illegal, immoral, exploitative -- of either party, depending upon the circumstances) but dishonesty is one of the LAST things I'd criticize prostitution for. Unless a prostitute lies about the state of his/her sexual health (I'm willing to grant that this happens, though I don't know with what frequency), you know exactly what you're getting.
It's like ordering from a restaurant. If you ordered a burger (sex) and afterwards complained that you didn't get dessert (love), most people would say you were being silly. If you'd wanted dessert, you should have ordered a dessert. But you ordered a burger, so that's what you get.
If, instead, the menu said "if you order a burger, you get dessert" and you didn't get dessert, THEN you could rightly complain that you didn't get everything you bargained for. The first example is prostitution. The second example is most modern relationships. So I'll ask again: how is prostitution inherently dishonest? How are prostitutes any less trustworthy than your last girlfriend?
"We're simply arguing that prostitutes are capable of telling the truth and ministers are capable of lying. Wouldn't you agree?"
Yes, of course I would agree.
LF, now I see what you're arguing in the clearest of terms. Yes, I guess lying is not really the first thing I would accuse prostitutes of if in fact sex is an absolutely separate entity than love, but I have been taught differently (Wiseguy: Yeah I'll bet you remember that from your dad's sex talk a year ago, kid. LC: No, actually I never had a sex talk, unless if you count that Ted Haggard sermon)
Anyway, I believe that sex and love are of natural order supposed to be connected for the divinely considered human species as opposed to the animal sexual state of "hump 'em and leave 'em," So when a woman's occupation is to share this innately sacred act with men for money and act like she's enjoying it, she is indeed being as dishonest as any one who has casual sex, but she is doing it for money rather than pleasure. Why does the minister preach? Ideally neither for subsistance nor for pleasure, but rather for calling or duty. Realistically there are plenty of ministers who are in it for the money and there are plenty who are in it for the pleasure of respect from parishoners and the sort of pleasure derived by actors. In the case of such ministers, they may be just as likely to lie as prostitutes (CONCESSION- No not a soft drink, a submission to your argument).
(To see my theory of prostitution turned on its head, see the charming and hilarious James Stewart/Kirk Douglas movie, The Cheyenne Social Club)
But I guess we agree mostly that both are capable of lying and both lie in many instances.
As a side note I find it absolutely astonishing that we have yet to make one pun concerning the use of "lying" as it concerns the craft of a prostitute. Shakespeare would be devastatingly dissappointed.
Oh, LC, I'm sure Haggard wishes he were Dying a Little Death right now ;).
Just to throw two monkeywrenches in at the last minute:
There is a(nother) "new" pagan movement afoot, to reestablish the practice of sacred prostitution.
These are women who more or less consider themselves priestesses or healers: they recognize the potentially deep healing the sex act can involve and strive to provide that healing. (I have only seen references to this in passing, so I am not sure in what cultural structure they operate--whether they take payment, per a physical therapist, or whether they are mostly members of cult-groups and therefore materially supported by the collective, or what.)
Which "healing" concept resonates to a biological fact that has been not mentioned, that sexual climax involves the release of, among other things, an important interpersonal-bonding hormone (I think it's oxytocin, but I've gotten my pregnancy/birth hormones all confused). The effect is much less strong for men than for women (I think testosterone directly dulls the effect, which may explain why serial sex-ers, who tend to have higher T levels, would laugh this effect off as preposterous, or involving choice), but it does exist, and it is likely that Haggard was experiencing at least some neurobiological programming that attached him to the other man. (Plain physical touch and cuddling can also produce this effect--again, MUCH more so in women.)
This hormonal programming is probably why most female prostitutes (to my understanding, at least historically, in America) end up doing drugs even if they weren't originally selling their body because of a drug habit--gotta deny the hormones' effects somehow.
"Sacred prostitutes," having a psychologically coherent way to integrate the hormonal reaction, I'd guess don't suffer as much/at all the dissonance traditional prostitutes reputedly do.
I think most of the hormonal effects of sexual intercourse simply lye in the release of endorphines- pleasure hormones, during sex. Pleasure+Relationship=Desire. Desire+Need for Love=Illusions of love.
Defacto sex is simply the exchange of fluids amid arousal with a response of sexual pleasure and illusions of control, desire and emotion. This has long been my opinion of sex, and it probably still is.
But then, as I said before, there is a metaphysical aspect to it- one of spiritual exchange rather than fluid exchange- a bond of two souls rather than a bond of two genitals. Only God could create such a beautiful while at the same time utilitarian act as sex.
So help me out here- do I have the right impression of sex. On one hand I am almost tempted to think of it as a necessary evil- an unholy act. But perhaps it is only an unholy act if the two souls are not committed to share that spiritual bond. Perhaps all sex outside of marriage is as bad as prostitution, or perhaps it is the payment recieved in exchange for sex which makes prostitution additionally sinful.
I would guess that a monogamous sexual relationship is less sinful than an adulterous or promiscuous one.
LC: you view sex as a "necessary evil"? Oh, dear, oh dear, oh dear. You need therapy.
KR, are you still out there? Help. This is why people leave the Catholic church. They have this idea that even in the best of circumstances (i.e. one man and one woman married to each other attempting to procreate) there is something inherently sinful about the act. This is just so wrong.
Have you read The Song of Solomon and its erotic poetry? Solomon is not simply trying to reproduce, here. Sensual intimacy is holy and wonderful, and a gift from God, a gift that we can share with other people.
Are you referring to sex as "original sin"? Because that's not the original sin at all. Eve didn't eat from the Tree of Hot Sex. She ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (not, as many people think, simply the Tree of Knowledge), because the Serpent specifically tells her that she will "become like God." If you are like God, then you don't need God. Original sin is not sex, original sin is the belief that we can function just fine in this world with our own intellect and resources and don't need some silly old God.
Preface (too late): I think Genesis is mostly metaphorical. But the basic idea is that God has set us down in a world that provides us with everything we need, and that we have absolutely no reason to be unhappy. But we questioned whether we couldn't do better on our own. Now look at the mess we've made. THAT is original sin.
I agree with Andy on the original sin thing, with the addition that part of the depth of the sin was
1) deliberate disobedience
2) not trusting God
Those reasons could set off huge ugly fireworks depending on who is still tracking this string ...
Milton has an interesting presentation in Paradise Lost, that sex (created good like the rest of the world--"God saw it and it was Good") went bad after and because of the original sinning, when Adam and Eve went looking for succor and support that could only be truly found in God (not surprisingly, not such great sex then, not the spiritual satisfaction they were craving).
OK, so, Catholic Teaching:
The Church does not teach that sex is evil or wrong. There is certainly a virulent strain of that thinking in important figures throughout her history (obviously people touch on Paul for justification; Augustine is another oft quoted ... mmm ... searching for non-offensive word ... well, anyway; Origin, of course, Bobbetted himself). (Interstingly, if they had taken the advice of Paul we heard the other week, that if you cannot live without sex you should find yourself a spouse, there would have been way fewer bizarre stories of people rolling around in thorn bushes they had planted outside their hermit-cave to dsitract/punish thmeselves for feeling sexual.) Various strains of Christianity have taken more the sex-is-evil thoughtpath or less that thoughtpath as they rejected different parts of the Church.
Since thinking Sex Is Sinful is very much part of the United States' culture (and WAYYYYYYY less so part of the European cultures or South American cultures, for instance), I feel comfortable asking whether the real theological culprits aren't the early settlers (who, note, were mostly not Catholic)?
I seem to recall laughing in high school about strict rules about only having sex in what we now call "the Missionary Position" ... . Those early folks established our literature base (at least I think we have finally partially dug out from under THAT, culturally--as long as you don't enter a Christian bookstore), not to mention all of the earliest laws (reflections of morality); of course our precedent-happy legal system perpetuates moral assumptions perhaps ... mmm ... past their expiration date (?) (as I'm sure many have reason to agree).
Notably, the main Catholic settlers, the French Canadians, were pretty into sex with the natives, and didn't really feel the need to differntiate themselves culturally (including via specific sexual morality) from Those Savages.
So I completely understand where LC is coming from; it is very hard to differentiate what society tells us is a healthy Christian viewpoint from an actual one ... but the Church does not in fact teach that sex is inherently wrong. The Church gets blamed for a lot of tings that she doesn't in fact teach or support.
Now, situationally:
The Church sees sex, at it's highest potential, as being unitive and proceative--a holy reflection of, and sometimes sharing in, the creative power of God. What a gift! Any time either of those potentials (unitive/procreative) is deliberately circumvented, that is when, theologically, the Church draws the line that a person enters into deliberate sin.
So, married heterosexual sex can be considered sinful by the Church if the couple is using barriers to conception, or if one or both members are doing it only for their own pleasure and not to be "one" with the spouse. It should here be noted that all people fail sometimes, and God is aware of that ... so as in all things, patterns of behaviors would also be pertinent to consider. I doub people can come to marriage with an open soul/mind/body about sex--whatever their belief system, the secular culture makes sure we cannot. A moving-towards-holiness behavioral trend would, I would think, be less sinful than a moving away from holiness one, given that we cannot realistically start out at "holiness."
Homosexual sex obviously presents the Church great difficulty because it can never be procreative (and therefore lacks the possibility of "sharing in God's creative act"), and for people who believe that homosexual sex is just as legitimate a creation of God as heterosexual, this is the actual theological stumbling block in Catholic teachings (whether they know it or not)--not that sex is evil, because it isn't.
Traditional prostitution I would say is a deliberate warping of the unitive and (if she has any instinct for self preservation and enough resources!) the procreative. Besides that, a traditional prostitute of either sex would generally be understood to not be honoring their body as God's gift and a Temple of the Spirit ... probably a form of blasphemy, if the perpetrator is aware of it. All of that would be perpetrated also by the people who use them.
(We all know I am a big fan of never "using" anyone for anything.)
So LC, depending on one's state of soul and understanding of the choices, I would say there could be quite a lot of extramarital sex that is less sinful than quite a lot of marital sex. Someday DJR and I will probably get into it about that ;). Well, wait, we won't "get into it," you know ... er, at least _I_ won't ... ! ;). ANYWAY ...
No, LC, although I agree with the part of your thinking that only God could have created something at the same time so mundane and so holy, and I understand where your "necessary evil" feelings come from (I wrestled those out intellectually in early high school, then experientially in marriage) ... there is a lot of praying and thinking to be done by all Americans on this topic. (The fascination Amricans have with bondage, I suspect is directly traceable to the cognitive dissonance of experiencing a Good Thing but being unable to think of it as actually not Bad, which requires control--choice--be taken away in order to let go of the over-thinking.)
I will add that this all touches on the "uncleanliness" argument I posed to Gary: that with some things are too holy for us to handle without God's blessing and grace rather than being too profane.
(Someone wrote a book recently called something like "The Church Says You Have To Do It" ... to specifcally counter the incorrect cultural moral teaching that sex should be mostly avoided as inherently evil or of Satan.)
Now, I've dug myself into LOTS of holes with that one; we'll see where it goes if anywhere ;).)
(PS my word verification was qeepop--that's pretty cool :). )
PS LC
Haggard lied through his teeth for how many years about this situation?
I'd say we have some solid evidence, in his confessions, that his veracity is not to be trusted until he lives with the truth for a while and manages to stay "clean" (of the sneaking and lying, specifically).
So no real reason to harp on the escort-fellow; I have to agree with LawFairy that at least he was on the up-and-up about his whole dealio.
Assuming pastors are more truthful than non-pastors is part of why the serial rapist priest did as much damage as they did. Assuming any human being is holier than another is prety dangerous, in my opinion.
And even if Haggard was once holier, my above point about getting less holy (his apparent trajectory) being more sinful than getting more holy (the potential if unlikely reason the escort spoke up) would suggest he isn't to be held above the "lowlifes" now ... again, many "lowlifes" are at least trying to follow God, rather than consciously disobeying what they understand to be God's direct teachings.
I know this is about Haggard, but I hope I didn't appear to be addressing this serpent in the Garden of God's grace.
I also hope you don't really take me to think that sex is evil. That is merely an impulse or prejudice of mine, just as I have a prejudice that all gay men where tight leather biker costumes every weekend. (: As kr astutely points out, that is a very American line of though of Puritanical origin.
Huge kudos to kr on the astute observation of bondage's origins in America's sexual inhibitions. However I do have a wrenche to throw into this theory: Why do the most promiscuous people, who get bored with other sexual practices end up turning to bondage rather than the most inhibited. Are these people actually still harboring sexual hangups or do are they "serial floozies" who put little thought into sex after a while.
just as I have a prejudice that all gay men where tight leather biker costumes every weekend. (:
Dear God, when LC goes to college next year, please let him meet some actual gay people. Thank you. Amen.
Come on now, you can't deny that one can you?
I'm currently imagining your mug in a bikers costume with a mustache down to your jawline. It's an interesting image.
The think about your gay bikers is that they don't listen to Jim Croce and Johnny Cash like regular Bikers. They listen to George Michaels and Barbara Streisand in their biker bars instead. This is little cicero land mind you, and not the real world, but it's a fun world. In little cicero land there is no hate, and I'm surrounded by socialists whom I may debate at every turn.
LC, it is _not_ my observation that the most inhibited folks are "not into bondage"--I speak of the basic handcuffy type, not the exotic kinky types, and I speak of desire/affinity for, rather than necessarily taking part in (which strong will/moral beliefs can prevent, even if the desire is there).
Your leathers thing is only going to give people who think you are a closet-case more ammo--you'd best be glad most people aren't reading this string anymore ; P !
I did assume as such before cracking that joke. My humor has had bumpy travels on this blog in the past!
Post a Comment