Tag Archives: sexuality

Notable News: Week of June 23-29, 2012

Posted by Amy in Cool Stuff, News and tagged with , ,

Good stuff this week!  Follow-up to the bullying incident from last week; a great blog post from a friend; and more good stuff from Rachel Held Evans.  Enjoy!

1. People respond to the bullying in a loving way that shows care and concern for everyone.

Yeah, I really love my friends.  This is just one example of why I feel so blessed by the people in my life.  If something happens to my kids, or if they do something stupid, this is a family I know has my back.  They’re on at about 1:20.

2. Response to my musings on the “sex is bad” thing.

A friend left this wonderful blog post in the comments section and I want to be sure others have the chance to see it.  I love the generous, open, caring way she highlights the problem.  Be sure to read both this one and the one she links to in the text.

3. Coming Out Christian

Check out this terrific guest post on Rachel Held Evans’ blog.  I’ve been saying for a long time that we need to hear each other’s stories in a safe place.  We do need to listen and we do need to keep our hearts open.

Vacation here I come!

A Work of Art

Posted by Amy in Arts and tagged with , , , ,

This week, my daughter and I have been studying art history and styles.  On Thursday, the theme was sculpture.  We read a book about famous sculptures around the world.  For the most part, the book was very good.  In fact, I only had one problem with the book.

The photo of Michelangelo’s David.

Apparently, this book was written by people who think that children are going to be ruined for life if they see naked people.  Although the book showed every other sculpture in its entirety (and the ornate Shrine of the Three Kings in great detail), David was shown only in parts, like so:

Why?

It’s not that there wasn’t room, or even that it was more important to show the details of the sculpture.  The other works were shown in full, with individual parts highlighted.  Why didn’t this, possibly the most famous sculpture in Western art, receive the same treatment?

Are we that afraid that our kids are going to see a penis?  What do we think might happen if they do?

This is art.  Michelangelo didn’t create this piece for the purpose of creating sexual arousal.  The human body is extraordinarily beautiful, something captured fully in this wonderful sculpture.  I am not worried that my children will be damaged by admiring it.  I’m not even worried that their curiosity about the human form might be piqued, or that they might giggle a little and point out that David’s private parts aren’t covered up.  It provides an opportunity to talk to them.  Seeing a naked statue doesn’t offend me.

Refusing to acknowledge it does.

We live in a world where the human form has become so sexualized that women are told to cover up when they breastfeed in public and David is shown in pieces to avoid revealing his naughty bits. Modesty has been reduced to a list of inappropriate clothing items.  We have to do a better job!  We need to make a better distinction between what is done for the purpose of inducing sexual arousal and that which is done for the purpose of nurturing a child, creating a work of great art, or expressing one’s unique self.  The former is known as pornography; the latter is not.

Next time I check out a book on sculpture for my kids, I’m going to make sure that David is shown in all his magnificent beauty.

Aren’t We Forgetting Something?

Posted by Amy in Sexuality and tagged with ,

Whenever we have “Biblical” or “Christian” discussions about sexuality, there are inevitably some people who are left out:

1. People in relationships with someone of the same sex.

I understand that this can be tricky in non-affirming churches.  Even so, the message is essentially limited to, “Don’t do that.”  I honestly can’t imagine what it would be like to hear a three-week sermon series on Biblical sex which doesn’t resemble my own experiences, and on the rare occasion that it’s supposed to, it still doesn’t.  Ethical sexuality doesn’t have to be so specific to twenty-first century American male-female relationships.  At the very least, we ought to be expanding our discussions around the topic.

2. People who don’t have typical gender roles in their relationships or are non-gender-conforming.

We make this assumption when we say, “Men are like…and women are like…”  I’ve heard it excused by saying, “But most people relate to this analogy!”  Yep, and most people is not the same as all people.  It’s offensive when it is done regarding race or ethnicity, why isn’t it the same when it comes to gender roles?  I had a friend tell me that she is the “man” in her marriage because she enjoys sex more often than her husband.  No, honey, you’re not.  You’re a confident, sexy woman who appreciates her body and enjoys sex.  Nothin’ wrong with that at all.  Standing up in front of the congregation and giving men a list of things they should do to make their wives happy isn’t a good idea.  The reverse is also true.  Why doesn’t anyone ever just say, “Find out what your spouse likes and make the effort to grow together?”  It seems like that would eliminate nearly all of the issues.

3. People who are transgender.

Yep, I’m going there.  I don’t know what that would be like, but I’ve seen how transgender folks are treated by clergy (I posted about it before).  I don’t have anything productive to say about it, just that having at least some awareness around the issue might be helpful.  A basic understanding of biology and genetics would be good, too.

4. People with different cultural backgrounds.

That might be surprising, but it’s true.  When I was in training as a health educator, we talked about how much of health education assumes a white, male, American-born perspective.  The problem is that there are underlying cultural norms within other communities which affect the lens through which people see.  What works in one situation (a predominantly white middle-class suburb) would not work in another (fill in the blank).  A blanket statement about “what the Bible says” isn’t necessarily helpful because it doesn’t eliminate those cultural overlays.

When I mentioned all of this to my husband, he said that one place to start might be a simple change in phrasing.  Instead of saying, “Men are…women are…” we could say, “In my relationship…”  Making it specific to ourselves allows people to put themselves in our places.  For example, if a pastor says, “Men, bring your wives flowers for no reason,” he could change it to, “My wife loves when I bring her flowers for no reason.”  My husband knows there is little I dislike more than 1. surprises and 2. flowers.  But hearing how our pastor and his wife show each other love creates space for us to say, “What would it take for me to show love to you?”  It creates conversation rather than missives.

I believe the same applies in sexual ethics.  By putting ourselves in the story, we can help others put themselves in their own stories.  I think it might help when it comes to questions of purity, too.  Instead of listing the twenty reasons to abstain, why not tell us your own story?  Let us use our creative minds to understand how you felt, what you went through, and what the outcome was.  Tell us how it affected you.  Use Scripture, certainly, but show us how your faith and your understanding of Scripture affected you.  Then let us place ourselves in the narrative.  It’s a stretch.  But as Carl Rogers said, “What is most personal is most general.“  That which we feel and think deeply, our own experiences, resonate much more than attempting to speak to the middle, generalizing to the greatest number of people.

Under Lock and Key

Posted by Amy in Sexual Morality, Women and tagged with ,

So I know I’ve already had one post about this topic this week, but thanks to an email I received the other day, I’m back to it again.  After reading the email, I resisted the urge to rip my hair out at the roots.  Instead, here is part of the text, with my comments interspersed:

I have a friend named Paul who told me about the wedding of his daughter.  He said that part of the wedding ceremony was the passing on of a single gold key on a necklace.  When his daughter was a young girl, just entering puberty, Paul gave her a gold key on a chain.  He also bought one for himself.  He told her that he wanted her to wear the gold key around her neck to represent her commitment to sexual purity.  That she would remain a virgin until marriage, guarding herself from any form of sexual expression or experience that would dishonor God and be harmful to herself.  And then He would wear one around his neck as well to reflect his commitment to guard and protect her as her father.

Does anyone else find this kind of…creepy?  I am all for parents protecting their children.  But I do not—NOT—want my daughter to pledge her virginity to her father.  If she chooses to pledge her purity to anyone, it ought to be God.  And while I applaud parents who care about their children, I don’t think this is the way to do show it.  Parents should have open communication with their kids, not superficial pledges based in patriarchal customs.  Not to mention how weird it makes me feel that a father would have this conversation with his prepubescent daughter.

And protect her he did!  They had a rule that before a boy could take her out on a date, he had to meet Paul and ask his permission, which weeded out more than its fair share of suitors.  Those young men willing to meet him were engaged in a conversation that would involve Paul talking to the boy about the key.  He would tell them how precious his daughter was to him, how prized she was in his eyes and in God’s.  And then he would ask the boy point blank:  can I trust you with my daughter?

Again, yay for the parent meeting potential dates.  It’s a good idea to know who your kid spends time with.  Not so yay for the creepy stalker behavior and talking to people you (or your kid) may not know very well about her virginity.

At her wedding, here’s what happened.  She gave him her key back, representing that she had fulfilled her pledge to remain a virgin until marriage.  Because she had.  And then, as part of the ceremony, she publicly thanked him for how he had raised her, because now she was giving the most precious gift she could give to her husband.  Then Paul took the key off of his own neck, and gave it to her husband, saying that now the mantle of protection and integrity was his responsibility.

Aaargh!  Aaargh!  Aaargh!  “Her most precious gift”?????  I really, really hope that young woman had something to bring to her marriage besides her lack of sexual experience.  Because if that’s the best she can give her husband, that marriage is doomed.  And if her husband would have rejected her because of her past, then he has issues, too.  Ugh.  Don’t even get me started on the passing of the key representing how her husband now “owns” her and is responsible for not only protecting her (whatever that’s supposed to mean) but for her integrity.  Last I checked, my integrity rests on my shoulders.

It also occurs to me that the creepy factor has not disappeared at the wedding.  Why, oh why, does this father have anything whatsoever to do with his adult daughter’s state of virginity?  I would hazard a guess that the bride is still fairly young (I honestly can’t see a thirty-five-year-old woman not demanding that key back ages ago).  But I’m sure (well, I’m hoping, anyway) that she’s over eighteen, probably somewhat older.  So what the heck is Dear Old Dad still doing protecting her purity?  I don’t believe that it’s his business anymore.

Of course, I should note that I think this particular story is an urban legend, Christian-style.  I know that people actually do this sort of thing, but this specific story just sounds like the sort of drivel that gets shared in spammy emails, but isn’t factual.  It’s meant to have the same effect as all urban legends: To teach us some moral lesson.  I want to believe that this purity pledge culture means well.  I really do.  Except that it all just comes across as closer to “your cow for my daughter” than helping young people navigate their relationships.  This is a side effect of some of the other things I’ve talked about this week—idolizing virginity, the male gaze, and double standards for men and women.  Is this the message we want to send to our children?

The problem with things like the purity rings or the “sex key” is that they stand as an external measure of someone’s worth.  That daughter only has value as long as she keeps her key on and her legs together.  I know parents want to look out for their kids and want them to make good decisions.  But in this case, should that daughter lose her virginity before she’s married, she loses much more than that.  She loses at least some of her worth before her father.  If you think I’m exaggerating, try again.  I’ve seen it happen.

What’s sad about that is that it isn’t an accurate representation of the way God deals with us.  We never lose worth in God’s eyes.  I may not like some things my kids do.  But I will never, ever extract a promise to “be good” regarding any behavior.  And should either of my children have sex before marriage, I will consider it a) their choice, not mine, and b) not my business, as it’s between them and their partner (and God).

I see no support in the Bible for this purity culture crap.  I have nothing at all against waiting for sex until marriage.  I support it.  I commend it.  But pledging to one’s parent to remain a virgin isn’t in Scripture.  I see no evidence that this is how we should treat our daughters.  (Or our sons, for that matter.  I can’t envision myself exchanging purity rings with mine.)  Instead, we should be helping our children—both boys and girls—make healthy, wise, moral decisions in their lives.  We should be empowering them to trust God and make their commitments to God, not to us.  And that’s something you actually can find in the Bible.

Microwave Meals for One

Posted by Amy in Sexuality, Women and tagged with ,

Here’s another great video from Amplify Your Voice:

I don’t know about other women, but I am done with hearing about what men and women are like…from men. Gentlemen, listen up, because I think you may have a thing or two to learn about women.

You know that whole microwave-crock pot crap? Throw it out the window. I just know that was a metaphor conceived by a man. (I could be really mean here, but I will restrain myself.) Chalk this up to the Mars and Venus phenomenon. Remember when that was all the rage? Although it went a long way toward helping men and women understand each other, I think we’ve made too much of it.

Aside from the fact that I don’t like to be compared to a kitchen appliance, I dislike the analogy on several fronts. First, it displays a clear misunderstanding of female sexual arousal. There’s an underlying assumption that women won’t be interested unless they’ve had flowers, chocolate, and wine first. I’m guessing that a lot of men have no idea how many of their wives get hot from peeking at them in the shower…Second, it assumes men wouldn’t want anything to do with romance or foreplay and would prefer five minutes of fun and a nap. That’s super, but they can achieve that on their own. There’s a reason they choose to be with someone else that I’m willing to bet goes beyond mere getting off. Third, it’s not very helpful in cultivating a healthy physical relationship between married couples. Besides reminding us that we’re different and that we have to “understand” each other, exactly what does it do to promote that understanding? I’ve only ever heard that analogy used by men to justify why they need their wives to “put out,” like the microwave is going to get cranky if you use the stove. Yeah, that’s a metaphor that can be taken too far.

I’m going to propose a few things that I think might put us on the right track:

1. Put down the kitchen appliance and back away slowly. If you are a pastor and you really, truly feel compelled to give a sermon about sex, just skip this analogy, please. In fact, I would like it if you just stayed out of our bedrooms entirely. I secretly throw up a little in my mouth every time I hear a sermon on “Biblical sex” anyway.

2. Specifically, keep Pastor Mark Driscoll out of our bedrooms. Couples: Do yourselves a favor and skip the books that talk about having healthy intimacy. If you need a book, get a nice how-to.

3. Better yet, skip all of that and just talk to each other about it.

4. Nobody likes microwave dinners unless you’re alone. (And yes, you can read into that whatever you like.)

Double Standards and Wedding Cake

Posted by Amy in Sexual Morality, Sexuality, Women and tagged with , ,

I wrote yesterday about the way sexual purity has been idolized, particularly for women.  I want to follow that up, because there is still something bothering me.

Many years ago, long before I was married, my friends and I discovered something interesting.  One of the young women I knew back then had ended up broken-hearted after a relationship ended.  He didn’t just cause her pain by leaving her.  He ripped out her heart, stomped on it, and left it a bloody pulp.  He utterly crushed her by making her feel dirty and damaged.  He had found out that she wasn’t a virgin and told her he couldn’t be with someone who wasn’t pure.  But even worse, he confessed later that he himself was sexually experienced.

Talk about a double standard.

I decided that this would make interesting “research.”  I wondered if this was a common perspective among males.  Did they all want the same thing?  I questioned both my male and female friends on the subject and found some not-so-surprising results.  Nearly every guy I asked said they would either not want to marry a woman if she weren’t a virgin or would have serious reservations.  This included involuntary sexual activity.  There were only two exceptions.  One said he couldn’t justify being judgmental because he had already had sex.  The other was gay.

On the flip side, the majority of women said they didn’t really care.  They figured that what was in the past was behind them, and as long as he wasn’t pressuring them, it wasn’t a problem.  Only those who had the most fundamentalist worldview preferred the idea of marrying a man with no prior sexual activity.  Now, this is only anecdotal, and my sample was limited to my own friends and acquaintances.  It was fascinating nonetheless, and I have a feeling it wouldn’t be much different among other Christian populations.

In yesterday’s post, I reviewed some common metaphors used in abstinence-based education.  They were all about damage: The wedding cake, demolished flower, chewed candy, spit-filled cup.  Obviously, the aim is to demonstrate how a girl or woman has been forever ruined by her sexual history.

Wait…but the guy wouldn’t be “ruined”?!  So, he could be forgiven of his indiscretion, and he could move on, but she would have to live with the shame and guilt forever.  There is definitely something wrong with that.  Female virginity is still seen as a prize, and men who don’t get to claim it should be sorely disappointed.  But male virginity isn’t important, at least in the long-term.

One thing I’ve turned up is that there is a difference in what we consider the Big Sex Evil when it comes to men and women.  Men are often shamed for their “lust.”  You can see the evidence for this with a simple Google search.  There are literally thousands of web sites devoted to discussing, preventing, and treating lust (usually described in terms of porn and solo sex).  If men give in to their desires, it’s almost considered inevitable, given the fact that “all” men have issues with lust.  (Apparently, women don’t; we don’t have much a sex drive.)

Those aforementioned sermon illustrations, however, are obviously aimed at women (picking the petals off a flower and saying its beauty has been destroyed, anyone?).  I don’t personally know any men who are ashamed that they had sex before marriage, even Christian men.  I know far too many women who still, years later, beat themselves up over not waiting until walking down the aisle.  Included in this are the women who feel the need to excuse or explain the fact that their children are older than their marriages, despite the fact that it’s really not anyone else’s business.  I haven’t seen any men try to field that particular question.

One key difference between lust-shame and virginity-shame is that men aren’t considered damaged goods if they got off to Playboy.  They’re not all used up.  Again, men get to move on.  There may be ongoing shame, but only if they continue to interact with porn.  But once a woman’s virginity is gone, it’s gone.

I don’t think the answer is to make it more shameful for men to have premarital sex or for women to look at porn.  The answer is to stop using it as a weapon.  While I’m all for having morals and values when it comes to sex, I’m not much of a fan of using purity standards (of any kind) as a battle-ax.  I believe somewhere out there is a better way for us to think about and deal with sexual morality.

The Purity Idol

Posted by Amy in Sexual Morality, Sexuality and tagged with , ,

I want to begin by making it very clear that I am not advocating for sin, nor am I suggesting anyone revise their opinion about what is or isn’t sin.  Here, I am going to focus on how we’ve turned purity into an idol.

I recently read a comment on another blog post where someone was describing a youth group activity about virginity.  The students were shown a wedding-style cake.  The girls were sent from the room, but the boys remained.  The boys were instructed to dive in and enjoy the cake.  When the girls returned, the experience was compared to what it’s like if a guy “takes” a girl’s virginity before she’s married.  She becomes like that cake, utterly destroyed.  She is “damaged goods.”

It’s not the only lesson illustration of its kind.  Other common teaching tools for “purity” education include partially chewed candy or gum, previously licked lollipops, roses with the petals torn off, cups of spit.  You can see some of them in this video:

(You can see more videos on abstinence-only sex education from Amplify Your Voice here.)

We have definitely made an idol of virginity, particularly for women.  We even deliver retroactive guilt—people are shamed for having had sex before marriage even when they weren’t Christians at the time.  I can recall the popularity of virginity renewal pledges and all the talk about how we could become spiritually pure again if we had committed such a grave crime against God.

What would happen if we placed the same kind of emphasis on shaming people for non-sexual sins?  What if we stopped elevating virginity to the top tier as proof of Christian faith and self-control?  Would it actually lead to less sinful behavior, or would it just increase shame and guilt in other areas of our lives?  How about instead, we stop treating people as if a single event (loss of virginity, in this case) defines the rest of their lives.

All Dressed Up

Posted by Amy in Body Image, Sexuality, Women and tagged with , , ,

Since I’ve already (twice now) addressed the problem of how men treat women, it’s only fair that I make a point about women. While I don’t believe it’s reasonable to blame women for male shortcomings, it’s equally unfair to blame men for the things women do.

I don’t get my panties in a bunch because a woman wore a low-cut blouse or showed a lot of leg. I think this is because I have a much more narrow definition of lust than most conservative people. Conservative Christians often define lust much too broadly, allowing it to encompass absolutely everything that even remotely seems “dirty.” That may be why we’re so anxious to absolve men of their “problem” by pointing fingers at women and what they are wearing. Let’s face it, this issue has been around since forever, and what women are wearing isn’t what drives it. If it were, then we should have no problem with cultures that expect women to be covered head-to-toe. I strongly suspect that it wouldn’t matter if some women wore sweat pants and didn’t wash their hair for a week. There are still men who would try to make a case that they’re using “pheromones” or something to attract men because they don’t cover up their natural scent.

That said, I do think modesty is important. But I don’t mean in the sense that girls and women should just “cover up.” (Because I think it’s perfectly acceptable to wear shorts to the gym or a bathing suit to the beach.) I mean in the sense of how she herself treats her body and how she treats men. Immodesty comes more from motivation than from the garment in question. I’ve seen women look immodest in t-shirts while others look appropriate in above-the-knee skirts and low necklines. But somehow, we’ve cultivated the bizarre idea that the percentage of flesh showing is directly proportional to the degree of sluttiness possessed by the woman.

This is the very same stupid logic that leads people to claim that public breastfeeding is improper. The idea that there is a nipple somewhere under that baby’s lips, and that a little flesh might show around the baby’s head, is just plain horrifying to some people. The irony isn’t lost on me that in cultures requiring head coverings, public breastfeeding is relatively common and no one blinks.

We’ve grown into a society that values women for their looks. From an early age, girls are coached on how to look good. Young girls are encouraged to look (and dress) like little adults, and adult women are encouraged to look like prepubescent girls. We’re all supposed to base our self-worth on how pretty our faces are and how thin our bodies are. Is it any wonder that so many women and girls dress themselves in ways supposedly designed to make men drool? We’re taught to believe that our value rests on whether or not we can successfully catch (and keep) a man.

Strangely, culture has become fixated on the most fleeting of female traits, her physical appearance, and has dictated which characteristics are the most attractive. What we are to find beautiful today will change tomorrow. And the other side effect of all this is to fail to give real men credit for being better than that. We tell them they “can’t help it” when confronted with “hot” women. But the fact that real men are marrying real women betrays the lie. Real men love their significant others for a lot more than what can be seen.

Instead of teaching our daughters that they ought to be careful how much cleavage, back, shoulder, or leg they show, we should be helping them love their bodies no matter what they wear. We’re aiming at the wrong thing. It’s not about trying to figure out where the modesty line is and how not to cross it. It’s about having a healthy concept of ourselves without needing external proof. It’s about dressing for ourselves instead of someone else.

We also need to encourage our daughters to treat their male friends with respect. I know a lovely (read: kind, sweet, charming, intelligent) young woman who has a lot of male friends. They all treat her with respect, even though she is pretty and dresses in ways that flatter her figure. Why? Because she knows the line and doesn’t cross it; because she treats them with respect; because she expects them to return that respect; and because she doesn’t place her worth on whether or not she is dating any of them.

It’s not an insurmountable problem. For every degrading beer commercial, there is a woman striving to help us become body-confident and see ourselves in a positive way regardless of our shape. If you’re a woman in the business of helping other women love and respect their bodies, I’d love to hear from you. Let’s raise a generation of young women who don’t buy into the commercialization and exploitation of their bodies.

Lead Me On

Posted by Amy in Sexual Morality, Sexuality, Women and tagged with , ,

Our sexual ethics need to begin with respect, and that respect needs to begin with viewing others as living, breathing beings, not objects.

I’ve posted about this before (and you can read it here and here), but I think this is a subject worth revisiting: How men treat women based on standards of modesty.  I’m taking another shot at it because a) I can; and b) I apparently didn’t make myself clear the first two times.

Message for boys and men: I do not care how she is dressed, you have NO EXCUSE WHATSOEVER for not treating a girl or woman with respect.  The old, “If you’re going to dress like that, expect men to treat you a certain way” doesn’t cut it. (And yes, this is what is being taught in many churches as “sex and relationships.”  Trust me, I’ve been there and back.)

I don’t care whether she is a “working girl” or just working in your office.  It makes no difference.  You may feel that she is dressed inappropriately, “leading,” or just downright slutty, but your opinion doesn’t matter.  If you decide that the way she’s dressed is an invitation to grope her, tell her dirty jokes, or suggest things you might do together in bed, you are in dangerous waters, my friend.  Whatever she is doing “wrong” (which may boil down to your own sorry excuses anyway), you had better leave her alone.

For one thing, that’s called sexual harassment and it’s—get this—against the law when it is ongoing or severe, creating a hostile environment.

Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, let’s move on to the concept of being dressed “like that.”  What does that mean?  I’ve asked this before, and I’ve never gotten a straight answer.  I can see how wearing fishnets and a leather miniskirt might be provocative, of course.  But I’ve heard all sorts of ideas about what is or is not acceptably modest on girls and women.  Heck, I’ve been accused of being immodest myself, which ought to make anyone who knows me laugh themselves silly.

So someone, please, tell me what I should have my daughter avoid when she reaches her teen years.  What clothes do I need to ixnay in the store?  Where’s the line between pretty and trashy?  I always thought this was obvious, but I’m hearing differently from some of the boys and men that I know.  And the funny thing is, since my husband and I share an opinion about what we think is okay, then he is clearly not to be trusted either.  So whose advice do I need?

Well, guess what?  I’m putting my foot down.  I’m saying right here and now that I will allow my daughter to dress the way I believe is appropriate.  And if any boy harasses her, she has my permission to punch him in the teeth.  (Those of you who know my daughter personally will have no trouble imagining her doing this.  I’ve always maintained that she’s going to be the one to screen her brother’s potential dates, not the other way around.  In fact, I think I’m going to send her as a chaperone.)

Beyond that, I’m going to demand that we stop telling our sons that it’s wrong to ogle girls, but that if they dress like sluts, then we understand that they couldn’t help themselves.  You know what?  Shut up about that already.  We get it.  Some girls and women don’t know how to be modest.  Fine.  We’ll work on that.  And yeah, we get it that your eyes and your penis (yes, I said it, so sue me) are directly connected.  (You keep reminding us of this, how could we forget?)  However, there are no other circumstances where we tell people it’s okay to sin if you were “provoked” into it.  It’s damn well NOT okay and we all know it, even if it has to do with sex.  Stop blaming women for being whores and start teaching boys how to act like gentlemen.

Nurture

Posted by Amy in Parenting, Sexuality and tagged with ,

I’m not exactly sure why this was on my mind today.  Maybe it’s because our state just legalized same-sex marriage, and I’m considering the future that my kids’ generation has ahead.  Maybe it’s the venom with which I’ve heard people talking about it and the push to attend protests.  I don’t know.  Whatever it is, I began thinking about the way in which people like to categorize, stereotype, and affix blame when it comes to homosexuality.

Let’s fast-forward and imagine we’ve woken up with my kids being teenagers.  If you (and by “you,” I don’t mean all of my friends; but you know who you are) found out that my daughter was a lesbian, you might have a lot of reactions to that.  You might feel sorry for me.  You might say “tsk” and shake your head at my wayward daughter.  You might try to reassure me that it’s just a phase, or that girls sometimes like to “experiment” and that she’ll out grow it.  You might offer to pray for me.

The one thing you wouldn’t do is blame me.

In part, that’s because my daughter isn’t a “gay stereotype.”  She is hardly the tomboy, aggressive, unfeminine kind of girl people might imagine when they think of lesbians.  My daughter is a girlie girl.  She is bubbly and feminine (although she is outspoken).  Almost all of her toys can be found in the “girls” section of Toys R Us.  Even when she wears her brother’s outgrown clothes, she has to decorate them with something pink or purple.  She would rather wear dresses than pants (which is a source of annoyance int the winter, as she hates tights).  Although she’s not interested in dolls, she loves to be mommy to her stuffed animal friends and dress them up in doll clothes.  Because of preconceived notions about gender and sex, it would probably come as  big surprise if she came out.

I wouldn’t be so lucky if it were my son.

How do I know this?  Because it’s a message I’ve heard over and over.  Because my son doesn’t fit the socially accepted norms for “real” male behavior.  Because my husband and I have allowed or even encouraged him to participate in activities that some people think are not appropriate.

Time and again I’ve had to listen to people say that if a boy grows up and “turns gay,” it’s because his parents got something wrong.  Most often, it’s that he’s a mommy’s boy with a “helicopter” or overbearing mother and an absentee or abusive father.  When that reason doesn’t fit, then it becomes about the parents failing to push their son toward appropriately manly activities, such as sports, cars, tools, and Star Wars.  Not to mention the horrors of letting him play with a doll!

I read a line in a book the other day, something about a kid “dancing to music of his own soundtrack” (I don’t have it exactly right, but that’s the gist).  That describes my kid.  He is the kind of boy who likes what he likes and cares very little if other boys (or girls, even) agree.  J is the kind of boy who likes to paint his toenails red and spike his hair with blue gel; write for hours in his notebook; build pretend roller coasters out of Hot Wheels track; draw comics about the Adventures of Soy Bean; play Polly Pockets with his sister and her friends; and yes, dance to his own soundtrack.  He isn’t into sports, doesn’t much like play fighting, and cares very little for Star Wars.  And no, not one of those things about him is an indication that he will someday be gay.

Yet if he were, there are plenty of people who would point right back to his childhood and accuse us of being responsible on account of our parenting.

We allow our daughter to be exactly who she is.  If it were up to me, I would push her to play soccer and make her wear pants all winter.  I simply don’t get the whole dress thing, since I would rather wear almost anything else.  In the same way, we are allowing our son to express himself.  We don’t force him to take dance, he enjoys it, is good at it, and asks every year to continue.  How is that any different from what we do with our daughter?

All I want is for my kids to grow up to be who they were meant to be, without the intrusion of unwelcome gender norming.