That last line is a classic!

I envy you. I'm 68 and have had some good sex, but never with a wife. I think it was just the wrong early experiences and attitude. All the stuff about gay experience is true. Iv'e had a lot approaches and never got exorcised about it. One friend used to hit on me all the time. I just told him I might switch so I had to decline. Anyway that was a good article. I,m just envious.

Stephen,

At the risk at opening myself up to all sorts of unfounded psychoanalysis, I have to say that I think you miss the point, although it's right there infront of you. You write:

"What we're doing – or not doing – reflects directly on our own value systems."

Yes, which is why David Brooks writes:

"Anybody who has several sexual partners in a year is committing spiritual suicide."

It's his opinion, and it strikes me as being offered in a more advisory than condemnatory way. There's no mention of Hell, and there's no mention of earthly condemnation from human to human. Be that as it might, I haven't gotten the impression that Prof. Reynolds is, or would claim to be, a spiritual person. If somebody believes spirituality to be more important than variegated sexuality, then, well, neither you nor Reynolds has done a whit to prove that person wrong.

But how we address those who disagree with us also says something about our value systems. Why do you put "surprising amount of hatemail" in quotes? Mr. Reynolds didn't use those words. He also doesn't offer the religion of his correspondents, or even whether their arguments were religiously founded. More importantly, he says there were "a few," not an inbox-filling amount.

But Lord save us from those "angry" people who come unhinged and spew forth such hateful rhetoric as "I don't agree with you at all!" With an exclamation point, even!

As it happens, I agree with you that "It is possible to have a healthy libido and a clean conscience at the same time." Of course, it depends how you exercise your libido and what your conscience has been formed to filter out. Surely it's not hateful of somebody, even a dreaded God-fearing Christian, to suggest that some forms of conscience are only painted over and some libidos are a bit too healthy.

Sorry. One edit:

"If somebody believes spirituality to be more important than and at odds with variegated sexuality, then, well, neither you nor Reynolds has done a whit to prove that person wrong."

You and Instapundit waste a lot of breath missing the point.

Fornication and adultery are immoral. That's a rational and pretty conventional belief for anyone familiar with Western moral traditions, and still uncontroversial in many circles. Subscribing to that tenet, or rejecting it, is entirely a matter of free will. But affirming it requires only faith and reason, and has nothing whatsoever to do with psychology, mental illness, hating or fearing sex, hating or fearing women or men, denying that one finds pleasure in sex, being angered that others find pleasure in sex, wanting to control anybody or caring what anybody else does with their bodies.

The comment by David Brooks that provoked this whole exchange did not even condemn all sex outside marriage, only "several sexual partners in a year," which out to qualify as promiscuity in anybody's book.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Nonsense J.A.M., Brooks said that any relationship other than a monogamous married one, was "an abomination." It's right there in the op-ed. And that's the difference between Stephen's paean's to marriage, which intrigue me and Brook's which was offputting and offensive.

Stephen, I think you'd agree you're a better person because you're happier. I think a person's better off if they've found someone that completes them. Sex is one aspect of that completion.

On a side note, a commenter to my post noticed that the most fascinating aspect to the blogosphere's reaction to Brooks' column isn't that he's calling for legalized gay marriage.

Brooks' brave piece is beautifully written and argued, even if one is not entirely persuaded that marriage can be redefined to include persons of the same sex. Do read it. What he calls an "abomination" is the "culture of contingency" in the sphere of " intimate and sacred relations." That is hardly a broad-stroke condemnation of every non-marital relationship. But he is pointing out, quite correctly, the personal and social harm that is caused by contemporary nonchalance about promiscuity, cohabitation and serial marriages. Sometimes we need to be told the truth, even if it's off-putting.

Glenn Reynolds: Sex God?

Re: "better person because he is married"

If you're doing it right, you should try to be a better person, precisely because you are married. The covenant of marriage works best when one puts the relationship before personal wants, much of the time, though not all the time; this is the minefield that causes so much grief for people. Finding a balance there is not easy.

I've been on both sides of this fence - the "better person because I'm married" side is by far the best. Where is the downside? Admitting that sometimes I might have been too self-centered before? Well, duh! My life now is so much better than it was 10 years ago, I give thanks every day. I am very lucky.

And I work hard to stay lucky.

And by the way, being married with no kids is a completely different kettle of fish vs. being married with kids. So it is with the sacrifices required. Call me back in 15 years when you've had 3 kids and various life crises, and we'll see if you have changed or not. One of the best gifts you can give your kids is a strong marriage built on trust and respect.

TO: Stephen Green
RE: Please Pardon My Blatantly 'Hateful Rhetoric'....

...but "I don't agree with you at all!" [Note: Exlamation point, included]

MY...is disagreement now considered a 'hate crime'? Well, I'm in it up to my neck because I {shudder} 'disagreed' with someone in another thread hereabouts. Something about al Qaeda's change in strategy.

Oh well...in for a penny...

Funny how bad manners is now a federal felony. I guess that's why we're so busy building all those new prisons, neh?

RE: Sarcasm Asside

"...the simple act of marriage says nothing about a person, other than they were able to get some other person to marry them." -- Stephen Green

The 'act of marriage' is hardly 'simple'. Not to mention the act of divorce. As some wag put it, "Marriage is grand. Divorce is a hundred grand."

I won't begin to go into all the psychological aspects of marriage, but did you say anything along the lines of...

"...to love, honor, cherish..." and/or "...for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health...til death you do part"?

The point being that whatever vows you exchanged those are supposed to be kept. Now, if you think that is 'simple', you've got a lot of learn'n young'n.

Or do the words you spoke to your bride and she to you mean 'nothing'? If so, you may as well be Emporer Ming the Merciless in Flash.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Those who talk most about the blessings of marriage and the constancy of its vows are the very people who declare that if the chain were broken and the prisoners left free to choose, the whole social fabric would fly asunder. -- George Bernard Shaw ]

I guess George never saw the sorry state of inner city family life in America of late.

Andy, over at WWR, doesn't seem to see any correlation between morals and the rise in various bad statistics. But he's young too. He probably can't remember a time when killings in high school were not a problem. I, on the other hand, remember the biggest problem at my high school was smoking in the boys room and the occassional dead cat found on the school lawn before the annual cross-town rivalry football game. [Go Bearkats!]

"Anybody who has several sexual partners in a year is committing spiritual suicide."

Die spirit! Dieeee! ;)

And how does one know when the deed, i.e. spiritual suicide, is complete?

All the way back j.a.m. (not dowdifying):

"Fornication and adultery are immoral...Subscribing to that tenet, or rejecting it, is entirely a matter of free will. But affirming it requires only faith and reason"

No argument on adultery, which is a violation of the marriage oath. But as far as fornication (sex between people who are not married to each other), I think it's fair to say that assertions offered without evidence (only 'faith and reason') can be dismissed without evidence.

I mean, it's a whole other topic, but what adult would want to marry a virgin? No fornication - well hell, why don't you just join the work force without an education? Start playing concerts without practicing your instrument! But who am I to know, I mean, marriages never fail because of sexual unhappiness, right?

I will simply say to you what I wrote to Reynolds:

Brooks' point was that such people commit spiritual suicide. And you confirmed it. Can you name anyone less spiritually sincere, faith filled, or graceful than yourself?

Thos words aren't hammers, but simple facts about your manner of life and thinking. You admit yourself that you have no spirituality, faith, or grace as a foundation to your being. You have, in effect, committed spiritual suicide.

TO: Damien
RE: When Indeed...

"And how does one know when the deed, i.e. spiritual suicide, is complete?" -- Damien

...a parable.

Once I had a summer job hanging gutter on houses.

The guy I worked for didn't teach me what I needed to know in order to do the job properly. The owner of the company didn't spend a lot of time on the job-sites.

One day the owner asked me about why I was doing such shoddy work. I explained to him that no one had shown me how to do it otherwise.

He proceeded to instruct me. From there I learned how to do it as he expected it to be done. And I did it properly from then on...much to his satisfaction.

Maybe the problem has to do with 'education'?

So when does one complete 'spiritual death'?

Perhaps when they no longer have the opportunity to learn any better. It can be either incidental or intentional.

You willing to learn better?

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Besides the cliché about gay bars having the best music (and they usually do), I also found I never got carded in one, way back before my 21st birthday. Thanks, gay guys, for all those free drinks in the late '80s, and for always understanding that my "no" meant "no."

LOL, and I thought I was cheap...

Jeff Brokaw wrote: Call me back in 15 years when you've had 3 kids and various life crises, and we'll see if you have changed or not.

Er...I guess Stephen and Melissa do plan to have kids, and best wishes to them if they do. But I thought I'd take this opportunity to point out that breeding is, as of yet, not mandatory.

Neither is marriage. I'm not particularly keen on sharing my living quarters, let alone my life, with anybody. That doesn't mean I intend to remain celibate.

Mark Butterworth wrote: Brooks' point was that such people commit spiritual suicide. And you confirmed it. Can you name anyone less spiritually sincere, faith filled, or graceful than yourself?

I can't speak for Stephen or anyone else, but I'm one of the least spiritual people you'll ever meet...and it doesn't bother me one whit. As far as "faith filled"...that doesn't bother me, either. I'm not really into investing lots of energy believing things that can neither be proven nor disproven.

Thos [sic] words aren't hammers, but simple facts about your manner of life and thinking.

"Facts"? According to whom? Maybe they're facts to you, Brooks, Chuck Pelto, et al., but they're not facts to me, or to anyone else who doesn't put all that much stock in religious prohibitions against non-marital sex...any more than the Bible is "factual" to an agnostic like me.

You admit yourself that you have no spirituality, faith, or grace as a foundation to your being. You have, in effect, committed spiritual suicide.

Again, this assumes one values "spirituality, faith, or grace" as a "foundation to [one's] being." I don't. I value, among other things, reason, responsibility, intellectual curiosity, and pleasure, including the sensual pleasures.

Your argument, like Brooks', is no more than an imposition of your values onto others with the rather arrogant assumption that such values are "self-evident." They're not evident at all to me.

In the spirit of only wanting to masturbate until I need glasses, can I just get enough sex to attempt to commit spiritual suicide?

"I like sex a lot" That's like saying water's wet. It's such an obvious thing I'm surprised the wowsers and Anti-Fun Brigade even noticed. What planet are they from? Mail me, you boring bastards!

Of course sex is fun you were designed that way. The designer instituted marriage not to deny you that pleasure but because He cares for you. You admitt that your relationship with your wife is special compared to casual sex. He didn't want you to bring baggage to your marriage. If your daughter was waiting for the results of her early pregnancy test to show, would you want her to wait having a husband she knew would be thrilled or wondering what the last name of the father was and if he gave her anything else besides the baby? The idea that the institute of marriage will cause gays to be monogamus is a hoot. It will only make lawyers more money.

God(s) where created by early man (persons?) to explain the capricious acts of fate. Organized religion was then created to control people (disagree with god and we’ll burn you), organized them (republicans) and to some degree civilize them. I cannot believe that we are still so infatuated with our cultural fairytales. We all like sex because the people who did not like sex have been bred out of existence. Those that don’t like it typically have emotional problems (including religious dogma) or are mutants (no need to applaud). Time to grow up you homo’s (homosapiens) god will not save you, stop global warming, fix your problems or smite the infidels. It’s up to each one of us, individually and collectively, to make our world a better place for ourselves, our children and all the other poor suckers who lost the birth lottery (Rwanda, Alabama you know born in ignorance and poverty (you can thank me now for drawing fire)) and don’t stand a chance. Sex an abomination, oh please, let’s move on to something important…

Holy sh*t, Steve, just shine the light and watch the roaches come out. How the hell can a consensual act between two adults that doesn't involve fraud or force be immoral? Seriously, what is it that scares you people so much?

"Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."

H.L. Mencken

TO: Hilary
RE: Well...

"God(s) where created by early man (persons?) to explain the capricious acts of fate. Organized religion was then created to control people (disagree with god and we’ll burn you), organized them (republicans) and to some degree civilize them. I cannot believe that we are still so infatuated with our cultural fairytales." -- Hilary

...since you brought it up.

If you're speaking from ignorance, I can understand your perspective. Lots of people are ignorant. However, if you've ever experienced it, you wouldn't be ignorant.

TO: Jay
RE: How Indeed

"How the hell can a consensual act between two adults that doesn't involve fraud or force be immoral? Seriously, what is it that scares you people so much?" -- Jay

I think it has something to do with what's the motivation?

If you can look into your heart and see whether it's all about YOU verses all about the other person, you've taken a step in the right direction. But, as we all know, looking into one's heart is not the top priority when trying to score. Oh...but there's a clue....isn't it.

TO: Stephen Green
RE: Those God-Fearing People

"It is possible to have a healthy libido and a clean conscience at the same time – and judging by the emails, some God-fearing people seem to fear that fact more than they fear God, Himself." -- Stephen Green

I kinda doubt your ascertion here. Most everyone I know has got both.

There are some I know who know their limits..."A man's gotta know em..." and they try to stay away from situations that they know will cause them trouble. [Note: A good friend of mine would not participate in a bachelor party for a third good friend; paint-ball o-rama followed by Shotgun Willies.]

Then there might be some people who are having problems. [Note: Don't we all have problems? Some of us just don't recognize them.] These people might lash out whenever something they encounter triggers their problem.

RE: On the Other Hand...

...Back on the immorality issue.

If you don't believe in God. Well, it's a free country.

However, your blast here strikes me as being a tad beyond mere disagreement over matters of faith. Is it possible that something else has happened? Something we are not aware of ourselves?

This screed looks like someone touched a nerve.

[Note: I regret that I have not read the original NYT thing that Reynolds points to, but I refuse to patronize their site, let alone give them any data about me.]

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The truth is in, the proof is when your heart starts asking, "What's my motivation?" -- Shine by the Newsboys]

"What we're doing – or not doing – reflects directly on our own value systems"

And Brooks is saying that love is so important to one's life and sex such a unique expression of love that love and sex ought properly be an expression of one's highest values, and that to express less is a kind of self mutilation.

Brooks himself soils marriage though when he drags the state into it. It's only in a "marriage of true minds" that one's highest values can be expressed, a piece of paper or the acknowledgment of a community has nothing to do with it.

now if you could only admit you enjoy sex with yourself..

"No, Sean, I think I'm a happier person. "

Why isn't that better? And why are you happier married?

"The mere fact that I'm married doesn't make me a better person than I was, a better person than you, or even a better person than David Brooks."

But consistently expressing one's hightest values through love and sex will tend to result in the marriage of true minds. It doesn't make you better, it's a result of being better.

Not the mere fact

GI Joe,

Next you'll want me to admit I like vodka.

All the hubbub over sex - what a yawn.

Sex is ok, sometimes. Most times there are millions of other things I'd rather do. But no, saying you like sex alot is NOT like saying the water is wet - because not all of us "like it alot".

And yes, I've had lots of sex, with lots of partners, enough to know that the sex I have with my husband is pretty good.

TO: JSB
RE: Ho Hum...

"...the sex I have with my husband is pretty good." -- JSB

Interesting report. I'll refrain from going into details but you have my sympathy.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[When the boys talk of women, what you know you don't tell. -- The Code of the West, Waterhole #3]

TO: Stephen Green
RE: Further Reading

"No, Sean, I think I'm a happier person. The mere fact that I'm married doesn't make me a better person than I was, a better person than you, or even a better person than David Brooks." -- Stephen Green

Actually, the 'mere fact' apparently has SOME kind of affect. You ARE 'happier', as you state. Can you explain why?

As for being a 'better' person....better than what? You were? Someone else? Sean? David?

Please clarify.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Steve and I would have been just as happy if we were living together and not married – we just love being around each other. Being married didn’t make the sex any better – being in love with each other did. We got married because we wanted to, not because we felt we ought to.

I had lots of sex when I was single with lots of different people. Sometimes I had sex with a guy the night I met him and never spoke to him again, sometimes I had sex once in a while with a friend, and sometime I had sex with the same guy for months. Sometimes I loved him, sometimes I thought he was funny, and sometimes he was just really hot. Every time there was something that drew me to him, and I have never felt cheap or used afterwards. It was never a power thing, and it was never a lonely thing. I have never associated my self worth, emotional stability, happiness or capacity for love with sex. I don’t know what my parents did right, but it never occurred to me to compensate for anything that might have been missing in my life with sex.

Steve and I have amazing sex because we have been attracted to each other from the moment we met, and because we know each other so well, just to mention a few reasons. Being in love makes it better, not being married.

How I live my life is based on my own morality...among other things, I don’t hurt people on purpose, and I don’t judge. I believe that if someone thinks something is immoral - THEN THEY SHOULDN’T DO IT. You live your life however you’d like, and I’ll do the same. Whether or not I get into heaven won’t make you get there any faster or with a higher score, so why should it concern you? Concentrate on living your best life, and you’ll be much happier – not to mention how happy it will make everyone else.

Mark – I have never known anyone, other than my grandmother, with more grace than my husband. Perhaps your definition of grace differs (gasp!) from ours?

And Chuck…I, personally, find a dead cat at the hands of high school students MUCH more disturbing than any issues we’re discussing here. Ugh.

The Vodkabride