At least not in the sense of being a material object. But we think about it like it’s a thing, don’t we?
Consider that sex is something people purchase, sell, or use to sell other things. It’s seen as a need, a right, a past-time, or an obsession. It’s used to try to relieve stress, keep a relationship going, or prove something. People crave it, pursue it, run from it, or worship it.
Marriage is no antidote. We’ve heard from many a wife who feels her husband’s primary objective in the bedroom is not closeness with her, but the pleasure he gets from sex. On some level, it’s as though she’s just one of many things he could use.
Whether married, single, man, or woman, most of us can relate with thinking or treating sex like a thing, like an entity unto itself.
But what if we didn’t?
What if we thought about and treated sex not as a thing unto itself, but as a form of love between a husband and wife?
To put this in context, consider other forms of love: listening, writing a note, saying a word of affirmation, sharing with those in need, extending patience, treating with kindness, assuming the best about someone, caring for people when they’re at their worst.
What if we thought about sex along the same lines as we think of these forms of love? How life-giving would that be?
And what if we treated sex as a uniquely powerful, special, and sacred version of these because of its capacity, unlike any other expression of love, to produce a new life, to bring a new person into the world to love?
If we thought about and treated sex this way, it could radically change our world.
Jesus didn’t come to squelch sexual desire. He didn’t come to make us asexual or to sap the pleasure from sex. He has more for us, not less. He came to redeem sexuality, to restore its goodness and beauty.
Invite him to do so. Let’s change the world.
“Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled,” (Hebrews 13:4a).
Question: Do you resonate with the idea that the world treats sex more like a thing than a sacred form of love? Why or why not?
Ready for a change,
“The person is a good towards which the only proper and adequate attitude is love. … the person is the kind of good which does not admit of use and cannot be treated as an object of use and as such the means to an end.” –John Paul II
Thanks, Matt. JP2’s teaching has deeply impacted me and been a significant influence in my own journey.
Many medical books have stated the use of sex as a tension reliever and even offer information about how beneficial sex is to the human body. But where are any substitues mentioned for this kind of beneficial relief for both the male and female when faith practices, church teachings, physical disabilities and bodily infections are removing sex from our choices for both married and unmarried couples? Is celebacy the only solution? Who’s in charge of this new revolution?
I’ve no ability (or desire) to remove sex as a “choice.” And absolutely, sex has many benefits, medical and otherwise. The aim of my post is to highlight how important it is that others not be used as a means to those benefits. Love leads us to see the person, not sex and its benefits, as what’s most important.
Is this a new revolution, or a rehash of an old one. Sex is a choice that we all have the ability to perform. We have to be careful in the use of sex, as it can end up controlling us. That seems to be what the world wants.