Skip to content

Category: Sexuality

Equity Act: A Response to Mitt Romney

There is currently a bill in Congress, H.R. 5, that is commonly referred to as the “Equality Act.” This bill is designed to add protections for LGBTQ people to the 1964 Civil Rights Bill. It’s description is “To prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation, and for other purposes.” I’m not going to dwell on the content of the bill. Y’all can read it yourselves here.
What I am going to write about is the response that many conservative, religious folks are saying about the bill.
Well, actually, I’m not going to discuss so much THEIR responses as much as I am going to respond TO them.
In particular, I am going to single out Sen. Mitt Romney, (R-Utah), for his response.
Like so many others, Romney has seemed to be a voice of sanity among all of the craziness of conservative politics. But, under the veneer of moderation he is still far to the right of moderate.
The Equality Act was introduced into the House last week on the 18th. Later, a spokesperson for Sen. Romney released the following statement:
“Sen. Romney believes that strong religious liberty protections are essential to any legislation on this issue, and since those provisions are absent from this particular bill, he is not able to support it,” said Arielle Mueller, a Romney spokesperson, via email to the Washington Blade in response to an inquiry on the Equality Act.
For several years people have tried to cloak their personal biases and opinions under the mantle of “Sincerely held Religious beliefs.” This is pretty much what Romney said.
People who believe in various religious texts say that those texts prohibit them from agreeing to certain practices or beliefs of others. In this case, they cite a Biblical prohibition of homosexuality and “clear” statement that God created two distinct genders in all species. Ok, I’m not going to address the religious side of this. I could. And, I could present opposing views of the very same texts that they allude to. That’s the nature of Biblical interpretations. That’s what they are; Interpretations.
No, I want to go in a different direction.
I want to talk about what may be referred to as the “accidents of nature.” Or, perhaps, even as Acts of God.
I currently live in a middle-class American suburb. I have a house and a garden. I own a car and have time to write silly blog posts. I wasn’t born into a developing nation where houses are patchworks of whatever materials I can forage. Where such things as running water and sanitation services are non-existent, let alone computer or internet access.
I don’t think that anyone would argue that the above is an accurate account of an Accident of Nature. I had nothing to do with where I was born. Nor, did the individual in that other culture. We both have privileges and lacks in both. For those who like to explain things in terms of Divine Providence, I was Providentially born into the life that I now have.
Now, let me ask you.
Is the fact that some are born left-handed an Accident of Nature?
Of course they are. They had no say in the fact that they have a gift that is divergent with the majority.
How about people who may be born with a cleft palate?
Are these folks somehow responsible for this? Did they choose to be born this way?
Of course not! It’s obvious that somewhere in their development something happened that allowed them to develop this particular trait.
My wife is a nurse. She tells me stories about children who are born with any number of issues. Some have a hole in their heart that needs to be repaired surgically. Others have incomplete bowel development. All of them are what we could call Accidents of Nature.
There is another condition that doesn’t get a lot of press.
It is referred to as Intersexuality. This is a condition where a child is born with two sets of sexual organs. There may also be a difference in chromosome identity with the actual sexual organs present. A child born with female chromosomes who is born with apparent male genitalia would be an example. Some children are even born with both sets of genitalia. Many times at birth, the parents are asked to choose which gender the child should be. What if they make the wrong choice? What if their child with female chromosomes is surgically altered to give them a son?
Even in nature such things may occur.
Recently, I saw a news item about a cardinal that appeared to be half red and half white.
They reported that this was in fact a bird that was two genders!
I don’t share this because it gives credibility to Intersexuality in humans. It doesn’t.
But, it does show quite clearly that Accidents of Nature happen!
Let’s take this discussion a step further.
What if a child’s genetics are clearly male and there biological sex is also physically male. Now, let’s suggest that as this boy grows up his body produces hormones differently from other boys. This is all hypothetical, mind you. And, let’s say that these hormones, that would naturally cause this boy to find the female body attractive, are different. In his case they cause him to find pleasure in the male body. In fact, just as I am attracted to females, his attraction is to males. He desires another male in whom he can confide and grow with; another Person with whom he can bond and love.
That’s not a far-fetched idea.
In fact, for millions, it is the reality of their lives.
I share all of this to make the point that when people talk about LGBTQ issues, they are not talking about religion. There is nothing religious about an Accident of Nature. Unless, of course, you want to call it an Act of God.
No, this entire issue is about Civil Rights. It’s about the unalienable right guaranteed in our founding documents that are granted every citizen.
So, Mr. Romney, in framing the Equality Act in religious terms, you are making a horrible category error that threatens the lives and livelihoods of millions of your fellow citizens.
Many of whom are your co-religionists.
I urge you, and all other Senators to truly engage in these issues and set aside biases and bigotries that hurt rather than heal.

1 Comment

Lover!!!

God Loves Us!
We hear that.
We say that.

God Is Love.
Faith. Fullness.
Faith Mantra.

We speak of the Love that God has laser focused on us and the Cosmos.
Jesus, we say, pursues us as a Lover.
We are, in most of our imaginings, the object of God’s Love.
God is the Subject from Whom that Love flows.

” Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth—
    for your love is more delightful than wine,” the Song says.

” How beautiful you are, my darling!
    Oh, how beautiful!
    Your eyes behind your veil are doves.
Your breasts are like two fawns,
    like twin fawns of a gazelle
    that browse among the lilies.
Until the day breaks
    and the shadows flee,
I will go to the mountain of myrrh
    and to the hill of incense.
You are altogether beautiful, my darling;
    there is no flaw in you.”

These are words that we imagine come from the heart and mouth of the Lover of our souls. Passionate! Lustful! Erotic!

We see this Love as originating and flowing from Heart of God primarily in one direction.
Yeah, we say that we love God.
Why?
Well, because God first loved us, of course.
Then we try to explain how much work we do for God because we love God.
Didn’t Jesus say that those who love Him would obey him?
Our expression of love devolves into doing stuff.

What if we were to actually love God AS God loves us?

What if we take the place of Lover with God as our Beloved?

Then would we not chase God? Consciously? Passionately?

We would say to God,

Awake, north wind,
    and come, south wind!
Blow on my garden,
    that its fragrance may spread everywhere.
Let my beloved come into his garden
    and taste its choice fruits.

Would we not be like the Beloved in the Song?

All night long on my bed
    I looked for the one my heart loves;
    I looked for him but did not find him.
I will get up now and go about the city,
    through its streets and squares;
I will search for the one my heart loves.

Could we even imagine saying to God,

Under the apple tree I roused you;
    there your mother conceived you…
His left arm is under my head
and his right arm embraces me…
My beloved thrust his hand through the latch-opening;
my heart began to pound for him…

This is the language of Love.
This is the language of Relationship.
Lustful?
Yes!
Erotic?
Absolutely!

Let us shed our prim and proper sensibilities.
We must not allow desire to be stuffed in a neat, little Victorian box where it lies stunted and impotent.

If God is indeed the Object of our Love,
Express it!
Live It!
Embrace it!

Leave a Comment

God Is Not A Prude

I don’t know why this thought popped into my brain.
But, it did.
Yesterday during my quiet time in the morning this showed up.
So, like so many other times, I tried to simply let the thought wash away and got back to prayer.
And, like so many other times, this thought persisted.
I can take a hint.
I let the idea swim around in my mind while I brought it to God.

I’ve known for a long, long time that nothing we humans can do will surprise God.
Especially since the Incarnation, God has had a pretty good handle on the foibles we humans share.

Example?

Ok…

God has heard the word “Shit” before.
God is not shocked at that.
Nor, is God offended by it.
It’s a word.
And, a pretty damned good one, too!
See what I did there?
Yeah, God’s not too concerned about that word, either.

In fact, the more that I’ve gotten to know God, the less I find really does cause offense.
At least, among the things that seem to get people all bent out of shape.

You see, we humans like to set boundaries and elect gatekeepers to keep the inside of our little world all pure and white.
The gatekeepers, then, define what is acceptable and unacceptable.
And then?
Surprise! They tell us that God is the One Who sets the standards for our boundaries.
God is the One Who tells us what is pure and impure.

And, people actually believe that shit!

But, like I said, God is not surprised.
Nor, I think, overly concerned about what we think is boundary-worthy.

Let me get back to that boundary and gatekeeping thing.

If God is not taken by surprise by what we say or do.
And, if God is really intimate with how humans think.
Then, why are we so freaked out by how people dress or act with one another?

I know, that was quite a shift from language to clothing.

But, it all has to do with purity and who sets the boundaries.

And, that’s key.

Who doe set the boundaries?

It doesn’t take too much work to see the answer to that.
Cultural boundaries are set by those who wield the power.
And, those people are almost always men.

Yep, men.
We can narrow that down even more. They are men who are members of the dominant culture.

Now, of course women’s voices have been raised in the past.
The Women’s Temperance Unions of the 19th century are an example.
It’s important to note, though, it was male leadership who put temperance and blue laws into effect. Maybe, just to keep the peace at home?

Anyway…

Men are the ones who have asserted their dominance by setting boundaries that seek to control the culture. That includes things like what women wear; how women decide what’s best for themselves and their bodies; what women are allowed to do and where they can go.

If you noticed a common feature in those examples, go to the head of the class. (For those of you who didn’t…IT’S WOMEN!)

Men have asserted their power and control over women for as long as written history tells us. And then they tell everyone that this is what God wants.
“We have no choice but to obey!”

But, is God concerned about things like this?

I’m gonna say NO.
I really don’t think that God is concerned with our purity laws and rules.

In fact, I think that God is more concerned about the lack of love that the boundary makers and gatekeepers have toward others.
I think that God is concerned about the systems that we humans have developed in order to control others.
I really think that if God can be pissed off, that would do it.

But, I’m not sure that God is angered by our piss-poor treatment of one another.
I truly think that God is saddened by it.
God has tried to get our attention for ever.
God has come right out and Told us what God considers important.
And, guess what?
Our piddly little rules about purity aren’t in there.

What is?

Justice for widows, orphans, and strangers.
Hospitality. Caring for those who get trampled along the way. Using wealth for the benefit of everyone, turning the other cheek.

Oh! And, how about this one…
Do to others what you would want them to do to you!!!

God gave us two things to use in setting boundaries.
1. Love God. And, do it with everything ya got!
2. Love your neighbor as you would love yourself.

That’s not too difficult to understand, is it?
How about let’s allow what God has actually revealed to us as important guide us in how we treat each other and the world around us?

I think those boundaries would work pretty well.
Because, Everyone would be on the inside.

Leave a Comment

Matthew Walsh and American Privilege

flag_art_rainbow_flag_1978_nov-1331pxA friend of mine recently sent me a link to an article written by Matthew Walsh entitled,  “This is my homophobic rant against Michael Sam.” He asked me to comment on it. So, being the easy-going, un-opinionated person that I am, I decided to accommodate that request.

On first reading, I found so many holes in Walsh’s position that I almost decided not to bother. It would be like going to a carnival and playing a game of ‘Throw the Bean Bag through the Hole and Win a Prize’ with holes 24” in diameter. I’m going to win that giant stuffed platypus every time.

But, then I began to think that perhaps I should. There are many misconceptions about the way in which Michael Sam presented himself to the world. This has tended to leave a bad taste in the mouths of many people. Questions arise about the propriety of Sam ‘coming out’ to excessive media attention and hoopla. Then, of course, there was ‘the Kiss.’ I could just see Tony Perkins throwing up in his mouth a little. So, I decided that it might be helpful to share a little critique of Walsh’s article.

In a word, Walsh’s entire article rests on one word, privilege. Privilege is what those whose worldview is considered the ‘Norm’ exercise. That means that there is a tendency to view everyone and everything through the lens of that privilege. For those of us who are white and protestant that means that everyone is viewed as the equal. At least to a point. We think that since we and our forebears were able to carve out a life that seems normative…we can usually find a job, buy a house, purchase food and clothing for our families, and pretty much speak our minds freely and openly… then EVERYONE can. That leads us to view those who seem to be whiny about having few opportunities, hunger and lack of clothing or shelter should just get their act together and get a job. We also tend to think that these ‘others’ are simply lazy and looking for handouts and some kind of ‘leg-up’ in order to take what is ours and spend it on expensive cars and gadgets. Of course, it couldn’t be because there is a real need. If only they’d get off of the collective, lazy asses and help themselves. After all, this is the land of opportunity.

The problem is, that’s a fallacy. All people don’t have equal opportunity. There are cultural and class biases that blinds the privileged and keeps a foot on the neck of those who are not. Our opinions become the norm against which all other worldviews are measured. Because we compare everyone to ourselves, we don’t listen to what these ‘others’ are saying, let alone try to empathize with them.

So, let’s take a look at some of Walsh’s statements.

He wrote that he is not a “bigot, and…not ‘homophobic,’…I generally carry about my day very much unconcerned with [their] sexual proclivities,” he somehow felt the “need to be a voice of reason amidst this whole spectacularly ridiculous charade.” Why? What made him think that he alone could possibly be the only voice of reason?

Privilege.

In the article Walsh goes to great lengths to equate being gay with “sexual habits.” Stating that, “what you do in your bedroom is between you and whoever you do it with.” He appears to be taking the high road and conceding that gay sex is OK, but please, I don’t need to hear about it. And, he’s correct. It is no one else’s business. But, he totally misses the point. Being gay is NOT about having sex. It’s about whom one is as a person. There are many LGBT people who state that when they were adolescents and the hormones started kicking in, they felt attraction to people of their own gender. This became their identity just as it does for heterosexual youths. It was not something they chose, but the very fabric of whom they were as people. Note, this has nothing to do with the bedroom. But, people like Walsh make that unfounded leap when speaking about gays. For them, being gay is all about what happens in the bedroom. It can’t possibly be about caring people who simply want to be open about who they are. Therein lies the greatest challenge and fallacy that we privileged people need to deal with.

The other main point of Walsh’s article had to do with the ‘big deal’ everyone was making about Sam. After all, how many people who are drafted that late have ESPN show up at their house? Let’s see…I can count them on no fingers. The media painted the event as ‘historic.’ And, the privileged just shook their heads and wondered why? What makes this slightly above average athlete special?

On the surface there’s really nothing special about Michael Sam. In fact, it’s probably unlikely that he’ll even make the Rams’ final cut. I agree with Walsh that “Sam is a small, slow, middling prospect.” There are certainly better players who could have been the center of media attention. But, that’s not the point of this event. People of privilege don’t have a clue about what it’s like to be marginalized in society. Whether it’s race, poverty, gender, sexual orientation or nationality, white America doesn’t see any disparity. But, I haven’t read any news stories about a young man committing suicide by jumping off of the George Washington Bridge because a secret video was made of him kneeling beside his bed praying. Nor, have I heard tell of a teenager who was assassinated in a school classroom because he was part of a before-school Bible study.

By coming out and standing in front of the cameras, Sam has shouted that it’s OK to be different. Young people who wrestle with their very identity have a positive example of someone who is like them. Someone they can look to for encouragement. If events like this can help one person, young or old, to accept and embrace who they are, then the attention given Sam was worth it.

Finally, Walsh and others think that the attention given Sam is indicative of some kind of anti-Christian movement in the culture. They site Tim Tebow as their poster child of the growing persecution of the religious. To that I just say Poppycock! No one has taken anyone’s right to practice, nor speak about, their religion. As Hemant Mehta wrote recently, “…a lot of conservative Christians…also felt the media’s positive reaction to Michael Sam was unfair given that everyone trashed Tim Tebow because he was a Christian! (Don’t even bother trying to point out that Tebow was pilloried for not being a very good player and that his religion had nothing to do with it.)” Had Tebow been able to lead a team…any team…to success, no one would have cared about his religion. If Brett Favre or Dan Marino had chosen to kneel and give thanks it would have been fine. But, Tebow was a hack. That’s why so much attention was given to his religious practice. There was nothing else to talk about!

We have choices that must be made. We can take a stand for human dignity, or we can dig our heels in and try to hold on to our privilege. I truly believe that this so-called battle over LGBT rights is over. Now, it’s just a matter of letting the cleansing breeze of God’s Spirit carry away the smoke. It is simply unethical to demean and diminish people for being born a certain way. Until that happens I’m sure that we will continue to see people like Michael Sam portrayed as pioneers who forge trails into new and uncharted cultural territory.

Matthew Walsh…not a homophobe? Yeah, and Donald Sterling’s not a racist.

As always, feel free to leave a comment. How have any of you experienced privilege, or lack of it?

Leave a Comment

Who’s Your Best Friend? Pt. 2

orkut_friends_for_ever_scraps3This is the second part of a series about the possibility of women and men building ‘best friend’ relationships. As I reflect and write about this topic I find that it continues to morph and grow into something more than a simple yes or no can address. Yes, there will be a part three. And, at this point probably a part four. We’ll see where God takes us.

Last week I began writing about relationships between women and men here. Particularly, on the possibility of them being ‘best’ friends. I stated some of the common objections to these relationships. And, I began to deconstruct some of those objections as having their origins in a particular, privileged male view of sexuality. I pointed out how this view demeans and silences women, as well as reinforces the image of how poor, weak men are bound to be ensnared by the sexual wiles of women. I feel that view of sexuality is pretty much crap talk. I’m not about to go along with any position that unfairly labels women as sluts or gives men a pass on their own, personal faults. What I am going to do today is try to unpack some of the issues regarding cross-sex relationships.

When I was a young boy most of my best friends were other boys. We played in the woods and climbed trees. We raced bicycles and played baseball. We prided ourselves as being true ‘He Man Woman Haters.’ However, I knew who the fastest kid in our class was. And, she could beat any one of us boys in a foot race. When teams for kickball were chosen, I tried to make sure she was on my team. In the classroom I spent more time with the girls because they were smarter than most of my guy friends. It always helped to be on their team during spelling and math contests. Many times outside of class boys and girls played together. (That is, as long as the girls didn’t want to play house. Yuk!) The point is kids know how to be friends with anyone, regardless of gender. But, something happened as we got older. Our bodies began to change. Hormones started messing with us. Parents and other adults started telling us that boys and girls needed to start preparing for marriage. Physical pressure, peer pressure and social pressure built to the point of bursting. I’m surprised anyone survives this! All of the sudden…the innocence is gone. Now, we have to learn a whole new way of relating to one another. The girl who once was one of my best friends has become a sexual object. Not because we chose that path. But, because others defined it for us.

I want to be clear about something before I continue. In this series I’m not addressing casual or professional acquaintances. These relationships are viewed as completely necessary and acceptable by most people. I am writing about the possibility for women and men to have relationships in which their hearts are knit together. In which they become kindred spirits who support and encourage one another. In essence, they are best friends in every sense that implies. However, they remain just friends.

Impossible? I don’t think so. Let’s take time to look at some of the issues.Please note that these are serious issues. Many good people and relationships have been shipwrecked because of them. So, I do not take them lightly. I do, however, want to place them within a context that may, perhaps, shed some light on them and offer hope to people who may feel lost and hopeless.

In my last post I shared a video clip from the movie, “When Harry met Sally.” Billy Crystal’s character said that it was impossible for women and men to be friends because ‘the sex part’ always gets in the way. I think there’s some truth in that statement. Whether it’s always an issue, I’m not sure. I do know that in many cases physical attraction and desire are potential deal breakers. I don’t want to belittle this issue, but I think that we need to understand that ‘the sex part’ is totally natural. As I wrote before, we are sexual beings. However, we tend to obsess over this. Especially, in the purity culture, sexuality is whispered about or it is ignored. This sentiment seems to have its roots in how the early church incorporated the Christian scriptures and Greek philosophy, particularly Plato. That view divides the unseen ultimate concept of things from their physical representation on earth. The physical is always something ‘less than’ the ultimate, non-physical reality. The church began to understand that the spiritual reality, therefore, is something to be sought after. The physical, or the ‘flesh,’ was something to be despised. Spirit=Good; Flesh=Bad. However, the folks who wrote the First Covenant did not seem to view humanity like this. Theirs was a wholistic view of people. It looked more like this: Flesh+Spirit=Soul. This view honors the whole person. We can accept and embrace ourselves as God’s image bearers in God’s Good Creation. I truly believe that grasping this is the first step in freeing ourselves from the prison of shame and false modesty. That freedom is necessary for openness and friendship to be established between women and men. Freedom can be won when a person admits and owns their sexuality. When I confess that, yes, I am attracted to this person, I don’t have to hide it or deny it. I can embrace it. After all, this ‘sexual’ me is part of who I am…who God has formed me to be. By not giving into shame and obsessing over my human nature I don’t empower it. I can simply admit that it’s there and move on. I do not have to gratify it. It took me a long time and some monumental failures to learn this. And, it wasn’t until I realized that one of my best friends is a woman that I began to understand that embracing who I am is one of the greatest safeguards against pursuing ‘the sex part.’

There is another potential hazard that I think is vital to understand. It is, perhaps, even more important than this one. But, you’ll have to wait for part three for that.

How do you feel about your identity as a sexual being? Is it possible to accept and embrace ourselves as whole persons and share that with others?

Leave a Comment

Who’s Your Best Friend? Pt. 1

Best-Friends-Closed-Friends-keep-smiling-9934190-1024-768This is part one of a discussion I’ve been considering for quite some time. And, it has been one of the most difficult pieces that I’ve attempted to address. At this point I can only say that there will be at least a part two. Maybe, more. I will publish part two next week.

A couple of months ago I read a post over at Rachel Held Evans’ blog. It was a guest post written by Alise Wright entitled “Not ‘Just’ Friends -Thoughts on cross-sex friendship.” Alise has her own blog here. The piece was a critique of the common assumption that when women and men get together, they cannot possibly be friends because the ‘sex thing’ will always rear its hoary head. I read the post and comments. I chased several links through many other similar posts by other authors. And, I noticed that this topic was addressed mostly from a women’s perspective. Other than a few comments, I did not find any posts written by men about this. While I thought this was a tad odd, I was not surprised. I find that, in a broad generalization, men are somewhat reluctant to discuss matters that touch on ‘cross-sex’ friendships. So, I thought that I would offer some reflections from my very male perspective.

I can only speak to those of us who live in Western culture. For much of the world, gender roles are specifically delineated. For instance, in parts of the Muslim world, women are totally segregated from men. Different clothing and different rules for appearing in public are written into civil law. In these instances the kinds of relationships I want to discuss are simply not possible.

However, in the West we are not subject to such strictures. Overtly, there is an understanding that women and men are equal and, therefore, are able to seek whatever companionship and camaraderie they desire. (Although, covertly there is still a long way to go before ours is a truly egalitarian culture.) But, are we able to simply ‘be friends’?

The embedded clip from the movie “When Harry Met Sally” is actually a pretty accurate assessment of what many people think. In the circle that I’ve been a part of for the last 30 or so years people will swear by this. It’s the gospel. Men and women cannot be trusted to be together outside of state and church sanctioned wedlock. And, to be quite honest, I have experienced the difficulties and consequences of relationships like this. They can be extremely precarious. As I was training for various ministry positions and even at seminary, we were often told that the best rule to protect oneself and one’s reputation was to simply avoid being alone with someone of the opposite sex. (Or, with someone who is the gender that one is attracted to.) This ‘necessary’ precaution would provide a barrier against ‘impurity’ or even the appearance of impropriety. In practice this would mean that pastors and counselors could not meet with these people behind closed doors. Or, at the very least, windows should be installed so that nothing could be hidden from view. Meetings with cross-sex colleagues and coworkers should be avoided. And, never, ever was it appropriate to go to lunch or spend non-official time with them. These rules were put in place to protect individuals from following their inherent ‘lust’ from spilling out and contaminating everyone.

This way of thinking has naturally grown out of what has become known as the ‘purity culture.’ In this culture two characteristics predominate. The first characteristic is that women are Jezebel seductresses who dress and act in ways that are designed to capture men’s imaginations and cause them to stumble and fall. Members of this culture decry the way women dress, particularly in the summer or in warm climates. I heard one church leader say from the pulpit that he hated summer for that very reason. This position not only objectifies women in a negative way, it opens the door for shaming that always demeans and silences women. The second characteristic is not unlike the first. This suggests that men are weak, carnal beasts who cannot control the sexual lusts and desires that the seductress women cause them to have. (Please note, it’s the women who bear the onus of this charge, not the men.) Both of these characteristics diminish people and marginalize them. The scriptures tell the story of humans created in the ‘image of God,’ as eikons who represent God on Earth. Granted, humanity is fallible. We are not far removed from other animals. We are, in a word, sexual beings. But, to reduce us to the two characteristics mentioned above is to caricaturize people. It also tends to cause folks to obsess over the issue of sexuality. Much like telling your child not to eat the cookies, continually telling people that they must avoid any kind of behavior that may smack of impropriety may, in fact, draw them into it. I think that there must be a better way to address cross-sex relationships. A way that not only honors marriage and family, but that allows people to express their love and friendship freely and without all of the baggage of the ‘purity culture.’

In my next post I will share some of my thoughts and reflections about how we may have and enjoy these relationships. I would also like input from readers.

How do you view cross-sex relationships? Do you think that it is even possible to have them and not engage the ‘sex thing’? Please share your thoughts in the comments.

Leave a Comment