I like the way you think. Really good point about how these rightists going "sex is sacred" nevertheless compare it to sticking fuzz to duct tape.

"Knowledge is sacred. Consent is sacred. Safety is sacred."

This is a pretty powerful concept here. Where did we get lost?

How did consent go from being based on patriarchal ownership to something that is so fluid and hypothetical it almost has no practical meaning?

Without sacred consent, there is no safety for our women and girls. Can knowledge save us?

@ rebecca and spike.

yeay, im glad i made sense. this has been rattling in my head since the debate and ive got a head cold that is kicking my ass. i wanted to bang it out before i forgot, but i wasnt sure if i was just rambling on.

That's one thing my grandmother told me: Sex is a sacrament.

Sacredness is not an uneasy precipice between virginity and whoredom. Sacredness is not a monetary value. Sacredness is something beyond ceremonies and gifts.

I think the issue was that Obama said 'sexuality is sacred' is something you tell kids to keep them from getting pregnant. In other words, have sex sparingly, and only with someone you love enough enough to marry.

Obviously we don't know exactly what Obama meant, but I think that is what most people heard when he said 'sexuality is sacred.' At least those who got defensive.

I totally agree with this post, though, that human sexuality in general is sacred. As long as we don't tag the whole 'one partner your whole life or you are abusing the sacredness of your sexuality' schtick onto it. I honestly think this is what people felt Obama implied, which is why they got defensive. Of course, that doesn't make it right.

This is a perfect example of the only message being important is the message received. I'm such a communications nerd.

"Certainly not in the 'within the bonds of a holy marriage' rubbish" - I'm tired of feminism meaning you can't agree with the idea that marriage isn't a Holy and sacred thing... basically, you leave this only to the secular. Thanks.

elephlux - im not sure im following you. what i meant sacred sex is not limited to only married couples - which excludes queer folk who in many cases cant legally marry or others who are in committed relationships but otherwise "not married," or people who just like to have sex regardless of commitment.

all willing, consensual sex is sacred without needing to be approved of or blessed by religious parties. that positive view of sacred sex is much different from the "sex is naughty, dirty, scary, will ruin your life" view held by most proponents of the "wait till marriage and God says it's ok" type of sacred sex.

does that make sense?

I think though, that the religious people are right about something - sex does change you, a bit.

You release all sorts of chemicals and oxytocin during sex. Oxytocin is a 'trust' hormone. I remember reading about a study done where people were asked to play a game involving money. Some people were given oxytocin spray, some were given placebo. The ones given oxytocin allowed themselves to be _repeatedly_ cheated out of their money.

Now you can buy this spray. Scary. But it's also free during sex, pregnancy and nipple stimulation.

I'm sure lots of people can have sex and not become emotionally attached to the person they had sex with. But isn't that called "using people"? The "you're not anything to me but a tongue/pussy/dick" way of treating people isn't all that grand. Friends with benefits doesn't _really_ work.

I don't think it's a good idea for young people, who don't even have the important judgment parts of their brain developed yet, to be told 'sex is okay, it's great! have all the sex you want!'. I think comprehensive sex education involves teaching young adults about the chemical and emotional aspects of sex and relationships, without the god crap.

Saying "I'm going to stay a virgin until my brain's finished developing around the age of 20-24" is a lot different from "I'm staying PURE for GOD and my HUSBAND/WIFE"

Although, that said, sex is great and trust and emotional bonding are wonderful, fulfilling parts of human experience.

wait, so how does waiting until 20-24 get around your oxytocin makes you attached problem? i don't get it.

anyway, no, i don't think having sex with someone and not being emotionally attached to them is "using" them. it certainly CAN be, but as long as both parties know the score, are enthusiastically consenting to the sex and no one is being lied to about the other person's feelings or expectations, i fail to see what is wrong.

there are different kinds of sex. it doesn't, for everyone, always have to be some intensely emotional bonding experience.

anyway, i think lilith is right about what obama probably meant to convey with the "sacred sex" remark.

joyful dinosaur: I agree with what rileystclair said, and I'd also like to add this - to the religious right, out-of-wedlock sex is inherently slutty/bad. This is why it's so important to break this dichotomy that they maintain - so that teens and other people know that sex is an emotional activity as well as a physical one, and that it's not right to pressure a girl to have sex with someone just because she's had it with someone else and now she's ruined for her future husband anyway, so might as well become a prostitute.

The view of the religious right basically does not allow for the view of sex as emotional. It's what you've done or haven't done with your body before you let someone to whom you're legally bound do things with it - it's still essentially financial.

I completely agree with jillian, Flippy, spike the cat, and Rebecca. Having gone through abstinence only sex ed in middle and high school myself (yay Catholic school), the virgin-whore dichotomy is really stressed, to the exclusion of any notion of the sacredness of sex or a woman's power in deciding what to do with her sexuality. I think that my teachers, who were all fantastic women, really wanted us to understand that sex is sacred. In the end, though, we learned that premarital sex = bad, dangerous, sinful and sex within marriage = chaste, pure, good (but ONLY for procreation, not for pleasure alone). Where is the sacredness in that?

It would be great if we could sort of reappropriate this language and promote the idea of knowledge, consent, pleasure, and safety as sacred, rather than the ideas that are currently taught by churches and some schools. I'd like to believe that Obama's quote was moving away from the religious right's idea of sacred and toward a description closer to jillian's, though of course I can't be sure. At any rate, I know that I personally would've appreciated that message while I was sitting in my 8th grade chastity class. (Seriously. It was called chastity class.)

joyfuldinosaur - as a woman who enjoys sex and has birthed and breastfed two children, i know how powerful oxytocin can be.

if we include knowledge, self-esteem and self-worth in the equation of teaching the sacredness of sex (especially to young women), we can empower young people about their feelings around sex, and who they have sex with. waiting to have sex so they dont get that first "hit" of the love drug isnt necessarily going to save them from a broken heart. ive experienced plenty of "crushes gone bad" without having sex. teaching young people about emotional maturity (so that they know and are comfortable with their own levels) will probably do a better job.

my kid's arent old enough for it yet, but the UU church has a really awesome sex ed. program that focuses on the above.

http://www.uua.org/religiouseducation/curricula/ourwhole/

I think there is a big difference between spirituality and morality. And I am all for seeing and appreciating opportunities for sacredness. As a spiritual endeavor. Versus wielding sacredness as some sort of moral police baton, you know?

Sex can be sacred and certainly the world would be a better place if we all were able to approach it that way all the time. But from that angle, work can be sacred, speech can be sacred, eating can be sacred. Etc., Sacredness in that way is about mindfulness and gratitude.

The danger is when OTHER PEOPLE - any other people - feel they are in a position to determine what is sacred and to enforce their moral codes. Assuming we are all adults, I do not want anyone telling me I should eat vegetable when I want Cheetos even if veggies are good for me. And I do not want to be told to have sacred sex if I want dirty raunchy sex, either. Because that is one of the few benefits of growing up and being old. I can do what I want even if it is not good for me. :)

I know I am all over the place here, but I am getting to a point! Whatever Obama's personal beliefs - and I have to say that he seems the type to enjoy both kinds of sex, I am guessing - he is a public leader and as such he has a responsibility. I like that he is standing up for the better thing. The more spiritual thing. The more mindful thing. I appreciate that leadership. So long as he never legislates it and interferes with my freedom to ignore his leadership when I feel naughty.

:)

Mwah!
Melissa

I think he said it because he knew people would largely interpret it in a way that they found agreeable. Smart politician.

I'll be one to say that scaring kids away from sexual experimentation until they're 20-24 and sexually frustrated does nothing good, nothing at all.

Sexual experimentation as soon as hormones start raging is natural, and nearly universal. The fact that the brain hasn't finished developing doesn't at all preclude education about how to responsibly enter relationships with other people, communicate well, etc.

Broken hearts are part of life. There's no way to avoid them completely. There's no way for anyone to know what the end result will be evertime they enter a new relationship. We've all been hurt, and most of us have learned, and grown, and survived...

It's not like adults all have the same mental capacity anyway, so I think it's silly to create a magic age at which you dictate to kids what sort of agency they're allowed.