Sexual Desire versus Sexuality

Last updated on: March 13, 2015 at 8:07 pm by Robert Hunt

Sexual Desire versus Sexuality 2015-03-13T20:07:56-06:00 Robert Hunt

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

We may call ourselves and others human, but that is a word that hides more about us than it reveals us to each other.

In the recent dialogue over sexuality, marriage, and homosexuality there was one particular aspect of two presentations that members of the audience found offensive. In different ways the rabbi and the imam appeared to compare human sexual desire with a desire to eat pork. For many at the dialogue it was offensive and degrading to imagine that human sexuality could be paralleled with a taste for swine.

But if the comparison cannot be excused, it should at least be explained. And that explanation is that all three religions have a traditional understanding of humanity that is significantly different from that of most modern, western, people of all religions.

The Jewish (and derivatively Christian) and Muslim myths of human beginnings say that God created the human person by breathing God’s animating spirit into an embodied assembly of desires, or appetites. (As Bill Powers taught us in Old Testament, Adam was created by God to be “a bundle of desires.) These desires include the desire to eat all kinds of foods, the desire to have all kinds of sex, the desire to know all kinds of things, and so on. These desires are located (at least according to Christians) in the “flesh,” which in the myth of Adam and Eve is associated with the earth from which the first bodies were made. These desires are essential to our human nature, but they also are the occasion of our exploitation of each other and nature, and our disobedience to God.

As we heard from Imam Zia, Rabbi Schlesinger, and Pastor Skinner in the tradition of all three religions God’s law is the means by which these desires are tamed and channeled. Guided by revealed law this multitude of primal desires give way to our equally primal desire to be in relationship with God. The spiritual part of the person overcomes the “carnal” or “desire laden” part of each person.

Now beyond this the religions do not agree on either human nature, or the fate of the whole human person after death. But that is for another blog.

The point here is that traditionally all three religions, certainly in their less nuanced theological expressions, make little distinction between these different desires. They are all comparable in being the occasion for exploitation and evil and they are all comparable in their need to be constrained and guided by God’s law.

(I should note that sexual desire is, in all three traditions, more complex because it is located at the nexus of those human relationships fundamental to social life. But that complexity doesn’t make sexual desire different in kind from other desires in the three traditions.)

Thus, to return to the dialogue, all desires are equal both in their danger and their need to be controlled. Hence the comparison of sexual desire with a desire to eat pork.

Now the speakers asserted that different humans have different weakness in terms of those specific desires that need to be tamed by obedience to God’s law. One person may find living in a monogamous heterosexual marriage easy, but find a desire for forbidden foods challenging. Another may find that monogamy is difficult but managing envy is easy. Precisely because all desires are equally a source of rebellion against God, and equally constrained by God’s law all people are equally in danger and equally in need of guidance.

So what is wrong with this apparently fair and equal assessment of human nature?

A lot. In the view of most contemporary people, at least in the West, humans are social animals whose individual needs and wants for human relationships are intrinsic to their unique personalities and thus their unique contribution to humanity as a whole. Society exists to help persons fully realize their individuality while constraining them from harming or exploiting others.

In this view humans are characterized not merely by a set of sexual desires that need to be constrained. Rather they possess a “sexuality” that is essential to their human nature and their individuality. Society isn’t merely a mechanism for constraining sexual desire into a particular kind of relationship. Society should provide the institutional means by which sexuality is fully and healthily cultivated, whether it is heterosexuality or homosexuality.

Thus the key distinction in human nature is not between earthly and spiritual desires, but between just and unjust behavior, with justice being determined by the principles of love, respect, freedom, and etc. And it is adherence to these principles which prevents sexual exploitation (of children for example) rather than the constraints of a divine law.

So again we find a repeated theme in dialogue: the difference between the traditional religious views expressed in our dialogue and those of many contemporary people, including religious people. Thus a discourse that merely appears logical from one perspective is offensive and demeaning from another. Because at the root the traditional religious view of the human person and the modern view of the human person are different.

We may call ourselves and others human, but that is a word that hides more about us than it reveals us to each other.

Christian Identity

Christian Muslim Relations

Home Page

Inter-Religious Dialogue

Previous Post

May 21, 2014

Same Kind of Different

Next Post

May 21, 2014 Who did you say you represent?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Christian Identity Christian Muslim Relations Home Page Inter-Religious Dialogue Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 July 2010 May 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz