This article is so good at showing that some segments of the church while loudly proclaiming themselves as countercultural, standing against the tide of our "godless" society, have capitulated at a theoretical or philosophical level to the same presuppositions as our culture. As the church, how often are we going with the tide? It makes me wonder how often we are in the same place as the "cultural morass" we decry, even though we "sanctify" our practices.
With a caveat: Second-wave feminism explored topics that included sexuality, but few second-wave feminist authors framed sex as an “evolutionary drive” (e.g., as a biologically hardwired behavior).
Rather, second-wave feminists objected to the emphasis on men’s pleasure being centered in the sex act in a way that women’s pleasure was not. (One can see such male-centered focus in books by and for Christians, such as Ed Wheat’s *Intended for Pleasure*.) Second-wavers often emphasized social, political, and cultural factors shaping women’s sexuality rather than a purely biological or evolutionary explanation. In fact many second-wave feminists were even critical of biological determinism, seeing it as a tool used to justify patriarchy.
Consent as a low rung on the ladder is insightful. Intimacy involves taking a lot more steps. Respect, kindness, mutual interests, and more.
In fact, being intimate doesn’t require a sexual component at all, as the author said in the one part about living without sex but not without intimacy. I’ve got a few intimate friends, both men and women. I’m not having sex with them.
Thanks for sharing this! And Aimee, I loved your book of the same title. I've been blessed by close, strong friendships with girls and women at nearly every stage in my life. I can't imagine how impoverished I would have been without these dear, non-romantic attachments.
Thank you for posting this! Having read her book, I'm all for the conversation of intentionally moving toward a robust theology of intimacy! With friendship-centered intimacy in the heart of it. For years I have had an interest in a "robust theology of intimacy." It's quite revealing to do any kind of research on this. Because of my interest in the subject for years like once or twice a month I will google various phrases like "intimate theology" or "theology of intimacy" in Google Books. Unsurprisingly, hardly any books out there with a robust vision and the selection quickly narrows down to sex. Yet, on the other hand, there has been, a lot of boundary-shifting among a wide range of thinkers, theologians, therapists, philosophers who are interpreting intimacy quite differently than what was out there twenty years ago. Thirty years ago. It's quite fascinating. I welcome Moniz's book into the broad conversation about what a robust theology of intimacy looks like, feels like.
Aimee, this is an excellent article, and I was hoping for a satisfying resolution to the dilemma it posed, but I went away frustrated. Re-reading what I just wrote, I realize that my own words could be sexualized if someone wanted to read them that way, and I guess that's part of the problem too, huh? I love the story about the friendship of Jonathan and David. It is so beautiful, and I never thought of it as sexual until I read some writers' thoughts that said that it was or that it must have been. Same with the celibate relationships of Jesus and His Apostles or Jesus with Mary Magdalene or Paul with Timothy . . . "Why CAN'T we be friends?" Indeed. May God in Heaven have mercy on our sick souls!
This article is so good at showing that some segments of the church while loudly proclaiming themselves as countercultural, standing against the tide of our "godless" society, have capitulated at a theoretical or philosophical level to the same presuppositions as our culture. As the church, how often are we going with the tide? It makes me wonder how often we are in the same place as the "cultural morass" we decry, even though we "sanctify" our practices.
Yes! In the name of showing a better way...but not!
Amen.
With a caveat: Second-wave feminism explored topics that included sexuality, but few second-wave feminist authors framed sex as an “evolutionary drive” (e.g., as a biologically hardwired behavior).
Rather, second-wave feminists objected to the emphasis on men’s pleasure being centered in the sex act in a way that women’s pleasure was not. (One can see such male-centered focus in books by and for Christians, such as Ed Wheat’s *Intended for Pleasure*.) Second-wavers often emphasized social, political, and cultural factors shaping women’s sexuality rather than a purely biological or evolutionary explanation. In fact many second-wave feminists were even critical of biological determinism, seeing it as a tool used to justify patriarchy.
Yes, thank you for adding this, Sandra.
Consent as a low rung on the ladder is insightful. Intimacy involves taking a lot more steps. Respect, kindness, mutual interests, and more.
In fact, being intimate doesn’t require a sexual component at all, as the author said in the one part about living without sex but not without intimacy. I’ve got a few intimate friends, both men and women. I’m not having sex with them.
Yes! We don't have a good grasp on intimacy!
Thanks for sharing this! And Aimee, I loved your book of the same title. I've been blessed by close, strong friendships with girls and women at nearly every stage in my life. I can't imagine how impoverished I would have been without these dear, non-romantic attachments.
Thank you!
Thank you for posting this! Having read her book, I'm all for the conversation of intentionally moving toward a robust theology of intimacy! With friendship-centered intimacy in the heart of it. For years I have had an interest in a "robust theology of intimacy." It's quite revealing to do any kind of research on this. Because of my interest in the subject for years like once or twice a month I will google various phrases like "intimate theology" or "theology of intimacy" in Google Books. Unsurprisingly, hardly any books out there with a robust vision and the selection quickly narrows down to sex. Yet, on the other hand, there has been, a lot of boundary-shifting among a wide range of thinkers, theologians, therapists, philosophers who are interpreting intimacy quite differently than what was out there twenty years ago. Thirty years ago. It's quite fascinating. I welcome Moniz's book into the broad conversation about what a robust theology of intimacy looks like, feels like.
Yes, I did a pretty deep dive on it when I wrote Why Can't We Be Friends? I found that Catholic writers had the best work on it.
Aimee, this is an excellent article, and I was hoping for a satisfying resolution to the dilemma it posed, but I went away frustrated. Re-reading what I just wrote, I realize that my own words could be sexualized if someone wanted to read them that way, and I guess that's part of the problem too, huh? I love the story about the friendship of Jonathan and David. It is so beautiful, and I never thought of it as sexual until I read some writers' thoughts that said that it was or that it must have been. Same with the celibate relationships of Jesus and His Apostles or Jesus with Mary Magdalene or Paul with Timothy . . . "Why CAN'T we be friends?" Indeed. May God in Heaven have mercy on our sick souls!