All these researchers are committed to traditional values and see sex as primarily constructive rather than destructive. Of course, the road to hell may be paved with good intentions. The goal of heightened eroticism might also promote extramarital sex or in other ways erode the sanctity of the family. Here the sex clinics seem in opposition to organized religion. The clinics say that sexual fulfillment strengthens any union by providing a common base, a vehicle for intimacy, and communication.
Christianity perceives
coitus as permissible only in marriage and dangerous or
damaging in any other context. In his syndicated column of
November 26, 1976, Reverend Billy Graham responds to a
mother who states that her daughter and her fiance became
of "one flesh." They asked the Lord's forgiveness for this sin,
and now are no longer engaged. Would it be spiritually correct
under the circumstances for her to marry any other
man? Dr. Graham replies: "Your daughter has put herself in
a precarious position.
She compromised her ideals, lowered
her moral flag, and thereby lost her boyfriend. What most
girls don't realize is that sexual compromise, rather than
drawing lovers together, usually drives them apart. Many a
boy (and boys are different from girls in this respect) has as
his goal total sexual commitment. Hence, when this is
attained interest wanes." Dr. Graham holds that sex forces
lovers apart and that sexual compromise sabotages intimacy.
Yet one might be grateful that sex was not used like a carrot
(or a cherry) on a stick to lure the boyfriend into a marriage
for which he was totally unprepared.
The answer, as always, lies someplace in between. Sex is
not a disease, nor is it a panacea for human misery. Those
who feel ashamed of their bodies or guilty of a transgression
against God may rupture a relationship because it "went too
far." Other young people may, if they choose, use sex to
extend or intensify an alliance. The decision is made not
solely for passion but for a variety of conscious and uncon
scious reasons. If adolescents are comfortable with their bodies,
they have a choice.
Sex doesn't deserve such notoriety. A natural function
becomes a poison on one hand and an antidote on the other.
Eroticism is the most fun but hardly the most significant or
crucial of human needs. No one thinks of sex as the boat
sinks, or even while elbowing through a mob at Macy's.
Oddly enough, the unwarranted emphasis on sex is a Christian
artifact. Sex must be powerful if it is equated with the
devil.
The unwarranted power of sex was well illustrated by the
controversy over bundling. Bundling was a custom encouraged
in eighteenth-century Europe and colonial America,
whereby fully clothed young couples shared a bed both to
conserve warmth and to become better acquainted. David
Mace reports that by the mid-nineteenth century bundling
was described as a "ridiculous and pernicious custom" which
"sapped the fountain of morality and tarnished the escutcheons
of thousands of families." (Stiles, 1871) Bundling was
both attacked and defended by devout Christians, depending
on their interpretation of its purpose.
In the nineteenth century, emphasis on the evils of eroticism
increased. The family would inevitably deteriorate if
sex were not confined to the marital couch. Thus marriage
became a barter of sexual privileges, and the constructive
aspects of sexuality were lost in the shuffle. Even within
marriage too great an interest in sex was a threat.