I have been sent a very, very funny post by a friend. It is by a young, single, female vicar called Astrid Storm and her attempts to date. (I think my friend feels I too am young and single - not sure 40 really counts). She talks about several issues, one of them being the question of sex which inevitably comes up on the first date:
But of course these men don't want to know if I can have sex within the confines of matrimony. What they really want to know is whether I can have sex now. And that's a lot, um, stickier. While young Christians have recently started questioning the theology and practicality of blanket prohibitions on premarital sex, we young clerics are usually bound by traditional mores a lot longer than our lay brothers and sisters. I happen to be a traditionalist on this score (right, what else is she going to say in an article her parishioners might read?), but I would also support any priest who pushed the envelope a bit.
Now, for me, becoming single again has been a tremendous eye opener. For a start, expectations about sex have moved on a lot since I was last single, I have been very surprised. Having said that, I started dating my future husband when I was fourteen, married when I was twenty and stayed married for twenty years. So perhaps I was never typical. The other thing is I have been really flattered that quite a few men have asked me out, which after having three kids and feeling old and haggard has been a real boost to my confidence.
However, as Astrid points out, the issue of sex gets raised on the first date, and the answer to the question affects whether there will be a second date. Seriously. Astrid recommends ambiguity, at least if you manage to be vague for a while then the dating might turn into friendship, and priests need friends, she says. Unfortunately, I think I am truly rubbish at ambiguity - I did try a bit of vagueness and got myself dumped twice in a month, and my pleadings of 'can't we just be friends' were also rebuffed. I remember sending a rather self-pitying email to my Archdeacon on the subject. Fortunately, I am now dating a priest!
The truth is, almost all the people I meet who are dating are sexually active, and I don't raise an eyebrow. The only times I am shocked are when they tell me they are abstaining, and then I sometimes find out that they only told me that because they thought it was what I wanted to hear. Personally, I don't find anything inherently bad or sinful about sex in the context of a loving and faithful relationship. So I find that the expectations we have about clergy and abstinence differ from my expectations for lay people, and I hate having double standards. But then maybe that conversation is far too difficult to have, and none of us want to talk about it.
That said, I was a bit uncertain of what the rules are. I believe that they are that Anglican priests should abstain unless they are married, and Civil Partnerships don't count as marriage. I tried to find out exactly what 'abstain' means, and I think it is about penetrative, genital sex (sorry if that is TMI). Hence, I think Lesbians are okay and married priests are fine, but for rest of us it is crossed legs and cold showers.
16 comments:
You never fail to amaze me.
I put it a different way. For you Anglican clergy (and it is really just Anglican), there is a third person in the bed and that is your bishop.
Let's cut the ambiguity (and normally I'd be more restrained): my two main relationships involved rapid sexual experience because both involved distance - finding out rapidly, and discovering rapidly. The moral stance of the C of E is ridiculous, which is why few recommend it beyond their own involved and sometimes paid tribe, and why it traps that tribe into forms of duplicity and in some cases necessary lying (that is lying about lying).
I have no difficulty about friendship with clergy, but once or twice I have asked whether the friendship is friendship or whether there is the pastoral business coming in where I have become a client. The only way around that has been to try and bust the client bullshit when it has not been wanted, or to observe it when in fact that is the relationship (friendly client today).
Clergy like you need entirely detached people with whom you can be friends - and as lovers too I'd say.
There is a high incidence of ministers getting on with ministers, partly because both know the rules and more importantly how to get around the rules, though in the Unitarians it is more often than not simply because these folks have known each other for a long time and have demonstrably shared the same sorts of values. Fish tend to mate with the same species.
[I deleted due to silly text errors]
You ARE young, sweetie.
A short while ago I phoned a clergy friend to ask if I could visit on a certain weekend. I visit a lot and his spare room is basically Margaret’s room but on this occasion he said, “No, not this weekend, there’s a bishop in your bed.” Forgetting I was on a train I repeated, “What do you mean there’s a bishop in my bed?” and everyone looked and a few of them just kept looking and probably checked the Sunday papers for me too.
I'm female, 25 and although I don't like labels, if you had to put me in a box, I would say I'm a Christian. I have never had sex. For me it's not about rules. It's not a rule which stops me from having sex - for one thing, I don't think a rule would work. For me, I think, it's about the feeling that God loves me and doesn't want me to get hurt, which I think is what sex outside of marraige does To us - maybe not obviously though. I think this is because although sex is a physical act, I also think something deeper goes on spiritually. I don't know what, but something deep and connecting and powerful. So having sex with more than one person in my life, I think would have huge emotional consequences and pain. I think this is why there are "rules" - God wants to protect us from harm and pain as he loves us so much. I realise that this means that if I don't get married, I'll never have sex. But so be it.
Sure I posted a comment earlier - but it has vanished. Odd
Anyway, look in 'Issues of Human Sexuality" 1991 - its all in there.
Married = you can have sex
Unmarried = you may not
Homosexual = you may not
There were no 'scales' of abstinence, in that document - just 'do' or 'don't do'.
Just thought I'd say. This is just a comment on the literature, not my view on it.
I think that Christians and particularly unmarried clergy are in a difficult position concerning the morality and the ethical position regarding sex.
I suppose having been brought up in quite a traditional faith as the RC, something became ingrained early on regarding sex outside marriage. Despite a divorce, I have remained stuck in that mould - and have to say that I have no regrets about it.
But my view of sex outside marriage involving others is pretty much mixed up with the morality of people in loving committed relationships - I do not see this as inherently wrong, but the responsibility of each in the relationship to decide for themselves how they conduct their relationship.
I have more difficulty with so called 'casual sex' but again, do not consider it my business, unless it intrudes into my life in a way which would cause some harm, underage sex being one example and young girls or boys being coerced into sex against their better judgment or will.
As a father, my eldest daughter remains unmarried, in a long term, committed relationship. She is happy as is her partner, I accept and value them for what and who they are part of the family.
I note that the churches policy on homosexuality insists on celibacy for clergy in a civil partnership, but for pastoral and privacy reasons, does not ask the question of lay people in similar relationships. An indication of a policy, affirmed by the church, which involves some positive discrimination.
The question is how long will it last?
The issue seems to be how do you get to a long term committed loving relationship in which it is OK to have sex without having sex to find out if you can have a long term committed relationship?
One non-Anglican friend divorced during ministerial training and took her boss's edict not to do anything that could give rise to gossip in the Manse as permission to do anything she liked away from the Manse. This became a series of weekend sexual encounters with people she met via websites for that purpose. This struck me as not only dangerous but morally dubious in the sense that she was using the people in question.
A non Christian divorced friend recently met a priest through a dating website, not only did she have a full on sexual relationship with him but she knew she was not his only relationship. Again, to me the issue is the way he was using people.
Friends with experience on dating sites say that it's fairly obvious that many of the men they meet are operating on a percentage basis - they meet up with X women a month on the principle that a percentage will have sex with them, and they are not interested in meeting up a second time with people who are going to hold out for a more committed relationship before they get sexually involved. Is it really such a loss not to have a relationship with someone who is *only* interested in you for sex?
I do know two women who met a serious partner and subsequently got married via dating agencies, the difference was that in both cases they joined agencies that cost a reasonable amount of money where the aim was specifically to meet a serious partner.
I'm glad you managed to find your way through the minefield and found someone with whom it's possible to have a committed relationship, I think it IS different for people in the public eye and even at the level of being a curate we do have that visibility that makes it hard to make our mistakes and learn from them as people can do if they are less observed.
I find your slot and tab approach to what sex is about a little strange. It reminds me of a catholic friend I had as a teenager who was caught by her mother having oral sex with her boyfriend but who defended herself by saying that it didn't count as sex. Her mother, needless to say, didn't see it that way. I seem to remember Hilary Clinton not seeing it that way either.
It's got all the intimacy and the hallmarks of emotional closeness that makes sex special and different from other expressions of relationship.
Mine is probably too liberal a position, but unless you're willing to stick with the strict and simple "absolutely no sex before marriage" option the church gives you, you have no choice but to make up your own mind. And then it becomes simple: do what feels right and what you can combine with your faith, and you don't do what doesn't feel right or what compromises your faith.
If you have to play games with a man in order to get to know him better, he's not right for you anyway.
Erika is spot-on, IMHO.
And the worst part of trying to discuss this like a rational, caring adult is that you'll get more than your fair share of self-righteous, passive-aggressive advice from "traditionalists". Which is particularly unhelpful :/
Maybe I am out of touch but I can't believe that the question of sex inevitably comes up on a first date. That seems rather presumptious! Have we really got to the stage where sex is more important than developing a relationship first? Even if it's not marriage, shouldn't there be some connection first?
Don't get me wrong I am neither a prude nor naive. Before I married I was not a fan of 'waiting' and there were more than a few blokes of whom I did 'partake' but not on a first date (even after copious amounts of alchohol...;)
Funnily enough I had a conversation with a friend this week who is chasing a girl who he really likes. However, he is on medication that has an unfortunate affect when it comes to a certain part of his anatomy. His reaction to this was that he felt he couldn't offer her anything as he couldn't even sleep with her. Is this how we define ourselves? Whether we sleep with each other? I mean what a crock! I honestly think that if you are getting to know someone and they back out because you won't have sex with them, they are completely shallow and definitely not worth persuing.
I hope this doesnt seem like 'self-righteous passive-aggressive advice' ;) I am neither a traditionalist or anti sex before marriage nor do I wish to advise!
Hi Red - love your comment :)
In defence of the blokes, I think two things are true...
1) It comes up on the first date because they are reeling a bit about being on a date with a vicar.. and so there are questions running through their minds that need answering that perhaps wouldn't if I were an accountant.
2) I think the notion of not having sex unless it gets serious is one they can cope with, but not having sex unless we get married seems to be read as a put down, as a 'let's just be friends', and if they are interested in more than that then they hear my response as the brush off..
Thanks all for your comments and stories and corrections.. I think it is a very delicate subject, and anonymous, I wouldn't want to suggest that the choices you make aren't right and holy for you, I'm sure they are, but they aren't necessarily the best for everyone. I agree that the notion that sex is the only thing we can offer is an awful one, but for many it is important and even quite urgent, and I fear that the church favours those who have less needs in the bedroom department.
It does strike me that we would love to see more 20s and 30s people in our churches, but their lives are unacceptable and sinful to some, so why would they risk being judged? Better to keep away..
I think this is a tough one, thanks for your considerate comments.
Lesley, you are brave to tackle this subject in a blog post, but kudos to you for doing so. Two of my children are divorced and are in faithful, long-term relationships. For various reasons, neither can marry at this time. I assume that the relationships are not celibate. If they were, I would be a bit concerned. I see nothing wrong with sex between two people who are in a committed, loving relationship.
I don't believe in double standards, so my opinion on clergy and sex in faithful relationships would be the same as for anyone.
As for the subject of sex coming up on the first date, I'll quote my daughter when she first began dating after her divorce, and one guy wanted sex on the first date. "Are you crazy?!!!" was her response. Needless to say, neither was interested in another date.
Thanks Mimi
I agree with you about no double standards, but I think hell may freeze over before clergy in committed relationships are treated the same as lay people..
Post a Comment