Okay, so it may only be a book review, but I feel pretty proud to be published in the current Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy.

I reviewed “Sex & the Soul: Juggling Sexuality, Spirituality, Romance and Religion on America’s College Campuses” by Donna Freitas.

Freitas interviewed and surveyed students from a variety of colleges, including Catholic and Evangelical schools. Initially she thought she would be comparing these religious campuses with the non-religious ones, but she soon discovered that the real distinction was between the Evangelical campuses and everybody else.

What I couldn’t say in my review is that I totally identified with her description of the Evangelical campus. I went to a conservative Christian college in Minnesota in the mid-90s. There was a lot of pressure to NOT LOOK sexual, NOT ACT sexual, and definitely NOT BE sexual outside of marriage. There was a strict code of conduct that included things like stipulations on how long a woman’s skirt had to be – and it was enforced.

We also had visitation hours strictly enforced. As a resident assistant my junior year, it was my duty to monitor the dorms on the weekends and be sure that if the opposite sex was visiting, that the door was open, the lights were on, and there was no hanky-panky going on. I may not have agreed with the rules, but I managed to adhere to (most of) them. Imagine my confusion, then, when at one point I was taken to task for having a piece of art in my room that was deemed offensive. The closest thing I had to anything “suggestive” was a tasteful (I thought) black and white print of Isabella Rossellini and Mikhail Baryshnikov. (Although, now that I think of it — he did have his shirt off! And they were in an embrace. And dancers do wear those tights that show everything. Ah yes, I can see what was so disturbing to one’s virgin eyes!)

So although the other schools have their share of sexual issues to deal with, it’s clear (at least to me, and I believe to Freitas) that the Evangelical campuses have their share of problems as well. They may not be the “obvious” problems that draw attention, but Evangelical campuses are perpetuating a possibly dangerous naivete among their students.

Ignorance is not bliss.

I love this quote from an article about Debra Haffner,

“Our sexuality and our spirituality are intimately connected,” Haffner told a crowd at the First Unitarian Society in Madison earlier this month. At their best, after all, they share what Haffner called “a common moral vision” — how to love each other and how to treat each other with respect.

Debra is a Unitarian Universalist minister and the author of several books. She was the head of SIECUS (the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S) from 1988 to 2000. She is now the director of the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice and Healing, the mission of which is to “change the way America understands the relationship of sexuality and religion” — no small undertaking.

Other great quotes:

“Sexuality is creative, good, our bodies are wonderful things, there are many forms of blessed relationships.”

“Our sexuality must be exercised wisely so it is not in service of pain and exploitation.”

“Our sexuality in all its stunning diversity is part of God’s creation.”

I had the chance to meet Debra at the 2007 AASECT (American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors and Therapists) conference in Charlotte after her plenary session “Sexuality and Religion: What’s the Connection” (which also happens to be the name of her fabulous blog).

I’m sure she doesn’t remember me, but I will remember meeting her. As a young sexologist, she was one of the few “Sex-lebrities” that I wanted to meet (Ian Kerner was the other and I got him to sign a book for me!). Although I don’t know that I agree with her on every issue, I admire her dedication to talking about sexuality and spirituality in a way that is informative, inspiring and healing.

62211 PLENARY SESSION: SEXUALITY AND RELIGION: WHAT’S THE CONNECTION?

I get so irritated every time I hear or read someone listing all of the terrible things that are likely to happen to you if you have pre-marital sex. Federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage programs must teach that “sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects.”

I interact with people with sexual problems on a daily basis. Here are just a few of the potential “harmful psychological and physical effects” of abstinence:

• Vaginismus – the body’s unconscious response to a perceived threat (read: a penis). The vaginal muscles constrict to prevent penetration. Vaginismus results in unconsumated marriages, painful sex, and relationship problems. (Interesting note: Most women with vaginismus were raised in religious/conservative homes.)

• Belief that “Men need sex” and “Women need emotions” - Do you see how this mindset creates a double-bind? Women feel that it would be odd or wrong for them to enjoy sex, but yet feel like they must do it in order to satisfy their husband. A lot of “wait for sex” texts reinforce this unhelpful (and wrong) way of understanding men, women, sex, and emotions.

• Rapid Ejaculation – a lot of men who delay sexual relationships become so used to their masturbatory habits that they find it difficult to transition to having intercourse. They carry the shame and guilt from their “lustful” abstinent years into their relationship.

Please note that I am not saying that pre-marital sex does not have the potential for negative consequences. It absolutely does … have the potential … to cause “harmful psychological and physical effects.” But so does abstinence.

Photo by Jacob Bøtter

I’ve enjoyed some lively dialogue created by my Choices in Sex Ed post a few days back, as well as some postings on Twitter.

Today I read “New U.K. Sex Ed Urges Parental Talks with No Values” as a headline on The Christian Post.

“Discussing your values with your teenagers will help them to form their own,” the pamphlet reads. “Remember, though, that trying to convince them of what’s right and wrong may discourage them from being open.”

Contrary to what the headline implies, and what people might assume, the pamphlet encourages parents to share their values, even acknowledging that discussing their values will help their kids form their own values. This is a point that I stress when I talk to parents about how to talk to kids about healthy sexuality. I remind them over and over that they are their child’s first source of sex information, and that sharing sexual values is incredibly important. Most kids say they truly want to know what their parents think about sexual issues, and why. When it comes to sex, parents have a lot of influence on their children, more than probably the parents or the kids realize.

The second part of the quote is probably what is setting off the controversy, but isn’t it plainly obvious? I think we all know, because of our own human nature, that the more someone tries to convince us of something, the more compelled we often feel to do the exact opposite — if only to disagree for the sake of disagreeing. And who likes to argue for the sake of arguing more than teens?

As parents, we can (and must) share our values about sex (and money, and health, and education, and personal responsibility, and… and..) but we also must be mindful that we cannot guarantee that our kids will have those same values. And if we err on the side of arguing our point to death, we may sacrifice our significance as our kid’s “safe place” to come with their vulnerabilities and questions.

I’m not saying it’s wrong to want to pass on our values to our kids, and I’m not saying that we shouldn’t argue our points (to some extent). What I am saying, is that the best way to pass on those values is by first living them out ourselves, and then creating a home environment that offers the opportunity to talk openly, ask important questions, and develop self-control, communication skills, and relationship wisdom.

As I was writing my previous post about Ted Haggard, I was wondering what Joe Kort was going to say on the matter. Joe is the author of Straight Guise, a blog about men who have sex with men (MSM) and who question their sexual orientation. Joe has written a fascinating list of sixteen reasons why men have sex with men, “only some of which have anything to do with homosexuality or bisexuality.”

In his post on Ted Haggard, he says “Nobody knows the truth about Haggard but Haggard himself!” (The exact point that I was trying to make in writing my post!)

“This needs to be about understanding and being curious about how complicated sexual behavior and identity can be!”

Read Joe’s four reasons why people have such a hard time with Ted Haggard.

Someone forwarded me the blog post Lessons from the Ted Haggard Story, and for the first time I heard about Ted’s Nightline comment:

“Just as the church made a horrible mistake several centuries ago, insisting that the Earth was flat when, in fact, the Earth was round, I think the church may make a major mistake in our generation saying that sexuality should be this and nothing else when, in fact, there’s a lot more diversity.”

It appears that Ted and I have a mutual concern.

However, I predict that the church’s stance on homosexuality will change, just as its stance on divorce has. Fifty years ago, a woman would suffer terribly in her marriage because she was told that divorce was not an option. I know this, because it’s part of my family history. Her fear of going to hell was greater than her fear of her husband.

Likewise, there are people who do not feel that they have an option to be anything other than heterosexual. Their fear of hell (often in the form of disappointed parents, an unkind society, or outright damnation) is greater than their fear of stifled sexuality.

And if there’s one thing that I have learned in working with people on their sexual issues, it is that although we think we can tuck our sexuality neatly away into a corner of our lives, the truth is that it permeates every moment. If we aren’t honest with who we are sexually, then we aren’t being honest with who we are.

As a clinical sexologist, I had a particular interest in watching Ted Haggard in his many media appearances this week and the conversation it has sparked among many. From his interview on Oprah, Ted Haggard seems to understand that human sexuality is complex. He said this several times. He also said that he didn’t want to be pigeon-holed into either a “homosexual” or a “heterosexual” category, although it seems that everyone (on both sides of the debate) is trying to do just that.

What was missing from the conversation was the awareness that sexual orientation exists on a spectrum. Between the polarizing categories of “gay” and “straight,” there is a diversity of experiences and orientations. Intuitively, I think we understand this, yet our culture loves to categorize people into easily-definable boxes.

In his ground-breaking 1948 book Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, Alfred Kinsey wrote:

Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. Not all things are black nor all things white. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories. Only the human mind invents categories and tries to force facts into separated pigeon-holes. The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects. The sooner we learn this concerning human sexual behavior the sooner we shall reach a sound understanding of the realities of sex. (p. 639)

Kinsey, after painstakingly interviewing over 12,000 men,  devised a seven-point scale to reflect the spectrum of sexual experience:

0- Exclusively heterosexual with no homosexual

1- Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual

2- Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual

3- Equally heterosexual and homosexual

4- Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual

5- Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual

6- Exclusively homosexual

It is foolish for anyone to assume anything about Ted Haggard’s sexual orientation. We are fond of thinking that we know more about another person than they know about themselves. The truth is that we are all on a journey of self-discovery.

From my limited interaction with Ted Haggard’s story, it sounds to me like he has reached a place of understanding about his own sexuality and grasped this basic concept that many, gay and straight (including Oprah Winfrey), have not seemed to grasp — that there are more than two categories of human sexual experience.

I am a sexuality educator and coach based in Charlotte, North Carolina. If you have sexual health concerns, I invite you to take the free Sensovi Life Test or contact me.

I read two interesting articles today. First, I read about the Canadian study that showed that gay, lesbian and bisexual teens are more likely to get pregnant.

The report suggests that for youth, the stigma of being gay may lead to engaging in heterosexual dating and sex as a form of “camouflage” to avoid being identified as homosexual.

That quote segues nicely into the second article which was about Ted Haggard, the once prominent pastor and president of the National Association of Evangelicals. In 2006 a former male prostitute “outted” Haggard as a client. Haggard has since disclosed that he was sexually abused as a child and that he has never claimed to be heterosexual.

“The reason I kept my personal struggle a secret is because I feared that my friends would reject me, abandon me and kick me out, and the church would exile and excommunicate me. And that happened and more,” he says.

Imagine the suffering and pain that could be avoided if people were allowed encouraged to be honest about their sexuality and to express it freely.

Whatever is repressed will one day be expressed.