Chastity
It might seem odd to put a post on this subject
in the category of "politics," but these days it does seem, like many other
subjects, to be taking on a considerable political tone. And hey -- the personal
is political, right?
A case in point is a book by Lauren F. Winner
(who was raised by a Jewish father and Christian mother, converted to Orthodox
Judaism, and then to Episcopalian Christianity),
Real Sex: The Naked Truth About Chastity.
I hasten to add that I have not read it, or
very likely ever will. But reading the reviews of it on Amazon suggested the
following thoughts on the subject of chastity (defined herein as abstention from
extramarital sexual behavior), which may or may not be relevant to what Winner
wrote.
A common strain in the defense of chastity by religious proponents is that a principal virtue of this virtue is that it promotes discipline in sexual behavior. The unchaste (that is, all those who engage in pre-, post-, or extramarital sex) are portrayed as completely lacking in any ability to restrain their animal impulses. Whenever and wherever (and with whomever) they feel like doing the nasty, and it feels good to them (as it always does), they just get right to it. By contrast, the chaste are described as sober, intelligent, foresightful citizens who realize that sexuality has much more important dimensions that dogs or cats will ever know, and that these dimensions, it so happens, can only be explored within holy matrimony.
Now of course there are many things to be said in defense of, as well as in attacking, the institution of tying the knot, but I see no reason to assume that the rigid dichotomy I just described has any validity to it. That is, those who believe that extramarital sex is (at least some times, in some situations) ethically justified are not necessary thoughtless beasts. It is admitted that much of the careful thought and consideration that should accompany the decision to start any sexual relationship is difficult for adolescents; it has recently been argued by many psychologists that the ability to reason about the consequences of one's conduct with full effectiveness develops quite slowly, and perhaps does not completely emerge until one is completely an adult. (This is presumably why most societies try to lay down a minimum age for such other dangerous activities as drinking alcohol, voting, and operating dangerous machinery, such as cars.)
So it may very will be wise to counsel adolescents to ease into sexual relationships rather carefully. (Or perhaps not; there is also the argument that, with proper protection against pregnancy and STDs, it is more harmful to try to restrain sexual behavior after puberty -- a modern Reichian position, perhaps.) But I would argue that a great many older non-chaste persons (whether a minority or majoriity of them I'm not sure) are just as reflective and deliberative about their sexual relationships as Christians who regard chastity as a virtue are.
I have been trying for some time to write an extended piece on a Buddhist approach to marriage and divorce, but have not gotten very far. I am beginning to realize that this is probably because traditional Buddhist writings have very little to say on the subject, so it is hard to find original source material. The basic traditional distinction is between "family-leavers," who emulate the Buddha himself in leaving all family relationships to concentrate single-heartedly on gaining enlightenment, and "house-holders," who continue to lead the usual lives of members of their society while practicing the Buddha's teachings to the extent that they can. This is not quite the same distinction as the one we Westerners are more familiar with -- between "monks/nuns" and "laypersons" -- which derives from the very different Christian world-view.
One considerable difference is that there is nothing in Buddhist sexual ethics corresponding to the Christian notion of chastity for the laity. The basic ethical teaching for house-holders, the "Five Precepts," includes a warning against harmful sexual behavior, in addition to warnings against killing, misuse of the faculty of speech, taking what is not given to one, and use of intoxicants. The precept about sexual behavior is generally stated in quite non-specific terms. Sometimes it is couched in terms of abstention from extramarital sex, but there is no evidence that the Buddha himself laid that down as a rule.
In general, in the traditional Buddhist countries, marriage and sexual behavior in general have been considered non-Buddhist matters. Western Buddhists who want to find a traditional Buddhist wedding ceremony to perform have been quite frustrated; generally, they resort to making up their own, or using one or another ceremony made up by another Western Buddhist. (It is also, by the way, hard to find traditional Buddhist strictures against homosexuality, though a few such texts can be found if you look hard enough.) What Buddhist ethical thought advises about sexuality is, I think, very much like what I have been suggesting here: if you are going to do it, think quite carefully first, taking into consideration the possible consequences, and realizing that sex is a powerful component of human relationships. Of course, the Buddhist way of doing this reflection would differ quite a bit from the way most non-Buddhists would do it; the whole Buddhist teaching about mindfulness, wisdom, and the sources and remedies for suffering would come into play. But it might serve as a model for serious alternatives to the Christian idea of chastity.
A common strain in the defense of chastity by religious proponents is that a principal virtue of this virtue is that it promotes discipline in sexual behavior. The unchaste (that is, all those who engage in pre-, post-, or extramarital sex) are portrayed as completely lacking in any ability to restrain their animal impulses. Whenever and wherever (and with whomever) they feel like doing the nasty, and it feels good to them (as it always does), they just get right to it. By contrast, the chaste are described as sober, intelligent, foresightful citizens who realize that sexuality has much more important dimensions that dogs or cats will ever know, and that these dimensions, it so happens, can only be explored within holy matrimony.
Now of course there are many things to be said in defense of, as well as in attacking, the institution of tying the knot, but I see no reason to assume that the rigid dichotomy I just described has any validity to it. That is, those who believe that extramarital sex is (at least some times, in some situations) ethically justified are not necessary thoughtless beasts. It is admitted that much of the careful thought and consideration that should accompany the decision to start any sexual relationship is difficult for adolescents; it has recently been argued by many psychologists that the ability to reason about the consequences of one's conduct with full effectiveness develops quite slowly, and perhaps does not completely emerge until one is completely an adult. (This is presumably why most societies try to lay down a minimum age for such other dangerous activities as drinking alcohol, voting, and operating dangerous machinery, such as cars.)
So it may very will be wise to counsel adolescents to ease into sexual relationships rather carefully. (Or perhaps not; there is also the argument that, with proper protection against pregnancy and STDs, it is more harmful to try to restrain sexual behavior after puberty -- a modern Reichian position, perhaps.) But I would argue that a great many older non-chaste persons (whether a minority or majoriity of them I'm not sure) are just as reflective and deliberative about their sexual relationships as Christians who regard chastity as a virtue are.
I have been trying for some time to write an extended piece on a Buddhist approach to marriage and divorce, but have not gotten very far. I am beginning to realize that this is probably because traditional Buddhist writings have very little to say on the subject, so it is hard to find original source material. The basic traditional distinction is between "family-leavers," who emulate the Buddha himself in leaving all family relationships to concentrate single-heartedly on gaining enlightenment, and "house-holders," who continue to lead the usual lives of members of their society while practicing the Buddha's teachings to the extent that they can. This is not quite the same distinction as the one we Westerners are more familiar with -- between "monks/nuns" and "laypersons" -- which derives from the very different Christian world-view.
One considerable difference is that there is nothing in Buddhist sexual ethics corresponding to the Christian notion of chastity for the laity. The basic ethical teaching for house-holders, the "Five Precepts," includes a warning against harmful sexual behavior, in addition to warnings against killing, misuse of the faculty of speech, taking what is not given to one, and use of intoxicants. The precept about sexual behavior is generally stated in quite non-specific terms. Sometimes it is couched in terms of abstention from extramarital sex, but there is no evidence that the Buddha himself laid that down as a rule.
In general, in the traditional Buddhist countries, marriage and sexual behavior in general have been considered non-Buddhist matters. Western Buddhists who want to find a traditional Buddhist wedding ceremony to perform have been quite frustrated; generally, they resort to making up their own, or using one or another ceremony made up by another Western Buddhist. (It is also, by the way, hard to find traditional Buddhist strictures against homosexuality, though a few such texts can be found if you look hard enough.) What Buddhist ethical thought advises about sexuality is, I think, very much like what I have been suggesting here: if you are going to do it, think quite carefully first, taking into consideration the possible consequences, and realizing that sex is a powerful component of human relationships. Of course, the Buddhist way of doing this reflection would differ quite a bit from the way most non-Buddhists would do it; the whole Buddhist teaching about mindfulness, wisdom, and the sources and remedies for suffering would come into play. But it might serve as a model for serious alternatives to the Christian idea of chastity.
Posted: Sun - August 14, 2005 at 12:58 PM | |
Quick Links
SITE UNDER CONSTRUCTION!
(while I bone up on html and css)
(while I bone up on html and css)
Categories
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Comments powered by
Archives
Truth Laid Bear
Technorati
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Dec 09, 2005 10:19 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Dec 09, 2005 10:19 PM
