Sex: The Need for a Context

Annie Dillard, in her book "Living by Fiction", said that when we lose our context, we lose our meaning. In this work of hers, she dicusses postmodernity's effect on literature then shows how it has moved to our very lives and has effected our lives in the exact same way. She starts with this gripping phrase on losing our context. What is a context? It is the pre-understood circumstances in a certain situation or issue that helps certain aspects of the situation make sense. When we read in a book, "Susie opened the door," we usually have an understanding where she is or at least the circumstances that lead up to opening the door - there is a strange noise behind the door, or she is going to bed. Without this understanding, the fact that Susie opened the door has no meaning or sense to it. In Scripture interpretation we use the context of the chapter, book, covenant, and eventually the entire Bible to understand the verse. For instance John 3:16 without the rest of the Bible is an empty, nonsensical statement, but, within the context of a Creator God who made humans who denied their place as creature as well as multiple prophecies, events, and theologies, it makes much more sense. So if we are to understand what something means we must first understand its context.

From the beginning of time, man has been trying to change the context by which we live. When this happens, we pervert the meaning of life. For instance, Hitler tried to change the context of race and ended up killing many Jews and other races because of this. Hitler said race or blood was the same as the soul; and a "dirty" race meant a "dirty" soul. He made the attributes of a person equate to the person himself. By changing the context of race and soul, he destroyed the very meaning of life itself.

And we do this everyday in our lives. I was thinking of the movie "Wedding Crashers" earlier today. I have never seen it but I was thinking of how we laugh at and celebrate our shame in this culture. Think of the movie (I'm getting the summary from the trailer and from friends who have seen it): two guys sneak their selves into weddings and try to hook up with the girls who are all emotionally charged from being at a wedding. Think of the way woman are treated in that film; they are prey for the sexual appetite of these two men. But even a more staggering thought, think of audience watching this film and laughing at this - think of the women who sat through it and laughed at it, and did not make the connection to that and the guys who harrass them and pinch their butts as they walk down the street. The context of a woman's worth has been destroyed by this culture through this type of entertainment where women become objects that satisfy instead of people to respect and cherish. When we sit there and encourage this behavior are we not admitting its legitimacy in our own lives? Remember the context is how we interpret the meaning of a statement or action. If we see women being treated this way and we see people react in such a way towards it, then the meaning of a woman's worth has been perverted. It is though Hitler has walked into the room and said, "A woman's worth is according to how well she can satisfy." Attributes once again establish the meaning of a life.

This is where the point hits. We have changed the context, which means we have made it something it was not meant to be. If the context gives legitimacy and meaning to the object, person, situation, event, issue, or whatever else, then to fall away from its rightful context is to fall away from it's very nature. Therefore the context of something is the way it is meant to be. Notice the word "meant" in that last sentence. Context gives meaning, and when we lose that context we lose the meaning.

So how was sex meant to be? What is the context for sex? I would suggest that few people actually believe, or can actually live out the belief, that sex is merely for biological reasons. If this is the case, then "Wedding Crashers" really destroys their argument. You can take this either way. If you have a problem with the way it portrays women then you admit that sex does not have a pure biological context because the worth of the women transcends the need for sex. If you want to look at it the other way and say that the portrayal of women is not wrong whatsoever, you dig yourself an even bigger whole (the Hitler hole). So sex's context is bigger than biological reasons, although it does have a part in biology (reproduction, etc).

Now the common idea of sex's context nowadays is that if the two people truely care and love for one another than it is okay to have sex. In this case no one is being taken advantage of, they both understand the responsibility, and they both are actually invested in the other. This sounds very responsible, and it is much closer to a stable context but it's not quite there. Here's why: to understand the context you must go back to the way we were made as human beings. If sexuality is a part of the human make up we must understand why it is here and the meaning of it.

The caring/loving idea has its own problems; it does not have any ground to stand on. Where did this idea come from? How does love and caring for a person legitimize sex? Who said those are sufficient qualifiers? You may say that it is a natural succession to love; meaning that when you love someone then it eventually comes to the point where sex is wanted as a natural expression for love - kissing, hugging, talking, cuddling, spending time together are all ways you can express love too so why not sex as well?

Here is what I think has happened, and it is a clever trick. We have taken certain aspects from the true context, which does have grounds, and made these aspects the ground rule. It is making something that looks similar to the original, but not the original. It is a knock off brand. It takes out certain qualities and only leaves in the ones we all like and calls it the same. This view has actually cheapen sex from its proper context. I'm a guitar player so, to me, it's like taking eric clapton's guitar and making that knock off you find at wal-mart that looks the same but costs a lot different and the quality is much lower. This is an invalid move.

The proper context for sex is marriage. The reason is not because "God said so". The reason is because that is how it was meant to be. This is the only way we can have sex fit its very nature. When God created man and woman, he created marriage. And he said that the man should leave his parents to become one flesh with his wife. Sex is the physical consumation of the marriage. It is priviledge and kept sacred for such a union. The purpose of sex is not just biological reasons, and it is not just to express your love to someone, although it is both. Sex is reserved for marriage because it has a link or relationship with it; we cannot assume they are unconnected.

Sex is reserved for marriage not because God said so but because he created it so. There is a difference. He did not create sex and THEN say you can only do it in marriage, as if a mother says to a child you can have your cookie only after dinner (this is purely a rule). This assumes a separation between the two that is not at all necessary. God created marriage and then gave it its own unique expression that demonstrates the connection only shared in marriage. It is like the cookie's purpose was to be eaten after dinner. This doesn't mean cookies don't exist until after dinner, but merely that the purpose for them is after dinner and to change that context is to lose the meaning of having a chocolate chip cookie (this points to order and the nature of sexuality, not a merely a rule). This way, sex has grounds not just in that there is male and female, but that there is marriage. God created it this way and it is not empty like the faux loving/caring sexual context that has no grounds as to why that is right. Sex is made for marriage, and to change that is to change the whole reason why sex is existent.