Sexual Thoughts Do Not Equal Sexual Actions!
Image credits belong to: chermitove | Pixabay
I have been captivated by Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs since I first learned about it years ago. It makes sense to me. Humanity’s most fundamental needs are ranked in a colorful pyramid. Air, water, food, sex, sleep, clothes, and shelter are positioned at the bottom, representing the most fundamental needs that must be fulfilled prior to pursuing the higher ones. Transcendence and self-actualization sit at the top, since many people are not guaranteed to attain them. Though this model has been well-respected by many, a brief Google search will tell you that Maslow’s Hierarchy lacks scientific support. So, forgive me for finding it to be plausible.
It is intuitively obvious to me that sex would be on the same basic physiological level as sleep, food, and shelter. Some have called me “sex-obsessed” for saying this.
Though Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is not completely validated, it appears there is evidence demonstrating that sexuality is quite fundamental to the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors we express. Sex is the vehicle for our reproduction, representations of self, and attraction or non-attraction to others. Sex compels you to be a pleasure-seeker.
Neuropsychologist Karl Pribram (1958) stated that all thoughts, feelings, and behaviors revolve around actions of fleeing, feeding, fighting, and sex. If you ask me, those four main drives echo Maslow’s Hierarchy, though that does not make it entirely “scientific” or proven true. But why would sex not be a basic drive if none of us would be here without it? Sex is so fundamental, that even the world’s great religions cannot resist commenting on it in their holy books. Manners of dressing, talking, and joking are determined by how it pleases the opposite sex. Still, sex remains the least understood drive of the three.
Why Forbid What is So Important?
Considering how vital sex is, it amazes me that certain religious sects would demand temporal or complete abstinence.
I am a child of the 1990’s Christian purity culture. As a quick side-note, The Gospel Coalition defines purity culture quite succinctly:
“‘Purity culture’ is the term often used for the evangelical movement that attempts to promote a biblical view of purity (1 Thess. 4:3-8) by discouraging dating and promoting virginity before marriage, often through the use of tools such as purity pledges, symbols such as purity rings, and events such as purity balls.”
I was raised on reading a book called Every Young Man’s Battle written by Stephen Arterburn and Fred Stoeker. You might call me melodramatic or childishly sulky for saying that it haunted me throughout my youth and I had to fiercely reject the book once I became an adult.
As this book has a 2002 copyright, the authors make it sound like many of us got our sex education from a bunch of barbarians:
“your fathers received their first sex lessons on some street corner or in a locker room shower.” (pg. 15)
The authors relay a story from a man named Tyler who stated he could not masturbate without feeling “rotten” as he believed God was watching him (pg. 15). Who knows how long Tyler could sanely live with that perturbating thought. I know that I could not live with it.
That perturbation is difficult and embarrassing to articulate, even as I am an atheist today. It feels invasive. I can say that at least. It is an invasion of my privacy to have someone watch me engage in a sexual act of which they are not partaking and I have not consented to their watching. It is an invasion of my privacy even if the person is invisible or unreal.
The book impressed upon me that any sexual act(s), leading down the path to eventual intercourse, results in feeling “distant from God.” It is quite bizarre to draw close to the one who watches but does not partake in my sexual actions and may want to hurt me for having them. The distant feelings seem to be a natural consequence. Perhaps I can still feel the closeness, but only if I am traumatically bonded to that watcher/punisher.
The authors admit that attraction to girls is natural. However:
“We’ll be tempted in many wrong ways to play with these natural desires and attractions to girls. Obviously, stripping off her clothes in the basement at the after-game party is a wrong way, but it’s just as wrong to stare lustfully at her and fantasize in your mind. Neither practice is any more pure than the other.” (pg. 17)
So, I understood it like this: staring and fantasizing is non-negotiable. For me, that premise translates into this feeling: “you are a terrible male, Matthew. You should be ashamed of yourself.” Surely I was ashamed. Always! My mind accused me of lust, licentiousness, and moral filth every time I felt admiration or attraction for a girl. A sexual thought about a girl actually equated to violating her. “I am a horrible violator” had to be the useful thought for counteracting every sexual thought I had about a girl. The suppression was stressful as I had so many sexual thoughts and feelings about girls who I was not allowed to have in my youth.
The authors cite Matthew 5:28
“But I [Jesus] tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
They go on further to relay:
“God takes sexual standards seriously, and He wants to be heard on the matter.” (pg. 18)
The authors state clearly that God’s love for you is not determined by your ability to satisfy his standards. His love is unconditional, but intimacy with Christ is lost due to pre-marital sex.
I am certain that the key word is “intimacy” here, which is something quite significantly addressed in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Somehow, I still feel an ultimatum here: ‘Do as I say or I will withdraw my intimacy.’ Withdrawal of intimacy is a punishment that no one wants to face, and people who have experienced neglect in their relationships can certainly attest.
The evangelical purity logic does not make sense here:
“When you break His standards, the Lord doesn’t reject you, but you can’t be as close to Him.” (pg. 20)
The authors evoke unbridled fear later when they clearly state:
“sexual immorality begins with the lustful attitude of our sinful nature. It’s rooted in the darkness within us. Therefore sexual immorality, like other sins that enslave unbelievers, will incur God’s wrath.” (pg. 25)
Have you got the picture yet? Sexual thoughts = the sex act itself. Premarital sex = God’s wrath. God’s wrath looms over you and I as frequently as our sexual thoughts visit us, which may be very often or not very often for you. It was very often for me in my childhood. And now I have to come to terms with that as an adult, today.
I have an aversion to the Christian purity culture’s conflation of thoughts with actions.
To this day, I regularly fear loss and abandonment in my interpersonal relationships. I wonder if this is symptomatic of something significant, stemming from all the abandonment and loss I feared from God in my childhood and adolescence.
General Disclaimer: All sources are hyperlinked in this article. The author has made their best attempt to accurately interpret the sources used and preserve the source-author’s original argument while avoiding plagiarism. Should you discover any errors to that end, please email thecommoncaveat@gmail.com and we will review your request.
All information in this article is intended for educational/entertainment purposes only. This information should not be used as medical/therapeutic advice. Please seek a doctor/therapist for health advice.