Given her attitude toward men, I think she thinks you implied she's been overdoing it a bit. Not that feminists tend to take things more personally than would be rational.

OT: I should mention at some point that I'm probably about as opposed to your philosophy about these matters as it is possible for me to be with a fellow Christian. I mainly just comment here about the things I agree with you on though, so it probably sounds like I'm totally aboard for the whole "gross public overemphasis on chastity to the point that Christ starts sounding like just another excuse not to put out" thing.
Dave Munger | Homepage | 06.16.06 - 12:37 am | #

I was going to use the example of overweight people railing against a weightwatchers cookbook or drunks getting upset over the AA manual myself.
Rhys | Homepage | 06.16.06 - 12:54 am | #

"They know that if chastity truly enables one to enjoy life, love and friendship on a deeper, more intense level than one can experience through nonmarital sex, then the mere existence of such a lifestyle invalidates their own."

I disagree. Turn this around -- my NON-chaste relationship enabled me to enjoy life, love and friendship, and I would definitely say it was more than I could have personally experienced in a chaste relationship with the same person. My happiness no more invalidates your own happiness, Dawn, than your happiness invalidates mine.

To paraphrase you, you can't deny my experience, because you've never been there. And I`m not denying yours, because your experience is obviously just as valid.
L. | Homepage | 06.16.06 - 1:54 am | #

L.-

I've never been to North Korea, but I feel confident in saying I wouldn't want to live like the North Koreans do.
See-Dubya | 06.16.06 - 4:08 am | #

concupiscent kaffeeklatsch
lattes-and-latex lads and lassies

In case nobody else mentions it, your ability to turn a phrase remains in the stratosphere.

Somewhere Spiro Agnew is smiling. (That's meant as a compliment).
Robert N G | Homepage | 06.16.06 - 8:02 am | #

L., I don't assume that because you're married, you're in an unchaste relationship -- quite the opposite, and that's regardless of whether you and your husband were chaste with one another before marriage. Chastity is not celibacy; it's about placing sex within its proper marital context. Unless you get up and shout that you and your husband have affairs, or use one another for sexual purposes outside loving marital relations — or, rather, "use" one another at all — neither I nor anyone else has any business calling you unchaste.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 06.16.06 - 8:06 am | #

"They know that if chastity truly enables one to enjoy life, love and friendship on a deeper, more intense level than one can experience through nonmarital sex, then the mere existence of such a lifestyle invalidates their own"

Even accepting the premise here (I don't, as I'm sure most of you know by now), I don't believe this is a logical statement. Consider this statement:
"If growing your own vegetables from seed allows one to experience carrots and cucumbers on a deeper, more knowledgable level than one can experience through buying such vegetables at the supermarket, then the existence of a vegetable-growing lifestyle invalidates that of the veggie-buyers"
or even this one:
"If participating in marriage or the priesthood allows one to experience God on a deeper, more profound level, then the existence of such sacraments invalidates the single, unordained life"
A less-aware life is not rendered unacceptable by the existence of a more-aware life, only lesser - logically speaking. And that, as I said, assumes the premise is true to start, which as I have said before and will undoubtedly say again I do not.
Ledasmom | 06.16.06 - 8:41 am | #

I just want to say great job on this topic, Dawn. Your experiences jive precisely with my own in moving from premarital sex to chastity. So many people don't want to hear the truth, however.
Misty | 06.16.06 - 9:06 am | #

Dawn, your entire response here is one huge non sequitur. Jill's point is clearly not that an 'unchaste' life is better than a 'chaste' one (scarequotes because I don't think she'd put it in those terms) -- that's precisely what she's denying in the first clause. The two sides here are not 'pro-chastity' and 'anti-chastity'. Rather, she's saying that you've made a hasty generalization from your own personal experience to the lives of all women in our society. At least in the context of this criticism of your book, shes making no advocacy.

And because shes making no advocacy, she also doesn't have the burden of proof. But you do -- and linking to a website that, based on a five-second glance, is made up mostly of editorials attacking marriage equality is insufficient. Maybe you have hard evidence in your book, something more than just your own personal experiences; I haven't read it, so I simply don't know. If your book does have this kind of evidence, the way to respond to Jill is to point that evidence out ('She's just looking at the chapter on my own experience, I provide hard data in chapters 7 through nine').

You mention the 9/11 widows. But I don't see the analogy here. Consider the press release by the Jersey Girls that you posted about last week-ish. None of their arguments were based on their personal experience; rather, their personal experiences made them interested in finding policies that might have saved the lives of their loved ones, policies which they defend rationally. By contrast, your argument seems to be
1. Chastity was the right choice for me.
2. Therefore, chastity is the right choice for everyone.
Which is not a rational (logically sound) argument.

No-one's denying your experience. What Jill and Atrios are denying is that, based simply on your own personal experience, you have a good understanding of everyone's else situation.
Noumena | Homepage | 06.16.06 - 9:27 am | #

Do I hear the suggestion that it's illicit to reason from the particular to the universal? The idea that one person's experience simply can't be generalized to other people?

The very possibility of good poetry and good art depends on the ability to unpack universal experience in the particular and concrete case.

Radical subjectivism doesn't answer Dawn's argument.

There is a universal human nature, it is real and objective, and there are better and worse ways of fulfilling it. This truth lies near the core of Catholic faith.
doctor J | 06.16.06 - 9:55 am | #

Dawn, chastity may work for you, but please, please don't try to insist that it must be this way for everyone. Why, one would think you are implying the presence of some absolute and overarching moral truth which guides the universe. We all know there is no such thing. Or it can't really be defined. As Pontius Pilate asked once, "What is truth?
Or perhaps you are just trying to make the rest of us feel guilty. Tsk, tsk, that will never do, not in our enlightened age.
Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!
John Mark | 06.16.06 - 10:22 am | #

Doctor J, art in the way you're talking about uses paradigm cases to make its point: To kill a mockingbird presents Harper Lee's paradigm of life in the Deep South during the Great Depression, etc. And certainly this is a powerful way to make one's point -- as I said above, no-one is saying Dawn's realization that chastity was the right choice for her was in any way invalid, nor that many people may be brought to a similar realization by reading Dawn's personal account.

But just because an artist believes her work to be paradigmatic doesn't mean that it accurately represents reality. We don't conclude, based on nothing more than reading TKaM, that racism was a problem in the Deep South during the Great Depression; we turn to historians to verify the impression we get from Lee's book. It is a logical fallacy to reason from the particular to the universal. Logically speaking, there's no difference between Dawn's generalization and any of the following:
A.1. Noumena has grey eyes.
2. Thus, all bloggers have grey eyes.

B.1. Eating meat was bad for my health.
2. Hence, everyone should become vegetarian for their health.

C.1. Some Christians have misogynistic beliefs.
2. Therefore, all Christians are misogynists.

You say "Radical subjectivism doesn't answer Dawn's argument." But the only person here I see making anything that might remotely be called a subjectivist inference is Dawn, who, according to these criticisms, is drawing objective conclusions from her subjective experiences. Maybe there is a "real and objective" human nature with "better and worse ways of fulfilling it"; that's not a discussion I'm prepared to delve into. But, assuming there is, the criticism here is that Dawn hasn't given any sound arguments that show chastity is, in fact, one of those better ways. It wouldn't be hard to find people who would claim that, based on their personal experience, a non-chaste lifestyle is objectively superior to a chaste one, and their generalizations would be just as invalid.
Noumena | Homepage | 06.16.06 - 11:42 am | #

"As Pontius Pilate asked once, "What is truth?"

That has got to be the most self-defeating argument I've ever heard.
Sydney Carton | 06.16.06 - 12:07 pm | #

I find it completely offensive that she would attempt to tell everyone else...

...anything with which I disagree.

Dawn, what right do you think you have to express your own beliefs in your own book?
saint kansas | Homepage | 06.16.06 - 12:12 pm | #

"I've never been to North Korea, but I feel confident in saying I wouldn't want to live like the North Koreans do."

And I`ll never know what it`s like to be a lifelong virgin (undoubtedly many are very happy -- especially nuns), but I feel confident in saying I wouldn`t want to live like they do.

And yes, I have been in a monogamous marriage for years, so I do fit some people`s definition of "chaste." But my husband and I met while I was still a teenager, and dated for six years before we married, and were sexually active before marriage. That`s the "non-chaste" part of which I speak.
L. | Homepage | 06.16.06 - 12:29 pm | #

Dawn of course has the perfect right to express her own beliefs in her own book, and in her own blog for that matter.

What I think Noumena's objecting to -- s/he's saying it better than I could, which is why I'm glad to see her making the same arguments I'm about to make -- is that Dawn is extending her experience to apply to everyone. And that just simply isn't the case, especially when you're talking about something as loaded and personal as sex and relationships.

If Dawn had written something along the lines of "When I became chaste, I realized for the first time that when I wasn't, I wasn't really appreciating men for who they are", then I'd have no problem with that. But she's not. She's saying that all women who have sex outside of marriage don't really appreciate men, which makes no sense. Dawn can talk all she wants to about finding fulfillment through chastity, and contrasting it with her own experience (I presume) of non-chastity is fine...but she shouldn't really be surprised when others' experience doesn't mirror her own. Clearly, other people are finding fulfilling, enriching relationships outside of marriage, so Dawn's point about women who have non-married sex not appreciating men is demonstrably untrue. And that's why that quote is drawing some flak, not because she's "telling women the positive experiences they'll have when they become chaste." It's because she's making a generalization that just doesn't fit everyone, and she's insisting that it does.
Vidiot | Homepage | 06.16.06 - 12:33 pm | #

I'm inclined to agree with Dawn's observation because I've listened to the stories and observed the lives of dozens of others through the years which seem to confirm the validity of her experinces. In my own case, however, I've only had sexual realations with my wife, therefore I cannot know anything else from personal experience. There is, however, one basic principle that Dawn didn't mention in her book exscript, though she might cover it elsewhere in the book, and I know from reading this blog that she does believe this--- that it is always a good to obey the word of the scripture and, by extension, the teaching of the church in chastity as well as all other areas whether we understand all the reasons why or not. Teachings like "Love your enemy" ect. are the opposite of human nature, as is sexual self control ect. but living those commands prove their validity time and again if we will only have the faith and patience to live them out long enough to see the positive results. But even if we never come to understand in this lifetime why God asks us to do something or live a certain way, we should do so out of trust in His care for us. He would never steer us wrong and there are eternal goals that He has in mind for us, not not merely the temporal goals that we humans are usually preoccupied with. Also, we need to reveer Him and His power, for His commands are indeed commands and not mere suggestions.
Ray Matthew | 06.16.06 - 1:00 pm | #

Well, from looking at the rest of Dawn's blog, I doubt that she's making these statements about human sexuality *solely* based on her own experiences. That might not come through in the excerpt, but it is, after all, just an excerpt.

And if you want further proof that everything Dawn is saying is true, just read A Return to Modesty by Wendy Shalit. It complements Dawn's book quite nicely (or at least, I think it would, since I haven't actually read Dawn's book yet). :D

Yay for Dawn! :)
Blue | 06.16.06 - 1:00 pm | #

Thanks, Blue. What I've read of Shalit's work leads me to believe we're on the same page.
Dawn Eden | 06.16.06 - 1:16 pm | #

I've read Wendy Shalit's book, and I don't quite comprehend how Wendy Shalit and Dawn Eden having the same opinion proves sweet Fanny Adams except that they have the same opinion.
I also think most of "A Return To Modesty" is fuzzy-headed nonsense, and if you give me a day or so the reread it I'll even say exactly why.
Ledasmom | 06.16.06 - 1:21 pm | #

What I think Noumena's objecting to...is that Dawn is extending her experience to apply to everyone.

Well, no, she isn't. It's a book, available to buy or not to buy, and though I'm sure the publisher wouldn't mind selling a copy to everyone on the planet, it will be marketed to a very specific audience who are looking for a particular point of view. Just like it says on the tin (at Amazon.com):

A book for single women who, unsatisfied with living a worldly lifestyle, want to give their lives a new and godly direction.... Author Dawn Eden...gives these readers the positive and uplifting message that they've been wanting to hear-that spiritual healing and a renewed outlook await them.... This is for real women who need strong, motivational, and deeply moral messages to counter the ones they receive from a superficial, sex-obsessed world.

Now, is Dawn extending God's definition of "moral" to everyone? Likely. But God's big that way, or so I've heard.
saint kansas | Homepage | 06.16.06 - 1:59 pm | #

Dawn,

You're probably already familiar with this, but Wendy Shalit has a website (The Modesty Zone) and a group blog (Modestly Yours) and they tackle a lot of the same issues you do. They also have the same propensity to raise feminist (and libertine male) hackles. ;-)
Susan B. | Homepage | 06.16.06 - 2:29 pm | #

who, according to these criticisms, is drawing objective conclusions from her subjective experiences.

Are you drawing objective conclusions from your subjective experiences to criticize Dawn's actions?
Mary | 06.16.06 - 2:38 pm | #

Vidiot, that is precisely my point, as well as Jill's and Atrios'. And, saint kansas, while Dawn's book is written with a specific audience in mind, the excerpt certainly seems to be making universally normative statements.
Noumena | Homepage | 06.16.06 - 2:40 pm | #

when I read the raging anger that passes for though at Atrios and those other sites, I'm tempted to get very angry myself.

Then I remember...

1. Don't fear those who can hurt just our flesh or end our lives. We fight against powers and principalites......

2. These people are under the influence of said powers.....they are our patients, not our enemies. And just like children, they will wince when we apply the Bactine of God.
chris | 06.16.06 - 2:44 pm | #

Certainly, Dawn should not join the great cloud of witnesses who have insisted, from before the existence of the Church, that chastity is integral to loving God. (It is no mistake that the Old Testament prophets equated idolatry with adultery and fornication.) By doing so, she continues a lengthy history of making generalizations which we now know are detrimental, offensive and patently untrue because "clearly, other people are finding fulfilling, enriching [sexual] relationships outside of marriage."

We Christians with our generalizing ways insist that simple things (like sex) are worth such a lot of bother and then honestly believe that everyone else is just waiting to hear the good news so they can bother too (we call that mission). But then we know that loving God includes not being afraid to proclaim the good news that we ourselves have heard. (Isn't that another generalization?)

Of course Jesus excelled at making generalizations all about how we will live if we truly love God, about what is necessary if we are to enter into the kingdom of God. He spoke from His experiernce and perhaps everyone didn't fit but He made it clear that everyone could if they chose to be conformed to Him. But perhaps plenty of people are loving God and finding their way into His kingdom without becoming like Christ or at least they think they are.
Drusilla | 06.16.06 - 2:46 pm | #

I just love the pithy responses of Saint Kansas.

I must have read the whole ‘you’ part of Dawn’s excerpt differently from everybody having a conniption. For instance, when Dawn wrote :

“You can’t see this when you’re having nonmarital sex, because you don’t realize how much there really is about men to appreciate.”

I didn’t read it as someone telling me what to do or any such thing. It’s like when I read a great book or see a good film and telling a friend “You have to read this, it’s great!” Dawn thinks chastity is a great thing and wants to share her reasons why with the world. If this upsets you, don't buy the book.
Nicholas | 06.16.06 - 2:53 pm | #

Dear L,

"my NON-chaste relationship enabled me to enjoy life, love and friendship, and I would definitely say it was more than I could have personally experienced in a chaste relationship with the same person."

If I am reading you correctly, you are saying that your non-chaste relationship with your then-boyfriend-now-husband laid a stronger foundation for your marriage than if you had been chaste. That's interesting. Can you elaborate on that and explain exactly how your marriage would have been less enriching today if you had been chaste?

And would you recommend based on your experiences that other women (including your daughter if you have any) follow your route?

Another question that please ignore if you feel it's intrusive, you didn't say if being unchaste involved prior boyfriends or not, how would you say did any unchaste experiences with prior boyfriends (assuming you had any) relate to all of the above. In other words, did those strengthen the marriage you have today as well or only the unchaste relationships with your husband? Again feel free to ignore this part if it's intrusive.

Hannah
Hannah | 06.16.06 - 3:29 pm | #

Hannah, I don`t mind talking about such things. I had several boyfriends before my husband, some of with whom I was also "unchaste." I had a few encounters I might not repeat, mostly because I had them out of curiosity. But all the relations I had based on love and mutual respect were fulfilling. I learned much from them. As for premarital sex with my husband, I imagine it to be very similar to marital sex, but without the formal framework of matrimony. Knowing him in an intimate way provided more insight into what kind of person he was, and made me love him even more.

Again, I can only speak for myself. And my own daughter? Her choices will depend on her own situation someday. If she asks me about what I did with her father before we were married, I will certainly tell her the truth, but will also tell her that my way is not necessarily the right way for everyone.
L. | Homepage | 06.16.06 - 4:47 pm | #

Ditto to Nicholas above: I didn’t read it as someone telling me what to do or any such thing....Dawn thinks chastity is a great thing and wants to share her reasons why with the world.

Exactly. That's what makes the outraged response seem so odd and excessive. Suppose she were writing about her experience with warding off colds by taking echinacea (sp?). If I disagreed, I wouldn't feel outraged, no matter how enthused she got.

Sex just is a big deal, so big that even the attempt to say it isn't is.
Maclin Horton | Homepage | 06.16.06 - 4:57 pm | #

On Maggie Gallagher's "Marriage Debate" site, Kristin Luker is quoted as follows:

"In short, it's not reproduction that separates the liberals from the conservatives, it's sex. . .This probably seems painfully obvious. Afer all, what else would people fighting over sex education be fighting over? But it has taken me years of sitting in living rooms, cafes, and proches and of poring over transcripts in the quiet of my office to understand exactly what it is about sex that divides the two groups. Not one person I interviewed could put a finger on how and why she or he knew that people on the 'other side' didn't share his or her values about sex, but somehow they all just knew that they didn't.

Here's what I've come to understand: for conservatives, sex is 'sacred,' while for liberals, it's 'natural'. . ."

I suspect that those who hold the "one size doesn't fit all" point of view concerning sex -- i.e., those who say chastity is fine for Dawn but is not right for everyone -- are liberals who view sex as natural but not sacred. Unchaste sex is unholy.
Dan | 06.16.06 - 5:12 pm | #

Dan, your argument is interesting, but I`m not sure I can agree that all issues, including sex, divide up neatly along "liberal" and "conservative" lines.

I`m sure there are plenty of conservatives who think sex is "natural," too, and liberals who think it`s "sacred."
L. | Homepage | 06.16.06 - 6:07 pm | #

I agree, L.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 06.16.06 - 6:40 pm | #

L, Thanks for your candid response.

But what I’m getting at and am interested to know is whether your experience provides merely a counterexample to Dawn’s generalization or if there is also a strong counterargument behind it. If it is only a counterexample, then it would still be more prudent for you to tell women including your daughter to stay chaste. Because if it is not ALWAYS “the right way for everyone” that means it could SOMETIMES be the wrong way, and therefore it’s better to tell your daughter to remain chaste. So how would you answer your daughter if she asks you under what conditions would premarital sex be the right way for her?

In answer to my main question, you said that “Knowing him in an intimate way provided more insight into what kind of person he was, and made me love him even more.” Could you elaborate on that? My question is still, how would being chaste with him then have led to a less happier marriage today? Was premarital sex the only way you had to get to know him?

In regards to my intrusive question--and I appreciate your candor—how would you say those negative encounters with prior boyfriends (that you said you probably wouldn’t repeat) as well as the positive ones that you would have affected your marriage today? In other words, did they make your marriage today better, worse, or neutral, and why?


Hannah
Anonymous | 06.16.06 - 7:03 pm | #

Hannah, I viewed everything in my young adult life as a learning experience, whether positive or negative, and sex was no exception. (One more thing I should mention: I more or less left the Catholic church when was 15, before I fully understood the church`s teachings on sex and reproduction. Therefore, I had no compelling religous reason to stay chaste.) I would say the impact of my pre-husband sex life was neutral to my marriage, but definitely valuable to me as a human being, and therefore indirectly positive for my marriage.

Let`s see how I can say this: while sex isn`t always a bonding experience, knowing my future husband in an intimate way did make us closer. Knowing that he is considerate and unselfish made me love him more. In that way, I imagine it was no different from marital sex. And if we hadn`t decided to do it? Who knows? There`s no way of ever knowing if our relationship would have unfolded in the same way.

How would you answer your daughter if she asks you under what conditions would premarital sex be the right way for her? Ultimately, she has to live her own life, just as I lived mine. She will certainly be aware of the risks of sex, and armed with information about avoiding them. She will understand why the Catholic church teaches what it does, and ultimately, the decision will be entirely hers, no matter what I think.
L. | Homepage | 06.16.06 - 8:48 pm | #

Dear L, I understand now. Your premarital relations did not harm your marriage and may ultimately have enriched it.

I wonder if it were possible for you to go back in time and knowing that you would ultimately have your wonderful husband and still be the same person you are today would you still engage in those premarital behaviors?

In my own life I've done things that I even knew were wrong and good things managed to come out of it. I believe that is because of God's mercy that sometimes I didn't get what I deserved. I'm in RCIA right now and converting is the best thing I've ever done. I was just thinking the other day that we actually killed God on the cross and instead of being dreadfully punished for the worst crime in the world it effected our salvation, brought about solely by the mercy of God. Now with my new eyes of faith I have to think that given a situation whereby committing a grave sin would be the only way to get something as wonderful as your husband, I'd have to forgo it (at least I hope I would be able to do so!), as the main reason not to do it is to avoid offending God. Easier said than done of course.

L, thanks so much for bearing with all my questions. You are amazing and I think it's awesome that you are giving your daughter a catholic education.

Hannah
Hannah | 06.17.06 - 3:34 am | #

It still sounds like a load of projection to me. "Oh, this is how I experienced it, so this is OBVIOUSLY how everyone does! I SHOULD SAVE THEM FROM THEMSELVES!!!1"

Except, you know, not everybody experiences things the same way you do. You can't tell me that I don't appreciate my lovers because we're not married, and I can't tell you that you've only ever had bad sex if you're scared into avoiding it til you get hitched, because we're two different people who -- placed in each other's shoes -- would respond differently to given situations.

And I'm not part of the condoms-and-Cosmo crowd, thanks. Cosmo can kiss my -ss. Condoms ... need to stop being flavoured :p That's another gross generalisation you might want to drop if you're interested in increasing your credibility, because name-calling went out in grade school last time I checked.

They know that if chastity truly enables one to enjoy life, love and friendship on a deeper, more intense level than one can experience through nonmarital sex, then the mere existence of such a lifestyle invalidates their own.

That's also relatively false. It might enable you to enjoy life, love, and friendship on a deeper, more intense level -- but quite frankly when I tried it (for four years), I was a miserable wreck. So your paradigm's existence contradicts my own -- so what? That doesn't invalidate it. To invalidate it would imply that I required validation from you and people like you to begin with, and I don't, no more than you require validation from me for your paradigm.

In a nutshell: it's not that people are angry for sharing positive experiences you've had as a chaste woman. We're (or I am, anyway) just f-cking pissed that you've got some high horse morality that makes you suggest that chastity is THE ONLY way to do it.

Edited By Siteowner (only for profanity)
Sara | 06.17.06 - 3:58 am | #

L and others, what you are ignoring is that the culture DOES keep bombarding us with the message that everyone MUST have sex, and that if you don't there is something WRONG with YOU. Fairly typical examples I have seen are "only a dried-up old eunuch could think, blah blah blah" or blithely equating "unnatural things like strip-mining, Exxon and sexual abstinence." Or a Village Voice front page story warning that if They have their way "More of our children will be chaste than ever before." (I can't sleep at night worrying about the rising tide of chastity!)
So, Dawn's message that it is not just OK but good NOT to jump into bed at every opportunity IS needed by plenty of people who are being emotionally battered by the sexualist ideology.

Lewis' LETTERS recall that H.V.V. Dyson responded to Charles Williams' lectures on COMUS with "the man's becoming a common chastitute!" Dawn should proudly take on this title.
Will | Homepage | 06.17.06 - 8:07 am | #

"In a nutshell: it's not that people are angry for sharing positive experiences you've had as a chaste woman. We're (or I am, anyway) just f-----g pissed that you've got some high horse morality that makes you suggest that chastity is THE ONLY way to do it."

Egalitarianism used to mean, "I am worth as much as you)"....the commoner was worth as much as the king....

Now, it means, "You are no better than me". Hence the anger at "high horse morality".


Is she anrgy because she's afraid "high horse morality" might be true? Or, is she angry because she beaing judged, and that's the one sin we connot commit anymore-- and, if it is that, than isn't she judging her judger, thus committing the same sin?
chris | 06.17.06 - 8:54 am | #

OK...call me crazy, but it strikes me that Dawn is simply borrowing a page from the playbook of one of the greatest teachers and thinkers of our age - JP2. That's why what she says makes so much sense.

JP2 always taught that there is an absolute objective reality and truth out there - that right and wrong doesn't depend on how one looks at it. That's nothing new, but he took it one step further - our individual SUBJECTIVE experiences always point back to that universal objective truth - particularly in the realm of sex. Heck...isn't that a 2-sentence summary of his Theology of the Body?

Dawn, correct me if I'm wrong...but it seems like your saying that yeah, there is this objective reality, and all the experiences I had keep pointing to and bringing me back to that reality. That's not an overgeneralization - it's a desire to live and function in the truth.

People can pretend that living out sin somehow helps them in the future - but that's just sin's shadow blinding them to the amazing good that God is offering out to them. And I'm pretty confident that is the universal experience of anyone who has gone there and back again (myself included).
Catholic Whiteboy | Homepage | 06.17.06 - 9:26 am | #

Will, your point about the sexual culture we have today is well taken. But, remember, feminists are just as critical of that culture as social conservatives are. Feminists decry the objectification of women's bodies as objects of desire to sell everything from beer to hamburgers (not to mention porn and rampant stereotyping), while conservatives worry about the erosion of traditional gender roles. But we both seem to agree that our culture's approach to sex is physically and emotionally dangerous, and what we all want is for everyone -- meaning teenagers on up -- to make rational, emotionally mature decisions about when, how, and who with.

As to Gallagher dividing us up based on 'sacred' and 'natural' -- I have no idea what those words even mean in this context. I'm as pro-sex before marriage as the next radical lefty, and I think the best sex is an expression of one's love for one's partner(s) and a transcendent experience of connection; except for mention of 'God', this is just like every description of 'sacred sex' I've every encountered. On the other hand, how else do conservatives rationalize their opposition to marriage equality (ie, queer marriage) and birth control except by claiming their position is the 'natural' one?

No, I think the gap between our groups is much simpler than some abstract metaphysics of sex. Those of us who are the intellectual children of the sexual revolution think there are very few limits on the healthy ways adults can express themselves sexually; while those of you coming from the social conservative side seem to think that the only healthy form of sexual expression is 'noncontracepted' vaginal intercourse between a married straight couple.
Noumena | Homepage | 06.17.06 - 9:51 am | #

Chris is right. All these people so 'pissed' at Dawn probably fear deep down that she is correct and that their lifestyle choices may not be the most healthy...physically or spirtitually. How else can you explain the unnecessarily hateful tone of some of these people, esp. those on the web pages Dawn linked to.

The "intellectual children of the sexual revolution" *snort* have given us increased numbers of abortions, increased numbers of single parent homes, increased STD infections, not to mention the explosion of the porn...er, I mean 'adult' industry. Although I am sure there is some sort of philosophical equation that proves that Christianity in general, and the Catholic Church in particular, are the real culprits behind these events.
Nicholas | 06.17.06 - 10:28 am | #

Dawn, correct me if I'm wrong...but it seems like your saying that yeah, there is this objective reality, and all the experiences I had keep pointing to and bringing me back to that reality. That's not an overgeneralization - it's a desire to live and function in the truth.

That's exactly it, Catholic Whiteboy. A goal of mine in writing my book was to connect what I'd learned from personal experience with the truths expressed in JP2's theology of the body -- the message of which, as you may know, has an appeal that crosses denominations. Focus on the Family has a Web site called PureIntimacy.org that was helpful to me as I was writing my book; it expresses the theology of the body for a general Christian audience.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 06.17.06 - 11:44 am | #

I'd like to stay on my point that good art extracts the universal from the particular. Noumena offered some good thoughts, which I hope means the framework of aesthetics is a fair way to look at the significance of Dawn's account.

Maybe I can say that certain ways of being in the world, some kinds of encounter, such as having sex with a stranger, naked and drunk in their apartment, stike us immediately as not art but kitsch. Not beautiful but ugly in the purely aesthetic sense. In contrast, a life of sacrifice such as Mother Theresa of Calcutta strikes us as deeply aesthetic.

As Catholics, we recognize the transcendentals of truth, beauty, and good as one in the same thing. We know something is true because it is beautiful. And we know something else is a lie because it's so ugly that most people for example, have to be drunk to stifle the self-deception of illicit sex.

So to re-iterate, we recognize truth AND beauty AND good as objective reality, not a matter of opinion.
doctor J | 06.17.06 - 12:16 pm | #

The vitriolic attacks against Dawn can only be understood by the knowledge that she is pulling out the two mainstays of the liberal theocracy. The first pillar is the right to have indiscriminate sexual relations with persons, children or animals of any age, gender, or species. The second pillar is the insistent belief that there is no God or Moral Authority. Once these two pillars are pulled out, the resulting crash is understandably deafening. Dawn can only be understood
ron | 06.17.06 - 1:01 pm | #

Noumena, L, and others who think they know about us---

Christian lovemaking is LOTS more than your description of "vaginal" sex, but you can't learn our secrets if you don't belong to the club. We please our partners, trust me, and that is why we are happier with our sex lives than the wandering pitiful Carries or Hughs of the world.

A couple of you say you have great marriages. Assuming they're faithful marriages, it sounds good to me.

But, L, don't presume we think you are doomed because of your so-called "non-Christian" mate. Most of us do not dare to presume anything at all about the state of your soul or that of your husbands. So you are fighting Quixote's windmill on that one, and I'd just as soon that you give it up.

We Christians have the counseling of the Holy Spirit, which truly gives us free minds, and we are free to think what we like. We also have the Authority of the Holy Bible, so we know what gives us peace, and we don't need your opinion on that one, either.
no spin | 06.17.06 - 1:10 pm | #

Hannah, thank you for being respectful in your inquiry, and all the best to you.

No Spin, have no fear -- I do not presume that I am doomed, even though I married someone who would certainly be happier if I stopped going to church, and put our kids in public schools. However, I do presume that my particular life choices and opinions mean I am not an example of a "good" Catholic. Does this make my happiness inferior to your happiness? We will never know, will we?

(By the way, when someone says to me, "you can't learn our secrets if you don't belong to the club," my instinct is say, then this is not the club for me.)
L. | Homepage | 06.17.06 - 1:43 pm | #

You can't tell me that I don't appreciate my lovers because we're not married,

Of course she can.

At the very least, you can't tell her that she doesn't know what she's talking about.

We're (or I am, anyway) just f-cking pissed that you've got some high horse morality that makes you suggest that chastity is THE ONLY way to do it.

Talk about high-horse morality!
Mary | 06.17.06 - 2:06 pm | #

she is pulling out the two mainstays of the liberal theocracy. The first pillar is the right to have indiscriminate sexual relations with persons, children or animals of any age, gender, or species. The second pillar is the insistent belief that there is no God or Moral Authority.

Care to support these assertions, ron? I'm a liberal -- and a Christian -- and I believe neither of these things. Why don't you back up your statements with evidence, as per the Harris Protocol?
Vidiot | Homepage | 06.17.06 - 3:14 pm | #

Nicholas -
The "intellectual children of the sexual revolution" *snort* have given us increased numbers of abortions, increased numbers of single parent homes, increased STD infections, not to mention the explosion of the porn...er, I mean 'adult' industry.

I'll give you the first two, but you have to realize that not everyone considers those great evils. But, regarding the latter two, you should really read my post more closely -- like Will, you seem to be conflating the sexual revolution with the thoughtless and destructive 'mainstream' understanding of sexuality. My point was that there are not two but three easily identifiable 'sides' to that skirmish in the culture wars. If you want figureheads, we could use Dawn Eden, Planned Parenthood, and Girls Gone Wild.

ron - I don't believe anyone has the right to "indiscriminate sexual relations with persons, children or animals of any age, gender, or species". However, I do believe adult humans have the right to private, consensual sexual relations with other humans of any age (above the age of consent, of course) or gender; and, what's more, that most any form these consensual relations take can be both physically and emotionally healthy. Teenagers are a tricky border case, and I'd prefer not to try to deal with them right now. And while I do not believe in any sort of god (including the theist God), I also don't believe my beliefs are in any way binding on anyone else, nor does anyone's belief or lack of belief amount to any kind of affirmation or denial of objective moral authority. In other words, I don't care about anyone's religious beliefs, and whether you're a good or bad person has nothing to do with your religious beliefs. I find this to be a fairly common attitude among fellow lefties and liberals, though of course I wouldn't claim to be a spokesperson.
Noumena | Homepage | 06.17.06 - 4:00 pm | #

Noumena refers to "Those of us who are the intellectual children of the sexual revolution..."

Some of us are veterans of that revolution who looked at the resultant damage and decided that we had been on the wrong side, and are still trying to alert the rest of the world to what it was really all about. Maybe we're a little like ex-Communists, and I suppose we can be annoying that way. But I'd rather stand with Whittaker Chambers than Alger Hiss. Hell, come to that, if I have to, I'll stand with Joe McCarthy rather than Joe Stalin.

Also there's: "you seem to be conflating the sexual revolution with the thoughtless and destructive 'mainstream' understanding of sexuality."

Noumena, that is the revolution. The Playboy Mansion was the sexual revolution every bit as much as Woodstock was. The divorce rate is the sexual revolution. Omnipresent porn is the sexual revolution. The abortionist's trade is the very cornerstone of the sexual revolution.

As Agent Mulder once said, "Did you think you could call up the devil and make him behave?"
Maclin Horton | Homepage | 06.17.06 - 6:04 pm | #

As I said in a previous comment, Playboy/Chastity is a false dichotomy. It completely ignores the richness of the human experience.

Of course, I'm speaking as a person who just recently wrapped up a session of intensely loving pre-marital sex (who would have figured that I would stumble on a link to all this via Feministe right after?) so you can consider me biased.
Natalia | Homepage | 06.17.06 - 7:09 pm | #

Natalia, my definition of a loving sexual partner does not include a man who is unwilling to commit himself to me for life. Love lasts forever.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 06.17.06 - 7:59 pm | #

Dawn, I think marriage is not a guarantee of "forever." As far as I can tell, nothing is. "Forever," to me, is a pretty word for an essentially flawed institution, flawed like all human enterprises.

Now some people out there are sincerely uncomfortable with a sexual union that does not preclude a ring on the finger, or some other symbol. I'm not one of those people. I'm supportive of close friends who have chosen to abstain 'till marriage, but I'm not going to pretend that their arrangement works for me.

In your case, though, I think you're simply pushing a false dichotomy at the moment. I mean, I'm not even a Cosmo reader, sheesh!

I do hope it works out for you. I'm glad you've chosen words like "my definition" to describe your ideal of love.
Natalia | Homepage | 06.17.06 - 9:10 pm | #

Possible OT comment.

Noumena, you commented that feminist groups are against the objectifcation of women. Can you, please, point out some websites that are against porn, and prostitution from that viewpoint. Most of what I've seen, the more verbal feminists are silent.
Anna | 06.17.06 - 9:22 pm | #

Anna, I don't mind the OT comment, as it's good to be reminded that some members of the feminism movement have admirable intentions. The leading edge of feminism today is third-wave feminism, which is porn- and prostitution-friendly (provided that the women who engage in those activities freely choose to do so). Before the third wave, there were several prominent feminists active against pornography and prostitution; you can find some details on them in this Wikipedia article on Women Against Pornography. If another reader would like to provide more information, please do.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 06.17.06 - 10:51 pm | #

In regards to feminism, isn't the notion of a woman living in a manner that makes her happy, even if it's counter-cultural (resisting premarital sex), and not giving yourself to a man unless he commits to you in return-if that is what you choose in line with feminist thinking? I guess more so with "first-wave" or "second-wave" feminism.
Pansy Moss | Homepage | 06.17.06 - 11:29 pm | #

Natalia, my definition of a loving sexual partner does not include a man who is unwilling to commit himself to me for life. Love lasts forever.

Out of curiosity --

Are all unmarried partners automatically unwilling to commit?

And why is "for life" the determining factor in the level of that committment? What if it turns out that you two are less-than-compatible as you grow and change -- is it more important that he honour his committment to stick around than it is for one of you to leave a sinking relationship?
Sara | 06.18.06 - 12:41 am | #

Dawn, I think marriage is not a guarantee of "forever." As far as I can tell, nothing is. "Forever," to me, is a pretty word for an essentially flawed institution, flawed like all human enterprises.

At the risk of a post with nothing substantial...this may be one of the saddest statements I've read in a while. It breaks my heart to think that there are people that openly accept that love isn't "forever."
Catholic Whiteboy | Homepage | 06.18.06 - 1:07 am | #

Pansy, I am so glad you mentioned this... I actually DO think of Dawn as a feminist, since she's a strong, intelligent woman living her life the way SHE chooses. And she certainly doesn't expect to be treated as though she's any less bright or capable than a man. I really can't understand why women who call themselves feminists are so eager to pounce on and shred another working woman! Must we ALL think exactly alike?! As saint kansas points out, isn't she allowed to express her thoughts and opinions in her *own* blog and her *own* book? Sheesh. Interested readers of both can come to their own conclusions, I'm sure, and don't need to be told what to think by either side.
Sarah | 06.18.06 - 2:18 am | #

Dawn,
One more thing. I was thinking about my pre-marriage years (which were not many as I got married at 21(12 years ago exactly today)-and the reason why my dh and I got married so long because at that age we were both jaded by the sleeping around thing), I was very unhappy. I think of someone gave me your book then, it would have been a great service. I was in a lifestyle that I felt was not me. Schools and teachers said it was OK as long as you used "protection", my friends were always "going for it", and boys always expected it. I was in one too many situations where I didn't know what to do because the guys expected it, and I didn't want to be ridiculed for being a priss. I just didn't know or understand enough at this age about Church teaching, or anything for that matter on reasons to disentangle myself from this web. Nor did I think that once you startedm you could go back and stop.

Your book would have been a wonderful eye opener, and I think it will be for another young lady out there.
Pansy Moss | Homepage | 06.18.06 - 6:57 am | #

But as for love being forever, there are a lot of things that can change love. Relationships develop, and if there is one thing that is ALWAYS true about a relationship, it is that it never stays the same.

No.

Relationships do change, constantly. The part that does not change is love. Love is not a feeling, it is a choice and decision to commit and stand by someone. It is a conscious decision to put someone else in a place above your own despite good days and bad days, richer or poorer, sickness and health...
Pansy Moss | Homepage | 06.18.06 - 6:59 am | #

Relationships do change, constantly. The part that does not change is love. Love is not a feeling, it is a choice and decision to commit and stand by someone. It is a conscious decision to put someone else in a place above your own despite good days and bad days, richer or poorer, sickness and health...

Beautifully said, Pansy.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 06.18.06 - 8:02 am | #

above the age of consent, of course

Except that having put in that disclaimer, you go on to add:

I also don't believe my beliefs are in any way binding on anyone else,

which means there's no "of course" about it.
Mary | 06.18.06 - 9:31 am | #

Whiteboy, sorry it's been a downer. However, please read my post carefully. I believe that marriage is not a guarantee of forever, I didn't say a single thing about love.

True love, I believe, is forever, which is one of the reasons why marriage is an empty symbol to me.

To add a caveat, however, love may be forever, but relatioships are not always so. Love is a tricky thing in general to pin down. It's not always effortless or sugary, and it can cause pain just as easily as it creates joy. It's the greatest human emotion and it's not to be taken lightly.
Natalia | Homepage | 06.18.06 - 10:09 am | #

Oh, and another thing, I do plan to get married. When we're both old enough and with enough money to do things our way. In a civil marriage, naturally. In London. With a reception at the Savoy to follow. And I want my dress done by Vivienne Westwood. It would make both sides of the family thrilled, and it would make for a great party.

Maybe I'll invite you all in about seven years. ;)

And please don't try to pity me 'cause I'm not doing things the good old Christian way, (that means you, Whiteboy). After all, I don't pity Dawn for deciding that abstinence is her thing .
Natalia | Homepage | 06.18.06 - 10:18 am | #

Natalia, the kind of romantic love that's forever is marital love -- the kind that requires a lifetime commitment. Some people may enter marriage lightly, and I'm sorry that they do, but that doesn't take away the fact that romantic love is only love when both parties vow to continue it until death, within the marital bond. Love is, as Catholic Whiteboy said, a choice.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 06.18.06 - 10:23 am | #

Anna -
If you're looking for, say, a blog of anti-porn activists, I'm afraid I can't help you. But you might start with Alas, a Blog and Hugo Schwyzer, who semi-regularly have posts in that vein. I'm more familiar with the intellectual/academic arguments than the grassroots activism, and for that the most prominent name is definitely Catharine MacKinnon. I have a nice piece somewhere in my files that surveys some more recent arguments against pornography levelled by academic feminists, but that would take a while to find. Dawn, I would point out that all the feminists I have in mind here, other than MacKinnon, qualify as third-wavers; at best, it's a gross oversimplification to say that contemporary feminists, as a class, are "porn- and prostitution-friendly".

Mary, please read the comment you quoted from again; the second quote is talking about religious beliefs, not ethical ones.
Noumena | Homepage | 06.18.06 - 10:56 am | #

"Christian lovemaking is LOTS more than your description of "vaginal" sex, but you can't learn our secrets if you don't belong to the club. We please our partners, trust me, and that is why we are happier with our sex lives than the wandering pitiful Carries or Hughs of the world."

No Spin,
This, surely inadvertently smug-sounding, testimonial flirts with the language of a cult, not a faith.

It also flies in the face of the ecumenical underpinnings of Dawn's wider thesis - which attempt at least to reach out to "the wandering pitiful Carries...".
jody tresidder | 06.18.06 - 11:04 am | #

I appreciate the comment about my wider thesis, Jody, and agree that us-vs.-them statements, of which I've been guilty myself, don't make people want to join the club.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 06.18.06 - 11:10 am | #

May I urge any and all to study Pope Benedict's first encyclical Deus Caritas Est?

I think you'd be surprised at the prominent place Joseph Ratzinger gives to eros. If your objection to Dawn's proposal is that it is somehow hostile to eros, Ratzinger might clear the air. You would find Ratzinger wonderfully conversant in modern philosophy, even embracing much of it.

The encyclical is widely available and is a great message for any person of good will.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/ product...5Fencoding=UTF8
doctor J | 06.18.06 - 12:46 pm | #

Right on, doctor J. "Deus Caritas Est" may also be read online.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 06.18.06 - 12:49 pm | #

but that doesn't take away the fact that romantic love is only love when both parties vow to continue it until death, within the marital bond.

So if you make that particular committment but decide to do so outside of a matrimonial context (for whatever reason -- say, you have political objections to the legal institution of marriage, or something), does that nullify the quality of love present in the committment?
Sara | 06.18.06 - 3:45 pm | #

So if you make that particular committment but decide to do so outside of a matrimonial context (for whatever reason -- say, you have political objections to the legal institution of marriage, or something), does that nullify the quality of love present in the committment?

I think you've answered your own question.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 06.18.06 - 3:49 pm | #

Anna - just off the top of my head there's Twisty Faster's blog (http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com); Den of the Biting Beaver (http://bitingbeaver.blogspot.com) and The Margins (http://womenspace.wordpress.com). At the first one you are guaranteed to come across language you will not like; at the second, the artwork at the top might be construed as offensive; I don't read the third often enough to say.
Ledasmom | 06.18.06 - 6:24 pm | #

Wow, political objections to marriage nullify love? Hmm. I wonder how that works. Since, Dawn, you appear to be fond of something called "empirical evidence," would you like to produce it to support this suggestion? Is there a chemical reaction that takes place in my brain, locking up the synapses in such a manner as to make both incapable of love and yet utterly convinced that I am in love? Wow, thanks for explaining that one to me, Dawn, all the while I thought I was in a genuine committed relationship, and it only took a few comments on Haloscan to make me see the light! Hardy har har.

If you haven't been in love with a man, hun, and feel that your lack of a wedding ring can be turned into a standard for everyone else, you're welcome to your opinion. Heck, the entire Catholic Church is welcome to its opinion. But if people aren't read to accept the sanctimony in a hurry, I don't blame them. Like I said, false dichotomies are destructive, peeps.

And good luck to you in finding a husband, or whatever else you need.
Natalia | Homepage | 06.18.06 - 7:29 pm | #

Natalia, we're working on separate definitions of love. I'm talking about agape. While I don't believe I've achieved it perfectly in any of my relationships, it's the only kind of love worth aspiring to. Other loves, as Peter Kreeft notes in the article I've linked, we fall into; we rise in agape. By its nature, it requires a complete giving of one's self; in a romantic relationship, such giving requires nothing short of marriage vows. That's what I mean when I talk about love — and why I don't believe you or I or anyone should call anything else by that word.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 06.18.06 - 7:58 pm | #

Hmmmm. Speaking just of my own case, neither the agape (nor the eros) of my relationship with my husband was altered by signing a marriage license. However, I got a spouse`s visa to stay in Japan, we qualified for married public housing, and then, at our formal wedding ceremony a few months later, our families were formally joined. The underlying bond between me and my husband remained the same -- it was love. Honest, it was.

This comment thread really has me thinking about the whole nature of love and marriage, and how sometimes the reality doesn`t live up to the ideal.

Many years ago, I was in a Christian mothers` group, and another member was living at a battered women`s shelter. She was very devout (Southern Baptist) and didn`t believe in dvorce, and believed that marriage and love were forever. But after a few years of marriage, something changed -- I don`t know what, exactly. Perhaps her husband started drinking, or some chemical change in his body altered his brain, but he started beating her. She said she felt like less of a Christian for admitting that her love for him changed, too. She finally sought help and left him.

When I think of her story, I realize even my own love for my husband is not unconditional. Would I stand by him, if suddenly he started abusing me or the kids? I can`t imagine that he would do this, but if he did, I can`t imagine that I would feel the same way. Maybe "agape" is transcendent, but my "forever" marriage vow is contingent on my husband not causing me or the kids bodily harm.
L. | Homepage | 06.18.06 - 9:20 pm | #

L., agape never means putting yourself in danger in order to continue to live with the man you married. Sometimes the most loving thing to do for a person is to prevent him or her from harming you. At the same time, love that's corrupted is no argument against marriage, any more than the possibility of food poisoning is an argument against eating.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 06.18.06 - 10:44 pm | #

Yes, I agree. I was just musing about the "forever" part -- everyone`s life and expectations are different.
L. | Homepage | 06.18.06 - 11:25 pm | #

Dawn's not reasoning from her experience and then equating it to universal truth, Dawn's book equates her experience, and the teaching of the Church and Scripture, and that agreement (between her experience and scripture), gives her the ability to make comments on chastity, that those who both (i) reject Christianity and its teachings, especially concerning moral virtue, (ii) reject what is natural and good for men and women, will of course disagree with Dawn's work, calling it "her opinion".

Well, the trouble is, that truth is not a democracy, and reality isn't formed by consensus. We were created by God, and he knows us, and our hormones, better than we know ourselves.

So ye irreligious wags had best stop pretending you know how the orange tastes, for you've never taken the time to peel one of these babies, let alone taste it.

Warren
warren | Homepage | 06.18.06 - 11:57 pm | #

Thanks, Warren. Mine tastes just fine.
L. | Homepage | 06.19.06 - 12:31 am | #

Gosh, Warren, you're so full of love and compassion. All that theology must really open your heart to people. Irreligious wags, eh? I used to do the whole religion thing, most of my family are practicing Orthodox Christians, and if it isn't for me, it isn't for me, and no amount of disrespect from the holier-than-thou crowd is going to inspire me otherwise.

Dawn, I don't live by the Greek definitions of love. I find the entire concept pretty, but strangely shortsighted, especially the manner in which modern-day American Christians apply it.

So I will name things as I see 'em, Ok? Christian folk don't have the market on linguistics cornered, that's what I always tell my mother.

Speaking of my mother, she doesn't approve of my desire for a civil marriage as opposed to a religious commitment, but she would never tell other women how they do and do not feel. Tact will win you more listeners in the long run.
Natalia | Homepage | 06.19.06 - 12:41 am | #

Warren, I wish you wouldn't conflate those of us who may not agree with Dawn with the "irreligious."

I don't agree with Dawn. That doesn't mean that I "reject Christianity" or reject "what is natural and good for men and women"...though I may have a different opinion from you on that one.
Vidiot | Homepage | 06.19.06 - 3:05 am | #