Session Notes

Utne Reader

By contrast, secular society is embracing masturbation as a way for women to better understand their bodies and enhance their pleasure with their partners. Millions of women struggle with reaching orgasms during sex, so, more and more, sex-ed teachers are including masturbation in their curricula. Last year, the United Nations released a report suggesting that children as young as 5 learn about masturbation. The National Health Service in Britain recently released a pamphlet for teenagers with the headline “An Orgasm a Day Keeps the Doctor Away,” advocating that regular masturbation is good for cardiovascular health. In Spain, one regional government has just launched a sex-ed campaign with the slogan “Pleasure Is in Your Own Hands,” stating that masturbation boosts confidence and self-esteem. And even Oprah Winfrey, the standard-bearer for mainstream American ethics, has discussed the benefits of female masturbation many times on her talk show. One of Winfrey’s frequent guest experts, Laura Berman, says encouraging girls to masturbate can help them avoid unhealthy sexual experiences.

But Renaud isn’t pleased with secular society’s increasing acceptance of porn and masturbation for women. Interestingly enough, she’s fine with teaching young children about the existence of masturbation and porn—as long as they don’t try it. “It’s a very dangerous society that we live in,” she says, “when we’re telling women that it’s OK to look at porn.”

Many girls in Renaud’s ministry think that once they get married, they will be free to express their sexuality and enjoy orgasms with a man. This causes some to take the fast track to the altar, only to find that after they’ve married, they still feel the same taboo urges. One forum commenter married at 19 in the hope that pious matrimonial intercourse would rid her of her sinful thoughts—only to find that during sex with her husband, she would have the same fantasies. “I cannot cleanse my mind of these images,” she says. “I try so hard to focus on my husband only, but my thoughts are so warped.”

Almost the entirety of this article is worthy of comment — it represents the latest reincarnation of the obsessive wave of anti-sexuality theology that is sweeping fundamentalism. Unfortunately, that would nearly require the authoring of a book…

One of the most striking pieces of this article is the subject’s inability to grasp any sort of difference between the erotic (part of every society and artistic practice around the world) and the pornographic (rage based materials designed to dehumanize, degrade and shame those depicted so as to allow those who are so awash with hatred that they do not view themselves as capable of connecting or becoming stimulated in a normative bonding based manner to become aroused.) The result of such is a strange, dichotomous hostility to everything erotic and to every thought of sexuality (no matter how relationally oriented) that is meshed with a completely artificial separation of secular erotica from Scriptural erotica (Psalm of Solomon for example) but yet still denounces even the thought of such arousal response that Scripture itself could generate.

In other words: Internal inconsistency to the point of the insane…

The article is also completely devoid of any sort of grasp of the difference between fantasy (Mental expression of need and preparation of the person for the pursuit of the legitimate meeting of said need that draws us into the beauty of permanent intimate love that God designed for us) and lust (The predatory desire to use, consume and then dispose of the person with no thought for the other’s well being.)

It is then overlaid with a pseudo science that holds that the neurological release of any chemical indicating pleasure is indicative of addiction (and thus to be avoided) that completely ignores that dopamine is also released as a result of, er, bowel movements… (It’s a rather convenient way of avoiding addressing anything approaching modern psychological understanding of said bondage that basically leaves them free to demonize anything they want.) An addiction is, to quote Patrick Carnes from memory, “A pathological relationship with a mood altering experience.” In other words, it is a bent way of replacing a person with a substance, experience or mental state and using such not to feel/to feel numb.

Stoicism and Gnosticism would be proud – for to them, pleasure and the body were the enemy…

The last paragraph above is stunningly insightful: The logical result of all of this, of course, is that the God designed third of our personality that is sexual, which has only one means of expressing the needs and longings of such and bringing them into relationship (Fantasy) is forever condemned as sinful and silenced thus ensuring that even the marriage bed becomes a tortured place of guilt and silence — to say nothing of soul deadening boredom… Paul’s contention in Hebrews that the Marriage bed was honorable and could not be made to be defiled seems to have escaped their notice.

But, the most striking part of the whole mess is on the first page:

While many of the women she counsels report turning to pornography as a form of escape—from traumas like sexual abuse, infidelity, and even prostitution—Renaud compares their masturbation to alcoholism, saying that “like drugs and alcohol, so many things that feel good in a short amount of time can end up hurting you.” Renaud’s advocacy is labeled antipornography, but it aims to treat all masturbation, whether it involves porn or not. When you peel back the layers, the core of her crusade is against sexual thought—even within marriage—unless those thoughts are about your husband while you are engaging in intercourse with him.

Read it carefully: She is fully aware that the women in her group have been damaged, severely abused and often had their sexuality commercially exploited and are in desperate flight from soul wrenching pain, but she’s more concerned about that which Christ already took away: their sin.

Matthew 23:1-15 New International Version

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

“Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteriesa wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them ‘Rabbi.’ “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you will be your servant. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

Like in the time of Christ, the entire charade exists to ensure only one result: That the human leaders of the charade ensure their own place at the helm of the lives of their members — where Christ alone should stand.

Steve McVey:

“‘My feelings were aroused for him’ (5:4). That happened to us all when Jesus swept us off our feet and we trusted Him.

Don’t think it irreverent to view Christ in a romantic way. He is the One who calls us His bride. He is the One who wrote to us in terms of passion and romance. We simply respond to Him. ‘We love Him because He first love us’ (1 John 4:19). We didn’t initiate or set the pace for this relationship. He did. We have simply responded to His irresistible charm, affirming by faith, ‘My beloved is mine and I am His’ (Song of Solomon 2:16)! Like every new bride, our profession of faith in Him is nothing less than the thrilling realization that, ‘I am my beloved’s and his desire is for me’ (7:10, emphasis added)!

I didn’t imagine the idea of the dance as a literary metaphor to describe your relationship to Him. That is how He described it. In Zephaniah 3:17, the Bible says, ‘He will exult over you with joy’ (emphasis added). Strong’s Concordance defines the word ‘exult’(sometimes translated ‘rejoice’) in the following way: ‘To spin around under the influence of a violent emotion.’

One character quipped, ‘I grew up in a church where we were taught that premarital sex was wrong because it might lead to dancing, and now you tell me that the Lord dances over me??’ It’s true, He does. The love of Jesus Christ for you is not just a ‘gentle Jesus, meek and mild’ kind of love. It is a love filled with passion. It is a love that caused your Prince Charming to wield His sword (of the Spirit) and fight the dragon (the devil, see Revelation 12:9) for you!

His love for you is great! One might say that the love of Jesus for you could be X-rated, not because of impurity, but because of intensity. Does that idea make you feel uncomfortable? It shouldn’t, because He really does love you with an intensity beyond human comprehension. You are the pearl of great price for which He paid everything He owned in order to possess you. (See Matthew 13:45-46)

BE NOT AFRAID OF AN INTENSE LOVE FROM HIM, HIS LOVE IS INTENSE, BUT HIS WAYS ARE GENTLE.

I pray this love for us/clients/schools/the world in all our intimate relationships, especially receiving it from our Father/Mother God.

The Hart Institute | Dr. Archibald Hart, Dr. Catherine Hart-Weber | Training, Counseling and Consulting:

“You and your husband will then get stuck in an argument pattern…you will pursue him to get him to admit he is wrong and you are right, he will instead defend himself to get you to admit you are wrong and he is right. Eventually you will each emotionally disconnect. You get ‘gridlocked’ over the issue.  If you keep arguing this way, you won’t resolve anything, you will just have a list of ‘hot topics’ that trigger a very strong and powerful pattern of arguing. And to you he will become an aloof, uninvolved, independent, uncaring roommate. To him you will become a nagging, negative wife he has to put up with. This will not lead to an emotionally connected marriage.”

The last of this article offers excellent suggestions to offer just mutual understanding and expected outcomes. May it be so for us and the world.

GV Jan 2008:

“Control freaks – that’s what we all are when we try to be in charge of our own lives. God never intended for us to be in control. Controlling things is His role, not ours. ‘My life is out of control!’ people have tearfully said to me at times in the counseling office. What they really meant was ‘My life is out of my control and I don’t like it!’             Imagine a baby holding a pair of new shoes in his hands. He is playing with them and happy they belong to him. His parent reaches down to take the shoes and put them on the child’s feet. All the child sees is that his shoes are being taken out of his hands. He doesn’t like it. He wants to control them and keep them in his hands, but he will never walk in them that way.             The parent takes the shoes from the hand of the child and the baby begins to cry. He is overwhelmed with anger, confusion and regret that his shoes are being taken from him. He screams. He kicks in protest. He is losing control of the thing he loves and wants to hold. He doesn’t understand what his parent is doing. But the parent understands and does what is necessary to enable the child to walk – whether the child likes it or even understands.             The goal is to enable the child to enjoy the shoes to the fullest by walking in them. The parent knows that if the shoes are used for their designed purpose, the child will truly benefit and not simply be amused by them.             Only a baby thinks the highest pleasure is to hold them in his hands. He doesn’t see the whole picture. So the parent overrules the baby’s wishes and does what is needful. Eventually the child will understand. When he does, he is thrilled, and more important than that, he walks. Do you want to walk? What are you holding onto that you need to release? Let it go. God knows what He is doing.”

This is an excellent article for parenting and dealing with the crisies of life. I pray for this rest and openness to genuinely let go of our way after working through the emotions individually/together with others.

KUTV.COM

SAN ANGELO, Tex. – A Texas appeals court said Thursday that the state had no right to take more than 400 children from a polygamist sects ranch, a ruling that could unravel one of the biggest child-custody cases in U.S. history.

The Third Court of Appeals in Austin ruled that the state offered “legally and factually insufficient” grounds for the “extreme” measure of removing all children from the ranch, from babies to teenagers.

The state never provided evidence that the children were in any immediate danger, the only grounds in Texas law for taking children from their parents without court approval, the appeals court said.

It also failed to show evidence that more than five of the teenage girls were being sexually abused, and never alleged any sexual or physical abuse against the other children, the court said.

It was not immediately clear whether the children scattered across foster facilities statewide might soon be reunited with parents. The ruling gave Texas District Judge Barbara Walther 10 days to vacate her custody order, and the state could appeal.

FLDS spokesman Rod Parker said sect members feel validated, having argued from the beginning that they were being persecuted for their beliefs.

The legal geniuses have spoken. Contrary to this foundation of American marital law:

[W]e think it may safely be said there never has been a time in any State of the Union when polygamy has not been an offence against society, cognizable by the civil courts and punishable with more or less severity. In the face of all this evidence, it is impossible to believe that the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom was intended to prohibit legislation in respect to this most important feature of social life. Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties with which government is necessarily required to deal. In fact, according as monogamous or polygamous marriages are allowed, do we find the principles on which the government of the people, to a greater or less extent, rests…

[P]olygamy leads to the patriarchal principle, and which, when applied to large communities, fetters the people in stationary despotism, while that principle cannot long exist in connection with monogamy…. An exceptional colony of polygamists under an exceptional leadership may sometimes exist for a time without appearing to disturb the social condition of the people who surround it; but there cannot be a doubt that, unless restricted by some form of constitution, it is within the legitimate scope of the power of every civil government to determine whether polygamy or monogamy shall be the law of social life under its dominion.

…[T]he only question which remains is whether those who make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be acquitted and go free. This would be introducing a new element into criminal law. Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship; would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband; would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

- Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 165-67 (1878).

…The court of Texas now feels that their belief system does not, in fact, influence those around them or damage children and that it has no interest in offering protection to the rest of society…

It ignored the reality that they COULD prove that 5 girls were being sexually abused, that this abuse was not some random uncle sneaking in under the cover of night but, rather, a socially accepted act carried out under the premeditated sham of an illegal marriage unto which the young girl had to have been forced — seeing as she had no legal ability to consent to such. This is something that the entire community participated in through participation in the ceremonies.

It also ignored the reality that, while these marriages were not declared as such, they did, in fact exist. (It’s really only through an adherence to a legal sham of state sanctioned marriage that they could be ignored in first place…) Thus they were permitted to ignore the actual illegality of the actions in question.

The most striking irony, though, is how they are talking now — having been schooled by an army of lawyers: “We’re being persecuted for our beliefs.” Really? The Texas authorities knew the compound was there for decades — and did nothing. The seizure of children was done because the violation of children reported and discovered was a socially accepted set of actions which then left the other children there defenseless.

They admit that their beliefs advocate something contrary to American law (Though they can lie like troopers on Larry King about having no husbands…) and there is solid proof that some children were illegally married to and sexually used by those older men, yet, the connection between belief and support of action seems to have no legal credibility.

It’s a strange bending of really: “You may believe you are married but we refuse to accept that those marriages could exist. If they can not exist, then no laws have been broken and no one could be harmed by what we just decided does not exist. All that is present here is a group of people believing in a fiction and beliefs can’t harm anyone either (COUGH 911 COUGH) so they should get their children back to continue teaching them to engage in what we have decided doesn’t exist.”

Only a lawyer could make that one make sense…

Q&A: Did Paul write this letter to unbelievers, too?:

“But he made no mistake about those who were born of the Spirit and had the mind of Christ. In 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, where Paul could have slammed the believers for their sinning (because they were indeed manifesting many of the things he mentioned) he instead says this incredible thing, ”And such WERE some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.“ Remember what Paul had said near the beginning of the letter? ”For I determined to know NOTHING AMONG YOU EXCEPT CHRIST AND HIM CRUCIFIED.“ (1 Cor 2:2). He brought up examples of their day-to-day existence to tie it in with the mindset of the world so that they would be shaken from their stupor! These believers were having an identity crisis!! (Our brother) is correct in saying that, ”ALL Believers by birthright, love the Lord“.”

This is an incredible article on not letting the wisdom of the world/religion DULL THE REALITY OF THE NEW MIRACULOUS WORK OF JESUS/LOVE IN THEM FOR BELIEVERS . WE ARE JUST TO FOCUS ON HIM AND NOT SIN. This is my prayer. Amen.

Q&A: How do I know my questions aren’t from having “itchy ears”?:

“ Most who hang with me STILL have a lot of personal differences, but we have discovered that those things are not the reason why we are one in Christ and so it is ok to not have to resolve everything. Heck, most of it just kinda fades away in view of the life that we have our eyes open to. Those who turn away do so because of a desire for something OTHER THAN CHRIST. It is so sad to see this happen, but it happens often. Your desires are obvious. You got beat up by man’s religion and finally realized that you couldn’t do or be what they preached. I’ll bet you also realized that those who were doing the preaching weren’t meeting up to the standards they preached! So, if it doesn’t work for the preacher why would you think it’ll work for you? This is how the law operates. It’ll tear you up and spit you out and you’ll go back for more until you finally break. Then the good news sounds FANTASTIC! As it should.

”

This is an encouraging article on only focusing on Jesus and His sufficiency. It is not about being stimulated intellectually enough or being recognized for doing good enough, especially in churches. This is true love and acceptance. It enables us to stay in relationships even though we are different.

Infidelity, Cheating Wives – Women’s Infidelity:

“Women at Stage 3 may also be
experiencing the ending of an extramarital
affair, and the ending may not have
been their decision. They may have been
involved with single men who either lost interest because the relationship could
not progress or who became attracted to
another women who was
single. Women whose affairs are
ending often experience extreme grief.
They may become deeply depressed and express tremendous anger toward
their husbands. They are typically unaware that they
are experiencing chemical withdrawal due to sudden
changes in their brain chemistry.
As a result, many will feel that they have
missed their chance at happiness due to their indecisiveness.”

This is excellent article shows the feelings one experiences during the progression of affairs. The anger/sadness/confusion/feaars needs to be expressed to God so the block can be removed. An openness needs to be present before God so his best desires and joy for the marriage can flow once again.

The Princess Wish :

“Respectable and
Admirable

A princess doesn’t compete with a prince. Just the
opposite, she builds him up. It’s her admiration and
respect that inspire the prince and compel him to
greatness. When he sees that he’s a hero in her eyes,
it’s no wonder he’s willing to suffer for her. A hero will
go through anything to keep an admiring princess by
his side.
These qualities of princesses from long ago are still the
virtues that attract a prince today. And they’re already
yours. If you’re a daughter of the King, these graces
are your royal heritage. Like Mia in The Princess
Diaries, all you need to do is practice them through
the power of the Holy Spirit. It’s not just a wish or a fairy
tale, it’s the wonderful truth.”

This is a captivating article for teenage girls. The sections about sin are more better stated in terms of giving up your way. After which those loving qualities of God will be lived out in you. It is affirming to know the Father wants you to give him your heart. He wants to give His best to you, especially in terms of the timing of a spouse. May it be so for my girls, nieces and friends, God willing in them.

Cash Clash: What’s Below the Surface?:

“ Don’t begin your conversations in a negative tone and expect something positive to come out of it.Be kind and compassionate to one another…—Eph. 4:32(KJV)Am I harboring unresolved hurt or resentment? Sometimes it’s easier to argue about money than to admit when we have hurt feelings. If your spouse has hurt you and you’re still harboring that hurt — or maybe even resentment — you’re going to see everything through that filter of hurt. When your spouse tries to discuss financial issues, you’ll be more likely to overreact.”

This is a good article encouraging on to give God the hurt and anger quickly so His Spirit can bring about an objective conflict resolution discussion with ones spouse. If one is living out God’s life of integrity/compassion/love it inspires the other to do so as well if He/she is a believer. There need not be judgement so honesty and trust can flow freely. These are the core/root issues.