God is not silent on sex

THE EDITOR: With so much being made these days of the issue of sex and sexuality, and especially in view of the recent activities of Sven Miki Grant and his associates, I feel compelled to add my own thoughts to the increasing list of divergent views on the matter. The concept of sex is not limited to the physical. It embraces also the emotional, the mental and the psychological. Sexual intercourse, or coitus, represents the closest any human being could ever get to another. When one engages in it, therefore, there is the expectation, whether it is conscious or subconscious, that the coitus represents a lifelong, mutual commitment made between two persons. If this expectation is not realised, there can arise feelings of betrayal, disillusionment, heartache and/or anger at being exploited. These feelings can be intense, and the concommitant misery can be permanent, irremediable. So it is advisable that coitus be entered into only after such commitment has become absolute. Making and maintaining it requires personal integrity, maturity, loyalty and responsibility. All of this makes it beyond anyone who is not yet of legal age or who has not mastered the art of self-control. God is not silent on the subject. He has recommended legal marriage as the best setting and only outlet for coitus. He has also provided additional guidelines, such as the following:

1) “Flee from fornication.” Cor. 6:18 (Fornication is coitus outside of marriage.) 2) “For everything there is an appointed time.” Eccl. 3:1 (There is no reason to be in a desperate haste to have sex.) 3) “Through love slave for one another.” Gal. 5:13 (Persons engaging in coitus must each be willing to do the things that titillate the other.) 4) “Treat others as you would like them to treat you.” Luke 6:13. (Coitus should be attempted only by mutual consent.) That, as a recent advertisement claims, 46 percent of women have never experienced an orgasm is a telling indication of the great number of people who fail to heed especially the last two bits of advice mentioned above. The modern diversity of opinions on the subject of sex has resulted in a confusion that is potentially harmful, even pernicious, and ultimately needless. I therefore suggest to Sven Miki Grant and his associates, as well as to any others of their ilk, that their method of sensitising the public on this issue would be even more effectual if it could be bolstered by their candidly and accurately representing to the people the opinion of the One from whom came the concept of sex and all that it entails.

D CHARLES
Carenage