Virgin, Whore, Christian Scientist

1450825_619221741453559_992591325_n

Many mainstream Christian religions teach the idea that you should be pure (a virgin) until you are married and then you should be able to preform in the bedroom – after all, if the man cheats it is your fault for not keeping him satisfied. The virgin/whore dichotomy, the Madonna/whore complex, the dutiful housewife raising children by day the sex goddess by night.

Christian Science is big on purity as well: purity of thought, purity of motive, purity of action. Avoid the appearance of evil. Don’t commit adultery – no one wants a muddy glass of water, a chewed piece of gum or a licked cupcake! Abstain from alcohol and drugs, they alter one’s perception and interfere with knowing one’s True Spiritual Identity.

In Christian Science, sensuality is something to be counteracted as well. Sensuality draws your focus on “the unreal and material,” it interferes with your relationship with God, and that in turn leaves you open to more false ideas from mortal mind, error, sickness, sin, disease and death. From a very early age little Christian Scientists are introduced to the idea that there is “no sensation in matter” and every Sunday School closes with the Scientific Statement of Being as found on p. 486 of Science and Health:

  • There is no life, truth, intelligence, nor substance in matter. All is infinite Mind and its infinite manifestation, for God is All-in-all. Spirit is immortal Truth; matter is mortal error. Spirit is the real and eternal; matter is the unreal and temporal. Spirit is God, and man is His image and likeness. Therefore man is not material; he is spiritual.

This material body? It isn’t real. It is part of the Adam dream, and one day we will awake and know God and our true selves. Sensuality must be counteracted by God’s Angel messages passing to man (along with evil), because it distracts from man aspiring to his higher nature.

In Mary Baker Eddy’s view, marriage is something that that must be tolerated until the Apocalypse and hopefully that happens soon because I’m not sure how much more Ms. Eddy could take of things like propagating mortals and the “problem” of husbands. I get the impression MBE feels we would all be better off unmarried, except that it seems like she feels we are not complete on our own:

  • Union of the masculine and feminine qualities constitutes completeness. The masculine mind reaches a higher tone through certain elements of the feminine, while the feminine mind gains courage and strength through masculine qualities. (S&H p. 57)

On p. 60 she continues:

  • Marriage should improve the human species, becoming a barrier against vice, a protection to woman, strength to man, and a centre for the affections.

If you’re going to have “affections” and raise children, then yes, you should be married. “Chastity is the cement of civilization and progress” and all that good stuff.

Ms. Eddy reticently accepts the notion of hetero-normative intercourse within the confines of marriage as a necessary to continue to the human race, however, she would most likely prefer if people held off on anything sexy all together. In MBE-Land, “affections” are one thing, and intercourse is quite another. On pages 19-20 of Notes on Metaphysical Obstetrics used to teach Class of 1900 (1), Ms. Eddy has a few choice things to say about the act of procreation, attempting to bring a unique “spiritual” perspective to what sounds like an unhappy bedroom situation (2).

  • We have belief of connection with nerves instead of with God. Belief of material bodies attracting material bodies untrue. Only one attraction – God.
  • No sexual desire or genital sense. It is founded on matter; no age, no climactic period and supposed change of function, no beginning or ending, no tomb, no gloom, no doom.
  • Sensuality and intercourse in belief, wiped out by reflection, as explained in Science & Health, 301 (3). The capacity to reflect the eternal intercourse. That is Love. Knowledge of this will leaven the whole lump. God’s thoughts passing to man, man’s to God, is intercourse.

In Christian Science there is no room for the unreality of sensuality (it is mortal mind/error trying to “distract” us), much less “Victoria Secret dancing” in the bedroom (or on your own), we need to be constantly listening for God’s Angel Messages, not what our unreal material bodies are saying. Sometimes our material bodies say sensuality is fun, so how do we reconcile that with what Christian Science says about them not being real and sensuality getting in the way of our relationship with God?

I’ve sat through talks where Good Christian Scientists have attempted to justify physical intimacy within a marriage, they talk about “doing it” for “the right reasons” the “natural expression of love” and “not with lustful thoughts.” As long as everyone is having fun and it is mutually consented to, does it really matter why you’re having sex within the confines of marriage? Marriage aside, if you mention the idea of physical intimacy (or recreational sex) outside a marriage, you get slammed with sensuality is evil, and adultery is wrong (4).

Ms. Eddy is quite clear on the issue of sex and dating: there is no chapter on “Dating and Relationships” either you are married or you are not. In conversations with my Christian Science friends over the years most dating debacles come down to two points:

  1. the “it feels good, but it feels wrong” / “it feels really good, but it feels like too much” / “I love you but I don’t want to do more” discussion, which is often countered the “if you love me than you’ll do such-and-such”
  2. “I love them and I want to do more but we’re not married”

No one should do more than they feel comfortable with, and no one should feel pressured or coerced into doing more than they feel comfortable with. Only you can make the decisions about whether or not you want to have sex. What you choose to do is up to you, how you feel about it is also your decision. Intimacy should be based on mutual consent, and an enthusiastic “yes” as opposed to “not saying no.” It is okay to say no, stop or I’ve had enough (even within the confines of marriage), it is also okay to say YES!! These feelings are valid on their own, and do not need to be dictated by Ms. Eddy’s über-Puritan standards.

It can be very hard to reconcile the “feels good” with the underlying misogynistic, slut-shaming conservative Christian analogies of the licked cupcake, chewed gum, and “why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?” Combine this with Ms. Eddy’s clear views on sensuality being evil, and that giving power to the material undermines our spiritual nature opening us up to aggressive mental suggestions – for example, a young woman’s sensuality is undoubtedly the cause of her debilitating menstrual cramps, once she re-aligns her thoughts with God things will flow smoothly.

My overly cynical take on the second problem is then get married, or visit Planned Parenthood and get some condoms, although that does not help the devout Christian Scientist in their struggle with the mind over matter. There is more to marriage than physical intimacy, and being married will NOT automatically make the sex amazing — and if you’ve got all of the CS-induced right reason, sensuality is evil, and no pleasure in matter baggage, I’ll point you in the direction of Our Bodies Ourselves.

In Christian Science there is no need for a Madonna/whore complex, the only choice is to be Madonna and if you can manage an immaculate conception (within the confines of marriage) that’s even better. To give in to anything other than Ms. Eddy’s God-ideals of purity, chastity and virginity, triumphing over evil and sensuality, until the apocalypse (at which point it all becomes moot anyway), is to set yourself up for a lifetime of self-induced misery.


  1. This link seems to be broken, I need to go back and fix it
  2. p. 17 of Notes on Metaphysical Obstetrics used to teach Class of 1900 – Ms. Eddy views husbands as “Husband, obstructing thought. Jesus healed the Samaritan woman of five husbands (five personal senses). Afterward she gave birth to a spiritual child – that is she saw herself as Jesus did, as a child of God (Luke 26:28-31, Galatians 4:27, Matthew 22:30, 24:19-38).
  3. S&H p. 301  Spirit is God, Soul; therefore Soul is not in matter. If Spirit were in matter, God would have no representative, and matter would be identical with God. The theory that soul, spirit, intelligence, inhabits matter is taught by the schools. This theory is unscientific. The universe reflects and expresses the divine substance or Mind; therefore God is seen only in the spiritual universe and spiritual man, as the sun is seen in the ray of light which goes out from it. God is revealed only in that which reflects Life, Truth, Love, — yea, which manifests God’s attributes and power, even as the human likeness thrown upon the mirror, repeats the color, form, and action of the person in front of the mirror.    Few persons comprehend what Christian Science means by the word reflection. To himself, mortal and material man seems to be substance, but his sense of substance involves error and therefore is material, temporal.    On the other hand, the immortal, spiritual man is really substantial, and reflects the eternal substance, or Spirit, which mortals hope for. He reflects the divine, which constitutes the only real and eternal entity. This reflection seems to mortal sense transcendental, because the spiritual man’s substantiality transcends mortal vision and is revealed only through divine Science.
  4. Adultery in this case seems to refer to any sort of premarital or extra-marital relationships

Further reading – links in full:

Further reading 2 – interesting commentary

Meme via FB/https://www.facebook.com/WOMENSRIGHTSNEWS

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Virgin, Whore, Christian Scientist

  1. Bill Sweet says:

    Aside from your great analysis of sex in religion, it seems to me that many of my peers in CS just have simply lied about their activities. With exceptions of course, a number say the right metaphysical truths about sex and marriage. In practice, they have sexual actions that sometimes are a shock.

    I could give many examples. One that arrives in my mind is, and this was me probably being too pushy, that a Christian Science gal just is over-the-top animal magnetic. She would tell me how she was handling the power of sex tempting her and the men who wouldn’t leave her alone. She seemed like a walking and talking contradiction. She was spiritually minded and sensually minded concurrently.

    I would say to her that I couldn’t grasp how she was able to project both worlds. One day she let it all out that she had this secret sex life, and it was pretty wild. Not quite “Eyes Wide Open,” but enough so.

    It may be human nature that for many people certain topics are not going to be discussed in an honest way. Sex is likely listed first followed by politics and feelings about other people that people mutually know.

    I do think that the platitude is true that no two people are alike. There are degrees of belief on people as what drives them.

    What do we do not just with heterosexual folks but numerous homosexual folks who, from what I have seen in the entertainment business, have an overdrive when it comes to sex? There are many homosexuals in CS. I wonder if there are more in this religion than other religions? It seems so to me, but I might be making a bias observation having not been a member of too many other religions in my background. In any case, homosexuals are part of the family too and should be treated as such. Of course, that is easier said than practiced.

    Lastly, the beginning premise that one who holds off is a prude and one who participates is a slut is true. You can’t win. It’s like Rodney Dangerfield’s joke. He goes to a party and avoids the food table. That way no one can say he is indulging in the food. Finally, after waiting and waiting, Rodney takes some food from the table. A friend walks up and says, “Still packing it away, huh Rodney?”

  2. tildeb says:

    Why on earth would anyone agree to respect anything Mary Baker Eddy has to say about anything? She shows over and over again why her faith-based perspective interferes with coming to know anything about anything. Her views on sexuality are transparently dysfunctional and can only lead to learning how to lie and hide and cover up one’s sexual expression. Why anyone would invite MBE into bed with them (metaphorically speaking) reveals a profound confusion about how to live as an autonomous, well-adjusted, healthy, and responsible adult. Is this what parents who advocate for CS want for their children? If so, why on earth should anyone respect this bizarre desire such parent implement to raise dysfunctional people?

    I just don’t get it.

    • kat @ kindism says:

      her views … can only lead to learning how to lie and hide and cover up
      Sadly, this is not limited to one’s sexual expression, it branches out into any number of other areas of life, one’s mental/physical health, relationships, etc.

      Most Christian Scientists don’t see MBE’s views as a problem, they skim over the parts they may quietly disagree with — after all the weekly lesson sermons are composed of pull-quotes (often ripped out of context) and cut out large chunks of both the Bible and Science & Health so why not ignore vast sections of both? It is easy to write off some of MBE’s more unique notions as 19th century Puritan hangups, but they remain all the same.

      • Bill Sweet says:

        To be fair, I watch a considerable amount of Christian television. Aside from preachers who get off track, virtually all the Christian churches teach about the sacred sexual relationship of the marriage contract. Most are pretty set too when it comes to homosexual activities and marriage, though that is changing a bit in the liberal churches.

      • kat @ kindism says:

        Yes, but MBE takes it to a whole new level, it is my understanding that main-stream Christianity is mostly fine with sex — within the confines of marriage — and ONLY within the confines of marriage. MBE is saying that in an ideal world, we shouldn’t be having sex AT ALL because it distracts from one’s relationship with God.

  3. ex-CS geezer says:

    “No one wants a muddy glass of water, a chewed piece of gum or a licked cupcake!” . . . and certainly not an opened box of cereal! This is a true story: A Christian Science lecturer give a talk at Principia College back in 1968 or 69. He gave us college students the benefit of his spiritual wisdom on the matter of sex, the importance of virginity before marriage, etc. He used this metaphor: “If you found an opened box of cereal on the shelf in a supermarket you wouldn’t buy it, now, would you? Of course not!” Well, to their credit, the kids pounced on this in the Q&A, challenging his stupid implication that sex before marriage makes a person corrupted and undesirable. I remember one brave lad rose to say something like, “No, I would not buy an opened box of cereal. But if I were in the market for a car I might want to test drive it first,” a little crass, perhaps, but a real zinger! Anyway, the poor lecturer apparently felt humiliated, and in the days following, some of us were disciplined for our “attack” on him.
    Seriously, Christian Science is feckless on the matter of human sexuality. And in my case, the conflict between the religion’s demand for purity and the human need for sexual intimacy caused serious emotion pain, to myself and others, for several years. Take my advice: Rip out Mary Baker Eddy’s chapter on marriage and invest in a respectable sex manual! And let love, respect, and true sensitivity to the feelings of others be your guide.

    • kat @ kindism says:

      Well put ex-CS geezer! 😉

      During my time a feminist group on campus hosted a Planned Parenthood representative who talked about contraception and birth control, it was very well attended. People put questions in a box before hand to remain anonymous (it was also very well attended by the Office of Student Life), and only a handful dared to stand and ask questions at the event itself.

      What was NOT so well attended was the follow-up the next morning talking about “spiritual” birth control (whatever the hell that is). I don’t think anyone asked any questions. It was pretty clear what the administrations views on the topic were. It was a bit awkward, there was a Resident Counselor who was basically a CS-nun, and a married couple w/o kids who tried to explain “sex for the right reasons” although they remained childless. It was a bit embarrassing all around.

  4. Sara says:

    I understand where your coming from but I will point out that i think the passage about masculine and feminine qualities weren’t necessary about man and woman complete each other but more so that these qualities can be expressed in an individual. With that said its hard to believe that our religion is so against gays. I left the college because of these old views. I personally think MBE didnt have good marriages hence why she was so bitter about marriage. and I just get tired of people putting so much worth on a girls virginity and then they turn around and preach about completeness. They act like you’re doomed to fail marriage or relationships if you actually like sex. anyways been thinking about whether or not this religion is worth it to me. I liked cs before I went to that dumb college.. just a bunch of snouts.

  5. Bill Sweet says:

    I will have to read what Kat wrote about gays from Mrs. Eddy’s point of view. I presently never read anything specific about gays from her.

    As to the comment about the lecturer who spoke at Prin. I would wager a bet that he might have been the lecturer at the college next door to Illinois State University where I attended. The college next door was Wesleyan University in Bloomington, Illinois.

    Our Illinois State University Christian Science Org was huge; about fifty members. We took a contingent of about twenty members over to the Wesleyan Org to hear their lecture.

    The Lecture was going over well. When he realized it was going smoothly, he said to the audience that he was happy and relieved we were liking what he said. He said that he had just given a lecture at Principia College, and it didn’t go over well at all. The students didn’t like some of the things he said, and it made him feel awful.

    I am not sure, but I don’t think sex was a topic mentioned in his lecture at Wesleyan. He took many questions from the audience after the lecture.

    • kat says:

      I don’t think I’ve ever directly addressed MBE’s stance on anything LBGTQ. I’ve mostly addressed the church & Prin policies involved with it. As it is, MBE takes a dim view on marriage. See links in my reply to Sara, if you’re curious.

Comments are closed.