"I think it's good, sometimes, that we go without sex."

So we got a new pope. Latin American and Jesuit, was Jorge, is now Francis. He is variously described as dogmatically conservative, technologically progressive, supportive of unmarried mothers and defender of the poor. Pontif #266 also views gay marriage as "an attempt to destroy God's plan", and worries about journalists fomenting coprophagia.

One thing is certain: The man formerly known as Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio has vowed to abstain from the pleasures of the flesh. He is a declared celibate. He has no sex. He is not alone.

We're familiar with the idea of the sexless marriage. Different to clerical celibacy in origin, but the outcome is the same; no sex given, no sex enjoyed. Thing is, the absence of sex in the marital bed is judged to be about as bad as sex within the Roman Catholic Church.

But what if there were a compelling reason to remove sex from your relationship? What if saying "no" could be as good as saying "yes" is said to be? I mean, we tend to agree that too much of something is bad - does that logic extend to the bedroom?

I think so.

It's interesting to note that the notion of marriage - and the sex it enabled - was attacked in the first two centuries of Christianity, largely by the Encratite movement which advocated Christians live a life of sexual abstinence. The idea here was very much wrapped up in notions of purity, and perhaps the modern day manifestation is evident in the evangelical obsession with virginity.

Of course, celibacy for all is a preposterous idea in practice. The survival of the church, for example, depends upon the reproduction of believers. The survival of a romance long-term depends upon mutually enjoyable lovemaking.

However, the idea does appeal to some sort of primitive, human adoration for balance. On a macro level, that there are some people in the world having no sex at all nicely offsets the oversexed contingent. On a micro level, we take comfort in the fact something turned on may also be turned off.

Hence, balance is the root of my rootless-on-occasion argument.

Perhaps the mistake made by the people who despair the waning sexiness of their love affair is the same made by the glutton or the sloth - there was just too much being had, and too little concern for moderation. We could all do with a little more moderation in this age of excess.

Just as it is healthy to stop eating or lazing or drinking sometimes, so too is it healthy to stop having sex, thinking about sex, and expecting sex. It's healthy because you enjoy it that little bit more when you've not had it for a while. You're reminded how good it can be. That which is rarer commands a higher value; it is more precious, more beautiful, more enjoyed.

But who would be brave enough to broach the subject? Who would dare suggest restraint when self-indulgence is the norm?

I would.

The pope would too I expect.

- Sydney Morning Herald

Comments