Sex dirty? Screw them!

Gordon Robinson

The attitude of so-called Christians towards matters of sex is usually accompanied by an irrational hostility, and resides in a never-never land somewhere between hypocrisy and bigotry.

It's sad because, despite Jesus' persistent, repeated urgings for his disciples to be motivated by love, the Christian approach to sex seems to be motivated by fear.

From the safety of their dogma-driven belief in monogamous, unimaginative sex in marriage only, they routinely condemn all who teach or act otherwise for the simple reason they fear losing their cash cow, should the flock discover it's all the same.

If the herd should discover that every expression of love is as worthwhile as the next, and as fulfilling as the couple want it to be, the Church might find itself in deep sheep manure without a sheep in sight. Only God knows what next might dawn on previously meek, blindly led followers. They might discover it's their own thought, word and determined deed (not tithing) that brings salvation and success. Horror of horrors, they might discover Pastor is no different to them.

So, with Bible firmly programmed to the Old Testament in one hand; pretend thunder, lightning and brimstone to be thrown from the other; and with a mind clouded by greed for power, pastors rail against sex outside of Christian marriage as if it were a category of Chinese torture. Complicated words like 'fornicator', 'adulterer', and, worst of all, 'abomination' (aka homosexual) are used with voices dripping with scorn to keep the 'faithful' in line, dropping paper money as the plate passes.

HOMOPHOBE HAVEN

Then when the congregation spends the rest of the week seeking out homosexuals to bludgeon to death, Pastor throws his hands in the air and says, "Is not me tell dem behave so. I only quote de Bible." No you don't. The Bible tells us to love ALL fellow humans, even those the early Jewish prophets believed to be abominations unto the Lord. Jesus specifically told his disciples that howsoever they treat the least among them, so they have treated Him. The Gospel of Mark, widely acknowledged as the most credible, as it was written (about 70 AD) the closest to Jesus' time on earth, doesn't record a single comment by Jesus on sexual matters and quotes Jesus as expressly forbidding divorce, even for 'adultery'.

"... Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, commiteth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." (Mark 10: 11-12)

Luke confirms this, but Matthew writes "it hath been said", without attributing the remarks directly to Jesus, that "fornication" by a wife is grounds for divorce. These are the only known quotes that might even remotely be attributed to Jesus regarding sex. All others you have heard have been fabricated by the Church, with some assistance from the Old Testament, in order to control minds by equating sex with guilt (or to keep sex with church sisters for Pastor alone).

It's a pity that Christian churches, allegedly founded to spread Christ's Word, have elected instead to spread hate and fear in His name based on ignorant propaganda. From whence doth this venom emanate? Not from Christ, who never suggested anyone should be excluded from the Kingdom. Regarding his own murderers, he beseeched, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Yet, we're to believe that same-sex adult couples will burn in hell for all eternity? Puh-leeeeze! Or a battered wife who seeks solace in another's arms is to be put to death. Ugh.

Jesus shunned no one regardless of colour, creed, class or sexual orientation. He vilified no one. Not even tax collectors did he exclude. His word was 'love'. Similarly, nothing annoyed Bob Marley more than mental slavery:

Could you be love and be

loved?

Could you be love and be loved?

Don't let them fool ya,

Or even try to school ya! Oh, no!

We've got a mind of our own,

So go to hell if what you're thinking is not right!

Love would never leave us alone,

In the darkness there must come out the light."

Fear of love's power expressed through sex; fear of the unknown generally, has resulted in a twisted, hypocritical approach to many life realities. Take the brainless censorship of creative writings perpetrated by newspaper editors in backward, Church-controlled countries like Jamaica sometimes producing nonsensical results. On Wednesday, January 29, George Davis penned a most revealing column exposing our modern 'music' artistes as having hit rock bottom (pun intended), citing a recent music video by Ricky Carty with the not-so-subtle title of Gal Tek Coy.

pussyfooting around

The Gleaner, in a spasm of prudishness, fig-leafed the word (as it has done again). But nobody was fooled and, within minutes of reading the column, all and sundry, of all ages, were busy Googling the video by name and watching from top to (you got it) bottom. Now, why would The Gleaner be afraid of publishing the word? If I accused Sherman Hemsley of portraying a cocky black man in The Jeffersons, would The Gleaner fig-leaf the word? If I wrote on illegal gambling, would it fig-leaf a sentence including the words 'fighting cock'? If I accused the Gleaner editor of pussyfooting around the problem, I'm sure that expression wouldn't be fig-leafed. What on earth does The Gleaner think it's protecting with this silly, 19th-century behaviour?

Having easily overcome The Gleaner's fig leaf, and found and watched the video, my only comment on its rather explicit scenes is that the male lead was clearly immunised against measles, mumps and rubella as a child but may have missed his small cox vaccine. It also exemplifies that sex in Jamaica has become more violent than loving, for the simple reason that small-minded churchmen refuse to speak frankly on the subject and perish, forbid Ronnie the Righteous should permit the topic introduced fulsomely in schools.

The result of that earnest conspiracy to keep us in the dark: a naturally curious but ignorant (and undereducated) populace is left to its own devices as to what it's all about. Attitudes born of fear-induced violence create a competition to see who can better and more explicitly degrade women.

tit for tat

The Old Lady of North Street won't move with the times. She won't bell the sex-education cat. She prefers to remain as pure as she was in 1898, thus ensuring she dies as an old maid in obscure irrelevance. I penned a very funny bit (my 2013 Domino Awards) regarding Emily Host's writing, she'd engage me in 'raw tit for tat' if she stooped to my level. My intention was to expose her linguistic ineptitude. She was probably trying to be a wit, but failed to notice that her careless use of the word 'tit' left her vulnerable to being called a twit.

Ye Olde Editor went into a blue funk and said the column wasn't 'child friendly'. Yet the same Gleaner edition that ought to have carried my awards column covered Sting in full, including a photo of D'Angel, like Ian Botham in the slips, with legs wide apart waiting for a tickle.

Finally, on the subject of pussycats and fighting cocks, on January 2, 2011, my New Year's column headlined 'Privy Council polytricks', on the urgent need to abolish the English court, closed like this:

"Up to now, we've been doing what men frequently call 'pussyfooting around' the problem. Of course, that's just another 19th-century American invention ... embraced by male chauvinists everywhere like the story we're told as children that the stork brings babies. But that's poppycock! Now we know it's poppycock, why can't women accuse us of cockyfooting around the problem?"

Not a fig-leaf in sight. Grow up, Gleaner. Don't be afraid. Words are just words. Only the intent behind the words can be offensive. Mischievous children will find a way to explore the unknown with or without your help. Leave them to the Church. You can't censor creativity. Stop trying.

Peace and love.

Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.