12.19.2005
Ex Sex is the Best Sex
Obviously, the Drake has been in seclusion on the heels of his divorce from D. Tonight, I sit before my canvas tasked with relating what may be the most confusing part of my life to date.
D. and the boys came to visit for the weekend.
Yep, you heard right. Three weeks after she walked out the door, and into her new life, we were back in each other's arms. We went to a local farm, picked out a Christmas tree, and put it up together. We went Christmas shopping for my kids together. She took me out for a steak dinner to celebrate my 46th birthday. Hmmm... What else did we do? Oh yeah, we made some of the most passionate love in the history of our relationship. Frequently.
Yet on Saturday morning, I awoke full of misgivings. I had pretty much looked forward to the weekend as the event that would transition our relationship from that of a married couple in trouble to fuck buddies with no other agenda than mutual gratification. However, I found myself longing for more than a once-a-month fuckfest.
D herself began to experience problems yesterday morning, the result of her own surfacing emotions, which were released by our use of ganja as an aphrodisiac on Saturday night. Assailed by doubts on both sides of the argument, she couldn't stop crying for about an hour. I guess it didn't help that I smoked 3 cigarettes during the time she was there, despite the fact that I'm up to about 3/4 of a pack a day at the moment. Nor was she too keen to learn that I'd also scored some blow from the neighbor. Usually, I'm not too keen on the stuff myself, but I enjoyed the lift it gave me in the face of my lingering funk.
We also had some great conversations about things. We both agreed that this separation was the best thing for both of us. It gives her an opportunity to re-establish her own sense of life competence, without feeling like she has to have my approval over every little thing. It gives me an opportunity to clear out the cobwebs in my head and think about my priorities and the consequences of being an ass.
One of the best conversations we had was about whether this was just about sex. I'm sure that there's at least one reader out there scratching their head and wondering, "What the fuck are these two doing?" A question D and I were asking ourselves and each other all weekend. While it's obvious that the impulse that drove our decision to get together this weekend was predominantly sexual, the reality of the experience showed that there was more there for both of us than we had anticipated.
Here's my take on the whole dynamic. Men and women simply don't get together for any other reason than to have sex. Oh sure, there's this whole built-up infrastructure of dreams and expectations of "true love" or some other horseshit. And I believe that if a person is raised right, sex is the last-laid brick of a solid relationship. But whether you are a solid, raised-right Christian or a couple of wandering misfits recovering from the wounds of a dysfunctional childhood, sex is the super glue that binds couples together for a lifetime. It is the launching pad and foundation for a much deeper intimacy, one where the other person becomes indistinguishable from self, and the thought of being apart is painful to contemplate.
Without sexual chemistry and tension, men and women would really have no reason to hang out together. Politically incorrect, I know, but undeniably true. At least in my case. Most of the women I've ever known are people with whom I have nothing in common from which to build a relationship. There are exceptions, of course. There are a few that I've really enjoyed with absolutely no sexual context, but very few.
The Lord gave us the gift of sex as a means of comforting and pleasing one another, and the strong urge to get busy as a built-in motivator to overcome the inevitable frustrations, tensions and obstacles of dealing with another being who might as well be an extraterrestrial, for as well as we understand members of the opposite sex.
This situation also raises for us an difficult theological question: can reconciliation and restoration be legitimately available to divorced couples? What is the status of a couple like myself and D, who are legally divorced and living apart, but still in a relationship with intimate overtones and open to a reconciliation? Is it biblically wrong for D and I to even have sex because we are not legally married? Or do the facts of our relationship and sexual exclusivity negate the societal sanctions and dictates of marriage contracts and divorce decrees?
Let's get this discussion started!
- posted by The Drake @ 2:44 PM
Comments:
<< Home
I didn't think you were divorced by the church, but rather by the court. I don't believe it gets religiously (or emotionally) complicated until (unless) one of you sleeps with someone else.
Jeanne,
That is exactly my position on the matter. I've had people advocate both sides of this issue with me in these past weeks.
I think the overarching theme is captured in the traditional wedding vow, "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder."
One of the people who took the opposite position is my oldest daughter, who maintains that our obligation to obey the civil authorities overrides the Biblical injunctions against divorce. Heck, my knee jerk reflection position was based on a pretty rigid take on I Cor. 7:15...
"But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace."
Problem is, I only THINK she might be an unbeliever. I don't know for sure. She's doctrinally incorrect on some pretty basic issues, but she is possessed of significant moral character. I implicitly trust her with my finances and feelings. She was vital to my kids even having a Christmas tree this year.
The rest of I Cor. 7 lays down a pretty heavy case for doing anything you can to take care of each other, once you've been down that path together. The only exception is when one goes out of the relationship - without the other's consent - for sexual gratification. Even then, I believe that the Bible makes a very strong case that this principle shouldn't be used as an 'escape clause'.
So the bottom line is that we're still very interested in one another to the point where it's no big hassle to drive 5 hours just to see each other.
And only we can make the decision.
It's fun to dig into this with people, though. I'm a bit disappointed in my daughter's unwillingness to go to the mat over the issue. She told me that she didn't want to have a Bible debate with me over her stand.
Sheesh! What is it with you chicks? Coming from a senior at a Christian college, majoring in pre-med, and carrying a 3.5 GPA, you think she'd have a ready defense. Frankly, I expected better.
What I realize is that my attitude about these things really pisses the women in my life off. But I can't very well go off message, now can I?
Now, I can usually circle back and try again with a softer tone with my daughters, but these wives of mine are just... i don't know... contentious?
That is exactly my position on the matter. I've had people advocate both sides of this issue with me in these past weeks.
I think the overarching theme is captured in the traditional wedding vow, "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder."
One of the people who took the opposite position is my oldest daughter, who maintains that our obligation to obey the civil authorities overrides the Biblical injunctions against divorce. Heck, my knee jerk reflection position was based on a pretty rigid take on I Cor. 7:15...
"But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace."
Problem is, I only THINK she might be an unbeliever. I don't know for sure. She's doctrinally incorrect on some pretty basic issues, but she is possessed of significant moral character. I implicitly trust her with my finances and feelings. She was vital to my kids even having a Christmas tree this year.
The rest of I Cor. 7 lays down a pretty heavy case for doing anything you can to take care of each other, once you've been down that path together. The only exception is when one goes out of the relationship - without the other's consent - for sexual gratification. Even then, I believe that the Bible makes a very strong case that this principle shouldn't be used as an 'escape clause'.
So the bottom line is that we're still very interested in one another to the point where it's no big hassle to drive 5 hours just to see each other.
And only we can make the decision.
It's fun to dig into this with people, though. I'm a bit disappointed in my daughter's unwillingness to go to the mat over the issue. She told me that she didn't want to have a Bible debate with me over her stand.
Sheesh! What is it with you chicks? Coming from a senior at a Christian college, majoring in pre-med, and carrying a 3.5 GPA, you think she'd have a ready defense. Frankly, I expected better.
What I realize is that my attitude about these things really pisses the women in my life off. But I can't very well go off message, now can I?
Now, I can usually circle back and try again with a softer tone with my daughters, but these wives of mine are just... i don't know... contentious?
i dont know brother....sex with the ex, cocaine and gunga.......is this going to help your funk?
i'm praying for you!!!
ANON!!!
i'm praying for you!!!
ANON!!!
# posted by 
: 12/19/2005 10:53:00 PM
: 12/19/2005 10:53:00 PM
I was going to say that with all the drugs, sex with one of your exes is the least of your worries . . .
# posted by : 12/19/2005 11:57:00 PM
: 12/19/2005 11:57:00 PM
You're itching for a good fight, aren't you? Unfortunately, I'm going to be Christmas shopping when you wake up. Perhaps I'll have time and energy left afterwards.
Anon,
Given the fact that I'm even more convinced now than ever that D is really still my wife in God's eyes, the whole sex issue is a moot point. Especially since she emailed me excerpts of her research into the biblical teaching on this subject, and we have come to an agreement on our status.
"All the drugs" are certainly not helping, at least in the big picture sense. Temporarily, they seem to help, but these addictions must be dealt with if I am ever going to be able to contribute anything to healing my marriage to D. By that I mean, not the actual healing, but the clarity and purpose to make obedient choices and allow God's healing hand into my existence.
Jeanne,
Itching for a fight? I thought we were in agreement, for once.
Or are you inferring a misogynistic tone from my "chick" comments?
Given the fact that I'm even more convinced now than ever that D is really still my wife in God's eyes, the whole sex issue is a moot point. Especially since she emailed me excerpts of her research into the biblical teaching on this subject, and we have come to an agreement on our status.
"All the drugs" are certainly not helping, at least in the big picture sense. Temporarily, they seem to help, but these addictions must be dealt with if I am ever going to be able to contribute anything to healing my marriage to D. By that I mean, not the actual healing, but the clarity and purpose to make obedient choices and allow God's healing hand into my existence.
Jeanne,
Itching for a fight? I thought we were in agreement, for once.
Or are you inferring a misogynistic tone from my "chick" comments?
i long ago stopped intending offense in my use of the work "chicks". it's part of the lexicon now, the female counterpart to "dudes". i did anticipate that you might take exception to my use of it, but this is how i talk. i don't mean nothin' by it.
it's also a bit of a consequence of dating/marrying women quite a bit younger than myself. they don't have the hysteria... er, i mean hype... no, wait... i mean HISTORY of the women's movement that was such a big deal back in our day.
D was born in 1976. Hell, by that time the POTUS was granting interviews to Playboy. My first wife made such a big deal about wanting to be an underwater welder, just so she could prove to men that she could. she ended being a brick mason at a local steel mill. it wasn't about identity. it was about proving a point.
in fact, both D and my girlfriend prior have initiated the use of the word "chicks" into our conversations. and let me tell you, they're not very much into the "sensitive male" media image guys like me grew up with.
of course, they're even less pleased with my currently adopted imago -- that of a raging asshole.
:)
it's also a bit of a consequence of dating/marrying women quite a bit younger than myself. they don't have the hysteria... er, i mean hype... no, wait... i mean HISTORY of the women's movement that was such a big deal back in our day.
D was born in 1976. Hell, by that time the POTUS was granting interviews to Playboy. My first wife made such a big deal about wanting to be an underwater welder, just so she could prove to men that she could. she ended being a brick mason at a local steel mill. it wasn't about identity. it was about proving a point.
in fact, both D and my girlfriend prior have initiated the use of the word "chicks" into our conversations. and let me tell you, they're not very much into the "sensitive male" media image guys like me grew up with.
of course, they're even less pleased with my currently adopted imago -- that of a raging asshole.
:)
i am way confused..so do you believe, in God's eyes, you still have 3 wives? if so, what does this say??? i have not a clue.
according to the courts, you are not married. so, if you reconcile .....do you re-marry? if you wish to re-marry, what is the point??
dude, can't figure you out.... i beleive you still want her. fine.
do you think she really wants you or the "stability" you brought to her?? what does D really want?? she is starting to piss me off. i think she is just way confused...and continuing to pull you down....(you are not helping with blow and pot brother)
or once she "settles" in baltimore, where does that leave you???
i hope not in a world full of continued blow and pot.....man, you and i need to meet. i do not want to see that happen to you....
according to the courts, you are not married. so, if you reconcile .....do you re-marry? if you wish to re-marry, what is the point??
dude, can't figure you out.... i beleive you still want her. fine.
do you think she really wants you or the "stability" you brought to her?? what does D really want?? she is starting to piss me off. i think she is just way confused...and continuing to pull you down....(you are not helping with blow and pot brother)
or once she "settles" in baltimore, where does that leave you???
i hope not in a world full of continued blow and pot.....man, you and i need to meet. i do not want to see that happen to you....
# posted by : 12/20/2005 10:30:00 PM
: 12/20/2005 10:30:00 PM
Dude-
Actually, it was the "What is it with you chicks" lump comment that bothered me, not the word chick (although I would never use it seriously myself). I'll argue any point I have an opinion on at any time. Also, I am not a "women's libber", but rather a "human's libber", and I don't think we have a club or any rules. Doing something as a reaction to a wrong is of course as stupid as doing something because of the wrong.
When it comes to sex, I think you're both right and wrong. It is the super-glue, but it's not the only attraction. It is a means for two souls to meld together, but the attraction is between the souls, or the whole selves. It doesn't work to seperate out from the rest, but there is a lot more. If that's the only place you two are being pulled together, neither of you are going to be satisfied.
Actually, it was the "What is it with you chicks" lump comment that bothered me, not the word chick (although I would never use it seriously myself). I'll argue any point I have an opinion on at any time. Also, I am not a "women's libber", but rather a "human's libber", and I don't think we have a club or any rules. Doing something as a reaction to a wrong is of course as stupid as doing something because of the wrong.
When it comes to sex, I think you're both right and wrong. It is the super-glue, but it's not the only attraction. It is a means for two souls to meld together, but the attraction is between the souls, or the whole selves. It doesn't work to seperate out from the rest, but there is a lot more. If that's the only place you two are being pulled together, neither of you are going to be satisfied.
Interesting points being raised here.
anon,
first off, I don't believe I have 3 wives. my first two ex's are re-married, thus closing the door forever to any restoration of the marital bonds we once shared -- such as they were. but even with that being said, the bonds that were created during those marriages simply just don't dissolve into nothingness because of our subsequent choices. i believe the Bible teaches that you are permanently joined to each other in some mysterious way by virtue of consummating a relationship sexually. the depth of those bonds varies depending on the time and investment put into each relationship. and the same goes for every sexual relationship I've ever had.
Read I Cor. 6 & 7. These passages lay out the spiritual principles for my stance on this matter.
Based on this understanding,D and I are still married in the eyes of God and the Church, because neither of us has totally left the relationship. sounds weird, i know, but that is both the depth and the strength of what God creates in the marriage union. Both of us have been given the chance to stop the cycle of pain that comes inevitably from moving from one sexual relationship or marriage to another.
Jeanne,
I believe that your image of the sexual bonds D and I share being the key to unlock a deeper intimacy is the correct one in this context. The order has been reversed from the model that's promulgated within the contemporary Church, but I have doubts whether that model is totally accurate. A quick perusal of the history of the marriages of the OT patriarchs seldom includes a long courtship, or a building up of spiritual intimacy over a period of time before sexual consummation. The biggest exception would be that of Jacob, who waited fourteen years to consummate his love for Rachel.
More often than not, my impression of these marriage relationships is that they were more imposed than chosen -- either by circumstances, the ancient traditions of parental arrangement, or defiant choices to pursue romantic gratification outside of the community of faith. Those who chose to trust God in those relationships are shown to have received abundant grace to overcome all of the inevitable incompatibilies, conflicts, and hurts that come to us all from those closest to us. The others were subject to painful consequences, often with a repentance and restoration at the end of the road.
So now I am faced with one of two choices: to focus on the failures in the past to make this marriage work to God's glory and our benefit, or to trust God to guide us to keep at it in faith and obedience to the circumstances which point to His purposes in keeping our marriage going and growing.
anon,
first off, I don't believe I have 3 wives. my first two ex's are re-married, thus closing the door forever to any restoration of the marital bonds we once shared -- such as they were. but even with that being said, the bonds that were created during those marriages simply just don't dissolve into nothingness because of our subsequent choices. i believe the Bible teaches that you are permanently joined to each other in some mysterious way by virtue of consummating a relationship sexually. the depth of those bonds varies depending on the time and investment put into each relationship. and the same goes for every sexual relationship I've ever had.
Read I Cor. 6 & 7. These passages lay out the spiritual principles for my stance on this matter.
Based on this understanding,D and I are still married in the eyes of God and the Church, because neither of us has totally left the relationship. sounds weird, i know, but that is both the depth and the strength of what God creates in the marriage union. Both of us have been given the chance to stop the cycle of pain that comes inevitably from moving from one sexual relationship or marriage to another.
Jeanne,
I believe that your image of the sexual bonds D and I share being the key to unlock a deeper intimacy is the correct one in this context. The order has been reversed from the model that's promulgated within the contemporary Church, but I have doubts whether that model is totally accurate. A quick perusal of the history of the marriages of the OT patriarchs seldom includes a long courtship, or a building up of spiritual intimacy over a period of time before sexual consummation. The biggest exception would be that of Jacob, who waited fourteen years to consummate his love for Rachel.
More often than not, my impression of these marriage relationships is that they were more imposed than chosen -- either by circumstances, the ancient traditions of parental arrangement, or defiant choices to pursue romantic gratification outside of the community of faith. Those who chose to trust God in those relationships are shown to have received abundant grace to overcome all of the inevitable incompatibilies, conflicts, and hurts that come to us all from those closest to us. The others were subject to painful consequences, often with a repentance and restoration at the end of the road.
So now I am faced with one of two choices: to focus on the failures in the past to make this marriage work to God's glory and our benefit, or to trust God to guide us to keep at it in faith and obedience to the circumstances which point to His purposes in keeping our marriage going and growing.
Focusing on failure does NOT sound like a good idea. And I didn't mean waiting for something spiritual or emotional to build up. It can be as immediate as sexual attraction, even if it doesn't necessarily have to be.
Post a Comment
<< Home
