On the Box: Sexual Appetites and Intimate Needs

Last night I came across a video of a panel speaking about the relationship between sexuality and life in the LDS church. To be honest, I saw the post on a couple different group pages and passed over it each time because I saw that it was associated with the Northstar Conference, a group of which I am not a fan. I ultimately decided to watch the video when I saw that Kendall Wilcox was on the panel, someone I greatly admire and respect.


Just for bare-bones context, although I'm sure everyone who regularly reads this blog is already familiar with these people, Ty Mansfield is a founder and president of Northstar, an ministry organization that exists to provide support for people who "experience" same-sex attraction and still are desirous to live according to the current teachings and beliefs of the LDS church. Ty is well-known in the gay LDS community. He has published a book and is currently in a mixed-orientation marriage. He serves as the poster child for these kinds of marriages and the kind of lifestyle he has chosen to live. Kendall Wilcox is also a believer in the LDS church, but he takes a different angle on human sexuality and, at least from what I have heard and can tell, sees the scientific and psychological side of things. I've seen him engage Ty several times in groups in pretty heated debate, so it is well known that he does not agree with everything Northstar does or everything that Ty believes. The third panel member is the mother of a transgender child. I don't mean to brush her aside, but as far as this post goes, her experiences and statements do not play a role.

As I was listening, there were a couple things Ty said that literally made me pause the video and think for several minutes. The first was his acknowledgement that humans are sexual beings: "I'm a sexual being regardless of whether I'm having sex with somebody." This is interesting because it acknowledges that sex and sexuality are integral parts of being a human. It also implies that even if someone decides to live a celibate life (in order to be in alignment with LDS church teachings) he or she will never cease having sexual desires and attractions.

At the same time, Ty believes that sexuality is a "very complex" issue, consisting of "biological factors ... genetic factors ... cultural factors ... [and] psycho-emotional factors"; moreover, he believes that everyone experiences his or her sexuality differently. While I do adamantly agree that everyone experiences sexuality differently--just as no one has the exact same shade of brown hair--I also think that making sexuality into a "complex" issue, which Ty references several times in the 45-minute video, allows those like Ty to skirt issues and speak in nebulous terms, always afraid to sound too definitive on any issue, always willing to pass something off as "too complex" to nail down. However, while calling humans sexual beings and calling that sexuality incredibly complex one second, the next second Ty (and Northstar) eagerly embrace the cut-and-dried teachings of the LDS church and its Proclamation on the Family.

Later on, Ty says something that really caused me to pause. At first it offended me, but then I found myself confused and thinking philosophically: "Sex is not a human need. It's an appetite. But intimacy with other human beings is a need. We're neuro-biologically wired for relationship and for intimacy in relationship." This needs to be broken down into parts. First of all, Ty is saying that sex, that is, sexual intercourse, is NOT a human need. In using this terminology, Ty echoes a couple recent General Conference talks. This means that sexual intercourse is something we get a hunger for and then are sated after we've had it. Eventually, that hunger will build back up and demand that we satisfy it once more. Although an appetite is something that humans must have in order to survive, the word in this case is being used in its negative connotation as something that can (and should) be ignored, like an appetite for chocolate cake or jelly beans, i.e. things that are bad for us, things that are (or should be) pretty easy to forego.

But intimacy is a different story, apparently. Intimacy is a need. This means that it is necessary and essential. The "appetite" for intimacy, if you will, is more akin to a natural desire for sustenance, that indicator that ensures we eat breakfast and lunch and dinner. This is all well and good, but here's my quandary: where does intimacy end and sex start; that is, where does the need end and the appetite begin? How exactly does Mr. Mansfield define "intimacy"? And what does it require to satisfy our human need for it? Are there other emotions involved in being intimate with someone?

Here are a few things that could be considered to be intimate:

1. cooking dinner with someone
2. talking to someone about hopes, fears, and dreams
3. gazing into someone's eyes
4. sitting close to someone
5. holding someone's hand
6. lying next to someone
7. running your fingers through someone's hair
8. kissing someone
9. ???

What comes next? Being naked with someone? Having sex with someone? If intimacy is natural and essential and sex is not, who defines where the former ends and the latter begins? And who decides with whom one is allowed to experience that intimacy?

There are, I concede, different kinds of intimacy: intellectual intimacy, emotional intimacy, sexual intimacy, spiritual intimacy, physical intimacy, religious intimacy, psychological intimacy, etc. If "intimacy" is simply being "close" to another person or feeling comfortable enough to allow another person into our personal space (however that "space" is defined), then the list of types could conceivably go on and on. Can our human "need" for intimacy be satisfied with just one type of intimacy? And if, as Ty says, we are also "neuro-biologically wired for relationship," wouldn't the healthiest way to experience intimacy be within a relationship? He may answer yes to that question. He may say that that is why we have families; that is why we have friends. These are both relationships that can contain large amounts of various types of intimacies. But, I would ask, don't those relationships still leave something out of the equation, a natural and essential need, that is still not being taken care of, a type of intimacy that I feel Ty is deliberately avoiding bringing up in his arguments? And what if, as a gay man, I have no desire at all or remote inclination to have the sort of intimacy that I need with a woman? Sexuality, after all, is not just about having sex with someone.

If I am looking for a thrill, just wanting to "get off," or experiencing some other psychological need for validation or power, then having sex with someone would not be defined as intimate since the goal of that encounter is simply having an orgasm or being validated or feeling power. But if I am in love with someone, then wouldn't having sex with that person be defined as the ultimate intimacy since the goal of that encounter is to experience a closeness and bonding that I would not want to experience with anyone else? 

I suppose it is all the gray areas that allow Ty and others to believe what they do. Why consider gray areas when you can be told exactly what think and believe and how to act by an organization or a church? It is very easy to simply shrug one's shoulders and say, "This is what we've been told, and this is what we've been taught to be true," and leave it at that. But if the nature of sexuality is so complex, and if the line between appetite and need, intimacy and sex, is so blurry, then why even try to nail it down and proclaim The Truth, a "truth" that is based on the opinions and experiences of those who, by Ty's own definition, experience sexuality differently than I do? If everyone experiences sexuality differently, then how can there possibly be a one-size-fits-all solution to living happily? (To his credit, Ty does admit that "some" people can be happy in same-sex relationships.)

My conclusion/bottom line (because I feel like this post could go on forever): The only reason that Northstar exists is because of religious beliefs. If Ty (and countless others) had been raised in an atmosphere that embraced the diversity of sexualities then I don't believe he would currently be in a mixed-orientation marriage. As everyone already knows, sexual diversity to me is a natural phenomenon, regardless of the various factors that may influence it. It is a religious issue only because some choose to make it one. The Bible, the ONE single place from which all current Christian stances on sexuality are taken, has been altered, mistranslated, and taken out of context. So for me, ALL teachings from ANY religion that proclaim man-and-woman sex and relationships to be the "right" and "correct" way to live are simply misinformed and incorrect.