If Christianity ever expects to win people over to a Christian sexual ethic, it must answer in no unclear terms without being pornographic. Many have responded to this balancing act by simply avoiding the debate altogether. The result is many more women and men who have been harmed because they simply know no different.
The central point of the book is vulnerability. In order to have any real relationship, one must be vulnerable to hurt. In a society that values feelgoodism, this idea is anathema. However, by not only advocating vulnerability but demonstrating it in the book, she displays not only great courage but great integrity. Advocating what you yourself would not do is hypocrisy. Many of the children dressed up in adult's skin in today's world likely giggled at the more personal details of the book, but likely many more will be won over by Dawn's candor. In that way, the book is nothing short of heroic.
The book itself was written by a woman speaking to other women, so in a sense it seems to exclude men. The wreckage of sexual pathology left in the wake of the sexual revolution has incapacitated men just as much as women in the area of romantic relationships and such books hold great value for men who want to understand what the mindset is of the women they try and meet and date. However, reading this book has made me keenly aware that no counterpart from the male perspective is out there and that this is a great oversight of tragic proportions.
The book sells itself on the idea of a new sexual revolution built around chastity. This isn't entirely accurate. The book is a relationship revolution that tries to detach sex as the solitary component in male-female relationships. For those about to enter the dating scene or those who are dissatisfied with the "meet" market, this book is a must-read.
Article comments
1 - A Concerned Citizen
Your review got me very interested, but I think you could have included a little more detail about what exactly the book contains.
All in all, a good review. Thank you, Mr. Bambenek.
2 - zingzing
that's the problem with christians... they see the world as this big bad place, in need of christian help.
this sex and the city metaphor goes a little far. have you (or the author) ever really watched the show? i've seen it enough (3 or 4 times) to know that the pitfalls of "free sex" are on display quiet often. and committed relationships get equal airtime. (otherwise, how are you going to show the pitfalls of committed relationships?)
you (and the author) act as if the rest of the world doesn't know that sex can lead you into trouble, be it physical or emotional. we know it. sometimes we choose to ignore it, just to get laid. but no one is fooling themselves.
this book probably needed to be written, but it's got a built-in audience. chistians need a pat on the back. the rest of the world doesn't need anyone trying to pass this off as some sort of "christian" morality, when it is just common sense.
and blaming society's relationship problems on feminism (sex and the city feminism, no less,) is just plain stupid. do you really think that men and women related better in 1806 than they do in 2006? maybe you don't... i, on the other hand, have a wonderful relationship with a woman. she's my best friend and the one person on this planet that i am hopelessly attracted to.
when a woman is free to be who she wants to be, that's a good thing. i hope we can all agree on that.
trying to remove sex from a relationship is a big mistake, not a good idea.
3 - John Bambenek
"We" aren't removing sex from a relationship, it's "you" removing relationships from sex.
4 - IgnatiusReilly
If you can't get the first sentence right, why sould we take the rest of the story seriously?
"Dawn Eden quite literally bares her soul in The Thrill of the Chaste to show by personal experience that Sex and the City feminism doesn't work nor does it produce happiness [for her]."
No doubt it didn't, but one person's experiences don't always translate into everyone's. Do you want to live your life according to what works for some stranger? I could produce just as many ancedotes about people who are happy having sex or doing drugs.
I don't get the pun, so using "meet" instead of the more traditional, and more accurate, term "meat" market makes no sense.
5 - zingzing
""We" aren't removing sex from a relationship, it's "you" removing relationships from sex."
oh, bullshit. you know it, i know it. sure, there are a lot of people (christians included) having a lot of meaningless sex, and they know the dangers of it. face it, they probably have a better idea of the dangers than most. but, there are just as many non-christians involved in meaningful sexual relationships, and they don't have christianity to thank for that.
and again, john takes one sentence, attaches an accusation to it, and ignores the rest of what everyone else has to say. how christian of you, johnny.
6 - Leslie Bohn
Actually, Mr. Bambenek can't even get the first clause of his review right.
I won't think I'm the omly one wondering just how the author "quite literally bares her soul." Not just literally, but "quite literally."
When I read that, my head quite literally popped off my head and exploded.
7 - John Bambenek
Leslie-
At least you admit you're brainless when posting your trollish comments.
:)
8 - GnipGnop
Got it. We agree that it's a good thing for a woman to be who she wants to be, but if she chooses to be a chaste Christian, she at least should keep her opinion to herself and not offer help to those who choose to seek it, because that's...[your]...problem with Christians. (I put in the "your" because one person's experiences don't always translate into everyone's.)
9 - zingzing
almost. most everything you say is true, gnipgnop, but one shouldn't couch one's opinion of common sense in some sort of bullshit christian power-move.
i'm just saying it's arrogant and manipulative.
and john, even if leslie's grammar is no better than yours, she still gets her point across.
10 - pelinka
Funny, many people will say that Christians push "our" morals down others' throats. Personally, I wouldn't care if Dawn was an atheist, a Wicca follower or Buddhist. In fact, I would've been thrilled, because I'm tired of the whole "Bible-thumping" slogan when we do, write or say something, but secular authors can write or say anything and be published without the certitude that they will get criticized. If she wasn't Christian, it would prove that the message of the book is not only recognized by "religious people" but by people in general, people who have been through this and is tired of casual sex and tired of being told "no, just because it's bad" by some rules without an explanation. Christians do not feel the "keepers" of the truth, because the truth is for everyone to see. If everyone saw the truth, through “common sense”, and lived accordingly, the world would not need religion to gives us guidance, and there would be no need for this kind of books.
You are right, zingzing, many Christians have meaningless sex. And that is wrong! Wow, Eden is criticizing Christians too! We should rise up in arms, how dares she…..
If any of you have read the book, you would see that the moral of the story is chastity, not abstinence. Chastity means not using others for one's benefit or pleasure, but to appreciate them as whole beings, outside and in marriage, Christian or not. Casual sex does that, takes women AND men as partial beings, only good for one or two things, for a small period of time. Appreciation is different to respect (because you may say, these are two consensual adults).
Anyway, a final comment. Christians do not see the world as a big bad place, or at least, not ONLY as that. The world DOES have many bad things, but it is also full of so many beautiful things, people, and opportunities. Would you say that the world is perfect? In addition, we are not the only religious group to profess this. Because we believe in the goodness of the world, we have a moral responsibility to do something to improve things. Not to do so would be completely selfish, Christian or not.
11 - Ci
It is funny how many people read one or towo things in the review and than acted like they know what the book is all about and resume it to one simple statement. Well, you should read the book before talking bad about it. Any person can write about whatever, anyone has the right to write to convince people. That's what we do all the time, we try to convince people of our ideas, so why do people get all agravated when a Christian tries to make her point on chastity. Why don't you people get agravated on people making their point on casual sex or any other issue?
I don't understand the the reviewer or the book point feminism or the rights acquired through feminism as a bad thing. It questions some bad consequences that it brought to relationships,as the idea that women should start "having sex like men". The book is feminist if you want to know: a woman talking about sex freely. I don't think the author herself brags about feminism, she does a mature discussion over some harm some of its ideas might hae brought. You are free to agree with her or not.