CCOU 305 Week 1 DB Forum 1 Example

Discussion Board Forum 1: Thread and Two Replies

CCOU 305 Issues in Human Sexuality, Discussion Board Forum 1 (thread and two replies)

Thread by [Student Name]

The prompt and the classmates' posts are composites standing in for the course's own forum; the textbook, Scripture and published studies are real; the requirements follow Liberty's public course guide for CCOU 305.

Thread

The Bible's view of sexuality begins with creation. Genesis presents humanity, male and female, as made in God's image, blesses them and calls everything God made very good (English Standard Version Bible, 2001/2016, Genesis 1:27-31). The second account describes a man and woman joined as one flesh, naked and unashamed (Genesis 2:24-25). Sexuality, on this view, is not an embarrassing part of human nature but part of the good creation, given for union and for delight as well as for children.

The Song of Solomon develops that theme in poetry. The lovers praise each other's bodies, long for each other and rejoice in being together, and the woman's voice is as strong as the man's, which makes the poem a picture of mutual desire rather than one-sided pursuit. Its refrain, not to stir up or awaken love until it pleases, adds a note of patience and timing (Song of Solomon 2:7). The Penners' title, The Gift of Sex, captures the same idea: sex is a gift from God whose meaning depends on the relationship in which it is given (Penner & Penner, 2003).

Much of the wider culture tells a different story. Garcia et al. (2012) describe hookups, sexual encounters without the promise of a committed relationship, as increasingly normative among adolescents and young adults in North America. The authors explain the trend through both evolved desires and changing social scripts during emerging adulthood, and they note that these encounters often happen without any desire for a romantic relationship. The cultural script separates sex from covenant and treats it as recreation. The biblical view does not treat sex as less important than the culture does; it treats it as more important, too significant to be separated from a lifelong commitment.

For a counselor, this matters in two directions. Clients shaped by casual scripts may struggle to connect sex with intimacy, and clients raised to see sex as shameful may struggle to receive it as a gift. A counselor working from a biblical view can address both, by helping the first group see what sex is meant to express and helping the second see that the Creator called it good.

Classmates: which of those two struggles do you think is more common among the people you know?

Reply to Hannah

Hannah, your thread argued that many Christians enter marriage with a sense of shame about sex, because they heard far more about what was forbidden than about what was good, and that this shame can follow them into marriage. Research suggests your concern points toward a remedy as well as a problem. Hernandez et al. (2011), studying 83 newlyweds married between 4 and 18 months, found that those who perceived their sexuality as sanctified, as sacred and connected to God, reported greater marital satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, sexual intimacy and spiritual intimacy, beyond what their general religiousness predicted. The finding suggests that it is not religion itself that produces shame, but a particular message about sex, and that a fuller biblical view, one that sees sex as a gift, may help.

This fits the Penners' emphasis on sex as a gift to be received (Penner & Penner, 2003). Premarital counseling that presents the Song of Solomon alongside the boundaries may help couples carry both truths into marriage. With only 83 couples from one community, the study cannot prove that viewing sex as sacred produces satisfaction, yet it gives counselors good reason to ask clients what spiritual meaning sexuality holds for them.

Did your church's teaching include passages that celebrate sexuality, or only those that warn about it?

Reply to Jacob

Jacob, your thread pointed to television and streaming shows as a major source of the cultural message that sex is casual and without consequence. Research supports your concern. Ward (2003), reviewing empirical research on entertainment media and the sexual socialization of American youth, found that sexual content is common in programming young people watch, and that studies linked heavier exposure to more permissive attitudes and to expectations about sex that differ from what actually happens in most relationships. Media do not determine behavior, but they supply scripts that young people use to interpret their own experiences, especially when parents and churches say little.

The Song of Solomon offers a different script, one in which desire is celebrated but tied to faithfulness, and its warning not to awaken love before its time suggests that what we let shape our desires matters (English Standard Version Bible, 2001/2016, Song of Solomon 2:7). For parents and youth workers, the research suggests talking about media content openly rather than only restricting it, since young people who can name the script a show is selling are better able to resist it.

Do you think discussing shows with teenagers is more effective than limiting what they watch, or do the two work best together?

References

English Standard Version Bible. (2016). Crossway. (Original work published 2001)

Garcia, J. R., Reiber, C., Massey, S. G., & Merriwether, A. M. (2012). Sexual hookup culture: A review. Review of General Psychology, 16(2), 161-176. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027911

Hernandez, K. M., Mahoney, A., & Pargament, K. I. (2011). Sanctification of sexuality: Implications for newlyweds' marital and sexual quality. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(5), 775-780. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025103

Penner, C. L., & Penner, J. J. (2003). The gift of sex: A guide to sexual fulfillment (Rev. ed.). W Publishing Group.

Ward, L. M. (2003). Understanding the role of entertainment media in the sexual socialization of American youth: A review of empirical research. Developmental Review, 23(3), 347-388. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0273-2297(03)00013-3