It is true that sex is a difficult subject to discuss forthrightly in Christian Science. Tumescent urges are seldom dealt with or relieved satisfactorily by the Victorian delicacy with which they have historically been hot-potatoed in the periodicals. A friend recently directed me to "A Conversation with Ginny Luedeman" in the June 18, 2007, Sentinel.
Whew! What a read. Ridiculous sophistries and non sequiturs scamper about with the abandon of the Marx Brothers. Not for the intrepid Mrs. Luedeman is there any need to wrestle with the fussy and potentially troublesome distinction between eros, philos, and agape. Hey, when strict adherence to the Science, metaphysics, and spirit of Christian Science is relegated to post-coital pillow talk or perverted into spiritualized carnal love, you might as well let 'er rip. Hubba hubba! Mark Twain would have a field day in the erotic copse of this Palinesque conversation.
Maybe she uses a Harris (no, not Frank Harris) edition of "Science and Health" with a watered-down chapter on "Marriage", and she is a trifle fuzzy on how hot youth guiltlessly shares in the sexual delights that beckon the unmarried but still love-enraptured Scientist.
I was not enlightened by her "discussion" of chastity, and her statement "I like to think of myself kind of like a wrench in God's hand" is a hoot. At first I thought she meant "wench", but, no, wrench it is. Read it and weep, The idea that God would lend His loving hand to sexual activity --perhaps as a kind of divine stimulation--is a gross perversion of divine Science.
Many other tasty morsels could be cited, but my sides would ache and my breath be short long before I was finished. This interview only supports my stated belief that the periodicals will sink to any depth to get readers--even those with only a handful of condoms burning a hole in their pockets--but to what end?