Margaret Robinson - writer. researcher. activist - Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Hard at Play

A proposal for sexual ethics

Please feel free to quote or cite this document, provided the appropriate citation is provided. Ex: Margaret Robinson, "Anti-Judaism in Lesbian Christian Theology," (course paper, University of Toronto, 2002). When citing material online you may wish to add the URL, and the last date you accessed the page.

"As our advertisers imply daily in a thousand ways, the attractions of sex make it the favourite form of play for millions of Americans. Why do not our thinkers go on from there to contemplate the kind of social life that might result from formal recognition of this fact, rather than implicitly or explicitly reverting to the prejudice that sex as play is bound to be sinful or at best amoral?"

— Nelson N. Foote 1

The Five Ws of Sexual Ethics

Christian sexual ethics have tended to focus on the "five Ws" of sexual acts. The moral "who/m" is usually specified as one's legally married partner of the opposite sex. The more liberal might extend the limits to include a partner one intends to marry, or even a single partner of the same sex in a relationship analogous to marriage. "What" you may be permitted to do has sometimes been limited to man-on-top penis-in-vagina intercourse. Even those who encourage other forms of sexual expression tend to inevitably return to vaginal penetration, or its presumed same-sex equivalent, as the essence of sexual interaction, or as an act whose symbolism is somehow deeper than that of other acts.

Although "where" such acts occur is rarely addressed, this is not because the question is open. Proper sex is assumed to occur in the bedroom; so much so that "the bedroom" has become a euphemism for sexuality itself.2 If the world is seen as divided into public and private spaces, ethical sex had traditionally been relegated to the private. Sexual acts which occur in cars, washrooms, or other pseudo-public spaces are associated with adolescent sexuality, and understood as a pre-cursor to mature sex which occurs in private, when economic means allow. The "why" of sexual acts has sometimes been limited to procreation, with the growth of love and intimacy between the (two) partners now frequently added. The question of "when" sexual acts should and should not occur has concentrated on age, proximity to the marriage ceremony, and sometimes on scheduling sexual acts in accordance with a woman's menstrual cycle, historically to avoid the impurity some associated with menses, or more recently, to plan reproduction.

In offering my own vision of sexual ethics, I have chosen to turn to the question sometimes appended to the Five Ws of journalism: "how." I cannot offer a complete system for sexual ethics. Such a project is more appropriately done by a community than by one individual. What I shall do is offer some reflections, suggestions and questions on the metaphor of sexuality as play. A modern examination of sexuality, if it is to be relevant, cannot be limited to an examination of acts. Sexual acts are important, and I shall argue that sexual play incorporates ritual and symbolic action, but sexuality, and sex as play, involves more than simply "going through the motions." Philosopher Paul Ricoeur writes that when we refuse to reduce human sexuality to reproduction, "[t]here is an element of play in it and it becomes play."3 As I shall argue, play is relational, and relations cannot be summed up by a description of acts alone.

How do I love thee? The Value of Play

Why is the image of sex as play needed or helpful? To begin with, talking about sex in a modern context is frequently fraught with heavy issues such as sexual orientation rights, AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections, or abortion. One is often left with the feeling that not only is sex not meant to be fun, but that it is literally deadly serious. This focus on the negative-on what not to do-although arguably necessary at times, is not conducive to fostering an adequate sexual ethic. We need to balance these negative messages with a positive one, and play is one possible approach.

One of the effects of the "sexual revolution" has been a sense of responsibility to cultivate an active sex life, or to project such an image, at least publicly. Modern masculinity has depended heavily upon a man's persona as a "sex machine," capable of responding erotically to the appropriate partner at a moment's notice. This pressure to perform, along with the tendency to measure performance in terms of penis size, and duration of intercourse, rather than in terms of relational satisfaction, has left many men feeling intimidated and inadequate. In contrast, women are portrayed as possessing the sex which men supposedly crave. As women we are caught between the "old" values, which claimed that "good girls don't enjoy sex" (and certainly don't seek it out), and the"new" values which insinuate that we are failing as women if we aren't having multiple g-spot orgasms, while simultaneously providing our partners with their best sex ever. We seem to have somehow become responsible for both our own pleasure and that of our partner, yet (perhaps even as a result), many women still aren't enjoying sex. Theologian Carter Heyward writes that "[f]or many women much of the time and some women all of the time, sex is not fun, it is not pleasurable, and yet it is what we are here to do-provide it for men."4 Neither of these extremes helps us have good sex. By shifting our concentration away from sex as a duty, a bargaining chip, or an indicator of social status, and focussing on sex as play, I propose that we may be able to lighten the load we have placed on people as sexual beings, and create a space where new possibilities can be imagined and explored.

My little playmate
come out and play with me
climb up my apple tree
play with my dollies three
slide down my rainbow
into my cellar door
and we'll be jolly friends
for ever more more... more... more.

— Traditional clapping song

Six Characteristics of Play

Symbolic interaction analysts, who looks at the constructed nature of social activities, have named six fundamental characteristics of play:

it occurs within a "play frame" which is distinguished from "real life";
it is bound by space and time;
it creates a temporary and limited perfection;
it has its own rules and order;
it is interpreted symbolically; and
it is intrinsically motivated.5

I am not suggesting that these are the only characteristics of play, or that symbolic interaction theory is the best perspective from which to look at play. I have chosen these characteristics as a starting point from which to begin to imagine what sexual play might involve.

1) Out of this world: being in the "play frame"

Play begins when those involved declare it to have begun. The invitation, "let's play" sets apart a segment of time, or physical space as different from "regular," non-play time. Sexual play demands the full participation of the partner. We cannot remain outside of the play zone and still be fully at play. To offer a partner only the use of our body while engaging in other activities-reading a book, balancing the budget, or watching television-is to miss the point of sex as play. Play requires we be fully present to the other, and disentangled from other realities, such as washing the dishes, or planning to pay the bills. Attempting to remain partially or completely in the "real world" is to miss the offer of full participation.

People at play create a space where the rules of everyday life may not apply, or apply differently, and where new etiquette may reign. This holds true sexually as well. Once in the play zone, moral values are determined by context. What might have been inappropriate in "real time" becomes possible or expected. A bite, a scratch, or the twisting of a nipple, which could be unpleasant or unwelcome in casual life, might be welcomed, enjoyed, or demanded during the heightened physical sensation of sex play. Yet play is never fully separate from real life. The outside world furnishes the material of play-the raw stuff from which fantasy is made. This is both a blessing and a curse. As Carter Heyward reminds us, our experiences of sexual power are socially constructed.6 Connection with the real world can act as a source of taint; oppressions, injustices, and abuses can make their way into play from the real world. The play zone can become an excuse for behaviour which is cruel, exploitative, or damaging, and the zone's separation from real life can be claimed as a method of evading responsibility for one's actions.7 For those who frequently experience "real life"as a place of multiple oppression, the play zone can be a source of reprieve, where a more just sexual world can be imagined, created, and played out apart from day-to-day experiences. This reprieve is not necessarily reduced to escapism. It can also act as a source of vitality for political struggle. William J.J. Gordon describes play as generating "energy for problem-solving" and evoking "new viewpoints with respect to problems."8 Play offers the opportunity of unlocking the creative power of Eros in our lives.

At its best, play becomes a holistic experience. Athletes and artists sometimes describe this sense of other-being as "in the zone," others describe it as "autotelic activity," or "flow." Psychologist Milhalyi Csikszentmihalyi notes that flow experiences are often described as "loss of ego," "self-forgetfulness," "loss of self-consciousness," and even "transcendence of individuality."9 This does not mean that we lose touch with our physical embodiment. Rather, we experience, if only momentarily, a sense of optimal integration between our mind and body. In writing of the play-function of sex, psychologist Haveock Ellis noted that although play is primarily a brain activity, "it is brain activity united in the subtlest way to bodily activity."10 In sexual play we have the invitation to become fully embodied.

2) Here and Now: Play Bound by Space and Time

Because we are temporal and finite beings, our activities are also limited by time and space. Sexual play is therefore similarly limited. Which activities are considered to be sexual vary from culture to culture, with a significant area of overlap. What is important from my perspective, is not determining exactly which activities "count" as sexual play, but examining how people create a space for sexual play (of whatever type) to occur. Just as liturgies signal their beginning and their end by ritual action and vocalization, sex play has a start, a duration, and a finish. Although these phases are not fully distinct from one another, I will name them as invitation, participation, and consummation.

In discussing the creation of play space, I mentioned the invitation to play. This is intrinsic to sexual play particularly. Inviting requires an offering of play and an informed consent to such play. The importance of consent, especially of informed consent has come to the fore in recent years in light of the reality of the misuse of sexual power.11 Invitation need not be as complicated as a written contract, nor as simple as an unconditional "yes." What is needed is a genuine and mutual agreement to play, and the power to revoke the consent at any stage in the play; to stop play if needed. In naming the second phase "participation," I wanted to emphasise the primacy of being present to one another over other considerations, such as performance, or duration of activity. Audre Lorde shares her experience of the erotic as participatory when she writes that the first function of the erotic is "in the power which comes from sharing deeply any pursuit with another person."12

Consummation, the final stage of sexual play, is not simply equivalent to orgasm. Although the male orgasm is popularly presented as The Climax of all sexual activity, this is not necessarily so with sexual play. By "consummation" I mean instead to suggest the period during which the play zone is ritually or symbolically closed, and players re-enter the "real" world. Sometimes this is done with a ritual of thanks, as appreciation is exchanged, signalling the end of play. Sometimes this is done non-verbally, with a period of cuddling or caressing which becomes increasingly less specifically sexual for the participants. The importance is that the end of play is requested or offered, and mutually accepted.

3) The Joy of Sex: Creating a Temporary and Limited Perfection

In saying that play creates a "temporary and limited perfection" I do not mean to claim that every sexual encounter is without disappointment, or even a sense of failure. Rather, I mean to suggest that play, especially sexual play, is best evaluated by its own system of internal values. Play claims its own values of fun, pleasure, and participation. "One of the most essential characteristics to a meaningful life," writes sociologist Maria T. Allison, "is that of joy-joy brought about through a spirit of playfulness."13 Joy is in some sense, transcendent-it does not permit accurate comparisons or measurements, since it is all-encompassing. Play which is being judged and weighed for its superiority or inferiority to previous play is in a real sense, no longer truly play, since it does not fully occupy the participant in an embodied way.

Each foray into the play zone is in some ways a first. The best of play is explorative, even when it repeats previous activities. Play is imitative-what we can think to do is in some sense determined by what we have seen or imagined others to do. Yet play also creates a sense of personal ownership and individual expression. Our play is our own.

4) Rules and Order

Although play has no external goals, it has a structure. Without structure, play is impossible. Does this mean that sexual play should have rules and order? Perhaps. To a certain extent safe sexual play requires rules around what is and is not permissible, and the trust in one's partner(s) that the rules will be respected.14 The elements which create sexual response are also a form of rule. What arouses us is experienced as independent of our control, almost as a given, yet it is also unpredictable, liable to shift, change and cease. What may arouse us in one situation may not in another, and particular stimuli may cease having an effect, even as new stimuli emerge. Ethical play involves negotiating the rules with equanimity, and providing an order that respects individuality and enables creativity. The key is to remember that the rules of sexual play exist to make play possible, not for their own ends. The rules are thus always open to negotiation and change for the sake of play.

5) Play Interpreted Symbolically

In the sense that play operates on a symbolic level, it is like a form of language. Sexual play also uses symbolic communication. Nudity can become a symbol of emotional openness, vulnerability, or trust. One's whole being becomes symbolized in particular body locations; when I touch my partner with my hand, it is not only my hand as my hand, but my hand as me. Particular points of connection, whether genital or not, become symbolic of a joining of emotional and spiritual selves. The body as a whole can become symbolic of one's whole self; in offering our body to a partner we offer complete selves. In this sense, sexual touch is at its best always embodied touch.15

That is not to say that sexual touch is always embodied. Many people have learned to dissociate themselves from their bodies, especially during sex.16 Yet sexual play (as apart from other forms of sexual interaction) is necessarily sex in which we are present to one another as mediated through our bodies. Play can also be relational with the self. Masturbation, "playing with yourself," can carry both the positive meaning of relating to the self, and also the negative meaning of separating and objectifying the body, and treating it as a toy or tool.

6) Venus gratia veneris: Play as Intrinsically Motivated

There are certainly many potential answers to the question, "why have sex?" There may be just as many to the question, "why engage in sexual play?" Havelock Ellis distinguished three functions of play: education, creation of art, and the unity of persons. Even as we engage in sex as play, Ellis argued, "we are at the same time training our personality on the erotic side and acquiring a mastery of the art of love."17 Yet these are not the primary goals of sex play. We do not aim merely to become more skilled, or only to increase our sexual response-ability.

In calling the experience of being in the play zone "autotelic," Milhalyi Csikszentmihalyi is revealing that play is not guided primarily by outside motivations such as education, skill or character development, gain, or reward. Although play may appear to be directed toward specific external goals, he notes that "[o]n a closer look these goals lose their substance and reveal themselves as mere tokens that justify the activity by giving it direction and determining rules of action. But the doing is the thing."18 This is certainly true of sexual play. Sexual play is somehow diminished if it is viewed in terms of external goals. Even those which are arguably intimately connected with some forms of sexual play, such as relationship maintenance, or reproduction are not fully adequate, since they remain to some extent outside the play zone, pointing to a future time and context.

In a sense, the experiences of the sexual play zone must occur there precisely because they cannot be fully realized outside of the play zone. They cannot be adequately verbalized or explained. My partner and I often lament our inability to fully articulate exactly how we feel toward the other. It may be no surprise to theologians that when attempting to describe the unity which results from mature and fully-engaged sexual play, Havelock Ellis resorts to liturgical imagery: "Lovers in their play...are thus alike of the body and of the soul. They are passing to each other the sacramental chalice of that wine which imparts the deepest joy that [people] can know."19

Play vs Games

Games function because they are a system of rules directed toward achieving a goal. There is only one winning person or team. Fairness places value on the importance of all players having equal opportunity to win. Turn-taking is a strategy of many games which reflects and embodies this value. The rules which construct games also elicit the possibility of cheating. As a term which is also used to refer to sexuality, usually to communicate emotional or sexual infidelity, "cheating" reveals the sense in which some people see the metaphor of the game as applicable to their sexual relationships. Sexual or emotional relations with someone other than one's partner can be considered "cheating" if the (often unspoken, but assumed) "rule" is that of sexual and emotional exclusivity.

The pejorative use of the game metaphor, to refer to unpleasant or unhealthy relationships (such as "there was too much game-playing") reveal the sense in which the metaphor of game does not ultimately function well for sexual relationships. If there is a winner and a loser, and each partner can advance only at cost to the other ("score points" in an argument, get "one up") then there is not a true partnership, but a relationship between competitors. By contrast, play is not a competition toward a goal (even a sexual goal, such as orgasm) but finds its purpose in the relationality between and among participants.

Play vs Work

My mother tells a story from my childhood, of asking me to put down my toy in order to assist in some household task. She reports that I said, "I didn't come here to work, I came here to play." My childhood insolence aside, the distinction between work and play is very strong in our minds. For many, especially for many Christians, work is seen as more praiseworthy than play. Anthropologist Edward Norbeck identifies the roots of this view in Protestant ethics:

"America's forefathers believed strongly in the set of values known as the Protestant ethic. Devotion to work was a Christian virtue; and play, the enemy of work, was reluctantly and charily permitted only to children. Even now, these values are far from extinct in our nation, and the old admonition that play is the devil's handiwork continues to live in secular thought. Although play has now become almost respectable, it is still something in which we 'indulge,' a form of moral laxness."20

When it comes to sex, many people take the view that moral sex is more like work than play. Degeneration theorists, such as John Harvey Kellogg and Richard von Krafft-Ebing, viewed sex according to the model of industrial production. Children were compensation for sexual "work" in the same way that manufactured goods were compensation for manual or factory labour.21 Some people feel that unless sex mimics work, it is frivolous or unproductive, and therefore, sinful. Yet viewing sex as work has been damaging for both men and women. As prostitution, sex literally has been work for many women throughout history. Within marriage, some have viewed sex as a duty to one's husband, akin to his duty to earn income. Viewing sex as work results in scheduled acts, construes sex as a burden rather than a gift, and encourages people (particularly women) to tolerate lack of enjoyment, discomfort, or even extreme pain. Sex as work is not internally motivated. Instead, sex is seen in terms of other pay-offs, such as a barter for relationships, money, gifts, support, or emotional reward. Educator Virginia Glasgow Koste notes that play "can indeed equal work in dignity and value," but it is important to note that sex play is not justified by productivity (or reproductivity) but by its own values of participation, joy, and pleasure. 22

Play Nice: A Return to the Five Ws

Social theorist Max Kaplan wrote that play "provides a source of values, a stepping stone for creativity, individuality, and personal exploration."23 This is certainly no less true of sexual play. It is a foundational way of relating to the world, it is constructive of our character, and its symbolism enables us to express our deepest emotions, many of which are impossible to adequately verbalize. Yet play is not a value that can operate successfully apart from others. Without mutuality, play can be cruel, controlling or sadistic. Without justice, play can be excluding, alienating, or selfish. For this reason, I do not suggest play as a value to replace the five Ws, but rather as one which must work in concert with them.

The metaphor of play is one answer to the "how" of sexual ethics. It does not tell us who our playmates should be. Ethicist Marie Fortune offers several guidelines for sexuality, one of which involves choosing to express ourselves sexually only in peer relationships. We must remember that our sexual play builds our sexual character and identity, whether positively or negatively. This is true not only in determining who we are in the present, but also relationally (Who am I with you? Who are we togther?), and teleologically (Who am I becoming?).

Likewise, the "what" of sexual play needs to be determined in relation to the other Ws. Children's gendered play of house/war is not necessarily productive of well developed moral agents. Some sexual play merely mimics gendered, racial, or other inequalities. The "where," "why" and "when" of sexuality is determined by many things, not least by the potentially procreative power of some sexual activities. As Marie Fortune writes, "Sometimes sex is about deep and abiding love, sometimes it is about joy and playfulness, sometimes it is about the release of physical tension, sometimes it is about procreation-sometimes it is about all of these things at once."24 In keeping the five Ws of sex in tension with the "how," perhaps more of our sex can be all of the things we hope for, all at once.

Notes

1 Nelson N. Foote, "Sex as Play," Social Problems 1, no. 4 (April 1954): 161, quoted in Max Kaplan, Leisure in America: A Social Inquiry (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1960), 69.
2 This is most familiar to many Canadians in the often-quoted line by (then Justice Minister) Pierre Trudeau, "The view we take here is that there is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation." CBC Radio, This Morning (December 22, 1967). Trudeau then went on to say, "What is done in private between adults doesn't concern the criminal code. When it becomes public this is a different matter."
3 Paul Ricoeur, "Wonder, Eroticism, and Enigma," in Sexuality and The Sacred: Sources For Theological Reflection, Nelson, James B. and Sandra P.Longfellow, ed. (Westminster: John Knox Press, 1994), 80.
4 Carter Heyward, "Notes on Historical Grounding: Beyond Sexual Essentialism," in Sexuality and The Sacred, 15.
5 Laurence Bathurst, "Sex as Play." Accessed at http://www2.fhs.usyd.edu.au/hscd/projects/_projects /00000012.htm Last accessed April 9, 2002.
6 Heyward, "Notes on Historical Grounding," 11.
7 Beverly Wildung Harrison and Carter Heyward, "Pain and Pleasure: Avoiding the Confusions of Christian Tradition in Feminist Theory," in Sexuality and the Sacred, 143-144; Marie Fortune, Love Does No Harm: Sexual Ethics For The Rest of Us, (New York, Continuum, 1998), 28.
8 William J.J. Gordon, quoted by Virginia Glasgow Koste, "Play is the Thing," in Play, Leisure and Quality of Life: Social Science Perspectives, Maria T Allison ed. (Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing, 1992), 3. See also Harrison and Heyward, "Pain and Pleasure," 143.
9 Milhalyi Csikszentmihalyi, "A Theoretical Model for Enjoyment," in Play, Leisure and Quality of Life,11, 15.
10 Havelock Ellis, The Play-function of Sex, (London: Athenaeum Press, 1921), 11.
11 Fortune, Love Does No Harm, 85-101.
12 Audre Lorde, "Uses of the Erotic: The Erotic as Power," in Sexuality and The Sacred, 77.
13 Maria T. Allison, "The Joy of Play and Leisure," in Play, Leisure and Quality of Life, 1.
14 Fortune, Love Does No Harm, 85.
15 James B. Nelson, "Reuniting Sexuality and Spirituality," in Critical Perspectives on Sexuality and Gender Adrian Thatcher and Elizabeth Stuart, ed. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1996), 215.
16 Ibid., 216.
17 Ellis, The Play-function of Sex, 3-4.
18 Csikszentmihalyi, "A Theoretical Model for Enjoyment," 12.
19 Ellis, The Play-function of Sex, 12.
20 Edward Norbeck, "Man at Play" in Play, Leisure and Quality of Life, 25.
21 Jennifer Terry, An American Obsession: Science, Medicine and Homosexuality in Modern Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), 50.
22 Koste, "Play is the Thing," 8.
23 Kaplan, Leisure in America, 69.
24 Fortune, Love Does No Harm, 116.