No, i believe sex should be discussed more, even if its a hyperbolic effort. We should value the space and freedom we have to speak. Of course, really absurd thoughts, ideas, and practices will result but eventually we'll come closer to the truth. I believe it was Justice Holmes that first talked about the free market of ideas and i think it could be applied here.

Actually I don't think we have to worry about making sure we "talk about sex". I think that one will kind of solve itself.

I think we all are at some sort of consensus (so far, at least): Committed sex is important, talking about sex is important, embracing a self-centered and sex-obsessed posture towards sex is not helpful, healthy, or appropriate. Cheers!

From Robert P. George, the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University "The central and justifying point of sex is not pleasure (or even the sharing of pleasure) per se, however much sexual pleasure is sought - rightly sought - as an aspect of the perfection of marital union; the point of sex, rather, is marriage itself, considered as an essentially and irreducibly (though not merely) bodily union of persons - a union effectuated and renewed by acts of sexual congress - conjugal acts,..."

We have real problem among the body of Christ when it comes to talking about sex. I really do not think that the "sucky life" quote has any bearing whatsoever on adults committed to celibacy (if it does, then of course, shame on that fellow, but I want to give him the benefit of the doubt). Of course children and family ought to be emphasized in the sexual experience. Yet where is it in scripture that says sex cannot have "sizzle?" I think TIME's reference to the Song of Solomon in the lead paragraph of the article might be a bit of a stretch, but there is no question that the book is there to celebrate committed, married sex. And there's nothing that says I'm not permitted to enjoy it. LeeQuod, you're right. Any time this subject comes up in the church, people tend to blush at least, and politely explain that we don't talk about those kinds of things at most. I'll reiterate what I posted in response to the 30 day sex challenge: there are more men in our pews suffering from addictions to pornography than most people care to admit, and a healthy understanding of committed, married sex is an essential, if not a dire, need for congregations who harbor the hope to heal the sick within their own walls, let alone those on the outside. Yes, these churches might be reaching a little overboard with the idea. What I find in a lot of the responses that follow a post like this, however, is an extreme about-face attempt to turn and run the other direction. We do that at our peril as well.

The church needs to be discussing these issues, but the implication from the quotes seems to indicate that the church has bought into the world's view that sex is primarily for pleasure. Such a thought divorces the notion of children from the sexual experience. The point of sex is not "sizzle", but "family." We forget that at our peril.

(Sarcasm alert.) Such clumsy and hyperbolic efforts do far more harm than good. The church should definitely stay out of this topic altogether, and let the popular culture define it. Oh, wait...

I believe that the church should get involved with the congregants lives, in all aspects of it. If we really believe that Christianity is more than religion and is a lifestyle, then why shouldn't sex be talked about in the church. I do agree, however that comment is inappropriate and very inaccurate for a person of spiritual authority.