On the Meaning of Sex

by J. Budziszewski

What is the meaning of sex?Everyone in every time and place is interested in sex. Our own time is obsessed by it. One would think that a society obsessed by sex would understand it very well. But the truth is that obsession drives out understanding. We no longer understand even the common sense of sexuality, the things that were common knowledge in supposedly less enlightened times.Acclaimed philosopher J. Budziszewski remedies this problem. His wise, gracefully written book about the nature, meaning, and mysteries of sexuality restores lost wisdom, raising and answering such questions Does sex have to mean anything at all? What is the meaning of the sexual powers, of sexual differences, of sexual love, of sexual beauty, of sexual purity? Is sexuality ";all about sex";? why does sexuality stir up such transcendent longings for something more than sex? On the Meaning of Sex

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Christianity, Theology, Gender, Sexuality, Religion

162 pages, Hardcover

First published November 15, 2011

About the author

J. Budziszewski (born 1952) is professor of government at the University of Texas, Austin, where he has taught since 1981. He specializes in ethics, political philosophy and the interaction of these two fields with religion and theology.

Budziszewski has written widely, in both scholarly and popular venues, about a variety of moral and political issues including abortion, marriage, sexuality, capital punishment, and the role of judges in a constitutional republic. His principal area of publication is the theory of natural law.

Apart from his scholarly philosophical work, Budziszewski is known for articles and books of Christian apologetics, addressed to a broad audience including young people and college students.

Ph.D., Political Science, Yale University, 1981.
M.A., Political Science, University of Florida, 1977.
B.A., Political Science, University of South Florida, 1975.

2002-present: Professor, Departments of Government and Philosophy, University of Texas at Austin.

1995-2002: Associate Professor, Departments of Government and Philosophy, University of Texas at Austin.

1988-1995: Associate Professor, Department of Government, University of Texas at Austin.

1981-1988: Assistant Professor, Department of Government, University of Texas at Austin.

1980-1981: Acting Instructor, Departments of Political Science, Yale University.

Reviews

[Jeremy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating interview here. Chapter 1 appeared in a different form here. See ch. 2 here and part of ch. 3 here.

Related essay here; I heard Boersma present this lecture at Baylor in 2018.

Ch. 1: Does Sex Have to Mean Something?
If human nature connects the procreative act with actual procreation (if sex is connected to children), can the human will override human nature? In other words, if human nature says that sex has meaning, can the human will decide otherwise? [Since the sexual act literally involves the planting of a seed, you have to work hard to argue that sex doesn't mean anything. Seeds mean.] JBud outlines three problems with saying that sex doesn't have to mean anything: 1) meaning isn't arbitrary; 2) human nature is what we are, not something that we can discard; and 3) the human will is part of human nature. Freedom and happiness lie in recognizing the structures of reality and working to unfold the meanings and purposes that lie there.

Ch. 2: The Meaning of the Sexual Powers
There are clear signs that the sexual revolution has brought severe consequences, both physically and relationally. Besides the proliferation of STDs, we also have testimony that hookup culture is not ultimately satisfying. "Some ways of living comport with our design. Others don't." JBud addresses three objections to talking about meaning and purpose: 1) meanings/purposes of sexual powers are subjective (but we don't say that about other powers, such as respiratory powers); 2) is doesn't imply ought (but we can tell if something such as an eye is functioning well or not, and therefore it's good to pursue the best function of that thing, given its apparent design); 3) "natural function" is a better label than "natural purpose" since objects don't have minds (but things can have purposes, which are signified by their functions). JBud sees two meanings or purposes of the sexual powers: 1) procreation, and 2) union. He says that pleasure is not a purpose, although it is a motive. [What about WSC 1: Man's primary purpose is to . . . enjoy God forever.] Our rebellion against design is apparent when we try to separate procreation from union. In terms of corners of a quadrant, some people pursue only the pleasure (A), some mistake the physical action for the union (B), some pursue union without procreation (C), and some use technology to pursue procreation without union (D). JBud summarizes the natural laws of sex: design points to purpose, and the purposes of the sexual powers are procreation and union. In a nutshell, ch. 2 is about the meaning of the activity of sex (what it's for). Ch. 3 will be about the differences between the two human sexes: male and female.

Ch. 3: The Meaning of Sexual Differences
Many folks claim that men and women aren't different—arguing that apparent differences are due only to upbringing (which raises a serious question of why basically all cultures for thousands of years have persisted in raising children this way). They may concede that men and women are different biologically, but they want to insist that their brains are the same. JBud takes some time to enumerate many of the documented differences between male and female brains. JBud mentions "four large truths" that, when missed, contribute to difficulties in thinking about the differences between the sexes: 1) the duality of nature (different facets, but equally valuable); 2) duality of path (developmental trajectories); 3) body and soul unity; and 4) polaric complementarity. We shouldn't reduce humanity to exclusive body (materialists) or exclusive mind (angelists). Psychological tests don't always explain results well; for example, Myers-Briggs says that men prefer thinking, and women prefer feeling—but we are all thinking and feeling all the time. Sexual differences are not culturally conditioned; rather, those differences are more pronounced in poor countries and less pronounced in wealthy countries. JBud lists results of survey scores, showing specific differences between men and women (e.g., re: agreeableness or assertiveness, or the fact that women tend to care more about a partner's ambition or socioeconomic status [which Aaron Renn points to here]); but these differences explain surface details and not the fundamental differences. The danger of reducing sexual difference to individual qualities is that we risk being unable to make distinctions between other categories, such as human and nonhuman. JBud defines "woman" as "a human being of that sex whose members are potentially mothers." Potentiality is not just physical possibility, but rather refers to something like an inbuilt meaning or purpose (56). Alice von Hildebrand: Every woman is called to be a biological, psychological, or spiritual mother. Men tend to specialize on single tasks and be prone to abstraction and outward-directedness, while women tend to generalize, multitask, and be prone to the concrete and inward-directedness. Men desire to fight and conquer—these impulses are not wrong but need to be directed in appropriate ways. We need to recover a delight in differences.

Ch. 4: The Meaning of Sexual Love
JBud distinguished between different kinds of love (see diagram on p. 75). Charity is an act of the will and encompasses erotic charity (sexual love) and romantic love. None of this is enchantment, or infatuation. JBud points out eight "moments" of romantic love: four Dantean (from La Vita Nuova) and four Shulammitic (from the Song of Solomon).

Ch. 5: The Meaning of Sexual Beauty
JBud distinguishes sexual beauty from "sexiness" (96). When it comes to sexual beauty, JBud is referring to femininity or womanliness, which entails the potentiality of motherhood (meaning things like "warmth, tendermindedness, and sensitivity to the emotions of others"). When it comes to "sexiness," JBud distinguishes dehumanized sexiness from humanized sexiness. "[H]umanized sexiness is the outward sign of the underlying reality that I have called sexual beauty" (99). It is possible to appreciate sexual beauty without believing that it's all about sex—it's possible not to be a greedy person "who cannot admire anything without wanting to have it as [his] own" (99). JBud spends a little time discussing types of signs, including natural, adventitious, and communicative. [He seems to say that sexual beauty necessarily leads to sexiness, but I'm not convinced that Mother Theresa was sexy, even in the fully humanized sense.]

Ch. 6: The Meaning of Sexual Purity
Purity applies to both married and unmarried folks, and it's not inherently negative but rather a pursuit of beauty and integrity. Avoiding marriage because one doesn't feel ready for it does not mean that the same person is ready for living a pure single life. Purity is best understood from the inside—one needs to experience it to understand and appreciate its benefits. JBud paints two pictures of a pure soul: 1) as a garden in a castle (more closely aligned with female intuition of guarding), and 2) as a rider, horse, and lion (more closely aligned with male sense of mastering). (JBud connects the rider/horse/lion to the Platonic divisions of the soul, which have bodily connections: head/stomach/heart.) Purity comprises many virtues, but JBud focuses on decorum (fitting conduct), modesty (respect for how easily appetites can be provoked), and temperance (balance). JBud discusses the "sweet disciplines" of single life, then gets into the unique struggles of men and women in a fallen world.

Ch. 7: Transcendence
After summarizing the first six chapters, JBud discusses perfect or unknown happiness before stating explicitly what he has been only hinting at throughout the book: nature points beyond itself. More specifically, human sexual love (even or perhaps especially in its imperfection and insufficiency) points to divine love.

[Scott Meadows · Rating 5 out of 5]

Every evangelical Christian should read this book, allow themselves to be challenged, and consider the importance of natural law. From my observations and (a whopping) four weeks of marriage experience, I am increasingly convinced that the current evangelical social imagination regarding sex is more liberal than many conservatives believe. This book serves as a case study on how to use Thomist natural law, charitably engage with skeptics, and ultimately point to God. C.S. Lewis’s *The Four Loves* would be an excellent companion to this work.

[Peyton Gunter · Rating 4 out of 5]

J. Bud is goated

[David Haines · Rating 4 out of 5]

At first, I thought this would be just another cliche book on sec written by a Christian author. However, I was pleasantly surprised to find that many of his discussions were challenging and thought-provoking. The distinctions and illustrations he provides are quite illuminating. This book, which seems to be primarily aimed at college students, is a delightful read, helpful, and a book I will be coming back to often. I would recommend that high school students, their parents, teachers, and spiritual leaders, should read this book!

[Mark Jr. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Truly excellent. Four stars because I’d like more Bible—but then there is something illuminating about rigorously natural law understandings like Budziszewski’s. And that’s because the God who wrote the Bible also wrote those laws. Masculinity and femininity have few such eloquent and wise describers as this engaging writer.

[Timothy Miller · Rating 5 out of 5]

Rare is the book that makes you think that maybe you didn't know anything about the subject of its pages at all. Culturally, at least, this is certainly the case; we hardly know anything about sex (and I have a sneaking suspicion the evangelical church is on its way there as well). Budziszewski is brilliant here, discussing the natural order and diagnosing how we often get it so, so wrong.

This is a book I wish I had read earlier in life but am immensely grateful to have read it now; the personal and pastoral application is astounding. 6/5.

[George Herndon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not only is the content great, but he is so enjoyable to read. Can’t recommend enough. 5/5

[Jeff Wagner · Rating 1 out of 5]

If I want a homophobic and reductive biological naturalist view of sex, I would simply put on a Ben Shapiro video. This book is so anti-sexy that it dried out the paper it is printed on and turned to dust which was inhaled by a passerby who immediately turned into a small Ted Cruz.

Seriously though, this book is a PragerU video concerning sex but with modern and verbose pop philosophy language to come off as legitimate. The only saving grace was the occasional self-effacing humor; however, the obsessive ego latched onto the conversation was not only absurd but deeply uncomfortable. For example, the first chapter is entirely a grown man's condescending thesis to a teenager casually saying sex doesn't have to mean something. Second chapter argues "natural laws": sex organs were designed to procreate and procreation requires Christian nuclear family to support it (32-33). Somebody give ol Budziszewski a prostate orgasm PRONTO.

Who could forget the hit classic "are women in general more conscious of their bodies than men are? Of course they are... But considering their potentiality for motherhood, this heightened physical awareness is entirely appropriate" (57). This writing literally SCREAMS "I am illegally operating a baby factory in my basement" and "well what were you wearing that night?" and "well I didn't really look very throughly at the studies in my book but I definitely cherry picked the data".

He almost broke through and had a good insight which would've given two stars: "At the other extreme from dehumanized sex is fully humanized sex, sex in the context that enables it to bear its full personal meaning (OK, go on!), which is faithful marriage" (99). Vomit.

Did I read the Amazon description fully before buying? Of course not. Will I be objective and rate it higher because it's written for homophobic, traditional, Christian whitey-tightey-wearing Jonathans? Absolutely not.

[Shaun · Rating 3 out of 5]

Through these modern times, sexual attitudes have lessoned. The attitudes are littered with hedonism, individualistic goals, and simple activities that one does. The idea of taking sex seriously such as expressions of forming a union, procreation, saving oneself before marriage have slowly lost popularity. Indeed these latter attitudes are often seen with ridicule and disdain. Enter Budziszewski’s book where he makes a compassioned argument on why we have lost our (sexual) way and that our once sexual seriousness needs to come back, or else our virtues will be lost or forgotten. Does he succeed?

In many ways, I can see what Budziszewski is getting at. Our culture is definitely different than it was in the middle of the last century. Budziszewski mainly blames this on the sexual revolution in the 60s. Yet, throughout the reading, I always asked myself, “so what?” So if this generation’s attitude toward sexuality is different, does it mean it’s worse? Budziszewski thinks it is, but I couldn’t exactly pinpoint why.

He starts with an example that he gives to his class when they read Brave New World where the characters have sex without any sort of consequences. Most of the students, unsurprisingly, say that there is nothing wrong with that. A student however, disagrees and states that the way that babies are made is disgusting because in the book, babies are grown and not made naturally. However, the same student still exclaims that there is nothing wrong with meaningless sex because sex doesn’t mean anything anyways. This confuses Budziszewski. I’m not sure why because it makes sense to me. Budziszewski’s confusion embarks him on a journey on how this student could suggest that sex is meaningless, yet also find babies made in factories disgusting. Thus, Budziszewski offers a suggestions: the student is actually confused. The student was disgusted because it’s wrong to separate procreation from the act of union. Thus, sex must mean something. Here, I think he’s giving himself too much credit. One can still hold on to the student’s disgust, yet find sex meaningless. How? Because one can be disgusted by the result of sex, but not the activity of sex itself. The disgust isn’t really a disgust at the separation of procreation and the act of union; rather, the disgust is at the notion that babies are made in factories. Suppose by some weird accident, procreation just became utterly impossible. We would be the last generation on earth. I think most people would find this appalling, deep despair, or utter anxiety. But disgust? I’m not so sure about that.

Throughout the rest of the book is Budziszewski’s argument that sex does mean something. I’ll be focusing on chapter two since that is where the meat of the argument is, but let’s just say that it’s filled with natural law, classical metaphysics, and Kant’s notion of freedom. Along the way are presumptions about gender norms, heteronormative familial-monogamous norms, and anything outside of these views are non-virtuous.

So then, what is the meaning of sex? Procreation and forming a union. These two, however, are not mutually exclusive for they are biconditionals, meaning that these two are together and must be together, otherwise there’s something unnatural about the sex act.

But wait? What about the pleasure from the sex act? The purpose of sex isn’t for pleasure, pleasure is the side-effect. In the same way that eating is for nutrition, there is also the side effect from eating.

This is all fine and good, but why not just say that it can be both? There isn’t much nutritional gain from eating dessert, drinking soda, or gorging ourselves on a Thanksgiving meal. Why do we do it? Mainly, for pleasure. I would say that we are overdoing it, but to call it unnatural is going too far. Like food, sex should also be in moderation.

So why are procreation and formation of union biconditionals? ”[P]rocreation requires an enduring partnership between two beings the man and the woman, who are different, but in ways that enable them to complete and balance each other. Union, then, characterizes the distinctly human mode of procreation” (p. 25). Thus starts the heteronormative basis. Going from the other direction, by forming a union through sex, the act intrinsically opens up the possibility of new life. But what about those who don’t want children? Budziszewski responds that giving to each other wholly is part of the mechanism of potentially bringing a third person into being.

I’m scratching my head at this argument. Even Aristotle would say that if you take an acorn away from soil, it can’t fulfill its potentiality, even if it is a potential oak tree. Thus, those who take precautions to not have children (either permanently or temporarily) have ceased the potentiality. I think Budziszewski’s response would be: “but then that’s unnatural.” To which I would say there’s some weird question-begging going on.

The man and woman by themselves are incomplete. Thus we have singlism and heteronormativity again here. They need each other in order to be united. If not, we are treating ourselves and others as tools, we substitute the form of a union for the real thing, or we break up the biconditional.

One thing that has a strange argument deals with the argument about body actions and bodily sex (call this “A”) and how they lead to feelings and attachment (call this “B”). Budziszewski argues that body actions pertaining to sex produce feelings of union (30). In other words, A causes B because that was part of the design. Yet, if people complain that the relationship didn’t last, it was because people have detached A from B. But wait, if A causes B, how is it possible for A to be detached from B?

Another argument Buziszewski claims is that spouses exist for motherhood and fatherhood. This means no sex until procreation. As soon as they have a child, then their (meaning of) existence has been fulfilled. Yet, he allows sex if the couple are infertile. I know there have been many arguments trying to show how this works, but they’re not adequate.

Next, having children changes us to be less selfish. Children “are the necessary and natural continuation of the shock to our selfishness which is initiated by matrimony itself” (31). But this just simply isn’t true. Surely there are fathers who don’t care about their children, even abuse them. The same is true with the mother. Moreover, it’s true even if they’re both married to each other. There is nothing necessary about it. It would be nice, but there are instances where people stay within their selfish ways after having children.

This ends his main chapter about the meaning behind the sexual powers. As you can gather, there’s a lot riding on this chapter and it would have been nice to make this chapter have more metaphysical umph to it. Alas, there are more unanswered questions than Budziszewski gives.

Continuing on, Budziszewski looks at the nature of men and women, arguing that there are real, essential differences between them by basing it on empirical science. After that, he takes on an Aristotelian/Thomistic account of the body and argues that men and women need each other because each of them have a lack that the other sex necessarily fills. Indeed, they need each other in order to be. Each sex has his or her own virtues that only that particular sex can have. But I’m not so sure. How do we know this isn’t just a reflection of our culture? Maybe people behave this way because this is what is expected due to their culture.

So what is a man and a woman? ”[A] woman is a human being of that sex whose members are potentially mothers” (54). Ah, a possible reply is that if she’s not a mother, then has she not fulfill her potential? Budziszewski responds that we shouldn’t confuse potentiality with physical possibility. If an infertile woman can’t have children, she still has that potentiality as a woman. What? How does she have that potentiality if she is physically incapable of having children? If that potentiality is gone, even if it’s deemed as a loss, the logic of this entails that the loss is because she has lost part of her womanhood. Such a tragedy if one holds onto such a view! A man is a potential father. Both mothers and fathers have an entelechy where they are called to fulfill their potentiality, namely to have children. By the way, this is why women tend to choose careers that make it easier for them to have children. The thought never occurs to Budziszewski that it’s maybe because our culture has discouraged women to embark on such lofty careers.

The next segment becomes really metaphysical. He connects love and marriage. How so? It starts with charity, which “exults in the sheer existence of the other person” (70). It is to delight in the good of the other’s existence. A mode of this is erotic charity which is to say that it pertains to a single object. In other words, strict monogamy. The last thing is romantic charity (or romantic love) which is a mode of erotic charity. Erotic charity is a promise, while romantic love is not. Rather, romantic love is an attitude of the will. Love is to be reborn again and seeks something beyond them.

Beauty is objective. Sexiness is a mode of beauty. Woman’s beauty deals with her humanity, her womanhood, and her unique personality. Part of woman’s essence, as you recall, is the potential to be a mother. Fulfilling one’s potential makes that thing noble and beautiful. Therefore, becoming a mother makes one beautiful. Doesn’t this suggest that women who don’t have children are less beautiful? It seems that way. Budziszewski defines sexiness where one can say to a woman: “this is a nice person to love, marry, and have children with” (99). Thus, sexiness is just the outward appearance of what is beautiful on the inside.

To be pure, one must not fornicate nor commit adultery. The presumption is that this means that one must avoid any action. However, Budziszewski argues that one is actively doing something. This is where Kant comes in where one is free by engaging in positive freedom. One engages in not doing the act so that one can order one’s desires. Budziszewski offers two analogies. A castle with a garden, and a fable about a lion, horse, and man which has the same characteristics of Plato’s allegory of the man, lion, and three-headed beast. Again, the key is one must order one’s desires. The virtues behind this are decorum, modesty, and temperance. Ok, but why marriage? What about a committed relationship where the people involved aren’t married? Through this reading, I didn’t see strong connection. Why does marriage have the highest point on this relationship hierarchy? Indeed, we have the pill. Budziszewski responds by saying that the pill has made everyone worse off because it has caused more out-of-wedlock births. But this is begging the question: why is that bad? If it’s because they’re not married, then we’re going in circles.

Finally, the book ends with transcendence. What does all of this lead to? Where is it all heading? You can guess where it leads to: God. ”[H]uman love makes sense only in the light of divine love” (139). This is because human love is imperfect, yet it seeks for perfection. This is because our mortal love seeks for immortal love. All perishable things aim for imperishable things. But why not say that we project mortal fatherhood upward. Because, Budziszewski replies, “it is the other way around” (143). Sigh. In the end, this God is pointing toward the Trinity.

So what can we say with this book? This will resonate with those who are already within this tradition. But for modern students, especially adolescents, this will seem outdated. I suppose this book is helpful for those who want to take a look at the traditional view of sexual ethics. So far, it’s much more compelling than other arguments. It starts with a somewhat secular view, but you can see that it leads to some sort of religious end. Would I recommend it? Perhaps if you are curious about what traditional sexual ethics has and whether it has any merit. It’s something to know about in order to see the vast array of what traditional sexual ethics has been. Perhaps this ethic will still continue, or perhaps it will be a relic in the past. Or perhaps it’s just a reflection of one’s age.

[Matt Ecton · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent. Thought-provoking. Written to the skeptic, he doesn’t assume you already agree with him.

[Timothy Tumutod · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Human love means so much, because divine love means still more.”

[Grant Carter]

Very good. Even though he teaches at UT-Austin, I will set aside the Aggie in me to highly recommend this book.

[Jessie Wittman · Rating 5 out of 5]

I highly recommend this read. One reviewer said it was as if "C.S. Lewis wrote on sex," and that is exactly how it reads. Budziszewski argues for clear meaning for sex based in natural law, dropping clever hints all along that it's deepest meaning is tided to the Divine, but saves that for the last chapter. His tone is gentle, winsome, pleading, engaging, uplifting, which is so redemptive for a topic heavy with brokenness in every person's heart. Please read this book and be edified!

[Richard Lawrence · Rating 5 out of 5]

…Wow.

“Reproach me not, O Freud, with your incantations; settle back in your grave.” (Pg 94)

I can quibble with tidbits here and there but…. this is a beautifully written outstanding presentation of the true nature of human sex/gender; and the final chapter turning to the beatific vision is the icing on the cake.

(I believe the author is a Roman Catholic, but I encountered nothing questionable from a Protestant perspective.)

[Nathan Albright · Rating 5 out of 5]

There are at least a few elements in this particular book that are worth discussing, for though the work as a whole is relatively short, it is marked by a few qualities that make it far more layered than many readers are likely to pick up on quickly.  And it is these layers that make for fascinating reading and the opportunity for a great deal of reflection.  On one level, as a single man without an active sexual life, a great deal of this book does not deal so much with something that is currently present in life, but it deal with the times in which we live and the ways that sex is routinely debased in our corrupt time.  Few of us are immune to the coarsening that has gone on in our society over the course of the last few decades.  Frequently in this book the author makes note of his own failures to have communicated something well and as a result of that humility and desire to right his wrongs through later reflection, the book has a strangely melancholy discussion of someone who has sought to explain things as a teacher and in conversation and now in a book that are hard to understand.

This book is about 150 pages long and it is divided into seven chapters.  The book begins with a discussion of whether or not sex has to mean something (1), and the author explores the tensions and contradictions in the minds of many people about what this entails.  After that the author discusses the meaning of sexual powers (2) as well as the meaning of sexual differences between male and female (3) that demonstrate the incompleteness of humanity and the need for human beings to be part of larger unions.  The author explores the meaning of sexual love (4) and how it relates to other forms of love.  After that comes a discussion of sexual beauty (5) and the implications of the name that we use to discuss the aesthetic beauty of others in ways that bring respect rather than degradation to others.  After that the author discusses the much-maligned virtue of sexual purity (6) and then discusses transcendence (7) so as to put the discussion of sex and sexuality in a larger spiritual context.  This is followed by acknowledgements, notes, and an index.

It is another aspect of this book, though, that gives it far more depth than readers are likely to immediately perceive.  Even as the contents of this book mostly deal with philosophical and moral questions about sex and its role within the lives of people today, each chapter of the book is introduced with a quote from John of the Cross' Spiritual Canticles, making a subtle but persistent comment, only revealed towards the end of the book, that the true importance of sex is not merely physical but spiritual.  The union of two human beings in sexual intercourse is supposed to be a foretaste of the union of mankind with God, where we will be one as God and Jesus Christ are one.  Therefore a strong sense of mysticism underlies the author's desire to defend the mystery of sexuality.  To the extent that we maintain a healthy attitude of wonder about the joy of union in this life, we can have at least some understanding of the wonder of intimacy in general and how it is to be both celebrated as well as respected.  Far from being a joyless opponent of sex, the author strikes the fair-minded reader as someone who views it as sufficiently important that it ought not to be trampled in the mud as it so often is.

[Adam · Rating 2 out of 5]

I wanted to give this book a 3/5 star review, but after some short reflection, I think that it would be better placed at 2/5 stars. Simply because I can not find myself recommending this book to anyone.
That is not to say the content was not enjoyable to read. Quite the contrary, since I thought the book was quite engaging.
This volume is like peering into the mind of a philosopher who is reflecting on a life of lectures with his students. He questions how he could have responded better in certain situations than in others. He also tries to give the benefit of the doubt to his opponents by steel-maning their arguments. In doing so, as I have illustrated with a peer of mine, reading this book is like walking through a meadow. The point is here with its great trees, green grass, and beautiful plants. It is clear what Budziszewski is trying to communicate with his readers, and guides them along the path.

However, in doing so, while walking through the meadow, a train flies into the meadow at times with no tracts present. This train is the illustrations or examples that Budziszewski has in the text. It's quite jarring. I was enjoying the meadow before I was interrupted by an unexpected sight.

Not to mention, that Budziszewski also comes in with his presuppositions (that I even agree with) without admitting so. So then, the opponents reading this volume may be confused to agree with Budziszewski conclusions because they no little of where he is coming from.

Why then, as I stated at the beginning of this review, would I recommend this to anyone? Surely there has to be a better traditional volume that clearly states the presuppositions with less vile imagery that I could give to those I agree and disagree with.

[Chris McGrath · Rating 1 out of 5]

There are a small number of tidbits in this book that are worth holding onto, but good luck keeping your eyes open long enough to find them. Reading this book is like meeting a man at a party who jumps into your conversation, yammering on and on for so long that you lose all interest in the topic, and actually forget what the topic was. And he does too, because once you have woken up from the nap you took while waiting for him to be done speaking, it turns out he never actually addressed it at all. But that certainly won't stop him from regaling some other group with the story of how silly your conversation was before he came in and set you straight (he actually does this numerous times in this book).

Metaphor aside, the other major complaint I have, besides the fact that he never actually delivers on the promise of the title, is that he makes so many declarations about how things are, but provides little to no support of these claims. He believes himself to be so wise and observant that anyone reading will simply take it on faith, despite however their own experiences might refute those claims. For a book that is written in such a tedious, argumentative style, you would expect it to at least attempt to drive home his logic with some semblance of actual fact as proof.

I would not have finished the book if it were not for a class being taught by a man whose writing has quite literally changed my life. I hope to find out what value he finds in it that he would punish me with such an assignment.

[Jon Pentecost · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brief and punchy—insofar as punchy can be said of philosophical reflections on and an attempted recovery the meaning of sex.

Budzisweski carefully considers the ways the sexual revolution has lied to us about sex, and attempts to chart a course back to a more wholesome and holistic view of sex and sexuality. He is a Roman Catholic, largely attempting a natural theology approach—but his insights are useful for any interested in a biblical ethic.

Perhaps the most useful argument was his view that masculinity and femininity should be positively defined as potential fatherhood and motherhood. This helps guard against putting masculinity and feminist against each other, as though their definitions must only include mutually exclusive elements in order to be properly complementary to one another. This view also (perhaps surprisingly) helps create a clear framework for how singleness can fit with biblical manhood or womanhood.

I found his constant light-hearted apologies about referencing God, or something beyond us tiresome. His concluding chapter on transcendence simply argued that the fact that human love doesn’t satisfy all our desires means there must be a Greater Love. True, but not argued as carefully as the majority of his book.

[Drew Rudman · Rating 2 out of 5]

This wasn’t the book I thought it was going to be. I feel a little bad giving it two stars, because there were quite a few morsels of wisdom in each chapter, but overall it felt like so many aspects just kept narrowly missing the target. Perhaps it had to do with the style of writing as well. I don’t particularly enjoy arguments fashioned from thin air from hypothetical detractors, so that the author can prove their point. And for a book dedicated to disproving the notion of boiling everything in life down so that it can be explained in a scientific laboratory, doesn’t distilling human nature and emotion in all its complexity to distinct philosophical categories achieve the same end?

All that being said, I sincerely appreciate the humility offered by the author in the acknowledgements, and wish more of us (myself included) took up the same position willingly and consistently throughout our days:

“May I be forgiven for anything I have written unworthily, and may it neither mislead nor scandalize. If anything I have written is true, may it give light to others.”

[Derrick Jeter · Rating 4 out of 5]

J. Budziszewski is a philosopher, but the kind you can comprehend. He applies his intellectual rigor to a subject we all think we know and understand, but don't. And as generations get further and further way from the common sense of what Budziszewski calls "mother wit" the more confused and crazy they become when it comes to the subject of sex.

[Wyatt Graham · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent work on the meaning of sex.

[Takim Williams · Rating 5 out of 5]

Love this book. After getting over my initial annoyance with the introduction where J. Bud spends too much time over-analyzing an old conversation with his student, Harry (the point of this little anecdote was to show that even when people claim to believe that sex is trivial, they usually actually believe on a deeper level that sex has intrinsic significance relating to union and procreation) I read on to experience several moments of humbling epiphany. Still reeling from the final chapter.

in the second chapter, when describing the purposes of sex, J Bud uses analogies to several other activities that are really illuminating. Many people today like to defend the view that the purpose of sex is simply to provide pleasure, but eating is also pleasurable, and no one claims that the primary purpose of eating is simply pleasure. Our voluntary powers should be defined in terms of what they are designed to accomplish - unity and procreation in the case of sex, and nutrition and health in the case of eating - and these true purposes should help guide us in discerning when to exercise our powers. Pleasure is a surplus result of exercising these powers, and while pleasure is a blessing that should be appreciated, it is a potentially dangerous additional motive for engaging in certain activities. The comparison to food and nutrition is especially powerful because we live in such a health-conscious society where nutrition facts are on display and people count calories and everyone understands a balance between pleasure and necessity. I'd like to encourage this level of thoughtful behavior in relation to sexual activity as well.

I was humbled by the chapter on sexual differences. there have been times when I've looked down on or at least been annoyed by certain feminine habits, and in my very masculine, prideful way thought better of myself and my gender as a result. Just as my own foolish, sinful pride is predicted by certain particularly male traits, so are certain other vices more probable among females, as an expected side-effect of their beautiful and necessary feminine qualities. the sexes are different but equal and complementary. I seriously find this to be beautiful.

I never understood why people say that "God is Love" until reading chapter 7. I thought that this was just a cliched, nonsensical phrase, a cute Christianeze way of saying "God's love is powerful" or "Love is one of God's most important attributes." Now I understand that God is literally Love because he is the ultimate fulfillment of our desire to love and be loved. And logically He is capable of embodying the concept of Love - which by it's nature is something shared between distinct persons - because He actually is 3 distinct persons that love each other so selflessly and perfectly that they are also one entity. J Bud even mentions that some people who are "in love" develop a desire for unity that goes too far, wanting to literally merge with their significant other. This is impossible and perverted, but the triune God has achieved this ultimate union among Himselves, so that even such an overzealous desire for unity can be slaked, appeased and fulfilled through communion with the Lord. The last chapter of Keller's book Reason for God also explored the concept of the trinity but it made more sense to me in relation to sex and various types of human relationships rather than in a purely abstract form.

[Joseph · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am currently taking a class called Philosophy of Human Sexuality, and my professor told us last night that if he only had us read one book for the class, this would be it. His blurb on the back of the book says "...I must have read fifty to a hundred books on the topic. This is, quite simply, number one."

Not in an effort to kiss up, I must honestly say this is the best book we have read so far for the class. Why is it so good? As the title implies, the purpose of the book is to discover the meaning behind sexuality. Now, in the philosophical context, sexuality is not talking about homo vs heterosexual, it's talking specifically about the empirical realities of male and female and how the two sexes interact. As the lead in to that discussion, a large segment is dedicated to an effort to come up with functional definitions of man and woman. The two definitions settled on are that a woman is "a human being of that sex whose members are potentially mothers" (54) while a man is "a human being of the sex whose members are potentially fathers" (58).

The non-PC assertion here is that there are actually important differences between men and women, and further, that those differences contribute to the meaning of our sexuality as males and females and the sexual act itself. Dr Budziszewski's discussions of different aspects of sexuality are deep, yet brief. This is a very short book given the amount of material covered, but that discussion is so well executed that it provides a workable and accessible introduction to what can be a very complicated topic. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in issues of sexuality generally, and in the realm of sexual ethics more specifically. While the concepts discussed are not simple, they are highly enriching and thought provoking, especially given our context of living in a culture where sex is often treated as cheap and meaningless. This book serves primarily to combat those notions and attempts to reorient us to a healthier idea of sexuality than hook ups and porn.

[Nita · Rating 2 out of 5]

First, let me say it is invaluable to read and listen to diametrically opposing ideas and opinions to your own. This book has some good ideas and thoughts, but overall Budziszewski riddles this book with dogmatic, heteronormative, multiple fallacies, most notably the A Priori Argument fallacy, and black and white thinking. That being said, it's a decent guide for people who are looking for validation of Judeo-Christian, patriarchal rules for sexuality and marriage.
Personally, I thought the book was going to delve more into sexuality and what it means to different people instead of touting there is only one proper way in which to express sexuality and that's between marriage and a man and a woman. I do not buy into his concepts of duality, that men and women are incomplete without each other, and we need each other to feel whole. At the same time I agree that rampant and indiscriminate sexual encounters can have a negative side and that we need to approach marriage and romance with some pragmatism. My other issue with this book is that he proposes that rampant sexuality and promiscuity are the disease rather than a symptom of something wrong in our society. I strongly believe that comprehensive sexual education, teaching children how to recognize a healthy relationship, have bodily autonomy, and understand the meaning of consent are the ways to mitigate sexual health issues of the body and mind as well as society. The book is okay, but mainly for a specific section of society and ignores everyone else.

[Alex Strohschein · Rating 4 out of 5]

"On the Meaning of Sex" is a highly readable work of philosophy. J. Budziszewski writes about the meaning(s) of sexual beauty and purity. He relies heavily on natural law. He declares that men and women complement one another. He tends to limit his ideas of complentarianism in this book to women being naturally suited to motherhood and men to fatherhood, though I suspect that Budziszewski is a full-fledged complentarian. The only possible misgiving I have about the book is that there are times when Budziszewski, in describing the masculine as a "chivalric knight" sounds a little too much like John Eldredge to me, though this might reflect more my own problems with Eldredge's teachings and the symbol of the knight might be the only one the author of this book regarded as appropriate to convey his point.

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

I appreciated a lot of this, specifically in defining the basic meaning of or purpose behind sex; the distinction between charity, erotic love, romantic love, and enchantment; his discussion on beauty; and thinking about purity as something one actively pursues (rather than its common characterization as something that involves avoiding x, y, or z). I have real questions about where he goes with masculinity/femininity the further he gets beyond the basic physical distinctions between males and females. And for a book published this decade, I was surprised that he avoided saying anything directly on the subject of same sex relationships (though his omissions are telling), given the prevalence of the issue today.

[Burkean Conservative · Rating 5 out of 5]

J. Budziszewski (J) writes to net the "beauty of wisdom of love". The book expands on the meaning of sex, sexual powers, differences, love, beauty and purity. He promises to not mention God until the last chapter on the Transcendent. He keeps his word, leaving cookie crumbs along the way and bringing them all together at the end.

Ch 1

J expounds on the two meanings of sex: the act of union and the procreation that results from it.

In conversation with a student of his; sex doesn’t have to mean something yet he is disgusted by the process of making babies in Huxley’s novel. But if he found them revolting, sex has to mean something after all.

although he reported that sex doesn't always have to mean anything, his loathing for factory production of children told the story that it means something already, and it means it all the time.

The opinion that sex doesn’t have to mean something, could be further interrogated. He would probably concede that it does mean a few trivial things. In that case,

There would be no more call to rhapsodize about the touch of a man and a woman than to compose sonnets about the communion of a picnicker with his mayonnaise. Maybe less.

If one starts with the opinion, the discussion ends there. Starting with the revulsion of factory-made babies, it seemed that Harris, the student, affirmed that procreation must not be separated from the act of union. And conversely, with his statement on the meaninglessness of sex, he seemed to affirm the opposite; that the act of union could be separated from procreation.

Possibly, the argument is that we are not bound to nature. Just as the apple and seed are joined by nature, one not existing without the other, the two meanings of sex could exist in such a relationship. But do we not produce seedless apples? The will overrides nature; that's what it means to be free. Perhaps one can sever the meaning from the act. Three problems arise with such a perspective:

1. Meaning is not arbitrary.
2. Human nature is not a master distinct from "us", holding us slaves, but rather our human nature is what we are: humans. To transcend our nature is to destroy it, ceasing to be what we are.
3. Human will isn't something separate from human nature, but a part of human nature

Ch 2
(this chapter was first published as an article here:https://www.touchstonemag.com/archive...)

He introduces the concept of natural law by stating that we are not "made" for hooking up. Three objections to natural meanings and purposes:

1. We imagine meanings and natural purposes - this is false. For instance; the lungs - the end being oxygenation. Suppose another individual gets high sniffing glue, one does not conclude that his lungs have the purpose of getting high. He does not change the purpose of the lungs but merely violates it.

2. Naturalistic fallacy/is-ought fallacy - but if the purpose of the eyes is to see, then good eyes ought to see well in order to be eyes. (along the same lines, Dr Haines makes a point in Natural Law: A Brief Introduction that each being is good in the measure that it obtains its end, which is its good. Being, therefore, is co-extensive with the good).

3. Natural functions rather than purpose are being confused - answer: the mode in which purpose exists in a thing (function) is different from the mode of its existence in our minds(purpose).

No sane person imagines that eyes know that their purpose is to see. Yet seeing is truly their purpose; that is what they are for.

Secondly, the purposes of the mind and functions of the body must harmonize.

Natural Meaning and Purpose of Sexual Powers:
1) procreation
2) union - "the mutual and total self-giving and accepting of two polar, complementary selves in their entirety, soul and body."

...to think of pleasure as the purpose of
intercourse is to treat our bodies merely as tools for sending agreeable sensations to our minds. They are of inestimably greater dignity than that, for they are part of what we are.

J, then proceeds to make the case for the procreative meaning of sex. First, sex brings about new life and secondly, sex is the explanation for new life. From there, the unitive meaning follows. Only by the coming together of both sexes, new life is brought about; there must be this union- mutual self-giving. Humans neither reproduce asexually (like yeasts or amoeba) nor non-unitively (like guppies) or like birds - life-long pairing without the giving of self. There is bodily union in sex, and taking active steps to prevent procreation does not take away the procreative meaning; for "when the speech of the mouth contradicts the speech of the body, the body's speech repeals the mouth's."

...because of its [sex] potentiality for procreation—it also carries within it the potentiality for a powerful and distinct form of human love.

Mutual gift of selves - both have something to give, and they complement each other. Sex in humans unites the two. You give your self wholly to the other and vow to "forsake all others". You forsake all others because you have given your self wholly, and one cannot give a part of oneself and reserve the rest for "others".

Lust, on the other hand, is libido dominandi; to dominate the other and draw pleasure from it.

More on the gift of selves - the union of the spouses has more than bodily significance, ie, it is not the mere union of the bodies,

the body emblematizes the person, and the joining of bodies emblematizes the joining of persons. It is a symbol which participates in, and duplicates the pattern of, the very thing that it symbolizes; one-flesh unity is the body's language for one-life unity.

or in Thomistic terms: the soul is the form of the body.

This is unlike anything that we do with our bodies - digestion, breathing, etc - they are complete and do not require the other. And that's why J says that sex "shakes us to our core". Thus,

Mutual and total self-giving, strong feelings of attachment, intense pleasure, and the procreation of new life are linked by human nature in a single complex of meanings and purpose.

To split them apart, is to cease to be.

To simply desire for the unitive meaning is also suicide, for "The unitive capacities of the spouses don't exist for nothing; they exist for motherhood and fatherhood." The unitive and the procreative are joined so that to sever them is to have your cake and eat it too. Conversely, with modern reproductive techniques, to request the latter without the former also spells disaster; it is no longer procreation, but merely production, "the child is no longer an expression of his parents' love, but an output, a product."

Summary:
1. respect the principles of sexual design.
2. human sexual powers have a meaning and purpose.
3. human design for procreation requires marital and family life.
4. "the spousal bond has its own unitive structure, which nourishes these institutions and is nourished by them in turn". Altering or tearing down this structure, which is intricately woven n a "single complex of meanings and purpose", we do at our peril.

Ch 3
Sexual differences are denied because four large truths are ignored:
1. duality of nature - "Manhood and womanhood reflect the same human nature, and with equal fidelity and dignity, but they reflect different facets of it".
2. duality of path - different developmental trajectories, and ends.
3. body and soul unity - even the pagan Aristotle thought of the soul as the animating principle of life. Denying this would imply that
4. polaric complementarity - not just different (polaric), but different in a complementary manner, ways that make them natural partners. There is a mutual need for each other.

J then goes into some sociological studies and psychological observations on this; similar to what Jordan Peterson has been saying for a long time. While finding them helpful, he says that these studies merely point out the differing effects of an underlying essential difference in reality, between manhood and womanhood.

Those who hold to no differences between men and women view reality a certain way. First, all things that exist, exist individually, over against the traditional view that "natural kinds" exist; of which individuals are a part. Second, these existing individuals are just clusters of properties. This is against the older view that humans have personal identities, humanity as a kind exists, an essence of humanity, a universal, of which man and woman are a real division. Per the older view, the differences are merely recognized and not created. Perhaps, I think, this modern view of reality is just a form of existentialism. Existence precedes essence, "I am a cluster of properties by virtue of which I determine my essence, of what I am made of."

J uses Aristotelian/Thomistic terms such as essence, universal, particulars; that there is a universal essence of womanhood which is particularised in instances of Mary, Elizabeth and my mother. The difference in the universal essence of manhood and womanhood shine through the particulars of men and women.

The light of the universal shines through its particular instances, even if only through a fog.

How to cut through the fog and see the realities of manhood and womanhood, something which we have difficulty clearly seeing? Definitions. J does not look to define a man or a woman in a materialistic or purely biological manner, which, while certainly profitable, does not get one further to the deeper meaning of what it means to be a woman or a man. There is something lacking in the mere biological definition, there is, if I may, an ontological emptiness to it.

The author defines a woman as "a human being of that sex whose members are potentially mothers." To speak of potentiality biologically would infer that an infertile woman is no woman at all. Nein!. Potentiality to be a mother is inseparably tied to her womanhood, and not even infertility can rob her of it. Conversely, this potentiality when merely equated to giving birth fails to recognise that a woman who would bring a child into the world, only to neglect the child, not providing the love of the mother, has failed in her greater perspective of motherhood.

When viewed in such a manner, one can understand why a woman may choose careers where they can give priority to caring for their children, perhaps their sympathetic nature and many other such sociological and psychological observations that are made. Motherhood endows them with these qualities.

To the man, now; he is not to be defined negatively, but positively as one who has the potentiality for fatherhood. The same qualifications applied to motherhood apply here. Not all men are called to "marry and sire children", says J. He laments the open mockery of the father in culture, often portrayed as the dumb, mumbling idiot of the lot. Fatherhood and motherhood are different in that, the former is inward-directed and the latter outward. This is not a dig at male vanity or female narcissism, rather It is a good thing that an unmarried man pursues the beloved, whereas an unmarried woman makes herself attractive to pursuit; that a husband protects the home, whereas a wife establishes it on the hearth; that a father represents the family and oversees it, whereas a mother conducts the family and manages it. The vices, are corruptions of the virtues.

He contrasts beautifully, the sovereignty of the father and mother, the king and queen; the archetypes of fatherhood and motherhood. He correlates the valour of the knights of the Medieval period to manhood:

One must war against temptation, capture the citadel of virtue, contend for just laws, defend and protect sound traditions, attack lies and fallacies with
the weapons of frankness and reason, and even, yes, make gentle war for courtesy.

Ch 4

Love, bereft of promises, is no love at all. Marriage is a step farther up, resting on the proposition that promises can be kept. It is even more radical in that, it promises love itself, love in all situations, even when things don't work. What is this sexual love? There is an aspect in which sexual love can be promised (erotic charity), and another aspect which cannot be(romantic love).

Charity and Erotic Charity

He starts by defining charity and its implications, and a type of it - erotic charity -

Charity, in general, is a permanent commitment of the will to the true good of another person; erotic charity is a mode of this will, particularized toward a single person of the polar, complementary sex, and consummated by the joining of their bodies into one.

All charity is physical; expressed through the body. The soul, the animating principle of life, mediates its actions through the body. But the distinctive about sexual love is that it desires the joining of polar, corresponding bodies; in the ancient phrase, the two become one flesh.

Erotic love is the aspect of sexual love that can be promised; to forsake all others; to give myself to the other, bone and flesh.

Enchantment and Romantic Love

Like erotic charity being a mode of charity; romantic love is a mode of erotic charity. Enchantment is "ephemeral"; an emotional infatuation, one that dies with time; the stuff that most high school love is made of. Enchantment is a mere imitation of romantic love. Enchantment might lead to charity, but it is a mistake to assume that the lack of enchantment is a sign of the lack of charity. Enchantment, or a lack thereof, must not be considered a sign either way.

Being difficult to define, J picks out eight moments of romantic love; four from La Vita Nuova by Dante, and four from the Song of Solomon.

Ch 5
“A man can be moved by a woman's beauty without wanting to go to bed with her.”

Different responses are awakened in the man's soul in the presence of a woman; to needle it all down is lust is folly.

By sexual beauty, J means the womanliness of the woman, her womanhood.

Though she [Mother Teresa] set aside the whole business of erotic love, marriage, and physical conception, her beauty was that of a holy woman, distinct from the beauty of a holy man; the qualities that distinguish women from men were distilled, concentrated, and spiritualized in her. This kind of beauty also has its signs, its radiance, and its glory, and it is utterly womanly."

But this is not what is normally called "sexy". He sets up two extremes of what it could mean for a woman to be sexy. It could mean in one extreme; dehumanized sex; the kind that animals have, not humans. On the other extreme, is humanized sex; the mutual giving of selves. Humanized sexiness is the outward sign of the inward reality of sexual beauty.

Redeeming "Sexy"

What does it mean that humanized sexiness is the outward sign of the inward reality of sexual beauty? Here the author distinguishes between different senses in which "sign" can be used.

Natural sign - just as heat is a natural sign of fire; sexiness is a natural sign of sexual beauty

To put the point another way, the qualities that make her sexually beautiful simply are those that make her a nice person to marry, make love, and have children with. Since sexiness is nothing but the sign of them, whatever is a sign of them is sexy.

Adventitious sign - just as fleeing is the adventitious sign of fire; so is young men approaching is the adventitious sign of sexual beauty.

Communicative sign - to cry fire is the communicative sign of fire, and to ever so slightly emphasize the natural signs of sexual beauty is the communicative sign of sexual beauty.

Ch 6
Sex isn't impure. There are two modes of sexual purity; for the unmarried - continence, and for the married - faithfulness. There is a married kind of purity; sex that is pure.

Lust, as mentioned before, is disordered sexual desire. And it has been said of marriage, that it is the "remedy for lust".

The idea in the old saying about the “remedy for lust” isn't that marriage provides a way to blow off steam when the pressure inside the boiler gets too high, but that the sweet disciplines of married life have a tendency to rearrange our emotions and desires, to help them become more orderly.

The Knight and the Garden

J then paints two pictures of purity, one of the feminine intuition and the other of the masculine.

I fear that trying to recapitulate what J has written so beautifully, I might rob them of their beauty, but I march on and take a shot. The first is that of a garden, at the centre of a castle, the castle fortified by walls. Others may run around the portico, but only one may sit at the throne at the end of the garden. The is primarily of the feminine intuition. A protected place where only one may be enthroned.

The first picture is not exclusively of the feminine intuition, but rather primarily. It also expresses the secondary intuition of a man. It is a citadel or a fortress from which to rally out and fight."For him the great question is whether, when he does go forth, he will defend and protect secret places, or trample and vandalize them." And from here, J contests this to the next picture, that primarily of masculine intuition.

The second is that of a rider, horse and lion. The man is the soul's intellect or the mind, the horse the soul's desire and the lion the soul's passion. "Intelligence is in the saddle, because of his calling to be their master." In this image, the feminine intuition is secondary.

J expands this image into three scenes. The scenes take place through the night. In the first scene, the horse is not a horse but an ass. The lion is a mere untamed wildcat. Albeit holding the rein and whip, the rider has no idea what to do; often cowing to the desires of the ass. The ass, wants its own demands to be met, and drags around the man. The wildcat commands the man to do what the ass wants. A few blows now and then would make the ass wait; wait for the man's "mood" to change. And then carry on with again, commanding that its desires be fed. This man, led by the ass and wildcat, claims to pursue "happiness".

Continued in the comments section

[Faith Key · Rating 5 out of 5]

"love has the fragrance of eternity."
"i have not said there is no hope. it isn't their hope, but there is hope. hope is an inexhaustible river, flowing with cold water, laughing in spate, rushing more rapidly than anyone can run. anyone who is thirsty may drink."
"nature points beyond herself. she has a face, and it looks up...what i am trying, so clumsily, to say, is that ultimately, human love makes sense only in light of divine love. the point is not that divine love means something and that human love doesn't. human love means so much, because divine love means still more."

read this in one sitting - one of the best books i've read this year (chapter 4 alone!) - compelling and intensely logical without flattening mystery and beauty. im not bought in to everything, his RC worldview pokes through at several points, but budziszewski puts his finger right where culture hurts and then implores it to look up by painting a better vision, bursting with color and beauty (and dare i say transcendence). anyway i need to think about this book for at least the next month

also, a point for natural law.

[Jared Mcnabb · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really liked this book. It is a well written philosophy of sex, sexuality, and beauty. Uses natural law and common sense to the defense of traditional sexual norms. The author is full of wit, images, intriguing classroom examples.

The last chapter on transcendence really brought the book together in a powerful way, showing how all of our dissatisfactions with sexual love points us to the need of divine love.

One point of weakness was the discussion of the difference between true romantic love and its imitator “Enchantment,” which the author asserts has all the attributes of true love without its essence. Not that I think Budziszewiski is wrong, it just felt muddled and needed some clarification and more fleshing out.

[Reinhardt · Rating 4 out of 5]

An easy to read conversation with “J Bud” on what, if anything, sex means. He approaches it almost like a Socratic dialogue with an imaginary student interlocutor. The core of the book, the chapter on meaning, develops the proposition that sex always has meaning. The fundamental meaning is its generative union. He develops this thesis persuasively and gracefully.

In the remaining chapters he develops ideas about sexual differences, beauty, love, and purity. All with ringing clarity and ease.

The rest of the book is a bit weaker, but still a good read. An easy flowing style that maintains informality without being stuffed with annoyances.

A recommended easy read for any interested in sex, the meaning of life, or philosophy - so everyone.