Having been unimpressed by Girl Meets God, I had low expectations for this book. They were, I suppose, met.

While I haven't entirely sussed out my own personal sexual ethics, I'm inclined to believe that a Christian sexual ethics should lean heavily on integrity and commitment and suchlike, so I was sympathetic to those portions of her arguments, though I reacted against her ideas and arguments a number of times as well. I found myself strongly wanting to be a better person, whereas Girl Meets God found me, well wanting to smack/shake her and possibly convert to something not Christianity out of spite.

Highlights from a far longer reaction post I wrote:

I appreciated her talk about bodies not being inherently bad. She also talks a lot about the Yes of sex-within-marriage, which makes sense. The tendency of churchy talk to do the sex=bad thing is really frustrating. And really, giving horny young people the impression that they never get to have satisfying sex is so not the way to win them over to your side.

She also talks about the importance of Christian community -- in all things, not just in keeping each other from falling into sin -- and about actually talking about sex, in part to counter the unrealistic and unhealthy ideas the mainstream media imparts (e.g., that sex is always exciting and if it isn't then there's something wrong with your relationship).

In Chapter 6, she talks about boundary drawing, about the importance of making decisions before the heat of the moment, and I might actually recommend reading this section because she makes good points and does a good job of making them. (Are my low expectations showing?) She also talks about physical-sexual involvement with a person as being a way of growing comfortable in our bodies -- with the freedoms and the limitations, plus it feels good.

Early on, Winner writes, "Nor will I tackle issues like adultery, homosexuality, and divorce; though those areas are all topics that a comprehensive account of Christian sexual ethics would need to address" (p. 24). I understand her decision, but the fact that she is all about marriage makes readers who are at least a little bit homosexual rather uncomfortable, since marriage basically isn't an option -- at least not in most churches, most countries, or most U.S. states. And it also problematizes the whole "procreation is a major part of sex/marriage" thing. I mean, she mentions issues like sterility kind of in passing, but it is clear that the norm is sex which has the potential to lead to procreation. Which would make me uncomfortable if I were sterile. And given that I have no desire to bring biological children of my own into this world (for a variety of reasons) does in fact make me uncomfortable once I get past being uncomfortable because of the whole queer thing.