 CHAPTER  A Theology of Sex Aristotle Papanikolaou e Presuppositions Perhaps my point is best illustrated through a story: During the fall  semester, I taught at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of eology in Brookline, Massachusetts, a course on ethics. We were discussing St. Max- imus on virtues and how the development of virtues enables relations, and in so doing, makes space for the presencing of God. I then asked the stu- dents whether, if two people (I did not mention gender) were living to- gether in friendship for fty years and manifesting the virtues, this would be an example of communion and presencing of God? ey all said yes. I then asked whether the fact that they had sex would negate the good re- sulting from their virtuous friendship: Half said it would, while the other half got the point that I will try to articulate in this short essay. It is important, rst, to clarify that the context to which I am speaking is the ecclesial one. Ecclesial ethics on sex and sexuality have been primar- ily about sex and the criteria for establishing a morally right sex act. Since my own intended audience is the Christian ecclesia, in the broadest sense, my focus is on the sex act, but insofar as I intend to focus on the dynamics of desire, issues related to sexuality are also in play. I do not engage, how- ever, the wider academic and public discussion on sexuality. (If the Chris- tian discussion perhaps has talked too much about sex, I think the broader discussion outside of, though not necessarily excluding Christian voices, has focused too little on sex, and my suspicion is that such a focus would be seen as some kind of concession to the seemingly puritanical impulses