Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started

Why Sexual Morality May be Far More Important than You Ever Thought

December 1, 2022 by Kirk Durston

( Read the Spanish version of this article)

(Version in Traditional Chinese plus videos)

One winter afternoon I was relaxing with a half-dozen fellow graduate philosophy students discussing theories of law and punishment. About an hour into the discussion, it occurred to me that some moral laws might limit pleasure and enjoyment in the short term but in the long term minimize suffering and maximize human fulfillment.  

A few days ago I finished studying Sex and Culture for the second time. It is a remarkable book summarizing a lifetime of research by Oxford social anthropologist J.D. Unwin.[1] The 600+ page book is, in Unwin’s words, only a “summary” of his research—seven volumes would be required to lay it all out.[2] His writings suggest he was a rationalist, believing that science is our ultimate tool of inquiry (it appears he was not a religious man). As I went through what he found, I was repeatedly reminded of the thought I had as a philosophy student: some moral laws may be designed to minimize human suffering and maximize human flourishing long term.

Unwin examines the data from 86 societies and civilizations to see if there is a relationship between sexual freedom and the flourishing of cultures. What makes the book especially interesting is that we in the West underwent a sexual revolution in the late 1960’s, 70’s, and 80’s and are now in a position to test the conclusions he arrived at more than 40 years earlier.  

Unwin’s cultural categories

Unwin described four “great patterns of human culture” and degrees of flourishing measured in terms of architecture, art, engineering, literature, agriculture, and so forth. The primary criterion for classification was how they related to the natural world and the forces it contains.[3]

  1. zoistic: Entirely self-focussed on day-to day-life, wants, and needs, with no interest in understanding nature. Described as a “dead culture” or “inert”.
  2. monistic: Acquire superstitious beliefs and/or special treatment of the dead to cope with the natural world.
  3. deistic: Attribute the powers of nature to a god or gods
  4. rationalistic: Use rational thinking to understand nature and to make day-to-day decisions.

Unwin’s degrees of sexual restraint

Degrees of sexual restraint were divided into two major categores—prenuptial and postnuptial. Prenuptial categories were:[4]

  1. Complete sexual freedom—no prenuptial restraints at all
  2. Irregular or occasional restraint— cultural regulations require an occasional period of abstinence
  3. Strict Chastity —remain a virgin until married

Postnuptial categories were:[5]

  1. Modified monogamy: one spouse at a time, but association can be terminated by either party.
  2. Modified polygamy: men can have more than one wife, but a wife is free to leave her husband.
  3. Absolute monogamy: only one spouse permitted for life (or until death in some cultures) 
  4. Absolute polygamy:  men can have more than one wife, but wives must “confine their sexual qualities (i.e., activity) to their husband for the whole of their lives.”

So what did he find?

Hesperus, the evening star, sacred to lovers by Joseph Noel Paton, 1857
Hesperus, the evening star, sacred to lovers by Joseph Noel Paton, 1857

I have prepared a 26-page collection of quotes from his book that summarize his findings (2), but even that would leave you with a significant under-appreciation of the rigour and fascinating details revealed in data from 86 cultures. Here are a few of his most significant findings:

  1. Effect of sexual constraints: Increased sexual constraints, either pre or post-nuptial, always led to increased flourishing of a culture. Conversely, increased sexual freedom always led to the collapse of a culture three generations later. 
  2. Single most influential factor: Surprisingly, the data revealed that the single most important correlation with the flourishing of a culture was whether pre-nuptial chastity was required or not. It had a very significant effect either way.
  3. Highest flourishing of culture: The most powerful combination was pre-nuptial chastity coupled with “absolute monogamy”. Rationalist cultures that retained this combination for at least three generations exceeded all other cultures in every area, including literature, art, science, furniture, architecture, engineering, and agriculture. Only three out of the eighty-six cultures studied ever attained this level.
  4. Effect of abandoning prenuptial chastity: When strict prenuptial chastity was no longer the norm, absolute monogamy, deism, and rational thinking also disappeared within three generations.
  5. Total sexual freedom: If total sexual freedom was embraced by a culture, that culture collapsed within three generations to the lowest state of flourishing — which Unwin describes as “inert” and at a “dead level of conception” and is characterized by people who have little interest in much else other than their own wants and needs. At this level, the culture is usually conquered or taken over by another culture with greater social energy.
  6. Time lag: If there is a change in sexual constraints, either increased or decreased restraints, the full effect of that change is not realized until the third generation. (Note: I’ve added a clarifying footnote at the end of this article. See footnote #13)

How does this compare with our culture today?

Unwin published his findings in 1934, long before the sexual revolution that occurred in the West. We now have an opportunity to test his conclusions by observing if our own culture is following the predicted pattern. Unwin’s “generation” appears to be approximately 33 years, so it should take about a century for us to see the cultural changes take full effect, but we are far enough along in the process that we should be able to observe certain predicted effects.

We now have an opportunity to test his conclusions by observing if our own culture is following the predicted pattern.

Prior to the sexual revolution which began in the late 1960’s, prenuptial chastity was still held in strong regard by Western culture. But, starting in the 1970’s, pre-marital sexual freedom became increasingly acceptable. By the early 2000’s, the majority of teens  were sexually active, to the extent that remaining a virgin until marriage was regarded with disbelief if not ridicule. At the same time, our culture moved from a social norm of absolute monogamy to “modified monogamy”. 

Unwin’s predictions for our culture

Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash
Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash

Thanks to the rationalist generations that preceded them, the first generation of a society setting aside its sexual restraints can still enjoy its new-found sexual freedom before any significant decline in culture, but the data shows that this “having your cake and eating it too” phase lasts a maximum of one generation before the decline sets in. Unwin wrote:

The history of these societies consists of a series of monotonous repetitions; and it is difficult to decide which aspect of the story is the more significant: the lamentable lack of original thought which in each case the reformers displayed, or the amazing alacrity with which, after a period of intense compulsory continence (sexual restraint), the human organism seizes the earliest opportunity to satisfy its innate desires in a direct or perverted manner. Sometimes a man has been heard to declare that he wishes both to enjoy the advantages of high culture and to abolish compulsory continence. The inherent nature of the human organism, however, seems to be such that these desires are incompatible, even contradictory. The reformer may be likened to the foolish boy who desires both to keep his cake and to consume it. Any human society is free to choose either to display great energy or to enjoy sexual freedom; the evidence is that it cannot do both for more than one generation.[6]

Looking at our own sexual revolution, the “having your cake and eating it too” phase would have lasted into the early 2000’s. We are now at a stage where we should begin to observe the verification or falsification of Unwin’s predictions. 

Unwin found that when strict prenuptial chastity was abandoned, absolute monogamy, deism, and rational thinking disappeared within three generations.

Unwin found that when strict prenuptial chastity was abandoned, absolute monogamy, deism, and rational thinking disappeared within three generations of the change in sexual freedom. So how are we doing as we enter the second generation since our own sexual revolution at the end of the 20th century?

  1. As predicted, absolute monogamy has already been replaced with modified monogamy. Common-law relationships are becoming the norm. Although divorce occurred prior to the 1970’s, the mainstream of our culture still maintained the view that marriage should be for life, and common-law relationships were regarded with some distaste. That has clearly changed. Those who actually practice life-long commitments in marriage have become the minority, with couples born prior to the sexual revolution much more likely to maintain a life-long commitment in marriage.
  2. Deism is already rapidly declining, exactly as predicted. Prior to the 1960’s, a combination of rationalism and a belief in God was the norm for mainstream culture. Not only has belief in God greatly decreased since the 1960’s, but there has been a trend to remove the concept of God from government, the educational system, and the public forum. Those who still believe in God sense a strong societal pressure to keep deistic beliefs private. In its place, is a surprising rise in superstition,[7] classified by Unwin as a “monistic” culture, two levels down from the rationalist culture we had prior to the sexual revolution. There has also been a huge increase in the percentage of the population that classifies itself as non-religious, a symptom of the lowest, “zoistic” level of Unwin’s categories.[8]
  3. The swiftness with which rational thinking declined after the 1970’s is astounding. In its place arose post-modernism, characterized by “scepticism, subjectivism, or relativism” and “a general suspicion of reason”.[9] But it gets worse … post-modernism is giving way to “post truth”. In direct contrast to rational thinking, a post-truth culture abandons “shared objective standards for truth” and instead, stands on appeals to feelings and emotions, and what one wants to believe.[10] People can now “identify” themselves as something which flat-out contradicts science and rational thinking and, in many cases, receive the full support and backing of governments and educational systems. Not only do people feel they have a right to believe what they want, but any challenge to that belief, even if supported by truth and logic, is unacceptable and offensive. Here is a quote from Unwin that has become particularly a propos in the last couple decades since our own sexual revolution …

If I were asked to define a sophist, I should describe him as a man whose conclusion does not follow from his premise. Sophistry is appreciated only by those among whom human entropy is disappearing; they mistake it for sound reasoning. It flourishes among those people who have extended their sexual opportunity after a period of intense compulsory continence. [11]

Summary of where our culture is going, given Unwin’s findings

For the first part of the 1900’s, mainstream Western culture was rationalist and experienced enormous technological advances — from horse-and-buggy to cars; from hot air balloons to supersonic flight and spacecraft landing people on the moon; from slide rules to computers. Unwin’s three main predictions — the abandonment of rationalism, deism, and absolute monogamy — are all well underway, which makes the ultimate prediction appear to be credible … the collapse of Western civilization in the third generation, somewhere in the last third of this century. 

Unwin’s three main predictions — the abandonment of rationalism, deism, and absolute monogamy — are all well underway, which makes the ultimate prediction appear to be credible … the collapse of Western civilization in the third generation 

Will our culture be the exception?

I suppose we can hope, but there is always a tendency to want to believe “it cannot happen to us.” Unwin describes this attitude as a “pardonable egocentricity” and a “quaint and comfortable doctrine”, that flies in the face of data, which indicate that the pattern of decline happens with “monotonous” regularity. That’s another way of saying that “insanity is doing the same thing yet again but expecting different results.” The primary predictions are already unfolding with alarming “alacrity”.

Why is there such a “monotonous” perfect inverse correlation?

The old adage, “correlation does not entail causation”, probably holds true here as well. Unwin makes it clear that he does not know why sexual freedom directly leads to the decline and collapse of cultures, although he suggests that when sexual energy is restrained through celibacy or monogamy, it is diverted into more productive social energy.

Perhaps, but I find it difficult to accept it as a primary cause. Mary Eberstadt’s recent research into mass killings, the substantial rise in mental health issues including depression, and the explosion of identity politics is a “primal scream” due to the loss of identity that was once provided by growing up in a long-term, immediate family with siblings and a sizable group of cousins, aunts and uncles, all of which provided identity—essential for well-being. Eberstadt shows and documents from various studies that this decimation of the family was a direct consequence of the sexual revolution at the end of the 20th century.[11]

Eberstadt shows and documents from various studies that this decimation of the family was a direct consequence of the sexual revolution at the end of the 20th century.

Her research indicates that increased sexual freedom led to the decimation of the family, which resulted in the loss of family identity, which produces Eberstadt’s ‘primal screams’—a massive increase in mental health issues, mass killings, and the rise of extreme identity groups at war with each other … all symptoms of a society rapidly spiraling into collapse. This appears to have greater explanatory power than Unwin’s psychological suggestion, although the two may actually be closely related, given what Eberstadt shows.

Both Unwin and Eberstadt provide substantial evidence that a sexual revolution has long-term, devastating consequences for culture and civilization. As Unwin states, “The history of these societies consists of a series of monotonous repetitions,” and it appears that our civilization is following the same, well-travelled road to collapse. 

Back to the philosophical thought

So back to that afternoon in the philosophy seminar when it occurred to me that some moral laws will seem to limit human pleasure in the short term, but will prevent great suffering or maximize happiness and fulfillment in the long term. For years, it has been my thinking that God’s moral laws are not simply a bunch of arbitrary rules given to restrict mankind’s freedom. Instead, they are like operating instructions designed to spare people from suffering while maximizing human flourishing. Unwin’s and Eberstadt’s research provides strong rational justification for the inference that God’s moral laws pertaining to our sexuality, although they may restrain us from some immediate pleasure, protect us from enormous long-term suffering while maximizing our long term flourishing.

Reveries 1913.jpg

Note: If you enjoyed this article, you may be interested in another article Kirk has written, ‘What Does it Mean to be Human: Vastly More than You can Imagine’.

(If you would like to subscribe to Kirk’s articles, podcasts (upcoming) and short videos, you can do so at the bottom of this page.)

References and Notes:

  1. A downloadable, pdf version of Unwin’s Sex and Culture is available here.
  2. I have prepared a 26-page summary in the form of a collection of quotes that can provide a more detailed understanding of Unwin’s book, but it is highly recommended that the reader, at minimum, at least skim Unwin’s book to get a better idea of the rigour and breadth of his research, as well as some of the many examples the data provides.
  3. See section 7, Unwin, page 13 for a fuller understanding of these terms.
  4. Unwin, page 341.
  5. Unwin, page 342
  6. Unwin, page 412
  7. See, for example, Stuart Vyse, ‘Why are millennials turning to astrology?’, Skeptical Inquirer, 2018. and Denyse O’Leary, ‘As traditionalism declines, superstition—not atheism—is the big winner’, Intellectual Takeout, 2018.
  8. Note: A non-religious culture is not necessarily an atheistic culture. They do not deny or accept the existence of God or gods. Rather, belief in a god or gods is simply not part of their lives; it is irrelevant.
  9. Britannica, ‘Postmodernism’.
  10. Description of Post Truth
  11. Unwin, page 413
  12. Mary Eberstadt, Primal Screams: How the sexual revolution created identity politics.
  13. A loosening of sexual constraints probably does not occur in one year or even one decade. In our case, one could argue that the sexual revolution began in the late 1960’s, lasted throughout the 70’s and possibly into the early 1980’s. According to Unwin, only small changes in a culture occur in the first generation, due to the cultural ‘momentum’ of the previous generation, which still continues to be a heavy influence in the generation after the loosening (or strengthening) of sexual restraints. The changes become more prevalent in the second generation, but it is not until the third generation, after the initial generation has completely died off, that the changes reach their full effect, occurring rapidly over the course of that third generation. By the end of the third generation, the changes have fully taken place and the culture stabilizes at its new level. However, if it has stabilized at the highest level, then the flourishing of that culture continues to increase in subsequent generations (though Unwin observes that no culture maintains that state very long). If it has stabilized at the lowest level (i.e., a “collapse”), then that culture is destroyed from within, or conquered or taken over by a more “energetic” culture.

https://www.kirkdurston.com/blog/unwin

Cohabitation: Preparation for failure

Exclusive: Jerry Newcombe spotlights latest research showing benefits of the Bible’s rules for sex

Feb 15, 2022

Marriage is a gift from God. But marriage is in a sad state in America today, and we all suffer because of it.

I read recently about the movie star Joan Crawford who was legendary in her promiscuity. As her rival Bette Davis once reportedly sneered about her, “She slept with every male star at MGM except Lassie.”

Apparently, in the miserable and difficult childhood of Lucille LeSouer (who later adopted the name Joan Crawford), there was a wound from the absence of her father, according to Shaun Considine’s book, “Bette and Joan,” which became the basis for the mini-series, “The Feud.”

Considine quotes someone else about Crawford’s childhood: “Being abandoned so often traumatized Joan. … She spent the rest of her life looking for a father – in husbands, lovers, studio executives and directors.” To this Considine adds, “When she found the ideal candidate, Joan felt safe, secure, validated. In time she expected them to leave, to reject her. When they didn’t, she grew suspicious, then resentful, and found ways to make them depart.” So sad.

That’s so far from God’s design, which is one man, one woman for life. His prohibitions against sex outside of marriage are for our good.

A fascinating article in a recent Wall Street Journal (Feb. 5), highlighted the findings of a study based on the marriages and many divorces among 50,000 women in the National Survey of Family Growth.

One can infer from the article’s headline that it’s best to avoid cohabitating before marriage: “Too Risky to Wed in Your 20s? Not If You Avoid Cohabiting First: Research shows that marrying young without ever having lived together with a partner makes for some of the lowest divorce rates.”

Brad Wilcox and Lyman Stone, the article’s authors, observe, “The idea that cohabitation is risky is surprising, given that a majority of young adults believe that living together is a good way to pretest the quality of your partners and your partnership.” But couples who live together before they wed “are less likely to be happily married and more likely to land in divorce court.”

Through the years, similar studies have found the same results: to prepare best for marriage, save sex for marriage. Even in the archives of UCLA is citation of a 1990s study from the Family Research Center in Washington, D.C., which says: “Other findings indicate that saving sex for marriage reduces the risk of divorce, and monogamous married couples are the most sexually satisfied Americans.” If you’re unfaithful before marriage, why should you be faithful after getting married?

In previous generations, cohabitation was viewed as more of a scandal. Of course, not all marriages were good by any means.

My dad used to tell a story where he and mom were playing bridge one day against another couple. The woman kept yelling and berating her partner at every turn.

Finally, dad asked her, “Are you two married?”

And she snapped, “Of course we are! Do you think I’d live in sin with an idiot like that?” – pointing to her henpecked husband. When I shared this anecdote with a friend, he thought that that story might discourage someone to consider marriage over cohabitation. Well, without proper preparation, bad marriages happen. (Sadly, sometimes even with preparation.)

I thank God that I have 42 years of empirical evidence that I married a saint. After all, my fantastic wife has put up with me for more than four decades. Thankfully, we spent more time preparing for the marriage than we did for the wedding.

I write this on Valentine’s Day 2022 – when we celebrate love and romance. Christian author Bill Federer notes that the best historical evidence is that Valentine’s Day customs go back to a third century Christian leader, who fell afoul of the Roman Empire and was martyred on Feb. 14, 269.

The reason for St. Valentine’s martyrdom was not only his rejection of Roman idolatry but also because he defied the emperor, who forbade men in the Roman army to marry. Writes Federer: “Roman Emperor Claudius II needed more soldiers to fight the invading Goths. He believed that men fought better if they were not married, so he banned traditional marriage in the military.”

But some of these soldiers wanted to be married, and Valentine secretly performed weddings for them. When the Roman leaders found out about this, he was arrested and sentenced to death. The jailer, who had a sick daughter, asked his prisoner, the holy man, to pray for his child. She got better, and the saint wrote her a short, encouraging note, signing it from “your Valentine.”

Jesus said, “I have come that they might have life and have it more abundantly.” That includes our relationships.

God’s design for marriage is for our good, and it helps spare people a lot of unnecessary unhappiness.

Waiting till the wedding night – getting married the right way

 By Steven Crowder Published September 14, 2012 Last Update May 7, 2015

The author and his wife on his wedding day in August 2012.

The author and his wife on his wedding day in August 2012. (Courtesy of the author.)

As anyone who’s read my abstinence column here at Fox News Opinion could guess, my wedding is something that I’ve looked forward to for quite some time. After having tied the knot at the end of August, I can now say beyond all shadow of a doubt, that it was everything I’d hoped and prayed that it would be since childhood. (I’d also prayed to be bitten by a radioactive spider and develop sticky hands, but… I was an idiot.)

Let me preface this column by saying this: my wife (I have to get used to saying that) and I not only waited sexually in every way (no, we didn’t pull the Bill Clinton and technically avoid “sex” sex,) but we didn’t shack up as live-ins and most importantly, we courted each other in a way that was consistent with our publicly professed values.

We did it right.

[pullquote]

Feeling judged? I couldn’t care less. You know why? Because my wife and I were judged all throughout our relationship. People laughed, scoffed and poked fun at the young, celibate, naive Christian couple.

We’d certainly never make it to the wedding without schtupping, and if we did, our “wedding night would be awkward and terrible,” they said.

Turns out that people couldn’t have been more wrong.  Looking back, I think that the women saying those things felt like the floozies they ultimately were, and the men, with their fickle manhood tied to their pathetic sexual conquests, felt threatened.

I think it’s important to write this column not to gloat (though I’ll be glad to), but to speak up for all of the young couples that have also done things the right way. When people do marriage right, they don’t complain so much, and so their voices are silenced by the rabble of promiscuous charlatans, peddling their pathetic world view as “progressive.”

Our wedding was perfect. Our wedding night was nothing short of amazing. I write this on a plane heading into a tropical paradise with the most beautiful woman to have walked the planet earth. I know everybody says that their bride was the “most beautiful in the world.”  They’re wrong. I win.

I’d like to tell you a story of our morning after, however. One that transpired into one of the most glaring epiphanies I’d ever had.

As my wife (again, still not used to that) and I ate breakfast at a local inn, we discussed how excited we were to start the rest of our lives together, how scary it was that everything was now so different. At the same time, we overheard the table next to us discussing their very own wedding from the night prior. What a coincidence!

“The thing is, nothing’s really changed,” the bride said.

Puzzled, my wife asked, “Did you get married last night too? So did we!”

“Congratulations!” the other dame said. “Yeah we did, just last night.”

“Where’s the groom?” my wife innocently… scratch that, naively asked.

“Oh, he’s sleeping. There was no way he was coming out with me this morning!” She paused and smirked. “Let’s just say that he’s got a lingering headache from a really good time last night.”

My heart sank. Firstly, that poor schmuck’s “good time” was simply getting snookered. Not enjoying the company of close family and long-lost friends with a clear head and clean conscience, not staring in awe at his beautiful new wife, wanting to soak in every glimmer of her eyes as she shot him heart-racing looks from across the dance floor, not taking all of the cheesy pictures as they cut the cake, not even carrying her across that suite threshold as they nervously anticipated their “nightcap.” He probably won’t remember any of it. Instead, he got smashed. He was “that guy”… at his own freaking wedding.

Then I realized something. Our wedding was truly a once in a lifetime event. It was a God’s-honest celebration of two completely separate lives now becoming one. Physically, emotionally, financially and spiritually, everything that made us who we were individually was becoming what bonded us together. Our family traveled from far and wide to celebrate the decision of two young people to truly commit themselves to each other, and selflessly give themselves to one another in a way that they never had before that very night.

The people next to us that morning? Well, theirs was just one big party.  And the morning after? Just another hangover.

Our “weddings” were the same event in name only. They know it, and we know it.

Do yours the right way.  If you’re young and wondering whether you should wait, whether you should just give in, become a live-in harlot/mimbo and do it the world’s way.  If you’re wondering whether all of the mocking, the ridicule, the incredible difficulty of saving yourself for your spouse is worth it, let me tell you without a doubt that it is. Your wedding can be the most memorable day and night of your life… or just another party.

Oops. Did I just make a “judgment?”  You’re darn right I did.

Steven Crowder is a comedian and Fox News contributor. Follow him on Twitter@scrowder.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/waiting-till-the-wedding-night-getting-married-the-right-way

CNN Blasted as ‘Propaganda’ for Asserting ‘It’s Not Possible’ to Know Sex at Birth

Michael Foust | ChristianHeadlines.com Contributor | Thursday, April 1, 2021

A tiny baby, CNN Blasted as Propaganda for Claiming ‘It’s Not Possible’ to Know Sex at Birth

A CNN news story claiming “it’s not possible” to know a person’s gender or sex at birth was widely panned across social media this week, mainly because it was stated as a non-debatable fact.

The story focused on two executive orders by South Dakota Republican Gov. Kristi Noem prohibiting males from competing in female sports. The article was highly critical of her position.

“It’s not possible to know a person’s gender identity at birth, and there is no consensus criteria for assigning sex at birth,” the CNN story said.

It didn’t take long for Christians and conservatives to notice the sentence.

“If you act like a propaganda outlet, people are going to treat you like a propaganda outlet. This is blatant @CNN,” tweeted Denny Burk, director of the Center for Gospel and Culture at Boyce College in Louisville, Ky.

“This is CNN. Unbelievable,” tweeted conservative radio host Erick Erickson.

“We live in a literal clown world where the elites pretend not to know what it means to be a man or a woman. The only way to maintain your sanity is to reject this absolute nonsense everywhere you see it,” tweeted author Allie Beth Stuckey.

“Actually, there is a scientific consensus for ‘assigning sex at birth.’ It’s called observation, coupled with a basic understanding of mammalian and human biology,” tweeted Hot Air senior editor Ed Morrissey.

“Hey @CNN, you wrote, ‘It’s not possible to know a person’s gender identity at birth, and there is no consensus criteria for assigning sex at birth.’ Call me, and I’ll explain the criteria to you in 15 seconds,” tweeted David Prince, pastor of Ashland Avenue Baptist Church in Lexington, Ky.

One person tweeted, sarcastically, “Wonder if CNN would help me out and announce it’s ‘Not Possible To Know A Person’s Income On Tax Day.’”

The website eventually tweaked the sentence, although the change did little to appease Christians and other conservatives’ concerns. The new sentence read: “It’s not possible to know a person’s gender identity at birth, and for some people, the sex listed on their original birth certificate is a misleading way of describing the body they have.”

Related:

Father Jailed after Calling Transgender Child His ‘Daughter’ and Using Wrong Pronouns

Photo courtesy: ©Getty Images/Kieferpix


Michael Foust has covered the intersection of faith and news for 20 years. His stories have appeared in Baptist Press, Christianity Today, The Christian Postthe Leaf-Chronicle, the Toronto Star and the Knoxville News-Sentinel.

https://www.christianheadlines.com/contributors/michael-foust/cnn-blasted-as-propaganda-for-asserting-its-not-possible-to-know-sex-at-birth.html


VIDEO School Coloring Book: ‘Everyone Gets to Choose if They Are a Girl or a Boy or Both or Neither or Something Else’ – If I Were The Devil

By Craig Bannister | January 26, 2021

An Iowa public school district will devote February 1-5, 2021 to teaching Black Lives Matter (BLM) “guiding principles” – such as telling young children that they can choose any gender they want, even if that means making up a new one.

While it is not officially affiliated with the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, teachers will indoctrinate students regarding 13 BLM “guiding principles,” the Ames, Iowa Community School District (CSD) says on its website.

The “Black Lives Matter at Schools Week of Action” will focus, not just on affirming “all Black identities,” but also on transforming “non-Black, particularly white students,” the website explains:

“The Black Lives Matter at School movement, which is not formally affiliated with the Black Lives Matter Global Network or any other organization in the Movement for Black Lives, is a push to improve schools for Black students, teachers, and families. The movement is a call to schools across the nation to say and show that Black lives matter within the school walls and in the policies and practices that impact the lives and futures of Black students. The Week of Action is a time set aside to affirm all Black identities by centering Black voices, empowering students, and teaching about Black experiences beyond slavery. 

“This week of action not only benefits Black students but can also be transformative for non-Black students, particularly white students. Due in large part to school and residential segregation, white students often get a narrow view of blackness from their lived experiences.”

One of the “identities” teachers will affirm and promote are non-biological gender identities chosen by students.

As MRCTV.org reports, a “BLM Coloring Book” teaches young students about “transgender affirming” and “queer affirming” notions:

“Among the educational tools linked to the Ames website are the ‘Kid-Friendly’ versions of BLM’s ‘13 Principles’ for early childhood and elementary education. These principles include ‘transgender affirming’ and ‘queer affirming’ and these topics are offered as pages in a BLM coloring book for younger age groups.”

On the “Transgender Affirming” coloring page, children are told:

“Everybody has the right to choose their own gender by listening to their own heart and mind. Everyone gets to choose if they are a girl or a boy or both or neither or something else, and no one else gets to choose for them.”

(Screenshot)

The principle, as stated on the school district’s website, is less direct in its language:

“We are committed to embracing and making space for trans siblings to participate and lead. We are committed to being self-reflexive and doing the work required to dismantle cis-gender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.”

The “Queer Affirming” page promotes “freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking”:

“We are committed to fostering a queer-affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual unless he/she or they disclose otherwise.”

https://cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/school-coloring-book-everyone-gets-choose-if-they-are-girl-or-boy-or-both-or


Paul Harvey If I Were the Devil (Best and Original Version)1965- SecondComing.org


There’s no such thing as ‘safe sex’ for kids

By John Stonestreet and Maria Baer

n 1984, only 14 percent of Americans wore seat belts. Anyone else remember bouncing unrestrained around the back of the family station wagon like I did? Three years later, after seat belt laws were enacted in 30 states, that percentage tripled to 42 percent. Last year, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, more than 90 percent of Americans faithfully buckled up while on the roads.

We often say politics is downstream from culture. That’s mostly true. While laws tend to reflect ideas and trends already embedded in the larger culture, especially in the arts, education, and business, the state still has significant power to influence behavior and the larger culture as well.

In the case of the seatbelt, the state wielded its power for good. However, the same power can be used to normalize beliefs or behavior that are not good. That risk is greater in cultures already sliding down the slippery moral slope.

For example, Vermont recently became the first state to mandate that every public middle and high school make free condoms available to students. The bill’s sponsor, a Republican state lawmaker, believes that this new law will reduce teenage pregnancies, and therefore abortions. Strangely enough, the sponsor does not seem to think the law will normalize and increase sexual behavior among teenagers.

Why the assumption that the law only incentivizes desirable outcomes but not undesirable ones?

According to most contemporary studies, sexual activity among teens is way down. Though these studies typically fail to include porn addiction as sexual activity, we can all agree that fewer teens experimenting sexually is a good thing. At the same time, these studies show that adults often misunderstand the culture and incentives affecting teenage sexual behavior.

For example, a 2017 Harvard study found that the scale of the so-called “hook-up” culture among teens was “overestimated.” In other words, all the movies, TV programming and news coverage portraying American high school kids as highly sexually active are wrong. In fact, these Harvard researchers found that the way “hook-up” culture is so often portrayed actually propagates it, putting more pressure on teenagers to have sex. 

Similarly flawed thinking is behind Vermont’s new legislation. Lawmakers and educators, by assuming teens are sexually active and suggesting in public policy that we should all resign ourselves to helping them do it “safely,” only add pressure and incentives to the already-fragile equation of media, hormones, and opportunity.

I find it a bit strange–and ironic–that lawmakers and other cultural elites who are so quick to claim power simply throw up their hands and claim to be powerless when it comes to sexual activity among young people. “Well, the kids are going to do it anyway,” they say. “We might as well enable it.”

What if lawmakers back in 1984 said, “Well, looks like no one’s wearing their seat belts. We might as well accept that risky behavior and increase the speed limit while we’re at it”? That would have been absurd. So, why is that the approach so many adults take when it comes to sex?

That’s not a rhetorical question. A culture that already views sex as the core feature of our identity finds the suggestion that we teach kids not to have it unthinkable. A culture that views sex as the pinnacle of human existence will consider any parameters on sexual behaviors to be emotionally, spiritually and physically dangerous. In other words, what has changed is not merely our moral standards, but our entire view of the universe and the human person.

Every available metric of social and mental health suggest that today’s kids are more depressed, more anxious, and feel more lonely and isolated than any generation before them. The last thing young people need is adults telling them that “no-strings-attached” sex is a good idea. Or even possible. We have the data.

Teens who engage in sexual activity are more likely to be depressed than other teens. They’re more likely to attempt suicide. Two-thirds of kids who reported having sex in high school told researchers in a 2000 study that they regretted it. Kids who abstain from sex are also more likely to go to college. Free condoms for kids will only lead to more loneliness, more isolation, and more pain.

At each and every stage of the sexual revolution, the promise has been that “the kids will be fine.” They aren’t. “Safe sex” for children is a misnomer. Neither schools nor governments should incentivize behavior we know will harm students, but that’s exactly what Vermont is doing. We should do all we can to ensure other states don’t follow suit.

Originally posted at breakpoint.org

From BreakPoint. Reprinted with the permission of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. “BreakPoint®” and “The Colson Center for Christian Worldview®” are registered trademarks of The Colson Center for Christian Worldview.

John Stonestreet is the President of the Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview, and co-host with Eric Metaxas of Breakpoint, the Christian worldview radio program founded by the late Chuck Colson. He is co-author of A Practical Guide to CultureA Student’s Guide to Culture and Restoring All Things

https://www.christianpost.com/voices/theres-no-such-thing-as-safe-sex-for-kids.html

Appeals court rules ban on ‘conversion therapy’ unconstitutional

‘This case is the beginning of the end’ for similar laws

A federal appeals court on Friday ruled that ordinances in Florida banning the licensed counseling of people with unwanted same-sex attractions are unconstitutional violations of the freedom of speech.

“We hold that the challenged ordinances violate the First Amendment because they are content-based regulations of speech that cannot survive strict scrutiny,” the ruling from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said.

The decision was the first from a federal appeals court laws against so-called “conversion therapy” – a term rejected by proponents – since a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. In NIFLA v. Becerra, the high court ruled the government cannot force an individual or organization to express a message chosen by the government.

The current case, Otto, et al v. City of Boca Raton, found that bans by Boca Raton and Palm Beach County violate the Constitution.

The case was fought by Liberty Counsel, which represents Robert Otto and Julie Hamilton and their minor clients.

Liberty Counsel Chairman Mat Staver said the ruling sets a precedent.

“This case is the beginning of the end of similar unconstitutional counseling bans around the country,” he said.

The licensed therapists say they provide lifesaving counseling to minors who want to conform their attractions, behaviors and gender identities to their sincerely held religious beliefs.

Under the laws struck down by the 11th Circuit, a counselor could encourage a client to take life-altering hormone drugs or undergo invasive surgery to remove healthy body parts. But a counselor was barred from helping a client who seeks to overcome unwanted same-sex attractions.

The 2-1 decision from Judge Britt Grant, who was joined by Judge Barbara Lagoa, said the therapy is controversial, but as it is only “talk,” it is protected.

The dissent cited various left-leaning medical associations that claim such talk therapy is damaging to children.

The court said: “Nor can the local governments evade the First Amendment’s ordinary presumption against content-based speech restrictions by saying that the plaintiffs’ speech is actually conduct. We can understand why they would make this claim; if the ordinances restricted only non-expressive conduct, and not speech, then they would not implicate the First Amendment at all. Our Court, though, has already rejected the practice of relabeling controversial speech as conduct. In a case quite similar to this one, we laid down an important marker: ‘the enterprise of labeling certain verbal or written communications ‘speech’ and others ‘conduct’ is unprincipled and susceptible to manipulation/'”

Under such ordinances, which have been implemented across the nation, it “only matters that some words about sexuality and gender are allowed, and others are not,” the court said.

“Speech does not need to be popular in order to be allowed. The First Amendment exists precisely so that speakers with unpopular ideas do not have to lobby the government for permission before they speak,” the opinion said.

“The local governments are not entirely wrong when they characterize speech-based SOCE as a course of conduct. SOCE, after all, is a therapy, and plaintiffs say they want to ‘engage’ in it. But plaintiffs have the better of the argument. What the governments call a ‘medical procedure’ consists—entirely—of words. As the district court itself recognized, plaintiffs’ therapy ‘is not just carried out in part through speech: the treatment provided by Drs. Otto and Hamilton is entirely speech.’ If SOCE is conduct, the same could be said of teaching or protesting—both are activities, after all. Debating? Also an activity. Book clubs? Same answer. But the law does not require us to flip back and forth between perspectives until our eyes hurt.”

Kanye Understands A Crucial Part Of The Gospel Other Celebrity ‘Christians’ Don’t: ‘It’s A Hard Road To Heaven’

The problem with so many Christ-claiming celebrities is that they don’t actually believe Jesus is King. It seems Kanye does.

Kanye Understands A Crucial Part Of The Gospel Other Celebrity ‘Christians’ Don’t: ‘It’s A Hard Road To Heaven’

Oct 30, 2019

 

Kanye is starting quite the conversation, a conversation that has Christians, non-Christians, white people, black people, Democrats, and Republicans all engaging for different reasons. Is Kanye really converted? Does his affinity for Donald Trump take away from his impact, or aid it? Is this a phase that will fizzle out? Is his album objectively good? Or are his lyrics just refreshing?

While questions like these are worth asking, we can make observations about his newly released album “Jesus Is King” without having all the answers. One fact that simply cannot be overlooked is the truly countercultural message in Kanye’s lyrics — one that is essential to the message of the gospel but so often left out of pop-culture claims to Christianity that ultimately fall flat.

That message is hard to miss: Jesus is King. Kanye weaves this theme throughout his lyrics, and now throughout his life.

Culture Promulgates a Weak Version of ‘Christianity’

How does this differ from other professing faith-filled celebs? To recall an opportune example, consider Bachelor Nation’s beloved Season 15 Bachelorette “Alabama Hannah” Brown. Hannah talked about her faith and being a Christian consistently throughout the show, and although it was unfortunate that the infamous sex “accusation” occurred courtesy of the most universally hated bachelor on the show, Luke P., Hannah revealed her worldview is no different from other celebrity, in-name-only Christians.

When Luke confronted her, however narcissistically, about the possibility of her having sex with one or more of the few remaining bachelors, the conversation escalated to Hannah dismissing Luke from the show. When he all but refused to leave, Hannah replied, “I have had sex … and Jesus still loves me.”

She’s not wrong. She did have sex, and Jesus still loves her. Good theology, Hannah. But her remorseless attitude perfectly encapsulates the flagrantly unbiblical worldview of countless pseudo-Christian celebs. Upon Luke’s exit, she continued, “I didn’t just go to the Fantasy Suite, I f-cked in a windmill. And guess what? We did it a second time,” before winking at the camera, her face in an ear-to-ear grin.

I’m not here to beat the dead Hannah B. horse. She is merely symptomatic of our culture’s exceptionally weak notion of what passes as “Christian.” As Refinery29 put it, Hannah is “a devout Christian who praises Jesus Christ in her Instagram bio.” Really? Is that all it takes to call oneself a Christian these days?

Real Christianity Results in Obedience

Pop culture icons tend to appeal to Christianity only insofar as it broadens their appeal to a Christian base. As soon as it seems not to benefit their wallets anymore, their faith doesn’t seem to be all that active. Not that keen spectators can’t see the reversal coming, for their faith doesn’t result in any identifiable fruit.

Often, the only evidence of Christianity is simply an Instagram bio — directly above an erotic pose in Calvin Klein underwear. Or in an interview soundbite — promoting an explicit new album. Or in a gaudy cross tattoo or necklace — stuck somewhere amid cleavage. These icons are Christians in name only. Not in understanding, not in message, and not in obedience.

That last part — obedience — is the hardest. Believing God exists is common sense, but merely acknowledging that isn’t Christianity. Making Jesus “King” and doing what he asks of you — that’s the difficult part. It’s that whole idea the book of James carries, that “faith without works is dead.”

Kanye’s theology isn’t perfect. “Excuse me if I mispronounce anything,” he says. “I am a recent convert. It means I recently got saved within this year.” But the gospel isn’t complicated. (In a sentence, as Pastor John Piper articulated, “The gospel is the news that Jesus Christ, the Righteous One, died for our sins and rose again, eternally triumphant over all his enemies, so that there is now no condemnation for those who believe, but only everlasting joy.”) Children can understand it. And Kanye has grasped the transformational aspect of the gospel that so many haven’t.

In one new song, “Use This Gospel,” he sings, “Use this gospel for protection. It’s a hard road to heaven.” Yes, it is, Kanye. If it weren’t, Jesus wouldn’t have instructed each of his followers to “take up [their] cross daily and follow” him.

As my friend put it, “[Kanye’s] passion for simple obedience is just so contagious.” It’s true. His simple obedience is evidenced in his lyrics, in his calls for modesty, in his warnings against premarital sex, in his denouncing of unbiblical public policies, and in his parenting goals.

Kanye Confesses Jesus Is King

His message in “Closed on Sunday” (Chick-fil-A mentions excepted) is rich with the practical outworking of a Christian not being “conformed to this world” but instead being “transformed”:

Raise our sons, train them in the faith
Through temptations, make sure they’re wide awake
Follow Jesus, listen and obey
No more livin’ for the culture, we nobody’s slave
Stand up for my home
Even if I take this walk alone
I bow down to the King upon the throne
My life is His, I’m no longer my own.

Whether Kanye is truly a Christian or not is something only he and God know. But one thing we do know is that a person can’t be a Christian if he doesn’t believe and live by these simple truths.

That’s the problem with so many Christ-claiming celebrities: They don’t actually believe Jesus is King. It seems Kanye does.

Kylee Zempel is an assistant editor at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter @kyleezempel.

Why What You Do In The Bedroom Doesn’t Ever Stay There

Social science and cultural analysis reveal that sex affects everything and everybody, from the community park to the foundations of democracy itself.

Why What You Do In The Bedroom Doesn’t Ever Stay There

Oct 4, 2019

Our laws require that when people enjoy sex, they do so in private. Our social mores, for the most part, desire that it be talked about in private. We generally believe we are all the better for keeping explicit images and sex industry businesses away from the view and awareness of our children and the larger community. This is one of the hallmarks of a good, safe, and desirable community: Sex is private.

But it is not wholly private. Human sexuality is every bit a public affair as it is a private act. Perhaps more so, actually. Is this a radical and provocative statement, a push for a more open, bohemian sexual ethic and practice? Just the opposite. Valuing sex as an essential public act is actually a very conservative and traditional ideal.

The social sciences and cultural anthropology have demonstrated this empirically. Let’s see just how strong this case is.

Cruise Through the Social Science

By its inherent power and mysterious nature, a sexual relationship is never entirely walled off from the larger community. To believe it can be is to profoundly misunderstand what sex is and does. What people do in their intimate lives indeed affects their neighbors, whether they are those next door, co-workers, or extended family.

The effects of sexual relationships also reveal themselves in our community institutions — in schools, hospitals, police stations, social service offices, and nearly all levels of government — in various ways. Each of these must deal with the positive and negative consequences, often daily, of who had sex with whom and under what circumstances.

As the sexual revolution has spread, a vast range of university-based social science findings, published in premier academic journals and books over the last few decades, consistently demonstrates just how undoubtedly true this is. Just two summaries of the depth and diversity of this research are here and here. Let’s examine just a few of the major affected domains here.

Community Health

Sex within marriage cultivates responsible men who are more likely to be employed, hold jobs longer, go to school to improve their futures, and be more involved in the lives of their children, making those young people less likely to cause trouble in their neighborhoods. Responsible men are essential to creating healthy communities.

Sexual behavior directly affects the academic achievement of offspring. As much as any other factor, the sexual and relational circumstances of a student’s parents, both now and at the time the child was born, drive school performance, in terms of grades, behavior, and prospects of college attendance.

Consider it this way. Choose one of the following schools for your child: In one school, 90 percent of the children come from married homes, raised by their own mothers and fathers. In the other school, 90 percent of children come from single-parent or cohabiting homes. Both schools have facilities and faculty of equal quality. Which school do you think would give your child a better, safer experience?

The relational status of people having sex within a given community also drives the level of crime and safety there. Take the neighborhood park as a microcosm. Can any community park and its local law enforcement have the problem of too many married mothers and fathers spending time with their children there? It’s actually a very strong social benefit. The more the better.

But can it have too many amorous teen couples regularly hanging out there? Too many adults using its bathrooms for sex-and-go encounters arranged online? How about single men coming to watch the children play? All but the first require great care and authority figures to step in without kindness or apology.

The “four P’s” of your community—police, pediatricians, principals, and public-welfare professionals—will readily confirm all these findings and more. Ask each of these professionals if the sexual decisions and actions of their community’s adults and young people make a difference in the success or difficulty of their work. It’s not a difficult question. Sex influences nearly every sector of society, not the least of which is physical health.

Disease Transmission

So-called sexual freedom has given us 37 million global neighbors who are presently infected with HIV. The World Health Organization just announced that more than 1 million new cases of sexually transmitted infections occur every day. More than 1 million. Every day.

Child and Female Well-being

It is certainly no coincidence that the phrase “feminization of poverty” emerged shortly after the sexual revolution initiated the great divorce of sex, babies, and marriage. Feminist scholar Diane Pearce introduced the phrase in an important essay, explaining that, at the very time educational and employment opportunities were opening for women due to greater equality, “Poverty is rapidly becoming a female problem” because “the economic status of women has declined over the past several decades.” Very ironic, isn’t it?

Pearce, as well as George Akerlof, a Nobel Prize-winning University of California, Berkeley, and Georgetown University professor, lay the cause at the feet of men walking away from the responsibility to care for their own children, and their partners allowing them to do so. This is largely due to the emergence of chemical birth control and ready access to abortion. Women were supposedly “empowered,” in control of their own fertility. Consequently, men no longer felt responsible for pregnancies they helped generate.

This cultural shift ushered in severe consequences. Despite women’s increased fertility control, out-of-wedlock births have skyrocketed. They now account for 40 percent of all births, with many of these children being raised by single parents, resulting in not only poverty, but sometimes abuse. A live-in boyfriend is substantially more likely to be physically and sexually abusive to his single-parent girlfriend and her children than if they were married and raising their own biological children. Thus, women, children, and the larger community suffer from what people have done in the bedroom.

Bottom line: No architect or facilitator of the sexual revolution could have ever imaged the deep and vast human suffering their project has wrought. But there it is.

Cultural Universality

Cultural anthropologists know sex is a public act across diverse cultures because human sexuality always has the same public consequences. Every culture, in order to remain free, safe, and productive, must find a forceful and reliable way to regulate sexuality, ideally through the social expectation of long-term, monogamous marriage.

Professor Suzanne Frayser, in her magisterial anthropology of sexuality, explains that across diverse cultures, we find: “The person with whom an individual decides to have a sexual relationship with is as relevant to the group as the occasion for sexual encounters. Groups provide guidelines to channel a person’s choice of a sexual partner.” She contends, “Social restrictions limit a potentially wide and diverse pool of sexual partners to a definable range of acceptable companions.”

Yale University’s George Peter Murdock, a founding father in the discipline of cultural anthropology, explains from his team’s examination of 150 diverse cultures, “As a powerful impulse, often pressing individuals to behavior disruptive of the cooperative relationship upon which human social life rests, sex cannot be safely left without restraints.” Every known society has found it necessary to impose restrictions upon sexual expression to control its effects, he says.

Monogamy and Democracy

Nearly all societies have brought sex under control and regulated it through marriage. Polyamorous cultures do this less effectively, as we shall see. Oxford-trained anthropologist Fernando Henriques explains:

Unrestricted sexual license cannot be tolerated by society. Its existence would lead to perpetual dissension. On this ground alone, it is necessary for sexual relations to be ordered. … Thus no society exists – or has existed – where general promiscuity is the norm. To achieve order and regulation in sexual behavior, some form of marriage is necessary. … Marriage is necessary for the regulation of sexual life and stability of society.

Sexual guardrails are essential “for the simple reason that sex is really dangerous,” says Bronisław Malinowski. His is not a negative estimation. It’s a respectful one, recognizing the immense power and life- and community-altering consequence of human sexuality. Malinowski continues, “Sex is a great and wonderful power for evil and for good, and we must deal with it as we deal with other forces of nature: understand, respect, and control it in the light of truth.”

A fascinating 2012 article entitled “The Puzzle of Monogamous Marriage,” in the prestigious journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, examined how the “normative monogamy” of marriage has arisen and continues to arise across human cultures. It concluded the rise of this marital norm was not a result of its being “moral,” “wholesome,” or “traditional,” but for sheer pragmatism.

Monogamy as a community’s sexual norm simply makes for a much better society.

Monogamy as a community’s sexual norm simply makes for a much better society. Citizens are more likely to thrive, particularly women and children. In fact, the article attributes “democratic rights and civil liberties” to “the strength of normative monogamy,” concluding, “The peculiar institution of monogamous marriage may help explain why democratic ideals and notions of equality first emerged in the West.”

Monogamy, as a one-to-one negotiation, democratizes sexuality, making women more powerful agents in domestic and sexual relationships. This allows for and facilitates the democratization of the people at large.

Single and polygamous men collect women as sexual and domestic objects, which requires competition among men and the subjugation of women. As more women are collected by richer, more powerful men, the poorer, less attractive men must resort to trickery and violence to gain access to a smaller and more competitive market. This has egregious consequences for the community. Unexpectedly, these scholars found that normative monogamy reduced a community’s rates of overall violence by half.

Male and Female Impulses

Thus, society must bridle and corral particularly male sexuality. George Gilder explains this better than anyone, and his Men and Marriage is a must-read for anyone interested in this subject. He opens his book with this meaty first line: “The crucial process of civilization is the subordination of male sexual impulses and biology to the long-term horizons of female sexuality. … It is male behavior that must be changed to create a civilized order.”

He adds, “The prime fact of life is the sexual superiority of women.” Female sexuality is largely pro-social. Its energy and end are toward the purposes and power of the home, the primary and uncontested factory of humanity and civility. Male sexuality, in the state of nature, is fundamentally anti-social. Without externally imposed boundaries, it brings chaos and destruction. The unchecked college fraternity proves the point.

The incredible power and consequence of human sexuality, for incalculable good and devastating harm, judge it an undeniable public act. Societies that deny this fact can do so only by artificially constructing and continually maintaining a vast illusion. They do so to their own detriment.

No community in history, anywhere in the world, has found a way outside monogamous marriage to unleash sexuality’s profound goodness and limit its desolating harm. Irrefutable evidence demonstrates ours is no exception.

Glenn T. Stanton is a Federalist senior contributor who writes and speaks about family, gender, and art, is the director of family formation studies at Focus on the Family, and is the author of the brand new “The Myth of the Dying Church” (Worthy, 2019). He blogs at glenntstanton.com.
Photo Katie Salerno / Pexels.com

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/04/why-what-you-do-in-the-bedroom-doesnt-ever-stay-there/

5 Truths about God’s Design for Sex in Marriage

by Bonny

Living in an over-sexualized culture, we hear messages about sex, wrong messages.   These messages become more a part of us than God’s truth because we hear them repetitively and churches are scared to address sexuality.

For too long, I believed the world’s message about sex.   That it’s a superficial, feel-good avenue to self-satisfaction.   Wrong, partly.   God did design sex to feel good!

But, there is more than that.   He designed it for profound spiritual, physical, and emotional connection.   It is just a shadow of things to come.

God’s design of sex is too amazing to keep silent about.

Here are five truths about God’s design of sex in marriage.

God designed sex to be bonding.

Not only spiritually bonding, but emotionally and physically.   When the two become one flesh, biochemicals are released in our bodies like oxytocin and dopamine.   Oxytocin, especially, is a bonding chemical.   When I embraced this truth and started engaging in the marriage bed more, the tone of our marriage completely changed.

“This is why a man leaves his father and mother and bonds with his wife, and they become one flesh,” Genesis 2:24 (NIV).

God designed sex for both husband and wife to experience pleasure.

It’s an equal opportunity activity.   Why else would there be a clitoris?   It’s only function is for pleasure.   The Song of Solomon is full of beautiful poetic language about the pleasures of physical love for both spouses.

If one spouse struggles with the ultimate moment, there are Christian resources available to help the couple understand how to achieve mutual enjoyment.

“The mandrakes send out their fragrance, and at our door is every delicacy, both new and old, that I have stored up for you, my beloved,” Song of Solomon 7:13 (NIV).

God designed sex so that we would know yearning.

Before you were married, you yearned for your fianc.   Not only did you crave your fiance’s touch, you craved his/her presence and knowing him/her better.  Even after years of marriage, it is good to remember this yearning.  It mirrors how God desires us to yearn for him.   I believe this is one reason he frequently uses the marriage as a symbol of his relationship with us throughout the Bible.

“Or do you think Scripture says without reason that he jealously longs for the spirit he has caused to dwell in us?” James 4:5 (NIV).

God designed the marriage bed to be a place to show the fruit of the Spirit.

Peace, patience, love, joy, gentleness, kindness, faithfulness, goodness, and self-control are the foundation of all Christian life, especially the marriage bed.   All conflict surrounding the marriage bed can be managed through employing these key traits.

My own marriage endured a long season of mismatched sex drives.   It was through these qualities and some wise communication tools that we overcame our conflict.

God designed sex as a powerful mystery.

Biblical stories of sex often confused me when I was young.   There was some nasty stuff in the old testament, the rape of Dinah, Lot and his daughters, the men of Gibeah  clammering for the male visitor, Leviticus 20.   And yet, there is the beautiful Song of Solomon.   The New Testament seemed to prefer celibacy, to be honest.   As a teenager, I couldn’t understand why I liked thinking about sex if it was disgraceful and violent.

But, as an adult, I realized the stories were teaching me that sexual intimacy is powerful and mysterious.   It’s OK not to have it all figured out, as long as you respect the power it holds to do good when it is aligned with God’s perfect design.

“For my thoughts  are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the  Lord. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways  and my thoughts than your thoughts,” Isaiah 55:8-9.

Final Thoughts

Don’t let the world’s message of cheap sex destroy the meaningful sex in your marriage.   Sex may only be a small portion of the whole of your marriage.   However, sex matters.   It especially matters if one spouse is more interested than the other.   When we ignore its power and importance in marriage, the relationship suffers.

Now, granted chronic health issues can affect sexual function and that’s a more complicated story.

https://godinterest.com/2018/03/29/5-truths-about-gods-design-for-sex-in-marriage/

%d bloggers like this: