BreakPoint Blog

Banner
Banner
Monogamy is so 8,000 B.C.
Rating: 1.00

If you haven’t realized that sexuality in our civilization is no longer based on the Christian idea of lifelong commitment, you’re woefully behind the times. But even in the wake of the sexual revolution and the hookup culture of Generation Y, we seem to have retained a few vestiges of our grandparents’ morality. Give it some thought and you’ll realize that even celebrities and politicians get upset when their spouses cheat on them. And don’t forget the phenomenal success of reality shows like The Bachelorette. We still admire (if only for the emotional high it brings) the idea of falling in love and pledging eternal faithfulness to one another.

But never fear: CNN is here to save us from silly, medieval notions about lifelong commitment. In a recent slew of online editorials, the network appears to have declared war on monogamy, urging men (and especially women) to grow up and accept that promiscuity is a natural and healthy part of human sexuality.

“…There is no reason to believe monogamy comes naturally to human beings,” writes psychologist and author, Christopher Ryan. “In fact, for millions of years, evolutionary forces have cultivated human libido to the point where ours is arguably the most sexual species on Earth.”

Ryan, who co-authored the new book Sex At Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality, insists that monogamy is a relatively recent invention which arose out of the agricultural revolution about 10,000 years ago, and that such an arrangement does great violence to our natural proclivity for communal sex:

“Our ancestors evolved in small-scale, highly egalitarian foraging groups that shared almost everything…  Most foragers divide and distribute meat equitably, breast-feed one another's babies, have little or no privacy from one another, and depend upon each other every day for survival. [But] with agriculture, the human female went from occupying a central, respected role to being just another possession for men to accumulate and defend, along with [a man’s] house, slaves and asses.”

In another recent editorial, CNN Special Shannon Cook interviews a former “sugarbabe” (read: prostitute) who goes by the pseudonym Holly Hill. Hill, whose memoir has sold over 24,000 copies in her native Australia, insists that if women want to maintain strong relationships, they should negotiate infidelity with the men in their lives.

“Women need to remember the difference between why women and men have sex," she says. “Women tend to value intimacy. For men it's often the thrill of the chase, or the quick sex with a stranger. It…has nothing to do with us as a loving girlfriend or wife. Once we understand that, it's much easier to let him go off.”

Like Ryan, Hill appeals to our alleged roots in the animals kingdom as the basis for her skepticism about monogamy:

"We just have to be honest about the way nature created us, and we have to work with nature instead of working against her. This isn't rocket science. This is what every man already knows and I think what every woman deep down already knows."

As a young, single man committed to waiting for my future bride and remaining faithful to her thereafter, I take strong exception to Hill’s and Ryan’s characterization of men as emotionless sex-machines driven by animal instinct.

But what really has me worried is the ease with which both of these best-selling authors dismiss the existence of the most basic and important of all human values: love.

Their celebration of mindless animal sexuality serves as a sobering reminder of what happens when we deny the Image of the moral, loving God which we all bear.


Comments:

Total: 30 << Previous Page     Next Page >>
Why is avoiding sexual monotony so important, Ben?
Chris raises an interesting point: both Christians and non-Christians recognize man's sexual tendency to wander, but they address this in separate ways. Many people (Christian and non-Christian) endorse monogamy, aka "neutering" this sexual wanderlust. On the other hand, other small groups try to work within the fallen nature of mankind with open marriages, swinging, polygamy, or polyamory - multiple sanctioned sexual relationships.

We can draw an analogy to intense physical exercise for ADD kids: instead of trying to get them to calm down in the classroom by disciplining them, you let them get their energy out somewhere else. And it's an apt analogy, as often it's easier and more fruitful to learn to work with people's problems, instead of attempting to changing them.
But leaving it there would be a gross oversimplification of the issue. There are the obvious problems/questions: (1) Are these "special" relationships just Pyrrhic victories? Does this idea - of opening up a relationship to relieve sexual monotony - simply end up destroying or completely devaluing the relationship it's meant to save? (2) Obviously and importantly, this is anti-Christian (Possible exceptions for polygamy? Church tradition has been against it since, like, forever).

I'm not sure where Chris was going with that - I just wanted to get my thoughts out on paper.

How can the Church address the fallen nature other than "neutering" it?
There's a post on it, Christopher. You're welcome to start a thread there, if you'd like.

http://thepoint.breakpoint.org/tp-home/blog-archives/blog-archives/entry/4/15052
Gregory
I appreciate your points about "Romanticism" as an artistic movement.

Saying "being in love" (which I have loosely, and perhaps incorrectly referred to as Romanticism) as a motivation for marriage came from Christianity is a great point...that point being it's some of that bad advice we spoke about earlier.

Sure, "being in love" is a great feeling, and you're blessed if your marriage inspires that feeling. It is however, neither a requisite for marriage, nor a command for marriage. To believe so is an added burden on husbands, wives, and even people dating.

As for the assessment of other motivations for relationships, as expressed by Ryan and Hill, you're free to disagree. But when a non-Christian can make observations about how fallen man is, I say it's wrong to dismiss that as having a diabolical source. It's "American Romanticism that embraced the individual and rebelled against the confinement of neoclassicism and religious tradition." And the "total depravity" of man is one of those traditions that is often ignored or downplayed. What an opportunity to share the Gospel when a non-Christian actually recognizes that we've got problems. How's that for tying up loose ends!

Steve wrote:
"If it is, on what basis do we fight it or give into it? ...
What do you see as 'the resolution'? Dubbing them 'sinful by nature' and moving on? Or something more nuanced?"

I'm flattered you asked. I think the Church has to understand the facts of human nature.

"Being in love" is one of many facts to consider. How does this tie to marriage and dating (or courtship.) What is its influence, and what influences it? Do men and women "fall in love" over the same things? Are their responses the same? How does this feeling connect with phileo and agape, especially between people of the opposite sex?

Those answers are known, they just aren't overly popular. And they're often presented in a context that makes them more unpalatable than need be.

If men really so highly driven by nature, how do you address it? By neutering them? That's what most psychotherapy attempts to do, including 'Christian' ones like 12-step programs and Every Man's Battle. But, given their poor success rate I'd suggest something else should be explored.

It's also a challenge to think about the roles in marriage. Men and women are different. How does that affect their roles and responsibilities, in the church and in marriage?

If we understand their respective roles and responsibilities better, I personally believe we'd come up w/ a more effective approach to addressing the reality about men, than what persists among most* churches.

Yeah, I'm shy on details here b/c it's not a simple thing. I've tried to integrate lots of ideas from books, personal observations/experiences, and the Bible. When I'm brief, people jump on me, and when I'm long, people get bored. And then Lee and Rolley are always trying to stir the pot :P (Saw the NSO do Looney Tunes at Wolf Trap last Fri! Plenty of Elmer Fudd.)

Oh yeah, I thought today's Breakpoint commentary was great. Would love to see a thread get started on it!

*Based on my limited observation of churches, and what's popular in Christian books and talk radio.
SBK, this thread would be in danger of dying if we took the quote "Tiger Woods does not have a problem." and asked rhetorically "Oh, so you're saying it's all Elin's fault? That wives are to blame for not shrugging off the infidelities of their husbands?!?" That is, the thread would die of third-degree burns as enraged women dropped load after load of verbal napalm. So I'm not going to bring it up.

But if I did, more women than Gina (who is quite capable of holding her own in the midst of a debate with any number of men, but who in Alan's terms only counts as one) would offer their comments.

'Cuz it sounds like the writers are saying that women are insufficiently evolved. (sound of feminists starting up their fighter-bombers, as the "Danger Zone" theme from "Top Gun" blares)
We’re Having a Wawwy!
.
Oops. That was “An Amewican Tail”, wasn’t it?

Still…

Reminds me of an off-topic joke: Q: Why did Elmer Fudd get hit by a train? A: He didn’t see any signs saying “WW Cwossing”.

Ok, back to your regular programming…
Yes, Gregory is Shane. Sorry for the confusion.
I think this thread is in danger of dying... (like... a loveless marriage?) *cough*

Actually, let me work this through.

1) Gregory is Shane, right?
2) Love is central to the Christian faith (the 'tapestry' of love having various threads).
3) I think Christopher has been largely ignored because of the perceived attack on 'love'. I think we should focus on dealing with what he asks: Are men 'by nature' anti-monogomous? Is that *true*? If it is, on what basis do we fight it or give into it? And to bring in another thread... how does this relate to 'homosexual natures'? Am I right in asking these questions Christopher?
What do you see as 'the resolution'? Dubbing them 'sinful by nature' and moving on? Or something more nuanced?
Lee, setting on people from all sides is a laudable practice if you can manage it. However it is so difficult to arrange that most prefer to have one detachment pin them and the other strike the blow. One of the few to ever set on his enemy from all sides was Von Moltke, and everyone else thought he was bloomin nuts even though he creamed the Austrians, thus making lines on a map move.

As for adding fuel to the fire being unsporting, well yes it is. But it was phenomenally useful when we did so by giving lots of trucks to Russia, thus helping them shoo away Von Moltke's less gentlemanly descendants leaving fewer of them around to interfere when we arrived to make lines on a map move yet again.

Of course I am getting off track as neither of those two incidents is directly related to hypothetical antimonogamous noble savages. On the other hand, both describe an activity which hunter-gatherers engage in with great enthusiasm, at least partly to obtain the esteem of the female members of the tribe to which they are not monogamously married.
That bwessed awwangement...
That dweam within a dweam!
(Wow - both Christopher and Gregory are quite intellectually engaged on this issue, and it would seem they have an emotional investment as well. And now they're being set upon from all sides by no less than Jason, Gina and Rolley, and are even pushing each other's buttons. How incredibly entertaining!! It is incredibly tempting to add fuel to the fire to see if one or both of them might go absolutely apoplectic in an impressive performance. And I know just the thing to do it: quoting from the "Mawwiage" sermon from "The Princess Bride", with "And wuv, *twue* wuv, will fowwow you fowevah...".

But no doubt Jason would remind me that such behavior on my part is distinctly unsporting, and has been so since the Somebodys did it to the Somebody Elses in some incident hundreds of years ago and made lines on a map move. So knowing in advance of his rebuke, I'll refrain.

Sigh.

But it sure is fun to imagine it...)
Actually, Christopher...
Romanticism as a literary movement has little, if anything to do with what we now associate with "romance." It centered around a revolt against science and the scientific ability to rationalize nature.

You are, however, right about one thing. The idea of "being in love" as a basis for marriage did not gain widespread acceptance until relatively recent times. But here's where you miss the mark: the beginning of modern "love-based" marriages was largely the result of a powerful cultural force which swept Europe and forever changed the face of Western Civilization. That cultural force was Christianity.

Christianity, with its roots in Judaism (the religion which inspired the best-known love ballad of all time) and its seditiously favorable view of women and monogamous marriage, chivalry and its comparison of the very love between God and His people to the love of a Groom for His bride elevated romance to a level of honor not seen since Eden.

To denigrate or give up that heritage of romance is to give up a huge part of what it means to be truly human. And make no mistake: Christianity is, above all else, a humanizing influence. It draws every culture it touches up to new heights of dignity and freedom by replacing savagery with civility, slavery with liberty and lasciviousness with love.

What Hill and Ryan peddle are nothing less than lies from the pit of Hell. You’re wasting your time if you hope to find anything true or beneficial in their suggestions.
Got no issue w/ Romantic love
It's the movement (philosophy?) of Romanticism. Two related, but different things.

But more to the point, I'm disagreeing that "love" is the #1 driver for the relationships that Ryan and Hill are discussing.

We discussed "bad advice" on another thread. Well, here's some bad advice: believe that "love" is the sole, or even the main, driver to pursue marriage. I'm sure you can come up w/ a way of defining "love" to make that true, but it won't be a useful word b/c it will require so many explanations and definitions, and will still result in lots of misunderstanding.

In fact, I'll personally guarantee that last part, b/c look around at orthodox, evangelical churches, and you still see a high divorce rate. And despite decades of books (many really good) by Dobson, McDowell, Elliot, Chapman, Eggerich, Harris, Parrot&Parrot, etc, you _still_ have confusion over this issue of "love".

Moreover, that's not even the starting point in the Bible when discussing marriage. So maybe, just maybe, it's worth listening to Ryan or Hill, spending some time to discern what truths they may have, and then taking those truths captive and coming up with a better view on marriage.

And if it makes you feel better, there really is no harm in listening to "The Way You Look Tonight."
Cupid (or is it Cochise?), Taking Aim
Cupid (or is it Cochise?), Taking Aim
.
“….contradicts scripture”?????

Christopher, don’t trip over the elephant looking for the peanut.

The Peanut: The notion that “Romanticism [seemingly was] smuggled into Christianity.”

The Elephant: The fact that every aspect of noble human love, including romantic, is emblematic of the love Christ has for His bride. Christ loves us more than His own life. The matrimonial words from the Book of Common Prayer are but faint echoes of the ineffable groans of Christ’s yearning when, dying, He effectually declared to us, “with My body I thee worship.”

The Biblical admonishment, “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church” doesn’t mean JUST taking all the bullets for the other person living in your house -- although certainly, above all else it means that. It also means you do it because of how utterly precious that other person is (or should be) to you!

Recall it is possible for us, martyr-like, to fake even agape: for we can “bestow all our goods to feed the poor, and give our bodies to be burned, AND [yet still] HAVE NOT LOVE…”

We, like God, are to love “with all the heart, soul, mind, and might.” How can one not see romantic love in that?

Twang!
Doobie doobie doo
"What made you think Shane wasn't working with a biblical definition of the word "love"?"

Gina, I did ask what he meant by that word. I also followed two lines of thought for varying definitions. Those I chose because they seemed most relevant (and that you brought up I Cor 13).

Nevertheless, it doesn't dismiss my main assertation that Ryan and Hill have capturd some truth. Maybe not the whole truth (let's hope not), but you can't dismiss them outright. Well, not if you really want a sound and valid world view.

So, when Roissy writes, "As a valiant avatar of the ugly truths, I’m here to tell the collected wisdom of the armies of psychotherapists swinging their degrees like battle axes: Tiger Woods does not have a problem. What he has is a male sex drive, and a willingness to fulfull it. In so doing, he makes you confront your worst fears about the base instincts of humanity unleashed in glorious wanton hedonism. You shirk not because of what Tiger does, but because you tremble before your fear of what most men would do given the opportunities available to a man with Woods’ high social and material status." You can choose to believe that he's some crank blogger, or you can consider it, and recognize that his assessment may match the Biblical account more than Steven Arterburn. (Ok, in fairness, I've only heard Arterburn on the radio, and haven't read his books.)

And _if_ that's true (you're free to decide that it's not) then what should be the approach of the Church? 'Cause "Every Man's Battle" probably ain't the right answer.

Jason, I don't think I'm holding human love in contempt at all. Sorry it comes across that way. Rather, I am trying to look at it more realistically.
I guess I'm just curious, Christopher, as to why you saw the word "love" and went instantly to thoughts of romanticism, Valentines, and Guns and Roses. (Guns and Roses?? Why not Sinatra? Let's at least try and keep the joint classy. ;-) ) What made you think Shane wasn't working with a biblical definition of the word "love"?
"Which definition of "love" are we talking about here? Valentines and Cupids?

Or, if we're really talking about agape, how and why are all of these non-Christians supposed to be looking for it w/o the benfit of the Holy Spirit?"

The assumption that human love is to be held in contempt because it is never divine charity in it's purest form is rather like holding the moon in contempt because it is not the sun.
I may be missing the point
it's entirely possible.

But, it's curious that I'm the one missing it when I'm the one who is NOT ignoring, "the overwhelming weight of human history, traditions, desires, art, etc." Because it's not I who is putting the romantic spin on all of that.

Dig a little deeper beneath that veneer of shiny pebbles, and you might find human nature is more complex than G'n'R's "Sweet Child of Mine."

And while I'm no literary historian, it is precisely because ballads, Valentine's cards, and love sonnets are so relatively new that I'm suggesting that this romantic love has not been the sole, or even the main driver, for human relationships through the centuries. And if you check out Browning's "Soliloquy of the Spanish Cloister" or some of the moasics uncovered at Pompeii, you'll find some of the seemier stuff has been around for even longer.

Heck, even reading Song of Solomon shows that there is far more going on than hugs and kisses. Same could be said for the relationships of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and David.

None of this is to say that "love" (again, whatever that means) doesn't exist, nor that it's unimportant. Of course it's important. Of course it plays a role in human relationships, and in particular those of Christians. But, if you dismiss others' observations _strictly_ b/c they don't fit some preferred paradigm, you aren't likely to find truth (although you may get some funding in the field of Climate Science). And for Christians, when that paradigm is a worldly artifact that contradicts scripture, you're in even worse shape. (I think Galatians and Colossians speak to that)
Total: 30 << Previous Page     Next Page >>