harmful extremes dehumanize sex

Readership:  All concerned adults, including parents of teenage children

The current “hook-up” culture is one extreme that is quite harmful.  In this culture or behavior pattern, individual adults seek sexual partners for sense gratification absent any emotional attraction or attachment.  People who do not know each other rather easily and hastily get into bed with each other for sex.  (This is often times facilitated by the use of online sites and services.)  One might opine, as others have, that this type of behavior is merely mutual masturbation, or the using of each other’s bodies for physical release.  Once the sexual encounter is over, the individuals go their own ways and often do not see each other again unless it is for another convenient sexual encounter.

The rise in marital infidelity among the younger generation is in no small part due to this “hook-up” behavior prior to marriage.  Many individuals who have been promiscuous in the past have trouble adjusting to monogamy once married.  Their seeking sex outside their marriage may in part be caused by the desire for sexual novelty, the novelty or thrill of having sex with a new and different partner.

We think that this promiscuous behavior, sans self control, and without emotional involvement of the sexual partners dehumanizes sex.  What sets human beings apart from the lower orders of life is that sex can be an expression and experience of love and emotional bonding between the lovers (sexual partners, ideally husband and wife).  Animals are not capable of this as sex in the animal kingdom is exclusively for reproduction.  (There are a few exceptions among some of the primates where sex seems to be for sense pleasure and is not always geared to reproduction.)  “Hook-up” sex negates the emotional dimension of sex for the partners, and thus dehumanizes sex, albeit the passing physical excitement of the sex may be undiminished.

The other extreme that serves to dehumanize sex is the belief that sex within marriage is solely for procreation purposes.  This belief, that still influences much Christian thinking even today, was based on an erroneous understanding of how human reproduction works.  We now know that the woman is only fertile, only able to conceive a child for a short time each month (about 2 to 3 days each month).  The rest of the time humans are still capable of and desirous of sex.  (We also now know that there is not a fully formed human being at a microscopic level contained within the male seminal fluid.  This was believed for centuries to be the true state of things.  We can use our modern scientific knowledge to revisit our thinking on the purposes of sex.  As well, we can consider the collective experiences of mankind to see that sex is not merely for reproduction.)

The sexual love between the spouses is important in bonding them to each other and in helping to strengthen their marriage.  As the anthropologists have told us since the 1950s, the non-seasonal sexual interest of the male for the female was the key factor in the long-term pairing of males with females seen for thousands of years, even dating back to earlier forms of humanity.  (But, let us not ignore, nor minimize that women, too, have a sex drive.)  And, of course, the presence of the father in the home is very necessary for the welfare of the wife and the children.  But, the attraction between the spouses is not merely physical, sex is quite powerful emotionally and psychologically.  Spouses need sexual intimacy, and it is about more than just physical release.

The “sex is only for making babies” view does harm to married couples.  Such a view devalues or negates the emotional and psychological dimensions of loving married sexuality, and thus dehumanizes sex.

It is best to recognize and avoid harmful extremes in the area of sex.  Marriage, as an institution, has not failed in these terrible times.  Rather, individuals have failed in living up to the personal responsibilities that a successful marriage requires.

As we have written previously on what we believe to be the true purpose of sexual morality, and on the topic of gate keeping wives, we refer interested readers to use the search box to read related posts on this blog.

other related thoughts

Liberals and “progressives” will say that there is no value in teaching children abstinence as it does not work 100 per cent of the time (as in not all children will accept the message and act accordingly).  Thus, they do not want state funding in the public schools for abstinence based sex-ed.

Does that not strike you as odd?

Are there any deterrents that work one hundred per cent of the time?  But, we still employ various deterrents on a daily basis without giving these much thought.  Do you lock your doors when you leave your home and when you arrive home?  Say, that will not stop every intruder, but locked doors will deter many would be intruders.  Do not listen to these liberals and progressives as they are not pragmatic and are increasingly detached from reality immersed as they are in their dogmatic ideology.

We have opined on this blog previously that we believe both parents need to take an active role in teaching their children about sex, its purposes and value, and about personal responsibility.  Parents, do not abdicate your responsibility in this area by allowing the schools to be the only source of sex-ed for your children.  We are living in a largely toxic culture, and our children are receiving daily messages that harm their thinking and need to be countered by loving, involved parents.

Parents, both mothers and fathers need to be in the room with their sons, and then with their daughters when sex is discussed.  Encourage your adolescent children to come to you with questions and concerns in this area.  Teach them abstinence so as to try to protect them from very harmful mistakes they can make at their age when their judgment is prone to yielding to impulses of the moment.

Our feature image is of a street scene on a winter Sunday in downtown San Francisco, and was selected randomly for this post.  There are several such concrete canyons in the financial district.

 

 

copyright 2020 – larrysmusings.com

One comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s