The Truth about Sex

[Tylyr]

I recently put together this video talking about the reasoning behind why certain sexual acts (such as homosexuality, masturbation, use of contraceptives, etc.) are immoral.
I also made a video answering some frequently asked questions about the first video, I'll link that below too!
Thoughts?

 

[alexandriaisburning]

I recently put together this video talking about the reasoning behind why certain sexual acts (such as homosexuality, masturbation, use of contraceptives, etc.) are immoral.
I also made a video answering some frequently asked questions about the first video. Thoughts?

Trying to establish a set of rules for human sexuality is, IMO, a highly naive approach to theologizing about human sexuality. The structures you've suggested would condemn as "immoral" the vast majority of human relationships prior to the establishment of whatever political/religious environments would normalize such a view (including the majority of those in Scripture).

Also, some of your examples are simply bad. For example, you appear to not understand how legal surrogacy works.

 

[Tylyr]

Also, some of your examples are simply bad. For example, you appear to not understand how legal surrogacy works.

Thanks for the comment!

I do understand how legal surrogacy works. If I understand it correctly, it does not involve actually having sexual intercourse.
However, I was not talking about "legal" surrogacy. I was just talking about one simple example of surrogacy in which sexual intercourse is involved (which does happen).

Trying to establish a set of rules for human sexuality is, IMO, a highly naive approach to theologizing about human sexuality. The structures you've suggested would condemn as "immoral" the vast majority of human relationships prior to the establishment of whatever political/religious environments would normalize such a view (including the majority of those in Scripture).

I don't think this is a "set of rules". Also, how would the structures I've suggested condemn a vast majority of human relationships?

 

[alexandriaisburning]

I do understand how legal surrogacy works. If I understand it correctly, it does not involve actually having sexual intercourse.
However, I was not talking about "legal" surrogacy. I was just talking about one simple example of surrogacy in which sexual intercourse is involved (which does happen).

A simple example, sure, but also not a very good one in support of your argument. Highlighting what most people would consider to be fairly aberrant behavior doesn't go very far in supporting your position. Using an "extreme" as an example tends to detract from the weight of logic, not enhance it.

I don't think this is a "set of rules".

How so? Your main argument is that if this triangulation of relationship and behavior is not present within the act of sexual intercourse, then the act of sex is "immoral". By virtue of this proposition, the alternative conclusion is necessary that a rehearsal of the prescription constitutes a moral act of sex.

Also, how would the structures I've suggested condemn a vast majority of human relationships?

It is a necessary conclusion based on the criteria that you have suggested constitute a "moral" sexual act; and if a sexual act occurs outside the union of these three pillars, the sexual act is immoral (your words). However, for the vast majority of human history (both evolutionarily and culturally), this triangulation has not been the norm, nor even considered of much value whatsoever. Therefore, we must conclude that the vast majority of human sexual relationships throughout the whole of history have been immoral (including most of those within Scripture). Such a sweeping pronouncement smacks of moral arrogance, not of a fully-reasoned and nuanced expression of sexual ethics that is able to transcend the specific cultural mores of a small segment of human history.

 

[Tylyr]

Therefore, we must conclude that the vast majority of human sexual relationships throughout the whole of history have been immoral (including most of those within Scripture).

Are you talking about examples like King David where he had many wives?
If so, are you saying that polygamy is moral?

 

[dayhiker]

Thank God that he delivered me from all those mixed up ways of thinking a couple of decades ago! I don't see anything about disordered acts in the Bible.

 

[Tylyr]

Thank God that he delivered me from all those mixed up ways of thinking a couple of decades ago! I don't see anything about disordered acts in the Bible.

Why do you say they messed up ways of thinking?

 

[alexandriaisburning]

Are you talking about examples like King David where he had many wives?

That would be a specific example, but I'm speaking more broadly about how sexuality was viewed (and perhaps is still viewed in some cultures) outside of the very narrow Western, "Christian" view that you are espousing. In order for the triangulation of "moral sexual relations" to work, there have to exist particular, shared assumptions about the nature of human personhood, the relative "equality" of the sexes, and so on. I think you would find it an impossible task to apply your "trinity" of sexual orderedness to any period of human history prior to the last 100 years or so (and even that may be way to wide of a net).

If so, are you saying that polygamy is moral?

Not necessarily. First of all, polygamy is not strictly about sexual relationships. In its most specific sense, it is about legal (and perhaps religious) marriage relationships; it would be quite possible for a man or a woman to be "married" to a number of individuals without having sexual contact with them. So are we talking about the "morality" of being legally/religiously married to more than one person, the "morality" of having sexual contact with these partners, or both?

 

[BadHabit]

Interesting videos. Not much else I can say. Sex is a topic I try to avoid talking about or even thinking about, but the videos were interesting to go through.

 

[Tylyr]

That would be a specific example, but I'm speaking more broadly about how sexuality was viewed (and perhaps is still viewed in some cultures) outside of the very narrow Western, "Christian" view that you are espousing. In order for the triangulation of "moral sexual relations" to work, there have to exist particular, shared assumptions about the nature of human personhood, the relative "equality" of the sexes, and so on. I think you would find it an impossible task to apply your "trinity" of sexual orderedness to any period of human history prior to the last 100 years or so (and even that may be way to wide of a net).

I think it is a very easily possible to apply this "trinity of sexual orderedness" to any period of human history. Why do you think it is impossible to apply to any period of human history?

Not necessarily. First of all, polygamy is not strictly about sexual relationships. In its most specific sense, it is about legal (and perhaps religious) marriage relationships; it would be quite possible for a man or a woman to be "married" to a number of individuals without having sexual contact with them. So are we talking about the "morality" of being legally/religiously married to more than one person, the "morality" of having sexual contact with these partners, or both?

Just the sexual contact with these partners.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

I think it is a very easily possible to apply this "trinity of sexual orderedness" to any period of human history. Why do you think it is impossible to apply to any period of human history?

Sorry, I didn't complete my thought in that last sentence. What I meant was that I think you'd find it impossible to apply this standard to prior periods of human history without also condemning all (or at least most) periods of human history, including most, if not all, examples of marital relationships from Scripture. We simply don't see this ideal of sexual orderedness in historical examples of human sexuality. So then, if your thesis that such orderedness is the rubric for "moral" sexual relationships, then we must by extension conclude that anything outside of this orderedness is "immoral."

Just the sexual contact with these partners.

Based strictly on criteria you have set out in the triangulation of moral sexual relationships, I don't see anything within polygamy that would necessarily require one to label it as immoral. I know in your video that you make the assumption of monogamous marriage, but it is not strictly required by the "triangle". Perhaps yours is really more of a rectangle?

 

[Tylyr]

Sorry, I didn't complete my thought in that last sentence. What I meant was that I think you'd find it impossible to apply this standard to prior periods of human history without also condemning all (or at least most) periods of human history, including most, if not all, examples of marital relationships from Scripture. We simply don't see this ideal of sexual orderedness in historical examples of human sexuality. So then, if your thesis that such orderedness is the rubric for "moral" sexual relationships, then we must by extension conclude that anything outside of this orderedness is "immoral."

I agree that many sexual acts committed throughout history would be considered immoral with this rubric, and you say that this is a problem. Why is it a problem if many sexual acts are condemned? Matthew 7:13, right? "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it."

Based strictly on criteria you have set out in the triangulation of moral sexual relationships, I don't see anything within polygamy that would necessarily require one to label it as immoral. I know in your video that you make the assumption of monogamous marriage, but it is not strictly required by the "triangle". Perhaps yours is really more of a rectangle?

No, it is still a triangle. The monogamous nature of sexual relations lies within the "Intimacy" aspect of sexual intercourse. In Mark 10:1-12 Christ says God made them male and female and they shall be joined together to form one flesh. He even goes as far to say that whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. We clearly see the life-long commitment that God made the sexual union between one-man and one-woman to be. Again, all this lies within the "Intimacy" aspect of sexual intercourse; or rather, how God made sexual intimacy to be.

Interesting videos. Not much else I can say. Sex is a topic I try to avoid talking about or even thinking about, but the videos were interesting to go through.

Thanks for the input!

 

[alexandriaisburning]

I agree that many sexual acts committed throughout history would be considered immoral with this rubric, and you say that this is a problem. Why is it a problem if many sexual acts are condemned? Matthew 7:13, right? "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it."

I'm not talking strictly about the sexual acts themselves. I'm speaking more generally about the kinds of sexual relationships that have existed throughout human history, across all religions, cultures, etc. From the perspective of basic moral reasoning, I would suggest that conclusions which condemn as immoral the vast majority of human persons is far too simplistic and is probably a victim of a naivety and myopia of one's own moral convictions (which ultimately comes across as an extreme case of self-righteousness).

Regarding your quotation of Matthew 7:13, why should we assume that this has anything to do with morality? Are human persons justified based on their morality?

No, it is still a triangle. The monogamous nature of sexual relations lies within the "Intimacy" aspect of sexual intercourse.

It lies in your assumptions about the "intimacy" aspect. You are relying on a presupposition that monogamy implicitly achieves intimacy, but this is certainly not a viable proposition. It is entirely possible to envision a monogamous relationship in which the sexual partners have very little, if any, of the "intimacy" which you might imagine. And conversely, it is also entirely possible to envision a polygamous relationship in which there is infinitely more intimacy between the sexual partners than in a given monogamous relationship. This is a natural conclusion, of course, because "intimacy" in sexual relationships is not strictly about "numbers", but rather about the nature of the relationships between the partners.

One could, of course, argue that if all things are equal (quality of relationships, sexual attraction of partners, etc), the intimacy of a monogamous union would naturally be greater because of less stress on distribution of "relationship". However, we would have to question if this same logic applies to other non-sexual human relationships as well (parent/child relationships, acquaintances, etc.). I've seen studies which suggest that there is a fairly regular "limit" to the number of intimate (not sexual) relationships that one is able to maintain at one time; the same is probably generally true for sexual relationships as well.

In Mark 10:1-12 Christ says God made them male and female and they shall be joined together to form one flesh. He even goes as far to say that whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. We clearly see the life-long commitment that God made the sexual union between one-man and one-woman to be. Again, all this lies within the "Intimacy" aspect of sexual intercourse; or rather, how God made sexual intimacy to be.

I'm not sure this verse actually supports your position. The discussion of committing adultery against the first wife occurs in the context of divorcing her. There is no direct prohibition against remaining married to the first wife and then taking another.

Of course, I'm not particularly interested in "defending" polygamy; regardless of what was permitted in the Jewish state, the early church fathers were fairly unanimous in their denunciation of it. My only *real* point of even going down this line of reasoning is to show that the ethic of sexuality that you have suggested in one which lacks a substantive interaction with the history of human sexuality beyond a wholesale condemnation of it.

 

[Tylyr]

My only *real* point of even going down this line of reasoning is to show that the ethic of sexuality that you have suggested in one which lacks a substantive interaction with the history of human sexuality beyond a wholesale condemnation of it.

Alright. I think I found the source of our disagreement. I think you are talking subjectively, while I am talking objectively.
Obviously, subjective to historical context, a person can be in line with morality even if they commit objectively immoral actions.

For example, slavery. Across the world in our current time, the objective condemnation of slavery is pretty much universal. The simple act of owning another human being as property is seen as immoral. Does this mean that every single person who ever owned a slave is out of line with morality?? Of course not. Why? Because their actions are subjective to historical context. A person can be subjectively in line with morality even if they commit objectively immoral actions.

When it comes to sexuality, the same concept applies. Am I saying that King David was an immoral man for having sexual relations with more than one woman? Of course not. Why? Because his actions are subjective to historical context. King David can be subjectively in line with morality even though he committed objectively immoral actions.

So I do not believe that the ethic of sexuality that I have suggested lacks a substantive interaction with the history of human sexuality beyond a wholesale condemnation of it.
In fact, it works a lot like Christ's objective condemnation of divorce.

Matthew 10:2-6
And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away.” But Jesus said to them, “For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female....

Does Jesus' condemnation of divorce lack substantive interaction with history? Of course not. Why? Because he addresses that divorce was allowed as a subjective moral standard, "for your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment", but Christ still affirms the standard of divorce as objectively immoral, "but from the beginning of creation".

So does the ethic of sexuality that I have suggested lack a substantive interaction with human history? Of course not. I am not saying that every single person who committed a disordered act of sexual intercourse are out of line with subjective morality. However, I am saying that every single disordered act of sexual intercourse is out line with objective morality.

Do you agree that this might sum up the totality of our disagreement?

 

[dayhiker]

Why do you say they messed up ways of thinking?

The teaching that masturbation was sinful for one messed up my thinking. It was adding to the word of God because God never said it was sinful.

 

[Tylyr]

The teaching that masturbation was sinful for one messed up my thinking. It was adding to the word of God because God never said it was sinful.

Why did the teaching that masturbation is sinful mess up your thinking?

 

[dayhiker]

It caused false guilt and shame.

 

[Tylyr]

It caused false guilt and shame.

Why did the teaching that masturbation is sinful cause guilt and shame?

 

[dayhiker]

Because I believe what they said ... once I studied the Bible for myself, it was clear that masturbation wasn't a sin and I could enjoy it and thank God for all the pleasure He created me to have.

 

[Cimorene]