LGBTQ Equality or Liberation? WaPo

the key sentence.

“Yet being allowed to “distinguish between sex and love and her needs for both,” as Brown put it back when that freedom felt out of reach for a woman, has not stopped the kind of abuses that have inflamed #MeToo.”

It’s important to fully appreciate what “love” means in this quote. The author likely assumes “love” to mean emotional experience, expression or attachment. If you expand the word properly beyond the current frame of American expressive individualism it means whole life commitment for the wellbeing of the other. In other words something knocking on the door of marriage.

It is essentially the undoing of what Christianity wrought in the the disintegration of the Roman Empire. The Jews brought a very different vision of sexuality which can be seen even in those passages of the OT law that we tend to find offensive. Sex connects in a deep, ontological way.

Roman and Greek sexuality were basically masculine and the women suffered for it. The goal of their world was the same as the bathhouse but, as we all know. men want release and also like women so…

In the bathhouse there is no scarcity of supply to satisfy demand. It is analogous to so many other new features of our world. When we are concerned about “what to eat” we mean it in entirely different way that nearly everyone who lived just a few generations ago. Women are the ones that introduce scarcity into the marketplace of sex. Men propose and women dispose.

By noticing the lack of scarcity you should notice something foundational about male sexuality, it is impersonal. It is about the biology of the release. Oral, handjob, etc. it does not matter. Frank Schafer’s “Crazy for God” focuses on the religious oddities of his parents while being blithe about all of his mutual masturbation happening in the community of boys. These men were not gay, they were horny.

What women bring to the market is the idea of the sacred. To the man anything will do until the ubiquity of surplus leads one naturally down the road to keeper and keeper kink as abundance leads to boredom. The woman resists objectification because for her sex is personal, individual, all about attachment.

Any evolutionary biologist will tell you the story to explicate the difference between men and women, which is why they are so often at the forefront of resisting the great binary blur.

Now perhaps one might say that in this brave new world we ought to not only uncouple sex from love but also continue to uncouple it from reproduction. Place reproduction into the hands of experts and out of the laps of horny youngsters. Let the men get off all they want and the ladies find other less handsy ladies to cuddle and nurture with. At some point, however, you should not that we have departed from a story that is as old as we are and that this might have consequences far beyond what we might think.

I like this paragraph in the first Dreher piece and I agree.

As I’ve said in this space many times, the gay marriage campaign succeeded so thoroughly and so rapidly in large part because it built on what heterosexuals had already come to believe was true about sex and marriage. Gay marriage was inevitable, because straights had already queered sex and marriage via the Sexual Revolution. Yet gay marriage was a Rubicon for our society because it took those radical shifts past the breaking point, and locked them in to law and culture. All that followed was predictable, and it was in fact predicted, not because anybody had a crystal ball, but because it made logical sense.
I think there is in male/female sexuality some powerful natural buffers to that limit sex becoming simply another appetite. This is from women. The old saying is that women civilize men. 
Part of what is so insidious (and just plain wrong) about many of the current dogmas foisted on all of us and imbibed by the youth is that there are no substantive differences between boys and girls, men and women. The differences are deep but not always obvious partly because the thing we use to look out into the world with, consciousness, is a very small space that doesn’t really deal effectively with the sort of time frames we need to be thinking about. 
Part of why religious traditions are important is that they force us to confront dogmas and observations and demands not found in the instant of consciousness where our needs and desires tend to reign. 
Male sexual desire and lust is such that to say “only within consenting adults” is to put up no guardrail whatsoever. Consenting adults are capable of “consenting” in the heat of the moment, or at certain points over a lifetime of degraded and relentless mental and cultural grooming, to raping and being raped, to risking death to oneself or one’s sexual partners, to deliberately infecting others and/or deliberately, even fetishistically, exposing oneself to infection with anything and everything; to mutilating one’s body or somebody else’s body — to anything. To foster and normalize and promote an adult lifetime of “uninhibited” promiscuous multipartner sex is effectively to throw “consent” out the window. It cannot be done. People are human beings, they are not superhuman or machines, and you *will* break down in spots, in places, over time, you *will* find that your will fails you, that the evil part of you (and we all have that within us that is evil, all of us, somewhere) overwhelms you in some places.
Consent likewise happens by the will in that tiny window we call consciousness. We know from every bad decision we’ve ever made that this is a very weak faculty we have. 
Dreher a bit ago wrote about a high school where an 18 year old decided to get into the sex trade. It’s legal. School officials got nervous about it understanding quite rightly that having a very good looking student splaying herself on the Internet could be a bit disruptive to everyone else that shared that space and was supposed to be getting an education. A group of parents allied with media circled and encouraged her consensual decision to do porn for money and celebrated it as liberation. 
The difficult is of course that the 20 year old version of this girl has to live with the decisions of the 18 year old version, as does the 30 year old, 40 year old potentially mother of children if she will ever reproduce. 
A healthy culture helps all of us make decisions (consent) that are wise for the long run, the very long run past our 80 years or so into the centuries. We are rapidly squandering the riches we have inherited. pvk


About PaulVK

Husband, Father of 5, Pastor
This entry was posted in Culture commentary. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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