Evangelicals need to “Take the Red Pill” about erotic desire

Take the red pill
Admit Reality – Holy Men Like Sex

Fox news has noted a phenomenon of liberals who have “Taken the Red Pill” and given up on the fantasy world of liberalism.

I propose that there is another group of people living in the Matrix. Evangelicals who pretend that the normal erotic desire than men have had since Adam first spotted Even without her fig leaf.   By pretending that there is such a thing as a Christian man who does not “lust” they live in a world in which the Bible has no relevance to the lives of the saints.

This is why the church men’s groups are all about “overcoming porn addictions” and “controlling sexual desires.”  They are living in a fantasy world where a normal red-blooded man can have the brain of a woman.  By demanding this, they are creating a church of firstly, few men, and secondly, hypocritical men.  Men who are pretending that they aren’t “addicted” to sex.

Every time I see a youtube video of some preacher proclaiming how wrong it is to look at naked women, I reply “You are lying, you know and I know and every man knows that you watched porn THIS WEEK. Stop trying to lie to youself, us, and God.  None of us are fooled.”

If we would admit this simple fact to ourselves, then we could read the Bible for what it actually says instead of what our Mama’s interpreted it to mean.  Men are supposed to be sexual creatures.   Like David we are supposed to enjoy the sight Bathsheba’s bathing beauty.  But we are supposed to be men enough to direct that desire into Godly channels.

If we would fight the battle at the fortress of God’s commands, instead of man’s traditions, we might find that we would

Take the red pill.

Guest Article: Unmarried Christians Can Have Sex

Below is a guest article by a contributor who contacted me about this website.  He and his wife are pastors of an evangelical church.   In his opinion (which I don’t necessarily share) premarital sex is not a sin and we have forced a lot of Christian young people out of the church by demanding that they keep a command which is not in the Bible.

For my response to this, see the following post  Christian Young People and Sexual Desire

—————

“Show it to me in the Word!”

That’s what my pastor said that Christians should say whenever someone told them that they must or must not do something.  I was a young Christian, a teenager who had just given his life to the Lord a few short days before, attending church for the first time and hungry for the things of God.  As Christians, he said, we were given great liberty in what we could do, but there were many misguided or ignorant people who would want to infringe on our liberty by telling us that something was a sin.  That’s when we should say, “Show it to me in the Word!” because if the Scriptures were silent on something, then we as Christians were free to do as we pleased.

As it happened, at almost the same exact time that I became a Christian, I got my first real girlfriend.  Susie didn’t understand my new faith, but it was a wonderful feeling to have someone to kiss and cuddle and simply to understand my life as a teenager.

Susie wanted to have sex, and so did I:  there was nothing wrong with my hormones.  Physically I was ready and in fact, I had been waiting a couple of years for a girl to come along who was available and cooperative.  Now I had one, and I would have happily have given her my virginity if it wasn’t for what I kept hearing at church:  premarital sex was wrong.  It was a sin, sex was only for married people.

So I went right to my pastor.  “Show it to me in the Word!”

The pastor didn’t even pause.  He smiled and opened up his Bible.  He told me I had the right attitude about checking everything out by the Word, and then showed me a few Scriptures:  “Flee fornication!” (1st Co. 6:18) was the first of many, including “abstain from fornication” (1st Th. 4:3), “The body is not for fornication” (1st Co. 6:13) and many others.  Fornication, he explained unnecessarily, was sex between two unmarried people, which is exactly what I was contemplating with Susie.  The clincher was the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, where the apostles and early leaders of the church got together to determine the rules that were binding on the new church.  They gave Christians great liberty, laying down only three or four (depending on how they were counted):  to abstain from idol worship, and from blood and the meat of animals that had been strangled, and from fornication.  (Acts 15:20, 29)  The pastor advised me to give up my non-Christian girlfriend and above all, to flee fornication.

This wasn’t the answer I wanted, but that is what the Word said and I accepted it.  Not long afterwards, Susie and I broke up.  I also bewildered the cashier at McDonalds when I asked if the cows they used had been strangled;  she looked at me as if I had just arrived from another planet, which was approximately the way Susie had looked at me when I said we couldn’t have sex.

Pastor John had given me a list of scriptures to look up for myself, and I found that the King James word “fornication” was translated as “unchastity” or “immorality” in other translations.  That gave some Christians I knew enough grounds to condemn almost anything else, from Playboy magazine to oral sex, as forbidden, but in my mind the Scriptures thundered in Pastor John’s preaching voice:  “Flee fornication!”

I dated several Christian girls over the next couple of years, and I was still a virgin when I entered my sophomore year of college and met the girl who would become my wife.  Our physical relationship developed rapidly, so rapidly, in fact, that as we started to see no way of avoiding sex, that is, fleeing fornication, without breaking up or getting married.  We couldn’t bring ourselves to break up and as for getting married, there were issues.  We came from very different Christian traditions (my church routinely called hers a cult) and besides, we were too young, still teenagers in fact.  We loved God, prayed and read scripture together, went to each others’ churches, argued about religion and sex, made out passionately, and one night, after months of delaying the inevitable, we joyously gave each other our virginities with my shiny new engagement ring on her finger.

It was a wonderful, transcendent experience.  The only thing I had to compare with it was the day I prayed to accept Jesus and He met me with a demonstration of his presence that left me overwhelmed, barely able to stand.  I had just given my virginity to the girl I loved, and it was amazing.  The feeling of the presence of God was again overpowering.  Colors seemed brighter, all I could do was to praise God for the joy and wonder of this amazing thing he had created and this amazing girl I had just shared the experience with.  I never felt closer to God.

The problem was, we had just committed sin!  That’s what it said in the Bible,  and that’s what both of our churches taught.  So now we were in the position of having to repent of the most marvelous experience of our young lives.

We couldn’t do it.  We tried;  we both tried very hard, but it when I prayed, it was as if God suddenly left the room.  What was wrong?  Was God so angry with me that he wouldn’t even hear my prayer of repentance?  Or was he trying to tell me that he wouldn’t hear my prayer because I had no reason to repent?

For Connie the answer was clearer.  I called her the morning after, to find out that she like me had spent the night in prayer and repentance.  But God had spoken to her.  “He said that sex is a blessing, not a sin, and you don’t repent of a blessing!”

After that night, Connie and I continued to have sex whenever we could, and never felt a bit guilty about it.  God had spoken, and that was enough.

Or was it?  After all, the assertion that God had spoken to us was subjective and seemed to contradict the clear direction of his Word.  If we went to our pastor, we knew what he would say:  we were deluded, we were only trying to justify sin, the Word of God takes priority over any feelings or so-called “words from God” that we might have.  So we didn’t tell the pastor or anyone else;  we just continued doing what we were doing and were blissfully happy about it.

Intellectually, though, I was bothered.  Why did the Bible say one thing, and our experience and prayer and the inner witness of the Holy Spirit all say another?  It was a contradiction I couldn’t reconcile.  For the first time I understood why so many Christian kids leave the church when they run into something in life they can’t reconcile with the Word.  For whatever reason, it never occurred to us to stop going to church.  We loved God, we loved his Word, we loved the church, and there was no contradiction for us to hold hands in the third row back, listening to a sermon on purity, knowing full well that we had shagged each other silly the previous night and fully intended to do it again as soon as we got home.  I still wanted to be a preacher or missionary some day, and Connie still wanted to be married according to the ritual of her faith.

Then one day I found a book in the university library.  It was a bound volume of Baptist theological journals from the 1950s, just the thing that a nerdy, intellectual Christian kid with a call on his life might pick up.  In fact, I can’t imagine anyone else ever leafing through such a volume for fun, but that was the way I was back in those days – or else, as you might believe, God was leading me to a certain article.

The article in question was a detailed word study of “porneia,” which is the Greek word often translated as “fornication.”  That got my attention, and I read the article carefully, minutely, and repeatedly.  The first big point was this, and I’m going to give it its own paragraph and bold letters to make sure that no one misses the point:

Porneia – the word translated as “fornication” or “unchastity” or “immorality” — does NOT, repeat, NOT mean “premarital sex!”

I’ll repeat that.  Porneia does not mean “premarital sex.”

Instead, porneia has a specific meaning.  It means “prostitution.”

The translators of the King James Bible knew this.  When it translated the related words “pornos” and “porne,” which mean, respectively, a man or a woman who commit porneia, “porne” was never translated “fornicator:” it was always “harlot” or “whore.”  And “pornos” was translated as “fornicator” only half the time:  the rest of the time the word was translated as “whoremonger!”

Furthermore, there was an even more specific meaning of the word.  In the twentieth century, I had come to think of prostitutes as the sad women who shivered in revealing clothing on the sidewalks near the hotels downtown, trying to make a few dollars to feed a family or buy a fix.  But prostitution in that meaning of the word was unknown to the early Christian world.  Instead, the kind of prostitution that Paul and the Jerusalem Council both condemned so forcefully, was of a different character entirely.  In the eastern Mediterranean of the first century, prostitution was a religious obligation!

Pagan temples of the ancient world had deities that promoted fertility, the fertility of the fields that all depended on.  Keeping the fertility deities happy was serious business;  if the crops failed, people starved.  These deities were worshiped by having sex:  many cultures have festivals where worshipers have sex in the fields in an effort to encourage the gods to give abundant crops.  Priestesses in temples allowed men to perform such an act of worship in exchange for an offering to the temple, although it may be sheer cynicism to suggest that many men may not have been thinking primarily about crop yields and appeasing the gods when they visited temple prostitutes.

That was the kind of prostitution that Paul was familiar with, that flourished throughout the Eastern Mediterranean world and especially in Corinth where Paul admonished the early Christians to flee fornication.

Sex is indeed a holy act, an act of worship – my experiences with Connie had proven that much to me.  To take a holy act such as sex and bend it toward worshiping idols – that was the sin that so bothered the writers of the Bible.

So since the word translated “fornication” doesn’t mean simple premarital sex, what does it say in the Bible?  Show it to me in the Word!

There were actually other stories in the Bible that seemed to say that God approved of sex, even premarital sex.  We had put those stories aside because the clear message of scripture had seemed to be “flee fornication!” but now we took a closer look at some of the other stories.

There is the story of Ruth.  Ruth is a young widow at a time when a woman without a father or husband to provide for her could be in dire circumstances.  A wealthy landowner named Boaz, who was a relative of Ruth’s late husband, seems to be the answer to the problem, if only he would take more than a passing look at Ruth.  How would Ruth get the attention of Boaz, to make him take an interest in her?

Here is what Ruth’s widowed mother-in-law, Naomi, suggested:  “Wash therefore, and anoint yourself, and put on your best clothes and go down to the threshing floor;  but do not make yourself known to the man until he has finished eating and drinking.  But when he lies down, observe the place where he lies;  then, go and uncover his feet and lie down; and he will tell you what to do.”  (Ruth 2:3-4, RSV)

So that is what Ruth did;  and it is recorded that when Boaz awakened in the night to find Ruth, he spread his cloak over her, thanked her for her kindness in coming to the bed of an older man such as himself (as someone who is now a little on the older side himself, I could appreciate such kindness also!) and observed that Ruth was a “woman of noble character.” (3:11, NIV)

Does the Bible really say that a woman of noble character would sneak into the bedroom of a man she barely knew?  Not only is that exactly what it says, but Ruth is extolled as one of the great women of Bible history, the grandmother of King David and one of the  women listed in the lineage of Jesus!

But it could be said that Boaz and Ruth could have slept together that night without sex.  That is true, the Bible doesn’t specifically say what went on under that cloak, even though the very idea of an unmarried couple sharing a bed is enough to make most modern preachers think twice about letting the couple teach Sunday school.  God’s ideas are very different from man’s.

Then there is the Song of Solomon, an erotic love poem that is so potent in its imagery that generations of theologians interpreted it as an allegory when they couldn’t ignore it altogether.  On a non-allegorical level, and read literally, it is too explicit for most Christians to be comfortable.

The Song of Solomon is a story of a young couple, a girl known as the Shulammite, a title that suggests that she was of the household of Solomon.  I think a reasonable guess is that she was Solomon’s daughter or granddaughter.  Solomon is not her lover;  a literal reading of the poem suggests that the object of her affection is a young shepherd boy.  How young?  Perhaps shockingly so; one scholar who studied Hebrew customs of the time suggested that the boy is about 15 and the girl “not a day over 13-1/2”[1]!  At face value, it is a love song of two unmarried teen lovers “persuading each other that they should sleep together.”[2]  The boy admires and praises his fiancee’s breasts and vulva[3] (Song of Solomon 7:1-3).  Oral sex is alluded to in 2:3 and 7:2, his fingers slip into her opening at 5:4, and at 7:8 she finally climbs his palm tree, to speak poetically.  And this, two scholars note with wonder, is done without guilt and with the apparent blessing of God![4]

But, of course, the Song of Solomon is only an allegory of Christ’s love for the Church, right?

So let’s look at another story, one that is familiar to every Christian, told at every Advent Season:  the story of Mary and Joseph: the story of a young, unmarried and very pregnant couple, traveling a long way from home and refused room at the inn.  I emphasize “unmarried” because the Bible does:  the word “espoused” in the King James Version at Luke 2:3 is better rendered in other versions as “engaged,” or “betrothed.”

Some commentators have tried to soften the fact that they were unmarried by emphasizing that they were betrothed, a word that meant something rather more than simply being engaged would today.  Yet, these same commentators insist, sex was still off-limits until the actual wedding day.  Just because the ring is on the finger doesn’t mean the panties can come off.

The problem with this theory of betrothal and chastity is that it is not well-supported in scholarship.  But rather than get into the game of dueling footnotes, I’d rather say this:  Show it to me in the Word!

The Word says:  “Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.  Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.”  (Matthew 1:18-19, NIV)

There is a lot to unpack her.  First, although the couple were engaged or betrothed, Joseph is called “her husband.”  That’s an interesting translation, although most versions will use it:  the Greek word literally means “her man.”

Second, Joseph didn’t want to expose Mary to public disgrace.  But consider this:  what is the public disgrace Joseph is shielding Mary from?  The fact that she is pregnant and therefore, presumably, had premarital sex?  This cannot be the case, because it is soon going to be obvious to everyone that Mary is pregnant and she would be subject to public disgrace anyway.  The real problem is that Mary is pregnant and Joseph is not the father – the scripture clearly says that this was “before they came together.”  Since the only people on earth who know that Joseph cannot be the father are Mary and Joseph themselves, the public disgrace would be if Joseph publicly accuses Mary of cheating on him.  But Joseph is a righteous man who won’t do that to Mary, and decides to put her away quietly.

In other words: the sin was not that Mary had (as would be presumed) had premarital sex;  the sin was that Mary had broken her covenant with Joseph and had sex with someone else.  The fact that Joseph would contemplate breaking the engagement with Mary without causing a scandal, indicates that for engaged couples to have premarital sex and fall pregnant as a result, was neither scandalous nor particularly unusual.

Although I wonder what would have happened if Mary and Joseph told their modern-day pastor that it was OK because they had been told in an angelic visitiation.  He would have said they were deluded, or merely trying to justify their sin, and that the Word of God takes priority over any so-called “words from God!”  But God’s ideas are very different from man’s.

For a betrothed woman to fall pregnant was not scandalous or unusual.  Premarital sex simply wasn’t considered a sin under such circumstances !

So in conclusion:  one cannot argue against premarital sex based on the scripture verses that warn Christians against fornication (or whatever word is used to translate “porneia”) because fornication does not mean premarital sex.  In fact, there are several biblical passages in which premarital sex is permitted, and in the case of the Song of Solomon, it is even presented in positive terms.

Martin Luther was one of the great Christian leaders to study the scriptures and come to this same conclusion himself.  Sex between two persons “in anticipation of betrothal” – that is, before they were even engaged!  “cannot be reckoned fornication,” he said.[5]

In short:  there is nothing in the Bible that forbids premarital sex.  If anyone disagrees, I’ll respond the way my first pastor taught me:  “Show it to me in the Word!”

[1]Lawrence J. Friesen, Sexuality:  A Biblical Model in Historical Perspective (D. Min thesis, Fuller Theological Seminary, 1989), 28.

[2]Helmut Gollwitzer, Song of Love:  A Biblical Understanding of Sex (Philadelphia:  Fortress, 1979), 18.

[3]According to G. Lloyd Carr, The Song of Solomon:  An Introduction and Commentary (Leicester, England & Downers Grove, Illinois:  Inter-Varsity Press, 1984), 157, the phrase translated in the NIV as “graceful legs” refers to the labia and the Hebrew “sarr” or “navel” (NIV) refers to the vulva.

[4]Friesen 173, Gollwitzer 29-30.

[5]In Mark Ellingsen, “Luther on Human Sexuality,” Dialog 32 (Winter 1992):69-75, 72.

Christian young people and sexual desire

Premarital sex
Does the first time have to be on the honeymoon?

In the article on this website “Unmarried Christians Can Have Sex” my friend (I shall call him “Mark”) makes the argument that neither the Old new New Testament’s condemn premarital sex and that the Greek word “porneo” does not mean “fornication” but rather “prostitution.”

Here is my response.

The world has changed around us.  I don’t only mean that sexual mores have changed.  Of course they have – they always change.  The sexual mores of every culture are slightly different.  The reason that the mores are different is because the situations are different.  In Isaiah 4:1 the Bible says.

Isa 4:1 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach

This is predicting a time when war has decimated the number of men so much that polygamy becomes necessary.   One of the wonderful things about the eternal Word of God is that it applies in any cultural circumstance, not just one.   So the appropriate interpretation of scripture will apply in the tribal polygamous interior parts of Africa, in Scotland of the 11th century where bride-stealing was normal, in the frontier of America and in the modern western world.

Our world has changed from our parents considerably. First of all, let’s admit I’m talking about WHITE young people here,  I don’t know very much about the minority communities of the time.  In 1950 (white) America a man got a factory job straight out of high school or a white collar job after 4 straight (uninterrupted) years of college.   Either of these jobs could support a wife and 2 to 5 kids.  So people got married at 17 to 24 and stayed married the rest of their lives.  It was fairly easy to preach to these young people that they should be virgins on the night of their marriage because abstaining from sex until that time in a crowd of young people who are raised the same is not that impossible.  A typical Christian and moral young man would kiss his first girl at age 16, start engaging in heavy petting throughout high school, start getting hand jobs from his steady girl friend/fiance in his twenty’s and then get to the mother-lode somewhere around his wedding night (probably a little before).

Of course, there were also a lot of “oop’s”  but these were either taken care of by shotgun weddings (if the boy did the “right thing”) or “homes for unwed mothers” with adoptions for the others.

But marrying at 24 is now a very bad thing according to our culture.  All of the studies show that “young” marriages don’t last.    So can we apply the standards of the 1950’s to today’s young people.

No – we should apply the standards of the Bible – because the Bible is the only word that matters – not the traditions of the current evangelical community – nor the current practice of the world around us.

As my friend states in the accompanying article, the early apostles faced exactly this situation in Acts when the early Christians began to preach to the Gentiles.  The traditions of the Jews were wildly different from the practice of the surrounding pagans, and the surrounding pagans lives were vastly different from God’s righteousness.  So they said this – We will not apply the traditions of our fathers to the Gentiles, but we will apply the traditions of righteouesness – The Gentiles must abstain from Idols – from things strangled – and from fornication.

My friend, Mark, says that this “fornication” here is simply re-stating the first 2 issues.  That fornication means prostitution and the apostles are simply saying that Christians should worship idols, eat idolatrous meat, or patronize whores (or be whores)

But I think that he is putting to narrow of a definition on the greek word “porneos”  – I think that  these non-religious experts explain how the word became to encompass more than pure commercial sex – it started generalizing into slave sex and then generally people who had a lot of sex.  Even in English people will use the word “whoring” to mean more than pure prostitution.  Have you ever heard someone say, “She’s a total whore” or “She’s whores around so much she probably has all the STD’s”.  When people say these things, they don’t mean that the woman is selling it – but rather that she has sex with a lot of different people.

So, I believe that the apostles were saying to the Gentiles.  We believe that it is necessary for you to adopt the sexual behavior taught by the Old Testament.

Now, the Old Testament is actually pretty liberal about sex in comparison to current evangelical sexual mores.  The rule, effectively, is that getting caught having sex before marriage means that the man will have to marry the girl and give her father 50 shekels of silver (a lot of money).

So, in other words, sex is for married people – or at least people soon to get married.

I had some young men in my church a few years ago who had the same current attitude toward sex as the world.  One of them managed to have sex with a dozen or more virgins before he finally got around to one that he liked.  Now, I don’t know about you, but I call that “whoring around.”

On the other hand, I don’t really expect a couple who are not yet in a financial shape to get married, but they are in a long-term dating relationship, to remain perfectly abstinent.  To do so would be to deny nature and expect something from them that nature (and nature’s God) simply doesn’t expect.

Maybe we ought to teach our young people that sex is something to be delayed and, if possible, to be enjoyed with only one person in your life.   At least it ought to be enjoyed only with long-term relationships, not something you jump into on the first or second date – like the current practice of the world is.

Meanwhile – the meaning of the word “ADULTERY” has not changed since God first wrote it with his finger on the stone at Mt. Sinai.

I don’t know – what do you think?

How often should christian boys masturbate?

Masturbation frequency
Should you limit your right arm exercise?

Ok, I will confess up front.  I’m actually discussing whether porn is addictive, but I am coming about it the long way.

Dr. David Ley, a clinical psychologist, recently treated a young christian man of 18 who was “addicted to masturbation.”   He masturbated once a week.

(I wonder if he ever splurged and did it twice?)

I had hoped that the Christian world has gotten past the churches trying to destroy their young men this way, but I’m afraid not.  I know that in my day the church made us feel terrible.  I know of one young man in the late ’70’s who would come home to his parents after making out with his girlfriend on her front porch (a girl he married the next year – the baby was born 8 months later).  He would have them get up and pray with him to overcome temptation.  He was being tempted to relieve his blue balls using “Mother Thumb and her 4 sisters.”

No one thought to complement this virtuous young man on his restraint.  No one told him to possibly relieve some of his tension and maybe help him limit his explorations with his girl.   No, his parents continued to instruct him to “overcome his flesh.”  The resulting baby was very beautiful and has grown into a very wonderful and Godly young man.

 

Few churches teach against masturbation anymore.  But I have a question. What is the upper limit for “holy” masturbation in a day?  Is there a limit?  Once a week?  Twice a week?  Once a day?  Can he splurge and go twice  Ok, you don’t want to put a number on it, but let’s see how many times you think is unreasonable.  Three times a day?  Four?  Five?

I am a psychiatrist.  I have treated manic people who were hypersexual.  They masturbated until they raised blisters on their penis.

But my point still holds even for them.  There is a biological limit on how much a person can masturbate.  After a while it just ain’t no more fun.  You can “edge” as long as you want but eventually you are going to bust a nut.  And there is just so many times you can do that till it gets boring.  Ok, so let’s admit that some men can spend a whole day thinking about sex and playing with themselves.  Can they spend EVERY day this way?

No they can’t.  This isn’t “Call of Duty”  Eventually it just gets boring.

MASTURBATION IS NOT  AND ADDICTION BECAUSE IT DOESN’T INCREASE

One of the most important parts of “Addiction” is tolerance.  Yesterday 4 norcos made you feel good.  Today you need 6.  Tomorrow you want 8.  Eventually you need so many to feel good that you take enough to stop your breathing and you die.

But masturbation isn’t like that.  The first squirt of the young man’s week produces a quarter cup.  The next a table spoon.  After while a few drops come out and the resulting orgasm is merely “ok”.   In order to get that first body-shaking seizure-inducing feeling again he is going to have to

Wait!

So masturbation is not addictive.  The sad young man above who believed he was “addicted” to masturbation had simply not choked the chicken to death.

Let’s talk about masturbation some more (please!)

Today, of course, most churches know that masturbation is a normal and healthy part of growing up.  Even Focus on the Family has waved the white flag on this issue.  But for some reason they still want their young men to carry a load of guilt.  James Dobson instructs boys that they can jerk it as long as they don’t “lust” at the same time.  In other words, it should be a purely physical act – kind of like scratching an itch.  No imagination of females should play on the back of closed eyelids.

Amazingly, he is supposed to instantly change his attitude on the night of his marriage.  Suddenly, sex must not be merely scratching an itch, but must be rather be a holy act that is almost entirely about the female.

But let’s be real.  No boy jacks off without imagination.  (If a female reading this thinks that this is not true, ask a man).  So all boys imagine sex while doing “hand to gland combat.”

And – let’s be even more real – today those boys are not simply imagining it on the back of their eyelids.  They are watching porn.

Now let me ask you.  Do they watch porn and NOT jerkoff?

No they do not.  Watching porn and jacking off for the male species is synonymous.    Watching porn without jacking the beanstalk is boooooooring.

So, I ask you.  How much porn can a young man watch?

Do I need to go through this again?  Obviously porn – like masturbation – is self-limiting.  The more you see the less you need to see.    You need a “cooling off period” (or maybe that is a “storing some up” period) before you want to do it again.

Now, some of you may be saying – what about James Dobson’s interview with Ted Bundy the serial killer?  Bundy told Dobson that regular porn got boring so he had to watch more perverted porn, then more perverted until eventually he had to sexually slaughter people in order to feel good.

Ted Bundy was a sociopath who was conning a gullible mark in order to possible get a pardon from President George HW Bush.   This was nonsense.  He was not led to mass murder by porn.  Sociopaths are created at a very young age – usually by extreme neglect and abuse.   Certainly this was true of Bundy’s childhood.

Ask yourself – those of you who have watched porn (that would be EVERY ONE OF YOU MEN)  Did you really find it so boring that you had to watch bestiality in order to shoot your wad?   When you did see the extreme stuff did it really turn you on or did it repel you.  Come on, be honest.

The “escalating nature of porn” is a stupid myth.  No one ever experienced it himself, he just projected his fears onto other men.

Let me (finally) make my point.

Porn is not an addiction because it does not meet the minimum requirement of addiction – an increasing need with decreasing reward.

Science: Christian Erotica Makes Marriages Stronger. Christian Men Should Watch Porn

Couples watching porn
Yes you should watch porn together

Since the new legalists have switched from Biblical to Scientific arguments, I thought that I would begin to let everyone know what the science ACTUALLY says, instead of what the legalists try to tell you it says.

This article that I will explain today is so old that it doesn’t even show up on the academic online searches.  The link will take you to a photocopy of a TYPEWRITTEN paper.   It was published in 1970.   It is so simple, clear, and common-sensical that I’m not surprised that the legalists don’t ever quote it.

So the researcher asked a simple question – How does initiation of porn watching affect stable middle-class, moderately conservative, religious married couples.  So he ran some ads in Palo Alto, CA asking for married couples who wished to fill out some questionaires for money.  He ended up with 83 couples.  No one knew that this was a study about pornography.

So this was a group of people to whom no pornographic videos were available (this is 1970)  only magazines such as Playboy were available.  Few men would sneak into the sleazy adult theatres, so the skin magazines were effectively the only erotica available to conservative men.

So these people were randomly sorted in to groups 15 couples watched nothing but just filled out surveys about their marriage.  68 couples were divided into 2 groups that watched either erotic or non-erotic films.

The couples who watched films were in four groups.  In some only the men watched erotica while their wives watched documentaries, in others the couple watched together without comments from the researchers.  In the third, the couple watched the film after being told that it was likely to improve their relationship.  Finally, the fourth group watched general-interest documentaries.

There were 7 films shown, Themes covered by these films included heterosexual activity, female masturbation, Lesbian activity, male homosexual activity, group sexual activity, and sadomasochism.

The results are so predictable as to be boring.

  1. Couples who were introduced to pornographic films started having more sex
  2. After 8 weeks the frequency of the porno-viewing couples sex decreased to baseline levels – they got bored with the porn.
  3. The couples who were divided into porn-viewing and non-porn viewing had some trouble with the wives getting upset that their husband’s were getting turned on by the films
  4. People who watched the porn became more tolerant of porn watching
  5. People who didn’t watch porn became less tolerant toward porn watching
    1. This was especially pronounced among the women
  6. The non-heterosexual porn turned everyone off.
  7. At the end of the experiment. Everyone had the same amount and the same kind of sex that they had before the experiment.

Now – is any of this surprising?

Wives think that porn-watching (of heterosexual sex) is terrible, terrible until they actually see it with their husband.   Then it turns them on and causes them to have more marital sex. Afterwards, they – and their husbands – get bored with seeing it all the time and return to their baseline behavior.  However, they decide that they may want to see some in the future if they want to get especially turned on.

Couples who have been taught to have legalistic scruples again porn get very upset if they find out that others are getting to watch.  They want to stop anyone else from having fun either.  These censorship desires disappear as soon as they see porn themselves.

Normal heterosexual couples do not become swingers because they see swinger films.  They do not turn into bi-sexuals because they see lesbian or homosexual films.  They turn out to like the romantic sex films (films of couples like themselves) the most.

What does this tell us 50 years later?

Firstly, PORN IS NOT ADDICTIVE.  People who watch porn without feeling guilty about it get bored with it shortly.

Secondly, all of the preaching against porn -all of the men’s retreats – all of the promise-keepers seminars – all of the “your brain on porn” pseudo-science articles – were wasted effort.  That same effort could have gone into producing beautiful and holy erotica that couples could watch whenever they wished in order to revive flagging sex lives.

Finally, we already knew this 50 years ago.  Why did they churches determinedly continue to destroy the christian faith of their men?

I think it is because Mommy made them feel bad about playing with themselves at age 12 and they are still projecting their guilt onto others the rest of their lives.

What science says about pornography and couples

The anti-erotica forces have been trying to use “science” to preach their moralistic crusade.   But mixing the opinions of moralism and the facts of science leads to bad morals and bad science.

This study published this year in “Current Opinion Psychology” tells what the science says.  It is a compilation of all of the current research, and it also suggests what areas are in need of more research.   Unless you have a subscription to a medical library, you won’t be able to read all of this article, so I will quote relevant passages.

Firstly, the people who are going out to prove how bad pornography is for people are doing bad science.  The previous studies state conclusions that aren’t supported by the facts.

While acknowledging that very few studies had assessed the impact of pornography exposure and relationship processes, Manning nonetheless unequivocally agreed with Zillmann’s conclusions a few years later. Of the limited research focusing on the associations between exposure to pornography and relationship processes within dyads, however, the empirical evidence is not so conclusive, with results suggesting both negative and positive influences of pornography use on romantic relationships

Secondly, studies that are LOOKING for the harm of pornography are not producing accurate results.

The majority of research concerning the effects of pornography on relationships assumes, assesses, and subsequently confirms, that pornography is detrimental to relationships. Adopting a ‘harm focused’ approach at the outset of a study places critical limits on what can be learned about the typical impact of pornography on the couple. The assumption of harm will either confirm or fail to confirm negative effects, and by virtue of not measuring non-negative outcomes will necessarily tell us nothing about the occurrence of neutral or positive effects that may also occur. Harm-focused rationales that underlie such investigations are also at odds with observations reported by persons who live in relationships in which pornography is used, which typically suggest that pornography users and their partners  perceive more relationship benefits than harms associated with pornography use.

Most research has not actually measured the impact on the couple’s love-life – instead, only trying to focus on how the individual FEELS about his own use of pornography.  Since this feeling is determined by the constant harping he hears about how evil pornography is, his feelings are not are good guide to whether or not he has been harmed by his viewing of pornography.

Although it is true that romantic relationships involve individuals, typically two at one time , relationship processes cannot be tested by focusing on the thoughts, feelings and behaviours of one individual. Rather, relationships need to be understood in terms of the mutual influence that exists between these individuals over time . Research therefore needs to focus on the links between pornography consumption by one or both partners (alone and/or jointly) on interpersonal processes and relationship outcomes, preferably over time, to best document the negative, neutral, and positive associations of pornography consumption within the dyad.

Finally, the couple research that is being done shows that the effect on porn on relationships is pretty complex, but to simplify it, couples in which the female has not been taught to despise her husband for porn viewing find that their relationship improves – but if the church is trying to enforce an unnatural ascetism on the couple, then the relationship is harmed.

Correlational research by Daneback et al. found that couples in which one partner used pornography reported higher levels of ‘dysfunction’ and a slightly elevated ‘erotic climate’; couples in which both used pornography, though not necessarily together, reported relatively low levels of ‘dysfunction’ and a greater ‘erotic climate’; and couples that did not use pornography at all had average scores on these two clusters of variables. Other correlational studies involving intact dyads have noted that the frequency of men’s pornography use may be associated with lower sexual and relationship fulfilment among couple members while frequency of women’s pornography use may be associated with increased sexual and relational fulfilment among couple members. Taken together with non-dyadic studies of perceived impacts of pornography on the couple relationship, such findings suggest that pornography use can have a range of possible effects on the relationship that are not exclusively negative.

In short, the harm of pornography does not come from the viewing of pornography, but rather from the unnatural expectations placed upon men by the puritans in the church.

New Study: Preaching against Porn “Addiction” makes it WORSE not better

Preaching against porn
Feel Bad About Yourself – That is true holiness

Preachers do their people no favors by preaching against pornography.   A new peer reviewed study published in “Addiction” magazine shows that men who have been taught that pornography perceive themselves to be addicted even when they are not.   This perception continues to dog them and cause problems in their lives.  So their lives are made worse – not by their viewing pornography – but rather because they have been taught that what they are doing is wrong.

Not surprisingly, this terrible feeling of guilt that the church has imposed on these men does not help them “overcome” their addiction.   Nor does 12-step programs or any of the other “addiction” treatments.  The reason that none of these programs or treatments work is because THEY ARE NOT ADDICTED.  Treating men’s fullfillment of their normal erotic desires as an addiction is like treating an overweight person for diabetes.  He doesn’t lose any weight, but he can die from your treatment.

In this study, they studied people who had viewed porn in the past six months.   They asked the subjects how much porn they viewed, about their religious views, whether they felt like porn was a sin, and whether they felt like they were addicted to porn.   Not surprisingly, the religious people who believed that porn was sinful also believed that they were addicted.  The subjects who didn’t think it was sinful didn’t believe that they were addicted.   By the normal standards of “addiction” (significantly negatively influenced their lives) the unreligious people didn’t display any problems in their lives.

Then six months later they asked the same people about their porn habits and about their feelings of addiction.   The religious people were WORSE not better.  They perceived themselves to be addicted at a far higher level than the non-religious ones.

In short, preaching against men looking at erotic images does not help them.  It makes them feel worse about their lives while not giving them any help to “overcome”    The reason it doesn’t help them overcome is because it is

 

Why Christians should be for “Toxic Masculinity” and porn

The essence of being a man includes rescuing women and children in a flood, it includes hunting and fishing, backpacking, and, yes, watching porn.  Hurricane Harvey this week has shown us that the manly virtues are not things that can be quickly thrown away.

Yes, I know that the feminizing movement is active in the church.  It wants to redefine manliness to be estrogen-laden males.  it wants us to vacuum the floor and to communicate fully our inner lives.  But when we need real men, it is not these beta-males who show up.

When the feminizing movement showed up in the church, it did not directly attack courage, instead it told boys that they shouldn’t fight back – even if attacked or defending a weaker person.   It didn’t directly attack hunting or fishing, instead it told husbands that they ought to “spend more time with their family.”  But men have been spending time with their boys for many centuries – by hunting and fishing.  It didn’t tell men to stop having sex with their wives, it just attacked their erotic desires – called it lust – and tried to convince men that the only Godly sexual desire involved candlelit dinners and long walks in the twilight.

But Godly sexual desire also includes pure physical desire, pure desire to grab their wives sexual parts and go to slurping and humping.  There is nothing, absolutely nothing, ungodly about this.

Yes, there is also a place for romantic, sweet, and tender lovemaking.  But there is nothing inherently more Godly and holy about tender and sweet versus hot and fervent.  I dare you to find any scripture that even hints differently.

Christian men should be encouraged to be manly.  To want sex – early, late, and often.  The best way to encourage this is by depicting sex to them and not placing a guilt-trip on them for liking it.

Does Game of Thrones Need the Sex and Nudity? Oh Yes.

Natalie Dormer has great boobies
Nude in Game of Thrones

Christians should be glad that Game of Thrones has nudity.   We are living in the Golden Age of Television.  Fortunately, during this flowering of the great art of video, the great producers have decided not to castrate their ability to create drama by hiding the very parts of life which are not only normal, but actually vital to the continuation of life.

To understand the importance of nudity and sex to great video, let’s see how important it is to great literature.  Literature (story telling) is as old as man.  If we go back into the oldest literature, we see that sex, depictions of sex, and nudity were important parts of every great literary tradition.

The Importance of Sex to In Ancient Literature

What’s the oldest literature that we can find?  Let’s go back to oldest literature for which we have extensive records – the Sumerian.  The most well-known is The Epic of Gilgamesh.  Are you surprised that there and extensive and explicit descriptions of sex?

for six days and seven nights Enkidu stayed aroused,
and had intercourse with the harlot
until he was sated with her charms.

(My wife’s comment on this was “Six Days?  Shouldn’t he have called his doctor after the first 4 hours?)

Of course, if you are a Christian, then this is unimpressive argument.  Of course the ancient pagans were absorbed in sex, because they were unenlightened by God.  Now this is a poor argument, because it is precisely to these ancient Sumerians that God gave his first revelations.

Sex in Biblical Literature

The Book of Job is the story of an ancient Sumerian who loved God?  So did Job like boobies?

Job 24:9 They pluck the fatherless from the breast, and take a pledge of the poor.

Job 21:24 His breasts are full of milk, and his bones are moistened with marrow.

Wow, not only did Job like naked breasts, apparently he even knew some shemales!!!!

There is only one book of the Bible that is explicitly written as literature – as a play.  This book/play was actually performed before the king who wrote it.

The Song of Solomon

That offends you doesn’t it?  The idea that God included an erotic book full of nudity – performed publicly – in our holy text.  You can spiritualize it all you want.  You can turn this and only this book of the Bible into a metaphor while insisting that all the rest must be interpreted literally.  But here is the historical fact.  Nude men and women performed sex acts in front of Solomon and God approved.

But I will leave all of the rest of the Biblical argument for another post.

Pornography in the Early and Pre-Christian World

Let’s go on with literature.  What about Homer and the Iliad?  Here we have clear references to man-boy love.  Ok, let’s get past the Greeks, to the Romans.  Have you seen the pictures from Pompeii?

The early Christians were surrounded by this.  So if you want to make the argument that the reason that God didn’t condemn pornography is because it didn’t exist back then (like Tobacco, say) then you are simply historically ignorant.

Erotica in the Age of Faith

What about nudity and erotic literature in the world after the Christians took it over?   Did you know that the early Christians and even Jesus himself were baptized naked?

But, of course, adultery, homosexual sex and other fornication was strongly hated by the Christian world.  Nevertheless, the female breast was never considered lewd.  Queen Elizabeth had an outfit that showed off her entire breasts!  The Renaissance, of course, had more nudity than not.

The Victorians

Suddenly, however, in English literature we get a new tradition, a “holy” tradition.  Queen Victoria is inappropriately credited with this invention – which she didn’t actually believe or practice herself.  Her diaries reveal that she especially liked being with her fiance, Albert, in the rain with his tight, white britches.  He became visibly excited when they were making out and she was excited enough looking at his arousal to record it.

It is actually a hundred years before Victoria that this new morality was proposed . John Wesley and the Methodists are to blame.  We can also include that otherwise great hero of the faith William Wilberforce.  In decrying the coldness, sinfulness, and worldliness of the upper-class Anglicans they couldn’t stop at the actual sin practiced (slavery, the sale of Virgins, the openly kept mistresses, the gambling hells) they had to decry the clothing – clothing which Beau Brummel had popularized as well-fitted and form-revealing.

So the English speaking world entered a new sin onto their lists.  The sin of “immodesty.”  They managed to give this word a new meaning.  It no longer meant a lack of humility and pride.  It no longer meant gaudy apparel.  Rather it began to mean “revealing” clothes.   It meant bodices cut too low and pantaloons fitting too tight.

And their literature followed suit.  Instead of the great biting words of Jonathan Swift in Gulliver’s Travels, we get the genteel words, subtle wit, and careful sitting room manners of Jane Austen.

Now, far be it from me to criticize the literature of Pride and Prejudice.  But I want you to notice how high literature suddenly takes a turn.  We no longer have realistic and gritty stories of real people, but instead fantastical stories of events and people who, if they even really existed, were in the high percentage of 1 percenters.

Christian Literature of the twentieth century

And the Christians followed suit.  In Christian literature of the 1900’s that was and is published by the “inspirational press” (like James Dobson’s Focus on the Family) a curse word cannot be uttered.  Rape is only hinted at and never actually occurs.  The modern Evangelical writers must tell stories that would not offend the young adult readers of Grace Livingson Hill and LM Montgomery’s Anne of Green Gables.

There is nothing wrong with these stories (I read them repeatedly myself), but let us admit that they have little feel of reality.  Nor can they truly soar with great passion.  They can’t have real conflict because they can’t have truly bad men.  The worst men in these books can only sneer (for they cannot curse).  They cannot rape, they can only ogle.  They cannot take off their clothes, so they must have a waxed handlebar mustache to reveal their wickedness.

Why Game of Thrones Has To Have Nudity And Sex

So, to state my point (FINALLY, the couch says – hat tip Jonah Goldberg).

Game of Thrones and modern film must NOT accept the artificial restrictions that have never bound great literature.  to accept these restrictions is to deny the great truths that inform human existence.  Throughout the history of civilization, good women and bad men and men and women in between and have talked, seen, fought over, and watched sex.  To try to have an epic film without sex is to pretend that humans are something that we are not.

So… DB Weiss and David Benioff … show us some more naked babes

 

 

Nudity and the Bible

So let’s talk about Biblical nudity.

Song of Solomon is, of course, so full of sex that Christian mothers have been telling their sons to skip that part every since Queen Victoria first set her diminutive derriere on the throne.  What about David, that great man after God’s own heart.  Well, we all know about him and rooftops.  But what about when he danced naked before the Lord and God COMPLEMENTED him for it.

II Sam 6:20 Then David returned to bless his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, How glorious was the king of Israel to day, who uncovered himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself!

(Yes, Yes, I know, he had a linen ephod on.  So if you are ok with men gyrating in public in boxer shorts, then I guess Janet Jackson and her super-bowl show wasn’t so bad after all)

David danced in public shirtless
Shirtless men dancing in public

But let’s go on. Because the Old Testament can easily be dismissed.  Let’s jump forward to Jesus – our Messiah who everyone thinks was such a prude.

Mt 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

So did Jesus have a big problem with public nudity?  This is the only scripture to back this up and it doesn’t talk about erotic desire at all, but only lust.  Christians who are so careful to say that “Sex does NOT equal lust” suddenly can’t spot the difference.

But there are other scriptures that show the Jesus didn’t nearly have the problems that we think.  Certainly the disciples didn’t.  In John 21, we find out that even after Jesus’ resurrection, the disciples worked all night on a fishing boat, uh, NAKED.

But what about the women?  How did Jesus feel about boobies?

Luke 23:29 For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.

Apparently, “paps” were a pretty good sight for our Lord!

BUT THAT WASN’T LUSTFUL I can hear you shouting.

THAT’S MY POINT. I shout back.

The early church had no huge problem with nudity.  In fact the people were baptized nude in mixed groups.  In fact, the only shame of nakedness was that it was the condition of the poor people and the slaves and was therefore a “shame”  But note that the shame of nakedness had nothing to do with sex.

So, we see, our attitude about nudity is really just a comment upon our prosperity.  We have gained space to have sex privately, money to buy multiple sets of clothes, and have mistaken our money for Godliness.

In fact, the church is exactly where the book of the Revelation said it would be.

Revel 3:17-18 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see

 

There is one question we need to answer then. Why did Adam and Even cover themselves?

Good question, and deserving of a good answer. Which I will provide tomorrow.