When Religion is a Brand : How persecution is triggered

I hate everyone who doesn’t Love God the way I say!

I was reading about the Irish Mass Paths, the secret paths that Irish catholics had to use to attend Mass.  These people had to worship in secret because if they were found in violation of the religion laws, they were killed.  Priests were hunted by bounty collecting “Priest Hunters” and brought dead or alive.

The last of these anti-Catholic laws was not repealed until 1920.

How does one man so hate another man’s religion that he will kill to suppress it?  Why is another man’s relationship with God so important that I want to force him to pretend to approach God a different way.

Christians, especially, should have been free of this kind of attitude.  We are told, repeatedly, in the New Testament, “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant.  To his own master he standeth or falleth” (Romans 14:4)

It even violates common sense.  When I am judged by God at the end of time, He won’t ask me my opinion of anyone else, nor will God ask anyone else their opinion of me.

I believe that people hate other people’s religion not because of the religion, but because religion becomes people’s “brand.”  In order to adapt a certain religion, one is forced by peer-pressure to adopt everything else about that particular sect – from dress styles, to which car to drive, to politics.

Now, some people defend this by saying that your religion should inform the rest of your life.  Yes, it should.  A Christian who cheats in his business or on his wife is in violation of his faith.  But should religion really be able to tell you what clothes to wear, what car to drive, what you think about welfare reform, the death penalty, socialized medicine?

Please don’t tell me that you got all of these opinions from the Bible.  Do you have so little insight as to believe that you read the scriptures first and developed your opinion later?   If you have some scriptures that you quote about welfare reform, then let me ask you.  When did you first memorize those scriptures – before or after your registered your political affiliation?

I started out this post by talking about the persecution of the Irish Catholics.  Those who love English history understand that the persecution of the Catholics was NOT about religion.  It was about politics.  Beginning in the Tudor dynasty, whether you were Protestant or Catholic determined your politics.  The reason Mary Tudor was “Bloody Mary” – the reason that she burned so many protestants to death – was because to state the you were a protestant was to, literally, call her a bastard.  Simply to say, “I don’t believe in Papal primacy” was to say that her parents were not married and that she was illegitimate – that her mother was a whore.

No wonder Protestants made her so angry.

Similarly, to be an Irish Catholic in the days or Cromwell meant that you declared that the head of the British Commonwealth was a murderer.

So, for hundreds of years of British/English history, simply stating your religion was to personally insult someone.

Religion was a not a belief, it was a brand.  It determined everything about you: where you lived, what job you could hold, what language you could speak, what clothes you could wear, who you could marry, how your children would inherit your property.

I believe that turning religion into a brand, rather than a faith, is the root cause of most persecution.

Take, for instance, the Christmas season.  We evangelicals are now taught that we MUST say “Merry Christmas”  That we should boycott Starbucks because they didn’t have a Christmas tree on their cup.    Christmas has become a mark, one of the elements of the Brand of Evangelical Christianity.

But there is no command in the Bible to celebrate Christmas.  In fact, for most of American history, simply using the word “Christmas” would identify you as a closet Catholic and someone to be held in suspicion.

America today is increasingly divided into Brands – into (let’s face it) cults.  Some of us watch Fox news, wear wranglers, drive pickup trucks, own guns, eat at McDonald’s or Outback, listen to country, pop, or rock music, shop at Walmart, and (this is important) VOTE REPUBLICAN.   Another set of people wear skinny jeans, eat at places I don’t recognize, order food that I don’t recognize, listen to music that doesn’t make sense to me. shop at stores that I can’t afford, and rarely go to church, or if they go, they go with a sneer on their face.

So, by declaring yourself an evangelical Christian: a baptist or pentecostal, you have identified everything else about yourself.  People think that they know everything.  They believe that you listen to Sean Hannity, preach against alcohol, talk against porn, and like Donald Trump.

But, you see, I am an Evangelical Christian and I don’t do any of those things.

But because everyone is branded, is forced into either this cult or that, to merely declare yourself a Christian on a college campus is considered a “microaggression.”   Why, because Christianity in America today is not a faith, it is a brand.

If we want to look for the reasons of persecution – and yes, I do see that persecution of Christians is coming – then we ought to look at how we have divided up into camps that hate one another.  We are looking, more and more, like England on the verge of the Cromwell Civil War.

This is not going to end well.

Toward a true Christian Psychiatry

Healing consists of more than caring. Knowledge is needed.

When I attended Bible college many years ago, when were taught “Christian Psychiatry.”  More specifically, we were taught that Christians did not need psychiatry.    Following the theories of Jay Adams “Nouthetic Counseling” we were told that everything that science had learned through the last 200 years was wrong and hostile to God.  We were told that we, as Spirit-led pastors, were better able to counsel people than someone who spent their lives and their careers finding out the best methods to heal mental disease.

The book that we were given taught us that all mental disease was the result of sin.  When people came to us for counseling, we were to find the “sin” in their lives and confront them with it.  If they continued to have problems with depression, anxiety, psychosis, mania, then it was because they were hiding their sin.

As should be obvious to anyone, the result of such counseling methods was to drive many good Christians either away from the church or further into despair and finally, suicide.

Mental health is much to complex to describe with a single human theory.   Yes, the Bible does support the idea that hidden sin can cause anxiety and despair.  The stories of Saul and David show what happens when a man knows that he is at odds with his creator.

But this is not the only reason for neurosis.  The apostle Paul wrote in II Cor. 1:8 “For we would not, brethren, have you ignorant of our trouble which came to us in Asia, that we were pressed out of measure, above strength, insomuch that we despaired even of life.”

Furthermore there is simple mental disease.  Anyone who has worked in a hospital ICU for any time realize that more than a third of people get “Hospital Psychosis.”   They start imagining things, hearing voices, seeing people that aren’t there.  This is simply a function of being sick and in a strange place.

And what about Alzheimer’s?  Shall we condemn everyone who has dementia to hell for unrepented  sin?  God forbid.

On the hand, psychiatry which is hostile to traditional religion and traditional morality can also lead one into error.   Some psychiatrists have a tendency to treat religion, itself, as a mental disease.  This is foolish, for man is naturally desirous of being on good terms with his creator.  To deny this relationship, or to attempt to talk our patients out of it – or to secretly despise them for desiring it – is to deny the very nature of man.

So, let me make it clear that I am an integrationist.   In my professional life I see, constantly, to bring my patients into health.  The healthier the mind, the better able the individual is able to find his proper relation with his creator.  It is not my job to lead them into Godly habits, but rather only to bring them into health.  When that health is accomplished, then someone else can do the work of the evangelist.  I am a doctor.

Is everything we know about depression wrong?

————————–

Edit:   I see that the Guardian has published an article by a neuroscientist taking apart the silly argument made in the article talked about below

Here is the takedown article :  Is Everything Johan Hari knows about depression wrong

End Edit

————————–

We have another submission to the long list of “Doctors are Idiots” articles.  In the Guardian, an author proclaims that all you have to do to conquer your depression is to follow his new life-style miracle cure of 9 steps.

Sigh, how wonderful that this author has found out another way to blame patients for their sickness.  If they will just get out in the sun, exercise more, form relationships with people… Blah blah blah, then they will cure their depression.

Sir, If my patients could do these things then THEY WOUNDN’T BE DEPRESSED.  The whole point about depression is that it deprives people of the ABILITY to “snap out of it.”  They can’t get up in the morning and go out into the sun. They can’t go to work and meet new people.  They can’t form relationships.  They can’t find new fun things to do.  They can’t eat healthy and sleep regularly and exercise and do fun things.

Oh, I know, you can’t imagine that can truly be impossible for a person to feel this way.  In feeling that way, you join the long list of friends and family of the patient who blame him for his own sickness.  You look at him from your high perch of self-righteous health and sneer because he lacks the emotional ability to approach your great healthy state.

You will feel that way until the day that it actually happens to you.  Then you will come running into my office for help.

I am glad you came.  Because I can help you.  I hope that you didn’t read a bunch of articles like this clueless authors.  I hope that you don’t believe his foolishness and fail to seek help.  Because the longer and more often you are depressed, the harder it is to help.

The author sets up a straw-man.  He claims that all psychiatrists just believe that depression is a serotonin problem.

GRRR.  No we don’t.  That is only one of the things that we believe.  We also believe that it is a norepenephrine problem and a dopamine problem and a 5HT1A problem and a host of other receptors and a relationship problem and a behavioral problem and a historical trauma problem.  I’m sorry that we can’t explain all of this to you in a 15 minute visit.   The books on depression are hundreds of pages long.  We are doing thousands of studies to find out more about it.

Just because it is not simple enough to explain in 3 minutes doesn’t mean we don’t know anything about how to treat it.

Let me put this simply.  If you or your loved one is unable to get up in the morning.  If they are talking about hurting themselves and quitting their jobs and isolating themselves,   If anyone start acting this way.  GET HELP NOW.

Don’t go running to your local pop-psych idiot who thinks he knows everything because he found out a little.  Go to a doctor.  We are actually keeping up with the literature and have a host of treatments that can help.

 

Monogamy versus Polyamory

Which is healthiest? Monogamy or Polyamory

I received some feedback from someone who diagreed with my assertion that having multiple sex partners was unhealthy.  The person sent me two articles

The BBC says that early infatuation “tricks” people into long-term relationships

The Guardian says that DNA can determine your best partner and that bonding with someone else too young can be a mistake.

Here is my reply———————————

You make strong good points.  If I understand it, these are your points.
1) Part of a man’s attraction is his sexual experience with others
2) Couples who marry young are more likely to divorce
3) A couple that is formed during a polyamorous “lifestyle” are more sexually compatible
4) That early sexual attraction over a short term tricks people into forming long-term relationships that are inherently unstable over the long term.

So, the question becomes, is monogamy or polyamory more healthy for a person and for society?

Now, there is an easy answer and a more time-consuming one.  The easy one is that God already gave us the answer – in the Bible – and therefore we already know.  Polygamy is natural – and was practiced by the early Patriarchs – but the ideal was always 1 male and 1 female and “what God hath joined let not man put asunder”

But I am a scientist and a doctor as well as a Christian.  So I should look at natural revelation as well as Biblical.   God revealed himself in nature as well as in the Bible.

So let’s look at your assertions.  Firstly, you state that sexual experience makes a man more attractive.  Yes, this is probably true.  We know that many women have a biological desire for “bad boys.”   But here is where we have to admit that nature is sexist.  The same cannot be said for women.   The biological desire is for men to keep a harem of women to himself.    1-male to many-female polygamy.  Historically, this is what happens in any culture where some men gain ascendency over others.    But these cultures are also viciously anti-women – like the Islamist cultures we see in the media.  It is also true in some Christian communities in the Independent African Churches.  If men are to be like lions and maintain a pride of lionesses, then each man has to be able to fight to defend his pride and also police his pride to make sure that the females don’t run off with a younger more attractive lion.

So there is some doubt that the idea that “a man should have lots of women before he ties himself down” is the healthiest one.  It looks, instead, to be just a way to justify male-predatory behavior.

Secondly, you state that young couples get divorced sooner than older ones.  I haven’t looked that statistics up, myself, but this seems to accord from what I have heard, and I am willing to agree for the sake of the discussion that the statistics are as you say.

But this seems to be one of those Category 1 (Correlation is not Causation) errors.  Not all young marriages are equal.  A young person who marries in order to escape an abusive home situation is not likely to form a stable relationship.  Conversely, a couple from a stable culture (say the Amish) that marry at what we consider to be incredibly young age seem to form very long-lasting relationships indeed.   In current American culture, families are increasingly fragmented.  Admittedly, my patient base is not representative, but I am so happy when I see a patient from a stable family.  His or her prognosis is far, far more positive.  Also, the likelihood of this patient having a stable relationship is far better.

In short, the youth/age prognosis of marriage is confounded by too many other factors in order to use it as a guide.  In my experience of a 30 year marriage – coming into the marriage as paired virgins and remaining monogamous, has yielded many benefits that I see lacking in my polyamorous patients.

I also believe that your confidence in the third point (polyamory leads to stability) would be much harder to justify with statistics.  The plural of case history is not data, but I think that the stories from the “lifestyle” communities do not lead one to expect long-term marriages.  I understand that the women tend to be passed around a lot.

The article that you link to stating that early dopamine attraction “tricks” people into long-term relationships is true.  But isn’t this an argument for the health of long-term relationships?  If Biology is “tricking” people into making commitment that the Bible already told us were good, then isn’t this proof that God’s written revelation and his natural revelation are in sync.  Biology, using the process of evolutionary natural selection, has stated that long-term relationships are best for the long-term survival of the species.  That’s what Moses and Jesus told us also.

I’m sure that it is much more convenient to believe that sleeping around as a young man is good for you.  But, I don’t believe that it is.  I didn’t try it myself, but I have family members who have.  I believe that life-long monogamy is most healthy, and it is God-endorsed and, well, God commanded.

Welcome Peter as a new author and editor

Help in time of need

 

A little while ago a user contacted me about some of the videos on HolyErotica.com not living up to the standards that I promised and that the Bible proclaims.  I appreciated his helping me this way, and so I have offered, and he has accepted, the role of editor and author on EroticChristian.com and HolyErotica.com.    He has already cleaned up large numbers of videos that should not have been on HolyErotica.  I bulk import videos and attempt to look them over before publishing them, but I have not been watching them as carefully as I should.  I, obviously, could not (and would not want to) watch every one of the over 2300 videos on the site and I have used a very loose screen on letting things through.

 

Peter is helping me with that, and I appreciate it.

 

In addition, Peter may be writing some articles for EroticChristian.com.  He is a young man and I hope that he can bring some fresh perspective to the site.

 

Welcome Peter.

Psychiatrist wants to force Trump to get his head examined. She needs her license examined.

She needs her license examined

A Yale Psychiatrist wants to overturn Constitutional government using civil commitment laws.  I wish that this were not being taken seriously by the democrats, but it is.  She has even been interviewed by MSNBC.

As a psychiatrist who takes his job, and his license, seriously.  Let me explain how many things are wrong with this.

Psychiatrists have an awesome and frightening power.  We can take someone, against their will, lock them up for a couple of days and force them to undergo psychiatrist evaluation.  We can then ask a civil judge for permission to continue holding this person and for the authority to force them to take medications.  This permission is almost always granted.  The court gives a lot of weight to the psychiatrist’s opinion.

This is frightening.  I don’t like doing it.  These people are American citizens and have the right to life and liberty.  The idea of taking this away – on my say so – even for a couple of days seems unamerican.   The reason that we have these laws are that some people are so mentally ill, so capable of violence, that we cannot just wait until they commit some horrific act before we take away their power to do so.

But there are a lot of limits on this power.  Thankfully.  We are not the communist Soviet Union.  They defined all political opposition, all religious belief, as mental illness.  They locked people up for “thought crimes.”

The authority to deprive someone of power requires

  1. A statement by someone who PERSONALLY WITNESSED behavior or statements that psychotic or violent.  This cannot be second hand statements.
  2. The Behavior cannot be Personality driven. It must be what we psychiatrist call “Axis I” or true mental disease, not just a bad character. If we could lock people up for bad character, then we could simply go out and get everyone who is a career criminal (Antisocial personality) and lock them up for life instead of for the term of their sentences. We could lock them up for having the PROPENSITY to commit crimes instead of for crimes.

Clearly, Dr. Lee knows that Donald Trump does not meet these conditions.  Firstly, she has not witnessed any of these supposedly psychotic behaviors by the President, nor does she have an SWORN statements  of people who have.

One cannot simply go solicit statements against someone that we dislike.

Every psychiatrist knows these limitations, or they should.  If a psychiatrist attempts to use his or her awesome power with which we have been entrusted for our personal agenda, then we should be brought before the licensing board of our state and have that power rescinded.

I wonder how many people Dr. Lee has committed under her expansive ideas of what constitutes “dangerous behavior.”   Does she lock up religious people who believe that God has authority in the affairs of men?  Does she lock up conservatives who don’t have politically correct views of “scientific” global warming?   She is clearly willing to use her power in the service of politics.  This may only be the most public example.

Dr. Lee has violated the ethics of our profession and brought us into disrepute. She is in repeated violation of the Goldwater rule, a fact of which she has been informed, repeatedly. She is attempting to use the power of her medical license and psychiatric board certification to enact a political agenda. She needs to be brought before her state licensing board and have her license examined.

 

Sex is for marriage and in marriage. That is foundational

I have received some feedback that worries me a little.  Some of my readers of EroticChristian.com and viewers of HolyErotica.com appear to be under the impression that I believe that sex is not about marriage.

Let me make myself clear.  Sex is for the purpose of binding together a couple in intimacy.  It teaches us what a closer union with each other is like, and therefore what our eternal union with Christ (as his bride) will be something like.

The key, here, is intimacy.  “Sexual Freedom” as it was interpreted by the ’60’s hippies, meant that humans should behave like Bonobo monkeys.  Do it any time, anywhere, with anyone.   I have patients who have attempted to live that lifestyle.  I cannot describe for you how “hard” these patients are.  It is almost impossible to form a therapeutic relationship with them.  Their souls have been bonded and then ripped apart so many times that they are like teflon.

I often tell women who are in this condition, “I do need to know if you have been sexually traumatized, but I don’t need to know the details right now.  I am a stranger to you, and I do not want you to share with me all of the secrets of your heart – only to not see me again for months.   This would not be healthy for you, and I am here for your health.”

This is not to say that I am against solo masturbation.  This behavior maintains erotic desire for single people and for married people who cannot be together right then.  It is allowed for in the old law and not condemned in the new.

I also believe that a couple’s intimate moments can be filmed and shared with others without breaking or weakening the bond between the two.   Solomon did not weaken the bond of the Shunamite beauty by writing about it in the Song of Solomon.  He rather wrote about how strong it can be.

Song 8:7 Many waters cannot quench love, neither can the floods drown it: if a man would give all the substance of his house for love, it would utterly be contemned.

What to say if your wife threatens to leave you over porn.

There are some questions that wives have to answer before they leave you because they discovered you watch porn.

 

  1. Is my replacement going to be a man or a woman

If your replacement is going to be a man, then he will also watch porn.  If she says she will find one that doesn’t then tell her that all she will do is find a liar and sneak.

 

2. Was I a good husband all of those years when you didn’t know I watched porn.

If you were a good husband and good father to your children, if you were faithful to her. Then ask her if her problem is the porn use or her KNOWLEDGE of the porn use that is the problem.

 

3. Do you realize that the church has been lying to you all of those years when they told you that some men don’t partake

The pastor and the youth minister are sneaking off and watching porn just like all the other men in the church.  If she had a camera on the pastor’s desk, she would find out that he was jerking it all those times when he was “studying for his sermon.”

These questions need to answered by any of these women who are so certain of their own righteousness.

Really though, I have to say, a woman has to be looking for an excuse to leave her husband if she leaves over this.  Stand your ground.  If she carries out her threat, then she was going to leave you anyway.  This is just the way she can tell a story to her friends that makes her seem righteous.

 

 

How to prepare your wife for the porn conversation

Do you want a strong marriage. Don’t keep secrets, especially this secret

I recently heard a man who had been married for over 40 years talk about how he had to clear his internet browsing history to keep his wife from finding out that he looked at erotica.  When I asked why he didn’t tell her, he said, “Duh, because I don’t want her to leave me.”

Oh, come on, don’t give me that.  You’re telling me that a wife who has loved her husband and put up with his ups and downs for 4 decades is going to leave him, not because he STARTS to look at pictures of pretty girls, but because HE HAS BEEN ALL ALONG.    Why would she do that?

Secondly, are you going to tell me that she doesn’t already know?   Give me a break.  I’ve been married 30 years.  I can assure you that any attempt to keep any behavior, especially one that I regularly engage in, a secret from her is futile and foolish.  Guys, you know, and I know, and she knows everything that you regularly do.  A wife that has been with you that long can read you like police read license plates.

I am not suggesting that you blurt it out all at once, tonight.  First, she must get used to the idea that you and every other man she knows (including that suuuuuper spiritual pastor of hers) looks at porn all the time.

So here is how you make her face this obvious fact.  Every time you come across an article like this one that tells how many pastors, how many men, how many Christians watch porn you tell her about it and laugh.

“Look, honey, did you see that 57% of pastors admit that they watch porn on the sly.   I can’t believe that 43% would lie that way.”

She will act horrified at first.  “I don’t believe that all the pastors look at that trash.”

Then give her a knowing look.  “Yes, my darling, I hate to tell you this.  But they do.”

If she wants to pursue this then she will ask you directly.  “Are you saying that all men look at porn.”

Say, “Well, maybe girly men don’t look at naked women.  They look at men.”

Huff, Huff, “Have you?”

“Have I what?”

“Looked at porn.”

“Baby,” grab your crotch, “I got balls, I can prove it.”

“What!”

“You are making me horny looking at my balls that way.  Let me show them to you naked.”

You get the idea.  Convince her that every man WITH BALLS looks at porn.  Don’t be afraid to use the “No true Scotsman.” fallacy.  This is one case where it actually works.

Now, the important thing to do here is stop discussing porn and start discussing your balls.  Make every discussion about porn turn on how masculine you are.  How much she likes sex with you.  How much she wants your RIGHT NOW.

Now, don’t be ashamed to watch HBO series like Game of Thrones with her.  When the sex scenes come up start touching your wife.  She will act angry and say, “DON’T YOU TOUCH ME AFTER LOOKING AT HER.”

You’re reply is, “I’m horny, let’s have sex.”

The key is to make associate erotica with masculinity, and particularly with YOUR masculinity.

DO NOT BACK DOWN!!!!

This is key.  She may act like she is going to refuse you sex.  Hold you ground.  Masturbate when she can see you and know that you are jerking it.  If she gets mad, then ask her to have sex.

The fact is that she married a man.   BE A MAN!   Be the man that she wants.   Every time she asks the question “Do you watch porn.” You reply. “I’ve got balls.  I’m a man.”

If she tries to tell you that so-and-so is a man “Josh McDowell, James Dobson, your pastor” and “he doesn’t watch porn.”  Then answer, “Then how come he knows so much about it?”

Because we are men, we know that other men are looking at naked women.  Women know this to, but they try to stay in denial.  Take this denial away from them.  Make them face your masculinity.

Meanwhile, be sweet, be kind.  DO NOT YELL!

Did you hear me.  DO NOT YELL!

I repeat myself. DO NOT YELL!

If you yell, then you have lost the masculinity argument.  You have admitted that men can’t control themselves.  Porn will just be another example of how evil you are instead of how evidence of how masculine, sexy and desirable you are.

Don’t be like that poor little beat rooster who was still sneaking around after 40 years.

Be a man.  Run your house with holiness, Godliness, and honesty.

What Playboy could do with their powerful brand

Playboy was a “Men’s Magazine”

At Instapundit, there is a link to a Wall Street Journal article that discusses the possibility of Playboy Magazine ceasing publication.   This is long overdue.  The day of men’s magazines is over.  When I was a boy, we got our first glimpse of porn at the supermarket, where Playboys were on the front rack, in easy reach.    The front cover didn’t show the full picture, but if no one was looking, you could grab the magazine and get a quick look — BOOOOOOOBIES.

Dave Barry once said that breasts are the only thing that get the same reaction from males from 1 day old to 90 years.

Playboy celebrated the masculine life.  Fast cars, great steak, cold beer, and beautiful girls with big BOOOOBIES.  It was the ultimate “Men’s Magazine”

In the early days, and even more through the ’80’s, Hugh Hefner was naturally aligned with the democrat party.   The feminized evangelicals had come to power in the GOP and Ronald Reagan – who often went shirtless in his movies and had no problems with sex depictions – was suddenly the puritan’s friend.  The Moral Majority and Christian Coalition spent all of their might and power fighting against sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll and therefore died.  The final gasp was Ken Staff and the impeachment of Bill Clinton.   As a result, Playboy was naturally on the side of the democrats.

This was foolish of Hefner, because at the same time that the republicans were wasting their efforts fighting against sex, the democrats were moving to destroy masculinity, itself.   The LGBTQABCDZZZZZZZ crowd were in total control.  The majority of the DNC was made up of LGBT.  The democrat party became the home of vegetarians and vegans, anti-gun fanatics, gays and lesbians, girly men, and man-hating third-wave feminists.

Hugh Hefner could have done one of two things.  He could have either joined the Republican party and respectfully argued with Jerry Falwell but worked together with him on red-blooded American issues (communism, guns, masculine nutrition).  Or he could have stayed in the Democrat party and worked to keep a home there for manly men.  But he was old and a man of the ’50’s in a world he did not fully understand (and didn’t try, because there was always another bunny to distract him)

Playboy is still stuck in the old ways.  It’s magazine is still the flagship.  It produces some great erotica at Playboy.tv – I especially like the Crave and “Digital Diaries” lines, as the “Adult Film School” and solo female pictures.  But these offerings are little known.  They don’t publish examples on HBO or Cinemax.   They have not worked with Roku to offer anything worth seeing.   They don’t even publish teasers on the free porn sites.

They simply have the Playboy.tv website and the playboy channel, which is overpriced in the days of easily accessed free porn.

The world of Porn is dominated by Brazzer’s, Reality Kings, Naughty America, Digital Playground, and Bang Brothers.     Frankly these houses produce mainly low-quality filthy junk like “Screw my wife” and “Anally destroyed.”

Playboy could change all of this.  They already have the correct attitude toward video production.  Most of their videos are high quality.  Some of it is softcore, some of it is hardcore without all of the violence and perversion.  They are still showcasing beautiful girls having joyful sex with young well-developed men.

Why not expand their production.  Why not go the Cinemax/HBO/Netflix/Amazon route and start producing quality dramas that are not ashamed of sex.   Come out with a Sopranos or Spartacus or Rome or Vikings or Tudors that have sex scenes but also have a story to tell.  Since they are playboy, they don’t have to be so careful to make the scenes softcore.

And while they are at it.  Why not make friends with the new right-wing.  The GOP has found a way to tolerate Donald Trump (the model of Hugh Hefner’s successful playboy) why not hire some conservative pundits and put out a good political show or two.

Playboy has a powerful brand.  It is associated with low-level erotica and quality political articles and has a reputation for avoiding the perversion that Penthouse reveled in.   Why not use it?

“Christian Naturism” (Nudists) are wrong, But Holy Erotica is right

 

Image result for Christian naturists

 

While I believe that erotic videos and sexual depictions are normal and should be a part of a normal Christian life, I do not believe that Naturism or the nudist lifestyle is normal.  Here is why.

In 2012, ABC news ran a piece on Growing Up Nudist about a nudist camp where families live full-time.  The article makes nudism sound natural and good.   It sounds like these people live in the Garden of Eden.  There are a lot of Christian Naturist sites that promote this lifestyle.

The usual rap against the naturists are that they are “immodest.”  That somehow they are encouraging swinging and fornication.  Firstly, this isn’t true, or it is only true for people that have grown up with a nudity taboo that equates nakedness with sex (that includes most Americans) but it is possible to raise children with a different attitude.

I have a different take.  It is impossible to read the Bible without realizing that nakedness was shameful.  But I do not believe that this shamefulness was related to sex.  The people of the ancient world saw naked people and slaves all of the time.  Poor people often did not have clothes and they certainly didn’t have privacy.  They did not get to bathe alone – or even in the presence of only the same sex.  David was excited by the body of Bathsheba while she was bathing because she was beautiful.  It was not considered abnormal for her to be bathing on the housetop.    The mere sight of a breast would not excite biblical people.  There were no titty bars in the ancient world, there were only brothels.    The attire of a harlot related to the color, cut, and ornaments of the woman, not her nakedness.   Nakedness was shameful because it showed poverty.

But there is a reason that nakedness is bad.  I just came across this passage in the book, “The Brother’s K.” In it a harelipped girl is praying in church.

“Nyearest Nyeesus!” she calls out, her voice, her whole body quivering. “Nank nyou!, nank nyou!, for yall nyour nyimmy nyimmy nmlessings, nand for nthis nay of Nhristian Nyellowshipt!” At the words nyimmy nyimmy Micah uncorks a snicker—and there are lots of answering snorts today. Maybe there always are. Maybe I just hear them today because I’m stuck next to her. My stomach clenches. Most of me wants to snort with the others, but part of me, remembering the pool in the kingdom, makes me gouge my knuckles in my eye sockets and fight to hear her prayer, “Mlease, nLord!” Vera cries, as if she’s pleading with an ax murderer. “Mlease fornivvus our snins and nrespassenth! Nwee are nso nunworthy, nso nvery nvery nunworthy!” Noses blow violently; half-stifled giggles circle the room like pigeons trapped in a barn. Beal keeps his head bowed, but clears his throat and steps threateningly around his podium. “Nopen our narts, nwee veseech nThee!” Vera prays.

“Nyelp us to nlove nyou nmore and nmore!” she prays as Micah laughs outright, “and nmore and nmore!” she pleads as girls grab Kleenex, “and snill nyet nmore!” she begs as boys fizz up and overflow like jostled bottles of pop. “Nenter our narts!” she cries, her voice breaking, her body trembling so violently it makes my chair tremble too. “Nenter nthem now! Nright now! Nwee are nso nlost, nso nvery nlost, nwithout nThee!” And even as it occurs to me that this must be real prayer—even as I see that what is being laughed at is the sound of someone actually ramming a heartfelt message past all the crossed signals and mazes of our bodies, brains and embarrassments clear on in to her God—when I open my fists and peek at Vera I see a face so exposed, so twisted with love, grief and longing, that if she was my sister I would take off my coat, and I’d wrap her up and hold her, and I would beg her never, ever to do this naked, passionate, impossible thing again.

 

Duncan, David James. The Brothers K (p. 85). Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

The girl is showing the ultimate nudity, not the nakedness of the body, but of the soul.  She was “naked before God.”  In a sense she was bathing her soul, and while this is a wonderful experience in private, it is horrible to see in public.

No one wants other people to know their hidden flaws

Adam and Eve “saw that they were naked.”   They realized that they had been living without law and without morality, that they were little better than animals.  Their immediate response was to cover themselves.  And we still cover ourselves today, not just in our physical bodies, but in our outward show of our innermost person.   We call other people “hypocrites” when they fail to live up to their standards, but few of us wish to live in a public confessional booth.  It is a normal and healthy desire to want to hide our imperfections and failures from other humans – even if we are willing to tell them to God.  There is a reason why the Catholic priests are so defensive of the “seal of the confessional.”

Not having been to a nude beach, I don’t know personally, but I have heard that it is not a pretty sight.  I do know that the true “amateur porn” – the homemade kind – is very, very ugly.   If I wanted to see pimple-covered buttocks that close I would use a mirror.

During one of my medicine rotations, I was informed that I would have to do a genital examination.  I told my preceptor that “We psychiatrists see more genitals than we examine.”   And that is true.  Many of my sickest patients attempt to run around naked, it is a big problem on the psych ward.

The reason for this is that psychotic people have boundary issues.  They cannot tell where their souls and the souls of other people should be separated.  They have unlimited sex; they run around naked; they masturbate in public.  They have no sense of where their lives end and where the lives of others start.

This is what Revelations is talking about:

Rev 3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me .. white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear

“Alright,” you say, “you have said why people shouldn’t show their nakedness to others.  Then why in the world, Dr. Ed, would you say that holy erotica (Christian Porn) can exist.”

Because Erotica, when it is properly done, is anything but naked.   Have you ever seen Playboy’s “Adult Film School” tv series?  In it, a porn producer brings in amateur couple who have made a home sex video and were unsatisfied with it.  She helps them to produce high quality Erotica.

In their home film, the couple are merely naked, but the professional film is highly erotic.

In his song, King Solomon tells the tale of a loving couple.  He describes their bodies in great detail and the sex acts that they perform.  But it is not merely telling of nude sex, rather he is telling of ideal love and ideal love-making with ideal people.   He is portraying God’s view of what perfect sex should be.

Some people are beginning to product this sort of erotica

This, I believe, is appropriate.  In high-quality erotica, the people don’t have on clothes, but neither are they truly “naked.”  In fact, they are made-up, airbrushed, and idealized.  Their flaws are not displayed.  I have links to this sort of erotica at my website HolyErotica.com  To go back to my “Naked before God” metaphor, they are not praying “Nyearest Nyeesus” but rather the Book of Common Prayer.

Now, in fact, the regular sex of a loving husband and wife is wonderful because it is infused with their love.  Even the quick sleepy sex from a nocturnal boner is sweet because my wife gives herself to me unsparingly, even if she starts snoring before I orgasm.   But this would be extremely UNattractive to strangers watching.

So, no, I do not believe that Christian Naturism is a healthy movement (although it is not by nature Ungodly), but Holy Erotica is good.

Christian Feminizers

Feminized
The new male beauty is feminine, not masculine

Christina Hoff Sommers eviscerates the modern feminist movement in this article.  She explains that the modern feminists have been hijacked by the intersectionality teachers in the universities.

 

I agree, but there is a worse movement out there, and it is not limited to the leftists and socialists.  It has invaded the churches and the conservative circles and it is not recent.  It is not the feminist but the feminizer movement.  It is the movement to take all of the masculinity away from men.

I am afraid that it began in the churches.  During the social gospel movement of the early 1900’s the evangelicals began to preach a novel doctrine against liquor.  Now by liquor, they were talking about distilled liquor, but their preaching became more radical until by 1950 all fundamentalist/evangelical churches had to preach against beer.

The next step was to preach against men’s “lust,” that is, we had to tell men that their sex drive was ungodly.  So the previous times when lady liberty was shown topless was gone.  Now the possession of a playboy magazine was forbidden.  Boys had to keep it under the mattress and their mother’s warned them against “playing with themselves.”  Therefore they knew that the natural male desire to view the female form was “dirty”, lascivious and one of the works of the flesh.

Now eating meat was on the table.  The churches now began to tell us that we needed to go on “Daniel Fasts” of beans and vegetables.  Eventually they started to tell us that we needed to eat like this all of the time for our “health.”   (BTW, I’m a doctor.  No, vegetarianism is not healthier, and no, vegetarians do not live longer lives).

Now the men’s meetings at the church were eviscerated.  No longer could we go hunting together (you want to kill Bambi?).  We didn’t go fishing together.   No, now all we could do is get together in prayer groups and confess our lust to each other as “accountability partners” and pray for our general unworthiness.

No wonder the church is empty of men.  No wonder boys drop out as soon as they get old enough to tell their Mom, “No.”

Complain about feminists all you want.  Condemn the ideas of the “women’s marches.”  But don’t forget the feminizer in your local congregation.

Adultery is usually not about the “Lust of the Flesh”

Watched “Casanova” on HBO last night.  Hilarious movie, I enjoyed it very much.

But it brought up a question.  Why do horn-dogs want to have sex with so many women?   For exactly the same reason a dog licks its balls?  Because it can.

No, I don’t mean that men have a lot of sex because they can.  I mean that they seduce many women because they can.  It is not that they need the sex, it is the fact that they can get so many women in bed with them.  The fact of the seduction proves their power.  It is not about lust, it is about pride.

Witness what Not-yet-President Trump said to Billy Bush.

I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. I just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

So, according to our president, the reason that he has committed so much adultery is not that his wife is not sexy enough (for sure, Melania Trump is one of the hottest women on the planet) but, rather, that his conquests of women show how famous he is.  It feeds his narcissism.

But porn and erotica is not about pride.  There is nothing about porn that feeds your ego.  It only makes you feel good physically.  Since it is not about the lust of the flesh (Do I really need to explain Cartesian Body-Soul dualism again?) it is simply the acting out of a physical desire, like eating or sleeping.

 

Christian Porn

Hot Christian Couple
Erotica is good and appropriate for married couples to watch together

Yes, Christian Porn exists.  Yes, you can look at it without guilt.  Yes, God intended you to watch erotica.  And, yes, you can find it here.

And, no it is not an addiction.

So much of the church world is consumed by the “fight against porn” that very little energy is left to preach the gospel and fulfill the great commission.  And, despite all of the efforts to combat it, the usage of porn among church-going people and non-church-going people is exactly the same.   Even the pastors are “addicted”.  (No, they aren’t)

So, let’s do a logic exercise.  If some non-miniscule part of the proclaiming Christian world are serious about their faith, and if some non-miniscule portion of these people are turning to God to help them with the “porn addiction,” and if God is willing to help his saints with this “problem” THEN the statistics of porn usage among proclaiming Christians would be lower than the usage of non-Christians by some non-miniscule degree.

But this is not so.  Christians in America watch porn at the same rate as non-Christians.  So, at least one of the following must be true.

  1. There are a miniscule number of “real” Christians who are asking God for help
  2. God is not willing to help his saints
  3. God doesn’t hate porn.

I suspect that a lot of our self-righteous evangelicals out there will probably choose number 1.   But this is really sad.  I meet way to many people who spend their lives praying, seeking God, living for God for me to believe that they are all deceived.  Why do you think that half of the calls to Focus on the Family are from people trying to find a way to “overcome” porn.  Do you really think that none of them are serious about loving and serving God.  Why would they make such a call if they were not.

Number 2 cannot be chosen by any Christian.

Number 3 is the only logical choice.  And it is confirmed by the Bible.

 

 

Finally, an Evangelical pastor who admits that Song of Solomon is talking about sex

Kudos to Pastor Andrew Shanks for admitting in this article that Song of Solomon is talking about sex and genitals.

However, because he is an evangelical pastor, he has to find some way to say that Song of Solomon could describe sex acts for pleasure and still not be writing erotica or pornography.

His argument is that Solomon was writing in order to describe beauty, instead of trying to inspire lust.

This is one more example of Evangelicals buying into Descartes mind-body dualism.   They know that they don’t believe this heresy when they are talking about it in any other context, but when talking about sex, they jump immediately to the assumption that erotic desire = lust versus love = spiritual desire.

A man may be erotically excited by the beauty of sex from other people without lusting for them.  Lust is desire out of control, it is desire that wishes to break God’s laws in order to be fulfilled.   But we understand that a man may admire the beauty of a house, a car, or a steak dinner, without wishing to steal them.  So also, a man may admire the beauty of the holy sex act of another couple and not desire to steal the woman from her husband.

Solomon clearly wished to show other the beauty of the sexual nature and sexual acts of the play’s participants (remember that this is not simply a poem, it is a play that was performed).  It is amazinng what contortions that even honest men go through in order to deny the obvious.

The danger of loveless sex with multiple partners

It’s just sex. What’s the big deal?

A friend once told me that he had never dated a woman with whom he didn’t have sex on or before the second date.  Another man told me that he estimated that he had had sex with about 200 women.  A porn star wrote that the great accomplishment of the decade of the ’60’s was to separate the subjects of sex and love.

These people know a lot about having sex with multiple people.  I don’t know this, all I know from personal experience is marrying a virgin as a virgin and staying faithful.

But I do know something of the other side from my experience as a psychiatrist.  Some of my patients are prostitutes.  So I get to see the sad emotional scars that loveless sex leaves on the soul.

The most important art of a psychiatrist is the ability to build trust.  Before I can really help a patient over the long term I need to get them to tell me what is really bothering them.   In fact, I should get them to tell me things that they don’t even know about themselves.    This often means hearing about early childhood abuse, the resentments they have toward their parents, the reasons that their relationships have gone wrong.

These are intimate details.  You don’t normally tell these things to a stranger.   But my job is to not be a stranger, but rather be like your diary, a blank screen or piece of paper upon which you write your thoughts and discover things about yourself.

I am good at my job.  People do trust me with all of these details.  Details which would keep you awake at night.    My method of saving my sleep is by turning over these stories to God in prayer.

But there is one group of patients who have great problems in the area of trust: the professional sex workers.

It is hard for people to understand these ladies unless you have worked with them.   They have an amazing diamond-hard surface.  Oh, they have few reservations about telling me about their abuse experiences.  They tell me about their drug use, their arrests.  They are not a bit ashamed.  They have few normal boundaries.  But what they do have is a deflection of anything that might appear to be intimacy.   They appear, to me to be like a velcro strip that has been used too many times.  It no longer adheres.

I understand why they are like this.  It is a basic ego defense mechanism.   I complement them on it.   I tell them that their refusal to trust me is, in fact, a sign of health.  They have not (yet) broken down into psychosis and paranoia.   What bothers me is that I know that this is in their future.  Even if they survive into middle age, the suicide rate among sex workers is unimaginably high.

So what makes sex work so much different from even murderers?  (Yes, I have treated them also).   I believe that the hardness is precisely because they have succeeded in separating sex from intimacy.  In so doing, they have damaged their ability to develop intimacy of any sort.  They built their ego shell and then became imprisoned behind it.

So what does this tell us about multiple sex partners.  Ok, so the normal horn-dog player does not have sex with 50 strangers in a day.  But the same process that turns the prostitute into a hardened diamond also is at work with the people who do one-night stands on Friday night.  The heart automatically looks for intimacy and begins “becoming one” with the sex partner.  But this is then ripped away the next morning and a piece of soul goes with it.

Listen, God knows what he is talking about when he tells us that fornication is a work of the flesh.  The works of the flesh are all destructive.  God doesn’t tell us to keep away from them because they hurt him, but because they destroy us!

Do we actually have to go without sex in heaven?

Harps but no sex? That doesn’t sound heavenly

One of the verses that has confused me a lot over the years is the following.

Mark 12:25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

This seems to imply that there is no sex in heaven.  From the standpoint of us in our current bodies, the idea of eternity without sex sounds, well, like hell.

 It would be strange to think that God gave us a pleasure here that is not imagined in heaven.   That is contrary to most people’s understanding of heaven.
Let’s look at the different conceptions of heaven.   Some of us see heaven similarly to CS Lewis’s description of the Platonic idealized Narnia.
Image result for narnia heaven
“The difference between the old Narnia and the new Narnia was like that. The new one was a deeper country: every rock and flower and blade of grass looked as if it meant more.”
Other’s of us see heaven like the Precious Moment’s “Childs view of heaven”
We all get together and smile a lot

Note that both of these visions of heaven are CHILDLIKE.  They are meant to explain to children the concept of eternity with God.  They are not very good adult versions.  In fact the “eternal spring” idea of heaven sounds remarkably like HG Well’s dystopian version of the Eloi.

Remember, also, that these images do not come from the Bible.  In fact, the Bible is remarkably silent on what heaven is actually like.  It mainly tells us what is NOT there.

Re 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
Re 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

There are only a few indications of what it will be like.

I John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

Revelations 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

We also get the Revelations 21 and 22 telling us about the outside of heaven, jewels, a river of life, a tree of life and that Jesus is the light thereof.  But nothing about how we live when we get there.

In his book “Job” the agnostic Robert Heinlein does an artistic job of making fun of heaven.  He shows it as an overcrowded city with everyone divided into classes like a bad imitation of Hindu castes.

But, I think Paul does the best job of discussing this issue in his chapter on the resurrection.

I Corinthians 15: 39-44 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.  There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.  So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:  It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:  It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

So, in other words.  We cannot imagine what our spiritual bodies are going to be like or what we will do with them.  If we are like to be like Jesus, then we should have “joy unspeakable and full of glory” but not as if it was an eternal ecstasy high (for even this would be boring) but rather some sort of joy that we can’t imagine at this time.

Ok, having said all we actually know about heaven, let’s move on to sex, which we know a whole lot more about.

What is it that we really like about sex?  Why do we talk about it, think about it, dream about it, do it, so often?   I think the answer it (at least) threefold.

  1. Orgasm- Well, duh, it feels good.  Moments of upswelling pleasure that differ from the moments surrounding it.
  2. Intimacy – There is something wonderful about joining together physically with another person – “becoming one” in a physical, emotional, and spiritual way that is unlike any other activity in the human existence
  3. Fulfilling a primal drive – Let’s face it, to have sex, sleep, and eat food are three things that we love to do because we simply NEED to do them.

So, in this new unimaginable resurrected body, will we still be able to feel good, be intimate, and fulfill our basic needs?

Somehow, I think that the God who created sex is not going to leave out these three important features from our next life.  I’m certain we shall have moments of upswelling joy (“And when the beasts cry holy, the four and twenty elders cast their crowns before the throne…..”)  We will have true intimacy with God himself (we are the BRIDE of Christ) and I am confident that we will have a purpose that we can fulfill.  I don’t know what this purpose is, it may be different for each person – just as it is for the angels.

So, this all comes down to is a matter of Faith.  We either believe God loves us and wants us to be happy, or we don’t.  If we believe in God, then we simply must trust that all of the joys of sex will be in heaven and will be greater and more wonderful than they are down here.

So, sex as in penises and vaginas?  Probably not.  But sex as in upswelling pleasure, joyful union and fulfilling desire.  Yes.

Catholics, masturbation, and porn

Ok, let me say, straight off, that I am not an expert on Catholicism.  I am an expert on the human condition and I know the Bible thoroughly, however, I easily get lost in the Jesuitan toils of Vatican II, the magisteriam, and the different Veritas pronouncements of John Paul II.    So if anyone can help me out and correct any misunderstanding’s on  my part, please comment.

I am indebted to the really good Wikipedia article on this subject

 

But, unlike most evangelicals, I will avoid the cheap shots about priests and their sex life.

There are, as far as I can tell, two huge differences between Catholics and Protestants when it comes to sex.  The first is that Protestants can only preach against things that the Bible says, while Catholics use logic and philosophy.   So, the Bible is silent – in fact it is conspicuously silent about masturbation even in places where it is being explicit about other sins that are closely related.   So, protestants have been more reticent to rail against it as a great sin.

The second difference is the “purpose of sex.”    To a Catholic, the purpose of sex is reproduction – having babies.   To have sex when not trying to make babies is, by definition, to be fulfilling lust.

To a Protestant, sex is about intimacy with having babies a close second (or maybe the other way around, anyway, intimacy is way, way up there).  The married couple has sex even when using birth control because the closeness and intimacy of the marriage, itself, is the good being sought.

Therefore, to the Catholic church, any sexual behavior, at all, that does not have a possibility of producing children is lustful.

I had a widower friend who was almost 80 years old.  He married a widow who was a long-time friend and also of advanced age.  This was during the gay marriage debate.  Someone asked the gentleman if this marriage was intended to produce children.  He replied, “Well, brother, I plan to do my part.”

So, by nature, the Catholic position on masturbation is uncompromising.  Even a married couple cannot masturbate together or each other if they are doing so for the purpose of birth control.

Monty Python does a great job of mocking this position in their skit “Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great, if a sperm is wasted, God gets so irate.”  They immediately mock the protestants also, so it is equal opportunity satire.

But there is one area where the Catholics are absolutely an improvement on Protestants: the Artistic Nude.  The Catholic church is not ashamed to show the Virgin Mary’s breast.  They are not afraid to show the naked human form in the Sistine Chapel or anywhere else.  They are not ashamed of the statue of David.

So, having understood the Catholic position that masturbation is a (at least venial) sin, what do I say to my Catholic friends about jacking it to porn.

I’m afraid I’m going to have to say that this is just where the sainted John Paul and I disagree.   The church has done extreme harm to itself and to its members by treating sex as if it were lustful.   This insistence on an unnatural abstinence has caused a lot of problems through the years.  I promised I wouldn’t bring up the priest scandals and I won’t take any cheap shots, but demanding that people become asexual is simply asking for these sorts of problems.   When you demand that a married couple not have sex so much of the time, are you surprised when Catholic men have affairs?

Let me propose an alternate philosophy.  Sex is given by God in order to produce and protect children.  In order to protect that children that are produced, God wanted to make a strong partnership and marriage.  So he made men different from the animals.  A dog only mates during the female’s fertile time, but humans wish to have sex all month long.  This is not sinful, but rather part of God’s plan.   Married couples who are having frequent sex (preferably multiple times a day) are better able to partner together for the protection and encouragement of their children and even their grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

Masturbation, mutual and solo, is a natural part of the constant sexual desire.  Some theologians have made the point that solo masturbation is selfish and causes the participant to lose his desire for a closer relationship with his current or future partner.  But this is simply not so.  The more sex a person has, the more they want to have.   Jerking it to porn does not cause a man to want women less, but rather to want them more.  Sex actions produce more sexual desire and vica-versa.

If Catholic men and women were taught that erotica and masturbation were normal, holy, and desirable, then I believe that their marriages would be strengthened.  Another benefit would be that the children would see that their parents were living according to the Church’s teaching and not hypocritically.

Peter worked “gymnos” that is: naked

Of course, Peter was naked. Why shouldn’t he be?

John 21:7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher’s coat unto him, (for he was naked <gymnos>,) and did cast himself into the sea.

It is easy for us modern westerners, with our big houses, private bathrooms with frosted windows, and abundant clothes to retroactively ascribe our privacy taboos onto the ancient world.

One example of this is how we work so hard to put clothes on Simon Peter the fisherman when the Bible clearly tells us that he was naked.  Modern evangelicals have worked very hard to say that the word “naked” here, just means that he was “stripped to the waist” as the Living Bible puts it.

But this contradicts everything we know about the ancient world.    The Bible says that Peter was “gymnos” from which we get the word gym.  One of the most commonly known facts is that the Greek gymasts competed naked.

Ancient Athletes “gymnos” – naked

In fact, the Paul mentions this fact, in a complementary way, in Hebrews 12:1.

Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us

I once had a missionary friend who showed me the videos he had taken on a trip to some tribal people who lived on islands.  He had to heavily edit the films in order to not show the nudity that was common.  These are people who are very conservative sexually.  They practice strict monogamy, yet men and women who work around water and in boats all day long do not drag walk around in wet clothes.  They, often, without embarrassment or shame, go naked.  They are not “nudists” or “naturists” that just don’t have the same weird hangups that our current culture has.

This same missionary would be taking a shower in the public shower house on the island when the local people (men and women) would walk in and look him up and down(I suppose to see if he was pale all over!).   It didn’t even occur to them that this might bother him.

Similarly, people who live in huts and houses that are, at most, 1 to 2 feet away from each other know a lot about each other’s sexual habits.   A family that lives in a house with a single room knows a lot about Mom and Dad’s sexual habits.  Otherwise everyone would be an only child.

I know that this horrifies our modern privacy taboos, but it is we who are strange in this, not the rest of history and the world.

The openness toward nudity and erotica in the ancient world was not considered “porn.”   Porn is a recent invention.  Porn could only exist after Puritanism had first created an attitude that the human body and human sex was sinful, lustful, and dirty.  That it must be hidden away from human eyes lest we lose control of ourselves and become animals.

There is a lot in the Bible about harlotry.  There is even a lot in the Bible about the clothing of harlots and their customers.

Isa 3:16 Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet:

Eze 23:15 Girded with girdles upon their loins, exceeding in dyed attire upon their heads, all of them princes to look to, after the manner of the Babylonians of Chaldea, the land of their nativity:

And so on.  But note that whenever the attire or clothing of a harlot are mentioned, it is about them putting ON clothes, not taking them off.  Even today street walkers put on fishnet hose, they don’t wear bikinis.

The reason that we have such a problem today with Christian men being “addicted to porn”  (a ridiculous phrase, by the way) is because we have repressed normal erotic desire.  As a result, the instinct bursts out in an unhealthy way.

God grant the church the wisdom to stop this crusade against nature and nature’s God and get back to preaching the Gospel and Biblical morality.

More discussion of Rick Warren’s wife’s confession

Several months ago, I linked to an article about Rick Warren’s wife’s confession that she had looked at porn.   I also commented upon the article at the Catholic site that wrote it.

I recently got this reply.

Your link refers to 1 Tim 4. However, 1 Tim 4 warns against those whose cheapen marriage, and that warning seems to me about you as well. Because pornography how it made, who makes it, and how its treats sex, in OUR CULTURE has no redeeming features. Therefore pornography in our culture must be rejected in every way.

Also in the same passages, Paul preaches for ‘purity’. It can only refer to sexual purity.

I also don’t see how Warren’s experience cheapens what you are trying to do. That is a straw man argument. I agree with you that erotica is a very good thing, but I also believe the teachings of the Catholic Church that masturbation is a sin– with the same questioning as Peter who asked. ‘then how can anyone be saved?’. When Paul refers to thanksgiving, he is referring the the Catholic view, he is not in any way supporting porn that was very prevalent in the Roman culture.

I agree that some of your reflections are warranted in that it reflect the view in Protestantism that regards sex as fundamentally dirty. This comes from Luther’s teaching that the physical world is fundamentally corrupted, versus the Cathol ic teaching that matter is good but our relationship to it is tarnished but re-storable, healed by santifying grace (also rejected by Luther).

My site is mainly about evangelical opposition to erotica.  As this writer makes clear, Catholicism teaches even against masturbation.  Now if a man can’t rub one out, then he obviously shouldn’t be looking at porn.  Masturbation and erotica are closely linked.  I talk about this here.

He has two points.

  1. Porn cheapens marriage because of the evilness of the porn industry

This is currently true.  The porn industry considers itself sinful and it treats women as objects to be used and discarded.  Even though at HolyErotica.com I attempt to only import high quality romantic couples erotica, I often link to videos produced by SinfulXXX and LustHD .   What is so strange about these videos is that they are not displaying things that are sinful or lustful.  A couple is perfectly can engage in perfectly holy sex without it being lust.  It is probably true that the couple portrayed are not married or even in a committed relationship, there is nothing about the act or the erotica, itself, that is sinful or lustful.

The problem is that Christians have, in recent decades, turned sex over to the sinners.  This is wrong.  Sex was created by God and is wonderful, holy, and lovely.    Naked women are beautiful and were created by God in his own image (not that God is a woman.  The explanation of this is left as an exercise for the reader).    Erotica should have been – as it was by Solomon and as the Renaissance artists  – done by and about Christians and holy people about holy sex and nudity.  See here, and here, and here.

I remember when I was taking my High School senior picture I saw in the artist’s studio a picture of a nude pregnant wife.  I was horrified and embarrassed.    How could a woman allow herself to be displayed to the public that way?   You see, I had been convinced that nudity was sinful.  I had fallen for the sinful pornographer’s trick.

There is a wonderful post about this by a catholic at patheos.com

2) Masturbation is a sin and so therefore porn is evil.

For a faithful Catholic, I suppose, this is an easy one.  The pope says masturbation is wrong.  We are done.  But, maybe it isn’t quite so simple.  It is, after all, only a venial sin.  A trip to confession and a few Hail Mary’s and all is well.

But for those of us who don’t have to take the Pope’s word for it, the subject isn’t that difficult.  Presumably the New Testament writers (who were all men) knew how to jerk it.    In all of their very specific lists of sins. (Adultery, fornication, lasciviousness…murder, drunkeness…)  they never seem to get around to “wanking.”

“Well they don’t mention smoking either.”  Really?  Is that your argument.  Smoking is new and the biblical authors had never heard of it, but I am confident that Cain and Able knew all about playing with their little peters.  The Bible has time to forbid sex with your aunt, with your cousin, with your step-mother, but never mentions sex with yourself.

Actually it does mention it.

Leviticus 15:16 And if any man’s seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even.
17 And every garment, and every skin, whereon is the seed of copulation, shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the even.
18 The woman also with whom man shall lie with seed of copulation, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the even.

In other words, sex with your wife and masturbation with yourself are mentioned in the same passage, and the same instruction is given for both circumstances.  Take a bath!

 

What a holy and erotic marriage (with porn) is like

Yes,  sex multiple times a day is normal for long-term marriages

According to the “Good Man Project

The majority of couples I’ve interviewed that have been married for greater than five years will have sexual intercourse at the rate of 4 to 12 times per month.

Horse-hockey.  No, I don’t mean that this doctor is incorrect in his assessment.  I mean, that it is horse-hockey that this is normal.  No, it isn’t.   It is also normal for people to have affairs after being married for 5 years.  If they are only have sex 2 to 3 a week, then I would consider an affair inevitable.

I have been married for over three decades.  That statistic should be closer to 2 to 3 times each day.   I mean, there is the “going to sleep” sex, the “morning wood”sex and they “middle of the night in our sleep” sex, besides the afternoon “came home early from work and got horny” sex.    Besides that, you’ve got the living room sex and the kitchen sex.  How do people fit all of that into just 12 times in a month?

Why do married people stop having so much sex?  I’m not sure, but the “being together five years” statement makes me suspicious.  It sounds like the couple are getting bored and stop using stimuli that are related to each other.    I am absolutely confident that men who are only having sex with their wives 4 times a month are masturbating to porn much, much, more commonly than that.

If a man is actually a good man who has taken the appropriate masculine role in his family, then he can change this by bringing his wife in on his sexual habits.  Marriage is about shared sex.

If you don’t know how to do this, then you have to start by getting your wife to accept that you watch porn.  Here is my article about that.

How to tell your wife you watch porn

So, once you have helped your wife understand that erotica is a normal and important part of a holy man’s wife.  You can simply start watching it in front of her.   If she has been raised in the feminized anti-sex church, then she will know that she is supposed to be mad about this.  Weather the storm; be a man.   Offer to have sex with her right then.  If she refuses, rub one out in front of her.

Remember, she is not actually angry on her own behalf.  She is angry because she has been told that she is supposed to be angry.   This is what the other women are telling her she is supposed to do.

Tell her this.   Explain to her, repeatedly, that you are and have been a faithful husband.  You are a godly man who loves her.  You don’t want to have sex with other women and you will not have sex with other women.  Tell her that God and the Bible are on your side. She has the opinions of her girlfriends.  Which one is supreme in your home?  Refer her to the other articles on this this website if she wants to argue about it.

This is not going to be easy.  This is going to take some time.  Probably months.  By kind, be understanding, be loving.  Don’t yell, don’t raise your voice.  BUT DO NOT GIVE IN ON THIS.  You are fighting for the long-term health of your family.

Eventually, your wife is going to make love to you while porn plays in the background.  She will start having more orgasms because, the real fact of ths matter is, it is going to turn her on.  (It is important to use only holy erotica for this. Female-friendly, romantic.    You can find it gathered at HolyErotica.com so you don’t have to go browsing to find it.

This should not be something you do a couple times a week.  Wake up each morning getting wood from erotic pictures.  Go to bed each night after screwing like rabbits while watching erotica.

Eventually, the erotica will be less necessary.  She’ll be jumping your bones in the shower, in the living room.  You will wake up at night to her frigging your leg.

That, my friends, is what a holy marriage looks like.

What are we afraid of?

Something has the church afraid of sex. What is it?

Remember all of those sermons you heard telling you what would happen if you broke the dress code, listened to “worldly” music, drank a beer or looked at “dirty pictures.”   Do you remember the examples.  The young man who ended up addicted to drugs and dying in a car accident.  James Dobson telling us of the story of the serial murderer, Ted Bundy, who was driven to murder by his “porn addiction.”

All of these stories are made up.  Ted Bundy was not driven to murder by porn, but rather by the severe abuse, physical and sexual, he was subjected to as a child.  Every woman who puts on a pair of pants does not end up dying in a car accident or (horror of horrors) having a black man’s baby (I’m not making this up, this is the most common example I was told as a young man).  Every teen who drinks a beer does not end up pushing crack cocaine.

The stories are not the source of the fear, but rather designed to mold fear that already exists.    I would like to find out where this doctrine of “modesty” originated.   It did not originate in the Bible.  The New Testament teaches “modesty” as a matter of ostentation, not as a matter of sex and nakedness.

Unquestionably, the New Testament is against sexual sin.  The first four works of the flesh are “Adultery, fornication, lasciviousness, uncleaness.”   But the ancient world was filled with nudity and depictions of sex and nakedness.  At no time does Paul or the other writers tell the new Christians to remove the naked Roman art from their houses or trash the Greek urns.

But as the dark ages came around, the men were fearful that the barbarians were going to come take their women.  So they started covering them up and hiding their beauty.  Note, that the middle ages had a lot of male nakedness.  This wasn’t a problem.  A swinging peter was normal, but a naked breast….. horrors.

Why?  I think it is because the women were property who had to be protected from theft.  They therefore had to be hidden and bound.

You see this in effect in the Muslim world today.  Go to the beaches of Dearborn, Michigan and see all of the Muslim men in shorts without a shirt, escorting their women who are covered head to toe.

The Christian churches began to turn this on its head a few years ago.  As the men were driven from the churches and the feminizers took over, they did not seek to free the women, but rather bind the men.   If you do a Google search on Christians and porn, you will see that it is the women who are declaring that the men are “addicted to porn” and using this as an excuse to divorce.

What are the women afraid of – that their husbands are going to see some cute young thing and dump them for a newer model?  It’s a strange fear, because a man who wishes to do this will do so whether you have a porn-filter on his computer or not.

A faithful man is faithful not because he is tied and bound, but because he loves his wife.  He finds himself unable and unwilling to imagine a life without her.  They have developed an intimacy that goes beyond sex, but is nevertheless fed by regular maintenance sex.   If a wife really wants to keep her man, she will keep him horny and humping.    One of the tools that she has in her bag is to show him images of nubile young women and then, when he is good and hard, drain his balls.    His connection with his wife (which goes beyond mere sex) is strengthened and he will appreciate her for giving him freedom and trusting that he loves her.

The women who try to hold onto their men by restricting him are like the child who holds his puppy really, really, tight to keep him from running away.

The puppy would rather stay near his master and love him with freedom.    But will struggle for freedom, nevertheless.  Men, like the puppy, resent the restriction and struggle to be free.

Women, give your husband the freedom that he deserves and you will have him forever.

Lust and Sexual Arousal are not the same thing

Lust and Love are not opposites
This is a nonsense question. What if it is simply lawful desire

It frustrates me to see Christians and Pornographers agree on a complete lie.  Sexual arousal is not LUST.   It’s just desire.  If I see a good looking woman and get a woody, I have not lusted.  The only way for me to lust is if I make plans (or wish that I could make plans ) to get in her pants.

The comedian Bill Burr does a great job with this on one of his Netflix specials.  He talks about how Tiger Wood and Arnold Schwarzenegger were attacked because they cheated on their wives.   He makes it clear that the difference between Tiger and Arnold and the men attacking them was access.  Many of the men attacking them would be committing adultery also if any woman wanted them.  I agree.

Just because you haven’t committed adultery doesn’t mean that you haven’t lusted.   If you want to commit adultery, if you make plans to have sex with other women – or if you WOULD make plans if you didn’t know that you would get caught – then you are lusting.

But the mere fact of physical arousal at the sight of a woman is not lust.  Looking at Sports Illustrated Swimsuit addition is not lust, even if you get hard.  Watching Daenarys Stormborn and liking her breasts (hubba, hubba, they are really great!) is not lust

Thank you God for letting me see those babies
I am not trying to get in bed with Emilia Clarke.  I don’t want to have an affair with her.  I wouldn’t do so even if my wife gave me a “pass.”    I am not lusting.  But, yes, I have definitely had some orgasms while looking.

The error of equating arousal and lust is an old heresy called “Cartesian mind-body dualism.”  (Wikipedia link here)  It is the belief that God is in the realm of the spirit and sin is in the realm of the flesh or body.  This is a heresy that all mainstream Christian leaders know to avoid, yet for some reason, when it comes to physical arousal, they forget all of their Seminary lessons.  (Maybe because they are thinking with their balls instead of their brains).

 

Pastor questions his porn legalism and then stops thinking

James Emory White is a pastor in Charlottesville NC.  He writes an article asking “Is Pornography Really Wrong?”  I thought, wow, this is amazing, a pastor who actually asks the question.

Sadly, it’s only pretend.  The question was only asked as a trick to get people to read the same disproved points that the legalists have been trying to push for years.

  1. It is lust — Not it isn’t.  No Jesus did not tell you that you couldn’t look at anything that turned you on.  He told you not to LUST.  Lust is desire out of control.  If you don’t make plans, or wish you could get into a woman’s pants, you haven’t lusted.  Admiring her body is not lust
  2. It is addictive — No it isn’t.  The American Psychiatric Association has spoken on this repeatedly.  But this isn’t the pastor’s real problem.  If he really thought that ANY thing that was addictive was sinful, then he would be railing against processed sugar and caffeine.  To substances that don’t cause any problems in people’s lives but are, unquestionably, addictive
  3. It is degrading to women — Not all of it is.  If this is his problem, then he ought to be directing his men to HolyErotica.com  because it doesn’t have degrading porn.
  4. “Studies show” It leads to other sins (specifically rape) —   Absolute and total nonsense.  There is no study that shows such a thing.  He doesn’t bother to actually link to any of these “studies”
  5. It harms your relationship with your spouse —- According to him, Porn causes you to stop have sex with your wife.   This is nonsense, and many, many studies have proven this repeatedly.  For example, read this post.
  6. It desensitizes your soul —- or, makes God pull away from you because you are sinning.  This is called “Begging the Question”  or “Presuming the consequent”  He presumes porn is wrong and then uses that presumption to claim that God will be displeased, therefore porn must be wrong.  Erotica is wrong because he presumes it is wrong.
  7. It reduces sex to lust — This is the most annoying point of all.  He acts like erotic desire is lust.  This is falling for the lie of the world.  Lust and erotic desire are not related.  If I desire my wife I do not LUST for her.  This is the old dualistic “spirit” and “body” heresy.  He would recognize that as a heresy if he read it in any other context.

This pastor has the same objectivity when talking about erotica as CNN has about President Trump.

Seven things for Christians to do after they jack off to porn

The anti-erotica legalists are almost all women.  But occasionally a man who has been indoctrinated to hate himself writes something.  Today I will link to one of these poor souls.

According to this pH D at Moody Bible Institute, this is what you do after watching porn.  He is wrong, but because he is a man, he actually understands a couple things.

  1. Recognize it is Satan’s fault (LOL)
  2. Fight Self-hatred (induced by your shame because of what other people told you)
  3. Fight the haze (Don’t relax, because you must be always tense to be a christian)
  4. Guard others (apparently you are now an incipient rapist, just waiting to anally rape anyone)
  5. Confess to friend (so he can feel better about HIS porn use)
  6. Use your clarity for good. (Apparently, now that your balls are empty, you can use your frontal lobe again)
  7. Know your God (pray and pray until you get horny the next time)

Poor, sad, deluded man.  His whole life is about porn.  He lives in between his porn use episodes in a haze of shame, confession, trying to find new restrictions that will stop him next time, anguished prayer and self-flagellation, and then, inevitably, the next porn episode.

How much better would it be if he simply accepted the Bible standard.  Erotic desire is the natural and holy part of life.  Instead of trying to force himself to not have testicles, he could have rejoiced in it, shared this part of his life with his wife, and spent his freed-up energy to help his fellow man.

Why Christian Erotica is about holiness and not fornication

The purpose of Christian Erotica is to increase Christian Marital Sex and Intimacy

I was recently contacted by a young man who wanted me to help him find a way to have internet sex with women.  He didn’t want to find a girlfriend and he wasn’t searching for a wife, he just wanted to have meaningless and faceless sex.

I didn’t help him.  Because that is not what this site and it’s companion site HolyErotica.com is about.

I maintain these sites (even though I make no money and actually spend money on them) because I believe in Christian marriage, Christian sex, and  Christian intimacy.

Like all men, I dreamed of sex from a very young age.  I asked God to please not return in the rapture before I could have sex.  I was a virgin horn dog.  But I didn’t get to kiss a girl until well after high school.   The girls probably sensed the hormones coming off of me and ran for their lives.

Because I needed sex so much, I sought desperately for a wife.  I found a great one.    It turns out that she was just as much of a horny virgin as I was.   Otherwise she would never have married a broke college student.

You see, marriage is almost never a practical idea, just a good one.    The reason that we got married is because that was the only holy way to get lots and lots of sex.

And it did us well.  Marriage is never practical but it is very good for people.  It is not practical for a man to have to work long hours because he has responsibilities, but “it is not good for a man to dwell alone.”   It is not practical to have a baby with his wife, but it is good for him, his wife, and their child.

The purpose of Holy Erotica is not to provide an alternative to seeking a wife or to having sex with your wife.  It is intended to help you be more sexual with the wife that God intends you to have.   For single men, it is intended to make you want a wife more and too seek one out.  “He that FINDETH a wife findeth a good thing.”  And FINDING requires SEARCHING.  Porn with masturbation does not DECREASE a man’s desire for a woman.  It doesn’t “drain his balls” and “give him relief.”  Did you honestly think it did?  It makes him want a woman.  If he is a Christian, it makes him want a wife.

Having said all of that.  I know that almost all of the readers are yelling at their computer screen – “BUT THAT ISN’T THE WAY IT WORKS ANYMORE”   I know that.  I am a psychiatrist and I hear stories daily that would give you nightmares.  I know that this is not 1950 anymore.  I realize that people can find sex easily.  They can buy it  within a few hours and with a little more effort they can use the online apps to find hookups.  Quality sex robots are only months away.

Here is the key, the Bible was not written in 1950.  The ancient world had pervasive sexuality also.  Slaves had no rights and could be used at will.  Temple prostitutes were cheap.   Privacy was non-existent and nudity abounded.    Yet Paul tells the Corinthians “Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.” (I Cor 6:15)  In the midst of the Vegas of the ancient world.    God expected people to live like they were in 1950’s America.

I like sex.  I like to watch videos about sex, read stories about sex, and look at pictures of sex and sexy people.    This has done me well, because I have a great wife who I can be sexually intimate with.  We are close and become closer because of all of the sex that we have.  This is the purpose of erotica, this is the purpose of sex, and this is the purpose of marriage.

On sexual harassment and “immodest clothes”

Sexy workplace attire
Oh my! She’s a WOMAN!

Rush Limbaugh’s undeniable truth of life:  “The Women’s movement was formed to give ugly women access to the mainstream”

Instapundit notes that democrat Congresswoman Kaptur of Ohio has decided that women are dressing too immodestly in the workplace and this is why they are being harassed.

The fact is that, no matter where you draw the line, some women are going to be more attractive and dress more “immodestly” than others, and these women will get more positive attention than others.  The people who resent this the most are the other (especially ugly) women.

Congresswoman Kaptur (D-Ohio). For example

The muslims in sharia countries get erections when they see a woman’s bare face.  So, I am sure that the women of Afghanistan gossip about the young beautiful wife who wears her burqas too tight.

I know this is so because I used to belong to a strict evangelical church where the women were required to wear loose, long skirts and long sleeves.  There were still “immodest” girls who pushed the line by wearing high heels or who wore their long hair in particularly attractive styles. Who enforced the dress code most strongly?  The other women.

Religion versus Christianity

During Jesus’ ministry, he was not the most HOLY person around.  Christianity is not like today’s Republican politics, where the person who can claim to be the most conservative wins the prize.   Christianity consists of loving Christ and growing in health together with him.

Today’s Pharisee position is that erotica is wrong.  This is the “holy” position.  It doesn’t matter that the Bible doesn’t back that position.  All that matters is that being against erotica is Religious and Holy.

But if a man truly wants to be in tune with Christ, he should stop trying so hard to fight against the erotic nature that God intended him to have.  Instead of fighting this “temptation” he ought to shape it and mold it into the image of Christ.   He should encourage his erotic nature to direct itself toward females and in particular one female – his current or future wife.  “Porn” (more properly called Erotica) is a natural and holy part of that.

Exciting news for middle aged marriages – Viagra goes Generic

Viagra Is Now Generic

My young adult son doesn’t know why this is such great news for marriages.  Let me explain.

A large percentage of men (nearly half) begin to develop occasional erectile dysfunction as they get older.  For a marriage, this is slow motion death.  As he has to work harder and harder (haha yeah, funny) to get it up his wife and he start having less sex.  This often, very often, becomes a chronic situation where they don’t have sex for months and years at a time.

Unfortunately, he is still horny.  The fact that his arteries are smaller and his blood pressure is higher doesn’t have anything to do with his real libido.   And when he is really horny, he can still maintain something of a stiffy.   So the cute girl from his office with stars in her eyes for the man with income security suddenly starts looking better.

This would never have happened if he had access to viagra or, even better, cialis.   His wife and he would still be going at it like the bunny rabbits they always were.  This is especially true if she lets him look at erotica and then jumps his bones.

Some of you men may be concerned about how hard (ha ha) it is to get a prescription.  The answer is that any doctor will write you a prescription in a minute.  In fact, when I talk to a middle aged patient, one of the standard questions that I SHOULD be asking is about erectile dysfunction.  If he has a problem and there isn’t any special reason why I shouldn’t give him cialis, I do so.  In fact, Cialis for daily use is approved for treatment of benign prostate problems (which most middle aged men ALSO have).   I have written many scripts for this.  It is cheap and insurance will cover it.

So, don’t be ashamed.  Be a man, go to your doctor, get some pills and get some wood!  Then reignite your marriage!

The New Christian Girly-man

Evangelical Girly Man
The New Evangelical Womans ideal jawline. Weak and easily manipulated.

The feminization of the church is never more clear than watching the evangelical chick-flick rom-coms.  Here, for example is the Mounty from Hallmark Channel’s “When Calls The Heart”.   His eyes are watery.  I’m sure that this actor is very good at quoting poetry (probably to his boyfriend at their wedding!)   See the weak jawline?

This mounty has a real jaw!

But everyone knows that a mounty has a square shape.  He’s a man.  He’s not afraid to stand alone.

What’s next?  A Texas ranger with soft skin?

No wonder these women expect their husbands to never look at a woman.  Their husbands have clear cut their balls off and placed them in their wife’s makeup bag.

Lying in order to support a “Christian” position

Christian White Lies
Lying in the defense of the faith is not Christian and not “white”

In this article a wife defends divorcing her husband because he was “addicted” to porn.  What’s more, she dedicates the rest of her life to writing and convincing other women to divorce their husbands for being men.

But to her sin of taking the Lords name in vain she adds another sin: Hypocritical Lying

Here’s what she says about “porn addiction”

A 2011 article on the neuroscience of pornography in the journal of Surgical Neurology International summarized the research and concluded, “Just as we consider food addiction as having a biologic basis, with no moral overlay or value-laden terminology, it is time we looked at pornography and other forms of sexual addiction with the same objective eye.”

This seems to add the confirmation of science to her contention that watching porn is an “addiction.”  However, if you actually click the link and discover what the article is saying, it is talking about pedophilia, not porn.   The article was making the point that the pre-frontal cortex can be changed by behaviors and not only by chemicals.  It does NOT make the point that pornography is addictive.   In fact, the American Psychiatric Association and all of the other scientific groups have gone out of their way to say that pornography use is NOT addictive.  They have published multiple articles on this and many studies.

So why does this wife tell this lie?  Because she wanted to divorce her husband and wanted to have a “holy” reason to do so.

According to my understanding, the only adultery in that wife’s marriage was her.  It is a shame that our churches are led by this sort of evil.

Porn Shocked Wives! Do they have PTSD

 

Wives shocked by their husband's porn use

She is Shocked! Shocked! to discover that her husband likes sexAccording to this article in an evangelical magazine, women who discover that their husband watches porn meet criteria for PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder).

No, they don’t.  But they do meet criteria for Delusional Disorder if they ever believed that their husband wasn’t going to look at porn.  They still meet it if they believe that their husband is going to be “cured” of his “porn addiction.”

The very first criteria of PTSD is that the person must have experienced a life-threatening event.  Finding out that your husband saw a nekkid woman does not qualify as “life-threatening” in the mind of any reasonable person.  If someone does believe that this is that traumatic then they are delusional and the wife is the one who needs psychiatric treatment – not the husband.

What really upsets me most is the results of a google search of wives discovering husband’s porn use is filled with articles talking about wives divorcing their husbands for this “sin.”   What is amazing is not one of these supposedly Christian articles tell the wife that divorce for this cause is absolutely, completely, and totally wrong and ungodly.

If the Christian church stands for anything in this culture, it should be for the preservation of the family.  Yet these women (it is invariably a female writer of the article) are willing to break up homes over an activity that they know is universal.  Every Christian husband has looked at porn.  So, according to these “Christian” writers, NO MARRIAGE SHOULD LAST.

This is evil.  When given a choice between destroying every family in the country and re-considering their anti-erotica position, they would rather be destroyers than admit that they are wrong.

This is the natural result of allowing the church to be taken over by the feminizers.  Not only are men to be driven out of the church, they are also to be driven from the home for their “toxic masculinity.”

If your wife falls under the influence of these destroyers, be a man.  Tell her that you will not bow to the doctrines of devils that have taken over the church.  You will not be forbidden to eat meat or to marry.  You will be a man.  You will continue to like sex and you will continue to have sex with her and her alone, but you will not cut off your balls to obey a teaching hatched in hell.

Porn, Masturbation, Sex, and Intimacy

Intimacy is necessary in life

I have received several feedback questions and comments about masturbation and loneliness.  None of these were from the puritanical crowd.  So I want to address an issue that some readers may find useful.

I believe that masturbation erotic videos/stories/pictures should be a part of a persons sexual life.  In fact, I go further and say that it ALREADY is a part of almost every man’s sexual experience and most women’s.  A problem occurs when there part of the universal sexual experience is considered shameful.

According to the psychologist Erickson, there are several stages of life that are not only universal, but necessary for psychological health.  A baby learns  “Trust vs Mistrust.”   A toddler learns “Autonomy versus Shame.”  A pre-school child learns “Initiative vs Guilt.”  An elementary child learns “Industry versus  Inferiority” and a teen learns “Identity versus Role Confusion”

It is in this “Identity” phase of growth that healthy, mature, and normal masturbation begins and, usually, erotic art is encountered.   When the teen boy encounters erotic material he discovers that he has a certain feeling about girls.  Thoughts of girls make him hard.  Girls in bikinis give him wood.  Girls in tight jeans make his jeans tight.  Thoughts about sex with girls make him cream  his underwear when he is asleep.   Eventually, he discovers that by touching himself he does not have to wait for an erotic dream.  He seeks out erotic material for masturbatory help.

This is normal and healthy.  But, and this is important, this is not the end of his sexual development.  In order to grow into a healthy adult, he must step into Erickson’s next stage “Intimacy versus Isolation”.  He must learn to share this sexual life with another person.  This proceeds in steps.  He first learns how to kiss girls, date girls, treat girls with respect.  He begins to learn that it is not enough to kiss a bunch of girls, but that this experience is best if it is shared with a single, special girl.    The search for a single, special girl with whom he wishes to be completely open with, to hide nothing, to bare his soul as well as his entire body.  To be truly naked, body and soul.  Is frightening and dangerous.  Many mistakes are made.     This search can consume only a few months of high school, or it may consume the next decade of his life.  This is the way it worked for me.  I spotted my soul mate at age 24 and married her 11 weeks later.  We are still together 3 decades later and will be separated only by death.

This new “Intimacy” stage is a universal NEED.  If a man misses out on it, he cannot be whole, he cannot be truly healthy.

Ok, that is not entirely true.  According to Jesus (who never married) it is possible to be a “Eunuch”

Matt 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

These men are called specially by God for some reason that only they know.  However, this I know.  Such a man is a EUNUCH.  That is, he does not desire or want sex at all.  He will not be drawn to porn.   This is fairly rare and if someone is like this and wishes to talk about it with me, then he can hit the “Reply ” or “Contact Us” button.

Now, for the rest of us.   It is a mistake for a young man to get caught in the “Identity” phase of life, when he is just discovering his sexual self, and never step on to the “Intimacy” side of life.

Porn allows a man to delay his development into an intimate person.  This is fine.  In our society a man becomes sexual at least a decade or more before he is ready to be a husband and father.  But it is a mistake for any man to think that he can not ever step into the intimacy of an adult.

Porn has a place in an adult, intimate, man’s life.  It allows him to maintain his sexual desire for his one woman by maintaining a health fantasy life.   But it becomes a problem when it becomes a substitute for intimacy.  The man will end up feeling lonely, isolated, and cut off from humanity.  The result of this are depression and despair.

Why don’t we tell sex addicts to quit sex

Porn is not an addiction
Is the real purpose of the anti-porn crusaders anti-sex?

Sex and porn are not addictions because the treatment for “Sex Addiction” is not to quit sex.

There are two main reasons for people to call people’s sexual behavior an “addiction”.  The first one is to excuse their own behavior.  An example of this is this week’s Harvey Weinstein scandal.  A man caught in predatory behavior declares that he is now seeking treatment for “sex addiction.”

But it is not just the predators of the world who are pushing this agenda.  Most of it is by confused Christian leaders.  I think that the reason they are pushing it is because they feel guilty about their erotic desire and are trying to subsume their desire in fighting against other people having sex.   As I remember someone saying years ago (I don’t remember who) “Democrats view porn after they go to the store and buy it.  Republican view it together in anti-porn group meetings.”

There are addictions in the world.  Alcoholism, opoids, etc.  I am a doctor and I drink alcohol.  I have no problem with occasional moderate use.  But when I have a patient who is an alcoholic I tell them that they have to quit drinking.  I have occasionally, in order to get free parking downtown, gambled enough to get a card at the casino’s.  But I tell gambling addicts that they must not go near the place on any condition.

But there are several behaviors that are often over indulged in that are not addictions.  Overeating is not an addiction. Sleep is not an addiction.  Running is not an addiction.  Work is not an addiction.  Vacation is not an addiction.  The cure is not to stop eating, stop sleeping, stop exercising, stop working or never go on vacation.

But the hidden agenda of the anti-porn people is, let’s face it, to stop having sex.   Do an image search on Google for “quit sex” and this is what you get.

 

Image result for "quit sex"

And dozen’s more like it.

Oh yes, they tell you that sex is supposed to be holy in marriage, but if you read deeper, almost all of these people start making even more rules.  You will find that they often end up in marriages with no sex at all.  You will find that they are usually divorced.

Give up your own ways and start doing things God’s way.  Rejoice in your sexuality.  Watch some beautiful girls screw around, jack off with joy and let your spiritual energies be used in helping others.

The only way to quit watching porn

operant conditioning and pornography
If you must quit porn, use this method

There is a way to help men stop viewing porn – at least as much or as often.  If a man must, by his convinced religious beliefs, forbid himself this behavior, then he ought to be helped to do so in the most healthy way possible.

As you know if you read this site,  I don’t believe that Christians should be forced to quit viewing porn.  I believe that the healthy male life includes erotica.   However, there is a set of Christians who will never be able to believe this.  These men will continue to suffer the guilt and self-destruction from indulging in this natural behavior.   These men have been led astray into unhealthy ways of trying to quit.  Firstly, the “Cognitive Behavior Therapy” method doesn’t work.  That is like treating a stomach ulcer with NSAIDS for a headache.  It just makes the situation worse.

So, for these men, I say this.  Stop trying to treat a sex “addiction.”  You are not addicted.  There are many sinful or undesirable behaviors that are not addictions.  These are behaviors that are normal, correct, and desirable but are often performed in ways or at times that are sinful or unhealthy.

A great example is food.  if we desire food we are not necessarily a glutton.  Yet we have all seen people whose eating is harmful to themselves and others.  Eating, working, exercising, giving, praying/meditating, rejoicing, relaxing, and playing are all behaviors that are desirable and needful in moderation.  If we find any person who doesn’t perform these behaviors at all, they are unhealthy.  But a workaholic, anorexic, sloth, or excessive jokester also have a pathology in need of treatment.
Similarly, sex is not an addiction, but rather a desirable behavior that must be performed in moderation.  An ascetic man who defrauds his wife is no more holy than a man who defrauds her by giving himself to porn rather than her.
Addiction is treated by cognitive behavior therapy and by 12 step programs – by sponsors and “accountability partners” – by helping the person to be mindful of their desires and redirecting himself to other desires – by getting them to avoid their triggers.  But this doesn’t work in any normal behavior.    We do not help dieters by cognitive behavior therapy or 12 step programs.    We teach them to use behavioral conditioning.
Conditioning is illustrated by the famous “Pavlov’s dog” example.  Pavlov rang a bell and fed his dogs, eventually the dogs slobbered whenever they heard a bell.  This is called classical conditioning.  We later came up with the concept of “operant conditioning” in which a stimulus is associated with a behavior and a reward or punishment    For example, to get people to put on a seat belt we supply a noxious stimulus – a beep – that will not stop until the behavior (seat belt clicked) is performed.  This is “negative reinforcement” = the removal of a noxious stimulus.
The removal of the association of a stimulus with a behavior is called extinction.  This is what some pastors want to accomplish in their porn-viewing men.  The association of the normal stimulus (erotic desire) with the undesireable behavior (porn viewing) is extinguished.
There are many interesting methods to do this – google “operant conditioning” and “extinguish” and you will find many useful ideas.  But one rule I want to specifically mention.
—— Associations are weakened when the stimulus occurs in the absence of the behavior —-
In other words, the more often a man has an orgasm in the absence of porn use the weaker his impulse to view porn will be.    Similarly, the more often he wakes up in the morning with a nocturnal erection (morning wood) and does not have sex with his wife, the less often he will desire to have sex with his wife.
This fits with how Paul said to “avoid fornication”  in I Corinthian’s 7.  “every man have his own wife”, “better to marry than burn” and “defraud ye not one another.”
So, if a man is having a problem with porn, the answer is NOT accountability partners, but rather more sex.  Instead of using porn till he doesn’t want his wife.   His wife should rather keep his balls so drained that he doesn’t have anything left for porn.

Sex, Porn and the “Desensitization” argument

Sex gets better, not boring as the years go by
The brain becoming sensitized – not desensitized – to sex

According to “Dr.” James Dobson (he is not a physician or a psychiatrist folks!) he found out from the psychopath Ted Bundy that porn use accelerates.  You start with Playboy and end up having to have cannibalistic sex.

But those of us who have been married for any number of years know that sex doesn’t work this way.

Ok, Adults, admit it.  Your first experience at sex was pretty disappointing.  You thought, “This is it?   This is all?  This is what everyone is talking about?”

It takes a while to really enjoy it.  To get over the self-consciousness to give yourself to the moment.  And frankly, to really give in to the pure fun of it.

That’s because the brain has not yet “potentiated” the pleasure.  The paths are tentative and not well formed.  The electrical signals are spread out all over the striatum and not concentrated in the dopamine/pleasure circuits in the nucleus accumbens.

Those of us who have been married for many years know that sex gets better and “sweeter as the years go by…..”.    After many years one doesn’t “need” sex as often or as much, but when you do get a “round tuit” well, I’ll stop describing now.

This is exactly the opposite way that an addiction works.   CS Lewis’s devil in the Screwtape Letters described the perfect Satanic addiction.

Never forget that when we are dealing with any pleasure in its healthy and normal and satisfying form, we are, in a sense, on the Enemy’s ground. I know we have won many a soul through pleasure. All the same, it is His invention, not ours. He made the pleasures: all our research so far has not enabled us to produce one. All we can do is to encourage the humans to take the pleasures which our Enemy has produced, at at times, or in ways, or in degrees, which He has forbidden. . . . An ever increasing craving for an ever diminishing pleasure is the formula. . . . To get a man’s soul and give him nothing in return–that’s what really gladdens Our Father’s heart.

And porn works the same way.  The first time a boy finds a dirty magazine in a shed or under his daddy’s mattress he is fascinated and yet confused.  It is only after seeing it many times that he can really get a good jerkoff session going.

In fact, sexual dysfunction is marked not by to MUCH sex, but by to LITTLE.  We treat sexual dysfuction by desensitizing the patient not to sex, but to the ANXIETY of sex.

For example, read this 1969 article arguing that the treatment for homosexuality (yes, they used to do that) was to DESENSITIZE the patient to heterosexual sex.

Pastors against porn should not use the “Addiction” argument

Why treat porn addiction won't work.
Wrong Diagnosis – Wrong Treatment

So I was talking to a pastor recently who was looking for ways to help men overcome their porn habit.  Since I am a psychiatrist, he was asking me about the parts of the brain that were involved in reward.

I know why he was asking.  He had been exposed to Gary Wilson’s “Your Brain on Porn” and wanted to preach a sermon to men about how viewing porn was just like using crack cocaine.

It isn’t.  Here is what I explained to the pastor.  If you approach porn as an addiction then you will try to “cure” it using the anti-addiction methodology that we use for cocaine, meth, gambling, and heroin addicts.  But this is like treating gall stones with lung cancer medicine.  It won’t accomplish your goal and it will just make things worse.

For example.  One of the first anti-addiction drugs of choice that we use is Wellbutrin.  Wellbutrin reduces addiction cravings.  I have given it to alcoholics, smokers, and today I thought about prescribing it to a crack cocaine addict.

But Wellbutrin does not lower sexual desire at all.  In fact, when we have a patient whose use of Paxil/Lexapro/Celexa/Zoloft is reducing libido, we switch them to Wellbutrin.   If porn/sex was really an addiction, the Wellbutrin would reduce desire, not increase it.

So, if a Christian pastor wants to help their disciples to stop viewing porn, they should approach it from a different standpoint than addiction.  They should treat it as an sinful – but natural- behavior like fornication or adultery.

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.