Pages

Saturday, April 28, 2018

Marriage in crisis

1. Marriage was never risk-free, but it's currently a high-stakes game in which the odds are heavily against men. If a man fathers a child, the mother has the unilateral right to abort the child even if he wants to keep and raise the child. It's usually the wife who initiates divorce. Usually the wife who's awarded custody. Plus taking half the man's income, even if she initiated the divorce. Thanks to feminism, we now have a system where wives have all the rights while husbands have all the responsibilities. If social trends continue, many men will remain bachelors, play video games, have buddies, and sexbots.

Evangelical leaders are failing men, both inside and outside the church. The failure of evangelical elites is driving disaffected men into the arms of Jordan Peterson. 


2. Perhaps common law marriage is a partial expedient at this time, unless and until the situation becomes more equitable. I do think one can argue that common law marriage is morally permissible in some situations. A wedding ceremony is not the essence of marriage, but lifelong commitment. Monogamous intent. 

3. According to 1 Cor 7:5, if a husband turns to porn in response to a frigid wife, is the wife to blame? 

Several issues:

i) 1 Cor 7:5 is about spouses in general, not wives in particular. For instance, we could reformulate the question: If a wife has an affair because her workaholic husband neglects the marriage, is the husband to blame? 

ii) All things being equal, a spouse is blameworthy for exposing the neglected husband or wife to gratuitous sexual temptation by failing to provide a sexual outlet. 

iii) All things considered, there are sometimes extenuating circumstances that mitigate or exculpate blame. If a wife marries a soldier who has a tour of duty, he's not to blame. She knew what she was getting into. 

Conversely, a wife might be frigid if she was a rape victim or molested as a girl. That's a mitigating factor. 

Some wives may simply be inhibited. The duty in that situation is a two-way street: the husband should be patient while the wife should work to overcome her inhibitions. 

iv) To say a spouse is blameworthy or shares the blame for exposing the husband or wife to gratuitous sexual temptation doesn't necessarily mean they're to blame for the particular reaction of the neglected husband or wife. They don't cause a particular course of action. At most, they might create a liability in that direction.

v) Even if we bracket the morality of porn and consider it from a pragmatic standpoint, I don't see how porn provides an outlet to release pent-up sexual tensions. It's like if you're already very hungry, and you go to a cafe, don't order anything but just sit there watching other diners eat, watching waiters bring out plates of delicious food, inhale the fragrances emanating from the kitchen. So pornography is counterproductive. 

(In that respect, porn differs from masturbation. Masturbation is like a safety value that does provide some temporary relief for pent-up sexual tension. While not a solution, it lessens some of the pressure that builds up.) 

vi) In addition, pornography is psychologically damaging to women in the sex trade. However, we now have the further complication of virtual porn–not to mention sexbots. 

4. But suppose the offending party refuses to honor their marital vows? What's the fallback, if any? Is the offended party stuck in that sham marriage for life? 

i) The NT has two specific grounds for divorce: adultery and desertion. Traditionally, many Protestants regard those as the only permissible grounds. But I think it's unrealistic to suppose the NT addresses every conceivable justification for divorce. The example from Jesus is occasioned by a particular question, while the example from Paul is occasioned by a specific pastoral issue in religiously mixed marriages. And it may be noteworthy that 1 Cor 7:15 occur in the same general discussion as 7:5. 

ii) There's also the distinction between lawful and unlawful vows. In the nature of the case, there can be no moral obligation to keep an immoral vow. Unethical duties are self-contradictory. Jephthah's vow is the classic example.

In biblical ethics, vows (oaths, pledges, promises) aren't absolute. Consider Num 30:3-5, where a father can annul a minor's pledge.

Other considerations that are typically thought to invalidate a contract are coercion (e.g. signing a contract at gunpoint) and entering into an agreement under false pretenses.

Spouses are obligated to make a good faith-effort to perform their marital duties. If a spouse has no intention of honoring marital duties, no commitment to uphold their end of the bargain, then arguably, their willful noncompliance or nonperformance is grounds for divorce.

That's the general argument. It is, of course, possible to abuse that principle, and I have no specific biblical warrant for my particular application. But then, Judges is silent on the validity/invalidity of Jephthah's vow. Readers are expected to understand that the biblical prohibition against murder overrides a vow.

5. Dominic Foo considers premarital sex to be a morally licit option:


I don't object to iconoclastic interpretations, per se. It can be good to scrutinize traditional positions and interpretations. That said:

i) Foo's position on premarital sex is very facile. To begin with, appealing to OT law requires some finesse. The Mosaic law was in large part a civil and criminal law code, but there's a distinction between sins and crimes. Not all sins are crimes, not all crimes are sins. 

ii) The Mosaic law sets minimal standards of social conduct. It's not meant to be an ethical ideal. It's more concerned with public policy than individual behavior (social ethics rather than personal ethics), since law is primarily about regulating social life. Making social life possible. Setting a low bar for what's tolerable. 

iii) The fact that the law prescribes a shotgun marriage for fornicators suggests that premarital sex was wrong, but not as wrong as adultery. 

iv) If premarital sex isn't sinful, then it's hard to see how sexual promiscuity is sinful, but in that event, why is adultery wrong? Why the emphasis on monogamy?

v) If premarital sex isn't sinful, what's the incentive to get married? Why take the risk given limited options for licit divorce?

vi) If it's for the sake of a stable child-rearing environment, then that applies to premarital sex inasmuch as children would be the inevitable result of fertile couples engaging in fornication. There were no reliable contraceptive methods back then. 

vii) If fornication isn't sinful, then it's hard to see how prostitution is sinful, yet Paul treats prostitution as a grave sin (1 Cor 6:15-16). 

You also have the warnings about prostitution in Proverbs, although that's prudential. 

viii) Surely the regulation of sexuality in Scripture reflects the social chaos that unrestricted sexual license in pagan culture wreaked. 

ix) Promiscuity produces many children by different sexual partners. That contributed to abortion, infanticide, and street children. 

x) Not to mention STDs. 

6. We can't pray the sex drive away. The sex drive is meant to be irrepressible. Very insistent. Hard to ignore. That's what keeps the human race going. At least it used to, before the prevalence of contraception and abortion. Nowadays, many western countries have fallen below the replacement rate. 

7. But while it's possible to underestimate the power of the sex drive, it's possible to overestimate the power of the sex drive. Although the lack of a normal family life (sex, kids, companionship) is hard to live without, Paul was a bachelor or widower, Ezekiel was a widower, while Jeremiah was a childless bachelor by divine command. John Stott was a childless bachelor. He didn't plan it that way. But that's how his life worked out. Missionary Eric Liddell died in Japanese POW camp, separated from his wife, where he ministered to inmates. Sometimes God requires heroic sacrifice from his people. Except for Paul, they didn't have a gift for celibacy. They just had to tough it out.

On the one hand there are men who struggle without any wife while, on the other hand, there are promiscuous men who run through women like disposable beer cans. Never satisfied. One is not enough. Ten is not enough. Or fifty. Or hundreds. Sometimes sex isn't the solution. Sometimes sex camouflages an insatiable appetite for something else, where sex is just a handy temporary substitute. 

9 comments:

  1. I agree with 98% of this article. Allow me to weigh in on two points:

    I don't see how porn provides an outlet to release pent-up sexual tensions. It's like if you're already very hungry, and you go to a cafe, don't order anything but just sit there watching other diners eat, watching waiters bring out plates of delicious food, inhale the fragrances emanating from the kitchen. So pornography is counterproductive.

    It's because men, especially unmarried men, want the whole package. Masturbating is one thing, but porn offers an actual sight for your eyes to gaze at, and sounds to draw you into the experience (you can hear the woman's voice, for example). It's the closest thing a man without a wife can get to marital intimacy; It's the most pleasurable experience he can without having actual sex. And from a purely objective standpoint, the orgasm is simply more pleasurable that way.

    It's also important to remember that a great deal of porn involves more than merely filming the act of intercourse. It involves men talking to a woman who is a wife or girlfriend. That often involves the girl sweet-talking her man- encouraging him, happily doing what he wants. She'll even agree to do something bizarre or uncomfortable (I won't mention specifics) because his desires are her priority, so she submits to him in spite of her hesitation. That kind of porn is EXTREMELY popular. It offers yet another layer of gratification for the male viewer. The woman's enthusiasm plays a huge part in enhancing the experience because it plays right into the needs the lonely depressed porn addict can't get met. A submissive woman, an enthusiastic lover, one who isn't driven away by his desires. Porn producers know this- and so do women who seduce married men.

    (In that respect, porn differs from masturbation. Masturbation is like a safety value that does provide some temporary relief for pent-up sexual tension. While not a solution, it lessens some of the pressure that builds up.)

    Agreed. Of course, once a man masturbates, he's going to realize that masturbating while fantasizing about women is more pleasurable than keeping them out of his head. And, of course, if you he doesn't want to have to bother with making himself think about it, then he'll keep an image of a sexy woman nearby (magazine, porn, pics on a phone) to look at, and inevitably, full-blown pornography comes into play. A wise man once said (I'm paraphrasing): The journey to a porn addiction begins with one instance of masturbation.

    One more thing:

    2. Perhaps common law marriage is a partial expedient at this time, unless and until the situation becomes more equitable. I do think one can argue that common law marriage is morally permissible in some situations.

    I 100% agree with this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Always good to talk with you:

      i) But porn isn't the whole package. Even if it's enjoyable to watch at the time, one is viewing unobtainable women, maybe performing kinky sex. Eventually, the guy has to exit to reenter the real world. It's like an hour of foreplay with no intercourse, or even skin-on-skin contact. Surely it's sexually frustrating to get that visually/psychologically stimulated with no endgame.

      ii) Yes, porn can be combined with masturbation. I'm sure many men didn't take long to make that connection.

      My point is not to offer a silver bullet (because I have none). I'm offering constructive advice. I'm not proposing the most enjoyable scenario. I don't even mention masturbation because it feels good.

      My objective is to offer some temporary, practical, morally permissible (IMO) substitutes for guys who are single through no fault of their own. I'm proposing some fallback strategies that make a bad situation manageable and bearable. So that they're not under chronic stress. Unendurable duress. It's takes the mind off. Eases the pressure.

      Unrequited sexual impulses can be obsessive in opposing directions. If, on the one hand, there's no outlet to relieve the natural mounting tension. If, on the other hand, the imagination is overstimulated with no outlet.

      Delete
  2. Eventually, the guy has to exit to reenter the real world. It's like an hour of foreplay with no intercourse, or even skin-on-skin contact. Surely it's sexually frustrating to get that visually/psychologically stimulated with no endgame.

    Of course. There's guilt and shame and depression that follow. But that's as close to the full-package as he can get. He wants it, can't have it, so he goes for the closest approximation.

    My objective is to offer some temporary, practical, morally permissible (IMO) substitutes for guys who are single through no fault of their own. I'm proposing some fallback strategies that make a bad situation manageable and bearable. So that they're not under chronic stress. Unendurable duress. It's takes the mind off. Eases the pressure.

    Agreed. I think the church is in a quandary at this point in the discussion. Most Christians think masturbation is sinful (I do not), and so the idea of a safety valve to release pressure is foreign to them. They have to have that particular misunderstanding corrected before even considering a strategy like masturbation for unmarried Christian men.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, there's a hangover from traditional Catholic theology on masturbation.

      Delete
    2. By the same token, I think pejorative connotations of common law marriage reflect a hangover from traditional Catholic theology: marriage is a sacrament, which like other sacraments, ought to be performed by a priest (CCC 1631).

      Delete
  3. Very grateful for your insights as always Steve.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 2. Perhaps common law marriage is a partial expedient at this time, unless and until the situation becomes more equitable. I do think one can argue that common law marriage is morally permissible in some situations. A wedding ceremony is not the essence of marriage, but lifelong commitment. Monogamous intent.

    I think another possibility is that churches and Christian ministers need to start doing wedding ceremonies that aren't in any way tied to the state and state licensing. Family and friends can be there since Christian weddings ideally should have witnesses. Since it's supposed to be a publicly announced covenant before God [ideally performed within the Christian community/church].

    A permissible exception might be in a situation in which a couple is stranded on a desert island and decide to marry each other in the sight of God without any human witnesses, because they are lost at sea with no foreseeable hope of rescue (e.g. as was apossibility a hundred years ago). Or similar situations. For example, stranded in a submarine where you only have hours to live [as was the case in the movie The Core with Aaron Eckhart and Hilary Swank]. Another example might be a couple who are the only Christians for thousands of miles around and are only surrounded by pagans. In such a case it might be legitimate to marry each other in the sight of God without a pagan "minister". Though, presumably they could invite their pagan friends and family as public witnesses.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Connecting marriage with the State might also be a hangover which the Reformers inherited from the Catholic Church. Since the idea of the separation of Church and State was an insight Anabaptists and Baptists formulated and refined based on Scripture.

      Delete
  5. Hi Prince Asbel,

    Might I offer some practical advice? Please take it with all good intention, for that's how I offer it. And I want to say this is coming from someone who is a geek and a nerd and who used to have tremendous difficulty being attractive to women but now I'm married.

    I don't know if you want to get married someday. If you do:

    It looks like you're a huge anime fan (e.g. your moniker). That's cool. I like anime too. Although I'm older than you so my introduction was through now popular stuff like Macross, Cowboy Bebop, and Studio Ghibli (though obviously Studio Ghibli is still around and now famous). However, if you project yourself online as an anime fan, then that might not be terribly attractive to women who want to get married. And I suspect most women can easily find you online given your online footprint.

    Now, sure, going out on fun dates with a woman is one thing, but finding a woman who wants to get married to you is another. Girls will date all sorts of guys, but in general they want a masculine guy. Someone they see as strong in multiple respects - mentally, emotionally, physically. Someone they can depend on, be secure in, trust they and future kids will be provided for and protected by, and so on.

    Hence it might be worthwhile for you to cultivate a more masculine image. Like go to the gym and lift weights rather than being more on the scrawny side. Use something like Starting Strength or StrongLifts 5x5 if you have no experience lifting weights. Step outside once in a while if you spend most your time inside. That helps with a lot of things - from your physical health to socially interacting with people. Grow a beard if it helps you have less of a boyish face. Develop a deeper speaking voice (e.g. the Art of Manliness has some advice about that). If it's an issue, learn to appreciate discipline and routine (e.g. rising and sleeping at the same times each day even on the weekends). Say more with less words rather than attempting to brain dump everything onto someone else. Just some advice to get you started.

    ReplyDelete