Over the years, there are a few things that I have learned which have really stayed with me over time. One is that most people, when confronted to share some intimately private thoughts about their personal shortcomings, will tend to either lie, or express some sense of false humility. Related to this, it is my firm belief that when it comes to financial or sexual matters, most people will tend to avoid or run away from the topic rather than fully engage it. This was clearly evident in a recent (well, last 9 months) discussion in which I was engaged in a online discussion forum devoted to financial talk. The topic came up about debt, and very surprisingly, despite what hard statistics will reveal, that most people carry some consumer debt, 98% of the folks on there said they had no debt (we're talking consumer debt, not mortages, etc.). The ones who were honest said that they had substantial debt. Now, we're not talking about a specific segment of the population here - this forum encompassed folks from all different walks of life, age groups, racial background and economic class. Yet very few people admitted they have debt. Why is this?
I thought about it further and think I have the answer - because of what admitting such a thing would invite - namely, a fear that others may look down on a person as a result of carrying debt. I mean, just like how an overweight person may not readily admit to hitting the buffet circuit, a person who is struggling financially may not be so apt to confess this. Particularly for guys, it may be construed as a sign of weakness or lack of control. So people keep their mouths shut or blatantly lie about it.
It's not all that different than sexual matters. Now, I know some things should be kept private and / or between husband and wife. But I've been in groups of men where we were asked point blank if we struggle with sexual temptation / sexual sin/lust and some of its offshoots like masturbation. None of us, including myself raised our hands. Now, maybe because it was in the midst of other Christian men, who tend to want to keep up a certain wholesome image. The masturbating husband and father who goes to church every week is simply not an image that others want to envision. But despite the fact that almost every male that I have ever spoken with has indicated that masturbation is one of those topics that they struggle with, this admittance will only be done in the confines of two men, no more. I mean, when I was in Bible school, I had countless (and I mean countless) personal conversations with a number of people about sexual temptation. It exists, even though no one wants to discuss it. And with good reason - you don't know whether baring your struggles would eventually make the rounds amongst your social group, or in some cases when in the presence of strangers (like a Promise Keepers' meeting), become juicy gossip and discussion fodder for when they get home.
So that brings me to today's topic, which I am sure will have men all over nodding in agreement, but I doubt I would get any public acknowledgements here. Let me set up the topic for you. I will speak in vague terms in order to protect the identity of those who I don't wish to be identified. Names, not even substitute ones, will be used.
Years ago, I had a male acquaintance with whom I thoroughly enjoyed conversing, despite the fact that politically, philosophically and spirtually, we were on opposite sides of the spectrum. He oftentimes made snide comments about my opinions, but regardless, we got along well and enjoyed each other's company. Anyway, one time, our conversation ventured into uncharted territory and I shared with him a story that happened to me that my wife also knows about (she wasn't my wife at the time). I used to do shift work over a decade ago at a dead-end job that was not exactly run with an "employee first" mentality. Oftentimes I would show up after a bus ride there, to be told that there was no work for me that day or night and that I can go home (gee, thanks!) without pay (damn you!) One night, on my way home, I was taking the Sheppard 85 bus from Scarborough to North York, here in Toronto, and since the bus was relatively empty, I sat at the back where there is more room and space. At the next stop, a uh...how shall I say this, very voluptuous and scantily clad young lady came aboard the bus and proceeded to sit near the back on the side-row of seats. I sensed her looking over at me, via my peripheral vision but I was too busy looking out at the greasy and likely germ-infested window. But you know how it is - when you sense someone staring at you, you eventually stare back, if nothing else to try to stare them down. But I know that she was scantily clad so I really made a concerted effort not to look at her (and of course, being a former porn addict, there was a part of me which really wanted to). Anyway, I did eventually return her stare (I swear, I just stared at her face), if only to give her a "what do you want?" type of look. Remember, I was told after going in mid-evening that there was no work for me - so a side of me was a bit agitated (well, pissed is the exact nomenclature here) so I was in no mood to be stared at. Anyway, to my surprised, when I returned her stare, she looked me in the face and said, "Hi". I said hi, but didn't make much conversation, and then she proceeded to ask me if I wanted to be pleasured - actually, there's no point in beating around the bush here - she asked me if I wanted to be blown. I thought she was kidding, or drunk, or something else (I do think she was on something whether it be alcohol or some other chemical). She said, "come on" and for the first time in my life, I have to say, I had some serious mixed emotions. Remember, I was around 23 at the time, so it's not like I was a 40-something-declining-sex-drive type of guy. Sure, I was dating my girlfriend at the time, but we both decided to wait to get married to have sex (which we did). But obviously, in this sexually charged age, deciding to wait does in fact build up a lot of sexual tension. Anyone who would tell you otherwise is lying to you.
Anyway, while I'm sure many out there would claim to be repulsed by such a solicitation, I was actually quite flattered, even if she was on drugs or drunk. Did I give into her request? Thankfully I didn't. But I'd be lying if I said that it was an instantly easy decision. Was I tempted? Damn right I was.
I relayed the above story to my colleague (who is not a Christian), since he was similar to me in age and in a number of other ways. I mentioned the story more to illustrate a point that I was making (I forgot what the exact topic was), but he took my experience and said to me, "You know, if I was in your shoes, and know that my wife would never find out about it, I would have probably taken her up on her offer." I was shocked at his total candidness as well as his honesty. That is not to say that I admired his answer. I obviously don't. But it is refreshing to hear people at least being honest with themselves, if not with others.
Years later, I had the good fortune to meet up with another colleague of mine (who is not a Christian), this one much older than I was, and he was from a small town. I mention this detail to help illustrate that these types of things are not "city" issues, as some Christians would have you believe. Yeah, I know it's hard to fathom it, but there are gays in small towns and sexual problems and financial difficulty knows no geography. Anyway, I was driving this colleague from our downtown office to my local office, and somehow, we got on the topic of what we used to be like when we were younger. Well, I had a very close and confiding relationship with my colleague, since we used to tell each other things about company operations that we would get fired for if people knew that we knew the information we knew. In this context, I shared with him my past struggles with porn and the vigilance I need to exercise (still do!) in dealing with constant temptation (still happens). I shared with him how I tend to avoid beaches in the sumemrtime and avoid going to the mall where scantily clad girls tend to hang out. I also avoid watching certain Hollywood movies that are probably not the best for me to watch. He then shared with me how he struggled with the same thing and we got really personal with the details. Anyhow, since then, I have been thinking about this topic and over the years, I have met many men, who have more or less confirmed to me that they have all come across situations where they could have easily cheated on their spouse - whether they did or not I never asked, since I really don't want to know (I know, it's kind of cowardly of me).
Back in 1995, I got to know a fellow who was a member of a Christian band. It was an exciting time in my life, to have had the opportunity to write for a major Christian music magazine as well as the commensurate massive discounts I was offered on almost virtually any Christian or alternative Christian recording - I still have must of my collection from then and enjoy the music fondly. Anyway, with this fellow from the band, he seldom discussed anything personal, but of course with one-on-one conversations, things eventually come out, and he stated to me that he is a sex maniac. The girlfriend he had at the time he told me all about, including the 300+ times they had sex, some graphic details about her genitalia, and surprisingly, his admission that he would be willing to date someone as young as 12 (he was 22 at the time). But he said that he kept all that private because you just don't talk about such things.
You may wonder what my point is - ok, fine, men struggle with temptation - some Christians (and some non-Christians) will call it for what it is, but seldom discuss it. Some non-Christians (and some Christians) will not care and will be happy to immerse themselves in a hedonistic lifestyle. But regardless of background or faith, it is my firm belief after talking with many men (not just the two that I have detailed above) over the years about this topic, that any man can be seduced at any time. To put it more bluntly - I believe that given the right circumstances, any man, in a moment of weakness or vulnerability, have the great potential to cheat on their wife or girlfriend. The reason why I am making this a topic of discussion is that I recently have encountered a couple of folks who strongly disagree with me on this one - they say that there are men who are faithful to their wives all their lives (I don't doubt this part) and who rarely struggle with sexual temptation (I strongly doubt this part). If the masturbation numbers are accurate, it would be inconsistent to have so many men, regardless of relational status, masturbate (which is always accompanied by some fantasy), yet not struggle with temptation. I think these men must be graduates of the same school of denial that produced so many closet child-molesting priests, under the guise of forced chastity. Of course, required chastity has for me, become such a ridiculous concept that I don't give it much credence (but this is from the same guy who does not believe that singleness is hardly a gift that should be coveted).
Part of the problem here is that no one wants to admit that they are vulnerable. Sure, men probably enjoy the occasional cry, if nothing else to entice their female mate to see a more human side to them, but we're not talking emotional vulnerability here - we're talking crossing the line between a committed covenant and breaking the most important trust a human being can place on you. In our heads, we easily look at a scenario and logically process the pros and cons. I don't necessarily think that declining an invitation to participate in extra-marital infidelity necessarily is instinctive for most men. I would argue that it is not, but instead, what keeps men from giving in to temptation is a careful weighing of risk vs. reward, or to put it another way, whether the consequences are worth the risk. For some married, men, I think the answer is no. I mean, aside from having a faithful wife at home, you also have kids to think about, and to a lesser degree, a reputation and other relationships (ie. to in-laws, etc.). Of course, there is also the risk of getting caught, getting a disease, fathering a child, getting murdered (if the fling is with another married person). For probably those reasons, men keep it in their pants.
But I would argue that if you were to take away a number of those factors, all men can be seduced by a woman. Now, I don't want to create the impression that men cannot be trusted - that is not the point I'm trying to make - however, I think that the men who claim to have temptation free lives should probably re-evaluate their level of honesty to themselves. Particularly Christians who seemingly have a pre-disposition to not talk publicly about anything sexual. Considering the fact that the divorce rate amongst Christians is almost akin to the secular divorce rate, I don't think Christian men are immune to any problem. We just seem to be able to hide it better.
Showing posts with label sex. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sex. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Friday, June 6, 2008
Book Review: The War Within, By Robert Daniels
I generally try to give a book its due, whether it be in the area of praise or constructive criticism. Seldom do I find a book that I really did not like from cover to cover. This is one of those books, and I suppose it is especially distressing to me that I have to give a thumbs down to a Christian book, but hey, even Christian books are susceptible to lousy writing, poor idea formulation and just sheer cheesiness.
In this case, while I appreciate the author, Mr. Daniels, sharing some of his struggles with sexual purity, I think he ended up really writing a book about nothing. There are much better choices out there (such as Every Man's Battle - I got mine from Focus on the Family, though you can probably find it cheaper at Chapters...I recently got the N.T. Wright "Gospel for Everyone Series" for 34% off the retail price via the Chapters website).
First, my biggest beef with this book is that he really doesn't say anything new. Much of what he says can be gleaned from Scripture without much theological interpretation or exhaustive exegetical study. Of course, he commits the common Christian book faux-pas of using massive amounts of Scripture under the guise of citation, whereas I suspect he is simply using the Word is filler for his book. Some of the passages have little to no correlation to the point he is trying to make.
Another beef I have is his constant references to his time onboard a ship. OK, I get it, he likes ships and being part of a crew, but to everyone else who has neither the experience nor the interest (or both), this reader was particularly lost in his endless ship and naval analogies, and your humble reviewer found myself interrupting his wife, as she was reading what surely would have been a better book.
The author also speaks in a lot of generalities without getting very specific in terms of some of the subsequent struggles in embarking on a quest to become sexually pure. As a porn dealer before I became saved, I can tell you that sexual temptation will always be there, even after you get married. I've talked with enough married guys to know that this ongoing struggle will likely be life-long - the issue is far more complex than Daniels makes it out to be. He seems to have a touchy-feely type of Christianese solution, which is great, except that Scripture talks about ongoing struggle and temptation. Perhaps the book could not have ended on such a note, but I think it's more realistic this way. I certainly don't want to suggest that God cannot miraculously heal one of past purity issues, but I think that this may be one of those "thorn in the flesh" type of issues that are with men for life, and as such it makes it so much more important for us men to acknowledge our weaknesses and failings to God, ask for His forgiveness, and rely on His strength going forward. I don't think there's any easy multi-step solution here.
Honestly, there's not a lot of good things I can say about this book. Even the Eros Defiled/Eros Redeemed series, though simplistic, would be better suited to handle such a delicate topic.
In this case, while I appreciate the author, Mr. Daniels, sharing some of his struggles with sexual purity, I think he ended up really writing a book about nothing. There are much better choices out there (such as Every Man's Battle - I got mine from Focus on the Family, though you can probably find it cheaper at Chapters...I recently got the N.T. Wright "Gospel for Everyone Series" for 34% off the retail price via the Chapters website).
First, my biggest beef with this book is that he really doesn't say anything new. Much of what he says can be gleaned from Scripture without much theological interpretation or exhaustive exegetical study. Of course, he commits the common Christian book faux-pas of using massive amounts of Scripture under the guise of citation, whereas I suspect he is simply using the Word is filler for his book. Some of the passages have little to no correlation to the point he is trying to make.
Another beef I have is his constant references to his time onboard a ship. OK, I get it, he likes ships and being part of a crew, but to everyone else who has neither the experience nor the interest (or both), this reader was particularly lost in his endless ship and naval analogies, and your humble reviewer found myself interrupting his wife, as she was reading what surely would have been a better book.
The author also speaks in a lot of generalities without getting very specific in terms of some of the subsequent struggles in embarking on a quest to become sexually pure. As a porn dealer before I became saved, I can tell you that sexual temptation will always be there, even after you get married. I've talked with enough married guys to know that this ongoing struggle will likely be life-long - the issue is far more complex than Daniels makes it out to be. He seems to have a touchy-feely type of Christianese solution, which is great, except that Scripture talks about ongoing struggle and temptation. Perhaps the book could not have ended on such a note, but I think it's more realistic this way. I certainly don't want to suggest that God cannot miraculously heal one of past purity issues, but I think that this may be one of those "thorn in the flesh" type of issues that are with men for life, and as such it makes it so much more important for us men to acknowledge our weaknesses and failings to God, ask for His forgiveness, and rely on His strength going forward. I don't think there's any easy multi-step solution here.
Honestly, there's not a lot of good things I can say about this book. Even the Eros Defiled/Eros Redeemed series, though simplistic, would be better suited to handle such a delicate topic.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
The Gay Pride Parade - What Is There to be Proud Of?
There are just some things I will never get. The annual gay pride parade is one of them. Unfortunately, as a guy who reads the newspaper fairly regularly, I can't really say that I can get away from reading about it - every time about this time of year, it hits Toronto and many other cities, and is advertised as a family event. Yeah, right. There are many other things that I could take my kids to - that is not one of them.
The most absurd thing coming from the pro-gay camp is that this event is not about sexuality. It's not, eh? Then why the hell do many of the participants wear next to nothing and move and dance suggestively? Why do they throw condoms to the crowd? Why is there intense groping and so forth? Before you suggest that I'm just watching a conservative TV station's coverage of the event, let me say that I had the great misfortune in bumping into the event several years ago when I went downtown to buy a pair of shoes one weekend. It hadn't dawned on me that it was gay pride weekend, and when I was done buying my shoes, I decided to stick around and see what the parade was about (I thought it was some protest parade, until I saw the floats, the cross-dressing and ever-annoying water guns and super-soakers (which seems to be only present during gay festivities - I've often wondered over the years why water guns are chosen and my only conclusion is that they simulate the ejaculatory effect. Regardless, I saw with my own eyes sex being paraded. But such is the nature of the homosexual lifestyle, isn't it? Years ago, out of curiosity, I went into a gay bookshop in the Church/Wellesley (gay central) area of downtown Toronto. Now, you're probably wondering with all this gayness experience, am I a closet homosexual. My wife can readily attest that I am not, as I obviously can as well. But anyhow, when I went in there, I was expecting a Chapters type of retail store with coffee served by effeminate males, hard pumping Euro techno music, and perfumy incense being burned. Well, I guess I shouldn't have been surprised when I saw none of that, but instead walls of gay pictorial books, sexual aids, and lesbian and homosexual erotica. Honestly, it was like an adult bookstore for gays. The focus on sex was very strong in there, if not overpowering - so don't tell me that whey the community has an opportunity to celebrate, that sex is not in the mix. Even Crime Stoppers, the police-driven organization that allows people to call and provide anonymous tips on crimes, has decided to turn political this year in getting involved in the parade, by handing out condoms with a note attached that reads, "your tip's safe with us" (read into that what you will).
Considering my ardent belief that homosexuality is a choice (and yeah, yeah, I know that the argument goes that if it's a choice, who would choose that kind of lifestyle, given the backlash from society - but my argument is that people make all sorts of morally bad and societally-frowned-upon choices everyday. You think that child molester doesn't know that what he is doing is wrong - he does it because he wants the instant gratification of his base desires - I really don't see homosexuality being much different), I am not sure what exactly there is to be proud of. Some people who are against the parade argue that there is not a heterosexual pride parade, and the gay community will counter that every day is heterosexual pride day, but I think that argument is B.S. Think about this for a minute - let's say that we are all products, the formation of which we had no input. I am of Asian background - I had no choice in the matter. I am a male - I had no choice in the matter. It's like those white supremacists out there - "white power!" Or the black militants - "black power!" Whatever. Why would we be proud of something we had no control over? Unless...you chose something and it turned out a way that you seem to like - ie. I am a proud Canadian, because I chose to be a Canadian (as you may have read, I am one of those successful immigrant stories0. I am a proud born-again Christian - it is a choice that I made to believe in Jesus Christ. I am a proud conservative - I chose my belief system. And the list goes on - I am a proud member of the NRA and proud gun owner, I am a proud father and husband, etc. Pride for me is defined as the decisions I made and the expected outcomes. If homosexuality is natural (which I believe it is not) there is nothing to be proud of, just like I am not necessarily proud to be a heterosexual or proud to have Asian roots. It is what it is, unless I personally made the decision to be a member or something or deliberately participated in something on my own volition, etc.
I also don't get why so many conservatives have softened their stance on all things gay, particularly in light of their own personal convictions. I guess to a degree I can understand it somewhat. Make no mistake - there are nice gay people out there. I work with a fellow who is gay and is probably one of the kindest people at work here. He never flaunts his "gayness" (well, he has a photo of his boyfriend on his computer) so there are not comfort issues. He's also a guy I'd be happy to go out and have a beer with. I am not one of those weirdo conservatives who not only hate everything gay-related, but hate gays as people. I don't share that view - I certainly do not like the lifestyle, will never support it, will never agree with it, but I also recognize that behind the veneer of homosexuality and lesbianism are people who are like me, fallen, broken and make mistakes. I do not let my personal abhorrence with homosexuality cloud my ability to love the people who are in that lifestyle. As a follower of Jesus, I think it's expected that I befriend gays and love them as much as anyone else and show them God's love - but that certainly doesn't mean I need to participate in pro-gay parade events.
The most absurd thing coming from the pro-gay camp is that this event is not about sexuality. It's not, eh? Then why the hell do many of the participants wear next to nothing and move and dance suggestively? Why do they throw condoms to the crowd? Why is there intense groping and so forth? Before you suggest that I'm just watching a conservative TV station's coverage of the event, let me say that I had the great misfortune in bumping into the event several years ago when I went downtown to buy a pair of shoes one weekend. It hadn't dawned on me that it was gay pride weekend, and when I was done buying my shoes, I decided to stick around and see what the parade was about (I thought it was some protest parade, until I saw the floats, the cross-dressing and ever-annoying water guns and super-soakers (which seems to be only present during gay festivities - I've often wondered over the years why water guns are chosen and my only conclusion is that they simulate the ejaculatory effect. Regardless, I saw with my own eyes sex being paraded. But such is the nature of the homosexual lifestyle, isn't it? Years ago, out of curiosity, I went into a gay bookshop in the Church/Wellesley (gay central) area of downtown Toronto. Now, you're probably wondering with all this gayness experience, am I a closet homosexual. My wife can readily attest that I am not, as I obviously can as well. But anyhow, when I went in there, I was expecting a Chapters type of retail store with coffee served by effeminate males, hard pumping Euro techno music, and perfumy incense being burned. Well, I guess I shouldn't have been surprised when I saw none of that, but instead walls of gay pictorial books, sexual aids, and lesbian and homosexual erotica. Honestly, it was like an adult bookstore for gays. The focus on sex was very strong in there, if not overpowering - so don't tell me that whey the community has an opportunity to celebrate, that sex is not in the mix. Even Crime Stoppers, the police-driven organization that allows people to call and provide anonymous tips on crimes, has decided to turn political this year in getting involved in the parade, by handing out condoms with a note attached that reads, "your tip's safe with us" (read into that what you will).
Considering my ardent belief that homosexuality is a choice (and yeah, yeah, I know that the argument goes that if it's a choice, who would choose that kind of lifestyle, given the backlash from society - but my argument is that people make all sorts of morally bad and societally-frowned-upon choices everyday. You think that child molester doesn't know that what he is doing is wrong - he does it because he wants the instant gratification of his base desires - I really don't see homosexuality being much different), I am not sure what exactly there is to be proud of. Some people who are against the parade argue that there is not a heterosexual pride parade, and the gay community will counter that every day is heterosexual pride day, but I think that argument is B.S. Think about this for a minute - let's say that we are all products, the formation of which we had no input. I am of Asian background - I had no choice in the matter. I am a male - I had no choice in the matter. It's like those white supremacists out there - "white power!" Or the black militants - "black power!" Whatever. Why would we be proud of something we had no control over? Unless...you chose something and it turned out a way that you seem to like - ie. I am a proud Canadian, because I chose to be a Canadian (as you may have read, I am one of those successful immigrant stories0. I am a proud born-again Christian - it is a choice that I made to believe in Jesus Christ. I am a proud conservative - I chose my belief system. And the list goes on - I am a proud member of the NRA and proud gun owner, I am a proud father and husband, etc. Pride for me is defined as the decisions I made and the expected outcomes. If homosexuality is natural (which I believe it is not) there is nothing to be proud of, just like I am not necessarily proud to be a heterosexual or proud to have Asian roots. It is what it is, unless I personally made the decision to be a member or something or deliberately participated in something on my own volition, etc.
I also don't get why so many conservatives have softened their stance on all things gay, particularly in light of their own personal convictions. I guess to a degree I can understand it somewhat. Make no mistake - there are nice gay people out there. I work with a fellow who is gay and is probably one of the kindest people at work here. He never flaunts his "gayness" (well, he has a photo of his boyfriend on his computer) so there are not comfort issues. He's also a guy I'd be happy to go out and have a beer with. I am not one of those weirdo conservatives who not only hate everything gay-related, but hate gays as people. I don't share that view - I certainly do not like the lifestyle, will never support it, will never agree with it, but I also recognize that behind the veneer of homosexuality and lesbianism are people who are like me, fallen, broken and make mistakes. I do not let my personal abhorrence with homosexuality cloud my ability to love the people who are in that lifestyle. As a follower of Jesus, I think it's expected that I befriend gays and love them as much as anyone else and show them God's love - but that certainly doesn't mean I need to participate in pro-gay parade events.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Eliot Spitzer Sex Scandal
Well, well, well...another politician involved in a sex scandal, a a fairly significant one at that. New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, a Democrat, and a supposed champion on crime and immoral conduct, has now been linked to a high-cost prostitution ring in the Washington area. True, not all the facts have come out, but my goodness, Spitzer has a press conference yesterday, the day the news broke and admitted that he has done something in his personal life that violates his family vows and shames him to his constituents. Geez, I wonder what it is? I'm pretty sure he wasn't caught shoplifting.
Several people were arrested who is linked with this ring, and in the subsequent reports, Spitzer was positively identified as "client number 9", who met with a particular short, brunette prostitute that charges in the thousands of dollars per hour. He allegedly requested unusual sex acts and was bold enough to meet her at a Washington hotel, less than a month ago for their rendezvous.
The news coverage has once again shown that people are morons for putting certain people on pedestals. I've written about this before, so I won't rehash it, but this goes to show you that almost anyone who purports to be living an exemplary outward life has something to hide. I have always believed this. In this case, Spitzer was considered a person who as attorney general of New York state, had a track record of fighting prostitution rings, drugs, the mob, etc. The fact that he has been caught soliciting the services of a young prostitute shows the real hypocrisy in these elected officials who seem to live squeaky clean lives. In talking with my wife about this case, she suggested that it always seems to be these types who have something to hide, and I think this is nothing new - in the Bible, Jesus had His most stern condemnation for the religious leaders of His day (Pharisees) who similarly projected a outwardly stellar lifestyle, but inside were rotten to the core.
Of course, Republicans and some sensible Democrats are calling for Spitzer's resignation. No doubt, this will be forthcoming, since this now has criminal implications as well (of course, I believed that Bill Clinton should have resigned or have been thrown out, but the generally liberal political establishment back in 1998/99 did not have the balls to do the right thing and give him the boot. That, of course, set a bad precedent for dismissing moral character flaws in those we elect. Larry Craig, the Idaho senator who last year was embroiled in his own scandal (remember the wide stance toilet seat foot touching in a public washroom?), seems to have weathered it, more or less. But in this case, Spitzer has no choice but to resign; not only has he let down his state in his abhorent conduct, but he can potentially be convicted of a criminal offence. Hardly the resume you want your elected officials to have.
I often wonder, on the other hand, whether we collectively as a society put too much pressure on these guys in public office to perform to a certain standard. Maybe we do. These guys are always wearing suits and ties and always are expected to say the "right" things and when they don't, we and the media criticize them. Perhaps this drives these folks into a secret life where such things happen. Ultimately, though, people like this should take the responsibility and evaluate their own weaknesses and shortcomings before they enter into public office. A smooth talking guy (or gal) hardly is indicative of a upstanding private life. I think we need to place more value on substance and character, rather than focus on words, style, and presentation. But as is so often the case in today's world, people seem to have an idealized and romanticized version of others - perhaps it is in the hope that maybe just once, this elected official will be different. Unfortunately, what they fail to take into account is the fact that people are essentially the same everywhere.
Several people were arrested who is linked with this ring, and in the subsequent reports, Spitzer was positively identified as "client number 9", who met with a particular short, brunette prostitute that charges in the thousands of dollars per hour. He allegedly requested unusual sex acts and was bold enough to meet her at a Washington hotel, less than a month ago for their rendezvous.
The news coverage has once again shown that people are morons for putting certain people on pedestals. I've written about this before, so I won't rehash it, but this goes to show you that almost anyone who purports to be living an exemplary outward life has something to hide. I have always believed this. In this case, Spitzer was considered a person who as attorney general of New York state, had a track record of fighting prostitution rings, drugs, the mob, etc. The fact that he has been caught soliciting the services of a young prostitute shows the real hypocrisy in these elected officials who seem to live squeaky clean lives. In talking with my wife about this case, she suggested that it always seems to be these types who have something to hide, and I think this is nothing new - in the Bible, Jesus had His most stern condemnation for the religious leaders of His day (Pharisees) who similarly projected a outwardly stellar lifestyle, but inside were rotten to the core.
Of course, Republicans and some sensible Democrats are calling for Spitzer's resignation. No doubt, this will be forthcoming, since this now has criminal implications as well (of course, I believed that Bill Clinton should have resigned or have been thrown out, but the generally liberal political establishment back in 1998/99 did not have the balls to do the right thing and give him the boot. That, of course, set a bad precedent for dismissing moral character flaws in those we elect. Larry Craig, the Idaho senator who last year was embroiled in his own scandal (remember the wide stance toilet seat foot touching in a public washroom?), seems to have weathered it, more or less. But in this case, Spitzer has no choice but to resign; not only has he let down his state in his abhorent conduct, but he can potentially be convicted of a criminal offence. Hardly the resume you want your elected officials to have.
I often wonder, on the other hand, whether we collectively as a society put too much pressure on these guys in public office to perform to a certain standard. Maybe we do. These guys are always wearing suits and ties and always are expected to say the "right" things and when they don't, we and the media criticize them. Perhaps this drives these folks into a secret life where such things happen. Ultimately, though, people like this should take the responsibility and evaluate their own weaknesses and shortcomings before they enter into public office. A smooth talking guy (or gal) hardly is indicative of a upstanding private life. I think we need to place more value on substance and character, rather than focus on words, style, and presentation. But as is so often the case in today's world, people seem to have an idealized and romanticized version of others - perhaps it is in the hope that maybe just once, this elected official will be different. Unfortunately, what they fail to take into account is the fact that people are essentially the same everywhere.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Rape Is About Sex, Not Power
Haven't had that much time to write blog entries this year - between my wife being 8+ months pregnant and having to work like a dog, logging lots of overtime hours this year, I've been too tired to do anything, even writing and target shooting, both of which I thoroughly enjoy. However, I have a few minutes tonight and have been itching to discuss an issue that has been on my mind, the catalyst of my wanting to examine this issue coming recently in my inadvertent eavesdropping on a conversation while in line at the supermarket.
There are some things in life which over time, you have simply come to believe, whether it is through societal pressure, social conditioning, hearing what at first appears to be a well thought out argument, or simply for the reason that you didn't think it was worthwhile to ponder the other side of the coin. There are not a lot of positions for which I have flip-flopped (and especially more than once), but this is one of them, and I am now back to my original position, that I held more than 25 years ago.
Unfortunately, I learned the tragic meaning of the word "rape" when I was in grade two or so. Of course, it was from fellow students, who probably had no clue what they were talking about, but somehow heard it from their parents or others who probably should have exercised a bit more conversational discretion. Anyhow, I thought it was pretty disturbing that someone (a man) would force themselves sexually onto someone else (a woman). I remember that I was both confused and saddened. Nowadays, the word "rape" has been softened tremendously, with the hyperbolic and vague term "sexual assault", which can mean anything from lightly patting a woman's bottom to full forced intercourse. The word "rape" is almost never heard anymore, especially in media. I am not a sociologist, but as a guy with a half-functioning brain, I can offer some guesses as to why this is, the foremost of the reasons being the constant bantering of feminists over the years that rape (and I will use the word here, not for dramatic effect, but to ensure that the disturbing nature of this act is prominent in your minds) is not about sex, but about power (have a look at those who espouse this argument - they are almost always women, and more than often women with a clear ultra-left, pro-choice, feminist bent. Now, I will confess that for a good many years, about two decades or so, I found that explanation plausible, even during my late twenties, when I made a sharp return to my conventional conservative belief system that I have always had.
I don't have a whole lot that I agree with as far as the Roman Catholic church goes, but I certainly can say that they position on the cause of rape is dead-on. They posit that rape is as a result of lust, and if I can take that further and offer my position on this, I would contend that rape is in fact about sex, and not power.
I can hear the collective hearts of the feminists out there now, beating faster with every word I say here, with clenched teeth and matching fists, shaking their heads in disbelief that I would argue against their conventional wisdom. But you know, I have had some time to think about this and I can no longer find enough substance in their argument for me to subscribe to their position.
Again, I'm not sociologist or criminal pathologist, so while I cannot cite studies for you (all of which can be skewed and biased anyway) or line up a row of expert witnesses, I can say that a belief that rape is about sex and not power makes much more sense for the following reasons.
1) Look at the typical profile of a rapist. Generally lacks social skills and interaction. It's been shown that they have had copious amounts of exposure to pornography (which is about sex, not TV). As a former porn dealer, I can see where that line between fantasy and forcefully acting out what you see in porn can be crossed, though thankfully I've never crossed it. These perpetrators are usually not only social misfits, but have also not had any meaningful sexual relationships. Rapists are usually not married men. So these guys are likely not getting sex from anywhere and with almost all men, they eventually need a sexual outlet somehow (and habitual masturbation is unlikely to meet their needs). Combine that with a lack of social skills and interaction and add in a steady diet of porn, and you have a sex offender in waiting.
2) It eliminates any potential stimuli that may have emanated from the victim. Yes, this is a touchy point, but I want to reiterate that regardless of any sexual stimulus that may be present from a female wearing provocative clothing, it still does not warrant her being violated by an attacker. However, I absolutely will not subscribe to the notion that a woman who wears shorts so short that it looks like underwear, will not attract attention from men. A generally attractive woman wearing a tight halter top on a hot summer day will garner attention from men, and especially men who envision that a woman like that is one who is inviting sexual advances (wanted or not) - hell, that's what it's like in porn, so it must be true, right??? Anyhow, if you say that provocative or revealing clothing has anything to do with it, then it lends some credence to the sexualization argument, but of course, feminists would prefer to argue from a power/lack of power position as it is seems more socially explainable, textbook-wise.
3) If rape is about power, why is it that sex is always used? Those who disagree with me will argue that sex is only a tool, a means by which the ends are met. But you have to ask yourself. If you wanted to overpower and dominate someone, why choose sex? Why not just punch the living crap out of someone? Why not verbally and emotionally humiliate? It could be argued that forcing yourself on someone dominates them and achieves all the above objectives, but if this is the case, why is it that rapists almost always ejaculate? Isn't it enough to simply humiliate the victim sexually? Why do these rapists feel they must "finish"? I believe it is because their objective is not to humiliate and overpower their victim, but instead, find someone on whom they can fulfill their sick fantasies and desires. They basically have a selfish desire for sex and have decided that they must have it, even if it is at the expense of another human being. That is why you see senior citizens and children being raped - both of these groups are vulnerable and conversely are already on the lower end of the power scale. It is not about power - it is about easy access to fulfil the perpetrator's twisted desires. Another case in point - you see gang rapes in prisons among all-male populations. OK, in that case, there is another element in play - homoxexuality, but why are these generally heterosexual guys resorting to forcing homosexual sex on clearly weaker members of the population? Nothing to do with power. Everything to do with their need for sex. I don't like comparing humans to animals and very seldom draw comparisons, but you can look at it from the perspective of animals attacking weaker animals (and I don't think my comparison is too far off, since these criminals are pretty much animals). It is not because they want to exercise their power. It is almost always because they are hungry and need to fulfil their insatiable need for food. They happen to attack a weaker animal because they know that they are more likely to succeed in getting what they want.
Now, all this being said, I will be quick to add that I am not saying that sex crimes (notice from a legal and criminal perspective, these acts are called "sex crimes" and even the term sexual assault is not neutral, as it is indicative of a sexual aspect, so that can hardly be discarded) are devoid of elements of a power struggle or any aspects of domination. Similarly, I am not denying that these perpetrators have a warped, if not incomprehensible view of women and how they relate to women. I am simply arguing that I don't believe that in the minds of the attackers, that wanting to overpower their victim is their primary motivator. Overpowering is a means to end end, which is their forcing someone to meet their own selfish sexual needs. That, in my view, is the catalyst behind all rapes. It would certainly be interesting to read transcripts of interviews with convicted rapists (on their own volition - not controlled interviews by feminist psychologists asking leading questions) to see whether my hypothesis has any merit. I strongly suspect that I am not too far off here in my statements.
There are some things in life which over time, you have simply come to believe, whether it is through societal pressure, social conditioning, hearing what at first appears to be a well thought out argument, or simply for the reason that you didn't think it was worthwhile to ponder the other side of the coin. There are not a lot of positions for which I have flip-flopped (and especially more than once), but this is one of them, and I am now back to my original position, that I held more than 25 years ago.
Unfortunately, I learned the tragic meaning of the word "rape" when I was in grade two or so. Of course, it was from fellow students, who probably had no clue what they were talking about, but somehow heard it from their parents or others who probably should have exercised a bit more conversational discretion. Anyhow, I thought it was pretty disturbing that someone (a man) would force themselves sexually onto someone else (a woman). I remember that I was both confused and saddened. Nowadays, the word "rape" has been softened tremendously, with the hyperbolic and vague term "sexual assault", which can mean anything from lightly patting a woman's bottom to full forced intercourse. The word "rape" is almost never heard anymore, especially in media. I am not a sociologist, but as a guy with a half-functioning brain, I can offer some guesses as to why this is, the foremost of the reasons being the constant bantering of feminists over the years that rape (and I will use the word here, not for dramatic effect, but to ensure that the disturbing nature of this act is prominent in your minds) is not about sex, but about power (have a look at those who espouse this argument - they are almost always women, and more than often women with a clear ultra-left, pro-choice, feminist bent. Now, I will confess that for a good many years, about two decades or so, I found that explanation plausible, even during my late twenties, when I made a sharp return to my conventional conservative belief system that I have always had.
I don't have a whole lot that I agree with as far as the Roman Catholic church goes, but I certainly can say that they position on the cause of rape is dead-on. They posit that rape is as a result of lust, and if I can take that further and offer my position on this, I would contend that rape is in fact about sex, and not power.
I can hear the collective hearts of the feminists out there now, beating faster with every word I say here, with clenched teeth and matching fists, shaking their heads in disbelief that I would argue against their conventional wisdom. But you know, I have had some time to think about this and I can no longer find enough substance in their argument for me to subscribe to their position.
Again, I'm not sociologist or criminal pathologist, so while I cannot cite studies for you (all of which can be skewed and biased anyway) or line up a row of expert witnesses, I can say that a belief that rape is about sex and not power makes much more sense for the following reasons.
1) Look at the typical profile of a rapist. Generally lacks social skills and interaction. It's been shown that they have had copious amounts of exposure to pornography (which is about sex, not TV). As a former porn dealer, I can see where that line between fantasy and forcefully acting out what you see in porn can be crossed, though thankfully I've never crossed it. These perpetrators are usually not only social misfits, but have also not had any meaningful sexual relationships. Rapists are usually not married men. So these guys are likely not getting sex from anywhere and with almost all men, they eventually need a sexual outlet somehow (and habitual masturbation is unlikely to meet their needs). Combine that with a lack of social skills and interaction and add in a steady diet of porn, and you have a sex offender in waiting.
2) It eliminates any potential stimuli that may have emanated from the victim. Yes, this is a touchy point, but I want to reiterate that regardless of any sexual stimulus that may be present from a female wearing provocative clothing, it still does not warrant her being violated by an attacker. However, I absolutely will not subscribe to the notion that a woman who wears shorts so short that it looks like underwear, will not attract attention from men. A generally attractive woman wearing a tight halter top on a hot summer day will garner attention from men, and especially men who envision that a woman like that is one who is inviting sexual advances (wanted or not) - hell, that's what it's like in porn, so it must be true, right??? Anyhow, if you say that provocative or revealing clothing has anything to do with it, then it lends some credence to the sexualization argument, but of course, feminists would prefer to argue from a power/lack of power position as it is seems more socially explainable, textbook-wise.
3) If rape is about power, why is it that sex is always used? Those who disagree with me will argue that sex is only a tool, a means by which the ends are met. But you have to ask yourself. If you wanted to overpower and dominate someone, why choose sex? Why not just punch the living crap out of someone? Why not verbally and emotionally humiliate? It could be argued that forcing yourself on someone dominates them and achieves all the above objectives, but if this is the case, why is it that rapists almost always ejaculate? Isn't it enough to simply humiliate the victim sexually? Why do these rapists feel they must "finish"? I believe it is because their objective is not to humiliate and overpower their victim, but instead, find someone on whom they can fulfill their sick fantasies and desires. They basically have a selfish desire for sex and have decided that they must have it, even if it is at the expense of another human being. That is why you see senior citizens and children being raped - both of these groups are vulnerable and conversely are already on the lower end of the power scale. It is not about power - it is about easy access to fulfil the perpetrator's twisted desires. Another case in point - you see gang rapes in prisons among all-male populations. OK, in that case, there is another element in play - homoxexuality, but why are these generally heterosexual guys resorting to forcing homosexual sex on clearly weaker members of the population? Nothing to do with power. Everything to do with their need for sex. I don't like comparing humans to animals and very seldom draw comparisons, but you can look at it from the perspective of animals attacking weaker animals (and I don't think my comparison is too far off, since these criminals are pretty much animals). It is not because they want to exercise their power. It is almost always because they are hungry and need to fulfil their insatiable need for food. They happen to attack a weaker animal because they know that they are more likely to succeed in getting what they want.
Now, all this being said, I will be quick to add that I am not saying that sex crimes (notice from a legal and criminal perspective, these acts are called "sex crimes" and even the term sexual assault is not neutral, as it is indicative of a sexual aspect, so that can hardly be discarded) are devoid of elements of a power struggle or any aspects of domination. Similarly, I am not denying that these perpetrators have a warped, if not incomprehensible view of women and how they relate to women. I am simply arguing that I don't believe that in the minds of the attackers, that wanting to overpower their victim is their primary motivator. Overpowering is a means to end end, which is their forcing someone to meet their own selfish sexual needs. That, in my view, is the catalyst behind all rapes. It would certainly be interesting to read transcripts of interviews with convicted rapists (on their own volition - not controlled interviews by feminist psychologists asking leading questions) to see whether my hypothesis has any merit. I strongly suspect that I am not too far off here in my statements.
Monday, September 10, 2007
The Never-Ending Adventures of Sen. Larry Craig
This will be a short and sweet entry, as we are getting ready to take our son for his first day of school in the next hour - literally.
As a conservative, it may seem relatively un-kosher to bash other purported conservatives, but if there is one thing I can't stand, it is hypocrisy amongst those who claim to have some moral high ground - particularly in public officials like lawmakers/politicians, clergy, teachers, etc. It is not really the scope of this short entry to discuss why I am not endeared to these folks - I have written a much more lengthier blog entry detailing that. I do want to quickly focus my attention to the latest high-profile case which has busted a public official, and a conservative at that.
If you don't know who Sen. Larry Craig is, look him up on Wikipedia for more details. Anyhow, the gist of the case against him is that he, as a grandfather of nine, and a supposed conservative who has backed "family values" and anti-gay legislation, was busted in a Minneapolis washroom by a cop (who was assigned to look for these exact things at that exact location since there have been repeated instances there). He had allegedly signalled to the cop that he was looking to engage in some sexual activity while he was in one stall and the cop was in the other.
I heard the interview that the cop who arrested him had. The cop was so upset with him when he started denying the incident happened like how the cop described (the officer said that he is disappointed that he doesn't just admit how the incident happened like the others). The officer was visibly annoyed and disgusted at how Sen. Craig would not tell the truth. You should check out the interview, available on CNN.com - the officer was very specific in describing the incident in great details and he saw all this first-hand - otherwise, why arrest him? Anyway, subsequently, Craig did enter a guilty plea (which since the time this has been made public, he has backtracked on saying he was confused and he will fight to reverse the plea). He has also resigned from his job as Senator.
What i find laughable in all this is the lame-brain excuses Craig makes. He was accused of making two body language moves while he was in the stall directly to the left of the arresting officer. One was sliding his hand underneath the stall wall, while the other was touching his right foot with the arresting officer's left foot and then tapping it. Apparently, these two signs are common for those who want a sexual favour.
Craig claims that he did not put his hand under the stall, but reached down to grab a piece of toilet paper on the floor. Honestly...who the hell picks up a piece of toilet paper on the dirty ground of a public men's washroom? Craig also admits that his foot touched the officer's foot, but it was an accident...since he sits in a "wide stance". I don't believe this one either since even if he was a...uh...plus-sized individual, he would have to really reach over to touch the other person's foot. Case in point - there is this fella at work, who works for our client, who is, um...quite plump. If anyone has an excuse to sit in a wide stance, he does. However, as I sat beside several times in the past in the stall, his foot was not even once close to coming over to my stall (and this dude is about 6' 3", 400lbs.) He would have had to deliberately reached in with his foot.
The officer also claimed that he used his left hand to slide underneath the stall (which would mean he would have had to reach over), since the cop saw his wedding ring (which Craig says he only wears on his left hand).
Craig has denied that he is a closet homosexual. He has denied that the whole incident happened as the officer indicated. Generally, I give people the benefit of the doubt, but something about his whole story stinks.
As a conservative, it may seem relatively un-kosher to bash other purported conservatives, but if there is one thing I can't stand, it is hypocrisy amongst those who claim to have some moral high ground - particularly in public officials like lawmakers/politicians, clergy, teachers, etc. It is not really the scope of this short entry to discuss why I am not endeared to these folks - I have written a much more lengthier blog entry detailing that. I do want to quickly focus my attention to the latest high-profile case which has busted a public official, and a conservative at that.
If you don't know who Sen. Larry Craig is, look him up on Wikipedia for more details. Anyhow, the gist of the case against him is that he, as a grandfather of nine, and a supposed conservative who has backed "family values" and anti-gay legislation, was busted in a Minneapolis washroom by a cop (who was assigned to look for these exact things at that exact location since there have been repeated instances there). He had allegedly signalled to the cop that he was looking to engage in some sexual activity while he was in one stall and the cop was in the other.
I heard the interview that the cop who arrested him had. The cop was so upset with him when he started denying the incident happened like how the cop described (the officer said that he is disappointed that he doesn't just admit how the incident happened like the others). The officer was visibly annoyed and disgusted at how Sen. Craig would not tell the truth. You should check out the interview, available on CNN.com - the officer was very specific in describing the incident in great details and he saw all this first-hand - otherwise, why arrest him? Anyway, subsequently, Craig did enter a guilty plea (which since the time this has been made public, he has backtracked on saying he was confused and he will fight to reverse the plea). He has also resigned from his job as Senator.
What i find laughable in all this is the lame-brain excuses Craig makes. He was accused of making two body language moves while he was in the stall directly to the left of the arresting officer. One was sliding his hand underneath the stall wall, while the other was touching his right foot with the arresting officer's left foot and then tapping it. Apparently, these two signs are common for those who want a sexual favour.
Craig claims that he did not put his hand under the stall, but reached down to grab a piece of toilet paper on the floor. Honestly...who the hell picks up a piece of toilet paper on the dirty ground of a public men's washroom? Craig also admits that his foot touched the officer's foot, but it was an accident...since he sits in a "wide stance". I don't believe this one either since even if he was a...uh...plus-sized individual, he would have to really reach over to touch the other person's foot. Case in point - there is this fella at work, who works for our client, who is, um...quite plump. If anyone has an excuse to sit in a wide stance, he does. However, as I sat beside several times in the past in the stall, his foot was not even once close to coming over to my stall (and this dude is about 6' 3", 400lbs.) He would have had to deliberately reached in with his foot.
The officer also claimed that he used his left hand to slide underneath the stall (which would mean he would have had to reach over), since the cop saw his wedding ring (which Craig says he only wears on his left hand).
Craig has denied that he is a closet homosexual. He has denied that the whole incident happened as the officer indicated. Generally, I give people the benefit of the doubt, but something about his whole story stinks.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Peverted Justice and Pedophiles
I just came back from a friendly round of golf with some friends at church (yes, I finished in last place, though I am encouraged by the fact that I bettered my score by ten strokes compared to a few weeks ago - still, the score is nothing to write home about). My wife is busy in the other room preparing for work tomorrow, the kids at the daycare are all asleep (as is my son), so I thought I'd catch up on email from this week, something that I haven't been doing much of at all.
I got an interesting email from a person in the U.S. with whom I speak with often about U.S. / Canadian politics and social issues. The email had a YouTube link included, which played a video sniplet of a U.S. television show called Perverted Justice (it airs on NBC, it looks like), in which they set up live sting operations in which they get an over-18 "actress" to impersonate a 12 or 13 year old online, in order to lure potential pedophiles into meeting. With hidden cameras in tow, they show the whole sting operation.
While I haven't watched Peverted Justice previously, they did air something remarkably similar on the Canadian investigative/journalistic show W5, earlier this year. My wife and I watched it and she got sick to her stomach seeing how many married (and sometimes with kids) people showed up at this house to have sexual encounters with these pre-teeens. As if that wasn't bad enough, when everything was set and the pervert was engaging in conversation with the "teen", out pops the host of the show, with the online correspondence in hand and asks pointed questions to the perpetrator. Sometimes, the host will rummage through the bag(s) that the perpetrator brings, finding all sorts of disgusting stuff inside.
In watching this video clip on YouTube, it brings to mind something that I've been meaning to talk about on this blog anyway - which is why it seems that pedophilia and child porn is on the rise these days (or seemingly so). When I was a little boy, there was some mention of inappropriate touching in our school classrooms, but ultimately, the conclusion seemed to be that these were rare occurrences and that it was some mental sicko who was responsible for this. Some have argued that cases of molestation have always been there - it's just that it was much more hidden 25 years ago. There was a very negative stigma towards molesters in general. I was never molested, nor did I know anyone who was, so my sense is that it was "safer" back then than it is now.
I have no idea why it seems that pedophilia is so prevalent these days, but perhaps I can brainstorm some possibilities:
1) Like it or not, I think that the internet has played a huge part in this. In the old days, I would imagine that pedophiles would operate by mail and secret meetings and so forth. Now, with the anonymity of the internet, any predator can easily disguise themselves under a plethora of online monikers. I was listening to CFRB this past week, and they mentioned that the social website myspace.com, which I understand is more geared towards teenagers, has about 28,000 (that's right, twenty-eight thousand) registered sex offenders as members. That's kind of scary if you ask me. Because perpetrators now have the internet to hide behind, they can much more easily ply their craft and seduce kids.
2) This will be a controversial one for me to discuss, but as it is simple brainstorming, I thought I'd just throw it out. It would appear, to me anyway, that kids are dressing more and more provocatively these days. Yes, I know the response - no one invites an attack, a molestation, a rape. This is true. But knowing that there are probably more perverts out there than there used to be, by dressing in an even remotely sexual manner, I think that they are not helping to curb the fantasies of potential pedophiles. My wife went to the mall earlier this week, as it was our nine-year anniversary on Wednesday and I gave her some gift certificates, and she had mentioned to me that there were these girls there, who weren't any older than 11 or 12, who had "practically nothing on" (her words, not mine). My wife said that she was "very pretty". Now, you add the fact that she was a cute girl, coupled with the fact that she was wearing pretty revealing clothes - I think that is just helping to conjure up fantasies for a potential pedophile.
3) Porn seems to be considered somewhat acceptable these days, almost fashonable. I definitely don't believe there is the social stigma associated with viewing porn. Case in point - last month on a call-in radio show, they had women call in and expressed whether they would have any issues with working porn themselves or having their husbands / boyfriends watch it. To my surprise, all 12 women callers on that segment of the show had no issues with it, and some even encouraged it as a marital aid. To no one's surprise, all the men calling in (about 5 or 6) had no problem with it. I think with an acceptable view of pornography uses, that has cut some of the stigma out of variations of pornography. I'm not saying that society in general finds child porn acceptable, but I am saying that because porn in general seems to be more societally accepted, the makers of child porn have a pretty large audience to which they can cater their products (coupled with the internet's use of file sharing programs and what not).
4) Children seem to be pushed to grow up faster these days, by society in general. Look at the plethora of DVDs and toys and learning materials available for kids. We're churning out kids who act more like adults, speaking with more sophistication earlier. Children who act like typical kids are called "immature" and not as developmentally advanced. It almost goes back to the old days in England where kids who were 11 or 12 were expected to work full time hours in labourious conditions (and interestingly enough, the age of marriage was considerably lower). You even see this in various industries - kids who are young teenagers are becoming pro golfers and tennis players. Young actors and actresses abound (believe it or not, I heard on the radio a year or so ago that there was a website dedicated to some 12-year-old actress that has some running clock that counts down to when she turns 18. I can't think of too many noble reason for such a site, but that seems to be how prevalent this stuff is). Fashion and perfume companies are signing up models as young as 11. Children have much more pressure on them to grow up faster and of course, I would imagine this would make them attractive to pedophiles.
Ultimately though, I think it may also come down to the fact that we live, and have lived for the last decade or more, in a relatively permissive environment. People's individual rights of speech and expression are protected so fiercely that even if they are encroaching on the border between child pornography and artistic depictions of children, the law does not have enough provisions to shut them down early, in the interests of society as a whole. Parents don't correct their kids as much as they should, so their kids grow up thinking that everything is relatively acceptable, so what's wrong with fantasizing about a pre-pubescent? True, laws and governements can never tell people how or what to think (and it is not their place to do so), but surely they must realize their responsibility to protect their most vulnerable members of their society, even if it means that it infringes on someone's right to free expression. And lawmakers and law enforcement need to realize that those who are convicted as sex offenders are very unlikely to just "change". Urges can be suppressed, either with will power or through medication (and even then, the assumption is that the offender takes the medication). Those convicted of crimes against children should never be released to the general public again - they can be monitored all you want, but I've always believed that if you have a pre-disposition to this type of sexual attraction, it is not "fixable", so it would not be in society's best interest (nor the neighbourhood's, where the convict is being released) to release these perverts and hope for the best.
I got an interesting email from a person in the U.S. with whom I speak with often about U.S. / Canadian politics and social issues. The email had a YouTube link included, which played a video sniplet of a U.S. television show called Perverted Justice (it airs on NBC, it looks like), in which they set up live sting operations in which they get an over-18 "actress" to impersonate a 12 or 13 year old online, in order to lure potential pedophiles into meeting. With hidden cameras in tow, they show the whole sting operation.
While I haven't watched Peverted Justice previously, they did air something remarkably similar on the Canadian investigative/journalistic show W5, earlier this year. My wife and I watched it and she got sick to her stomach seeing how many married (and sometimes with kids) people showed up at this house to have sexual encounters with these pre-teeens. As if that wasn't bad enough, when everything was set and the pervert was engaging in conversation with the "teen", out pops the host of the show, with the online correspondence in hand and asks pointed questions to the perpetrator. Sometimes, the host will rummage through the bag(s) that the perpetrator brings, finding all sorts of disgusting stuff inside.
In watching this video clip on YouTube, it brings to mind something that I've been meaning to talk about on this blog anyway - which is why it seems that pedophilia and child porn is on the rise these days (or seemingly so). When I was a little boy, there was some mention of inappropriate touching in our school classrooms, but ultimately, the conclusion seemed to be that these were rare occurrences and that it was some mental sicko who was responsible for this. Some have argued that cases of molestation have always been there - it's just that it was much more hidden 25 years ago. There was a very negative stigma towards molesters in general. I was never molested, nor did I know anyone who was, so my sense is that it was "safer" back then than it is now.
I have no idea why it seems that pedophilia is so prevalent these days, but perhaps I can brainstorm some possibilities:
1) Like it or not, I think that the internet has played a huge part in this. In the old days, I would imagine that pedophiles would operate by mail and secret meetings and so forth. Now, with the anonymity of the internet, any predator can easily disguise themselves under a plethora of online monikers. I was listening to CFRB this past week, and they mentioned that the social website myspace.com, which I understand is more geared towards teenagers, has about 28,000 (that's right, twenty-eight thousand) registered sex offenders as members. That's kind of scary if you ask me. Because perpetrators now have the internet to hide behind, they can much more easily ply their craft and seduce kids.
2) This will be a controversial one for me to discuss, but as it is simple brainstorming, I thought I'd just throw it out. It would appear, to me anyway, that kids are dressing more and more provocatively these days. Yes, I know the response - no one invites an attack, a molestation, a rape. This is true. But knowing that there are probably more perverts out there than there used to be, by dressing in an even remotely sexual manner, I think that they are not helping to curb the fantasies of potential pedophiles. My wife went to the mall earlier this week, as it was our nine-year anniversary on Wednesday and I gave her some gift certificates, and she had mentioned to me that there were these girls there, who weren't any older than 11 or 12, who had "practically nothing on" (her words, not mine). My wife said that she was "very pretty". Now, you add the fact that she was a cute girl, coupled with the fact that she was wearing pretty revealing clothes - I think that is just helping to conjure up fantasies for a potential pedophile.
3) Porn seems to be considered somewhat acceptable these days, almost fashonable. I definitely don't believe there is the social stigma associated with viewing porn. Case in point - last month on a call-in radio show, they had women call in and expressed whether they would have any issues with working porn themselves or having their husbands / boyfriends watch it. To my surprise, all 12 women callers on that segment of the show had no issues with it, and some even encouraged it as a marital aid. To no one's surprise, all the men calling in (about 5 or 6) had no problem with it. I think with an acceptable view of pornography uses, that has cut some of the stigma out of variations of pornography. I'm not saying that society in general finds child porn acceptable, but I am saying that because porn in general seems to be more societally accepted, the makers of child porn have a pretty large audience to which they can cater their products (coupled with the internet's use of file sharing programs and what not).
4) Children seem to be pushed to grow up faster these days, by society in general. Look at the plethora of DVDs and toys and learning materials available for kids. We're churning out kids who act more like adults, speaking with more sophistication earlier. Children who act like typical kids are called "immature" and not as developmentally advanced. It almost goes back to the old days in England where kids who were 11 or 12 were expected to work full time hours in labourious conditions (and interestingly enough, the age of marriage was considerably lower). You even see this in various industries - kids who are young teenagers are becoming pro golfers and tennis players. Young actors and actresses abound (believe it or not, I heard on the radio a year or so ago that there was a website dedicated to some 12-year-old actress that has some running clock that counts down to when she turns 18. I can't think of too many noble reason for such a site, but that seems to be how prevalent this stuff is). Fashion and perfume companies are signing up models as young as 11. Children have much more pressure on them to grow up faster and of course, I would imagine this would make them attractive to pedophiles.
Ultimately though, I think it may also come down to the fact that we live, and have lived for the last decade or more, in a relatively permissive environment. People's individual rights of speech and expression are protected so fiercely that even if they are encroaching on the border between child pornography and artistic depictions of children, the law does not have enough provisions to shut them down early, in the interests of society as a whole. Parents don't correct their kids as much as they should, so their kids grow up thinking that everything is relatively acceptable, so what's wrong with fantasizing about a pre-pubescent? True, laws and governements can never tell people how or what to think (and it is not their place to do so), but surely they must realize their responsibility to protect their most vulnerable members of their society, even if it means that it infringes on someone's right to free expression. And lawmakers and law enforcement need to realize that those who are convicted as sex offenders are very unlikely to just "change". Urges can be suppressed, either with will power or through medication (and even then, the assumption is that the offender takes the medication). Those convicted of crimes against children should never be released to the general public again - they can be monitored all you want, but I've always believed that if you have a pre-disposition to this type of sexual attraction, it is not "fixable", so it would not be in society's best interest (nor the neighbourhood's, where the convict is being released) to release these perverts and hope for the best.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Homosexuality and the Church
Well, I've been doing this for a few months and have readers in both Canada and the U.S. (and who knows where else). I see that my blogs are not searchable over Google, so I must be getting the word out. I've talked about both current issues and my own experiences, but what I really started this blog for, was to give opinion. I've decided that I'm going to start slapping down my views on several issues that, even in evangelical Christian circles, people generally try not to touch with a 10-foot javelin. One of these issues is the whole issue of homosexuality. Many people in today's left-leaning society would take me to task and tell me that there is no issue, and I'm just fanning the flames of intolerance (one of the favourite catch-all phrases of the liberal left). Worse, I would be labelled the infamous "homophobic" label for my views, which I suppose is supposed to somehow be on par with being called a racist.
Let me deal with this one first. Homophobic, is, by definition to mean that one is afraid of homosexuals. I am not afraid of homosexuals, just like I am not afraid of heterosexuals. So let's state that first. I know people who are gay, and I work with people who are gay, and hell, I found out that my old college roommate was gay - I still talk to him. I am not afraid of homosexuals. The problem these days is that if people somehow disagree with some the beliefs or behaviour of another group, they will get labels placed on them (sort of like people who point out that there is a problem with crime in black communities in urban areas - they then get labelled a racist...I tell you, there is no better way to create future racists than to alienate people to voice valid opinions (and yes, I agree, how they voice it matters). Go ahead, throw your darts at me - I'll be happy to absorb them. I've always called a spade a spade, to the chagrin of others, and that ain't going to change any time soon.
Where I draw the line on this issue is that I absolutely, unequivocally do not support what people call the gay "lifestyle". What does this mean? It means that I do not believe in gay romance, gay marriage, gay adoption - in other words, anything that would start eating away at what God has placed as His model of life-long marriage relationships between a man and a woman. Despite what many folks who choose not to have children will say, the fact of the matter is, married people do have a responsibility (obligation is too strong of a word) to procreate and continue to fill the earth. I think that is why God intended to put a woman and man together in marriage (also to satisfy each other, but as we're not doing a study on Song of Solomon, that will have to wait till another time). That is God's design. Men and men and women and women cannot biologically procreate. Men and women also complement each other in terms of personality, able to meet needs mutually (ie. women crave love, men crave respect). I don't believe such a balance can be achieved in a homosexual relationship.
Notice I did not discuss much in terms of sexuality, but I will now (THE NEXT PARTS ARE A BIT EXPLICIT SO USE DISCRETION)...some people will use the silly smokescreen that they don't believe in gay relationships because of the gay sex part - so let's be quite frank here. Gay sex can only be constituted mainly in two ways: oral sex and anal sex. The problem with using those two sex acts as the determining factor as to why the lifestyle is not acceptable, is that heterosexuals can and do engage in both, yet I don't hear incriminations raining down on straight folks. Now, it is very true that the Bible calls for a man not to lie with a man as with a woman. So basically, men should not be having sexual relations with one another. How it manifests itself is irrelevant, in my opinion. Now, if you want to know my opinion of anal sex, I can tell you - I would probably classify it as not being as "natural" as penile-vaginal intercourse. The anus is not really a naturally lubricated area, and since there is far greater chance of infection and bacteria, it's probably not the greatest place to be (and that is a generalization for men and women).
All that being said, let me generally state that I believe that many churches in North America have not handled this issue properly (with both sides of the coin). I want to focus on this, since much of the opposition to homosexuality is coming out of the evangelical Christian church. I think that churches have not thought this issue through and simply say "it is wrong!" (what is wrong?) and "that is disgusting" (which I can agree with, but I think there's a much more intelligent and logical way to discuss issues rather than name calling and belittling. Conversely, some churches have approached the issue in an effort to not offend and be compassionate and inclusive. I think this is more catering to today's "accept everyone and don't offend anyone" climate. These churches, I believe, are not looking at what Scripture is teaching.
Let me publicly state that I do agree with some homosexuals and lesbians who said that Christians oftentimes are guilty of having a double-standard for themselves and others. They say that homosexuality is wrong, yet they don't condemn gambling (yes, lottery tickets or being in the office lottery pool counts as gambling, folks!), don't condemn as strongly pre-marital sex, don't condemn relationships/marriage between Christians and non-Christians (which Scripture clearly warns against), don't condemn drunkenness, foul language amongst Christians, or even not showing compassion to the less fortunate, as Jesus taught). The same churches which would elevate homosexuality to the gravest of sins will have no problem raising their kids not to marry black people or using the "n" word freely in their social circles. All are great points, and I would absolutely agree that it is hard to take a Christian seriously who condemns homosexuality, yet has their own sins that they seem to place on a different sliding scale.
Here's how I believe churches need to handle the issue: 1) since Scripture clearly indicates that homosexual sexual relations is wrong, churches need to ensure that those who are in such relationships are rebuked (just as they should rebuke common-law relationships between men and women or pre-marital sexual relationships between men and women). 2) Churches need to distinguish that there is a difference between homosexual orientation and homosexual activity. What am I talking about here? I do not believe it is wrong to be tempted or struggle with certain things, including homosexual thoughts. Either acting on them or entertaining them is where it becomes sinful. In this vein, 3) I would have no problems welcoming a person who struggles with homosexual thoughts as a member of my church, so long as they remain chaste (ie. do not engage in homosexual relations or sexual relations), and they recognize that Scripture teaches that homosexual behaviour is sinful). It's no different than welcoming a straight person who struggles with lust, but has it under control). Ordaining a minister who is has leanings toward homosexuality, yet chaste and recognizes that homosexual sex is sinful, is another issue, one on which I haven't come to exact conclusions, but of course, I should let you know that I do not support women in minister positions and I generally believe that senior ministers for churches should ideally be married, so I guess I probably would not support a single man who has struggled with homosexuality, as a church leader, for the same reason that I would not support a married man who struggles with undressing women with his eyes).
Some other items. One, is that the argument is made that so many heterosexual marriages end in divorce, and there are so many heterosexual relationships where the woman is being abused or beaten - surely give homosexual relationships a chance. I can, of course, never conclusively say that it is not better for a woman who is in a relationship where she gets the shit kicked out of her every night, to be in a loving relationship with another woman who doesn't abuse her. But I think we are comparing apples to oranges here. No one in their right mind would support a marriage where the husband constantly physically beats the wife (unless you are from the part of the world known for suicide bombers). But I find the problem in using this argument is you are using emotions in favour of the argument, rather than thinking things through. Agree, the woman should get out of the physically abusive relationship. She can always find another man. But let's say she wants kids and as a father, I know how important it is for my son to have both a mother AND a father. My wife brings stuff to my son which I cannot bring, and I bring stuff to my son that my wife cannot bring. That is God's design. But if you are a Christian, it is good to consider what the Bible says as well, not just your own feelings. Otherwise, what's to prevent a married man who is not happy with his sex life, to go over to the other lady at church who is having marriage problems and getting it on after Sunday service, at a local hotel? Certainly, he is feeling better and is getting his sexual needs met, but is what he is doing RIGHT? Unfortunately, that is the question many Christians are not asking themselves.
There is another argument regarding monogamy, that I find is easier to address. The adherents of this argument claim that it is better to have a monogamous homosexual relationship rather than a promiscuous heterosexual one. I don't accept the premise that this has to be an either/or scenario, since I believe the Bible is clear on the fact that homosexual sexual relations is wrong - and yes, I am assuming that there is homosexual sex involved in my above example - otherwise, it can be constituted as two roommates, nothing more). I agree that being in any monogamous relationship greatly reduces chance of contracting an STD or infectious disease, but again, because I believe that homosexual sexual relations is condemned in the Bible, and I also believe that sexual promiscuity (in any form) is condemned in the Bible - the question for me is akin to asking a police officer, "what is better, me driving 160KM in a 50KM zone, or shooting my pellet rifle at pedestrians from a bell tower?" Both are wrong under the standard by which the police officer enforces, so it's a sham argument, in my opinion.
Another question that people ask that is just a set-you-up-and-knock-you-down question is whether gays or homosexuals can be saved (the questions usually comes out like "can gays go to heaven." Here's my answer on this one, and it applies to anyone in the world - and this is right from the Bible - anyone who confesses Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour, repents of their sins, and commits to live their life from that point forward as a follower of Jesus Christ, will be saved. End of discussion.
Just last week, there was the Pride Parade in Toronto (and around the world). I notice that they have since dropped the "Gay" part out of the equation. Anyway, if you watched coverage of it (I didn't choose to, but it's in the paper nonetheless, even in the more conservative ones), you would have seen many people flaunting sexuality. For anyone to say that there is no sexual focus in the gay and lesbian community is blowing smoke in my face. If it were a heterosexual parade, there wouldn't be as crazy of a display of people in various states of undress and flaunting certain body parts. The straight community do not have bath houses and cottages where men can meet for sex very casually. Yes, there are brothels and what not, but even those are under wraps. I was downtown in the gay district years ago (passing through while doing some shopping) and I went into some bookstore to use their washroom. I'm not kidding you - there was this hole in between stalls and I was like, "what the heck is that"? Thought it was something like some toilet paper dispenser that fell out of the wall. I was mentioning this in a casual conversation with someone a few months later and they said that it was blowjob hole, and I'm sitting there thinking, "you've got to be kidding!" Whether it was or not, I haven't seen one of those anywhere else. Anyway, if you don't think that sex is paramount to the gay community, just check out gay discussion online forums - it is loaded with more sexual stuff than many straight discussion forums. I am mentioning all this to emphasize that it is this whole gay sexualization that I find abhorrent and it is this that I believe the Bible condemns. I work with a gay man, who is one of the nicest guys I know, a very gentle person who I'd be happy to hire to work on my team anyday. He is not one of those "flaunt my sexuality" gay people. It's sad to see that Christians in the past have tossed him aside since he's gay. I am angered by the self-righteousness of certain Christians who seem to think that gays are less-human than anyone else. I think it's important to note how Jesus treats people, and I will leave you with this example, which is often used, but used incompletely.
Jesus found a woman who was caught in an adulterous situation. The crowds, no doubt comprised of a fair amount of "religious" people at the time, wanted her to be stoned, as it said in the law. Jesus simply indicated that the persons who are without their own sin in their lives should cast the first stone. People dropped their stones, realizing that they have their own sinful hangups. Now, don't stop reading here!!! Oftentimes, people will use the above example to cite that we should never judge people and that we should always be compassionate, etc. The story is not done yet! Jesus then turns to the woman and his final words are important, "Go, and sin no more!" Notice that? Jesus did not turn a blind eye to her sin, even though he made the crowds realize they can't simply condemn her. Jesus command her to stop sinning. So I think this is important in how we as Christians minister to our homosexual neighbours, colleagues, friends and family. People oftentimes will say, "love the sinner, hate the sin." (which is a Biblical principle). Let's not forget that there are two parts of that equation.
Let me deal with this one first. Homophobic, is, by definition to mean that one is afraid of homosexuals. I am not afraid of homosexuals, just like I am not afraid of heterosexuals. So let's state that first. I know people who are gay, and I work with people who are gay, and hell, I found out that my old college roommate was gay - I still talk to him. I am not afraid of homosexuals. The problem these days is that if people somehow disagree with some the beliefs or behaviour of another group, they will get labels placed on them (sort of like people who point out that there is a problem with crime in black communities in urban areas - they then get labelled a racist...I tell you, there is no better way to create future racists than to alienate people to voice valid opinions (and yes, I agree, how they voice it matters). Go ahead, throw your darts at me - I'll be happy to absorb them. I've always called a spade a spade, to the chagrin of others, and that ain't going to change any time soon.
Where I draw the line on this issue is that I absolutely, unequivocally do not support what people call the gay "lifestyle". What does this mean? It means that I do not believe in gay romance, gay marriage, gay adoption - in other words, anything that would start eating away at what God has placed as His model of life-long marriage relationships between a man and a woman. Despite what many folks who choose not to have children will say, the fact of the matter is, married people do have a responsibility (obligation is too strong of a word) to procreate and continue to fill the earth. I think that is why God intended to put a woman and man together in marriage (also to satisfy each other, but as we're not doing a study on Song of Solomon, that will have to wait till another time). That is God's design. Men and men and women and women cannot biologically procreate. Men and women also complement each other in terms of personality, able to meet needs mutually (ie. women crave love, men crave respect). I don't believe such a balance can be achieved in a homosexual relationship.
Notice I did not discuss much in terms of sexuality, but I will now (THE NEXT PARTS ARE A BIT EXPLICIT SO USE DISCRETION)...some people will use the silly smokescreen that they don't believe in gay relationships because of the gay sex part - so let's be quite frank here. Gay sex can only be constituted mainly in two ways: oral sex and anal sex. The problem with using those two sex acts as the determining factor as to why the lifestyle is not acceptable, is that heterosexuals can and do engage in both, yet I don't hear incriminations raining down on straight folks. Now, it is very true that the Bible calls for a man not to lie with a man as with a woman. So basically, men should not be having sexual relations with one another. How it manifests itself is irrelevant, in my opinion. Now, if you want to know my opinion of anal sex, I can tell you - I would probably classify it as not being as "natural" as penile-vaginal intercourse. The anus is not really a naturally lubricated area, and since there is far greater chance of infection and bacteria, it's probably not the greatest place to be (and that is a generalization for men and women).
All that being said, let me generally state that I believe that many churches in North America have not handled this issue properly (with both sides of the coin). I want to focus on this, since much of the opposition to homosexuality is coming out of the evangelical Christian church. I think that churches have not thought this issue through and simply say "it is wrong!" (what is wrong?) and "that is disgusting" (which I can agree with, but I think there's a much more intelligent and logical way to discuss issues rather than name calling and belittling. Conversely, some churches have approached the issue in an effort to not offend and be compassionate and inclusive. I think this is more catering to today's "accept everyone and don't offend anyone" climate. These churches, I believe, are not looking at what Scripture is teaching.
Let me publicly state that I do agree with some homosexuals and lesbians who said that Christians oftentimes are guilty of having a double-standard for themselves and others. They say that homosexuality is wrong, yet they don't condemn gambling (yes, lottery tickets or being in the office lottery pool counts as gambling, folks!), don't condemn as strongly pre-marital sex, don't condemn relationships/marriage between Christians and non-Christians (which Scripture clearly warns against), don't condemn drunkenness, foul language amongst Christians, or even not showing compassion to the less fortunate, as Jesus taught). The same churches which would elevate homosexuality to the gravest of sins will have no problem raising their kids not to marry black people or using the "n" word freely in their social circles. All are great points, and I would absolutely agree that it is hard to take a Christian seriously who condemns homosexuality, yet has their own sins that they seem to place on a different sliding scale.
Here's how I believe churches need to handle the issue: 1) since Scripture clearly indicates that homosexual sexual relations is wrong, churches need to ensure that those who are in such relationships are rebuked (just as they should rebuke common-law relationships between men and women or pre-marital sexual relationships between men and women). 2) Churches need to distinguish that there is a difference between homosexual orientation and homosexual activity. What am I talking about here? I do not believe it is wrong to be tempted or struggle with certain things, including homosexual thoughts. Either acting on them or entertaining them is where it becomes sinful. In this vein, 3) I would have no problems welcoming a person who struggles with homosexual thoughts as a member of my church, so long as they remain chaste (ie. do not engage in homosexual relations or sexual relations), and they recognize that Scripture teaches that homosexual behaviour is sinful). It's no different than welcoming a straight person who struggles with lust, but has it under control). Ordaining a minister who is has leanings toward homosexuality, yet chaste and recognizes that homosexual sex is sinful, is another issue, one on which I haven't come to exact conclusions, but of course, I should let you know that I do not support women in minister positions and I generally believe that senior ministers for churches should ideally be married, so I guess I probably would not support a single man who has struggled with homosexuality, as a church leader, for the same reason that I would not support a married man who struggles with undressing women with his eyes).
Some other items. One, is that the argument is made that so many heterosexual marriages end in divorce, and there are so many heterosexual relationships where the woman is being abused or beaten - surely give homosexual relationships a chance. I can, of course, never conclusively say that it is not better for a woman who is in a relationship where she gets the shit kicked out of her every night, to be in a loving relationship with another woman who doesn't abuse her. But I think we are comparing apples to oranges here. No one in their right mind would support a marriage where the husband constantly physically beats the wife (unless you are from the part of the world known for suicide bombers). But I find the problem in using this argument is you are using emotions in favour of the argument, rather than thinking things through. Agree, the woman should get out of the physically abusive relationship. She can always find another man. But let's say she wants kids and as a father, I know how important it is for my son to have both a mother AND a father. My wife brings stuff to my son which I cannot bring, and I bring stuff to my son that my wife cannot bring. That is God's design. But if you are a Christian, it is good to consider what the Bible says as well, not just your own feelings. Otherwise, what's to prevent a married man who is not happy with his sex life, to go over to the other lady at church who is having marriage problems and getting it on after Sunday service, at a local hotel? Certainly, he is feeling better and is getting his sexual needs met, but is what he is doing RIGHT? Unfortunately, that is the question many Christians are not asking themselves.
There is another argument regarding monogamy, that I find is easier to address. The adherents of this argument claim that it is better to have a monogamous homosexual relationship rather than a promiscuous heterosexual one. I don't accept the premise that this has to be an either/or scenario, since I believe the Bible is clear on the fact that homosexual sexual relations is wrong - and yes, I am assuming that there is homosexual sex involved in my above example - otherwise, it can be constituted as two roommates, nothing more). I agree that being in any monogamous relationship greatly reduces chance of contracting an STD or infectious disease, but again, because I believe that homosexual sexual relations is condemned in the Bible, and I also believe that sexual promiscuity (in any form) is condemned in the Bible - the question for me is akin to asking a police officer, "what is better, me driving 160KM in a 50KM zone, or shooting my pellet rifle at pedestrians from a bell tower?" Both are wrong under the standard by which the police officer enforces, so it's a sham argument, in my opinion.
Another question that people ask that is just a set-you-up-and-knock-you-down question is whether gays or homosexuals can be saved (the questions usually comes out like "can gays go to heaven." Here's my answer on this one, and it applies to anyone in the world - and this is right from the Bible - anyone who confesses Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour, repents of their sins, and commits to live their life from that point forward as a follower of Jesus Christ, will be saved. End of discussion.
Just last week, there was the Pride Parade in Toronto (and around the world). I notice that they have since dropped the "Gay" part out of the equation. Anyway, if you watched coverage of it (I didn't choose to, but it's in the paper nonetheless, even in the more conservative ones), you would have seen many people flaunting sexuality. For anyone to say that there is no sexual focus in the gay and lesbian community is blowing smoke in my face. If it were a heterosexual parade, there wouldn't be as crazy of a display of people in various states of undress and flaunting certain body parts. The straight community do not have bath houses and cottages where men can meet for sex very casually. Yes, there are brothels and what not, but even those are under wraps. I was downtown in the gay district years ago (passing through while doing some shopping) and I went into some bookstore to use their washroom. I'm not kidding you - there was this hole in between stalls and I was like, "what the heck is that"? Thought it was something like some toilet paper dispenser that fell out of the wall. I was mentioning this in a casual conversation with someone a few months later and they said that it was blowjob hole, and I'm sitting there thinking, "you've got to be kidding!" Whether it was or not, I haven't seen one of those anywhere else. Anyway, if you don't think that sex is paramount to the gay community, just check out gay discussion online forums - it is loaded with more sexual stuff than many straight discussion forums. I am mentioning all this to emphasize that it is this whole gay sexualization that I find abhorrent and it is this that I believe the Bible condemns. I work with a gay man, who is one of the nicest guys I know, a very gentle person who I'd be happy to hire to work on my team anyday. He is not one of those "flaunt my sexuality" gay people. It's sad to see that Christians in the past have tossed him aside since he's gay. I am angered by the self-righteousness of certain Christians who seem to think that gays are less-human than anyone else. I think it's important to note how Jesus treats people, and I will leave you with this example, which is often used, but used incompletely.
Jesus found a woman who was caught in an adulterous situation. The crowds, no doubt comprised of a fair amount of "religious" people at the time, wanted her to be stoned, as it said in the law. Jesus simply indicated that the persons who are without their own sin in their lives should cast the first stone. People dropped their stones, realizing that they have their own sinful hangups. Now, don't stop reading here!!! Oftentimes, people will use the above example to cite that we should never judge people and that we should always be compassionate, etc. The story is not done yet! Jesus then turns to the woman and his final words are important, "Go, and sin no more!" Notice that? Jesus did not turn a blind eye to her sin, even though he made the crowds realize they can't simply condemn her. Jesus command her to stop sinning. So I think this is important in how we as Christians minister to our homosexual neighbours, colleagues, friends and family. People oftentimes will say, "love the sinner, hate the sin." (which is a Biblical principle). Let's not forget that there are two parts of that equation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)