There is something tricky about Christian sexual morality that I am not sure everyone appreciates. People who complain about this morality assume that people's sex lives occur on a level playing field, and then ask "What are Christians objecting to?" But sex didn't occur on a level playing field when the Bible was written, so what sexual liberation would have meant was the freedom of rich and powerful men to use their positions of power for their sexual advantage, Wife has a headache? Go the the slave tent. Feeling a little gay today? There are some boys for that. Is there a level playing field now, so does that make Christian defense of traditional marriage obsolete? Not so fast. It may be better now, probably thanks to Christians, but men don't get pregnant, and people like Epstein, Weinstein, and (some won't like this) Trump exploit power for sex. You can add Clinton as well, to avoid the appearance of partisan bias here.
2 comments:
I have no idea what this post is attempting to say.
In the ancient world, people like the Greeks and the Romans did not practice anything like Christian sexual morality, but the alternative did not recognize what modern people would recognize as "free sex." Rather, it enabled powerful and wealthy men to use their position for their sexual advantage. Ancient homosexuality, for example, largely consisted of grown men taking advantage of young boys. Ancient people saw the Christian restriction of sex to marriage not as enslaving, as so many moderns do, but as liberating people from sexual exploitation by those with greater power.
Post a Comment