What I was saying is that within every culture you can see clear distinctions between the typical dress styles and mannerisms of men vs women and that God seems to ask that we submit to those. Become all things to all men. Much of it though is very typical. Our species , like many, show clear distinctions physically and socially.
Perhaps it would be better to describe it as sexuality, and even more generally as human psychology. The scientific realities are that peoples’ sexuality doesn’t always align with social constructs, such as the man being the head of the household with a wife and 2.3 kids. Instead of arguing about how sexuality should be we should instead look at how sexuality actually is.
2 Likes
But ruling out any “this is how it should be” social constructs may be problematic too. Surely it isn’t wrong to have ideals and archetypes held up against which some comparison can be made? Otherwise, wife-beating or female genital mutilation may turn out to be things that just “are” in some large cultural contexts, and there would be no basis to challenge any particular cultural practice. Science can help us get to some of the “is” to be sure, but still cannot get us to the “ought” or “ought not.”
4 Likes
In some complex areas it might be well advised to stick with what is and leave the ought out of it. Unfortunately I don’t think sexuality can be one of them. There are too many profoundly damaging troubles involved. But perhaps within limits… as long as age, venue, harmless, and consensual requirements are met, some of this hands-off observe-only approach might be a good idea. That is actually how we have been doing things after all.
I’ve read Haidt multiple times. He’s spot on (except for group selection, there’s no such thing) as is Pinker. They’re Humean. The tabula rasa - Aristotle-Avicenna-Aquinas-Locke-Freud - is not evidence based. We are 80% socially conservatively pre-wired for experience. As in 80% of us are 100% genetically socially conservative. And a 100% of us are hypocrites.
1 Like
I think we can easily differentiate between consensual and non-consensual acts.
Before I continue, I did want to say that I think you are a good person and I believe you love and cherish all human beings. With that being said, it is interesting that people within the LGBTQ community are compared to wife beaters, people who practice beastiality, pedophiles, and other such groups. I never hear someone say, “Well, if we allow heterosexual couples to have sex, what’s next? Pedophilia?”.
All I am saying is that we consider a bottom up approach where we take a frank look at human sexuality and understand it for what it is, not how we want it to be. I’m not saying that we only take this approach because blind adherence to any ideology is dangerous. However, I do think we owe it to our fellow human beings to approach these issues on their level. I understand there are religious issues involved, and they certainly should be considered, but it wouldn’t hurt to consider the human beings that are being affected.
But I wasn’t! Nowhere did that even cross my mind here - though you might be forgiven for presuming such an association was being made given how much that has been done (and probably [certainly] by me in times past).
No - my point was purely this: "Isn’t it presumptuous or even dangerous to rule out all cultural ideals or archetypes - given that we here would probably agree that there are evils to be avoided? And I deliberately picked things that I would hope most all of us here would agree are bad things. Nothing of what you said was mentioned anywhere on that list whatsoever.
“Mutual consensuality” seems to be the order of the day that many agree on as a positive moral. So far so good - that too should be a positive good that we should hopefully all agree with - maybe even across cultures. It doesn’t solve everything - not by a long shot; but it is a start.
I on the other hand object to the anti-intellectualism that forbids ANY comparisons. ALL things are comparable!!! ALL things. The point is that we should THINK about what are the similarities and what are the differences. And not put up these intellectual barriers that forbid any thinking about some things!
Should we compare homosexuality and pedophilia? Absolutely! One of the differences is that according to anything that can be proven with objective (scientific) evidence, one is harmful and one is not harmful. The comparison also reveals some flaws in much argumentation. If we found a gene for pedophilia would that make it ok? Of course not. Thus the issue of homosexual rights is ONLY that there is no objective evidence that this does any harm and whether there is a genetic cause is completely irrelevant. We simply don’t want some religious group dictating how other people should live. Objective scientific evidence of harm done by something is a different matter entirely.
Thus a better words for it might be “likened” or “equated.”
It never crossed my mind that you held such thoughts. That’s why I prefaced the comments with “I think you are a good person”.
Agreed. In fact, consent is as foundational as any other moral concept. Any time we talk about personal liberties it will necessarily involve consent, and/or the ability to give consent.
Oh boy is that one which is misused… (not that you intend such… it just makes me cringe) Often the subtext is that good people agree with me…
Consent is not the only issue… there are also issues of age, venue, and provable harm done.
So… for example… what about erotic asphyxiation? Is consensual really enough?
Good point. I will try to find something less cringe-worthy next time.
Consent is just one of many factors that should be considered. I think we could add self-harm to the list of considerations.
1 Like
I know that you are allowing for gender to vary by culture and time period, but fundamentalists and some very conservative evangelicals seem to treat
it as innate/natural and timeless/unchanging. If they send missionaries to other countries, I think their missionaries allow for cultural variations, but they still refer to ancient Israelite customs in the Bible to dictate what should be culturally normative gendered behavior for men and women in their modern-day nation-state.
In the world we live in, gender and gender identity are often tied to nation, national identity, and nationalism. Even the French Republic, a very liberal nation-state, historically had secular men trying to control women’s behavior. The state also expected and still expects total national assimilation (no French-Algerian, no French-Senegalese, no French-Vietnamese, no hyphenated French, just French only) in cultural matters including gender.
What if a Christian family from a conservative African culture immigrates to France? What about a Christian family from another ethnic culture immigrating to
the multicultural and multi-ethnic USA? Should they conform to the prevailing national culture on gender, which may be considered Christian by nationalists, or use their own standards which are no doubt justified by the Bible in their view?
I do not think people of each generation completely settle on what is socio-culturally expected of men and women. There has always been conversations and debates on gender as human societies experience changes from the establishment of settled agriculture to industrialization and then post-industrialization. In our post-industrial market society where communities feel increasingly transient, we have individuals adopting whatever identities they want.
I just do not see how God can mandate gender when humans are in a continual process of negotiating gender with themselves. For the verses about effeminacy, I am still thinking about it and wonder what present-day Christians should make of the verses.
In some conservative African Christian cultures, polygamy is accepted as normal.
And finding a Biblical disagreement with polygamy is impossible, as the patriarchs were polygamists and the New Testament has no rejection of polygamy.
Maybe monogamy is social construct that has no foundation in Christianity.
Of course, there is a passage that says an elder should be a one-woman man, but that is likely because a man with two or more wives has too much to do pleasing them to fulfill the role of an elder. And it does not apply to people who are not elders.
2 Likes
For me it seems clear. Even in the day and age, for the majority of Americans in California, the majority of men stand out from women. Even in the most liberal state you can still tell the difference between a typical man and a overly feminine guy.
This was just a picture pulled off the internet under effeminate guy. I think it’s safe to say if you tossed that guy into any place right now regardless if you’re a 88 year old japanese man in japan, or a 20 year old guy in California it’s clear the person in the picture is effeminate.
Interesting thoughts. A West African imam once challenged me on the Christian practice of one man-one wife. How could I claim that God’s design is just one wife for a man? Of course, his subtext was that Islam countenances up to 4 wives per man.
I replied: “How many wives did God create for the prophet Adam, peace be upon him?”
He said: “Oh! That’s a good reply.”
I left the continent soon after, so I do not know what long-term effect that conversation might have had.
Peace,
Chris
1 Like
He could have countered with “and didn’t our patriarchs Abraham and Jacob have more than one wife, and what of the man after God’s own heart, David?” David had many wives.
Chris, why were you trying to defend monogamy in the first place? Isn’t it simply a social construct not based on scripture but just modern Western tradition?
This person in your picture may be considered effeminate in America. However, something that is perceived to be effeminate in one country may be perceived to be masculine in another country.
Greek men in the Russian Empire, 1862 (Wikimedia Commons)
As one can see, the man on the right is wearing a pink shirt and I think gaiters. Both men are also wearing a white, pleated skirt-like garment called a fustanella. I am sure some American men would see it as too effeminate, but it is masculine in their culture. (There is still an ethnic Greek minority in Ukraine, but it is very tiny and vulnerable because it had suffered forced assimilation and deportation in the past.)
Little boys in the Western world also used to wear dresses.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Paintings_of_boys'_dresses
1 Like
Here is one California guy’s take for you. My take on it may not be in the majority but it may be more prevalent here. Who knows?
While I agree that the person in the photo is representing femininity in a deliberate and (hopefully) dated manner, is he really any more pathetic than a guy doing his best to come off as unfeeling and tough? There are dime-store versions of masculinity as well as femininity, and neither is that attractive when carried to an extreme. I know and have met many women who do not make any attempt to represent femininity in that fifties way. But I come out of a family where pretty much all the women do speak in a somewhat more falsetto manner than their natural voice and who are excessively self depreciating.
I’ve gravitated toward women who do not put a lot store in their femininity game, and I married the best of these. My wife is forthright and unselfconscious and I like that. My older, Mormon brother married a woman with almost no education or self confidence. He would sometimes say I was lucky that my wife was intelligent and interesting to talk to. Of course luck had nothing to do with it. The real question is why did he seek out someone he could dominate and demean. To then badmouth her for having the qualities he was looking for and insisting on wasn’t really fair.
It is kind of sad that so many trans-women seem compelled to style themselves after the women in my family. But then I’ve always thought it strange that anyone gives any thought to how one should act on account of their sex. It isn’t as if we’re in performing a part in a play. Even my youngest brother who I think is an amazing parent, still had the thought that in a couple one person had to be more in control and he felt he had to be that person. I wonder if all this gender based role playing is a net positive or a net negative for a society?
It is interesting when somebody tries to assert the biblical view of marriage. The only possible response to that is ask “which one?” - of the various social constructs exhorted in both testaments. So what effectively happens is that our modern cultures can lift the ones closest to what we were already comfortable with (probably on largely extra-biblical grounds) and then choose to highlight that view as the biblical view because it feels so good to have our own views associated with such official ratification.
I don’t think personally it’s any better or worse. I’m just pointing out that the Bible mentions this subject in a passing by comment in a negative way as that anyone, including flower boys in japan, would still see that guy as effeminate.