Sexual Liberation of Women Leads to Sexual Slavery

Women-and-sexual-slavery-Essay

The article “We Were All Meant To Be Sluts” is one author’s attempt to liberate women from the sexual shackles placed on them by society.  The author, however, actually undermines the goal the author set out to achieve.  He wants to liberate women’s sexuality from society’s “system” of morality.  However, his postmodern advice will only lead to the sexual slavery of women.  (I do find it somewhat self-serving that a MAN would champion the sexual liberation of women, perhaps creating more willing sexual experiences for himself.)

Mark Groves, the author, asked “If sexuality and sexual freedom brings our character into question, then what do we think about the many wise and amazing human beings who found themselves and learned their lessons through sexual exploration and being open-mindedhit-by-bus about making mistakes?”  This statement assumes that personal experience is a preferred way of gaining wisdom.  You can certainly gain wisdom by walking in front of a moving bus, but wisdom from doing that is best learned from other people’s experiences.  There are consequences to sex outside of the safety of marriage, especially if those sexual encounters are frequent.  Sexual boundaries are meant to protect people from the consequences of promiscuity.

Mark also based most of his article on a straw man argument that those who promote the benefits of marriage and warn against the consequences of sex outside of the lifetime straw manexclusivity of one man and one woman have a “fear of sexuality.”  Yes, there are consequences for promiscuity that can have serious repercussions for families and society.  But, we do not fear the sex act.  Sex within the boundaries of marriage is satisfying and stabilizing.  Sex within marriage protects women from the savage, unrestrained sexuality of men.

Mark reduced marriage from a sacred status to simply “a beautiful thing” because the “divine heterosexuals who rule the institution” get divorced, commit adultery, and view pornography.  He is saying that marriage is only as important as people treat it; that the worth of marriage is wrapped up in the worth people give it.  By that logic black slaves were unimportant because slave owners treated them poorly; or that women in Saudi Arabia are less valuable than men because they are treated poorly.  Contrary to Mark’s assertion, marriage has inherent worth regardless of whether people treat it as valuable, because the One who created the institution of marriage defined and gave it value.  That people do not value what is inherently valuable does not reduce marriage’s worth.

In a bit of hypocrisy, Mark decried the suppression of female (promiscuous) sexuality in one breath, but then in the next breath, he shames the sexual freedom of rapists, child molesters, and people with sexual fetishes.  By what standard of morality does he condemn rape and child molestation?  Who decreed those sexual practices to be wrong?francis schaeffer feet in mid air.jpg  Mark Groves? Society?  If society has decreed rape wrong, isn’t that just another “system” that interferes with someone’s sexual freedom?  Didn’t society once say homosexual sex should be punished? Isn’t it society’s “system” that puts the brakes on female (promiscuous) sexuality?  Why is Mark upholding one system that suppresses someone’s sexual freedom while trying to tear down that system for sexual practices he prefers?  The truth is, Mark has no standard by which he chooses other than his own personal preferences.  Christianity, on the other hand, has a moral foundation for saying rape and child molestation is wrong because such acts are decreed wrong by a transcendent moral source, God.  In reality, Christianity promotes an eternal, objective standard of morality, while Mark promotes a relative, subjective standard that changes with the whims of society.

Towards the end of his article Mark offered a bit of postmodern nonsense advice.  He postmodernism relative truthsaid “There is no one way to do anything. And anyone who claims to have it all figured out is the very person to run from” and “There is no ‘right way’. There is only your way. And no one knows your life better than you. Live YOUR truth.”  He is essentially saying “You can’t tell people what to do” which is, of course, telling you what to do.  The problem with this advice is that it is self-defeating.  Self-defeating statements cannot possibly be true.  He is saying that truth is relative. The problem here is that he is making an absolute truth claim.  He is saying “It is true that truth doesn’t apply to everyone.” But in order for him to make that claim, his truth claim has to be true for everyone.  His assertion is self-defeating, and therefore, not true.  The truth is that truth is true for everyone.

Mark tries to summon the magic of John Lennon’s “Imagine” with his several “Imagine if” statements. He said “Imagine if we were told to just play, see, and feel.”  Yes, imagine acalvinhobbesmoralrelativism world where everyone did as he pleased.  Imagine if there were no judgments to prevent you from playing, seeing, and feeling what you’d like. Imagine no boundaries where the strength of men overpowers the weakness of women, but no one was allowed to make any judgments.  That is the world Mark Groves will find with his bad advice.

He tries to prevent this outcome by asserting “all of our decisions just need to be guided by our human capacity and desire to be kind. If every decision we made were based on the answer to the question: ‘What would love do?'”  But, Mark has no moral foundation to base his guidance on “human capacity and desire to be kind.”  “Human capacity and desire to be kind?” What if someone doesn’t want to be kind?  What gives Mark the authority to force someone to make decisions on kindness?  Who gets to define what “kindness” is?

Mark talked about “love” but then in the end just defines love as the sexual act.  “You are the expert of you. You know you better than anyone. You know how you love. You know what feels good, and you know what your heart beats for. You know what you want to try and what you are curious about.”  “Love” in his imaginary world is nothing more than the banality of sex for the sake of an orgasm.

human-trafficking.jpgAll that Mark has done with his article is to give people an excuse to “Live YOUR truth,” to abandon commitments because they are no longer pleasurable.  That world would not be paradise for women, but a hell on earth. Trying to liberate women, Mark Groves would put them in chains.

Advertisements

Responding to an Atheist

This link is to a blog post where an atheist lists 5 reasons why he does not believe in God.  Below is my response:

I’m afraid this is going to be long, but I want to address your 5 points.

  1. “I can be good without God.” First, you are confusing epistemology with ontology. That you know right and wrong and can behave does not mean you can justify your Goodwithoutgod2.pngstandard of morality. Of course you, as an atheist, can behave. But, where do you get your standard to determine what is proper and improper behavior? Without a transcendent source, you have no way to justify your morality. Your morality is all based on personal preference. If you then say that morality is defined by the culture, then you are obeying an external moral code forced on you even though you don’t like the idea of a motivational force behind a system of morality. That Goodwithoutgod1culturally mandated morality, however, is also fickle and subject to the whims of the majority. Atheists can be good without God, but the question remains, Why? Secondly, you have a wrong understanding of Christianity. Christianity is not about following a set of rules to earn salvation. It is about the free gift of forgiveness for our sins because of what Jesus did on the cross. This free gift of salvation is offered to those who surrender their lives to God. This surrender then leads to obedience. But, obedience is not for God’s sake; it is for our sake. Sin is destructive to us. God seeks our good; obedience leads to our good.

  2. “The Bible is not enough evidence.” Your point is a bit confusing. I think your objection to the existence of God is because you consider the Bible unreliable. Where is your proof that the Bible is unreliable? How did you come to that Mathmiraclesconclusion? What do you mean by “evidence?” What kind of evidence are you willing to accept? You asserted that “There is no way to prove that the miracles in the Bible are true.” How did you come to that conclusion? As historical events, miracles are amenable to scrutiny like any other historical event using the tools of the discipline of history. So, we can know whether the recorded miracles in the Bible are reliable. You stated “The gospels may just be the writers’ interpretation of what God wants to say but not necessarily what He means.” You have a misunderstanding of the intent of the Gospels. They were not written to convey “what God wants to say.” Instead, the Gospel writers intended their writings to be considered eyewitness accounts. Luke wrote in Luke 1:1–4 “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.” Luke is a first-rate historian who wrote the Gospel of Luke as recorded history. You cannot simply dismiss the truth claims in the Gospel accounts because you think they can be subjected to many different interpretations.

  3. “I have unanswered questions.” You have not coherently stated your unanswered questions. Do you really reject the existence of God because people believe that we are important to God? That seems a rather silly objection. Also, why should applying “human” attributes to God cause you to deny his existence? How else Image of god.jpgcould we relate to and describe God if not using familiar terms? What you are not considering is the Christian understanding of God. Christians describe God as a Trinity, three persons in one being. That certainly is not a human attribute. Also, Genesis 1 describes God creating mankind in his image, so why should you be surprised if men and God have similar attributes? You do not seem to have thought this objection through. God is beyond our comprehension, that is why he came to earth as God the Son in the person of Jesus. If there is a God that is omnipotent, omniscient, and infinite, don’t you think he would be able to figure out how to communicate his existence and attributes to us?

  4. “I went too far in the religious spectrum.” I am not sure what you mean by this. Is what you mean by “too far” that you have entered the religion of atheism, so now that is too far to come back to a belief in God? What made you question God’s existence? Did you not get adequate answers for your doubts? What were those doubts? Why do you assume we cannot know anything about God? Your position is self-refuting. By saying God is “incomprehensible” you are saying that you know Religious Spectrum.jpgsomething about God, which means that he is not incomprehensible. A self-refuting statement cannot possibly be true. God is personal and knowable. God is not just a simple solution to a paradox that we do not understand. He is a necessary Cause. Edwin Hubble discovered evidence of an expanding universe; therefore, the universe must have had a beginning. Anything that begins to exist must have a cause. Therefore, the universe must have a cause. This Cause must be eternal, immaterial, personal, intelligent, omnipotent because this Cause was outside of time, chose to create matter out of nothing. The Big Bang means that God is necessary.

  5. “It’s simply a choice.” You assert “There is no evidence that proves or disproves the existence of God.” What do you mean by “prove?” How much evidence is enough? “Proving” the existence of God is not like doing a mathematical equation that can be completed with absolute certainty. As an attorney, I make reasonable conclusions all the time based on evidence. The standard used in making reasonable conclusions is never “proof beyond all doubt.” Just reading your post, it is clear that you reached your atheist conclusion based on flimsy evidence. You did not require proof beyond all doubt to reject the existence of God, so requiring that standard to prove God’s existence would be a bit dishonest. We don’t need choice.jpgthousands of years to determine if God exists. There are compelling arguments and evidence right now. Lastly, you insist no one should impose his beliefs on anyone else. Again that is self-refuting. You are making an imposition that demands no one make impositions. Also, by what standard do you say someone should not be disrespectful? Who says? Why are you forcing that morality on others? Do you see what you are doing there? You are imposing a moral code that demands no one imposes a moral code. Atheism has no mechanism to account for morality so it has to borrow (steal) from Christianity in order to provide a coherent, peaceable world. Wouldn’t you rather follow the Source of morality than follow an atheist religion that has to borrow and steal in order to have a moral code? One thing you did get right is that it is a choice. But, it is a choice with eternal consequences. After all, there are only two kinds of people in this world: one who says to God “Your will be done” and is guaranteed an eternal life of infinite goodness; and one to whom God says “Your will be done” and is granted his wish to be in eternity away from anything that is good.