Category Archives: Marriage

Sexual Liberation of Women Leads to Sexual Slavery


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.


A Fireproof America

OK, I’m going to start populating my new blog with articles I have previously written.  Here’s one I wrote in February 2009.

A Fireproof America
by Christopher S. Brownwell
And the Oscar for the Best Picture goes to . . . Fireproof.

Okay, so that didn’t happen.  Fireproof isn’t exactly the type of film Hollywood rewards at its self-important awards gatherings.  The movie doesn’t play into the stereotype with which Hollywood saddles Christians.  Hollywood constantly paints Christians as fire-breathing, judgmental, self-righteous, religious bigots.

The movie Pleasantville is a clear-cut example of this stereotype.  Set in black and white, the film pleasantvillemakes the point that immorality adds color to your life.  When the youth of the town engage in sexual playfulness, they turn from black and white to color.  The director of the film then clearly equates religious scruples with racism.  The religious bigots of the town respond to this tide of colorful awakenings by the youth by placing “No Coloreds Allowed” signs in their storefront windows.  This humanist worldview found in Pleasantville sees Christianity as an old-fashioned, antiquated philosophy that has outlived its utility.

When Hollywood doesn’t characterize Christians as hateful Bible-thumpers, Christian characters are usually shallow and underdeveloped like Alice Lomax, the mother of Keanu Reeves’ character in The Devil’s Advocate.  Alice Lomax: “’Fallen, fallen, is Babylon the great.  It has become a dwelling place of demons.’ Revelation 18.  Wouldn’t hurt you to look it over.”  Kevin Lomax: “Couldn’t forget it if I tried.”  Alice Lomax: “Oh, really? And what happened to Babylon?”  Not hateful, but still an uneducated Bible-thumper.

Often Hollywood’s “love” stories are like cotton candy: very sweet, with no substance.  In Titanic, Rose DeWitt Bukater was trapped in a superficial, self-congratulatory patriarchical world.  Her way to rebel against it was to pose nude and then sleep with the artist.  This artist, Jack Dawson, lived hand-to-mouth.  Rose’s mother, Ruth Dewitt Bukater asked Jack “And you find that sort of titanicrootless existence appealing, do you?”  Jack Dawson responded “Well, yes, ma’am, I do. . . I mean, I love waking up in the morning not knowing what’s gonna happen or, who I’m gonna meet, where I’m gonna wind up.  Just the other night I was sleeping under a bridge and now here I am on the grandest ship in the world having champagne with you fine people.  I figure life’s a gift and I don’t intend on wasting it.”  There was no real love between Rose and Jack.  “Love” to them was just a means to fulfill a selfish need in each of them.  Rose, to rebel against rich patriarchy; Jack, to squeeze every bit of pleasure out of his life.

Too often Hollywood is the arsonist who would burn marriage to the ground.  The celebrated Brokeback Mountain, which was nominated for Best Picture in 2006, subtly takes a swipe at marriage.  That two men find themselves attracted to each other is not the issue.  The real issue is that they were willing to abandon their marriage vows to fulfill their own sexual gratification.  Marriage was a shackle that got in the way of fulfilling their identities.

Wedding Crashers tells the story of middle-aged boys who crashed weddings, fishing for foolish women who would fall for their bait.  In the end they both found “love” and women willing to wedding_crashersOpforgive and forget that they spent their entire adulthood seeking one-night stands.  So, go ahead.  Live it up now.  When you are finally ready to settle down, you will have no problem finding love too.

Fireproof was in no danger of winning an Oscar.  The movie portrays the Christ of Christianity as the solution rather than the problem.  Caleb Holt, played by Kirk Cameron, puts into his marriage only what he expects to get out of it.  His affections turn from his wife to other things: his demand to be respected, the digital dream girls he finds on the internet, and his dream boat for which he’s been saving.  He angrily explodes at the perceived disrespect from his wife.  His wife wants out of the marriage.

At this point, the prevailing wisdom would say “Just bail.  Cut your losses and move on.  Marriages are a dime a dozen.”  But, that is not the message of Fireproof.  Marriage is meant to be for life.  Sure it’s hard.  Sure there will be rough times. But, as Ken Bevel’s character states “Fireproof doesn’t mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it.”

In surrendering to the love of Christ, Caleb Holt found freedom to truly love his wife and sacrifice for her.  The hope he found in Christ led to a change in his outlook and his behavior.  (If you haven’t seen the movie, but would like to, skip to the next paragraph now.  I’m about to reveal the tear-jerking ending.)  He humbled himself and began to help his wife by doing the little things around the house.  He destroyed his computer and gave up his addiction to pornography that kept him from seeing the beauty in his wife.  In an act of heroic selflessness, he gave up his life’s savings meant to buy his boat and secretly paid for the desperately needed medical equipment for his mother-in-law.

Kirk Cameron’s apology scene captures the emotions of the moment so exquisitely, deserving of fireproof_008an Academy Award. I am not saying that Kirk Cameron or even Fireproof should have gotten an award, even though Hollywood awards talentless actors like Sean Penn, and banal, uninspiring movies like American Beauty or Chicago. But, alas, neither Kirk Cameron, nor Fireproof were considered for an Oscar. The movie’s worldview runs counter to the messages Hollywood is selling. In a world where the political winds are enamored with “hope and change,” Fireproof demonstrates just the kind of hope and change Americans need.