Tag Archives: Postmodernism

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

Finding Newness in Being Old Fashioned

old-fashioned1 Finding Newness in Being Old Fashioned
By Christopher S. Brownwell

Rare is the opportunity to see so stark a difference in worldviews as this year’s Valentine’s Day movie choices.  In our world plagued by a postmodern, moral relativism where truth is merely subjective to the bearer’s opinion, morality is defined in shades of grey and contradictions.  We are required to believe the absolute truth that there are no absolutes.  We are forced to know the truth that truth is not knowable.  Truth that stands the test of time is disregarded, mocked, even persecuted.  Just ask florists, photographers, and bakers who esteem the old fashioned truth of marriage between one man and one woman.

This postmodern worldview is antagonistic toward all metanarratives.  Postmodernism is suspicious about any truth claim that argues for a transcendent, all-encompassing understanding of reality.  Truth to a postmodernist is not something outside of him to be discovered.  Truth is something to be made as the situation warrants.

Postmodern philosophers like Richard Rorty do not believe that truth can be knowable or explainable.  “Truth cannot be out there – cannot exist independently of the human mind – because sentences cannot exist or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.”

Why should Rorty try to explain the truth to us that truth explanations are pointless?  By using words to convey a truth claim, Rorty contradicted his own explanation.

The point of postmodernism is not really to deny the truth.  It is to deny shared meaning.  Rorty affirmed this when he said “To say that we should drop the idea of truth as out there waiting to calvin-and-hobbes-on-postmodernismbe discovered is not to say that we have discovered that, out there, there is no truth.  It is to say that our purposes would be served best by ceasing to see truth as a deep matter, as a topic of philosophical interest, or true as a term which repays analysis.”

What exactly are “our purposes?”  Truth is not a deep matter to Rorty.  Rorty’s “truth” is a utilitarian tool to serve him best.  Truth doesn’t guide his behavior; “truth” justifies it.  The power to define truth, then, is the power to excuse deviance, or more accurately, the power to erase deviance.

“The question is not whether human knowledge in fact has foundations, but whether it makes sense to suggest that it does – whether the idea of epistemic…authority having a ground in nature is a coherent one.”  Rorty asserts his own truth claim that truth claims do not have a transcendent anchor beyond cultural development.  His postmodern philosophy is not really new or progressive.  The postmodernist philosophy sounds suspiciously like an ancient lie.  In tempting Eve in the Garden of Eden, as recorded in Genesis 3:1, the serpent challenged God’s truth claim.  “Did God really say?”  In other words, “God did not define good and evil. You can define morality for yourself.”

Challenging the ultimate source for truth is exactly where postmodernism wants to go.  If ultimate reality is defined by each individual, morality is as well.  This leads to the rare opportunity I mentioned above of such a clear contrast between postmodernism and Christianity.

Valentine’s Day 2015 saw the opening in theaters of one of the most anticipated movies in a decade.  The filthy Fifty Shades of Grey opening weekend is on pace to outsell The Passion of the 50ShadesOfGreyTieChrist for a February opening weekend.  This sadomasochistic bondage flick about a man who abuses women for his own sexual gratification is quintessentially postmodern.  Postmodernism has defined sexual torture as romantic and fulfilling.  It harkens back to a time when brutality in sexuality was celebrated.  Fifty Shades, however, defines its own reality.  It pretends that women want to be brutalized – that a sexual deviant really cares about the women he tortures.  That is fantasy.  That is a lie.  Any redeeming qualities in the film cannot free it from its postmodern dungeon.  No wonder we have an epidemic of sexual assaults in our culture that embraces Fifty Shades.

Fifty Shades of Grey stands in stark contrast to the other film about relationships that opened on the Valentine’s Day weekend: Old Fashioned.  Unlike the regressivism of Fifty Shades of Grey, the film Old Fashioned is about old things passing away and all things becoming new.

old-fashioned2This antithesis to Fifty Shades of Grey doesn’t paint a picture of one, flawless, noble character and one lost soul coming together.  It is about two imperfect people letting God forgive them and make old things new.  Amber is a free-spirited woman who moves away from problems as far as her tank full of gas will take her.  She rents an apartment from Clay.  She brings her conventional wisdom baggage about relationships and dating with her.  Yet, her philosophy is that there is enough greatness in the world but not enough goodness.  As her budding romance with Clay hits a brick wall, her fears of abandonment are calmed when she reads “I will never leave you nor forsake you” from the new Bible she just took out of its wrapper.  Strengthened by the timeless Word of God, she abandons her itinerant life and finds her home.

After leaving his hedonistic frat party days, Clay retreated to the monastery of his old fashioned relationship theories.  This monastic lifestyle kept him from the dangers of hedonism, but he also let it keep him from the joys of community.  Unable to form a romantic relationship with anyone in nine years, Clay’s barricade of stubbornness is finally cracked by his great-aunt Zella when she demanded “Stop using the grace of God as a brick wall.”  Clay and Amber find new love within old fashioned boundaries.

Old Fashioned‘s Clay Walsh is not Fifty Shades‘s Christian Grey.  A former frat-boy, he owns an claywalshantique shop where he restores antiques like new.  Haunted by a debaucherous past, he is now small-town, humble, and respects women enough to establish boundaries for his interaction with them.  He respects their emotions as well as their bodies.  Clay reveres sex as delicate and sacred.  His philosophy is to never be alone with a woman who is not his wife.  He requests Amber, his tenant, step outside of her apartment as he fixes her sink.  Most people see his white picket fence surrounding his honor as old fashioned.  Clay sees nobility in controlling himself.  He is reliable.  He is…boring.

The postmodern Christian Grey is a business tycoon from Seattle, self-absorbed, and treats women as objects for his own deviant gratification.  He is not a grown-up.  Sex to him is not about committed love, but merely about a contractual arrangement.  Christian is living the life of Jamie Dornan back on the set of 'Fifty Shades of Grey' for re-shootsa narcissistic, banal, impetuous, undisciplined frat-boy.  He offers women a fantasy, a lie.  His self-assuredness, even his cockiness, is attractive and exciting, at least until the next morning.  He is not a romantic hero.  He is a selfish cad.

This Valentine’s Day offered America a clear choice.  The venerable, timeworn values of Old Fashioned stand in contrast to the postmodern immorality of Fifty Shades of Grey.  America is at a crossroads.  Would you prefer the honor of a man with boundaries who binds himself for the safety of others or would you prefer the ignominy of a man of bondage who binds others for the pleasure of himself?  After watching Old Fashioned you will long for the virtuous struggles of authentic, real life love and despise the pernicious lies of pleasurable, temporary fantasies.

Culture is a collection of individual choices.  I do not know what choice you will make, old fashioned or postmodern.  As for me, I want to be old fashioned.