I finally finished listening back to Drunk Ex-Pastors #10 yesterday, and I found myself practically wanting a complete do-over (that kind of thing is pretty common for me: “I should have said this”; “I could have been clearer there,” etc.).
One issue that just wasn’t sitting right for me was the point I was making about sex being more than simply scratching a biological itch. The reason I was insisting on this is that humans are not just natural but supernatural beings, a point that any parent tacitly agrees with when he or she says something like, “I don’t think my 12 year-old daughter is emotionally ready to have sex.” We don’t say that of hamsters, because we all know that humans are a higher order of being than animals. Plus hamsters don’t reach age 12, so.
The rub for me comes in when I consider a couple facts: (1) Generally speaking, boys and girls reach puberty a good 5-10 years before the point when we tend to think they’re “emotionally ready” for sexual intercourse, and (2) in antiquity, the gap between reaching puberty and marriage (and thence sex) was pretty non-existent (a popular example of this could come from Game of Thrones, where Queen Cersei is waiting for young Sansa to “bleed” so that she can provide Prince Joffrey with a male heir. For 436 other examples, see The Holy Bible).
The questions that were bothering me as I listened were, “Is this idea of ’emotional readiness’ just a societal construct with no basis in reality?”; “If not, why are humans designed to become sexually mature so much earlier than they become emotionally mature?”; “Is doing away with the emotional component a subtle capitulation to the idea that humans really are just animals after all?”
Thoughts? (And you can listen to the discussion below.)
Nobody Puts Brody in a Corner….
Are Men Just Puppets?
Boobhack!
Fake Plastic Selves
Maybe one reason for the disparity between physiological and affective readiness instilled naturally is to foster discipline and restraint (even when you go to antiquity there was still a disparity–maybe it was narrower than what we have now, but it still existed). And I say naturally instead of supernaturally because this applies to non/Christians alike. IOW, sexuality is a creation thing, not redemptive.
I would tend to agree, although I can hear my agnostic co-host complaining about why “god” would play games with his creation in that way. Why place a desire within us that, for whatever reason, cannot be justly acted upon for some unnecessary period of time?
But the same could be asked of any father who denies his children what they immediately want even if he has the means and ability to grant it. I assume he’s had the experience of a child wanting another candy bar after having woofed one down. Hey, is it really going to kill her or something, Dad? Probably not. but the larger point is to foster some discipline and restraint, etc. Then I come along and ask what gives with all the dickish game playing, and then he says that’s what people who lack upbringing say. IOW, the question only makes sense with hedonist assumptions.
No, I wouldn’t say that. Something meant to teach someone something is one thing. Sending the majority of your creation to hell for eternity without any chance of redemption, now that’s when I start accusing god of playing games.