Yesterday, in these pages, I wrote a piece about feminism, paganism, and the unhappiness of women. While poking around my bookmarks later on, I ran across two articles I had noted in the last week or so that tie into this entire theme through evolution. The first article is at Thinking Christian, pointing to an article at Scientific American, which I will quote from below.
There’s a strange whiff in the media air, a sort of polyamory chic in which liberally minded journalists, an aggregate mass of antireligious pundits, and even scientists themselves have begun encouraging readers and viewers to use evolutionary theory to revisit and revise their sexual attitudes and, more importantly, their behaviors in ways that fit their animal libidos more happily. Much of this discussion is being fueled by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá’s scintillating new book Sex at Dawn , which explores how our modern, God-ridden, puritanical society conflicts with our species’ evolutionary design, a tension making us pathologically ashamed of sex. -Scientific American
It might appear to be self-obvious why this scientific endorsement of living out a highly promiscuous sexual life is a bad thing, but let me spell it out for those who don’t understand. First, people are people, not objects. In fact, this is the point feminism is supposed to be “solving.” At virtually every feminist rally, you’ll see someone wearing something, or hear someone say, “I am not an object.” We get it.
But let me point out something a lot of people just don’t get. Let’s start with a simple idea: What is the difference between a house and a home? It’s not the size, or location, or color, or shape, or any other physical attribute you can name. The only difference between a house and a home is, in fact, the building’s connection to a relationship between two or more humans (dad, mom, and kids, for instance). If you take the relationships out, it’s a house; a lump of wood and sheet rock and more wood and ceramic tile and… Put the relationships in, it could be a log cabin, and it’s still a home. Take the relationships out, and the building can be torn down, remodeled, and “used,” for just about anything. But who hasn’t had their heart torn at the destruction or “re-purposing” of a childhood home?
Now let’s make the not so obvious connection. Sex is the same way. If you put sex within the context of a relationship, it’s like a home. If you take sex out of a relationship, it just becomes another “object.” This is a simple concept, but it’s amazing how many people just don’t get it.
Now, let’s carry things one small step farther. If I remove sex from the relationship, making it into an object, then a sexual partner just becomes an object along with the sex. The “partner” is actually just an object we’re using to “get” another object —nothing more, and nothing less. We’re left with nothing more than “collaborative performance.”
So begin with evolution. Add a dash of “science says humans are causing themselves problems by repressing their sexual urges for religious reasons.” And —poof!— all the people disappear.
It’s a simple trick, and quite effective. The sly “scientific” argument is faster than the hand.