Replies

As a matter of fact, human nature hasn't changed in thousands of years. So why does everyone think that what we are dealing with is "a new man, a new woman", and the collective knowledge of thousands of years is suddenly obsolete?

I read an article just the other day on this topic (sort of) The author contended that evry civilation before the Judaic imposition of marriage was sexually promiscuous and doomed to collapse. Only a civilization built on marriage can succeed.

Lets see if I can find that link... Hum de hum.... I know I have it in here somewhere....(Clank Crash plunk)...Oh here it is:

Judaism’s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality by DENNIS PRAGER

First part of article discusses the change brought about by adopting marriage as a moral code. It's an excellent read.

I agree with Jeff and the author. Men are naturally horn dogs. All men. It's just that some of us have been trained to control our base urges, some to the point of being able to ignore even having those urges. This is a sign of living in our immediate (usually Christian) culture, not a sign that man's nature has changed any.

Biblically God gave men permission to have more than one wife. But women could only have one husband. Note that David, a man truly after God's own heart, had many wives. The fact that he had multiple wives was not held against him in any way. In the NT the rules were adjusted to bring us into one man-one women marriages because we had been socially conditioned for a thousand years or so to recognize that as preferable.

Our deep nature keeps chanting "go get laid" while our moral upbringing says "stay true or stay virginal"

GSA(P)

Two separate questions are being conflated.

1. Are men interested in being with a beautiful woman?

The answer is, of course. It is very inspirational in the deepest sense, on every level and in every respect. And that is a good thing.

2. Does answering #1 in the affirmative mean that:

a) Women don't have equally strong drives impelling them to be with a man to whom they are attracted?

b) Men are non-monogamous by nature?

c) That marriage is an unnatural state, which artificially constrains a tendency by men for casual affairs?

I would say that a, b, and c in #2 above are not only false, but are in no way indicated as true by the mere fact of an affirmative answer to #1.

The train of logic proferred by both of you so far seems to indicate that you believe an affirmative answer to #1 above necessitates affirmative answers to #2a/b/c.

But that is a quantum leap, and you have not shown any bridge between.

I invite you to try.