Let the World Go to the Dogs as Long as I am Right

The historian Arnold Toynbee declared that great civilizations are destroyed from within. No surprise! We see indications of this all around us. Here is one small indication from the Center for Disease Control:

• There are currently about 110 million people in the U.S. living with a sexually-transmitted disease (STD)… According to the CDC, up to 20 million new STD infections occur every year — these include hepatitis B, HIV, syphilis, gonorrhea, HPV, and chlamydia. Half of these new infections are among young people between the ages of 15 and 24. So the prevalence among young people is quite high.  

Some of these diseases will result in irreversible damage and infertility. Clearly, STDs have become epidemic, but where is the outcry? Why isn’t the Western media raising the alarm against these exploding dangers, especially in light of the very evident failures of “safe-sex education” interventions?

We are so concerned about providing our youth with ample food, education and healthcare but remain silent as they destroy themselves sexually. Why? It seems that we are stubbornly committed to sexual freedom, but does sexual freedom equate with sexual satisfaction? Not at all: 

• In the mid 1970’s Redbook Magazine published a ‘Sexual Pleasure Survey’, showing the preferences of 100,000 women. This survey concluded that "sexual satisfaction is related significantly to religious belief." If the media have successfully ‘brain-washed’ you your immediate thought following on from this statement is that religious people must, of course, enjoy sex less than irreligious people; right? Wrong: "With notable consistency, the greater the intensity of a woman’s religious convictions, the likelier she is to be highly satisfied with the sexual pleasure of the marriage. . . Strongly religious women seem to be more responsive [and] more likely than the nonreligious to be orgasmic every time she engages in sex." (Tim & Beverly La Haye - The Act of Marriage, p9.) 

• American Christian Councillors Tim and Beverly La Haye undertook a survey of mainly Christian couples (3,377 people - 1,705 women and 1,672 men), which indicated, in line with the Redbook Survey, that "Christians maintain a higher enjoyment level in the intimacy of their love life than the population in general." (P210). The La Hay’s Survey showed that, generally speaking, Christian couples enjoyed sex more than couples with any other religious beliefs: "The women in our survey reported a 10 percent higher degree of sexual enjoyment, greater frequency of lovemaking experiences per month, and a more active part in [sex] than their "strongly religious" counterparts [in the REDBOOK Survey], likewise scoring much higher in these same areas than the average "non-religious" woman in the REDBOOK Survey." (P211). 

Former atheist, Patrick Glynn, adds:

• A 1978 study found that church attendance predicted marital satisfaction better than any other single variable. Couples in long-lasting marriages who were surveyed in another study listed religion as one of the most important “prescriptions” of a happy marriage. (God: The Evidence, 64)

However, it is so hard to admit that we have been wrong and that those we have disdained – our “mortal enemies” - have been right. It is a loss-of-face that few can sustain. Let our families, our children and our civilization rot as long as we are right!

Polyamory: Curse or Cure

Diana Adams runs a Brooklyn-based legal firm oriented toward providing traditional marriage rights to non-traditional families. She is presently in a sexual relationship with “several men and women.” In an interview in The Atlantic, she tried to justify her lifestyle:

•  We put so much emphasis on a partner being everything—that this person completes you—and when that doesn’t happen it creates a lot of pressure. I don't think that open relationships are for everyone but it's something that you should no longer feel ashamed to talk about at a time when so many marriages are failing.

Evidently, Adams feels that she has what it takes to make polyamory work. Nevertheless, Adams is right! So many marriages are failing, but this failure seems to be a modern phenomenon. Perhaps it’s the result of having inflated expectations/desires similar to those of polyamorists. While Adams correctly reflects that one person can’t fulfill all of our needs and desires, she then assumes that many can:

•  Well, for example, with my female partners, I feel a different kind of power dynamic. I feel a protective impulse toward women I’m involved with. It's a different kind of love feeling. My partner Ed is a wonderful feminist man, though sometimes I’d really like to be out on a date with the kind of man who wants to open car doors for me and treat me like a princess. I don't want that all the time, but I might want that once a month.

“I feel…I feel…I want…I want!” I’m left wondering – How long with this infatuation last, even with many partners? When does it begin to feel old, superficial and even oppressive? Does polyamory represent progress or a descent into a juvenile, “I want this now” mentality? This raises the question, “What are mature relationships about – commitment or maximizing the ‘I want’?” It would seem that a commitment to a troupe of men and women would translate into a commitment to none.

Polyamorists seem to have a hidden assumption – that monogamous couples become sexually bored because of a problem inherent to monogamy. However, that problem might be inherent in us instead. After all, why would we pursue other partners? The body-parts are basically the same. What then produces the excitement in a new relationship and boredom with the old humdrum? Perhaps we have a pathological need to be adored. If this is so, perhaps we should learn how to find excitement in the one to whom we have committed ourselves!

Polyamory seems to provide a green light to jump ship and find a few new partners when things get a bit sticky and the “I want” is no longer being satisfied. Isn’t marriage supposed to be a workshop where we discover one another and work through the issues that are caused by this encounter?

And what about those hard-feeling-buttons that polyamory is certain to push? Adams explains:

• We talk a lot. We check in with each other, “Is this okay with you?” and the answer can be, “I don't know.” For instance maybe Ed and I are going to a party together and this guy that I've been dating is at the party too. “Will it feel okay with you if I go over and kiss him?” Polyamory will find your buttons and it will push them. If you don't want to have that kind of challenge, it's not the right lifestyle for you. But, if you're up for it, polyamory can be the catalyst for powerful personal growth.

“Powerful personal growth?” What would this growth look like? Coping with jealous, murderous lovers? Knowing when to say “goodbye” or just flee? If polyamory is really a viable lifestyle, why doesn’t Adams simply “date” all of her lovers at one time – one big happy family, or is it?

One therapy group leader had confessed that he used his group to line-up new sexual partners. However, he and his wife had to keep their conquests secret. He had once seen his wife escorting her latest into their home, and he flew into a mad rage that sent him to the psych ward for two weeks. For them, the ““powerful personal growth” was a matter of learning to practice total avoidance.

Of course, Adams expresses a high concern for the (un-aborted) children resulting from such unions. After all, it takes a village to raise a child, doesn’t it. While I think that there is truth in this adage, these polyamorous relationships seem to more closely approximate a roving series of predator babysitters than a village. If a series of men and women are fair game for our sexual appetites, why not also the children?

Ultimately, it is time that will tell, but time has already passed its verdict. If these forms of sexual groupings had been viable, we would find long-standing polyamorous communities throughout the world. However, we don’t. Evidently, they have either been decimated by STDs or consumed by jealous, angry impulses from within.