Challenging Sociobiology
The most important objection directly challenges sociobiology, at least for humans. However, Paul does not actually provide any evidence to back up his assertion. His response is thus in stark contrast to my opening post, and this post, which have evidence from both animals and humans about sexual selection. There are basically two planks in Pual's challenge. Plank #1 is that people don’t care about maximizing the number of their offspring.
The concept of an alpha male has been destroyed by our culture. We also do not try to breed with as many women as possible, having the most offspring is not what most males want
Elephant seals and chimpanzees are not trying to have the most offspring either. They don't have the faintest clue how babies are made. Elephant seals and chimps want more sexual access to females. The fact that sex often results in a baby is irrelevant to both elephant seals and Roissy in DC. People and animals are motivated by lust.
Plank #2 is that the qualities that make someone sexually desirable are too ephemeral to allow people to be categorized into alphas and betas.
Women do not select partners based on their genetic desires for good genes for their children. Couples have to get along socially and they have to be physically attracted.
That is a revealing quote because physical attractiveness is a signal of good genes. For women a waist to hip ratio of about 0.7 is considered attractive. Marilyn Monroe and Twiggy had different body types but they both had about the same waist to hip ratio. That results in a higher fertility. The same thing is true of attractiveness in males. Traits such as symmetry and highly developed secondary sexual characteristics are considered attractive. A famous study of college students found that males with more symmetrical features were rated as being more attractive, had more sexual partners, and were more likely to report cheating on their girlfriends. In order to sustain is utopian theory of sexual equality, Paul would have to have a situation in which physical attractiveness is distributed in an egalitarian manner throughout the population. That tall, strong men are no more or less attractive than short, plump men.
Definition of Marriage
Paul’s second objection is by quibbling with definitions. Monogamous couples that live together aren’t married. Polygamous couples may be married. I never explicitly defined marriage but since the debate is about Christian sexual morality it should be clear that the polygamous groups don’t count as being married any more than samesex couples. As to the monogamous couple, I’m culturally sensitive. There is nothing written in stone about wedding rings, white dresses, and fancy cakes. In some cultures abstinence and monogamy are enforced with strong social norms and there is no legal contract for marriage. In other cultures, generally those where marriages are more fragile, the law is introduced into the subject. Note that this is not moral relativism. All it means is that laws are unneeded where strong and healthy social norms exist. My defense is of abstinence and lifelong monogamy, not white dresses.
The Morality of Divorce
Paul’s next objection is more substantial
Lifelong monogamy within an unhappy marriage MUST be a bad thing. Surely if a couple are unhappy they should be allowed to separate and try again with someone else. Should an abused spouse be forced to stay with their abusive partner? Of course not.
I should probably have been clearer and defined the terms of the debate more precisely in the beginning. But rest assured that my defense of Christian morality does not imply divorce is categorically prohibited. Both Jesus and the apostle Paul add some fine print in the bible. this article has a good discussion. Rather, my goal is to directly challenge the idea that promiscuity is healthy and moral.
4 comments:
So Justin,
You performed a seriously slippery manoevre.
The discussion was supposed to be about Chistian sexual morality.
You then performed a volte-face and had a one sided discussion about promiscuity.
I ripped into many facets of CHRISTIAN sexual morality which you studiously ignored, and I only got to say a tiny amount on promiscuity because there is so much immorality regarding sex in the Christian faith.
I will therefore assume you concede the points on onanism, serial monogamy etc. and confine my final post to refuting your arguments on promiscuity which you repeatedly mischaracterise as polygamy.
There is a street wisdom which says that when a group of people are fighting you, that you should attack the biggest guy. If you defeat the smallest guy the biggest guy will still want to fight, but if you defeat the biggest guy the smallest guy will probably assume that he can't win either.
The "biggest guy" in the debate about Christian sexual morality is abstinence versus morality. I'd be very happy if the outcome of the debate was that I sustained my case about promiscuity but lost everything else.
But in fact, I did address your points in my rebuttal to your oppening post. For example, the story of Onan has absolutely nothing to do with masturbation. He doesn't even masturbate.
Apologies Justin, I had not seen your rebuttal (I was expecting an email or something).
I did point out that Onan was a stupid story to base the outlawing of masturbation on, but that doesn't change the fact most Christians do indeed frown upon onanism!
The reason I did not not provide 'evidence' is that I am arguing from reason and logic, not biology.
Your analogy between chimps and humans is silly. We have the knowledge that sex can lead to children and the ability to avoid that eventuality if we so wish. (virtually) No other animal does. This effectively separates us from the rest of teh animals and thus renders your evolutionary argument pointless.
You may consider my quibbling with the definitiion of monogamy as pedantic, but 'living in sin' is considered a sin by most Christians. If you want to make your argument that a lifelong pairing is biologicall or socially optimal feel free, but don't try to coat it in 'Christianity' as that just doesn't wash.
You then backtrack on another Christian key value, that of divorce. What level of unhappiness makes divorce acceptable to you? How long must an unhappy partner suffer before being allowed to go seek a more suitable partner? Are your arguments in line with any Christian doctrine?
I am not disagreeing with some of your central points, a monogamous family unit is probably the best way to raise children in the current society. Separation is legally much easier when there are only two parties and they have signed a legal document, people tend to settle and so there are less single men in a monogamous culture. But.... you are denying humans freedom based on convenience, current social norms and some ethereal vision of what's 'moral'.
And I guess that's what's central, freedom. Who are you to decide what others can and cannot do if it impacts no-one else? Where do you get the unbelievable gall to tell three consenting adults that their lifestyle choice is immoral when it impacts no-one else? How can you keep a straight face when saying sex between a married couple is a beautiful thing but between an unmarried couple it is "ugly, and shameful."? Where do you claim the right to suggest that a same sex couple are a danger to children? Where do you get the idea that marriage is about children rather than the couple that actually get married?
Cheers, Justin. Final post here: http://paulforpm.blogspot.com/2009/11/debate-closing-response-on-christian.html
Post a Comment