https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=5138
God’s Word: Right About Sex
In
Proverbs 29:18, Solomon noted that when a society eliminates God and
His Word, people do what they want to do with minimal nagging from their
own conscience or from others around them. In contrast, “happy is He
who keeps the [God’s] law.” In the same way that parents’ rules for
children are for their good (e.g., “Don’t touch the stove”), God’s Word
is for our good
always (Deuteronomy 6:24; 10:12-13;
Psalm 19:7-8; 119; Romans 7:12). That fact is true regarding how
individuals in a society should conduct themselves sexually as well. A
little-known study conducted in the early 1900s and published in 1934
lends support to that fact.
J.D. Unwin was a British ethnologist and social anthropologist of
Oxford and Cambridge Universities. He was no advocate for Christianity
or religion. In his book,
Sex and Culture, Unwin discusses the
results of his study of 86 societies from over 5,000 years of history.
These were selected due to the availability of the evidence that
substantiated their regulations/expectations regarding sexual activity,
and included various Melanesian societies as well as several African,
Polynesian, Assamian, Paleo-Siberian, North American Indian, Babylonian,
Athenian, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and English societies. Each culture was
categorized based on how strict its societal rules and expectations were
concerning sexual activity, especially regarding acceptable female
sexual behavior in a society. The studied societies were divided into
seven classes of sexual regulation—three pre-nuptial and four
post-nuptial categories. Regarding pre-marriage customs, some societies
allowed (1) total sexual freedom before marriage; (2) some pre-marital
activity and allowing for only “irregular or occasional” sexual
activity; and (3) no sexual activity—invoking punishment or death to
women who failed to remain virgins until marriage. Concerning
post-nuptial allowances, some societies (1) considered polygamy
acceptable as well as having no restriction on faithfulness. Neither
party was “compelled to confine his or her sexual qualities to the other
for his or her whole life”; (2) only considered monogamy acceptable,
but again, neither party had to confine his/her sexual appetites to
his/her spouse for life; (3) required wives to confine their sexual
activity to their husband, but the husband could have other sexual
partners through polygamous relationships (i.e., strict polygamy); and
(4) required strict monogamy as the acceptable practice—where both the
husband and wife were confined to each other sexually for life (pp.
341-343). Unwin’s discoveries about these categories are enlightening.
According to Unwin, the “first primary law which operates in all human
societies” is that “the cultural condition of any society in any
geographical environment is conditioned by its past and present methods
of regulating the relations between the sexes [sexually—JM]” (p. 340).
In every instance, when sexual restrictions in a society are at their
highest level (i.e.,
strict pre-nuptial abstinence and
strict monogamy), the society inevitably progresses, and the
more sexual activity is curbed in a society, the
more
the society progresses. When restrictions are lessened, the society
inevitably stops progressing and begins to digress, ultimately
disappearing if the restrictions are not again tightened. “[A]
limitation of sexual opportunity [i.e., more sexual restraint in a
society—JM] always is, and so far as I know always has been, accompanied
by a rise in cultural condition” (p. 2). The rise occurs after the
implemented rules have been in effect for “at least three generations”
(p. 321). “Any extension of sexual opportunity [i.e., less sexual
restraint in a society—JM] must always be the immediate cause of a
cultural decline” (p. 326).
Unwin argues that the more lenient a society is in its sexual
allowances, the more energy is inevitably used by that society in
gratifying its sexual desires. The more strict a society is, the more
that extra energy is used in expanding a society and progressing.
[P]sychological researches reveal that the placing of a compulsory
check upon the sexual impulses, that is, a limitation of sexual
opportunity, produces thought, reflection, and energy. Now the evidence
is that a cultural advance has been caused by a factor which produces
thought, reflection, and social energy…and that it occurs only when the
sexual opportunity has been limited. I submit, therefore, that the
limitation of the sexual opportunity must be regarded as the cause of
the cultural advance…. If men and women are sexually free, their sexual
desires will receive direct satisfaction; but if the sexual opportunity
is limited, the impulses must be checked. Then the repressed desires
will be expressed in another form…. [U]sually the tension produced by
the emotional conflicts is exhibited in some form of mental and social
energy, the intensity of that energy depending upon the intensity of the
compulsory continence [i.e., the level of restriction placed on sexual
activity—JM]. When the sexual opportunity of a society is reduced almost
to a minimum, the resulting social energy produces “great
accomplishments in human endeavor” and “civilization.” When the
compulsory continence is of a less rigorous character, lesser energy is
displayed (p. 317).
Among the accomplishments of extremely energetic societies are
territorial expansion, conquest, colonization and the foundation of a
widely flung commerce. All these things, and their like, are
manifestations of what I call expansive social energy. A society which displays productive social energy
develops the resources of its habitat and by increasing its knowledge
of the material universe bends nature to its will. All such
accomplishments as these imply the previous exertion of thought and
reflection, these being necessary precursor to all human achievements
(p. 315, italics in orig.).
Unwin noted that though he considers high restraint of sexual behavior to be the “immediate cause of social energy,” he is
content to conclude that it is the cause of social energy only in the
sense of being an indispensable contributory factor; that is to say,
even if other factors also are indispensable and operating, no social energy
can be displayed unless the sexual opportunity is limited. Other things
being equal, however, social energy will be exhibited by any society
which places a compulsory limitation upon the sexual opportunity of its
members. Conversely, in all cases any extension of sexual opportunity
must result in a reduction of social energy. Such is the evidence from
psychological research (p. 320, emp. added).
The inherent power of thought and the potential energy of the human
organism can be exhibited only when the sexual impulses are controlled
by the operation of social ordinances; and the amount of energy and the
profundity of the thought depend upon the extent of the imitation which
these ordinances impose. If the compulsory continence be great, the
society will display great energy; if it be small, there will be a
little energy. If there be no compulsory continence, there can be no
energy; it remains potential (p. 339).
When we look at American society today, Unwin’s discoveries, if true,
are eerie admonitions to consider, for according to Unwin, “as soon as
the sexual opportunity of the society, or of a group within the society,
was extended, the energy of the society, or of the group within it,
decreased and
finally disappeared” (p. 382, emp.
added). Using modern layman terminology: unbridled cravings of any sort
will tend to monopolize our mind and our time. If a society as a whole
allows unbridled cravings to become widespread, then the society as a
whole will have much of its mind-power and energy focused on fulfilling
those lusts/addictions rather than on doing good for others and
improving society. Statistics indicate that sexual anarchy rules the day
in America. Pornography, adultery, divorce and remarriage, “shacking
up” without even marrying (whether with one person or more than one),
homosexuality, polygamy, and pedophilia are rampant in American society
and are even encouraged in many cases through law, music, movies, and
books. [See Apologetics Press’ book
Sexual Anarchy (Miller, 2006) for documentation of America’s growing sexual insanity.]
Interestingly, in harmony with what a Christian would expect based on
God’s Word, Unwin found that absolute monogamy led to the most advanced
societies. “In the records of history, indeed, there is no example of a
society displaying great energy for any appreciable period unless it has
been
absolutely monogamous. Moreover, I do not know of
a case in which an absolutely monogamous society has failed to display
great energy” (p. 369, emp. added). “Those societies which have
maintained the custom [of absolute monogamy—JM] for the longest period
have attained the highest position in the cultural scale which the human
race has yet reached” (p. 25). “Generally speaking, in the past when
they began to display
great energy…, human societies
were absolutely monogamous…. [T]he energy of the most developed
civilized societies, or that of any group within them, was exhibited for
so long as they preserved their
austere regulations. Their energy
faded away as soon as” this restriction was loosened (p. 343, emp. added).
Unwin argues that strict monogamy fosters an environment where
advancement is more likely to be achieved in a society. He argues that
the next rung down on the sexual regulation ladder (strict polygamy),
does not lend itself to societal advancement. “An absolutely polygamous
society preserves but
does not increase its tradition.
It does not possess the energy to adopt new ideas; it remains content
with its old institutions” (p. 368, emp. added). Though admittedly he
did not engage in a formal study of the subject, it is interesting to
note what famous General George S. Patton observed during World War II
about the North African Islamic countries (that practiced polygamy):
One cannot but ponder the question: What if the Arabs had been
Christians? To me it seems certain that the fatalistic teachings of
Mohammed and the utter degradation of women is the outstanding cause for the arrested development of the Arab.
He is exactly as he was around the year 700, while we have kept on
developing. Here, I think, is a text for some eloquent sermon on the
virtues of Christianity (1947, p. 43, emp. added).
In Matthew 19, Jesus called His audience’s memory back to the beginning—when God defined marriage for mankind.
Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them
male and female’ [Genesis 1:27], and said, ‘For this reason a man shall
leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall
become one flesh’ [Genesis 2:24]? So then, they are no longer two but
one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate
(Matthew 19:4-6).
Scriptural marriage is intended by God to be comprised of one eligible man marrying one eligible woman, and the
two becoming one flesh
for life. Strict monogamy is the biblical definition of marriage.
According to the Bible, sexual activity is good and to be encouraged in
that setting (1 Corinthians 7:3-5; Hebrews 13:4; Proverbs 5; Song of
Solomon). Unwin’s study helps us to see at least one reason why marriage
was so defined.
[NOTE: Unwin’s study was obviously confined to societies in existence
before the early 1900s when the study was conducted—most of which were
likely isolated from significant influences by other cultures due to the
state of technology before the 1900s (e.g., a lack of telephones,
television, Internet, etc.), as well as natural, geographical
limitations (i.e., inability to travel extensively between nations).
Such a study might be more difficult today, since societies are, for the
most part, not isolated, but rather, heavily influence each other. One
society might be perceived to advance in contradiction to Unwin’s
assertions, when in actuality, its advancement was merely due to, for
example, its acquisition of technology from other societies, receiving
aid from other societies, etc.—practices engaged in often today. That
said, eliminating many of those influences from the equation, as Unwin’s
study did by necessity, would logically seem to allow a more accurate
assessment of the effect of sexual behavior on a society.]
REFERENCES
Miller, Dave (2006),
Sexual Anarchy (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Patton, George S. (1947),
War As I Knew It (New York: The Great Commanders, 1994 edition).
Unwin, J.D. (1934),
Sex and Culture (London: Oxford University Press).
Can
mere humans predict future events? Not in actuality, since no human
being knows the future. Only Deity can do so, or empower a human to do
so. For example, living at the beginning of the 21st century,
who could possibly provide very detailed, very specific information
about the execution of an individual in another country and culture a
thousand years into the future? Such ability is beyond human capability.
Yet, the Bible portrays just this quality, thereby demonstrating its
divine origin.