Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘humanity’

Eric Metaxas from Breakpoint (10/28) brings something to Ezerwoman’s attention.  Having been concerned about the separation of procreation from sex here in the American culture, I find the following worthy of our attention.  Eric Metaxas writes:

Long-time BreakPoint listeners know about Japan’s catastrophically-low birthrates: by 2060, Japan’s population is projected to fall by a third, the same percentage killed by the Black Death in 14th-century Europe.

Japan’s demographic decline has spawned some creepy adaptations, such as lifelike talking dolls for elderly Japanese without grandchildren, or the borrowing of other people’s grandchildren for a day.

Attempts to encourage child-bearing through economic incentives have failed, as they have in other countries with low birth-rates. Younger Japanese aren’t interested in reproducing themselves.

And now, according to a recent article in the UK’s Guardian, they’re increasingly uninterested in sex, as well.

A 2011 survey found that 61 percent of unmarried men and 49 percent of unmarried women between 18 and 34 were not involved in any kind of relationship. Another survey found that a third of those under thirty had never dated.

Daily_Commentary_10_28_13MMore ominously, a study by the Japan Family Planning Association revealed that 45 percent of all Japanese women between the ages of 16 and 24 “were not interested in or despised sexual contact.” More than a quarter of their male counterparts felt the same way.

As the Guardian puts it, “Japan’s under-40s won’t go forth and multiply out of duty, as postwar generations did.” Why? Part of the reason has to do with Japanese attitudes to women in the workforce. As one 32-year-old woman told the paper, “a woman’s chances of promotion in Japan stop dead as soon as she marries.” The assumption is that she’ll become pregnant and have to resign.

While that helps to explain why her generation isn’t having children or even getting married, it doesn’t explain the lack of interest in sex. And it certainly doesn’t explain why an increasing number of Japanese men aren’t interested in it either.

One 31-year-old man spoke for many of his peers when he said, “I find some of my female friends attractive but I’ve learned to live without sex. Emotional entanglements are too complicated . . . I can’t be bothered.”

“Can’t be bothered.” Or mendokusai in Japanese. (Didn’t think I could speak Japanese, did you? Well, I can’t.)

Most of the other possible factors the Guardian cites, including “the lack of a religious authority that ordains marriage and family,” are only partial explanations. Japan’s “precarious earthquake-prone ecology that engenders feelings of futility, and the high cost of living and raising children” don’t explain the increasing lack of interest in sex. But here’s something that does: it’s the lack of interest in having children. The assumption of the sexual revolution was that, having severed the link between sex and procreation, the result would be “better sex.”

Newsletter_Gen_180x180_BBut the Japanese experience suggests that the opposite may be closer to the truth. Having stripped sex of one of its God-ordained purpose, we turned it into just another pleasurable human activity, albeit one that often comes with complicated emotional entanglements.

Since the “urban pastimes” available to younger Japanese provide pleasure without the entanglements, sex can seem like a bad investment of time and energy. Mendokusai.

The Guardian calls Japan’s separation of love and sex “pragmatic.” But the evidence strongly suggests that there is nothing “pragmatic”—as in “dealing with things sensibly and realistically”—about that separation. We human beings simply aren’t wired that way.

In some important respects, the difference between Japan and us is one of degree, not kind. It remains to be seen if a generation of young Americans will one day replace “whatever” with “mendokusai.”

Read Full Post »

Sex is protectively positioned between religion and biology.  Otherwise… well, let’s take a look.

“The Obama Administration,” writes Chuck Colson, “has decided to promote and emphasize lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered rights – and it is doing so at the expense of everyone’s God-given freedom of religion.”  (Breakpoint 1-17-12)

Colson backs up this strong statement by quoting Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.  In an address entitled “Human Rights Agenda for the 21st Century,” (12-9-09), Clinton said people “must be free to worship, associate, and to love in the way that they choose.”

“Did you catch that?” Colson asks.  “In one sentence, little noticed at the time, Mrs. Clinton showed the Administration’s true priorities.  In one fell swoop, she changed our God-given right to freedom of religion, a public act, to a much more restricted ‘freedom of worship,’ a private act, which any Chinese official could go along with.  At the same time, Mrs. Clinton, speaking for the administration, elevated the quote ‘right to love in the way they choose’ as a fundamental human right.”

Last December, Mrs. Clinton told a gathering of diplomats that “gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights.”  She also said the “most challenging issue arises when people cite religious or cultural values as a reason to violate or not to protect the human right of LGBT citizens.”

President Obama told a pro-gay-rights group, “Every single American – gay, straight, lesbian, bisexual, transgender – every single American deserves to be treated equally before the law.”  Colson rightly asks, “Does that include marriage?”  There are those in this present Administration who have expressed their support of so-called same-sex “marriage.”  This Administration has refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act.  Where is the threat to religious freedom?  If so-called homosexual “marriage” can be defined as a civil right, then those who oppose it on Biblical grounds could be branded as practicing “sexual discrimination.”

So, how did we come to this place?  How is it that sexual liberty trumps religious liberty?  That sexual freedom is the one right above all rights?  The one right upon which no one else dare tread?

We were taunted with one question, “Did God really say . . . ?”  We doubted divine creation.  Put ourselves in place of God.  Raised our will above His.  Determined our own identity.   When we see ourselves, first and foremost, as “sexual beings,” then one might assume the right to express that sexuality according to personal preference.  But, God created us to be more than our flesh side.  We are each a soul.  We are created in His image and, though fallen from that perfect image, we are not captive to sexual instincts.  The Savior, Jesus Christ, pulls us out of ourselves and away from harmful choices.  His Spirit equips us to avoid sensuality and, instead, pursue purity and holiness.  Things of God.   When we fail, all is not lost.  We are not destined to despair, but invited to confess.  Ask for forgiveness and help.  Start over.  And over… and over…and over.

A good way to start over is to leave foolishness behind.  We have been too long in “human sexuality” class and not nearly long enough in Biology 101. 

Heterosexual is a biological term describing how a mammalian species reproduces.  The “higher” species reproduces sexually.  The lower invertebrates reproduce asexually.  Therefore, the suffix “sexual” refers to reproduction.  The prefix “homo,” which means “same throughout” with “sexual” is an oxymoron.  Mammals can’t reproduce with two like genders: male with male or female with female.  For the sake of civilization, let’s get our biology straight. 

Who better to consult than the Master of biology.  When He finished speaking animals into existence, God put His hands to work on His greatest masterpiece.  Humans.  He made two genders: male and female.  Count them.  Not three or four or five, but two.  He shaped man, then built woman from man.  He made them equal, but different.  Gender is determined by our anatomy.  (If you’re not sure which one you are, look down.)  An individual male or female, not paired, might be lonely, but they can actually survive without sexual involvement.  However, if they want to continue the human species, they must “fit together.”

God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him” (Genesis 2:18).  “Fit for him,” taken literally, means “like his opposite.”  Do you comprehend this?   Male and female are compatibly different.  Their different anatomy allows husband and wife to “fit together” in order to bring new life into the world.  It is for our physical, emotional, spiritual, and generational health to live as male or female in a way that honors God rather than self. 

God tells man and woman to avoid sexual immorality and sensuality, but never once does He tell us to avoid being male or female.  As a man or a woman, single or married, we have a choice.  We can live in a way that glorifies God and makes the world a better place… or not.

Mock God, Mr. President.  Re-define creation, Mrs. Secretary of State.  Replace freedom of religion with “freedom of worship.”  Disregard biology and let people “love as they choose.”  Claiming to be wise, you lead many on a path of foolishness.

The Holy God stands in contrast.  “My ways are not your ways.”  While we have opportunity, let us speak of holy things.  Oppose foolishness.  “Fit together” in marriage.  Grow children.  Explain what it means to love.  To be human.

Read Full Post »