Sunday, October 21, 2012

Sex And Secularism

Matthew Franklin Cooper has an excellent post on the frequency of sex among pious and secular peoples. It turns out that the pious folk actually have sex more often than their secular counterparts. This might be surprising to some people, but it is not very strange once you get past the stereotype of Christianity as an oppressive, anti-sex religion. Quite frankly, I don't know how sex can be very sexy under secularism. If sex is just a biological imperative, then human sexuality is essentially animalistic and we are no different than cats and dogs when it comes to our sex lives.

The Sexual Revolution has led to an extreme biologization of human sexual activity. Romantic poetry has been replaced by how-to guides in Cosmopolitan that read like technical manuals for your privates. Liberal divorce laws have placed a sword of Damocles over every marital threshold. Pornography and prostitution have reduced human sexuality to the status of a commodity to be bought and sold in the marketplace, just like any other product.

When sex is no longer sacred, it holds no mystery. Claudia Cardinale (pictured above) managed to be very sexy without ever appearing fully nude on film or in print. Today, there is no mystery to sex. Sex has been reduced to yet another health issue, devoid of any mystical aspect that would place it beyond simple biology. The final outcome of the Sexual Revolution and secularism is a culture that is awash is sexual images and advertisements, but with less people actually engaged in the healthy and enjoyable aspects of sex that stem from the Christian tradition of love and marriage.


  1. Many thanks, John! Glad to see you approve - and I agree with the points you bring up here. It is indeed interesting how market liberalism contributes to the destruction of things like healthy sexuality, particularly when the advocates of market liberalism seem to pride themselves on their openness. And this issue seems to be one of those points where social conservatives, existentialists and Marxists can begin building a common critique of market liberalism.


  2. Hello Matthew,

    Thanks for the kind words! I agree that social issues are a good place to build a critique of market liberalism. It is often difficult to build a critique of market liberalism starting purely from economics because of the power of the TINA argument and because consumerism sometimes masks deeper problems.

    It is the old argument that because one sees a poor person with a luxury good (iPods seem to be the most common example today) they must not really be poor. Of course, poverty is more than just the lack of purchasing power. A proper definition of poverty must also include a deficit in spiritual and physical wellbeing, collapsed social and familial cohesiveness, an exclusion from uplifting forms of culture, etc.