Sexual Perversity Celebrated

Kororareka In Modern Garb

There is a degraded Sodomist programme currently "entertaining" people on national TV.  It is a propaganda piece for sexual perversion and gender bending.  It cloaks itself in a pseudo-scientific outfit.

The whole premise of Married at First Sight is to help those who have been unlucky in love find a suitable spouse, based on scientific knowledge of relationships.  But what about people who don't want a partner? And those who are attracted to multiple genders? Or those people who are in a relationship with more than one person (consensually, rather than in an affair)?

Most of us tend to have pretty rigid ideas about what is "normal" in romantic relationships and sexual preference.  But contemporary research and theorising indicates humans are able to be much more flexible when it comes to sexuality and relationships. That is, we are quite sexually and rationally fluid.  [Dr Pani Farvid, "Sexuality - So Many Ways To Go", NZ Herald]

The programme creators and broadcasters appear to believe that if it is possible to do something, the very possibility makes it morally acceptable.
  Take theft, for example.  It is possible to steal.  No-one denies it.  When it comes to property we are quite fluid.  Even "rationally fluid".  So, there is a wonder of possibilities.  Should one steal this vehicle?  Morality and ethics has nothing to say or contribute.  The fact that we can do it should open up our minds and hearts to the notion that we should do it.

Farvid goes on to describe cultures where sexual perversion was acceptable:

Sexual fluidity refers to the notion that our sexuality, sexual orientation, or sexual preferences are not as fixed as we think. We live in a predominantly heterosexual society. And this is seen as normal, biological and inevitable. But in reality, sexuality and its expression is much more fluid than we realise, and socially and cultural mediated.

Historically, for example, same-sex sexual behaviour was pervasive - but it was called different things and understood in different ways. In ancient Greece, it was acceptable for older men to have sexual relations with younger teenage boys without it implying homosexuality. There are detailed histories from the Victorian era of "passionate female friendships", where women were lovers, but did not identify as lesbian.

There is nothing surprising in all of this to Christians.  Rather, we tend to use these historical examples of overwhelming evidence of human depravity and the consequences of the Fall.  Farvid comes at the issue from the opposite direction: if something was done in the past and was acceptable to a culture, we should be open to it and free to explore it in our day.  If we do not, we risk denying our very freedoms.

As we know, cannibalism was rife in New Zealand in the early nineteenth century.  Favid's world-view would encourage us to explore its practice in our day because it was acceptable then.  Morality has nothing to do with it.

We know that human sexuality is much more fluid than we realise. Even 70 years ago, one of the most famous sexologists, Alfred Kinsey, posited that our sexuality falls on a seven-point continuum:

1. Exclusively heterosexual
2. Predominantly heterosexual (only incidentally homosexual)
3. Predominantly heterosexual (but more than incidentally homosexual)
4. Equally heterosexual and homosexual,
5. Predominantly homosexual (but more than incidentally heterosexual),
6. Predominantly homosexual (only incidentally heterosexual),
7. Exclusively homosexual.

Later, an extra category labelled X was added to indicate asexuality (to capture those who do not experience sexual attraction to anyone).

When homosexual "marriage" was made acceptable in the United States by a decision of the Supreme Court, the homosexual community rejoiced.  At last their perversions were not just recognised and legal, but now they represented a step towards human freedom rights.  Overnight, however, every man and his dog began to climb on the bandwagon from NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) to polygamists.  Then, within a few weeks a similar cry was raised about gender and gender diversity.

When Christians warned of this spectre, they were laughed out of town.  Nah--it would never come to that.  Well, it has--rapidly.  And why not?  The historical precedents cited by Favid of the Greco-Roman world where both young boys and girls were used as sexual objects by the household masters are exactly the kinds of things NAMBLA wants legalised in the United States.  In the long arc it cannot now be prevented from coming to pass--as long as contemporary society worships atheism.  Favid and his ilk have no argument or principle to withstand such practices.

Consider the following paragraphs:

Cutting-edge work today indicates it's not whom you sleep with (your sexual behaviour), or even whom you find sexually and romantically attractive (your desire), but how you choose to identity yourself that determines your "sexual orientation".

For example, you might be a man attracted to women and men who has only had relationships with women - yet you still identify as bisexual. Or you might identify as "queer" - a catch-all term that basically means: whatever I am, I'm not heterosexual.  Some go further and call themselves queer as a political statement against sexual labels.

There is now an array of sexual and relational possibilities and people have developed new language and terms to reflect the blossoming of these understandings.  We now have categories such as Polysexual (attracted to multiple genders/gender identities), Skoliosexual (someone who is attracted to genderqueer or non-binary people), and Pansexual/Omnisexual (attraction to someone regardless of their gender).

Some very niche categories are also out there, including: Objectumsexual (someone sexually attracted to inanimate objects), Gynesexual (sexual attraction towards women or those with feminine characteristics), Androsexual (sexual attraction towards men or those with masculine characteristics), and, finally, Androgynosexual (being sexually attracted to both men and women, specifically to those with androgynous appearances).

In relationships, although there are many non-monogamous options, such as polyamory (which takes on many structures and can include open relationships) and those who opt out of relationships, the duo (more precisely, the hetero duo) still heavily dominates.  Maybe one day we will have a Married at First Sight where heterosexual marriage is the minority and there is a polyamorous wedding among a pansexual, gender-fluid and skoliosexual trio.  I know I'd watch that.

We are sure you would--and that tells us a great deal about Dr Favid.