First off, what is adultery? Adultery is having sex with anyone other than your wife/husband. But that is of little importance. What's really important about a law (I claim it to be a universal, moral law) is the reason behind that law. When you know the reason behind a law, you are several times better prepared to honor it than if you simply knew the law on a words-only basis.
So why is adultery wrong? First off, I
would like to present the idea that sex involves the whole self. It
involves you physically, emotionally, and even spiritually. Many people
insist, "Oh it's just sex," but I have reason to believe
otherwise. After all, why would people go so far out of their way to have
sex? Why would someone risk teen pregnancy and/or deadly STD's for
something that means so little? Even worse, why would a rapist ruin
someone's life for "just sex"? If people are willing to
jeopardize their physical health (STD's), emotional health (stress of teen
pregnancy), and spiritual health (someone evades God because they don't want to
give up sex) to have sex, this indicates a high valuation of sex by the person.
When
someone risks something, they do so to get something out of it. The
amount they get out of it is directly proportional to the size of the risk.
When someone states that the risks "aren't worth it", they are
in essence saying that what they would get is not worth what they might loose,
thus they are unwilling to go through with it. So the fact that sex
(especially when done compulsively) risks every dimension of one's
"self" communicates to us a surprisingly high valuation of sex
itself. I denote this high valuation through the following statement:
"sex involves your whole self".
What
is the nature of this involvement? What exactly happens to your whole
self during sex? I claim here that sex essentially "exchanges"
whole selves between you and your partner. I make this claim for a very
simple reason. Sex binds your whole self to your partner because they
took it; they took your whole self when you had sex with them.
Conversely, you did the same, you took their whole self. "Sex does
not have to be selfish. Can not both people simply give themselves to
each other charitably?" The answer is no, they cannot. Sex
cannot be 100% free of selfishness. In order for there to be no
selfishness, both participants must think, "I will not have sex unless
they ask for it." And if both people hold this mindset perfectly,
then the situation cannot proceed. If both people resolve to wait until
the other asks for it, they will be waiting forever. There must be at
least a shred of selfishness for two people to have sex. I will summarize
this relationship with the following statement: "Sex bind yourself to your
partner."
Allow
me to ask you a trick question. How many "selfs" do you
have? If you answered 1, you are correct. You have one self:
yourself. So, when you have sex with someone, you engage that whole self
and bind that whole self to them. Remember, you have only one
"self". You do not have a vast reserve of "selfs" to
hand out to whomever, whenever. Once you have had sex, that
"self" is bound to the partner, and you have no more
"selfs" to spare; you can have sex with no one else but the person to
whom your "self" belongs. Adultery is unhealthy because you
have one "self" to spare for sex with your spouse and no one else.
This
new information about adultery allows us to oust a few things that people would
not previously consider adultery. The first I would like to discuss is
polygamy. The "just words" version of adultery does not
technically condemn it. It condemns sex with anyone besides ones wife; in
polygamy, all the people with whom you have sex are also your wives.
However, like I pressed before, the meaning behind the law is what truly
matters. Polygamy is in conflict with the meaning of the law. The
meaning of the law is that you have one "self" to spare for sex with
one person. Don't mistake me for judging; I'm not saying that polygamists
marry for more sex. What I am saying is that regardless of the intent,
that is what polygamists do. Besides, do you pledge half of yourself in
marriage? I think not. Even if you did, you could not avoid the
truth that sex is "all in" or "all out". You cannot
section off a piece of yourself for sex with this wife and a piece of yourself
for sex with that one.
This may be unnecessary territory to
tread, but I have resolved to be especially thorough with this post.
Would that make it okay to be married to several people as long as you only had
sex with one? The answer is no. Why? Because of the nature of
marriage.
I
realize, after much consideration, that marriage itself is actually very hard
to define. "Isn't it nothing but a custom; a tradition that we have
been practicing for thousands of years as a matter of cosmetics that has
nothing really to do with the actual state of a man's relationship to a
woman?" I would not say that. I think that marriage is a legitimate
thing; a true state of being that goes beyond forms and standards of tradition.
So does that mean that one can be "married" in terms of their
relationship to each other without ever having signed a contract that actually
says that they're married? I'm inclined to say yes, in special
circumstances. But I have yet to discern all of those nit-picky details
about this bizarre thing we call marriage. For now, assume this: when we
say two people are "married", we assume that they are in a genuine
"stage", so to speak, of their relationship. This particular
post will not discuss the details regarding how to enter into the state of
being married.
What
is the nature of this relationship, marriage? This post puts forth its
own definition: marriage is a promise of oneself to another to the witness and
acknowledgment of the law, your family, and your friends. Marriage, on a
purely technical level, is a binding contract between two people. What
are the terms in this contract? I get everything of yours and you get
everything of mine. Husband and wife quite literally become one;
everything each other has is each other’s now. They pledge to each other
their whole selfs. Does anyone dispute this definition? No?
Good.
Back
to my point far above: why is it wrong to be married to multiple women, even if
sex is out of the question? Well, we have just established that marriage
is a pledge binding each other’s selfs to each other. As I have said
several times already, you have only one self. To pledge your whole self
to one and then go and pledge your whole self to another would be going back on
your promise to the first wife that she could have everything you are.
Because you have only one self, you can have only one marriage to one
wife.
Another thing that adultery condemns is
premarital sex. "How?" you may protest. "What's so
wrong with sex before marriage as long as you only have sex with only that one
person?" Well, for some clarity, let's analyze the definition of
adultery once more. Adultery is having sex with anyone other than your wife.
Every definition I have seen agrees on that word, wife (we
should assume husband is implied because of an analysis of meaning over
words). Let me ask you a question, is your girlfriend your wife?
The answer is no. So that makes her someone besides your wife? The
answer is yes. Therefore, according to this logic, sex with your
girlfriend is adultery? The answer is yes.
Some
of you may be casting the label "hypocrite" at me for this.
"He uses meaning up until now, then suddenly switches to using the 'words
only' definition? Hypocrisy!" For those of you who caught
that, you are not wrong. In fact, I congratulate you for your discernment
between fair play and foul play. However, that said, you have another
thing coming if you think I have no meaning for this claim against premarital
sex
Let's
review just what marriage is. Marriage is a deal struck between two
people promising their whole selfs to each other. This indicates
something important. In order for someone to be married, they have to
bring to the table everything that they are. Neither of their whole selfs
can be bound to anyone on their wedding day because when your whole self is
bound to someone, you do not have the authority to give it away; you do not
have the authority to give away what no longer belongs to you. Sex binds
one's whole self to another; giving away a vital part of what is required to be
given in marriage. If you have sex before marriage, your whole self is
bound to another and you can no longer give it away in marriage.
Therefore, in order to fulfill the terms of marriage, you must be a virgin on
your wedding day.
This
opens up some room for skepticism. "Wouldn't it be okay, then, if I
had sex with someone that I eventually married? I mean, I would have
given them my virginity eventually, right?" A clever excuse, but an
excuse nonetheless, as I argue. I ague this because the circumstances
under which your girlfriend got your virginity are distinct from the
circumstances under which your wife got your virginity. When you had sex
with your wife, you took her whole self and she took yours. But that is
not selfish. Why? Because you had already promised your whole
selves to each other. When you took her whole self and vice-versa, you
were only taking what belonged to you. But outside of marriage, your
whole selves do not yet belong to each other. You have yet to promise
your whole selves to each other; each of you is essentially stealing what does
not belong to you. To marry the woman you already had sex with is
essentially the same as saying to a friend, "Here, you can have this DVD
of mine," after he had already stolen it. Is not wrong to
steal? To take that which does not belong to you without asking?
Until your significant other gives it to you, their whole self is theirs.
You have no right to exploit it for your own pleasure (via sex) until it is
given to you (via marriage).
So,
what is the verdict regarding "everything but sex"? For
example, is it okay to get a blowjob from another woman if you are (or are not)
married? Absolutely not. But the question is, why? How does
adultery encompass this? The answer is simple. Actions that fall
under "everything but sex" have the same impact on your
"self" as real sex. "Everything but sex" also engages
your whole self. Think about it, why do we call it "everything but
sex"? We call it "everything but sex" because it is
characteristic of sex. It gives one or both people just as much pleasure
as actual sex. If it is characteristic of sex, then is it not logical to
assume that these things, too, share sex's most important characteristic?
I am referring, of course, to its ability to involve your whole self.
Think
about it this way. Sex between two men is technically not sex at
all. Homosexual sex, on a scientific level, falls under the category of
"everything but sex". But if you were to ask someone who had
had sex with a man and woman, do you think they would say that they felt any
less of a connection to the man than to the woman? What's funny about
this is that there is every chance that they would say just the opposite; they
felt more connection with the man than the woman. How can that be when
they only had "true sex" with the woman?
To
get some perspective on this, let's ask ourselves this question: "What's
the prize?" In other words, when we risk ourselves and bind
ourselves to someone else via sex, what are we doing it for? The simple
minded answer would be "to get sex". But I think the correct,
more comprehensive answer to the question would be "to get sexual
pleasure". It is more accurate to say that we take all of these
risks to get the pleasure that sex gives as opposed to taking these risks
simply to get sex.
Sexual
pleasure can be obtained through more ways than "absolute sex".
Though people have their preferences, sexual pleasure is inherently and
scientifically the same, no matter the method through which that pleasure is
obtained. Does it not stand to reason that to achieve the same
prize, the same price must be paid? Is it not more accurate to say "sexual
pleasure engages your whole self" as opposed to "sex engages
your whole self"?
Allow
me to insert some short clarifying paragraphs. Yes, I do think it is
possible for a husband to rape his wife. Just because her whole self
"belongs to him", does not mean they should not respect each others
wishes if one of them simply does not want to have sex.
No, I do not think it is immoral to get
married if you are not a virgin. In other words, if you are not a virgin,
you are not duty bound to marry the person who owns your virginity. In
fact, I would advise just the opposite. Better to start over with a clean
slate then try to make something work that is already corrupted. That is
my personal advice; it is tied loosely to actual morality. Anyway, the
sin was in the sex, not the marriage. It is a sin to have sex before
marriage; it is not a sin to get married after having sex.
Some
of you may think, "Wow. Then what is even the point of
marriage?" Marriage is for the family. It is healthy for a
child to be raised by two parents of the opposite gender so they get
perspective on gender. A child being raised by boyfriend and girlfriend
is pretty much guaranteed to have no firm values or tools required to make it
in the world. Even further, are we naive enough to think that the two
will stay together for a bare minimum of 18 years? And when they do break
up, the child will suffer, even if he has already moved out, I imagine.
If marriage did not intercede to give people orderly childhoods, all of
humanity would be useless.
And
that concludes the long and incredibly thorough argument against
adultery. My thoroughness indicates how much this world needs discernment
in these matters. I know that I have probably missed a few major things
that fall in the domain of "adultery"; why don't you try and make
judgments on what I missed? Furthermore, feel free to check back. I
may have added entire paragraphs while you were gone.
