The Myth of Chastity?

Ellen Goodman thinks that chastity is nonsense. She didn't say it directly, but you certainly can't miss the point when you read this article:
The Cincinnati Post - Rejecting a middle ground.

She criticizes Eric Keroack, the new head of the Office of Population Affairs, for resisting measures that promote contraception rather than abstinence. Goodman seems to think that promoting contraception would be a rational way to minimize abortions. She also seems to think that abstinence education is an unworkable solution proposed by naive, repressed religious nuts. Look at the quote below:

Keroack's PowerPoint lectures should be regulars on "The Colbert Report." In the most infamous, titled appropriately "If I Only Had a Brain," he teaches that "premarital sex is really modern germ warfare." His unique ''scientific explanation" of why multiple sex partners are bad has to do with, uh, oxytocin. "People who have misused their sexual faculty and become bonded to multiple persons will diminish the power of oxytocin to maintain a permanent bond with an individual." More sex leads to less bonding? This ranks with old-time warnings that you-know-what leads to warts.

The effect of oxytocin ranks with the mythology surrounding masturbation? Ms. Goodman is using here one of her favorite argument techniques - ridiculing the opposition whether you understand them or not. Is the idea of oxytocin-induced bonding so absurd?

Unfortunately, my only source of knowledge on oxytocin is second-hand. Chastity speakers often describe oxytocin in the same way Mr. Keroack did. I have not yet found scientific verification of these claims. If I do, I'll be sure to follow up on this post. So, at first it seems that Ms. Goodman is right to criticize Mr. Keroack's claims as invalid. However, are they absurd?

Here is what I do know for sure. First, oxytocin is a hormone that is present in human beings during childbirth, breastfeeding, and sexual activity. Second, we know that hormones do affect human emotions. Women's hormone cycles cause women to experience emotional cycles. The extent of these cycles is different from individual to individual, but women do generally experience greater desire to be social when their levels of estrogen rise, and a desire for solitude with the rise of progesterone. Thirdly, we know that the very nature of sexual intercourse lends itself to bonding. The act requires vulnerability to each other. It requires trust with each other's bodies and dignity. The possibility of procreation leads to the need for the growth of familial love. Is it so outlandish to believe that a hormone produced by sexual activity may have an emotional effect on us that would promote bonding in preparation for the acceptance of new life?

What about the idea that extra-marital sex wastes the bonding effects of oxytocin? The emotional effects of hormones are very similar to the effects that drugs have on our bodies. Our bodies tend to build up a tolerance to certain drugs, especially those that cause euphoric responses. While I do not know for certain if we can build up a tolerance to hormonal effects, it does not seem outside of the realm of possibility, especially when the emotional response created by the hormone touches on a reality as complex as human relationships.

Finally, we also know that the divorce rate in the first five years of marriage has increased proportionately to our culture's acceptance of pre-marital sex. Correlation does not mean causation, but isn't it possible that part of the reason for such a pattern could be the loss of emotional bonding? Again, the conclusion may be unproven, but it certainly isn't absurd.

There is one final difference between the claims about oxytocin and the masturbation myth. The myth that masturbation causes warts on your hand was created by a segment of a culture of prudishness. People who could not bring themselves to talk openly about sexuality needed a way to keep people from performing undesirable sexual acts. In contrast, chastity advocates today are far from prudish. Notice the difference between this blog post and Ms. Goodman's article. She refers to masturbation as "you know what," while I am not afraid to name the act. Chastity advocates do not see sex as dirty. We do not want to repress sexuality. Instead, we see human sexuality as a glorious act of life-giving love that has the power to create and to sustain a family. Sex outside of marriage degrades the dignity of human sexuality by making it an animal act for the purpose of pleasure. Chastity advocates like Mr. Keroack are not in the habit of creating myths to avoid discussing sex. The worse they can be accused of is overstating their case. Ms. Goodman likes to ridicule her opposition without truly examining their arguments. If she has proof that oxytocin is a myth, she should come forward with it. We don't need oxytocin to know that extra-marital sex is bad for us. However, the evidence in favor of oxytocin does exist, and it does support our case.



Technorati Tags: chastity, sexuality, Goodman, oxytocin

powered by performancing firefox