Monday, October 12, 2015

"The Lost Sex Study"

This article is from Christianity Today and was written in December 1994. This is the first part, follow the link at the end to read the rest.

I know a bit about J.D. Unwin. He was actually rather liberal and was shocked at what he discovered, but was more interested in the truth than his opinions.

This article was written by Philip Yancey.


If we make a god of sexuality, that god will fail in ways that affect the whole person and perhaps the whole society

While much of the media is buzzing about a new survey on sex in America, I'm still thinking about a book, "Sex and Culture," published in 1934. I discovered it in the windowless warrens of a large university library, and I felt like an archaeologist must feel unearthing an artifact from the catacombs.

Seeking to test the Freudian notion that civilization is a byproduct of repressed sexuality, the scholar J. D. Unwin studied 86 different societies. His findings startled many scholars - above all, Unwin himself - because all 86 demonstrated a direct tie between monogamy and the "expansive energy" of civilization.

Unwin had no Christian convictions and applied no moral judgment: "I offer no opinion about rightness or wrongness." Nevertheless, he had to conclude, "In human records there is no instance of a society retaining its energy after a complete new generation has inherited a tradition which does not insist on pre-nuptial and post-nuptial continence."

For Roman, Greek, Sumerian, Moorish, Babylonian, and Anglo-Saxon civilizations, Unwin had several hundred years of history to draw on. He found with no exceptions that these societies flourished during eras that valued sexual fidelity. Inevitably, sexual mores would loosen and the societies would subsequently decline, only to rise again when they returned to more rigid sexual standards.

Unwin seemed at a loss to explain the pattern, yet it so impressed him that he proposed a special class of "Alpha" citizens in Great Britain. These individuals of unusual promise would take vows of chastity before marriage and observe strict monogamy after marriage - all for the sake of the Empire, which needed their talents.

Unwin died before fully developing his theory of "the sexual foundations of a new society," but the incomplete results were published in another book, "Hopousia," with an introduction by Aldous Huxley.

A decade before Unwin did his research, followers of Vladimir Lenin were espousing a very different "Glass of Water" theory about sex. Sexual desire is no more mysterious or sacrosanct than desire for food or water, they declared, and rewrote the Soviet lawbook accordingly. That theory soon collapsed, and Soviet society became - on the surface, at least - almost puritanical about sexual morality.

Today, however, we hear new versions of the Glass of Water theory. "Sex can finally, after all these centuries, be separated from the all-too-serious business of reproduction," proclaimed Barbara Ehrenreich in a recent Time essay. "The only ethic that can work in an overcrowded world is one that insists that … sex - preferably among affectionate and consenting adults - belongs squarely in the realm of play."

Ehrenreich's call for the "de-moralization" of sex has about it the incense smell of the 1960s, birth era of the sexual revolution. aids may have temporarily dampened enthusiasm for unrestrained lovemaking, but I hear few social commentators articulating a coherent sexual ethic. In our reductionist society, sex is viewed as a purely biological act, like drinking and eating. Once we perfect the technology of protection, we can go back to coupling.

Strangely, though, sex resists reductionism. Jealousy still rears its ugly head, and cuckolds still murder their lovers' lovers as if sexuality involved the joining of lives and not merely genitals. And in an age of unprecedented birth-control options and widespread sex education, our society produces more unwanted pregnancies than ever before.)

Click HERE to read the rest.)

5 comments:

Robert What? said...

Unwin's findings are not difficult to explain and come down to these two simple facts:

1) Young men will not expend resources and energy - at least not creative energy - if there is no prospect of family and children.

2) Men will not willingly expend resources and energy on cuckolded children.

When men don't expend creative resources and energy, civilization and society falter.



Mindstorm said...

http://takimag.com/article/dear_martians_gavin_mcinnes - rather à propos. Interesting times, isn't it?

Anonymous said...

"1) Young men will not expend resources and energy - at least not creative energy - if there is no prospect of family and children."

This isn't necessarily true. I'm not married and never plan to do so, and I'm very motivated and driven in my career.

Exceptional achievement often requires bachelorhood:

http://www.futurescopes.com/getting-married/9710/10-famous-men-history-who-never-married

http://www.thedomesticatedbachelor.com/2009/11/10/famous-historical-bachelors-a-list/

Mindstorm said...

^ It's enough if it's statistically true.

Bob Wallace said...

"Exceptional achievement often requires bachelorhood"

You're talking about extreme outliers.

If the average men did not get married and have children, society would collapse.

Even Stephen Hawking was married and had children.