Tolerance for Adultery
Within weeks after the poll was published that said only 7% to 8% of Americans approved of adultery, the Orlando Sentinel published an article by Caitlin Dewey of the Washington Post which was given the full headline across the top of page D3: “Dating Apps Enable Cheating.” A secondary title prior to the beginning of this sleazy piece is: “Options Beyond Monogamy Are Just a Click Away.” “Beyond”? How about saying “Opposed To” instead? It would be more accurate.
Spanning four of the six columns and taking more than half the length of those four is an illustration of a woman standing between two men. The face of the man on the left presents only his chin and a speck of his lower lip. He is dressed formally and is wearing a bow tie. The woman in the middle has short hair (just covering her ears) with a perky, self-assured smile. Her right hand is being held by the man on her right (presumably her husband). She is clad in a party dress. Her left hand is looped through the arm of the other man, who is also dressed formally. Enough of his mouth is depicted so that his broad smile (which includes teeth) can be seen. No doubt he is smiling because he thinks he has a bargain—dating someone else’s wife, after which he is free from all responsibility.
The illustration encapsulates the essence of the article. The story focuses on a “jewel” of a woman named Jessie, who apparently has never liked being “confined” by the morality that God gave to mankind. She would not have lasted long in Israel after being given the Ten Commandments, since she probably would have been the first one stoned. Her first marriage ended because of an “affair”—hers. Apparently her first husband was one of those 7% who thought adultery was wrong.
She married again although she had no authority from God to do so (Matt. 19:9). She lived in a state of marital adultery until her two sons grew up and left home. Then, according to the sympathetic writer of this article, “she was left faintly bored.” Does this sound like a self-absorbed person with no purpose in life? Apparently, she is oblivious to the needs of others and just how helpful she might be, but, no, she thinks “It’s all about me.”
She thought about cheating on her husband, which she had done in her first (and only legitimate) marriage. Instead, she decided to try something else, which is not a new idea, and that was to have an “open marriage”—one in which both she and her husband could “date” others while remaining married and committed (in some undefinable way) to each other. The immorality of the arrangement aside for a moment, how does she think this will affect their relationship in five or ten years? And has she thought about what her sons will think if they hear others talk about their “mom”? How embarrassed would they be?
Technology
Technology has made it easy to find willing accomplices in the business of unfaithfulness. Ashley Madison is an “unapologetic dating-for-cheaters service.” Tinder is for singles—or those who claim to be. This article did not elaborate on OKCupid; they focused instead on OpenMinded, a “new non-monogamous dating site.” In case the hifalutin language needs to be translated, the web site is designed for those who want sexual relationships with someone besides the person to whom they are married.
OpenMinded was founded by an MIT graduate as “a new kind of dating site for a newly mainstream lifestyle: one in which couples form very real attachments, just not exclusively with each other.” Does he think that “swingers” will check out his site? Yes. He also expects to have polysexuals and others who are either single or married. But he is hoping for only the best clientele—high class cheaters! He wants those who are in “committed, conventional relationships,” who understand that few such couples stay with the same person their whole lives.
Perhaps he has been influenced by living in the affluent Northeast, whose inhabitants have as little amount of respect for the Bible as practically anywhere in the country. He may have come across too many bored housewives like Jessie in the Washington, D.C. area. What he has obviously not come across are the Scriptures that condemn what he seeks to establish—an electronic brothel. He may have overlooked what Jesus said about the one who is a stumbling block being punished severely. “It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, than that he should offend one of these littles ones” (Luke 17:2). Woe to the one through whom offenses come (Luke 17:1)! Or more likely it is the case that he has no fear of God, thus lacking wisdom (Pr. 9:10).
So-Called “Experts” Weigh In
Just like on the History Channel, various “experts” have opinions, but in order to qualify as one of these elite commentators, one must first reject the Bible as the inspired Word of God. The MIT graduate (what kind of technology did he study anyway?) kicks things off with a few comments.
If you look at marriage, it developed as a survival strategy and a means of raising kids. But relationships are no longer a necessary component of life. People have careers and other interests; they can survive without them.
In the newspaper, there was no semi-colon, but the sentence did not make sense without one.
Actually, the statement makes no sense at all—no matter how it is punctuated, but the meaning seems to be that people no longer need marriage and families because they can lose themselves in their work or other activities. In other words, they are selfish and desire to make no long-term commitments. However, as with most experts, he failed to cite the only reliable source in man’s history, which is the Bible, which says, that marriage was God’s idea—not man’s. How can that be proved? First, where is the ancient society that did not practice marriage? Second, where is the proof that man invented it? Hmm.
It is obvious that man did not invent the concept of marriage because if he had, it would probably have never been designed as a monogamous institution. The proof of that fact is that ever since its inception, man has been trying to change it. Lamech, shortly after the Creation, changed it so that he could have two wives. Others eventually had even more. Even today Muslims are allowed four wives, and Mormons, since marriage has been redefined, are poised to push for polygamy again here. Jesus championed monogamy as God’s original intent despite man’s desire to divorce and remarry. God is the author of sex, having created mankind both male and female, and He placed it within marriage. All other situations are evil.
The next “expert” cited is Helen Fisher, “A biological anthropologist and one of the world’s leading relationship researchers.” Sounds impressive, huh? However, she did not create man and woman and therefore is not as wise as God on the subject (even if she thinks she is). She credits the development of marriage relationships to evolution (surprise, surprise). She goes back to “caveman days,” where “humans teamed up in nonexclusive pairs to protect their children.” What does that mean, and how does she know it? Later, as agrarians, she postulates, men provided children and did the heavy work while women took care of the children. This is the one thing she probably has right, except for the consideration of war.
Fisher insists that there’s “a long history of married men sleeping around.” That may be true, but not all men are named Kennedy. Fisher claims the idea that marriage is not a transaction is relatively recent, and she attributes that to romantic notions (which she apparently does not believe in). She goes so far as to say “it’s not scientifically correct to say the human species mates or pairs for life,” as opposed to geese. “Humans have one-night stands, paramours and a 50 percent divorce rate.” That’s a simple contrast to explain. Geese operate by the instincts that God gave them, but humans have free will and often choose to violate God’s commands that He gave them for their good. Does Fisher want to claim that one-night stands are good? Has she ever heard of STDs? Will she affirm that having paramours is in man’s (and woman’s) best interests? Or do these first two items listed lead to the divorce rate of 50%? Broken hearts and broken homes follow in the wake of sexual selfishness. And that’s supposed to be a plus?
Fisher also says that “people are programmed to seek out variety.” Programmed by whom? No one is so programmed by our Creator. He did not program men to seek other men or women to seek other women, either. Nor did He program men to desire to be women or vice versa. These programs may come from the Entertainment Media, from biological anthropological experts, or MIT graduates hoping to cash in on a society that spews out lust like the Internet sheds forth filth.
That many men have been unfaithful does seem to be the case, but it is argued that women committing adultery is new. Really? Then why does Solomon give so many warnings concerning the immoral woman (Pr. 5:1-23; 6:24-35; 7:1-27)? If the woman taken in adultery had been brought to Helen Fisher, she would probably have told her how enlightened she was; it is doubtful that she would have advised her, “Go, and sin no more” (John 8:11). People like those cited in this article have no Bible foundation whatsoever, and neither will those who listen to them.
The article returns to Jessie, commenting that she does not like the word adultery. No, of course not; people do not like to use correct terminology. What she does when she “dates” other men is precisely adultery, and if her husband were smart, he would divorce her civilly because of it (though they are not actually married). Jessie prefers the phrase, ethical nonmonogamy, which will have to be shortened into something that can be pronounced. [Does it sound akin to “Biblical Ethical Deceit”?] What ethics can there be for cheating—don’t date two men in the same night?
She and her nonmonogamous husband have agreed to be lifelong partners, but what happens if he finds another woman he prefers over her, or vice versa? What happens to that commitment? Publicly, no one is supposed to know about this arrangement. Really? How long will that last? She has a date night once a week with a man who is not her husband.
Jessie has advice for other women: “Talk to your partner about monogamy. Listen ‘without judgment.’ Keep, in all cases, an open mind.” Oh, yes, don’t be judgmental! Be anything else—an adulteress, for example—but don’t be judgmental! Don’t adhere to old-fashioned standards of right and wrong, godliness and unrighteousness, good or evil. Just make up your own morality as you go along. Abiding by objective standards would cause your mind to snap shut, no doubt.
Jessie’s behavior is reminiscent of a song recorded by Don Henley: “Everybody knows.” Two sections are:
Everybody knows you've been discreet
But there were so many people you just had to meet
Without your clothes and everybody knows….
But there's gonna be a meter on your bed
That will disclose what everybody knows
That situation did not work, either.
Those who do not know what they are saying shouldn’t be: