Food, Human Nature, and Sex

A few months ago, I embarked on an exercise plan that focused on weight-training.  In order to maximize the effects of the exercise, I have tried to eat more and more properly.   I sought out advice from trusted exercise-nutrition sources and books, and was actually surprised by what I was reading.

To summarize, it is obvious that the human body is designed to consume animal products like raw milk, meat, and eggs.  In addition, the human body is also designed to consume vegetables and fruits (mostly vegetables).  What is becoming more clear is that the human body struggles with consuming too many grains (of which our government wants us to consume 7-10 servings a day!!).  So, while our body can handle significant portions of animal products, we are told to limit animal products because they are "high in fat".  In the meantime, even though too many grains cause our bodies many problems (not the least of these obesity), we are told a "healthy" diet is eating more grains than anything else.

In terms of anatomy and physiology, there are three macro-nutrients: carbohydrates (which provide energy in the form of the simple sugar glucose), proteins (which are responsible for cell-building), and fats (which help viscosity between organs, muscles and other soft tissues, and stores excess energy).  Of the three, one is deitarily dispensible: carbohydrates.  The body can break down proteins and fats into glucose, if there are no carbohydrates available.  Sources of protein and fats are usually high in other nutrients that the body needs, while most available sources of carbohydrates lack essential nutrients (this is why we have "enriched" flour).  Thus, an individual that consumes only fats and proteins with a significant amoung of vegetables, can be quite healthy and meet all their dietary needs.
Here we have "science" competing against itself.  On the one hand, the local health-food store will rail against animal products and saturated fats and the like, but on the other, will admit that animal protein is the most complete and most readily used by the human body.  Similarly, on the one hand, certain groups (okay, the breakfast cereal industry) decry eggs as heart-unhealthy, and deadly, while others will acknowledge that while eggs are high in cholesterol, it is not all bad cholesterol and eggs do have a significant amount of good cholesterol (HDL), thus making eggs a healthy choice. 

I have never been known as a "health food junkie".  Sure, both my parents (well, my mom actually), and my wife's parents cooked at the least low-fat foods regularly (my wife's parents more so than mine).  In college, I wasn't as particular as I could have been, but I wasn't bad by any means.  As a married man, and as a father, money constraints more than anything have limited not only what I ate but how much of it as well.  Still, I have had my issues with food choices.  I can say with complete honesty that I have made excuses for my proclivities, using whatever research or study or whatever to ensure that I could continue my chosen path for no other reason than I liked eating the foods I was eating.  When I realized what I was doing, inspite of what it was doing to my health, I was able to see the following very clearly.
The situation is a simple one: we, as human beings, are gifted with an intellect, and FREE WILL.  We choose to eat what we want, in light of (or inspite of) what our bodies are telling we can and cannot eat.  We will even attach ourselves to eating styles/preferences that we know aren't really good for us, but man do they taste good.  On the converse, we will attach ourselves to a movement which rejects anything stated to the contrary and is illogical, simply because we want it to be true (or we like the company we keep with others who believe the same thing).

This is a consequence of a human's innate FREE WILL and intellect.  We are able choose our own actions, regardless of whether it is right or wrong.  We are free to reject that which is good for that which is ill.  We will defend our actions because we chose to do them, even when such a defense is illogical, false, or delusional.

Just has humans refuse to listen to their bodies when it comes to food, they will refuse to listen to their bodies when it comes to sex.  Humans aren't born eating.  They have to learn how to eat (babies learn how to nurse from their mothers...they don't just do it).  As they get older, they choose when to eat, what to eat, and how much of it to eat.  Eating becomes a matter of the will, and is subject to it.  No man is going to eat that which he has decided he will not, nor is any man going to put down that which he has decided he doesn't want to.  The same is true with sex.  Sexual intercourse is a matter of the will, not instinct.  Human beings consciously choose when and with whom to engage in intercourse.

In the world of human anatomy and physiology, the primary function of the sexual organs and their peripheral support systems is reproduction, which can only be done between a man and a woman.  For men, climax is (normally) the release of sperm, which contain his half of the genetic code, hopefully to be united with an egg from the woman he is supposed to be with.  For women, the stages of sexual arousal create a situation within her body to allow the man to enter easily and for most of the sperm to stay inside and increase the chances of her egg (if there is one) being fertilized.  Climax for her actually creates a uterine situation that would push the sperm up further.  At the same time, the body releases certain chemicals during climax for men and women that create a sort of chemical bond between the person they are with during their sexual experience.  Sex, then is geared to procreating AND unifying the couple doing the procreating (seems like an ingenious way of getting the child's parents to stay together).  Worth noting,though, is that not all sexual climaxes are pleasurable, so pleasure has nothing at all to do with the nature of sex. Climax, not pleasure, produces the "chemical bond" between partners, which is stronger than pleasuer.  It doesn't matter who the person is with, why they are together, or what they do, the above is true regardless.  All sexual acts have the same physiological goals: reproduction and unity.

Science, again, is competing against itself.  On the one hand, many scientists want to say that a sexually liberated attitude is perfectly healthy.  On the other, some psychologists are noticing a disturbing trend in depression and suicide rates among women who sleep around.  Again, many scientists urge that homosexual relationships are normal and perfectly healthy.  Yet, it is well known and documented that active homosexuals have more health problems, do not live as long, and have higher suicide and depression rates than their heterosexual counterparts.

Just like the situation with food, the situation is simple: humans are gifted with FREE WILL.  It is this FREE WILL that allows us to engage is sex with whomever we want, when we want, why we want to.  Like our apettite for food, we will often reject what we know to be true because it feels good for us.  Like many people simply refuse to acknowledge that their dietary choices are influencing their health problems, many people also refuse to acknowledge their sexual choices are likewise detrimental.  In ways similar to dietary partisans, sexual partisans will reject any and all facts that disprove their chosen appetite.

The Sanctity of Marriage: Abraham and Sarah

I normally devote my other blog to matters religious, but I decided to break with protocol tonight.

It has been a while since I read the OT so I decided to refresh my memory.  Tonight, I read about the account of Abraham and Sarah in the land of Gerara, where Abimelech saw Sarah and took her as his wife (although he already had at least one).  Scripture tells us that God appeared to Abimelech in a dream, and warned him not to touch Sarah, for she was already married.  Now Abimelech didn't know this, and so God warned him about it, giving him a chance to do the right thing.  What does this account tell us about marriage?

First, let us consider Abraham's request of Sarah: "Say, therefore, I pray thee, that thou art my sister: that I may be well used for thee, and my soul shall live for thy sake."  This is from his exhortation when the went to Egypt, but he used the same ploy when they went to Abimelech.  It seems to me that Abraham values his life over the sanctity of his marriage to Sarah.  In fact, what is Sarah to him that he is willing to have her treated as a concubine to serve at the whims of a king (two kings, in fact)?  Abraham is not the only one at fault here.  Sarah agrees, both times, to be used for another man's pleasure so her husband can live.  Now, I can see the whole life and death thing, to be sure.  Having one's life threatened is a pretty serious thing.  But what of this "that I may be well used for thee" thing Abraham says?  What does the Bible say about that? "And they used Abram well for her sake.  And he had sheep and oxen, and he asses and she asses, and menservants and maidservants, and camels."  He wasn't just trying to save his own life, he said "that I may be used well for thee", meaning he meant to profit from her beauty! 

It should be clear that Abraham and Sarah either A) didn't understand the whole "man shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh" thing, and B) if they did, they valued life and property over each other.  Enter God.

We know God is Unchanging.  Because God is unchanging, so are His Laws.  The decree against adultery wasn't Revealed until the Decalogue was given over 500 years after Abraham.  This doesn't mean that adultery wasn't sinful, just because it wasn't revealed.  God punishes Pharoah for this action, causing Pharoah to suspect that Sarai is Abram's wife.  Consider the words God uses with Abimelech: "Lo, thou shalt die for the woman thou hast taken: for she hath a husband."  God is willing to punish Abimelech with death for his adultery, which, coincidentally, is the same punishment for adultery in Leviticus.  There is more, however.  Abimelech professes not to have know that Sarah was married, and so acted innocently.  God responds: "And I know that thou didst it with a sincere heart: and therefore I withheld thee from sinning against me, and I suffered thee not to touch her."

God is acting to prevent an innocent man from sinning so greviously against Him, such is His  His forceful adherence to the concept that the marriage bond is sacred.  He would not let Abraham and Sarah's marriage bond be desecrated.  What is even more interesting in this is that God wouldn't let Sarah or Abraham commit this act of adultery, although they were perfectly willing to do so.  To me, this indicates 1) the importance of the marriage bond to God, and 2) God's tremendous mercy.

St. Paul talks about Christ and the Church in terms of a Bridegroom and Bride, clearly indicating that participating in Holy Matrimony is partaking, in a veiled way, the Life of Christ.  God retrofits that sanctity, that meaning in Genesis by preventing Sarah from violating her marriage bond with Abraham.  He protects the Sacrament even before His Son assumes Human Nature and becomes True God and True Man, even before the Sacrament is instituted on Earth.  This is huge.

God's infinite mercy is also at play here.  He acts to prevent His prophet and his wife from gravely sinning.  Not only that, but He prevents two Heathens from greatly offending Him, as well.  This is also huge.