“31-Flavors of Love” © by Katrina J. Zeno, MTS
As so often happens, I had no intention of sitting down and writing a blog this week. And then a friend sent me a NYTimes article about “platonic marriages” [https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/01/fashion/weddings/from-best-friends-to-platonic-spouses.html] and an explosion happened in my brain, and well, here I am.
The NYTimes article, entitled “From Best Friends to Platonic Spouses,” appeared in its online edition of May 1, 2021. The article highlighted a new legal trend called “platonic marriages.” Here’s how platonic marriage is described in the article:
“Today some people are taking their friendship a giant step further: They are platonically marrying each other, vowing to never leave each other’s side for better or for worse.”
These new social and legal “units” are non-romantic, nonsexual arrangements, sometimes sleeping in the same bed, sometimes sleeping in different beds. They are perceived as stable, long-lasting partnerships that meet each other’s social, practical, psychological, and economic needs.
I remember the first time I bumped into this platonic partnership expectation in Tasmania. I’d just given a talk to young adults on “Why Male and Female?” (i.e., God’s plan for human sexuality as a total gift of self in love that includes the body and the one-flesh union), and a twenty-something woman spoke to me afterwards. She asked in a genuinely puzzled voice, “Why does sex have to be part of the [spousal] relationship?”
It took a few seconds for my brain to even grasp what she was asking. So much of my speaking and writing had been directed toward convincing people to only engage in sexual intimacy within the bond of marriage. It never occurred to me I would have to convince someone of the necessity of sexual intimacy within marriage or that someone would want an asexual marital commitment.
This was my introduction to the gender identities now commonly referred to as “asexual” (having no sexual feelings or desires) or “aromantic’ (having no desire for a romantic relationship). In a world where “Love is love” and therefore multiple flavors of love are not only possible but given legal status, this new expression of “best-friend love” can be seen as a logical and appealing way to share the project of life with someone. It provides long-term emotional and practical support and companionship without the drama that romance and sexual intimacy bring. Perhaps we could say it’s sharing the ice cream of life while deeming the ice-cream cone unnecessary.
This article, however, offered another nuanced flavor to platonic marriage, this time between partners who identify as pansexual. A person who identifies as pansexual experiences sexual, romantic, and/ or emotional attraction toward others regardless of their sex or gender identity. Within a platonic marriage, as already noted, personal connection and emotional intimacy are strongly valued, but romantic and sexual intimacy are left out.
Within a pansexual, platonic marriage, romance and sexual intimacy are outsourced. Each partner is free to date and be sexually involved with people outside the marriage. A psychotherapist interviewed in the article explained that “couples in this type of arrangement often find compatibility…without being blinded by romantic feelings. Many of these relationships…begin because the couple wants their family life separate from their romantic lives, as they don’t find their romantic lives to be stable” (emphasis added).
Sigh… I’d already encountered this split between sexual relationships and family life through my Spanish-immersion experiences. For generations, the machismo culture had enabled a similar split: it was commonly accepted for a married man to have mistresses where his sexual “needs” could be met, but his wife was the one he always “came home to,” that is, the one he built a stable, family life with. I’d also encountered the immense pain carved into a women’s core identity and self-worth through being expected to embrace this outside-the-home sexual relationships vs. the in-the-home stable, family life. These women had felt trapped by and resigned to this machismo “flavor” of love.
And now, at least in the way the NYTimes article reported it, this split between sexual love and family life was being upheld as a reasonable way to “stabilize” home and family life. In this sense, the “ice cream” is shared at home while the “ice-cream cone” of sexual gratification is sought outside the married partnership.
All this dovetailed with another commentary on sexual love, another “flavor” of sexuality, I’d encountered a week earlier.
I was walking along a canal path near my house, listening with great interest to “The Dhru Purohit Podcast” with guest Jamie Wheal. [https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/208-rethinking-god-sex-death-in-world-thats-lost-its/id1381257272?i=1000518176833&at=1l3vpUI&app=itunes&ct=LFV_1af84ddba564c7748f799f8255f539c0&ls=1&mc_cid=d4e31b7376&mc_eid=65b8e2d3c5] According to his bio, Jamie is an expert in peak performance and leadership, specializing in neuroanthropology – the intersection of culture, biology, and psychology – and the founder of the Flow Genome Project, an international organization dedicated to the research and training of ultimate human performance.
In the podcast, Jamie analyzed our current cultural distress as a crisis of meaning caused by generalized trauma. The solution, he said, was to restore meaning, and therefore global stability and greater interpersonal connection, by helping people move to a post-traumatic mode of being. Who could argue with that? I thought. We’ve all sustained losses and script changes prompting us to question the goodness of God and the motivations of mankind.
As a devotee of peak human performance, Jaimie wrapped much of his assessment in the scientific language of body chemistry and neuropathways, how these are affected by trauma, and how they could be rescripted or “healed.” Then he arrived at his specific strategies for moving humanity to global peace, tranquility, and inclusiveness, and I literally started hyperventilating. I had to stop listening and repeatedly raise my arms up and down in order to diffuse the trauma entering my body.
Based on his concept of sexuality as merely an aspect of evolution in which we are “puppets on a string,” (his words, not mine, to describe how our sexual impulses “pull our strings” and we obey them), he proposed harnessing the chemical and neurological states produced by sex and orgasm as a way to undo trauma. Since the brain activity resulting from sexual intimacy is similar to other advantageous neurochemical states that help the human organism be more actualized, he wanted to use sexual activity as a therapeutic intervention to cause healing, inspiration, and connection so individuals could progress to a post-traumatic state.
I hope you can see what’s being proposed here: Sexual orgasm, along with the chemical and neurobiological states it induces in our bodies and especially in the brain, are being isolated from any marital or even relational context and proposed as a “scientific means” for achieving global peace. Engage in sexual activity, access the chemical and neurological changes it produces temporarily in the body, use this “window of opportunity” to restructure one’s neurological pathways, and voila – the outcome will be global peace.
I couldn’t believe my ears. How could the interviewer take this proposal seriously? Didn’t he see the damage it would cause? And not only that, sex is not a mechanical process in which it can be assumed, “If I do A, B, and C, then every time the outcome will be D.” Rather, human sexuality is complex. It’s organic and relational by nature. There are factors that can’t be controlled and predicted because the body and relationships have novel inputs that can’t always be predetermined and accounted for and thus influence the outcome. Jamie’s approach seemed more like scooping out ice cream, putting it on a cone, and handing it to a customer for him or her to consume in order to create an altered state in the body. Repeat. And repeat again and again with the same expected outcome in Haiti, Nigeria, China, New Zealand, etc. – and the effects of global trauma will be healed.
But maybe Jamie’s not so far off the 31-flavors playing field. Maybe he’s simply adding another “flavor” to the varieties of love and sex already on offer, a flavor in which love and sex are divorced for technological benefits.
However, from the Biblical viewpoint, love and sex will always go together. God’s wise, beautiful, and sacramental design revealed through the human body as male and female (Genesis 1:27) and consummated through a total gift of self in love in the one-flesh union (Genesis 2:24) doesn’t change or evolve. God’s plan is God’s plan, which is even more fully revealed in Jesus Christ. But our culture has chipped away at it and is amassing new legal and ideological strategies to discard it, aided and abetted by “science” and technology.
How can we better understand this 31-flavors-of-love-and-sex mentality surrounding us today? I’d like to identify three cultural shifts, or revolutions, that have dramatically relandscaped Western culture in recent decades.
Revolution #1: Separating sexual intimacy from procreation: While it can be unfashionable in both Christian and secular circles to speak about contraception and its damaging cultural effects, I’m going to risk it. Why? Because contraception inaugurated a revolution – a revolution in which sexual intimacy was intentionally separated from procreation. As a result, sexual intimacy and sexual pleasure became mere activities unrelated to fertility. Just as one would not expect a baby to result from going to dinner or going to the movies, so, too, one no longer expects a baby to result from the activity of sex. Sexual activity is assumed to be sterile. [I first encountered this statement that sex is assumed to be sterile in Dr. Scott Hahn’s book, The First Society.]
Ice cream is assumed to be cold; sex is assumed to be sterile. This is our modern mentality, and the only one many young people know: Only if a couple decides they want a baby is the connection between sexual activity and fertility restored. A baby is the result of choice, not the natural fruit of marital love, because, after all, sexual intimacy is “normally” sterile. This is the thinking behind the oft-repeated statement that there’s no difference between two men having sex and a man and woman having sex. They are both sterile activities identified by what they share in common – sexual pleasure.
Revolution #2: Separating sex from love. Currently, we’re in the midst of another revolution, one standing on the shoulders of the contraceptive, sex-is-sterile revolution. This cultural revolution separates not only sex from procreation, but sex from love. In doing so, it overlooks the notion of marital love as unitive on every level and misapplies the concept of friendship love (what the Greeks called philia).
Just as Western culture previously asked, “Why do babies need to be part of sex and the emotional attachment it brings?” we are now asking, “Why does sex need to be part of love and the emotional attachment it brings?” In other words, we desire the emotional bond of friendship as the stable and organizing factor in our lives as partners, as a social unit, but we want to leave aside the (emotionally unpredictable) aspect of sexual intimacy. Thus, we have arrived at the flavor option of platonic marriage.
Revolution #3: Separating sex from relationality. Jamie, as an entrepreneurial “visionary,” takes this trajectory of separation a step further: Why not separate sexual orgasm from procreation, emotional love, and romantic sex and use its physiological benefits for the betterment of humankind? His logic fits perfectly with our cultural menu of individual sexual rights and the use of scientific findings to justify new interventions – in this case harnessing sexual activity and brain neuroplasticity as a gateway to higher consciousness and peak human performance. It is but another flavor in the ever-expanding options of love and sex, albeit a more technological one.
When and where, we must ask ourselves, will this redefinition and exploitation of love, sex, and marriage end? How many other flavors of marriage, love, and sexual activity – and their “intersectionality” – will we invent? And, I just have to say it, what about the children?
This whole utopian (or dystopian) view of sex, marriage, societal “unit,” romantic gratification, therapeutic sexual states, legal recognition and benefits, and the meeting of emotional, economic, and practical needs evolves primarily around adult “needs” and desires. Children seem to be an accessory, almost an afterthought once we have arranged our lives around our sexual and emotional desires and attractions (or lack thereof) and secured a legal right to our preferred arrangement.
In a global culture where sex and love come in many, many flavors, how does the next generation even learn what love and sex are? How does the word “marriage” even have meaning? We have thrown out the cone and watered down the ice cream to where it looks like a non-descript liquid that can be used for any number of purposes, and, in fact, put it into whatever shape fits the outcome we desire – whether that’s global peace or legalized, permanent roommates.
Crafting a strategy to respond to our new 31-flavors culture could be a blog (or book!) in itself. For the sake of brevity, I’d like to offer three suggestions aimed toward raising the next generation in a more stable view of reality. I like to call these the 3R’s: Recover, Reconnect, Resist.
1. Recover the value of committed friendship. Platonic friendships are the bedrock of society because they provide the foundation for a variety of bonds of belonging: parent to child, sibling to sibling, friend to friend, coach to athlete, teacher to student, pastor to parishioners, married couples to married couples, etc. However, in a mobile and digital culture, “friendships” like these are in danger of appearing and disappearing like a mirage. Committed friendships require effort, patience, and navigating the ups and downs of the unpredictable drama of life and the truckload of emotions they bring.
Being a committed friend is a skill that must be developed and practiced because it’s meant to last through good times and bad, sickness and health. Only through these ups and downs is the stability of a committed friendship formed, one that sustains and supports us through the years because we know we belong. We don’t have to create a new category of marriage to assure ourselves we won’t be alone on the journey of life, even if at times we feel alone.
2. Reconnect language with objective reality. Post-modernism, which is permeating our educational and legal systems, regards language as culturally constructed in order to safeguard the dominant power structures. Words such as marriage, sex, and love need to be overthrown and redefined since they enable a hierarchy of oppression and a fixed view of sexuality and societal organization. Young people are caught in a new war of words, where reconnecting language with objective reality (calling a man “he” or defending marriage as between only a man and woman) is a quickly becoming a criminal offense.
Especially for Christians, comprehending reality as constructed rather than created is baffling. The post-modern interpretation of language as the way we create reality is the polar opposite of Biblical revelation. The Judeo-Christian heritage regards language as the means to encounter and communicate reality as it is. Humans don’t construct reality; God created reality and invites us to participate in God’s wise and intelligent design woven into nature. From Genesis to Revelation, Biblical language expresses God’s desire as Creator and Redeemer to be in relationship with us and to lead us to a fully-flourishing human life as male or female. The Word became flesh and remains flesh in Jesus’ glorified body to draw us into intimate relationship with God through the Word and to reveal the permanent and unchanging structure of reality and its ultimate fulfillment in Trinitarian Love.
In contrast, the next generation is being told to deconstruct reality and replace it with an evolutionary paradigm where words and language are used to reshape and redefine reality. As a result, marriage, sex, and love must be reconstructed to be more inclusive and fluid. While it’s difficult and very uncomfortable, we have to help the next generation understand and embrace the objective significance of language, which allows us to articulate the permanent and unchanging structure of reality as it is and not as we want it to be.
3. Resist the technological imperative. Even though you may not be familiar with the phrase “technological imperative,” you are most likely familiar with its meaning: If technology can accomplish something, then do it! Western progress is measured by our ability to investigate and harness scientific and technological knowledge to extend control over the natural world and its processes.
The upcoming generations, who have cut their teeth on iPads and in-pocket instant entertainment, often take this for granted: Why wouldn’t you use hormonal implants to control one’s fertility or eliminate menstruation altogether? Why wouldn’t we make IVF available to anyone who wants a child? Why wouldn’t we change the hormonal composition and bodily structure of a boy who desires to be a girl? If science and technology can do it – and it’s not against the law – then full steam ahead! And if it is against the law, then we need to change the law so more options are available to everyone. Technological solutions are wooing our young people to expect a life without limits or losses because anything now seems possible and permissible. It’s our task to facilitate normal limits and the emotional maturity that comes with facing and accepting both limits and losses.
Recovering the value of committed friendship, reconnecting language with objective (and divinely-created) reality, and resisting the technological imperative may seem miniscule ways to counteract the new flavors of love and sex increasingly entering our social and legal lives. However, they are ways every person can impact his or her own life and those in one’s closest circles of influence.
Just as calling an ice cream cone a popsicle does not make it so, in the same way, applying the term marriage to platonic friendships, homosexual partnerships, or couplings of gender-spectrum identities does not make them a “marriage.” The distinctive structure and specific composition of marriage distinguishes it from any other kind of friendship or partnering. Marriage is an abiding bond of friendship, established as lifelong and exclusive through the marital vows, and nourished by the sexual gift of self that is life giving. To deconstruct its structure and composition is to be left with a melted medley of assorted flavors on the floor of Western civilization that no longer serves the authentic good of individuals, children, or our common life together.
There’s a wise and beautiful reason why God created us male and female and called us to union and communion. Perhaps this is the revolution we – and the NYTimes – should be fighting for.