Sexual morality

Secular society bombards us with assumptions about morality and science that are untrue and unhealthy to adopt. Here are some popular assumptions, followed by an explanation of the truth.

​1. Assumption: The Torah is out of date. How can a document 3-millennia old possibly relate to sexual morality today? People inherently know better.

This can’t be. Without the Torah, what would prevent a society from perverting and twisting right and wrong? As we see over and over throughout history, society can easily make evil acts seem good and vice versa. Take Nazi Germany, for example. Nazi camp prison guards who were exterminating Jews were convinced they were doing what was right. After work they went home to help their children with their homework. When society lacks the input of the Torah and objective religious morality, it can easily corrupt people’s sense of right and wrong including their understanding of sexual morality. The many sexual scandals that have rocked the world over the last decade, attests to man’s need for objective moral standards, particularly when it comes to sexual behavior.

​2. Assumption: Human beings have the power to know their true authentic selves and identity, even if this defies empirical observation.

According to this secular assumption, it is our thoughts and feelings that tell us who we are, even more than objective fact or physical reality. “I think therefore I am”, Descartes wrote at the beginning of the 17 th  Century. We now see the consequences of such beliefs in young people who have no actual exposure to these underlying philosophies, but who nonetheless claim, “I am gay”

and then demand to be believed even if they cannot provide credible evidence, even if their identity choice is clearly based on misinformation, and even if they don’t actually have any prior sexual or relationship experience.​

With the belief that humans can know their authentic Self outside of objective reality, we can understand why it can seem immoral and egregiously offensive for anyone else to question a person’s perception of themselves. A challenge to their supposedly authentic behavior or choice of identity term, can be seen as an attack on their very personhood. In fact, even implying that, at some point, they did in fact choose to identify themselves using the term “gay, lesbian or trans etc.”, can be construed as deeply offensive.

Though it sounds like a very new belief in our culture, popular artists and intellectuals over the last few centuries have proposed exactly this – that if people just “clear the static” of elite society’s unreasonable expectations, they can discover and know their true selves in a way that no one else can.

In Judaism, mankind simply does not have the authority to easily know their core Self. As Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, “The Lubavitcher Rebbe” wrote: “On his own, a person is not objective in evaluating his own characteristics. A person’s inclination and his own innate, materialistic nature and self-love often will “bribe” an individual into a distorted view of his negative traits.” It is a person’s job to discover their unique purpose of being in the world through the actions we take to improve it, but it is only G-d who knows and who determines our core identity.

​3. Assumption: Our sexual feelings are a true reflection of our authentic identity.

This belief has also been simmering for several centuries but is most explicitly referenced in Freud who famously wrote: “The behavior of a human being in sexual matters is often a prototype for the whole of his other modes of reaction in life.” Popularized even more by the sexual revolution and LGBTQ propaganda, the belief in the centrality of our sexual feelings as defining our Core Self or Identity is deeply ingrained in our culture and is often just presumed to be accurate. When made explicit, however, it is easy to see just how incompatible it is with Jewish values and beliefs, which sees sexual feeling as just one part of our whole self and as a

means to a greater end, but not as a value in and of itself. One’s core identity is one’s precious Jewish neshama (soul).

​4. Assumption: Given the centrality of sexual feelings and self-actualization, those people or systems who discourage this, even in their thoughts, are cruel, neurotic and immoral.

This assumption helps us understand how so many people, including religious Jews, are not just reluctantly or apologetically coming out as gay and expressing their same-sex feelings, but are doing so proudly with strong moral conviction, often accompanied by patronizing expressions of righteous indignation.

It explains why religiously devout people might support their loved ones or community member’s “coming out” and even publicly celebrate them. They do not want to be seen as immoral. People who “come out” can now justify their behavior as Jewishly moral, even if it is clearly prohibited on a legal level. And since they see their behavior as morally virtuous, it does not matter if their closest friends and family members are offended by it. Even if it clearly risks harming their future physical health, future family and psychological wellbeing, the importance

of sexual self-actualization is implicitly understood as the highest moral value.

5. Assumption: The values of authenticity and sexual self-actualization are even more virtuous than the sexually restricting religious values of modesty and self-restraint, which were designed by the “elite leadership class” to oppress, exploit and inhibit people’s nature.

According to historian Carl Trueman in his book, “The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self”, secular society no longer just preaches “It’s not cool to be so religious” as it has for many centuries, but rather, “we have a different religion and it is better than traditional religion”, a philosophy popularized by many beloved writers, artists, psychologists and taste-makers over the last several centuries, but which is now widely integrated within the highest echelons of society, including within established medical, academic, social-service, governmental and religious institutions. Many people, however, are led to adopt this belief implicitly in their speech and behavior, but without explicitly knowing the underlying value that it is based on.

​6. Assumption: Individuals and groups who are judged or excluded by a majority “leadership class”, are victims and are therefore inherently virtuous, no matter who they are and how they behave:

This assumption explains how religious people are now sympathizing and celebrating gay- identified people even if they are public about their sexual behaviors. The LGBTQ movement has managed to automatically and blanketly stamp all of their members as “victims”, who are by-definition oppressed by religious society, making them virtuous just for their chosen identity

terms alone, no matter how they actually behave. Religious individuals and groups are automatically and blanketly stamped as “oppressors”, unless they actively fly the rainbow flag on their churches and synagogues or loudly profess their love and acceptance of LGBTQ+ members—all to avoid suspicion. Other common words for “oppressor” include “homophobe”, conversion therapist”, “racist” and “bigot”.

The widespread and implicit adoption of this assumption can explain why—even in the most traditional religious communities—people are known to immediately side with those who claim they are any of the LGBTQ +letters, including if they behave provocatively and disrespectfully, and if they are spreading their religious vehemence to others.

​7. Assumption: It is morally virtuous for people to discover within themselves their inherent and authentic non-heterosexual “queer” interests—even if they have to work hard at it or explore different kinds of sexual relationships to see what feels best—as a way to actualize their core self and reject society’s oppressive heteronormativity. A person who holds back on this self-exploration because they are exercising self-restraint or because they are not interested, is considered “a prude” and is doing something immoral.

This extreme belief is now explicitly taught to children in many public educational settings. It is being picked up by children and teens even in the most religiously insular communities. According to this view, it is no longer enough to fully actualize one’s non-heterosexual feelings. It is now an ethical requirement to search hard for one’s “natural non-heterosexuality” within oneself, since it is shameful to become part of the oppressive “heterosexual order”, a particularly damaging recommendation given the inherent aimlessness of sexual energy, which is especially flexible at younger ages. This explains the popularity of pornographic books in children’s libraries, Drag Queen hour at public libraries and the suggestion made by teachers that it is good for children and teens to explore sexual relationships with all types of people in order for them to know who they really are.

Further, even if a child cannot find any non-heterosexual desires within themselves, they are still invited to call themselves “queer”—an identity term that is completely devoid of actual meaning—but which allows people to nonetheless behave in various norm-disrupting ways and closely align themselves with their “sexual minority” peers.

​8. Assumption: Judaism is either wrong in condemning same-sex behavior, or it makes an exception to allow for the actualization of our inherently natural desire.

To say that explicit Torah laws are wrong, is obviously a conversation stopper. But to say that Judaism supports any other sexual relationship outside of heterosexual marriage, or that it “looks the other way”, also can’t be true because heterosexual marriage is the literal bread and butter of the Jewish faith. Further, if Judaism were to allow for the expression of one’s “natural sexual interests”, then any of the sexual prohibitions—incest, pedophilia, bestiality or premarital sex—would be completely meaningless because each of these can be considered “natural” to different groups of people. Further, if “natural” would justify doing a sin, then one could argue that many things are natural, such as sleeping with one’s family members, eating pork, robbing or not keeping Shabbos.

​9. Assumption: Sexual preference or sexual orientation is genetically determined, just like skin color. Trying to change something genetically predetermined cannot work any more than a person can erase his skin color.

People may have notable and recurring sexual preferences for various types of men, women, situations and even objects, but there is no evidence that these are biological, immutable and a reflection of one’s core Self or intimate relationship potential. In fact, all the scientific evidence refutes this possibility. Even feelings and behaviors known to have a much clearer and stronger biological “influence” are still not considered biologically determined and immutable.

The belief in sexual preference being caused by biology and being immutable is a fictional belief advanced by the gay movement and then reinforced by the media and by a wide array of cultural institutions for financial and social gain.

Changing a person’s “sexual orientation” or involuntary sexual preferences isn’t something that is necessary nor possible. Rather, according to Judaism and the psychotherapy profession, it is the responsibility of each person to try and practice self-restraint for any out of control compulsive behavior, sexual or otherwise. A society that encourages compulsive sexual behavior would very quickly cease to exist. If the fantasy or desire is in a person’s control, then there is nothing problematic.

When it comes to non-heterosexual preferences, a therapist or mentor’s goal should be to: (a) help people not define themselves by these preferences, (b) help the person dial down on compulsive sexual-urges, which go against their values and which cause conflict or distress, and (c) to make sure that a person doesn’t confuse their sexual fantasies with their potential to have meaningful and satisfying relationships with compatible people whom they actively choose to be with.