Loading...Are sex acts other than those between a man and a woman “unnatural”?
Very few people ever bother to reflect on what the term “natural” means or how one decides what an “unnatural might be – and what makes it unnatural. Almost everyone simply assumes that we each have a conscience; that our consciences basically tell all of us the same things; that there are some things we know are wrong, without needing anyone tell us; and – for a large segment of the population — certain gender identifications and sexual activities are simply “unnatural” and therefore “wrong.”
Sometimes arguments are invoked, but usually arguments are not actually thought out and reasoned; they are simply ad hoc constructions designed to convince people who are already convinced.
Most commonly, at least in the world I grew up in, the argument against same-sex relations, for example, was simply about the plumbing. Men aren’t made to have sex with men or women with women. It’s just kinda biologically obvious, right? Penises were made for vaginas.
The variant on that argument is
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Kudos for taking on a truly nuclear subject 😅.
I’m always sad when the “it’s unnatural” argument is weaponised against perfectly loving same-sex relationships so this is a very interesting read.
-Sam
I wish that my long time partner understood this before he passed last December. We could have spent our lives together free of guilt and religious trauma. Thank you, Sir.
As a retired Pastor, I’ve lost count of the number of sermons I listened to and read over the years from others all about the ‘four loves’, based on the book by C. S Lewis in 1960. The one usually emphasised is ‘Godly love’ which is the ‘agape’ you mention. Apparently it’s soooo perfectly unconditional, only God has it. Then I read D. A. Carson’s book ‘Exegetical Fallacies’ where he states that in the Septuagint, the word ‘agape’ is used in reference to Amnon’s incestuous rape of his half sister Tamar in 2 Samuel 13 (See Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, p.31). And in 2nd Timothy 4:10, doesn’t Paul talk about Demas forsaking him because he ‘loved’ (agapao) this present evil world? There are other places, too, where ‘agape’ clearly doesn’t mean what countless ministers, books, etc, claim it to be. Yet despite the facts, and numerous refutations from leading scholars, this nonsense still abounds. This is why I follow you, Dr Ehrman, because quite frankly, I’m tired of the eisegesis where ‘theologians’ start with their bias and then go to great lengths to support it (sadly fooling most people most of the time). Keep up the great work…we so need you!
I’m logged in, but this cuts off mid-sentence and ends abruptly at “the argument is”.
Ah, sorry ’bout that. Normally it’s easily fixable. Click on Help and ask for Support
Dr. Ehrman,
Thanks for trying to address this vexing topic.
I remember Benjamin Franklin writing of the benefits of age mismatched relationships as being similar to the ancient Greeks but from my memory his descriptions were heterosexual.
Many would find this founding father’s recommendation at least odd. Of course in my experience most people are convinced the founders were all Christians, something I have found to be untrue.
there was a rumor that a certain # of Philadelphia children were Franklins.
https://www.historyonthenet.com/fact-check-benjamin-franklin-had-dozens-of-illegitimate-children
I think, when we talk about what is natural or unnatural, we need to look at nature – animals, birds, reptiles, fish
. Does the subject behavior occur in nature? Then it is “natural”. If it does not occur in nature, it is unnatural. IMHO.
One problem philosophers have pointed out is that “nature” includes all living beings, and humans are among them. Each species has, of course, its oddities. I suppose if a woman bit off her lover’s head we would think that would be unnatural, but the praying mantises may not agree. 🙂
Dear saavoss,
I like the clarity of the approach you take and it has it’s place, however, if you look into the sexual varieties that exists in snails it limits the universality of your statement.
Indeed, saavoss! For example, this just in: Phys.org, July 10, 2023, “Study shows same-sex sexual behavior is widespread and heritable in macaque monkeys”
What is the likelihood that this view among the pagan elite (which itself waxed and waned in popularity over the centuries) filtered down into the Hellenistic bourgeoisie that was Paul’s target audience, though? I get the feeling having read Paul’s letters (1 Corinthians 5:1 comes to mind) that his middle-class pagan contemporaries were in fact quite sensitive to what could be deemed sexually deviant even by modern standards, and that one of the reasons he condemned homosexuality and sexual immorality was to ward off accusations from pagan critics. My guess is pederasty was an extreme form of patriarchal elitism that your average merchant (tentmaker, silversmith, etc.) would have less time or use for. Is that not correct?
My sense is that Paul did not have pederasty in mind. When I was in graduate school NT scholars widely argued that Romans 1 was about pederasty, but anyone who reads the ancient Greek accunts (e.g. Plato) and then Romans 1 realizes Paul is not talking about that. But I do certainly think that Paul was shocked that some Christians in Corinth (like the guy sleeping with his step mother) were out of bounds even by *pagan* standards.
If not pederasty, what do you think Paul had in mind Bart?
Men having sex with men, women with women. (That is, after all, what he says!)
Oh okay!
Hi Bart. I recently heard your interview with Alex O’Connor. You mention that it would have been illegal for the Jews (broad term) to kill Jesus for calling himself God if he did. Could the Sanhedrin condemn non-Roman citizens to death and carry out the sentence? How do we know if they were allowed or not? I read contradictory claims online.
Thanks!
It appears that Romans reserved capital punishment to themselves. (This I think is now the consensus view among Roman historians)
I subscribe to a weekly newsletter from ASOR. Among other things, this week’s issue posted a link to your book, Journeys to Heaven and Hell. https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300271041/journeys-to-heaven-and-hell/. Apparently this is the release of the paperback edition. I thought you’d find that interesting!
cool!
OK, “or your feeling toward your favorite New Testament blog. ” You caught me totally off-guard with that one! My sincere applause, sir!
This post touches on a very important concept that I think many, many people never consider. When I taught creative writing to high school seniors, an Indian student wrote a fascinating autobiographical essay about being promised to a boy she had never met through an arranged marriage. When she shared that concept with the rest of the class, the students were indignant at what they saw as the stifling injustice of the situation. Yet the writer herself defended both the practice in general and her parents in particular. “Why would I not trust my parents, who love me and want what is best for me, to make such an important decision for me? They have life experience and wisdom; I have only my feelings.” Her only concern was that she could not go to the prom as her parents feared her forming an emotional attachment to her date! It was a real lesson not everyone everywhere and “everywhen” shares our mindsets!
“Elite men who were socially, politically, and culturally “important” in the city would become lovers with pre-pubescent boys (from, say ages 12-16). This was seen as highly desirable for both parties.” I think they call this “exploitation” of the poor. It continues today, the sex trade or human trafficking, is often exploited by the wealthy on children/adults who come from poor families and are desperate for any kind of monetary reward. Oftentimes, the parents themselves sell their own kids for sex in return for money. I have lived where two highly regarded men used their power to indulge in their selfish desires with young boys who were homeless. That is sickening and abusive. These men were in their late sixties, and later were caught and exposed. Their business of some thirty years closed and their wives left in disgust and shame.This is the reality. What is natural? A man and a woman period. We would not exist in any other way. It’s a mammalian phenoma and anything outside of that is a fantasy and imagination of a perverted mind that needs help. I would doubt very much these boys became upright while being a sidekick to a sicko’s fantasy.
Yes, it certainly seems exploitative to us. The “boys” though were not from poor families: they were from upper crust elites and were destined to be the future leaders of government.
Bart, I believe on your podcast you mentioned that you are focusing on primary sources but I wanted to mention a book that I found engrossing Shame and Necessity by the now deceased philosopher Bernard Williams. Part of the topic of the book was to discuss how Greeks thought about ethics and morality. He looked not just at philosophers but also Homer and what can be learned looking at Greek drama. I am not an expert in this area but just wanted to mention it as something I found worthwhile.
Thanks. He was a highly erudite scholar.
Thanks for this post – quite interesting, to quote everybody’s fave British quiz show! A few questions, turning on the distinction between overt evidence for something versus any inference that something so “natural”, normal, widespread, even mundane may not be attested? :
1. Is there any NT or OT reference to any practice of pederasty – in a cultural context as in the post? Is it just one big “no comment” re whether it did or did not occur in Jewish society, let alone in Greek, or Roman or other non-Jewish societies?
2. What might the typical 1st century Jew have thought of this practice? Just a Greek thing? Something only for the elites? So obviously sinful & forbidden? Or just unremarkable?
3. Re the term “beloved” – any comment in light of the disciple whom Jesus loved?
1. Right — it’s never mentioned or referred to. 2. A crazily Greek licentious thing. 2. Not the same word. For pederasty it’s a form of the word EROS .
Be careful here. Aren’t you equating the attitudes and actions of a peculiar group of elite Greeks with all Greeks?
Me? No, I’m talking about a peculiar group of elite Greeks. (Among other things, the Spartans as a rule didn’t think much of this Athenian practice)
Re: “Spartans as a rule didn’t think much of this Athenian practice.” I remember reading in Paul Cartledge’s book The Spartans that Sparta had it’s own institution of “ritualized pederasty” in the training of it’s youth.
I’d be interest in knowing more about that. I’ve never looked into it.
I’m Greek and I’ve always wanted to kind of sort out the distinct meanings of these words (which I myself use quite often), and it took an American Professor of History to help me do that – so thanks for this I guess! Btw, it blew my mind to learn that “αγάπη” shows up that late!! Wow!
I’d only like to add that in modern Greek these words have changed a bit in meaning, apart from “έρως” (“έρωτας” the usual-spoken form) which to this day basically means exactly what you’re describing. “Φιλία” is “friendship”, but, in complex words (like “βιβλιόφιλος” [booklover]) it has a slightly milder tone in general. I think “αγάπη” maybe has changed the most: when we nowadays say “αγάπη” we tend to express a more profound feeling towards smn or smth, a deeply invested interest – I mean, I very frequently tell my dog “Σ’ αγαπώ!” [“I love you”], and, believe me, you can’t get deeper emotionally than that.
With regard to pederasty, I already knew the stuff you’re citing, and it never ceases to amaze me that modern Greek people really have no clue about it! If I post something about this, for example, I’ll get netmobbed.
Interesting. Thanks. The verb αγαπαω did have a wider range of usage in antiquity, but yup, apart from the LXX αγαπη was a Xn thing, and at least in the NT, is not generally used for a deep emotional connection….
Some Christians have said to me that Catholicism is not based on the Bible. This view is refers to a core tenet of Catholic thought: “Reason, informed by faith”.
In this view, “reason” is a gift from god and, therefore, to not use it would be sinful. Cue “Natural Law” theory. The fundamental good is that which strengthens society. Therefore, for example, murder is wrong because it destabilizes society.
My conclusion from my own formal but limited training in Catholic moral theory is that natural law does not get you very far before judgments not rooted in natural law are necessary to provide guidance in specific circumstances.
However, natural law “naturally” is bolstered by science. Another core tenet of Catholic thought is that true science cannot be at odds with the Catholic faith or God’s plan. It took until the 1990s, I believe, before the Catholic Church formally apologized to Galileo. The reversal on evolution came much more quickly.
I agree with Dr. Ehrman that cultural influences and historical circumstances influence our judgment of what is “natural” to a much higher degree than most people think.
I guess those Christians were not Catholic Christians! (Funny how so many evangelicals don’t think CAtholics are Christians. Yikes…)
A lot of them would view the Pope as the Antichrist too!
Catholicism absolutely includes the Bible in its teachings. Catholic Churches celebrate Mass daily and often several times a day, often 364 days a year. Each Mass includes an OT reading, a NT reading, and a gospel reading. The latter part of each Mass includes a re-enactment of the Last Supper.
That said, Catholicism doesn’t rely exclusively on the Bible in its teachings. Prayers and having a relationship with Jesus allow for ongoing guidance to believers, which is better than learning from ancient books.
Obviously this has been misused by church leaders, which led to Luther’s outrage and the rise of solo scriptura.
Solo scriptura would not have been viable in the early years of Christianity, since the NT didn’t exist. Many early believers were Gentiles, unfamiliar with even the Jewish Bible. Yet the faith spread quickly.
The Bible is not necessary to be a Christian, this form of idolatry is destructive and used to divide, not unite people in faith.
I’m an agnostic former Catholic, but the ignorant attacks against Catholicism still chafe.
Thank you for this clear view of these shifting sands between ages past and today. Morality certainly varies, even today, between what is considered right and what is wrong in diverse societies. It can be difficult to simply accept the values of the norms we were raised with and also to be open to the huge diversity in other cultures, then and now. That there is such a sliding scale is quite understandable, given that these things are not written in stone and are subject to specific geographical and historical places and times. Who are We to judge?
We as individuals must adhere to certain mores to avoid conflicts and even incarceration in our day. This does not mean that we should not study and research other ways of living. We may, maybe, attain a greater understanding of ourselves and others. There is a beauty in knowing that there is indeed a rainbow of these cultural shifts among peoples. We need not jump to judge others, they would also be appalled at some of the behaviors and beliefs to which we adhere, here and now.
Thank you for the clarity, B.
The argument that only one specific variety of sexual attraction and activity is natural stems, I would argue, largely from what I have called “unjustified universalism.” By this I mean both the idea that what is right for me is ipso facto the only right way for everyone, and the mistaken belief that what the most common variety is the only “natural” one.
In the West, this has been driven by a number of factors, particularly Christian discomfort with the idea of sex in general; witness continuing attempts to restrict it to procreation and the elevation, especially by the Catholic Church, of virginity above all other sexual statuses. If anything is unnatural, it is these positions, as shown by a multitude of contrary evidence, including, unfortunately, clerical sexual abuse.
Thanks for the column Dr. Ehrman. No comments yet ? I’ll wade in. Not sure what direction you were thinking comments might go, but having just listened to a segment of Fresh Air yesterday concerning intersex people I found your column timely. As a “woke”, cisgender, middle-aged male, I applaud any attempt to redefine what we humans have come to think of as ” normal” or “natural”. I assume we humans will continue to evolve and get beyond judging how consenting adults live out their sexual preferences. We can only hope
“ethical arguments based on what you yourself “know” is “natural” are really problematic.”
Yes, and it goes deeper than that. This all stems from the irrational prejudice so many of us harbor that “natural = good” and “unnatural/artificial = bad.” This naturophilic bias pervades not just sexual ethics, but other issues as well. We see it in what philosophers and political theorists have called “natural law” (which usually amounts to mistaking the laws of one’s tribe for the laws of the universe). We also see the bias in favor of the “natural” in terms of our food preferences (and marketers are all too aware of the selling power of the “natural” label). I’ve even talked to people who prefer to get high off “natural” drugs.
But ultimately, it’s absolute bullshit. There’s no evidence that natural things are more healthy for us than artificial things. Hemlock is natural and will kill you. Poison oak is not good for you. Aluminum contributes to Alzheimer’s disease and it’s on the periodic table (along with many other elements that will kill you!). The real question is why do we have this persistent prejudice that “natural = good”?
Wow I foresee some interesting interviews when this book comes out!
More about “agape”! I guess like a lot of folks I assumed this was a Greek concept. What is the Hebrew term? Can you provide an example in the OT? If you’re going to discuss this in your book I can wait.
It sometimes is used in the LXX to translate the Hebrew AHABA.
“Is sex dirty? Only when it’s being done right.” Woody Allen
James Davidson in Greeks And Greek Love argues quite strongly that at least in Athens eromenos was pursuit romantically but up to the age of 18 (fascinating topic how it was known what age someone was with that precision in those times) the relationship was not sexual. You stress the pre-pubescent age of eromenos while he argues it is more age 13-17 which are adolescent boys. Also today we associate pede- with children (as in pedophilia) but let’s notice the multiple meanings of words such as “boy” then as well as now. Having a “boy”-friend suggests by no means underage relationship despite the use of the word boy ordinarily meaning an underage man. The same way pede could have meant different things.
Well, I haven’t read DAvidson’s book. The sources generally do not mention an age limit but the signs of puberty. And as to it not being sexual — well, OK. Not sure how one can get *that* out of that texts. Read Plato’s Symposium and Phaedrus some time!
P.S.: I meant “bibliophile”!
Bart, I have been discussing Roman’s 7:15-25, which begins, “I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.” Based on your study of the text, is it clear to you if Paul was writing this about before or after he became a Christian?
It’s one of the most widely misunderstood texts of the New Testament, since modern readers simplly can’t read it without thinking that Paul is feeling terribly angst/guilt over things he can’t stop himself from doing — as many feel, for example, when they can’t control their sexual desires or their desire for drink or drugs, etc. This reading seems so natural to us, but it stems from the views of Martin Luther. For the past fifty years (starting with Harvard scholar Krister Stendahl, in his article “Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West) many scholars have realized that Paul is not actually speaking autobiographically at all (either from before or after his conversion). He is instead explaining how the person who does not believe in Jesus and get baptized is under the “power of sin” and is ocntrolled by it as a demonic force, and that the power can only be broken by baptism into Christ, being united with him in his death, as explained by Paul in the previous chapter (Romans 6). IN any event, yes, he’s referring to people PRIOR to conversion to Christ.
Paul writes in this fashion many times, correct? Where modern readers believe he is talking about himself but he is talking about other people in general.
Paul writes in this fashion many times, correct? Where modern readers believe he is talking about himself but he is talking about other people in general.
This is one of the outstanding places; off hand I can’t think of others.
Acc to Exodus 6-20, Moses was the issue of his father and that fathers aunt!
Yikes!
An old friend of mine used to say (I’m not sure whether or not the saying was original with him), “The only ‘unnatural act’ is one that cannot physically be performed.”
Ah, interesting point!
Bart,
Taking this in a different direction, the widespread and consensual practice of pederasty among elite men and young boys in 5th century Athens looks like pretty good evidence that social influences and expectations can actually cause homosexual behavior, i.e., sexual preference is highly malleable through social norms and not just determined by genetics. Do you agree with this conclusion based on the 5th century Athens evidence?
I don’t think it’s much of a slam-dunk argument against genetic disposition to sexual orientation, no. Everyone agrees that cultural factors play a role in sexual activities and discourse, and those are rarely the major issues in discussions of orientation.
One of the most unnatural things would be to not have sex at all. To carry the thought further, I am not sure that early or modern Christians would think being Christian to be natural.