Based on modern American pop culture morality, when it comes to people’s views concerning sex, pretty much anything goes. You can hardly watch anything on TV or at the movies where sex outside of marriage, of any variety, is not completely normalized. The same attitude is prevalent in the news media, in the business sector, in our public education system, and, sadly, even in many churches. In fact, it has become so normalized, that even the medical community that deals in that arena promotes a free sex ethos.
Modern Secular Professional Beliefs
The Association for Psychological Science (APS), previously the American Psychological Society, is an international non-profit organization whose mission is: “to promote, protect, and advance the interests of scientifically oriented psychology in research, application, teaching, and the improvement of human welfare.” This association publishes several professional psychological journals to help its members keep up with the latest research in psychology.
One of their journals is called Current Directions in Psychological Science. It is a bimonthly peer-reviewed scientific journal. The fact that it is peer reviewed means that professional psychologists evaluate and approve its articles before accepting them for publication. In these kinds of professional journals, nothing gets published that the association does not approve of. So, what exactly do they approve of?
Most secular scientific organizations have fully bought into naturalistic worldview beliefs – the belief that the natural universe, operating by natural laws, is all that exists. At the same time, they often deal with topics that cannot be actually demonstrated to have a scientific basis. That is particularly true when it comes to social sciences like psychology.
One of the regular contributers to Current Directions in Psychological Science is a man named Arash Emamzadeh. Emamzadeh, originally from Iran, attended the University of British Columbia in Canada where he studied genetics and psychology. He has also done graduate work in clinical psychology and neuropsychology in the U.S. Additionally, he maintains a personal psychology blog, and also writes for Psychology Today, another professional psychology magazine. Essentially, he is an academic, and there is nothing indicating he has any real world experience working with troubled individuals.
One of his recent articles in Current Directions in Psychological Science was titled, 5 Misunderstandings About Nonmonogamous Relationships. This article can be found at
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-a-new-home/202307/5-misunderstandings-about-nonmonogamous-relationships. Basically, in his article, Emamzadeh attempted to make the case that nonmonogamy for humans is perfectly normal, and that there is no serious downside to participating in any kind of activity involving multiple sex partners. He recognizes that society in general stigmatizes nonmonogamous behavior, but goes on to give his “researched” reasons why there should be no problem with it. In his article Emamzadeh listed his take on the five misunderstandings the general public has concerning nonmonogamy.
1. The “type” of person
Emamzadeh states that the kind of people who practice monogamy differ very little from those who practiced nonmonogamy.
2. Motivations
Emamzadeh’s take on the second misconception is that the motivation behind having more than one sex partner is often to “fix” one’s monogamous relationship. That is, people who do not remain faithful to their partner, do so as a means of making their relationship with their regular partner better. He also disputes that this is actually true.
3. Relationship Quality
The third misunderstanding of the general public is that consensual non-monogamous relationships are of low quality. The common view is that these multiple relationship lack the level of intimacy, love, trust, and commitment as monogamous relationships, and are, therefore, not satisfying. Emamzadeh, however, cites research that did not find any major differences in relationship quality between the two types.
4. Sexual Health and Spread of STDs
Emamzadeh’s evaluation of the public’s next misconception is that consensual non-monogamy more readily spreads sexually transmitted infections (STDs). He notes that this view may appear rational since these individuals tend to have more lifetime partners, which is associated with a greater likelihood of spreading and catching a sexually transmitted disease. However, he found that despite differences in the typical number of partners, both relationship types have very similar STD rates. (He comments, at this point, that the reason for that is that about one in four monogamous partners are “sexually unfaithful to their current partner.”)
5. Effects on Children
One last popular misconception is that consensual non-monogamy harms children – that people in consensual non-monogamous relationships are bad parents and put their own desires above those of their children. Emamzadeh’s finding was that having a parent in a consensual relationship with multiple partners does not seem to be uniquely harmful to children.
Conclusions
After listing his five misconceptions, Emamzadeh went on to draw his conclusion. First he noted that data from surveys in North America show that approximately one person in five (20%) is, or has been, in a consensually nonmonogamous relationship.
He then went on to state the reason he wrote his article.
“The aim of this piece has been, in part, to reduce stigma. To show that just because someone has an open relationship does not mean they are “worse” than the average person in important ways, uses this arrangement only to fix their monogamous partnership, has unsatisfying relationships, engages in unsafe sex, or is an irresponsible and unfit parent. … By adopting a less judgmental attitude, we can help empower people to find ways to express their relationship and sexual needs in consensual partnerships, even if these expressions differ from the norm. And to help them find love, happiness, and satisfaction. Isn’t that what we all want?”
Problems with Emamzadeh’s Article
It is interesting that Emamzadeh tries to use science to make his point. In truth, he has not done any science at all. Every bit of his “evidence” is based on polling and various surveys. Science is defined as the use of observation and experimentation in an attempt to understand things about the natural world. Polling and surveys are not science.
On one side of the equation, people’s psyche is not subject to scientific analysis. Using social science methodologies, you can discover trends and averages, but you can’t say anything about what people will do or think. Human free will cannot be scientifically analyzed in that way. On the other side of the equation, rather than making scientific pronouncements, Emamzadeh is making moral statements. Science will be practiced using a moral framework, but has absolutely nothing to say about what is moral and what is not.
So where, exactly, does he get the idea that it is his job, as a scientist, to “reduce stigma” regarding a moral issue? What standard is he using to determine what group of people are better or “worse” than others? Who has given him the authority to determine the rightness or wrongness of any “judgmental attitude” – as if he were the one determining what is moral and immoral?
What Emamzadeh is doing is not science at all. He is acting as a moral philosopher who is attempting to project his vision of sexual morality on society under the guise of science. In actual fact, he is a preacher of naturalistic philosophy, not a scientist.
The truth is, even if the information derived from his surveys does indicate that there is not a huge difference between the average monogamous and nonmonogamous person related to the five areas he spoke of, how does that show that nonmonogamy is okay? It doesn’t! He is basing that judgment purely on his personal preferences. There is no objective reasoning behind his conclusions whatsoever.
How Does That Compare to Christian Faith?
While Emamzadeh promotes a faith that uses only his own personal preferences as an authority source, the Bible shares a different vision with an entirely different authority source. His notions about morality are based on an underlying set of beliefs that deny the existence of God, or any transcendent reality. With that as a starting point, he must assert that God does not exist.
However, his starting point is based on false beliefs. Just because God can’t be demonstrated using the scientific method, it doesn’t follow that God doesn’t exist. The truth is, God does exist and He has revealed Himself in numerous ways. Everyone who is willing to acknowledge the spiritual part of reality, and the spiritual essence of their own personhood, can enter into a personal relationship with God and personally interact with Him.
As an expression of His revelation of Himself, God has also revealed the truth about morality. Specifically, He has revealed that sex is to be engaged only in a marriage between one man and one woman. Practicing nonmonogamous sexual relations is not only rebellion against God’s instructions concerning what is morally right, but is creating a situation that is destructive to the individual and to society.
You see, God had a particular reason for establishing the family structure the way He did. When He created human beings, He created two sexes that complete one another within the institution of monogamous marriage. Human reality simply doesn’t work properly with any other arrangement.
In spite of the fact that God created man and woman to be completed in a monogamous marriage relationship, we human beings suffer with a sin nature that influences us to often rebel against His ways. And when a different way of envisioning realty becomes prominent in society, we end up with the kind of philosophy that Emamzadeh promotes.
Emamzadeh fancies himself to be a scientist using science to promote his anti-biblical beliefs. But the truth is, he is not a scientist and is not using science at all. He is a preacher of naturalistic philosophy preaching his personal opinion about what is morally right and wrong.
© 2024 Freddy Davis