Rep. Wiener Has Raised an Inportant Question

This morning CNN continued with the sexual exploits of Rep. Wiener on the Internet. Other than the details, CNN raise an interesting question, "Is Tweeting cheating?"

Several people had opinions. All of them started from the position of the "absolute". That is, they gave their personal opinions without reference to any base. In actual fact those opinions were based on their previous training, their desires, their judgment, and the environment in which they find themselves. This is a very variable base on which to operate, especially from the present environment. For example, people from San Francisco and New York City have a completely different sexual philosophy than persons from small Midwest towns.

Because of the variability of "absolute" base, it may be more productive to think in terms of previously established rules. Such rules can change with changes in technology. For example, Jews and Muslims were denied eating pork for thousands of years. This was based upon the that pigs were generally infected with trichinosis, which wrecked havoc when transmitted to the human body . New technology has cleaned up the trichinosis problem, and we now have "clean" pork for human consumption. The fact that many segments of society retain the old restrictions is not especially relevant.

Conversely while technology can lead to a justifiable change in rules concerning physical situations, there is no technological change for psychological and theoretical considerations. The use of condoms, birth control pills, and medications to cure physical sexual diseases are now available, which allows more freedom in sexual practices with less physical risk. However, these mechanisms have no effect on the psychological aspects of guilt, lying, and the need for continued personal relationships on a broader "love" basis.

Jesus addressed these problems more than 2000 years ago. Many who read the first word of the sentence will be turned off for various reasons. Two of these are negative feelings from early childhood and present restrictions on personal liberty.

However those who can think more objectively, may wish to consider that humanity in general has agreed to Jesus' philosophy, as indicated by his sayings, some of which can be interpreted as "rules". Many do not accept this philosophy, usually for reasons specified above. But, the majority of society considers that this philosophy is still of value.

With respect to sex, I paraphrase Jesus saying that if a man looks at a woman with lust in his heart, he has already committed infidelity. This may sound a little harsh, if we gloss over the word "lust". For example if a man is thinking of having this woman in his bed for sexual intercourse, that is lust, and he is obviously infringing the rule. On the other hand, if he looks at a woman with appreciation of her stature and beauty, he is not lusting and is not infringing the rule. In essence, a man has control of his thoughts. As he wanders into the area of infidelity, he has the responsibility to correct that himself.

How is this related to Rep. Wiener's exploits on the Internet? We have no way of knowing what is in a man's mind. We only have an inkling, when we hear what he says verbally or see what he writes. These two give at least a hazy picture of his total philosophy and related aspects. The more he talks and the more he writes, the more we know. The details of Rep. Wiener's e-mails clearly indicate that he was thinking about physical sexual encounter with the recipients. Therefore, he has betrayed the 2000-year-old rule of sexual morality. He then must live with the consequences of societal judgment. If his party members and his constituents support his sexual immorality, then they also are contributing to further destruction of the 2000 year-old rule.

The question may then be raised as to whether the 2000 year-old rule is the same as the restriction against eating pork, and should be eliminated based upon new aspects of the society. However before scuttling the rule, consider first the aspects on which it was probably based. There are some key points. Man is attracted to women for sexual intercourse to reproduce humanity. In the reproduction aspect, certain emotional factors prevail such that man and woman stay together to raise the progeny. While socialistic governments work against this, man is imbued with this requirement. Man also requires a close companion for his emotional satisfaction, other than sex. Women fits this bill through her feminine emotional makeup, which involves love, caring, stability and all those other things which most of us appreciate as part of a satisfactory family life.

The fundamental question is then whether "family life" and all of its manifestations are worth continuing? Some may say that we can have both. That is, we can have a stable family life and complete sexual freedom in all of its forms. That approach is idealistic and impractical, since at least one primary member in every family has a desire for family life continuity. US society in general thinks the same or Rep. Wiener would not be on the pan for so-called rule infractions.

The bottom line is that Rep. Wiener must be relieved of his responsibilities. As a Representative, he is a leader in society. He has the power to lead either positively or negatively. A negative approach would be a further destruction of family values.