Perhaps we would be better mammals if we were not “made” this way, but surely nothing could be sillier than having a “maker” who then forbade the very same instinct he instilled.
It is hard to imagine that the sex drive as we know it existed in Garden Eden. Even though God says to His creation be fruitful and multiply before the fall, the way Adam and Eve would have multiplied in Garden Eden is unknown.
Seraphim Rose, in his book on Genesis, defends a similar view. He writes that after the fall, it is written that the woman will have pain during childbirth. From this, Rose concludes that there even might have been a physical change taking place after the fall. We also read that Adam and Eve were naked and not ashamed before the fall.
In the commented Catholic Vulgate-German edition of the Bible by Joseph Franz von Allioli, later updated by Augustin Arndt, one footnote in response to Lev. 15:18 explains that since the fall, the natural use of sexual reproduction has a sort of uncleanness about it, and further adds that this has been the view of other major ancient people like the Indians, Arabs, Greeks and Romans as well. Even though conjugal intercourse is not likened to sin anywhere in the Bible, it is mentioned as the first deed of fallen man leaving paradise (Gen. 4:1).
In the New Testament, Christ says that in the resurrection, they will neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven (Matth. 22:30). Christ also never says be fruitful and multiply. There are more verses that suggest celibacy. See also Ruminations of a Low-Status Male, Volume 2: Celibacy and Hypergamy as well as the Orthodox Church’s view on marriage above.
My own view aligns with the above. The reason for the existence of sexuality and lust is most likely that otherwise, no one would bring children into this world. A similar thought occurred to Schopenhauer.
Maybe in Garden Eden, one would have “procreated” by pure reason alone, since existence might have seemed to be simply preferable to non-existence. After all, Schopenhauer famously asked, in his Parerga and Paralipomena, (paraphrased) “who would be so cold as to bring someone into this world if it were done by an act of pure reason alone?” It seems at least plausible for me to think that in Garden Eden, this wouldn’t even have been a question.
Even Aquinas—I’m far from being a Thomist—famously wrote malum ut in pluribus.
See also Wisdom of Solomon 7:1-2.
Not to mention that there is no logical link between sex and procreation. I have no source for this, but years ago I read that some primitive tribes did not even make the connection. Even if this turns out to be false, the fact remains that this was seen as likely, and I hardly see the relation myself. Especially since we see sex as sinful or at least shameful, and a new-born baby as pure and innocent. This is a topic that needs more investigation. So far, only Schopenhauer touched this topic in a mature manner, but he was not a Christian. Kierkegaard briefly mentions it, in his journals mostly. I guess it is futile to try to get people to be honest about our lowly origins.
Christopher Hitchens, too, agrees that we would be better people if the Fall had not sexualized us — he phrases it differently, obviously.
From god is not Great (p. 214) (via Vox Day’s The Irrational Atheist, quoted there on page 170):
Perhaps we would be better mammals if we were not “made” this way, but surely nothing could be sillier than having a “maker” who then forbade the very same instinct he instilled.
Another point to be made is that we read in Genesis 8:21 that man’s heart is evil from his youth, and this is, of course, the phase where puberty and our sexual desire begins.
Gómez Dávila:
Serious books do not instruct, but rather demand explanations.