Lechery and Its Fruits

The so-called sexual revolution has given to the culture more than it bargained for. At least that’s what I thought as I watched Paul Janka being interviewed on NBC’s “Today Show” on Monday (see video, Rated PG).

Janka is a case-study in sexual libertinism gone to seed. He is a self-confessed “Cassanova” who claims over 100 “conquests,” and now he’s telling other guys how to do the same. Here’s how Janka says he approaches “dating”:

“Let me say I have a dual aim when I spend time with a woman: to have fun and to maintain my integrity as a man. Maintaining my integrity means honoring what I want in the process and not being manipulated by a woman’s agenda. This has to be an active process because I’ve found that women in the City – consciously or not – operate by a societal script that doesn’t incorporate my interests as a man.”

Now this is astonishing. Masculine integrity has nothing to do with truth, rightness, or even what one’s obligation is to one’s fellow man (or in this case woman). Rather, Janka turns his “integrity as a man” into a prop for his own self-centered desires. He does it with a straight face and in a forum that implies his behavior is in the cultural mainstream.

What was remarkable about the interview, however, was the inability of anyone to make a definitive condemnation of Janka’s behavior. Meredith Vieira gave hints that she disapproved of his behavior, and a “sex addiction” therapist was brought in to show that Janka’s exploits could possibly be hurtful to women. Junka’s response was simply to say that he’s up-front with his intentions and that the women he “dates” are on board with his lechery.

Janka styled himself as living out authentic manhood, and neither Meredith Vieira nor the therapist could express an ounce of moral outrage, even though it seemed to be simmering beneath the surface. Their secularism and moral neutrality gave them no resources for doing so. In a culture that says that the only moral requirement of human sexuality is that it occur between consenting adults, there really isn’t any consistent basis for censuring Janka.

How different all of this is from the ideal of manhood presented in the Bible. The paradigm of masculine integrity in the scriptures is King Jesus, who for love set aside his own rights and privileges in obedience to His Father and who laid down his life for His bride (Philippians 2:5-8; Ephesians 5:25). Likewise God intends marriage as a reenactment of Christ’s love for his bride. Just as Christ lays down His life for His wife, so husbands are called to lay down their lives for their wives.

Would that Janka might see another ideal of manhood—the one that was embodied by Jesus Himself, who alone can free men from the enslaving moral confusion of our day.

18 Responses to Lechery and Its Fruits

  1. Carlito December 11, 2007 at 10:23 am #

    Man, this is tragic. And I’m also confused about this because wouldn’t it seem as if he’s blowing his cover? I mean, there had to be a lot of women watching that program. And the more word spreads about his “game” on the posts and articles like this, the more he’ll be recognized by those he’s trying to lure.

    As with the woman at the well, I pray God intervenes and reveals to him where true satisfaction, peace and joy are found.

    I was also reminded of this verse….
    Prov. 14:12
    “There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.”

  2. Andrew Walker December 11, 2007 at 10:35 am #

    Denny, thanks for the post. This just shows the duplicitous nature of libertinism coupled with secularism. We decry morals and demand our righteous choice but then decry the very freedoms we demand when they are tempered by such acts as these.

  3. MatthewS December 11, 2007 at 2:10 pm #

    Andrew, I would say rather that the problem is “flesh” vs. “Spirit.” Even though the terms flesh and Spirit are from Galatians, the same sort of idea is present here.

    Col 3 talks about this sort of thing. Paul was writing to people who had once lived immoral lifestyles, perhaps in the very recent past. What he told them was (from Col 3):

    “5Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry.”

    Instead, they should now: “…clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. 13Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. 14And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.”

  4. MatthewS December 11, 2007 at 2:48 pm #

    oops, I goofed up the first paragraph. I intended to link the “flesh” and “Spirit” ideas to Col 3 even though the terminology is from Galatians 5. Same basic ideas. Colossians talks about taking off and putting on, as well as death and resurrection.

  5. Bradley Cochran December 11, 2007 at 3:09 pm #

    This cassanova is not necessarily “luring” innocent women. If they give consent to his wishes to sleep with them without a marital commitment, then it is what it is: *Free Consent to Sex Without Real Commitment*. That’s what pre-marital sex is: the pleasure of sex without long-term commitment. If the woman does not want sex without commitment, she should wait till someone is willing to marry.

    He’s not making women do anything they don’t want (they consent, it’s not rape), nor is he making any verbal commitment before sleeping with them (there was no question that he DOES NOT tell them he has plans on marrying them). It’s the woman’s fault if she get’s an emotional hangover the next day.

    I don’t see how someone without an objective moral standard to which they might appeal (like, say, the Bible) could logically accuse this guy of bieng morally repulsive. Maybe the women who try to put him on a guilt trip for not wanting a “commitment” are more to blame than he is, for they are commiting a double crime: Sex Without Marriage/Commitment as well as putting their consenting partners on a guilt trip when they don’t get what they wanted out of it.

  6. Denny Burk December 11, 2007 at 3:17 pm #

    Bradley (in #5),

    You said: “It’s the woman’s fault if she get’s an emotional hangover the next day.”

    Certainly, both man and woman are morally culpable when they commit consensual acts of immorality. No bible-believing Christian would deny that.

    But doesn’t the Bible give men more responsibility for the protection of women than you suggest? I think it does. A complementarian single man will be concerned with protecting women generally and not defrauding them emotionally or physically. The onus of leadership in this area is on the man.

    Thanks,
    Denny

  7. Bradley Cochran December 11, 2007 at 6:25 pm #

    Denny,

    You desire to bring up some good points. I think we actually agree, only you have misunderstood what I meant by what I said.

    Your Points:

    1) Yes, the woman and the man BOTH share culpability in acts of sexual immorality.

    2) Yes, the man would bear more responsibility in a complementarian paradigm for such acts of immorality.

    Neither of these truths are inconsistent with this truth: Once two sinners have agreed to have sex outside of marriage (i.e. outside of real commitment), and the guy has not “led her on” to imagine that he was committed to her long-term, then it is not his fault that her expectations overshoot his intentions. She can’t accuse him of misleading her.

    As an aside: Do such women really think that a guy who sleeps with a woman he barely knows is the kind of guy that is all about commitment in the first place? Seems to me such women get what they are looking for when they “give it up” without any real commitment.

    Yes, under a complementarian paradigm, the male is more responsible for leading them both into sexual immorality. But the male cannot be held responsible for a misunderstanding which he did nothing to encourage. That’s why I say with respect to her unjustified expectations: “It’s her fault.” I don’t intend to rule out mutual guilt for acts of promiscuity, nor the complementarian interpretation of male’s bearing greater responsibility for leading women into sexual immorality.

    The act of immorality is both of their faults (and moreso the guy’s if your a complementarian), but the misunderstanding (under the conditions which he mentioned) is her fault. If the emotional hangover is based on this misunderstanding (and that’s what seems to be the case), then my statement still stands: “It’s the woman’s fault if she gets an emotional hangover.”

    I think your points are valid, Denny, I just don’t think they rule out my point. But I’m glad my point elicited yours, because your points may be more important than mine. Thanks for helping to clarify things.

  8. Bradley Cochran December 11, 2007 at 6:31 pm #

    Denny, it just dawned on me that you are guy who actually runs this blog. Thanks for covering such interesting and important topics. I like your blog.

  9. D. Taylor Benton December 11, 2007 at 11:48 pm #

    lol…that is just funny…i’m sorry, not too many Denny’s in the world…that would be odd however if some other Denny posted…Thanks for the Post Denny…

  10. Kevin J December 12, 2007 at 12:48 am #

    I see Denny’s everywhere. Nice place to eat, huh? 🙂

  11. jeremy z December 12, 2007 at 7:59 pm #

    You all are acting surprised about this situation.
    Men like sex. Non-beleivers males will do anything and everything to seal the deal.

  12. Lucas Knisely December 13, 2007 at 10:44 am #

    Look at this supposed Casanova’s hair style! He is definitely lying. SCAM ALERT

    🙂

  13. Val December 13, 2007 at 11:31 am #

    I’m not surprised by his attitude at all. This is a natural outgrowth of the current “rational religion” circulating around college campuses today. Most collegiate cultures “talk” about maintaining respect for people, subjects and traditions. Quite the opposite is true in most cases. Academia is literally becoming an excersise in gaming mania and that only supports this type of behavior.

  14. Pete December 15, 2007 at 4:10 pm #

    I think the interviews with him have given a somewhat distorted view of what he’s actually advocating, taken holistically. I found my opinion changed a bunch when I actually READ his guide. You can see it in it’s full inglorious form here:

    http://www.growyourgame.com/articles/paul-janka-getting-laid-in-nyc/

  15. David Hamilton December 21, 2007 at 8:38 pm #

    I read some of his stuff on the link that Pete shared with us…

    a few thoughts came to mind.

    1) the guy needs somebody to edit his writing… but thats not that big of a deal, especially compared to the others.

    2) I think most importantly, this guy is doing some severe suppression of the truth to convince himself of his “authentic manhood.”
    a) he divides girls into 3 categories- “yes, no, and maybe”- and doesn’t “waste” time on the no’s and maybe’s.
    b) he brushes off rejections
    c) if he runs into a girl that rejected him, his thought is, and I quote, “who cares what one b**** thinks anyways?”
    I have two issues with this- one, I don’t think it manly to avoid girls that are not “easy,” and two, I think it is less manly to give up after the slightest perception of difficulty in order to pursue “easier.”

    I think that if we looked at the girls that fall into his different categories, we would find some great similarities. I bet most, if not all, that fall into his “yes” category at least do not have a good relationship with one of their parents- and probably a lot have a “bad” or no relationship with one or both. They are probably more likely to drink and/or do drugs more often and in higher quantities, etc. I did a blog a while back that you might call it the “anti-Janka”:
    http://bigham.wordpress.com/2007/08/25/lets-talk-about-sex/

    I’d like to see this guy squirm in a room with an intelligent, classy, confident girl with morals.

  16. Michelle December 27, 2007 at 10:13 pm #

    I actually met this guy about a month before the Today show aired. He came up to me and closed the deal fairly quickly, in about 3 sentences asking for my number while I was at a restaurant in NYC with friends. I gave it to him because yes he was cute…we didn’t meet up until 2 days after the Today Show aired (I didn’t know this). Long story short, I hung out with one of his friends who knows that I am not that ‘kind of girl’, so he told Paul…but I guess all was fair game. When I met up with Paul at his place, he quickly told me that he knows that I am not that kind of girl and he knows that I’m looking for a long term relationship. He told me that he just got out of a relationship and is just out to have fun and nothing more than that. I was a bit disappointed with such a statement (since I didn’t know his story yet). He then said that even though he probably thought that I would not be the type to ‘hang out’, he would still be open to sex. I basically replied, no I don’t think so and never would that happen with him, just for saying that. So he then showed me the Today show segment on his computer. I was really confused as to why he would do that. I think he was just so excited about the TV exposure and liking the attention. It was amusing to watch him being enthralled with seeing himself on TV and sad at the same time. This guy obviously has major issues. I knew that he wouldn’t be threatening to me since I knew one of his friends so I decided to question his lifestyle and stay a bit (an hour at most). I told him that I think that he is just bored with life and needs to find something substantial and fulfilling. I thought he would argue my point, but he took everything I said without debate. I also mentioned that he must not have had a chance to date in his 20’s as when most guys do their exploring. I mean he did go to Harvard so most time is spent with noses to the books. He did respond that he has more exploring to do-but not the mature kind. If that is the case, he didn’t learn anything!! I did end up going home about an hour after I chatted with him. Seemed pointless to linger since I didn’t want anything more to do with him, if anything I was just more intrigued by his thinking which is pathetic! I have never known anybody like him before so it was just like a small research project to learn about him. It was interesting to learn that he preys on the new young girls who move into the city, and of course vulnerable girls who just want to have fun, and this includes intelligent professionals like dentists, as well. When I was about to leave, he did ask if we could hang out again (I don’t know why since he knows that I am an impossible conquest)..I just replied, yeah as friends (to avoid any awkwardness even though I didn’t want anything more to do with him). As a pathetic follow-up he asked if I had any friends who would be interested. I reponded by saying that I have NO friends that would be interested the least bit. So yes, I believe I fell into the ‘maybe’ category which is why we ended up seeing each other a month or so after we met. I guess he realized I was not an easy target. After I left his place, I would have no doubt that there was a girl who would be seeing him within minutes to play the game with him. I feel sorry for the girls who not only fall for his games, but also know his games and willing to play. I feel even more sorry for him. He is very lost in himself and in life. After nationalizing his gigolo lifestyle, I can only imagine what kind of girl he ends up with at the end…somebody just like him, artificial inside and out and sadly one with many STDs.

  17. David Hamilton January 2, 2008 at 11:43 am #

    Michelle,

    I guess you got my wish- you got to see him “squirm in a room with an intelligent, classy, confident girl with morals”!

  18. Tom January 19, 2008 at 2:05 pm #

    This guy is only doing what men have always been doing and he is bragging on TV and not in the locker room. Nothing new here

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes