Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Sexual Ethics
There currently seems to be two main principles governing sexual activity. The first holds that only marital, heterosexual sex is legitimate, the other, that any consensual adult sex is permissible. To me, both of these miss the mark, because while the latter is wrong to draw any further line, the former misplaces one at marriage. In contrast, the overwhelmingly obvious primary distinction is between reproductive and non-reproductive sexual activity. The alleged 'sanctity of marriage' muddies this distinction in two ways. First, it is the expression of a long tradition that has attempted to spiritualize, or to put it conversely, de-physicalize, sex, on the basis of a questionable concept of the separation of spirit and matter. So, not only can't it see that non-marital reproduction is as wondrous as marital, but it also sanctifies casual marital sex, heterosexual only, of course. On the other hand, the consensualists often seem to miss the point that recreational sex is nothing more than idle fun, nothing more than mutual Onanism. Particularly ridiculous are the notions that, in itself, an orgasm is any more significant than a sneeze, or that 'getting laid' is an end-in-itself. Plus, given that sex can be cold, impersonal, or escapist, it doesn't necessarily qualify as meaningful interpersonal intimacy. So, a Sex Education can start with the fact of the distinction between reproductive and recreational sex, and then teach young people that sex is neither Evil nor without consequences.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
But the point is there's nothing wrong with idle fun, and sometimes there are trivial ends-in-and-of-themselves in human experience, and there's nothing wrong with that, either.
ReplyDeleteSometimes I feel like Dostoyevsky and sometimes I feel like Calvin and Hobbes. Similarly, sometimes we feel like what is so sentimentally and cringe inducingly called "making love", sometimes I feel like a quick fuck with a near stranger in a back room. Also, casual sex is not mutual Onanism simply b/c it *is* interaction that does yield something. And there's always the implicit judgement in these kinds of analyses that if it's not love the sex isn't meaningful. Many clients have had meaningful cathartic sex with me, losing their virginity to someone acceptant and gentle or having sex for the first time after a prostrate operation or finally feeling able to act on a previously taboo fantasy. These experiences are important, but no love is involved on either side.
Things that are cold, impersonal, or escapist are not always unuseful. Escapism can be a helpful coping mechanism & actually, sex, being the visceral experience it is, can reground the would-be-escapist and put him or her to rights. Sometimes we need a cold and impersonal setting to discover ourselves b/c a warm, personal one just brings to much scrutiny to the sexuality that the sanctity of marriage freaks have made us ashamed of.
The only thing wrong with idle fun is when it is made out to be either more or less than exactly that. If casual sex does 'yield something', it is something independent of the physical act, e. g. re-inforcement of mutual trust. On the other hand,the fact that it does not always yield something, and that, e. g. in role-playing, true identities never get involved, attest to its potential impersonalism.
ReplyDelete