This is my two part blog on the Morality of Sex. I was interviewed on Colin Lively’s radio program several months ago and talked about this. I think it’s important to open the discussion of this issue because it seems to be so important in our society. Politically, we legislate on it and judge our politicians and leaders by it, but are we doing it fairly?
The mention of sex will always elicit a reaction from people. The gamut runs from snickers and giggles to outright rage from others. In certain parts of the world people are executed because of sex. Be it engaging in premarital sex, extramarital sex or sex with a person of the same gender, in many places, people take their lives into their own hands when they engage in sex.
Most of these laws are based upon an archaic understanding of the world, as well as the realities of the harshness of existence on a planet which is in constant flux. However, as we’ve been able to understand the world and control certain aspects of our existence, through modern science, many of the laws and principles driving our ideas need to be reevaluated.
The existing premise about sex in the United States is that it is somehow bad, unless you do it with one unspecified, yet specific person and you make a formal and legal commitment to only have sex (and procreate) with that one person. There are people who think the entire breakdown of society is because of sex. Even if society were breaking down, I’m not so sure I would blame sex. After all, sex has always been there and people have always engaged in it, so if it’s taken all these thousands of years until now for society to break down, I hardly think sex is the reason.
Most of these laws are based upon an archaic understanding of the world, as well as the realities of the harshness of existence on a planet which is in constant flux. However, as we’ve been able to understand the world and control certain aspects of our existence, through modern science, many of the laws and principles driving our ideas need to be reevaluated.
The existing premise about sex in the United States is that it is somehow bad, unless you do it with one unspecified, yet specific person and you make a formal and legal commitment to only have sex (and procreate) with that one person. There are people who think the entire breakdown of society is because of sex. Even if society were breaking down, I’m not so sure I would blame sex. After all, sex has always been there and people have always engaged in it, so if it’s taken all these thousands of years until now for society to break down, I hardly think sex is the reason.
Small History Lesson
While I’m not an anthropologist, it would seem to me that the issue of sex being a moral issue began in a time when life spans were about 30-40 years. If a woman had a baby without a partner to help her raise it, the chances that she would die before the child reached the age to fend for him/herself was pretty great. A child who perishes because s/he is not able to survive on his/her own is a great tragedy. And even if someone takes the child in and provides for it, the child can still be viewed as a burden on society so the tragedy is not avoided, but merely minimized.
However, because of the short lifespans, the impetus to procreate at a young age became greater. This means that the drive to have sex became even stronger during the younger years. And in fact, those instincts are so strong that I feel sex is a biological imperative. Because of this, sex itself is NOT a moral issue. There certainly are moral issues surrounding sex, just as there are with all other biological imperatives, but the act itself, from a moral standpoint, is completely ambiguous.
A lot of people (mostly very religious conservative people) don’t want to hear this. It upsets their entire world view. But then so did Galileo once upon a time and the result was advancements in science and technology that have improved life for nearly every human on this planet (at least for the time being). I say to those people, the world is in flux. Get used to it.
While I’m not an anthropologist, it would seem to me that the issue of sex being a moral issue began in a time when life spans were about 30-40 years. If a woman had a baby without a partner to help her raise it, the chances that she would die before the child reached the age to fend for him/herself was pretty great. A child who perishes because s/he is not able to survive on his/her own is a great tragedy. And even if someone takes the child in and provides for it, the child can still be viewed as a burden on society so the tragedy is not avoided, but merely minimized.
However, because of the short lifespans, the impetus to procreate at a young age became greater. This means that the drive to have sex became even stronger during the younger years. And in fact, those instincts are so strong that I feel sex is a biological imperative. Because of this, sex itself is NOT a moral issue. There certainly are moral issues surrounding sex, just as there are with all other biological imperatives, but the act itself, from a moral standpoint, is completely ambiguous.
A lot of people (mostly very religious conservative people) don’t want to hear this. It upsets their entire world view. But then so did Galileo once upon a time and the result was advancements in science and technology that have improved life for nearly every human on this planet (at least for the time being). I say to those people, the world is in flux. Get used to it.
Where does that leave morality?
Sex is not an “option” but rather a need. So where exactly does that leave morality and sex? They still share a close relationship, but just some of the nuances have changed. For example, if a person makes a commitment to only have sex with one person, s/he still has a moral obligation to honor that commitment. If a two consenting adults, with no prior obligations take every precaution (and re-read that clause again because the requirements there are adults, consent and no other commitments) to prevent the transmission of an STD or cause an unwanted pregnancy then no moral wrong has been committed if they have sex with each other. Notice that there is no mandate for the people to be of different genders? That’s because homosexuality is not morally wrong. It is just the fulfillment of a biological need. And because pregnancy is not possible between the same gender, there never has been a rational argument for the prohibition (other than religious arguments which are usually so flawed logically that most philosophers discount their moral worth).
Sex is not an “option” but rather a need. So where exactly does that leave morality and sex? They still share a close relationship, but just some of the nuances have changed. For example, if a person makes a commitment to only have sex with one person, s/he still has a moral obligation to honor that commitment. If a two consenting adults, with no prior obligations take every precaution (and re-read that clause again because the requirements there are adults, consent and no other commitments) to prevent the transmission of an STD or cause an unwanted pregnancy then no moral wrong has been committed if they have sex with each other. Notice that there is no mandate for the people to be of different genders? That’s because homosexuality is not morally wrong. It is just the fulfillment of a biological need. And because pregnancy is not possible between the same gender, there never has been a rational argument for the prohibition (other than religious arguments which are usually so flawed logically that most philosophers discount their moral worth).
This blog will be continued on Friday where I will touch directly on the morality of Celibacy, promiscuity, Teenagers and Sex, and Religion and Sex.
No comments:
Post a Comment