I've been thinking about sexual ethics and morality for some time now and cl posted some comments by Dan Savage on her blog and it prompted me to break out the keyboard and re-start my own string of posts where I can explore my own desire to develop a sexual ethic or morality. I noticed as I went back and looked at my blog, morality concerns were some of my first posts, dealing with Georgetown Law School's Moral Value Project, a case study in seduction, and my very first post on the morality of the treatment of two young women coming of age sexually.Growing up Mormon created an ambiguous arena for determining appropriate sexual conduct. On one hand, the Puritanistic version of Mormon morality gave a simple letter of the law version of sexual morality that made up for what it was lacking in practicality (no necking?) by being extraordinarily clear. No sex before marriage. No extramarital sex. No masturbating. No petting. No necking. Completely impractical in light of most people's biological imperatives, but you always knew how you were sinning.
Most people and at the very least, me, are loathe to think that they are consistently sinners. I started to develop a complex that I was the most lacivious man on the planet and I found strange comfort in the more esoteric doctrine of the religion that had brought me to this spot. Something warps in the brain when you feel you are a sexual sinner, but that your religion offers you the promise of multiple sex partners -- at least at some point in eternity.
The first difficulty faced when abandoning an ethical code is the absence of an ethical code. The ethical and moral restraints are deemed invalid and chaos steps in to fill the gap. The choice I was faced with after abandoning the sexual morality of my youth was what type of behavior guidelines should I set for myself?
What did I personally believe is moral? What do I see as my own personal sexual ethics?
I essentially adopted a scientific approach in my efforts to establish a sexual ethic. (Yes, I know the labs have been hell, but you have to experiment if you are going to be a scientist.) I found out a couple of things fairly quickly, even when I was still attempting to be the quintessential Boy Scout.
The first realization I made as a young teenager was that sexual contact created expectations in other people -- and it didn't have to be much, holding hands could be a significant moral dilemna. The same contact (holding hands for this example) would create totally different expectations in me and in the girl whose hand I held. If she held my hand, I saw it as a signal that she liked me and maybe she would talk to me the next time I called her on the phone. If I held her hand, she would feel like I was crowding her space and she wanted me to get the hell away (or maybe that is just all women). The physical action was the same, the emotional expectations completely opposite. I began to see the hard fast rules as one way to force everyone into the same world vision.
This didn't last of course, because damn it, people wouldn't follow the rules. Fortunately, I did find one advantage to the well known and stringent Mormon morality that was obeyed more in its defiance than observance. It gave me a hell of a way to break up with girls I just wanted to make out with. You meet the girl at church or BYU. You make out for a couple of weeks until you get into the light petting and severe tonsil hockey. You don't call for a couple of days after a make out session. You meet her on a public bench somewhere and tell her that you have been wracked with guilt for violating the law of chastity with her. You are crazy about her, but you just know that if you spend any more time with her, you won't be able to restrain yourself any further, so continuing to see her is out of the question, because she is just so damn hot. And then I was free. Although I felt that somewhere in there, that in my obedience to the letter of the law I was violating its spirit.
Those are only some of the early seeds of my evolving sexual ethics and there is much more to follow, but I'm pushing that unseen blog word limit -- and my bed time (going there alone, thank you very much -- if I was getting laid do you think I'd have time to write about sexual morality?). Let me conclude with two salient features that I believe are essential to a legitimate sexual morality.
1. Compassion and empathy for the other person's expectations. (2nd Person Subjective)
2. An understanding of social and cultural context. (3rd Person Subjective)
If you base your own actions based on a clear understanding of both the other person (or people) involved and on the societal reaction, then you can at least begin to make decisions that border on the ethical.
I would love to hear your comments and thoughts on how you have dealt with sexual morality and ethical issues. Most productive philosophical discussions take place in the realm of dialogue.
4 comments:
Hm...well, well, well. It sounds to me like you've been doing some thinking on this.
If we were to operate with this type of analytical thought in every day interaction, no one would speak to anyone. For example, language is one of the most ambiguous forms of communication there is. If a woman says "I love you" to a man, he may hear "Uh oh, exclusivity, commitment, marriage, death!" Or worse "Oh God, now I have to say it back!" She may have just been sharing her feelings that she truly loves him as a person.
I feel that with any sort of interaction, the most we can do is clearly state our intentions, and then proceed to let the other person take whatever they want from it--because they will. You can't control them.
I have told men that I love them before with a tremendous amount of before-hand explaination :"Look, I don't want to hear it back, I don't want to change our relationship in ANY way, I just want you to know that I really love you as a person; You are wonderful." The fear in their eyes told me that all they heard was "I love you" and all of their paradigms, their dream, their blueprints, whatever you want to label them, came to the fore. So whose issue is that really? Not mine. I made myself as clear as I could. He chose to panic, and that was his issue.
The same can be said for sex. You can talk until your blue in the balls that it's just recreational sex to you, but the man or woman (believe me, it's both genders, it's not just women that get all clingy) will carry their own paradigms going in. Expectations are tricky because you can't control another person's expectations. What you can do is make yourself clear as possible (without a written contract to spoil the mood) and make sure you are both on the same page. From there, it's a crap shoot. You really don't know. That's the risk you take. That's what being human is all about. And if you get someone that refused to hear you, that isn't your responsibility; it's theirs. If you take responsibility, you have become codependant, thus, responsible for someone's feelings.
Say what you mean; listen with more than your ears to the person, and if it meshes, F*%#! each other's brains out.
This is just my opinion, of course.
Sometimes I think it would be easier if we could just chuck all our cultural baggage and be more like the animals around us - you just plain fuck whoever is in heat.
Guess I'm just a farm boy at heart.
(And T, no jokes about me and animals, ok?!)
:-)
JA,
Actually the analytic thought is a precursor for interacting in the real world. Contemplation is never a replacement for action, but contemplation can create a framework to direct action. This seems more preferable than acting without thinking or acting based on stringent religious guidelines that were accepted without any thought to the underlying premise.
Your post raises another interesting ethical dilemna -- the appropriate use of language. You make a good case for using concise and appropriate language. The term love is incredibly problematic because of its multi-faceted meanings. Better to use more concise vocabulary in circumstances where a broad term (like love) might be misconstrued.
As for each person bringing their own paradigm into sex, I agree and I think any ethical system dealing with sex has to account for how those differences play out. I agree that it entails certain risks, but why not reduce the risk, especially when the opportunity for emotional damage is so great?
As for your consenting adults fucking each others brains out simply because they want too -- I think any great sexual ethical system must allow for that to take place.
And Steve - Farm animals are problematic in sexual ethics because there is some disagreement over the animals ability to consent. It does make me wonder though if PETA would go after someone for sexually interacting with an animal. I guess it depends on if the sheep finds you hot or not. Oh, and I wasn't taking about you and animals, Steve, just animals and sex from an ethical standpoint.
Oh, and if any of you are offended by bestiality then go fuck a duck.
HA! I have never fucked a duck, nor a sheep. My friend Bobby fucked a St. Bernard once. She appeared to enjoy it, I mean she backed up into him. How much more consensual can you get? I was a voyeur even at the tender age of 12, I guess.
Post a Comment