13.1: Major Aspects of Human Sexuality
1. 13.1 Distinguish between the public and the private aspects of sexuality

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:
The first distinction that must be made when discussing morality and human sexuality is that which exists between its public, or societal, aspect and its private aspect. First of all, the public aspect is concerned with the way in which matters of sex overtly affect others, and the basic governing principles of morality here are life, goodness, and justice. The private aspect, on the other hand, is concerned with sexual relations between or among consenting adults, and the basic governing principles in this case are those of goodness, justice, freedom, and honesty.

In other words, it is important to distinguish between two kinds of actions involving human sexuality:

· Those that have such an adverse effect on people other than the participants that they should be forbidden by moral commandment or by law.

· Those that affect only the participants and should therefore be left up to the private moral deliberations of the people concerned.

Needless to say, one of the main issues surrounding human sexual activity is whether society should greatly restrict such activities on the one hand or allow a great deal of sexual freedom on the other. Before dealing with arguments concerning restriction or liberalization of sexual activity, it probably would be of value to examine what the meaning and purposes of human sexuality are deemed to be.

13.2: The Meaning and Purposes of Human Sexuality
1. 13.2 Evaluate the meaning and purposes of human sexuality with respect to morality, public aspect, and sexual freedom

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:
The meaning and purposes of human sexual activity appear to be four-dimensional, involving (not necessarily in order of importance) procreation, pleasure, an expression of love for other people, and an expression of friendship and liking. These, of course, need not be mutually exclusive, and often they are not. However, sexual activity may also be limited to only one of these purposes. Although procreation is a rather obvious purpose of sexuality, sexuality is also—in the opinion of many—the deepest and most intimate expression of the love of human beings for one another. This does not mean that one cannot love others without sexual activity—if that were true, one could never love his or her children, brothers, sisters, parents, or grandparents without being incestuous. What it does mean is that when a love involving meaningful sex occurs, it is deeper than any other kind of love. For instance, two people need not have sex to love each other, but deep and loving sex between two persons can add a rich new dimension to any love.

It is, many feel, a terrible oversight on the part of society in general that the loving aspect of sex has been considered relatively unimportant when compared to its procreative aspect or to other areas of human relationships. Our society has, at least until recently, often emphasized that sex is somehow a necessary evil. This approach to human sexuality implies either that its primary purpose is to produce children or that sexuality is not a very important aspect of human relationships and human life. This is an attitude reflected in many of our laws, which are throwbacks to nineteenth-century Victorianism. In the Victorian era, all kinds of private sex acts between or among consenting adults were forbidden to the extent that if a husband and wife wished to practice oral sex, for example, they would, under the law, be guilty of a felony.

Many of these archaic and unfair laws (unfair, that is, when applied to all human beings) have been repealed in many states and revised in accordance with the American Bar Association’s suggestions. The reason for this change in attitude is that these laws reflected a view of human sexual activity that does not square with studies made in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, including those of Freud (1856–1939), Kinsey (1894–1956), and Masters (1915–2001) and Johnson (1925–2013).2

Almost all the research conducted by twentieth-century psychologists reveals the following:

1. Sexuality as it is practiced did not and does not adhere to the general societal moral pronouncements and laws.

2. It reveals that human sexuality for many people is very limited and that sexual relations often are unsatisfying because of people’s upbringing, which has been strongly influenced by the taboos against meaningful sexual relations set up and generally sanctioned by their society.

3. This research reveals that psychologically, sexuality is extremely important to human living and especially to human relationships.

In view of such strong evidence, it seems that the expression-of-love and friendship-and-liking aspects of human sexual activity should be emphasized more than they have been—in fact, that they should be emphasized at least as much as procreation and pleasure.

The conservative, or restrictive, view of sexual activity often emphasizes either the procreation aspect of sex or the view that sex is a “necessary evil”—that is, a biological urge felt by men (but not, it is implied, by women) that must be satisfied. Advocates of complete freedom in sexual matters, on the other hand, usually emphasize the pleasure aspect and the rights of individuals to enjoy such pleasure. There is also a more moderate position of which proponents tend to accept both the procreative and pleasure aspects while also including—and often emphasizing more strongly—the expression-of-love and friendship-and-liking aspects. Lines are not always drawn this clearly. A proponent of sexual freedom may, for example, strongly emphasize the expression-of-love aspect—as may a supporter of the conservative view. However, the general tendency is for each group to emphasize the aspects of human sexual activity in the ways described earlier.

13.2.1: Moral Issues and the Public Aspect of Human Sexuality
LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:
Those sexual acts that immediately affect the public or individuals in such a way as to bring them possible harm, that are generally considered immoral, and that are usually controlled by laws are rape, child molestation, and sadism performed on unwilling victims. The possible harmful effects that can ensue from these three types of acts are bodily harm and/or death and the general perniciousness of forced sexual activity. No matter what set of ethical principles they endorse, most people generally agree that these acts are immoral and that there should be laws and/or moral taboos forbidding them.

Other activities considered by many to be against the public interest are pornography, homosexuality, sex outside of marriage (including premarital and extramarital sex and adultery), prostitution, masturbation, nonmonogamous marriages, and “unnatural” or “perverted” sexual activity. Agreement about the immorality of these activities is not, however, as general or as clear as is agreement about the first three activities. Specific arguments for and against these issues will be presented, but first it is worthwhile to examine some arguments for and against sexual freedom in general.

13.2.2: Arguments Against Sexual Freedom
LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:
The first argument against sexual freedom is that such freedom is a violation of the traditional moral “absolutes” embodied in our Judeo-Christian heritage. According to this tradition, heterosexual sex is the only morally permissible sexuality. Furthermore, sexual acts should be performed as “God and nature intended” (i.e., generally in the “missionary position,” with the man on top and the woman on the bottom). Finally, sexual activity must take place only within a legally and, preferably, a religiously sanctioned marriage between one man and one woman who are joined together mainly for the purpose of bringing children into the world. Outside of marriage the only acceptable approach to sexuality is abstinence. Of course, pornography, homosexuality, sex outside of marriage, prostitution, masturbation, nonmonogamous marriages, and “unnatural” or “perverted” sexual activity are considered to be violations of these traditional moral teachings, either because they tend to undermine our family and societal structure or because they eventually will lead to the destruction of these institutions.

The domino argument applies here, as it does to so many moral issues, and this time in two ways. First, allowing sexual freedom in any of the areas named previously will eventually lead to violations in more dangerous areas. It is argued that if, for example, we allow people the freedom to read, view, and acquire pornography openly, eventually there will be an increase in rapes, child molestation, and sadism performed on unwilling victims, all of which may lead to sexual murders. According to this argument, pornography so inflames the sexual appetites and desires of people that they will have to find outlets for these appetites and will resort to these unacceptable means. Second, it is argued that allowing more sexual freedom in these areas will undermine our society and all the good and decent things it stands for, such as the family, respect for marriage, love rather than lust, respect for the human body, respect for women and men, and respect for children.

The offensiveness to public taste argument presumes a certain general agreement concerning what is acceptable and what is offensive to the public taste. Heterosexual relationships are acceptable, whereas homosexual ones are not. Monogamous marriages are acceptable, whereas polygamous (more than one wife) or polyandrous (more than one husband) ones are not. Sexual activity within a marriage is acceptable, whereas outside of marriage it is not, and so on.

The social diseases argument cites the probability of getting certain social diseases, such as syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, chlamydia, and the dreaded and fatal acquired immuno deficiency syndrome (AIDS) , through sexual promiscuity and sexual freedom. The proponents of this argument state that all of the so-called sexual freedom of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s has led to an increase in such diseases, which are not only painful, destructive, and contagious but also in many cases (especially with AIDS) fatal. A return to and reemphasis of traditional sexual morality would be the best way to eliminate such terrible diseases, according to proponents of this argument.

13.2.3: Arguments for Sexual Freedom
LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:
The main argument presented by the proponents of the individual freedom position is that people ought to have the freedom to do what they want to do as long as they are consenting adults and are not materially or directly harming other members of society by their actions. Obviously, people should not be free to rape, to molest children, or to perform sadistic acts on unwilling victims. However, they ought to be completely free to have any kind of sex they wish with other consenting adults or by themselves, in or outside of marriage, as long as they do not harm others.

Even though the prosexual freedom advocates recognize that there are Judeo-Christian or other traditions that have, in the past, served as guides for sexual morality, they do not consider such traditions to be “absolute.” In fact, they argue that such traditions are based upon archaic views of the biological and psychological makeup of human beings—views that twenty-first-century advances in the sciences and social sciences have revealed to be inaccurate. Now that we know more about human sexuality, the prosexual freedom forces argue, we should allow a wider and more open expression of one of the most important human drives in existence.

Prosexual freedom advocates also argue that there is no clear-cut indication of what “God and nature intended” in sexuality except what is condoned or prohibited in certain religious teachings, which one may or may not believe. They state that the marriage contract is merely a piece of paper and that there is evidence that sex that takes place outside of marriage can be just as meaningful as that which takes place within it. Furthermore, sex between homosexuals and in polygamous or polyandrous relationships or marriages can be as meaningful as sex between heterosexuals in monogamous marriages. Because human beings are so varied and unique in their feelings and desires, sexual-freedom proponents argue, they ought to be allowed the greatest freedom of sexual expression possible as long as they do not harm others.

The sexual-freedom proponents would argue that there is no hard evidence to suggest that allowing greater sexual freedom in the seven questionable areas will lead to violations in the areas of rape, incest, and forced sadism. They argue further that some evidence exists that in countries such as Denmark, where pornography has been made totally legal and freely available, the rate of sexual crimes, such as child molestation, has dropped. Sexual-freedom supporters see pornography as a force that relieves sexual repressions and eliminates the need for these more harmful types of sexual activities.

Even if, however, there are abuses of freedom in relation to pornography—for example, sexual murder or so-called “kiddie porn”—laws can be passed restricting and punishing people involved in those activities without restricting people’s general freedom of access to pornography. Second, this argument states that rather than undermining our society, greater sexual freedom will enhance it by allowing for fuller sexual expression. This in turn will deepen the love, respect, and intensity of human relationships, which can only improve marriage, family life, and society in general.

Offensiveness and Social Diseases
LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:
According to the sexual-freedom proponents, offensiveness to public taste is not in itself a reason to halt the activities of others, and therefore it should be considered more of a violation of customs and manners than a violation of morality. Bodily harm and/or death are immoral under most ethical principles, but offensiveness to public taste is not unless it can be shown that the principle of justice has been seriously violated. This does not mean that the rights and feelings of others in matters of taste should not be considered; what it does mean is that the excuse that something is offensive to others, even though they are not required to participate in any way, is not sufficient to bar someone, either by moral censure or by law, from engaging in certain activities.

Discretion certainly should be employed in the public display of pornography and other sexual activities offered for those who wish to participate (topless or nude shows, films, etc.), and there should be control of indecent exposure, overt solicitation, or coercion to participate in any sexual activities. However, this is not to say that an open display of affection that does not involve indecent exposure or overt solicitation or coercion is immoral even though—especially between or among homosexuals—it may offend some people’s tastes. Therefore, if sexual activity does not violate any of the preceding criteria, and it often does not, it then becomes, according to the sexual-freedom proponents, largely a private matter to be dealt with between or among consenting adults.

There are many ways in which the problem of offensiveness to public taste can be handled. For example, if people want to sunbathe or swim in the nude, then special locations can be purchased or set aside for them to do so. Those who do not wish to do so need never go near these locations. If some adults want to view pornographic films, buy books, or see live nude people, then as long as those who do not want to do such things are not forced to do so, and as long as these theaters, bookstores, and nude shows are obviously marked and advertised to show what they are, then how can there be an overt offense to taste?

Furthermore, there is no conclusive evidence that participation in any of these activities has caused harm to society in general; that is, that people who read pornographic books, for example, go out and molest children or rape others. In fact, as mentioned earlier, some studies have shown that in countries where laws against pornographic shows, films, and books have been relaxed, overt sexual crimes have tended to decrease. The proof for this is not conclusive either, but if there is no conclusive proof either way, then such activities should not be considered immoral or illegal merely for the reasons previously cited.

Proponents of sexual freedom certainly recognize the dangers of social diseases and especially AIDS; however, proper precautions can certainly be taken to avoid or minimize the contracting of such diseases, such as abstinence (if a person desires), the use of condoms and other devices and chemicals, and the careful choosing of one’s sexual partners. Such choices, however, should be free ones, and no one’s freedom should be curtailed just because such diseases might be contracted. After all, smokers may get cancer and drinkers may get cirrhosis of the liver, but this does not mean we have the right to restrict their freedom to indulge in these activities.

13.3: Premarital Sex
1. 13.3 Examine the arguments for and against premarital sex

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:
Premarital sex refers to those sexual relations that occur prior to marriage. It is referred to in the Bible as fornication.

13.3.1: Arguments Against Premarital Sex
LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:
As previously mentioned, the conservative position toward liberalizing sexuality states that one of the greatest problems created by encouraging or even allowing premarital sex is that it tends to undermine traditional Western morality and family values. According to this view, as we have said, sexuality should be something reserved for a heterosexual, monogamous marriage and used mainly, but not necessarily exclusively, for purposes of procreation. Allowing premarital sex discourages the special and unique relationship that exists between one man and one woman in a lifetime of marriage, it undermines marriage both as an institution and family values, and it encourages sexual activity that is separate from “true” love and from having children. According to this argument, the only acceptable form of sexuality for boys and girls and men and women is no sexuality, or abstinence until marriage.

The argument continues that if marriage breaks down, the traditional family unit breaks down, and the family unit is the basic building block of traditional Western society. Premarital sex also encourages an inflated view of sex as the most important aspect of marriage, thereby further eroding one of our most important social institutions. According to this view, sexuality is considered to be such an intimate part of the relationship between a man and a woman that it must have the stability and security of the marriage relationship to foster and support it.

The Encouragement of Promiscuity
LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:
Another argument that supports the conservative point of view is that premarital sex fosters promiscuity and encourages transitory rather than lasting human relationships. If sex is allowed outside of marriage, it becomes separated from its “true” purposes, which are to enhance marriage relationships and family values and produce children. Instead, according to this argument, the only purpose of premarital sex is to achieve selfish individual pleasures without accepting the responsibility for one’s own actions or the lives of others involved. Premarital sex also encourages promiscuity, in that without marriage the societal restrictions are loosened, and one can have sex with virtually anyone at any time. Therefore, the lasting, meaningful relationships between men and women that are established and developed through marriage are replaced by “one-night stands,” which reduce human relationships to the animal level.

Social Diseases and AIDS
LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:
One of the most powerful arguments against premarital sex is the possibility of spreading social diseases and especially AIDS. People who argue against premarital sex state that abstinence is the best way to avoid contracting these diseases. Therefore, as traditional family values have always taught, one should abstain from sexual intercourse or other sexual activity until one gets married. Before men and women get married they should voluntarily be tested for the AIDS virus to ensure that neither partner will infect the other. Obviously, however, premarital sex puts one in danger of contracting such diseases and passing them on to other sexual partners or future wives or husbands.

The Fostering of Guilt and Ostracism
LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:
Because premarital sex is frowned upon by our culture and our society, it can result in various degrees of guilt and ostracism for those who engage in it. Whatever is initially felt by individuals who want to engage in premarital sex, most of the people around them—especially their parents, other relatives, and sometimes their friends—generally are opposed to their actions, and because of this, they may experience guilt and be ostracized from accepted society.

Having Children
LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:
Within the accepted marital relationship, children who are brought into the world can be protected and raised with some security. They will also legally have a family name. There is always the possibility within the premarital relationship that children will be born, and if they are, they may be raised out of wedlock. If a couple decides on an abortion, then the premarital relationship has fostered yet another moral wrong: the murder of an innocent fetus. If children are raised in such a relationship, what will they think once they discover that their parents are not married while everyone else’s parents are?

The Compatibility and Experience Fallacy
LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:
One argument often given for premarital sex is that it allows people to gain sexual experience so that when they enter into marriage, they will know what they are doing. Another aspect of this argument is that people who have sex or live together are able to find out whether they are really sexually compatible, thus avoiding the misfortune of finding out after they are married that they aren’t and perhaps never will be.

According to the conservative view, this argument provides no excuse for premarital sex. After all, classes in marriage and the family and in sex hygiene are now offered in school, and there are many good scientific books available on the subject. The compatibility argument, furthermore, places the sole emphasis for a relationship upon sexual attraction, and a marriage is much more than that. Besides, any advantages gained in the way of experience or knowledge about compatibility are far outweighed by the violation of the sacredness of marriage and family values, the inevitable loss of respect that occurs when two people become mere sex objects in each other’s eyes, and the instability of the relationship. For if there is no marriage, people who live together can leave at any time they want to, experiencing no sense of concern for the other person or for any children who may have resulted from their relationship. Also, it is argued, there is something unique in the marriage of two people who come to each other as virgins because sex then becomes a very special offering of love from one person to the other. For this reason, as well as the others cited, premarital sex, therefore, should not be encouraged or allowed.

13.3.2: Arguments for Premarital Sex
LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:
Certainly the prevalence of premarital sex may change the society’s lifestyle, but, according to the liberal viewpoint, the old traditions already have been undermined because they simply are no longer applicable in an advanced, technological, and rapidly changing world such as ours. The family unit already has become more mobile and flexible in reaction to the complexity of our modern culture. Some of the changes that have taken place in society are for the better and some are not, but, according to the liberal view, what we need is a number of alternative lifestyles that will allow us to enjoy the freedom and individuality that are encouraged these days.

Besides, the sexual-freedom proponents argue, what is so great about the old style of marriage and family values in which the father is a dictator and the mother a slave to her housework and her children? Furthermore, what is good about hypocritical marriages in which unhappy couples stay together just because they are married or “because of the children”? Many adulterous relationships are spawned by these “sacred” but unsatisfying marriages, and how is that any better than premarital sex? At least the two people involved in a premarital relationship can have some prior agreement that if it doesn’t work, they will try something else.

It is unreasonable in our modern day and age to advocate abstinence from sexuality. The proponents of premarital sex state that abstinence is unnatural and is an elimination of one of humanity’s greatest pleasures. All one needs to do is take the proper precautions, such as using a condom and eliminating certain sexual acts that perpetuate the spread of AIDS, for example. Further, one can enter into a relatively monogamous premarital sexual relationship or limit one’s partners to those who are known to be free from these diseases. Social diseases in themselves, then, are not a sufficient reason for not engaging in premarital sex.

The Promiscuity Fallacy
LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:
First of all, many premarital sex arrangements do not condone promiscuity. Many of these affairs are long lasting—sometimes as long lasting as a marriage—and such relationships may even develop into marriages. Second, sexual-freedom proponents ask, is the level of promiscuity in premarital relationships any greater than that in marriages? Does being married preclude the fact that one or both spouses will be promiscuous? Third, even if unmarried people are promiscuous, as long as they are freely consenting adults, whose business is it but theirs?

Guilt and Contraception
LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:
People’s views of premarital sex have changed a great deal, and few people who engage in premarital sex nowadays are ostracized from society; this also applies to children born out of wedlock. People simply are not as concerned about these matters as they used to be. Guilt, furthermore, is a matter of private conscience, and as long as the consciences of the people who enjoy premarital sex are not disturbed, why should anyone else’s be? People who do not approve don’t have to condone or engage in premarital sex themselves, and they shouldn’t concern themselves with other people’s behavior as long as it doesn’t intrude into their lives. Parents of people involved in premarital sex certainly don’t have to condone these activities in their own homes, but what their children do on their own is their business as long as they are consenting adults.

People who engage in premarital sex can, of course, use contraceptive devices, and they probably do use them more often than not. Often, proponents would state, the children resulting from such relationships are cared for as well as or even better than they would be if they were born into a marriage. Furthermore, when such couples plan for or discover they are going to have a child, they often will get married out of respect for the child’s position in their relationship and in society in general. And, if an accidental or unplanned pregnancy occurs, then abortion exists as a viable alternative. This alternative often is used even within those marriages where children are not wanted, so why can’t it be used here also?

Sexuality and Privacy
LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:
Sexual experience and compatibility, according to those who would allow premarital sex, is one of its greatest advantages. They feel that learning through experience what sexuality is all about and relating to different people sexually will enable people to discover what type of relationship they want and what type of person they want to share it with.

One of the myths of our culture is that sexual activity is a natural ability that one can easily draw upon after one is married. As a matter of fact, a sexual relationship, not mere biological coupling, is terribly complex and requires a great deal of knowledge and ability. Sexuality does not “come naturally” and is particularly hard to acquire in a culture that has repressed it for so long. A good sexual relationship also requires a level of awareness of and comfort with one’s body and the bodies of others so that greater freedom can be attained. Premarital sex is the best means of achieving sexual experience and knowledge, especially if two people are considering a long-lasting relationship. If they live together from day to day, they will find out over a period of time whether they will be compatible in a marriage. Even if they discover that they …