The Great Debate: On Sexual Liberalism
“Sexuality exposes human beings to the risk of using each other merely as means for the satisfaction of appetite.”
Immanuel Kant (Paraphrased), ‘Metaphysics of Morals’
Contents
1 An Introduction
2 A Defense
3 A Critique
4 A Conclusion
1 An Introduction
It is safe to say St. Andrews shares the sexual liberalism which society at large sees as a social norm, whether from ideological liberalism, youth, or a lack of other activities to fill a rainy weekend. It may be that this is an expression of autonomy over one's own body and thus result in the ability to realise our own good. However, this sexual liberality could also be criticized as an imperfect substitute for intimacy or be harmful when placed in a patriarchal society. What we wish to debate is this, whether the status quo is a societal good or whether it is detrimental to the participants involved. The following is several arguments for and against which we hope will help you navigate this issue.
2 A Defense
To support the liberality of sex one ought to argue that sex is merely subject to an individual’s pursuit of their subjective good. That is, individuals ought to be able to realise their own ends with respect to their own body. In this case the only qualification for ‘moral’ or ‘good’ sex is that it is consensual: That is the bodily autonomy of both (all) participants is upheld. This condition is necessary and sufficient to justify sexual Liberalism, and this justification does not rely on any subjective beliefs about the necessity of marriage or the eugenics of reproduction which have historically been used to exclude the LGBT or the disabled. Thus, these arguments have resulted in the consensus sexual liberalism of our society. It is important to note, however, that this defense does not necessarily endorse ‘hedonistic’ pursuit of sexual pleasure, but rather rejects its necessary immorality. The essence of this position is allowing people to pursue their own ends subject to their own preferences. Thus, if an individual displays greater preference towards monogamous relationships or abstinence, they have the right to seek them out. This position simply states that no one’s preference is of higher moral value than anyone else’s. Thus any sexual activity which satisfies our condition is ‘good’ for the individuals involved, and society’s view of it is thus amoral. From here springs the line, ‘I do not care about what happens behind closed doors,’ which we so often hear from politicians to avoid embracing non-heteronormative, non-marital relations.
The current consensus in support for sexual liberalism springs in part from early feminist arguments around a woman’s right to de-jure control over her sexual life. These arguments understood the institution of marriage as oppressive and patriarchal, manifesting most clearly in its enshrinement into law. Thus, they argued for sexual liberation as a means to be freed from subservience to a singular, potentially violent or abusive, man with monopoly over the woman’s sexual freedom. Marriage thus exacerbated abusive situations and obscured a woman’s ability to follow her sexual preferences and feel fulfilled. (i.e. the nuclear family.)
3 A Critique
On the other hand, there are several arguments which critique sexual liberalism. These arguments claim that consent is not sufficient for sex to be societally amoral or ‘good’ for the individual. We can divide these arguments into the conservative position and sex-negative feminist position. First, we can consider the conservative position. This position sees sex as having a telos, an Aristotelian ‘final purpose’ for an organ, given to us by nature. Which for reproductive organs is claimed to be the production of offspring. This has clear theological undertones, the existence of a purpose of things implying the universe being designed by God for a purpose. God under this reasoning designs sexual relations to produce offspring, and given God is the just moral arbitrator, any sex that falls outside procreation is therefore immoral given it is contrary to God’s will. Including casual sex, same-sex sex and oral sex. Thus moral sex is conditional on it being instrumental to procreation under a holy matrimony. Some relax this condition, and thus may not emphasize the purpose of the sex, but may still believe love, affection, intimacy or avoidance of sexual taboo a necessary condition, and then claim that marital sex is a hospitable environment for this. Thus, some conservative arguments rule out casual sex, but endorse same-sex sex if it is marital. These arguments thus set love as an inherent value, which sex must be an expression of for it to remain moral.
Our second position is the sex-negative feminist position which argues that sexual liberalism fails on its promises and is detrimental to women because it occurs within the patriarchy. This position challenges the assumption that women and men do come, or can come, on equal terms to sexual relations in our society. Particularly highlighted by the frequency and severity of sexual objectification women experience throughout their lives. In patriarchal societies, women are denied power in all the domains of life, (the market, political scene, media and entertainment), and thus may only be able to assert power through the only means still left to them, their control over their own sex. If we assume a sexual liberalism, which gives women de-jure power over which sexual relations they engage in, they may still be coerced into the sex, due to lack of alternative avenues for the acquisition of power and status under a patriarchy. Examples of this coercion in our society and its history are innumerable, but a poignant example is the higher rates of participation in sex work among lower-class women and particularly women in absolute poverty. This example highlights a further criticism, which is the way in which the patriarchy under sexual liberalism affects men; Men alter their perceptions of women as they engage with sex work, pornography or sexualizing media in the society, and thus grow to objectify women and perpetuate the patriarchal conditions. The collaborative forces of patriarchy and capitalism commodify a woman’s sexual domain to derive profit, thus empowering the male sexual perception, or ‘male gaze’, to a social norm, which must be followed. Hence, a necessary condition for ‘moral’ sex is that it occurs outside our patriarchal society.
4 A Conclusion
We have discussed four positions on the liberation and liberalization of sex in our society. Including arguments in favor from the perspective of liberalism and feminism, and in opposition from the perspective of conservatism and sex-negative feminism. It is for you to decide where you stand amongst them, and to take particular note of how sexual liberalism is experienced, seen, institutionalized or not seen in St Andrews. Is this a good thing, and what would an alternative look like?