On Sex
On Sex
There are few things that religion like regulating more than sexual intercourse. Until as recently as 2003, traditional Christian beliefs framed the law on sex in England and Wales, forbidding such things as buggery (including between males and females) and orgies (at least for homosexual males). The intrusion of a deeply public religion into the sexual realm seems odd - what role does religion have, if any, in regulating this deeply private aspect of personal life? That is the question we must now consider.
In the ancient world, such as in Greece, a man (vir) had the obligation to father and raise children with his wife. This did not prevent him, however, from contracting what were felt to be more pleasurable and no less honourable sexual relations with other males (usually young men and adolescents) and thus the private and public realms were dictinct and complementary. In Rome, on the other hand, the notion of domination/dominated prevented freemen from engaging in the passive role of homosexual relations, again suggesting that his public role entailed certain expectations, relieved only by the status of slavery. We should note that divorce was fairly straightforward in both civilisations.
The public interest felt in adults' sexual activity was (and arguably largely remains) in the birth and raising of children, which are a heavy burden for human beings. The extent of child mortality in the pre-modern world, as well as the constant dangers of famine, pestilence and conquest, help justify the ancient morality in both Greece and Rome; one's own security is inseparably tied from that of the Empire, or the City-State. Those who can, they probably thought, must have children. Yet these considerations are quite separate from religion; they are, rather, felt necessities that can (and do) change with time and circumstance.
The Christian world differed in not only demanding heterosexual procreation (where people were not vowed to chastity or celibacy), but also that, in all circumstances, procreative sex was the only licit form of sexual activity, excluding even masturbation and "dirty thoughts" (unless they were about one's spouse). The reasoning behind this is the Golden Rule; one exists wholly for the good of others, which requires that the private considerations for sex be totally overridden in favour of the public interest. Thus, for many centuries, heterosexual intercourse within the public relationship of marriage was considered the only valid and licit form of sexual activity, with other forms punished socially or legally, including by hanging and imprisonment.
In the last century, the traditional sexual morality has broken down and it is rare to find a married couple that abides by it (including to the extent of not using contraception). Today's modus operandi (I am not sure we can call it a morality) goes to the other extreme, emphasising the private satisfaction to be gained from sex. This retains some characteristic features of the traditional mistake, such as by treating sex as one homogeneous aspect of human life (which it perhaps was in days of yore) and by treating all sexual activity as equally worthwhile, if it fits in within the overall framework. The failure to distinguish can lead to unfortunate consequences, as we will discuss below.
At this point, what role has religion in the regulation of sexual activity? First, it should be said that, despite the ancient precedents, there should be no room in our society for any form of non-consensual or exploitative sexual practices, although the prevention and punishment of these may require different approaches in different cases. That is not an open question. What is more of an open question is the role of a non-dogmatic religion in promoting human-wellbeing through the self-regulation of sexual behaviour. In this, I believe it right to hold an ethical view, justified on the basis of reason, and nourished by the life and worship of paganism.
If the goal of life is human flourishing, then one's sexual life should reflect that, meaning not all choices are equal. Thus, confining oneself to one marriage for life, even when that is proving to be a disaster is as deleterious as the most promiscuous and unhealthy lifestyle. Not all sexual or relationship choices are equal in terms of their affect upon individual welfare, even if we admit that adults' consensual, private activities are a matter for them alone. The choice we make should be affected by an informed understanding of the risks and benefits of a particular lifestyle, as well as of the effects of our own make-up and nature on those.
There are few things that religion like regulating more than sexual intercourse. Until as recently as 2003, traditional Christian beliefs framed the law on sex in England and Wales, forbidding such things as buggery (including between males and females) and orgies (at least for homosexual males). The intrusion of a deeply public religion into the sexual realm seems odd - what role does religion have, if any, in regulating this deeply private aspect of personal life? That is the question we must now consider.
In the ancient world, such as in Greece, a man (vir) had the obligation to father and raise children with his wife. This did not prevent him, however, from contracting what were felt to be more pleasurable and no less honourable sexual relations with other males (usually young men and adolescents) and thus the private and public realms were dictinct and complementary. In Rome, on the other hand, the notion of domination/dominated prevented freemen from engaging in the passive role of homosexual relations, again suggesting that his public role entailed certain expectations, relieved only by the status of slavery. We should note that divorce was fairly straightforward in both civilisations.
The public interest felt in adults' sexual activity was (and arguably largely remains) in the birth and raising of children, which are a heavy burden for human beings. The extent of child mortality in the pre-modern world, as well as the constant dangers of famine, pestilence and conquest, help justify the ancient morality in both Greece and Rome; one's own security is inseparably tied from that of the Empire, or the City-State. Those who can, they probably thought, must have children. Yet these considerations are quite separate from religion; they are, rather, felt necessities that can (and do) change with time and circumstance.
The Christian world differed in not only demanding heterosexual procreation (where people were not vowed to chastity or celibacy), but also that, in all circumstances, procreative sex was the only licit form of sexual activity, excluding even masturbation and "dirty thoughts" (unless they were about one's spouse). The reasoning behind this is the Golden Rule; one exists wholly for the good of others, which requires that the private considerations for sex be totally overridden in favour of the public interest. Thus, for many centuries, heterosexual intercourse within the public relationship of marriage was considered the only valid and licit form of sexual activity, with other forms punished socially or legally, including by hanging and imprisonment.
In the last century, the traditional sexual morality has broken down and it is rare to find a married couple that abides by it (including to the extent of not using contraception). Today's modus operandi (I am not sure we can call it a morality) goes to the other extreme, emphasising the private satisfaction to be gained from sex. This retains some characteristic features of the traditional mistake, such as by treating sex as one homogeneous aspect of human life (which it perhaps was in days of yore) and by treating all sexual activity as equally worthwhile, if it fits in within the overall framework. The failure to distinguish can lead to unfortunate consequences, as we will discuss below.
At this point, what role has religion in the regulation of sexual activity? First, it should be said that, despite the ancient precedents, there should be no room in our society for any form of non-consensual or exploitative sexual practices, although the prevention and punishment of these may require different approaches in different cases. That is not an open question. What is more of an open question is the role of a non-dogmatic religion in promoting human-wellbeing through the self-regulation of sexual behaviour. In this, I believe it right to hold an ethical view, justified on the basis of reason, and nourished by the life and worship of paganism.
If the goal of life is human flourishing, then one's sexual life should reflect that, meaning not all choices are equal. Thus, confining oneself to one marriage for life, even when that is proving to be a disaster is as deleterious as the most promiscuous and unhealthy lifestyle. Not all sexual or relationship choices are equal in terms of their affect upon individual welfare, even if we admit that adults' consensual, private activities are a matter for them alone. The choice we make should be affected by an informed understanding of the risks and benefits of a particular lifestyle, as well as of the effects of our own make-up and nature on those.
Comments
Post a Comment