The
“Hyper-relativizing” of sex
My
diagnosis as to why that is is because sex and sexuality is perceived by many
as something very private, something “so close” to them, something so hardwired
into their identity that it is something that you just can’t converse about
with other people. It’s like that birthmark or scar or wound that one is
embarrassed about: you just don’t show it to others, right? This is why
sexual activity normally isn’t done while one is exposed in public (unless
you’re filming a pornographic film, which, in my view, is immoral in every way,
shape, or form anyway) and why we cover those body parts involved in sexual
activity when we go out into the world through clothing. There’s more to this
which we can dive in but we can’t go to right now (I highly recommend reading
Pope St. John Paul II’s book, Love and Responsibility, especially the
section in the third chapter entitled “The Metaphysics of Shame” for a deeper
discussion on this). The point, anyway, is that most of us today view sex as a
very private, very personal, issue. Thus, since matters of sexuality is deeply
engineered into one’s own “I”, there is this temptation to put it into a
separate ideological “box”, a box that only “I” can “open”, only “I” can
“control”, free from the dictates and opinions of other people. This is why
many of us today are uncomfortable when the issue of sexual ethics (what
is right or wrong about matters of sex and sexuality) comes up when we talk to
others. After all, “why would you care”? Why tell me what to do in my
bedroom? Why rebuke me over my choice to have sex with whomever I want
to have sex with? My sexual life is my sexual life! It is not yours,
that’s why you just can’t tell me what’s right or wrong about it.
A
Proposal
I wrote
this post to propose an alternative, a different perspective in looking at all
things sexual. It seems to me that the sudden relativization of matters
pertaining to sex and hence the culture’s sudden refrain from discussing it in
the realm of morality has left a gaping hole in our intellectual life and
therefore in our life as a whole: it is true that sexuality is deeply hardwired
into our “I” and is therefore a very essential part of our being human, but our
leap from that fact to our hyper-subjective attitude towards sexuality today is
unjustified and unfortunate. I would even say that since sexuality is a key
aspect of humanity, our failure to think about it deeply and to talk about it
in all seriousness in the sphere of morality had the sad consequence of our
inability to completely answer one of the deepest questions we can ask about
being human: Who am I? This implies that we have failed to grasp the
point of human existence. Sexuality is an integral part of anthropology:
to understand the human person correctly, you ought to understand sex
correctly. This is not a small matter, given it is from our concept of the
human person that our concepts of “rights”, “duties”, “law”, “government”,
“family”, “friendship” and most importantly, “morality”, come from. To get life
right, you have to have the right anthropological views. And if sex is
essential to the human person, then discussions about what it is and what we
ought to do about it must be encouraged. Ergo, there is today a
desperate need to discuss and debate matters of sexual morality if we want to
understand human nature and the human condition.
The
Human Body and Sex: Christianity versus The World
To see
this, it is important to see how Christianity traditionally views sexual
morality, which stems from the Christian view of the human body (I won’t be
defending this view or any view own sexual morality on this post, just to be
clear). Christianity sees the human body as inherently good, because God
created it (Genesis 1:31) but it doesn’t stop there. The body is not just good,
the body is such an integral aspect of the human person and plays a very
important role in God’s salvific work, as evident in Christianity’s
doctrine of the incarnation of Christ, the resurrection of the body, and in St.
Paul’s definition of the body as a “temple of the Holy Spirit” (1 Corinthians
6:19-20). For Christians, the body is not something “left out” in one’s
religious life. Christianity, in fact, teaches the opposite: Christ took on
flesh in order to save us who have flesh. As Christopher West once said in
his interview with Matt Fradd, Christianity is not about the rejection of
the body, but about the redemption of the body.
This
means that the real human person is not just his “soul” because the body is
somehow evil, as the Manicheans thought, nor is he just his consciousness or res
cogitans while his body is just some mechanical stuff that is qualitatively
similar to other stuff in the world, as Cartesian philosophy teaches us, nor is
he just a body, as modern reductionistic materialism will say. Christianity
says no to these ideas. Its doctrine of man says that man is his body and
soul, that man is this astonishing combination of matter and
spirit: man is where heaven and earth kiss. When it comes to man’s
relationship with his body and soul, it is not an either/or issue. For Christianity,
it’s always both/and.
What
this implies is that the body is still an important part of one’s
relationship to the Creator: we cannot just put the body on one side while
we put the “spiritual” or “religious” aspects of life in another side. The “I”
who prays is the same “I” who eats, which means that, although we use different
aspects of ourselves in these kinds of activities, the one who does it is a
single, integrated whole that what one does to the body has implications
with one’s soul, and vice versa. What you do to your body is your response to
the God Who made that body and Who has given us laws to conform to when it
comes to using that body.
And so,
for the Christian faith, sexuality is an essential aspect to one’s religious
journey. This is because, as we have already said, you are your body and
soul. And if sexuality is a great part of the human body, then sexuality
plays a role in one’s faith life. Whatever the specifics of Christian
sexual ethics are, what we have discussed so far covers the heart of the
matter.
Here we see the point I am trying to make above: matters of
sexuality are tied into matters of anthropology. At the core of one’s sexual
ethics is one’s view of man. As you can see, questions like “What is man?”,
“What is the relationship between body and soul?”, “Is my identity merely
grounded on the soul or does the body have anything to do with it?”, and “Is
there even a soul in the first place?”, are questions that will affect how one
sees sex and sexual activity. For instance, if the real “you” is just your
consciousness while the body is just this unnecessary material that you have, then
it’s not a big deal if a person who identifies as transgender undergoes gender
transitioning through surgery and the like. After all, your body is not you
anyway, or is not something that defines your essence anyway. Or, if the real “you”
is your soul while the body is this evil prison that you aim to escape from a
la Plato, then one can be strict in his “spiritual” activities, like
prayer, while at the same time be careless about what happens in his sexual
life, since it involves the body. But if the Christian view is true (we can
also call it the “classical view” of man, since many classical philosophers,
like the Scholastics, consider man, composed of body and soul, as a single
substance), then what you do with your sexual life is part of religious
practice. Sex has a religious significance.
So, one
of the reasons why we have to talk about sexual ethics is that it allows us
to foster self-knowledge and practice self-reflection. The other
consequence, then, of our failure to talk about sexual ethics is that we really
don’t know ourselves. We can defeat such a culture by voicing out our
views on matters of sexual ethics, which can then open up to deeper discussions
about the nature of human beings.
Are
We Going Forward?
Another
point that I also want to make, which is connected to what I said above, is
that since we have failed to talk properly about sexual ethics and failed to
know our true selves, we have also failed to see whether we are really
progressing – both as individuals and as a society – or not. Today’s standard
for “progress” is commonly mere emotional subjectivism instead of it being
properly grounded in the metaphysics of man.
We see
here the importance of discussing and debating matters of sex in the
socio-cultural sphere: if talking about it opens up to a broader conversation
about human nature, then we will be able to know our current condition as
people: Are we on the right track as a society? Are we creating a good culture?
This will give us the opportunity to discuss how we will respond to our current
condition properly.
There
are two people who saw a symbiotic relationship between sex/sexual activity and
culture that are worth mentioning here: Margaret Sanger and Pope Paul VI. You
might say that the main issue between these two is their differing opinions on
the morality of using artificial contraceptives, but my fear is that merely describing
it that way might make it oversimplistic. There’s an even deeper reason why
Margaret Sanger advocated for, not only the use of, but also for the
normalization of the use of artificial contraception on the one hand, and why
Pope Paul VI upheld traditional Catholic teaching and opposed it on the other.
Both believe what they believe about the issue not just because they want
people to do what’s right in their bedrooms, or that they want people to
experience freedom in the sexual act. No, there’s more to that: both Sanger and
Paul VI believed that the use (or the prevention thereof) of artificial
contraception has consequences not only in the bedroom, but in human
civilization as a whole, particularly, on whether we are creating a better
social atmosphere for us and for our children.
Sanger
and the Contraceptive Revolution
Why did
Sanger passionately fight for the availability of and universal access to
contraception? She writes:
 |
| Margaret Sanger |
For her, birth control is a great tool for furthering the cause of liberation for women. It will, in her own words, “break (their) bonds”. If that’s true, wouldn’t any reasonable person side with Sanger on this specific advocacy? Wouldn’t we want to have a proper, or even unlimited, access to contraceptive methods, especially for the sake of our women and their freedom? If it is indeed true that contraception will help us progress as a society in treating our women and giving them the liberty they need and deserve, then I see no reason for us to stop any effort in creating a culture where contraceptives played a huge part in building. To hell with those people who are against it!
Sanger elaborates
elsewhere in her writings her vision of what would happen if we are given the
ability to acquire birth control on our own terms:
I would even go so far as
to state that there is no other source of true contentment or understanding of
life values than that which comes from the realization of love in marriage[ii]…In leading her
successfully, nay triumphantly, through this mysterious initiation [of sex] he
[that is, her husband] becomes for her a veritable god—worthy of her
profoundest worship[iii]…Through
sex mankind may attain the great spiritual illumination which will transform
the world, which will light up the only path to an earthly paradise.[iv]
By
avoiding the fear of pregnancy as a consequence of sex through contraception,
Sanger believes that women’s longing for “contentment or understanding of life
values” will be fulfilled! Not only that, she even believes that it can lead to
a “spiritual illumination” and that it will guide us in establishing an
“earthly paradise”!
Think
about it: contraception can create an “earthy paradise” where men are considered
as gods “worthy of (the) profoundest worship” of women, who are also free from
their bondages and have their longings satisfied. Who doesn’t want that? That
sounds good, doesn’t it? We want a heavenly society, don’t we? We want a
society wherein feminine freedom is given its proper due. If Sanger is correct
in her position on contraception, then who doesn’t want to be on board with
her?
But,
then, what if Sanger is wrong, not only on her position on the use of
artificial birth control as such, but on its effects on the culture at large?
Pope Paul VI and Humanae Vitae
 |
| Pope Paul VI |
So,
what consequences or effects did Paul VI saw when it comes to the use of
contraception? His remarks in Humanae Vitae are worth quoting at length:
Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the
doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the
consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first
consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital
infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards… Another effect that gives
cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive
methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical
and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the
satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom
he should surround with care and affection.
Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this
power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for
the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt
to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same
measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a
particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring
those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they
regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could
well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or
social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are
determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities
the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of
husband and wife.[v]
If Sanger saw that contraceptive sex will lead to feminine
liberation, Paul VI saw that it will lead to men using women as mere outlets
for sexual release, reducing them as “mere instruments” who are no longer
considered as people who should be surrounded with “care and affection”.
If Sanger saw that contraceptive sex will allow women to
understand “life values,” Paul VI saw that it “could open wide the way for marital
infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards.
If Sanger saw that contraceptive sex will usher the
beginnings of an “earthly paradise”, Paul VI saw that it can be used by
governments as a tool for oppression and dictatorship by “imposing their use on
everyone”.
Again, we have to ask the right question now: Was
Margaret Sanger wrong in her advocacy and her vision? Was Pope Paul VI right?
Because, if the answer to both of these questions is yes, then we should strive
to fight against the normalization of the use of contraception today. We have
to inform people of the evils and disorders that can come from contraceptive
sex. More importantly, if we really care about our women and their freedom and
rights, especially their right not to be used as mere objects, then we have to
advocate against the “contraceptive mentality” rampant among people today. We
don’t want a culture of misogyny. And if contraception is misogynistic, then we
have to promote and uphold Paul VI’s teachings.
High Stakes
As you can see by now, the stakes are high when it comes to
this issue, and it is seen by both sides of the debate. If we really care
about how we treat people and socio-cultural progress, then we have to talk
about it in all seriousness. If we want a better society, if we want a
civilization going in the right track, then sexual ethics in general (and not
just the issue of contraception in particular) cannot just be put aside. We are
a people who desperately needs a dialectic sphere where we can properly discuss
and have rational dispute over the morals of sexual activity and everything
connected to it. This is a matter that we shouldn’t take lightly. Sanger and
Paul VI both agree that there are great consequences when we promote the use of
contraception. Their difference is in the specifics. Their difference is
basically whether these “great consequences” will be good or bad. It is very
important, on a civilizational level, that you join the right side of this
dispute.
We can then ask: is it just contraception? What about
transgenderism, same-sex marriage, pedophilia, bestiality? Are these
unimportant issues? Or do they have a socio-cultural significance as well? We
can only adequately answer these questions if we talk about it. I’m
pretty sure we don’t want to see the world burn due to many people’s
indifference when it comes to these issues. We, as rational beings, have to ask
the right question and demand the right answers, lest we crumble as a
society due to ignorance and misinformation.
It is important, then, to debate matters of sexual ethics
because it has a huge impact in society and its progress (or regress;
that is something we can know only if we start talking about it). If we really
care about where we’re going as a people, and what kind of world we will put
our children in, holding on to the right standards of sexual ethics is vital.
Conclusion
To summarize, discussing sexual ethics is important because
it allows us an opportunity to know ourselves, which begets an opportunity to
know our current state as people and therefore to formulate a proper response
to it. Sexual ethics, then, is not just ethics “about what I do by myself”. It
is also ethics inherent in our understanding of man, whether correct or
incorrect, and our conception of society and culture. This is, therefore, never
a small matter. The right meaning of human existence and civilization greatly depends
on it. We better discuss it now for our own sake.
Comments
Post a Comment