Last week, Brandon McGinley ’10 threw down the gauntlet, challenging social liberals to offer a comprehensive sexual ethic to contrast with the Anscombe Society’s (“A Call for Consistency,” Feb. 4). The very structure of his argument reveals the divide between Anscombe’s attitudes toward sex and the layman’s attitudes. The society’s members increasingly present sex as a metaphysical and philosophic dilemma. For most of us, sex is among the most deeply personal issues. To put it another way, Voltaire and Aquinas don’t usually come up when I’m making an actual sexual decision.
So, I must graciously decline McGinley’s invitation. I do not believe in a comprehensive, universal sexual ethic. Furthermore, such a discussion is entirely unhelpful outside of a religion or philosophy precept. Any attempt to construct a universal sexual code of conduct inevitably spends more time carving around the outliers — pedophilia, incest, polygamy and bestiality — than addressing issues that are actually relevant to most people.
I want to be clear: My objections to the Anscombe Society have nothing to do with its members’ lifestyle choices. It is not even the confounding logical hurdles they maneuver to arrive at their sexual definitions. It is the universality of their claims that I take issue with. In my experience, there are innumerable factors that determine the appropriateness of a sex act.
A preliminary list might include: attraction, culture, environment, experience, health, love, lust, mutual understanding, openness, relationship status, religion and upbringing. I list these in alphabetical order to mask their relative importance. You might add or subtract certain ideas based on your preferences.
These factors can’t and shouldn’t be extrapolated to a universal sexual code of ethics. They represent a personal sexual code of ethics. For me, waiting for marriage was not the right choice. I know this from my personal experience, not from any discourse on morality or natural law. Perhaps the Anscombe Society members will experience a sexual union on their wedding nights that I could only dream of, but I’m willing to bet against it.
My personal sexual ethic paints the world in shades of grey, which no doubt frustrates McGinley. But I would argue that this approach is much more comprehensive than the society’s black-and-white approach. Getting engaged to a thrice-divorced alcoholic who is 40 years your elder? Bad idea. Having sex with your unmarried partner before they leave for Iraq? Fine by me.
My view of sexual culture (that every individual carries their own sexual morals) doesn’t exclude the Anscombe Society’s position. No one should do anything that they are not comfortable with for any reason. Some people aren’t comfortable with premarital “sex” (however you define sex); that’s legitimate. Some people draw the line at a New Year’s kiss; that’s legitimate too. As long as you have thought out the benefits and consequences of your actions, you are pretty sure to make a moral decision.
Personal sexual morals align almost universally on some issues. Polygamy and pedophilia have a cultural history of victimizing young girls, so we regulate them. Incest is regulated because of concerns about inbreeding, though I note this is done in shades of grey as well. Sleeping with your brother is incest, but what about your second or fourth cousin? I can’t give a good moral reason to regulate bestiality — except to say that it’s gross and potentially dangerous.
Thus, we legislate sexuality based on facts and studies, not a “secular” theory of natural law. Beyond that, our sexual culture is made up of (hopefully well-informed) individuals making personal decisions based on a variety of factors. This is not a left-right distinction; it is an individualist-dogmatic distinction. I fear that any comprehensive sexual code of ethics (even if presented secularly) is straying into the dogmatic.
I will conclude by offering my own challenge to McGinley and the Anscombe Society: Join us in the arena of public information. There is a good secular case for abstinence, so make it. Tell the campus how abstinence can promote emotional intimacy. Warn about the dangers of mixing sex and alcohol. Talk about sexually transmitted diseases. Help prevent dangerous sexual situations. Making practical arguments for your lifestyle will do a lot more to change campus opinions than trying to prove your intellectual superiority.
Travis Knop is a senior from Clinton, N.Y. He can be reached at tknop@princeton.edu
Want to write for Opinion? Apply online! We are accepting applications until Feb. 12.
Read More
Why can’t lecturers win the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching?
Jerry ZhuLet’s acknowledge those who make “boutique teaching” possible, those who work tirelessly to make our rigorous curricula more accessible, and those who dedicate their time to advising and guiding us through all the challenges we face at this University. Lecturers should be eligible for the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching.
Let’s acknowledge those who make “boutique teaching” possible, those who work tirelessly to make our rigorous curricula more accessible, and those who dedicate their time to advising and guiding us through all the challenges we face at this University. Lecturers should be eligible for the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching.
Princeton’s administration of justice is Trumpian
Frances BroganThe disparity between the University’s approach to Giberson and its approach to pro-Palestinian protestors reflects a concerning trend of appeasing an increasingly emboldened right rather than resisting the threat it poses to academic freedom and the wellbeing of Princeton students.
Secular Opening Exercises? Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water
Frank StrasburgerThe secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
The secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
