What do I mean by a "traditional position" on sexual morality?  I  shall give this expression a minimalist interpretation, understanding it to be simply the view that sex outside of marriage is wrong.  So understood, it will rule out premarital sex, adultery, incestuous sex, prostitution, and sex with animals.  In addition, provided that one takes the view that marriage must involve a man and a woman, it will also rule out homosexual sex, and I shall adopt that view here.

        Some people would argue that the traditional view of sexual morality involves additional elements, especially a prohibition of non-procreative sex, and so a prohibition of oral sex - at least in place of sexual intercourse - and the use of contraceptives.  But I think it is best not to incorporate such further restrictions - and especially the total prohibition against the use of contraceptives, since that is a view that is largely confined to the Roman Catholic church, and also one that even within that branch of Christianity is very widely rejected by members of that church.

1.  Different Ways of Arguing for a Traditional Position on Sexual Morality

        How might one argue in support of a traditional position on sexual morality, so understood?  The main possibilities seem to be as follows:

(1)  By appealing to religious revelation;

(2)  By defending the view that sexual activity is intrinsically wrong unless the object is reproduction;

(3)  By arguing that various moral principles dealing with sexual behavior are basic;

(4)  By arguing that while sexual behavior outside of marriage may not be wrong in itself, the consequences that will probably result make it wrong all things considered.

        Let us consider, then, each of these four lines of argument in turn.

2.  Argument 1:  The Appeal to Religious Revelation

2.1  The Argument

        Advocates of different religions would appeal to different religious leaders, or to different books that they regard as sacred scriptures, in setting out this argument.  For example, a Christian could appeal to the following passages from the Bible:

Adultery

"You shall not commit adultery."  (Exodus, 20:14)

If a man commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, both adulterer and adulteress shall be put to death."  (Leviticus, 20:10)

Incest

"The man who has intercourse with his father's wife has brought shame on his father.  They shall both be put to death . . . ."  (Leviticus, 20:11)

Homosexuality

"If a man has intercourse with a man as with a woman, they both commit an abomination.  They shall both be put to death . . . "  (Leviticus, 20:13-14)

"In consequence, I say, God has given them up to shameful passions.  Their women have exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and their men in turn, giving up natural relations with women, burn with lust for one another; males behave indecently with males, and are paid in their own persons the fitting wage of such a perversion."  (Romans, 1:26-27)

"Thus, because they have not seen fit to acknowledge God, he has given them up to their own depraved reason.  This leads them to break all rules of conduct. . . .  They know well enough the just decree of God, that those who behave like this deserve to die, and yet they do it; not only so, they actually applaud such practices."  (Romans, 1:28-32)

Sex with animals

"Whoever has unnatural connection with a beast shall be put to death."  (Exodus, 22:19)

"A man who has sexual intercourse with any beast shall be put to death, and you shall kill the beast."  (Leviticus, 20:15)

Premarital sex

"If on the other hand the accusation is true, and no proof of the girl's virginity is found, then they shall bring her out to the door of her father's house and the men of her town shall stone her to death."   (Deuteronomy, 22:20-21)

"Wicked thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, perjury, slander - these all proceed from the heart; and these are the things that defile a man . . . ."  (Matthew, 15:19-20)

As many of these passages are from the first five books of the Old Testament, which is also the Jewish Torah, a person who was Jewish could appeal to them in support of traditional sexual morality.  A Christian who was also a Roman Catholic, on the other hand, could also appeal to the teachings of popes - such as Pius XI's Encyclical "Casti Connubii" (Chastity in Marriage)

2.2  Evaluation of the Argument

        How might one respond to this argument?  Four main responses are possible:

(1)  One might argue that God does not exist - appealing, perhaps to the classic argument from evil against the existence of God.  Or, alternatively, one might argue, more generally, that naturalism is true, and that no supernatural beings exist.

(2)  One might argue that the fact that a deity has forbidden some action does not make it wrong.

(3)  One might argue that even if God does exist, there is no good reason for believing that he has revealed any moral truths to us.

(4)  One might argue that even if one assumes, for the sake of discussion, that God exists, there is good reason to believe that the Bible does not contain revelations from God.

        Consider the first response.  In particular, consider the idea of arguing that the suffering that we find in the world makes it very unlikely that there is an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good deity.  Here one is appealing to a philosophical argument that goes back a long way in human history.  Moreover, this argument is being very intensely discussed by philosophers and theologians at the present time, and many philosophers believe that the argument is sound.  Accordingly, one might think that this was a promising response.  But on the other hand, the basic logic of the argument from evil (or suffering) is not yet entirely clear, and a number of intelligent philosophers contend that the argument from evil is not in fact sound.  Consequently, if one adopts this sort of response to the appeal to revelation, one is taking on a fairly challenging task.  But, in addition, one is also arguing for a conclusion that is much stronger than one needs.

        The second response also goes back a long way - namely, to Plato, and to an argument that he advanced in one of his dialogues - The Euthyphro.  There Socrates asked whether holy things were loved by the gods because they were holy, or whether, instead, they were holy because they were loved by the gods.  In other words, are holy things holy because of their intrinsic nature, or are they holy only because certain beings - the gods - treat them in a certain way.  Socrates argued that the correct view was the former.

        The sort of question that Socrates raised about holy things can equally well be raised about good things, or about right and wrong actions.  Thus one can ask whether  actions of a certain type are morally wrong only because there is a creator who forbids such actions, or whether, on the contrary, actions of the type in question are wrong because of the intrinsic nature of such actions.  Then, if one agreed with the Euthyphro view, the conclusion would be that the fact that a deity has forbidden some action - such as premarital sex - cannot be what it is that makes premarital sex wrong, if it is wrong.

        An advocate of the appeal to revelation might either challenge the Euthyphro argument, and try to support what is called a "divine command theory of morality", or else he or she might say that acceptance of a divine command theory of morality need not be any part of the present appeal to revelation, since one can agree that what makes premarital sex wrong cannot be the fact that a deity has forbidden it, but then go on to argue that a deity is more likely to know what is morally wrong than we humans, and thus that it is reasonable for us to rely on the knowledge that a deity imparts to us about what actions are morally wrong.

        Where do things stand, given this reply?  The answer is that while the Euthyphro style argument does not refute the appeal to revelation when the latter is understood as not involving the divine command theory of morality, if one jettisons the divine command theory of morality, it then becomes an open question whether any particular action that is prohibited by a deity is in fact morally wrong, since this will no longer be true by definition.  The question then becomes whether the advocate of the appeal to revelation can now provide a good reason for thinking that if an action is forbidden by a deity, it is at least likely that that action is morally wrong.

        What about the third response?  The problem with it is that it is hard to see how one could establish the claim that there is no good reason to believe that God, if he exists, has revealed any moral truths to us, except by considering all purported revelations, and then showing that there is no good reason to think that any of them is the real thing.  This, however, would be an immense undertaking.  In addition, if one assumes, at least for the sake of discussion, that there is a morally good creator, is it not at least somewhat plausible that such a being would reveal to us important pieces of knowledge that it would otherwise be very difficult for us to acquire?  So it seems that someone who opts for this third response takes on a serious burden of proof.

        We come, then, to the fourth response, and it seems to me not only the most promising response, but one that can be sustained.  Here the basic idea is to look at the specific source that is being appealed to - in this case, the Bible - and seeing whether the claim that it is a revelation from God is plausible in the light of the content of the book itself.  Exercises 1 and 2 were designed to give you an opportunity to read some parts of the Bible carefully, with an idea to seeing whether it is plausible to hold either that everything in the Bible is true, or that, even if not everything in the Bible is true, the Bible is at least a completely reliable guide specifically with respect to moral matters.

        What the first exercise brought out was, first, that there are, in the Bible - and specifically, in Genesis - a number of very implausible beliefs - such as that the sky is a firmament in which the sun, the moon, and the stars are embedded; that all animals were originally herbivorous; that a serpent once was able to think and to talk; that God ordained that husbands should rule over their wives; that there were divine beings - "sons of God" - who had intercourse with human women, thereby producing the mighty men of old; that people, such as Noah, lived to ages of 600 years and more; that an ark measuring 300 cubits by 50 cubits by 30 cubits - i.e., about 450 feet by 75 feet by 45 feet - was able to hold at least two members of every sort of living thing, along with sufficient food for a trip that lasted about a year; that there was a great flood caused by God that destroyed all living things, including, presumably, young children - except for those on Noah's ark, and that there was so much water on the earth that the tops of even the highest mountains were under water; that living things managed to travel from the mountains of Ararat - where the ark came to rest - to all other parts of the globe, however remote and isolated, and so on.  Secondly, it also emerged that there are some clear cut contradictions, such as in the story of Noah, concerning how many animals of each kind should go on the ark, and in the two stories of creation in Genesis 1-2, concerning both the order in which various things were created, and how they were created.

        The focus of the second exercise was on the moral teachings of the Bible, and there two points emerged.  First, there are a number of ethical claims in the Bible that seem very implausible.  This is illustrated, for example, by many of the passages cited above in support of a traditional view of sexual morality, since they prescribe the death penalty for a number of offenses - such as adultery, incest, a woman's not being a virgin when she is married, and so on,  But there are also many other passages that advance unsound moral views.  There are, for example, passages that imply acceptance of the institution of slavery - such as (Exodus, 21:4) and (Exodus, 21:7).  And there are passages - such as Leviticus, 20:9 - where it says that a person who reviles his father or his mother should be put to death - a  view that is also found in the New Testament, since Jesus says, at Matthew 15:3-5:  " For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'The man who curses his father or mother must suffer death'."  (Although Jesus says here only that this is God's commandment, it is surely reasonable to assume that Jesus did not disagree with anything that he took to be God's commandment.)

        Secondly, the Bible also attributes to the deity a number of actions that are morally highly problematic - such as God's killing all human beings - including babies and young children - other than those belonging to Noah's family (Genesis 6:5-7;  Genesis 7:1-6;  Genesis 7:21-23), God's killing of all of the first-born children of the Egyptians  (Exodus 12:12 and Exodus 12:28-29), God's commitment to punishing  children for the sins of their fathers.  (Exodus, 20:5), and God's commanding Saul to kill all of the Amalekites: "Spare no one; put them all to death, men and women, children and babes in arms, herds and flocks, camels and asses."  (1 Samuel 15:3-4)

        In short, given that there are a number of ethical claims advanced in the Bible that few people would regard as correct, and that there are actions attributed to God that most people would view as morally wrong, it is hard to see that a satisfactory case for a traditional view of sexual morality can be made out by appealing to passages in the Bible.

3.  Argument 2:  Sexual Activity is Intrinsically Wrong Unless the Goal is Reproduction

3.1  The Argument

        This second argument might be stated as follows:

(1)  Sex is intrinsically wrong unless those engaging in sexual behavior do so with the goal of having children.

(2)  If one has children, one has a very serious moral obligation to raise and to care for the needs of those children,

(3)  That serious obligation can only be effectively met if both parents are in a permanent relationship - namely, marriage.

(4)  Therefore, sexual activity outside of marriage is morally wrong.

3.2  Evaluation of the Argument

        How might respond to this  second argument?  Though there are other points in the argument that might be questioned, the most controversial part of the argument is surely the claim advanced at (1).  So let us ask how that claim might be challenged.  Here are three possibilities:

(1)  One can employ the technique of counterexamples;

(2)  One can ask whether the moral claim advanced at (1) is supposed to be basic or derived, and then try to show that both responses are open to strong objections;

(3)  One can argue, first, that actions are not morally wrong unless they either violate the rights of individuals, or else make the world a worse place, and then, secondly, that sex outside of marriage need not do either of these things.

3.2.1  Applying the Technique of Counterexamples

        Are there any cases where people engage in sexual behavior, where their intention is not to have children, but where it does not seem plausible to hold that what they are doing is morally wrong?  Are there, in short, any plausible counterexamples to claim (1) in the above argument?

        The two most plausible counterexamples, I think, are as follows:

(1)  Consider the case of a married couple who are no longer physically able to have children, and who know that this is so.  Is it really plausible that it is morally wrong for such a couple to enjoy sex together?

(2) Or consider the case of a married couple who have many, many children, and who could not even feed yet alone care for any more children.  Does it seem plausible that it is morally wrong for such a couple to engage in sexual behavior, either of such a type, or in such a way, that conception will not result?

3.2.2  The Basic Versus Derived Moral Principles Line of Argument

        It is often useful to ask whether a moral principle is basic or derived.  So let us ask that question concerning the claim that sexual activity is intrinsically wrong unless the goal is reproduction.

        Can it plausibly be held that it is a basic moral principle that sexual activity is intrinsically wrong unless the goal is reproduction?  That this is not plausible becomes clear, I think, when one notices that it is not the case that if someone who holds that sexual activity is intrinsically wrong unless the goal is reproduction is asked why this is so, they will not be able to say anything at all.  For compare the claim that sexual activity is intrinsically wrong unless the goal is reproduction with the claim that drinking beer is intrinsically wrong unless it is aimed at reproduction.  Confronted with that claim, one could reply that that's absurd, since drinking beer cannot be treated as having reproduction as its goal.  So what this shows is that the claim that sexual activity is intrinsically wrong unless the goal is reproduction rests in part upon the claim that sexual activity is a possible means of reproducing.  But now the question is how the two claims are connected.  Is the connection, for example, the following:

(1)  Sex is a possible means of reproducing.

(2)  If X is a possible means of bringing about Y, then it is intrinsically wrong to do X unless one is doing it as a means to Y.

(3)  Therefore, to engage in sex when it is not one's object to reproduce is intrinsically wrong.

        If so, then the point will be that the general claim that is involved in (2) will be exposed to counterexamples very similar to those that arose in connection with the earlier discussion of the claim that the purpose of sex was reproduction:  in brief, the fact that something can be used as a means to some end does not appear to be a reason that makes it wrong to use that thing in some other way.

3.2.3  No Rights are Violated, nor is the World a Worse Place

        Consider two unmarried people - either a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple.  How could their engaging in sexual activities either violate someone's rights, or make the world a worse place?  As regards the latter, the main possibilities are that such behavior might make the world a worse place by furthering the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, or by bringing into existence children who are not properly cared for.  As regards the former, the only possibility would seem to be that the behavior, if it produces a child that will not be properly cared for, violates that rights of that future child.

        These possibilities would need to be taken very serious indeed if the argument were that sexual activity which is outside of marriage, or which does not have reproduction as is goal, was likely to have bad consequences, and we shall take a close look at them when we turn to the fourth argument in support of a traditional view of sexual morality.  The present argument, however, involves the claim that sexual behavior that does not aim at reproduction is intrinsically wrong, and what this means is that such sexual behavior is wrong in itself, even if it does not lead to bad consequences.  This means in turn that since sexual activity that does not have reproduction as its object does not necessarily result in children who will not be properly cared for, or in the transmission of diseases, these factors cannot be relevant to such behavior's being intrinsically wrong.

4.  Argument 3:  Basic Moral Principles Dealing with Sexual Behavior

4.1  The Claim

        The thrust of this third line of defense of a traditional position on sexual morality is that one does not have to offer any argument in defense of the traditional position: some moral principles, after all, must be basic, rather than derived, so why may not this be the case with the fundamental principles dealing with sexual behavior?

4.2  Response

        The basic objection to this sort of view emerged in connection with the discussion of the second argument, and it is that given a principle dealing with sexual behavior that is claimed to  be basic, one can consider parallel principles that deal with non-sexual behavior, and if the latter principles are not even true, let alone basic, then surely there must be some explanation  of why the principles dealing with sexual behavior are correct, while the parallel principles are not.

        To see the force of this, consider two moral principles that might be claimed to be basic by an advocate of the line of argument that we are considering here:

(1)  It is morally wrong for a brother and sister to enjoy sex with one another;

(2)  It is morally wrong for women to have sex with one another.

The response that I have just described might then ask such a person to consider the following, parallel principles:

(1a)  It is morally wrong for a brother and sister to play golf together

(2a)  It is morally wrong for women to talk with one another.

(1a) and (2a) are absurd.  But how is it that when - as in principles (1) and (2) - one considers sexual activity, rather than conversation or golf, one has principles that might be claimed to be true?  Surely it is false that there is nothing to be said here.  Surely the fact that sexual activities can have consequences that are quite different from those of conversations or playing golf together is a relevant fact.  But if so, one can specify exactly what that relevance is, and doing this will in effect point towards a possible way of deriving (1) and (2) from other principles - a way that cannot be used for claims (1a) and (2a).  But then principles (1) and (2) cannot be basic moral principles.

5.  Argument 4:  Traditional Sexual Morality:  An Appeal to Consequences

5.1  The Argument

        Two important conclusions seem plausible in the light of the preceding discussion:

(1)  Principles dealing with sexual behavior cannot be basic moral principles: they must instead be derived.

(2)  If sexual behavior of a certain sort is morally wrong, it cannot be that it is intrinsically wrong: it must be wrong because it has, or is likely to have, bad consequences.

        If these conclusions are right, then the way of argue for a traditional position on sexual morality is by contending that sex outside of marriage will have bad consequences that outweigh any good consequences.  So let us see how such an argument might be developed.

5.1.1  A Letter to Ann Landers

ANN LANDERS

Safe Sex

Teens need to get the message

DEAR ANN LANDERS:  I am sending an article from the Los Angeles Times that could save thousands of lives.  It was written by Dr. Steven Sainsbury of San Luis Obispo, California.  It's too long for your space, but I hope you will print as much as you can -- Faithful Reader.

Dear Faithful:  Thank you so much.  Here is an edited version:

"My 15-year-old patient lay quietly on the gurney as I asked the standard questions: "Are you sexually active?'  She said, 'Yes.'  Next question: 'Are you using any form of birth control?'  The response was 'No.'  Next question: 'What about condoms?'  Response, 'No.'

"Her answers didn't surprise me.  She has a rip-roaring case of gonorrhea.  It could easily have been AIDS.  I treat teenagers like this one every day.  Most are sexually active.  Condoms are used rarely and sporadically.

"Yet in the midst of the AIDS epidemic, I continue to hear condoms being touted as the solution to HIV transmission.  Condoms are being passed out in high schools, sold in college restroom dispensers and promoted on TV.  The message is: Condoms equal safe sex.

"As a physician, I wish it were true.  It isn't.  It is a dangerous lie.

"Fact No. 1:  In 1989, a survey among college women, a group we presume to be well-informed on the risks of herpes, genital warts, cervical cancer and AIDS, showed that only 41 percent insisted on condom use.  If educated women can't be persuaded to use condoms, how can we expect teenagers to do so?

"Fact No. 2:  Condoms fail frequently due to improper storage, handling and usage.  The breakage rate during vaginal intercourse is 14 percent.  For a person who averages three times a week, a 14 percent breakage rate equals a failure nearly every two weeks.

For condoms to be the answer to AIDS, they must be used every time, and they can never break or leak.  So what's the answer?  The only answer is no sex until one is ready to commit to a monogamous relationship.  The key words are abstinence and monogamy.

"I can hear the moans.  Condom fans murmur words like unrealistic, naive and old-fashioned.  Well, perhaps what is needed to stem the tide of AIDS and unwanted pregnancies is a return to those old-fashioned concepts.

"To quote Dr. Robert C. Noble, a University of Kentucky infectious disease expert, 'We should stop kidding ourselves.  There is no safe sex.  If the condom breaks, you may die.'"

5.1.2  Strengthening the Argument

How does Ann Landers respond to this argument?  In precisely the right way, I believe.  But I want to leave her response until later.  First, I want to sketch some of the facts that one might appeal to in order to strengthen the argument

5.1.2.1  The Situation in America:  Some Relevant Facts

Here are six considerations that seem to show that either premarital sex, or homosexual sex, have consequences that are very bad indeed:

1.  High Rate of Births to Unmarried Women

Fact:  It was predicted that of the approximately 4 million children that would be born in the United States in 1995, at least 30% - that is, 1.2 million - would be born out of wedlock.

Fact:  Most of those children will grow up without fathers.

(Source:  Colorado Daily item, February 17-19, 1995.

2.  Negative Effects Associated with Single Parent Families

"According to one study, kids from single-parent families, whether through divorce or illegitimacy, are two to three times as likely to have emotional or behavioral problems, and half again as likely to have learning disabilities as those who live with both parents."  (Colorado Daily item, February 17-19, 1995)

3.  Spread of STDs, including AIDS

Fact:  In San Francisco, where half of the male gay community either have AIDS, or are HIV-positive, the rate of new infections, after dropping to 1% in 1985, "has nudged back up to 2 out of 100 now, and is twice that high among men younger than 25."

Fact:  One out of three gay men in San Francisco now engage in unsafe sex.

(Source of the preceding two facts:  The Sunday Camera, December 12, 1993)

Fact:  A survey of college women, in 1989, "showed that only 41 percent insisted on condom use."

Fact:  "The breakage rate of condoms during vaginal intercourse is 14 percent."

(Source of the preceding two facts:  A letter written by Dr. Steven Sainsbury, and published, in an edited version, in an October 24, 1993, Ann Landers column.)

Fact:  "Teenagers [in the United States] are contracting the AIDS virus at an average rate of more than one an hour, and of the 40,000 to 80,000 Americans that become infected with the AIDS virus each year, one in four is a teenager."

(Source:  An Associated Press article based on the report by the White House Office of AIDS Policy.)

Fact:  "Five times as many Americans have died of AIDS as were killed in the Vietnam War."

Fact:  "AIDS has become the leading cause of death among all adults between 25 and 44 and is now ranked sixth among fatal diseases in people under age 65."

4.  The High Frequency of Abortion.

Fact:  Of couples who use male latex condoms, the rate of pregnancy in "typical" use is 15% per year.

(Source:  An advertisement for the "Reality Female condom" in the Colorado Daily, January 17, 1995.  The pregnancy rate for the latter is 25% per year in "typical" use.)

5.  The High Financial Costs to Society of Sexual Promiscuity

Fact:  It costs about $100,000 to treat an AIDS patient.

(Source:  The Sunday Camera, December 12, 1993)

6.  Premarital Promiscuity and Subsequent Adultery?

        Suppose that one has had a number of sexual partners before marriage.  May it not be the case that that makes it difficult, at least for a significant number of people, to commit themselves to a single sexual partner within marriage?  Isn't it likely, then, that sexual promiscuity before marriage will make adultery more likely, and thus contribute to an increasing breakdown of marriage, with all of the emotional turmoil and suffering typically associated with divorce?

5.1.2.2  The Situation in Africa, and Elsewhere

The CBS television show "Sixty Minutes" had a program that dealt with AIDS in Africa - the show was entitled "Death by Denial".  Here is a brief summary of their report

1.  A Summary View:  AIDS in Africa, and Worldwide

1.  Every minute, 11 people in the world are infected with HIV, 8 of them in Africa.

2.  In Africa today, AIDS is killing 23 million people.

3.  The proportion of adults who are infected by AIDS is 1 in 5 in South Africa, and 1 in 4 in Zimbabwe.

4.  Less than 1/10th of 1% of those who have AIDS in Africa receive the drugs they need.

5.  Ed Bradley:  "If the epidemic continues on its current path, 10 years from now 100 million people around the world will have been infected with HIV."

1.1  South Africa

1.  1600 people are infected with HIV every day.

2.  1 in 5 adults will die from AIDS.

3.  1 in 3 pregnant women with AIDS passes it on to her baby.

4.  Each week, 290 babies who are a year older or younger die from AIDS.

5.  In the case of children in a hospital ward, it is rare to find a child that does not have AIDS.

6.  In spite of these facts, virtually no one in South Africa talks about AIDS.

7.  The president of South Africa does not think it has been established that HIV causes AIDS.

8.  The drug AZT blocks the transmission of AIDS from pregnant women to their babies about half the time.

9.  If AZT were dispensed to all pregnant women, up to 50,000 babies a year could be saved.

10.  Only about one pregnant woman in 1000 is treated with AZT.

1.2  Zimbabwe

1.  About 25% of adults in Zimbabwe are infected with HIV.

2.  In some regions of the country, approximately 45% of the adults are infected with AIDS.

3.  This is true of women as well as men, so that almost 1 of 2 expectant mothers test positive for HIV.

4.  The pattern is one where families are being wiped out by AIDS.  Typically, the husband dies first, then the wife, and then the children.

5.1.3  Summing Up

The idea of a sexual revolution may initially have seemed very attractive: the double standard would be thrown out, and all people, both men and women, would be able to enjoy lives that contained more pleasure.  Unfortunately, now that the evidence is in, we can see that the outcome has been disastrous in a number of ways, and has led to enormous suffering - suffering that is clearly not outweighed by the increase in pleasurable experiences.  There is, then, only one realistic conclusion: society needs to return to a traditional view of sexual morality, and, in particular, needs to reject premarital sex, homosexual sex, and sex with prostitutes.  Nothing else can cure these ills from which we currently suffer.

5.2  A Response to the Argument

5.2.1  Possible Responses:  What Are the Options?

How might one respond to this argument?

(1)  One response is that if people decide to engage in risky sexual behavior, that's their business.  They know the risks, and they know the benefits, and each person should be allowed to decide for himself or herself whether the gains are worth the risks.  If someone decides that they are, and that person then suffers harm because of the decision that he or she has freely made, then that's unfortunate, but it's no reason to hold that the person in question would have been better if he or she hadn't had the freedom to make that decision.

(2)  A second response, and probably the most common one, is that education is the answer, and that, in particular, education about the dangers, together with widespread encouragement of the use of condoms, will enable one to eliminate, or at least minimize, the problems.

        What is one to say about these responses?  Neither seems to me convincing.  The problem with the first response is simply that those who are affected by risky sexual behavior are not just those who choose to engage in sexual behavior.  For, first of all, such behavior results in a large number of illegitimate children, and such children fare less well than those born to married couples.  Secondly, the harm that results from sexually transmitted diseases if often not confined to the person who engages in the risky behavior, as the case of Africa illustrates: the explosion of AIDS cases within the heterosexual community originates with men having sex with prostitutes, but the disease is then passed along to the wives, and then to newborn babies.  Risky sexual behavior, in short, harms the innocent.

        What about the second response?  I don't think this response is satisfactory either, for a number of reasons.  In the first place, the pregnancy rate for condoms, as typically used, is 15% per year.  (Source:  An ad for "The Reality" female condom.  "Now, even if he's not using condoms, you can.")  With 1 in 250 Americans with AIDS, this probably translates to something of the order of a 1 in 2000 chance of contracting AIDS each year, which seems unacceptably high.

        Secondly, even among college students, consistent use of condoms is not very common.  According to a 1990 survey of 5,500 first-year students that was reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association, only about 19% of women with one or two sexual partners always used condoms, and only about 28% of men with one or two partners.  If this is the situation in the case of the most intelligent and best-educated section of the community, the prospects do not seem especially bright.

        Thirdly, the average age at which girls first have sexual intercourse has fallen quite dramatically - from about age 20, 25 years ago, to about age 16 now.  So more and more women are engaging in potentially risky behavior at younger ages, and it is surely unrealistic to expect consistent use of condoms by those in their early teens.

5.2.2 Ann Lander's Response

        What is Ann Lander's answer?

        Perhaps surprisingly, it is as follows:

Dear Readers:  Powerful piece, isn't it?  Well, now I am going to stick my neck out by suggesting a far more realistic solution than abstinence.

The sex drive is the strongest human drive after hunger.  It is nature's way of perpetuating the human race.  Males reach their sexual peak as early as 17.  There must be an outlet.  I am recommending self-gratification or mutual masturbation, whatever it takes to release the sexual energy.  This is a sane and safe alternative to intercourse, not only for teenagers, but for older men and women who have lost their partners.

I do not want to hear from clergymen telling me it's a sin.  The sin is making people feel guilty about responding to this fundamental human drive.  I love my readers, and my mission is to be of service.  This could be the most useful column I have written since I started 38 years ago.
 
 

Creators Syndicate

(Daily Camera, October 24, 1993.)
 
 

5.2.3  The Case for Masturbation

Thesis

It's best, all things considered, to treat masturbation as one's central form of sexual activity, and to substitute other types of sexual activity only when there is a very clear case that can be made out for doing so.

The Advantages of Masturbation

1. It's a quick and convenient way of relieving sexual frustration, and of adding pleasure to one's life. (Compare the time-consuming nature of dating games, etc..)

2.  It does not lead to the spread of venereal disease.

(These first two points call to mind a story about an Oxford philosopher, Michael Oakeshott.  Oakeshott found himself in the position of having to give some advice to a student on sex, and is purported to have said something along the lines of:

"It's probably best to stick to masturbation.  It's safer, quicker, and you meet a better class of person"!)

3. It's an inexpensive way of enjoying sexual pleasure.

4. It does not result in pregnancy. (Teenage pregnancies often have serious consequences, both for the teenager who may wind up raising a child at quite a young age, and for the child thus raised, since the conditions are often ones of poverty.)

5. Because it does not result in pregnancy, it also decreases cases in which people marry for bad reasons.

6.  Because it decreases the frequency with which people marry for bad reasons, it also reduces the rate of divorce - a rate that is especially high in the case of teenage marriages.

7. In so doing, it also decreases the cases in which people are raising children when they are not really interested in doing so.

8.  Because it decreases the frequency of unwanted pregnancy, it also decreases the frequency of abortion.  This is a crucial consideration if one believes that abortion is seriously wrong.  But it has some weight even if one holds that abortion is not morally wrong.  For abortion can have complications, and if the woman having the abortion has doubts about the view that embryos/fetuses do not have a right to life, the decision to have an abortion may result in some negative feelings afterward.

9.  It makes it easier for men and women to interact as friends, by lessening the likelihood that one sex will view members of the other sex as simply sexual objects, or as possible conquests. It will therefore decrease the extent to which people play various "games" in interacting with members of the opposite sex.

10. It will make it less likely that people will "prostitute" themselves, in the sense of spending time with boring people in order to enjoy some sexual pleasure, etc.

11. It will help one to become a sensual person - a person who can accept sexual pleasure as such, and who does not need to construct some "deeper" rationale.  In contrast, if one's sexual experiences are mainly confined to sex with other people, it is possible that one will never move beyond a romantic view, according to which sex is not really a good idea unless it is endowed with some sort of deeper meaning.

        In this section, I have been focusing upon masturbation as a do it yourself activity.  But many, though not all, of the points support mutual masturbation as well.

5.3  Summing Up

        What I take to be the correct response to the consequentialist argument for traditional sexual morality is, in short this.  The argument is right that the sexual revolution has had some very unfortunate consequences, and that those undesirable consequences are not outweighed by the benefits.  But the answer is not a return to traditional sexual morality.  The answer is masturbation, either mutual or do it yourself.