For a person who hasn’t had experience with sex, I would disqualify myself from opining on this subject matter. However, given that this is a well-regarded issue I have decided to stop being apathetic about it. In this article I will discuss both sides of the argument on whether sex must involve commitment.
Are sex and morality interconnected, or are they divorced from each other? If you believe that morality is defined by culture, then the principles governing sex are derived from traditional thought of ancient and medieval times. In contrast, the modern and scientific view is that humans have no special metaphysical or supernatural standing above animals. Consider an analogy. Eating habits are also considered to be part of our nature, but traditionalists would remind us that we have to eat the correct foods from a nutritional standpoint. We have to direct our habits to nutritional guidelines. Sexual intercourse is more than just physical, requiring the use of self-control and reason.
The liberal view is that sexual desire is desire for contact with another person’s body and for the pleasure which such contact processes produces; sexual activity is activity which tends to fulfill such desire of the agent. Whereas Aristotle and (others) were correct in that pleasure is normally a by-product rather than a goal of purposeful action, in the case of sex it is not so clear. Orgasm is ultimately viewed as the goal of genital as a norm of sexual activity, also known as “plain sex”. Given this singular definition of sex in terms of desire of physical contact, the only criterion is that sexual attractiveness of the bodies have to be mutual. Voyuerism, as highlighted by the Monica Baey incident or viewing a pornographic movie qualifies as a sexual activity, but only as an imaginative substitute for the real thing. The same is true of masturbation as a sexual activity without a partner. It is a bodily desire for the body of another that dominates our mental life for more or less brief periods. Traditional philosophers were correct to emphasise the purely animal aspect of sex; they were wrong only in condemning it. They held a narrow view that sex is exclusively an expression of love. I find this a repressive or restrictive sexual ethic. Moreover, fleeting sexual desire cannot be mistaken for permanent love, necessitating a clear distinction between love and sex. Sex offers society with paradigm of pleasure, but not a cornerstone of value. For most of us, it is not only a needed outlet for desire but also the most enjoyable form of recreation we know.
On the other hand, sex is also a means through which parties obtain intimacy. There is reason for seeking permanence in the relationship of sexual partners. There is a logical difference between the question “Will you play tennis with me?” and “Will you have sex with me?” Men and women increasingly find themselves involved in many different relationships, as buyer-seller, employer-employee, teacher-student, lawyer-client and partners or competitors. Take this example. A man pays a woman to act as his secretary. Then why does it turn into a court case when sexual relations are involved? This can lead us to conclude that the relationship between a prostitute and her client versus a professional relationship is that “services” differ. However, it is the acquisitive character of our society that has blinded our distinction between the two activities. Unlike the man who plays tennis with the woman, the man who has sexual relations with a woman has literally entered her. Their union is not simply a union of organs, but it is as intimate and as total a physical union of two selves as is possible of achievement. Yet, sexuality has come to play so large a role in our commercial lives. It is thus not unsurprising that such a reductionistic outlook should pervade our thinking on sexual matters. From sex toys to robots to exploitation of children/women in porn production, sex is consistently treated as a commodity governed by the rules of economic transaction. Once sexual intercourse is put into a holistic, wholesome context, we realise that both men and women can come together in the sexual act in the fullness of their selfhood. Doctor Mary Calderone put it: “ How many times, and how casually, are you willing to invest a portion of your total self, to be the custodian of a like investment from another person, without the sureness of knowing that these investments are being made for keeps?” In short, I ask myself: how eager I am to give away my virginity knowing that my soul will be bound to this person by a tie that he may break anytime? People who disengage from such commitment have sex involving a “depersonalization” of their bodily existence; an attempt to cut off the most intimate physical expression of their respective selves from their very selfhood.
Nonetheless, I am also wary of the patriarchal nature of how a woman’s value in the marriage market is defined by her virginity. It is morally sensible for two people who are totally committed to each other and have made all arrangements to live by this commitment engage in sexual intercourse before the marriage ceremony, in the “heat of the moment”. After all, marriage is a covenant, not an aisle. Admittedly, this position can be abused by those who have made a purely verbal commitment, a commitment which will be carried out in some vague and ill-defined future. Rather, by making their commitment a matter of public record, by solemnly expressing it before the law and in the presence of their families and friends; and, if they are religious people, in the presence of God and one of His ministers, they sink the roots of their commitment more deeply and extensively in the world in which they live.
Tracy's Thoughts 