I think this is a field vastly ignored nowadays. But its the cause of social breakdown in many societies and the cause of a vast majority of restlessness and problems in the modern world. My approach to sexual ethics is summarised thus:
-
Sexuality is a personal preference.
-
Homosexuality should not be a taboo, neither should it be a field of concern for the modern neutral democratic government. Nor do I say it should be encouraged. It should be completely left up to the sphere of personal life.
-
The same is with consenting-incest-among-adults/premarital sex/extramarital sex/fornication/adultery/consenting-prostitution-among-adults, etc, which are personal matters. These and all other sexual activities are private matters, and a government that believes in individuality and freedom, should not interfere with these. The govt. should try to establish individualism and liberty, which protects the private rights of every individual, rather than taking it away.
-
Regarding the above, the government can set rules as to age and consent, and make rules that these are only to be done in privacy, not in public. But it doesn’t have the right to forcefully ban them completely from someone’s personal life.
-
Morality should not be used as an excuse to ban these. Morality is a vague term and there is no absolute morality, it differs from people to people, place to place, time to time. (The only absolute is the undefined X, the absolute reality, nothing else can be stressed to be absolute or eternal).
I personally don’t like homosexuality, incest, obsession with sexuality, public exhibition of sexuality, open sexual discussion in public, pornography, and in-equality of gender. According to my philosophy which considers only the ultimate absolute X to be true, even gender differences should not be noticed. I personally prefer celibacy, equate sexuality with animal instinct and try to achieve something higher in me, and I believe theres something higher in man that should be stressed, and that non-sexual love is the true higher love, esp. that between siblings, and we should love everyone in that way. It allows me to experience the ultimate unity more purely, frees me from the bondage of the material world, and allows me to feel a higher essence in me. Especially the present sexual view is harmful to women in the long term and women should understand it. But I don’t say that my opposing views are absolute trash and my views should be forced into another man’s private life. There can be people of different views, and the govt. should protect the rights of all people equally, the “Rights of Belief and individuality, liberty in personal and private life”.
-
If the govt. is concerned about the breakdown of society, I would say, personal matters, however weird they may be, cannot be considered a break down of society. The word “breakdown of society” is a term used by a fascist govt. to create a contrasting ideal society which they want to enforce on people due to egoism, or superstitions or beliefs.
-
Rather the govt. law should bother about the ways that personal activities are harming other people. You just don’t have to ban nudism or homosexuality, rather just prevent it from public spheres of life, since these things may hurt the sentiment of others. In fact all sexual matters should be confined to private spheres of life. Why doesn’t the government rather ban pornography, open sexual discussion in the public, open advertisements of sexuality and sexual materials, and open encouragement for sex? Thus we see that the government is bothered about some sort of religious morality or its own philosophy, rather than the practical effects of sexuality on the society. The govt. should understand that its rather obsessive “straight” sexual discussion openly that is even more detrimental to a society’s wellbeing than incest or homosexuality in private life. So the government is ignoring the more serious things for less serious things due to effects of popular and religious prejudice.
Thus sexual topics should be controlled in the public sphere since its a private matter. It hurts the sentiments and feelings and preferences of kids and many adults alike (not only kids). It may affect a person’s phychology in harmful ways, and in the long run it is unhealthy for a society’s overall wellbeing. So this is the thing that should be taken care of by the government.
It includes asking for information of an opposite sex spouse, a “single” spouse, or a spouse at all, in official goverment forms, etc. Many people prefer to be single or don’t believe in sexuality, neither do they want to tick “married” or “single”. There are many people who don’t believe in sexuality at all or don’t value it. And this hurts their beliefs and sentiments, and an enlightened neutral government cannot take side of one view and enforce it on the others. Belief has no definition. It can be anything. And people should atleast get this promised freedom of “belief”, shouldn’t they?
Many people also don’t value sexual relations. They value non sexual friendship more. And again theres a tendency now in wetsern societies to consider or give more importance to one relation, especially the sexual one between the husband and wife, between a man and a woman. But in reality the society also consists of the Father and daughter relations, brother and sister relation, and mother and son relations, which are even more valuable than sexual relations. And to some these may be more important than a husband and wife relation and there may be people who don’t believe in a husband and wife relation or want to marry at all, as they may not regard sexual relations. As I already said, sexuality is completely a personal preference and belief. There should be complete freedom in it in the persoanl spheres. Its private. The government should rather check that whether anyone’s sexual behaviour is affecting other people’s sentiments, etc. in the public sphere. Thats what the government should do. But its simply doing the vice versa.
- Many people may not like this ethical system, but I would say, the world has yet a long way to go. Just think of our attitude towards sexuality in the past when we used women as playthings. That “subservience” was moral at that time!
Men and Women should be completely regarded as equal with equal rights and duties. The government is not supposed to even notice the difference in sex. They are all citizens, and should get equal treatment.
The government should rather prevent sexual abuse, disturbing others sexually, rape, and even talking about sexual matter or giving sexual indication to someone who doesn’t like sex. The law should be bothered about conflicts between people not their personal lives. But in reality its doing just the opposite. Human mind will soon discover that its the forceful rape of a wife , or intercourse against her will, which is logically more condemnable than the consenting incest between two adults (because logically people of opposite sex, and if they love each other, and if both have maturity and if both consent, they have the right to do so and anyone acting against it is violating human rights. But unfortunately the governments, esp. in USA, due to its own set of traditional/superstitious/popular influences, as in the earlier days, has created an environment unfavourable to incest, turned it into a popular horror, banned this private matter legally, and is patronizing a set of doctors and psychologist whose aim it is to prove incest medically incorrect, LOL). But which one do you think should be legal and illegal now in this enlightened time? Please consult Andrew Cohen for his theory of evolutionary enlightenment, and you will know, we have a long way to go.
Please notice, there are thousands of non-reported incest incidents happening everyday in USA, between consenting adults who love each other. Such private relationships and family matters, if reported by a complete jealous outsider, may lead to criminal prosecution and forceful separation of the couple! If anyone only searches for the root of incest taboo, he will know that it developed out of the greed of man for complete virgins from other people’s family if necessary. This would not have been possible if incest was allowed, as the closest relative males would logically have more claim on the girl they might choose, or they might not get virgins if there was not a strong taboo forbidding sex inside the house where a girl grows up. These ideas spread overtime through trade routes in prehistoric times, and almost became universal through the rise and spread of the few world religions. And overtime the incest taboo has got deeply ingrained in popular morality. But theres no such “absolute” morality in the ultimate. Even the egyptians 3000-2000 BC used to practice incest. But still I would discourage incest, but would never agree to the taboo being forcefully made illegal by law and supporting it by propaganda. Its against all neutral human logic and reason.
- Though not as much, and already blessed with some good sexual ethics, the eastern cultures still need some reform. And recently some of the “holes” in western sexual ethics are also penetraing the East.
What are your opinion?
