One such article called, “Let’s talk about sex, baby,” by Audrey Pollnow specifically called for these ambivalent masses to speak up and engage in an open forum on sex. The silence of these masses was subsequently given justification by columnist Allen Paltrow, who argued that open discussion of this issue is unhelpful since these are personal decisions. I don’t think this quietist approach solves the problem, but I do think this discourse is a necessary one. Or, to put it another way, sexual ethics is not just for those who view sex negatively.
I say “negatively” here deliberately. The sexual ethics that the Anscombe articles espouse consider sex “negatively” in two ways. Firstly, they view most sex (i.e., all non-marital sex) as something negative, or in other words, as simply bad. Secondly, they view sexual ethics as a set of things you should not do — they define it negatively by what it isn’t. Interestingly, these interpretations go hand in hand. If you view sexual ethics as a list of things you cannot do with regards to sex, you begin to define sex by what is bad about it.
This is where those who, like Paltrow, have no moral opposition to sex, come in. Instead of positioning themselves merely in opposition to this negative view of sex, these people might instead view sex positively. This view is positive again both in the sense of “sex-positive” — the view that consensual sex is pleasurable and beneficial — in the sense that it does not define by what it should not be, but rather by what it should be.
Although defining which kind of sex is immoral is for many people easy (i.e., they see all or most consensual sex as not immoral, as Toni Alimi mentions), what is not easy and indeed requires an ethical framework and an ethical discussion is defining which kind of sex is positively moral, i.e., which kind should be had. Even if a person has no moral qualm with having casual sex, they might not find such sex fulfilling and therefore will not want to pursue such encounters. Likewise, two people might be in a happy, committed relationship but might desire multiple sexual partners, so perhaps they should consider an open relationship.
As Paltrow pointed out, these issues seem personal and should be dealt with on a personal level. However, Pollnow is correct to say that “the choices of private individuals can affect everyone else.” In the above examples, we see that there are social aspects to both of these seemingly personal issues. In order to have a culture to provide for people who have no moral qualms with casual sex but find it unfulfilling, we need to have a discourse that creates a space for dating or other noncasual sexual relationships. Likewise, in order for a couple to pursue sex outside their relationship, they will need to relate to the rest of society differently. They will need other people to understand the sort of non-romantic sexual relationships they are looking for, so that both the person in the open relationship and the potential sex partner understand the expectations.
This is an endeavor that even those who don’t share Anscombe’s negative views on sex can and should take up. Our sexual relationships have an inherently social nature; therefore, we do need a social discourse so that people can choose relationships according to what makes sense for them. Those who feel no compulsion to see their morals as a set of rules are tempted to think that sexual morality is irrelevant to them. However, the kind of morality that creates and permits positive liberty, the power to exercise one’s full potential, is relevant to anyone interested in living a fulfilling and happy life.
So, indeed, “Let’s Talk About Sex.” But let’s have a conversation that looks beyond the title of that classic Salt-n-Pepa single to its lyrics. After all, that ’90s trio of divas challenged us to “tell it how it is, and how it could be, how it was, and of course, how it should be.”
Luke Massa is a philosophy major from Ridley Park, Pa. He can be reached at lmassa@princeton.edu.
Read More
Keep academic authority in human hands
Lily Halbert-AlexanderThe Trump administration’s attacks on research and higher education as well as a blind reliance on AI chatbots are reflective of a societal backslide: a commodification of knowledge that prioritizes “efficiency” over the messy process of getting to an answer, where nuances are flattened and the truth is fungible.
The Trump administration’s attacks on research and higher education as well as a blind reliance on AI chatbots are reflective of a societal backslide: a commodification of knowledge that prioritizes “efficiency” over the messy process of getting to an answer, where nuances are flattened and the truth is fungible.
What do we owe society for a Princeton education?
Jia Cheng ShenThe social and moral responsibility that comes with receiving a degree subsidized by both private generosity and public trust is significant.
The social and moral responsibility that comes with receiving a degree subsidized by both private generosity and public trust is significant.
Notes from a so-called enemy’s classroom
Jennifer JenningsIt wasn’t revolutionary. It was homework. But it was homework that asked: how do we build schools that work for all kids? Inclusion, after all, is the “I” in DEI. That’s what we’re thinking about together. And caring about each other’s experiences and opportunities, it turns out, isn’t something you can outlaw.
It wasn’t revolutionary. It was homework. But it was homework that asked: how do we build schools that work for all kids? Inclusion, after all, is the “I” in DEI. That’s what we’re thinking about together. And caring about each other’s experiences and opportunities, it turns out, isn’t something you can outlaw.