College Sex - Philosophy for Everyone: Philosophers With Benefits (35 page)

sexual buddy can’t or won’t give you or when your sexual partner never asks you for sex, tries to avoid sex, or seems ambiguous about their enjoy- ment of sex, you should surely revise your notion of what each of you is willing and able to do, have a thorough discussion about how each of you can better satisfy the other, or get out of that relationship.

Moral Issues Associated with Specific Sexual Relationships and Activities

Many seemingly innocuous activities could violate the criteria of recipro- cal consent, concern, and desire, whereas many seemingly harmful activ- ities could satisfy the standard of mutually respectful sex. In short, few sexual activities need preclude reciprocal consent, concern, and desire, but any might encumber mutual respect and most do pose specific chal- lenges to those criteria. Every particular sexual interaction with a partner must be conscientiously evaluated with due attention to its unique char- acteristics. In the following paragraphs, I’ll give just a few examples of the moral hazards associated with some sexual activities and relationships.

One example of a sexual behavior that is commonplace but morally problematic is objectification. Objectification involves treating a sexu- ally appealing characteristic – such as an act, a prop, or a body part – as more important than the unique individual who has that characteristic. There is nothing bad about preferring buxom girls or tall boys, but if a sexual partner’s arousing feature becomes indispensable while the part- ner becomes dispensable, i.e., if the appealing feature might as well be attached to anyone at all, then he has been objectified. Most of us prob- ably wouldn’t consent to being depersonalized in this way. It is difficult both to objectify a person and show concern for her. Unless both part- ners are similarly obsessed with the sexually arousing feature, their desires aren’t reciprocal. Objectification threatens the possibility of mutually respectful sexual interaction. Fetishism is a less commonplace sexual obsession with some act, prop, or body part that is important for sexual arousal and satisfaction. It can involve reciprocal consent, con- cern, and desire, but it presents a high risk for objectification. Whether a person merely prefers or fetishizes certain features is not morally important. The moral issue is whether a person regards their partner as a thing with a feature or as another human being who can share in his delight with that feature.

Another example of a mundane sexual behavior that includes moral hazards is manipulation. Manipulation involves misusing sexual favors to control another person’s emotions and behaviors or misusing emotions and behaviors to extort another person’s sexual favors. Our sexual interactions are usually contingent on the satisfaction we achieve in our general interac- tions with our partners. Sexual interaction is comforting and cathartic. It makes us feel valued and valuable. However, when we use sexual perform- ance to reward and punish our partner’s behavior, or to obtain gifts and niceties from our partner, and when we use emotions to extract sexual per- formance from our partner, we aren’t showing respect. Many people use sex as a way of dominating their partner. Others turn dating into a barter of sex for gifts, entertainment, or other little luxuries and services. Some people take advantage of their prospective partner’s sense of kindness and compas- sion (or his need for kindness and compassion) to get sex.These manipula- tive sexual activities indicate negligible reciprocity of concern or desire.

Some other examples of ordinary sexual behaviors that create moral problems include irreconcilability and inattentiveness. Irreconcilability and inattentiveness jeopardize reciprocal desire and concern. It is okay that everyone enters the bedroom with different expectations, unequal levels of lust, and disparate desires (e.g., one of you wants a little R&R after finals, and the other wants to feel like Homecoming Queen; or one of you is ready to take on the football team, and the other will settle for the school mascot; or one of you wants to try felching, and the other wants to try tantric yoga). It is wondrous that sexual interaction challenges us to cultivate our range of desires, to match our libido against another’s, and to exert ourselves in the effort to please our partner. Nonetheless, when sexual partners’ desires are profoundly incompatible, their sex drives are radically disproportionate, or their expectations are markedly opposed, they simply cannot have a sexual relationship based on mutual respect, because someone will always feel deprived or abused. It is normal to lose track of things (like your socks, your homework, or your wits) while you are enjoying sex. However, when you lose track of your partner’s needs and interests, you are not treating him with concern.You must pay atten- tion to your partner and your sexual interaction to achieve reciprocal con- sent, concern, and desire. Disregard for sexual incompatibility and inattention to sexual activity amount to a lack of mutual respect.

Casual sex and casual sexual relationships are examples of less tradi- tional behaviors that can be morally acceptable but pose particular moral issues. Casual sex between almost total strangers seems to defy the crite- ria of reciprocal consent and concern. Likewise, casual sexual relationships

between partners who are relative strangers outside the bedroom seem to imperil the criterion of mutual concern. The shorter, the shallower, or the narrower our sexual relationships, the more caution we must exercise in gauging the reciprocity of consent, concern, and desire. In the context of casual sex with strangers, this involves insisting upon very direct, explicit, and specific communication and avoiding scenarios and sub- stances likely to impair good judgment and clear communication. In the context of casual sex with acquaintances, this involves soliciting direct, explicit, and specific affirmation that your partner’s needs, expectations, and interests are being served by your relationship. So there’s nothing intrinsically morally wrong with casual sexual interactions, but the par- ticipants must be morally responsible and honest enough to communi- cate openly and respond considerately.

Group sex and non-exclusive sexual relationships are other examples of sexual behaviors that can be mutually respectful but that involve specific moral complications. Group sex and non-exclusive sexual relationships also seem to threaten mutually respectful sexual interaction. There are some special moral risks associated with group sex and non-monogamous relationships. Each additional sexual partner complicates the dynamics of the sexual interaction and multiplies the difficulty of achieving mutual respect, so extra care is needed to achieve reciprocity of consent, concern, and desire between multiple partners. This requires extra communication between partners and extra attentiveness toward partners. Sexual relation- ships are always emotionally charged, which sometimes leads sexual part- ners to compromise their own or their partner’s needs in order to achieve sexual satisfaction, preserve a relationship, or to serve other confused and confusing goals. Non-monogamous relationships can increase emotional tensions as well as possibilities of partners feeling jealous and neglected or otherwise discontented and dissatisfied. Extra care must be shown to assure reciprocity of consent, concern, and desire. This means especially candid communication about partners’ needs, expectations, and interests. It also means especially frank discussion of limits (e.g., regarding temporal and emotional commitments or regarding disease and pregnancy prevention) and equity (e.g., regarding the fair extension of the liberties enjoyed by one partner to the others). So there’s nothing intrinsically morally wrong with group sex or non-exclusive sexual relationships, but the participants must be emotionally sensitive, fair-minded, and morally diligent enough to address the needs, interests, and wellbeing of all of their sexual partners.

Sadomasochism is yet another example of a more unusual sexual behavior that can involve reciprocal consent, concern, and desire, but

that does raise important special moral considerations. Sadomasochism involves taking sexual pleasure in inflicting or receiving pain. Sadomasochistic interactions pose many special hazards and responsi- bilities to the participants. Sexual partners sometimes change their minds about volition. For example, a partner might be initially eager to experi- ence certain sensations and then might find those sensations unbearable, so it is crucial that both partners be communicative, attentive, and responsive lest they end up engaged in a non-consensual interaction. Sadomasochistic partners often communicate in seemingly ambiguous or contradictory ways. For example, a partner might cry out “Oh, please don’t hurt me” when they really mean “Oh, please hurt me more,” so it is important that the partners communicate in advance about their desires, that they quickly and accurately interpret ambiguous sexual ges- tures, and that they know each other well enough to respond properly to subtle signs of pleasure, satiation, fear, or distress.

Another very grave moral risk associated with sadomasochistic sex is physical danger. Even light sadomasochistic sex can result in serious injury or death, especially if the partners are uninformed or inexperienced. Concerned partners will become informed about risks and safety precau- tions and about their partner’s specific health concerns (such as low or high blood pressure, sickle cell anemia, AIDS, or diabetes) in advance and will remain attentive to possible injuries during and after their sexual inter- action. Since intense sensations can impair judgment, one partner must assume responsibility in advance for setting limits on physical risk and injury. A concerned partner must withhold additional stimulation even though their partner might very much like more when it poses some phys- ical danger. Risks are multiplied when sadomasochistic sex is combined with inebriants that alter sensation, release inhibition, or impair judgment and communication. So there is nothing intrinsically morally wrong with sadomasochistic sex, but the partners must be morally conscientious enough to be well-informed and cautious about safety, communicative and attentive enough to respond promptly to their partner’s needs, and psycho- logically mature enough to exercise self-control and good judgment.

A final example of a sexual behavior that is not necessarily odd but that ranges from humdrum delights to extreme thrills is the use of danger or substances to improve the sexual experience. Sexual pleasure can be enhanced by taking social or physical risks, or by using inebriating tech- niques or chemicals. For example, some people find the risks of having sex in public arousing, whereas some enjoy sex play with knives or guns. Others use electricity, piercing, hanging, or various forms of asphyxiation

to produce pleasurable sensations. Of course, many people use chemicals, ranging from supposedly aphrodisiac foods, stimulating gels and lotions, alcohol, amyl nitrite, pot, or other drugs to increase arousal, reduce inhi- bition, or augment sensation. Most of these forms of sexual enhancement present some moral risks, which must be addressed responsibly if part- ners are to show mutual respect. Many of these activities, techniques, and chemicals create social or physical dangers, which could compromise reciprocal concern, whereas others impair sensation, judgment, or com- munication, which could compromise reciprocal consent and concern. Mutually respectful partners must be very well informed and must exer- cise extreme caution with risky techniques and dangerous chemicals. Many intelligent, informed, careful, and concerned people have injured or killed themselves or their partners using some of these techniques and chemicals. Some of these activities are simply too dangerous for morally responsible partners to do. Mutually respectful partners never use inebri- ants to impair a partner’s judgment and obtain non-consensual sex or to deaden a partner’s sensation to coerce them into performing sexual acts they find painful or loathsome. So there is nothing intrinsically morally wrong with sexual enhancements, but the participants must be intellectu- ally informed and morally concerned enough to protect themselves and their partners from coercion and from social and physical danger.

Don’t Flunk Your Test

One of the most important things you can learn in college is that in order to have mutual respect between sexual partners everyone must assume responsibility for engaged, informed, communicative interaction. That might sound like it involves some embarrassment, a lot of physical and mental effort, or a great reduction of immediate sexual opportunity. It does. But if you aren’t man or woman enough to communicate about sex and to exert yourself with consenting and eager partners, then you aren’t man or woman enough to get laid. If you aren’t prepared to be a morally conscien- tious sexual partner, start a vigorous exercise regimen, become a masturba- tory virtuoso, or donate your time to a good charity, but don’t muck up something as important as another person’s sexual experience.Yes, being a good person is tough, but if there’s someone somewhere in a tub of green Jell-O waiting around for a stranger with a hula-hoop, then there’s probably someone somewhere waiting around for you. Be ready for that person.

ANTTI KUUSELA

CHAPTER 17

BAD FAITH OR TRUE DESIRE?

A Sartrean View on College Sex