Caitlin Meyer
Most of us will attest to living in a sex-filled society. We see it everywhere: Glance up at a billboard advertising beer or clothing; pick up a copy of Cosmopolitan Magazine; or simply attend one college party. Sex is everywhere. Yet, interestingly enough, most of us will agree that we have been taught to temper our sexual desire--whether by religious organizations, health classes, or other societal constructs. So why is sex as prevalent as Chase ATMs, but as reprehensible as robbery? Raymond Belliotti’s article, “Sex,” attempts to unpack sex’s timeless ethical complexities, and it provides insight into how our Western society has arrived at various conclusions regarding sex and sexual relationships. Belliotti first approaches sex philosophically, by outlining dualism as influenced by Pythagoras, Plato, and later Stoics (315). Next, he explains how these philosophers influenced Judeo-Christian attitudes towards sex, noting that the resulting religious dogma significantly contributed to current Western opinions (316). After elucidating Judeo-Christian thought, Belliotti examines the commonly-held belief that sex is a moral act, only tolerable in instances of love and intimacy (318). Belliotti then dissects his subject with four different ideological knives, investigating sex through the lenses of Libertarianism, Kantian thought, Marxism and Feminism (319-323). He considers libertarian sexual ideology, as adapted by Kant, to be the most “persuasive” (325). Because we attend a religious school that focuses heavily on the study of philosophy, I will briefly explain dualism and religious perspectives on sex; then I will draw conclusions, touching briefly upon feminism, and presenting a series of critiques.
The concept of dualism, which was formed nearly five centuries before the birth of Jesus (315), is the idea that humans are composed of an immortal soul that is inhibited by a mortal body. As adherents to dualism, Pythagoreans, Plato and Stoics agreed that humans must practice certain philosophic virtues to prepare them to transcend their bodily prisons. Plato and his posse believed that repressing bodily desires would prepare them, at death, or separation of body and soul, to unite their immortal cores with the most real of all things: the immaterial Universal Truths (D'Attore 2009). In short, bodies and all physical bodily urges were viewed as scornful barriers, which only hindered the pure, immortal soul.
It is no surprise that with this sort of influence, modern Judeo-Christian thought is tainted with a fear of bodily urges. Belliotti unloads the role of sex in the Church according to St. Paul (316), beginning with Adam and Eve. He tells us that before Adam and Eve, sex was controlled by the mind (317). When Adam and Eve gave in to their bodily desire, sexual longing was “tainted with evil” (317); thus explaining Jesus’ Immaculate Conception. In the Catholic and Protestant churches today, sex is “morally permissible” only if it occurs within marriage, and does not deliberately prohibit reproduction.
Wait--why is sex only authorized under these terms? Why was Adam and Eve’s adherence to bodily aspirations so nefarious? If the body and soul (or mind) really are two separate entities (they very well may not be!), why must the mind control and repress bodily desires? “To unite with the Universal Truths,” some would say. “To gain eternal salvation,” others would argue. But what if these most perfect realms do not actually exist? Is it necessary to try to control or ignore the messages our bodies send us? If so, which should we stifle? When our stomachs ache due to starvation, should we not eat? This question will invite scrutiny, because some will say that sex, unlike starvation, is not a matter of life or death; and some will say that sex, unlike eating, is a mere indulgence. But is it really?
We are left wondering: Why so much discussion about sex? Is it really so central to our core, to our personalities and to our happiness, that we must apply to it strict religious, philosophical and ideological standards that we may not apply to other basic human activity? Even feminists, alleged sources of female liberation and power, base their entire ideology around women as sexually-acquiescent victims of a male-dominated society (324). Isn’t there a little more to womanhood, to personhood?
I’d say so.
Bibliography
Note:parenthetical citations without author's name pertain to the following author
Belliotti, Raymond, A. "Sex" A Companion to Ethics 315-326
D'Attore, Prof. Mary, recorded by Caitlin Meyer. Philosophy of Human Nature, Class Notes. (March 2009).
2 comments:
In response to the fourth paragraph, I agree that it is inadequate to have "sex only authorized under these terms." With so many different people, that have so many different ways of thinking and being, how can all of them have the same morals? Perhaps, due to the vague definition we have of morality, people are drawn to creating a meaning. Sex, in this reading, exemplifies this vagueness by showing its multiple and often contradictory meanings to different individuals, religious groups and social groups. Is it even sensible to use the phrase "morally permissible" when there can be so many interpretations of it? What would it mean, then,to have this phrase apply to all people?
If I understand you correctly (and I hope that I do), I would agree with your last paragraph on the feminist perspective. It should not be the case that women should feel that they are victims in a "male-dominated" world and focus so much on sex as opposed to other aspects of injustice. For example, women in the work place who make less money than men for the same work.
In the feminist perspective, Jill Johnston suggests that all women should engage in sexual intercourse with each other as a political statement as a means to "transcend male oppression" (323). In my opinion, this idea is ludicrous because it undermines homosexuality and sexualizes womanhood. So I agree, isn't there more to womanhood?
Post a Comment