I raise these questions because it seems that the promises of sexual liberation given to our parents' generation and thus passed on to us have hardly been fulfilled. Rather, as concretized by our own experiences they have been shown to be false. Our everyday experiences might give us pause to reflect on a new sexual ethic to replace today's present one. But first let us examine our actual experiences.
First, is the manner in which we educate about sex. This is a manner of wholly physical and biological education. We are told when Jane has sex with John, pregnancy may occur and an STD may be transmitted unless some sort of contraceptive is used. But missing is the most important component of man, his spiritual side. This conception reduces man to the merely mechanical acting out his passions. Reasons for abstinence other than its role in absolutely reducing the possibility of pregnancy and STDs are not given.
A second is the experience of the random hook-up. Even if this event does not culminate in sexual intercourse its ramifications are deadly for culture. For few good things can come out of this blight which we regularly castigate. In it, both parties become objects to be had, from which pleasure can be attained. Each becomes a means to an end. Physical intimacy occurs without any sense of emotional intimacy. The random hook-up has an enormous draw because it is seemingly free of the hang-ups of a permanent bond. No guarantee exists that the parties involved will ever talk again. But in the random hook-up which promises gratification with few consequences, especially the emotional investment of a long-term relationship a grievous assault on human dignity occurs precisely because the human person becomes the mine of personal pleasure and gratification.
A third experience is the sexual activity which occurs between people who are dating or going out. This is naturally more troublesome to criticize. First, in the current cultural context this activity is considered morally neutral if not a moral good; it is a free choice between man and woman -- one which becomes the sign of their interest in each other. "I care about Jane so I want to show this by the sexual act." This idea has at its root the basic truth that the sexual bond is one manner of expressing love for the other. But it is a partial and imperfect view of love and its expression. If we go back to our own experiences, the heart break, the broken promises, and ultimately the broken spirit of so many who have tried this path we see that it does not offer the right answer either. It too turns man from his rightful place as subject to object; man becomes a means to an end. In what manner does this occur? Certainly, those involved can and o
ften do love each other. But if we return to great importance and value of sex and sexuality we see that a different attitude must be adopted. If we begin from the assumption and principle that sexuality is a great gift and that it has enormous value, its gift and reception must come in the context of a greater gift and reception. If sexuality's worth is to be held as true then the great gift one gives over in the sexual act cannot be an isolated act, it must become a smaller part of the greatest gift, giving oneself totally over to another person.
Such a gift occurs in marriage. In it man and woman give themselves over to each other. Only in this context can the sexual act find the meaning and worth we seem to give to it. Behind each act is the bond which ensures that after the passionate moments are over a foundation exists, a gift has been given which is repeated in the sexual act. Pregnancy, the mistakes of life, and sickness are things one promises to live through not reasons to break up. Outside of this context the sexual act tries to affirm the great gift of self -- showing one's love through the act -- while in actuality denying it. The sexual act becomes a lie -- it attempts to express a gift which does not exist; it attacks man's irreducible dignity by making him the means toward gratification. Certainly one can claim that he is totally committed to his girlfriend but as so many deserted single-mothers can attest a man's promise often rings hollow.
Now the charge of naive idealism may be leveled here. Certainly marriages break up easily. To that one must answer, that yes this is an ideal view of the relationship between men and women. Our own observations show us that marriage is not a cake-walk; they so frequently break up in today's culture. However, to use such observations as an excuse not to aim for the highest and ideal state is moral laziness. Sexuality is the only realm in which society seems to think that taking the lowest common denominator is the proper course of action. In the realm of racism, human dignity (I would argue that the issue at hand is a matter of foremost importance in this category), and insensitive language we reach for the highest levels. Why not do the same in the sexual realm? The answer can only be that we find it too hard. And that is simply an inadequate answer. One cannot continue to treat man as an object and avoid serious and deadly ramifications for so
ciety at large. One can already easily argue that we see results of a misconception man. Now the deadly legacy of our parents is our inheritance to correct.
