Michael Amico '07 suggests that the Dartmouth community should celebrate any form of sexual expression that is "fun, pleasurable, and makes them happy," including threesomes, bathroom hookups and pornography ("Nothing unwholesome about sex at Dartmouth," Feb. 22). But Matt Nolan '07 is right that sex is too powerful and intimate to be shared with anyone at any time ("Sex: Not Like Steak," Feb. 21). Is sex just an appetite? Most treat it as one, having long ago despaired of our lofty ideal of finding someone who will actually love us. We have become cynics, and we use our cynicism as a license for indulgence.
Our cynicism blinds us to the dangers of indulgence. For example, Amico and others applaud pornography as an expression of sexual liberation. But in fact, there is nothing more degrading than pornography. Pornography celebrates a female body type that is unrealistic and unnatural -- starved, airbrushed and surgically enhanced. As we all know, most women don't look that way and hate the social pressure, fed by men who look at pornography, to conform to impossibly high standards. Pornography ignores the emotional element of sex completely. It assumes that women want sex on the same terms as most men -- with no emotion, no commitment, no love. But nothing could be more unrealistic. Most women don't think that way.
Pornography is only a shadow; it's fake intimacy with a fake person. A fantasy person, with a fake body and fake emotions, will behave how you want, no questions asked. But real people will not, and should not; they want trust, substance and most of all, love. Pornography offers a powerful fantasy world with which real people, real partners, and, one day, real spouses, will never be able to compete. No wonder it's so unsatisfying -- and so addictive.
Ironically, if we were true hedonists, if we really sought the highest doses of pleasure, we would never settle for random hookups, sexual encounters in public bathrooms, pornography and the most casual treatments of sex. We would seek commitment and meaningful relationships that made us better and stronger people. We would seek love.
Nevertheless, pleasure and happiness are not a sufficient basis for moral decisions, as Amico affirms. The idea is prevalent today that we can do whatever makes us happy, as long as we don't hurt someone else. But numerous personal and social ills are freely chosen, autonomous behaviors that don't directly harm anyone else, such as alcoholism, drug abuse and sexual addiction. They can be fun and bring pleasure, even lots of it. Yet we all know they are poisonous for our character and society, and we dislike them in others.
On the other hand, self-restraint, discipline and love are difficult and can be painful -- but we all know they are good for us, and we admire them in others. Pleasure does not prove an action's acceptability. On the contrary, the pursuit of pleasure, quick thrills and immediate fulfillment brings only the need for more, riskier experiences to satisfy our ever-increasing desires. Indulgence only starts the mind down an interminable path of tortuous rationalization that deems acceptable, even normal, what we know to be injurious. The justification of the unhealthy in the name of pleasure, liberation, entitlement, or progress is the reason the world is as broken as it is. Are my immediate wants, needs, lusts, and cravings really reliable moral standards? Is there not a morality and greater happiness that transcends my fleeting pleasure and pursuit of mere "fun"?
