Common Sense Philosophy/Chapter 16

Previous◀ Chapter 15

Common Sense Philosophy

NextChapter 17 ▶

Chapter 16: Sexual Liberation -- The Last Great Emancipation

The Shame That Conquered the World

Of all the areas of human experience that have been colonized by irrational dogma, moralistic posturing, and institutional coercion, none has been more thoroughly conquered than sexuality. For millennia, virtually every civilization on earth has subjected the sexual lives of its members to an extraordinary degree of regulation, surveillance, and punishment -- not because sexuality is inherently dangerous (it is not, given modern knowledge and technology), but because the control of sexuality has served as one of the most effective instruments of social power ever devised.

Consider what has been done, across cultures and centuries, in the name of sexual morality. Women have been stoned to death for adultery. Homosexuals have been burned alive, imprisoned, castrated, and driven to suicide. Young people have been shamed, beaten, and psychologically damaged for the crime of experiencing natural desire. Marriages have been arranged between strangers for the benefit of families, clans, and states, with no regard for the wishes of the individuals involved. Female genital mutilation has been practiced on millions of girls to ensure their "purity." Masturbation has been treated as a disease, a sin, and a sign of moral degeneracy. And the entire apparatus of sexual shame has been reinforced by religious institutions that have simultaneously demanded celibacy of their clergy and covered up the sexual abuse of children on an industrial scale.

This chapter argues that the rational evaluation of sexual morality -- the application of evidence, reason, and the principle of human dignity to questions about how people conduct their intimate lives -- leads to conclusions that are radically different from those endorsed by most religious traditions and many cultural conventions. It argues that most of the restrictions that human societies have placed on sexuality are historically contingent responses to problems that modern technology, medicine, and social organization have largely solved. And it argues that the persistence of these restrictions, in the face of overwhelming evidence that they cause unnecessary suffering, represents one of the last great bastions of irrational dogma in an otherwise increasingly rational world.

This is not an argument for libertinism, for the absence of all sexual ethics, or for the position that "anything goes." It is an argument for a sexual ethics grounded in reason rather than tradition -- in the actual consequences of sexual behavior for the people involved, rather than in the pronouncements of ancient texts or the preferences of cultural majorities. The distinction is everything.

The Historical Construction of Sexual Shame

Religion and the Demonization of Desire

The roots of Western sexual shame lie deep in the Judeo-Christian tradition, particularly in the peculiar theology of original sin developed by Saint Augustine in the fourth and fifth centuries. Augustine, who by his own account spent his youth in enthusiastic sexual activity before his conversion, developed a theology in which sexual desire (concupiscentia) was not merely a natural appetite but the primary symptom of humanity's fallen condition -- the punishment imposed on Adam and Eve for their disobedience in the Garden of Eden. On Augustine's account, the involuntary nature of sexual arousal -- the fact that the body responds to desire independently of the will -- was proof that humanity had lost the rational control over the body that God had intended.

This theology had consequences that reverberate to this day. If sexual desire is itself a symptom of sin, then the ideal human condition is celibacy -- the complete renunciation of sexual activity. Marriage was permitted, but only as a concession to human weakness, a "remedy for concupiscence" (as the Book of Common Prayer would later put it), and only for the purpose of procreation. Sexual pleasure within marriage was tolerated but not celebrated. Sexual pleasure outside marriage was mortal sin. And any form of sexual activity that could not, even in principle, lead to procreation -- homosexuality, masturbation, oral sex, contraception -- was categorized as "unnatural" and condemned with particular vehemence.

The Islamic tradition, while differing from Christianity in important respects -- Islam generally has a more positive attitude toward sexual pleasure within marriage -- shares the fundamental commitment to the regulation of sexuality through religious law. The Quranic injunctions against fornication (zina), the requirement of female modesty (hijab), the institution of polygyny (but not polyandry), and the severe penalties for adultery and homosexuality all reflect a framework in which sexuality is subject to detailed divine regulation, departures from which are sins deserving of punishment.

The Hindu tradition is more complex, encompassing both the frank eroticism of the Kama Sutra and the ascetic traditions that regard sexual desire as an obstacle to spiritual liberation. But in practice, Hindu sexual morality has been dominated by patriarchal norms that control female sexuality -- the institutions of child marriage, dowry, sati (widow immolation), and the severe stigma attached to female sexual autonomy -- while granting men considerably more freedom.

The Buddhist tradition, which might be expected to take a more moderate position given its emphasis on the "middle way," has in practice been remarkably conservative about sexuality. The monastic ideal of celibacy, the classification of sexual misconduct as one of the five fundamental precepts, and the traditional Buddhist view that sexual desire is a form of attachment that must be overcome have all contributed to a sexual culture that, while less punitive than the Abrahamic traditions, is still far from the rational evaluation of sexuality that this chapter advocates.

The point of this survey is not to single out any particular tradition for blame. It is to demonstrate that the regulation and stigmatization of sexuality is a cross-cultural phenomenon, rooted not in any single religion but in the universal human tendency to use sexual control as an instrument of social power. Every major civilization has developed elaborate systems for regulating who may have sex with whom, under what circumstances, and with what consequences -- and in every case, these systems have served the interests of those in power (typically older men) at the expense of those without it (typically women, young people, and sexual minorities).

Monogamy: Historical Construct, Not Natural Law

Among the most persistent and least examined assumptions of sexual morality is the assumption that monogamy -- lifelong exclusive sexual partnership between one man and one woman -- is the natural, normal, and morally superior form of human sexual organization.

The anthropological evidence tells a different story. Of the 1,231 human societies catalogued in Murdock's Ethnographic Atlas, approximately 85% permitted some form of polygyny (one man, multiple wives). Only about 15% were normatively monogamous. Polyandry (one woman, multiple husbands) was rare but not unknown, occurring in parts of Tibet, Nepal, and southern India. And in virtually all societies, including nominally monogamous ones, extramarital sexual activity was widespread -- condemned in principle but practiced in fact by a substantial proportion of the population.

The evolutionary biology is equally clear. Humans are not a naturally monogamous species. We exhibit a pattern of "social monogamy" (pair-bonding for child-rearing) combined with "genetic promiscuity" (a substantial rate of extra-pair mating) that is common among primates and birds. The evidence for this includes: the moderate size dimorphism between human males and females (which correlates with moderate polygyny in other species), the relatively large size of human testes relative to body weight (which correlates with sperm competition in other species), and the well-documented cross-cultural prevalence of extramarital sexual activity.

None of this means that monogamy is wrong or that people should not choose it. Many people find deep satisfaction, security, and intimacy in monogamous relationships, and the commitment to a single partner can be a profound expression of love and trust. The point is that monogamy is a choice -- a cultural and personal choice, not a biological imperative or a divine command. And like all choices, it should be made freely, by informed individuals, without the coercive pressure of social stigma, legal penalty, or religious condemnation directed at those who choose differently.

The Control of Female Sexuality

If there is a single thread running through the history of sexual morality across all cultures, it is the control of female sexuality by men. This control has taken many forms -- veiling, seclusion, chastity belts, foot-binding, genital mutilation, honor codes, purity culture, slut-shaming -- but its function has been remarkably consistent: to ensure male certainty of paternity and to maintain male control over female reproductive capacity.

The logic, from an evolutionary perspective, is straightforward. In species where fertilization is internal and gestation occurs within the female body, males face a fundamental uncertainty: they cannot be sure that the offspring they invest in are genetically theirs. This "paternity uncertainty" creates a selection pressure for male behaviors that control female sexuality -- mate guarding, jealousy, and the creation of social norms that restrict female sexual autonomy.

Understanding the evolutionary origins of patriarchal sexual control does not justify it. It explains why the tendency exists, but the entire project of civilization consists in transcending tendencies that are natural but harmful. We are naturally aggressive, but we build institutions to control aggression. We are naturally tribal, but we develop cosmopolitan ethics. We are naturally inclined to paternity anxiety, but we have now developed technologies -- reliable contraception, DNA paternity testing -- that render the traditional mechanisms of female sexual control entirely obsolete.

A woman who has access to reliable contraception can have sex without becoming pregnant. A man who doubts his paternity can resolve the question with a simple DNA test. The entire edifice of patriarchal sexual control -- the honor codes, the virginity requirements, the restrictions on female mobility and autonomy -- was built to solve a problem that technology has solved. What remains is pure inertia, reinforced by religious dogma and cultural tradition, at the cost of enormous and entirely unnecessary suffering.

The Rational Revolution: Modern Conditions, Modern Ethics

What Modern Technology Changes

The development of reliable contraception in the mid-twentieth century was not merely a medical advance. It was a moral revolution -- one whose implications most societies have still not fully absorbed.

Before reliable contraception, there was a rational basis (not a sufficient one, but a rational one) for some of the traditional restrictions on sexual behavior. Extramarital sex could produce children without fathers. Premarital sex could produce children that families were not prepared to support. The consequences of sexual activity were irreversible and often devastating, particularly for women, who bore the biological and social burden of unwanted pregnancy.

Modern contraception -- the pill, IUDs, implants, condoms -- has severed the link between sexual activity and reproduction with a reliability approaching 100%. Modern medicine has made most sexually transmitted infections treatable and many preventable. Modern economic structures have made women capable of financial independence, so that marriage is no longer the only route to economic survival.

These developments do not merely change the practical calculus of sexual behavior. They change the moral calculus. The traditional restrictions on sexuality were (in their more rational forms) designed to prevent specific harms: unwanted pregnancy, disease, economic destitution, fatherless children. When those harms can be effectively prevented through other means, the restrictions lose their rational basis. What remains is pure convention -- the persistence of rules after the reasons for the rules have disappeared.

Applying the Categorical Imperative

The philosophical framework of this book provides a clear principle for evaluating sexual conduct: the categorical imperative, reformulated in terms of human dignity and the harm principle. Sexual conduct between consenting adults that harms no non-consenting party requires no justification and deserves no condemnation.

This principle is both simple and revolutionary. Apply it systematically, and most of the traditional sexual prohibitions collapse.

Premarital sex between consenting adults: Does it harm anyone? If conducted with adequate contraception and protection against STIs, no. The shame and stigma attached to premarital sex are cultural artifacts without rational foundation.

Homosexuality: Does it harm anyone? No. The claim that homosexuality is "unnatural" is both scientifically false (homosexual behavior is documented in more than 1,500 animal species) and morally irrelevant (eyeglasses are also "unnatural," and no one proposes criminalizing them). The claim that it is "sinful" is a religious assertion that has no place in civil law. The claim that it threatens the family or social order is empirically unsupported -- countries that have legalized same-sex marriage have experienced no measurable negative social consequences.

Polyamory and consensual non-monogamy: Do they harm anyone? Not necessarily. If all partners are informed, consenting, and treated with honesty and respect, the number of people in a relationship is morally irrelevant. The pain that sometimes accompanies non-monogamous arrangements -- jealousy, insecurity, perceived betrayal -- is real but arises from unmet expectations and inadequate communication, not from the structure itself. Monogamous relationships produce comparable pain through infidelity, divorce, and emotional withdrawal.

Sex work between consenting adults: Does it harm anyone? This is more complex. Where sex work is freely chosen, adequately compensated, and conducted under conditions of safety and health, the moral objection is essentially aesthetic -- a feeling that sex should not be commodified -- rather than rational. Where sex work is coerced, exploitative, or conducted under conditions of danger and degradation, it is a serious moral wrong -- but the wrong lies in the coercion and exploitation, not in the sex.

In every case, the relevant question is not "does this conform to tradition?" or "does this conform to religious teaching?" but "does this harm anyone who has not consented?" If the answer is no, then the behavior falls within the sphere of individual liberty and is nobody's business but the participants'.

The Non-Negotiable Exception: Protection of Minors and Dependents

The principle of consent, which is the foundation of rational sexual ethics, has one absolute and non-negotiable boundary: children and other dependent persons cannot give meaningful consent to sexual activity, and any sexual contact with them is a grave moral wrong regardless of the circumstances, the culture, or the claimed consent of the minor.

This is not a qualified position. It is not subject to cultural variation or historical context. A society that tolerates the sexual exploitation of children -- whether through child marriage, child prostitution, or the institutional cover-up of child sexual abuse -- has failed the most basic test of civilizational morality, and no amount of cultural tradition, religious authority, or economic justification changes that.

The principle extends, with appropriate modifications, to all relationships characterized by a significant power imbalance that compromises the ability of one party to give free consent: employer-employee relationships, teacher-student relationships, therapist-patient relationships, clergy-congregant relationships, and any other relationship in which one party has authority, influence, or control over the other. In such relationships, the appearance of consent may mask coercion, and the burden falls on the more powerful party to refrain from sexual contact.

This boundary is not a concession to conservative sexual morality. It is a direct application of the book's core principle -- the protection of human dignity. Children and dependent persons are not autonomous agents capable of weighing the costs and benefits of sexual activity. They are vulnerable people who rely on adults and institutions to protect them. The failure of that protection -- whether by the Catholic Church, by the entertainment industry, by educational institutions, or by families that turn a blind eye -- is among the most damaging failures a civilization can produce.

Toward a Rational Sexual Culture

Sex Education as Protection, Not Corruption

One of the most reliable predictors of healthy sexual outcomes -- lower rates of teen pregnancy, lower rates of STI transmission, lower rates of sexual violence -- is comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education. The evidence is unequivocal: young people who receive accurate information about their bodies, about contraception, about consent, and about healthy relationships make better decisions about sex than those who are kept in ignorance or subjected to "abstinence-only" programs that have been repeatedly shown to be ineffective.

The opposition to sex education is instructive, because it reveals the real motivations behind much of traditional sexual morality. The stated objection is that teaching young people about sex will encourage them to have sex. This claim is empirically false -- study after study has shown that comprehensive sex education delays the onset of sexual activity, reduces the number of sexual partners, and increases the use of contraception. The real objection is that sex education undermines the regime of sexual shame on which traditional sexual morality depends. If young people learn that their bodies are natural rather than sinful, that desire is normal rather than pathological, that sex can be a source of pleasure and connection rather than a source of guilt and danger -- then the entire apparatus of sexual control loses its power.

This is precisely why sex education is so important and so fiercely resisted. It is not merely a public health measure (though it is that). It is an instrument of emancipation -- a means of freeing young people from the irrational shame and ignorance that have constrained human sexuality for millennia.

Marriage as Optional Choice, Not Societal Expectation

Marriage, in the framework of rational sexual ethics, is a personal choice -- one option among many for organizing one's intimate life, with no inherent moral superiority over other arrangements.

This is a more radical claim than it might appear. In most societies, past and present, marriage is not merely an option but an expectation -- a social institution so deeply embedded in law, religion, economics, and culture that choosing not to marry is treated as a deficiency, a failure, or a pathology. Single people are pitied, pressured, and penalized. Unmarried couples are stigmatized. And the enormous legal and financial advantages that married couples enjoy -- tax benefits, inheritance rights, immigration privileges, hospital visitation rights -- create a system in which the state actively promotes one form of intimate arrangement over all others.

The rational case for making marriage optional rather than normative rests on the same principle that underlies the entire argument of this chapter: the state has no legitimate interest in the intimate arrangements of consenting adults, provided those arrangements harm no non-consenting parties. A person who chooses to live alone, to cohabit without marrying, to maintain multiple committed relationships, or to form any other arrangement that meets their needs for intimacy, companionship, and support is not doing anything that requires justification, explanation, or apology.

This does not mean that marriage is without value. For many people, the public commitment, the legal framework, and the social recognition that marriage provides are genuinely important. The point is that this value is subjective -- it derives from the meaning that particular individuals attach to the institution, not from any objective moral superiority of marriage over other arrangements. And subjective value does not justify coercive pressure on those who do not share it.

Sexuality as Something Beautiful

Let us end this section with a positive claim, because the argument so far has been largely negative -- against shame, against restriction, against coercion. The positive claim is this: sexuality, freed from irrational shame and unnecessary restriction, is one of the most profound and beautiful dimensions of human experience.

The capacity for sexual pleasure, for erotic love, for the vulnerability and trust that physical intimacy requires -- these are among the most remarkable features of human consciousness. They connect us to our bodies, to other people, and to the deepest currents of our emotional life. They can express love, affirm identity, provide comfort, generate joy, and create bonds of extraordinary intensity and meaning.

The tragedy of traditional sexual morality is not merely that it causes suffering through its prohibitions and punishments. It is that it diminishes human experience by surrounding one of its richest dimensions with guilt, shame, fear, and disgust. A young woman who has been taught that her sexual desire is sinful will not experience her first sexual encounter as a moment of discovery and connection. She will experience it as a transgression. A gay man who has been taught that his desire is an abomination will not experience love as liberation. He will experience it as a source of self-hatred. A married couple whose sexual imagination has been constrained by religious prohibitions will not explore the full range of intimacy available to them. They will live within a narrower emotional world than they needed to.

Michel Foucault, in his History of Sexuality (1976-1984), argued that the discourse of sexual liberation can itself become a form of power -- that the injunction to "be sexually free" can be as oppressive, in its way, as the injunction to be sexually chaste. This is a fair warning, and it should be taken seriously. The point of sexual liberation is not to replace one set of prescriptions with another -- to tell people that they must be sexually adventurous, that they must reject monogamy, that they must explore every dimension of their desire. The point is to remove the external obstacles that prevent people from discovering, in freedom and without coercion, what sexual life means to them.

Some people will discover that monogamy is exactly what they want. Others will discover that it is not. Some will find fulfillment in conventional arrangements; others will create arrangements that are entirely their own. The only requirement of rational sexual ethics is that whatever choices people make, they make them freely, honestly, and with respect for the autonomy and dignity of everyone involved.

The Remaining Battles

The Global War on LGBTQ+ People

As of this writing, homosexuality is criminalized in approximately 64 countries. In several -- Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Mauritania, and parts of Nigeria and Somalia -- it is punishable by death. In many more, it is punished by imprisonment, flogging, or "corrective" rape. Even in countries where homosexuality is legal, LGBTQ+ individuals face pervasive discrimination in employment, housing, health care, and family law, as well as epidemic levels of violence, harassment, and suicide.

This is, by any rational measure, one of the great human rights crises of our time. And it is a crisis driven almost entirely by religious dogma and cultural tradition -- by the persistence of irrational beliefs about the "unnaturalness" or "sinfulness" of homosexuality in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence that sexual orientation is a normal, natural variant of human sexuality that exists across all cultures and throughout human history.

The defense of LGBTQ+ rights is not a "Western" cause, any more than the opposition to slavery was a "Western" cause. It is a human cause -- grounded in the principle that every person has the right to live and love without persecution by the state or the majority. The resistance to LGBTQ+ rights in many parts of the world is understandable historically -- it reflects the same anxieties about social change that have accompanied every expansion of human freedom -- but it is not defensible rationally.

Reproductive Rights and Bodily Autonomy

The control of reproduction is one of the most contested areas of sexual politics, and one where the conflict between rational ethics and religious dogma is most acute. The right of women to control their own reproductive lives -- to access contraception, to terminate unwanted pregnancies, to choose when and whether to have children -- is, from the perspective of this book, a straightforward application of the principle of bodily autonomy.

The objection from religious conservatives is that abortion is the taking of an innocent human life. This objection depends on the metaphysical claim that a fertilized egg or early-stage embryo is a "person" with full moral status -- a claim that is neither scientifically supportable (a blastocyst has no nervous system, no consciousness, and no capacity for suffering) nor philosophically compelling (the attribution of personhood to a cluster of cells requires precisely the kind of metaphysical assertion that this book's framework rejects). The more honest characterization is that the moral status of the fetus develops gradually, as the capacity for sentience develops, and that early-stage abortion presents no serious moral problem while late-stage abortion raises genuine ethical questions that must be weighed against the bodily autonomy of the pregnant person.

The practical consequences of restricting reproductive rights are well documented: higher rates of maternal mortality, higher rates of unsafe abortion, higher rates of unwanted children born into poverty, and the systematic subordination of women's life prospects to their reproductive biology. Countries that have liberalized access to contraception and abortion have, without exception, seen improvements in women's health, education, economic participation, and overall quality of life.

The Distinction Between Choice and Coercion

The final and perhaps most important point of this chapter concerns the distinction between personal choice and institutional coercion. This distinction is the fulcrum on which rational sexual ethics turns.

On one side: any consensual sexual arrangement between informed adults. Monogamy, polyamory, casual sex, celibacy, sex work, BDSM, any form of intimacy that the participants choose freely and conduct with mutual respect. These are personal choices that fall within the sphere of individual liberty and are entitled to social respect, legal protection, and freedom from interference.

On the other side: any institutional or cultural system that coerces individuals into sexual arrangements they have not freely chosen. Arranged marriage without genuine consent. Enforced monogamy backed by criminal penalties for adultery. Honor cultures that punish women for sexual autonomy with ostracism, violence, or death. The criminalization of homosexuality. The denial of reproductive rights. Religious institutions that use shame, social pressure, and the threat of damnation to control the sexual behavior of their members.

The first category requires no justification. The second category requires justification -- and in the vast majority of cases, the justification is not forthcoming. The reasons offered are typically religious (and therefore not rationally compelling to those who do not share the faith), traditional (and therefore not rationally compelling in the face of changed circumstances), or based on empirically false claims about the consequences of sexual freedom (and therefore not rationally compelling to anyone who examines the evidence).

A rational sexual ethics does not tell people how to live their intimate lives. It tells institutions and majorities to stop telling people how to live their intimate lives. It replaces the regime of shame, coercion, and punishment with the principle of consent, autonomy, and mutual respect. And in doing so, it opens the possibility -- for the first time in human history -- that human beings might experience their sexuality not as a source of guilt and conflict but as a source of pleasure, connection, and genuine freedom.

This is the last great emancipation. And like every emancipation before it, it will be resisted by those who benefit from the existing arrangements. But like every emancipation before it, it will prevail -- because reason, in the long run, defeats dogma, and freedom, in the long run, defeats control.