A Robust Sexual Ethic

[achilles]

The more time I've spent away from the Church, and the more I've opened my mind on a number of topics, I've often considered what I really think about sexual ethics. We know what we've been taught (both officially and unofficially, explicitly and implicitly) about sexuality and its place in our lives. We also know the good that has come from it, and the challenges it has engendered in our own lives and the lives of others around us.

One of the challenges of releasing oneself from a compelling world-view like the one Mormonism offers is the development of one's own moral compass--and its use in the charting of our own personal courses. My dissertation research involved the application of skills in ethical deliberation to the field of music education, and how to measure moral growth. (Needless to say, my thoughts on the subject have changed considerably since I defended it back in 2011...)

Ethical deliberation is the process of weighing the ethical considerations in a particular dilemma and applying a rational process to the possible courses of action one should take. (BTW, I focused my research mostly on moral cognition, though I've come to think Haidt's ideas about moral intuition are also very robust in describing human morality). Anyhow, I've had to develop my own position on the ethics of sexuality as I've begun to explore my identity as a gay man. The first step in ethical deliberation is the identification of the issues and considerations involved. I've asked myself the question "What are the major ethical considerations and issues at hand in a robust sexual moral system?" This question seems to have a lot of relevance for us as we take back our own sexualities from the Church and try to determine how we will teach our own children about sexuality without the shame-based model the Church has offered most of us.

So I ask the question to all of you: "What are the major ethical considerations and issues at hand in a robust sexual moral system?"

I would start with
1-consent/power in a sexual interaction
2-pregnancy and parenthood
3-health/disease transmission
4-exclusivity in committed relationships

What do you all think? What are the major issues at hand when thinking about what is moral/not moral/more moral, etc. about sexuality? Do these considerations differ is differing sexual contexts (e.g. masturbation, casual sex vs.within a relationship, pornography, etc)?

[Palerider]

Feel like I'm wandering into an acre of landmines....

This may not be exactly what you are asking either.

Anyway, I just wonder how an individual arrives at a guiding criteria once they truncate themselves from a moral authority?

I'm familiar (relatively) with the argument that one doesn't need a belief in a diety to be a "moral" person. And I have some reservations regarding that theory.

But if we become the sole arbiters of our own morality, what is there that precludes us from falling into the trap of situational ethics?

It's sort of analogous to being in a car at a stop light and detecting movement but you can't tell whether you're the one who's moving or the car beside you. So you look at a street sign or lamp post that you know isn't moving to tell whether you are moving or not.

To rely entirely on myself or some other human source seems folly since we know we are all fallible.

This seems to be one of the pitfalls of the church actually. When people gave themselves over to the concept that Joseph spoke directly for God, they became vulnerable to deceit and manipulation.

In all of the stories I have read of members, male or female being introduced to polygamy, the first reaction is to recoil from the concept. It is offensive to the divinely built-in conscience in all humans. But through manipulation and persuasion the conscience is overcome.

So even if a person doesn't believe in God, how can they be sure they aren't overcoming their own conscience by self-deception or persuasion of others?

[IT_Veteran]

Since we’re getting all philosophical...

I’m at the point where my belief in God is gone, but I will find myself acting ethically. Instead of my ethics being simply “do what God says” they are more in line with doing what is the most good for the most people. I’ve found myself more compassionate. My worries about who’s having sex with who are reduced now to “who’s hurt by it?” Consent hasn’t become the most important aspect of that for me, as well as avoiding unnecessary pregnancy and disease. Teaching my kids those things and having discussions around the emotional impacts from a sexual relationship are important too. I don’t think casual sex is healthy, but I know that others don’t see a problem with it. My hope is that my kids grow up and leave the house someday knowing how to protect themselves and others from the pitfalls.

Similarly, my view toward other moral decisions is pretty in line with that approach.

[alas]

Feel like I'm wandering into an acre of landmines....

This may not be exactly what you are asking either.

Anyway, I just wonder how an individual arrives at a guiding criteria once they truncate themselves from a moral authority?

I'm familiar (relatively) with the argument that one doesn't need a belief in a diety to be a "moral" person. And I have some reservations regarding that theory.

But if we become the sole arbiters of our own morality, what is there that precludes us from falling into the trap of situational ethics?

It's sort of analogous to being in a car at a stop light and detecting movement but you can't tell whether you're the one who's moving or the car beside you. So you look at a street sign or lamp post that you know isn't moving to tell whether you are moving or not.

To rely entirely on myself or some other human source seems folly since we know we are all fallible.

This seems to be one of the pitfalls of the church actually. When people gave themselves over to the concept that Joseph spoke directly for God, they became vulnerable to deceit and manipulation.

In all of the stories I have read of members, male or female being introduced to polygamy, the first reaction is to recoil from the concept. It is offensive to the divinely built-in conscience in all humans. But through manipulation and persuasion the conscience is overcome.

So even if a person doesn't believe in God, how can they be sure they aren't overcoming their own conscience by self-deception or persuasion of others?

A lot of people feel this way, so I have thought about this. Unless you have a direct line to God, which I don’t think any human has, what difference is there in believing in God? He/she/it has never spoken directly to me, and I don really believe he speaks to what we humans call prophets. Well, there is the scriptures, but I think they are no better than any other human’s experience with what they call God. There have been some really evil things done “in the name of God” by people who believe in God. So, obviously people who believe in God can be manipulated into evil. Your example of polygamy is one good example of the problem that belief in God can talk you into something you think is evil. So, really, what are your choices in what to follow. We can follow the traditions of men mingled with scripture, we can follow only scripture, we can follow only the traditions of men, we can follow one specific man, or we can use our own god (evolution?) given sense of right and wrong.

People who honestly stick to that inborn sense of right and wrong, using the wisdom of people from the past, mixed with modern science, mixed with kindness, based soundly in logic and a desire to do the least harm possible, seem to be more moral people than the ones who use religion.

I really think that there is an inborn sense of “how to live in a tribe” or a “knowledge of good and evil” or an instinctive sense of not harming others. Psychologists have tested dogs, wolves, cats, apes, chimpanzees and they all have an inborn sense of justice, fairness, morality if you want to call it that. Animals have this instinctive sense of justice or fairness. So, of course people have it. It is only when we get selfish, stop thinking, or over ride this inborn sense or morality that we go wrong. Religion is one of the things that we use to over ride our inborn sense of right and wrong.

And, yes, there are people who are born without this particular instinct.

But this instinct is beneficial to tribal living and humans are a species that cannot live outside of a tribe. So, it would make sense that humans have a pretty good instinct to keep them happy in their tribe.

Yes, there is also a purpose in being able to over ride this instinct and go to war with another tribe. Religion and tribalism is used to do this.

[Corsair]

So I ask the question to all of you: "What are the major ethical considerations and issues at hand in a robust sexual moral system?"

I would start with
1-consent/power in a sexual interaction
2-pregnancy and parenthood
3-health/disease transmission
4-exclusivity in committed relationships

I would add a question about how the group expectation of sexual ethics affects the community at large. For example, modern America with Judeo-Christian values tends to idealize nuclear families with monogamous parents. Suppose that a married couple gave each other permission to not be exclusive, but it had to be discreet and maintain the ideal appearance. How would this affect that character of the community and civilization? Could a community function in healthy manner while still teaching monogamy and sexual "purity" to children, but quietly allowed controlled, discreet dalliances?

My guess is that 19th century Mormonism had very strong group cohesion while fostering strong insular attitudes. Outsiders who did not hold those sexual ethics were not trusted. One apologist told me that plural marriage hardly mattered among the Mormons when the appointed non-Mormon governors and federal representatives carried on affairs. My response was that the average person would judge plural marriage and infidelity to both be wrong.

I'm not hoping to change my own sexual ethics nor trying to justify any indiscretion of my own. The chastity questions in the temple recommend interview are ones I can answer honestly. The question for me is how shall we live? Perhaps a more specific question is how is the best and most prosperous way to live for the largest number of people? I strongly suspect that questions of sexual ethics will greatly affect the answer to how we shall live.

[Palerider]

The question for me is how shall we live?

I think it was Plato who posed the question, "How shall we order ourselves?"

There are also the issues of paternity and "possession" when it comes to children and spouses.

I think (from an evolutionary point of view) marriage was developed to alleviate the two problems I mention. Too many arguments over who actually sired a given child and too many conflicts over which woman "belongs" to which man.

[Linked]

So I ask the question to all of you: "What are the major ethical considerations and issues at hand in a robust sexual moral system?"

I would start with
1-consent/power in a sexual interaction
2-pregnancy and parenthood
3-health/disease transmission
4-exclusivity in committed relationships

What do you all think? What are the major issues at hand when thinking about what is moral/not moral/more moral, etc. about sexuality? Do these considerations differ is differing sexual contexts (e.g. masturbation, casual sex vs.within a relationship, pornography, etc)?

This is a great question and one I have thought a lot about, but it looks like OP has thought more about. I don't have a completed robust sexual moral system, I don't think I have the tools to define one, but I have thought about it. I have discarded some pieces of my former sexual moral system and added or strengthened some pieces. These changes are all intellectual at this point; I'm married and am in a sexually stable place.

Kept:
- Exclusivity in marriage

Removed:
- All sexuality outside of intercourse with your spouse is inherently bad
- Sexual urges are bad/evil

Added/Strengthened:
- Consent, consent, consent. All parties should be saying "hell yes!" It was intellectually fascinating to go from a chastity ethic to realize how that has minimized the role of consent in sexual morality. In the chastity ethic consent takes a back seat to being married, then consent in marriage is assumed.
- Safe sex, by whatever means you use (monogamy, condoms, abstinence, etc)

Some points that I still ponder about are:
- Where is the line of exclusivity in a committed relationship? (These need to be understood together with your partner, but I am figuring out what I individually consider the line)
* No sexual encounters with anyone but your significant other
* What about when you see something on tv that is stimulating? Is it a trespass to see it?
* Is masturbation a trespass?
* Is porn a trespass?
* Emotional affairs? Does that even fit here?

- Although I no longer consider sexual urges as bad, I do think that unchecked they can lead to bad things. Considering someone as sexual is a sexual interaction in a way, so figuring out that consent seems like it could be tricky. It's also difficult to force yourself to change what you consider sexual. So I suppose on this point, what one finds sexual due to the chemicals in their head is fine, so long as it doesn't lead to bad behaviors.

[dogbite]

But if we become the sole arbiters of our own morality, what is there that precludes us from falling into the trap of situational ethics?

All ethics are situational when it comes down to it. You must always reference the situation to determine what is ethical. And all ethic systems have escape clauses for situations that exceed the norms.

If what God commands is good because God commands it, then God can command child molestation and it is good. Or if God is God because he recognizes all good then we don't have any particular need for God as a moral authority. This is the heart of the Euthyphro Dilemna.

And as there is no universally accepted moral authority (nor proof of which is the most moral authority) there is already diversity of ethics within each situation.

[dogbite]

My views on sexuality have not changed at all since leaving the church. I slept around a lot before I joined the church and I can honestly say that when I did so I felt like garbage. My relationships were garbage.

And that makes your feelings and experience a universal truth and moral standard?

Now that I am married I can honestly tell my kids to wait until they are married and if they do they will be happier.

There are some current cultural rewards to this but it's not a universal nor a fixed standard over time. Again, you're reasoning from your personal subjective experience as though that constitutes a universal truth.

You're welcome to an opinion and a preference, but you actually have to present logical reasons for your arguments not just adamant statements to convince others of your position.

Pornography is addictive I don't care what anyone else says.

This is an untenable epistemologic position. You are declaring yourself the final arbiter of fact and truth. The actual evidence is contradictory in general, though there are specific subsets of people for whom it is addictive.

With that being said I teach my kids not to repress their feelings. It's ok to admire other people. It's ok to have sexual feeling and God doesn't hate you for having them. It's ok to find other people attractive after marriage. Everyone does. And this entire "I only look at/think about my spouse," is utter garbage.

Good for you.

[Thoughtful]

The question for me is how shall we live?

I think it was Plato who posed the question, "How shall we order ourselves?"

There are also the issues of paternity and "possession" when it comes to children and spouses.

I think (from an evolutionary point of view) marriage was developed to alleviate the two problems I mention. Too many arguments over who actually sired a given child and too many conflicts over which woman "belongs" to which man.

Questions of parentage are only an issue if property and authority are inherited along patriarchal lines. Matrilineal systems work fine without evidence of paternity. Merlin Stone discussed this in her When God Was a Woman. If remove the premise that by divine right, men preside over and or own women and children, all these ownership conflicts also dissolve.

[dogbite]

We are uncomfortable with young sexual activity because even as adults it's easy to make bad decisions about sex. And young people are just about defined by having poor judgement while thinking it's good.

The moral issue in sex to me is the issue of harm.

Harm can be broken down into different types here.

Emotional, this is the core of fidelity concerns, but also consent. The issue of Fidelity is for the sexual partners to determine. It might be open or closed relationships in various permutations.

Health concerns are STD but also pregnancy.

Social/monetary, which includes pregnancy again.

Discussion and agreement and forward thinking of outcomes is how it is managed.

[wtfluff]

But if we become the sole arbiters of our own morality, what is there that precludes us from falling into the trap of situational ethics?

All ethics are situational when it comes down to it. You must always reference the situation to determine what is ethical. And all ethic systems have escape clauses for situations that exceed the norms.

If what God commands is good because God commands it, then God can command child molestation and it is good. Or if God is God because he recognizes all good then we don't have any particular need for God as a moral authority. This is the heart of the Euthyphro Dilemma.

And as there is no universally accepted moral authority (nor proof of which is the most moral authority) there is already diversity of ethics within each situation.

Threadjack: What's the difference between the Euthyphro Dilemma and Divine Command Theory?

[dogbite]

I'm no pro on the issue but seems to me the specifics of Euthyphro are related to polytheism: moral discrepancies between the gods because they don't all like the same things or agree. Divine command theory is more generally framed.

I would say Euthyphro was the first record of a discussion of the issues of DCT.

[Palerider]

Questions of parentage are only an issue if property and authority are inherited along patriarchal lines. Matrilineal systems work fine without evidence of paternity. Merlin Stone discussed this in her When God Was a Woman. If remove the premise that by divine right, men preside over and or own women and children, all these ownership conflicts also dissolve.

Wouldn't support also be an issue? Aren't most people generally happy to support their own children? But most show little interest in supporting someone else's.

[moksha]

Members of the LDS faith did not follow Victorian morality during the time of Queen Victoria but have been paying it great lip service since the 1920s. It's almost like we are a people out of sync with earthly time. I think Mormon teachings on sexual morality hold great sway with many of those exposed to it.

It is rare to find Mormons openly admitting to a "follow your bliss" attitude toward sexuality even if it is a de facto practice for some of them in real life, yet Joseph Smith was the epitome of following his bliss throughout his adult life.


Mormon Public Service Announcement - Dear Sisters, please don't ruin your eternal salvation with bare shoulders.

[Thoughtful]

Questions of parentage are only an issue if property and authority are inherited along patriarchal lines. Matrilineal systems work fine without evidence of paternity. Merlin Stone discussed this in her When God Was a Woman. If remove the premise that by divine right, men preside over and or own women and children, all these ownership conflicts also dissolve.

Wouldn't support also be an issue? Aren't most people generally happy to support their own children? But most show little interest in supporting someone else's.

From what I've read in the past, in matrilineal, egalitarian societies, men provided support to their grandchildren and sister's children instead of their own offspring. People are generally interested in promoting their own genes, and that is the way to do so when parentage isn't always clear.

But the dynamics overall were less individualistic and more community- based. Men had to be a little more socially appealing if they wanted to get laid, and alpha males were seen as a detriment to community survival and would be kicked out or killed off.

[crossmyheart]

Mormon Public Service Announcement - Dear Sisters, please don't ruin your eternal salvation with bare shoulders.

Moksha- I REALLY could have used this advice two days ago when I wore a tank top on the 4th. My poor shoulders are burnt to a crisp! I guess that is punishment for my morally bankrupt decision to bare my shoulders.

[Palerider]

Mormon Public Service Announcement - Dear Sisters, please don't ruin your eternal salvation with bare shoulders.

Moksha- I REALLY could have used this advice two days ago when I wore a tank top on the 4th. My poor shoulders are burnt to a crisp! I guess that is punishment for my morally bankrupt decision to bare my shoulders.

But if you do decide to break the moral code, at least use a condom.....or sunscreen.....and don't mix them up.

[alas]

Questions of parentage are only an issue if property and authority are inherited along patriarchal lines. Matrilineal systems work fine without evidence of paternity. Merlin Stone discussed this in her When God Was a Woman. If remove the premise that by divine right, men preside over and or own women and children, all these ownership conflicts also dissolve.

Wouldn't support also be an issue? Aren't most people generally happy to support their own children? But most show little interest in supporting someone else's.

From what I've read in the past, in matrilineal, egalitarian societies, men provided support to their grandchildren and sister's children instead of their own offspring. People are generally interested in promoting their own genes, and that is the way to do so when parentage isn't always clear.

But the dynamics overall were less individualistic and more community- based. Men had to be a little more socially appealing if they wanted to get laid, and alpha males were seen as a detriment to community survival and would be kicked out or killed off.

Yes, men supported their sister’s children and those children inherited from them. They knew their sister’s children were related, while children of the women they had slept with may or may not have slept with someone else. Women were quite free to have any partner they wanted, and there were fertility rites to the fertility goddess where people had orgies. There were also temples to the fertility goddess, that you see in the Bible, where men would pay tribute to the goddess and then “worship” by having sex with a priestess. This was how Tamar got her father in law to give her a child, she pretended to be a temple priestess and took his tribute had sex with him, then used his tribute to prove his paternity. But men decided they wanted to have access and control over the more attractive women, so they invented marriage and ownership of women.

[Thoughtful]

Wouldn't support also be an issue? Aren't most people generally happy to support their own children? But most show little interest in supporting someone else's.

From what I've read in the past, in matrilineal, egalitarian societies, men provided support to their grandchildren and sister's children instead of their own offspring. People are generally interested in promoting their own genes, and that is the way to do so when parentage isn't always clear.

But the dynamics overall were less individualistic and more community- based. Men had to be a little more socially appealing if they wanted to get laid, and alpha males were seen as a detriment to community survival and would be kicked out or killed off.

Yes, men supported their sister’s children and those children inherited from them. They knew their sister’s children were related, while children of the women they had slept with may or may not have slept with someone else. Women were quite free to have any partner they wanted, and there were fertility rites to the fertility goddess where people had orgies. There were also temples to the fertility goddess, that you see in the Bible, where men would pay tribute to the goddess and then “worship” by having sex with a priestess. This was how Tamar got her father in law to give her a child, she pretended to be a temple priestess and took his tribute had sex with him, then used his tribute to prove his paternity. But men decided they wanted to have access and control over the more attractive women, so they invented marriage and ownership of women.

I would say they wanted to control women (and by extension children and property). The way to do so was to kill those who "worship idols" and create a cult of virginity worship.