| | Is sexual orientation immune from moral evaluation, or can someone's sexual preference be criticized as immoral or inappropriate?! Nowadays, when virtually any form of sexuality demands tolerance if not celebration, the very idea that certain forms of sexuality might be wrong or inappropriate is viewed as secular heresy -- indeed as shockingly offensive.
How far has the so-called sexual revolution taken us? Is "whatever turns you on" an acceptable sexual ethic? Or can some forms of sexual expression be criticized as objectively immoral or inappropriate?
To be sure, any sex acts that violate the rights of others are clearly immoral. No one today would countenance rape or child molestation (well, practically no one!). But what about certain fringe sexualities, like S&M, bestiality, or fantasies of rape or molestation? Granted, these do not violate anyone's rights, but are they a "legitimate" form of sexual preference? And if they are not, then the question arises: What standards are we employing to evaluate a non-rights violating sexual preference as either good or bad, right or wrong?
Of course, someone will be quick to reply that this is the province of psychology, not philosophy, but do people really believe this? If a psychologist were to criticize homosexuality as a retarded form of sexual development, he would be roundly condemned by virtually every liberal in our society. He'd quickly be labeled a sexual bigot and a homophobe! Most people do consider sexual orientation to be the province of philosophy (i.e., of morality). So what standards should be employed in order to evaluate it? What standards should psychology itself employ?
Nathaniel Branden has criticized S&M as unhealthy (whether he still would is another question), because it involves the desire to give and receive pain rather than pleasure. It is true that the respective participants receive pleasure from the pain, but it is the genesis of that causal relationship that is the problem. Why does the infliction of pain give the sadist pleasure, and why does the corresponding experience of pain give the masochist pleasure? There is a psychological disorder at the root of that relationship. The sadist gets pleasure out of inflicting pain, because he enjoys the feeling of power over others that it gives him, which is a sign of low self-esteem. The masochist gets pleasure out of being mistreated, which is also a sign of low self-esteem. So this kind of sexual orientation is inappropriate, because it reflects a bad psychology, a bad self-appraisal.
If this kind of evaluation were carried forth in the analysis of other forms of sexual preference, it could conceivably be used to validate or invalidate them. But today, this research would be treading on dangerous, politically incorrect ground, so there is a prejudice against pursuing it in a free and dispassionate manner. The social pressure to arrive at the politically correct conclusion is simply too strong to allow for this kind of free scientific inquiry.
Just imagine the reception a psychologist would get who today expressed a view that homosexuality or lesbianism had inappropriate psychological underpinnings. He would be ridden out of town on a rail. The same reception would befall anyone who considered a bisexual or transgender orientation psychologically deficient. Howls of protest would arise and his very job and professional standing would be at risk.
The question then is, disregarding the prevailing orthodoxy, should a person's sexual orientation be open to moral evaluation? And, accordingly, is a sexual ethic one that is worth developing and promoting?
- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 7/25, 10:02am)
|
|
