There are two factors concerned with the morality of sex and sexual behavior: consent and maturity. Archaic definitions of sexual morality are unnecessarily restrictive, following the “fear the unknown” mantra, and fail to logically address the issue with anything more than circular arguments.
There have been several court cases in the recent past involving two sexual partners with a large difference in age. The fundamentalists were outraged, of course, because this arrangement conflicts with some traditional ideology, but this is completely without logical basis. One of the cases that comes to mind involved a middle-aged female high school teacher and a teenaged male high school student.
In order to assess the moral value of this or any sexual relationship, one need consider only the two distinct aforementioned factors: consent and maturity. If the sexual relationship is consensual, that is, the relationship and all sexual acts included are given full, mutual, and independent consent from all parties involved, then the consent requirement is satisfied. If all parties involved possess a reasonable and relevant level of maturity concerning the relationship and all sexual acts included, the maturity requirement is satisfied.
If both the consent and maturity requirements are satisfied in a given sexual relationship or act, nothing more can be said regarding the sexual morality of that relationship or act. Of course most of the controversy arises when attempting to decide how to ascertain the universal presence of consent and levels of maturity, but that is part of the moral valuation process. I only mean to direct that valuation process in its proper direction, rooted in logic and restricted to the realm it rightly involves.
Among the many considerations this brings to light are some of the criteria by which the morality of a sexual relationship cannot be judged, including gender, age, or number of sexual partners, marital status, social class, skin color, cultural or ethnic background, ideological beliefs, level of education, or monetary assets of any parties involved. This may come as a shock to those with traditional and/or fundamentalist beliefs, but truths based on reason often do.
Sexual acts among homosexual partners aren’t immoral? No, by any logical basis they are absolutely moral between consenting and mature parties. Orgies? Completely moral assuming the requirements are met. Unmarried couples? Sorry, there’s nothing wrong there either. Interracial relations? Of course they’re moral. Interfaith? Likewise. Prostitution? One-hundred percent sexually moral.
Now this brings up a good point. “You’re saying that a married man having sex with a poor prostitute in the middle of a church is moral?” Sexually moral, yes, absolutely. Now, religiously moral? Probably not. Moral with respect to marriage? It depends. The importance lies in the distinction. Sexual morality is concerned with the sole sexual act or acts and the immediate factors of consent and maturity, nothing said about other external circumstances or alternate moral schemes.
“But how is that useful at all? When we speak of ‘morality’, aren’t we just talking about a general societal morality?” You think you are, but it severely clouds the issue at hand and hinders the social systems of justice and protection. Sexual morality is useful because it distinguishes exactly what should be treated and enforced by the law. All alternate moralities, no matter how dear they are held to the heart of whatever member of society, have absolutely no place in the law or the arbitration involved in the decisions involved with lawful justice.
It is absolutely absurd to think that premarital sex, prostitution, fetish sex, or any other type of sexual act should be controlled by the laws of the society. Sexual morality is a “baseline” for the societal interpretation and control of sexual acts, on top of which other personal or cult moralities can be placed by whomever pleases to do so, as long as the additional layers of morality only apply those who subscribe to them.
It’s amazing how much clearer and more concise legal decisions can be when the ridiculous cries of all sorts of fanatics are rightly restricted to their respective fanatical realms. This of course says nothing of my personal morality, as that is a layer I put on top of the core sexual morality; you may do the same. Just don’t start whining when you find out your neighbor Fred likes different layers on his cake.
EOD.
A high school boy is incapable of giving consent! In order to give consent a person needs the ability to consider consequences and repercussions of their actions. No highschool boy, regardless of their maturity level, is able to consider or handle any of the consequences. I also feel that the elder in the situation needs to be the adult. This teacher was given a position of power and great responsibility and abused the trust that every parent gives their child’s teacher. When a person is legally an adult I don’t always agree that they are mature, however their problems become their own responsibility. The responsibility for this boy rests with his parents. If someone else is still responsible for your actions you are not able to give just your consent, but must also be able to give the consent of parents responsible for your actions.
I agree that not all adults are mature, but I refuse to accept that all high school boys are necessarily immature or unable to consent. I have known many people who at an early age possess the maturity required to make such decisions.
I say nothing of the parents because that’s beyond the scope of my assertions. If the persons directly involved do not possess the requisite maturity, the act is not permissible under this baseline morality (regardless of what parents or other authority figures may say or think).
I think we agree in principle, but simply differ in our assessment of possible maturity levels among high school aged boys. Obviously this is something that could be debated, but the core principle can only be applied on a case by case basis, so averages or sweeping generalizations don’t affect the outcome.
Interesting ideas… I appreciate your approach - but where do you get this standard of Consent + Maturity? Certainly not from nature. Animals have no sense of this. This arguement’s first principle is flawed. Why is Consent + Maturity the ultimate standard? Why not Consent + Monogamy or Maturity + Procreation? Or why not even *ugh* Desire + Strength?
It’s not meant to be an argument based on established principles, but rather a proposal for a new set of principles. Where did I get them? I say logic and experience, even if that’s a murky area.
Now, the test of the proposal is its application. Are there any cases where it produces a result that seems undesirable to you? If so, what and why?
[...] relaxing, domestic duties, swimming, socializing, philosophizing, blogging, romantic evenings, and moral sexual encounters. Bad forms are just as innumerable and include most of what the mass media ties to nudity: [...]
I don’t accept that ‘consent’ is the sole criteria for morality. This implies that individual conscience is the only arbitor for the ethical quality of an act. Furthemore an individual is frequently subject to forces beyond his or her conscious scrutiny and will often commit acts which have consequences which he or she is unable to foresee. Therefore they will frequently make judgements on an onsound basis.