Sex Is Not “Fun”

• 8 years ago

By JAMES K. FITZPATRICK

I was pleased when I read Gary Gutting’s article entitled “Sex Is Not ‘Fun’: It is more than that” in the September 23 issues of Commonweal. (Gutting is a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame.) It is not only that the article was well-written and generally supportive of the Church’s teaching about the nature of sex. I was also pleased because Gutting tackled a topic that I have wanted someone to write about for quite a while now.

Why didn’t I take a shot at it myself? Some would say it is the result of a puritanical streak that can be found in many people with Irish Catholic backgrounds, perhaps rooted in Jansenism. That could be. I even shy away from small talk about sex even at social gatherings. So be it. I’m not going to change now. I can live with my puritanical streak.

Gutting does not have my hang-up. He says things that need to be said about the consequences of the sexual revolution, especially the current definition of rape as promoted by militant feminists, and says it well. He writes, “Rapes are now recognized as not just the acts of violent criminals lurking in dark alleys.” Rapists are “now more likely to be bosses, coworkers, friends, lovers, or husbands. And the category of sexual harassment now includes everything from rape narrowly defined to almost any form of unwanted sexual attention.”

The new codes of sexual ethics, he continues, make “consent the central category, if not the only category. Rape and other forms of sexual harassment mean that a victim has not consented.” Sounds logical. “But,” says Gutting, “consent can be difficult to pin down. Is an explicit agreement required at each successive stage of sexual activity? Is there such a thing as a coy or flirtatious ‘no’? What degree of intoxication makes consent impossible? Can sex with employers, teachers, and other authority figures ever be truly consensual?”

Gutting refuses to accept simplistic answers to these questions. “No” doesn’t always mean “no,” he insists. And men who force themselves on women cannot be excused by contending “she was looking for it.” “Clothes that say, ‘I’m sexy’ shouldn’t be taken to mean ‘I want to have sex with you’.”

It is at this point that Gutting gets really interesting. He argues that we need an ethics of sexuality to deal with these issues, “but the starting point should be the realization that sex is not ‘fun’.” If we accept the message given to our young people by movies and songs that proclaim the virtues of the “sexually liberated” woman, that mock virginity, and extoll the merits of the “hookup culture,” then “having sex” is no big deal, or as Gutting phrases it, it is “the ultimate innocuous fun, a delight available on demand to those not burdened with unnecessary moral baggage. If sex isn’t serious — if it’s just meaningless fun — then why should anyone hold back?”

And why should a man who uses some coercion to engage in the act, be seen as criminal if that is the case? Consider some analogies: We may use terms such as “louts,” “boors,” and “hooligans” for men who throw protesting women into the swimming pool or drive at excessive speeds in spite of the woman’s pleas to stop, but we don’t put them in the same category as rapists. We don’t send them to jail. Gooding: “If we really think nonconsensual sex is seriously wrong, we need to start treating consensual sex as a serious choice, not just a good time.”

It should go without saying that there is no excuse for young men who force themselves on women. But that does not mean that we should not take note of Gutting’s insight into the mixed signals being sent by the proponents of the sexual revolution. If people “without hang-ups” are supposed to “love the one you’re with,” young men may see themselves as being unfairly singled out by a young woman who denies them the sexual experiences “everyone else” is enjoying. You may say that only a lunkhead would think that way, but a healthy moral code for sex should be clear even for lunkheads. The sexual revolution is muddying the waters.

Gutting closes by pointing to the “underlying problem of a misguided conception of sexuality” that “reduces sex to a freely chosen form of entertainment,” rather than a “commitment” to “an intellectually and emotionally satisfying understanding of love — something like what Plato, for his time, sought in the Symposium” — and, as the Church teaches, is found within the Sacrament of Matrimony.

There is another dimension to this discussion, one that is not part of Gutting’s article. It involves abortion. I used to hear it expressed in simplistic terms from some of the young men I taught in a public high school. It takes one form or another of the following proposal: If, as the proponents of the sexual revolution tell us, a women should be free to consent to sex outside of marriage, and if abortion should be available for all women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy as a result of their sexual activities, and if the man involved in the sexual act should have no say over whether the woman has the abortion or not — why should any man be responsible for paying child support?

How does one argue with these young men who feel they have a right to walk away from the children they father out of wedlock? The proponents of the sexual revolution tell them sex is guilt free as long as it is consensual. That means that young men who have sex with young women (assuming both parties are over the age of consent) are doing nothing wrong. Also that if the young woman becomes pregnant, it is entirely her decision whether or not to give birth. (Again, I must stress, according to the proponents of the sexual revolution.)

So if this young woman wants to “end the pregnancy,” she has the right to do so. It is her decision — entirely. The young man has no veto power. But if she decides to give birth, it is also her decision — entirely. Right? Why then should the young man be held financially or legally responsible?

I can remember the young women in my classes objecting to this logic with the familiar line, “It takes two to tango.” But it doesn’t work. By that logic it should also “take two” to determine if the abortion will take place, not just the woman.

Traditional Catholic teaching has an answer to this question: “You should not have sex outside of marriage and abortion should not be permitted.” Case closed. But the advocates of the sexual revolution can’t resort to that logic. They tell us that consensual sex outside marriage is a good thing, or as Gary Gutting describes it, “fun” — and also that abortion should be legal and entirely the choice of the woman. Where does the legal responsibility of the “father” fit into that scenario?