"Whatever happens between consenting adults behind closed doors should not be the state's/somebody else's concern", or some variant of that, is an oft-repeated liberal maxim, especially in American spaces (which means, the Internet). This to me sounds like one of those vacuous liberal cliches that while having some basic appealing elements, doesn't really hold up to any degree of critical scrutiny, in both rational and moral senses. At its best it states the bleeding obvious, and at it's worst, it is plain wrong and stupid.
On the one hand it reeks of an unwholesome dose of individualism, that post-industrial Western civilization is so enamored with. It's the kind of libertarianism that paradoxically sees the individual as supreme and self-reliant while she is increasingly more reliant on a complex web of goods and services provided by others. In such an ideal world, people maintain professional relationships in the workplace, and personal ones at home "behind closed doors", and the two are totally insulated from each other. In such an ideal world, people do not gossip about who they slept with, do not boast about their sexual conquests, and do not feel sexual jealousy at missed opportunities. This is pure sexual utopia, where people have learned to appreciate sex in a perfectly mature and rational way, without sniggering about it, without having conspiratorial chats about it with their friends, and without feeling angry, hurt, jealous or left-out. Well, why turn to and annoy friends about it, when you are hurt in your relationships then?
There is good reason that marriage came to be institutionalized in most societies. The task of reproducing and bringing up the members of a future generation is too much to be entrusted to the devices of two mere individuals. While sex undeniably has a recreational aspect, the part that society as a whole has more reason to be concerned with, is the reproductive aspect. Child-rearing needs a broader societal framework, but even before that, a formal, socially-approved contract of marriage has been deemed necessary to make two people aware of their rights and responsibilites towards each other. Without such a broadly established template for marriage or relationships, all the challenges and disappointments of managing a relationship basically get deputed to the two individuals concerned, who as it often happens, are confused and weak.
Then again consider such deeply problematic phenomena as cheating/adultery in intimate relationships, or relationships with an inherent conflict of interest, such as between boss and underling at work. Going by our nice little maxim, these should not be anybody's concern. If the two partners involved are consenting adults, why should the partner being cheated upon, care? Isn't the idea of marriage, or even commitment, a tyrannical institutionalized setup, and shouldn't the ideal sexual relationship then be one that is open and polyamorous? Why should the other workers care even if the working environment was rendered uneasy by an ill-advised office fling? The truth is it is human nature to care. To be deeply wounded in an animal way when their partner drifts from them, even if logically they come to believe in the idea of polyamory. Shouldn't our political ideas then take such basic facts of human nature into account, before mouthing such glib pronouncements?
Also, what about morality? There is a case for some soft morality beyond that which is ensured by the law. It is a great thing that adulterers in the West are not stoned to death nowadays, nor even do they attract a great deal of social opprobrium. One needs to get on with life instead of just putting everyone on trial. But surely there should be some karmic reaction to all the nastiness - the lying, cheating, abuse, betrayal - that gets perpetrated in intimate relationships. People ought not to be put in jail, or be punished at work, for such transgressions - but shouldn't they be exposed in more intimate circles? Shouldn't their potential future mates receive some warning about such behavior? Why is it not anybody else's concern when they may be the ones next in line? And then again, what about the moral issues involved when such sex between consenting adults behind closed doors, is obtained under false promises and pretenses? Wouldn't it be normal for well-meaning friends or family to intervene when they see that a partner is being unfairly exploited?
Leaving it to just the individuals concerned sounds cruel and lazy to me. But more than that it sounds illogical.
We are a social species, and sex is heavily socially conditioned behavior.
On the one hand it reeks of an unwholesome dose of individualism, that post-industrial Western civilization is so enamored with. It's the kind of libertarianism that paradoxically sees the individual as supreme and self-reliant while she is increasingly more reliant on a complex web of goods and services provided by others. In such an ideal world, people maintain professional relationships in the workplace, and personal ones at home "behind closed doors", and the two are totally insulated from each other. In such an ideal world, people do not gossip about who they slept with, do not boast about their sexual conquests, and do not feel sexual jealousy at missed opportunities. This is pure sexual utopia, where people have learned to appreciate sex in a perfectly mature and rational way, without sniggering about it, without having conspiratorial chats about it with their friends, and without feeling angry, hurt, jealous or left-out. Well, why turn to and annoy friends about it, when you are hurt in your relationships then?
There is good reason that marriage came to be institutionalized in most societies. The task of reproducing and bringing up the members of a future generation is too much to be entrusted to the devices of two mere individuals. While sex undeniably has a recreational aspect, the part that society as a whole has more reason to be concerned with, is the reproductive aspect. Child-rearing needs a broader societal framework, but even before that, a formal, socially-approved contract of marriage has been deemed necessary to make two people aware of their rights and responsibilites towards each other. Without such a broadly established template for marriage or relationships, all the challenges and disappointments of managing a relationship basically get deputed to the two individuals concerned, who as it often happens, are confused and weak.
Then again consider such deeply problematic phenomena as cheating/adultery in intimate relationships, or relationships with an inherent conflict of interest, such as between boss and underling at work. Going by our nice little maxim, these should not be anybody's concern. If the two partners involved are consenting adults, why should the partner being cheated upon, care? Isn't the idea of marriage, or even commitment, a tyrannical institutionalized setup, and shouldn't the ideal sexual relationship then be one that is open and polyamorous? Why should the other workers care even if the working environment was rendered uneasy by an ill-advised office fling? The truth is it is human nature to care. To be deeply wounded in an animal way when their partner drifts from them, even if logically they come to believe in the idea of polyamory. Shouldn't our political ideas then take such basic facts of human nature into account, before mouthing such glib pronouncements?
Also, what about morality? There is a case for some soft morality beyond that which is ensured by the law. It is a great thing that adulterers in the West are not stoned to death nowadays, nor even do they attract a great deal of social opprobrium. One needs to get on with life instead of just putting everyone on trial. But surely there should be some karmic reaction to all the nastiness - the lying, cheating, abuse, betrayal - that gets perpetrated in intimate relationships. People ought not to be put in jail, or be punished at work, for such transgressions - but shouldn't they be exposed in more intimate circles? Shouldn't their potential future mates receive some warning about such behavior? Why is it not anybody else's concern when they may be the ones next in line? And then again, what about the moral issues involved when such sex between consenting adults behind closed doors, is obtained under false promises and pretenses? Wouldn't it be normal for well-meaning friends or family to intervene when they see that a partner is being unfairly exploited?
Leaving it to just the individuals concerned sounds cruel and lazy to me. But more than that it sounds illogical.
We are a social species, and sex is heavily socially conditioned behavior.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment