Letters

Staff member questions definitions of promiscuous sex and re-examines love

I am writing in response to your Jan. 15 editorial by Benjamin Acker entitled "Love and Respect are Intertwined," which deals with the problem of wanton casual sex. Although I agree with Mr. Acker's identification of the problem of meaningless casual sex and the disrespect it breeds, I feel that he has made a few errors in his analysis of the issue.
First, Acker states, "Sex--what was once the ultimate expression of love between two adults--has become something to do at the end of a date." Well, sex has never been unanimously the ultimate expression of love. Historical anecdotes concerning the harems and royal concubines of ancient civilizations suggest that promiscuous sex was once acceptable and perhaps desirable.
Furthermore, the New Testaments of the Christian and Catholic Bibles contain many references to the problem of lasciviousness. In more modern times, the Great Gatsby era was apparently plagued by sexual promiscuity as well, but perhaps the age bracket differed.
So the problem he discusses is not new to our generation, contrary to popular media espousal. Unfortunately, the basic social attitude toward casual sex has not changed much either.
For centuries, the problem of lewd sex has plagued society, and every generation answers the problem with increased aversion to sex in general, especially casual sex. Nearly all adolescents face the seemingly insatiable sexual desire accompanying the hormonal overload of puberty. Disastrously, nearly all of these innocent adolescents are informed that their sexual desire is unhealthy, and yielding to the passion is socially inappropriate accept in marriage or serious long-term relationship. This poor education leaves an adolescent with only three options: Harness or subvert the sexual desire until a soulmate is found, leap into an early marriage, or be a bad kid and participate in casual sex.
The tone and word choice of Acker's editorial suggests that he supports the first option. And, I agree, that when properly practiced, suspending release of adolescent sexual tension can potentially be healthy. But sexual abstinence does not always lead to healthy sexual relations later in life, so strict espousal of abstinence is improper.
The second option, early marriage, is generally disagreeable since most teen youth are still psychologically sensitive, mate choice at this age can be ruinous. Poor selection of a long-term partner, especially for marriage, can lead to unhappy, and possibly harmful relationships. Although marital breakdown in the country is an entire issue in itself, I offer misleading cultural views of sexuality as a probably cause.
Finally, adolescents can deal with natural, but allegedly unhealthy, sexual passion by rebelling against the cultural mores and decide to participate in promiscuous, uncommitted sex. Acker addresses the ills of this approach in his editorial, primarily painting it with horrible colors. I would like to clarify a few common misnomers about casual sex as a happily married man who has also participated in unmarried, casual sex. To begin with, the polarization of sex as good if it occurs within a committed relationship, and bad if it does not, is fallacious. Committed and uncommitted sex are different, each potentially healthy and pleasurable, and each potentially damaging, but neither is right nor wrong, good nor bad. Casual sex between two people not committed to a lasting, loving relationship can be just as fulfilling, both sensually and spiritually, as sex between two firmly loving partners. Love, for that matter is not solely restricted to a long-term relationship, and reducing the splendid subjectivity of love to such a limitation is disgusting. Can two people meet, enjoy a night or more of ecstatic sexual joy, and part ways, having shared a bit of love during the encounter? The common answer is no, but I have yet to hear one sound word of reason to back that answer.
I also propose that the prevailing sexual attitudes of American society are the root of the disgust he feels for the current nature of promiscuous sex. Promiscuous sex in itself is not the problem. I offer that casual sex properly practiced would be less revolting. What disgusts him now, I feel, is a result of improper attitudes toward sex. Remember that the prevailing social view of promiscuous sex, as a result of both religious and cultural teachings, holds that uncommitted sex is either sinful or grossly inferior to committed or married sex. Thus, an adolescent choosing to participate in uncommitted sex does so knowing it is immoral or inferior. This willing participation in an unacceptable act wreaks havoc on the youth's developing mental logic and to cope, the youth views his own sexual experiences as deviant or rebellious. The participants thus regard the sexual act as slightly hideous, and since the chosen partners have shared in this hideous act, they too must be hideous, and thus disrespect for sexual partners' burgeons. I admit, this analysis is a tad far-fetched, but I am certain that it contains at least tidbits of truth.
I am even more certain that the prevailing social aversion to uncommitted sex results in sexual education by both parents and schools that fail to prepare youth for the challenges of uncommitted sex. Fortunately, schools are beginning to inform students of the physical dangers of uncommitted sex by opening discussion of disease and birth control methods. However, much progress needs to be made with education of the psychological factors involved in casual sex. With a better understanding of how uncommitted sex might affect them psychologically, adolescents will realize how certain actions may harm their partner, and they can choose to avoid these pitfalls. But this is all for naught if we cannot eliminate the cultural distaste for casual sex. With acceptance and education, perhaps our nation can alter the nature of casual sex, bringing a more realistic love to the realm of "free-love" and thereby offering a better preparation for a healthy marriage. Sex is beautiful, and spiritual in many ways. Our current attitudes place limits on healthy sex, thereby narrowing the concepts and options available for healthy sex. Let's not destroy fluid beauty with hard lines.


James D. Brady
staff research technician
neurobiology department