Chapter 2

Sexual Ethics as Conceived by Modern Thinkers

Sexual morals constitute an integral part of behavioural
ethics applicable to human beings. Included in sexual ethics are some of the
various social norms, personal habits and behavioural patterns, which are
associated directly with the sexual instinct. Some aspects of the sexual ethics
and practices are specified below:

Female modesty, male sense of honour concerning female
members of a household, female chastity, a wife's faithfulness to her husband;
female inclination to cover her private parts, or her aversion to exposing any
bodily nakedness in public; prohibition of adultery, interdiction of any visual
or physical intimacy with women other than one's legal wife or wives;
prohibition of incest, or marriage between persons too closely related; avoidance
of sexual intercourse with menstruating women; debarring pornography or
obscenity; and treating celibacy as either too saintly or undesirable.

Sexual instinct is by its very nature quite extraordinary.
Also, it is powerful in its manifestation. Accordingly, sexual morals are part
of the most important of all ethics.

In his book entitled: Our
Oriental Heritage, Will Durant highlighted the fact that marrying and
settling down was always considered to be one of the very important moral
duties of human beings. He said that the natural human capability for
procreation involved difficulties, not only at the time of marriage, but before
and after that, as well.

The difficulties could be aggravated by the intensity and
vehemence A the sexual instinct, as well as its aversion to moral and legal
constraints. Further, it might even lead to deviation from its natural course.
All these and more, as mentioned by Will Durant, meant extreme confusion and
organisational disorders, if and when a society could not provide necessary and
effective safeguards.

Any scientific and philosophical discussion of sexual morals
need first consider their origins and evolution. For instance, it is necessary
to know how modesty and chastity of women have come to be safeguarded. The fact
that men traditionally protect their women, as part of their own sense of
honour, could be due to identifiable or specific reasons.

The male aptitude for possessiveness and protection of women
may not necessarily be attributed to any inborn jealousy of men. For, human
jealousy has universally been considered a negative emotion. Has an exception
been made in favour of jealousy so as to safeguard husband- wife
relationship? If so, why? lf there are other reasons for men protecting the
honour of their women, as if it were a question of their own honour, how can
these be explained?

Likewise,the desires and social norms favouring clothing or
covering of female body, curbing sexual promiscuity, prohibiting marriage
between persons too closely related and similar other moral and legal
restraints need be explained. Their examination can be in terms of whether or
not they have their roots in the human nature, physiological and psychological.

Then, one may as well ask as to whether or not sexual morals
are linked to the natural requirements of gregarious living Or, is it part of
their inborn tendencies, feelings and concerns towards an appropriate human
survival in the natural process. Or, is there any possibility that hisiorical
causes, other than natural, have gradually affected and influenced human
conscientiousness and behaviour?

If the source of human morality has been entirely rooted in
nature, it is hard to explain how not only the ancient savages, but today's
isolated primitive tribes, living in the manner of their ancestors, were and
are quite unlike the civilized people.

The origins and raison d'etre of sexual morality may be
diverse. So can be the historical conditions of social evolution, with
reference to human sexual ethics in particular. Nevertheless, the question
relevant to us now is as to whether or not the traditional morals are valid in
the modern conditions towards achieving overall human progress.

Specifically, we must ask ourselves whether or not we must
now safeguard the traditional sexual ethics or replace them by instituting new
morals.

Will Durant does not trace human sexual morality to any
origins in the mother nature. He attributes moral evolution to reasons arising
from historical experience, even some occasionally unhappy or cruel happenings
in the past. He favours retaining the substance of traditional morals, while
allowing continued evolution of the forms, in order to selectively practise the
best without shortcomings.

Referring to morals concerning female virginity, modesty and
bashfulness, Will Durant observes to the effect that traditional values and
customs evidence a natural process of moral selection, involving trials and
errors through centuries. According to him, virginity and modesty are relative
qualities linked with conditions of marriage and traceable to even a past
situation requiring purchase of, or bargaining for, wives.

Will Durant recognizes that the moral and social
requirements of female chastity and modesty are of basic importance to any
society, even if these qualities are sometimes capable of giving rise to
psychosomatic and nervous disorders. Moreover, the relevant social regulations
are essential for Promoting a harmonious continuity in sexual relations in the
context of marriage and family living.

Freud and his followers subscribed to a different view of
sexual morals. They sought to dispense with the traditional sexual morality, or
to replace them with something altogether new. In the opinion of Freud and his
followers, morals were based on limitations and prohibitions concerning human
sexuality. They claimed that the limitations and prohibitions caused many human
afflictions and gave rise to emotional disturbances, including subconscious
fears and obsessions.

Basically similar arguments have been put forward by
Bertrand Russell. He defends in his own way the position that nothing should be
regarded as taboo. His views concerning marriage and morals are independent of
any moral considerations, such as those of chastity, rectitude, modesty, any
male sense of honour encompassing the female (which he suggests is actually
jealousy) and similar others.

The proposed liberation of human sexuality from traditional
moral restraints is tantamount to claiming that nothing ugly, bad or
disgraceful can come out of it. The impression conveyed is one of relying on
nothing but the human intellect and its rationalizations. The proposal concedes
no more restraint on sex than any natural limitation of food intake!

Elsewhere, Bertrand Russell tried to answer a question as to
whether or not he had any advice to give those who wanted to follow a correct
and sensible path in matters of sex. His reply was to the effect that, after
all, one should examine the question of sexual morality in the same analytical
manner as in the case of any other problem. If, as a result of adequate
examination, it was found that others would come to no harm from one's pursuing
a certain manner of sexual conduct, we would have no reasons to condemn any
such individual rationalization and practice.

Bertrand Russell replied in the negative to a second
question as to whether or not, in his -opinion, any violation of female
chastity could be viewed as an exception to his contention that actions causing
no harm or loss to others should not be condemned. He explained that loss of
virginity could be due to an act between two individuals. However, If it was
construed as an act of violation of the chastity of a virgin, there should be
evidence to the same effect before it could be condemned as rape.

For the time being, we may refrain from a detailed
examination of the question as to whether or not human traits like modesty, or
sexual chastity, are rooted in the mother nature. For, the question is very
broad in scope. One can hardly give a completely scientific answer. However,
whatever has been indicated thereon, so far, can neither be assumptive, nor
approximate. For., it is recognized that those who base their opinions on
assumptions often lack consensus:

For instance, human inclinations like sexual modesty are viewed
differently by Freud, Will Durant and Bertrand Russell. The nature and content
of their difference need not be detailed herein. Suffice it to mention that
these writers seem to base their views on the assumption that human qualities
like female modesty are not inborn or in any way specific to human nature. If
so, their understanding of human characteristics shows what appears to be
disinclination to seek a correct justification, or a microscopic approach.

Be that as it may, we can indeed make two assumptions
regarding sex habits and inclinations. Firstly, we may assume that sex-oriented
behavioural qualities have no connection whatever with the innate nature of
human beings. Secondly, we may suppose that the "habits" are inculcated as part
of other human practices and norms, under some kind of a social contract,
designed to harmonize individual and social interests, as well as towards
assuring peace and well being of mankind.

Let us now ask ourselves as to whether or not logic and
reasoning demand intrinsic values and safeguards for assuring complete
psychological harmony and maximizing human well being and peace. We may further
ask ourselves as to whether or not any elimination of moral and social
restraints and limits will be conducive towards achieving complete
psychosomatic harmony of individuals and enhancing social welfare.

Then, we may well realize that logic and reasoning deem it
advisable for us to oppose every customary practice and superstitious habit,
which implicitly treats human sexuality as unclean and pernicious. At the same
time, we are likely to consider it necessary that we should refrain from
promoting any unrestrained sexual freedom which causes widespread excesses,
transgressions and agonies.

The supporters of
the proposed new sexual liberty base their arguments on three premises,

(1) Freedom
should be ensured for every individual, as it does not interfere with that of
others;

(2) All inborn sexual
desires and aptitudes should be freely nurtured and brought to fulfilment
without any inhibition or restraint, since their curbing or frustration leads
to disorders of the ego; and

(3) Any natural desire
subsides when it is fulfilled, and it becomes insistent and excessive when it
is subjected to any negative moral restraint or ill conceived prohibition.

The sexual liberationists argue that emotional instability
arises from discriminating among the natural instincts and desires, so that
only part of these are satisfied while the others remain frustrated. So, they
say, equal nurturing and development of all human inclinations is necessary for
personal and societal well being.

Furthermore, they suggest that, for avoiding constant
preoccupation with sex, the only correct way is to lift all moral restraints
and social prohibitions. They claim that liberation of the natural process of
sexual fulfilment will also preempt mischief, malice and vengeance
characteristic of a situation involving moral restrictions.

The foregoing arguments constitute the basis on which the
new sexual morality is proposed. God-willing, we should be able to render
these arguments untenable, through an adequate investigation and a thorough
evaluation of the three basic premises mentioned above.