Mormons have no shortage of sexual sins they can commit: pornography, masturbation, premarital sex, extramarital sex, unwholesome thoughts, and even depending on who you ask, possibly oral sex, anal sex, and anything else but vaginal intercourse, even between a married couple. If you’re not married, anything sexual at all is a sin. Making out too heavily might even be a sexual sin. The justification for all of these proscriptions is that in the Mormon worldview, sex is a critically important gift given by Heavenly Father to serve the goals of cementing family relationships and providing bodies for Heavenly Father’s spirit children. As it is so intimately connected with bringing about Heavenly Father’s work and glory, it is treated with the utmost seriousness, and for Mormonism that usually means “a lot of rules.” Mormonism isn’t anti-sex the way some segments of Christianity have traditionally been, since Mormonism does not hod that the body is evil but a necessary component in Heavenly Father’s plan. Nevertheless, sex in Mormonism is pretty tightly straitjacketed.
Part of the process of leaving Mormonism for me was figuring out what my values are, and what behaviors I think are okay and what are not, independently of Mormon teachings. I was lucky in that I always had a strong internal sense of moral reasoning: my personal values were informed by my Mormonism, but they were never dependent upon my Mormonism. They were sufficiently independent that, with Mormonism gone, my core values essentially remained strong and intact.
What went out the window, however, were all of the rules. As a non-Mormon, I have absolutely no reason to follow a bunch of restrictive and often arbitrary commandments.
In terms of sex, leaving Mormonism (retaining my principles but feeling free to discard the rules) had very little immediate practical impact. One of the values I hold most highly is marital fidelity, and I am married to a beautiful and sexy woman. Most of Mormonism’s sexual rules either did not apply to me as a married person (like “no premarital sex”), I paid little enough attention to anyway (like old guidance from Church leadership about not having oral sex), or were redundant as rules since I was going to behave consistently with them anyway because of my own core values (“no extramarital sex”). In practical terms, our sex life got a little bit better when we left Mormonism because we could let go of some guilt and repression that had crowded our sexual psyches on the fringes, but for the most part our sex life was already pretty good.
But what applies directly to me is not the only thing worth considering. First, morality in general is a topic that interests me and that I have visited before on a number of occasions as a part of the process of figuring out my values, where they come from, what they mean, how they interact with each other, and so on. So the question is theoretically interesting. Second, on a practical level, I know a fair number of postmormons whose value systems did not survive Mormonism as intact as mine did. In general, they were better Mormons than I was, and as such they had completely internalized Mormon values as their values. As a result, having jettisoned the Mormonism, their whole house of cards has come crumbling down, and they have been left picking up the pieces and trying to figure out what their values and morals really are, from square one. Because I am in a position to provide guidance and help to people close to me, it is more than worth thinking the issues through so that I can provide meaningful insight. Third, the question comes up periodically around the post-Mormon blog-o-sphere, so I feel like it’s worth addressing. Finally, and most importantly, I have kids. Two of them! They’re five years old and three years old right now, and they’re growing up fast. Since leaving Mormonism, the question of what do I teach my kids has weighed heavily on me, especially regarding sex. I know what my values are, and my position as a happily married guy means I don’t have to stretch my values very far to figure out what to do in almost any situation in which I am reasonably going to find myself. But my kids won’t necessarily have that luxury. For that reason alone I wanted to figure out what the deal really is about sexuality, without a handy dogma to give me simple and convenient (if often harmful and self-destructive) answers.
The realization just came to me one day–and this is going to be kind of anticlimactic now because I’ve got all this buildup for what is going to be disappointingly little payoff–that there is no reason for there to be special moral rules for sex at all. Period. Sexual ethics are not a special case for ethics. The usual rules apply. And it is that simple.
What do I mean about the usual rules? Basic human ethics and basic human decency. Don’t hurt people. Don’t betray people. Don’t demean, degrade, or belittle people. Treat people with respect. Love thy neighbor as thyself. Basic, more-or-less universal moral principles found in almost every religion or ethical system, when applied to sex, produce the correct results. Cheating on my wife is not morally reprehensible because it violates the special rule of “don’t cheat on your wife” or “confine all sexual behavior to the marriage-bed,” but because it is a personal betrayal of an intimate relationship, a violation of serious promises. It is wrong because it hurts my wife. There doesn’t need to be a special rule, because hurting my wife is already wrong (credit is admittedly due here to C. S. Lewis who kind of talks about this a bit in Mere Christianity). Degrading myself sexually is bad for the same reasons as degrading myself any other way. There doesn’t need to be a special rule.
The only special consideration with sex–and it is a serious one–is that we need to be cognizant of the fact that, for whatever reason, sex is an area in which human beings are particularly vulnerable, and so it is a moral setting that invites particular care. Sexual betrayal hurts a lot more than garden-variety betrayal. Sexual self-degradation leaves us feeling more degraded than garden-variety self-degradation, and so on. But the increased potential for serious injury does not mean we need a whole new set of specific rules to deal with morality in a sexual context. It just means we need to be extra-serious about following the moral principles we already have.
So the question is not “is premarital sex acceptable?” because that would be a special rule for sex and it would be nonsense. The question is “is it okay to hurt myself and others?” And the answer is no. Having sex with your girlfriend, fiancee, or even a casual encounter may be perfectly okay–wonderful and good even–assuming that you are not carelessly hurting yourself or the other person (people?). Even extramarital sex might be just fine if the context is completely consensual (though I would advise being pretty fucking careful about it, because people could very well think they’re going to be okay with something that turns out to be an emotional disaster, and generally the potential for pain is so high and the possibility that your spouse is saying yes but meaning no is so significant that you probably just should not go there). Since sex is not a special case, the question of moral appropriateness simply does not pertain to the sexual act itself, but to the interpersonal relationships that contextualize the act. Its not the deed you do that is right or wrong, but the way it affects yourself and other people, and that is realistically always going to be a case-by-case determination.
That said, it would not be unreasonable for a person to set sexual boundaries that are a bit far back away from the edge of the cliff of pain, because the vulnerability and the potential for catastrophic injury is so high. Nevertheless we need to keep in mind that the boundaries you set do not in and of themselves have moral significance. It’s not a sin to cross the safety-zone boundaries you might have reasonably set for yourself; it’s a sin to hurt people. You’re staying on the safe side so as not to run risks, but that’s pragmatic, not moral.
Why is sex an area where we are s vulnerable and so easily hurt? I personally think it is because sex lies at the very core of the bundle of experiences that make us truly human. Sex is a part of the universal human experience, and it is intimately bound up with things like birth, death, and family. These constants transcend the particulars of society and culture and lie at the heart of who we are as human beings. When we are close to birth, close to death, or expressing our sexuality, we are in touch with soemthing mystical and primal, and we are the closest to who we really are that we ever get. These are intensely powerful places, and they are also places where we are intensely vulnerable. Figuring out what these things mean and what to do about them is what religion and spirituality are really about, because these things are what we are really about. This is the essential heart of human existence, and as such it is delicate and should be treated with the utmost care. Even so, our basic, universal moral principles should be sufficiently applicable that there is no need for specialized rules.
The moralists among us may not like the sound of the moral rule I am proposing we fall back on when it comes to sex, which basically boils down to “hurting people is wrong,” and the flip side, “if it does not hurt people, it isn’t wrong.” But honestly, that’s a knee-jerk reaction, because as a moral rule it is simply true. Actions have consequences, and if we act in a way that hurts other people, we need a pretty damn good justification for it or we are in the wrong. That necessarily means that if our actions do not have negative consequences for other people or ourselves, then our actions are morally permissible–even morally laudable. This is not unrestrained permissiveness. It does mean a lot of freedom and individual accountability, but that’s just a reality of being a morally mature human being.
Sailing to Byzantium 
Your post may not be particulary pagan, but it’s basically an elaboration on the Wiccan Rede. I agree 100%.
Jonathan, that’s exactly what I was thinking.
K, I’m also interested to note how far this post is from the ones a while back when you insisted that ethics could only be counted on if they were externally imposed from, basically, God. 🙂
Yeah, well, clearly I am aware of the contrast since I link to those posts in this one!
The thing is, I still think that the ultimate source of moral values is a question of the utmost importance. I think it makes a huge difference whether these values (even if they all just boil down to the Wiccan Rede or the Golden Rule) are edicts of the mouth of God or written into the fabric of the cosmos, or of they are just conveniently practical.
The problem is, as a question of practicality, it turns out that as important as that question may or may not be, it is basically an impossible question to answer. We can only do the ebst we can do with what we have, and for moral values that means picking a reliable source we feel like we can trust (or better yet, a handful of reliable sources so we can triangulate) and trying to derive some kind of useful maxims herefrom.
The best we can do is all we can do.
Interesting post, Kullervo. I’ve been trying to figure out sex for a few years now. Not the mechanics, of course 🙂 … but trying to understand what about it is so personal and vulnerable and everything you said.
For the record, I still have few answers on the subject.
As a Christian, I have to say I buy into the whole “no sex before marriage” rule–I guess because Jesus seemed to say it and I like to listen to Jesus. (Though now that I’m thinking about it, I can’t remember a time when Jesus actually came out and said those exact words…can you? I admit I’m far from a Bible scholar.)
I completely reject the idea that all sexual sins are “the worst next to murder.” Okay, some sexual sins like rape and child abuse are up there, but to compare a couple of hormonal teenagers fooling around with murderers is abhorrent and damaging and it makes me extra pissy when I think about it.
you have such a nice blog thanks for sharing.good job
I have struggled with this question in regards to parenting my two youngest since the two oldest are active Mormons they had their rules, but two youngest are not Mormon, and both girls not that it should make a difference but as a Father I think you are more protective of daughters.
I have taught them from a standpoint more consistent with Kullervo in regards of respect to others and themselves. I talk to them about the risks and concerns; if you are not ready to accept the consequences associated with being sexually active then you are not ready for sex. I also emphasize that with sexual intimacy comes much in the way of emotional impact and potential pain etc…. and that while going through adolescence they are not yet mentally or emotionally equipped to deal with the emotional aspect of being sexually active, I suggest for them to have friends establish the traits and characteristics that they are looking for in a partner and leave the sex to later you will have a much higher chance of having healthy happy relationships as adults.
Jesus never said any such thing, to my knowledge.
Wow, that was long ago. 🙂
And no, I can’t think of a time when Jesus said no premarital sex either.
I agree that it is difficult, if impossible to form simple rules about sex. Like anything that runs through the fabric of life, you cut yourself off from much of it if you impose arbitrary rules. Its like fire. Fire is fantastically destructive yet fantastically valuable. If you made a rule that you can only have fire in a certain type of fire pit, you will probably avoid burning down your house, but at the expense of denying yourself all kinds of experience, utility and joy that other uses of fire may bring. Sure a nice warm fire is great but why shouldn’t you be able to fire up a raging steam engine with it or roast marshmallows on the beach. Since fire can be used safely and profitably in more than one way, it seems silly to restrict it simply because it is also dangerous.
Exactly. Be careful with it because it is dangerous. You might need certain pragmatic rules with it because of the specific ways in which fire can cause harm, but those are analogous to “wear a condom when you have sex outside of a monogamous relationship.” And they’re not moral rules, really. The moral problem is when you light things on fire, or maybe callous disregard for the danger you are causing to others. But there’s no inherent moral dimension to, say, squirting lighter fluid on an open fire.
You make some good points. Your morality is consistent with the teachings of Christ & St. Paul. Which probably doesn’t matter to you, but it does to me, since I’m a Christian.
However, in defense of rules, we often don’t realize when something we do hurts another. But the bigger (in my opinion) problem with situation ethics (which is basically what you’re describing is that our capacity for deceiving ourselves is so great that if we want to do a thing badly enough, we’ll find a way to convince ourselves that it isn’t hurting anyone.
Christian sexual ethics may not be particularly bad as rules, but they are layered in the mud of guilt and shame. They are not designed to protect people, they are designed to control people and procreation within a community. Guilt, shame and repression mixed with powerful drives lead to very dangerous things in my opinion. Sexuality will have its way with people, regardless of the ethics, if the screws are made too tight people end up being far more twisted than if sexuality was seen as natural and accepted. This is not to say that sexuality can be made “safe” by accepting it. But making sex one of the ultimate sins I think it stokes the fires of perversion and pain that sex can lead to.
Also, I like this quote from a noted libertine:
“There is nothing safe about sex. There never will be.” –Norman Mailer
What Jared says is true. But those “Christian” sexual ethics are not truly Christian. Like Judaism (or so I understand) true Christian sexual ethics celebrate the body as a good thing and sexuality as a gift from God. The repressed view that views the body snd sexuality as evil is not Christian, but gnostic, which is hetesy. But, as pas Mailer sa
Oops, sorry for the typos at the end of the last comment. To continue, as Mailer correctly said, sex cannot be made “safe.” That’s why such tight controls are necessary. If you happen to believe in a transcendent God who created sexuality and wants it to be good for us, as I do, then it makes sense to follow His rules.
Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways. Making a bunch of specific rules and taboos about sex and saying it’s a sin to break them and worse, that our biological desires to break them are sinful desires, has the effect of loading sex with a massive amount of baggage of guilt and shame, period. Throwing in a bunch of rhetoric for good measure about how sex is still good and holy and stuff just mixes the message even worse.
If sex cannot be made safe, then a bunch of special sex-specific safety-zone rules won’t change that.
You should feel guilt when you use sex to hurt other people or degrade yourself, the same as you should feel guilt for hurting other people or degrading yourself in any other way. But nothing about sex should be inherently guilty or shameful, and that’s what happens when you load it up with taboos.
I don’t buy the “humanity’s capacity for self-deception is too high for humanity to be trusted with sex” one bit, either. That applies equally to all morality, not just sex. Again, sex is not a special case: I am just as capable of talking myself into any other irresponsibly self-serving immoral act. I reject the notion of a patronizing god who gives arbitrary rules to keep us safe. Real gods expect humans to rise to the highest moral principles, not the lowest.
Furthermore, creating special rules and taboos for sex that are designed to keep us a safe distance from immorality is a problem because the rules themselves are clothed in moral notions. Hurting people with sex is the real immorality, but when rules and taboos are set up that are further back from the line, a new standard fro morality is set. suddenly it is obedience to the rule that is morally significant, instead of adhering to the moral principle that the rule is designed to protect. And that’s bullshit because it warps our understanding of morality
Finally, setting those rules back a ways from the real line cuts off our ability to fully experience sexuality by inadvertently proscribing sexuality that is morally neutral or morally positive. And taking away our sexuality robs us of our humanity. No real god wants that.
Lovely. I agree. One of my main contentions with many leaders in Catholicism is that they should be so anti-extramarital-non-baby-making-sex when that is clearly not what God intended. Sex is divine. The Law of Love is so very simple; I do not know why these old men get so bothered about sex. I’m guessing it’s something to do with that silly celibacy law that should never have been made mandatory.
I just like that one of the tags for this post is “Anal Sex.”