SYBA Philosophy General

Ethics and Good Life II

Unit 2.2
Ethics of sexual relationships

Sexual morality: A liberal view

Article for reference: ‘Plain Sex’ by Alan Goldman
Summary
➢ In his article, titled ‘Plain sex’, Alan Goldman elaborates upon the nature of sexual desire,
thereby trying to understand the relation between sex and morality. The question about the
relation between sex and morality cannot be understood unless we first understand the
meaning of the term sex devoid of socio-cultural and religious connotation. Goldman calls
this conception of sex ‘plain sex’.
➢ Generally, the conceptual understanding of sex involves “means-end analysis”. According
to such an analysis of sex, we ascribe certain goals to sexual activity that are external to it.
Sexual activity is seen as a means to attain some goals such as to communicate feelings, to
express love or to reproduce. In consequence, sexual desire is a desire to reproduce, or to
communicate one’s feelings to their partner, or the desire to express love. This kind of
analysis establishes certain norms about perversion and sexual morality. Whenever one
engages in any sexual activity for achieving an end other than the accepted end, that activity
is said to be morally impermissible.
➢ Goldman defines sexual desire as the ‘desire for contact with another person’s body and
for the pleasure which such contact produces.’ Sexual activity, in this sense, can be
understood as any activity which can satisfy the sexual desire of the agent. Due to this
definition, any act which springs from the desire for physical contact with the other’s body
and the pleasure that one gets thereby, can be classified as sexual act even though one does
not wish to reproduce, or to communicate one’s feelings to the other.
➢ The “means-end analysis” supposes that plain sex has to have a goal separable from sexual
activity and sexual desire itself.
➢ How can we say that voyeurism or watching pornography or acts of masturbation are
sexual if they do not involve the desire for physical contact with another? According to
Goldman, voyeurism, watching pornography and masturbation are imaginative substitutes
for actual physical contact with another’s body for the pleasure that one will get due to it.
Hence, the aforementioned activities can be classified as sexual.
➢ Why is it incorrect to define sexual intercourse as the activity which essentially aims to
reproduction? This kind of definition of sex comes from the argument that the ‘biological’
function of sexual intercourse is reproduction. No other activity can end in conception of a
 fetus and thus, the biological function of sexual intercourse is also assumed as the morally
permissible goal of sexual activities. Sexual acts such as kissing and caressing your partner
can lead to sexual intercourse, therefore, these acts are considered morally permissible.
However, sexual acts such as anal sex or fellatio are considered immoral because they
cannot achieve the said goal of reproduction. Biological function of a particular act need
not be the sole purpose for performing it. Eg- The biological function of eating is
nourishment. However, we do eat food for the pleasure that it gives us too. This does not
make the act of eating food for pleasure immoral. Such an understanding of sexual morality
is restrictive.
➢ Similar to the argument stated earlier, we can engage in sexual activities and communicate
feelings other than love. Additionally, we can also express love through different acts
which are not sexual in nature. Eg- Dancing with your partner, cooking for them, giving
gifts. Sexual intercourse, when one performs it for expressing love, express a particular
kind of love, namely, romantic love.
➢ The sexual ethics with subscribes to the means-end analysis by holding that expressing
love is the goal of sex adopt a repressive sexual morality. Moreover, this kind of an
approach is not applied universally to all humans. Gender-based discriminatory application
of this standard for sexual morality makes sexual morality more repressive for women.
➢ Goldman does not wish to advocate the view that sex and love ought not to be connected.
Indeed, he agrees that sexual activities gain different meaning when performed with the
person one loves. He only wishes to reject expression of love as an essential goal for all
sexual activities.
➢ The sex-love and sex-reproduction analyses share a similar view of the body-mind or the
body-soul dichotomy. This particular dichotomy has been emphasized since the time of
Plato and it gained newer significance with the emergence of Christianity. The body is seen
as the site of animalistic desires and giving in to these desires is seen as going against the
rational nature of man. In consequence, any activity that caters to the anomalistic desires
(which are the sources for immorality) is also considered immoral.
➢ Goldman rejects the notion that sex has intrinsic moral value.
➢ Whenever we speak of the morality of sexual acts, we do so because we are essentially in
relation to others during most of the sexual acts.
➢ ‘… no conduct otherwise immoral should be excused because it is sexual conduct, and
nothing in sex is immoral unless condemned by rules which apply elsewhere as well.’ Eg-
The immorality of sexual assault is rooted is its being a violation of the generally accepted
moral principle that one ought not to violate the other’s body. It is not immoral simply
because it is a sexual act.
➢ Two reasons why we tend to think that sexual acts have some intrinsic morality:
1. Sexual activities in general, and sexual intercourse in particular are very pleasurable.
According to the hedonistic theory or the utilitarian theory, sexual acts can be
considered to be morally good. Alan Goldman holds the view that here, the ‘good’
doesn’t necessarily have moral significance, because I cannot consider it my ‘duty’ to
perform sexual acts. Nor am I under obligation to engage in sexual acts just so that I
may be able to give the other pleasure.
 2. From the Kantian perspective, sexual activities seem to be morally bad because they
involve ‘using’ the other as means to achieve the end of sexual gratification or pleasure.
However, in ‘using’ one’s partner for getting sexual pleasure, if one reciprocates by
performing acts that pleasant for their partner as well, this would imply that one treats
their partner as an object of desire and at the same time also as a subject that has its
own desires.
➢ Reciprocity is considered as the basis of sexual morality.