Promiscuity and demonisation

To shake things up a bit, I'm going to write a topical rant. This is inspired by a number of discussions, arguments, and message board threads I have either participated in or read lately, and it has come to irk me greatly.

I think of myself as a fairly liberal person. My basic outlook on life is that it's no one elses business what goes on between consenting adults, and generally, anything goes in my book as long as no one gets hurt by it. When risks are involved, of course, it gets a bit thornier, but as long as people are honest, up front about things, and accept the consequences of their own actions, it's not really that hard to sort out.

Which leads me to the topic I intend to rant about for a bit: Promiscuity. Words like slut and whore (and I'm not even going to get started on the whole stud / slut hypocrisy; let's just dismiss it as idiotic and get on with things), and, a slightly trickier topic (but only slightly), responsibility.

For your information as you read this (not that it should matter), I speak of my moral and philosophical convictions, not regarding my own experiences. I don't have enough experiences to speak of personal experience with promiscuity. However, this doesn't actually have anything to do with the topic at hand, save perhaps to make any readers who don't know me less apt to misinterpret this as justification of my own past.

First of all, let me repeat my firmly-held conviction that what goes on between consenting adults is nobody else's bloody business (with the additional condition, if you like, that no one else get hurt by it, even emotionally; I don't object to open relationships, much as I would not want to be in one, but I don't approve of the betrayal of trust in a committed relationship, much as I recognise how complicated such situations can become—for the purposes of the remainder of the discussion, let us assume that fidelity is maintained, as it is an entirely orthogonal subject). This means that homosexual relationships are none of your business (or mine); it means that acts involving unusual numbers of people or acts that to you seem so depraved as to make you nauseous are really none of your damned business, so long as everyone in it is involved of their own free will and made aware of what the stakes will be.

Second, let us agree—surely there will be no objections here—that just because you personally find something objectionable, that does not automatically make it morally reprehensible. To repeat my example from a previous post, I despise cauliflower; that does not mean that I consider the consumption thereof immoral. As a consequence of this accepting common-sense rule, any of the personally objectionable acts in the former section, being that they are none of your business and do not involve you, you have no right to pass moral judgement on people based thereon. I'm not saying you have to like them, but again, personal dislike does not necessarily have any correlation to morals.

We have arrived at a point in this argument where, unless you wish to pause and contest any of the points or arguments above, we must conclude that any acts between consenting adults, even if they are manifold, are morally acceptable. I see no rationale for holding someone in contempt for having had sex with a lot of people. What, exactly, is harmful about a casual relationship or even a one-night stand where everyone involved is willing? Of any act you deem immoral ask Whom does it hurt?, and if your answer is none, question your initial judgement.—And if one instance is acceptable, then surely another? A third? A hundredth, for the truly energetic out there? If you agree with the former but not the latter, please tell me what the acceptable number is; I'm most curious.

One dilemma does remain, which has to do with hurting—here's the tricky part. I had someone tell me recently that promiscuity is incompatible with responsibility because of the risk of transmitting disease. (Judging from this person's vehement arguing and imperviousness to reason, I suspect that other, deeper issues are the root cause of this judgement; nevertheless it is a fair point to discuss.) How shall we respond to this point?

First, engaging in sexual behaviour means exposing yourself to the risk of an STD, period. There are no ifs or buts. The numbers are irrelevant. Sexually transmissible diseases can be transmitted otherwise; herpes can be transmitted by skin contact, HIV can be communicated through blood transfusions, poor healthcare, from infected mother to infant child; I am no expert on STDs, but I am sure that with sufficient motivation I could dig up plenty of other examples. If we are to take the stance that to expose oneself or another to the risk of contracting STDs is irresponsible behaviour, then only those who are celibate are responsible.

Second, I argue that responsibility is about accepting the consequences of your actions. Yes, engaging in sexual intercourse is, in a sense, risky behaviour, but is it not your prerogative to choose to do so? True, you may catch something and you'll have to live with that, but if you are aware of it, take the precautions you deem proper (unprotected sex with random strangers is arguably compatible with responsible behaviour, to me, if my other criteria are met, but unarguably stupid), and don't hurt your partners, what is the moral problem?

Of course there is an underlying assumption here, and I admit it's a pretty big one in real life: For the purposes of a discussion of pure ethics, we must assume that people are honest and up front about things. In real life, some people are going to lie about their sexual pasts or even disease status, so in practice you have to watch out. But in principle, I don't think there's anything morally wrong even with having sex if you have STDs—why should you be forced to celibacy merely for being unfortunate—as long as you ensure that your partners are allowed the chance to make an informed decision.

Think. Be honest. Be frank. Accept the consequences of your actions, and don't cause harm, or risk to, unless the recipient has made an informed choice. I think that pretty much covers moral behaviour in general.