Sexual Freedom Vs. Sexual Commitment

The sexual revolution has raised a number of moral conflicts within our society. Freedom versus commitment and communal morality are the combatants. The battlefields are many, scattered across race, religion, traditional gender roles, and politics. The changes to our world as we evolved into today's society are the weapons of choice. The war may never be won.

My generation refined the terms of sexual freedom, we brought it into the public eye, we glorified it in art, literature, movies, and music, and we reveled in it. We empowered ourselves through sexual expression and altered the way gender roles are viewed today. Defining sexual freedom through so many venues, it became the focus of our society and remains so to this day, though the reality that sex could be used to commit acts of violence and/or self-degradation was not apparent at the beginning, nor was the notion that sex could and does actually kill members of our society daily. Before the widespread awareness and education about killer STD's, we shined a spotlight on sex for the masses in such a bountiful way that it was impossible to ignore, no matter how many times and individual or group has tried to convince us otherwise. The word "we" defines any person, male or female, as a person that claims they are sexually free, or uses sex to gain something tangible, or chooses to be open and welcoming of sex and relations within the sexual arena. Sexual freedom is about having choices in partners, commitments, and protection.

Are we as a society free? Or only as individuals? Is a chaste life still morally superior to a more sexually open lifestyle? Why? Does sex require a commitment? What are the limits of that commitment? Who defines the limits of that commitment?

I will present to you both facts and opinions within this paper. I will do my sincerest to present answers to these questions. It is my intention that you, the reader, regardless of your personal moral code, carefully examine this article, and come to understand that sex and sexuality are too complex to utilize only one word to express it, like freedom, commitment, chastity, or promiscuity. Sex is too integral a part of both our genetic makeup and our society to be simplified in this manner, or by such a narrow and obsolete interpretation as was taught in the past.

I will begin with the science of sex and definitions of activity versus relations. Sexual reproduction is necessary for the survival of the species. This is the action or activity of sexual reproduction. Scientists have created the technology to foster procreation without any sexual contact between two persons of opposite genders. So why do we need to continue to engage in sex acts, considering the range of sexually transmitted diseases that are prevalent in today's society and the potential of these diseases to exterminate human life?

Here is where science ends and humanity takes over. The act of sex is not a purely physical act, no matter how much we would like to believe it to be just that and nothing more. Human ideas about sexual activity are inextricably intertwined with both religious teachings and cultural morality. That is why they are termed sexual relations rather than activities. The words used are critical to the perspective presented to the world. These words are misinterpreted when used to describe sexuality more often than in any other context. The three most common factors involved in these interpretations are the pleasure principle, the primal instincts that are within, and the family as the nuclear unit of our society. These factors tell us that sex is more than just a physical act for the purpose of procreation.

Having defined the difference between sexual activity and sexual relations, we can now examine sexual behaviors and whether or not sexual freedom and sexual commitment can co-exist within a society, or if the two are mutually exclusive. Once again, this is a matter of words and their context. To proclaim that I am sexually free implies that I am promiscuous rather than chaste. Neither word is correct.

Freedom is defined as the right to move about unfettered (Oxford, p 321). Freedom can be a concept rather than a tangible object; you can experience it with all the senses as a concept, but not as a tangible. Sexual freedom is
conceptual rather than tangible because the use of the word freedom is to define a choice, a thought process, and the actions of an individual or group.

Commitment is the polar opposite of freedom. Oxford defines it as an obligation that restricts freedom (Oxford, pg 151). To make a commitment to another is to promise that you will behave in a manner that restricts your actions. Marriage is the most prominent commitment in regards to sexual behavior. I will not attempt to define marriage beyond this, a union of two individuals bound by love for one another. The semantics of this binding are irrelevant to this argument.

I am sexually free and committed to engaging in sexual relations with only one man.

Is this a cohesive statement? I say yes it is. I am free to decide when, where and how I engage in sexual activities, and I make a personal commitment to do so with only one man rather than many. The fact that I have had more than one partner is immaterial to my moral code. I have only one partner at a time, that is the definition of my commitment to myself and my partner.

Morality changes as society does, but it also leaves a history that impacts moral attitudes of future generations. This history is what truly differentiates man from other species in regards to sexuality. Man is aware of the past, and strives toward a better future. What is socially acceptable sexual behavior today would traumatize an individual from another point in history. Or would it?

As a history and humanity student, and as a person that enjoys the concept that strong women are not a new idea, I have found various texts that portray Queen Elizabeth 1 as a "whore" who shared her body and bed with a number of men, even secretly gave birth to a child, without her subjects any the wiser. The truth shall never be known for certain, though various accounts paint a portrait of both the "Virgin Queen" and the lustful nature that was thought to be a hereditary trait, which showed itself in a number of ways throughout her reign.

This is just one example of sexual freedom intertwined with the bondage of "morality", kept from public view for the "protection" of a society. During Queen Elizabeth 1'st reign, it was required of women to be virginal until marriage while men were encouraged to satisfy their lustful natures before and during marriage with courtesans, loose women, and prostitutes. Well- bred women, "Ladies", neither wanted nor enjoyed sex, were trained to be disinterested in sexual relations even with their husbands. Even as Head of State and Supreme Ruler of England, Elizabeth could not present herself to the public as a sexual being or even overtly feminine, she had no choice but to behave as a Lady while down playing her femininity to appear as "Intelligent and equal to a man" so that her subjects would accept her choice to Rule alone. Elizabeth was aware that had she shown any feminine weakness, she never would have been allowed to rule without marrying, she would have been forced into a marriage with a man of the Court's choosing. Elizabeth chose, by her attitude and behavior, not to accept a man having control over her as though she, Queen of England, was nothing more than chattel, especially a husband chosen for her rather than by her. She publicly behaved in a manner dictated by society's morality of the time, while scoffing at the male dictates of appropriate behavior for women at the same time. It was quite astute of her to understand that she had to think like a man and behave as a Lady. That she refused to do so within her private life and behaved as she chose, regardless of gender definitions and expectations of the era, proves my point exactly. She found a way to be both sexually free by choosing to portray the "Virgin Queen", yet remained sexually committed to her own heart and feelings as a woman rather than a "Royal Person." Women of this time, whether or not they were High-born or common, were restrained by society in the ways of expressing their sexuality.

In contrast, the last thirty years of the 20^th century overtly displayed sex as an expression, and a weapon. Women were free to enjoy sex openly without stigma. Sex was and is being used to fight for equality, advertise entertainments, promote women's rights, shock people, to commit violent acts against others, even to sell soap and other products. Politicians use the modern sexual attitudes to further their own agendas, to condemn those that disagree with them, and to curry favor with the people. Established religions and religious radicals both use sex as a reason to condemn individuals who do not conform to their ideals about sexually acceptable behavior. Religious doctrines and traditions influence sexual attitudes the world over, subduing sexual freedom for both genders( Smith, H. paraphrased).

"The three most prominent religions of today's world; Christianity, Judaism, and Islam promote the notion that monogamous sexual activity and heterosexual orientation define a person's morality. Interestingly, most pagan and primal faiths promote a similar attitude about sexual activity, making the distinction between activity and relations, allowing for differences in personality or orientation. Since pagans and primals use sexual activity as a tool to create more than just offspring, their sexual practices and beliefs are often misinterpreted by others. When presented in context with spiritual beliefs rather than as a moral deficiency, it is less likely to be misinterpreted and as a consequence of misinterpretation, condemned" (Wyzik, L, excerpt from a lecture, Comparative Religions Class, Granite State College).

Sexual freedom and sexual commitment can and do go hand in hand on an individual basis. Society has not yet evolved to the point of having both as a part of the large, cohesive group for a number of reasons. Gender roles and limitations, religious beliefs and practices, morality and commitment, all of these fight with the one thing that is absolute about sexual relations. It feels good to touch and take pleasure in one another. Humans are pleasure seekers. We need to stimulate our senses and sex is one of the best ways to do so pleasurably. Procreation aside, humans have sex for pleasure, one of the few species to do so, dolphins being another (www.arcamax.com). It is this pleasure seeking that leads some to state:

"Morality appears to have faded into the past, today's society now revels in being sinful and indulgent" (Anonymous quote by a local pastor).

I disagree with this statement and stick to my original idea that morality changes as society evolves and grows. We are no longer ignorant of the risks involved with engaging in promiscuous behavior, we are educated about all aspects of sexual activity through a variety of sources, and we are capable of making informed choices for our own sexuality. That is the new attitude about sexual behavior in general. This moral attitude requires greater personal responsibility. Greater freedom always comes with greater responsibility,indeed the two are inseparable for the moral and ethical person's character, and responsibility requires a commitment. As a society, we are capable of accepting this responsibility, the question is, are we willing to do so?