Moral shades of gray – Sex and relationships

At one point in the late middle ages/early renascence there was a bishop in Italy who recognized that sexual ethics isn’t pure black and white. His views were quite interesting, he ranked it from most pure to most wicked as:

• Celibacy
• Matrimonial procreative sex
• Prostitution
• Gay sex
• Masturbation

He held these views so strongly that to help men avoid getting it on with each other or jerking off he was the city’s pimp. That’s right, a Catholic bishop ran his city’s prostitution business. If I remember correctly from my Medieval and Early Modern Church History class in college this continued on for a good century or two. Also somewhat ironically, since this did span into the renascence, educational opportunities were increasing rapidly, especially in Italy, and the only way a woman could get an education was to become a prostitute and many did, even if it was only for that reason.

Today, it is virtually universally accepted that consensual sex between adults who are married to each other (and freely entered into that marriage as adults) is perfectly ethical. This is because it is not only consensual, but it also don’t violate any commitments and even fulfills a commitment. For the rest of this discussion we will be looking at sexual ethics in terms of commitments and consent, starting with commitments.

It would be safe to say that it is ethical to keep your commitments and unethical to break them, right?

Most relationships involve a monogamous commitment, but not everybody is capable of or happy in a monogamous relationship. So for them, regardless of what the reason is, whether it’s distance, unsatisfied kinks, mismatched libidos, or just being happier with some variety they work out a monogamish (room for a little, limited outside access), open (often with quite a few restrictions, such as open for sex but not romance/love), or polyamorous (even more open since romance/love with other partners is allowed) relationship. If it works for you, for both of you, then great, but if it doesn’t then it shouldn’t even be a consideration. Most people are perfectly happy with a monogamous commitment, so it works fine for most people…

…Except for the majority of people who will cheat at least once in at least one relationship. It’s sad, but it’s true. If you were in a committed, monogamous relationship for 50 years with someone who had committed to taking out the trash each week but who forgot to one time in those 50 years it wouldn’t be a big deal. If in those 50 years you were lied to about a purchase that was made, sure it would be a cause of some strife, but odds are pretty good that the relationship would survive. What if each of those violations of the relationship took place every 10 years or even every year? I’m sure forgetting to take out the trash once a year wouldn’t be a problem but lying about a foolish spending decision every year would be a bigger issue, especially if it’s a high dollar item every year. Would someone who cheated one time in 50 years have been a failure a monogamy? How about 5 times over those fifty years or 50 times in those 50 years?

Cheating is wrong, but so is breaking other commitments, yet for some reason people seem to rank one violation so much higher than all others. If the cheating is a symptom of an already broken relationship, then it would probably be time to call it quits, not because you cheated/were cheated on, but because the relationship doesn’t work. But, if everything else is as close to perfect as you can find in reality, then it would be time to weigh the options and forgiveness would probably be in order.

There are times when opening up a relationship may be the best way to uphold commitments. Often as a marriage heads towards divorce, the sex stops, sometimes for years. Children having two parents in the house is definitely the ideal, as long as they can get along. So if the choice comes down to divorce or holding it out for a few years with some discrete outside sexual contact AND both parties agree to this arrangement until the kids are out of the house, then that might be the best way to honor your commitments and maintain sanity.

On the other hand, if you made a monogamous commitment then you are obligated to it. It took two to enter into it and it takes two to renegotiate it. The only unilateral option is to break up unless…

…you’re in a situation where your not getting any at home and breaking up/divorce isn’t an option, such as a need to maintain spousal insurance benefits,  and have made all good faith efforts to remedy the situation. Then there MIGHT be some wiggle room. Dan Savage does a better job than I can of explaining a few possible loopholes, so you can feel free to check that out. I’m not sure if I completely agree, but it would seem to be the lesser of two evils, a gray area. It’s important to note that a monogamous commitment is committing to only having sex with that one person, but that also entails a commitment to actually having sex with that person.

Then there’s commitments that we freely enter as a condition of employment. Many companies have non-fraternization policies and just about all have rules against managers and their employees getting involved with each other. Many professions have ethical standards against relationships with clients, such as found with lawyers, doctors, counselors, and several other professional relationships that entail a clear power imbalance. Those rules are in place for good reasons since they help keep things simple, minimize the risk of someone taking advantage of their power, and minimize the risk of lawsuit. Between the commitment involved, the inherent risk, and the host of other complications it’s a good idea to not have sex with someone who you have one of these professional relationships with, but even with these I think it’s shades of gray, very dark gray, especially in a therapeutic relationship, but gray none the less.

tl;dr Honor your commitments.

Next time we’ll look at consent.