Birds, Bees, Animals

On the Disappearance of the Sexual Ethic

In the fall, Annenberg Hall was plastered with flyers of genitalia-shaped fruit to announce the return of Sex Week. As usual, event topics included non-monogamous intercourse, sodomy, and reconciling sexual promiscuity with faith.¹ Sex Week may be protected by the principle of free speech, but it was still horrifying to students concerned about Harvard’s eroding moral foundation. The openness with which traditionally taboo sexual topics are discussed both reflects our loss of a strong sexual ethic tied to marriage and hints at the societal rot this loss produces.

One of many advertisements for Sex Week. Source: @harvardsexweek on Instagram. Thumbnail from mozzercork via Wikimedia.

It is no secret that America is deserting its traditional sexual ethic. While extramarital sex has been practiced forever, the widespread acceptance of the act is new, having gained traction since the Sexual Revolution of the mid-20th century.² Those still wed to a strong sexual ethic often assume that America’s moral depravity can be explained by our abandonment of religion. The explanation is intuitive: extramarital sex increases if fewer people engage with moral frameworks that present sex as the intimate, foundational link for households. Yet American religious participation did not begin its precipitous decline until the 1990s, decades after the Sexual Revolution.³ This explanation also fails to address growing attempts to reconcile promiscuity with faith. The religious ideas preached during Sex Week extend far beyond this university, with half of modern Christians—and many of their churches—willing to accept casual sex.⁴

Fortunately, or perhaps unfortunately, there is precedent to ground our understanding of these changing attitudes. In an analysis of over eighty-six societies and civilizations, the British anthropologist J.D. Unwin discovered that the loss of a strong sexual ethic tied to marriage predates declines in religion and rational thinking, with no civilization lasting more than three generations after losing its sexual ethic.⁵ This may be because sex is the only desire strong enough to begin eroding the structure of society; it is fundamental like other primitive desires, but it is less satiable and more prone to perversion.⁶ Giving in to the desire for extramarital sex sows a selfish, hedonistic mindset. Marital sex is grounded in procreation, or at the very least, it is bound by a long-term commitment to a single person. The pleasure is accompanied by greater obligations and responsibilities. Meanwhile, extramarital sex exists solely to satisfy an appetite for pleasure or affection.

The divorce between sex and marriage nurtures the conditions for a divorce from religion. Slaves to appetite do not submit to a higher power. They do not even submit to an external purpose. Beyond impacting religion, the loss of a sexual ethic tied to marriage threatens rationality itself. We know that traditional family models with strong marriages are essential to child-rearing. Centuries of experience have taught us this; empirics substantiate it. Family structure is the best predictor of economic mobility, and the presence of two-parent households is strongly correlated with a reduction in urban violence.⁷ To advocate non-monogamy is to reject these goods; it is to allow the passions to subdue reason.

Abandoning our sexual ethic is not, as advocates claim, progressive. It is instead regressive; civilization collapses back into a collection of animals unconcerned with truth, religion, or rationality. We differ from other monogamous life forms in our ability to reason and submit to purposes beyond ourselves—we can sacrifice what is attractive in the moment for what is good over the long term. To reject what makes humans distinct is to revert to the brutish existence of animals. It may not be within the state’s power, or even a responsibility it should desire to take up, to regulate the bedroom, but the people in that bedroom are still products of broader society. If we are to forestall and ideally reverse the decline that history predicts, we must remedy the broken sexual ethic that has corrupted us. This means reinstating a strong sexual ethic tied to marriage in sex education. Abstinence-only education may have been unsuccessful, but the alternative does not have to be the rejection of abstinence. We can teach preventative measures without abandoning our understanding that extramarital sex, particularly in its most perverse forms, is damaging.

Remedying the broken sexual ethic also means calling out morally reprehensible claims when we encounter them. Sex Week should not be accepted as normal. The public preaching of non-monogamous intercourse and sodomy is deplorable. Yet the silence of students who are opposed to Sex Week allows for the continued assault on marriage and its sexual ethic. The intimate act of sex must be grounded in the stability, intimacy, and permanence of marriage. Children should be raised in a traditional household, an environment selected over generations as ideal for child-rearing. When we compromise our sexual ethic, we compromise civilization.

MICHEL DE MONTAIGNE

A version of this article originally appeared in A Modest Proposal, the December 2023 print issue of the Salient.

1. Titles were creative. Examples include “The More the Merrier: Exploring Non- monogamy,” “Backdoor Basics: Anal 101,” and “Harness Your Desire: A Strap-on Workshop.”

2. John Wihbey, “Changes in Americans’ attitudes about sex: Reviewing 40 years of data,” The Journalist’s Resource, May 27, 2015.

3. “How U.S. religious composition has changed in recent decades,” Pew Research Center, Sep. 13, 2022.

4. Jeff Diamant, “Half of U.S. Christians say casual sex between consenting adults is sometimes or always acceptable,” Pew Research Center, Aug. 31, 2020.

5. J.D. Unwin, Sex and Culture, Oxford World Classics, 1934.

6. C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, HarperCollins Publishers, 1952.

Unlike hunger or thirst, our appetite for sex is in excess to its function, which is procreation; that is, our sexual desires far surpass how many children we can feasibly raise.

7. Brad Wilcox and Hal Boyd, “The Nuclear Family is Still Indispensable,” The Atlantic, Feb. 21, 2020.