Men who are not wantons or immoral
are bound to consider sexual intercourse justified only when it occurs in
marriage and is indulged in for the purpose of begetting children, since that
is lawful, but unjust and unlawful when it is mere pleasure-seeking, even in
marriage.
But of all sexual relations those
involving adultery are most unlawful, and no more tolerable are those of men
with men, because it is a monstrous thing and contrary to Nature.
But, furthermore, leaving out of
consideration adultery, all intercourse with women that is without lawful
character is shameful and is practiced from lack of self-restraint. So no one
with any self-control would think of having relations with a courtesan or a
free woman apart from marriage, no, nor even with his own maidservant.
I once very much enjoyed dramatic ideological bickering,
and it was only in hindsight that I understood why that was so. I eventually learned
something rather important: If I know it to be true, why do I feel the need to
force it upon anyone else, which negates the very freedom of seeking understanding?
It could only be my own sense of self-importance.
I once very much enjoyed violently arguing about
this or that social issue, and it was only in hindsight that I understood why
that was so. I eventually learned something rather important: If I speak of
righteousness in all those specific matters, why am I failing to practice love
throughout it all? It could only be that I am fueled not by love at all, but by
resentment and hatred.
The struggle with defining sexuality has, in my short
time on this Earth, been one of the most critical questions I have encountered,
and it has also involved one of the nastiest forms of debate. It is deeply
personal, and it is deeply intimate, and yet from all sides I see little except
piss and vinegar.
No side is more “broad” or “narrow”, I would argue,
because any set of moral values, any at all, will, by definition, both include
some things and exclude others. By being “for” or “against” anything, I will deny
or embrace their contraries.
I made a deliberate choice one day, that I would no
longer reduce the dignity of human life to platitudes, and that I would no
longer thoughtlessly cast aside what I found to be disagreeable.
I will still fail in the commitment, but that only
inspires me to get back on track.
What Musonius has to say will certainly sound
terrible to the followers of the current sexual fashions. Nevertheless, I have
listened to him with respect and an open mind, and I find that his argument is quite
worthy of consideration, however unpopular it may be at the moment.
I suggest not fighting about the effects, but rather
going back to causes. I avoid getting caught up in preferences, but rather consider
the principles. I try to move beyond the particular “what” toward the universal
“why”.
When Musonius speaks of what is lawful or unlawful,
he is not referring to the legislation of the state, or the customs of the
majority, or the dictates of religious piety.
Like any other good Stoic, he is appealing to
Nature itself, the very order in the existence of creatures, which can be
learned by simply looking at what such things are in their function and purpose.
This has nothing to do with what is imposed from the outside, but by what proceeds
from the inside.
On a strictly biological level, sex serves a very clear
role, and I wonder why we so often overlook it or negate it. As with all living
things that procreate sexually, it is a means for making more of the same. It
is one of those wonderful ways that Nature allows the old to be transformed
into something new. Two lives together produce a new life.
On a higher level, specific to creatures that have
reason and choice, it also serves a further role, a deliberate expression of
the most complete love for another. This second purpose is hardly separate from
the first, or in any way an exclusion of it, but rather a fulfillment and
perfection of it. Within human nature, the one must necessarily go along with
other.
By choosing to love one another, in an act of
complete and total giving, husband and wife also choose to make something new from
one another.
It took my own personal experience of marriage to
understand, in a very immediate way, what Musonius meant.
Sex, many told me, was something you “had”, or
something you “did”, or something you “got”. Bad people would tell me I didn’t
have to buy the cow if I could get the milk for free. Even worse people would tell me
it wasn’t even necessary to ask, only to take.
I know I may sound a bit stuffy here, but making
love to my other half was not just an act, not some annoying chore, not a
selfish means for pleasure. It was a blessing, where everything, absolutely
everything, in our lives came together. The two pieces that Nature made to work
together were now united, both in body and in soul.
It was pointless without unconditional love, and it
was pointless without being open to having children. Remove either aspect, and
you then remove the meaning of the whole. Those concepts are not arbitrary, but
rather come from an awareness of what it means to be human, from the lowest
physical level to the highest spiritual level.
I said I was most concerned about the deeper principles,
and there you have it. I have come to understand that other people have
different views, and I respect that everyone must follow his own conscience.
Instead of fighting, can we discuss it with reason and love? If I am wrong,
inform me, and do not despise me.
Speaking only for myself, few things have done me
greater harm than thinking that sex is there merely for pleasure. Following my
own model, let me take a step far further back than that: doing absolutely anything at all only for pleasure is contrary to my nature.
Should I find gratification in what is true and
good? Absolutely. Is it true and good because it gratifies me? Absolutely not.
The difference is all about our confusion between causes and effects.
Whenever anyone tells me about what is right and
wrong in sexual matters, I notice how that most basic question of an ultimate human
purpose stands behind it all. If I think that I am only made to pursue my
passions, I will follow them wherever they lead me. If I think, however, that I
am made to pursue my passions through the guidance of my virtue, then I will
follow a very different path.
I grow tired of being told, on the one hand, that
sex is all about my feelings, and I grow tired of being told, on the other hand,
that sex is all about my duties. Can’t it be both, if it is rightly understood?
Can’t it help me to fulfill both my passion and my reason? It doesn’t need to
be dirty, and it doesn’t need to be cold.
We take out the knives and the guns when it comes
to marriage, or divorce, or birth control, or homosexuality, or abortion, those
topics where civility has been entirely lost.
I no longer publicly speak my mind on such things.
It isn’t that I don’t think they are important, because they most certainly are,
but I wait patiently until someone is willing to go back to the root, to the
foundation of the human purpose as a whole.
Once that can be established, the rest takes care
of itself.
Written in 12/1999
No comments:
Post a Comment