The subject matter of premarital s*x whenever it pops up in social
discussions is one that is bound to engender loads of altercations and
contentions especially as regards the rightness or wrongness of it. This
simple yet complex social issue is one deserving of utmost attention,
especially in our contemporary social setting that is fraught with
decrepit logic and unsubstantiated justifications for the positions
adopted by the opinionated segments of the society.
The question as to the justification of premarital sex or sex
wholly, is one that ought to be answered or approached from the aspect
of morals or naturally negative/positive consequence(s). When one
relishes in a vista of what is obtainable in our society today, the
reverse is the reality.
However, a problem arises when we either as individuals or as a
society, try to appraise practical social issues that borders on the
natural existential conditions of man in the society with arcane
religious/metaphysical abstractions. The consequence is a logical error
which takes the form of a naturalistic fallacy. This is because the
question of “sex” is one that is intrinsically tied to the individual’s
personal choices and natural freedom and constitutes one of the
fundamental individual/human right(s). S*x, matrimonial or
pre-matrimonial, is similitude to freedom. It is one of the things the
freedom to exercise which gives the individual person a sense of
humanity and natural self realization as an entity.
Denying a self actualizing and free moral agent the freedom to make
this choice is similar to slavery. This is because you enslave a
particular aspect or element of the individual person and this very act
has deeper psychological consequences on the individual and for the
society at large. It is inhibitive of the individual’s natural potential
seeking manifestation/realization in spatiotemporal reality and
degrades the worth of the human person in the same way that slavery
does.
Perspicuously, to the question – “Is premarital sex wrong?” my
answer is in the negative, there is nothing wrong with premarital sex.
When the question is further rephrased and presented in religious terms
–“Is premarital sex a sin?” I will say that the latter is not a question
because it has no sociological or natural basis in the comity of
morals. Supposed it was, and then the answer will be a capital NO! The
justification for this is because one cannot use relative religious
prejudices as a yardstick for appraising or judging issues that has
universal natural underpinnings.
This is because religion is relatively arcane and seats atop
cerebrumendiformity (an epistemic state in which a person sees his/her
own ideas as being perfect and absolute, thereby rejecting any form of
criticism, opposition or opinion to the contrary. It is a form of
epistemic bigotry). We should be addressing the question of premarital
sex in the light of morals because it has to do with the
negative/positive consequences of the act and the effects of such
actions on the human society.
Consequently, premarital sex is not wrong because the very act is
the actuality of a natural potential inherent in the human person and
involves two consenting individuals exercising their natural rights to
self actualization. More so, there is no reasonable argument or prove to
substantiate that two individuals making use of their natural
endowments or exercising it to seek self-realization is contrary to
nature.
As some would have us believe that premarital sex is inherently bad
and religiously gross, there is no rational or biological prove that
shows that when two consenting individuals engage in premarital sex,
that something contrary to nature happens or that the laws of nature
becomes violated. Premarital sex can only be wrong if we can be able to
establish with logical and empirical facts that having sex or sexual
gratification is not a natural phenomenon. Otherwise, a religious basis
that denies consenting individuals their fundamental right to sexual
self-realization constitutes a metaphysical superfluous. It is a crime
against nature.
Premised on the above, premarital sex only becomes bad or immoral
when the consequences of the act brings about unnecessary burden on
other members of the society or just like rights when it becomes a
problem and or infringes on the rights of others. Otherwise, any claims
to the contrary are illogical and unfounded. Denying individuals their
right to sexual liberty base on religious or cultural conventions or for
any other reason similar to, can only be justified by intellectual
poverty.
On the contrary, virginity till after marriage is not a thing of
pride; it only reduces the entire worth and dignity of the human person
down to their sexual organs. The human being is worth more than that. In
a civilized epoch like ours, such deprecate make-believe systems that
attaches greater value to the sexual organs more than the human brain
with all it has, can and will still achieve is a debase and morally
crass way of thinking that deserves to be done away with.
Conversely, the supposed terminus ad quem of this clumsy religious
and social make-believe system which was to tame the sexual
urge/disposition(s) of the young and single stratum of the society has
conspicuously been defeated, hence, a need to be practical and realistic
in our approach to this natural phenomenon. The uncouth act of painting
the natural disposition of sex among the unmarried groups in our
societies and the need for enjoying sexual self-realization has resulted
in many, engaging in unsafe sexual practices clandestinely in this
disease ridden age for fear of being castigated upon by the society,
resulting in the spread of many sexually transmitted disease(s) (STD)
like gonorrhea, syphilis, staphylococcus aureus, HIV, etcetera.
In Latin, it is often said: “Nemo dat quod non habet” which means
“no one can give what he does not have”. It logically follows that
sexual self-realization is not a disposition characteristic of
exclusively married couples, but it is something that can also be found
within the unmarried ones. These dispositions are not imagined like the
make-believe systems that proscribes them. The characteristics are
expressed because they are natural in the first place. If the unmarried
were devoid of this characteristic, it would have been axiomatic that
sex is restricted to married couples. You can only give out what you
have.
The preservation of one’s sexual organs till after marriage under
the linguistic and cultural cloak of virginity has no special benefits
on the individuals neither does it contribute to societal development or
entail high moral standard. One can be a virgin and be both socially
and morally vile. One can also be freely having sex and still maintain
high moral standards. In a sense, the arguments for virginity being the
mother of religious and social ethos only hypes hypocrisy and augments
the individual’s delusional level when it comes to morals. If there is
any part that should and really counts in the human body then it is the
human brain.
This is where morality and reason resonates and not between the
legs. People are respected for their ideas and what they can contribute
to the development of their societies and to the betterment of the human
lot at large, and not for being the longest conscious or unconscious
virgins. I’m not kicking against virginity for being bad; my point is it
should never be used as a yardstick for judging an individual’s moral
standing, neither should any individual be denied natural sexual
self-realization on the basis of sex being exclusively reserved for the
married.
Proactively, having proved to a reasonable extent the moral
justification for premarital sex, and defending it in the light of it
being a natural characteristic of the human person, and also taking into
cognizance the highlighted excesses resulting from the practices of it,
seeking how we can ensure a sexually safer society becomes what is
pertinent as opposed to the denial of it. What we should be doing is
carrying out both private and public orientation and re-orientation as
regards the issue of sexual intercourse. We need to educate the masses
both the married and unmarried on how to practice safe sex instead of
expending energy to deny the reality. It is colossally hypocritical and
foolish for one to think that the unmarried stratum of the society
should stop engaging in sexual activities simply because cultural or
religious conventions tag it “BAD”.
The family, the religious and educational institutions,
private/public organizations all has a role to play in stopping this
menace. We can save millions of lives annually by giving people proper
sexual education rather than acting in a bigoted manner and ignoring the
obvious. Sexual discussions should be encouraged within the family,
peer groups, the school classrooms, etcetera in order to promote sexual
literacy and for us to be able to build a more progressive society. The
subject matter of sex shouldn’t be something that is regarded as a taboo
or sacrilege and thus excluded from the circles of public discourse
only to be talked about in the closet.
We need a revaluation of what we qualify as morals. We need a
radical social shift when it comes to our view of sex. What we should be
talking about is ensuring that it is consensual, and not something that
is forced by one party on another. And also that the persons involve be
ready to take full responsibility for whatever be the outcome of their
choice, rather than wasting time and energy to deny the natural. Choice
is a fundamental right of every individual person and no individual
deserves to be robbed of this fundamental right so long as it does not
infringe on the choices of others.
I’ll submit by calling on people of all nations to rise, unite and
fight against that which denies any individual person his/her
fundamental liberty to utilize and to express his/her freewill.
*********************
By: Patrick Benblag
No comments:
Post a Comment