In Defense of Promiscuity

Frederick Elliston’s In Defence of Promiscuity begins by challenging the typical definitions of promiscuity. In Elliston’s view, the dictionary definitions of promiscuity, which include being entirely indiscriminate in the selection of sexual partners, and having “many” sexual partners. Elliston’s perspective is that promiscuity can exist with discriminatory selection of partners, as a promiscuous person obviously will not have sex with any and every sexual partner available, and that the word “many” cannot apply as it is too vague and does not specify an actual number, and an un-promiscuous person can have sex with multiple partners in the case of remarrying after divorce or the death of a spouse. He then states his own interpretation the definition of promiscuity, which is that promiscuous people are only indiscriminate in the context of the dominant sexual norm of their society. He establishes the norm of our society as the “western norm,” however he also states that a simple violation of the western norm does not constitute promiscuity. Therefor, Elliston offers his own definition of promiscuity, “ sex with a series of other adults, not directly related through marriage, with no commitments.”

After defining promiscuity, Elliston offers up several common criticisms of promiscuity, and a defence to each. First, he brings up the increased danger of unwanted pregnancy that accompanies promiscuous behavior. Elliston’s defence is that modern contraceptive technology and the existence of abortion procedures reduces the risk of an unwanted child greatly, to within an level that makes promiscuous behavior acceptable. His next defence is against the Catholic concept of the Inseparability premise, the idea that sex has two and only entirely inseparable functions, reproduction, and to bring a married, heterosexual couple closer together. Elliston cites another philosopher in his defence, and states that the inseparability premise has no true basis in scripture or the bible. He also offers several reasons why the Catholic church should accept birth control and and sex for non reproductive purposes, including that prohibiting the use of birth control could lead to a rise in overpopulation, and that the Church allowing drugs for physical health means that they should also allow drugs to promote sexual health.

Elliston then addresses the concept of promiscuity as a threat to monogamy. Elliston counters by stating that promiscuity does not have an adverse affect on monogamy, and that this position makes the assumption that monogamy is superior to the alternatives. His belief is that the continuing existence and popularity of marriage proves that monogamy is alive and well, and that the value of monogamy has been overblown by the western norm, and that more promiscuous behavior can in fact increase the sexual compatibility of married couples. He then counters the somewhat related argument that promiscuity leads to lying and deception by stating that these behaviors are not inherent to promiscuous behavior, and the western norm is in fact responsible for the occurrence of this type of deception by placing a stigma on the promiscuous.

Elliston’s final defence against a specific attack is a counter to the idea that promiscuous behavior has a negative influence on one's personal growth. He cites philosopher Peter Bertocci, who believed that promiscuity threatens “personal emotional security,” it indicates a lack of respect for one’s other partner, and that promiscuous behavior indicates a lack of self discipline. Elliston responds by writing that promiscuity is in fact a conscious refusal to be governed by the western norm, indicating a high degree of self control, and that respecting the decisions and autonomy of one’s partner in being promiscuous is respecting that partner.

Elliston then moves on to defending promiscuity by stating its benefits through three philosophical modes of thought. First, he uses what he calls a “Classic Liberal Defence” and makes the claim that the ability to be promiscuous is an essential part of personal liberty, and that promiscuity enhances personal growth, the freedom and liberty to grow as a person is essential. Next, he defends “sex as body language,” and states that sexuality is a form of body language and expression, and that promiscuity has “instrumental value” in allowing one to become a master of their body language and expressions. Finally, he offers an “existential defence” of promiscuity and offers the viewpoint that “authentic sexuality” creates an openness to others, and an emotional, physical, and psychological nakedness which increases people's ability to realize and decide what commitments they desire.

Nozick "Love's Bond" Blog Entry

Robert Nozick’s Love’s Bond is a clear and almost detached summary of romantic love, its goals and components, and its limitations. He first specifies that romantic love, in his view, has three main components that must be present. The first feature, which he sees as being present in all love, not simply romantic, is a sense that one’s well being is “tied up” with another’s. By this he means that when good or bad things happen to your beloved, they also happen to you, indirectly. Secondly, Nozick believes that in order to have romantic love, both members of a couple must surrender some of their autonomy and decision making. However, both parties must remain independent and cannot be dominated by the other, but instead work together to make decisions about what is best for the couple as a whole. Finally, the third necessary component in Nozick’s definition is public acknowledgment. He claims that couples will want to be perceived publicly as a couple and assert a joint identity. The combination of all these factors forms romantic love and a we between two people. This combined identity of a we is the “end goal” of romantic love in Nozick’s view.

Another important aspect of love according to Nozick is a desire to be loved for “yourself” and not for characteristics such as wealth, looks, or disposition. I will discuss this more later, as I feel that Nozick’s perception of characteristics and being loved for one’s self is misguided.

Nozick then launches into a very economic and detached explanation of why members of a couple tend not to seek out a “better” partner, and instead chose to remain in their already established relationships. The basic explanation is that it is “economically” unwise to attempt an upgrade to another partner, due to the inherent risks involved in a new partner and the effort and time needed to raise a new relationship we to the level of the we that was abandoned. He also believes that there is an inherent desire for monogamy in a relationship, and that the intimate nature of a we relationship necessitates that only two people partake in the relationship. This is another reason why a couple might stay together and not try to find another mate.

The final main point of Nozick’s article delineates the separation of romantic love and the love between friends. He believes that the love between friends does not include the sharing of identity that characterizes romantic love. He states that while friends share experiences, the lack of a shared identity is infact essential to friendships because the shared experiences have value without a shared identity.

The major issue I had with Nozick’s article is the idea that proper romantic love must be a love of someone “for themselves” rather than for their characteristics. On the surface this makes sense, however when one stops to consider what Nozick considers a characteristic, the argument breaks down. According to Nozick, a characteristic includes kindness and intelligence, and presumably other personal qualities. While it is obviously wrong to love someone for characteristics such as wealth or looks, loving someone for intrinsic characteristics and personality traits such as kindness and intelligence is not. In my view, these characteristics make up the person that is loved. When one is loved “for themselves,” the “themselves” that is loved is made up of these characteristics. Nozick argues that this makes love conditional, however he also recognizes that an abundance of newly appearing negative characteristics can end a loving relationship. This is a fallacy, as it indicates that conditional love is inferior or not fully romantic love under his definition, however it also indicates that a change in conditions is an acceptable reason to end a relationship. This means that, under Nozick's definition, love must be conditional, and can reasonably be based on personal characteristics such as kindness or intelligence.

The other issue I have with Nozick’s view on love for characteristics is that it leaves nothing to love someone for. Nozick states that love for characteristics is a precursor to romantic love, and must be put aside to experience true romantic love. If we ignore my previous point and accept that conditional love is not true romantic love, there is still a major issue with Nozick’s argument. Simply put, if one is not loved for their characteristics, they are loved for nothing. Under Nozick’s definition, true romantic love includes loving someone simply for existing or being. Nozick’s counterargument would likely be that the new shared identity of a true romantic couple would be the reason the relationship would continue to exist. However, I see no reason why a relationship would continue to exist under these conditions. Under this definition, a true romantic relationship would be a we relationship formed by an initial, non romantic love for characteristics that must become a relationship that exists simply for the relationships sake and is entirely self perpetuating, existing only for its continued existence.

Man and Woman Analysis

Man and Woman by the now Senator and Presidential candidate Bernard Sanders certainly has an attention grabbing opening. The description of male fantasies of raping and of female fantasies of being raped has become somewhat of a controversy now that Sanders is a player on the national stage. However, while the graphic and rather extreme description of these fantasies may offend some, they certainly accomplish their task of drawing the reader in and ensuring that they are likely to continue reading. I feel like they serve a secondary purpose as well, which is to state Sanders point about traditional gender roles and the unconscious conditioning we have about them. The female fantasy is one of submission to males, while the male’s is one of domination over women. I believe that what Sanders real purpose with these passages was was to underline how deeply ingrained traditional gender roles were and to a degree still are in our unconscious mind by showing how they creep into our most intimate, personal, and private thoughts.

Sanders’ view on gender roles as causing a state of “slavishness” and “pigness” show an interesting perspective on gender politics. The “slavishness” of the traditional position of women is a very standard, though by no means incorrect, viewpoint. What is less standard and more interesting is the idea of gender stereotypes and roles creating the slavishness v. pigness dichotomy. While women are certainly the greater victims of gender inequality, it is rare and refreshing to see the perspective that men are made worse people by gender roles. Once one considers this position however, it seems obvious. Men who benefit from gender roles and inequality are obviously doing something morally wrong and “backwards” if gender equality is considered the ideal. Gender roles impose a “pigness” on men which, though at times it has been socially acceptable, is not ideal.

The way in which gender roles force men to be pig-like and women to be slavish in Sanders’ view shows a deeper and even more interesting concept of gender inequality. The implication is that, in many cases, men and women do not try to enforce gender roles or be sexist, but have the pre-existing roles forced on them. He argues that most men are not trying to be oppressive to women and most women are not trying to be submissive to men, but rather that traditional roles that may have made sense hundreds or even thousands of years ago have been needlessly maintained and changed and that they exist in a self perpetuating manner. I believe that this is true in many cases, as most men would not want to think of themselves as oppressors and do not wish to be oppressive, while women do not wish to be oppressed. It would be exceedingly strange to find an individual who acknowledges gender inequality as negative but still wishes to enforce gender roles and stereotypes. However, traditional gender roles have, in a way, forced their hands by permeating their society and influencing them towards specific behaviors their whole lives. Someone who is sexist or does believe that people should abide by set gender roles is most likely ignorant or has not recognized the negative role of their conditioned unconscious mind.

The issue I have with this viewpoint is that, while I do believe that gender roles are 

often unconsciously reinforced, it feels almost like a cop-out. It removes all blame and 

responsibility from anyone concerning the perpetuation of gender roles, instead assigning 

blame to society as a whole and the gender roles themselves. I believe that we as people, 

especially men, as women cannot simply decide to stop being oppressed, have a 

responsibility to consciously consider our gender politics and to overcome our unconscious 

impulses or ingrained beliefs. Stating that gender roles are entirely unconscious and 

ingrained is a somewhat defeatist viewpoint, and resigning to what one may perceive as 

uncontrollable gender inequalities and differences is counterproductive. However, though 

he never states it explicitly in Man and Woman, I believe that Sanders does not adopt this 

defeatist viewpoint, and instead believes that the way forward is a conscious effort from all 

genders and affected groups to dismantle leftover gender roles and stereotypes that have 

no place in the modern world.