Sexual Ethics in Islam and in the Western World
Chapther 2: Sexual Ethics as Conceived by Modern Thinkers
Sexual morals constitute an integral part of behavioural ethics
applicable to human beings. Included in sexual ethics are some of the
various social norms, personal habits and behavioural patterns, which
are associated directly with the sexual instinct. Some aspects of the
sexual ethics and practices are specified below:
Female modesty, male sense of honour concerning female members of a
household, female chastity, a wife's faithfulness to her husband; female
inclination to cover her private parts, or her aversion to exposing any
bodily nakedness in public; prohibition of adultery, interdiction of any
visual or physical intimacy with women other than one's legal wife or
wives; prohibition of incest, or marriage between persons too closely
related; avoidance of sexual intercourse with menstruating women;
debarring pornography or obscenity; and treating celibacy as either too
saintly or undesirable.
Sexual instinct is by its very nature quite extraordinary. Also, it is
powerful in its manifestation. Accordingly, sexual morals are part of
the most important of all ethics.
In his book entitled: Our Oriental Heritage, Will Durant highlighted
the fact that marrying and settling down was always considered to be one
of the very important moral duties of human beings. He said that the
natural human capability for procreation involved difficulties, not only
at the time of marriage, but before and after that, as well.
The difficulties could be aggravated by the intensity and vehemence A
the sexual instinct, as well as its aversion to moral and legal
constraints. Further, it might even lead to deviation from its natural
course. All these and more, as mentioned by Will Durant, meant extreme
confusion and organisational disorders, if and when a society could not
provide necessary and effective safeguards.
Any scientific and philosophical discussion of sexual morals need first
consider their origins and evolution. For instance, it is necessary to
know how modesty and chastity of women have come to be safeguarded. The
fact that men traditionally protect their women, as part of their own
sense of honour, could be due to identifiable or specific reasons.
The male aptitude for possessiveness and protection of women may not
necessarily be attributed to any inborn jealousy of men. For, human
jealousy has universally been considered a negative emotion. Has an
exception been made in favour of jealousy so as to safeguard husband-
wife relationship? If so, why? If there are other reasons for men
protecting the honour of their women, as if it were a question of their
own honour, how can these be explained?
Likewise, the desires and social norms favouring clothing or covering
of female body, curbing sexual promiscuity, prohibiting marriage between
persons too closely related and similar other moral and legal restraints
need be explained. Their examination can be in terms of whether or not
they have their roots in the human nature, physiological and
psychological.
Then, one may as well ask as to whether or not sexual morals are linked
to the natural requirements of gregarious living Or, is it part of their
inborn tendencies, feelings and concerns towards an appropriate human
survival in the natural process. Or, is there any possibility that
historical causes, other than natural, have gradually affected and
influenced human conscientiousness and behaviour?
If the source of human morality has been entirely rooted in nature, it
is hard to explain how not only the ancient savages, but today's
isolated primitive tribes, living in the manner of their ancestors, were
and are quite unlike the civilized people.
The origins and raison d'etre of sexual morality may be diverse. So
can be the historical conditions of social evolution, with reference to
human sexual ethics in particular. Nevertheless, the question relevant
to us now is as to whether or not the traditional morals are valid in
the modern conditions towards achieving overall human progress.
Specifically, we must ask ourselves whether or not we must now
safeguard the traditional sexual ethics or replace them by instituting
new morals.
Will Durant does not trace human sexual morality to any origins in the
mother nature. He attributes moral evolution to reasons arising from
historical experience, even some occasionally unhappy or cruel
happenings in the past. He favours retaining the substance of
traditional morals, while allowing continued evolution of the forms, in
order to selectively practise the best without shortcomings.
Referring to morals concerning female virginity, modesty and
bashfulness, Will Durant observes to the effect that traditional values
and customs evidence a natural process of moral selection, involving
trials and errors through centuries. According to him, virginity and
modesty are relative qualities linked with conditions of marriage and
traceable to even a past situation requiring purchase of, or bargaining
for, wives.
Will Durant recognizes that the moral and social requirements of female
chastity and modesty are of basic importance to any society, even if
these qualities are sometimes capable of giving rise to psychosomatic
and nervous disorders. Moreover, the relevant social regulations are
essential for Promoting a harmonious continuity in sexual relations in
the context of marriage and family living.
Freud and his followers subscribed to a different view of sexual
morals. They sought to dispense with the traditional sexual morality, or
to replace them with something altogether new. In the opinion of Freud
and his followers, morals were based on limitations and prohibitions
concerning human sexuality. They claimed that the limitations and
prohibitions caused many human afflictions and gave rise to emotional
disturbances, including subconscious fears and obsessions.
Basically similar arguments have been put forward by Bertrand Russell.
He defends in his own way the position that nothing should be regarded
as taboo. His views concerning marriage and morals are independent of
any moral considerations, such as those of chastity, rectitude, modesty,
any male sense of honour encompassing the female (which he suggests is
actually jealousy) and similar others.
The proposed liberation of human sexuality from traditional moral
restraints is tantamount to claiming that nothing ugly, bad or
disgraceful can come out of it. The impression conveyed is one of
relying on nothing but the human intellect and its rationalizations. The
proposal concedes no more restraint on sex than any natural limitation
of food intake!
Elsewhere, Bertrand Russell tried to answer a question as to whether or
not he had any advice to give those who wanted to follow a correct and
sensible path in matters of sex. His reply was to the effect that, after
all, one should examine the question of sexual morality in the same
analytical manner as in the case of any other problem. If, as a result
of adequate examination, it was found that others would come to no harm
from one's pursuing a certain manner of sexual conduct, we would have no
reasons to condemn any such individual rationalization and practice.
Bertrand Russell replied in the negative to a second question as to
whether or not, in his -opinion, any violation of female chastity could
be viewed as an exception to his contention that actions causing no harm
or loss to others should not be condemned. He explained that loss of
virginity could be due to an act between two individuals. However, If it
was construed as an act of violation of the chastity of a virgin, there
should be evidence to the same effect before it could be condemned as
rape.
For the time being, we may refrain from a detailed examination of the
question as to whether or not human traits like modesty, or sexual
chastity, are rooted in the mother nature. For, the question is very
broad in scope. One can hardly give a completely scientific answer.
However, whatever has been indicated thereon, so far, can neither be
assumptive, nor approximate. For., it is recognized that those who base
their opinions on assumptions often lack consensus:
For instance, human inclinations like sexual modesty are viewed
differently by Freud, Will Durant and Bertrand Russell. The nature and
content of their difference need not be detailed herein. Suffice it to
mention that these writers seem to base their views on the assumption
that human qualities like female modesty are not inborn or in any way
specific to human nature. If so, their understanding of human
characteristics shows what appears to be disinclination to seek a
correct justification, or a microscopic approach.
Be that as it may, we can indeed make two assumptions regarding sex
habits and inclinations. Firstly, we may assume that sex-oriented
behavioural qualities have no connection whatever with the innate nature
of human beings. Secondly, we may suppose that the "habits" are
inculcated as part of other human practices and norms, under some kind
of a social contract, designed to harmonize individual and social
interests, as well as towards assuring peace and well being of
mankind.
Let us now ask ourselves as to whether or not logic and reasoning
demand intrinsic values and safeguards for assuring complete
psychological harmony and maximizing human well being and peace. We may
further ask ourselves as to whether or not any elimination of moral and
social restraints and limits will be conducive towards achieving
complete psychosomatic harmony of individuals and enhancing social
welfare.
Then, we may well realize that logic and reasoning deem it advisable
for us to oppose every customary practice and superstitious habit, which
implicitly treats human sexuality as unclean and pernicious. At the same
time, we are likely to consider it necessary that we should refrain from
promoting any unrestrained sexual freedom which causes widespread
excesses, transgressions and agonies.
The supporters of the proposed new sexual liberty base their arguments
on three premises,
(1) Freedom should be ensured for every individual, as it does not
interfere with that of others;
(2) All inborn sexual desires and aptitudes should be freely
nurtured and brought to fulfilment without any inhibition or restraint,
since their curbing or frustration leads to disorders of the ego; and
(3) Any natural desire subsides when it is fulfilled, and it becomes
insistent and excessive when it is subjected to any negative moral
restraint or ill conceived prohibition.
The sexual liberationists argue that emotional instability arises from
discriminating among the natural instincts and desires, so that only
part of these are satisfied while the others remain frustrated. So, they
say, equal nurturing and development of all human inclinations is
necessary for personal and societal well being.
Furthermore, they suggest that, for avoiding constant preoccupation
with sex, the only correct way is to lift all moral restraints and
social prohibitions. They claim that liberation of the natural process
of sexual fulfilment will also pre-empt mischief, malice and vengeance
characteristic of a situation involving moral restrictions.
The foregoing arguments constitute the basis on which the new sexual
morality is proposed. God-willing, we should be able to render these
arguments untenable, through an adequate investigation and a thorough
evaluation of the three basic premises mentioned above.