On the Obviousness of Global Warming and the Economic Crisis
January 1, 2009



by Matthew Chominski


There are, obviously, many erroneous ways of understanding sexual desire and conduct. Of these, certain mistaken interpretations attempt to veer our focus away from the interpersonal sphere. These numerous strands of thought converge into what could be considered as an instrumentalized vision of sexuality. This view, as regards sexual conduct, has been characterized by Roger Scruton as when ‘the sexual act, in whatever form it takes, is being viewed as a means to something else, be it sensory pleasure, orgasm or relief from internal pressure.’ Here the sexual act is not seen primarily as interpersonal communion with another, union with another personal locus of existence, a Thou, but in so much as the other is acknowledged they are reduced to being there for my sake, my pleasure, my release, me. Desire for sexual union is not so much desire for union with another person, in the rich sense that that word ‘person’ deserves, but desire for physical stimulation or other similar interests.

There is a profound offense to the dignity of the human person
happening when desires and acts become devoid of their personal
nature. This move seems to leave these desires more the possession of
other, non-personal biological organisms, animals.

So it should be no surprise that some consider sexual desires and acts
to be more proper to the animalistic side of human beings. And as such
the desires and acts do not call for serious moral and ethical
considerations this side of assured consent between the parties involved.
And knowing, or so it goes, that the traditional moral norms regarding chastity and temperance have in a sense expired, these innate, natural desires ought to be given the free range of expression they demand. As long as we have those autonomous absolutes involved consenting then we are in the position to determine any or all expressions as untouchable to moral critique and censure. There is no need to observe moral norms, mastery of self, or practice self control by way of virtues like chastity.

Yet this very capability of self mastery, the freedom to control how and when we express these desires in conformity with the good is one of those distinguishing marks between ourselves and the animals. Though when the necessity for this human capacity and its exercise is denied so is the necessary distinction between man and animal.

A quizzical turn is taken though when such an instrumentalized version of sexuality is coupled with contraceptive techniques. And while this is not a necessary coupling, it is not hard to see how easily the two can be brought together, and how the one makes the other ever more attractive and seemingly plausible.

When seen through the more animalistic lens, sexuality coupled with contraception leads to contradiction. At first glance contraception may seem as if it were to enable a person to freely pursue animalistic pleasures. Yet in this technological technique of intentionally sterilizing sexual acts, is there not an almost backdoor refutation of the thought that human beings and animals are not all that different in regards to their sexual expression? The essential difference between men and animals is backed into by those who may never make that jump forward.

By way of the intentional sterilizing of human sexual acts we implicitly, perhaps unknowingly, acknowledge that something more than an animal is present here, and not only present but acting. From what we can understand, something ought to be happening here, in these acts, or at least have the potential to happen, namely procreation, that is not or cannot because of the intentional action of a human being or beings. Animals do not alter their biological potentialities in the way persons can and do in the act of contracepted sex.

This active sterilization and the technological developments that have enabled us to enact it, in a sense, illustrate our superiority to the animals while still yet opening the door to further sexual degradation. Paradoxically, in a sense, this degradation sometimes makes us barely distinguishable from the animals.

I assume that such an instrumentalized and animalistic understanding of human sexual desire and activity would not satisfy the intellect or experiential understanding of many people. And here we can tell that the dichotomy between animal and person is limited when considering sexuality. Sexual desires also can help elevate us to a sense of the divine, sometimes authentically, other times in an illusory fashion. At other times, when seen through a contraceptive lens, humanity is rendered neither animal or person or god, but machine. One only has to consider the existence of reproductive technologies to recognize the mechanistic way in which human reproduction and sexuality are sometimes viewed.

There is an array of human experience associated with the mysteriousness of sexual desire. I hope to follow up this rather poor exercise in exploration and tie things together a bit in the next edition. But I can think of no better way to tie together some of these frayed thoughts than by turning to the English journalist:




The Backdoor of Contraception
and Backyard Animals
May 31, 2009
Matthew Chominski is editor of The Publican of Philadelphia,
contact him at editor@thepubofphilly.com
Click the mailbox icon to sign up to receive
e-mails from The Publican
For sex cannot be admitted to a mere equality among elementary emotions or experiences like eating and sleeping. The moment sex cease to be a servant it becomes a tyrant. There is something dangerous and disproportionate in its place in human nature, for whatever reason; and it does really need a special purification and dedication. The modern talk about sex being free like any other sense, about the body being beautiful like any tree of flower, is either a description of the Garden of Eden or a piece of thoroughly bad psychology, of which the world grew weary two thousand years ago.
G.K. Chesterton, St. Francis of Assisi