Consent Condoms & Consensual Sex

            The New York Post recently reported the latest development in the realm of sexual ethics – the “consent condom.” The article states, “This new “consent condom” is a hands-on experience.

            Tulipán, an Argentinian sex toy company, has created a new rubber that requires four hands to open — ensuring that both parties are equally involved in the decision to have sex.

            How it works: All four corners of the packaging must be pressed at the same time to open it.

            These origami-style contraceptive containers read, “If it’s not a yes, it’s a no.”

            Tulipán won’t officially launch the new prophylactic until later this year. Until then, the company is handing them out at bars in Buenos Aires for couples to test — and hyping them on social media, of course.”¹

            The consent condom is obviously predicated on ‘consent’ – the current sexual ethic that governs the sexual behavior of the impetuous and the naïve.

            According to Christian apologist, Sean McDowell (in his article entitled THE NEW “CONSENT CONDOM” IS A SIGN OF THE TIMES) this latest development reveals the failure of the sexual revolution:²

Creating a "Consent Condom" is certainly a savvy marketing move that will draw attention to their brand and may contribute to the conversation about reducing sexual assault (although it is questionable how much it will really help).

The point of this blog is not about the company and its marketing efforts, but to ask a deeper question: What does the creation of a “Consent Condom” reveal about the current sexual ethic?

Consent Condoms and Modern Sex

The first point is obvious: The new sexual ethic is consent. As long as it is consensual, any sexual behavior between adults is permissible. Former behavior that was considered shameful, such as pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex, homosexual behavior, and so on, is now considered permissible if there is consent.

Failure of the Sexual Revolution

The second point regarding the “Consent Condom” is that it reveals the failure of the sexual revolution. That’s right. It shows that the promises of the sexual revolution are vacuous.

We were promised free love. We were promised freedom from sexual repression. We were promised increased mental and sexual health for individuals and society.

According to Italian philosopher Augusto Del Noce, proponents of the sexual revolution promised that “sexual liberation” would lead to the transformation of human nature:

 “Through absolute, unlimited sexual freedom, man will free himself of neurosis and become fully capable of work and initiative. His psychological structure will be changed, and he will also be freed from military and aggressive tendencies, and from sadist fantasies.”

Transformed Human Nature

Interestingly, Del Noce notes that proponents of the sexual revolution promised it would lead to people being less aggressive and freed from sexual fantasies. It's hard to imagine how anyone could argue this is the case.

Honestly, are we seeing a decrease in sexual aggressiveness? Are we seeing an increase in sexual self-control?

Quite obviously the opposite is the case. Rather than seeing less aggression, we are having a national conversation about the reality of sexual aggression (hence the need for the new condom). Rather than seeing more mental self-control, we are experiencing the pornification of society.

The fact that someone invented a “Consent Condom” shows how far we have come. It was designed to start the conversation about sexual assault, and it might do so. But in doing so, it also reveals something much deeper about the modern sexual ethic and the failure of the sexual revolution.

            Furthermore, let us revisit the theme of consensus being the justifying factor for sex outside the precincts of monogamous heterosexual marriage. I had debunked consensual sex with respect to homosexuality from the perspective of natural law in an earlier blog of mine entitled, Does Consensual and Harmless Sexual Intercourse Legitimize Homosexuality? That reasoning is not limited to homosexuality but can be used against any form of consensual sex. Here’s an excerpt:³

Much acclaimed theologian of the Catholic church, Thomas Aquinas, bases his doctrine on natural law. Natural law “does not refer to the laws of nature, the laws that science aims to describe. According to natural law moral theory, the moral standards that govern human behavior are, in some sense, objectively derived from the nature of human beings and the nature of the world… St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, identifies the rational nature of human beings as that which defines moral law: "the rule and measure of human acts is the reason, which is the first principle of human acts" (Aquinas, ST I-II, Q.90, A.I). On this common view, since human beings are by nature rational beings, it is morally appropriate that they should behave in a way that conforms to their rational nature. Thus, Aquinas derives the moral law from the nature of human beings (thus, "natural law").”²

So now I prefer to approach the theme of gay sex being consensual and harmless from the perspective of natural law…

(1)  The nature or essence of every biological organ, according to natural law theory, involves its purposes (or final causes). So the purpose of the eyeball is to make us see. Similarly, sexual intercourse also has its own purpose, which is to procreate (bear children).

But I have heard arguments that the final cause or the purpose of sexual intercourse is the pleasure. This is wrong! Pleasure cannot be a purpose for sexual intercourse.

Think about eating. You may argue that eating is pleasurable, but the biological point of eating is not to give pleasure, but to offer the body the nutrients it needs to be healthy and survive. The pleasure of eating is nature’s way of getting us to eat.

As Professor Edward Feser states, “So, the final cause of sex is procreation, and the final cause of sexual pleasure is to get us to indulge in sex, so that we’ll thereby procreate…Notice also that nature makes it very difficult to indulge in sex without procreation. There is no prophylactic sheathe issued with a penis at birth, and no diaphragm issued with a vagina. It takes some effort to come up with these devices, and even then, in the form in which they existed for most of human history they were not terribly effective.”3

(2) Natural law theory states that an action or a behavior, even if it does not harm anyone else, need not be acceptable or need not be the normal way of living life.

The life of an alcoholic is not acceptable, even if he/she does not harm anyone. Similarly, a person – inclined to molest children (even if he has not molested children) – who masturbates to pictures of naked children is living a sick life. Such a person is not living the way a normal human ought to live.

Therefore, gay sex cannot be justified even if it were harmless.

(3) In the same manner, consensus cannot be a legitimate reason for an action/behavior. Gay people cannot argue that consensual sex is always righteous.

Consensual sex cannot be righteous always. A pedophile cannot argue that he had sex with a child because the child consented. A parent cannot claim that he/she had sex with his/her child (minor or major) because the child agreed to have sex with the parent. In a marriage, consensus between the husband and the wife to have sex with others outside the marriage does not justify their affairs.

I will summarize now:

A. According to natural law theory, the main purpose of sex is procreation through the sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. Thus gay sex cannot be natural, but it is an abnormal activity/behavior.

B. For reasons mentioned in (2) and (3), consensual and harmless sex cannot justify gay sex.

But remember that this question was popularized by the renowned atheist, Richard Dawkins, and his fellow New Atheists. If you are an atheist, you can do just about anything and everything because you are your own authority (cf. relative morality and subjective truth claims). The problem with your position is that if you justify homosexuality, you should also, by the very same logic, endorse/accept bestiality, adultery, polyamory, incest, pedophilia etc.

I have only one request to you if you are an atheist; please do not yield to your subjective desires, for they can absolutely mislead you. Ask God in utter sincerity, by assuming HIS presence, to reveal HIMSELF to you, and HE will indeed do so.

If you are a Christian and if you are still unable to understand that a consensual and a harmless sex cannot justify homosexuality, then please communicate with your pastor or your church elder. Else please contact me. (My contact information is available on this website.)

Therefore, the notion that gay sex is acceptable if it is consensual and harmless is invalid and a false assertion.

            To conclude, consensual sex cannot justify any form of sex outside a monogamous heterosexual marriage.

Endnotes:

¹https://nypost.com/2019/04/04/this-consent-condom-takes-four-hands-to-open/

²https://seanmcdowell.org/blog/the-new-consent-condom-is-a-sign-of-the-times

³https://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.com/2018/06/does-consensual-and-harmless-sexual.html

Websites last accessed on 15^th April 2019.

Women Tweeting #ThisIsNotConsent; But We Are Not Living In A Perfect World

            Women around the world are tweeting pictures of their underwear with the hashtag #ThisIsNotConsent as an expression of their outrage against the acquittal of a 27-year old rapist in Ireland. The rapist’s lawyer told the jurors that the victim had worn lacy underwear. Thus the lawyer argued that the 17-year old girl consented to sex.¹ 

            Mary Crilly, director of the Cork Sexual Violence Center, said, “What a woman wears…is her business and does not indicate interest or consent. “It’s never her fault…We’re allowing the perpetrators to get away.””²

            You may be appalled and the Irish legal system may be ridiculed over this decision. The victim cannot be blamed for being raped. You are right in thinking that the young girl’s outfit does not matter in rape. A rape is a crime regardless of victim’s outfit.

            But this incident once again prompts us to contemplate two significant aspects:

            1. Evil could be curtailed. But it is impossible to eliminate evil from our world.

            2. #ThisIsNotConsent hashtag is a product of sound reasoning. However, evil such as rape is not predicated on either sound reasoning or sensible moral judgment. Sound reasoning and sensible moral judgment cannot usher a good sense into the mind of the rapist. Hence, it is incumbent upon those who are vulnerable to evil to primarily protect themselves.

Impossible To Eliminate Evil

            Be mindful that evil cannot be eliminated once and for all.

            For evil to be eliminated once and for all, God should judge Satan and annihilate him (cf. Revelation 20:7-10). Subsequently, the new heaven and a new earth should replace the current heaven and earth. The new earth will be free from all evil, suffering, sickness, and death.

            But as long as we live on this earth, evil will continue to prevail (Ephesians 2:1-2). 

            No two ways about it!

Protect Yourself

            In a perfect world without evil, even a scantily clad or a nude person will not be raped. But such goodness is possible only in a perfect world (sans evil).

            It is impossible to eliminate evil from our world. Hence, primarily, we need to protect ourselves to the best of our abilities.

            If we live in a location known for robbery and theft, then we’d do well to protect our possessions. We cannot expect the police to protect our home when we are diligently careless about our own protection.

            This is a no-brainer.

            Leaving our door unlocked or advertising on social media about our vacation (implying that our home would be uninhabited for a while) would be an open invitation for evildoers to plot an attack against our home.

            Similarly, anyone, let alone women, who are vulnerable to evil, should primarily take care of themselves. You may as well heed to good counsel such as, ‘do not meet a stranger,’ ‘do not travel alone, but if you are to travel alone, take the most appropriate precautions’ etc.

            Likewise, dress in such a manner that you will not be the center of any attraction - be it good or bad.

            This is for your own good! 

Endnotes:

¹https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/15/world/europe/ireland-underwear-rape-case-protest.html

²Ibid.

Website last accessed on 20^th November 2018.

Does Consensual and Harmless Sexual Intercourse Legitimize Homosexuality?

            Whenever I discuss against homosexuality in any forum, I can always predict this question to crop up: “When two consenting individuals engage in sex, why is that sexual activity wrong, especially when it is harmless?” The two key words in that question are ‘consent’ and ‘harmless.’

            When I encountered this question for the very first time, I thought this question was so valid that consensual and harmless sex did seem to legitimize gay sex!

            I had no clue then that this question was made popular by the renowned atheist Richard Dawkins, who in his work, God Delusion, said “Enjoy your own sex life (as long as it damages no one else) and leave others to enjoy theirs in private whatever their inclination, which are none of your business…”¹ (Emphasis Mine).

            This then is what the gay activists are stating. What’s wrong when two [single] men or two [single] women fall in love with each other and decide to consensually engage in sexual intercourse? What if their consensual sex is harmless? If this is the case, why should anyone object to gay sex? This is the force of their argument.

            Then I thought about my opposition to gay sex. Why do I passionately oppose gay sex (homosexuality)?

            Primarily, I oppose homosexuality since I am a Christian!

            The Bible condemns homosexuality. God determines homosexuality as a sin. Hence I oppose homosexuality.

            But I wanted to learn more about the biblical condemnation of homosexuality.  The God of the Bible would not have arbitrarily condemned homosexuality. I was sure HE had valid reasons to condemn homosexuality.

            So why did God condemn homosexuality? This was a very easy question to answer.

            God condemned homosexuality since sexual intercourse is to be enjoyed within the precincts of a marriage between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5; Mark 10:7 cf. 1 Corinthians 6: 12-20). Hence, God, explicitly, prohibits homosexuality (cf. Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; 1 Corinthians 6:9; Romans 1:26-27). 

            Fair enough! As a Christian, this made sense to me.

            When I thought of this subject from within the confines of Historic Christianity, I understood that the question of a consensual and a harmless gay sex cannot even be raised. Why?

            When gay sex, in all forms and shapes (metaphorically speaking), is unequivocally forbidden by God, there can be no question about gay sex being consensual or harmless. Therefore, a Christian cannot indulge in or practice gay sex. Period!

            But when I talk about this subject in any forum, there are non-Christians in the form of atheists, skeptics and agnostics, and then there are Christians (and people belonging to other religious worldviews) who honestly question their faith. They are the ‘sincere rebels.’

            Unfortunately, non-Christians do not accept the Bible as God’s Word and so was the case with the sincere rebels. Hence, speaking to them, on this theme, from the vantage point of the Bible, need not necessarily resonate with them.

            There had to be another way to approach this theme with these folks. It's the way of natural law theory. We would receive much clarity if we think about this subject from the perspective of natural law theory.

            Much acclaimed theologian of the Catholic church, Thomas Aquinas, bases his doctrine on natural law. Natural law “does not refer to the laws of nature, the laws that science aims to describe. According to natural law moral theory, the moral standards that govern human behavior are, in some sense, objectively derived from the nature of human beings and the nature of the world… St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, identifies the rational nature of human beings as that which defines moral law: "the rule and measure of human acts is the reason, which is the first principle of human acts" (Aquinas, ST I-II, Q.90, A.I). On this common view, since human beings are by nature rational beings, it is morally appropriate that they should behave in a way that conforms to their rational nature. Thus, Aquinas derives the moral law from the nature of human beings (thus, "natural law").”²

            So now I prefer to approach the theme of gay sex being consensual and harmless from the perspective of natural law.

             Let me try to simplify this perspective without bogging you down with the heavy and deep Aristotelian point of view that natural law theory is predicated upon:

            (1)  The nature or essence of every biological organ, according to natural law theory, involves its purposes (or final causes). So the purpose of the eyeball is to make us see. Similarly, sexual intercourse also has its own purpose, which is to procreate (bear children).

            But I have heard arguments that the final cause or the purpose of sexual intercourse is the pleasure. This is wrong! Pleasure cannot be a purpose for sexual intercourse.

            Think about eating. You may argue that eating is pleasurable, but the biological point of eating is not to give pleasure, but to offer the body the nutrients it needs to be healthy and survive. The pleasure of eating is nature’s way of getting us to eat.

            As Professor Edward Feser states, “So, the final cause of sex is procreation, and the final cause of sexual pleasure is to get us to indulge in sex, so that we’ll thereby procreate…Notice also that nature makes it very difficult to indulge in sex without procreation. There is no prophylactic sheathe issued with a penis at birth, and no diaphragm issued with a vagina. It takes some effort to come up with these devices, and even then, in the form in which they existed for most of human history they were not terribly effective.”³

            (2) Natural law theory states that an action or a behavior, even if it does not harm anyone else, need not be acceptable or need not be the normal way of living life.

            The life of an alcoholic is not acceptable, even if he/she does not harm anyone. Similarly, a person – inclined to molest children (even if he has not molested children) – who masturbates to pictures of naked children is living a sick life. Such a person is not living the way a normal human ought to live.

            Therefore, gay sex cannot be justified even if it were harmless.

            (3) In the same manner, consensus cannot be a legitimate reason for an action/behavior. Gay people cannot argue that consensual sex is always righteous. 

            Consensual sex cannot be righteous always. A pedophile cannot argue that he had sex with a child because the child consented. A parent cannot claim that he/she had sex with his/her child (minor or major) because the child agreed to have sex with the parent. In a marriage, consensus between the husband and the wife to have sex with others outside the marriage does not justify their affairs.

            I will summarize now:

            A. According to natural law theory, the main purpose of sex is procreation through the sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. Thus gay sex cannot be natural, but it is an abnormal activity/behavior. 

            B. For reasons mentioned in (2) and (3), consensual and harmless sex cannot justify gay sex.

            But remember that this question was popularized by the renowned atheist, Richard Dawkins, and his fellow New Atheists. If you are an atheist, you can do just about anything and everything because you are your own authority (cf. relative morality and subjective truth claims). The problem with your position is that if you justify homosexuality, you should also, by the very same logic, endorse/accept bestiality, adultery, polyamory, incest, pedophilia etc.

            I have only one request to you if you are an atheist; please do not yield to your subjective desires, for they can absolutely mislead you. Ask God in utter sincerity, by assuming HIS presence, to reveal HIMSELF to you, and HE will indeed do so.

            If you are a Christian and if you are still unable to understand that a consensual and a harmless sex cannot justify homosexuality, then please communicate with your pastor or your church elder. Else please contact me. (My contact information is available on this website.)

            Therefore, the notion that gay sex is acceptable if it is consensual and harmless is invalid and a false assertion. 

Endnotes:

¹God Delusion, Richard Dawkins, p.264.

²https://www.iep.utm.edu/natlaw/, last accessed on 30^th June 2018.

³The Last Superstition, Edward Feser, p.142.