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 15th April 2019.
