Before we get started, I should caution you – this week sees me in a more serious mood. Sorry about that, but I’ve a vexing question on my mind – the relationship between sex and morality. Look, I did warn you!

Recently I was asked to take part in a panel discussion on Susan McReynolds’ Spirit Moves show on RTÉ Radio 1. The topic under discussion was how parents should teach their children about sex. Since the old Catholic rules have been all but done away with – quite often by those parents themselves – what guidelines do we have to use? The theme the discussion kept returning to was that of morality.
Now, I’m well aware that I am not a parent, so I don’t presume to lecture those of you that are. Furthermore, I’m willing to admit there is always the possibility that my ideas might change if or when I’m besieged with turbulent toddlers and surly pre-teens. But it does seem to me that couching the question of sex in terms of morality is a big part of the reason we’ve got ourselves into a bit of a mess.
Just how messy are things? Pretty messy, actually.
In a recent survey, the Crisis Pregnancy Agency found that the majority of young Irish women were reluctant to buy or to carry condoms. Apparently they believed that to do so would make them look ‘cheap’ or ‘easy’.
So where does the idea come from that having contraceptive (and safe sex) protection to hand, in case the opportunity to have sex offers itself is somehow degrading? It comes from the traditional so-called moral values, which decree that sex is only morally acceptable within marriage.
Does this mean that Irish teens are busy NOT having sex every night of the week? No indeed. Paradoxically Ireland has one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy in Europe. The last available figures from the Crisis Pregnancy Agency puts the number of teen mothers – that is 15 to 19 year olds – at 16.8 births per thousand teenage girls. They estimate that teen abortions are around 4.7 per thousand (in other words an astonishing one in approximately 200 teenage girls has had an abortion). Indeed, this figure is based solely on the numbers of teenagers giving Irish addresses at UK abortion clinics, and so the true figure is almost certainly significantly higher. Some Irish teens use fake UK addresses, an address of a UK based family member or friend, or indeed may have gone to continental Europe to terminate a pregnancy.
Now it’s all very well to say that these teenagers would be far better to abstain. The problem is that they won’t. So would it not be far more intelligent and productive to unhook sex from the associations with being cheap and easy and get those who are old enough to conceive to start thinking in positive terms about sex, and protection.
The Health Protection Surveillance Centre, meanwhile, has found that rates of sexual transmitted infections have steadily increased since 1994. For example, there was a whopping 12% increase in 2004 compared with 2003.
In some ways these various disturbing facts are inter-related and what underpins them all is a misplaced sense of morality when it comes to sex, a suspicion that – except under very specifically designated conditions (which can vary according to the usually self-styled authority that is offering the prescription) – sex is somehow ‘sinful’.
In other words, we may be having plenty of sex, but our attitudes haven’t caught up with our actions – and therein lies the problem.
Look, I understand where the prohibitionists – or the inhibitionists – are coming from. I had a Catholic education myself. No girl wants to be regarded as the local ‘skank’ or ‘slut’ and the assumption is that they’ll be seen as such by whoever they buy condoms from – or even by the boy who’s getting lucky, if and when they produce the equipment.
If sex is tied up with ideas of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, the logical extension seems to be that it’s immoral to plan ahead, particularly for women. Nice girls shouldn’t go out looking for it.
Then, if you do have sex, you can convince yourself that you are still a good person because you’ve got a number of ready-made excuses: you were so overcome with desire that you lost control; you believed you were in love; you were pressured by your partner or your peers; you made a mistake; or the popular old stand-by, you had too much to drink. Which is, of course, a load of self-deluding nonsense.
Thankfully not all teens or young people think like this. Many of them are much wiser than the media generally gives them credit for and indeed are far savvier than their parents realise. But the fact is that some certainly do.
It seems to me that it would be more useful to teach sex in terms of whether our behaviour is responsible or reckless rather than moral or immoral. All sex involves a certain amount of risk. Let’s take the example of a one-night stand. You could try to teach ­– or convince may be a better word – your kids simply that this is immoral behaviour, forever to be avoided. Alternatively you could help them to understand that wherever their sexual adventures lead them, it’s important to respect themselves and their partners, and that a respectful sexual encounter means that both parties are willing to protect each other against the possibility of STIs or an unwanted pregnancy.
In addition, you might talk to them about the potential sexual pleasures that are available without having full sexual intercourse and that therefore involve little or no risk in terms of STIs.
Again, you could tell your daughter that she should never have sex with a relative stranger, but according to the statistics over 60% have done that very thing, so she may not listen; or you could advise her that if she decides to do so, it’s better to do this sober and to carry her own condoms, rather than drunk and with no form of protection. You might add that taking someone home to a flat shared with her friends has a smaller inherent risk than leaving a pub or nightclub with a stranger and his friends. And so on. Which makes more sense? Which is more likely to be convincing? Answers on a post card, please...
Here in Ireland our ‘moral’ notions about sex come mostly from the Catholic Church, and like most Christian religions, good Catholics believe that almost all sex is wrong. Anything not sanctified by marriage is verboten – including premarital, extramarital and homosexual sex.
(Which reminds me: is it a sin for a Catholic wife to give a blowjob to her husband? What about inviting him to have a bit of anal sex? A good spanking? Just thought I’d ask.)
Maybe it’s just me, but as long as you are smart and sensible, I just don’t see the harm in sex between consenting adults, whether it’s the first time they’ve met or the hundredth, and whether they’re married or not.
For a start, not everyone wants to, has the opportunity to, or can afford to get married. Are these good people (and I don’t mean the priests among them) meant to do entirely without sex? That’s not a runner, or not for me at any rate, nor for most of you either.
Homosexuality has been around as long as humanity, it’s part of the diversity of human nature – so are gays meant to abstain entirely too? Try going into the George of a Friday night and convincing all and sundry of that course of action and see if you’ll be laughed at.
The bottom line is that the ‘just say no’ crowd are fighting a losing battle with this most basic of human urges.
Fidelity in marriage is held up as the ideal, and indeed you could argue that since a promise has been made, it ought to be adhered to. But c’mon, let’s be realistic –people love sexual adventure and so, if it can be managed in a way that there is no risk to the core relationship, what harm? And what has it got to do with so-called ‘morality’?
There is this idea that sex outside marriage cheapens and depersonalises sex. Well, who says sex has to be ‘expensive’ or whatever the opposite of ‘cheap’ is supposed to be? The truth is that once-off sex can be utterly decent, kind, gentle, generous and loving, and wonderfully memorable. Sex as a duty within marriage, performed without desire or affection, seems to me to be far more depersonalised than an affair with a lover – and just as much a betrayal of the wedding vows as breaking the promise not to stray.
I don’t mean to suggest that we should accept every sexual offer that comes our way – you’ve got to like the person or be interested in them or to feel some sort of positive connection, even if it has only to do with being willing to unselfishly share your mutual sexual desire. Certainly there will always be times when refusing sex is a better choice than accepting it.
But I suspect that if we as a society prized sexuality responsibility – safe sex, respect for others, respect for self and emotional maturity – but left it up to each individual to decide which sexual practises to indulge in and which to abstain from, we’d be far better off.
I expect a great many of you reading this will disagree with me, and that’s okay. I’d be willing to argue the points back and forth for as long as you’d like, because I know I don’t have an absolute truth. If I did, I’d be setting up my own religion.
But I can’t help but think that maybe we need more people with questions and less people with the usual pat answers.