Sexual Freedom SIR,--Sarah Gainham's attempt to inject a shot of
-realism- into the debate on sexual morality has failed for rather elementary reasons; She interprets the sexual promiscuity of the young as the natural outcome of the last war shattering the morality of the earlier generation. Nature, she suggests, produces stability: let years go by and the old order will re- establish itself.
The reason for her failure is that she has failed to take into account the emergence of cheap and effective means of contraception on the scene. These have radically altered the choices and their out- comes in the field of heterosexual relations. Before contraceptives turned up it made sense not to ex- press one's fondness and affection for a friend by having sexual relations unless marriage, was round the corner, for, after all, the possibility of pregnancy was very great. All that is now out and hence the reason for moral objections to promiscuous rela- tions stands undermined completely.
It is important to note that promiscuous sexual relations do not stand in conflict with earlier moral values. Those values emphasised love and affection as the basis for sexual relations: it was inconsistent with these considerations that children should be born in a world deprived of love and affection that is possible only in the context of a family life. Given contraceptives, one can express ones deepest affec- tions through sexual relations without producing consequences that are inconsistent with these very
feelings. In the face of such a fundamental change it is hardly surprising that as years go by promis- cuous relationships are coming to be accepted as perfectly moral.
I would go further and say that,what is surprising is that promiscuous sexual relationships are as yet so uncommon in view of the changes in the conse- quences resulting from them: after all, now they only bring great happiness to two people unless, of course, guilt feelings remain as a result of outmoded and irrelevant considerations. Sarah Gainham is wrong when she says that the younger generation has inherited a frameless world; it seems plain to me that they have inherited, thanks to scientific progress, a different frame and it is to this frame that actions are adjusting themselves.
Another point made by Sarah Gainham is that, evidently. promiscuous sexual relations are the result of 'simplified emotional attitudes.' Here. Lean- not help but use her own argument against her. What can be a more simplified emotional attitude than one holding one-to-one relationships as being the ultimate in perfection? The one-to-one relation- ships were a necessity and hence a virtue. It is time we accepted more complexities of human nature, including the possibility that they can love more than one individual simultaneously. What is a per- petual puzzle to me is that individuals known to be able to love more than one person are considered decadent, depraved and what not: surely they should be admired.
110 Guildford Street, WC1
FAR,OUK HUSAIN
Previous page
