Is Sexual Libertinism Morally Acceptable?

One of the thinkers associated with this concept of sexual libertinism is the Marquis de Sade. Sexual libertinism or libertinage is a natural sexual drive inherent and inspired in us by nature. It manifests itself in a number of different ways including rape, incest, prostitution, and sodomy. These four, according to De Sade, are considered most immoral by society. In my opinion the concept itself cannot be immoral because we have no control over what we involuntarily feel. Some of the actions inspired by libertinage however, I consider immoral. They are rape and incest.

De Sade argues that all things inspired by libertinage are fine and should not be considered immoral or something to be ashamed about. He has based his reasoning on nature. He argues first of all that sex is not a crime when it is used for other purposes besides reproduction. This is because if indeed it was wrong and against nature, nature would not allow it. But since nature mandates it by allowing the spillage of sperm and allowing man to derive pleasure from it in other situations, it can be said that it is all right. In defending the actions inspired by libertinage, he also looks to nature. In the case of rape, he argues that man’s natural strength over women, given to him by nature, signifies that nature intended for him to subdue women if they would not freely give themselves. In order to justify incest, he says members of one’s family are the people that nature commands one to love the most. Since sex is not a crime, it should not be a crime to share it with the people one loves the most. Sodomy and prostitution are also acceptable because from his position, the real crime would be in denying what one’s body wants. If a man desires another man and gets pleasure only from other men, being with a woman would mean denying his body – living a lie.

I agree with De Sade on some matters of libertinage and disagree with him on some others. On the issues of prostitution and sodomy, I can agree that they should be morally acceptable. Morality is a sense of right and wrong, often conditioned in us by society and our religious beliefs. What is considered moral is therefore mostly subjective as societies and religions vary from place to place. However, I think that when two people have a mutual agreement on what is right or wrong for them, then it is moral for them. For the most part, people’s religious beliefs and/or their governments, define for them, what is moral and what is not. Religion plays a more significant and personal role in shaping people’s views on right or wrong. However, not everyone in every society is religious. It is therefore still up to people to an extent to decide for themselves what is morally acceptable.In the case of prostitution, as long as one is not being forced into it by another person, then it is not immoral. If one makes the choice to be a prostitute as a means of making a living, it is one’s choice. Our bodies belong to us, if one chooses to use it as a tool to make a living, then by all means, it is all right.I do not think sodomy is immoral. I say this because I do not think that any one makes a conscious decision to be homosexual. I do not see why anyone would anyway as they are often victims of discrimination, hate and injustice. Just as people do not generally decide at some point to be attracted to the opposite sex, people do not decide to be homosexual either. It is natural. Now, as long as one homosexual is not forcing sodomy upon another person, then there is nothing immoral about sodomy.

The way I see it, in the matter of rape, there is no mutual consent. For a man to have sex with a woman against her will is immoral because even though he might see it as his right, bestowed on him by nature, the woman does not agree with this thought. If we are all free men and women, according to De Sade, and we belong to ourselves, then there should be no “possessing” of one or the other, temporarily or otherwise. I also consider incest immoral. This is again a matter of consent. In most cases of incest, it is usually an older person like a parent, being with say his or her child. In a case like that there is no true consent even if the child does not resist. This is because a parent who has loved and cared for the child is in a position of trust and can exert undue influence on the child. This child may not even have his or her own well defined sense of what is right or wrong and therefore there can be no agreement between both parties.Someone may disagree with me on the issue of incest by saying that sometimes it is also between consenting siblings, for example. While that may be true, there is still the issue of undue influence. This sibling may be someone whom it has been impressed upon one to love unconditionally, care for, and cater to as family. In the event that such a sibling tries to have sex with one, one may be opposed to it but the loyalty conditioned in one may overcome any objections.

If De Sade were to disagree with me, it would be on the premise that one should love one’s family and that if one chooses to show this love through a “good thing” like sex, then it is fine. That’s fine but in truth not all families love one another naturally. There are siblings who hate one another or parents who hate their children and vice versa. If they are not naturally inspired to love their family members, then it is possible that those who do love their family members do so because of conditioning. In that case, the argument of expressing one’s “love” for another family member as “commanded” by nature does not follow.

So, while I agree with Marquis de Sade that sexual libertinism is not something to be ashamed of as it is inspired naturally in everyone, based on my own morals, I cannot agree that some of its inspired actions are morally acceptable. Because of the subjectivity of morality, I cannot say that his views are wrong either. I just do not agree with some of them. I separate the concept of libertinage and the actions it inspires. This is because, while we cannot help the basic sexual instincts in us, we can control what we do about those feelings. If each person were to freely let their instincts guide them or to freely do whatever they considered moral without the agreement of others, there would be a state of total chaos.