Sex: Pointless Without Fertility?

Is sexual intimacy something that only exists to ultimately serve the ends of physical procreation or does it have any value in and of itself, regardless of whether procreation occurs or is even possible? Many people may be forgiven for imagining that their sexual relationship with their partner has value for their relationship itself, but there are still others out there who argue that sex outside the context of procreation is meaningless.

One of those people is "Theist" over at Secularist Critique. Readers might remember my analysis of his poor understanding of materialism and, more recently, his inaccurate assessment of the logic of homosexuality. Now, in a response to people's comments on his ideas regarding homosexuality, he's posted more about his attitudes towards sexuality:

People have a sense that sex can be or should be connected with love but their thinking is fuzzy on how exactly it works. Exactly what is the basis for sex becoming an objective expression of love? ... Its primarily the procreative power of sex that enables a man and woman to be making love rather than performing meaningless sex. It is the creative power of sex through which the love of a man and woman multiply by being incarnated in children. ... This is real love, not ephemeral emotion, feeling, or lust.

Theist here commits the fallacy of Begging the Question: the argument that love can be expressed through sex only in the context of procreation assumes that the only morally appropriate ends of sex are procreative; but that, of course, is exactly the issue that is being disputed. Granted, procreation does occur through sex and, therefore, sex leads to procreation - there's no disagreeing with this. That does not allow us to logically conclude, however, that sex outside the context of procreation is wrong.

Theist here assumes that outside the context of procreation, sex is "meaningless." But who is s/he to decide what meaning sexual intimacy can and cannot have for other people? I'm perfectly willing to accept that Theist would not find any meaning in sexual acts outside of the context of procreation because I'm not willing to presume to be able to decide what is meaningful for others.

Couples may find a great deal of meaning in talking a walk along the beach at sunset, in sharing a private joke, in exchanging locks of hair, and in certain sexual acts. Meaning is a personal issue based upon what one values - if you value the physical, emotional, and psychological intimacy that can be created through sexual acts, then those acts will be meaningful to you. Neither I nor someone like Theist can tell you that they are meaningless.

Because of this, sex is not an "objective expression of love" - and neither is procreation. A man can get a woman pregnant without loving her - indeed, he might hate her. A man can also engage in sexual acts with a woman without loving her. Neither sex nor procreation are, objectively, expressions of love, intimacy, or anything else. They can be expressions of love and intimacy if the people involved invest their acts with the right sorts of emotional and psychological commitment.

We can see, then, that Theist has fundamentally misrepresented the entire issue. Theist assumed that having children could constitute an objective expression of love and then compared that to sex which, it turns out, isn't such an objective expression. But we find that procreation isn't an objective expression of love, either - thus the two are actually on the same level. An infertile couple that has sex without also having children is not expressing love in any less objective manner than another couple who are having sex and also having children. Sex and love or procreation and love are connected if and when the people involved want them to be.

Now if we subtract this reference to the procreative power of sex, is there any remainder left that is capable of objectively expressing love? No, because what is left is sensation. ... Thus what could and should be a relationship of love becomes an instrumentalized relationship between two persons. Sodomy and all forms of contraceptive sex are basically reducible to the mutual satisfaction of private sensations.

As we should now understand, there was no objective expression of love even when procreation was left in the sexual equation. Neither actual procreation nor simply being open to procreation is dependent upon the presence of genuine love between those involved. Thus, taking away the possibility of procreation changes nothing.

What's particularly interesting here is Theist's assertion that sex without the possibility of procreation is "instrumentalized" because in reality that's exactly what Theist is doing to sex: instrumentalizing it. For Theist, sex is a means to an end, namely procreation. Sex might not always result in procreation, and that's fine, but ultimately sex exists only for the purpose of procreation. That is, by definition, an instrumentalization of sex because sex is treated as an "instrument" to achieve some end.

Those whom Theist is criticizing, however, are in a sense doing the opposite. In their case sex is an expression of love, not unlike saying "I love you" is an expression of love. Are such expressions "instruments" to achieve some end? Often they aren't - they are their own ends and are done with no other goals in mind. We can argue, then, that Theist is accusing others of doing exactly what s/he is doing: instrumentalizing the sexual act and thereby devaluing it.

So are infertile people incapable of making love? Not necessarily. The essential thing on the part of the couple is the conscious affirmation of the procreative nature of sex. ... [I]t simply means that they know and accept that sex is something that is procreative by nature.

Now we finally come to the question of infertility, the issue which launched the entire thing (because homosexual couples aren't exactly "open" to procreation when they have sex and neither are infertile couples). The problem here is that Theist is only discussing couples who are temporarily infertile. What about couples where one is infertile due to a genetic defect or disease? What about couples where one is too old to ever have children again? Their sexual acts cannot be "open to the possibility of procreation" because procreation is, quite simply, impossible.

So, is it possible for them to "make love"? Not according to theist. Is it possible for their sexual acts to be expressions of love? Not according to Theist. But it should be clear by now that Theists is obviously and painfully wrong. Not even the Roman Catholic Church, that stalwart defender of sexual orthodoxy, would argue such a position anymore. Even though Catholics are supposed to be open to procreation, they are not taught that sex without the possibility of procreation cannot be an expression of love. Pope John Paul II wrote in Familiaris Consorito:

It must not be forgotten however that, even when procreation is not possible, conjugal life does not for this reason lose its value.

Naturally his idea of "conjugal life" is limited to marriage, but the point to note here is that sexual intimacy does not lose its value even when procreation does not or cannot occur, even in Catholicism.

This, of course, has important consequences for the discussion of homosexuality. One of the more common arguments against homosexuality is that they cannot have children and such relationships, especially marriage, exists for the purpose of making and raising children. But if sexual relationships have value outside of procreation for heterosexual couples, then it simply isn't possible to argue that the lack of procreation among gays somehow excludes their relationships from the same respect that heterosexual relationships receive. It's little wonder that people like Theist feel the need to defend such an argument, but it's a shame that they don't realize to what extent they have to distort logic and reality in order to arrive at their preferred conclusions.