Basya Tsybukmakher
Sex and Morality. An Age-Old Dilemma That Remains Relevant
The impressive psychological (chiefly psychoanalytic) theories developed in the first decades of the twentieth century by Sigmund Freud and his followers, the statistical studies of Americans' sexual behavior conducted by Professor Kinsey and his colleagues, and, finally, the much-publicized “sexual revolution” of the past decade have only confused modern people's understanding of sexuality rather than clarified it. The problems have not only remained unresolved but have become more complicated than before. Many impatient souls, determined to keep up with the times and “take a simple view of things,” discarded the restraints of traditional morality, believing they had discovered a “new philosophy of sex.” Yet this philosophy has nothing in its arsenal but ordinary, long-familiar debauchery, behind which lie anguish and despair.
Strip away the veil of rather elaborate fashionable terminology, and it becomes clear that, in the realm of sexuality, modern people are offered a choice between two conflicting possibilities, each of which reflects a very old approach to the subject. Paradoxically, most people combine both approaches in their outlook, continually suffering from the resulting inner contradictions.
On a conscious level, it is not difficult to grasp all this “openness” about sex that characterizes our “post-Freudian” era. It would seem that no mysteries remain. From early youth, everyone is enlightened, “emancipated,” and knows the answers to every question. The mystery of sex has been exposed: it amounts to nothing more than a biological urge, camouflaged by romantic delusions and suppressed by a system of traditional religious and moral norms that are inherently hypocritical and give rise to guilt and neurasthenia. “Playboy” is the handbook of the “sexual revolution”; its pale imitation, “HaOlam HaZeh,” and all similar publications that chase cheap sensationalism, irresponsible journalists and university graduates with nothing to do, peddlers of obscene wares and sexologists without degrees are the servants and prophets of this “revolution”; a casual, “cool” approach to sex is their creed, and moral prohibitions are, in their eyes, a hostile, demonic force; the numerous statistical studies on the collapse of sexual morality are documented “proof” of the truth of the revelations of the “sexual revolution,” and its unattainable ideal is the dissolution of the institution of marriage and complete freedom for homosexual relations and bestiality.
But alas, this “latest” liberation from moral obligations is not new at all. There may be a touch of novelty in the psychological garb and existentialist terminology, but the theories they cloak undoubtedly date back to pagan antiquity, when various forms of idolatry prevailed: from the temple prostitution that flourished among the peoples of Canaan to the unrestrained debauchery of the Romans. Surrender to the sexual instinct and phallic cults that sanctify debauchery are phenomena well known since time immemorial. The “new morality” is nothing more than a very old hedonistic immorality in new, “seductive” clothes.
Such attitudes have taken hold of the consciousness of the modern masses. Admittedly, not absolutely everything in this trend deserves condemnation. To some extent, it has brought greater directness and openness to the discussion and understanding of sexuality, helped dispel prudishness and affectation, and overcome the reluctance to discuss “delicate” subjects. However, in its very essence, this revival of idolatry poses an extremely serious threat to morality, the family, and ultimately to human beings themselves. The destruction of the family and the disintegration of personality pose a danger to humanity no smaller than the splitting of the atom. And our excessive frankness about sexuality drives its antithesis into the subconscious: modesty and asceticism, which remain real despite our rejection of them.
The negative approach to sexuality discussed here is reactionary—in the literal sense of the word. Historically, it emerged as a reaction to the boundless sexual promiscuity characteristic of pagan cults. In earlier times, Christianity equated sexual relations with original sin, and procreation was viewed as a process of passing sin on to subsequent generations. Alongside the preaching of abstinence and celibacy, marriage was considered permissible, but only as a concession to human weakness: it is better to marry than to burn with desire. It is not enough to control sexual impulses; ideally, they should be suppressed entirely. For centuries, the Church maintained this position of hostility toward sexuality, which developed in the struggle against older pagan cults that encouraged unbridled debauchery. Yet both of these opposing approaches to sexuality trace their origins to a common source—Gnosticism (see H. Jonas, “The Gnostic Religion”).
Although these views may seem to have outlived their time and to be utterly alien to modern people, in reality they are deeply rooted in the modern psyche. Christianity is one of the cornerstones of Western civilization, and the Augustinian philosophy of sexuality continues to influence the consciousness of Western people imperceptibly, as though it had gone underground, despite being at odds with their professed views and principles. Psychologists recognize this fact; they know the pathological consequences of aversion to sex and fear of it, which are exacerbated in a society that ostentatiously professes a diametrically opposite attitude toward sex. Many people can recognize both opposing tendencies in their own psyche, even when there are no signs of pathology: some are inclined, deep down, to regard sex as something improper and indecent, associated with the gutter, yet legitimized in the marital bedroom through society's hypocrisy. Perhaps this wording is overly harsh, but our aim was to emphasize the contradictions in the generally accepted “healthy” attitude toward sexuality.