Risk and Sexual Ethics

The argument thus far is that it’s wrong—cheating—to force risk on others who haven’t consented to it, and furthermore on those who have no opportunity to profit from that risk in case it succeeds, but will still be forced to bear the cost of that risk if it fails. I’ve looked at health insurance, environmental degradation, and the financial crisis of 2008/2009 on account of subprime mortgages as examples of this.

Let’s bring it closer to home. The differing levels of risk is why male sexuality and female sexuality are not identical. A man stands to walk away from a sexual encounter at virtually zero cost to himself; not only that, but most men have the physical strength to force a sexual encounter upon a woman at virtually zero cost to themselves. If there is an emotional or moral burden that follows, it’s as much the product of long civilizational effort as anything inherent.

Few women can expect to walk away from sexual encounters at zero cost to themselves, even bracketing out rape and reputational costs. It’s in women’s best interest to avoid sexuality without emotional attachment because of the great likelihood of costly babies, and this built-in tendency to sex-with-emotional-attachment persists in the face of effective contraception.

Among other reasons, it’s morally wrong for a man to seduce a woman into a sexual encounter if he is not prepared to raise the child that might result, precisely because of the extreme disparity in risk between the two partners. Hence the long cultural habits of surrounding and shrouding female sexuality, as well as the high cost barrier for male access to it—essentially, it’s a way of evening out the risk. The male pays, performs, competes, and conquers (socially) to show that he is willing to subject himself by choice to as much risk as the woman is subjected to by nature.

Marriage therefore is an inherently risky business, and why it (and consequent sexual access on both sides) is not to be entered into lightly. Not only babies but a common household, property, and emotional and social life result. What an insane business it is to swear publicly to lifelong fidelity to another! And yet, under what other circumstances would anyone dare to do it? If they’re not both equally committed to the risk of a common life plus babies, the more-committed partner ought to come to the painful realization that the less-committed is a bad risk. (Is there anything more degrading to watch, much less participate in, than one lover trying to get the other to “commit”?)

Back to the babies. Children conceived out of the mutual risk commitment of the parents are in for a bad time of it. The most usual pattern is that the more-invested female shoulders all the risk of childrearing alone. Laws recognize the injustice and require child support, but it’s not exactly easy to enforce—especially since such a dad is by definition uninterested in assuming responsibility for the risky outcome of his sexual behavior.

Another solution is abortion. One of the reasons it’s morally wrong is that it exacts upon the only innocent party, namely the child, the cost of its parents risk-taking. They offset onto the child the risk they were unwilling to assume in all its consequences. The fact that the child pays with its life shows up how reprehensible abortion is. The fact that the outcome of sexual intimacy in the form of a brand new human life is so incredibly disproportionate to the act of itself is not much of an excuse. It’s not like (the vast majority of the time) there was any profound ignorance of what a possible outcome of the encounter would be.

On the other hand, it’s rather cheap for the state or for moralists to require the preservation of the child’s life on the grounds that the society itself is invested in the child’s life, without at the same time assuming any of the risk of raising it or paying its way in the world. Yet it would be frankly creepy if either state or moralists did decide to pay for each life’s existence, not to mention all the other massive moral hazards that would be generated in the process. Still, there is something repugnant about insisting someone else continue to shoulder a risk without offering any help in shouldering it. (It reminds me of Jesus’ warning in Luke 11:46, “Woe to you lawyers also! For you load people with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers.”)

This is why abortion is an intractable problem in the civil space. Where sex is concerned, people have taken and will continue to take foolhardy and irresponsible risks and then try to pass off the consequences of the risk onto someone else. But neither cause nor consequence can really be fixed legally. The only real solutions are personal and communal.