The ethical swinger

Is swinging immoral? And if a majority of the population says that it is immoral, should state lawmakers be allowed to make it illegal? According to the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence v Texas, the answer to the second question is "no." In their 6-3 ruling, the justices struck down a sodomy law in Texas, saying that intimate consensual sexual conduct between consenting adults was a liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

You might think that this would be the end of story, so far as the legal issues are concerned, but according to J. Kelly Strader in the Los Angeles Times, "lower courts across the country are essentially ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling." In one case, for example, a federal appeals court in Alabama upheld a state law criminalizing the sale of sex toys. According to Stradler, the federal court found that "public morality" alone was a sufficient basis for the law, despite the findings in Lawrence v Texas. In other words, if the majority says that some behavior is immoral, then states can make it illegal, despite the Fourteenth Amendment.

Making sex toys illegal hits awfully close to home as far as swingers are concerned. How far can "public morality" go in making alternative lifestyles illegal? As far as it wants, apparently.

And what if the "public morality" is dominated by religious views rather than logical argument or empirical evidence? That seems to make no difference. Indeed, there is no "what if" about it: for a majority of people, many moral issues are in fact guided almost exclusively by religious views, with little or no concern for rational argumentation. It does not really matter whether or not anyone is actually harmed by someone's behavior; all that matters is whether or not the God of the majority is thought to be offended by it.

This seems to be a perfect set-up for encouraging religious warfare – exactly the sort of thing that was supposed to be discouraged by the separation of church and state.

If one religion (or a coalition religions with similar moral preferences) can make activities associated with certain other religions (or agnostics and atheists) illegal just because it offends their religiously-based moral principles, then it becomes a high priority for everyone to make sure that their own spiritual values are in the political driver's seat!

When it comes to swinging, virtually every claim about its immorality is guided either by religious views or by simple prejudice based on a blind allegiance to traditional values. Rational argumentation is hardly ever relevant. The one possible exception to this general rule could be public health concerns surrounding sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and accidental pregnancy. If some miracle of modern technology could suddenly make sex completely safe, one could still find plenty of people heaping their moral condemnation upon swingers, but then it would be obvious that such critics speak purely from a standpoint of religious faith and personal preference; there would be no pretense of rationality in their arguments. But as things stand now, those who condemn swinging can point to the health risks and claim that their position is the most rational. So, given the reality of the risks, what can we rationally say about the morality of swinging?

Realistically, many swingers themselves probably have little understanding of the moral implications of their lifestyle. In the minds of many swingers, the issue is simply this: sex between consenting adults is a private matter and it is no one else's business what they do. End of story. A majority of people, however, do not see it this way. As they see it, if a person's behavior puts themselves and others at risk of spreading disease, then the issue is no longer just a private matter.

If swingers want to lighten the burden of the stigmas against their lifestyle, they really ought to think more deeply about the philosophical foundations of their own beliefs.

One thing seems reasonably clear to most people right from the start: careless casual sex with multiple partners is risky and it is perfectly reasonable for society to condemn this sort of behavior, just as society condemns drunk drivers and needle-sharing drug addicts. STDs are common and most can be caught and spread unknowingly to other people. From a moral point of view, virtually no one can plausibly defend the morality of careless casual sex. But these days a great many swingers are fully aware of the risk and are not simply reckless. What shall we say about them?

Here we enter the grey area of relative risks. Virtually everything a person does throughout the day involves some level of risk to themselves and others. Driving a car is notoriously risky, and like sex, people often engage in driving simply for frivolous pleasure.

Every time a family gets into their car to go see a movie, the driver is putting themselves, their passengers, and everyone else on the road at risk of death or serious injury. Is that morally acceptable? We generally think so, but why?

The answer might be put this way: life is simply not worth living if it is not pleasurable, and almost every form of pleasure involves some level of risk. Every bite we eat could be poisonous; almost everything we do could conceivable lead to harm for someone. Some risks are so miniscule that they can barely even be calculated, other risks – like the risks of dying in a car or plane crash – are more significant, but we do them anyway, and we don't feel we are immoral in doing so. It comes down to an intuitive form of cost-benefit analysis. We compare the potential risks to the expected reward, and go from there.

Just like getting in a car accident, the consequences of getting an STD can range anywhere from a minor inconvenience to a horrible death. The more you drive your car, the greater the risk of an accident. The more sexual partners you have, the greater your risk of an STD. Careless drivers are more likely to crash than careful drivers. Careless swingers are more likely to suffer from STDs than those who are careful. All of this is just simple common sense. People do not stop driving their cars just because someone points out the possible risks, but hopefully recognition of the risks will encourage everyone to drive more safely. The same logic applies to sex. Swinging, in itself, does not make a person unethical (from the standpoint of health risks), any more than driving a car makes one unethical. But careless, unprotected sex with lots of partners does put oneself and others in unnecessary danger, and thus would indeed count as unethical by almost any standards. Most swingers acknowledge these issues and respond to them by educating themselves on STDs, getting periodic STD screens, using condoms, and exploring a variety of relatively safe alternatives to intercourse.

Another consideration is the psychological affect of swinging, as it relates to the making of rational choices. Desperate people tend to make bad choices. In traditional monogamy, after ten years of marriage the satisfaction of one's sex life tends to drop. You can say all you want about strategies meant to "spice up your marriage," the plain fact of reality is that most people who are committed to monogamy eventually end up with three basic options. 1) Learn to live with a muted sex life. 2) Get divorced. 3) Cheat. Given the powerful nature of the sex drive, option 1 is not realistic for many people. But options 2 and 3 are – from the standpoint of health risks – no better than an open-relationship since, in both cases one end's up with multiple sex partners. So, from a standpoint of overall public health, open relationships are no worse off in the long run than the reality of what happens for most people striving for traditional monogamy. Indeed, on this score, open relationships may have an advantage.

People in open relationships are less likely to feel trapped or desperate due to the nature of their relationship. They may feel less pressured to lie or cheat, and they may be less likely to feel a need to jump at the first opportunity that comes along. In other words, they may be in a better position, psychologically, to relax and make safer choices.

This is not to say that open relationships somehow guarantee that people will never be impulsive or make bad sexual choices, but it does suggest that a sense of freedom – a sense of having more options – can contribute in the long run to making better sexual choices, on average, when compared to the feeling that many people have of being trapped in a sexually dead monogamous marriage. At the very least, careful swingers and polyfolk should add no extra burden to the public health system, and thus the supposedly rational arguments against swinging simply do not fly. This leaves only religious faith and feelings based on personal preference as guides to sexual morality.

It is not irrational to be a swinger, and many people's faith and/or personal preferences lead them to morally accept swinging as an option, so if "public morality" supports laws condemning alternative sexual lifestyles, then such laws are not rational. They are simply unjust, and run counter to the fourteenth amendment.

For more information:

The Ethical Slut: A Guide to Infinite Sexual Possibilities

LIBERATED CHRISTIANS (not all Christians see open relationships as sinful)

Get the STD Picture:Think You've Got a High Sex IQ? Try the STD Name Game

 Be sure to vote in the poll below!