The Virtuous Skank

“You're just really wondering 'are we gonna get hopped up enough to make some bad decisions?' ” (Vince Vaughan, 'Wedding Crashers')

Everyone from the Marquis de Sade to Bertrand Russell have written about the setbacks sexual morality suffered at the hands of Christianity – most notably the idea that sex play, except for reproduction, is something a morally good person avoids. And even though their work, coupled with such things as the feminist and 'hippy' revolutions of the 20th century, have helped over come a lot of those setbacks that doesn't mean all's fair. By that I mean while sexual activity outside of love or marriage shouldn't be considered necessarily immoral, but there does seems to be a right way and a wrong way to go about it... and the way in which a lot of sexually indiscriminate people are sexually indiscriminate seems to be done in an immoral way.

As I often do, let me explain through a few related example.

Take Boy A. He's a nice guy. But, unfortunately, he's got chlamydia. This doesn't stop him from having some fun when he meets someone new at a bar. I think most reasonable, morally centered, people would say he acts immorally if he doesn't tell his newly acquired “partner” of his condition. In failing to disclose that info he's putting his interests ahead of hers; that is, were she to find out he's got an STI, she might decide to pass on their prospective romantic encounter (something he doesn't wanna risk). But, in virtue of that possibility, he's got future-oriented obligations towards her. That is, he's got obligations towards her that go beyond their immediate encounter - even if they'd never see each other again. So we can say Boy A here is being unfair to her if he hides (i.e. fails to disclose) his condition. Note that this is a moral obligation on his part. Some might say that she's got the obligation to ask; but that'd be a prudential obligation for her own welfare. So while it might be foolish for her to fail to ask, she's not doing something morally wrong by failing to bring it up (whereas, because his obligation is moral in nature, he would be doing something wrong by failing to bring it up).

So I think that's pretty obvious. Let's look at a similar case where I think similar obligations crop up.

Take Girl Y. She's a nice girl. But, she's not interested in getting into a relationship; she's only interested in sex. Now it could be the case that the cute boy at the rave isn't looking for the same thing (he might be, say, looking for a relationship or just someone to make out with). In virtue of that possibility, it seems to me that she acts immorally if she fails to tell her new prospective partner what she's looking for from him and how her interests are limited to sex. That is, like Boy A, she's got future-oriented obligations: their encounter could have lasting repercussions for the other – for example, if he was keen to date her, imagine is dismay (and probable emotional harm) when she rebuffs him the next morning. So, again like Boy A, just because she's keen for a lil fun tonight doesn't mean it's okay for her to have it at the expense of someone else who isn't fully informed about where things are going to end. In failing to inform her new partner about the limits of her interests she's done something wrong here; if he were properly informed he might decide to just pass of the whole thing and, perhaps, try to find someone else whose interests match his own.

Having said that, there are 2 dissimilarity between the Boy A case and the Girl Y case: (1) For Boy A, he's the only one doing something wrong (his partner, assuming she's clean, isn't); whereas both Girl Y and her partner are likely both committing the same wrong. Neither of them, I presume, clarify the limits of their interests at the outset of their encounter. Nevertheless, they are both still being unfair to the other; the fact that both are treating the other unfairly doesn't excuse that behavior. (2) the harm Boy A might do to his prospective partner seems more serious that the harm Girl Y might cause. I mean, really, her partner will probably just end up being disappointed (whereas Boy A's partner might end up diseased). But that's not the point. Just because it's a smaller harm doesn't make it negligible. At the end of the day Girl Y is using him as a mean to an end – she's using him as a tool to get she wants.

So, what I'm saying is this: If you're a slut, that's only going to be okay if you do it right. And doing it right involves ensuring your new “partner” is properly informed. If you fail to do that, you've acted immorally.

Having said that, 3 last things to note: (1) while a lot of slut-type actions are done when alcohol is involved (and judgment impaired), that doesn't dismiss moral obligations. Just because you're too drunk to do the right things doesn't get you off the hook. (2) There's, surely, more to the story – that is, failing to meet the obligations I've discussed here isn't the only way you can be an immoral slut. (Can you think of others? Write 'em in a comment!) (3) It's, clearly, the case that it's imprudent for sluts to meet the obligations I've outlined here. But a lot of the time prudence and morality don't recommend the same course of action. Such is life: you can often do either the prudent thing or the right thing, but not both. …so long story short: if you can't be a morally good slut, you shouldn't be a slut at all. I could say more, but I think that’s enough for now. This is just my spur-of-the-moment thoughts on the subject. I could be wrong. After all, what do I know.