In a recent opinion article entitled “Sex at its best,” Russell Allsup made several claims that I find flimsy at best. I would like to address a few of these claims. I will do my “best” to be polite despite the fact that I intend to cold-heartedly ridicule Mr. Allsup’s claims.

Although I have quite a few qualms about Mr. Allsup’s stances on philosophy, I’d like to start off with his most obviously shaky claims.

First, let’s talk about sex. No! I didn’t mean it that way. Let’s talk theoretically about sex. According to Mr. Allsup, “sex can be described as the finest celebration of intimacy between two people.” Sure, you can describe sex that way, but I’m not sure if it’s correct to do so. I can describe sex as the finest celebration of the 60th anniversary of Scrabble. But, that doesn’t make it true, as we all know that the best way to celebrate the creation of Scrabble is by playing some more Scrabble. I digress, sorry.

Back to the point. Sure, sex is a personal sort of thing. However, I’m not sure too many people would call it “a celebration of intimacy.” Just ask some very honest, very married folks. It’s likely that they would tell you that sex is like a household chore that ranks somewhere in importance between utility payments and grocery shopping. Undoubtedly, sex means many different things to many different people. Sometimes sex is an expression or “celebration” of intimacy, but sometimes it’s just something people do because it’s fun and because “Survivor” or “Grey’s Anatomy” is not on TV tonight.

This brings me to my next point about marriage and sex. Mr. Allsup claims that “it is safe to suppose that marriage between a man and a woman could be considered the highest order of relationship between persons.” Sounds sweet and cozy. I like to think of marriage that way too, but only because I’m a romantic. I mean, what is marriage anyway? Economically, it’s a tax write-off. Socially, it’s a status that announces, “I’m no longer young. I have responsibilities, a mortgage and someone I’m legally bound to.” Religiously, it’s the eternal union of two people (man and woman, I suppose) blessed by God, the heavens and the “Electric Slide.” (A wedding party isn’t the same without it.)

But, I imagine that in actuality it’s a combination of all these things and more. People get married for a variety of reasons: sometimes for green cards, sometimes for money, sometimes because of $2 martinis in Las Vegas. But, to be fair, sometimes people get married and stay married because they love each other that deeply. Those people amaze me. I think they get to the heart of the issue. They worry about what matters.

So, is premarital sex a good or bad thing? Mr. Allsup smartly realizes that in order to answer, one must relate sex to an absolute standard of morality. I agree that one must relate the question to some standard of morality, but I’m genuinely not sure if there is an absolute standard.

I think Mr. Allsup should have asked a few more questions. For example, For whom would premarital sex be bad? Who suffers from premarital sex? What harm does it cause? What makes sex so morally different from, say, running? Is it because sex has a natural function? Well, so does running. Running helps animals escape from harm. It works. When I worked for UPS, I would often run from damn large dogs. But, on the other hand, sometimes I run just for the hell of it. Does this mean that recreational running is bad because it defies the natural function of running? Or, is it good because I’ll be a bit better when it really counts, like when a bull mastiff chases me the next time I deliver packages for UPS? Who knows? But, more importantly, why should we care? It seems fair to say that not everything falls into the scope of morally good or bad.

So, when it’s consensual and harmless, why should society dictate what sex should mean or how people should go about it? By not setting such specific standards, we as a society subscribe to a more general and possibly more absolute standard: “Do what you want as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone or impede on someone else’s rights.” By adopting this view, we don’t become nihilists or hedonists; we just realize that not every action is an action with moral significance. We have murders and corporate crime to deal with and we’re worried about what? The “best” time to have sex? What next, are we going to have a committee discussion about when it is morally “best” to run or to play Scrabble?

Please, Mr. Allsup, write those articles. I beg you, because I fear that I’ve been prematurely playing Scrabble. I started when I was nine, and I’m afraid God doesn’t approve.

About the writer:

Lance Webb is a sophomore philosophy and political science major. He can be reached at [email protected].