Procreation only one side of sex issue

By Sharon Deyoung

While Adrian Haymond’s column (“Sex often treated as
little more than commodity,” Viewpoint, May 3) bemoans the
fact that sex is often treated as little more than a commodity in
this material culture, his argument is fleshed out in a way that
seems to deny that “sacred bond,” to a whole segment of
society (homosexuals), while at the same time relegating
heterosexual sex to a rigid, “procreation only”
purpose.

While Haymond neither specifically targets nor mentions
homosexuals, his insistence that sex is primarily a tool for
procreation to battle “the constant, inevitable process of
death and decay,” implicitly categorizes same-gender sex as
decadent and contrary to inevitable life forces.

While he adds that sex is also meant to serve as an act of
sharing in which “a person gives his or her innermost
emotional being to another in the embrace of love,” he
elaborates his argument in a manner that clearly indicates that we
must have both procreation and the emotional bond for sex to be any
thing more than a “tawdry” act of flippant
decadence.

Certainly both of his stated “sexual goals” are
valid reasons for sexual intercourse, but the very nature of his
science of sex would exclude homosexuals from such an
“ultimate pleasure.”

Perhaps Haymond’s insistence on marriage accounts for his
views. Since marriage is illegal between homosexuals, they can
never have “meaningful” sex anyway, and therefore,
can’t be expected to follow societal notions of what is
acceptable when following their libidos or feelings.

Besides a thinly veiled condemnation of free-loving
heterosexuals and homosexuals in general, Haymond’s argument
is problematic in that it seems to confuse this nation’s
media-driven commodity culture (capitalism) with pre-marital sex
between two consenting adults.

Rather than cheapening sex, birth control and an emphasis on
female sexuality during the sexual revolution have allowed sex to
be something beautiful and pleasurable for many people, rather than
a scary experience imposed on a young girl who isn’t ready or
a tired woman who already has too many children to feed. Sex is a
commodity when it is bought and sold (e.g., prostitution).

Given that women are increasingly sexually confident and that
birth control is widely available, heterosexual sex would appear
ever less of a commodity. In l9th century England, both upper class
and lower class women with little economic freedom were tempted to
wait for the highest bidder. But sex today has the potential to be
much more gratifying and less of an economic transaction for many
people in this country.

Lingering from that era, perhaps as a result of the Puritan
influence, is the idea that sex is dirty. Hence, we see all this
extroverted, media-driven autoeroticism, while inside, many people
are emotionally introverted and conflicted when it comes to dealing
with their sex drive. While I can certainly appreciate
Haymond’s wanting sex to be meaningful, his insistence on
just what kind of sex is justified only limits expressions of love
and sometimes (gasp), pleasure.