In today’s Guardian newspaper, religious author Theo Hobson puts the case against the idea of “no-strings sex” that George Michael is so in favour of. Does Theo have a point? Read on to find out!
Cruising repels Theo Hobson. He says.
The pursuit of anonymous sex denies that sex and love are joined. It denies that the proper use of sexuality is in the expression of emotional intimacy, the sealing of the strongest of all chosen human bonds… We must be more culturally careful if we want our children to know how to fall in love… I want a culture that is more honest about the threat to its moral ecology, that frowns on anonymous sex, that dares to say that promiscuity is the death of love.
Does Theo have a point? Ultimately, I don’t believe he does. You see, Theo asserts that sex and love are joined, and that if you encourage people to have no-strings sex, then they will lose the ability to love. I think he’s just plain wrong.
Both sex-drive and the need to love/be loved are deep, fundamental parts of human beings. It’s incredibly difficult to stamp either of these forces out. For Theo, and for many people, these two things go hand in hand; but they really don’t go hand in hand for everyone. Theo’s problem appears to be that he confuses his opinion with fact. He asserts,
We must learn to tell the complex truth: that the celebration of anonymous sex, and of pornography, is a threat to the precious tradition of sexual love.
The “complex truth”? Hardly. It’s merely a statement of simple beliefs. Where’s the evidence to suggest he’s right? There isn’t any. In reality, Theo is just worried that if lots of people see others having no-strings sex, everyone will want to do it, and he doesn’t think that would be good.
Theo wants a world filled with couples that are never unfaithful to each other. That world doesn’t exist; it never has; and it never will. Human beings are animals. Their instincts will always out.