As an engineer, I like to be precise, and when it comes to slippery moral questions like sexual behavior it can be difficult for two people to reach a common understanding of each other's position because of mixed backgrounds and expectations. Without a common understanding there is no foundation for rational debate of the positions (no pun intended) on their merits. To that end, I have conceived (npi) the following Sexual Morality Notation (SMN) to help categorize the myriad of possible opinions on the matter. With the understanding that no such notation could possibly be completely precise, I believe that the following architecture will suffice for most English speakers who are familiar with the common dictionary definitions of the words I use.
A SMN code is a five-digit number, with each digit restrict to the range 0 through 4. Each of the five digits represents a "stage" or "type" of relationship. From left to right, in order from most casual to most serious, the five digits are:
1. Strangers.
2. Acquaintances.
3. Boyfriend/girlfriend.
4. Engaged.
5. Married.
As I mentioned, each digit takes a value from 0 to 4, with the numbers representing the standard "baseball" notation for "how far" sexual activity should be allowed to go. 0 has been added to the scale to represent activities that are often not considered "sexual" per se, such has hand-holding and flirting; the other numbers ("first base", "second base", "third base", and "home") should be understood already by most of my readers. If there's really any confusion on the matter, I'll post more graphic descriptions.
Thus, a SMN code of [00004] might be used by stereotypical Puritans who believe that there should be no sexual activity of any kind until marriage. In contrast, modern American morality often looks like [44444], in which sexual intercourse is permissible even between complete strangers. Common relationships may often progress as [01444]. More interesting are people with conflicted moralities who are anonymously promiscuous but otherwise conservative, such as [41334].
Comments? Questions? Do you think SMN is useful for characterizing views on sexual morality?
I think that pretty much NO ONE in the U.S. makes a moral distinction between 'third base' and 'home.' This seems like a flaw in the system of notation, because you waste an entire degree to represent a distinction that has no informative moral value.
Also, the lower end of the scale, 0-1, seems too vague and unrefined. Your description of 0, for example... I would not hold hands with a stranger, at least not in a romantic way, but I would flirt with a stranger... 0 seems to encapsulate a relatively wide range of behaviors, of varying degrees of moral significance.
N: Even if most people in our country don't make the distinction between 3 and 4 morally -- which I question -- that doesn't mean there isn't a difference in kind that's worth distinguishing on the scale.
I would argue that as as teenagers and children have become increasingly active they are making a clear distinction between third and fourth base. There are many young ladies who willingly and actively participate in "everything but" while proudly stating that they are saving their virginity till marriage. Young men, on the other hand, are usually of the mindset of however far they can get is as far as they will go.
Nicholas,
Most younger folks these days do indeed make a distinction between 3 and 4. Hence the whole oral sex isn;t really sex phenomenon among high school girls. Dang was I born 15 years too early or what?
Looks like a useful system to me but I'd make the numbers go up to 5. I'll let you figure out why. ;-)
You really are an engineer, aren't you?
It's an amusing idea, but the weakness is in the premise: "how far" sexual activity should be allowed to go. This presupposes that each person has a stable internal moral universe to be categorized.
For example, would most young men have sex with just about any woman of similar age, regardless of how long they've known the woman? Almost certainly. Would most young men want all the other young men to do the same thing? Far less likely. Would most young men want most young women to share that view? Initial response: yes. Response after reflection: Maybe not.
Most people think only about what they want. That's human nature. When those people develop what they call a moral philosophy, it's generally just a set of rules that would get them personally what they want.
But few people devote much energy to thinking about what the world would be like if everyone followed those same rules. It's a difficult mental calculation that most find dull. But it's the only way to develop a serious moral philosophy.
The destruction of sexual morality illustrates this. Those who advocate more sexual liberty imagine that they will get more sex out of it. I doubt that the free love movement in the Sixties and Seventies counted many octogenerians among its members. The free love movement promised more sex, thus it was irresistible to the young.
But it was never a stable moral philosophy, because it could never be made universal. Each young man would like to have all the time, but few would like to live in a world in which everyone had sex all the time. Or, to make the point more modern, lots of people today want freedom from any pressure to procreate. Hence the passion for abortion and same-sex marriage. But no one would want to live in a world in which no one felt any pressure to procreate--at least not for long. As they're demonstrating in Italy and Spain, you can have fun for a while if you stop creating and raising children. But in the long run it creates some serious problems.
To bring this back to your post, Michael: There's no sense in trying to classify people's moral philosophies when most people don't really have them.
Looking back at your post, I may have misunderstood your system. When you say, "how far sexual activity should be allowed to go," perhaps you meant it merely on a personal level, rather than a universal one. If that's the case, then your system is brilliant. You should patent it and sell it to dating services.
BB: I agree that people have different standards for themselves and for others, and indeed different standards they would espouse (npi) and then actually follow. But SMN could be used to generate codes for all of the above... X is how far I think others should go, Y is what I actually do myself, Z is what I want to teach my kids, etc.