Sexual practices and sociocultural contexts

Sexual

"Friends with benefits" would be an affront to a Christian traditionalist, who views the only morally acceptable sex as taking place within the institution of marriage. Even monogamous unmarried couples would be excluded from the traditional moralist view of sexuality. Thus, a "friends with benefits" arrangement is clearly immoral to the traditionalist.

Aristotle's sexual morality emphasizes moderation and long-term happiness. A "friends with benefits" situation fulfills at least one of these requirements. Because friends who have sex are by definition not passionate about one another, moderation is likely to be a characteristic of their sexual practices. Therefore, on the basis of moderation "friends with benefits" are moral. However, Aristotle also emphasized the necessity of long-term happiness in the sexual relationship. It is possible that friends can go many years enjoying detached, moderate sex and enjoy the relationship over the course of many years. However, it is more likely that one or both partners eventually crave a deeper intimacy.

Deeper intimacy is stressed in both Nagel and Kant's view of human sexuality. The emphasis for both Nagel and Kant is on mutual respect, autonomy, and the nurturing of interpersonal intimacy. Friends are defined by their ability to respect one another. So long as each person is aware of the limitations and parameters of the "friends with benefits" relationship, then both Kant and Nagel would agree the situation is a moral one. As long as neither of the partners promises more than they can give, and as long as each sexual encounter is a fully reciprocal one then "friends with benefits" is a morally acceptable situation.

1. A traditional Christian would be comfortable with the idea of erotic disconnect. Erotic passion is not considered a prerequisite for moral sexuality for the traditionalist. After all, erotic disconnect would naturally be a component of many traditional marriages. A traditional marriage is not necessarily one that was entered into out of mutual sexual interest or passion. Even when the relationship does begin with sexual passion, that passion can fade as the couple grows emotionally distant. If sex can only take place within the institution of marriage, erotic disconnect is possible but not morally reprehensible by any means. For the traditionalist, the institution of marriage trumps sexual pleasure. Moreover, if sex can involve no toys, no sex play, and no use of "organs for purposes not intended by God/Nature" then many individuals would experience erotic disconnect in their marriages. Because the traditionalist also mandates heterosexuality, any homoerotic fantasizing within a loveless marriage would be considered more moral than a homosexual marriage.